1924-05-21

[Stage Direction]
Mr. THOMAS VIEN (Lotbiniere) presented
the sixth report of the standing committee on Banking and Commerce as follows:
Your committee recommend that the order of reference be enlarged so as to embrace the study and consideration of the purpose, organization and operation of some type of properly administered central or reserve bank.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
He said: I move, Mr. Speaker, that the report be now received and concurred in.
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Acting Minister of Finance) :: Other duties prevented me from attending the Banking and Commerce committee this morning and as I have not had time to consider the departure that seems to be involved in the motion I would ask that the matter stand.
Motion stands.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. SEGUIN:: 1.	What was the salary of the Speaker's secretary previous to this office being abolished for reasons of economy ?
2.	Among the stenographers and typewriters at the service of the Speaker and members, what are the names of those who are employed during the whole year, what remuneration do they receive, what is the nature of their work and for whose benefit are they so employed?


Right Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	$600 per year, plus $5 per day as
sessional clerk, and bonus, besides a stenographer, Miss Mansbridge, at $4 per day, and bonus:	Total, $4,626.50.
2.	The Speaker's secretarial work is now done by: Deiphine Barbes at $6 per day and Eva Guerin at $6.50 per day who both belong to the members' stenographers' staff. Minnie McEwen is assigned to the members' correspondence during the whole year and receives $5 per day during sessions and $4 in recess.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY EMPLOYEES-DISMISSALS
Mr. BLACK (Halifax):: 1.	How many Canadian National Railway employees were laid off from work in Halifax county during the months of October and November, 1923?
2.	What are the names of those so laid off?
3.	Were any of these men re-employed previous to December 5th, 1923?
4.	If so, how many and what are their names?
5.	Have any of these men been laid off since December 5th, 1923?
6.	If so, when were they laid off and what are their names?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	34.
2.	R. M. Barrett, George Canfield, George Lee, W. B. Smiley, I. Mezrouile, Joseph Estano, W. Marsden, H. W. Conrad, H. G. Conrad, Esson Leslie, A. T. Gaetz, A. Gates, W. Gates, R. Bambrick, A. Day, K. Dean, Walter Marriott, Wallace Marriott, King McNabb, James Mason, John Mason, Yemon Oicle, Ernest Boutilier, Alexander Langille, William Rayno, Charles Hurshman, Russell Snair, Harry Balsh, Tracey Coolen, Chester Coolen, Charles Miller, A. E Hupman, E. D. Ritchie, C. V. Embree.
3.	Yes.
4.	19-R. M. Barrett, George Canfield,
George Lee, Joseph Estano, W. Marsden, H. W. Conrad, H. G. Conrad, Esson Leslie, A. T. Gaetz, A. Gates, W. Gates, R. Bambrick, A. Day, K. Dean, Walter Marriott, James
Questions

Mason, Harry Balsh, Tracey Coolen, C. V. Embree.
5.	Yes.
6.	December 8th, R. M. Barrett, Geo. Canfield, Geo. Lee, Joseph Estano, W. Marsden, H. W. Conrad, H. G. Conrad, Esson Leslie, A. Gates, W. Gates, K. Dean, Walter Marriott, Wallace Marriott, Harry Balsh, Tracey Coolen. December 10, A. T. Gaetz, R. Bambrick, A. Day.


RIGHT HON. C. J. DOHERTY
Mr. BENOIT:: 1.	What amount was paid to the Hon. C. J. Doherty by the Dominion government in the year 1920, for pension, salary, travelling expenses, indemnity and other sums?
2.	What amount was paid to the Hon. C. J. Doherty under the same headings during each of the years 1921, 1922 and 1923?
3.	On leaving office was he entrusted with legal work by the Dominion government?
4.	If so, did he receive a retainer for such work, and what was the amount?
5.	Is he still in the employ of the government as solicitor?
6.	If so, is he receiving a per diem fee, allowance or salary?
7.	Is he likely to be for some time in the employ of the government as solicitor?
8.	What is the total amount received by the said Hon. C. J. Doherty from the government for pension, indemnity, salary, allowances, travelling expenses, from the year 1908 until the end of March, 1924?


Hon. Mr. COPP:: Department of Finance:
1. For Pension, fiscal year ended March 31st, 1920, S5.444.32 (14 months).
2. For pension, fiscal year ended March 31st, 1921, $4,666.56	(12 months); 1922, $4,666.56 (12 months); 1923, $4,666.56 (12 months).
3.	4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. No information.
Department of Justice:
1.	In 1920-21-
Salary as Minister of Justice .. .. $ 9,250.00 Travel	 34.98

2.	In 1921-22-
Salary as Minister of Justice .. .. $ 8,055.53
Travel	 123.91
Fee in Labrador boundary	 5,000.00

In 1922-23, Nil.
In 1923-24, Nil.
3.	By order in council dated 25th November, 1921, the Right Hon. C. J. Doherty was named as counsel in the reference to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council of the question as to the location of the LabrafMr Graham.]
dor boundary between Canada and Newfoundland.
4.	A fee of $10,000 was authorized to compensate for his retainer and his services in the drafting and preparation of the case, and in addition a per diem allowance of $200 per diem while engaged upon the hearing. The sum of $5,000 has been paid him up to date,
5.	He is still employed on the above mentioned case.
6.	Answered by No. 4.
7.	Presumably until the case is settled.
8.
Travel as judge	$	282.90
Salary as Minister of Justice .. .. 76,636.20 Travel as Minister of Justice .. ..	3,196.25
Advance on fee as counsel in Labrador boundary case	 5,000.00

Department of External Affairs:
1.	1920: League of Nations-Travel: Hon.
C.	J. Doherty, with secretary and messenger, Sir George Foster and secretary, Hon. N. W. Rowell, $14,645.40.
2.	1921: League of Nations-Expenses of Right Hon. C. J. Doherty and Sir George Perley, delegates to the second meeting of the League of Nations, including two secretaries and one stenographer, $9,403.40.
3.	4, 5, 6, 7. No information in this department.
8.	1919: Peace Conference-Expenses, Hon. C. J. Doherty (including a staff of three) $7.25356.	1920 and 1921:	Answered by answers to Questions 1 and 2.


ATLANTIC PORTS AND FISHERMEN
Mr. LADNER:: 1.	Has the government by order in council or otherwise closed the Atlantic ports of Canada to the use of fishermen who come from or are citizens of the United States and carry on their business from that country and who are engaged in fishing in Canadian waters, or waters adjacent to Canada?
2.	Is it the intention of the government to take similar action with respect to the Canadian ports on the Pacific coast?
3.	If the government does not intend so to do what are the reasons for such a decision?
4.	Are salmon trollers, who are citizens of or carry on business from the United States, allowed to use the ports of Canada on the Pacific coast?
5.	If not, why are not halibut fishermen who are citizens of and carry on - business from the United States also refused the use of Canadian ports on the Pacific coast?
6.	Does the government intend to take any action with respect to the use of Canadian ports by the said halibut fishermen?


Hon. Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	Under the Treaty of 1818 inhabitants of the United States are allowed to enter Canadian ports for wood, water, shelter, and repairs

Questions
only, except on a specified portion of the Atlantic coast where they have the liberty of fishing in common with British fishermen. Chapter 47 of the Revised Statutes of Canada provides that the Governor in Council may authorize the issuing of licenses to United States fishing vessels on the Atlantic coast conferring additional privileges on them; but as no such authority has been granted for the present year, United States fishermen are restricted to their privileges under the Treaty of ISIS.
2.	Not at present.
3.	The conditions existing on the Pacific coast are different from those on the Atlantic.
4.	No.
5.	The order in council authorizing the special privileges on the Pacific coast contemplates the issuing of the licenses to United States vessels and not to trolling boats. Such licenses would give the United States trolling boats on most portions of the coast an unfair advantage over Canadian trailers.
6.	Matter under consideration.


SOREL SHIPYARDS
Mr. DOUCET:: 1.	What were the disbursements for office staff of the Sorel shipyards during fiscal years 1921-22, 1922-23 and 1923-24?
2.	What were the disbursements for wages of mechanics and labourers at Sorel shipyards during the same periods respectively?


Hon. Mr. CARDIN:: 1.
Office	Cost of
Staff	Salaries Living Bonus
1921- 22	$30,660 50 $5,967 22
1922- 23	
32,535 05	5,815 061923- 24	
35,284 36	6,409 022.	Mechanics and Labourers.
Cost of
Wages Living Bonus
1921- 22	$242,683 56	$945 001922- 23	
318,418 90	630 001923- 24	
260,619 42 Nil


REV. C. W. GORDON
Mr. DUFF:: 1.	In what capacity was Rev. C. W. Gordon, otherwise known as Ralph Connor, attached to the Canadian Expeditionary Force?
2.	On what date did he join, and how long was he attached to the said force?
3.	What leave of absence was given to him, and for what periods ?
4.	What amounts of money were paid to him in the different years in which he was attached to the force, giving the amount paid in each year and for what periods?
5.	What amount, if any, was paid to him as gratuity on retirement?
6.	What amounts were paid on his account for separation allowance?
7.	What was the total amount paid him, and what is the position of his account at the present time?


Hon. Mr. MACDONALD:: 1 and 2. Captain in 43rd C.E.F., 18th December, 1914 to 29th April, 1915, Chaplain, 30th April 1915. 4 years, 3 months, 28 days.
3.	(a) Special leave England to Canada to accompany his brother (Lt. Col. A. R. Gordon, C.A.M.C., who required serious operation) 14-7-15 to 27-8-15.
(b)	Regular leave France to England, 226-16 to 29-6-16.
(c)	Special leave England to Canada 15-1216 to 15-2-17; subsequently extended to 85-17.
(d)	Canada 9-5-17 to 29-7-17.
(e)	Canada, without pay and allowances, 30-7-17 to 31-8-17.
Note: Most of the period covered by (c), (d) and (e) was occupied by Major Gordon in delivering addresses at patriotic meetings throughout Canada and the United States.
(f)	Canada by order in council (P.C. 2606) from 1st September, 1917, for special work at the request of the chairman of the British War Mission. This leave was terminated by demobilization 15th April, 1919.
4.
1914-18-12-14 to 31-12-14-
Pay, 14 days at $3 per
day..			$	42	00
Field	allowance, 14			
days :	it 75c. per day..		10	50
Subsistence,		14 days at		
$1.50	per	day.. ..	21	00

 $	73 50
1915-1-1-15 to 30-6-15-
Pay. 181 days at $3 per
day	
Field allowance, 181 days at 75c. per day.
Subsistence to morning of 29-5-16, 148$ days at $1.50 per diem..
1-7-15 to 11-11-15-
Pay, 134 days at $3 per
day	
Field allowance, 134 days at 75 c. per day.
Messing, 134 days at $1 per day	
12-11-15 to 31-12-15-
Pay, 50 days at $4
per day	 200 00
Field allowance, 50 days
at $1 per day.. ..	50	00Messing, 50 days at $1 oer day.. ..	50	00

Questions

1916-	1-1-16 to 14-12-16-
Pay, 349 days at $4
per day	 1,396	00
Field allowance, 349 days at $1	per day.. 349 00
Messing, 349 days at $1 per day	 349	00
15-12-16 to 25-12-16-
Pay, 11 days at 84 per
day	 44	00
Field allowance. 11 days
at $1 per day	 11	00
26-12-16 to 31-12-16-
Pay, 6 days at 84 per
day	
24	00Field allowance, 6 days at $1 per day....	6	00
Subsistence, 6 days at
81.50	per day.. ..	9	00

 2,188 00
1917-	1-1-17 to 29-7-17-
Pay, 210 days at 84
per day	
840	00Field allowance-, 210 days at 81 per day..	210	00
Subsistence, 210 days at
81.50	per day.. ..	315	00
S.	O. S. 29-7-17-T. O. S. 1-9-17
1-9-17 to 31-12-17-
Pay, 122 days at $4
per day	
488	00Field allowance, 122 days at SI per day.	122	00Special subsistence allowance under Order in Council No. 2606 dated 19-9-17,	122days at $10 per day. 1,220 00 Christmas grant....	25
3,195 25
1918-	1-1-18 to 31-12-18-
Pay, 365 days at 84
per day	 1,460 00
Field allowance, 365 days at SI per day. 365 00 Special subsistence allowance, under Order in Council No. 2606 dated 19-9-17.	365
days at S10 per diem. 3,650 00

	5,475 00
1919-	1-1-19 to 4-2-19-
Pay, 35 days at 84 per
day	 140 00
Field allowance, 35 days
at 81 per day.. ..	35 00
.Mr. E. M. Macdonald.]
Special subsistence allowance under Order in Council No. 2606 dated 19-9-17, 35 days at $10 per diem...	350 00
1919-5-2-19 to 15-4-19- Pay, 70 days at $4 per day		280 00
Field allowance, 70 days at $1 per day.. ..	70 00
Subsistence, 70 days at $1.70 per day..	119 00
994 00
813,763 50
5.
War service gratuity-
Officer	
8915	00Dependent	
300	00
81,215 00
6.
Separation allowance-18-12-14 to 11-11-15

840 per month	$ 432 00
12-11-15 to 31-7-19-
$50 per month	 2,230	00

Total	amount . paid
officer	$14,678 50
Total	amount paid
dependent	 2,962 00

$17,640	50
Account at present shows an overpayment to officer's dependent of $227.


