1923-03-07

[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. F. KAY (Missisquoi) presented the Second Report of the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture and Colonization as follows:
In obedience to the order of your honourable House of February 13, 1923, your committee have had under their consideration Bill No. 11, an Act to regulate the sale and inspection of fruit and fruit containers, and have agreed to report the same with amendments: all of which is respectfully submitted.

Mr. ANDREW McMASTER (Brome) moved:: That the special committee appointed to inquire into agricultural conditions be given leave to report from
time to time their observations and opinions thereon, and power to send for persons, papers and records.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. McMASTER thereupon presented the first report of the special committee appointed to inquire into agricultural conditions as follows:
The special committee appointed to inquire into agricultural conditions beg leave to present the following as their first report:
Your committee recommend that leave be granted them to sit while the House is in session and that they be authorized to have their proceedings and such evidence as may be taken printed from day to day for the use of members ofc the committee, and that rule 74 relating thereto be suspended.
Andrew Ross McMaster: With the unanimous
consent of the House, Mr. Speaker, I move that the report of the committee which I have just presented be concurred in. It is of advantage, I think, that we should be able to have our proceedings printed from day to day, and I may say that we have had a meeting to-day.
Mr. SPEAKER. Is it the unanimous consent of the House that the motion be concurred in?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Order in council providing for distribution of amount voted for bounty to encourage the development of the sea fisheries and the building of fishing vessels-Hon, Mr. Lapointe.
Copy of order in council providing for the issue of licenses to United States fishing vessels.-Hon. Mr. Lapointe.

Hon. A. B. COPP (Secretary of State):: I
beg to lay on the Table of the House a partial return to an order of the House dated February 12th, showing the total number of employees in the inside Civil Service on the 31st March in each year since 1900, to the last nine months of 1922, inclusive. This is not a full return; the remainder will be brought down as soon as possible.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. HOCKEN:: 1.	What are the names of the harbour commissioners for St. John, N.B.?
Supply-Defence

2.	What salary is paid each commissioner?
3.	Are any of the commissioners employed in any other capacity by the board? .
4.	If so, what are the names of those so otherwise
employed, and amounts paid each, or any of them for such other services?	,
5.	What is the total amount paid each commissioner for salary and other services or commissions during year ending December 31st 1921?
6.	What dismissals or changes have been made by the present government in the personnel of the commission?


Hon. Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1,	2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. There are no harbour commissioners for St. John, N.B.


VANCOUVER HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS
Mr. HOCKEN:: 1.	What are the names of the harbour commissioners for Vancouver?
2.	What salary is paid each commissioner?
3.	Are any of the commissioners employed in any other capacity by the board?
4.	If so, what are the names of those so otherwise employed, and amounts paid each, or any of them for such other services?
5.	What is the total amount paid each commissioner for salary and other services or commissions during year ending December 31st, 1921?
6.	What dismissals or changes have been made by the present government in the personnel of the commission?


Hon. Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	Commissioners: Lieut.-Col. Guy H. Kirkpatrick (President); Mr. It. E. Beattie; Mr. Samuel Prenter.
2.	President, $5,000. $4,000 to each of the other two commissioners. These salaries are paid out of the revenues of the harbour.
3.	No.
4.	None.
5.	Annual salary only, Lt.-Col. Kirkpatrick, $5,000; Mr. Sam. McClay, $4,000; Major A. R. Mackenzie, $4,000.
6.	Major A. R. Mackenzie and Mr. Sam McClay resigned and Messrs. R. E. Beattie and Samuel Prenter were appointed to replace them-effective 1st September, 1922.


HAMILTON HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS
Mr. HOCKEN:: 1.	What are the names of the harbour commissioners for Hamilton ?
2.	What salary is paid each commissioner?
3.	Are any of the commissioners employed in any other capacity by the board?
4.	If so, what are the names of those so otherwise employed, and amounts paid each or any of them for such other services ?
5.	What is the total amount paid each commissioner for salary and other services or commissions during the year ending December 31st, 1921?
6.	What dismissals or changes have been made by the present government in the personnel of the commission?


Hon. Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	Commissioners:	Mr. William Ainslie,
(Chairman); Mr. John Newlands; Mr. William B. Sheppard.

2.	No salary.
3.	No.
4.	None employed.
5.	None of the commissioners have received any remuneration of any kind in connection with the harbour matters.
6.	The present personnel of the commission was substituted for the personnel of the previous commission on October 7, 1922.


FOUNDERING OF MONTE GRAPPA
Mr. DESLAURIERS:: .
1.	Was the foundering of the Italian steamer Monte Grappa in mid-Atlantic on or about the 14th November, 1922, brought about by the improper stowage of her cargo taken on board at the harbour of Montreal?
2.	Is the government aware that this casualty has been the means of casting a reflection on the harbour?
3.	In view of this, is it the intention of the government to hold an inquiry into the causes which led to the disaster?
4.	Is it not a fact that the Port Warden as' well as the Deputy Port Warden at the harbour of Montreal are incapable of speaking the French language, although the majority of those employed loading and discharging vessels at the harbour are French-Canadians?
5.	In the event of future appointments being made to the Port Warden's staff, will the government give an undertaking that a person capable of speaking the French language is appointed?


Hon. Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	The government has no information to the effect that the foundering of the Monte Grappa in mid-Atlantic on the 14th November last was brought about by improper stowage of cargo.
2.	The government is fully satisfied that the casualty has not cast any reflection on the harbour.
3.	There is no authority for holding an inquiry into a casualty of this nature. See section 776, chapter 113, revised statutes of Canada. If a definite charge should be made charging any person or persons with improper conduct in connection with the stowage of cargo, the necessary authority would be obtained to hold an inquiry under the terms of the Inquiries Act.
4.	The secretary of the Montreal Board of Trade advise that neither the Port Warden nor Deputy Port Warden speaks the French language.
5.	The appointments are made by the Montreal Board of Trade under the provisions of the Port Warden's Act, chapter 45 of the statutes of 1882.


VANCOUVER INCOME TAX OFFICES
Mr. CLARK:: 1.	What rent was paid for the Dominion income tax offices in the city of Vancouver in the years 1920, 1921 and 1922?
2.	What was the floor space occupied in each of said years ?

Questions
3.	Has a new office been rented for Dominion income tax purposes in Vancouver?
4.	Have the offices in the London building been given up? If so, why?
5.	What rent is payable for the new office?
6.	What is the floor 6pace for said new offices?
7.	Who are the owners of said new offices, and what are their addresses and occupations?


Hon. Mr. KING (Kootenay):: By the Department of Public Works:-
1.	Rental to Molsons Bank, 1920, $100; 1921, none; 1922, ,$150; Rental to London building, $3,850; 1921, $4,200; 1922, $5,550.
2.	Floor space, Molsons Bank, 1920, 1,991 feet; 1921, none; 1922, 360 feet; Floor space, London building, 1920, 4,000 feet; 1921, 4,000 feet; 1922, 5,580 feet.
3.	Yes, space in Board of Trade building leased from February 1st, 1923, for a period of five years.
4.	Yes, as Commissioner of Taxation stated that offices in the London building were neither suitable nor large enough.
5.	$11,400 per annum, lessors to pay taxes, water rates and insurance, and provide heating, janitor and elevator services.
6.	10,441 square feet.
7.	The Mutual Life Assurance Company of Canada, Head office Waterloo, Ontario.


SOLDIER SETTLEMENT BOARD-RICHMOND COUNTY
Mr. TOBIN:: 1.	How many farms were sold by the Soldier Settlement Board" to returned men of the county of Richmond ?
2.	What price was paid for each of those farms?
3.	Who were they bought from?
4.	What inspector recommended paying the purchase
price?
5.	Who were the purchasers?
6.	Are any of the said farms now vacant?
7.	If so, in what township?


Hon. Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil):: 1.	Twenty-two.
2.	Price paid by the board: $2,700, $2,500, $2,250, $3,550, $700, $2,250, $1,890, $4,500, $3,600, $3,270, $4,500, $4,050, $4,500, $4,050, $4,725, $3,150, $4,050, $1,520, $3,950, $3,840, $2,675, $4,500.
3.	C. M. Rief, E. G. Andre, V. Messier, N. A. Robert, C. E. Frost, G. Hodge, Dame E. Knowles, Irene Roux, R. W. Frank, D. J. Austin, E. II. Stimson, J. H. Ewing, J. B. Miles. E. E. Whitty, E. Melancon, Z. Allaire, L. Girouard, Dame C. Oliver, J. Goddard, Jos. Dubois, E. Roleau, M. H. Sims.
4.	E. L. Hall, A. L. Pomeroy, A. L. Pomeroy, E L. Hall, A. L. Pomeroy, H. D. Snow, C. N. Lyster, H. D. Snow, W. R. Stevens, A. L. Pomeroy, H. D. Snow, H. D. Snow, W. R. Stevens, E. L. Hall, J. Pereas, H. D. Snow, A. L. Pomeroy, A. L. Pomeroy, A. L. Pomeroy,
A. L. Pomeroy, A. L. Pomeroy, A. L. Pomeroy.
5.	I. Robinson, E. G. Andre, E. Messier, J.
0.	Blais, C. E. Frost, Thos. Dixon, E. Knowles,
1.	Roux, W. D. Frank, W. Ford, J. M. Leckie, J. Robertson, M. Husk, N. Zibrowski, J. A. Morrisette, H. J. Hall, Theo. Royle, J. Gilbert, J. Allan, B. P. Readshaw, F. Gendron, G. J. Sims.
6.	Yes, one leased and one vacant.
7.	Township of Stoke.


SOLDIER SETTLEMENT BOARD-WOLFE COUNTY
Mr. TOBIN:: 1.	How many farms were sold by the Soldier Settlement Board to returned men of the county of Wolfe?
2.	What price was paid for each of those farms?
3.	Who were they bought from?
4.	What inspector recommended paying the purchase price ?
5.	Who were the purchasers?
6.	Are any of the said farms now vacant?
7.	If so, in what township?


Hon. Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil):: 1.	Seventeen.
2.	Price paid by the board: $1,800, $2,880, $4,400, $2,700, $3,700, $3,400, $4,500, $3,150, $2,430, $4,500, $4,500, $2,340, $1,260, $2,700, $1,600, $2,075, $2,700.
3.	J. Longval, E. C. Tanguay, J. A. Moreau, A. Jackson, W. W. Jackson, N. Tessier, B. Boulet, A. & J. Laroche, Jos. Gagne, G. H. Gorham, F. N. Desmarais, E. Goddard, Wm. Dawson, E. Tremblay, R. Lemire, R. Gardner, A. Grimard.
4.	A. L. Pomeroy, A. L. Pomeroy, E. L. Hall, A. L. Pomeroy, E. L. Hall, A. L. Pomeroy, A. L. Pomeroy, E. L. Hall, H. D. Snow, E. P. Ball, A. L. Pomeroy, A. L. Pomeroy, H. D. Snow, A. L. Pomeroy, H. D. Snow, E. L. Hall, E. L. Hall.
5.	P. Charland, F. Longval, E. Godbout, L. Breton, E. Breton, J. H. Bois, C. Doyon, C. Laroche, A. Gagne, J. A. Currier, Nap. Beau-regarde, O. Filliault, W. S. Cooper, Jos. Provencal, R. Lemire, E. Brunelle, R. Devine.
6.	Yes, three.
7.	Village of Beaulac, township of Weedon. and township of Wotton.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. TOBIN:: 1.	What was the revenue of Canada in the year 1896-97?
2.	What was the revenue of Canada in the year 1911-12?
.	3. What was the revenue of Canada on January 1st,
1922-23?

