1928-03-15

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 65, respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.-Mr. Jelliff.
Bill No. 66, respecting a certain patent of Douglas J. Martin.-Mr. Clark.
Bill No. 67, to incorporate The Peace River and Mackenzie District Railway Company.- Mr. Hay.
Bill No. 68, to incorporate the Northwest Canada Conference Evangelical Church.-Mr. Brown.
Bill No. 69, respecting The Interprovincial and James Bay Railway Company.-Mr. Parent.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication from His Excellency the Governor General:

I have received with great pleasure the address you have voted in reply to my speech at the opening of parliament, and thank you for it sincerely.
_	WlLLINGDON.
Government House,
Ottawa.
10th March, 1928.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. MacDONALD (Cape Breton South):: 1.	Has any order been given by the Department of Agriculture for the purchase of a quantity of sulphate of ammonia for the experimental farm at Kentville, N.S?
2.	If so, to whom was such order given?
3.	By whom were such goods supplied?


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: 1. 2. and 3. No. The Barrett Company of Toronto through the Dominion Iron & Steel Company of Sydney, N.S., have forwarded 2,250 pounds of sulphate of ammonia, free of charge, for trial on the illustration stations in Nova Scotia.


CIVIL SERVICE SUPERANNUATION
Mr. WHITE (London):: Upon his superannuation a civil servant is paid a superannuation allowance of a certain percentage of his salary based on the last three years of his service. Is it possible under the present act, in the event of a lower salary having been paid for one or more of the final years, for a civil servant to choose any three consecutive years of his service to form the basis of his superannuation?


Mr. ROBB:: The Civil Service Superannuation Act (chapter 24, revised statutes, 1927) provides that superannuation allowance shall be based on the average salary of the contributor during the last five years or ten years of his service, depending upon which part of the act applies. The act further provides that in the case of a contributor to whom part III applies, that is, one who on July 19, 1924, was subject to the provisions of part I of the Civil Service Superannuation and Retirement Act, his allowance shall not be less than that to which he would have been entitled if he had continued to be subject to said part I of the Civil Service Superannuation and Retirement Act. Under the provisions of that act, the basis is the average yearly salary during the last three years of service. In no case is provision made for a civil servant to choose particular years for the purpose of determining the average salary to be used as a basis of superannuation allowance.

Questions
international joint commission


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: Does the government propose to reorganize the International Joint Waterways Commission in harmony with Canada's present status?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: With permission of the house I should like to answer this question orally. The appointment and procedure of the International Joint Commission is at present in substantial harmony with Canada's national status. Article 7 of the Boundary Waters treaty of 1909, under which the commission was constituted, provides for the appointment of the Canadian members by " His Majesty on the recommendation of the Governor in Council of the Dominion of Canada." The governmental references to the commission are made by the Canadian government. I have used the words " in substantial harmony " for the reason that as a matter of fact there is the use in several places in the treaty itself of the terms " the United Kingdom" and "His Majesty's government" where if the treaty were now being drafted the term " His Majesty " would be used instead. In many articles of the treaty reference is made' direct to the government of the Dominion of Canada, but there are three instances in which it is ambiguous. When I give my hon. friend those instances he will see in a moment that any ambiguity has been removed by the understanding reached at the last Imperial conference. Article V of the treaty reads:
The United Kingdom, by the Dominion of Canada, or the province of Ontario, may authorize and permit, etc.-
The words " United Kingdom " would be out of place in any drafting of a treaty today between the United States and Canada, and it may be taken as now being the fact that the words "His Majesty" are the words that are signified in that particular.
Article VII reads as follows:
The high contracting parties agree to establish and maintain an International Joint Commission of the United States and Canada composed of six commissioners, three on the part of the United States appointed by the President thereof, and three on the part of the United Kingdom appointed by His Majesty on the recommendation of the Governor in Council of the Dominion of Canada.
In this section as will be seen the words " United Kingdom " occur again. If the treaty were being drafted to-day the words " United Kingdom " would not appear, but the words "His Miajesty" would appear instead.
Article X reads as follows:
Any questions or matters of differences . . . may be referred for decision to the International Joint Commission by the consent of the two parties, it being understood that on the part of the United States any such action will be by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and on the part of His Majesty's government with the consent of the Governor General in Council.
The words " on the part of His Majesty's government " would read to-day in a redrafting of the treaty " on the part of His Majesty."
I submit, however, that in view of the following statement which appears in the report of the Imperial conference of 1926, it is scarcely necessary to redraft the treaty in order to have it conform to the status of Canada as laid down at the last Imperial conference, although in some particulars this might be desirable:
We propose that it should be placed on record that, apart from provisions embodied in constitutions or in specific statutes expressly providing for reservation, it is recognized that it is the right of the government of each dominion to advise the crown in all matters relating to its own affairs. Consequently, it would not be in accordance with constitutional practice for advice to be tendered to His Majesty by His Majesty's government in Great Britain in any matter appertaining to the affairs of a dominion against the views of the government of that dominion.
So with respect to the International Joint Commission having regard to the procedure set forth at the last Imperial conference and the practice to be adopted in accordance with that procedure, any matter relating to the commission would be dealt with by His Majesty on the advice of his Canadian ministers. Wherever the treaty makes a reference to His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom, it would be understood, in accordance with the practice as now laid down, that this would mean His Majesty's advisers in Canada in so far as the matters have to do with Canadian domestic or external affairs.
There is one point I should like to clear up because I have seen some mention in the press of an intention on the part of the government to make some alteration because of the change in Canada's status. There is no intention to make any changes. Some time before the last Imperial conference, a communication was sent to the British government asking their opinion as to whether, in the event of an appointment being recommended by His Majesty in council in Canada, the wording of the treaty which nominally places the appointment in the hands of His Majesty's government in Great Britain, would be construed as in any sense giving that apointment to His Majesty's government in Great Britain rather than to His Majesty's government in Canada. The reply which was received was to the effect that most
Privilege-Mr. Cahan

certainly the King would be advised in these matters by his Canadian ministers and not by his ministers in Great Britain. Since the Imperial conference with respect, for example, to exequaturs issued to consuls, the practice has been adopted of having them bear the signatures of His Majesty the King and the Secretary of State for External Affairs in Canada where formerly they bore the signatures of His Majesty the King and the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in Great Britain. If to-morrow a commission were being issued to a new member of the International Joint Commission, it would be signed by His Majesty the King and would bear the signature as well of the Secretary of State for External Affairs in Canada and not the signature of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in Great Britain as was formerly the case.


RIDBAU CANAL
Mr. WOODSWORTH:: 1.	Who owns the Rideau canal?
2.	By what department is it administered?


Mr. DUNNING:: 1.	The Dominion of Canada.
2.	The Department of Railways and Canals.


ROYAL MINT
Mr. WOODSWORTH:: 1.	Under whose authority is the Royal Mint
operated?
2.	Who makes the appointments?
3.	Who pays the cost of operation?
4.	What was the cost of operation last year?


Mr. ROBB:: 1.	Authority was given for the establishment of the Ottawa branch of the Royal Mint by royal proclamation dated 2nd November, 1907, and the operations of the Ottawa mint are conducted in accordance with the provisions of the proclamation referred to.
2.	The Lords Commisisoners of His Majesty's Treasury.
3.	Government of Canada.
4.	1926, $184,481.45.



PRIVILEGE-MR. CAHAN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. H. CAHAN (St. Lawrence-St. George):: As a private member, and acting
in that capacity only, I wish to call the attention of the house to what I regard as a matter of privilege, because it seems to me, subject to your opinion, Mr. Speaker, to be a breach of or infringement upon the established rules and practices of this house. I refer to pages 1301 to 1320 of the Com-

mons' Hansard for March 13, 1928, containing tabulated statements presented to the house by the Prime Minister during the course of the debate on the amendments to the motion to go into committee of ways and means. I do not wish to deal at length with the previous decision of the house, in which decision the Prime Minister concurred, as reported on pages 619 and 620 of Hansard of February 20, in regard to the matter which was brought to the attention of the house by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth). I do not wish to object to the nature of the information which is very useful and serviceable to hon. members, but which I think could be brought to the attention of the house only by being laid upon the table as a financial statement emanating from either the Department of Finance or the Department of National Revenue. I am drawing this matter to the attention of the house because I think it is a breach of our rules and practices, and if it is to be persisted in, members on both sides, who have in the same circumstances exactly the same rights and privileges as the Prime Minister himself, will exercise that privilege, if it is to be established and recognized, in a way that will preclude the proper course of debate in this house, especially when such statements are presented in the closing part of the debate. I think it is a breach of privilege and I call it to Your Honour's attention.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should like to assure my hon. friend that the last offence of which I would wish to be guilty is a breach of the privileges of this house. I thought I was guarding against anything of that character when I asked the permission of the house to place on Hansard a somewhat lengthy statement with regard to Which there was some discussion before the assent of the house was given to the request. Having received what I took to be the assent of the house I did hand the statement to Hansard.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The assent was not unanimous.


Mr. BENNETT:: The house did not give
its consent.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend says: "The house did not give its consent." The house gave its consent at any rate by acquiescing. May I say however to my hon. friend, as I intimated in the course of the discussion, that I was quite prepared, if the house wished me to do so, to read the statement rather than to have it presented in tabulated form. It contains very useful and accurate information and as such was given to

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
the house for the purpose of enabling hon. members to read for themselves something which they could perhaps appreciate more readily by reading than by hearing it read. I hope I have not offended, but I will say to my hon. friend that I will keep his counsel in mind and endeavour not to offend in the future.


Mr. GOTT:: Is this a privilege that we can all enjoy?


Hewitt Bostock: 
Mr. KENNEDY:: What was the amount
imported under this item last year, and who will benefit by this reduction?


James Alexander Robb: Hitherto there has been no separate classification for this article. The United States rate is 10 per cent, and the reason for the change is that provision is made under their statute for a duty equal to that imposed by any other country against the United States product; for example, under the old rates, their tariff on the Canadian product would be 25 per cent. We are reducing our rate, and the United States rate will be reduced correspondingly upon our product going into their market.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Who will get the chief
benefit of this reduction?


James Alexander Robb: The Canadians who are employed in this industry will benefit very largely by the reduction, we hope.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Prior to the date of this
new tariff, had there been importations of pulp board in rolls, coming under item 192a, from the United States or from Great Britain? Is there competition from the United States and Great Britain?


James Alexander Robb: Perhaps my hon. friend did
not hear the previous explanation. There is no separate classification whereby we can determine the imports of this particular product, but perhaps my hon. friend will be interested to hear that we are making this change at the request of the gentlemen who are engaged in this business in Canada. They say it will enable them to get into the United States market, where they will have a corresponding reduction in the tariff rate.


Mr. HANSON:: What is the minimum
duty in the United States at the present time?


James Alexander Robb: Ten per cent, but their rate
will be made Whatever ours is.
1350	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Is that clear that their
rate will be whatever ours is?


James Alexander Robb: My information comes from
the gentlemen who are in the business, who have requested this change. Our officers have checked up the information they have given us and find that it is quite correct.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is this provision in the
United States for making their rate conform with ours a regulation under their tariff board, or is it in a statute, and is it a permanent provision?


James Alexander Robb: It is under their statute.
Automatically under their tariff, their rate is made to correspond with that imposed by any other country. If we put a rate of 25 per cent against the United States, they put a similar rate against us.


Richard Burpee Hanson: They have power to raise their rate of their own free will without reference to congress, I suppose?


James Alexander Robb: I am not sure of that.


Richard Burpee Hanson: lam.


James Alexander Robb: Does my hon. friend object
to this item?


Richard Burpee Hanson: No, I do not; I welcome
it


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not the way to put it. The position is this: Should there not be added to this item a provision such as the United States has in its tariff, that if they take action to increase the duty, we by order in council may effect the same purpose? That is the only observation I have to make in respect of this item.


James Alexander Robb: That is a question of policy.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is for you to say, not us.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Are there not records in the department showing the amount of imports under this item last year?


James Alexander Robb: I have already told my hon.
friend twice that there is no separate classification whereby we can determine the importation of this particular product. It comes in under various other classifications.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: None whatever?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Supporting what my hon.
leader has said, I would point out that if we lower the duty to 10 per cent-with which I am in perfect accord, for I think it will help Canadian industry-and the United States put t'heir tariff up, automatically ours should be raised too. I have no idea in the world that

we should keep our tariff at 10 per cent, and they raise theirs next week, say, to 20 or 25 per cent, as they may do. The minister will remember that there are some very large companies in the United States making this very product, and they will naturally want their home market for themselves. I happen to know that the International Paper Company are large manufacturers of this very product in their United States mills. It may be that they will transfer that business to Canada-I hope they will; they are getting over here as fast as they can-but at the same time I do not tfhink we ought to be caught in a position where our tariff would be reduced to 10 per cent and they raise theirs back to 25 per cent. That is very likely to happen. The danger is now being pointed out to the minister, and I hope he will act accordingly. I am not opposing the item in any sense, but I am directing the minister's attention to the danger of what may happen if we do not safeguard our position.


The CHAIRMAN:: Shall the item carry?


James Alexander Robb: Carried.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, let it stand.


Mr. ANDERSON (Halton):: What companies are making this product in Canada, and what is their output per year?


James Alexander Robb: I will get the information for
my friend later on.


Robert King Anderson: Has the minister ascertained that our Canadian industries will not be injured by this reduction?


James Alexander Robb: Perhaps my hon. friend was
not following me. Twice I have said that this change has been made at the request of Canadian industries.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Mr. Chairman, may I suggest it is not clear that the change is made in the way that will best promote the interests of Canadian industry. I would ask the Minister of Finance whether making it in this form has met with approval, because I understand that there is nothing in the tariff statute of the United States which limits their discretion: they may, if this is reduced to 10 per cent, reduce theirs to 10 per cent, or they may increase it; but when there is a duty outstanding they can exercise their discretion and make their duty exactly equivalent to the Canadian or other foreign duty. All we are suggesting is that this item should take the form of permitting the Minister of Finance, and the government which he represents, in the exercise of their discretion, to reduce the tariff on this

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
item if there is any satisfactory guarantee or understanding that the United States will reduce their tariff to a corresponding level.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Chairman, the member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) has put the matter very succinctly, and I think the minister should give heed to what he has said. We ought not to place the ad valorem duty at so much, no higher and no lower, unless we have an absolute assurance that the United States are going to do the same thing. My information is that it is discretionary in the United States depending on the advice of the tariff. In other words, it is an executive matter, it does not come before congress at all. If they do it, well and good, I would welcome it; but I should not like us to put down our duty to 10 per cent, and the United States do nothing. That would be anothei sacrifice on our part to the United States. And there would be a good deal of opposition in the United States to any reduction in their tariff. I can warn the minister of that right now. The large interests over there will not welcome any reduction of the United States tariff. At the same time, if we can obtain that action by the United States I think we ought to do so. In my opinion the suggestion by the leader of the opposition is one that the minister ought to take into consideration and say now what he will do, rather than call the item "carried." There are members on this side of the house, I would remind him, who know quite as much about the pulp and paper and millboard business as he does.


James Alexander Robb: Mr. Chairman, with regard to the last observation of my hon. friend, I admit at once that there are gentlemen opposite to me who know very much more about the pulp and paper business of Canada than I do. I make no pretence whatever to being an expert in that particular field. The United States have already provided for an ad valorem duty of 10 per cent under their Tariff Act of 1922, paragraph 1302.	1
will read it into the record so hon. gentlemen will know just what position we will be in when this item carries:
Paper hoard, wallboard, and pulpboard, including cardboard and leather board or compress leather, not laminated, glazed, coated, iined, embossed, printed, decorated or ornamented in any manner, nor cut into shapes for boxes or other articles and not specially provided for, 10 per centum ad valorem; pulp-board in rolls for use in the manufacture of wallboard, 5 per centum ad valorem:
My hon. friend will observe this:
Provided, that for the purposes of this act any of the foregoing less than nine onethousandths of an inch in thickness shall be deemed to be paper; sheathing paper, roofing paper, deadening felt, sheathing felt, roofing felt or felt roofing, whether or not saturated or coated, 10 per centum ad valorem. If any country, dependency, province, or other subdivision of government imposes a duty on any article specified in this paragraph, when imported from the United States, in excess of the duty herein provided, there shall be imposed upon such article, when imported either directly or indirectly from such country, dependency, province, or other subdivision of government, a duty equal to that imposed by such country, dependency, province, or other subdivision of government on such article imported from the United States.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Let us have the same
clause.


James Alexander Robb: That would be very nice for the government, and my hon. friend might like to see the affairs of this country run in that way; but I am not sure that the 245 members of this house are prepared to give the government-even this good government that we have now-power to make tariff changes in order to adjust conditions arising from day to day.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister is very
modest on that point. Since I have been a member of this house I can recall legislation that asked for a great deal more power than this proposal would confer on the government; I refer to the dumping provisions that were enacted at the request of the late Minister of Customs. No doubt my hon. friend remembers them very well. I think we ought to be safeguarded in some way, and I put it to the minister that it is his duty to see to it now. Furthermore, I would ask him why this item is limited to pulpboard in rolls. ,1 know that is the common practice but I do suggest that there be no limitation and that paper cut in sheets be in the same category as pulpboard in rolls.


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend may be right; I am not contradicting him. But this item was prepared by the men who asked for it and they are satisfied.


Robert King Anderson: Who asked for the reduction?


James Alexander Robb: The secretary of the Canadian Pulp & Paper Association.


Robert King Anderson: What companies constitute that association?


James Alexander Robb: Probably there is a record in the department; I do not carry all these facts in my head. There are a good many companies and the association is growing day by day.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: What
amount of money will this item involve? Surely the minister must have some estimate in this regard or he could not prepare his budget at all. He may not know much about the tariff, as he says, but somebody must have given him an idea as to the probable loss in revenue; otherwise he could not have prepared these financial statements. How much does he estimate this item will represent to the pulp and paper makers? The pulp and paper makers of Canada are, I understand, very efficient gentlemen; why are they not making their own rolls?


James Alexander Robb: As regards the probable loss in revenue, I assure my hon. friend it will be very small. I may not be able to add very much to the subsidies of any of the provinces, but I can tell the hon. gentleman that we shall not lose much revenue.


Edward Joseph Garland: I am glad that the minister is coming a little closer to the point, A moment ago he was not able to tell us anything about the matter, but now he can go. so far as to say that the loss will not amount to very much. What is his estimate?


James Alexander Robb: I have no record in dollars and cents but it will be very small.


Edward Joseph Garland: That is most unsatisfactoiy.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If the committee would not consider it impertinent, I could give them a little knowledge of a personal character with respect to this item. Although I am not associated with the industry to any great extent, I have had occasion to study the subject somewhat closely. The truth is that this item does not affect in any way whatever imports into this country. The mills that sell newsprint manufacture their own paper with which to roll up their product, They desire, however, to send their rolls to the United States and there is a duty there of about 25 per cent. In order that they may be able to sell more of this paper in the United States it is necessary that this item should be reduced to 10 per cent if we are to take advantage of the American tariff according to the terms read by the minister. Unless this is done the American duty of 25 per cent will continue on exports to the United States. The question is not what we buy from them; it is a matter of enabling us to send our product to the United States. And to do this we must make the change in our tariff. We must conform to the conditions laid down if we are to secure the benefit of a lower duty on [Mr. Robb.)
the part of the United States. That is the real situation. I would suggest to the minister, however,-because I still think it worthy of consideration-that he add to his item a provision which would ensure our right to maintain the higher duty should the United States not make it perfectly clear that we were entitled to the advantage suggested. I think the minister can provide this safeguard without difficulty. The point made by my hon. friend (Mr. Hanson) is, I think, sound, that the item should not be limited to rolls only, because a large part of the product is now cut in squares so as to be readily available for the purpose of rolling. I make the suggestion from knowledge that came to me under the circumstances I have indicated.


Edward Joseph Garland: I am very much obliged to the leader of the opposition, as I am sure the committee is. We now begin to realize that this much heralded reduction in the tariff is really of benefit to the manufacturers of pulp and paper in Canada, on the one hand, and to the consumers of the United States, on the other.


Mr. DUNNING:: The Minister of Finance said so.


Edward Joseph Garland: The Canadian manufacturer and the foreign consumer get the advantage. I hope we shall find some items in the tariff whereby the consumer in Canada is benefited.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I want to make clear to the minister just what we have in view. He has read to us one clause of the tariff. There are other clauses which enable the United States executive in its discretion to increase their tariff, and my sole suggestion is that if the object is to be attained, which the Minister of Finance has in view, there should be a provision that this 10 per cent of our general tariff which applies to the United States shall be maintained only so long as a corresponding tariff obtains in the United States, so that we may not be put at a disadvantage should the executive of the United States in its discretion withhold the same advantage from us.


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend and I may not agree on questions of policy but I think we concur in the hope that both of us will be back at another session, and if we find that we are being discriminated against it will be within the power of parliament to make' such changes as the government may recommend. But the fact is that there are practically no imports coming into the country.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I understand that.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


James Alexander Robb: The item now before the committee has been approved by the executive of the men who are actually in the business and who are looking for further trade in other countries. The reduction does not apply only to the United States; the item is reduced against the' world. The reduction places us in the position where our goods will not be discriminated against in the United States, as they are at the present time.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I suggest to the minister that by an adroit and slight amendment he could provide that our goods would not hereafter be discriminated against in the United States. That is the only suggestion I make. As to whether we shall both be back in another parliament, that is a matter of conjecture; we can only deal with the question the Minister of Finance submits to us to-day. For my part, I trust the hon. gentleman will long occupy a position in the public life of the country.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think the minister should accept the suggestion, which has been offered in a reasonable spirit. It is not in any sense a criticism of his action in putting the reduction into effect. I fully appreciate that it will be a good thing for the paper companies. I believe that within the past two years I have mentioned to the minister this very matter, suggesting that if he would reduce his item to a level of 10 per cent with the United States it would be a distinct advantage to the Canadian paper manufacturers and to Canadian workmen. The minister says that in the event of our being discriminated against the government can come' back to parliament to rectify things. I would point out that there is a difficulty in having such remedies provided; if I know anything about it, it is very difficult to convince a government that it has made errors in matters of this sort. Without wishing to take up more time, I would ask the minister to let the matter stand so that we might give it further consideration.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Who says no?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: We do.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I want to tell hon. gentlemen that they will not railroad any tariff changes without due consideration. I am not going to look for information on this subject from people who never saw a paper mill. I would suggest that a volume of trade might be built up to the exclusion of other volumes of trade and then, at the behest of the United States manufacturers, that government might
act very quickly with the result that this trade would be lost to Canadian manufacturers and serious injury would be done them. Let us try to fortify our position in every reasonable way. I am not asking the minister to do anything unreasonable, but I do think the suggestions which have been made are worthy of more consideration than the' minister has given them to date.