GEORGE WILSON
Mr. DOUCET:: 1.	Why is the lighthouse keeper of Mistook wharf at Delisle, in the electoral district of Chicoutimi-Saguenay, Quebec, George Wilson, a resident of the city of Montreal ?
2.	By whom was he recommended?
3.	Does the government intend to name a resident of the locality for the position?


Hon. Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	No information. He lives in the neighbourhood of the lights during the season of navigation. No check is kept on his movements when his services are not required.
2.	He was appointed by the Civil Service Commission as a result of local competition.
3.	If a vacancy occurs the Civil Service Commission will doubtless appoint a resident of the locality.


TORONTO VIADUCT
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Has a report been received by the government from Sir Henry Thornton strongly recommending the

Questions
carrying out of the contract for the construction of a railway viaduct at Toronto and asking for an immediate decision by the government and for funds and for power to immediately proceed with the work?
2.	What is the exact terms of the recommendation in question?
3.	What action has been taken or will be taken by the government?
4.	Will a copy of the reply of the government be laid on the Table of the House, and when?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: In reference to the
question:	-
Has a report been received by the government from Sir Henry Thornton . . . What is the exact terms of the recommendation in question?
The information was laid on the Table at the request of the hon. member on May 1. As to the question:
What action has been taken or will be taken by the government ?
I answer: Under consideration. In regard to the fourth query:
Will a copy of the reply of the government be laid on the Table of the House, and when?
A copy of the reply to the Minister of Railways is laid on the Table now:
May 14th, 1924.
Dear Sir Henry Thornton:
I understand the contents of the letter written me by you on April 9th re the Toronto viaduct have been given out in Toronto. I find I cannot lay my hand on copy of any reply sent you but there certainly should have been an acknowledgment, at least. On the day after the receipt of your letter, if I mistake not, a large deputation from the city of Toronto waited on the government and expressed their views from every angle. The Prime Minister reviewed at length the conditions. Since that date, however, conditions have been somewhat changed possibly by the fact that it has come to my notice the Harbour Commission has entered action against the railways and the city of Toronto.
At the present moment I am awaiting a full statement of the case, legally and otherwise, from the Canadian National Railways. When that is received, consideration will be given by the government as to the next step to be taken.
Yours sincerely,
Geo. P. Graham.
Sir Henry Thornton, K.B.E., President,
Canadian National Railways,
Montreal, Que.


CANADA AND THE BRITISH BUDGET
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Have any representations been made to His Majesty's government of Great Britain regarding the British preference and the damage done to Canada from its withdrawal or part of it as per the recent British budget?
2.	What representations, if any, were made to the British government on the question so as to protect Canada's interests, and what action does the government propose to take in the matter ?
3.	What damage has been done to Canadian industries in the new budget re the British preference, and what communications, if any, have been received or made by the government on the question?


Right Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: I think I should draw the attention of the House to the character of this question. The first clause reads:
Have any representations been made to His Majesty's government of Great Britain regarding the British preference and the damage done to Canada from its withdrawal or part of it as per the recent British budget?
The last clause is:
What damage has< been done to Canadian industries in the new budget re the British preference, and what communications, if any, have been received or named by the government on the question?
These two questions contradict each other.
I do not think that as at present drafted the question is in proper form to present to the House:	It would involve a reflection by one
government upon another within the British Empire. I think it should be withdrawn.


George Perry Graham: And the opinion of one
government might not be the opinion of another.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: The question might be
re-drafted and presented in more acceptable form.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Dropped.


DOMINION ARSENAL, QUEBEC
Mr. LAVIGUEUR:: 1.	(a) How many employees of the Dominion arsenal, Quebec, were recently suspended, (b) What are their respective names, addresses, date of appointment, and (c) Why were they suspended?
2.	Were the dismissed employees of the Dominion arsenal, Quebec, the last ones employed?


Hon. Mr. MACDONALD:: 1. (a) 32.
(b) G. Parent, Beauport, Carpenter Shop, May, 1917.
L. Boilard, St. Louis St., Carpenter Shop, February, 1924.
E. Derose, Papineau St., Foundry Dept., June, 1920.
A. Boulanger, Franklin St., Foundry Dept., April, 1916.
H. Cantin, Desdeniers St., Foundry Dept., August, 1916.
A. Metivier, Dorchester St., Foundry Dept., September, 1916.
G.	Racine, 3rd Avenue, Foundry Dept., August, 1917.
Paul Samson, Levis, Cartridge Factory, February, 1924.
A. Gignac, Lechevrotiere St., Cartridge Factory, February, 1924.
L. Blouin, St. Olivier St., Cartridge Factory, February, 1924.
P. H. Fortier, Arago St., Cartridge Factory, July, 1923.
Questions

H.	Lheureux, Duroi St., Cartridge Factory, July, 1923.
J. Giroux, Beauport, Shell Factory, December, 1919.
L. LaRoche, Colomb St., 18 Pr. Plant, February, 1924.
L.	Brousseau, Duporche St., 18 Pr. Plant, February, 1924.
0.	Fleury, Hermine St., 18 Pr. Plant, February, 1924.
E. Brousseau, DuPorehe St., 18 Pr. Plant, February, 1924.
A. Mercier, Cote da la Montague, 18 Pr. Plant, February, 1924.
J. Buisson, Cote de la Montagne, IS Pr. Plant, February, 1924.
A. Godbout, Colomb St., 18 Pr. Plant, February, 1924.
E. Tanguay, St. Valier St., 18 Pr. Plant, March, 1924.
W. Jourdain, Champlain St., 18 Pr. Plant, February, 1924.
W. Thibault, Lavigueure St., 18 Pr. Plant, March, 1924.
Mrs. M. Bedard, Bagot St., Inspection Dept., August, 1923.
Y. Thibault, Victoria St., Inspection Dept., August, 1923.
M.	Morrissette, Champlain St., Inspection Dept., August, 1923.
M. A. Marois, St. Germain St., Inspection Dept., August, 1923,
Y. Jobin, Arago St., Filling Factory, February, 1921.
G. Asselin, 9th St., Filling Factory, February, 1921.
D.	Trepanier, Levis, Filling Factory, February, 1924.
A. Thibault, Levis, Filling Factory, February, 1924.
Mrs. England, McMahon St-., Office, November, 1923.
(c) Owing to lack of work.
2. Yes, all suspended employees were juniors in their respective departments.
CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-EARNINGS Mr. WARD:
What percentage of the net earnings of the Canadian National Railways for the year 1923 was made between the head of the Great Lakes, or Armstrong division, and the Rocky mountains?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	Railway accounting methods do not permit of this information being obtained.
REPARATION CLAIMS Mr. CARROLL:
1. Have any reports or decisions been given by Commissioner Pugsley on the reparation claims before him?

2.	If not, when are the decisions expected?
3.	What is the amomit at the present time of the sequestrated property ?


Hon. Mr. COPP:: 
EXPERIMENTAL FARM REPORTS
Mr. PRITCHARD:: 1.	How many reports of branch experimental farms and experimental stations were published for the year 1922?
2.	What was the number of copies in English and French, respectively, for each branch farm or experimental station ?
3.	What was the cost of printing each of these reports in English and French, respectively?


Hon. Mr. MOTHERWELL:: 1. 20 reports.
2 and 3.
Number	Cost
Report	English French English French
Charlottetown, P.E.I..	8,000	uoo %	544	00 $	381	84Kentville, N.S	7,500	1,500	676	07	404	59Nappan, N.S	10,000	1.500	1,017	93	590	58Fredericton, N.B	8,000	1,500	720	16	Ste Anne de la Pocatiere.	3,000	4,000	196	68	Lennoxville, Que	15,000	6,000	744	54	423	37
Privilege
Number	Cost
Report	English French English French
Cap Rouge, Que	. 4,000	15,000	624	21	1,255	95Kapuskasing, Ont.. ..	. 7,500	2,500	785	11	555	13Brandon, Man	.. 7.000	500	1,237	01	563	81Morden, Man	. 10,000	1,500	839	31	Rosthern, Sask	. 10,000	1.000	766	97	Scott, Sask	.. 12,000	500	1,079	72	435	34Swift Current, Sask..	. 7.500	1,000	238	67	Lethbridge, Alta	.. 16.000	1,000	1,038	66	392	32Lacombe, Alta	. 18,000	1.000	1,638	16	640	40Summerland, B.C.. ..	. 10,000	1,000	954	14	Agassiz, B.C	.. 12,000	1,200	735	06	Invermere, B.C.. .. ,	.. 10,000	1,000	398	53	Sidnev, B.C	.. 4,000	1,000	545	05	Experimental Sub-	stations	
.	.. 7,000	2,000	1,099	65	
In some cases, the account for printing the French edition has not yet been received by the department.


GRAND RIVER BRIDGE-YORK
Mr. SENN:: 1.	Has the Department of Public Works disposed of a quantity of lumber which was placed at the Grand River bridge at York some time ago to be used in repairing the flooring of the bridge?
2.	If so, in what manner was this lumber disposed of, to whom, and what price was received for same?


Hon. Mr. KING (Kootenay):: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


GROSS INCOME TAX, 1924
Mr. SPENCER:: 1.	What was the gross income tax collected for the year ending 31st March, 1924?
2.	What was the net income tax collected for that period ?
3.	What was the cost of collecting the same in each of the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba?


Hon. Mr. ROBB:: 1.
Income Tax	$54,204,027 99
Business Profits Tax		4,752,680 89
Total	$58,956,708	88
2.
Total collected	$58,956,708	88Less cost of collection.. ..	1,935,274	96

3-	Salaries,
bonuses and other exProvinces	penses
Alberta	$ 98,936 45
Saskatchewan	 163,201 66
Manitoba	 105,144 41
MOTION FOR PRODUCTION OF PAPERS Hon. Mt. STEVENS moved:
For a copy of all reports received from the officer commanding the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Vancouver, regarding the violation of the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act, during the years 1920 to 1924, inclusive.


Hon. Mr. LAPOINTE:: I regret to be obliged again to object to the production of these papers. The order calls for information which is of a confidential character and which it would be subversive of public interest to disclose. Apart from these general reports, monthly reports are received from the officer commanding the police describing the work done in connection with the enforcement of the Narcotic Drug Act. Even these are of a confidential nature. But I am quite willing to let my hon. friend use such files as he thinks contain information which he would like to have. I must, however, oppose the motion for the production of these papers.


Mr. STEVENS:: All I ask is for the production of such records as it is proper to produce.


Hewitt Bostock: Carried as amended.
PRIVILEGE-MR. GARLAND (Bow River)
On the Orders of the Day:


Mr. E. J. GARLAND (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. I was absent yesterday when the House met, having to keep an important appointment. However, my attention has been called to some remarks by the hon. member for Belle-chasse (Mr. Fournier), who read from the Ottawa Journal the following words:
Mr. Fournier, of Bellechasse, absent from House (though in Ottawa) without a pair.
Then he said:
Thursday morning I had an urgent call to go out of town. I made arrangements to leave Friday morning at 6.55, and I kept my engagement. Had it not been for some of my hon. friends, particularly the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland), I would have had ample time to vote and my vote would have been recorded as in favour of the budget.
I must respectfully decline, Mr. Speaker, to allow the hon. member to use my name under these circumstances as an excuse for his not being present and voting. It was through no desire of my own that I was compelled to speak at that late hour, but I exercised my undoubted privilege in so doing. May I suggest that had the hon. member arranged a pair all this trouble would have been avoided?



PRIVILEGE-HON. MR. BUREAU

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. JACQUES BUREAU (Minister of Customs and Excise):: Mr. Speaker, since my
Hector Celebration

bon. friend from Bow River (Mr. Garland) has called attention to the matter, I see something quoted in Hansard about the "'Liberal revolt," in which my name is mentioned as being one of the rebels. I am not i rebel and never have been. A man must be iacking something to insinuate that I was opposed to the budget. I took my seat in the evening and stayed for some time, but eventually, being sick and tired, I went home to bed. I was sure the budget would carry by the biggest majority given to any budget in the history of the country.



TORONTO VIADUCT

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (North Toronto):: The reply to-day of the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham) and his answer today to question No. 15 on the same subject are technically not correct. The production of papers shows that Sir Henry Thornton wrote on April 9, last, forwarding a strong legal opinion of Mr. Gerald Ruel, chief counsel for the Canadian National Railways, that the system is by contract liable legally and every other way for this contract, and strongly urging action and funds to carry it out, and urging immediate consideration. The answer to question No. 15 is wrong also because the litigation mentioned has been contemplated for years and was started many weeks before the recent deputation was here. I would like to find out from the minister when he will give the House a definite answer and what will be done.
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals):	The only letter the
Minister of Railways received from Sir Henry Thornton on this matter was laid on the Table on the first of May at the request of my hon. friend.