Questions


Hon. Mr. FIELDING:: 1.	$37,829,778.40.
2.	$136,108,217.36.
3.	$300,174,050.18.	[DOT]	'


NATIONAL EXPENSES
Mr. TOBIN:: 1.	What were the total expenses of Canada in 1896-97?
2.	What were the total expenses of Canada in 1911-12?
3.	What were the total expenses of Canada in 1921-22?


Hon. Mr. FIELDING:: 1.	$42,972,755.89.	[DOT]
2.	$137,142,082.20.
3.	$365,701,790.85.


NATIONAL DEBT
Mr. TOBIN:: 1.	What was the total net debt of Canada on January 1st, 1896?
2.	What was the total gross debt on the said date?
3.	What was the total net debt of Canada on January 1st, 1911?
4.	What was the total gross debt on the above date?
5.	What was the total net debt on Januiary 1st, 1922?
6.	What was the total gross debt on the above date?


Hon. Mr. FIELDING:: 1.	$250,738,079.50.
2.	$321,898,871.90.
3.	$326,885,959.67.
4.	$477,578,701.94.
5.	$2,366,861,252.29.
6.	$2,943,620,629.44.


WAR EXPENDITURE 1914-1922
Mr. TOBIN:: 1.	"What was the total amount expended by Canada for war purposes from the year 1914 to 1922?
2.	What was the increase in the public debt of Canada from the year 1914 to 1922?


Hon. Mr. FIELDING:: 1.	$1,688,948,035.78.
2.	$2,086,138,951.59.


THE METRIC SYSTEM
Mr. BENOIT:: Does the government intend, during the present session, looking into the benefits which might be derived from the establishing of the metric system in Canada?


Hon. Mr. ROBB:: The matter has been under constant consideration by the government during past years, and the use of the metric system in Canada is already legalized, and has been permitted since 1871.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. TOBIN:: 1.	What was the mileage of railways owned by the Dominion government in 1896?

2.	What was the cost of same to the country at that date?
3.	What was the total mileage of railways owned by the Dominion government in 1911?
4.	What was the cost of same to the country?
5.	What was the total mileage of railways owned by the Dominion government on January 1st, 1922?
6.	What was the net cost to the country on January 1st, 1922, of the railways taken over by the government from Mackenzie and Mann?
7.	What is the total mileage in Canada of the railways taken over by the government from the Grand Trunk Railway ?
8.	What is the total mileage in the United States?
9.	What was the total cost to Canada of the Grand Trunk Railway both in Canada and the United States, on the 1st of January, 1922?
10.	What was the total cost to Canada of all railways owned by the Dominion government on January 1st, 1922?


CUSTOMS OFFICIALS-HALTON COUNTY
Mr. ANDERSON:: 1.	What are the names of the customs officials in the county of Halton and where are they located?
2.	What was the amount collected in each office in the said county in (a) 1921, (b) 1922?
3.	What was the total expense of each office, including the salary of the official, during the years 1921 and 1922 respectively ?
4.	Who is the customs official in Streetsville, county of
Peel, Ontario ?	*
5.	What was the amount collected in that office during the years 1921 and 1922 respectively ?
6.	WThat was the total expense of the office, including salary to the official, during the said years respectively ?
7.	What part of the receipts from this office was collected on goods entering the county of Halton in the years 1921 and 1922 respectively?



UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. ANDERSON:: For a copy of all papers, correspondence, memoranda,, reports and other documents relating to the application for the opening of a post office in North Oakville in 1921 and also relating to the order countermanding the opening of said post office.



CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION-EXEMPTIONS

Mr. IRVINE:: For a copy of all recommendations, correspondence and reports passing between the government and the Civil Service Commission referring to the exemptions-made under Order in Council 1053, June 29, 1922.



SYDNEY COAL STRIKE

Sir HENRY DRAYTON moved:: 1.	For copies of all communications of whatsoever sort exchanged between the departments of the government or any member of the government with any person or firm respecting the Sydney coal strike of last winter.
2.	For copies of all communications made to or received by any department of the government from the railways in connection with the shop trades controversy of last summer, and concerning the Alberta coal strike in the autumn of 1922.
3.	For copies of opinions of the Department of Justice given in relation to conduct of either employees or employers affected by any strike or threatened strike of workers in shipping or railway trades; and.

Special War Revenue Act
4.	Also for copies of all correspondence relating to or requisitions for troops in connection with the Sydney coal strike of last winter.


Hon. Mr. MURDOCK (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for West York will intimate that in the last word of this motion he means summer, we will be able to give him the papers. So far as we know, there was no strike last winter.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: That is a misprint. My hon. friend is quite right; it should be last summer.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Vancouver Centre) moved:: to the last farthing. There is no question that in this respect the tax is inequitable and unfair. Then, it is exceedingly complex and costly. The number of officers, clerks and inspectors that are necessary even to get the measure of collection that we are getting now from this tax is very large, but if the law were administered with any degree of exactitude; if the tax were collected from all, the officials would be multiplied many times. It is only by simply ignoring a great many persons that the cost of adminstration is kept as low at it is.
I am not going to attempt this afternoon to demonstrate to the last point the soundness of my contention for a change in the tax.
I am asking for an inquiry; I only hope to give the House sufficient information to excite its curiosity, shall I say, to the extent that it will grant this request, or to bring from the government assurances that will answer the purpose.
Let me give two specific cases, Mr. Speaker, to illustrate my point. Take first the case of the leather business. First, the dealer in hides pays 2i per cent on the sale to the tanner. Then, the tanner, on his sale to the shoe manufacturer, is assessed 2i per cent, and the shoe manufacturer on his sale to the wholesaler is assessed 2i per cent, as well as the wholesaler on his sale to the retailer, or, in the case where the sale is made direct from the manufacturer to the retailer, there is a 4J per cent tax, which amounts to the same thing. There the tax ends; the pair of shoes goes out to the public; there is no further imposition. Now then, let us take a very similar case to show' how wholly unequal is the application of tic tax. Take the case of cocoa. The dealer fin cocoa beans, on his sale to the manufacturer, is assessed 2i per cent; then on the sale by the manufacturer of cocoa powder to the wholesaler, there is another 2| per cent. !On the sale by the wholesaler, of chocolate powder to the retailer there is another assessment of 2i per cent; or, as in the ease of the leather, if the manufacturer sells direct there is a 41- per cent tax, which is the same thing. Up to this point the application of the tax is the same in connection with these two industries; both are treated alike. But the retail purchaser of cocoa powder may be a manufacturer; in fact, the greater part of the candies, chocolates, and so on that are consumed is manufactured by persons or firms carrying on a retail business as well. The retailer who has paid the tax right down from the sale of cocoa beans to his own purchase becomes a manufacturer and is then assessed a 5 per cent manufacturing tax as well as the 4 V per cent sales tax. In order that it may be

clearly shown that I am not overstating the case, I have under my hand three specific instances taken from my own city which can be duplicated by scores of similar cases in every city throughout Canada. I will give these three cases to show the result of the application of this super-tax to the trade in question.
The Mission Confectionery Company, conducting a retail business in Vancouver, with very handsome retail stores, refreshment counters and cafe stalls, and at the same time manufacturing candies, paid in 1922 an amount in super-taxes-the tax I referred to a moment ago as being added to the amount that would be paid, say, by the shoe manufacturer -equal to the profit on the entire business for the year from the cafe bakery, confectionery and soda fountain. The only way they can carry on business is to have these various lines; they have their soda fountain; they serve light refreshments, cold soft drinks in the summer and hot drinks of various kinds in the winter. This service is a convenience to the public and is very widely patronized. A bakery and confectionery is also operated. That is one case. Here is another:	Chanticleer Limited paid in this super-tax in 1922 more than the profit on the entire business for the year, cafe included. In the case of R. C, Purdy, another large firm, the super-taxes for 1922 combined were greater than the profit in the entire business, cafe included, for 1921 and 1922 combined. These firms are threatened with annihilation if they must continue to pay this tax under the present system. It is not my purpose this afternoon to argue in detail regarding these particular cases. _ I merely cite them as illustrations of the inequity of this tax and the unfairness of its application, to show how under the present law one class of business will pay a given rate, while another class is called upon to pay a very much higher rate.
I have another illustration here. It is a letter from a dealer in furs and skins, from North Battleford. This man is just a jobber or broker who goes out into the country and buys furs and skins from the settlers and farmers. Sometimes he would buy, I suppose, lynx skins, wolf skins, or whatever the furbearing animals of the district might be sheep skins, cattle hides and so forth. He is a general dealer in skins. Such an individual serves a good purpose and is doing a useful work for the community. This man collects the skins in his locality, then when the big dealer comes along there is a sale tax upon this man who originally collected the skins. The big dealer certainly will not absorb that tax, and the result is that the small dealer has to absorb it, and naturally

it is an inconvenience and loss to his business, and in my estimation threatens to shut out a class of individual who is exceedingly useful to the community.
There are other phases of this question which I shall touch upon only very briefly; for instance, the application of this tax to such institutions as libraries and hospitals.
I' have resolutions under my hand which I shall not for a moment refer to other than to bring them to the attention of the committee as another reason for careful examination of the method of applying this tax.
Let me turn to another phase of this question. I want to suggest to the House that in place of the present system of collecting the sales tax from the manufacturer or dealer in raw material, from the manufacturer, the jobber or distributor, and then from the retailer, following this tax down through these various lines of business-and we exempt certain classes of goods, which increases the complexity of tha matter -instead of that I would suggest this simplified method of securing what I consider would certainly be quite as large a revenue. Take the present method we have of applying a certain excess duty, if you like to call it that, or sales tax duty of a given figure to be determined by a committee or by the government, as the case may be. Then impose a sales tax upon all manufacturers of manufactured goods which go to the public in a finished form. At the present time the manufactured article of one firm is in many cases the raw material of another, and there is your difficulty under the present system. You are taxing the man who purchases bar steel, for instance, to turn it into cutlery, though that bar steel is the finished product of the steel company. He pays the sales tax to the steel company, which offsets the duty in that case, but he has to reproduce that bar steel in the form of cutlery, and on that he pays a sales tax again. I might give innumerable illustrations of that kind. The present tax in its application is complex, intricate and to my mind wholly unnecessary. Therefore I suggest the imposition of this tax upon such manufacturers as produce an article finished for the ultimate consumer. That, X think, would give a very handsome revenue. You may say that it would be difficult to classify the manufacturers in that way. I do not think it would be. I remember during the war we had a licensing of all manufacturers as well as of other persons doing business, and certainly it would not require anything like the staff in connection with the minister's office
Special War Revenue Act
and throughout the country to register and license the manufacturers of Canada, who, after all, are the smallest body of classified business men. Of the three classes I have mentioned, manufacturers, wholesalers or jobbers, and retailers, the manufacturing group is the least numerous and necessarily the largest in their production both as tb value and quantity. Consequently, the imposition of the tax upon that group would minimize the cost of collection. Let the tax be of sufficient amount to raise the revenue. Then impose the excess duty to which I refer upon imports to offset such an imposition on the manufacturer.
In addition to that, I suggest that on all goods manufactured by such manufacturers, when exported or re-exported, as the case may be, there should be a rebate of such tax. The reason for that is that if our manufacturers are to compete in the world market they must be relieved from excess taxes in their own market. These taxes, we must remember, are imposed for the purpose of raising revenue to run the business of this country, and if our manufacturer is to compete in a foreign country and pay the import charges and taxes which are levied in that foreign country, such a tax as we suggest here, such a tax, in fact, as we are imposing to-day ought to be rebated on such goods as are exported or re-exported.
I do not wish to labour the question, I do not wish to go into detail. I have already intimated that my object is to bring to the attention of the House the fact that we have a very serious problem in connection, not only with this tax but every branch of taxation, but particularly in connection with this. I understand from figures given by those who are supposed to have sound information on the subject that we may expect from this sales tax a revenue to the amount of $90,000,000. This, will constitute a very large proportion of our revenue, and therefore inasmuch as this tax is affecting the whole of the business of Canada, it behooves us to give it the most exhaustive study as to whether or not this somewhat new tax is in any way interfering with the normal course of business.
It is claimed by the retailers particularly that it is working a severe hardship to-day. It is claimed by them, as I have already intimated, that the retailer who keeps an up-to-date set of books is penalized as compared with the retailer who does not keep books but just keeps slips of rough memoranda regarding his business transactions. It is exceedingly difficult to draw the line of demarcation between absolute fraud and mere ignorance on
91S