James Alexander Robb: May I recall to my hon.
friend, who is possibly as well posted on the paper business as any person in this house, that in 1923 we made a change which will be found under item 768 of the customs tariff. This affected pulpboard and rolls for use in the manufacture of wall board; it has been in existence ever since and was put through for exactly the same purpose. No fault has been found with that change since that time. With regard to the policy of hitting him on the other cheek, as we may call it, if we are going to adopt a policy of that kind it should not be limited to paper products. It is a broad general principle which might be considered by parliament; it is debatable, but it is not now before the house at all. It is a theory proposed by my hon. friends, and our idea is that parliament should determine what should be done.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: It is not a theory of
your hon. friends' at all; it is practised by our biggest competitor.


Mr. BROWN:: There is one point in connection with which I cannot grasp the argument of the hon. gentleman opposite. It is maintained that at present there are no importations under this item. What then would be the effect of that particular suggestion, if it were put into force? It could have no effect unless a trade were developed coming this way, but as long as the trade is all the other way, and we hope it will be all the other way, I cannot see how the change proposed by the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) can have any effect at all. With reference to his other point, I imagine the United States would have the power to cut off the trade at any time, no matter what we put in our tariff. I cannot quite understand the practical effect of the suggestion made by the hon. member.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I would not like to undertake to make the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) understand anything.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


John Livingstone Brown: I resent that implication.
The hon. member for Lisgar is endeavouring to understand this item.
1354	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: As I see it, the purpose of reducing this duty is to secure a reduction in the tariff on this paper going into the United States. If there is practically no loss in revenue, why not make it free all the way through?


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friends in that comer who oppose the budget do not agree with my hon. friends across the way, because hon. gentlemen opposite wish to put in a clause which will enable us to raise the tariff later on if necessary.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I was thinking of the
sensible thing to do from the explanation given by the minister.


John Livingstone Brown: I might ask the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) what difference it will make if there are no goods coming this way. Has the hon. member the intellectual ability to answer that question? I was under the impression that it might be considered unparliamentary to say these things across the floor of the house, but the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) has intimated on two occasions that certain members on this side of the house were wanting in the intellectual ability to appreciate certain points. Perhaps I might ask the hon. member if he has the intellectual ability to appreciate the point which I am bringing up. If there are no goods coming this way and if it is not likely any goods will be coming this way in the near future, what difference will it make what our tariff may be? I can understand the reason for the reduction mentioned in the budget, that it will afford our manufacturers freer access to the United States, but I would like the hon. member to explain a point which does not seem clear to me, as to the difference it would make either with regard to present trade or trade which may be developed if this particular clause were included in the tariff?


Richard Burpee Hanson: The hon, member has
given me a large order, but it is the trade which is "likely to be" with Which I am concerned. That is a complete answer to his question. I know he will not understand that.


Mr. YOUNG (Northeast Toronto):: Before the item carries I would like to ask the minister a question which might be applicable to this and to any of the succeeding items. Can he refer us to the report of the tariff advisory board, or to that part of their proceedings, which advises this measure? If so, we can then refer to the persons who applied for it or who gave evidence before the board in connection with this item.


James Alexander Robb: No, I have taken the responsibility and the government are taking the responsibility for this change.


Edward James Young: Then this is a
matter with which they have not dealt?


James Alexander Robb: No.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-208d. Flake calcium chloride for road-treating purposes only: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
James Alexander Robb: This material is used largely for road-treating purposes. There is no separate classification of imports, but it is estimated that about 5,000 tons of this material are imported into Canada yearly. On that basis the reduction in taxation would amount to about $15,000.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is it made in Canada?


James Alexander Robb: As far as can be ascertained
there is no flake calcium chloride being manufactured in Canada. In connection with this item I desire to move a slight amendment, which is required for shipping purposes. The word "flake" will be taken ouit, and the item as amended will read:
Calcium chloride not in solution, for roadtreating purposes only.


Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: Then I would like
to ask the minister two questions:	Who are
using this material in Canada, and if it is not made here from where is it imported?


James Alexander Robb: It comes largely from the
United States and is used in all the different provinces for road-treating purposes, particularly to keep down the dust on gravel roads.


Arthur Edward Ross: Was this item
before the tariff board?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


Arthur Edward Ross: And is this a suggestion or recommendation from the tariff board?


James Alexander Robb: Yes, it is approved by the tariff board.


Richard Burpee Hanson: How is the minister going
to restrict the use of this material to roadways only? Is it capable of being used for any other purpose? I am quite sure it is, so how is he going to differentiate when it is being imported? He should limit it to importations by municipalities or others who are going to use it on roads; if that is not done it will be brought into the country free and used for other purposes. What safeguard have we in this case?

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


James Alexander Robb: Who is going to be hurt even if it is brought in for other purposes? It is not made in Canada.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It might hurt someone
who wanted to manufacture it. I suggest that the proper way to safeguard the public revenue in a case like that is to put your duty on, and then to give the municipalities a drawback. If you want to help them, and they are the only people you seem to want to help, that is the proper method to adopt.


James Alexander Robb: That is a matter of opinion. I have had representations made to me, I think, for three years now. It was finally submitted to the tariff board that there was very little of this commodity made in Canada; the change is asked for by 'all provinces.


Richard Bedford Bennett: By the contractors of
the province.


James Alexander Robb: They may be contractors.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I asked the Minister of Finance how he was going to protect the public revenue in the case of importations by those who are not using this material on the streets of municipalities.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The contractors are the people who want it.


James Alexander Robb: We are assured that this material is not used for any other purpose.


Arthur Edward Ross: Yes it is used for other purposes, it is used for medical purposes.


James Alexander Robb: Then the medical profession and the road people together will benefit from this $15,000 loss to the treasury.


Richard Burpee Hanson: They cannot under this item.


Mr. CLARK:: I suggest that the medical profession cannot benefit under this item because the material can only be imported for the purpose of roadways.


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend will have to reconcile his opinion with that of his desk-mate.


Mr. VENIOT:: During my experience of public works administration in the province of New Brunswick, we imported a considerable quantity of this material1 for road purposes. We did not allow the contractors in road construction to use this chloride; it was used by the government, under rigid engineering supervision, for the purpose of laying the dust on gravelled roads and no other purpose. It was not used until after the road was finished and handed back to the province by the contractor. Then the patrol 56103-87
crews used the chloride on the road, and I understand it is being used in every other province of the Dominion. At any rate that is the way we used it, and I know it is the way it is being used to-day in the province of New Brunswick.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is it used in solution?


Peter John Veniot: No, it is used in powder form. It is contained in tin or metal barrels containing about 300 pounds to the barrel. A barrel will cover a road 40 feet wide for a distance of about 200 feet. In some cases it is is distributed just as sand is distributed on icy streets in winter time, in other cases by machinery. The former plan is followed in New Brunswick. It is quite a help in preserving the road. May I say for the sake of information that when chloride is placed on the roads in the month of June no further application will be needed that year, and the following spring you can see the good effects of the material not only in keeping down the dust but in consolidating the gravel surface of the road.


Mr. TOLMIE:: May I ask the minister if
the change will permit the importation of lime required for disinfectants free of duty, and whether it will interfere with the manufacture of disinfectants in Canada.


Mr. EDWARDS (Waterloo):: Is there any calcium chloride manufactured in Canada?


James Alexander Robb: I am told there is a very
small quantity manufactured but not in sufficient quantity to be available for road purposes. It is a by-product of salt.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Exactly, it is a by-product of salt.


Mr. MALCOLM:: I can inform the committee that there will be calcium chloride manufactured in Canada. One of the largest salt companies in this country intends to install a plant for the manufacture of this particular material, and they are not at all worried about it being admitted free of duty because the the cost of manufacturing it in Canada is just about the same as the cost of manufacture in the United States. In connection with the drawback of the duty on coal, we have been pressing for some years that the salt manufacturers in this country should be put on a parity with the salt manufacturers on the opposite side of lake Huron. This particular firm claims that it can manufacture calcium chloride in direct competition with the manufacturers elsewhere and I can assure hon. gentlemen that there need be no fear of American competition.



Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
This firm is aware that calcium chloride will be admitted free of duty and they are perfectly satisfied that it should be.


Alexander McKay Edwards: Do the
manufacturers intend to make calcium chloride?


James Malcolm: It is a by-product of
the salt industry. They can manufacture it out of the common salt produced in the lake Huron district.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-208c.	Xanthates, cresylic
acid and compounds of cresylic acid, used in the process of concentrating ores, metals or minerals:	British preferential tariff, free;
intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
John Frederick Johnston: Item 208c has been
changed to 208e.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-219a. Non-alcoholic preparations or chemicals for disinfecting, dipping or spraying, n.o.p.:	British preferential tariff,
free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
John Frederick Johnston: Item 219a has been
stricken out and the following substituted therefor:
Non-alcoholic preparations or chemicals for disinfecting, dipping or spraying, n.o.p.; materials, n.o.p. for use only in the producing or manufacturing of preparations specified in this item under regulations prescribed by the Minister of National Revenue: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Why the change?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I was going to protest
against this item as it formerly stood because on the island of Montreal there is a very considerable amount of capital employed in the industry covered by the original item 219a, and I know that in the case of one establishment employing a very considerable number of people, those people would be thrown out of employment as the item originally stood. If I understood the reading of the amended clause aright, the regulations are subject to a department of government, which will obviate the danger to a certain extent. I am very glad because in my own city something like two hundred people would have been thrown out of employment.


Mr. KAISER:: Are there any industries
manufacturing these preparations?


Mr. ILSLEY:: Unfortunately I was unable to catch the effect of the amended regulation when it was read by the chairman and it does not appear in the printed proceed-

ings. I wonder if the minister is prepared to give some explanation. First of all may I state the cause of my interest in this particular item? I should like to know whether it includes solids which are used in the preparation of spraying material. Solids such as calcium arsenate and arsenate of lead are used by fruit growers who mix them with water, and with other ingredients and apply them in the form of sprays. I should like to be assured that this item as it now reads includes those solids. Possibly it is confined to liquid sprays only, but it would be well to have an explanation in regard to it.


James Alexander Robb: Under the original tariff it
was for use only in manufacturing preparations specified in the item. The change has been made to enable the farmer, whether it be for his .orchards or for his stock or for treating grain for smut, to import it and mix it himself into 'his own preparation.


John Livingstone Brown: Will formaldehyde be included in this?


James Alexander Robb: Formaldehyde is a separate
item.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: Are there any industries in
Ontario that are concerned in the manufacture of these articles?


James Alexander Robb: I think there are a number
throughout Canada, but the number of people who use the product is greatly in excess of those who manufacture it.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: That argument is something that I protest against, and I wish to protest strongly against this policy of destroying established industries. Let me read this extract from the Journal of Commerce of Canada :
The government have, therefore, decided to make free under all tariffs non-alcoholic preparations and chemicals for disinfecting, dipping and spraying.
As a result, the fruit growlers will be better able to import their insecticides for spraying and dusting instead of buying them as heretofore from such institutions as the Deloro Smelting and Refining Company of Deloro, Ontario, which uses the arsenic ores of Cobalt and other Canadian deposits and employs Canadian labour.
This company has spent much on research and made heavy investments in plant which undoubtedly would not have been made had they felt that their protection against imports would be any less than that enjoyed by the producer of these imports. In fact, it was the excellent work which this company did in research, working in conjunction with the mining school at Queen's University, in an effort to find new uses for cobalt and arsenic, that started the Canadian people to consider favourably the expenditure of public money in order to encourage such research.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
As the representative of an industrial centre I again lodge my protest against the action of governments who will not for one moment consider the efforts that these men have put forth in order to establish their business, in order to employ men, men who come to a centre, buy homes, establish themselves and then wake up some morning after this parliament assembles to find that their industry is injured and possibly t'heir work brushed aside. We should at every opportunity, protest against this attitude of the government. As I understand the matter, the firuit growers appeared before the tariff board and asked for a seasonal protection against fruit being imported into Canada. The government of the day did not care to launch into a seasonal tariff, and probably with some justification, but something has to foe done for these men. When a government is without a policy, just dealing with individuals, each individual must be fixed up in some way or another. These gentlemen were sent home and told:	You cannot
get any protection on your fruit but we will tell you what we will do; we will allow you to have brought free into this country some of these non-alcoholic preparations or chemicals for disinfecting, dipping or spraying. I consider that is a wonderful gift to hand out to people who are endeavouring to have their industry protected. Regardless of the fact that there were in Canada industries employing men, the government was to penalize them in order to protect a few men by some such means. As long as an industry is affected and as long as these industries are being disturbed by the action of government, as a representative of an industrial centre I intend to protest against this kind of thing. In this country we need work and we need homes. We must protect in some way or another these people who have launched into an enterprise after years of research and they should not be disturbed in this way. I desire to protest against this proposed change in the tariff.


James Lorimer Ilsley: As representing a fruitgrowing constituency where the people desire and appreciate these changes very much, I should at least express the other side of the question. I do not know how many are employed in the industry about which my hon. friend has been speaking, and I do not know whether that industry will be injured or not. I rather fancy not, but I know that reductions of costs such as this to the fruit growers of eastern Canada are very important and will be greatly appreciated. They affect not a few people but many thousands of fruit growers, and a$ representing the other side 56103-87J
in this controversy, I want to say to the Minister of Finance that I appreciate very much what has been done.


Edward Joseph Garland: I heard the answer which the Minister of Finance gave to the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan), but I am not quite clear as to all it means. The clause that we are discussing states that the tariff will be administered simply under regulations prescribed by the Minister of National Revenue. Will the minister give us some idea of what these regulations will be? I understand the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George is very much alarmed about some plant in his constituency or city manufacturing non-alcoholic or alcoholic spraying chemicals, and so on. Does the minister propose not to levy that duty against imports of this manufacturing concern, or what is all this about?


James Alexander Robb: It is quite a common practice, as my hon. friend will see if he will go through the tariff, to prescribe regulations of the Customs department, regulations of the Minister of National Revenue. That is quite necessary in the administration of the act so that the officers will be able to follow the business and see that goods are admitted under a certain tariff for a specific purpose. For instance, certain products are made of which alcohol is a component part. We have an excise tax of ten dollars on alcohol, but if they are admitted for certain purposes, there is a different rate. I just offer that as an example. I am not sure what the regulations are. The Customs department have asked for this provision for the purpose of administration.


Edward Joseph Garland: Are we to understand that under this item a manufacturer may import formaldehyde free?


James Alexander Robb: No. I said a moment ago that formaldehyde comes under another item.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What revenue will be
affected?


James Alexander Robb: The imports for the year ended 31st March, 1927, are as follows:
Under the British preference rates.. $68,525
Under the treaty rates	 1,840
Under the general rates	 98,472
Or about $170,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is the production in Canada?


James Alexander Robb: I have no information on that.


Arthur Edward Ross: That last answer will perhaps explain a great deal. There is no information simply because this is going to affect a great many people. My hon. friend

Trays and Means-Customs Tariff
from Nova Scotia (Mr. Ilsley) pleads for the apple growers, but let me tell him and every other member present who is near a mining section, that this change affects them. It will also affect the great principle of research, towards the development of which the Minister of Trade and Commerce is proposing to make a large contribution. The smelting people connected with the mining industry have been endeavouring to find some use for their arsenic and other by-products, and research work carried on by the Deloro Smelting Company has proven that arsenic, which is a product of many ores in this country, can' be used in this way. Hundreds of thousands of dollars have been spent by this company in research work in connection with this very product, and if the minister persists along this line he is going to interfere very seriously with research work in this country. Arsenic is contained in a great many ores, and it is a problem to ascertain the best use that can be made of it, a problem upon which the mining industry has spent a great deal of money in research, and at their own expense. Further, the research work carried on in the universities by this company will now be carried on in their own laboratories in the Welland district, and if this product is to be made free they might just as well discontinue any further research work along this line. So it is not simply a few men engaged in the mining industry who will be affected, but the whole mining industry of this country.


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend starts from a wrong principle. He believes, I imagine, that because we reduce the duty, somebody else is going to come in. That is not the intention at all. It may mean, I admit, that there will be such competition as will compel the manufacturers to reduce the price to the consumers, but I do not believe that this is going to destroy the industry, or I would not do it.


Arthur Edward Ross: The minister has admitted that he knows nothing as to the amount that is produced in Canada, so obviously he cannot say very much as to the matter of competition. My point is that if you continue to reduce the duty, you will discourage the work of research. This change is very important and affects not only the few men engaged in this particular industry, but the whole mining industry in this country.


Mr. BRADETTE:: Mine owners in northern Ontario 'are perfectly satisfied with this change, I would judge, after reading several mining papers in my section of the country. Anything that will reduce the cost of production will be greatly welcomed by the mining industry of Ontario.


Mr. EMBURY:: As this change is going to affect the whole mining and smelting industry, as mentioned by my hon. friend from Kingston (Mr. Ross) I suggest that the item be allowed to stand so that we may have an opportunity to study its probable effects.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think that is a reasonable suggestion to the minister.


Mr. SINCLAIR (Queens):: 
James Alexander Robb: Yes.


Mr. ADSHEAD:: In reply to the hon.
member for St. Lawrence-St. George, the minister said that in making this reduction on spraying materials he was thinking more of the large number of people who used these materials, than of the comparatively small number who are engaged in their manufacture. I would ask if the minister is prepared to lay that down as a policy and carry it out.


James Alexander Robb: We have gone this far at all
events in carrying out that policy, and I observe that my hon. friend has not supported us. I would like to know where he stands.


Mr. EVANS:: I understood the minister
to say that he was arrogating to himself the power to bring these materials in free-


James Alexander Robb: I did not say anything of the kind.	.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: What is the object in
splitting this item into 219a and 219b? The original item 219a reads:
Non-alcoholic liquid preparations for disinfecting, dipping or spraying, n.o.p.:	British
preferential tariff, 10 per cent: intermediate tariff, 15 per cent; general tariff, 20 per cent.
Since this budget was brought down, we find that this item is apparently split into two, and the new item provides:
Non-alcoholic preparations or chemicals for disinfecting, dipping or spraying, n.o.p.; materials, n.o.p. for use only in producing or manufacturing preparations specified in this item, under regulations prescribed by the Minister of National Revenue: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
Does this mean that the materials will have free entry only if they are to he used by manufacturers?


James Alexander Robb: No. I said distinctly when I
was first asked what the change was, that this was for the benefit of the farmers who might import these materials and mix them on their own farms, as well as the producers.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Then why is formaldehyde kept at the old rate? It has been withdrawn from item 219a and put in under an amended item at the old rates, 10, 15 and 17-J per cent; there is a reduction of 2^ per cent in the general rate. But why is not formaldehyde given the same treatment as these other materials and who asked for this change?


James Alexander Robb: Because representations were
made to us. This is a non-alcoholic product; formaldehyde contains alcohol.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: No one drinks it. It
is used for the same purpose treating seed grain against smut. If the minister cannot see his way to make this free, perhaps he will explain why the change was made and at whose request.


Mr. TUMMON:: In view of the fact that
a change has been made, and that we will not be able to peruse the item carefully until we get Hansard to-morow, I think the request of the hon. member for Hastings-Peter-borough (Mr. Embury) that it be laid over for a while is reasonable.


James Alexander Robb: I do not object to it standing if hon. gentlemen wish to consider it.


Edward Joseph Garland: Before the item is finally left over until to-morrow, let me reinforce the statement of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Kennedy). If there is any class of farmer entitled to relief of this kind it is the man growing grain; he has to contend with frost, drouth, smut and other
troubles. Now, formaldehyde, carbonate of potash and one or two other preparations we use, but formaldehyde is most commonly used in the west to keep grain from becoming smutty in the growing season. All I am asking for, in common with the hon. member for Peace River, is that the wheat farmer be not discriminated against. We are very glad that my hon. friend from Hants-Kings (Mr. Ilsley) got something for the fruit farmers, potato growers, and so on; but we say:	Extend that all the way through; let us see the great generosity of the Liberal government this year; spread the benefit over to the man growing grain.	<


James Alexander Robb: Is my hon. friend making this
request after consultation with my hon. friend from St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) who opposes it?


Edward Joseph Garland: I am not
interested in the attitude of the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George. And it is not fair, Mr. Chairman, for the minister to attempt to evade a direct answer to a very fair question.


Arthur Edward Ross: Will the minister
state if the Mining Institute has expressed any opinion on this item? It has been said that the mining people from the north are in favour of it. I should like to verify the statement.


James Alexander Robb: Is it the non-alcoholic item?


Arthur Edward Ross: Yes. The salts
are made in solution for spraying potatoes, and so on, and are obtained from the products of certain ores, such as copper, arsenic, and so on. It is very important to mining development in the north.


James Alexander Robb: If my hon. friend has studied the tariff changes he will have observed that they provide fairly well for the mining industry of this country-


Arthur Edward Ross: That is no answer to my question.


James Alexander Robb: Will my hon. friend permit
me? He will have observed that the tariff changes provide fairly well for the mining industry of this country. My hon. friend who represents, and represents well, the city of Kingston, offers some objection to the item; but my hon. friend down yonder who represents a mining district says the people are satisfied.


Arthur Edward Ross: I am perfectly
satisfied that he has not gone into this item. If you will allow it to stand over until tomorrow some information can be submitted.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Richard Bedford Bennett: He says that it will
stand.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Mr. Chairman, the
Porcupine district is producing more mineral wealth than any other mining district in the Dominion. I have in my room newspaper clippings giving particulars of t'he developments there, and I shall be glad to afford my hon. friend an opportunity to read them. Then he will readily realize that all the mining producers of northern Ontario are perfectly satisfied with the reduction of tariff under this budget, for the simple reason that those reductions will lower the cost of production. I am speaking from personal knowledge, I know well the mining districts of northern Ontario, and I am in a position to say that that is the opinion of that section of the country.


John Frederick Johnston: Shall the item stand?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Stand.
Item stands.
_ Customs tari ft-219b. Formaldehyde containing not more than 15 per cent alcohol: British preferential tariff, 10 per cent; intermediate tariff, 15 per cent; general tariff, 17J per cent.


Mr. McMILLAN:: When was that put in?


John Frederick Johnston: It is an addition.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Will the minister explain why this item should be kept dutiable when the other part of the old item is placed on the free list? I cannot see any reason why spraying or treating liquid of this kind should be discriminated against because there is a little alcohol in it. It is not for drinking purposes anyway.


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend is quite right, it is not for drinking purposes. The house will observe my difficulty. We have just allowed the item which is free to stand at the combined request of both groups; now we come along to another item where the reduction in duty is 2i per cent, and there is objection. The total imports, I admit, are not large, but a moment ago I gave the reason now asked for by my hon. friend: it is an alcoholic preparation.


Edward Joseph Garland: I beg to
correct a misstatement on the part of the minister. The group in this corner never asked that the original item he submitted stand; hon. members there did.


James Alexander Robb: I am very glad to have that assurance.


Edward Joseph Garland: We have
a situation where non-alcoholic preparations for spraying, fertilizing, and so on, are
(Mr. A. E. Ross.]
allowed in free. But you have a commodity that was included in the original item now taken out of its setting and placed in a new item, 219b, described as "formaldehyde containing not more than 13 per cent alcohol." Why will not the minister allow that to remain in the original classification so that it may continue to come in free? We are certainly entitled to as much consideration in this regard as the fruit-growers, potato-growers, or any other people. We are up against a terrible problem in the west. The minister travelled through there last year when he did not see any smut; but I wish I could have him out there during threshing and put his nose near the machine. Then he would know what smut means, and, believe me, he would come down and put formaldehyde on the free list if he thought it would stop that smell. I want this new item to stand if he is not prepared to restore it to its old classification.