HECTOR CELEBRATION

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. ALEXANDRE J. DOUCET (Kent, N.B.): Mr. Speaker, with reference to order of the House No. 140 stating:
That the proper officers do lay before this House a return showing the detailed expenditure of the money voted by parliament of Canada at the last session for the Hector celebration at Pictou, Nova-Scotia.
The answer received yesterday was:
I have the honour to inform you that so far as the Department of National Defence is concerned we have no information.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I submit that when the House-
Hewitt Bostock: Order. The hon. member cannot discuss the answer to a question. His proper course is to put another question.


Mr. DOUCET:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask
the minister when he will take steps to secure the information asked for by order of this House?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The payment referred
to had no connection with the Department of National Defence, but with the Department of Finance. The answer given is absolutely correct so far as my department is concerned.



GREAT LAKES SHIPPING COMBINE

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. L. P. BANCROFT (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I would ask if the government, in view of the suspicion that traffic on the Great Lakes is still controlled by a combine, intends to suspend the coastal laws in an endeavour to meet the situation?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The matter has not been considered as yet. I undertake to say that it will be considered.	*



IMMIGRATION

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. FRANK S. CAHILL (Pontiac):	Mr. Speaker, I have in my hand a despatch which appeared in the Ottawa Journal this morning and in which the Duke of Connaught is reported as having said in London on the 20th instant:
I often regret the large number of foreigners from Slav and Eastern European countries emigrating to Canada. What we would like to have in western Canada is English, Norwegian and Swedish people, who make the best immigrants and, coming from civilized countries, are accustomed to our habits.
I wish to ask the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Robb) if he can devise some means of informing public men in England that immigration into Canada is a Canadian question and should be dealt with in Canada.
James Alexander Robb: I have not read the article referred to. The government have been endeavouring to increase the flow of British immigrants to Canada, and, following that policy, have arranged for preferential rates from the British Isles to Canada. Regarding the latter part of my hon. friend's question, perhaps at the same time I might advise some Canadians that it is the British government's business to manage affairs in Great Britain.

Civil Service Superannuation



CIVIL SERVICE SUPERANNUATION

[Stage Direction]
Hon. .1. A. ROBB (Acting Minister of Finance) moved that the House go again into committee on the following proposed resolution :
Resolved, that it is expedient to bring in a measure to provide for the superannuation of civil servants, to provide for contributions by civil servants to the consolidated revenue fund, to provide for payment out of the consolidated revenue fund to civil servants and to the widows and children of deceased civil servants of superannuation allowances or gratuities, and to provide for the making of regulations by the Governor in Council to give effect to the terms of the said measure.
Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: Explain.


James Alexander Robb: The bill to be introduced will be based upon the recommendations of a special committee that had this matter under consideration at the last session of parliament. Hon. members will recall that that committee reported to the House on the 22nd of June last year, too late for consideration of the report at that session. On that occasion the Prime Minister promised that consideration would be given to the matter this session. We had hoped to bring down the bill a little earlier, but owing to the debate on the budget it has been delayed. It is now proposed that after the bill is introduced it shall be referred, with the concurrence of the House, to a special committee, possibly the same committee that considered the matter at the last session.
When the bill was first printed it was intended that it should come into force on the 1st of July this year, but as it has been somewhat delayed the committee may in their judgment change the date. That will be a matter for further consideration. I submit that the whole matter might very well be left to the committee.


Mr. MARCIL (Bonaventure):: May I ask the minister whether the Calder Act is to be extended for another year? That is important in view of the fact that under this measure civil servants will be called upon to select either one plan or the other. The time is so short now that I think the Calder Act should be extended for another year.


Mr. GAUVREAU:: Let this one pass first.


Charles Marcil: Has any decision been arrived at on the subject?


James Alexander Robb: It has been suggested that after we have the report of the committee the Calder Act might be extended so as to carry on a little further. We will leave it to the committee to determine.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee on the resolution, Mr. Gordon in the chair.


Arthur Meighen: The (minister said a
moment ago that he was going to leave it to the committee to decide whether or not the Calder Act should be extended?


James Alexander Robb: No, I think my hon. friend
misunderstood me. I said that the committee might consider it and that when we had their report we could discuss whether it was advisable to defer the Calder Act or to set forward the date upon which this act should come into force-perhaps provide that it should come into force the day following the expiration of the Calder Act; we might extend the Calder Act for six months or a year. We shall be able to determine that after the committee have considered the whole measure. We will see what progress the committee make and then the government will take the responsibility of fixing the date.


Arthur Meighen: Can the minister give
us the information that was asked for when we were previously in committee on this resolution, namely what is expected to be the annual cost to the country, or say the average cost for the first five years and the .anticipated cost for the second five, or such periods as those for which the minister may have the information systematized?


James Alexander Robb: As my right hon. friend
knows, the cost to new entrants will be 5 per cent of the payroll; the civil servants pay 5 per cent and the government pay 5 per cent, so it is impossible to determine exactly what the cost will be without knowing how many will transfer. It is estimated that if all transfer, the cost to the government will be about $1,435,000 a year in respect of future service.


Arthur Meighen: That would be the government's contribution to the fund?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: That $1,435,000 must be
5 per cent of the present civil service salary total?


James Alexander Robb: I imagine so.


Arthur Meighen: Is that the case? If
not, what percentage of the total does that $1,435,000 represent? I apprehend it could not represent 5 per cent of the grand total, because certain of the civil servants are under other schemes. I presume the minister means that only those can come under this bill who are not under these other schemes. But, assuming that all come under this measure who are not under the other schemes, then the government's contribution will be $1,435,000. Am I right in that?

Civil Service Superannuation


James Alexander Robb: My understanding is-and I am bound to say that I am speaking only from memory-that the other schemes will be merged with this one. There are now a certain number under the other schemes. It will be a matter for the civil servants themselves to consider; I understand that they are willing that all shall be merged. The memo I have is that if all transfer, the annual cost to the country in respect of future service will be $1,435,000.


Arthur Meighen: Does the minister say
that the total civil service list of Canada comprises a pay-roll of only $28,000,000?


James Alexander Robb: I have not figured it up.
That is the memorandum I have from the Superintendent of Insurance.


Arthur Meighen: I have not looked it up for some time, but I think the minister is wrong there-


James Alexander Robb: We can thresh that out in
committee.


Arthur Meighen: -I think he is not only wrong, but very far wrong.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Can the min-'
ister tell us how it is proposed to handle this? For example, we are told that all classes of civil servants will be included. Of course it would not apply to military pensions; they are not in the nature of superannuation. But apart from the military pensions there are a large number of military superannuations. Would they be brought under this scheme?


James Alexander Robb: I would not think so.


Henry Lumley Drayton: They would be kept out. Then we have the judicial superannuations; would they be brought in?


James Alexander Robb: I would not think so.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Again, we have the old scheme which has not yet run out, in connection with which there is, I think, a balance of $1,200,000 odd. On what basis will that be brought in? How can it be brought in? Can the minister give us some general idea as to how we can bring into a new scheme which has no balance to its favour a fund to which the civil servants have been contributing in the past for a large ' number of years, and now have as a trust fund standing in their favour and amounting, if my memory is right, to $1,200,000 odd?


James Alexander Robb: It can only be brought in by the government appropriating an amount equal to the amount that is in those funds now.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is what I would think. So that, in addition to the charge of $1,435,000 there would also be an initial payment equal to the sum which is now to the credit of the civil servants in those funds.


James Alexander Robb: A book-keeping payment.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It would really be more than merely book-keeping. It would be an obligation.


James Alexander Robb: It would be an obligation.


Henry Lumley Drayton: An obligation
just as real as those Canadian National Railway bonds; it would be something real. My hon. friend says it should be doubled. Why doubled? Would it not depend upon the ratio between those already covered by the existing schemes and those coming into the new scheme? I would not think you could handle it by the rough-and-ready way of doubling the balance.


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend might be right about that. There is Superannuation Fund No. 1., with 614 contributors, and salaries of $1,443,668; and Superannuation Fund No. 2 with 189 employees, and salaries of $416,980. The total of the Retirement Fund approximates, $12,000,000.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not think
the mere rule-of-thumb of doubling the figures w^ould work.


James Alexander Robb: The committee will thresh all that out.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Before this resolution goes out of the committee, there is one point that I think should be considered. If I am not mistaken the legislation based upon this resolution must conform with the resolution in principle. Now the resolution only provides for the introduction of a measure:	First, to
provide superannuation, second, to provide for contributions by civil servants; and third, to provide for payments out of the consolidated revenue fund, and so forth. But the resolution does not provide that under the new system to be inaugurated by the bill there shall be power to consolidate any of the old funds. I do not think it should be made obligatory, because those interested ought to have some option in the matter; but at least there ought to be provision in the bill making it optional. Now the question is whether this resolution is broad enough to provide for that contingency.


James Alexander Robb: I think it is intended to be.


Henry Herbert Stevens: But it is not, if I understand the procedure correctly. As I understand it, you cannot introduce a principle in-

Civil Service Superannuation
to a bill that has not been agreed to in the resolution preceding it; I think I am perfectly sound in that view. And my opinion is that th:s resolution ought to be amended so that the legislation to be introduced could incorporate such a clause. I do not know Wihat is now in the legislation, but I apprehend from a reading of this resolution that such provision is not made in the legislation based on this resolution.


James Alexander Robb: If there is any doubt about it, and my hon. friend has an amendment to suggest, I would be disposed to consider it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is more a technical
question for the Minister of Justice, for instance, to advise on.


James Alexander Robb: The bill has been considered by the department of Justice.


Henry Herbert Stevens: If that point has been
considered and settled by the Justice department, then it is all right. I quite understand that the Justice department would declare this resolution in order, but the point is whether it goes far enough.


Jacques Bureau: You have the principle
here in favour of superannuation, and that ought to include everything that is necessary to bring it about.


Henry Herbert Stevens: There are other things
besides merely providing for superannuation. We have three funds, I think.


Jacques Bureau: But they are all for the
same purpose of providing superannuation.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Not necessarily. There
are funds under different acts.


Jacques Bureau: But they are all for the
same purpose. If you are buying an apple it does not matter which pocket you take the money out of to pay for it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I doubt very much if the legislation based on this resolution will accomplish what I have pointed out to the committee. I will leave it at that.


James Alexander Robb: The memorandum given me
by the Superintendent of Insurance, who has carefully considered the legal aspects of the whdle matter, says:
Provision is made in the bill for the voluntary transfer to the new scheme of members now contributing to these funds, and the cost to the government in respect of those members who transfer will be made up of two parts:
1.	The government's contributions in respect of their future service, and
2.	The initial liability assumed by the government in respect of their past service for which, with the exception of Superannuation Fund No. 2, the government has made no contribution.



REVISED

Mr. EVANS:: As five per cent of the wages of the civil servants are to be contributed to this superannuation fund, I would ask the minister what rights have the civil servants to this five per cent they contribute should they leave the service before the superannuation age arrives? Or, if they depart this life, will their relatives benefit under this scheme, and how?


James Alexander Robb: That is all provided for in
the bill, which is based upon actuarial experience. I imagine the committee will fully consider that feature of it.


Mr. CRERAR:: The resolution provides
for the civil servants contributing to the consolidated revenue fund. Now, is it the intention of the legislation that the contributions made by the civil servants shall be paid into the consolidated revenue fund, or is there to be some special fund created to which the civil servants and the government will contribute, such a fund to be invested, perhaps, and the earnings from it added to that fund?


James Alexander Robb: It will have to be properly
ear-marked and kept separate. It will have its own special fund.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Would my hon. friend go on reading the memorandum?


James Alexander Robb: The memorandum continues:
With reference to No. 1, it may be stated that the cost to the government for future service will be 5 per cent of the pay-roll. The difficulty arises in estimating how many will transfer and the annual salaries attaching to their positions. If all transfer, it will be seen that the government's contribution of 5 per cent would amount to approximately $1,500,000. This would not mean that this amount would have to be actually disbursed, but would have to be dealt with in the same way as the contributions in respect of new entrants; that is, it would have to be recognized, ear-marked and set aside to meet the future liability. It should be pointed out that for the fiscal year 1922-23 the income of the Retirement Fund was $2,123,735 including interest, while the payments from the fund amounted to only $324,225, and the income of Superannuation Fund No. 2 was $194,953 including $101,000 transferred from consolidated revenue fund, and the payments from the fund amounted to but $36,326.87.
The accounts are kept separately.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes, they are
kept separately, but I am not sure my hon. friend is right when he says these are particularly ear-marked and invested. I think that is the point the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) was making. I think we are just carrying this thing as part of the consolidated fund. As I recollect it the earmarking is a matter of book-keeping, and the interest granted is the current rate of interest which the government have to pay



EDITION

[Stage Direction]
Civil Service Superannuation
for money. The moneys are ear-marked for the purpose but beyond that nothing special is done with them.
James Alexander Robb: The money is properly earmarked so that the amount is kept separate.