Special War Revenue Act
the part of small dealers. I am sure that those who have given any study to the question of accountancy will realize at once the absurdity of expecting a man down in the heart of any of our great cities, particularly the foreigner, who is doing in every other respect a legitimate business, and perhaps supplying a very great need in the community, to keep an accurate set of books when he is doing only a small business, such as many of them are doing to-day. So there is no use trying to kid ourselves, if I might be permitted to use that expression, into believing that it is possible to enforce the present tax to the point of exact equality and justice to all.
There are certain advantages which would accrue from the method of taxation I have suggested, and with a brief statement of them I shall take my seat. In the first place, it will reduce, and reduce enormously in my [DOT]opinion, the cost of collection. In the second place, it will eliminate this discrimination to which I have made very brief and altogether inadequate reference. In the third place, it will in my estimation bring a very much larger revenue to the exchequer of the country, a most desirable result at this time; and in the next place it will bring about a more equitable distribution of taxation over the country as a whole.
I am aware-and I pause for one moment to anticipate the point-that there are those who will at once apply to my suggestions the argument which has always applied to the imposition of a customs duty viz.-that it is always passed on to the consumer. Unquestionably it is passed on to the consumer. It makes no difference what form of tax is imposed it is ultimately passed on to the consumer. The error, however, that is often made in advancing that argument is that there is an imaginary line of demarcation drawn between consumers and others; that is, those who are sellers of goods-retailers, wholesalers or manufacturers-are often classified as being exempt from the penalties of the consumer. As a matter of fact everybody is a consumer, and there is no use trying to deceive ourselves. Taxes are always passed on to the consumer and will be, I care not what form they may take.
Let me illustrate the point very briefly: You may impose a tax, we will say, on the shoe manufacturer, and you may say with all the dignity and majesty of law that that tax must appear on the invoice, and that the shoe manufacturer must pay that tax. Certainly he will pay that tax, but if it puts him out of business he quits manufacturing. The only way he can continue to manufacture is I Mr. Stevens.]
to make a profit, over and above that tax, sufficient to induce him to continue in business; but if that tax so invades his profits as to make it unprofitable for him to continue he will quit manufacturing or, if he can, raise his price. So it does not make a whit of difference whether that tax does or does not appear on the invoice; it will be absorbed sooner or later by the ultimate purchaser and consumer.
There is another phase of the question to which I feel tempted to refer, and it is this: It is pretty generally admitted by those who are frank enough to do so, and I claim to be one of them, that the general public prefer to pay a tax that does not appear under their noses specified as a tax.


Mr. BUREAU:: That is true.
. Mr. STEVENS:* I think that is right; I think everyone who has had any experience with it at all will admit that. Now, I know that a great many pseudo economists who are very anxious to stir up discord will tell the consumer that this mysterious imposition of a tax in an intangible and undefined form has some criminal or some immoral taint about it. That, I think, is a fallacy, an utter fallacy. As a matter of fact business is very largely dependent upon the great general laws of supply and demand, and the question of whether a business is or is not a paying one; and the imposition of a tax-whether it is shown, as I said a moment ago, on the face of the invoice or whether it is absorbed in the general cost-in the long run makes no difference, except that it does cause a certain amount of irritation as has been proven beyond all peradventure in the United States and in Canada when we caused everybody who sold neckties, shirts, shoes, and such like articles, to show upon the counter slip the tax that went to the Dominion or to the federal government as the case might be. I do not think there was the slightest good-indeed I am convinced there was a great deal of irritation and harm-done by that. However, I repeat, in case my statement should be misconstrued, -that as far as equitable treatment of the public is concerned it is not affected at all, because as long as business is done on a competitive basis, and that is how it is done today, whether the tax appears on the invoice or not the business will continue just as long as it is a profitable one; that is the basis and that is the test.
I will not detain the House further. I present this resolution with a sincere desire to have a discussion here, if possible, and a definite and serious consideration of this problem with the hope that we may find some

Special War Revenue Act
solution of the inequalities and the injustices which are now being imposed, unconsciously and unintentionally perhaps, because of the sales tax.


Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance) :: I have listened with much interest, and with a measure of sympathy, to the remarks of my hon. friend for Vancouver Centre, (Mr. Stevens) and I am quite sure he is moved entirely by a desire to meet some of the criticisms that we are familiar with from day to day on the sales tax-indeed as to other methods of taxation. It is a misfortune that the tremendous obligations of the war have obliged the government of the day, no matter what party may be in power, to discover new means of raising revenue; and it is quite possible that some of these new means are almost experimental in their character and that, in the light of experience, they may be modified or, in some cases possibly, abandoned altogether.
I am afraid that neither my hon. friend nor I can indulge in the hope of devising any means of taxation that will be popular. Taxation is not popular. New taxation is particularly objectionable. If your taxation has been in force for a number of years, even though it may seem to be inequitable, the people get accustomed to it and gradually cease to complain of it, but new taxes always bring forth a new cry against them, and that is the situation regarding the sales tax. The machinery of the sales tax is substantially the same as it was from the beginning. It has been changed somewhat in detail, and the amount has been increased; but it is a difficult thing to adjust. The cases to which my hon. friend has referred, as between the various branches of industry, certainly seem to make out a fair claim to consideration. The imposition of taxes, however, in the end must be the obligation and the responsibility of the government. There is no escape from that, and such being the case I can give my hon. friend assurance at once that what he has said, and other representations that we may receive on the subject, will be considered with the utmost desire to meet criticisms as far as possible.
I must not hold out the hope that we can reduce taxation to any considerable extent. It is a misfortune that we have to pay high taxes-but every country in the world has to pay them too-and there is naturally a desire for exemption. My hon. friend mentioned one case which seems to be very worthy and he thinks that should be exempt. Other cases could be cited which would seem perhaps to be equally open to one's consideration. However, I realize that in our efforts, and in the efforts of our predecessors, to raise money it is quite possible some errors have been made. It is quite possible that there may_ be some room for criticism. I can assure my hon. friend that we appreciate what he has said, and if there are any other members who wish to join in the debate we shall be glad to welcome the attention and consideration that they may give to the subject. Our only desire, as I am sure he himself will realize, is to try and raise money and raise it in a manner that will be as little objectionable as possible to the public at large.
I do not think, I would respectfully submit to my hon. friend, that anything can be gained by having a committee because, as I I have said, the government must take the responsibility of raising taxes. I hope my hon. friend will on reflection see that he may accept the assurance that I give him that what he has said to-day, and what others have said-and indeed what others may yet say on the subject-will be received in the same spirit in which I know the criticism will be offered, and with every desire to meet objections as far as is reasonably possible.


Hon.   S@: I desire to sympathize with my hon. friend (Mr. Fielding) in his difficulty. I know the nature of the difficulties my hon. friend has to face, but let me tell him that he has added to them.


William Stevens Fielding: Yes?


Henry Lumley Drayton: There is, of course, the tax which can be absorbed and the tax which cannot be absorbed. I do not entirely agree with my hon. friend for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) that all taxes are passed on. Some taxes that are light are absorbed. For example, I do not think our tax of 2 cents on a cheque was ever passed on. I am quite free to admit that when the tax on a cheque to-day aggregates in amount $2 it is passed on. While under the old tax no attention whatever was paid to that small impost of 2 cents on a cheque, to-day in a great many cases that tax is passed on. It is likewise passed on in connection with the sales tax. In our sales tax operations we wanted money and wanted it badly. We tried to get to the point where, at least in the majority of cases, it worked out that we would have such an impost that, while the resultant revenues would be large, yet in the particular instance of each case the amount would be so comparatively small that it would not be passed on. My hon. friends had to add to the difficulties I have mentioned. They increased the sales tax to a point where, I am afraid, it is largely being
Special War Revenue Act

passed on to-day. One particular matter I would like to draw to my hon. friend's attention is that when we have these sales taxes- and have them we must-they do not work out very fairly in connection with special,imposts on luxuries. In referring to the so-called luxury tax, the position was just exactly as I said when we introduced this tax into the House. The idea was that in some way we would stop the tremendous amount of luxurious buying in Canada, and' that we would in that way intercept, to some extent, the inevitable deflation that of necessity would come. Hon. members talk about deflation and blame the government for it. It is not a matter of government policy. Business deflates, and certainly in a place like Canada, next door to the great United States, when they de-
4 p.m. liberately embarked on that policy of deflation we had to follow. We buy our raw materials in the same markets. The prices are common, the purchases are common, the methods by which business is done are common and when they deflate we have to deflate. We wanted in some way or other to put the brakes on business to avoid to some extent the disastrous effects of deflation. Deflation is disastrous and it is a question which is the worse, undue deflation or great inflation. I am sure the effects of deflation are more disastrous than the effects of inflation. But knowing it was coming, we wanted to do something which would ease the shock, and these luxury taxes did ease the shock.
The manager of a large departmental shop met me in Ottawa about six months after the luxury tax had been imposed and when we were experiencing deflation and marked deflation. He said he called me all kinds of bad names, everything he could think of, when that tax was put on. He thought that I was everything I ought not to have been. Then he said "Do you know, when I stopped to think I wondered if you really were trying to make yourself the most unpopular man in the country, or trying to do a real service to Canada, and I came to the conclusion you were trying to do that real service, and having come to that conclusion, I knew the only thing you could be driving at was that you wanted to warn everybody not to buy. I stopped buying, and to-day my shelves are practically bare. If I had had the ordinary amount of stock, which in the ordinary methods of business I would have had on my shelves, I would have suffered very, very materially from this deflation; as it is today it is not hurting me." That was the reason that tax was put on. Immediately that

deflation had shown itself the tax was taken off, because it is really a tax that is not a fair one, a tax which singles out one particular activity as against all other activities. It is not a fair thing. I just want to give the House the one illustration that the hon. member for Centre Vancouver (Mr. Stevens) has made plain. He spoke about the confectionery business and gave the names of some concerns engaged in that business. We had a luxury tax on candy. Candies were dear and they were being sold in great quantities.
That tax we took off, with all the rest of the luxury taxes but it was one of the last taxes we took off. We needed the money but the real underlying reason, apart from the unfairness of having two taxes upon one commodity, was that it is a tax which cannot be properly administered, for the simple reason that the foreigners,-and I am not using that word in the slightest degree offensively, because they make first class candies-are generally more or less uneducated people, and are more and more going into the candy business. In some of our smaller towns the candy merchants are Greeks and Italians. They go not only into the candy business but into the fruit business as well, and they are doing the business. They keep no books and I found it quite impossible to fairly and equitably enforce that double tax.
As I said in opening, I sympathize very, very deeply with my hon. friend. We must have the money; and must get it, but I hope he will see to it that this idea of double taxation, this special tax upon this activity or that activity, on top of the sales tax, is stopped, and I am inclined to think, from the representations which I know he must be receiving, that he has already come to the conclusion that it is an undesirable form of taxation.	.	.