James Alexander Robb: I do not object to allowing
the item to stand for consideration if my hon. friend wants to study it further. The next time I go west, and he gives me an invitation to meet his constituents when they are threshing, I shall be delighted to accept it.


Edward Joseph Garland: The invitation is given right now for next fall, and I hope there is lots of smut around at that time for his sake.


James Alexander Robb: No, no, you do not hope it.


Edward Joseph Garland: I say, for
his sake-not ours.


John Frederick Johnston: Item stands.


John Evans: Mr. Chairman, I look upon
this item as direct discrimination. The preceding item is made free in favour of certain classes of primary producers who in their products are absolutely protected and their profit guaranteed under the acts of the government during the last two seasons; that is, by discriminatingly applying the dumping clause. But the wheat farmer pays a tariff duty on everything that he uses in his production, and he has to sell his product in the markets of the world. This is most unfair. If it was an oversight on the part of the minister, he cannot plead that excuse any more. We want to be put on the same plane as the other primary producers. It is only fair to the agriculturists of western Canada that they receive free of duty all the commodities they need in the production of wheat. But here is a case of direct discrimination.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


James Alexander Robb: The item stands for further
consideration. I may say frankly to the house that I considered this item rather carefully. I sympathize with the views presented by lion, gentlemen opposite, but they would have been in a very much better position to advocate their proposal to-day had they supported these measures as presented to the house yesterday when they thought the items were free.


Edward Joseph Garland: What about hon. members opposite who also come from the _ province of the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning)? Are they not interested? Are members of the Liberal-Progressive group not to be listened to? Are they dumb?


Charles Avery Dunning: They can speak for themselves.


James Alexander Robb: They have already made
representations to me.


Edward Joseph Garland: I hope the minister will take those recommendations into consideration.


James Alexander Robb: If I make such changes it will
be more out of consideration of the support I had than of the opposition.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was asked that the
item stand-


James Alexander Robb: That was the previous item.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, because it is a new
item; in essence it is an addition to the item submitted by the minister in presenting his budget. That is the first observation I have to make. The minister is wrong when he asserts that the request to have the item stand was made on this side for any reason other than the fact that the item is a new one. The item has been presented to-day for the first time; we have not had an opportunity to study it; nor is there any printed copy of it. Strictly and technically speaking, therefore, he has no right to propose it to the committee. Let us have no misunderstanding about that. In the second place, let me say that I resent, as a member of this house, the covert threats of the Minister of Finance. I know that government has sunk to a low level in the country; I know that. I know that men cannot get a job who do not pay a dollar and join the Liberal association.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: That is not so in Quebec.
.Mr. BENNETT: We have answers on the records of the house with respect to an expenditure of $175,000 on that canal-answers
in black and white. The statement is that if they had been in good health and had had a recommendation from one of the members of the constituency-


Charles Avery Dunning: Which is different from
what my hon. friend says.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In practice they were
told that they must join the association. There are men within the sound of my voice to whom they came to borrow a dollar to join. And it is not confined to this city or province, for I received yesterday a letter from Gaspe on behalf of a poor returned soldier who could not get a job on the wharf this summer because he could not get a letter from Mr. Marcil-


Mr. POWER:: Mr. Marcil is not the member for Gaspe.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Bonaventure.


Sir EUGENE FISET:: There are no
wharves in Bonaventure.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The last man to make
any observation is the ex-Deputy Minister of Militia and Defence.


Charles Gavan Power: Did he say he needed the
dollar?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


Charles Gavan Power: The hon. member made the broad statement that no man could get a job from this Liberal government unless he paid a dollar and joined the Liberal association. On behalf of the members of Quebec I absolutely deny that statement.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I deny it too. It is
absolutely untrue; it is most unfair to say that.


Mr. LAYIGUEUR:: I know it was done
during the Conservative regime.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Under the Tory regime but not under the Liberal regime.


James Alexander Robb: We are getting away from the question.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I shall deal with the question. I say, as a member of a free parliament I resent the covert threat of the Minister of Finance. If men cannot exercise their judgment and vote as conscience directs, without being threatened that the wheat seed they desire to put into the ground shall not be free from smut, then this is a poor kind of parliament. I say further-*


Edward Joseph Garland: That is the implication.

1362 [DOT]
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Richard Bedford Bennett: The implication was absolute, and I say further that if the minister will study the question he will remove that discrimination against formaldehyde. If he is right in making free the sprays that remove an evil from fruit trees, then he must make this smut destroyer free. I know exactly what it is; I am only a lawyer but I have studied some of these problems. It has been my business to do so. And when members of this House of Commons get up and assert the right of their constituents to have this smut destroyer placed on the free list, and are told that had they supported the minister's budget they might have got it-to be told so by implication-it is an insult to the institution of parliament. I must say there is nothing more offensive.to parliamentary life than that gentlemen who represent rural constituencies, as these gentlemen do, should be told in this parliament, when they assert that this formaldehyde should be placed on the free list in order that they might use it for the purpose of destroying smut, their request might have been considered as was the request of the hon. member for Hants-Kings (Mr. Ilsley), who voted for the budget. I say, this is not the way in which parliamentary institutions should be maintained; and I, as a member of this house, resent that sort of thing. It is subversive of parliamentary life and is injurious to the whole body politic. I resent it now and will continue to resent it. Gentlemen who loudly cheer observations of that kind are striking a fatal blow at the institutions of the country in which they live.


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend is attempting to put words into my mouth and to place upon my observations a construction not intended.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is what is said.


James Alexander Robb: I said I would have-and
naturally my hon. friend would have-a greater regard for the gentlemen who supported my budget-for the representations they made to me before to-day regarding formaldehyde -than for hon. gentlemen who opposed the budget when they thought it was free. I am glad to have the apparently unanimous assurance of gentlemen that they are prepared for a reduction. My hon. friend, speaking for the great Conservative party, indicates that he will have no objection if I reduce the item.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He says that if you are right in placing the other items on the free list, much more should you place these.


James Alexander Robb: Fine.


Charles Avery Dunning: There are some other
things in relation to the dignity and liberties of the house which require to be mentioned. My hon. friend a moment ago stated in the plainest terms that on the records of this house would be found the statement that men could get employment on the Rideau canal in this city only if they paid a dollar to join the Liberal association.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He did not sav that.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is within the memory of the members of the house. If that was not what my hon. friend said, certainly that was the meaning to be drawn frcyn it, I am not a lawyer; I cannot Dut words into my hon. friend's mouth as he did into the mouth of the Minister of Finance. But I can state that that is absolutely and completely outside the fact. I would use a stronger term if it were parliamentary so to do. The practice with respect to daily labour on the Rideau canal this year, and in every other work of a similar character this year, has been just exactly what it has been in every year since confederation.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Mr. SPENCE:: Since you came into power.


Charles Avery Dunning: Do my hon. friends require to have placed on the table of the house proof of what I am stating, that the system has not been changed? Not only my own department but the Department of Public Works has done the same thing in the same manner in every year since confederation. My hon. friend from Carleton (Mr. Garland) can confirm it; he knows the practice followed. And it has not been departed from this winter, to my knowledge. If proof can be given that it has been departed from, I shall be glad to look into it., This has always been the practice with respect to casual labour required for such purposes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This is $175,000; so the return says.


Charles Avery Dunning: In wages?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Spent on the Rideau
canal.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, in wages and material.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Of course.


Charles Avery Dunning: Exactly; it does not
matter what the amount is. As my hon. friend knows, the labour involved is the kind

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
of labour engaged in building concrete walls and digging trenches for the erection of them; and every year in connection with that work-


An hon. MEMBER:: You are getting away from the item.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am following the example of my hon. friend's leader, and a minister who is attacked in this manner surely has the right to reply. If I have not on this item I shall be glad to raise it as a matter of privilege, and we might consider a little what is called the freedom of parliament, about which we hear in some moving accents in this house. I will be very glad to bring down in this house the records of the work done on the Rideau and other canals by my predecessor in office and by my predecessors of the party to which my hon. friend belongs, and I can assure him that I have cleaned up a good many of these situations which they started at that time. I will be glad to advance proof of that statement.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Another covert insinuation.


Charles Avery Dunning: No, I do not make covert insinuations, nor do I put threats into the mouths of other people, but I do endeavour to sit quietly while other people are speaking. There are always hundreds of applications for casual labour of this character. Those who apply are required by the superintendent to be able-oodied and fit for the work in question, returned soldiers receiving the preference. They are supposed to be recommended by the sitting members for Ottawa. That has always been the case, and in that regard we have followed the practice which formerly existed. It does not do my hon. friend credit to make those statements; he knows very well that this has always been the practice. I would be very happy to have the whole situation left to the Civil Service Commission, and I am sure the members for Ottawa feel the same way about it. We would then be rid of that nuisance.


Mr. MANION:: It is common talk around this city, and if it is not true it is doing a great injustice to the members who sit for Ottawa, that no man has an opportunity of getting work on that canal without going to those members. Not only that, but it is also common talk that every time a man or woman looks for work of that kind they are asked first as to their political affiliations, for whom they worked during the election and to what Liberal association they belong. I am not stating anything which is not common talk in Ottawa at this moment.


Charles Avery Dunning: No officials of my department ask any such questions.


Robert James Manion: I am not saying anything about the officials.


Charles Avery Dunning: The practice is that which has always been followed; work is given on recommendation of the members representing the city of Ottawa.


Robert James Manion: And the members representing this city look into their political affiliations. But I also wish to put myself on record as opposed to the attitude taken by any Minister of Finance who tells any party oi group in this house that if they would support him they might get what they ask for, and if they do not support him they will not get what they ask for.


James Alexander Robb: I did not say that.


Robert James Manion: The minister made this
statement, that if hon. gentlemen in that corner had supported his party, he would be much more inclined to listen to them. In other words, the budgets of this country are not drawn up for the purpose of doing good to the country as a whole, but are,drawn up for the purpose of doing good to the political party in power.


James Alexander Robb: Do you think these budgets
are good for us?


Robert James Manion: They seem to be hoodwinking the people rather successfully, and by the last vote or two I must confess that the people seem to be carried away a little by them. Personally, however, I do not think they are good for the country, although they have helped or something has helped to keep this party in power for another short time. I wish to protest against that situation, because I do not think it is for the good of this country or for the good of any political party in this country in the long run to make changes in the tariff designed only to benefit a particular party. I believe the minister will agree with me, if he cares to express an opinion, when I say that changes in the tariff should be made for the benefit of the country as a whole rather than for the benefit of any political party, and they should not be determined by the support or non-support given the government by any political party or group in this house.


John Evans: I want to say another word regarding this matter, and it is something I do not like to say. The minister has thrown down the gauntlet to us; to-day he has passed an insult on this little group and the great class we represent as having no voice here

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
and no right to a voice because we did not support the budget. The minister made that plain statement. The Minister of Finance not only confirmed what the Prime Minister said in the west during the last election campaign, but he has directly insulted this group of members. The Prime Minister said on the platform at Saskatoon during the last election that we could get anything if we would only join with the Liberal party. In his speech this year the Minister of Railways said we might have been co-operating with the Liberal party this year, and that we had thrown insults at those members who had seen fit to co-operate with that party. That is right, is it not?


Charles Avery Dunning: That is right.


John Evans: The minister said we could
only secure what we wanted and could only make our plans effective by log-rolling and dealing.


Charles Avery Dunning: No, no.


John Evans: The words of the minister
are in Hansard, and he can look them up.


Charles Avery Dunning: I did not use those words in the connection they are now being used by my hon. friend, and he knows that very well.


John Evans: In connection with group
government, the minister said it could only be accomplished by log-rolling and dealing. The minister himself came into public life through the very organization which sent us here.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


John Frederick Johnston: I think I should draw the attention of hon. members to the rule which states that discussion in committee must be directly relevant to the item or clause under discussion at that particular time. Hon. members know very well that for a considerable time the discussion has not been relevant to the matter before the committee. I would therefore ask hon. members to bring their remarks more closely to bear on the item now before us.


John Evans: This is a direct discrimination between two classes of primary producers, and that is why I protest against it. I also protest against the words of the minister as an insult to us and to our whole class.


James Dew Chaplin: What is the item before the committee?


Mr. CHEVRIER:: I rise to a question of
privilege. It has pleased the distinguished leader of the opposition to make statements in which he has mentioned the members for

the city of Ottawa. I want' to say to the hon. gentleman in the most courteous manner possible, but at the same time in the most vehement and effective way, that the statement he has made with reference to the securing of work on the Rideau canal is not at all warranted by the facts. The appointments have been made not only on the recommendations of the hon. members for the city of Ottawa; but they have been made on the recommendations of the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Fontaine); of the hon. member for Wright (Mr. Perras); of the hon. member for Russell (Mr. Goulet), and on the recommendations of other hon. members for adjoining constituencies.


An hon. MEMBER:: The hon. member for Carleton?


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Not the hon. member
for Carleton (Mr. Garland), I am happy to say. For those appointments I take the responsibility. No man was asked at any time to pay a dollar to join any Liberal association in order to secure work.


Eccles James Gott: It is more than it is worth.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: When my hon. friend
gets into power he can ask $5. Now I say again it is not true that those appointments were made in that way; they were made as the Minister of Railways has said. If I were to produce a list of those who have been appointed to work on the Rideau canal you would find a large percentage of returned soldiers who were unable to do that hard, arduous work under those difficult conditions, and in addition you would find that both myself and my colleague sitting for this city had received recommendations from the Salvation Army, from the ministers of different churches, from priests, from the welfare bureau and from other charitable institutions, and that those were given the preference. In conclusion may I ask my hon. friend from Fort William (Mr. Manion) if he has ever given any position within his power to a Grit since he has been in charge of any operations of the Ontario Liquor Commission?


Robert James Manion: I can assure my hon.
friend any way that we have never demanded any fee from applicants or asked them to produce a certificate from the Conservative association before they got the positions.


Mr. HEAPS:: I was just wondering what
this question of privilege has to do with the matter before the committee. Any question of privilege should have some relation to the matter under discussion.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Mr. GARLAND (Carleton):: I rise to a
point of order. The Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Dunning) said that I could approve of the way they were appointing men to work on the Rideau canal in the city.


Charles Avery Dunning: No. If that is my hon. friend's point of order I can assure him it is not well taken. I would not expect him to approve of that. What I said-and he can rise to a point of order afterwards if he likes-was that he could confirm the statement that this system has been in operation ever since confederation.


William Foster Garland: All I have
to say is that I cannot confirm it.


Charles Avery Dunning: I see.


William Foster Garland: When this
Rideau canal retaining wall was built during the Conservative regime, the money was apportioned to three parties, the federal, government, the provincial government, and the corporation of the city of Ottawa. It was done as an unemployment measure, and no letters were required from one party any more than the other. At that time the Conservative party was in power and my county got its share. All I have to say with regard to the hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Chev-rier) is that he is really beside the mark in the assertions he has made here to-day, and I hope that if he has any respect for himself he will apologize for some of the statements he has made. However, I do not expect an apology, but 1 know that neither the member for Ottawa nor the member for Hull (Mr. Fontaine) can produce to anybody a list of the workers of the past two years which will bear any comparison with the list employed since this work started. Not only must applicants have these letters but they must go to the secretary and president of the Liberal association of Ottawa and get cards before they can get work.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: That is not so.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: In regard to what the minister stated a few minutes ago-


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: The leader of the opposition made a statement a few minutes
ago

	.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I think the minister was replying to me when he stated that if we had supported the budget we would have been in a better position to ask for these changes, or to call attention to these items.


James Alexander Robb: What my hon. friend has said is correct.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: That may be so, but the minister should know that neither threats nor anything else are going to divert me from doing what I believe to be right.


John Frederick Johnston: Order.


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: The leader of the opposition made the statement a few minutes ago that the member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) had refused to give work on the wharf to a returned soldier.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I said I had a letter saying so.


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: I think we would be interested in knowing the name of this man-


Richard Bedford Bennett: I will give it.


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: -who was refused
work.


Richard Bedford Bennett: His name is Mr. Watt.


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: Mr. Watt? I think the hon. gentleman should produce this letter.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I will get it from my room.


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: In justice to the hon. member for Bonaventure this information should be produced. We are interested in knowing the name of this man and his address.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have given the man's name. The letter is in my room, and when the Public Works estimates are under consideration I will read it to the committee. The man is an ex-soldier.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: In acting as we are, we are not influenced by threats, promises or anything else. We are working for what we believe to be in the interest of the country, and we have taken our oaths to promote that interest.


James Alexander Robb: I have no objection to the interpretation placed upon my remarks by the hon. member for Peace River. He is quite right in the statement he has made. What I said was that hon. gentlemen would be in a better position if they had supported the budget as brought down. Let there be no disagreement among us. I have no quarrel with my hon. friends but they seem to be under the impression that they can attack the government or individual members of it without evoking any retaliation. They think they can attack any members on this side or any members in the ranks of hon. gentlemen opposite without our striking back. But we are merely human and when we are attacked we strike back.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


John Frederick Johnston: Item 219b which has to do with, formaldehyde stands.
Customs tariff-236. Surgical dressings, antiseptic or aseptic, including absorbent cotton, lint, lamb's wool, tow, Jute, oakum, woven fabric of cotton weighing not more than seven and one-half pounds per one hundred square yards, whether imported singly or in combination one with another, but not stitched or otherwise manufactured; surgical trusses and suspensory bandages of all kinds; sanitary napkins, spinal braces and abdominal supports: British preferential tariff, 12J per cent; intermediate tariff, 174 per cent; general tariff, 20 per cent.


James Alexander Robb: The only change is the inclusion of the words "sanitary napkins", and the word "or aseptic", also "woven fabrics of cotton weighing not more than 17J pounds per hundred square yards."


[Stage Direction]
Amendments agreed to.
Item as amended agreed to.
Customs tariff-267b. Crude petroleum not in its natural state .725 specific gravity or heavier at 60 degrees temperature, when imported by oil refiners to be refined in their own factories: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free; on and after the 1st July, 1931, per gallon: British preferential tariff, 9ioe., intermediate tariff hoe., general tariff, ic.
James Alexander Robb: I am told that as this item is framed it does not accomplish what the government intended. I therefore wish the item to stand until I can look a little further into the matter.
Item stands.
Customs tariff-277. Palm and palm kernel oil, unbleached or bleached, not edible; shea butter: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.


John Frederick Johnston: The word " unbleached " is added to the item.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is the principle
here? Is this Lever Brothers' application?


James Alexander Robb: The change in wording makes the item read " unbleached palm and palm kernel oil ",


Richard Bedford Bennett: There seems to be a consolidation of these items.


James Alexander Robb: Formerly it was bleached only.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-356b. Nickel chromium rods for making electric resistance wire: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
Item agreed to.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I should like to have
said a *word upon the item before it was

passed. Is it not desirable to encourage the manufacture of nickel products as far as possible in the country, and is it not one of the points urged by the minister himself some time ago that in connection with matters of this kind we should not ship out the raw material in matte form and then bring back the manufactured goods, but rather by the utilization of our tariff permit the goods to be manufactured in Canada. And it will be observed that this nickel chromium in bar rods of not more than f of an inch in diameter was previously dutiable to the extent of 15 per cent, 17J per cent, and 17i per cent. The effect of this clearly will be that there will be no opportunity to develop what you might call the fabricated nickel in this country. The matte will continue to go out and the manufactured article will come back. Perhaps the minister will tell us \yhat is involved in dollars and cents, and at whose instance the change was made.


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend will observe that the rates will stand when these materials are made in Canada. The item reads:
Of a class or kind not manufactured in Canada.
It has been asked for by some people up above Walkerville. The loss in revenue would be about $10,000.


Arthur Edward Ross: What manufacturing industry asked for this free importation?


James Alexander Robb: It was the Hiram Walker
Products Company. This is:
When imported by manufacturers of electric resistance wire or electrical resistance strip or ribbon for use only in the manufacture of such articles in their own factories.


Mr. FANSHER (Lambton):: Was this considered by the tariff board?


James Alexander Robb: No, this has been before the
department for, I think, two or three years.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is only one point
I desire to make clear about that. It will certainly prevent the development of the industry in this country, and there is just this to be said with respect to all these matters: The Minister of Finance has had to meet this difficulty and I suggest to him it is desirable to overcome it. When you say that goods shall be free only if utilized in a certain way and at a particular point, the great difficulty has 'been in knowing that they are used for that purpose and at that point, and usually what has happened is that advantage has been taken of that particular provision of the tariff item to enable the goods that are thus free from tariff to be used for purposes not intended. Therefore I suggest to the minister

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
that as far as possible he should not use those words, that is, fix the application of the exemption by specifying the use of the article imported and the place at which it may be utilized.


James Alexander Robb: It is not very easy to do that. This language is inserted by the Department of National Revenue administering the customs. They say that under this they will be able properly to watch it. What my hon. friend has said is quite true, but sometimes there are evasions of duty and it is when we discover those evasions 'that occasionally changes are made in the tariff.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-438. Locomotives and motor cars for railways and tramways, and chassis, tops, wheels and bodies for same, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, 22i per cent; intermediate tariff, 30 per cent; general tariff, 35 per cent.
Mr. NEILL:: I should like on this item to draw the attention of the minister to what I consider an injustice in the way of carrying out, probably by regulations which have been referred to, a previous item on this subject. While I am on my feet I should like to express my appreciation of item 438e, which provides for a reduction of duty on cars for mining. This will help the coal mining industry, and I wish to draw the minister's attention to a somewhat similar case. In 1924 a reduction was made in the duty on machinery for sawing lumber and so on. The item concludes something like this:
Machinery, logging cars, block and tackle and complete parts thereof for logging purposes exel usi vely.
It was the government's policy at that time to reduce the cost of production in the basic industries, and it appears to have been worked out by regulations in a way that in some degree more or less prevented the advantage being obtained. Apparently by regulations it was held that, as regards locomotives, the line on which these locomotives ran must be exclusively on land belonging to a logging company. I have in mind a logging company which has forty miles of well ballasted railway nearly all on its own land, but because there is half a mile of other property between it and the shore to which the logs go, these locomotives were held not to come within the scope of this clause. Another objection that was made is this. It was held that if a logging car was used for ballasting this railroad- and this is a road on which nothing would ever travel except logs-therefore the cars could not be held to come under this item. I would suggest that if a logging car is used
for hauling logs three hundred days in the year and used for only a couple of weeks to ballast the line, it should be allowed to come under the item. Another objection made presumably by regulation was that the locomotive must be only on the side line-what is called yarding, I believe-hauling logs out of the bush on to the branch line. If the locomotive went on the main line, they would not allow any reduction on it. I object to this because nothing is carried over this line except logs and perhaps the stores going up for the various camps. I would ask if the minister's attention could not be attracted to a better definition of that item which is or used to be, 453e. It would carry out the absolute purpose for which it was passed and be of considerable help to the lumbering industry generally.