Arthur Meighen: What is the contemplated amount in the supplementary estimates to take care of next year's obligation in respect to this?


James Alexander Robb: Nothing has been considered
yet. My right hon. friend means the supplementary estimates-
Mr.' MEIGHEN: For this year.


James Alexander Robb: We have no supplementary
estimates under consideration yet.


Arthur Meighen: But there will be some?


James Alexander Robb: Do not urge that too strongly. Do not remind any person that there may be supplementary estimates.


Arthur Meighen: What fund would the
minister take it out of?


James Alexander Robb: I imagine provision will have to be made if the committee report in favour of the resolution.


Arthur Meighen: I should think so. The estimate of a million and a half per year is based, of course, on an annual civil service list of thirty millions. This must be the minister's estimate of the civil service list aside from temporary employees. The act is not to apply to temporary employees at all?


James Alexander Robb: No, I would not think so.


Arthur Meighen: Is not the proportion
of civil servants who are temporary employees very large?


James Alexander Robb: I Should not like to get into a controversy over that.


Arthur Meighen: The figures are easily
ascertainable. The number of each class is known within very close approximation.


James Alexander Robb: Yes, but very conflicting.
The real basis for an estimate of the number of civil servants is the cheques that are issued monthly.


Arthur Meighen: Well, I suppose that is
one way of estimating,' but each department has a list of its civil servants. The minister says there is a conflict as to who are temporary and who are permanent?


James Alexander Robb: No, as to the total number
of employees.	'


Arthur Meighen: There may be as to
the exact number, but we could tell pretty closely. Are there not temporary employees who have been in the service for over ten years?


James Alexander Robb: I think so.


Arthur Meighen: How does the government distinguish the one class from the other?


James Alexander Robb: I imagine that will be considered in the bill to be presented.


Arthur Meighen: I do not see it. The
bill is here and imagination does not help much when cold print is before you.


James Alexander Robb: That might be considered by
the committee.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Has my right hon. friend a copy of the bill?


Arthur Meighen: I just have the introduction copy that I got from the Clerk.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Robb thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 122, to provide for the superannuation of civil servants.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Hewitt Bostock: When shall the bill be
read a second time?


James Alexander Robb: Now, with the unanimous
consent of the House.


Mr. COOTE:: Have copies of the bill been printed and distributed?


James Alexander Robb: The bill has been printed
and is ready for distribution.


George Gibson Coote: I think we should object
to the second reading until copies of the bill are in the hands of hon. members.


Hewitt Bostock: The bill has not been
distributed and objection has been taken to the second reading now. Motion stands until the next sitting of the House.



WAYS AND MEANS


[Stage Direction]
The House in committee of Ways and Means, Mr. Marcil (Bonaventure) in the chair.
1. Resolved, That the Customs Tariff, 1907, be amended by adding after paragraph (d) of section four the following as paragraphs (e) and (f) of section four: (e) Extend the benefit of the British preferential tariff to any territory administered under a mandate of the League of Nations by any British country to which British country the benefit of the British preferential

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
tariff has been extended; and from and after the publication of such order in council in The Canada Gazette the British preferential tariff shall apply to goods the produce or manufacture of such territory, subject to the provisions of this act.
(f) Withdraw the benefit of the British preferential tariff from any territory administered under a mandate of the league of Nations which has received said benefit; and from and after the publication of such order in The Canada Gazette, the general tariff or the intermediate tariff, as mentioned in the said order, shall apply to goods the produce or manufacture of such territory subject to the provisions of this act.
Henry Lumley Drayton: Would, the
minister be kind enough to tell us to what countries he proposes by order in council to extend the preference, and from what countries he intends by order in council to take the preference?


James Alexander Robb: This is done at the request of the Prime Minister of New Zealand. Under the League of Nations treaty, Samoa is now under the mandate of New Zealand. That is the only country at the moment to which this applies.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That would
have to do with the first question. That would allow the British Preference to be extended to Samoa, as that country is under the mandate of New Zealand with whom we have this reciprocal arrangement. So we may look upon the resolution as extending the preference to Samoa?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What trade has the minister in view in connection with Samoa?


James Alexander Robb: While this is granted at the
request of New Zealand, I imagine the trade will not be very great. There will be a trade in fruits, or cocoa which we may import from there, and some of our products now going to New Zealand will be admitted into Samoa at the New Zealand preference rates. There are no countries from which the preference will be withdrawn at the moment; we have simply taken authority to withdraw.


Henry Lumley Drayton: We may take
it then that the produce of Samoa is similar to that of the West Indies?


James Alexander Robb: It might be.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Well, is it? I
think this House should have some idea as to what extension of trade we are going to get and on what articles.


James Alexander Robb: It is a fair assumption to say
that they are similar to the West Indies or the Fiji Islands.


Henry Lumley Drayton: We have no
preference with the Fiji Islands, but we have with the West Indies. What does Samoa export, for example, and what does she import?


James Alexander Robb: They will export coconuts,
cocoas, some fruit. And they buy our canned fish. They do not buy Canadian butter; they buy the products that usually go to a tropical country. The hon. gentleman is in error regarding Fiji. We have a preferential tariff with Fiji.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The Fiji preference is a
subject I have been very much interested in for a long time. Has an arrangement "been recently consummated with Fiji which has been under contemplation for quite a time, including the question of adequate transportation?


James Alexander Robb: I think they have the benefit
of the Canadian British preference, and we have whatever preference the Fiji islands give. My hon. friend will be interested in transportation to and from Fiji. The treasurer of the colonial government of Fiji is now in Ottawa, and has been for some days, negotiating with some transportation companies for a better service as between Fiji islands and the Pacific coast and Canada, and, he tells me. with some hope of success.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am delighted to hear it, and I hope the government will facilitate matters to its utmost, because a very excellent trade with Fiji may be developed. What is required is an improvement in transportation. I understand however, that the preference arrangement, so far as duties are concerned, is the previous or the old arrangement, not the new arrangement.


James Alexander Robb: No.


Mr. BAXTER:: Is this power of extension
and withdrawal under the Customs Act exercised by the minister or by the government by order in council?


James Alexander Robb: Under section 4 of the Customs tariff it is by order in council. The whole government must take the responsibility for it.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: It is not intended to put
it on the basis of something else we have had this session, namely the dumping clause. Why should this matter require action by the whole government, and why should the dumping clause be put in the hands of a single minister?


James Alexander Robb: The clause has been many
years in our customs tariff.
2384	^	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: It was passed only two
years ago, and I would have thought that considering the facility with which the dumping clause could be applied and could be withdrawn, it would be applied again. It would rather commend itself to the government in connection with the preferential tariff. It really seems impossible for me to understand why, for the very small trade which would take place with Samoa, for instance, that you would require all the efforts of the combined governor in council to extend or withdraw the preferential rate, while you could have the trade relations of Canada with the entire world affected by the simple dictate of the Minister of Customs.


Arthur Meighen: I agree with the hon.
member for St. John (Mr. Baxter) that it is pretty hard to understand. There is a lot more of it that is hard to understand. You require to have an order in council to extend the leave of absence of a clerk, but you can switch the rates of duty on natural products up and down under the act of two years ago, or you can switch it up and down under the dumping clause under the act of 1907 by the mere will and caprice of a minister.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: I think the hon. member voted for it when it was before the House.


Arthur Meighen: I was not in the House
when it was passed.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: Oh, yes.


Arthur Meighen: That is the natural products provision. I protested against it, but it was a question between that and making desolation of the Okanagan, and I had to take the best I could get. Sometimes when we have an incompetent government we have not a very good choice. Is there anything in these resolutions not included
4 p.m. in the resolutions presented to the House at the time the budget was introduced and the various amendments that have followed to date?


James Alexander Robb: There were three resolutions
presented, were there not? April 10th, April 14th, and April 30th, I think. They are all in here, I understand.


Arthur Meighen: We have had only three budgets, besides two dumping clauses. Outside of these three changes, is there anything else? Have the new series of changes started yet?


James Alexander Robb: No.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: They are all in the right
direction.


Arthur Meighen: That is what they say
down in Almonte.


[Stage Direction]
Resolution agreed to.
2. Resolved, That it is expedient to amend The Customs Tariff, 1907, by adding at the end of section five thereof as enacted by chapter forty-two of the statutes of 1923 the following proviso:
Provided that in computing the ad valorem rate of duty on tea purchased in bond in the United Kingdom, the value for duty shall not include the amount of the customs duty payable on tea for consumption in the United Kingdom.
Henry Lumley Drayton: Can the minister tell us what the duties on tea are today, and what the effect of the remission of duties will be?


James Alexander Robb: It will be seven per cent preferential, ten per cent intermediate and ten per cent general.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is not
answering the question. What duties are collected under the law as it now stands, and what will be the duties under this resolution? That is a matter of value and not of amount.


James Alexander Robb: This is to enable them to get ten per cent off the rate.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The English
duty is ten per cent, is it?


James Alexander Robb: No, under the resolution of
last year tea of a certain price entering Canada was not entitled to the ten per cent reduction. My hon. friend will remember that a full ten per cent was introduced last year on goods coming into Canadian ports. Under the tariff as applied in Great Britain, it deprived Canadians of the benefit of that ten per cent. This is to make it clear, and provide for it.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not think the minister is properly instructed in connection with that. This has only to do with the question of teas purchased for Canada by Canadian purchasers from England. The ordinary law is that the value would be based upon the value of the tea in Great Britain. The change that is made has nothing to do with seven, eight, five or any other per cent. This change is reducing the value of that tea for Canadian customs purposes, as shown by the minister's own resolution, by the amount of duty paid in England. I want the concrete information as to how the change works out on a pound of tea.


James Alexander Robb: It will depend upon the value of the tea. My hon. friend must understand that under the resolution last year, certain tea entering Canada was not entitled to this ten

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
per cent reduction, and we want to make it clear that they will get this ten per cent reduction coming to Canadian ports.


Arthur Meighen: If the minister's idea
of the resolution is all right, mine is all wrong. Is it not this, that heretofore in estimating the value of tea imported into Canada through Great Britain the value, for duty purposes, was taken to include not only the import price into Great Britain but, as well, the very high duty added to the import price, that is to say, the British duty? With this resolution passed, that import value into Canada will be the import price into Great Britain, excluding the duty into Great Britain. If that is so, then is it not merely a matter of percentages to ascertain what the loss of revenue will be? If the minister knows what the revenue was last year then, assuming that we shall import the same amount of tea this year, he can tell us what we shall lose.


James Alexander Robb: I have not that information
before me.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: What is the duty on tea
imported into Great Britain?


Mr.   McM ASTER@: It has been substantially reduced by the last British budget.


Mr. LEWIS:: Does not this resolution
mean that the Canadian people will have to pay a double duty, the duty which the British people pay, and our own duty?


James Alexander Robb: No. The duty on tea going
into Great Britain, I may say, has been reduced from 8 pence to 4 pence a pound.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is the duty
specific or ad valorem?


James Alexander Robb: It is a straight duty.


Arthur Meighen: What we shall lose will
be our duty applied to that 4 pence?


James Alexander Robb: Yes; 4 pence is the British
duty now.


Arthur Meighen: And our loss of revenue will be the present duty as applied to that four pence over the whole import. It will be easy to calculate what the loss will be. I am astonished that the advocates of a revenue tariff should rejoice over that.


Mr. JACOBS:: It will encourage our people to drink more tea.


James Alexander Robb: It will encourage the importation of tea from Great Britain. Of course, we could bring it in direct from India.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: What is the duty on tea
entering Canada from Great Britain now?


James Alexander Robb: It is 7 cents, under the British preference.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Some of the large tea
importers contracted for the purchase of great quantities of tea from British houses. As I understand the amendment the invoice of such imports now will not include the British duty price.


Arthur Meighen: It do not think the resolution should carry until we know what we shall lose in revenue. The minister evidently does not expect to be Minister of Finance a year from now, because he does not seem to have the slightest concern as to where we are to come out.


James Alexander Robb: I will have the information
procured for my right hon. friend.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Are there any
considerable number of Canadian tea importers buying in the English market or is the buying confined to one large house?


James Alexander Robb: There are many Canadian
houses importing tea into Canada.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Certainly there are. We have those that do business regularly on the Pacific and there are others that buy in India. I am referring to English purchasers who are the only ones that benefit at all by this resolution. Is it the practice for Canadian buyers to purchase from one large concern?


James Alexander Robb: I do not quite understand the question.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think everyone else understands it.


Arthur Meighen: Is not the English business pretty much Mr. Larkin's business?