Mr. ROBERT FORKE (Brandon):: Mr. Speaker I am rather glad that this question has come up, although I would have liked to have had some notice that the discussion was going to take place this afternoon, so that I would have had some data upon which tc speak. However, I suppose we shall have another opportunity on the debate on the budget to discuss the subject, but it might be as well that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) should have some idea as to what proposals or what criticisms are likely to be presented at that time. I think the members of the House are all pretty well aware of the fact that the members in this part of the House are what may be called low-tariff men. We also recognize the fact that taxation must

Special War Revenue Act
be high, and that we have to have those taxes, and as the Minister of Finance has said, he has got to have the money and the great question we have before us, besides the question of economy is where can those taxes be best raised, without hurting too much? Naturally the answer would come "Those who pay the taxes should be those who are best able to pay them." Consequently I believe that taxes should be as low as possible on all the common necessities of life, and I would say to the Minister of Finance that I would like to see that list of exemptions from the sales tax extended to everything that is in use by the common masses of the people. I mean the common articles that the poorer classes of the people must have in their daily lives.
In regard to the pyramiding of taxation, I believe the principle is wrong, and if that could be possibly avoided, I do not know' that I would not agree to some extent with the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens). I do not feel at all sorry that the taxes should be rather high on articles of luxury. I do not care. Suppose the price of chocolates is rather high, people will have them, they buy them and they must pay for them, but they are a luxury and are not necessary to human life and the poorer classes of the population cannot very well afford them.
Now as to taxes being unpopular because we know we are paying those taxes. I do not know that taxes are ever very popular; they are something we do not like to pay. Nevertheless, when I pay a bill I always want to know what I am paying it for, how much I am paying, and what services or value I have received for the money I am giving. If indirect taxation takes from me two dollars when I should pay only one, I do not feel like paying two dollars about the particulars of which I am not at all certain. I do not find any fault with a tax because it is direct, for under such a tax we know either that we are getting value or that we are not, and if we are not we are able to direct our criticism intelligently. Under municipal taxation you know what your taxes are, and how the money has been expended, and you can intelligently criticise that expenditure. But under a system of indirect taxation there may be extravagance and waste and you may be unable to put your finger just exactly on the spot. I am therefore not opposed to direct taxation.
Now, I do not desire to take up the time of the House to-day, because I expect to have an opportunity of criticising the budget when it comes down. Still I think it is as well that
the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) should be given some idea of just the direction criticism is likely to take. First of all, there must be a demand for economy in the conduct of public business, while recognizing the fact that a certain amount of money must be raised and must be collected from those who are best able to pay. As regards the taxes consumers pay, I think everyone recognizes that the consumers have to contribute to taxation. But I claim that in this country the heavy burden of taxation falls upon our primary industries, because other businesses can so conduct their affairs as to pass along the taxes until they rest upon the people engaged in these primary industries. I think that probably I have said enough at the present time to indicate the lines along which our criticism may probably be directed.


Mr. L. J. LADNER (Vancouver South):: I hardly agree with the remark of the leader of the Progressive party that candy is a luxury. In a sense, of course, it is; but when we speak of candy we must think of the children. Candy is the children's delight, and the majority of people would be inclined to agree that the appeal which the hon. gentleman made might have had some regard to the children. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) has well covered the subject and has shown the many objections that are inherent in the present system of sales tax. It is my intention, however, to refer to one or two points not dealt with. The matter of keeping books and the ability of the government inspectors and tax collectors to collect the taxes from the confectioners are questions that arise, as the hon. member ^or Vancouver Centre pointed out, largely because certain foreigners engaged in business in this country have not that system of book-keeping that makes it possible to collect these taxes. The up-to-date and reliable business man conducts his business in the proper way. And what is the result? Three of the largest confectionery and bakery firms in Vancouver have made no profits during the last year or two. The member for Vancouver Centre explained what happened. In the case of one, R. C. Purdy, the sales taxes for the year 1922 were greater than the profits of the entire business for the year 1921-22 combined.


Mr. CALDWELL:: Do they claim that they paid the taxes out of their profits? Or did they add the tax to the prices of the goods they sold?


Leon Johnson Ladner: The claim is that the amount of the sales tax exceeds the profits
Special War Revenue Act


Mr. JOHN MILLAR (Qu'Appelle):: I am pleased indeed that the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) has brought this matter up for discussion. I did not know ha intended doing so to-day or I might have made a little preparation, because I have received some complaints in regard to the sales tax. Retailers advise me that the law as administered causes them a great deal of irritation by way of what they term "pin pricks." They do not wish to evade the tax, but their chief complaint is that it is adminis-

Special War Revenue Act
tered in a way to cause them the maximum annoyance and inconvenience.
The hon. member for Vancouver Centre has referred to the fact that in all cases taxes are paid by the consumer. Another hon. member pointed out that this was not always so. I should like to draw attention to'one case in point; I think I mentioned it in the House on a former occasion. The members of the grain exchange in remitting payment for carloads of grain place the proper amount of stamp taxes on the cheques and then add this tax to the account and pass it on to the farmers. It may not be a strong argument to refute the statement made by the hon. member, but it is one instance at least.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) has told us that we must levy taxes because the money must be had to meet our national expenses. If the people felt the government were doing their very utmost to cut expenses to the core, I think there would be greater readiness to pay the taxes imposed. I do not say that this government has not done as much as governments in the past to economize, but the need at the present time for drastic retrenchment is greater than it has ever been before. Economic distress is rampant throughout the country, and for this very reason I did hope that the government would succeed in cutting down their estimates to a greater extent than they have. We are called upon sometimes to vote for the reduction of. a particular item, as happened, for instance, yesterday; but I feel that when such a vote is called most of us are not in a position to say whether the particular cut is advisable, for it is conceivable that we may reduce an item that can least stand any reduction.
I believe the people who are called upon to pay these taxes, and who are ill able to pay them, are not encouraged very much when they see large expenditures in the estimates this year on such public works as the Welland canal. I hope to have an opportunity to speak to that later on, but I mention it in passing. Such heavy expenditures do not tend to encourage those who are burdened by taxation and find it most difficult to make both ends meet.
I have thought that much good could be done by taxing luxuries. The hon. member for Vancouver has objected to what my leader has said about candies being a luxury. For the most part, I think, candies are certainly a luxury. An instance came under my notice a year ago where a boy paid eight dollars for a box of chocolates.


An hon. MEMBER:: Shame!


John Millar: If that was not a luxury,
then what is?


Henry Herbert Stevens: It was the measure of
his love.


Mr. JACOBS:: Will the hon. gentleman
tell us whether it brought results?


John Millar: Unfortunately, I am not
able to give that information to my hon. friend.
I believe that as far as possible taxes should be levied on the wealthy, but I admit one difficulty. I believe it has been the experience that when governments have taxed the wealthy, the tendency is for the class affected to take the money required for payment of the taxes from their business rather than from their personal expenditure. I am sorry this is so, but I am afraid there is only too much truth in the assertion. We expect to cause them to cut down their personal expenses, but if applied to some of the wealthy people of the city of Ottawa in the expectation that it would influence them to ride in $4,000 motor cars instead of $8,000 vehicles, I am afraid it would work out the other way in many cases, and that the extra money required to meet the taxation would be withdrawn from the industries in which these people are interested, with the result that in some cases perhaps fewer men would find employment. Notwithstanding this difficulty, however, I know of no better method than to levy heavy taxes on those who are best able to pay them, and to make the taxes correspondingly light on those who are poor and least able to meet this obligation. For this reason I have felt very strongly against this sales tax, because undoubtedly it is passed on, and unfortunately the class to which I belong, the agriculturists, cannot pass on their taxes to some one else. We are dealing with Nature, and she will have nothing to do with the sales tax, with the tariff tax or with any other tax. We cannot say to her, "We must have a better crop because our taxes have been increased." I am not sure that the appointment of a committee would be the proper way to deal with this question, for the reason that we have a great many committees appointed already, but I am very glad the question has been brought forward for discussion and that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) will give due consideration to these complaints.


Jacques Bureau: Mr. Speaker, reading
the resolution of my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) I see that he alludes to the "difficulties of administration and collection and alleged inequities."
There are two issues in this question. Of course, I have sympathy for my hon. friend,
Special War Revenue Act

the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) when he has to impose taxes, but God help the man who has to collect them.


Robert Forke: What about the man who pays them?


Jacques Bureau: The man who pays them has a grouch against the man who collects them, and says nasty things to him. New taxes are always disagreeable-Taxes generally -and this is admitted by everyone, even by my hon. friend the leader of the Progressive party (Mr. Forke)-are not very appetizing. Taxes are repulsive to most people. The difficulty is that you cannot see what you are getting for your money. You pay for your roads-they are not really your roads; they belong to the municipality, but you can walk on them and ride on them and see you are getting value for your money. But when it comes to a federal tax for the purpose of carrying on the business of the country, for the paying interest on the country's debt, and so on, you cannot visualize the thing. You know there is a debt-but where is it and what is it? If you subscribe ten dollars for charitable or other like purposes, you do not have the same satisfaction that you get from buying even a luxury-even candy which you may look at; you can see it and you know what it is you have paid for. It is admitted then that taxes are not agreeable to anybody.


Andrew Ross McMaster: But one only buys candies to give them away.