Edward James Young: I notice that
item 438 of the old tariff has been repealed and item 438 of the new tariff covers locomotives and motor cars used on railways, but there is no provision for automobiles or vehicles of all kinds which stood in the old item. Where do they come in now?


James Alexander Robb: The only change in this item is the addition of the letters " n.o.p.".


Edward James Young: The old item
438 read:
Locomotives and motor cars for railways and tramways and automobiles and motor vehicles of all kinds.


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend must have an old tariff. That is not the last one.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-438e. Locomotives and motor cars for railways and tramways, of a class or kind adapted for underground haulage for use only in mining operations: British preferential tariff, 10 per cent; intermediate tariff, 15 per cent; general tariff, 20 per cent.
Edward Joseph Garland: I approve of this change; it is a good measure of improvement for conditions in the mining industry, but I am a little at a loss to know why automatic carloaders were not included. I think an application was made to the board for the inclusion of automatic carloaders in any reduction. None of these is made in Canada; no industry in this country would be harmed in the least, and it is very unlikely that any of these will ever be made in Canada as the consumption is very small.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They are being included in the amendment.


Thomas McMillan: What was the old rate on them?

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Edward Joseph Garland: I think it was 22+ per cent, 30 per cent, 35 per cent, or something like that. I suggest that they should come in under the new rate.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They are going to make them free.


Edward Joseph Garland: If they make them free, I shall be highly delighted.


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend will be pleased to know that upon representations made to me by hon. gentlemen on this side of the house, he will find an item covering that a little further on. I have an amendment to provide for that.


Edward Joseph Garland: I am delighted to know that representations from that side of the house have been influential for once. They do not seem to have been so before. I made representations to that effect twelve months ago and I presume they have had some weight with the minister. I thank him very heartily.


Mr. YOUNG (Saskatoon):: The hon. gentleman flatters himself too much.


Arthur Edward Ross: I cannot let this
item pass without taking an opposite view to that held by a good many members in this house, because at the present time the manufacture of locomotives and other equipment used for mining is now being started in Canada. If hon. members who are speaking for the coal industry will kindly remember that their coal will be used in Ontario only in manufacturing plants, they will realize that this item and the reductions made in this way will not encourage the use of western coal.


Edward Joseph Garland: The hon.
member is quite wrong. Alberta coal is domestic coal, that will be used for domestic and not manufacturing purposes.


Arthur Edward Ross: I know the difficulty in persuading housewives to use western coal for domestic purposes, but there is no question about the use of soft coal in manufacturing plants. If the industry beginning the manufacture of this equipment for mining is to be discouraged in this way by a reduction in the tariff, then less western and maritime coal will be used in these plants, and this item is no encouragement to industries starting up the manufacture of this equipment.


Mr. FRASER:: Is it not a fact that mining machinery of a class or kind not made in Canada has been on the free list for many years?
IMr. McMillan.]


James Alexander Robb: Certain kinds, yes.


John Anderson Fraser: Only certain kinds?


Mr. COOTE:: I would like to remark that
it is very difficult for miners who are mining coal on which there is no duty to carry on if they have to use machinery that bears a duty of 35 per cent. That should be evident to the whole house without any argument. This afternoon I have been more impressed than ever with something that has often struck me before, and that is the difficulty of making a tariff that is going to suit everybody.


James Alexander Robb: Hear, hear.


George Gibson Coote: You give a certain manufacturer concessions, give him free importation of something he wants to use, and immediately you incur the opposition of some other manufacturer who is making the very article which you propose to put on the free list. I am coming very much to the opinion that was expressed about two years ago by Mr. Jones, of the Canada Cement Company, that perhaps the best thing we could do in Canada would be to introduce a uniform ad valorem tariff; then those who can take advantage of it to manufacture in Canada, may do so. Those who could not get along with that amount of protection would have to put up with it. It would certainly save a lot of unfair discrimination. The minister rather intimated this afternoon that if we belonged to his party we might possibly be able to get the tariff adjusted in a certain way.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


George Gibson Coote: I hope not. May I change
that and say that the tariff as it stands today is not a scientific tariff in any respect; it has not been built up upon any scientific principle, but stands as it is to-day just because of the pressure which certain interests have been able to exert on the Finance department.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


George Gibson Coote: That statement has often
been made before, and I will go to this extent at least, that generally speaking it is true. There are gross inequalities existing in our tariff; surely no one will deny that, and in spite of the fact that we have an advisory tariff board, many of these inequalities are still going to continue. Not only must the findings of the tariff board be taken into consideration, but there is also the political aspect to be considered in making tariff changes, and in spite of all the protestations of hon. gentlemen opposite I still maintain that the tariff as it exists to-day is largely

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
the result of the pressure and influence that has been brought to bear upon the Finance department by industries and individuals who have a personal interest in the matter.
I sympathize very much with the Minister of Finance. I am sure that from the time he starts to make up his budget until the resolutions are finally passed by this house he must have a great time dodging those people who are in Ottawa trying to get a little more tariff protection for their pet industry, or trying to have the duties taken off some of the materials they use. I would like to see the minister ask the tariff board to inquire carefully into the proposal that was made two years ago by Mr. Jones, that we should have a uniform ad valorem tariff on all imports coming into Canada, and let us do away with the system which now exists of giving tariff favours to certain people because of the influence they are able to bring to bear by reason of their financial position or political affiliations.


Mr. GEARY:: May I ask if the hon. gentleman would have a uniform tax on every import?


George Gibson Coote: I am not saying I would
have it, but I would like the Finance minister to ask the tariff board to inquire very carefully into that proposal to see whether it would not be more in the interests of Canada than a tariff built up, as the present one has been, through the influence that certain interested parties have been able to bring to bear upon the government or the Minister of Finance.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: This item has something to do with the mining industry, one of the primary industries of this country, and in this connection I should like to quote from an editorial in the Northern Miner of Cobalt, which is absolutely a non-political paper; it is a mining paper pure and simple. It says:
Tax and tariff reductions announced by the Minister of Finance indicate savings to the Canadian mining industry of a million dollars a year. And the changes made will be particularly encouraging to a branch of the mining industry in which Canada may be expected to take a leading part, that of treating complex ores, such as copper-zinc-lead-gold-silver ores, now shown so abundant in northern Manitoba, in Sudbury and in Rouyn.
Among the interesting items in the tariff changes are those that admit free certain acids used in the treating of complex ores and which lower the duty on machinery and equipment used in concentrating and smelting. With several new plants going up these items are particularly inteiesting. Another reduction is in the duty on hoists of a type not made in Canada.
The tariff changes were so framed as not to hurt the growing manufacture of mining
machinery in Canada. This is becoming quite an industry, and one which is proving helpful to mining by reason of the ability of Canadian factories to quickly supply machines and parts of a kind suitable to Canadian needs. The government feels that in cutting the tariff on these items it will aid mining and not yet injure manufacturing.
The Ontario Mining Association must have felt gratified to learn that five out of its six tariff recommendations were adopted. The sixth was not of great importance and because it was found to impose on manufacturing was not pressed.
That, Mr. Chairman, is the situation as it exists in northern Ontario.


John Anderson Fraser: What amount of machinery came in under this classification last year?


James Alexander Robb: There was no separate classification, so I could not tell my hon. friend, but apparently, in the judgment of the miners as expressed in the article that has just been read, this item is considered of great value.


James Dew Chaplin: What is the loss in revenue involved in this change?


James Alexander Robb: The estimated loss in taxation is $5,000.


James Dew Chaplin: Did this item come before the tariff board?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I would ask the minister if a reduction in duty always involves a loss in revenue.


James Alexander Robb: I am estimating on the basis of last year's importations. I gather from the observations of my hon. friend that he does not believe a reduction in the rate necessarily means a loss in revenue, and I think I have proved the truth of that to the satisfaction of the house and the country by the reduction that was made in the income tax, which did not mean a loss in revenue.


Mr. STEVENS:: Then put them all on the free list and we would have a bigger revenue.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-442. Printing presses, lithographic presses, and type-making accessories therefor, also machines specially designed for ruling, folding, binding, embossing, creasing or cutting paper or cardboard, sheet feeding machines, when for use exclusively by printers, bookbinders and by manufacturers of articles made from paper or cardboard-including parts thereof composed wholly or in part of iron, steel, brass or wood; machinery and complete parts thereof for printing by photographic methods on plates for use on lithographic and offset presses; stereotypers' and typeeasters' blankets, and press blankets used in covering cylinders on rotary printing presses, of a class
[Stage Direction]
Ways arid Means-Customs Tariff
or kind not made in Canada: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 5 per cent; general tariff, 10 per cent.
Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Is this change a result
of the recommendations of the tariff board?


James Alexander Robb: Yes. The new part is the
addition of the words:
-stereotypers' and typecasters' blankets, and press blankets used in covering cylinders on rotary printing presses, of a class or kind not made in Canada.
There is no classification of the imports. There are none made in Canada. The estimated reduction in taxation will be $5,000, based on last year's business.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I understood the minister to say the item had been recommended by the tariff board.


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It must have been a verbal recommendation.


James Alexander Robb: Perhaps.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I looked through the report and could find no record of it. What would be the source from which it would come to the minister? These verbal recommendations are very unsatisfactory when dealing with the tariff. Was the recommendation made by the chairman of the board?


James Alexander Robb: It is an advisory board. I think I might take this opportunity of describing the procedure.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I shall be glad to have it.


James Alexander Robb: They take evidence in the applications made to them and make their reports thereon. When the minister starts to prepare his budget he sends for the tariff board, who sit around the table with him and go over all the tariff items. We work together for long hours at a stretch, sometimes as late as two o'clock in the morning.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is too bad.


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend, who' has sat around the council table, knows that a minister goes over his proposals with his colleagues.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My experience was very brief.


James Alexander Robb: Happily my hon. friend has been promoted, and he will not be worried and pass sleepless nights considering two opinions, and trying to do what he thinks is best.


Mr. McGIBBON:: May I ask the minister first, if any recommendations from the tariff

board have been dealt with; second, have the tariff board found it necessary to advise an increase of protection for any industry; and, third, have they specified the amount of protection and the duration of time during which it should be effective in order that the industry might make its plans accordingly?


James Alexander Robb: It is only fair to the members of the tariff board to say that in some cases they thought we should provide higher rates than the rates that are now before the house in respect of some of these tariff items.


Peter McGibbon: Where could we get
those recommendations?


James Alexander Robb: I have just told my hon. friend that I called in the members of the tariff board to sit with me around the table and discuss these matters.


Peter McGibbon: On behalf of the parliament and the people of Canada, might I suggest to the minister that he adopt the system in operation in Great Britain?


James Alexander Robb: What is that?


Peter McGibbon: I placed it on Hansard a year ago. The necessities of certain industries are reviewed by a commission, and some of the requests for tariff protection are refused altogether, While others are favourably considered and the amount of protection specified, as well as the duration of time of such protection. These recommendations are in writing.


James Alexander Robb: Does the government adopt those recommendations?


Peter McGibbon: Generally. The commission functions under the Safeguarding of Industries Act. The information will be found in the library in pamphlet form. Under that system the industry would have the advantage of knowing just where it stood for a definite time, and during that time it could shape its business accordingly. Something more than confidential verbal recommendations-which probably are not followed-should be before the people of Canada; there should1 be something definite and concrete. Otherwise, how are we going to appraise the value of this tariff board? There is no question that today it is looked upon as simply a political football for the government-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Peter McGibbon: I say yes.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: We say no.


Peter McGibbon: I say the public think
so. I am not saying that I think so, although probably I would not disagree with the public.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


James Dew Chaplin: No appraisal company
would value it at all.


Peter McGibbon: We should have something definite and specific before us in order to judge the workings of this commission. I commend that to the consideration of the minister.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Did I understand the minister to say that the tariff board had made recommendations for an increase of tariff?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: I understood the tariff
board was simply a fact-finding body, and made no recommendations. Which of the two is it?


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend is quite right,
they are a fact-finding body. At the hearings they take evidence, and this evidence has been tabled. Perhaps my hon. friend could not hear me. I said that when we get ready to prepare the budget the tariff board are called over to the office, and they are asked in the light of all the evidence they have heard from both sides what in their judgment would be fair to the consumer and to the producer in regard to certain tariff changes. As I say, it is only just to the tariff board to say that there have been cases where they have suggested that rates of duty higher than those now before the house might be put into effect. But the government of the day must take responsibility for whatever changes are made.


Peter McGibbon: Then is it the general
practice of the government to accept the advice of the tariff board, or to disregard it?


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend, Who has had
a wide experience, is aware that no minister -not even my hon. friend opposite me (Sir Henry Drayton), who was for a number of years Minister of Finance-sits down, takes his pencil, and declares, "This is what the tariff ^hall be." He consults the officers of his department. The tariff board are among those officers.


Peter McGibbon: Perhaps the minister did not understand my point. Has the tariff board really had any effect in producing this budget, or have its decisions been largely disregarded?


James Alexander Robb: I am prepared to take full
responsibility for any blame from those who are opposed to the changes.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: All the praise
and all the blame.


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


Peter McGibbon: I quite agree with that, but I want to know what effect, if any, has this tariff board had on the budget.


James Alexander Robb: It has been very helpful.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Has the minister discussed with the tariff board the various items that have been introduced in this budget by way of changes, or just some of them?


James Alexander Robb: Not all, but most of them.
We discussed them at considerable length, and sometimes sat up until early in the morning going over them.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Don't tell us that again; we will cry.


Richard Bedford Bennett: You remember the mountain that laboured and brought forth a mouse.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Item 453e agreed to.
Customs tariff-453g. Machinery for the concentration of ores, metals or minerals, viz.: -flotation machines, pumps, vibrating and impact screens, jigs, magnetic separators and filters, when for use in the concentration or separation of ores, metals or minerals, and integral parts of all machinery mentioned in this item: British preferential tariff, 10 per cent; intermediate tariff, 15 per cent; general tariff, 20 per cent.
John Frederick Johnston: In item 453g, after the first word, "machinery," the letters n.o.p. are inserted.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Is this the only change, the insertion of n.o.p.?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Item as amended agreed to.
Item 453h agreed to.
Customs tariff-453i. Machine car loaders, and complete parts thereof, of a class or kind not made in Canada, for use only in mining operations for loading coal into box cars: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
John Frederick Johnston: This is a new item.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-462. Blowers of iron or steel of a class or kind not made in Canada, for use in the smelting of ores, or in reduction, separation or refining of metals, ores or minerals; rotary kilns, revolving roasters and furnaces of metal of a class or kind not made in Canada, designed for roasting ore, mineral, rock or clay; furnace slag trucks and slag pots of a class or kind not made in Canada, and integral parts of all machinery mentioned in this item:	British preferential tariff, free;
intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
Richard Bedford Bennett: How much is imported?



Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


James Alexander Robb: There is no separate classification of imports.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is the revenue involved?


James Alexander Robb: I have not the information
on that. The reduction will be small.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-465. The following articles and materials when imported by manufacturers of automatic gas buoys and automatic gas beacons, for use in the manufacture of such buoys and beacons for the government of Canada, for marine signal purposes or for export, under regulations prescribed by the minister, viz:-iron or steel tubes over sixteen inches in diameter; flanged and dished steel heads made from boiler plate, over five feet in diameter; hardened steel balls, not less than three inches in diameter; acetylene gas lanterns and parts thereof; and tobin bronze in bars or rods: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
James Alexander Robb: There is no change in this
item but there are certain places where there are large companies, and the Marine department were not disposed to provide the lighting leading into the harbour. This will enable the companies to have the same advantage as the department.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-468. Machinery and apparatus, of a class or kind not made in Canada, and parts thereof, especially constructed for preparing, manufacturing, testing or finishing yarns, cordage and fabrics made from textile fibres, or for use in factory operations incidental thereto, imported for the exclusive use of manufacturers and scholastic or charitable institutions in such processes only: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 5 per cent; general tariff, 10 per cent.
John Frederick Johnston: An amendment has
been proposed. The words "or for use in factory operations incidental thereto" have been struck out.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: There are two items
consolidated here, 467 and 468. Machinery for cordage and so forth is free under the three tariffs; that is 467. Item 468 is 10 per cent under the general tariff I understand that machinery for cordage, which was free under all three tariffs, is used largely in the production of binder twine.


James Alexander Robb: There is a separate item for binder twine.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Under item 467 all three tariff schedules were free; now the product becomes dutiable under the intermediate and general. In one case the duty is higher than in the other. tMr. Bennett.]


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend has not
observed, perhaps, that 544a remains. Articles which enter into the cost of manufacture of binder twine or twine for harvest binders, when imported for such use exclusively, by manufacturers who may produce such twine only, are free. That remains; there is no change.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Is it new?


James Alexander Robb: It will be a new item; it is contained in 544a at present.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is one matter which I think the minister should consider. This, I take it, is textile machinery?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Textile machinery ordered some time ago and put in place by some of the factories in Canada has paid a large duty
$50,000 in one case and $37,000 in another. Machinery which is under order but not yet delivered will come in free. Is it quite fair to industries thus to place them in competition one with another? Should not something have been done with respect to this situation so as to put them all on the same basis? I make the suggestion to the minister. There is another point I would submit to my hon. friends yonder: we are steadily providing for the free admission of certain forms of machinery. Does it occur to my hon. friends that there might come in this country again, as there did once before, a moment when we might no longer be able to get that machinery, without Which, and in the absence of any machinery producing factories in the Dominion, our whole industrial fabric would be destroyed? This is no fanciful suggestion on my part; such a situation has actually taken place in Europe. And nothing could be done so easily to cripple the whole industrial life of Canada as for a foreign group of very powerful financial men to get control of factories producing essential machinery and then take steps to see that such machinery should no longer be available for export to Canada. I urge the gravity of this upon hon. gentlemen; it is by no means imaginary. Within the last few months I have had occasion to observe that when certain classes of machinery were put on the free list in this country the factories producing them in Canada discontinued operations, and it took so long to have filled orders which were sent to the United States that we lost weeks and in one instance months in consequence. In other words, they filled our orders just when it was convenient for them to do so, provided they had a domestic demand of such a character as to keep their plant in operation.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: What machinery?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Some of it was machinery used in connection with oil fields in the west; there was also machinery in connection with tractors and things of that description. I fancy my hon. friend from Melfort knows more about it than I do. It occurred to me at that time-and I mentioned the fact to the minister the other day-that it might be wise for this parliament very carefully to consider, having regard to the economic conditions prevailing on this continent and the1 competition to which we are subject, as well as in view of the enormous power in the hands of some of the great machinery producers in the neighbouring republic, whether we should not take steps to be at all times independent of foreign sources of supply. Should we not make sure that we can rely upon the domestic factories for the production of certain kinds of machinery indispensable to our industrial life? This is a matter which I think might very well engage the attention of some of my hon. friends during the recess. They might consider the principle laid down by Adam Smith in the early part of his great work, as to the desirability of a country being always in a position to protect itself in matters such as this-using the word protection in a sense different from that implied in relation to tariff questions. Should we not put ourselves in a position where we could be independent of the outside world in this regard? I submit that the minister should study this question from every angle to determine whether or not, in a new country with a limited population and vast undeveloped resources, it is wise for us to leave ourselves dependent upon producers outside Canada, sometimes three thousand miles away. These outside producers might have it in their power at any time to exclude us from the sources of materials or machinery, as the case might be, with the result that we might find ourselves unable to carry on operations in regard to either agriculture or manufacturing. It struck me in the course of my reading not long since how important it was that we in this country should give some consideration to this question. I leave this suggestion with the minister and with my fellow members, not with the idea of having the item changed but in order that we might take steps to safeguard ourselves. One country at least has had occasion to consider this matter carefully and we Canadians would do well not to overlook it entirely.
56103-88i


James Alexander Robb: On general principles there is
much to be said for the point raised by my hon. friend, but he will observe that in these changes we are taking care to enlarge the sphere of the British preference


Richard Bedford Bennett: A great deal of this
machinery comes from the United States.


James Alexander Robb: We propose to give a preference of 10 per cent; this machinery is free under the British preference as against 10 per cent under the general tariff. If we buy this machinery from the mother country, which I hope will be the case, surely no one would argue that they would prevent this machinery from coming to Canada.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No. My hon. friend has been kind enough to say that there is something in the point. A condition might arise under which it would become impossible to bring that machinery across the ocean.


James Alexander Robb: If that condition arose we
might not be able to ship our wheat either. Now, as to the other point advanced, with regard to the mills where the machinery has been already installed, that is a factor which prevails in all tariff changes. They must take their chance. I will admit that with a new mill going up near a mill which has paid duty on the machinery, the overhead cost will be a little less, but that occurs in all tariff changes and it would break the treasury if we attempted to introduce that principle.


Richard Bedford Bennett: A couple of years ago I had occasion to deal with this matter specifically, and perhaps the details will interest my hon. friends. The Dominion Engineering Company, to mention a particular company, has grown into a very considerable enterprise, and a large part of its work consists of the manufacture of paper mill machinery. The hon. gentleman will remember that until recent years, this machinery was made entirely in the United States and Great Britain, largely in the United States as far as we were concerned; but recently by reason of the operation of this statute this machinery has been made in Canada, largely by the Dominion Engineering Company. A very large paper machine being required, tenders were called for, and it may surprise hon. gentlemen opposite to learn that in order to keep their plants going the American concerns were willing to deliver that machine in Canada, duty paid, at a slightly lower cost than that given by one of the two firms producing the machinery in Canada. Needless to say they did not get the order, but that indicates how we may be dependent for machinery upon another country, and how

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
desirable it is at this time in our development to assist those plants which will keep us supplied with this machinery. I know of no better illustration than what has been done by the Dominion Engineering Company, which is a subsidiary of the Dominion Bridge Company, in Montreal. Anyone going through that plant and seeing some of the machines built there or at Walmsley's or Vickers will realize how desirable it is to produce in Canada that machinery on which our industrial life may depend.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I would like to ask the minister the principle underlying this revision, whereby you take an item previously free and make it dutiable, while lowering the duty on another item.


James Alexander Robb: To be frank with my hon.
friend, in this instance it was to give a British preference.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
At six o'clock the committee took reces3.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Customs tariff-494a.	Cork slabs, boards,
planks and tiles produced from cork waste or granulated or ground cork: British preferential tariff, 15 per cent; intermediate tariff, 17i per cent; general tariff, 25 per cent.
Richard Bedford Bennett: What is involved in
that?


James Alexander Robb: These materials are used for
insulating purposes in houses or in cold storage. They are not made in Canada. The total estimated reduction in taxation on the basis of last year's importations is $28,639.


Thomas McMillan: Is that reduction in
duty?


James Alexander Robb: No, reduction in revenue.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: 
James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend has asked a
very proper question. We have discovered from time to time in making treaties that sometimes we did not have anything to trade. We are getting ourselves into a position where we can utilize the intermediate column.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am very glad the Minister of Finance has made that statement. I am only sorry the Minister of Justice is not

present because the other evening he referred to the fact that in the economic conference of the League of Nations condemnation was expressed of tariff increases made for the purpose of bargaining. I assume that this economic conference is a splendid thing to refer to when it suits the convenience of the Minister of Justice, but it is quite the opposite in a case such as this.