James Alexander Robb: I understand his largest warehouses are in Colombo and Boston.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, but he blends in
Great Britain and sells here. It is practically his business only that is affected.


James Alexander Robb: Not at all.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I fail to see what on earth that has to do with the question we are considering. The plain reading of the resolution is that the duty collected on tea imported from Great Britain will be reduced by the percentage of our duty that was chargeable on the duty paid on the tea entering Great Britain. It simply means that we are going to be able to get our breakfast tea a little cheaper than before.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: And afternoon tea as
well.
2386	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Henry Lumley Drayton: How much
cheaper?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The ex-Minister of Finance asks how much. I am not concerned particularly with the extent of the reduction but I do know that the tea will be cheaper, and that is of interest to me although I am not a heavy tea drinker.


James Alexander Robb: The leader of the opposition inquired a moment ago as to the revenue. The duty collected in 1922-23 on tea imported direct from the United Kingdom was $475,000-I omit the hundreds-and the duty collected on tea direct from India was $1,027,000. We shall lose in revenue about $47,000 which will go to the Canadian people.


Arthur Meighen: Will it?


James Alexander Robb: I hope so.


Arthur Meighen: Is not the English exporter to Canada in competition with the others? All he has to do is simply to sell at such a price as will get him his share of the business. Can the minister see what he will reduce it for? The minister said a moment ago, frankly, and he was right, that this will tend to increase the amount of tea coming in. But inasmuch as the exporters from Great Britain have to compete only against those who are selling from other countries not affected by this resolution at all there will be very little incentive for them to reduce the price.


Arthur John Lewis: Is there any duty at all on tea in the United Kingdom when it is there in bulk? If there is not, what is the value of this resolution? Of what value is the resolution if tea is bought in bond in the United Kingdom?


James Alexander Robb: Under the customs laws they are compelled to add the duty to the value of tea coming into Canada.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend,
I know, wants to be /rank. Surely he will see that the only tea affected by this is tea imported into England, mixed there, and shipped to Canada. Is not that true?


James Alexander Robb: That is a fair conclusion;
but in the administration of the act the duty is added.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes; but the
only activity which is at all affected by the law as it stands, apart from this resolution, is the mixing and blending of tea in Great Britain. Before this resolution was brought in tea could be imported into Great Britain [Mr. McMaster.l
in bond if it had not to be blended. If tea was imported into Great Britain in bond, having paid no duty, it would not be subject to the provisions of the act so far as the English duty is concerned; no duty would have been paid. The only one who benefits under this change is the merchant, the mixer, who blends tea in Great Britain. Certainly tea is not grown there. It is also true that the tea so blended in Great Britain comes into direct competition with tea from the Orient, from China, India and other Asiatic countries whose tea is not subject to this provision as the English article is. Am I right?


James Alexander Robb: Based on my hon. friend's own statement, does he object to this legislation? Would he not put the Britisher in as good a position as the man who operates in China or India?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am just asking if I am right.


James Alexander Robb: Fairly right.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Then if I am. what justification is there for the claim that this will reduce the price of tea to the Canadian consumer, when the minister shows that the great bulk of the tea imported is imported direct and is not subject to the additional value of the British duty?


Jacques Bureau: You have to get your invoices through England.


James Alexander Robb: I will not press that. I gave this in answer to my hon. friend.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Let us see who is right, the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) or the Minister of Customs (Mr. Bureau).


Jacques Bureau: What are you driving at, anyway?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I want the
figures as to the importations of tea, first, from Great Britain and, secondly, from other countries.
Mr.. BUREAU: The tea may be imported from other countries but the invoice is sent from Great Britain.


Arthur John Lewis: Has it been the custom of the department to add the British duty on tea coming from Great Britain to this country?


Jacques Bureau: We took that off last year.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: Mr. Chairman, is the situation not this, that, prior to the introduction of this legislation, when tea came

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
into Canada the price which was taken in order to assess the duty was the price of the tea laid down in Great Britain, plus the British duty on it?


James Alexander Robb: That is right.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: For instance, if $100 worth of tea came into Great Britain, and $40 duty was placed upon it, when that tea arrived here we would place our duty upon $140.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Certainly.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: That being the case, is there any possible objection to this legislation? It says:	When we value tea for duty purposes we are going to value it merely on its import value and not on its fictitious market value, which has been arrived at by placing on top of the invoice price the British duty. It seems to me it is very wholesome legislation. Now, endeavouring to look at the dark side of things, the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) and the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) say:	Oh, the
people of Canada are not going to get the benefit of this reduction, it is going to be all absorbed by the men who draw supplies of tea from Britain into Canada; they are the people who are going to get the benefit, and not the Canadian tea-consuming public. I think I am right in describing that as their attitude. The hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Di'ayton) nods his head in approval. Now, are they right in that? According to the figures, last year, $147,000 was collected on tea which came from Great Britain.


Henry Lumley Drayton: No, $497,000..


Mr.   McM ASTER@: There was collected
$475,000 on tea which came to Canada via Great Britain, and which therefore bore for duty purposes in Canada the additional British duty; and there came directly tea on which the duty amounted to $1,027,000. Therefore, roughly speaking, we got 40 per cent of our tea via Great Britain and about 60 per cent direct.


Arthur Meighen: You are away out; it would be more like 30 and 70 per cent.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: Let us say 30 and 70 -I do not think it affects the argument which I propose placing before the committee. If 30 per cent of the tea supply of Canada by this change can be cheapened, it is quite possible, and quite probable, that that tea will be reduced in price, and that the other tea which comes direct must follow its price downward, and the possibility is that we will get all our tea somewhat cheaper. What may
happen is that the price of tea will be between the lowest and the highest price. I trust I have made myself clear to the committee, that this reduction may operate to reduce the price not only of tea which arrives via Great Britain, but of tea which arrives direct. Therefore it seems to me there can be very little objection to this legislation, except possibly on the ground of loss of revenue. That loss of revenue may not occur.
I take it that tea and coffee are what we might term competitors in the temperance market, so to speak; the temperance people drink tea or they drink coffee.


Samuel William Jacobs: My hon. friend drinks
ginger ale.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: But ginger ale does not come in competition with tea and coffee. The point I make is that if tea is reduced even slightly in price, that slight reduction may increase the consumption to a very substantial extent, and thus the amount of tea duties collected at the lower rate may be as great or greater than before. These considerations,
I think, will include most people in this House to regard this as wholesome legislation.


Arthur Meighen: Starting at the hon.
gentleman's last point first, he says that tea and coffee are competitors in the temperance market, and that the reduction in the price of tea will cause more tea to be drunk.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: And the same loss on
coffee.


Arthur Meighen: So, obviously, he loses as much on the one hand as he gains on the other. I will not pursue that further. Coming to his first point, that this will mean a reduction in price of English tea blends, and consequently force a reduction in the price of other teas, this is entirely correct provided the purpose of the British exporter to Canada is to get tea as low as he can to the Canadian people. But if his purpose is to make all the money he can out of the business, the price of our tea will remain precisely what it is now. I would not want to say that there will be absolutely no change, but the change will be so slight in the one direction, and will be absorbed so fully in the other, that the .beneficiary of this legislation is not hard to discern.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The interjection of the
Minister of Customs (Mr. Bureau) a moment ago rather disturbed my mind as to the question I had asked the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) when the Minister of Customs was not in his seat.
2388 y	'	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Jacques Bureau: I am sorry I disturbed
you.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I should like confirmation from him, because to my mind this is an important point. Am I correct in saying-and the Minister of Customs by his large experience will be able to answer this question -that tea contracted for with a British firm whose head office is in London, the invoices and bills and statements for which are sent from London to the Canadian importer, but the tea itself is shipped direct from Ceylon or India or other point of production,-has that tea in the past, in so far as invoices for duty purposes is concerned, carried the addition of the British duty?


Jacques Bureau: Tea sold by the Englishman has always carried that addition.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Although it
never saw England?


Jacques Bureau: Although it never saw
England.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I should like
to see the law which supports that.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am not quibbling over
this. This is a practical question which has been before the government for some time and with which I have had to deal myself. Does the legislation which the minister now introduces relieve that importer from the addition of the English duty on tea which is still imported from the point of production and never touches Great Britain? The resolution says:
Provided that in computing the ad valorem rate of duty on tea purchased in bond in the United Kingdom-
It would appear from this that only such tea as was carried to England, was there in bond and was re-exported to Canada would be favoured by this legislation. Am I right in that?


Jacques Bureau: It must be in bond in
England, yes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Then this legislation does not meet the previous case I put?


Jacques Bureau: There has been some discussion about that previous case; the legislation is designed to prevent that. Tea can be purchased from an English' exporter, in his warehouse in bond, without the payment of duty on the duty the Englishman would have to pay because he re-exports it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: And it applies also to
the previous case I mentioned, where only 
the invoices were despatched from London, the tea being shipped from Ceylon or India, the point of production.


Jacques Bureau: That would not be bought in bond in England.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is exactly where
we are not clear, and it is exactly what the legislation is intended to do. During the past year the customs authorities have imposed a duty upon tea imported from India which never saw England at all.


James Alexander Robb: No.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The minister says "no,*
but I am right.


Samuel William Jacobs: How could a duty be imposed on goods that never went to England at all?


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is the anomaly of
the whole thing. That is where those who take the view that I do claim there is an injustice.


Samuel William Jacobs: If it never touched the
shores of Great Britain how could there be a duty on it?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Because it was invoiced
from London, and the customs authorities of Canada collected a duty not only on the invoice price of the tea but on the invoice price plus the British duty of 8 pence per pound although the tea never touched Great Britain at all.


James Alexander Robb: I think my hon. friend is
wrong, because it is a specific duty that is on tea, so much a pound.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It does not matter
whether the duty is specific or ad valorem. The British duty was a specific duty of 8 pence per pound, now 4 pence.


James Alexander Robb: But the Canadian duty?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am not talking about
the Canadian duty, and I am sure I am not wrong. The Minister of Customs sees the point of my remarks. What I want to be clear on is that this clause covers that case, relieves the Canadian importer of that added duty. It is intended to do so, is it not?


Jacques Bureau: Surely it is.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Then if it does not actually do so I suppose later on we may come back to the minister, show him Hansard, and say that this legislation was intended to give that relief.


Jacques Bureau: It is so intended.
MAY 21, 1924	23S9
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


James Alexander Robb: I think my hon. friend must
misunderstand his information, because the duty on tea coming into Canada is so much a pound. It is possible that in the case referred to the import was not entitled to the 10 per cent rebate granted last session. That is what we want to cure, because under the legislation of last session there is this proviso:
Provided further that this discount shall not apply in the case in which the duty does not exceed 15 per centum ad valorem.
Some of the tea coming into Canada under the existing British laws did not come under that provision, and we want to cure that.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is not what I am
talking about at all. The Minister of Customs, I know, understands my point, and I think, agrees with me, but apparently the Acting Minister of Finance does not. I am accepting the assurance of the Minister of Customs that this legislation does covei the point.


James Alexander Robb: All right.


Jacques Bureau: It is intended to.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think we
should really try to find out what the facts are. One minister does not agree with the other, and I do not know which minister is right.


Jacques Bureau: Oh yes, we agree.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend (Mr. Stevens) thinks the Minister of Customs is right. Well, he may be, or perhaps the Acting Minister of Finance is right. Suppose we assume-and I hope it is not a rash assumption-that the Minister of Customs knows how his department is administered, we have the fact that goods that never see England but are sold by English houses are valued for duty purposes as if they had gone to England and as if the English tax had been paid upon them. Now, am I right in that?


Jacques Bureau: Well, you know whether you are right or not.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am asking the minister; I am not responsible for this legislation. Now, let me repeat; and I hope the minister will listen to me this time. The practice of the Customs department has been to value tea shipped from Ceylon direct to Canada and invoiced from a London house as if it had gone to Great Britain and paid the British duty. Am I right?


Jacques Bureau: It paid 7 cents preferential duty.	.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Now let us try to find out where we are. There was a specific English duty of 8 pence per pound, now reduced to 4 pence per pound. The practice of the Customs department was to add for the purposes of valuation 8 pence per pound as being the amount of the British duty, although that tea may have come direct from Ceylon to Canada and merely been invoiced by a British exporter. Am I right?


Jacques Bureau: Well, you say the British duty was 8 pence?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes.


Jacques Bureau: If it is 8 pence you are
right. I do not know whether it is or not.


Henry Lumley Drayton: If that practice is right, the present provision relieves tea of this extra valuation only when it is purchased in bond in the United Kingdom. Surely the right thing to do would be to put all these shipments on the same basis. That is not done, and anyone who takes the trouble to read this resolution, unless, perhaps, he is one of the ministers, will agree that I am right.


Jacques Bureau: That you can charge the tea that did not go to England?


Henry Lumley Drayton: No, my hon.
friend has not the point at all. I despair of getting anything into his head this afternoon.