Jacques Bureau: Then there are two pleasures, that of seeing and that of giving. Now, the collection of the sales tax presented certain difficulties at the start, but those difficulties have gradually disappeared. The cases mentioned by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) have been called to my attention and the matter is being investigated. I understand the trouble is that certain Greeks, or Hindus, or foreigners-to use the same word that is used in the representations made-who are running confectionery stores, do not keep books, and the auditors who are sent by the government to see what sales tax they should pay cannot ascertain the amount and have to guess at it. I do not think, however, that the sales tax generally has worked very great hardship.
The hon. member for Vancouver Centre has made a suggestion with regard to means for applying the sales tax, and I must apologize to him for I did not exactly catch his idea. I understood him to say he wanted the tax to be imposed upon the manufactured product as it went out to the general public

for consumption. Well, let us take the case of leather. I do not know much about the leather business, but we will suppose that a man goes around to gather up hides and then pickle them; that would not be manufacturing. The skins are sent down to the factory to be dressed into leather; that would not be manufacturing. Then it would be made into sole leather, for instance; would that be manufacturing? Suppose the hide as pickled is sold to the manufacturer of sole leather; would that be a case where the tax should be collected? Or would my hon. friend wait until the leather goes to the shoe manufacturer before levying the tax.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is not quite in order for me to answer, but my idea was this: the hide is first treated, and then it is tanned and manufactured into leather; then it is sold, say, to the boot and shoe manufacturer; then it is manufactured into boots and shoes. That is the point where the tax should be imposed -at the point where it is manufactured into boots and shoes.


Jacques Bureau: Then we would have two sources of revenue, one at the custom house, when the importer pays the sales tax, and one when the product is manufactured.


Henry Herbert Stevens: As I said a moment ago, if you put a sufficient tax on to bring the revenue up to the desired point, you will not have to impose an additional sales tax on the retail shoe merchant, the dealer, in harness, or on the retail sales to the customer.


Andrew Ross McMaster: It would be pyramided by two profits on it.


Jacques Bureau: I cannot exactly see where we would better ourselves so far as the ultimate consumer is concerned. It is admitted by everyone that we have to get the money, and it appears to be the unanimous desire of the House to take the line of least resistance in applying taxation; to follow the course which will result in the least friction. It is admitted that the sales tax is a good tax. I know that in certain cases it is working injustices, but we are trying to remedy those. The hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Ladner) seemed to think that the retail merchants had been badly used in connection with this tax. I am free to say that the matter has been a good deal exaggerated, and that considerable propaganda has been carried on by some officer of the retail merchants; and if I were to use my own judgment-I do not want to impute motives-I would say it was with the object of embarrassing the Department of Customs. Every man who took out

Special War Revenue Act
a license sent in a uniform printed protest, on which he made the statement, "I take my license, but I consider myself a retailer and not a manufacturer," etc. I admit that there are difficult cases. I will tell my hon. friend of one difficulty that I have experienced in connection with the definition of "retailer". A retailer is a man who produces upon the special order of each individual. Now, take the case of the florist; I do not know when my friends are going to get married or when they are going to die, and it is hard for me to know when I am going to need flowers and to order them in advance. There is a difficulty therefore, in connection with the status of a florist in that respect. Another difficult case is that of the manufacturer of chocolates. I cannot tell in advance when I shall want a box of candy for a child. I cannot telephone two days in advance and say that I want a box of a certain kind of chocolates. It is necessary, therefore, for them to keep these goods on their shelf, ready for sale, and those who do that sell them, not only over the counter, but in many cases, also to other small dealers. So that it is difficult to give a definition in cases of this kind that will satisfy the producer.
It is my opinion, Mr. Speaker, that if the committee asked by my hon. friend were granted, a great deal of trouble and embarrassment would result, not to the government, not so far as the policy of the administration is concerned, but in connection with the carrying on of the business of the department. It is the same with this matter as it is with the tariff; you would not like a committee to go into that question and advise the House what changes to make in the tariff. If we did that, speculation would be rampant throughout the country. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre has had sufficient experience in departmental administration to know how difficult it is to carry on the work of a department without having observations offered freely by the public or interested bodies. The question of changes which may be necessary in connection with sales or other taxes may be dealt with when the budget is brought down. I am glad my hon. friend has brought the subject up; hon. members will ponder over it, and when the budget is before us we may have some helpful suggestions. And I would invite suggestions not only as to the way the tax ought to be imposed, but also as to the way it should be collected.
I do not think the expense has been so great. We have not added very much to the staff. Of course, we have had to get
additional auditors to go around the various wholesale houses and among the jobbers to examine their books and see that those who ought to pay the tax are doing so, but the expense has not increased at all in comparison with the increase in revenue. The difficulties have been gradually disappearing, and they have been disappearing more especially- and I say this for the benefit of my hon. friend for Vancouver Centre-since that propaganda on behalf of the retailers has ceased. I think a lot of men have been submitting to the Department of Customs and Excise imaginary grievances because we find when we write back to them and ask for concrete instances of how they are affected and are suffering, they are willing to admit that after all it was not so bad as it was first represented to them.
As I said before, I invite any suggestions that may be made, but under the circumstances, seeing how much it would disturb the work of the department if we were to send for the employees and have them receive suggestions from every one and then go to the minister and say, "You should run the department this way, or that way," I would ask my hon. friend to withdraw his motion on the assurance that consideration will be given to any suggestion that he or anyone else may make on this subject when the budget comes down. I can assure him that no one has more at heart the good administration of the department, and has more at heart especially the collection of the taxes with the least possible friction and the least possible inconvenience to the public generally than I have.


Mr. W. G. McQUARRIE (New Westminster) :: I am sorry the minister cannot see his way to accede to the request of my hon. friend for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) for a committee of this House to investigate this important matter, because it seems to me it is eminently one for investigation. The object of the mover was not in any way, I think, to embarrass the government. In fact, he made it perfectly clear that he did not intend to impute to this government responsibility for the present unsatisfactory condition in respect to the sales tax and its collection, but rather, he said, it was a condition which has been brought about by unusual circumstances and one which calls for special consideration.
I am inclined to think also that the minister's remarks in reference to the retail merchants were hardly called for, because I believe that this propaganda of which he
92G
Special War Revenue Act

speaks was not directed as an attack against his department at all. There was no intention on the part of the Retail Merchants' Association as such to enter into a political discussion or to gain a political advantage for any of the political parties in Canada. The association is entirely a non-political body. I have had the honour of meeting several of its committees at the coast, and as a matter of fact I know that some of the leading officials of the organization are very strong Liberals. Their object in issuing this propaganda, if I may call it such, was to my mind an attempt on their part to show to the government that there are grievances which should receive consideration and adjustment.


Jacques Bureau: If my hon. friend will allow me, I do not want to impute to any members of the association or to the association as a whole the idea that they were trying to make political capital out of the action that was taken by them. The propaganda I think- and I am going to be frank and open about it-was due more to the fact that a certain official wanted to keep his job in that association, than to the body as a whole.


William Garland McQuarrie: I must accept the minister's statement, but in regard to his second proposition I think I shall have to take exception to that also, because I am convinced that the officials of this organization are imbued with proper motives in carrying out the duties which fall upon them in connection with this matter. It is only right and proper that there should be an organization of the retail merchants, just as other businesses have their organizations.


Jacques Bureau: I do not deny that.


William Garland McQuarrie: Then if it is right for them to have an organization there is no reason in the world why they should not have officers, and if they have officers there is no reason in the world why those officers should not be paid.


Jacques Bureau: I do not object to that at all, but I do not want to be made the goat for them to keep their jobs.


William Garland McQuarrie: The minister goes so far as to say that these men are issuing this propaganda merely for the purpose of holding their jobs.


Jacques Bureau: That is my impression.


William Garland McQuarrie: I think that is going very far, and if the minister is basing his action on this resolution on that attitude, I think he is really taking the wrong stand. I 
have met many officers of the Retail Merchants' Association, and I must say that they are very responsible citizens. I believe they are doing their work in a conscientious manner and that they are men who are entitled to every consideration. They certainly are not men who should be criticised in this unjust manner. The Retail Merchants' Association is composed of a very large number of members from one end of Canada to the other. In every city and town they have their representatives and their organization is a large and powerful one. I am convinced that the officers of this association who have issued the manifestoes to the government have done so, not with the object of holding their jobs at all, but for the purpose of trying to right' what seems to them a very unsatisfactory condition.


Jacques Bureau: Do not misquote me. I am not talking of manifestoes. I am talking of the protests sent to the officers of the Department of Customs and Excise at the instance of this officer.


William Garland McQuarrie: I think it is quite clear from what has been said that the retail merchants are not objecting to paying the tax. I have seen one of the memoranda which they forwarded to the Prime Minister. I have it here.


Jacques Bureau: What is the date of this memorandum?


William Garland McQuarrie: The date is January 25, 1923.


Jacques Bureau: \es, there has been a change lately.


William Garland McQuarrie: In this memorandum they say they have no objection to the sales tax being increased, if necessary. It is not the tax they are complaining of. They admit that the money has to be raised and that the sales tax is a means which can properly be made use of. It is simply a question of whether the tax is being collected in a fair and equitable manner, and it seems to me they have grounds for complaint as to the manner in which this tax is applied if one class of merchant has to pay a greater tax proportionately than another class of merchant, and that would seem to be the case in view of the illustrations which have been given by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre. I quite appreciate the fact that the retailers, of course, would be inclined to get some other class to pay the tax insteajl of themselves. I have no doubt the same might be said of the manufacturers and of the wholesalers; there is always that difference of opin-

Special War Revenue Act
ion as to whom the taxes should be collected from. It seems to me that the suggestion made by the hon. member (Mr. Stevens) is a reasonable one, and that if you get taxation at the source you will not only derive a larger revenue but its collection will be less expensive.
There are differences of opinion, I admit, among the various classes that have to pay taxes, and all these different organizations have their own ideas as to the remedies which ought to be applied. If a committee of the House were appointed to consider this matter, which would not necessarily involve a great deal of expense, that committee might hear representatives of the various classes interested and might be prepared to make recommendations to the minister and to the government which would be deserving of consideration. We have had many committees appointed by the House in the last few years in the endeavour to adjust troublesome questions, and I think it will be admitted on all sides that all these committees have filled a useful purpose, and that some good, at least, has been derived from their deliberations. If, as the Minister of Cusf?ms says, this whole thing is propaganda on the part of certain officers of the Retail Merchants Association who desire to hold their jobs it would, of course, be unnecessary to have a committee; but if there are a number of problems involved-and the minister must know that there are a great many, not only in connection with the application of taxation and the specification of the sources from which the tax should be collected but also as to the manner in which that collection is made-it would seem only reasonable to agree to what the hon. member for Vancouver Centre proposes. I have heard that the machinery which is provided at the present time for the work of the department is not very complete. I do not know whether that statement is true or not, but possibly that machinery may be improved. That is another matter which might be considered by the proposed committee. I do not wish to take up time unnecessarily, but I would impress upon the minister the advisability of reconsidering his attitude in this matter. Let us have a committee and let that committee see if it can assist the minister, and the government also, in satisfactorily adjusting the difficulties which have presented themselves in connection with the application of this particular tax.


The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr. Marcil, Bonaventure):: If there is any hon. member who desires to speak he should do so now
before the mover of the resolution closes the debate.