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend will observe
that this is a decrease.


Richard Bedford Bennett: For the purpose of bargaining. My hon. friend alluded to any changes at all for the purpose of bargaining.


Henry Herbert Stevens: In regard to this item
I wonder if the minister is aware that it is expected that in the near future we will be manufacturing in Canada these slabs for insulating purposes out of peat. That is being done successfully in some parts of Europe, and it is expected that such a product will be manufactured in Canada very shortly. It will, I understand, take the place of cork slabs, and it is claimed that it is equal to cork for the purposes of cold storage, as silencers in partitions and buildings, and so forth. I understand that some of the peat beds in the province of Quebec are about to be exploited not only for this purpose but for fuel purposes as well. Some thought should be given to the possibility of utilizing this at present wholly useless or apparently useless resource, and stimulating the manufacture of these articles. I am afraid that the placing of them on the free list-


James Alexander Robb: They are not on the free list.


Henry Herbert Stevens: They are not on the free list, but the reduction in duty may have some effect in not stimulating developments in this line of manufacture. It is an entirely new venture which perhaps merits support, I was going to say, above any other, and one which will take of course some time to bring to a state of real success.


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend will observe
that there is still a very substantial tariff.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What I would call a very moderate tariff.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-520. Raw cotton and cotton linters not further manufactured than ginned; rags and waste wholly of cotton unfit for use without further manufacture, not to include used garments nor waste portions of unused fabrics: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
Richard Bedford Bennett: This starts the cotton
schedule.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Robert James Manion: I notice that in the case of three or four items there does not seem to be any change at all except in the number.


James Alexander Robb: No, it is a reclassification.


Robert James Manion: There is no change in the duty at all.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: With respect to three
items in this schedule, there is something in the definition that I cannot quite grasp, and it is hard to differentiate between material that' is dutiable and material that comes in free. The old items referred to in these three items are 532, 533 and 681. The old 681 reads as follows:
Junk old; rags of cotton, jute, hemp and wool; paper waste clippings, and waste of all kinds, n.o.p., except metallic; broken glass or glass cutlet: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
Now the old item 532 reads in this way:
Coir and coir yarn, raw cotton or cotton wool not dyed; cotton yarns, number forty and finer: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
The old item 533 is thus worded:
Waste or shoddy from cotton, woollen or other fabrics or from yarn or thread machined, garnetted or prepared for use.
If you take the three items here, 520, 520a, and 535d, they read in this way:
520. Raw cotton and cotton linters not further manufactured than ginned; rags and waste wholly of cotton unfit for use without further manufacture, not to include used garments nor waste portions of unused fabrics: Free; free; free.
520a reads:
Waste portions of unused fabrics or used garments, wholly of cotton, imported by manufacturers to be used exclusively for disintegrating, or for manufacture into wiping rags in their own factories: Free; free; free.
Then we come to 535d, which reads in this way:
Garnetted material obtained by disintegrating yarns or fabrics, prepared for use, n.o.p.; wiping rags and wiping waste, n.o.p.; waste portions of unused fabrics, rags and waste, sold by weight, not to include remnants nor mill ends, n.o.p.: 7J per cent; 10 per cent; 12J per cent.


James Alexander Robb: Unused fabrics.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: How are you going to
distinguish between waste portions of used fabrics and waste portions of unused fabrics wholly of cotton in 520b which is dutiable?
_ Mr. ROBB: That is unused fabrics.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Yes, and rags and wiping waste. We have "waste portions of unused fabrics" in 520a, and "waste portions of
unused fabrics" in 520b. Thus we have three items dealing with wiping rags coming into the country. Both the royal commission and the committee on customs found great difficulty in connection with the administration of the act on account of its not providing for proper appraisal systems that would take care of imports and properly classify them. I venture to say if the minister lives to be as old as Methuselah he will never have in Canada an appraisal system that will really distinguish between those various classes of linters and rags and waste that are classified in this list under three different tariff items. If the manufacturers are asking us to maintain an appraisal staff and to administer an act on that basis, this is protection run riot. The same phrase occurs in all three items.


James Alexander Robb: This has been administered for some years in this way and there is practically no change except the change in the classification.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: There is a big change
in the classification.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is the real reason
for this being done?


James Alexander Robb: It is to simplify the administrative work of the department.


Richard Bedford Bennett: All these materials are
free. ^ Why should they not be under one item? Why this separation? There is always a reason behind all this, as we have all learned. The little customs inquiry taught us that. Both items are free under the three tariffs.


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend will observe
that some of them are for manufacture and some of them are general items.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: In 520a there is mentioned "waste portions of unused fabrics'" and in 520b there is mentioned "waste portions of unused fabrics and rags and waste wholly of cotton, dutiable at 7^ per cent, 10 per cent and 12i per cent.


James Alexander Robb: The item 520b covers garnetted material.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: The description is exactly the same under the item 520a. It says:
Or for manufacture into wiping rags in their own factories.
It appears as though the manufacturer is going to get the stuff in free, but if a ragman imports any he is going to be soaked.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is garnetted.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is garnetted ?

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


James Alexander Robb: Item 520a is the raw material for the gametted material. The raw material comes in free. Then it is handled by the garnetting industry in Canada.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: There is the same
language describing it in each case:
Waste portions of unused fabrics and rags and waste.


Charles Avery Dunning: One is garnetted and the other is not.


John Livingstone Brown: We are willing to confess to a certain amount of ignorance on this side. What is garnetting?


James Alexander Robb: "Gametted" means shredded or tom up. Instead of being brought in gar-netted, it can be brought in under 520a and the industry in Canada will do the shredding or garnetting. This is a small protection for that industry.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Item 520a agreed to.
Customs tariff-520b. Garnetted material wholly of cotton, obtained by disintegrating yarns or fabrics, prepared for use; cotton wiping rags and wiping waste; waste portions of unused fabrics and rags and waste wholly of cotton, sold by weight, not to include remnants nor mill ends, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, 7J per cent; intermediate tariff, 10 per cent; general tariff, 12J per cent.
James Alexander Robb: 
Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member for
Peace River directed attention to the similarity in the two items. The Minister of Finance suggested that there was a slight protection to the Canadian manufacturer, but observe the language:
Garnetted material wholly of cotton-
And here the hon. member for Lisgar will see just what the word "gametted" in this means.


James Alexander Robb: No. My hon. friend will observe there is a duty on this material.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


James Alexander Robb: The raw material coming in from which this is made comes in free. If it is prepared in another country a duty is imposed. There is a slight protection.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Is there such a difference in the waste portions of unused fabrics in each case that an appraiser can readily tell which is which?


James Alexander Robb: They have been doing that for some time.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Item as amended agreed to.
Customs tariff-520c. Linters of short fibres of cotton, bleached, when imported by manufacturers of paper to be used only in their own factories for the manufacture of blotting paper or other grade of paper: British preferential tariff, 7J per cent; intermediate tariff, 10 per cent; general tariff, 12J per cent.
James Alexander Robb: There is no change. This is a change in number only.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-521.	Batts, batting and
carded sliver wholly of cotton, not bleached, coloured nor impregnated, cotton fibres, bleached or coloured, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff,
5 per cent; intermediate tariff, 10 per cent; general tariff, 12£ per cent.
James Alexander Robb: I move that the first three words be struck out so that the item will read:
Carded sliver wholly of cotton, not bleached, coloured nor impregnated; cotton fibres, bleached or coloured, n.o.p.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is this change for?


James Alexander Robb: The reason for the proposed change is the difficulty of distinguishing unbleached from bleached batts. All batts will enter under item 521a.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is a reduction in the tariff there.


Edward Joseph Garland: Can the minister give us any idea of the size of im- [DOT] ports and the estimated loss of duty?


James Alexander Robb: There is no separate classification of these imports. I cannot give the information.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-521a. Batts, batting, sheet wadding and carded sliver wholly of cotton, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, 7j per cent; intermediate tariff, 15 per cent; general tariff, 17£ per cent.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
Edward Joseph Garland: Who asked for this and just what will it mean?


James Alexander Robb: All these changes came out of the general hearing carried on by the tariff board into the textile industry and there is a reduction in the tariff.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Only on some items.
There is an increase on others.


James Alexander Robb: Perhaps on some items. The total imports were $61,765 and the estimated reduction in taxation is $4,631.


Edward Joseph Garland: Does that
cover all the cotton items?


James Alexander Robb: Just this item alone.


Robert James Manion: This is an increase, is it
not?


James Alexander Robb: A decrease.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-522. Rovings, yarns and warps wholly of cotton not exceeding number twenty, not more advanced than singles: British preferential tariff, 10 per cent; intermediate tariff, 15 per cent; general tariff, 20 per cent.
John Evans: Does this cover items 520,
534, 734 and 750? Are these yams for the use of manufacturers, or what?


James Alexander Robb: It embraces some of these
items. It is a new method of description in the trade. The imports for the year ended March 31, 1927, were, cotton warp and yams, $149,627; yams for shoe laces, $141,212. The reduction in taxation on yarns and warps is $10,046, and the increase in taxation on yarns for shoe laces is $28,242. The change with respect to yams for shoe laces is on account of difficulties in administration and alleged evasion of the act.


John Evans: This is another case where
the manufacturer is benefited without any benefit accruing to the consumer or to the revenues of the country.


James Alexander Robb: I would not admit that.


John Evans: Has the minister any promise that the reduction will be passed on to the consumer?


James Alexander Robb: I have had a lot of complaints from the manufacturers, and some of them, in fact, have caused me some sleepless nights. They have intimated that by some of these changes they are going to be mined. I do not admit that, but that is their side of the story.


Charles Avery Dunning: If my hon. friend will
look further down he will see that there is passed on to the consumer the reduction in cotton yams for boot and shoo laces, which corresponds to the only item on which there is an increase in this case.


Richard Bedford Bennett: 
Charles Avery Dunning: In part.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, the duty now goes
up to 10, 15 and 20 per cent, and what was free now pays 10, 15 and 20 per cent. Others that paid a lower rate are also increased. Who asked for the increase apart from yarn for shoe laces?


James Alexander Robb: This comes out of the general reclassification of the items and the representations that were made before the tariff board.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I say that is not good
enough. There was an application to increase the duty in the case of one cotton mill, and there was another hearing. Perhaps the clerk assistant will send for the evidence in the textile hearing and have it laid on the table. That evidence was given in two separate cases. One case was that of Wabasso Cottons for an increase in the tariff, and there was also a general inquiry, at which, as I pointed out the other day, a large number of interests were represented. We will come to woollens after a while. Leaving that for a moment, what we are trying to ascertain is, what is the cause for the increase in this cotton schedule. We have nothing from the board. They dump the evidence on to the minister and say, " This is a complicated matter." We know now from the minister that they sit around the table and get the benefit of the advice of these gentlemen, and unfortunately keep the Minister of Finance awake at night, which is very much to be deprecated. But what we are trying to ascertain is the cause for the increase in this cotton schedule, and what mills are affected.


James Alexander Robb: In addition to the inquiry
which my hon. friend has just mentioned, the Customs department in administering the act discovered that there was evasion, and that importations ostensibly for shoe laces were coming in and the yarn being used for other purposes.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Richard Bedford Bennett: That, I suppose, has
been going on a long time.


James Alexander Robb: I imagine it has been going
on since they got on to what might be done.


Robert James Manion: Before we carry any of
these items, I think there are a few points of information that should be given on each item. We have appointed a tariff board, and most of us agree that an advisory tariff board is probably a good thing because it can study the questions more thoroughly than we have time to do as members of this house. In view of that it seems to me that on each of these items we should be told (1) if the item has been before the board; (2) what is the report of the board on that item, and what is their recommendation in the matter;
(3)	what were the imports and the revenues associated therewith in the previous year;
(4)	what change will it make in the revenues of the country.


Charles Avery Dunning: That information has
been given on this item.


Robert James Manion: I am not speaking of this item in particular, but I say that we should have all these points of information regarding practically every item, and then we shall be in a position to appreciate the value or lack of value of this tariff board which we have acting in association with the minister and the house. I should like the minister to give us the points of information I have mentioned in regard to all these items. It would facilitate the business of the house and add to the information that can be gleaned from the discussion.


James Alexander Robb: The old item 534 covered:
Cotton yarn, polished or glazed, when imported by manufacturers of shoe laces for use exclusively in the manufacture of such articles in their own factories.
Now we know that none' of this fabric was used in the . manufacture of shoe laces, but notwithstanding that, there were $141,000 of imports, and the Customs department have said that therefore there must be evasion of the act.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But cotton yams were
free under the old act. May I direct my hon. friend's attention to the old tariff? The following items were free: First, cotton yarns, whether dyed or not, for boot and shoe laces; second, yam for mantles. Then we have cotton yam for tape lines, at duties of 5, 7J and 10 per cent. Now we come to cotton yarns not manufactured in this country. Under the old items 534 and 532 all these yarns come in free. Now let us turn to the new tariff. Item 522 provides "cotton yams 
not exceeding 20's, single," 10, 15 and 20 per cent; item 522a "cotton yams exceeding 20's but not exceeding 40's, single," 12^, 15 and 22j per cent; item 522b, "cotton yams exceeding 40's, single," 7i, 10 and 15 per cent; item 522c, "plied yarns and threads, (n.o.p.)," 15, 22| and 25 per cent. What I should like to ask the minister is who is responsible for the increase in the tariff on cottons in this country at this moment. We have a right to know that.


James Alexander Robb: On cotton yarns?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, on cotton yams.


Mr. BOIVIN:: The old item 520 provided
a duty on cotton yarns of 15, 22i and 25 per cent. The new duty is 10, 15 and 20 per cent, so there is really a reduction.


Charles Avery Dunning: In the printed document the same old tariff items by number appear in various places. That, of course, indicates that articles formerly grouped together are now separated. Therefore the whole inference my hon. friend (Mr. Bennett) draws is not correct as related to one individual matter.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the reason why
I read them all.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend has not
yet got my point. Item 534 is quoted in a number of places in the cotton schedule because apparently it was a sort of omnibus item to include the many different commodities which have been separated under the new arrangement on the basis of counts. This, according to the information supplied to the tariff board, is the trade way of separating various items for tariff purposes. As to whether on the whole there is really a reduction in duty or an increase, that can be gathered from the statement of the Minister of Finance given in support of the individual items. In the case of shoe laces, mentioned by my hon friend from Rosetown (Mr. Evans), there is lower down, I notice, a reduction in the duty on shoelaces, as such. As the minister pointed out, material which came under the shoelace raw material -classification was not in practice, according to the evidence of the customs department, used for that purpose at all. So that really the effort has been to arrive at a classification easily understood and easily applied. I am informed that the Dominion appraisers were consulted and did play a part in defining just exactly what the different classifications should be, in order to get groupings which were reasonably uniform, and so

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
prevent evasion of the law. In reality, as far as I understand this particular part of the cotton schedule, it is a reclassification for administrative purposes rather than anything else.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Chairman, that is a
very excellent explanation from the minister's standpoint, but it really evades the point at issue, which is this. Under item 522 in the revised tariff, cotton yarns not exceeding 20's, single, are now rated at 10 per cent, 15 per cent and 20 per cent. My submission to the minister is that, as far as we are able to learn from the documents before us, these yams were free in t'he previous classification.


James Alexander Robb: No, no.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Just a moment. If the number was not free, will the minister give us precise information as to what the tariff was previously on cotton yarns not exceeding 20's, single.


James Alexander Robb: Items 520, 534, 734 and 750.
They were 15, 22i 25; for boot and shoe laces they were free, free, free; yarns for mantles, free, free, free. But as I pointed out a moment ago, they are not used for shoelaces. Now, it is reasonable to suppose that this product was imported and used to manufacture a fabric that had protection; and it is also reasonable to suppose that whoever produces the yam should share in that protection.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am sorry the minister
fails to grasp my very simple point. Cotton yarns not exceeding 20's, single, is a specific item and can be found in the schedule, whether grouped with others or not. My submission is that under the heading in the old tariff it is free.


Charles Avery Dunning: No.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The Minister of Railways says no. Very good. Will he kindly indicate in the old tariff precisely what was the rate on cotton yarns not exceeding 20's single. Never mind the rest of them; let us get this one.


James Alexander Robb: The record I have shows the
rate was 15, 22i, 25.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What is the item? Will the minister read 520 in the group in the old
tariff?


James Alexander Robb: 520: Batts, batting and sheet wadding of wool, cotton or other fibre, cotton warps and cotton yarns, dyed or not, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, 15 per cent; intermediate tariff, 22J per cent; general tariff, 25 per cent.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That does not say anything about cotton yams not exceeding 20's, single.


James Alexander Robb: That is where it is alleged it came in. We are so advised by the department.


Henry Herbert Stevens: A moment ago the minister gave us three other items, 534, 734 and 750. The reason I am pressing this is that the other day I ran across a case which illustrates how dangerous it is for the house to pass an item that is supposedly just moderately changed. For instance, a few years ago, I think in 1923, the house passed an item in which words were introduced something to this effect, "for the use of manufacturers." It was stated at the time that these words were added simply to clarify the item, and certainly they sounded very innocent. The item applied to parts of machinery used in the cotton industry. The British manufacturer of cotton machinery naturally was forced to keep in Canada a depot of parts that might be required to promptly supply to machines that he had set up in Canada. On the other hand the American manufacturer in Boston-that was the chief centre-could ship in his parts overnight. Previously the tariff item had been 10 per cent in both cases. The amendment to which 1 refer had this effect, that the British manufacturer had to pay 15 per cent on the parts he sent to his depot here, while the American manufacturer paid only 10 per cent on the parts he sent in. As a matter of fact, the amendment was inserted at the instance of the American manufacturer, and he laughed at his British competitor and pointed out how he had put it over him. As I say, the words looked very innocent.


James Alexander Robb: Are they in the tariff yet?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Unless a change has been made in this schedule. I have not yet had time to make a check.


James Alexander Robb: If my hon. friend can give
me the item I will look it up.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I intend to bring it to the minister's attention as soon as I have had an opportunity of checking this schedule. It may be included in this item where you make the whole thing free. By reason of what happened in the case I have referred to, we are curious to know just what is the effect of the dividing up and the reclassification of these items. While I think the minister desires to be courteous, I am not yet satisfied that this item, cotton yams not exceeding 20's, single, was included in 520 that he read a moment ago, because it is not specified there.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend has just pointed out the trouble that occurred in administration. Considerable evidence was taken upon this very point of precisely how cotton of this kind should be classified for customs purposes. If my memory of the evidence is correct, it was generally agreed that, regardless of the question of percentages, the proper basis on which to levy customs duties would be on a simple classification based on counts, the trade term by which those dealing in the commodity distinguish between one class of goods and another. There were no counts in the old tariff; it was just, Yarns, n.o.p., and so on-a very general, vague description. In yarns we have counts of one to twenty, twenty to forty, and from forty up. It is, of course, quite difficult to extract, from the dozen items involved, exactly which would have fallen into the ranges of one to twenty, twenty to forty and forty and up respectively. It would be impossible to tell exactly. But the minister gave the revenue effect, grouping them all together, and the effect in relation to that one item touching the shoe lace business is apparently that there will be an increase. That also, however, is qualified by what the administrative branch of the Department of Revenue tells us, namely, that while none of this material, which was formerly admitted free for shoe lace purposes, was so used, nevertheless a considerable difficulty arose in connection with it.


George Reginald Geary: The matter is as dear as mud now. Can the minister tell me this: Is there any cotton yarn free under the proposed new schedule? And do the old schedules mean anything when they say that cotton is free? There are cotton yams free under the present rates while the proposed rates contain no item regarding free cotton yarn. What is to become of the old one?


Charles Avery Dunning: Mercerized cotton yarns are free in 522d under the British preference only.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is nothing else free under the new tariff?


James Alexander Robb: 522d is free under all classifications.


An hon. MEMBER:: It isn't here.


James Alexander Robb: No, the leader of the opposition has a copy.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This refers to yams and warps, wholly of cotton, imported by manufacturers to be further manufactured in their own factories. This is a limitation; is it another joker?
	,


Robert James Manion: Was this put in free so that the minister might be able to say that there was something free? I notice that none of the rest of them are. Is that the real purpose for making this free?


James Alexander Robb: I shall be glad to give an explanation when we come to it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have under my hand the evidence taken before the tariff board in connection with this matter. I will not, of course, read the whole of the evidence, but I may quote from the report:
In the matter of an application by the Consumers' League of Canada for reduction of duties on all cotton goods, and application of the Wabasso Cotton Company, Limited, for the elimination from item 530 of the tariff of "cotton yarns, No. 40 and finer," and the placing of these upon the dutiable list.
There follows a list of those who appeared before the board, by counsel or otherwise. I take it that hon. members, like myself, have been interested to ascertain the meaning of the words "forty" and "twenty" used in this particular context, and perhaps it might be instructive to see what is said in this regard:
First of all, by way of explanation as to what constitutes 40's yarn, we may say that for the purposes of trade and manufacturing, 840 yards of cotton thread spun from one pound of raw cotton is called one hank or one count, and is known as No. 1 count of yarn.
If 8,400 yards are spun from one pound of raw cotton it then becomes 10's count of yarn; similiarly 33,600 yards, or 40 times 840 yards, are spun from one pound, it is then 40's count of yarn and so on.
No doubt other hon. gentlemen have heretofore been just as ignorant as I was regarding the matter. Now let us proceed. The hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Geary) has indicated the situation in a single question. What items were free before the tariff was revised by the minister? That is one question; another is this: is there a single item which is left free on the tariff the minister has brought down except the one under the British preference?