Jacques Bureau: My hon. friend is despairing of something that is very easy.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I know, but I
am losing faith.


Samuel William Jacobs: I think I rather agree with the ex-Minister of Finance on this thing. If there is to be a reduction on these goods coming in bond from England, a fortiori if they never went to England at all the reduction ought to apply. It seems only reasonable.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I know this is a very
technical point, and the only reason I speak upon it with any confidence is that I have been through it all with the officials of the Customs department. It has been discussed for some months. It might be well for the minister to allow this resolution to stand until his expert advisers in the Customs department consider that very point and see that it is properly covered in this resolution. I doubt very much if this resolution covers anything except tea that is actually carried to Great Britain in bond, and then re-exported from Great Britain to Canada, whereas it should cover goods purchased and invoiced in Lon-
-'390	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
don but shipped from Ceylon to India or some other British point to Canada. It should cover that as well as the other, and if it does not, this legislation is not very effective at all.


Jacques Bureau: There have been a couple of cases where mistakes have been made by the officers, but the duty paid was refunded.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That may be true, but
does this legislation correct the situation?


Jacques Bureau: It is supposed to correct
it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is the anxiety I
have. I am afraid it does not, and that is why I am rather insistent upon this point.


James Alexander Robb: I do not think we can make
it any clearer than it is now.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Does the government object to an amendment something along this line:
Provided that in computing the ad valorem rate of duty on tea purchased in bond in the United Kingdom or tea purchased through British exporters but shipped from the country of origin to Canada direct-


James Alexander Robb: We cannot accept that.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Why?


James Alexander Robb: It could not be properly administered that way.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Then let us
just understand where we are. This is simply and solely something which is done to look after the man who is doing his mixing in London. It is not something which is done for the trade generally; it is not something which is done in ease of the general Canadian situation. I ask my hon. friend, can he seriously say it is just for purposes of valuation to add this British duty on tea that has never seen Britain, and then when it is taken to Britain and pays the duty, to take it off? It is ridiculous.


James Alexander Robb: Let me draw the attention
of the House to the provision of last year which was put in to meet the wishes of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre. It takes care of the whole position we have been debating :
Provided that goods entitled to the benefits of the British preferential tariff shall fee entitled to the discount authorized by this section, when such goods are shipped on a through bill of lading consigned to a consignee in a specified port in Canada, when such goods are transferred at a port of a British colony or possession not enjoying the benefits of the British preferential tariff, and conveyed without further transshipment into a sea or river port of Canada.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I want the minister to
understand that I am not criticising this clause; I want to support it, but what I want to point out to the minister is that upon that very clause he has just read the officials of the Customs department have placed an interpretation which resulted in adding to the invoice of the very goods mentioned in that clause the amount of the British duty on that tea which never touched England, because they claimed the tea was invoiced from London, the head office or the central office of the vendors. Now these Canadian companies who are blenders and distributors of tea are very, very large distributors on the Pacific coast and in the United Kingdom, and when they found that this British duty was added to their invoices they complained. Then I understand that this clause was put in the resolutions to fully meet the case. From a reading of this clause I would interpret it, and I think such an eminent lawyer as my hon. friend from George Etienne Cartier (Mr. Jacobs) will agree with me, to limit the application of the clause to tea that is purchased in bond in the United Kingdom. Now that certainly would not include tea that is purchased in England, but actually shipped from Calcutta or Ceylon or some other place.


James Alexander Robb: My colleague the Minister
of Customs has frankly admitted that in the early days of the operation of this new clause there was a mistake made in one or two cases, but the minister discovered it and authorized a refund. The ruling is now as my hon. friend wants it to be. May I point out that the clause is very clear. It makes no reference to shipments from the United Kingdom. It says:
Provided that in computing the ad valorem rate of duty on tea purchased in bond in the United Kingdom-
I should think that makes it quite clear, and as my hon. friend wants it. I would prefer not to make any change.


George Gibson Coote: This discussion is very
mystifying to most members of the committee.
I would ask the minister to explain just why he makes this new regulation, which reads:
In computing the ad valorem rate of duty on tea purchased in bond in the United Kingdom-
When I look up the Customs tariff I can find no ad valorem duty on tea at all. The duty is given under tariff item 28a as follows: Tea imported direct from the country of growth or production, and tea purchased in bond in the United Kingdom per pound, 7 cents, 10 cents, 10 cents.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
There is no ad valorem duty. Then 29a provides:
Tea not otherwise provided, per pound, 10 cents,
10 cents, 10 cents.
Now what is the real purpose of this new regulation?


James Alexander Robb: Under the legislation of last
year there was 10 per cent added to the British preference on goods entering through Canadian ports direct.


George Gibson Coote: Would not that be simply
10 per cent of the specific duty? It is not an ad valorem duty.


James Alexander Robb: If my hon. friend will allow
me to continue, there was a provision put in the legislation of last year that if the duty,
7 cents a pound, when computed to an ad valorem basis, was not 15 per cent, this additional 10 per cent did not apply. I will read the clause:
Provided further that this discount shall not apply in the case in which the duty does not exceed 15 per centum ad valorem, or in the case of a specific duty or a specific and ad valorem duty combined in which the computed rate does not exceed fifteen per centum ad valorem-
Some goods came below and were not entitled to the 10 per cent. It is to cure that, we are bringing in this legislation.


George Gibson Coote: If we had had that explanation at the start I think this item might have been passed already.


James Alexander Robb: I imagine my hon. friend was
not in the House.


Henry Lumley Drayton: In order to
make this perfectly clear I am going to ask my hon. friend to point out why we should not say in plain words what I understand he admits we are doing. The amendment that I wanted him to consider was this:
Provided that in computing the ad valorem rate of duty on tea purchased in bond in the United Kingdom or tea purchased through British exporters but shipped from the country of origin to Canada directand so forth. We have already got that. For the life of me I really fail to see why, when we already have that principle active in so far as the 10 per cent is concerned, we ought not to have the same principle recognized as regards the valuation. I submit my hon. friend ought either to stick to that or reconsider it.


James Alexander Robb: I am not prepared at this moment to accept the amendment offered by my hon. friend. This recommendation has been prepared in consultation with the officers of the department who administer the act, not with the intention of favouring any special
person but purely and solely to clear up an ambiguity in the act and give to the British exporter, or blender if you will, and to the Canadian people, the advantages of the 10 per cent discount of last year. However, I will meet my hon. friend in this regard: He can prepare his amendment and I will submit it again to the officers of the department who will have to administer the act.


Henry Lumley Drayton: All right.


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend has been administering acts and1 he knows that it is the officers who understand how they work out.


The CHAIRMAN:: Shall the resolution
carry?


James Alexander Robb: No, it stands. If my hon.
friend will give me the amendment I will consult the customs officers about it and see how it works out.
Resolution standis.
3. Resolved, That Schedule A to The Customs Tariff, 1907, as amended by chapter twenty-six of the statutes of 1914, chapter nineteen of the statutes of 1922 and chapter forty-two of the statutes of 1923, be further amended by striking thereout tariff items: 275, 445, 145a, 446, 446a, 446b, 447a, 447b, 448, 448a, 448c, 449, 450, 453b, 591, 663, 682, the several enumerations of goods respectively, and the several rates of duties of customs, if any, set opposite each of said items, and to provide that the following items, enumerations and rates of duty be inserted in Schedule A:-
On item 275:


Henry Lumley Drayton: Will the minister tell us what item 275 means, and what was collected under it last year?


James Alexander Robb: We are striking out the word " petroleum." The change will permit an oil called " Scotch blast furnace oil " free entry. The revenue is very small.


Henry Lumley Drayton: How does the
present item read?


Mr. FORKE:: It is dangerous stuff if it is Scotch blast furnace oil.


James Alexander Robb: The present rate is 15 per cent.


Henry Lumley Drayton: How does the
present tariff item read though?


James Alexander Robb: The word " petroleum " is struck out. That permits the admission of " Scotch blast furnace oil."


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
On item 445:
Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the
change there?
2392	^	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Robert Forke: It has to do with mowing machines and harvesters.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Is this the point where we should discuss this item 445, dealing with mowing machines, harvesters, binders and so on?


James Alexander Robb: Perhaps we could discuss that item when we come to the duties on those implements. These are just items that are being struck out.


George Newcombe Gordon: We are striking out
these different items, we have not come to the duty items yet. Shall the item carry?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not think we can get along as quickly as that because the minister cannot replace these items without making considerable change. We are entitled to know what is being dropped and the reason why.


James Alexander Robb: The present item reads:
Mowing machines, harvesters, self-binding or without binders, binding attachments, reapers and complete parts thereof-


Henry Lumley Drayton: What were the old rates?


James Alexander Robb: The old rates were 7i per cent, 10 per cent and 10 per cent. It is now proposed that the rates shall be: Free, 6 per cent, 6 per cent. The estimated reduction in revenue is $21,863.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What was the
actual amount collected last year, or do the figures just given represent the amount actually collected?


James Alexander Robb: The estimated reduction in revenue is $21,863.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Can the hon. gentleman tell me what was collected under the British preference last year of 7| per cent?


James Alexander Robb: No I have not that information separately.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Surely my hon. friend can tell us whether anything was collected or not?


James Alexander Robb: We will look it up. However,
I admit at- once, if it will lessen my hon. friend's anxiety, that there was a very small amount collected under the British preference.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My present anxiety is to find out what the truth is, what the real purpose is, that is all.


James Alexander Robb: There was nothing collected under the British preference.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I see, so we have nothing whatever collected under the British preference under item 445. Now, under the intermediate tariff what was collected?


James Alexander Robb: Nothing under the intermediate tariff.


Henry Lumley Drayton: So the whole
amount was collected under the general tariff item?


James Alexander Robb: The general tariff.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What countries would that refer to besides the United States if any?


James Alexander Robb: I think the United States would be the only country.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes, that is the fact. So that all the imports under tariff item 445 came from the United States? Now, what was the total amount collected under the general tariff under this item?


James Alexander Robb: We have estimated $21,863 as the reduction of revenue.


Henry Lumley Drayton: WTell, perhaps
that will do. That is the loss of revenue?


James Alexander Robb: Mowing machines, $23,123.


Henry Lumley Drayton: We have had
two figures given. My hon. friend said first $21,863 and now he says $23,123.


James Alexander Robb: Mowing machines from the
United States, duty collected, $2,405.49,


Henry Lumley Drayton: On what?
Mr, ROBB: On mowing machines. Then on the harvesters and selfbinders from the United States the duty collected was $25,714.03. On binding attachments from the United States the duty collected was $1,799.50, and on reapers the duty collected was $222.2o!


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is that all?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the
total result?


James Alexander Robb: I have not added it up.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Figuring roughly and quickly, I make it $30,141.22. On what basis is the loss calculated?


James Alexander Robb: The difference between ten
per cent and six per cent.


Henry Lumley Drayton: How would
that work out if these figures are right?


James Alexander Robb: Perhaps I did not give my
hon. friend the revenue loss on parts.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Henry Lumley Drayton: These figures
cannot be right and that basis correct.


James Alexander Robb: I will give my hon. friend the parts. The figures for agricultural implements under tariff item 445 are as follows:
From the United Kingdom	
$	2 50From	France	
3	00From	Denmark	
3	20From	.Sweden	
954	50From	United States	
20,742	24


Henry Lumley Drayton: You take what you actually brought in last year and apply the reduction to it, and it gives you resultant loss of $21,863?	[DOT]*'


Henry Herbert Stevens: One of the reasons given
for this change is that it is going to make a substantial saving to the consumer, and the justification, as far as the manufacturer is concerned, is that he gets a corresponding or compensating reduction in certain raw materials entering into the manufacture of the goods. With a little assistance, and with absolutely authentic price lists for the last ten
years, I have made some computations here which certainly are interesting to me, and which I believe will interest hon. members of the House;' and if the Chairman will permit me, I will include in this item, mower, binder, and farm wagon. I take the binder first, and I am taking what is looked upon as a standard article, a seven-foot binder, on the basis of two annual October payments. I am simply taking the price list and not discussing cost as delivered at any special point. This is the price list issued presumably the eastern price list, but in any event the comparison is all on the same basis.