Mr. DONALD SUTHERLAND (South Oxford):: In view of the statement made by the Minister of Customs that the government would welcome suggestions as to any changes in the sales tax I am encouraged to direct their attention to-


Jacques Bureau: If my hon. friend will pardon, my special duty is the collection of the tax. I said I would welcome any suggestion made that would tend to improve the collection of the sales tax. That is the hard part.


Donald Sutherland: Well, in view of the statement of the Minister of Finance a year ago in dealing with the sales tax, after the budget was introduced, may I direct his attention'and the attention of his colleagues to one item, and one item only, which I think has a very important bearing on the prosperity of the country, having to do with the reclamation of waste lands. It has been stated that means to pay the debt of this country must eventually come out of the soil. If that is the case, the greater the improvements made in the land of Canada the greater the returns must be. The item to which I would like t<^ direct the attention of the minister is that of field tile for drainage purposes. I know of cases during the past year where contracts have been let, and the tile purchased and delivered on the land, but no labour was available, and in consequence great loss has been sustained. In addition to that there is the further handicap in the shape of the sales tax which is imposed on this field tile, a tile which is used for reclaiming what are practically waste lands. I am drawing the attention of the minister to this matter so that before the budget comes down he will be in a position to deal with it. I am encouraged to do so by reason of the fact that a year ago he made some alterations with respect to a matter that I brought to his attention, and I am quite sure they had a very good effect. I think splendid results came from the change which he then made, and I am satisfied that the use of field tile for reclamation purposes should also be encouraged rather than hampered by the sales tax.


Mr. L. H. JELLIFF (Lethbridge):: There are one or two matters to which the hon. member for Vancouver Centre drew attention which have also been impressed upon me by different organizations in my district. The hon. member referred to the matter of the sales tax on books for public libraries. I have received from the librarian of the public library

Marking oj Woollen Goods
of the city of Calgary, and also from the librarian of the city of Lethbridge, communications relating especially to this subject, in which the writers complained quite bitterly of the sales tax on the books which they purchased for these public libraries. The libraries in question are supported by public taxation, and the imposition of a sales tax on the books published doubles the burden which these libraries have to meet. The librarians referred to, therefore, urge very strongly that the sales tax be removed, to the end that the usefulness of these libraries may be extended, and the public given the full benefit to be derived from them. I hope that the Minister of Finance, to whom I am going to send these communications, will take this matter under advisement and see if he cannot arrange to relieve these public libraries from the burden of this extra taxation. When the budget was up last year and we were discussing this sales tax I presented a resolution or two from the labour organizations of the Lethbridge district resisting the increase in the tax that was made at that time. They are protesting particularly against the sales tax on the coarser lines of clothing and on boots and shoes. I hope the Finance Minister will carefully consider this matter also when he brings down his budget this year. I do not care to enter into details, but there are many matters in connection with the sales tax that should be adjusted. I believe these taxes are placing burdens upon the people of this country, and especially the class of people who can least afford to bear them, and I hope that every effort will be made this year to see that these articles of necessity are taken off the list to which the sales tax applies.
lion. H. H. STEVENS (Vancouver Centre): In view of the very courteous, and I think very frank, request of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) and the Minister of Customs (Mr. Bureau), the two members of the government particularly charged with the respective duties of imposing and collecting taxes, I am willing to halve the resolution withdrawn. But before asking you, Mr. Speaker, to make the request to the House that this resolution be withdrawn, may * I make myself clear on one point in regard to my suggestion? I admit that within the confines of a brief few moments' speech it is impossible to properly treat so important a subject, but I will just reiterate what I said a short time ago. I believe that the somewhat complex nature of the existing taxes could be very very much simplified if, instead of imposing a sales tax upon the various branches of trade-the dealer in the raw material, the manufacturer, the

wholesaler and the retailer-the taxes were imposed upon one branch, namely the manufacturer of the goods in their finished condition as issued to the consumer, and at the same time retaining the other features of this tax, namely, the sales tax imposed upon imports of an amount corresponding generally with the other tax. In addition to that I suggest that such a tax should be increased to an amount that would ensure the maintenance of the amount received. I know that the Minister of Finance understands what I have very imperfectly stated, and I would ask that, when he is giving consideration to this
5 p.m. problem, he would take that suggestion under advisement. I would like to tender another suggestion, that, perhaps between now and the time when the budget is considered by the Cabinet for presentation to the House, officers of the two departments might be detailed to give this matter special study and attention, and to hear the representatives of the manufacturers, the wholesalers and the retailers. In making this request I am quite aware that several delegations have waited upon the government and have submitted memoranda of various kinds, but I think if the two ministers would appoint from their departments one or two thoroughly expert individuals-and I know there are many such in the departments -to give immediate and definite study to the problem, with authority to hear these representatives and instructions to seek finality in the matter, that would certainly be better than even a parliamentary committee such as could make a report this session. These suggestions are given with a very sincere desire to solve a very difficult problem, and not with a desire to embarrass the government. With the consent of the government, I request that the resolution be withdrawn.
Motion withdrawn.



MARKING OF WOOLLEN GOODS

Mr. J. D. DRUMMOND (West Middlesex) moved:: Whereas the sheep-raising industry of this Dominion is suffering severely from restricted markets and inadequate returns received by the wool-growers engaged in the industry;
And whereas the present markets are further restricted by misrepresentation as to woollen products;
Therefore, be it resolved: That, in the opinion of this House, it is highly desirable that the government should bring down legislation that will adequately protect both producer and consumer by compelling manufacturers of goods sold as woollen goods to mark or label such goods in accordance with the composition thereof; showing plainly the percentage of virgin wool, shoddy, cotton or silk or other materials contained therein, and that importations of such goods be certified in similar or equally adequate manner.

Marking of Woollen Goods
He said: I hope that this resolution requires very little explanation. It is in reality something that has been before the people of the United States for two or three years known there as the "Truth in Fabric Act." The intention of the resolution is not to prevent the use of shoddy, because we realize that if that were done there would not be enough "woollen goods in the Dominion of Canada for the purpose for which they are needed, but, as the resolution itself states, to place the public in a position to know what they are buying. Permit me for a moment or two to take up the resolution as it pertains to the producers of wool. It is, of course, a fact that is well known to every agricultural man in the House, that the sheep industry in the Dominion of Canada is on the decline. The reasons for that may be several, but we believe it to be mainly the fact that the wool has not been sold at a price that would return an adequate profit to the wool grower. We believe that the producer of virgin wool should not be placed in the position where he is a competitor with the rag man or the producer of shoddy. To this end we ask that what is contained in the resolution be put into legislation: that is, that manufacturers be compelled to mark or label such goods as they manufacture in accordance with the composition thereof, showing plainly what is contained in those goods, whether it be a percentage of shoddy, or whether it be a percentage of silk, cotton or any other material. This is something that has been asked for by many sheep breeders' associations both in the Dominion of Canada and in the United States. It is something that has been asked for also in a number of newspaper editorials. I have a list of newspapers which since 1919 have taken up this matter and, so far as their influence can go, have ranged themselves behind it. It is not necessary for me to read them; suffice it to say that I have 32 press editorials from Canada and the United States in favour of legislation of this kind. I have also, from wool growers and live stock associations, the National Consumers' Association, etc., in the United States and Canada, some 60 resolutions that have been passed to the same end. I intend to be brief and for that reason I shall not read many of these resolutions, but I might read the following resolution passed by the Ontario Sheep Breeders' Association in Toronto on February 26 of this year.
That we, the members of the Ontario Sheep Breeders' Association, urge the Canadian government to enact fair and equitable legislation that will ensure "truth" in fabric; and in such an effort we pledge them our undivided support.
In view of the fact that the sheep industry is on the decline in Canada, I think I am only voicing the sentiments of most of those who are engaged in agriculture in this country when I say that this is deplorable from the farmers' standpoint, not only in the production of wool but in other ways as well. Those of us who have been engaged in agriculture all our lives, and who have for the greater part of that time had something to do with raising sheep, know that there is no means by which the eradication of weeds can be so successfully accomplished as by the pasturing of sheep. This is one reason why sheep raising should be encouraged in the Dominion.
I do. not think it is necessary for me to say much more from the point of view of the producers, but for a few moments I might consider the matter as it affects the consumers, because this is one of the things that do not affect any particular class. It affects, in fact, two classes, the consumers and the producers, who comprise the population of Canada. It is a fact that is well known to those who have given any study to the question that shoddy as used in the manufacture of cloth is sometimes worked over up to eight and ten times. In every process it is carbonized and the dress material and other undesirable elements are eliminated, leaving only the wool. I want to emphasize the distinction between virgin wool and shoddy, because one might go to buy a piece of cloth and be told that it was all wool, whereas it might be shoddy and the merchant might nevertheless be telling the truth. We do not want to eliminate the use of shoddy in the production of fabric, because there is not enough wool produced in Canada to provide more than one-third of the cloth necessary for the use of the people. It is therefore actually necessary that shoddy should be used in the manufacture of cloth. What we do ask, however, is that when it is used the percentage that is contained in the fabric shall be made known to those who buy it. When the United States government and, as well, if I am rightly informed, the government of Canada, were clothing their troops for overseas service, they made it obligatory on the part of those who provided cloth for the soldiers' clothes that they should state what percentage of virgin wool and what percentage of shoddy such cloth contained. If that was necessary in connection with the cloth provided for the soldiers' clothing, surely it is also necessary as regards the clothing that our people in general wear.



Marking oj Woollen Goods
This is a principle that has been applied and carried out in the Pure Foods Act. For instance, the manufacture of oleomargarine is not prohibited, but it is definitely laid down in our legislation that the people must know whether they are buying oleomargarine or butter. In the manufacture of maple syrup no one will for a moment say that the addition of cane sugar or any other ingredient is deleterious, but it is the function of the Pure Foods Act to safeguard the public by providing that they shall know whether what they are buying is pure or is an adulterated article. The same thing applies to milk. Nobody will say that the addition of water to milk makes it unfit for human consumption. But the Pure Foods Act clearly and distinctly lays it down that milk of a certain quality must be sold or the buyer must know what he is getting. I do not think it is necessary for me to go much further. I have a considerable amount of material which it would take me an hour or two to consider, but I have no desire to do so. I might refer before concluding to a bill that has been before the Senate of the United States for two years and which has been thrown out on both occasions. That bill is coming back this year with every prospect of being passed. Now, we: do not ask this parliament to pass a bill of that character, but it indicates what we are seeking. It provides:
. That every manufacturer of woven fabrics that contain wool, and of garments or articles of apparel made therefrom, shall. . . . cause the said woven fabric to be marked, and all garments and articles of apparel made therefrom shall be tagged in the manner hereinafter provided.
Now, I do not propose to lay down any lines on which this might be carried into effect, but it is something to which I hope the government will give their attention. I trust that something will be provided that will not only help those who are engaged in the important industry of sheep raising in Canada but will afford some protection to the consuming public.	*