James Alexander Robb: Mercerized is free altogether.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was not until my hon. friend had further light on the subject. Under the British preference it was free. To-day my hon. friend for the first time proposes a new paragraph in relation to the cotton schedules. Whether or not, in view of his speech this afternoon, it bears any relation to the vote yesterday on the budget, I will not say. This, however, I will say, that it meets the views advanced by certain gentlemen opposite in opposing certain features of the tariff as it

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
stood. The new item I shall read presently, but I may remark in passing that technically we ought not to proceed with the consideration of it without having it printed for distribution; it is impossible for hon. members to follow these items unless they are printed. My hon. friend to my left and I are indebted to the courtesy of the minister for copies, but other hon. gentlemen will find it difficult to follow the discussion. The item reads:
Yarns and warps-
This will interest the committee.
-wholly of cotton, mercerized, number forty and finer, imported by manufacturers to be further manufactured in their own factories: free, free, free.
This is a new item in the minister's tariff proposals: so far as this House is concerned, it first saw the light of day this afternoon. It is not yet before the committee as a whole, and it would not be difficult to guess, judging by the faces I see before me, to what we are indebted for this particular change in the tariff. It is rather interesting to know that the influence of those hon. gentlemen weighed to the extent it did. Is it quite right, however, to proceed with the consideration of this matter without having it so presented to the committee as to make an understanding of it possible? My hon. friends on this side are of the opinion that it should have been printed before they were asked to proceed with it, because this is a matter of great importance to some of the constituencies represented on this side as well as to others represented by some gentlemen opposite. However, as I have pointed out, the situation could not have been better and more succinctly stated than it has been in the inquiry directed to the minister by my hon. friend from South Toronto. He says-and is not this the crux of the matter-that the government must determine whether or not it is increasing or lowering the duties in the cotton schedules. The first question is:	Were there
free items in the tariff as it stood before the minister introduced his budget? The answer is found in these sheets that have been circulated to-day, and if hon. gentlemen will look at them they will see the matter clearly stated. Take page 4 and follow the items right down:
Waste, etc., free, free, free.
Raw cotton, etc., free, free, free.
Rags, etc., free, free, free.
I am reading the present rates.
Cotton yarns, etc., n.o.p., dyed or not, for boot and shoe laces, free, free, free.
Yarn for mantles, free, free, free.
Cotton yarns, free, free, free.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is a repetition of the same item.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They are separated under the new items; under the old they were all free. I am reading, as I say, from page 4 of the document. Then you go further:
Cotton yarns, number forty and finer, free, free, free.
Buckram, etc., free, free, free.
Cotton duck for hose pipe, free, free, free.
Certain candlewick-no change, free, free, free.
There you have a statement, in the document printed and circulated by the government, regarding a number of items which in the old tariff were free. I am exposing this because it is clear just what is sought to be done.


James Alexander Robb: Most of them are free yet.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Will my hon. friend
point to a single one that is free under the new general tariff? It is true there is one under the British preference.


Charles Avery Dunning: Item 520.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is under the new
tariff?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is no change; those are all free. I am talking of the items otheT than raw material; my hon. friend is right.


Edward James Young: Item 524.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is cotton duck for
use in the manufacture of hose pipe. I read that, and there is no change in it. I am particularly directing attention to those yarns, and perhaps I should make it clearer. That was the item we were discussing at the moment. Look at the item; look at the old tariff and the new tariff and ask yourselves whether or not this is a protective tariff. That is what you have to do. Do not let us have the government go to the country and tell the people how they have reduced the tariff on cottons, make the welkin ring in the remote sections of western Canada with what the government have done in that direction.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member for
Rosetown (Mr. Evans) has heard that tale before. Let us look at this thing in the light of the application contained on page 1 of book 1; then I read books 2 and 3, and although I have only had time to look through a part of them I found that this tariff board was set up and its duties defined under order in council P.C. 530. What have they done? Mr. Deachman, acting for the Consumers'

V/ays and Means-Customs Tariff
League, himself made a complaint that the duties on cottons were too high; he asked for a reduction all along the line and gave his evidence on behalf of that league. The happy face of the gentleman who so honoured that association with his presidency is now translated to another sphere, but there are those with whom he was associated whom I assume to be still making their contributions to the maintenance of the Consumers' League. My hon. friend from South Huron (Mr. McMillan) still laughs; he realizes just what a league it was.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Was? It still is.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then I am sure my hon. friend from South Huron is one of the most distinguished apostles of that league. At any rate, here is the evidence given by Mr. Deach-man and the evidence called by him to support his case; here is the evidence given by the W'abasso Company asking for an increase of the duty; here is the order appointing the tariff board, and here their duties are defined. I asked the other day if there was a report made, and I read the report. That report did not specify any action to be taken by the government nor did it find any facts upon which the minister could act or upon which this parliament could act. That is the worst part of it; no facts were found upon which this parliament could act, and now we are told that in a meeting in the minister's office, with these gentlemen sitting about a table, certain discussions took place. Hon. gentlemen used to denounce the old star chamber and the red parlours; these are the same gentlemen who used to cry out against the way in which the tariff was formed. What is the difference between that system and having these gentlemen, who took evidence and made no findings of fact, sit around a table and tell the minister what they think should be done?


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend does not insinuate that the Wabasso Cotton Company are our friends?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have no hesitation in bo stating.


James Alexander Robb: Then may the Lord deliver us from our friends.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well might the hon.
gentleman make that observation; he has reason to make it. No man of whom I know has greater reason to say, "Lord, deliver me from my friends." I think I can say that, without violating my friendship with the minister. But I was going to say, with respect te some of the gentlemen who appeared, that they are noted for their consistent advocacy 
of the Liberal cause. I will at least say that, without saying whether or not they are friends of the government. It may be that they have ceased to be the friends of the minister, although I would require some further word than the mere observation made by the minister before I could credit that. Here we have the board and the order in council appointing them; their duties are defined. Now I leave it to my friend from South Huron, who has been greatly interested in this matter, whether after reading that order in council which imposed upon this body the finding of facts, he thinks they have fulfilled their duties in taking this evidence which I have under my hand and then meeting together in the office of the minister, making no written report, giving nothing upon which I could have arrived at a conclusion and nothing to assist me, leaving me to proceed in the dark. But the minister, with the glare of the electric lights impairing his health, after long, weary hours of work, listened to the observations made by these gentlemen who constitute this board as to what action should be taken by the government., and now we find that these articles which were free have a duty imposed upon them. That is the story, and I leave it to the people of this country to say whether or not under these circumstances we have a protective tariff or a free trade policy.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I was very much interested in the statement made by the Minister of Railways that up to item 522a at least there had been a general balancing up of duties, rather than a general increase or decrease. I think the minister tried to make the point that no attempt had been made up to item 522a, to raise or lower the duties, but that the items had been reclassified.


Charles Avery Dunning: No. my hon. friend must have completely misunderstood me.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I thought the minister stated that the idea was to reclassify rather than to make a distinct change in the duty in one direction or the other.


Charles Avery Dunning: That was with respect to an item which I was then discussing.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Was it item 522?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, it was the fortieth part of one of the items.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Since we have been discussing 522b I wish to point out that this item


Charles Avery Dunning: As yet we have not discussed item 522b at all.

Ways and Means-
-Customs Tariff


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: We have been, discussing everything up to 40's and finer, and that includes item 522b.


Charles Avery Dunning: I have not been discussing everything.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I think my hon. friend is quite right in referring to item 522b, because you cannot discuss the one without the other. The Minister of Railways, as I said a moment ago, endeavoured to make a perfectly clear matter exceedingly .difficult to understand. I have before me the customs tariff, from which I am going to quote, and I am also going to quote from the item before us. I asked the minister to give me this information, but he was unable to do so. Under item 532 of the customs tariff as it now stands we have these certain items of raw material and so on which I shall not read, and then it includes cotton yarns, number 40 and finer, which are free under all tariffs. That is carried into the new tariff in this form:
Cotton yarns exceeding number forty, single: per cent British preference; 10 per cent intermediate; 15 per cent general.
I think that is a fair statement of the situation. In that particular item we have cotton yarns which were previously free protected by a duty of 74 per cent, 10 per cent and 15 per cent. Them we have cotton yams, exceeding 20's, to which I referred a moment ago, and as far as I can see in the present tariff there is no specified item of cotton yarns exceeding 20's. For that reason I presume the minister was unable to answer my question a moment ago.


Charles Avery Dunning: Item 520 would be closest to it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, item 534 would be the closest. That item reads:
Cotton yarns, polished or glazed, when imported by manufacturers of shoe laces for use exclusively in the manufacture of such articles


Charles Avery Dunning: That is not it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, item 520 is the one:
Batts, batting and sheet wadding of wool, cotton or other fibre, cotton warps and cotton yarns, dyed or not, n.o.p.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: -15 per cent; 221 per cent; 25 per cent.


Charles Avery Dunning: That corresponds as
nearly as may be to 522a.	_


Henry Herbert Stevens: We have then an increase.


Charles Avery Dunning: No, no, a reduction. The figures are 124 per cent, 15 per cent, 224 Per cent.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is for cotton yams, 40's.


Charles Avery Dunning: No, 20's and not exceeding 40's.


Henry Herbert Stevens: In regard to these varieties we have in this item the rates 74 per cent; 10 per cent, and 15 per cent. Will the minister state whether that is right?


James Alexander Robb: Some explanation will be made of the items when we come to them. First with respect to the item the leader of the opposition mentioned:
Yarn of linen or of cotton for use only in the manufacture of measuring tape lines, when imported by the manufacturers of such tape lines: British preferential tariff, 5 per cent; intermediate tariff, 71 per cent; general tariff, 10 per cent.
The total importations were $936. Now as to item 734:
Cotton thread, nitrate of thorium and nitrate of cerium for use in the manufacture of incandescent gas mantles, when imported by manufacturers of such mantles or of stocking for such mantles: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
The total importations amounted to $53,851.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What becomes of these two items?


James Alexander Robb: They come into the item we are considering now.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Which one is that?


James Alexander Robb: Part comes into the new item 522. The present rates are 15 per cent, 224 per cent, 25 per cent. The proposed rates are: 10 per cent, 15 per cent and 20 per cent. My hon. friends will admit there is a reduction there.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister said a moment ago that an item which was formerly free is now included in this item which is dutiable.


James Alexander Robb: I mentioned two items and gave the importations with respect to them. Now as to 522a, the present rates are: 15 per cent, 224 per cent and 25 per cent. The proposed rates-and this is an amendement which I have-will be: 124 per cent, 15 per cent, 224 per cent.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: What item are you
dealing with? There are three items here.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


James Alexander Robb: It is 522a I am dealing with now. Now as to 522b, that is the item to which my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre referred. That item at present is free in all classes. The proposed rates are: 7i per cent, 10 per cent and 15 per cent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What mills are affected?


James Alexander Robb: I think many of the mills are affected. The Wabasso were making a specialty of this line. They were selling this product to industries that had protection. We thought it was reasonable that they should enjoy a proportion of the benefits. There is no increase in the manufactured product anywhere. This is raw material for some of the industries that are enjoying protection. There has been a reduction in the case of some of them. Why should the other industries enjoy all the protection?


Alexander McKay Edwards: In these
cotton yarns of 40 and finer the industries using that tape are paying a duty of 10 per cent on the raw material on that particular item.


James Alexander Robb: I have a new item that I
shall be coming to in a moment. The item 522d is just changing the wording. There is no change in the rate; it is free in the three classes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What was 522d in the
old tariff?


James Alexander Robb: The item we are dealing with is:
522d. Yarns and warps wholly of cotton, mercerized, number forty and finer, imported by manufacturers for use exclusively in their own factories.


Alexander McKay Edwards: Has the
duty been reduced on this particular item?


James Alexander Robb: 
Robert James Manion: I think the discussion we have been having for the last hour and ten minutes is an illustration of the difficulty of that group government which my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Dunning) denounced so vociferously to 
the member for Southeast Grey (Miss Mac-phail) the other evening. We have had given us to-night an exhibition of government reclassification, but which is in reality an increase in the tariff on a number of items. No matter how much the attempt is made to hide it, that is what this amounts to. W'e find in the majority of these items that where there has been any change at all it has been a change to a higher tariff. That, without a doubt, is what has occurred. The Minister of Railways shakes his head, but in this group of items only one item in that group was free and that was after the minister came into the house to-night. The difficulty the government is in is very obvious. They have ministers like the Minister of Railways and Canals, the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Forke) and the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) who are free traders, or say they are, and they have ministers like the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm), the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Euler) and the Minister of Finance himself, who are fairly good protectionists. And then they have the difficulty that when they travel out to the prairie provinces they tell those provinces that they are free traders; but when they travel through Quebec and Ontario they tell the people of those provinces that they are good protectionists, and they have to keep the balance in regard to their varying professions. Their action tonight reminded me a little of a Jewish friend of mine who is not a very good orthodox Jew. Of course he does not want to eat pork in public and whenever he does do so, he calls it chicken. Well, the ministers opposite me are in the same difficulty. They do not wish to call these changes in duty increased protection, so they call them a reclassification. That is what they are going to say when they are out in the prairie provinces. I bespeak sympathy on their behalf from the members from the prairie provinces, because they have great difficulties to overcome; but I rather think that from the standpoint of the country it would be far better for the Miinster of Finance to come right out and say that he is increasing protection, for that is what he is doing in some of these items. I venture to say that in the majority of cases he is hoodwinking the people; he is even trying to hoodwink parliament. I appeal to him to stop once in a while and give us a little chance. The Minister of Finance has this advantage, that he has had this matter before him for weeks while these items have only come before u*

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
quite recently, and it i3 only by chance in going through these items that we find out the real facts. I wish to congratulate the minister that in regard to many of these items he has pursued the course he has.
I am very glad to see him do it because I believe it will be productive of good to the whole country. I wish he would base his own budgets on the same principle, and I think if he did that he would do more for the country than he has been doing with his budgets for the last few years.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friends opposite seem to be very much concerned about one or two increases in the items which have so far been under discussion. They know just as well as I do that all of the items that have been under discussion so far are manufacturers' items, and my hon. friend knows as well as I do that when we come, as we shall in a few moments, to the consumers' items, to those parts of the cotton schedules which affect the consumer, which are the articles which the consumer purchases, there are substantial reductions. I may inform my hon. friends that I shall certainly go out and tell the people of the prairie provinces and the people of Canada generally regarding the reductions of duties in the consumers' items. My hon. friends opposite are accusing us of ruining the manufacturers. If we are doing what we are just now accused of doing, namely, raising the tariff, why all this three weeks of talk about ruining the industry? Surely the industry cannot be ruined if we have raised the consumers' items in the tariff. My hon. friend knows quitp well what the fact is. In the manufacturers' items there are adjustments, some upward and some downward, as a result of the examination which has been made; but when we come to the items which apply to the consuming public, it will be found that the adjustments are all downward.


Robert James Manion: Does the Minister of Railways try to suggest that when the items affecting the manufacturers are raised and those affecting the consumers are lowered, the manufacturers consume their own articles? Who purchases from the manufacturers, I should like to know? After listening to the remarks of the Minister of Railways, of all the yarns that exist in these tariff schedules I am sure there are none like those he tells the people when he is trying to get away with these changes.


John Evans: I wish the minister had gone a little further and explained item 522b, why the duty is raised on those 40's, single and finer. As far as I can see, and according to the word of the Minister of Finance, some
of the big cotton companies are manufacturing their own yarn. Some of them of course cannot do that. They are charged 5 per cent, 7i per cent and 10 per cent now, whereas they used to get this in free. I do not think that is right. That means that the fabric manufactured from that class of yarn will be that much dearer, otherwise the small companies will very soon have to go out of business and then the big companies will have less competition than they have at present. Evidently those small companies are somewhat short on the influence end and the consumer in any event will be charged 5 per cent, 7i per cent or 10 per cent more for the cotton fabric manufactured out of those yarns.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I am very much interested in this item 522b, 40's and finer. I have in my hand the application to the tariff board by the Wabasso Cotton Company, Limited, Three Rivers, Quebec, requesting that 40's and finer be placed on the protected list instead of on the free list as at present. They refer to clause No. 530, under which 40's and finer come in under the old tariff. They state:
Clause 530-
I think this should be 532.
-of the tariff reads: "Coir and coir yarn: raw cotton or cotton wool not dyed; cotton yarns, No. 40 and finer," on the free list.
We respectfully request that the words: "Cotton yarns, No. 40 and finer" be struck from this clause, and that these yarns be given protection.
That is the application. When I was making my speech on the budget I think I stated that in a genera! way I believed the tariff was increased on these cotton yarns. Yarn 40's and finer is a yam that consumers use as well as manufacturers. It is the big item of import according to the trade of Canada. I have under my hand the trade of Canada up to 1926 and under this item there are more imports than in all the rest of the list of cotton yams. The decreases in the other yarns amount to 5 per cent or 3 per cent or 4 per cent, as the case may be; but when we come to increasing the tariff on this item, which is bj' far the largest item, larger than all the rest put together, if my figures are correct


Charles Avery Dunning: For what purposes does
the ordinary consumer use 40's and finer?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I have seen the spools
in houses.


Charles Avery Dunning: Thread. My hon. friend had better look again. This is used to make thread.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: There is not.any question about the fact that if a manufacturer pays more-and that is what he is going to do under this application of the Wabasso Cotton Company-for his yarns, he is going to charge that up to the Canadian consumer, because on the second page of the application I find this statement:
As Wabasso are spinners of fine counts of yarns, and have quietly carried on and worked up a considerable business for these yarns, we ask that, having demonstrated that these fine yarns can be made in Canada, and by producing them at a loss, we be now given protection.
If they ask that they 'be given protection because they have been producing yarns at a loss, why do they want protection? To raise the price, of course. I am interested at this moment not so much in whether free trade or protection is right, as in the question of what is the basis of the revision of this tariff and how it compares with what the Liberal party has always claimed it stands for. It has been argued over there:	We want increases; we
want reductions. That is not any excuse for a party that went to the country on a low tariff platform. If the Minister of Finance has information that can convince me I am wrong, I am willing to listen to it, but as regards these items I should like to have information regarding the imports and the general effect of the change in duties, reductions or increases. So far I have been convinced by my own examination and what I have heard that the general trend is an increase in duty, if we take into account the size of the items on which increases are granted in the nature of protection for the manufacturers. On the item 522b, we have discussed that. The hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Beaubien) said that there was a joker in the tariff. This is a change whereby the manufacturers were going to be asked to pay some duty. The rates were free under the British preference, 10 per cent under the intermediate, and 15 per cent under the general tariff. The old rates were free, free, free. Now under this revision we are back again to: free, free, free, for manufacturers who are using that type of stuff. That is the joker again. I have claimed-and I think I am right although I am open to convicition- that this one item is more important than any other group on which the government have given reductions in the whole cotton schedule.


Charles Avery Dunning: Which item?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Item 522b. Imports of 40's and finer amounted in the year ended 31st March, 1926, to 2,732,069 pounds of a value of $2,580,014.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend believes
that to be a consumers' item?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I did not say that. I
said that some consumers use this material.


Edward Joseph Garland: Just where is the Minister of Railways going to draw the line as between the consumer and the nonconsumer?	-


Charles Avery Dunning: I will try to answer that. The case just mentioned by the hon. member for Peace River gives an excellent opportunity. He spoke of 522b as a consumers' item, because he thought it included thread. As a matter of fact it includes merely the fine yarns used by thread manufacturers, the raw material. If my hon. friend would go to the next item, 522c, he would find there the thread which is used by the consumer, and in connection with which there is a reduction in the duty. That is the answer.


Malcolm McLean: I wodld ask the Minister of Finance if we could not have a copy of the amendments as speedily as possible. Now that a working agreement has been entered into between our friends of the opposition and the hon. member for Peace River and other hon. gentlemen, it is important ito us who are interested in the real significance of things-unlike the hon. member for Peace River, who is not much interested whether this thing is right or not- that we should know just what the house is considering. I would therefore urge upon the finance minister that he let us have a copy of these amendments as speedily as possible.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Malcolm McLean: It is all right
for hon. gentlemen opposite who have been keeping away from protection since the Winnipeg convention to laugh at an appeal made by myself to the minister for information in this matter. At the same time I do not think it is any laughing matter if they think they are going to put over their platform with that kind of thing.


Robert James Manion: It is not half as bad for
us to laugh at the hon. gentleman as it is for him to laugh at his own principles, as he is now doing in connection with these items where there is an increase of protection. The hon. member for Peace River has the courage to fight for his principles, while the hon. member for Melfort defends the government that brings down these increases.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Malcolm McLean: I was not defending anyone; I was asking for information, especially in view of the agreement threatened a few days ago that the members from Alberta would get together w;th the protectionists to make a saw-off.


Edward Joseph Garland: If that
statement was not funny, I would answer it.


Malcolm McLean: Then there would be two funny statements together.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I hope the hon. gentlemen who sit to the right of the ministers, and who come so largely from Saskatchewan and some from Manitoba, have heard the clear distinction the Minister of Railways has drawn as between the manufacturers and the consumers, because I have before me the record of the proceedings in connection with this hearing before the tariff board, and now my friend from South Huron will hear the language of his great proponent and advocate, Mr. Deachman, as to the relation between the manufacturers and the consumers. Like my hon. friend from Melfort, he has no doubt who the consumers are. Mr. Deachman, who represented the Consumers' League and was voluntarily upholding the case of my hon. friend from South Huron, filed his application with the Minister of Finance, and at page 327 of reference No. 64 before the tariff board, he starts out in this way:
A report of the Bureau of Statistics covering Canadian industry in 1924 gives the total value of cotton, yarn and cloth made in Canada as $60,984,875. The wages paid amounted to $10,993,045, or approximately 16 per cent of the total value of the product. In other lines of cotton products, the wage ratio to total value of the production was even less. This is an application for a reduction of the general tariff rate on all cotton goods to a maximum of 16 per cent. We desire to state this position as simply and clearly as possible.
Then follow statistics with reference to the industry, and then he says:
Where such a duty is imposed and the manufacturer raises his price to the foreign level-
How familiar this must sound to my friend the minister! I have heard him use these words himself:
Where such a duty is imposed and the manufacturer raises his price to the foreign level plus the duty, we as consumers are compelled to pay-
Note that:
-we as consumers are compelled to pay, in an indirect bonus to this industry, a sum equal to double the entire wage cost in the production of the commodity.
These are the words of the advocate for the Consumers' League, presenting his case for reduction of the tariff.


Charles Avery Dunning: To the consumer.


Mr BENNETT:: Certainly; I am talking
about the consumer.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is a new thing for my hon. friend.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, I have been a considerable consumer-of time in this house, for instance. Mr. Deachman continues:
Our contention is that we as consumers can not afford to pay to an industry in Canada a bonus so far out of proportion to the service rendered to the community.
How that does sound like a western speech from my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture. He goes on:
We desire to be fair to an established industry.
So like my hon. friend the Minister of Finance.
We desire to encourage it by every legitimate means.
Like my hon. friend from Melfort.
We realize that the cotton textile industry, operating in a country where the people are suffering from limitation of purchasing power caused by high tariffs-
High tariffs after this government has been six years in power?


An hon. MEMBER:: And the tariff is now being raised.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Deachman says:
We realize that the cotton textile industry, operating in a country where the people are suffering from limitation of purchasing power caused by high tariffs, is entitled to a measure of protection sufficient to compensate for the limitations forced upon it by high protection.
Then he says.
We emphasize again that the measure suggested by us for the protection of this industry should be understood as being purely temporary in character.
And then later he says:
The object, as we see it, is to encourage industries by subventions which, while borne directly by the consuming classes, are not excessively burdensome for the moment and in regard to which there may exist a reasonable hope that time may remove the burden.
That is what they are after. He says that they are borne directly by the consuming classes, and he is dealing with the very item which the Minister of Railways says is a manufacturing item.


Charles Avery Dunning: No. My hon. friend is at his old tricks again, quoting something which does not deal with what the Minister of Railways said at all.

1388	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Minister of Railways was dealing with item 522, and this and others are the items Mr. Deachman was dealing with in the application I hold in my hand.