Mr. CALDWELL:: Will that be f.o.b. the
manufacturer?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I would not say that.
These would be the entered prices. I will read this and give it to Hansard, so that it will appear in proper shape. I will not violate the rules of the House by inserting in Hansard anything which I do not deal with here. The figures are as follows:
-	1916 May 1	1916 Dec. 1	1917 Dec. 1	1918 Dec. 1	1919 Dec. 1	1920 Dec. 1	1920 Dec. 1	1921 Dec. 1	1923 Feb. 21	1923 Nov. 1	1924 Apr. 117 ft. Binder, 2 Oct. 1st pay-	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.ments	
Farm Wagon, 3$ arm, tires 3x5,2 payments, 6 and 12	139 00	155 00	216 00	230 00	227 00	247 00	293 00	235 00	243 00	264 00	251 00months	69 50	74 50	96 00	109 50	110 50	125 00	147 50	119 50	119 50	126 00	119 006 ft. Mower, 2 Oct. payments Bar iron and steel per 100	61 00	65 00	88 00	91 00	89 00	98 50	122 50	99 00	101 50	108 50	103 50lbs. base price	2 27	2 41	3 34	4 11	2 98	3 32	3 73	2 52	3 52	3 14	2-92
Now, referring to the case of the binder, I would ask hon. members to note that after November, 1923, came the budget and we have a reduction on April 11, after the budget to $251. The reduction made in price on account of sales tax and duty changes in the budget of April 10 is $13, from the November, 1923. The actual reduction of sales tax and duty amounts to $24. On this basis the price to-day is $11 higher than it was on the last list of November 1, 1923. That ought to be borne in mind. As a matter of fact, the sales tax alone which has been taken off is $14.20, and yet the reduction in price is $13.


George Gibson Coote: Are you including the sales
tax on the retail price of the binder?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am including the sales
tax on the list price in Ontario.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Factory price.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Then, in the case of the
6 foot mower, on April 11, following the budget, there is a reduction of $5. But the sales tax reduction is $6.14, so that the reduction is within the sales tax and does not include the reduction of duty.
Then take the farm wagon; after the budget there was a reduction of $7, but- the sales tax reduction alone in this case i3 $7.13.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: Do the prices quoted
include the sales tax?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am quoting the exact
Ontario list price officially issued by the factory.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: Does that list price include the sales tax or not?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, in each case. In any event it would not make any difference whe-
2394	^	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
ther it did or not, although I am informed it does, because in each case the net price is exactly the same. They issue the list to the dealers, who I presume get their discount of 10 or 15 per cent; whatever their commission may be. The prices are the same in all cases and they are taken from the official lists issued from 1916 to 1924.


Robert Forke: What is the date in relation to the second last item, the wagon, mentioned by the hon. member?


Henry Herbert Stevens: November 1, 1923. I gave two figures for 1923. Two price lists were issued, one on February 21, 1923 and the other on November 21, 1923, and' in regard to each article there was a substantial increase in the November over the February, 1923, price.


Mr. HEALY:: What is the name of the firm who issued the .list from which the hon. member is quoting?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am giving the lists of the Massey-Harris and International companies.


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: I want to be quite certain as to whether the sales tax is added to the prices or not. If the hon. member is quoting one set of prices to which the tax is added and another set of prices without any sales tax the difference is an important one.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It does not make any
difference whether the price includes the sales tax or not, because I am showing that the reduction in each case is approximately only that of the sales tax, or a little less.


Alfred Speakman: If the sales tax is added to the list price afterwards, during the years in which the tax was applied, then it does . make a difference.


Henry Herbert Stevens: In all cases the International and Massey-Harris include the net sales price in their list.


Alfred Speakman: That is what I wanted to be sure of.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Now let me turn to another aspect of the case. We have to consider the price of material, and I am taking now the base price of iron. The base price, as all hon. members know, is the price of iron of a certain standard; then different processes, different sizes, and so forth tend to vary it. This price is known as the base Pittsburgh price, or the base price Canada, as the case may be. That is the reason why I have given in the table the figures in regard to the base price of iron in Canada per 100 pounds 
during a period of years, and while I do not expect hon. members to bear the figures in mind as I have read them, they will be available in Hansard for purposes of comparison. It will be interesting to the committee to study them at leisure.
I have here the average price, Canada and Pittsburgh, and I want to give the figures over a number of years. These are the various prices of bar iron and steel per 100 pounds, the base price in Canada being as at Hamilton. I am giving the average for each year in Canada with the average at Pittsburgh, and one will be in a position to compare them. I would ask hon. members to note the first figures and compare them carefully with the later ones because this comparison has a bearing on the argument I wish to present.
	Base	Average			
Price	for	Average	Canada	Year Pittsburgh	Canada	1914..	.... $1 65	*1 60	*1 27	Plus	33c.1915..	.... 1 55	1 60	1 32	Plus	30c.1916..	.... 2 12	2 27	2 59	Minus 32c.	1917..	.... 3 14	3 34	4 09	Minus 75c.	1918..	.... 4 01	4 06	3 50	Plus	56c.1919..	.... 3 42	3 20	2 80	Plus	40c.1920..	.... 3 37	3 52	4 13	Minus 61c.	1921..	.... 3 52	3 02	2 30	Plus	72c.1922..	.... 2 37	2 45	2 04	Plus	41c.*923..	.... 2 72	2 93	2 68	Plus	25c.It	will be noted that	during	ten	years
Canada had a lower price on three occasions and a higher price than the base price Pittsburgh in the other years. With the exception of two years the price ranged about 30 cents higher than the United States price.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: The hon. member read so quickly that I did not gather whether he had given the average Pittsburgh price.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have given it.


Albert Frederick Healy: Does the base price, Canada, apply to Hamilton alone?


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is the, base price quoted in Hamilton for this steel. I do not wish to be drawn off into a discussion as to whether the Dominion Iron and Steel Company in Nova Scotia and the Canadian Steel Company in Ontario give the same base price. I do not know. I am giving the base price in Hamilton.


Albert Frederick Healy: I was not intending to
enter into any discussion about Nova Scotia. But when the hon. member is giving the base price in Canada, I would tell him that the freight rate from Pittsburgh and from Hamilton, for instance, to the border cities has a great deal to do with the base price of steel, and that in giving those figures he is misleading the committee.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Henry Herbert Stevens: I do not say this with
any desire to arouse the ire of my hon. friend. I am quite aware that one can go into all manner of analyses and discussion on this subject. I am trying to give the committee certain basic figures, and then I want to make some reference to them.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: Before the hon. member proceeds may I ask this question? Is the base price at Pittsburgh which he has quoted for the year or on a certain date?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The average for the year. I gave the average in Canada as well as a specific figure for the month of November. I could give others but there is no object in doing so. Now, this is a point which the committee ought to consider: In the production of these iron and steel products certain processes are gone through. The reason I am referring to these processes is because I purpose showing that the losses to Canadian industry are far beyond the very small advantage given by the so-called reduction in the sales tax; in a word, the immediate gains are not such as to warrant the serious losses to these other industries. A great many industries are affected. First you have the blast furnace, which simply takes the ore and produces the pig; then you have the open hearth system, the raw material of which is pig iron and steel scrap, and which produces steel ingots; then you have the blooming mills, the raw material of which is the steel ingot, and the product of which is the billet; then you have the rolling mill, the raw material of which is scrap iron and steel billets, and the product of which is iron and steel bars; then you have the next step in connection with implements, the factory which turns out bolts, nuts, bars, screws, washers, and so on, whose raw material of course is the iron and steel bars. Let me turn from them to a very brief analysis of the effect of the reductions upon these industries. Coal for use in the manufacture of coke for blast furnace operation is subject to a drawback of 90 per cent. I should like the committee to bear in mind that this drawback is given only on coal used for the production of coke. Now then, if these resolutions pass, iron and steel bars used in the manufacture of the articles which we have under consideration will be admitted free. The Canadian rolling mills are called upon to pay a duty of 53 cents a ton upon their coal, and on the class of coal they use this runs to a duty of between 20 and 22 per cent. They also pay duty on their machinery and on their rolls of 27J per cent, and a sales tax
on all supplies of castings and parts of machinery-all the vast quantity of material that enters into their daily operation,


Mr.   McM ASTER@: If I may interrupt,
the hon. member stated that the duty on coal would amount to an ad valorem of almost 20 per cent. Would he develop that a little? It seems a very high duty.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The class of coal and the quantity used would permit of its purchase,
I presume, around $2.50 to $3 a ton.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Slack.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It would be a very lowgrade coal.


An hon. MEMBER:: What sort of coal?


Henry Herbert Stevens: It would be probably
what known as bituminous slack after the larger steam coal was taken from it. For instance, a large sugar refinery in my city buys nothing else but this slack coal and gets it at the very low figure of about $2 a ton. My hon. friend will see that a specific duty of 53 cents a ton amounts to a substantial ad valorem in such a case.


Mr. HUGHES:: Is it not a fact that on
that class of coal the duty is only 14 cents?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Not that I know of.


James Joseph Hughes: I know the coal miners
were complaining that the duty on slack coal was very much less than on other classes of coal.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I would be very much surprised if my hon. friend is correct.


James Joseph Hughes: I think I am correct.


Mr. MALCOLM:: The duty on slack coal
is 14 cents a ton.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am told my hon. friend is right. But the higher grade coal used in these rolling mills, which I am informed is not always slack, is subject to a duty of 53 cents a ton.


James Joseph Hughes: But my hon. friend was
advancing the argument that slack coal was used by the industries he mentioned.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I quite admit that, but
I did not affirm definitely that slack coal was used. I was questioned as to the low price. I think the industries I am referring to get their coal at a very low price.


James Joseph Hughes: It would work out at about 7 per cent.
2396	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
Mr. STEVENS; Well, they pay this duty of 53 cents a ton. The mills whose product enters into the manufacture of these implements are called upon to compete with United States mills which do not pay the taxes to which I refer, neither have they any sales tax to pay, and of course they are not subject to duty in the sense that our people are because they are -the mass producers and the controllers of the world's market in respect to steel products, and also in respect to coal so far as eastern Canada is concerned. Now, as a matter of fact, when you analyse this resolution it constitutes, not merely free trade but an actual premium to American manufacturers of these raw materials which enter into the manufacture of our implements. The only article which the producer of the raw material has any advantage on is fire-brick; he gets a reduction which really amounts to very little. I presume it is hopeless to make any suggestions in this line; the budget has been debated and the government has a substantial majority. But, now that we are away from the generalities of the budget debate it might be well to consider the effects of the item which is under consideration. Now, I do not wish to be misunderstood; I am not advocating a lowering of duties, but I am tempted to ask the Acting Minister of Finance this question: When the government reduced the duty on farm implements why did they not apply the same principle to rods, bars, bolts, nuts, screws, iron products and all the other articles that enter into the manufacture of farm implements? Why not apply the same principle to them? Why not extend to them a compensating reduction? Let me make myself clear; I am not arguing for it;
I am absolutely opposed to it. But when you adopt that principle in connection with farm implements, why penalize the Canadian manufacturer of the raw material? The minister was about to answer me a moment ago; perhaps he would be good enough now to give his views on that point.


James Alexander Robb: I was going to ask my hon.
friend if he would assure me of his support if I undertook to do that.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Absolutely no, and I will say why: I believe in a fiscal policy for Canada that will enable us to develop the natural resources in iron, coal, copper and other mineral products, their manufacture in Canada and the perfecting of them to the highest degree possible from a manufacturing standpoint, and I believe that cannot be done under any free trade policy. But the minister does not give me any reason why he follows this half-and-half policy of giving a reduction to the 
manufacturer of farm implements, of which that manufacturer hands to the producer merely the sales tax.


Mr. KELLNER:: Would my hon. friend
repeat the figures he quoted in respect to the price of binders and the reduction by reason of the sales tax?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I will give my hon. friend the figures; they are really interesting. These three sets of figures alone will warrant one in pausing to consider whether any benefit is to result from the present proposals. In February, 1923, the list price of a binder was $243 In November, 1923, the manufacturer raised the price to $264. That is the point I want hon. members to become seized of. Then on April 11, after the budget was brought down, they issued a new list reducing the price to $251. The reduction of the sales price from the previous list of $264 should amount to $14.20, whereas the actual reduction is only $13. Taking a further calculation of duty- and I am not certain of the figure I am about to give, though I am quite satisfied it is correct-the American price for this article was $226. Add to that the sales tax and the duty, and you get approximately the Canadian price. If you calculate the reduction of the tariff plus the sales tax you are left in the position where you are actually $11 worse off than you were prior to the bringing down of this budget; that is, you are getting $11 less than you are supposed to get. But even leaving all that calculation aside-this is the point I want to make clear-it must be remembered that the sales tax has nothing whatever to do with the protective principle or the protective policy of this country. The sales tax is a specific and special tax and is so designated in the statute. Parliament can remove the sales tax off anything. For instance, in our list of exemptions we have a very long list of foodstuffs, canned goods, and so on, and now farm implements; so that the reduction or removal of the sales tax is simply a voluntary act of parliament which nobody criticises or questions. But while the duties have been reduced on farm implements the farmer is not getting one cent of the value of the so-called reduction. On the other hand, the manufacturer of the raw material entering into these implements is faced not with fair free trade competition with his competitor south of the line, but with the granting of an actual premium to that competitor because of the added taxes on this side compared to those prevailing in the United States.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


George Gibson Coote: What was the date of the
price list in which the price of a binder was given at $264?


Henry Herbert Stevens: November, 1923.