James Alexander Robb: The hon. member (Mr. Drummond) who has presented the resolution has introduced in the language of the resolution, a tariff issue that is familiar to many of the people of this country. He suggests that we provide for adequate protection. I should like to submit to my hon. friend that while we all share his views as regards the wisdom of providing the people of this cold country with woollen goods that are really woollen, and while the government are in sympathy with anything that will help to encourage

the sheep industry throughout the country, I am not sure how far the gentlemen who sit around him are prepared to follow him in this resolution. It seems to me that this is adequate protection to the limit. For while we are prepared at once to admit that parliament might enact legislation compelling our own manufacturers to visibly brand the products of their mills, I would ask my hon. friend what control have we over foreign manufacturers? If we, adopt this resolution, it simply means that we are handing over the whole business in question to the manufacturers of Canada and are keeping out the competition which we believe is in the best interests of our domestic trade.
There are many ways besides a customs tariff of protecting national industries. We have learned that truth ourselves. For man}' years our cattle were kept out of the British market because it was represented by the British cattle men that our stock was diseased. This was purely a pretence to protect the British cattle industry. We know to-day that certain of our industries are deprived of business in other countries because of restrictions by way of specifications governing contracts. I have in mind complaints that are now before my department. Canadian industries desired to tender for locomotives to be shipped to an overseas dominion, but the specifications framed by those who were able to control that business were such that our Canadian industries were shut out. Only last week we had brought to our attention the case of a manufacturer not far from Ottawa who had secured an order for 30,000 doors to be shipped to the United Kingdom. But he could not ship them because the carpenters there said, "You have not provided certain information as to what you pay for labour." No person is foolish enough to believe that this is done for any other object than to protect the particular industry affected.
If this resolution goes through in its present form, and it becomes an order to the government to bring in the legislation my hon. friend is asking for, it is in the last analysis the highest degree of protection. My hon. friend has debated the question. The government are desirous so far as possible of seeing that all goods sold throughout this country are what they are represented to be to the public, but I submit to him that in the interests of our people generally the government cannot accept this resolution because it is purely a measure of protection, worse even than any he would find in the customs house.


John Douglas Fraser Drummond: What has the government done along this line to protect the public?

Marking of Woollen Goods


James Alexander Robb: The greatest protection the public can have is competition. This resolution would destroy competition.


Hon.   S@: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Robb) absolutely and entirely mistakes the motives prompting the hon. member who has moved this resolution.


James Alexander Robb: I am not attributing any motives to the hon. member; I am pointing out the possible results of the resolution if it goes through.


Henry Lumley Drayton: He may not
know it, but nothing is being done, so far as I am aware, to help that primary activity which ought to be great in this country-the production of Canadian wools. The subject has been discussed before. We had it up before the tariff commission time and again, when farmers showed what could be done, the kinds of wool that could be grown, and the like. We had it up in connection with our Marking Act. Of course, the present government threw it out.


James Alexander Robb: What, the Marking Act?


Henry Lumley Drayton: It was something which was a little troublesome, something which made difficulties. Why, there is a firm in Scotland which turns out the best grades of tweed in the world, and it stamps every yard of its product with its name and a guarantee, as I recollect it, that it is composed entirely of pure wool. The thing can be done. Of course, it will be a little troublesome, of course the trade will come down and make trouble, of course the importers will come down and make trouble, and of course it takes time to convince people in the business of handling shoddy that this thing is right. But why attempt to dispose of the proposal by raising the*Rugaboo of protection?


Jacques Bureau: That is what it is.


James Alexander Robb: Does my hon. friend argue that the only shoddy sold in this country is the product of Canadian mills?


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend is indeed short of argument when he advances a question of that kind. Shoddy? Look at what you are getting through your customs to-day if you want to find shoddy. Let my hon. friend examine the imported article that he is so solicitous for if he wants to find shoddy. I can assure him he will find any quantity of it. The hon. minister says he wants to do everything for this industry that he possibly can-he wants to help the farmer,
59J
he wants to help the wool industry, he wants to see that when our people buy goods they may know what they are buying; and yet he will not do the one thing which would render it possible for them to know what they are buying.
This proposal is not anything new. The Marking Act of the United States covers it. That act is enforced when it is convenient; sometimes it is not convenient. But such an act can be enforced. My hon. friend says that the purpose of this resolution is absolute protection. I do not know why. I do not know why it is any harder for the foreign manufacturer to do what my hon. friend would say it is perfectly all right to make the domestic manufacturer do if it did not result in protection-to honestly state what is in his goods. He says, "We have got control over the domestic manufacturer; we can see that he is honest, we can see that in so far as his materials are concerned the Canadian purchaser will know what he Is buying." But he asks, "what control have we over these foreign manufacturers?" Equally great -greater control because it can be more easily enforced by my hon. friend, the Minister of Customs (Mr. Bureau). Why, all these imported articles have to come through his watchful department, and it is perfectly easy for him to see whether they are pure articles or not-that is, if it is required.


Jacques Bureau: What would you do if they are not marked?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Well, I can tell the House what my hon. friend does when goods are not marked. He knows what to do with goods that his government want to have marked in connection with interests that they wish to protect. Why, they feel that it is necessary to mark pencils-one of the smallest-and^-mest-insignificant businesses in this country.


Jacques Bureau: Everybody uses them.


Henry Lumley Drayton: An industry employing probably less men by many units than any other we could seriously discuss. But there is a pencil factory in Newmarket the owner of which was the chairman of the election committee of the right hon. Prime Minister.


Jacques Bureau: Hear, hear. More power to his arm.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend knows what to do when pencils try to get in that are not marked; they simply do not get in, that is all.

Marking oj Woollen Goods


Jacques Bureau: Oh, they do. We mark them.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes, you hold them up and mark them at the shipper's expense.


Jacques Bureau: How about printing and lithography?


Henry Lumley Drayton: The same thing about that as well. We thought all these things should be marked.


Jacques Bureau: Oh, no.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Not on the basis of this man's politics or that man's politics, or with reference to the question whether he was chairman of the Prime Minister's election committee, but simply on the basis of what was right.


Jacques Bureau: And that is why you suspended the Marking Act.


Henry Lumley Drayton: We wanted the Canadian public to know what they were getting. We wanted it not only on pencils but on cutlery, and everything. But no cutlery was being manufactured in that particular place; there was no knife factory there. The knife factory was in Kingston.


Andrew Ross McMaster: These are cutting remarks.


Henry Lumley Drayton: They happen, Mr. Speaker, to be true remarks.


Jacques Bureau: Partly.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend says, " partly ". Will he tell me wherein they are incorrect?


Jacques Bureau: They are incorrect in this respect: My hon. friend stated that we did away with the Marking Act. His government suspended the act; it never was in force.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Now, let us try to get down to facts.


Jacques Bureau: Hear, hear.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The Finance Minister threw away the Marking Act with a wave of his hand in his last budget. But it was found convenient later to hang on to something in order that these privileges might, be given. It was convenient to do it, and it was done.


Jacques Bureau: Hear, hear.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend says " hear, hear ". It was also convenient to give this protection, not to the wool producer, not to the maker of cutlery, but to this pencil manufacturer, and also to the lithographer.
(Sir Hairy Drayton.)


Jacques Bureau: And printers.


Henry Lumley Drayton: And printers. It is right that lithography and printing, a first-rate business in this country, should be looked after, but other industries should also be looked after. My hon. friend has no difficulty whatever in looking after the lithographer, the printer, and the manufacturer of pencils.


Jacques Bureau: Because they made a good case, and the others did not.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Well, here is a case being made for others.


Jacques Bureau: I have not yet passed on it.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Then I hope my hon. friend will give to the wool industry and the farmers producing wool in this country the same measure of protection that he gives to the manufacturer of pencils.


Jacques Bureau: Has the matter of the
pencils hurt my hon. friend more than anything else?


Henry Lumley Drayton: No, but I would like to see them all treated alike. My hon. friend cannot say that it is more important to have pencils made in Canada, even at Newmarket, than it is to grow wool on a thousand farms. He cannot say that the wool industry and the farming industry are not more indigenous to Canada than the making of pencils. If my hon. friend is going to see that the farmers get just as square a deal as the manufacturers of lead pencils in Newmarket, I am quite content to say nothing more upon the subject.


Jacques Bureau: That is a matter of tariff, and I leave it to the Minister of Finance.


Mr. JOHN MORRISON (Weyburn):: Mr. Speaker, I was surprised that the matter of protection was introduced into the discussion of this resolution. I did not understand that the motion was made primarily with the intention of asking for protection for the woo) growers. There is another class who need some protection-not tariff protection, but protection from the efforts of those who are selling an adulterated product for the pure article-and that class is the great unorganized mass of the people of Canada. They are the victims more than the wool growers. Everybody has to buy clothing. We go into a store and a dealer will say, "This is an all-wool article." But very few articles of clothing are one hundred per cent wool as they are sold for. The shoddy manufacturer will have in stock goods that are eighty per cent shoddy, and the adulterated article is sold as a pure wool

Marking of Woollen Goods
article. In this case, who is defrauded most, the buyer of the cloth or the wool grower? Why, the person who buys the cloth. And the beneficiary of the system is the shoddy manufacturer. Should this system be allowed to continue just for the benefit of a few shoddy manufacturers? I do not think so. The wool growing industry of this country is a very small one, but it could be one of our first industries if conditions were as they should be. Very few farmers raise sheep to-day; they have no encouragement to do so. If sheep were raised in greater numbers the result would be far-reaching in many ways. There would be more grain grown and sold; and surely we need larger production to take care of the overhead liabilities that confront us. Every basic industry should be given a square deal. We are not asking for protection, but we are asking for fair treatment. The Canadian Co-operative Wool Growers last year sold most of their wool in the United States, paying 15 cents a pound to get it there, and an equal amount of woollen goods was subsequently shipped back to Canada, the Canadian consumer paying the duty. What is the matter with our having the wool manufactured in our own country? There is something wrong, and I would like somebody who is wise on the subject to explain.
Now, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Robb), referring to the cattle embargo, pointed out that the contention that disease prevailed among our cattle was merely a pretence ; that it was protection our friends on the other side wanted. Well there have been a good many pretences by politicians to try to get by with something. In this case we are not asking that the wool grower should be protected at the expense of the consumer; in fact, if such protection was afforded it would be only the due of every consumer. The great unorganized masses have a claim on the -gftypmmiait t.hnt, all these grinds should he
marked. We have to sell our wheat, our oats, our flax, our hogs on this basis; they are all graded; why should not clothing be graded? Why should not the manufacturer have to mark on the goods what percentage of wool and what percentage of cotton or shoddy is in it? That would give the buyer a square deal, because the people cannot be good judges themselves. As far as the imported article is concerned, I think the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) is right, that it is easier to check up the importer than it is the home manufacturer, because you could very easily put a mark on the imported article. I very much hope that this resolution will receive the support of the House and become law.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (South York):: I should like to express my sympathy with the motion before the House. I have watched the woollen industry in this country for thirty years or more now, and my father before me. He made it an outstanding item in his programme that the first thing Canada wanted was a woollen industry, so that our farmers might produce wool, and in the next place that our factories might make that wool into goods that could be used for clothing.
The only objection I have heard against the proposal made here to-day is that it is one instance more of a system of double-barrelled protection being introduced into this House. The mover proposes that there shall be protection to the wool grower and at the same time protection to the consumer who uses the wool. While it may be protection, and protection in the double sense, I am convinced from my experience in the past, and I have also been impressed by what the mover has said that the wool growing industry in this country is declining. I would like to see the growing of wool become one of the staple industries of this country, and I want to see our farmers encouraged by some kind of protection if protection is being applied to other industries in this country. It may be said that our friends here to my left are inconsistent. Perhaps they are and perhaps they are not, but whether they are or not, inasmuch as the principle of protection has been recognized and applied to many industries in this country, the farmers are entitled to their share of protection.
I also agree with the mover that this question is coming up in the United States, where the farmers' demands are growing, and are being recognized more and more. The outstanding thing in recent legislation at Washington was the putting through of a bill to provide a way for the farmers getting additional credit outside of the banks. I have not any doubt that the next Congress will pass a similar bill to that being urged here to-day, and that under their broad system of protection they will include the farmers as well as the manufacturers. I hope the government that we have in this House to-day, if they are not going to carry out their free trade principles but afford more or less protection, will apply the principle of protection to the wool growers as they are applying it to, some of the other industries, as was mentioned here to-day.
Again I say, I shall have much pleasure in voting for the motion and supporting it on this occasion, and later on if it comes up in