Charles Avery Dunning: Will my hon. friend quote Mr. Deaohman's reference to what the Minister of Railways was discussing, please?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have just read the application, which is an application to lower all of the cotton duties, including item 522 which is the item now under consideration. That item is now being increased not lowered, and the minister offers as an explanation this beautiful argument: "This is a manufacturer's item". Yet Mr. Deachman, appearing for my hon. friend from South Huron, says, "I am representing the consumers, and they have to pay this increase if it is granted, they and no one else." Now as between Mr. Deachman, representing the Consumers' League, and the Minister of Railways, representing the government that so greatly loves power, will the hon. member for South Huron have any difficulty as to whom to choose?


Mr. MacMILLAN:: We are going to have some of these duties reduced.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the way to talk.


Charles Avery Dunning: Mr. Chairman, having
listened to the leader of the opposition say with his usual dexterity what the Minister of Railways said, may I now repeat what the Minister of Railways actually did say? He was answering the question addressed to him by the hon. member for Peace River, who had stated that the item 40's and finer included thread as used by the consumer, and I explained that the item 40's and finer did not include thread as used by the consumer, but that it included the materials from which such threads are made. Then I referred him to the next item in the tariff, which does include the thread as used by the consumer, and in connection with that item there is a reduction in the tariff. That was my statement, and by that statement I will stand. My hon. friend, of course, with his great ability and dexterity, can make it appear that I said something entirely different, but that is what I said. When the manufacturer's item is increased in duty, and the item which the consumer purchases from that manufacturer is reduced in duty, then the effect is a reduction so far as the consumer is concerned. My hon. friend well knows that. If it were not so, why all the complaint about ruining the manufacturers? We are not ruining them by that process.
IMr. Dunning.]	i


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I am quite willing to admit, Mr. Chairman, that I made a slip there. But it does not affect my point that the other manufacturers are the consumers of that article, and they are so described in the Wafoasso company's application. But it has the effect of increasing the price to the ultimate consumer.


Charles Avery Dunning: No, it does not.


James Alexander Robb: Following the argument of my hon. friend from Peace River (Mr. Kennedy), first, let me say that any changes which I have brought down to-night by way of amendments are either only a change in wording or a reduction in the rate.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Oh, no.


James Alexander Robb: Yes, -on the cotton schedule.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Absolutely no. ,


James Alexander Robb: As to this cotton yarn item under consideration, we had in the old tariff the anomaly of the 40's and coarser being protected, while the 40's and finer-the more expensive to produce-were free. Forties and finer are the raw material for the finished products that enjoy duty. A good part of it goes into thread, and the proof that it will not increase the cost to the user of thread is that we are reducing the thread item under the British preference. This item under consideration, of which my hon. friends have taken advantage, is practically the only instance of a material increase in the cotton schedule. It is a bit of a rest for me this evening to hear my hon. friends on both sides of the house saying that the manufacturers are going to profit by these tariff changes. Since the budget was brought down last February I have listened to nothing but tales of woe from manufacturers who claimed that they were ruined, and particularly the cotton manufacturers. I know where the complaint comes from over here and down there; it comes from the lobbying manufacturers of the cotton mills.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They certainly have not seen me.


James Alexander Robb: I admit that only one mill will be materially benefited by this change. All the other mills are against that mill; they are just as much free-traders as anybody else *when it is an advantage to themselves. They have asked: Why should you make this change? We have looked this over very carefully and we think it is a very fair adjustment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: For this one company.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


James Alexander Robb: That one company has not
been enjoying whatever protection there was. Whether protection is right or wrong, let us use the barnyard phrase and say, the other fellows were " hogging " it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Thirty-nine per cent of the product of the Wabasso Company consisted of counts 40 and over.


James Alexander Robb: Let me put this proposition to my hon. friends and ask if they will 6uport me. Suppose we refer this whole thing back to the tariff board-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


James Alexander Robb: Wait a moment. Suppose we refer this whole thing back to the tariff board, and get a recommendation for a straight reduction all along the cotton schedule, will they support that?


James Dew Chaplin: We have not any confidence in that bunch.


James Alexander Robb: I do not claim that these readjustments are perfect, by any means. But I do claim they are a great improvement on the old customs tariff as we find it for administrative purposes, and that the general trend is a reduction in the items that go to the consumer. I am supported in that view by the manufacturers of cotton, and they should know something about their business.


Mr. SIMPSON:: The minister states that one of the chief reasons for this increase in duty is that the yarn is being sold to manufacturers who enjoy a substantial degree of protection. Will he apply that principle to the iron and steel industry with respect to spring and axle steel used by the automobile manufacturers?


James Alexander Robb: I do not think we will have the iron and steel schedule before us this year; it is not completed yet. But when I do bring it before the house I wonder if I will receive unanimous support from hon. gentlemen opposite.


Henry Herbert Stevens: We will look it over first.


Hugh Guthrie: Will the minister apply the same principle with regard to worsted yarns? That item appears a little lower down. I understand the minister to say that he believes the manufacturers of these cotton yarns should have a certain degree of protection because other manufacturers of cotton goods have protection on their output. I want him to bear that statement in mind-I do not object to it-


James Alexander Robb: I know what my hon. friend is coming to.
56103-89i


Hugh Guthrie: -when he comes to worsted yams. I emphasize it now so that he will not forget it.


Peter McGibbon: I think the minister should give us a little more information as to why he is protecting this one manufacturer. It does strike me that there are a number of things in this budget pretty hard to explain. Looking over the woollen schedule, for example, I am informed there is one manufacturer who has two mills, one working on domestic material, the other on imported; and that there is protection added to the one and taken off the other. That is he gets protection twice. Then in the lumber schedule we find there is $1.50 protection on fir doors, but there is no protection on pine, hemlock or any other kind of doors. I am informed that there are only two firms in the Dominion making that particular class of door. Of course, I have been informed what are their political affiliations. Then we come to the drawback of duty on coal for the manufacture of salt. I wonder how many members know the number of manufacturers that are engaged in that industry, and their political affiliations. I say, Mr. Chairman, this budget has all the earmarks of a political budget for the friends of the government.


Charles Gavan Power: Let us hope so.	*


Peter McGibbon: Well, that is frank. But, after all, are we not here to legislate for the good of the Dominion?


Charles Gavan Power: To a limited degree.


Peter McGibbon: I am very thankful for the information, so frankly given; we are learning. I think we should have a little more definite information as to why the-Wabasso plant is to be protected and protection taken away from the other plants. Of' course, the Minister of Railways argued very' glibly to-night-and he can argue just as well! on one side as the other-that when you increase the cost of the raw material you da not increase the cost of the finished product That is something new from the Minister of Railways.


Charles Avery Dunning: No, I did not argue that at all.


Peter McGibbon: That is the effect of his argument.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Absolutely, the whole
burden of it.


Peter McGibbon: The effect of the whole argument from the ministerial side is to blind the country to the fact that this is a budget

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
to give protection to the friends of the government; all the rest of the people are to suffer. That has been acknowledged very frankly from the other side, and I am glad.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: When the duty on a
manufactured article is reduced, is it possible for the manufacturer to increase the price of the article, beyond the duty price, no matter what his raw material costs?


James Alexander Robb: That is answered by the law
of supply and demand.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: The minister made some statement about members being lobbied. I have not been lobbied by anybody

neither by manufacturers nor by anyone else.


James Alexander Robb: I wish I could say the same.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: In the next item, 522c, we have some information regarding the consumers. There are five items in regard to which a reduction is asked for to protect the consumer against the increase which would otherwise accrue to the finished product as a result of the increase in forties and finer. Item 534, cotton yarns, which was free under the three classifications, has become dutiable to the extent of 15 per cent, 22 per cent, and 25 per cent. Item 520 cotton yarns, was 15 per cent, 22| per cent and 25 per cent under the old item; there is no change. Item 536, -cotton thread, was 17i per cent, 22J per cent and 25 per cent, and there is a reduction of 2J per cent under the British preference, the others being the same as before. Item 721, tinsel thread, was 5 per cent, 7\ per cent and 10 per cent; it is now 15 per cent, 22^ per cent and 25 per [DOT]cent. Item 734, yam for mantles, was free under the three classifications and is now 15 per cent, 22-J per cent and 25 per cent. So that on the average there is no reduction, unless the imports are greatly out of proportion taking the different items affected. There is only one case in which there is a reduction, that of cotton thread, 2J per cent under the British preference, while in three of the items there is a jump from 3 or 5 per cent to 10 per -cent, 15 per cent and 25 per cent. I fail to see that the consumer is protected against an increase in forties and finer.


Mr. SPOTTON:: 
An hon. MEMBER:: He is it.


George Spotton: Furthermore, I went to school to his father, one of the old pioneer school teachers. I met Mr. Deachman in the corridor the other night and I said to him, "Bob, what is the Consumers' League? Are there three or four in it besides the government?" He replied, "Oh, there are perhaps

JFat/s and Means-Customs Tariff
one or two hundred". But before Bob could tell me anything more about it a couple of gentlemen close to the front benches put their arms about him and remarked, "Come on, you are positively a good Liberal". And he is a good Liberal. He writes letters to the Liberal papers in my riding every week contributing propaganda. I should like to know, therefore, what his real connection is with this government, and who brought him to this beautiful Washington of the north to live. You cannot kid Huron county so far as the Consumers' League is concerned. The Minister of Finance, the Minister of Trade and Commerce and other cabinet ministers kidded them once, but these gentlemen cannot kid them again. As an infant, so to speak, who is just groping about in the dark, fearful of various hidden dangers, I beseech the minister to tell me what a lobbyist is. If he cannot give a verbal description of one I would ask him in all kindness to draw me a picture of the chairman of his tariff board, who has been the most expert lobbyist and who brought the railway situation into the mess it was once in. At least, the minister might give me his picture. At any rate, I deny the charge that I have been met by lobbyists, so far as I know what the word means.


John Frederick Johnston: Shall the item carry?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Before the item is
carried I want to add that I have not been lobbied by anyone in respect of these matters. One gentleman who met me did say, "I cannot talk these matters over with you because they are entirely in the hands of the government and I am apprehensive that if it became known that I had anything to say to you on the subject I might be punished for so doing." That is the attitude of industry in this country towards the government in this regard, as in relation to the Rideau retaining wall and everything else that is conducted in that way. And I shall have occasion to refer to this before the session is over. I want it clearly understood that no one lobbies me in my present position; no one lobbies me or anyone else connected with this party. We are going to do our duty fearlessly.


Richard Burpee Hanson: For the benefit of the
Minister of Finance I want to say that the cotton industry has not lobbied me. I will tell you what the attitude of the cotton industry is. The cotton industry are so afraid of the club the Minister of Finance is holding over them to-day that they will not come to my office about these matters. They are afraid they will either have to put up money for this government or be clubbed again. I
have a very strong suspicion that some of them have already come across and that we see some of the effects of it in these very schedules to-night. I cannot prove that statement, but I believe it.


Charles Avery Dunning: You bet you cannot.
Take it back.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I have every reason to
believe that my suspicions are true.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend has just made the charge that certain men have paid this government money.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: He did not say
that.


Charles Avery Dunning: I will leave it to the
record of Hansard, and I hope it will not be changed. I ask for your ruling, Mr. Chairman; my hon. friend should either make a charge and give those men a chance to defend themselves or withdraw the statement. He says he cannot prove it.


John Frederick Johnston: I did not understand
I he hon. member to make that statement. However, if my hon. friend did have that understanding, the hon. member now says he did not say so.


Charles Avery Dunning: Do I understand my hon. friend from York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) to say that this government have been paid money?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I said I had every reason to believe that a club was being held over the manufacturers by this government, by the Liberal party.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend distinctly mentioned money and the receipt of money by this government.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If I said the government
themselves were receiving money I did not mean anything of the sort; I meant the Liberal party.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is so vague that
no one can make my hon. friend prove his statement; it is sufficiently vague to be safe.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The Minister of Railways need not be so touchy about campaign funds. Any man who was at the head of the Liberal machine in the province of Saskatchewan as long as he was should know something about campaign funds.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am proud of coming
from the province of Saskatchewan. No charge was ever made reflecting upon my honour as a public man in relation to campaign
1392	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
funds or money of any sort, and it ill becomes a New Brunswick Tory like my hon. friend, with his public record and with the public disgrace which was visited on him by the courts of his province, to say what he has said. Now I come back to this other question. There is some liberty in this parliament and it is not confined to one side of this house. I have not made a charge or a reflection of the kind the hon. member for York-Sunbury has just made regarding myself, in or out of this house, and I would not now reflect upon him if he had not been guilty of the ungentlemanly action which he has just performed. I think I have the right to say, however, that he is the last man in this house to cast a reflection on the honour of any man.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Chairman, I would not have risen had it not been for a personal reference to myself which was made by the Minister of Railways.


Charles Avery Dunning: I made no such reference.


Richard Burpee Hanson: My answer is this, that
as far as my personal honour is concerned, it was vindicated before a jury of my peers, and as far as my public honour is concerned it has been twice vindicated by the electors of York-Sunbury by majorities which have never been exceeded in that constituency. The people of my city and of my riding, who know me far better than I am known by any man in this house, have recorded their confidence in me in such a marked degree as to give every man the answer to any calumnies which may be hurled against me.


Mr. MALONEY:: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me there is so much bad in the best of us and so much good in the worst of us that it hardly behooves any of us to talk about the rest of us.


John Frederick Johnston: Shall item 522 carry?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Minister of Railways has made some observations touching on a member of this house, and he has endeavoured to show that his hands and the hands of the government are dear with respect to campaign funds, about which some discussion took place. It was said that this legislation is being held as a dub over the manufacturers. I leave this for the moment with the Minister of Finance:	Is it a new thing in this house
to have legislation introduced by the government of which he was a member, retroactive in its character, that was used as a club with which to extract money from people?
IMr. Dunning.]


James Alexander Robb: I think my hon. friend ha*
either said too much or not enough. If he has anything more to say I am willing to have him say it now.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Answer that question.


John Frederick Johnston: Shall item 522 carry?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Answer.


James Alexander Robb: I have answered it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The minister has not
answered it, as he knows very well. I might as well say to the minister that coleagues of his are not going to be permitted to indulge in any such talk as that uttered by the Minister of Railways to-night, while we keep eternally silent-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


John Frederick Johnston: Order.


Henry Herbert Stevens: -while we keep) eternally silent on matters which he himself knows are no credit to any party or any group of business men or to the public and political record of this country. Now, I believe, we are on item 522.


Mr. CANNON:: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order. I do not think any member of this house can be allowed to make the remarks which my hon. friend has just uttered. They are a reflection on the honour of the house. If my hon. friend wishes to lay a charge let him do so, but I do not think any member can get up and speak in such an indeterminate and indefinite way in order to leave a general accusation against the whole of this side of the house, and in fact against both sides of the house. I may only add that if my hon. friend will reflect I think he will come to the conclusion that not much good will come from any such statements. We had them two years ago.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What is the point of
order?


Lucien Cannon: My point of order is that my hon. friend should not be allowed to make statements such as those he has made. He has no right to make them.


Henry Herbert Stevens: In regard to the point of order-


Lucien Cannon: The rule is well known; if he wishes to lay a charge let him do so, but if he does not wish to lay a charge he has no right to make such statements.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Henry Herbert Stevens: I think the Solicitor General should wait until he knows just what preceded my statement before raising his point of order. A good deal has been said in this committee in the last fifteen minutes.


Lucien Cannon: I was here, and I do not think much good will come out of it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Possibly not, but I have nothing to withdraw and nothing to change in what I said. The item which we have been discussing, and from which we have digressed rather considerably, is item 522, and the point at issue between the Minister of Finance and ourselves is this: The cotton schedule has been divided up and changed. With the general change of the cotton schedule we are not so much concerned, but we do complain that the government, on their responsibility as the government of this country, have broadcast throughout the country the statement that they have lowered the tariff generally, and particularly on the cotton schedule.


James Alexander Robb: May I inform my hon. friend
that the amendment of the opposition practically said so, as well as all the speeches that we have listened to from February 16th up to to-night.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Very good; never mind
that. That is one of the minister's peculiarly specious methods of dealing with this question, suggesting that because we happen to be protectionists we should not raise any question when the duties are raised. We are not complaining about the raising of the duties. What we do complain about is that the government holding office is seeking support throughout the country among what they call the consumers, if you like, on the ground that they are lowering taxation, lowering the cost of goods to the consumer. On the other hand, and I do not say this is any offensive sense but as a statement of fact, they are making arrangements with manufacturers to raise the tariff, which will have the effect of keeping them in a position of status quo at least, if not in a better position than they were before. We are not saying it is wrong to protect the manufacturers, but we do say it is wrong to do that and then go out and tell the public that they are lowering the duty in the interest, they say, of the consumer. That is what we complain about. Now in regard to these items, wo have discussed them and there has been every conceivable effort made, particularly by the Minister of Railways, to becloud and evade the issue.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Henry Herbert Stevens: There is no "oh, oh"
about it; it is a fact. We know it and the house knows it. I say it is to the credit of the minister as a tactician that he does it with considerable skill, and I have not any doubt that he will repeat the performance when he gets out west, with a fair degree of political success. But that does not prevent us from exposing it as far as we are able to do so. The fact remains that in the case of the largest item of cotton imports, from being free the tariff has been raised to rates of 15 per cent, 22i per cent, and 25 per cent. That is a fact. Now, a moment ago, just because my hon. friend from Peace River (Mr. Kennedy) happened to make one little slip, which did not affect his argument to any degree at all, regarding thread used in stitching, which was confused for the moment with cotton yarns, both the Minister of Railways and the Minister of Finance said:	Oh, we will deal with that
when we come to threads; then we will show you what a great reduction we have made. I ask the minister if he will be good enough to give me the rates in the old item on threads used for stitching and the rates in the new item.


James Alexander Robb: Well, the rates have been
reduced. They come in under 522c, on which the rates have been reduced from 17i per cent to 15 per cent under the British preference. The other rates remain the same.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Now then we have-


James Alexander Robb: It may help my hon. friend
with his argument if I make a statement. If he is right in what he has said, then the representations made by the textile people are all wrong, because I have a very clear recollection that the Dominion Textiles, for instance, say that these reductions mean a a loss to them of $600,000. I think I have their letters on the subject, but at any rate that is my recollection.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Possibly.


James Alexander Robb: And Canadian Cottons say
the reductions to them will mean pretty nearly a million dollars. I do not say they are right, but these are the representations that have been made to me.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That may be; but what
we are complaining about is the presentation of these things to the house, not the fact that there is a reduction or an increase. We believe that industries should be adequately and fully protected as far as is necessary for their welfare in the community, but we are not going to allow the government to make
1394	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
changes and shiftings in the tariff and1 then come before the public and claim certain virtues. As a matter of fact, on this boasted item of reduction to the consumer here is * what has happened: Under item No. 536 in the old schedule, cotton or linen thread was dutiable at 17J per cent, 22^ per cent and 25 per cent, and in the new schedule the rates that are so much boasted about are 15 per cent, 22^ per cent, and 25 per cent, a reduction of 2J per cent in the British preferential rate. The reduction is so infinitesimal as not to warrant any claim to credit on the part of the government that under this item they are reducing the taxation to the consumers.


Robert James Manion: The Minister of Finance
a moment ago said that to a certain cotton company-he named1 the company, but I have forgotten the name; I was not lobbied so I do not remember it-this change meant a million dollars. In the case of another company I think he said $750,000.
Mr. B.OBB:	No, $600,000.


Robert James Manion: In view of these statements, in view of the fact that the Minister of Finance says he is making this change to relieve the cotton manufacturers, why does the Minister of Railways argue that the government are trying to relieve the consumer?


Charles Avery Dunning: Representations were
made to the Minister of Finance that there was a loss of $1,000,000 in one case and of $600,000 in the other. Then the consumer gains because these losses are on the sales to the consumer.


Robert James Manion: That is not the way the
minister explained it when he got up.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The minister says the
consumers have been saved in one case $600,000.


Charles Avery Dunning: Oh no, they say that.


Henry Herbert Stevens: They say it? The minister cannot get up as a responsible minister and quote certain business men as his ' authority for placing certain figures on Hansard, letting them go out to the public as figures from this house, and then assert, "Oh, well, I am not saying it." The minister made the statement as though there had been a saving to the consumer in one case of $600,000. I ask the Minister of Finance wrhat were the importations?


James Alexander Robb: I did not say anything of
the kind. I said that representations had been made that the changes in the tariff had caused a loss to two different companies, but I added that I was not prepared to admit that their statement was correct.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Then the suggestion of
the Minister of Railways was wholly beside the mark, absolutely beside the mark. Let us make it clear. Will the minister tell us what vrere the importations under item 536 of the tariff last year?


James Alexander Robb: I am not sure that I have
that information.


Charles Avery Dunning: While the minister is
looking the information up, may I state in all kindness to my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre that when he asserted that this item was the largest one in the cotton schedule, he evidently overlooked the fact that there was another item represented by $9,500,000 of imports.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I was referring to the
item upon which a higher duty has been placed, where the importations amounted to two millions and some odd thousands of dollars.


Charles Avery Dunning: I understood my hon.
friend to say that it represented the largest importation in the cotton schedule. If he did not say that I am mistaken.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The sum of $2,700,000 is
a substantial item.


Charles Avery Dunning: Substantial, but not
equal to $9,500,000 of cotton fabrics.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That may be.


Charles Avery Dunning: I draw attention to it
just in the interests of accuracy.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I venture to direct attention to the fact that in the presentation of the case by the applicants for an increase of duties, it was alleged that this cotton mill was interested favourably in the application to increase the duties on cotton yams. I find at page 652 of the record, volume 3, 14th December, 1927, the following:
To the Chairman and members of the
Advisory Board on Tariff and Taxation, Ottawa, Ontario.
Gentlemen:
We, The Canadian Spool Cotton Company, of Montreal, are interested in the application of the Wabasso Cotton Company, Limited, for a duty on cotton yarns 40 and finer, because,-
(a) We are importers of such yarns on a large scale, for use in the manufacture of cotton sewing thread;-

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
They are a branch of the Coates people.
(b) Special reference is made to our business in the brief of the applicants.
We refer at once to the statement made in the Wabasso Cotton Company's brief, as follows :
"The Canadian Spool Cotton Company, which is a branch of Coates, bring their yarn in under a special clause 535" Thread, cotton, sewing in hanks. 74 per cent, "so that this class of work will apparently not be affected by our request."
This statement is, in large part, incorrect, and to the important extent in which it is incorrect it is gravely misleading. As a matter of fact, although we import thread in hanks, the bulk of our raw material consists of single yarn 40 and finer, which we entirely import under clause 532, free of duty, and convert into thread at our factory, undergoing the processes of twisting, bleaching, dyeing, polishing and spooling. In addition there are the allied processes of paper box making and spool turning.
The effect of putting a duty on yarns 40 and finer would be to increase the cost of our production of thread, and consequently our selling price without benefit to the Wabasso Company, because we would be obliged to continue to import such yarns to maintain, with regularity and uniformity, the high standard of quality, upon which, more perhaps than upon any other factor, the successful operation of our business depends. It will be seen, therefore, that our business would be seriously affected if the request of the Wabasso Company were acceded to without qualification.
It is our respectful and deferential submission that the manufacture of these fine cotton yarns for thread making purposes, necessitating, as it does, intensive training of operatives, and the highest supervisory skill, can only be done successfully by people who specialize in such manufacture, and it is very questionable, indeed, whether the volume of consumption in Canada at present-having in mind very especially the considerable number of counts called for would admit of specialization on an economic basis, even with a fair degree of protection, to compete with the enormous specialized production of Great Britain and the United States.
Up to that point this is a letter written by the Coates people saying that the consumers would have to pay increased prices if a duty were placed on the finer yarns. As reported on page 654 they say further:
During the past six years we have on different occasions tried samples of the Wabasso Company's yarns, but these did not come up to the standard deemed necessary for our trade.
The statement made in the Wabasso Company's case that much of the fine yarns we produce forms a very small part of the cost of the material into which they go, obviously does not apply to thread, and was not, we believe, intended to apply. The cost of yarns used in making thread constitutes at least 40 per cent of the cost of the thread. I
I read that to the minister because I am certain he had not read it in view of the
observations that he has just made. This is the closing paragraph:
For these reasons, we submit that we, in common with the other thread manufacturers in Canada, should be allowed to import free of duty, as we have been for over thirty years, cotton yarns, single stand, in counts 40 and finer, for use exclusivley for the manufacture of thread in our own factories.
I take it that the amendment proposed by my hon. friend is to meet that situation.