George Gibson Coote: Has my hon. friend the price list which was issued about the first week in January, 1924?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No. I was under the impression that a price list had been issued in Jnauary, 1924, but I have not discovered it;
I have not been able to obtain it. When I myself raised that very question the answer came that the November, 1923, list was intended for the trade of 1924.


Mr. MacLEAN (Prince):: I notice that the Massey-Harris price list for 1923-24 gives binders at $280.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That may be a different size. There are a number of different kinds of binders-the 6-foot binder, the 7-foot binder, and I think there is a larger one. Then there is a binder with certain stocking attachments, and so on. But the binder I had reference to was the one which I think is most commonly used, the ordinary 7-foot binder. I remember the price list figure that my hon. friend refers to, $280. It had certain identifying letters beside it; I have forgotten just what they represented, but I presume stookers, bundle carriers, or certain attachments of that kind. That is really all I want to say in connection with this matter. I wanted to lay before the committee what appeared to me to be these very stubborn and unanswerable facts. I wanted to show to the committee that the assumed benefit to the consumer is very slight, and largely, if not wholly, imaginary if you remove the sales tax, and that the so-called compensating features to the implement manufacturer constitute really a threat of ruin to a large number of the industries supplying the raw materials to these manufacturers.


George Gibson Coote: I was much interested in the statement that has just been given to the committee by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, and I would like to ask the Minister of Customs this question in regard to the sales tax and the duty which the hon. member for Vancouver Centre referred to as having to be added to the price of this binder in the United States. He said the price in the United States was $226, and if we added to that the sales tax and the tariff, we would find that the price was approximately the same as the Canadian price. Would the minister be good enough to tell the committee whether in computing the sales tax and the 152
tariff on these imported! goods, they use the retail price of the implement in the United States, or do they take what is called the manufacturers' price, simply the cost of producing the implement at the factory? I think that is a very important point. I have been told that the factory price of these implements is not more than 50 per cent of the price the farmer has to pay when he buys the implement.


Jacques Bureau: The price on which we
compute the duty is the consumption price at the place of manufacture. If a retailer imports a machine, he pays on the retail price; if a wholesaler imports a machine, he pays on the manufacturer's price. It is the consumption price at the place from which the goods are exported.


George Gibson Coote: Then it would not be fair to assume that the International Harvesters Company or the John Deere Company would pay the sales tax and the tariff based on the retail price in the United States?


Jacques Bureau: No, it is the home consumption price. Suppose you buy 1,000 machines; the duty will be computed on the price the wholesaler in the United States pays.


George Gibson Coote: I just wanted to have that made clear to the committee.
In regard to the argument of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre as to the hardship which is worked on the manufacturer of these bars, I think that simply proves that you cannot make a tariff that will not work a hardship on somebody, and' the farmer is in this position to-day with respect to these implements that are now being placed on the free list, that he has to pay a tariff tax of 75 per cent on all the stuff he buys, and accept a free trade price for practically everything he sells.
I have been very much interested in the discussion regarding agricultural implements and I have been appalled by the ignorance displayed by some hon. members in this House with regard to this question. I would like to take a few minutes to give to this committee some reasons why the farm implement manufacturers in this country are not able to return dividends at the present time to their shareholders. I have had some actual experience in connection with the farm implement men.


Jacques Bureau: The hon. member says they are not paying dividends any more.


George Gibson Coote: I am not saying so.

2398	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Jacques Bureau: I thought the hon. member said they were not paying dividends any more, and the question I would ask is this: If we take the duty and the sales tax off an article, and you still have to pay the same price for it, where does the difference go? I should like some one to enlighten me on that point.


George Gibson Coote: I will leave it to some of the members on my right to answer that question. I think that the committee possibly needs some enlightenment in regard to this farm implement question. I have talked the matter over with some farm implement men in western Canada, and I think I can give you a little first-hand information. In the first week of January there was announced in western Canada an increase in the price of farm implements. That may be the list the hon. member for Vancouver Centre has given us, and which he referred to as dated November 1, but the advance I refer to was not made public in western Canada until the first week of January, I think. I am not going to read a l'ist at all, but I should like to quote one paragraph from the Manitoba Free Press of January 11 last:
One reason given by Winnipeg manufacturers and distributing branches for the increase is the advance in the sales tax on agricultural implements, which has gone from 4<$ to 6 per cent. The other explanations are increased cost of labour and raw materials, which the implement men claim have driven nearly all the big concerns close to the financial rocks.
Now the sales tax has been, removed; the duty has been taken off most of their raw materials, and the increase in the cost of labour is a myth, because I find from returns that I have obtained from the Department of Labour that the wages of mechanics show no increase over their wages of last year. When I was in Calgary in the first week of January, in conversation with the manager of one of the large implement warehouses there, I was informed that the price of implements was being advanced again, and that the price of the 8-foot binder, which is the standard binder in Alberta, was being increased from $287 to $317. "Surely," I said to him, " you would not have the heart to ask the farmer to pay $30 more for a binder than he did last year." " Well," he said,
" to make anything on this binder we must advance the price." I said: "I can tell you with equal truth that the farmer must have more than 74 cents a bushel to make anything at raising wheat, but that is the price he must take to-djay." " Well," Ihe said,
" we are in a different position from the farmer, because we do not have to sell these implements until we get our price for them."
IMr. Coote.]
Now I want to ask hon. gentlemen, would they blame any representative of a farming community for voting for a budget that was endeavouring to provide cheaper implements? It is the callous indifference of the implement men that would induce me, if I had no other reason, to support a reduction in the tariff on agricultural implements.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Would the hon. gentleman tell me who that was?


George Gibson Coote: I would, in private.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not think it should be private at all. If the House is to rely upon the statement, we should know who makes it.


George Gibson Coote: The same gentleman also
told me that the four big machine companies operating in Alberta, in collecting from the farmers on their notes, had secured only 12 per cent in the case of the lowest one, and 20 per cent in the case of the highest. The percentages for the different companies were, if I remember rightly, 12, 15, 18 and 20 per cent. Alberta had the biggest crop in her history last year.


Mr. ARTHURS:: What companies does thq hon. member refer to?


George Gibson Coote: The Cockshutt Plow Company, the International Harvester Company, the Massey-Harris Company, and the John Deere Company. Now if that was all these machine companies were able to collect last year, when Alberta had the biggest crop in her history, we can readily see that the position of the farmer is certainly a serious one, and it is no wonder they are not able to buy these implements. Hon. gentlemen should be aware by this time of the fact that a very large percentage of the farmers in western Canada are now working for the banks or the mortgage companies; they are managing their farms _ for the benefit of those institutions. Let me say that in conversation with the manager of a branch bank in Alberta in January last in regard to this very advance in the price of implements he said: "The prices of these implements are altogether too high and the farmers should go on strike and not buy implements at all. As a matter of fact we have made it a practice here of insisting, in the case of any farmer that we are financing to any extent, that he should not buy any new implements." Now, these banks are in a position to tell the majority of the farmers in Alberta just what they can or cannot buy. If the bank managers will not let them buy implements it is a certainty that the implement companies cannot sell their machines.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
I understand that the president of the Bank of Commerce, Sir John Aird, is also a director of the Cockshutt Plough Company. If Sir John Aird cannot solve this problem of how the farmers are to be allowed to buy the implements that the Cockshutt Plough Company is making, then this House will have to take a hand in the matter and see if it can help out in any way; otherwise the farm machine business is going to be in a worse plight than it was before. The way the farm implement men of Canada now take care of their overhead is by simply adding it to the number of machines that they sell, and as the number of machines which they are able to sell dwindles, the overhead which is charged to each of the implements increases. Where is this thing going to end? I think this budget has done one thing: It has put the machine men in the position where they can offer the farmer cheaper implements. If they do not do so I think this House should take some action at its next session to see whether cheaper implements cannot be offered to the farmer.
I should like now to take a few more minutes, if I may be allowed the necessary time, to show why the farmer must have cheaper implements if he is to carry on. particularly the western farmer. I know we should not discuss these matters in a sectional way but in a little booklet issued by the Massey Harris Company-a copy of which was sent I think to every member-it is stated at page 12 that the gross yearly return of the farmers in the Maritime provinces was 35 per cent on their invested capital.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: That is the gross return?


George Gibson Coote: Yes. In Ontario and Quebec the gross return was 27 per cent on the capital invested. In the prairie provinces the gross return was equal to 15 per cent on the invested capital. In this same booklet, on the following page, I find these sentences;
The purchasing power of the farmer's and the manufacturer's dollar has greatly shrunken since 1913. The farmer's dollar worth 100 cents before the war, is estimated by the government bureau of statistics to be worth now only 54 cents.
Then I find that according to the monthly bulletin of agricultural statistics for March, page 104, index numbers of agricultural prices which show that compared with the period from 1909 to 1913 the prices to-day of all field crops are 100.7 per cent practically the same as they were before the war. Carrying these figures out will show that wheat to-day has a purchasing power of 54 per cent of what it had before the war; oats 52 per cent; barley 48 per cent; and rye 35 per cent. The 152J
farmers' cattle to-day have a purchasing power compared with the period 1909 to 1913 of 33 per cent, and select hogs have a purchasing power of 57 per cent.
Now I want to come to the item which I think is the biggest handicap under which the farmer, particularly the western farmer, is labouring to-dlay. We have all reaeived pamphlets through the mail from woollen manufacturers stating that they could not compete with the manufacturers who live or operate in countries with a depreciated currency. The Canadian farmer to-day is producing largely for an export market, and the price on that market is setting the price for his produce. That is particularly true as regards grain and cattle. When we come to export our wheat to Britain we find that we are competing principally with these countries. Australia whose currency has depreciated about 9 per cent compared with ours; the Argentine whose currency has depreciated about 16 per cent; India with a depreciated currency of about 39 per cent; Denmark with a depreciated currency of about 39 par cent; and Britain whose currency has depreciated about 12 per cent compared with ours. These depreciated currencies constitute a real handicap. I should like to quote from a report in the Commercial Intelligence Journal of March last, page 373, by our trade commissioner in Australia. Referring to the price and sales of wheat in that country he says:
British importers
being penalized by the low conversion rates of sterling into dollars, endeavoured to obtain their wheat requirements from Australia rather than from Canada and the United States and this accentuated the demand.
I shall not dwell on this subject any longer but I wish I could impress upon the House the necessity of dealing with this question of depreciated currency. I wish the people of this country could be led to think of something else than the pride they feel in the national dollar. They might even consider whether it would not be wise to allow our dollar to depreciate a little so that we could compete with these other countries.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: Inflation.


George Gibson Coote: 
James Arthurs: Would my hon. friend
follow that example in regard to Germany?


George Gibson Coote: No, Mr. Chairman, in this instance I am not going to Germany for an example. I am trying to put the problem before the members of the committee. It is a real problem, and is more responsible for the condition in western Canada, I think, than even the tariff, and cannot be lightly dismissed. The question of the position of the western farmer is a very burning one, because in the case of a large percentage at least of our farmers their total production over the actual existence line-that is their bread and butter, food and clothing-goes to pay interest. When the rate of exchange was depreciated about eighteen per cent two years ago, if one of our farmers shipped a car of cattle to Chicago and brought back a draft on Chicago for $1,000, he was able to take that draft into the bank and secure $1,180 for it, and the $180 that he received as a premium would go a long way to offset the amount of tariff which he paid to get his cattle into the United States. The same principle holds true with the wheat and cattle that we are shipping to Great Britain.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: But when the Canadian dollar was at a relatively lower figure than the American dollar and the Canadian farmer wanted to buy goods from the United States- and some goods had to be bought there-he would have to pay more.


George Gibson Coote: Yes, he would pay more; but the share of his production which was going to pay interest and to pay off his debt ne was formerly able to bring back as premium, namely about one-sixth. This is a question that must be faced, because of the load of debt resting upon our farmers. We must act so as to bring prosperity to our farmers. And when the farmers prosper the result is prosperity to the manufacturers. The farm produces the largest share of the market for manufacturers, and I know that my hon. friends to my right will not despise the home market. The manufacturers must have a home market as well as the farmers, in fact I think they are more dependent upon it. I think in this country we all appreciate the value of a home market; at the same time we know we must import certain goods. We have an interest bill to pay on five billion dollars, and we must have exports to pay this interest. We are going to depend more largely

upon the farmer than on any other one class to furnish the exports. Under present conditions I rlo not think the farmer can very well continue to carry on long. I wish that I could impress strongly upon the committee the necessity of dealing with this question.


James Alexander Robb: Before you leave the chair,
Mr. Chairman, I desire, to move that the figures "456" be inserted after 453b. This is in regard to the ingot moulds used in the production of steel. The present rates are 5 per cent, 7i per cent and 10 per cent. We propose to make them free. I will explain the matter when the item is taken up.


Arthur Meighen: I thought we were going to get through the first day without any changes. Would the minister give us the significance of this amendment?


James Alexander Robb: It has already been announced. The announcement has been on Hansard for some time.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question being put, pursuant to rule.
Thursday, May 22, 1924.