Marking of Woollen Goods
this House. The agitation will go on, and especially will the farmers continue an agitation for the recognition of the Wool growing industry in this country. It is more a basic industry than almost any other I know. Wheat growing may be a basic industry, as they say, but certainly wool growing is. Wool is grown in the West and in a large section of the province of Ontario, but it is a declining industry. I maintain that if there is any country competent to engage in the wool growing industry it is Canada, and if that industry is failing there must be something wrong. It may be within the compass of this parliament to apply a remedy to that grievance, and that grievance does exist. The question is now before parliament and now is the time to give some relief to the wool growers of Canada.


Mr. R. J. WOODS (Dufferin):: As I understand the resolution before the House, it is not asking protection for the farmers, but we would like to see encouragement given to the wool growers. We know that the sheep industry is dropping away in this country and that many of the farmers raising sheep consider that the wool, the product of their sheep, is scarcely worth taking off. We have known cases of farmers allowing the wool clip to lie over for one season, considering it scarcely worth while to draw it to market. So if this resolution is going to do anything to encourage the use of woollen goods in this country, it is going to help the farmers to that extent. I cannot understand how it is going to affect the manufacturer of shoddy goods. In no way will he be affected, nor will it affect any man or woman who wants to buy shoddy goods, nor the manufacturer who produces a mixture of cotton and wool or of some other materials, because the people will still be able to buy that class of goods if it is manufactured, and I presume that the manufacturers will still continue to manufacture it. But if this resolution becomes law the consuming public will be protected against buying an article that is not what it is supposed by them to be. It will put the consumer in a position where he will know what he is getting. If he buys woollen goods it will be marked woollen goods, and if he buys a mixture or shoddy he will know it as such. So I think this is a very important thing, not only to the wool growers of this country but also to the consumers who buy and use the goods. For these two reasons I am in sympathy with the spirit of the resolution, and hope that legislation will be introduced bringing it into effect so that the people of this country will know exactly what they are buying, and can get just exactly what they pay for.


Robert Forke: I only intend to take a minute or two. I was rather surprised at the jocular manner in which the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Robb) treated this resolution. It also surprises me to see how joyfully hon. members point to some member in this corner of the House and say that he is advocating protection.


Jacques Bureau: You enjoy it.


Robert Forke: Yes, because it is getting to be a joke. I can assure hon. gentlemen that it does not act like a red rag to a bull for us to hear the word "protection" mentioned. Perhaps there is a place for it. However, I do not see any signs of protection in this resolution. Perhaps the Minister of Trade and Commerce wants to adequately protect the people of this country from the cold weather by seeing that they get proper underclothing. I notice that there may be a little difficulty in connection with the working out of this resolution should it become law, but I think the principle is sound upon the whole, and that the difficulty referred to might be overcome. I feel greatly encouraged to see the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) taking up the wool industry and helping out the farmers who are engaged in the very laudable calling of raising sheep. I happen to be the proprietor of a fairly large flock of sheep and I am very much interested in the price of wool, but I do not know how this proposition might act. If you could convince me I was going to get a bigger price for my wool-well we will not say any more; but let us not even mention the word "protection" in regard to the selling and the buying of wool. I remember a little incident which occurred-I am rather afraid I mentioned this last year but I am going to repeat it because it is so good it is worth repeating. I happened to be selling wool and was unable to get enough for it to pay for the cost of shearing the sheep and carrying the wool to market. At that very time I went into a store to buy a small woollen cap. The clerk asked me $3.50 for a small cap. I looked rather suspiciously at him and asked him if he was not ashamed to ask such a price for a cap of that description, and he almost whispered to me "isn't it all wool?" You know it is rather trying on a man who is trying to raise sheep and sell wool to have to buy tweed caps. However, I survived the experience, and I am happy to say that the price of wool has greatly improved during the last year.
While I have this .opportunity I want to say to the farmers-I think the observation is applicable, perhaps to farmers throughout

Marking oj Woollen Goods
the Dominion-that there is no better class of live stock to have on the farm at the present time than a few sheep; it is the best paying proposition we have in live stock to-day. With these few remarks I wish to state that I am going to support this resolution. I recognize there is a little "catch" in it, but that can be overcome and the principle itself is sound.


Mr. J. W. KENNEDY (Glengarry and Stormont):: I was rather surprised at the
manner in which the Minister of Trade and Commerce received the suggestion of my hon. friend from West Middlesex (Mr. Drummond). I would like to draw his attention to the fact that the mover of the resolution did not make the fact of the protection it will afford the wool-grower the main reason for his argument-that was more or less incidental to the argument which he presented. His main argument was that the people of this country were entitled to know the quality of the goods which they were buying.


James Alexander Robb: I fear there has been a misunderstanding, I did not refer to it as protection to the wool grower. What I wished to make clear was that it was protection to the Canadian manufacturer, because he would have all the business.


Mr. KENNEDY (Glengarry):: I fail
to see the force of the minister's argument, because he would' not be placing the Canadian manufacturer under a less handicap than the manufacturer abroad who is sending his goods into this country; and I cannot believe but that the manufacturer in Great Britain, as well as the manufacturer across the line, would be willing to comply with the regulations in order to get his goods into this market. The increased demand for wool would largely come about in this way. The people, realizing the value of getting first -class goods, would buy more of them; there would be a greater demand and a greater consumption of the best quality of woollen . goods, which would result in a greatly increased demand for wool in this country. Why, our manufacturers now import large quantities of their wool from outside. I think, possibly, the greater quantity-yes much the greater quantity-comes from outside of Canada, so that there is absolutely no protection for the wool grower; and although there might be, perhaps, some little advantage to the Canadian manufacturer, I would suggest to the minister that it would be quite easy to overcome that by, reducing . the customs duty on manufactured woollens. There ;s no trouble in getting over a little difficulty of
that kind and therefore I would heartily support the resolution.


Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture):: Every grower of wool is familiar with the fact that the industry has got into low water since the war. Although there has been an improvement in the price of wool, nevertheless the industry is not yet by any means in a too flourishing condition. I have been, in common with my staff, casting about to see in what direction we could move to encourage this industry but I must confess that it never occurred to me that a means of rescue could be found in this way. There is no reason in the world why the home manufacturer's of woollen goods cannot comply with the conditions laid down and I think there are many reasons why they should. But I do not think that the imposition of these conditions on imported goods of this nature is practicable. I am not familiar with the importation conditions in regard to woollen goods, but I do know that in the case of certain importations with which I am conversant we are obliged by an understanding with the United States to accept their goods in the containers in which they are presented and they accept ours in return. I do not know whether these conditions apply to woollen goods or not but it would be manifestly unfair to impose conditions in the case of home manufactured goods and exempt from those conditions goods that are imported. This should be a matter for the customs and the finance departments to work out together. I think every member of the House must sympathize with the object of the resolution. We should be able to get at a solution of the difficulty somehow. But I understood from the Finance Minister that the thing would 1 be impracticable, it could not be carried into effect, and therefore, I ask, why pass this ..resolution? The Finance Minister, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and the Min- " ister of Customs know infinitely more about this matter than I do. I know something of the requirements of the sheep industry and of the condition it is in, but I am not familiar enough with this phase of the matter to speak as to the conditions to be imposed on the importation of woollen goods. If we impose these conditions on these goods of home manufacture and cannot impose them on imported goods of a like nature, look at the difficulty you are in. Let somebody who is -familiar with the business try to solve this riddle and then we are more likely to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion. However, there is no sense in advancing a resolution of this nature unless it can be complied with, and
Civil Service Act

my understanding is that it cannot be complied with, as affects the imported article.


Jacques Bureau: I do not look upon this as a question of protection although really that is involved. The marking of goods is not, in itself, a measure of protection but practically it works out that way. So much for that. Let me say that I am thoroughly in sympathy with the desire to help the sheep industry in this country. As the leader of the Progressive party (Mr. Forke) has rightly said, it is one of our industries that should be helped if that can be done. Now what is the purport of this resolution? It is set forth therein that our markets are restricted and that if we desire to help the sheep industry we must enlarge those markets. The resolution declares:
Whereas the sheep raising industry of this Dominion is suffering severely from restricted markets and inadequate returns received by the wool growers engaged in the industry:
And whereas the present markets are further restricted by misrepresentation as to woollen products.
That is the point we have to solve. How are we going to enlarge our markets ? The second part of the resolution states that:
It is highly desirable that the government should
bring down legislation that will adequately protect both producer and consumer.
If I understand the resolution correctly, the markets are restricted on account of the fact that misrepresentations are made. In other words, you have to deal with unscrupulous merchants or unscrupulous men who either manufacture or retail the wool that is produced by the farmers. That is the only thing that restricts our market. The suggestion is that the men who deal with the product he raises on his, farm, when it is converted into cloth or otherwise, are not honest in their representations. As the hon. leader of the Progressive party said, when they sell you a tweed cap they have to whisper in your ear, " It is all wool," because they are afraid to say it out loud. Does my hon. friend think that the marking of the goods is the remedy, and that it is an adequate remedy, instead of using the words " adequate protection " which we have heard so often in this House ? That is a debatable question. Another matter which I am most interested in is the question, how will it be possible to do it in a commercial way, or in a way which will not impede trade or prevent the free exchange of merchandise of this particular class ? My hon. friend the ex-Minister of Finance ( Sir Henry Drayton)-and when I say my hon. friend I emphasize the word " friend "-


William Findlay Maclean: Not the other word too ?


Jacques Bureau: Oh, yes, he is a Sir. The word honourable sinks down to that.
In regard to the Marking Act my hon. friend wants to reproach me-and I think for once in his life he is unfair,

with putting lead pencils and printed and lithographed matter on the marking list.


An hon. MEMBER:: Six o'clock.


Jacques Bureau: I move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.



PRIVATE BILL FIRST READING

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 48, respecting The Manitoba and North Western Railway Company of Canada -Mr. McMurray.
At six o'clock the House adjourned without question being put, pursuant to rule.
Thursday, March 8, 1923