James Alexander Robb: It is to help them, but there is still a protection.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am not talking about that.


James Alexander Robb: They have a protection on thread of 15 per cent, 224 per cent, and 25 per cent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am not talking about thread. I am talking about the application, to which I referred in the early part of the evening, to increase the duties on counts 40's and finer, and I referred to the statements made on the record with respect to it. I now turn up the case made by the very people, the thread manufacturers, showing what they said the result would be, and they close by saying:
For these reasons, we submit that we. in common with the other thread manufacturers in Canada, should be allowed to import free of duty, as we have been for over thirty years, cotton yarns, single strand, in counts 40 and finer, for use exclusively for the manufacture of thread in our own factories.
I am pointing out that the effect will be to increase the price of thread to the consumer. I am not talking for the moment about the thread, what the Minister of Railways calls the consumers' side of it. I am talking about the application of this company for a duty and the answer given by the thread company as I find it at pages 652 and 654 of the record. That is the case with which I desire the minister to deal.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have not had an answer to my question.


James Alexander Robb: I think my hon. friend asked as to the importations under item 536. The figures are as follows:
Imports for 1927, cotton sewing
thread, crochet and knitting cotton	$1,321,583
Duty paid on the above	 194,978
Home production	 3,905,297
So that the Canadian industry has a pretty fair share of the business.
1396	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff	_________________


Henry Herbert Stevens: How much of that came Mr. ROBB:	It comes in under different
from the old country?	divisions, as follows:
Sewing thread in hanks	
Sewing thread in spools.. .. All other cotton thread n.o.p. Crochet and knitting cottons..
British
Total preferential $626,628	$357,093
99,625	14,991
274,397	171,213
320,933	11,445
Treaty General .. I...	$269,545
$	5,528	79,106
5,382	97,802
288,317	21,171


Henry Herbert Stevens: According to these figures the total reduction in taxation is about $1,250.


James Alexander Robb: I do not know about that.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Has the minister made any investigation to ascertain whether articles coming in from abroad really pay the tax, or whether the consumer pays it? In other words, has any study been made as to the comparative prices for articles of the same grade in Canada, in Great Britain for export plus transportation and in the United States for export plus transportation? I am instructed that in many of these items the cotton factories of Canada have not within hundreds of thousands of dollars taken advantage of the duty; that the sole advantage they have taken of the duty has been at certain odd seasons of the year to prevent dumping: but that if these tariff reductions, in so far as they are reductions, are made, you simply force them to take as high a price in Canada as they can under the tariff at all seasons of the year, even when dumping is not indulged in by their foreign competitors. It seems to me that in order that the house may have an adequate idea of the situation, a study should be made of the various prices at different times of the year as between the Canadian product sold in Canada and the products of other countries which are imported in competition with it.


James Alexander Robb: I have been in parliament
since 1908, and I have heard it argued on both sides as to who pays the customs duty. I admit frankly that I did not read all the evidence because I did not have time, and my hon. friend will not read it all; but I found from having run over the evidence and if my hon. friend reads part of it he also will find, about the same division of opinion before the tariff board as there is in this parliament as to who pays the customs duty.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am not dealing with it
generally, because no matter how wide the knowledge of the minister and of his assistants may be, I do not think he can say in any general way that the consumer pays or that the foreign manufacturer and exporter pays the duty. But I do say that a careful investigation of any item, noting the sales in

Canada of the same grades, and the wholesale price in Canada as compared with the prices at which these same grades are sold for export to Canada, would divulge very, very important and relevant information, namely, whether the Canadian manufacturer is taking advantage of the tariff to exact undue prices in Canada. I do not pretend to be an expert, but I have given some attention to the matter, and I am firmly convinced that the Canadian manufacturer in three cases out of four is not making use of the tariff to exact from the Canadian consumer the prices which he might exact if he took full advantage of the tariff. I think that is the most important investigation that the Department of National Revenue or the Department of Finance could make. If the Finance minister on any occasion can show to me any item of the tariff which is being unduly taken advantage of to increase the price in Canada, then speaking for myself, I will vote with him either for an excise tax or a reduction of the customs tax which will prevent that abuse. Before these items are presented-the Finance minister himself may not have had time to read the evidence, I adimit that; I suppose in the administration of his department his time is taken up with many things other than this-but through the officials of his department the minister should be able to read that evidence and to ascertain its real purport, so that we may know with regard to these items whether, when increases are made, they are really necessary for the encouragement and protection of the Canadian industry concerned, or, when they are reduced, whether the reduction means or is likely to mean any reduction in price to the Canadian consumer. There is not an item on which, with the machinery the hon. gentleman and his colleagues command, they could not ascertain and present a fair analysis of these facts. I believe we on this side of the house are just as serious as the hon. minister himself in our opposition to abuse of the tariff for the purpose of profiteering,and therefore when reductions are made we wish to know whether the .tariff as it stands is being made use of for that purpose, or whether it simply stands as an element of protection against foreign competition and against the foreign dumping to which this market is subject.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


James Alexander Robb: I may repeat that my hon.
friend will find some evidence in the reports tabled indicating the prices in the different countries and the cost of production. I have not very much objection to the statement of my hon. friend. He has convinced me of something that I had in my own mind, and I think he will agree with me, that if the Canadian manufacturers of textiles and cottons have not been taking full advantage of the tariff, the reductions we have made will not do them any harm.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I submit that they will do them harm, and do the great bulk of the consuming population in Canada no good. In order to ascertain the facte as far as I could, I went to a manufacturer-I am not going into details as to names and all that-and his reply was that he was prepared to show me that his factory or factories had never taken advantage of the tariff in all these years, except on two or three occasions when dumping was attempted against them; or the dumping may have been due to depreciation of foreign currency, which amounts to exactly the same thing. But, he said, if you do not give us protection against the dumping during two or three months of the year by the foreign producer with a surplus on hand in his own market which he will put into the Canadian market as any price, giving a temporary price advantage for a few days or weeks in the Canadian market-if you do not protect us against that, we are bound for our own protection to take full advantage of the reduced tariff in order that we may make up during the nine or ten months of the year the loss which we sustain due to the large dumping which takes place in those two or three months. I am convinced that the person talking to me wias absolutely sincere: as a matter of fact, I have reason to believe he is a supporter of the hon. gentleman and of his party. But I was talking to him as a serious man in order that I might get a fair understanding of the case of the manufacturer, and I think it is due to us as members of this house that we should have the data placed before us. If the hon. gentleman has not had time in the weeks and months-


James Alexander Robb: I have placed the evidence on the table.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I know it is on the table, and I make no reflection on the minister because I know that as head of the Finance department it is absolutely impossible for him to read it. But he has ample assistance; he has eyes to read for him and brains to think for him, and how can I as a private
member of this house digest a typewritten document of this extent which is placed on the table only two or three weeks ago? It is absolutely impossible for me to study it. Before this budget was brought down, before it was attempted, a statement ought to have been laid before us with regard to these more important items which would enable us to elucidate the facts and to ascertain whether the manufacturers affected are abusing the tariff for their own profiteering, or whether this action is really necessary to protect them against foreign dumping and foreign currency depreciation at a time when they are not using the tariff for any improper purposes 'but are giving the consumer during nine to eleven months of the year the full advantage that can be given him in the price of the staple products that are placed on this market.
Mr. 'SPEARMAN: Mr. Chairman, the question raised by the hon. member for St. Law-rence-St. George whether a reduction in duty actually reduces the cost of the article to the consumer, is rather important. One thing, however, that may throw some light upon the subject is the obvious anxiety of many manufacturers to have their imports of raw materials placed upon the free list. It is evident that when they in their turn become importers, they believe, whether rightly or wrongly, that the reduction of the duty does reduce the cost of the article.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The point raised by my hon. friend (Mr. Cahan) is, as has been intimated, a very important one indeed. The charge is very commonly made that one reason why we should not have a protective tariff at all is that the Canadian manufacturer takes full advantage of the duty imposed, and therefore the consumer must pay that duty in addition to the normal price of the manufactured article. When this subject was under discussion about three years ago .1 went to several of our representative industries and asked then to give me the privilege of examining their cost records and other books to ascertain for myself whether or not such a practice was being carried on. They were important firms, and were kind enough to give me free access to the information that I desired. I found on examination of the cost sheets and books of, I think, six or seven firms that the duty never entered into their process of price fixing. The factors entering into it, of course, are overhead, rentals, cost of material, wages, and so on-the usual charges against the manufactured article. Then a certain profit was charged according to the
1398	COMMONS
IFnj/s and Means-Customs Tariff
class of goods manufactured, for instance, with a boot and shoe factory it was 7i per cent, with another concern it was 5 per cent, with another 11 per cent; but in no instance did the manufacturer take into consideration the tariff duty in fixing the price of his commodity. And that is exactly what ought to be done in all these cases. There should be no inclusion of the amount of protection in fixing the price of the commodity manufactured. I am citing this-and I am very glad the hon. member brought the question to the attention of the committee-because I think a very excellent service could be rendered to the public in the first instance, and to the honest manufacturer and dealer in the second, if the tariff advisory board would make it a point to examine the records of companies with this point in view. For instance, if a company appeared before them either to defend a proposed reduction or to ask for an increase of duty, and it was found that such company took full advantage of the tariff schedules, then I say it would deserve very little consideration, if any. As a matter of fact I think the tariff advisory board should make a finding according to the facts. The result would be that such concerns or groups of industries as abuse the privilege of the tariff could be disciplined either by a reduction of the tariff or the imposition of an excise tax. That is the proper way to deal with it. On the other hand the honest Canadian industrialist, carrying on his business according tb the sound and welll known principles of economics, is entitled from this country to a fair deal and reasonable tariff protection.


James Alexander Robb: Who in the last analysis would pay that excise tax?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The manufacturer or group of industries offending. After all, our industries are pretty well organized to-day. For instance, we have the automobile industry, the cotton industry, the woollen industry all grouped; in fact all the major industries are grouped. If it were found that, say, the cotton industry was abusing the privileges of the tariff by adding the full amount of the duty to their commodity price, then the imposition of the excise tax would be on the manufacturers in that industry.


James Alexander Robb: Would not they pass it on to the consumer?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Not necessarily at all.
That when you impose a tax it alone goes to the consumer is the most utter fallacy that can

be maintained. Rent goes to the consumer, also insurance, in fact anything that is a charge against the cost of the material in the course of its manufacture goes to the consumer.


James Alexander Robb: I am interested in this, and as my hon. friend has made a study of the subject he may be able to clear up the point. Does he argue that we should place an excise tax upon a domestic manufacturer and allow imports to come in without that excise tax?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Not at all. If a group of industries are found to be abusing the privileges of the tariff, that is, adding the full amount of duty when it is not necessary for their welfare, then I say impose an excise tax, or, if you prefer, lower the duty-either one or the other. I am inclined to think that the best way would be to impose an excise tax, because then the exchequer would be benefited.


James Alexander Robb: But let us clear this up so that it will go out right to the country. Then the policy would be to impose an excise tax only on the domestic manufacturer?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, the minister cannot corner me in that way.


James Alexander Robb: I am not trying to.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It appears to me that he is. The point I am making is this. If a Canadian industry having a protection, we will say, of 15 per cent is able to manufacture its article just as cheaply as it is manufactured abroad, and the industry be healthy, we will say that 10 per cent is a fair profit; but the manufacturer adds 15 per cent, thus abusing the privileges of the tariff. Then I say, either reduce the tariff to 10 per cent, or impose an excise tax of 5 per cent, whichever you think will more effectively cure the abuse. That is where the tariff advisory board W'ould function. .


James Alexander Robb: I can follow my hon. friend when he urges for a reduction of the tariff; but when he favours putting an excise tax not only on the domestic but on the imported article, I do not understand how he would change the price.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I did not say that. I want to be clear on this; I do not want it to be hurled at me later that I made a statement which as a matter of fact I did not make. Mark you, where an industry is acting fairly with the Canadian public nothing should be done. Let us make that clear,


James Alexander Robb: Yes.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Henry Herbert Stevens: But where an industry is abusing its tariff protection, taking full advantage of the duty, although it does not need it, then I say impose upon that industry an excise tax or reduce the tariff.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Mr. Chairman-


Mr. CAHILL:: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Chairman. It is well understood in this house that an hon. member may discuss almost anything during the budget debate. The budget debate is concluded, and I do not know that we have any rule to permit a member discussing everything under the sun when a tariff item is under consideration by the committee. I did not wish to call my hon. friend (Mr. Stevens) to order because he had not an opportunity of speaking on the budget, but I do think that this house has wandered far from the rules both during the budget debate and in committee. Hon. members should stick to the item under discussion or we shall never get through.


Charles Gavan Power: The point is well taken, and I would ask the committee to confine itself more closely to the subject under discussion, namely, item 522.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I have been dealing with
item 522 right straight along. My point is that before any reduction is made in that item we should have a specific comparison of prices abroad, either in England or in the United States, with the prices which are exacted in Canada. When t'he Minister of Finance says an excise tax would not prevent abuse and undue profits, I tell him that such a tax placed on Canadian production would take away undue profits. And the excise tax upon the foreign product has no relation to the question in dealing with cotton yarn. It has no relation to it whatsoever, because if the tariff is so high as to enable the domestic manufacturer to take undue advantage of it and to profiteer on his sales, then it is so high that no excise tax imposed upon the foreign exporter into Canada will help the situation at all. If we look into the facts and find a factory or a group of factories unduly profiteering in cotton yarns then there is intelligence enough in the Finance department as well as in the Department of National Revenue to ascertain where a reduction in the duty is necessary, or whether the imposition of a form of excise tax, taking away the undue profits made by that factory or group of factories, would result to the advantage of the Canadian consumer. You cannot convince me that a factory or group of factories manufacturing cotton yams will indulge unduly in profiteering except to secure a profit to that factory or group of factories. According to my suggestion you take away the excess profit and every incentive to deal unfairly and unjustly with the Canadian consumer.


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend a moment ago inquired as to investigating costs in other countries. I find this memorandum from the board to the minister:
Almost every reference to the board has contained statements regarding conditions in foreign countries, and especially wages and labour costs. In many instances the sources of information thus presented have not been clearly defined, in others the information furnished has not been up to date. Not infrequently both applicants and opponents have contended that the duty of determining conditions at the origin of export fell upon the board. Unfortunately the board has had neither the time nor the financial resources for conducting detailed investigations abroad in all the matters referred to it, and it must be admitted, in several of the applications, has not yet been able to secure satisfying information.
I take it, therefore, that the board has that question under consideration. I do not wish to precipitate a longer debate, but in one particular case-I am not saying that it was sound tactics-one of the textile industries of another country came voluntarily before the board and presented evidence as to costs in that country. My hon. friends opposite have found much fault with that procedure.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not with their presentation as to wages, but with their observations respecting the applications themselves and the examination of witnesses, which is an entirely different thing. I have taken the trouble to read carefully what they did say and if the minister will do the same he will see the pertinence of my remarks in this respect.


James Alexander Robb: I admit that it was not the
best of manners.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The tariff board in the
United States has a number of experts who make investigations abroad regarding prices, costs of production and so forth, so that they have, in respect of any tariff item, all the material which I am now suggesting should be available to the Minister of Finance. It seems to me that, so far as production in foreign countries is concerned, advantage might be taken to a certain extent of such researches. In competition between us and the United States I consider it the duty of the tariff board to make these investigations by expert assistance. Means should be placed at the disposal of the board for this
1400	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
purpose, so that when these items come down we may have salient facts on which to base our opinion and decision.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We should bear in mind also the fact that our membership in the League of Nations gives us access to that large body of information, to which I ventured to refer the other day, regarding wages. The International Labour Bureau, maintained in connection with the league, makes available for us all that information with respect to wages and the relation of wages in foreign countries to our own. The trade commissioners are also in a position to furnish the same information. The index figure, according to an article in the National Magazine of last month in connection with British industry, showed that when it was 100 in England it was 153 in Ottawa and 175 in Philadelphia. The various countries in the world were given, and especially low were the figures in some of the Balkan states and in Belgium. I cannot see why the tariff board should not avail itself of information thus secured by the International Labour Bureau.


James Alexander Robb: I think they do use such information to a considerable extent.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I understand that the
minister has put on record some figures regarding the production of various yams in Canada.


James Alexander Robb: Yes; they will be in Hansard to-morrow.


George Reginald Geary: Do these figures enable us
to say whether item 522, cotton yams, not exceeding 20's single, 10 per cent, 15 per cent and 20 per cent, constitutes an increase or a reduction in the tariff?


James Alexander Robb: A number of the items are
obsolete. It is chiefly a reduction.


George Reginald Geary: I am directing my attention to No. 522.


James Alexander Robb: If my hon. friend picks out
522 alone-


George Reginald Geary: That is the one we are
discussing, according to the chairman.


James Alexander Robb: We have been discussing the items generally. I do not know whether my hon. friend wants to get on the record at this late hour all the facts bearing on the matter. In this particular item alone there is an increase.


Hugh Guthrie: There is an increase in
item 522?


James Alexander Robb: Yes, but taking them altogether there is a very considerable decrease.


George Reginald Geary: I thought we would take
them one at a time. The minister has referred to the assistance he received from the tariff board, which it was stated earlier in the evening was a fact-finding body. It is advisory, apparently, in connection with the fixing of the tariff schedules.


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


George Reginald Geary: I should be very glad if
the minister could recollect those recommendations made by the tariff board, not in writing but at those conferences of which he told us, which extended into the late hours of the night. What was the basis upon which the tariff board made a recommendation for the increase of any duty? Was it on the basis of taking care of or protecting, if you like, the particular industry under discussion? If so, was that communicated to the minister and was it used by him in arriving at the schedule rate?


James Alexander Robb: Not in any particular industry. If my hon. friend will say the industries throughout Canada I will repeat what I said this afternoon, that in the case of some industries, some particular items, the government did not go as far as the tariff board thought they might go. The tariff board, having heard all the evidence both from the manufacturers and from the other side, thought there might be an increase in some cases, but the government determined differently.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Because that was not the business of the tariff board.


George Reginald Geary: I am afraid I am not quite
answered yet. I am anxious to know the principle upon which advice was given by the tariff board. In making their recommendations or reports, whatever you call them, did they indicate that they were proceeding on the principle of protecting industry generally? Did they indicate that some particular industry required for its protection from competition from abroad, or for various reasons, some increase in the tariff schedule, or is the report or advice of the tariff board a hit and miss affair? Do they say, "We think this industry can stand a little and this other industry cannot stand it so well"? If there is no principle at all behind the recommendations of that board, what possible system have the government in arriving at a definite figure?

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


James Alexander Robb: The system of common sense, as far as we understand it; the same system hon. members opposite would follow if they had the responsibility of office. The idea is to do what we believe is in the best general interests of the people of Canada.


George Reginald Geary: All I can say to that statement is that I am very grateful for the implied compliment that because we did it it is right, but the point I am making in regard to this or any other item is this: If you are going on the advice of the tariff board, that advice to be valid and worth acting upon must be founded on some principle, otherwise it is a hit and miss affair. In the hands of a government which wanted to make use of it the tariff could be very readily used, under these circumstances, as an instrument for imposing upon industries and getting money from them, if you will. I am not suggesting for a moment that that has been done, but the tariff board, constituted with no definite principles upon which to make these recommendations, can be more readily made a toll gate than a tariff board. I am not speaking of the personnel now. So I say that the temptation to any government of having an instrument such as this ready to its hand is too strong, unless the recommendations of that instrument are to be based upon some definite principle. I should like to know if they have been so based.


James Alexander Robb: I do not like these insinuations, which come up from time to time, that the tariff board might 'be a toll gate. If my hon. friend advances that argument he might as well say that the government he supported when they were in office carried on a toll gate, and I do not believe they did. They used their best judgment at the time.


George Reginald Geary: No, I particularly said that
I was not speaking of the personnel of the tariff board or of the government at all. I am only speaking of the uselessness of a tariff board which is constituted with no definite principle. A tariff board was set up in India and another in the United States; I prefer to speak of the one set up in India, which was constituted on the definite principle of protection as the guide to the recommendations they should make. They knew where they were; they knew what facts they wanted to get and the government had a finding based on some policy upon which to act. Now I say that as long as our tariff board is not properly constituted in that regard, there is the danger that it may be made just what I have indicated. I am making no insinuations; at the moment I am just trying to discuss the functions of the tariff board which brought in a report favouring an increase of the duty on this particular item 522.


James Alexander Robb: I did not say they advocated it in this particular item; I do not recall whether or not they did, but I think I have caught my hon. friend's point now. He says that the United States board received instructions and was created as a method of protection. Am I right in that?


George Reginald Geary: The board in India.


James Alexander Robb: Our board is different; it is a fact-finding body. In this large country there is a wide difference of opinion, some people believe in absolute free trade, at least one of whom sits over yonder. Other gentlemen are here, representing different constituencies, who advocate higher tariff. We have had two or three elections in this country on the tariff issue alone.


Richard Bedford Bennett: All of them, you say.


James Alexander Robb: Perhaps all of them. We
created the tariff board so that those who advocated a higher tariff and those who advocated a lower tariff could go before that board and submit to it all the facts they could produce in support of their position. The board reports to the government, and the government must take the responsibility for the policy adopted.


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: I should like to ask the Minister of Finance one question. He says the tariff board is a fact finding body. H that is so we should have a report of the facts which have been found.


James Alexander Robb: You have the evidence.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But not the findings of
the board.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The evidence is brought in here perhaps a ton at a time.
Progress reported.


Charles Gavan Power: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a
point of order, simply to obtain an interpretation of the new rules. May I ask if it is not competent for the chairman of the committee simply to call it eleven o'clock?


Hewitt Bostock: The committee must report progress and the Speaker must adjourn the house.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
Friday, March 16, 1928