1928-03-23

REPORT OF COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
First report of the joint committee on the printing of parliament.-Mr. Marcil.

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved:: That on and after Monday, 16th April next, and all subsequent Mondays and Wednesdays until the end of the session government notices of motions and government orders shall have precedence over all other business except questions and notices of motions for the production of papers.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. B. ADSHEAD (East Calgary):: I
wish to draw the attention of the Minister of Immigration to press reports which state that

between four and five hundred new immigrants from southeast Europe are being sent into the prairie provinces, and I shall be glad to receive an assurance from him that there will be no flooding of the labour market in western cities such as occurred last year.


Hon. ROBERT FORKE (Minister of Immigration and Colonization):: Every efforts
has been made to prevent such a thing taking place. If, despite our efforts it does happen I shall be glad to have the matter brought to my attention.



ADDITIONS TO NATIONAL PARKS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):: I should like to inquire of the
Minister of the Interior what credence is to be attached to reports in the newspapers this morning that portions of the rest of the public domain in British Columbia are being attached to the parks department of Canada for administrative and other purposes.
Hon. CHARLES A. STEWART (Minister of the Interior):	There are two sections of
British Columbia we are anxious to obtain if we can by agreement with the government of that province, namely, Mount Robson and Mount Assiniboia. In the cases of Mount Assiniboia the area is 20 square miles and in the case of Mount Robson, 840 square miles. The deputy minister of the department is in British Columbia at the moment seeing if it is possible to make the necessary arrangement. As these two areas are notable for their scenic beauty and lie adjacent to our present parks, Banff and Jasper, we are anxious to obtain them.



REVALUATION OF SOLDIER SETTLEMENT LANDS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JOHN VALLANCE (South Battle-ford) :: I have a communication from a
returned soldiers organization and with respect to it I wish to ask a question of the minister who has to deal with soldier settlement. If a returned soldier, after applying for revaluation, has been turned down by the provincial commission, can he appeal his case, and, if so, to whom?


Robert Forke: The appeal
must be made to the exchequer court.



CHICAGO DRAINAGE CANAL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. CHARLES A. STEWART (Minister of the Interior):	The hon. meniber for St.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) made inquiry yesterday with reference to the return containing copies of documents relating to the diversion of water at Chicago. I am informed upon inquiry that it will not be possible to bring down the papers until the middle of next week.

[Stage Direction]
Qn the orders of the day:
Mr. F. P. QUINN (Halifax):: May I ask the Minister of Immigration if any effort is being made to admit to this country the wife and child of a domiciled Canadian citizen? The Minister of Immigration knows to whom I am referring; it is McConachie.


Robert Forke: I do not know of any Canadian citizen that is in trouble in that connection.



WAYS AND MEANS


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
The CHAIRMAN:: When the committee
rose we were discussing the following:
Customs tariff-549. Wool, the hair of the camel, alpaca, goat or other like animal, not further prepared than combed: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.


Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Vancouver Centre):: Last night the committee had this matter under consideration. As a matter of fact the discussion in connection with the woollen industry, as in the case of the previous schedule dealing with cottons, was of a rather general character. This is made necessary by the fact that amendments to one item necessarily affect other items. The minister, however, during the closing moments of yesterday's sitting gave utterance to certain views which I think merit attention and, indeed, demand some consideration from us. I wish to deal with some of the things which the minister said last night, and to invite his attention once more to the damage to the woollen industry of Canada which undoubtedly will result in consequence of his action under this budget.
Now, one of the points emphasized by the minister last night was that our woollen industry was not necessarily suffering very much, and indeed if it was suffering, he attempted to offset the seriousness of its condition by suggesting that the woollen industry in the United States was also suffering; therefore we should not complain. I must say that I have no sympathy whatever
with that sort of argument. It is pretty hard, Mr. Chairman, to discuss this subject if the whole house is going to carry on conversations.


John Frederick Johnston: Order.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The point at issue between the Minister of Finance and ourselves is whether or not the measures immediately before the committee are going adversely to affect Canadian industry, particularly at this moment the woollen industry. I noticed that in one of his observations when answering an interjection by my hon. friend from South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) the minister said:
I am glad to have that statement from my hon. friend.
That is, that we were not asking that the woollen schedule should be raised, as high as the United States tariff.
It has been argued here that we would improve the condition of the woollen industry in Canada by putting a duty on wool.
This is one of the minister's characteristic statements. When he finds himself confronted with an argument that is not answerable, he seeks to evade the issue by suggesting that we are asking for something that is unreasonable and neither in the interests of the people of Canada nor of the country's industrial development. Our point is this, Mr. Chairman, and we are not going to allow the minister to becloud the issue in the public mind. We submit that the woollen industry is a basic industry, that it must be recognized as an industry indigenous to Canada, and must receive such consideration as will place it upon a healthy and prosperous basis.	*J,
I should like to draw the attention of the committee to this distinction between the woollen industry and the cotton industry. Let it be understood that I am not attacking the cotton industry in making this distinction. The cotton industry must necessarily depend entirely upon imported raw materials; we grow no cotton. But Canada by reason of its climate and the physical nature of the country is peculiarly suited to the development of the woollen industry. With the exception perhaps of some of the finer wools furnished by Spain and Australia, we can produce wool of excellent quality suitable for almost every branch-I want that to be noted-suitable for almost every branch of the woollen trade. But what is of far more importance, Canada must continue to be a heavy consumer of wool. It does not matter what artificial silks or other new products may be introduced, they will com-
1632	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
pete far more with cotton than with wool; but by reason of our climatic conditions we must be a wool-using people, and the larger our population grows and the more our country develops, the greater will be the demand for woollen goods. Furthermore-it is so obvious that it scarcely needs to be mentioned-during the past years furs have played a very large part in the winter clothing of our people in the colder sections of the Dominion; but furs are getting more expensive and scarcer year by year, and consequently we are depending more upon woollens than ever before to protect us during the winter season. I emphasize that. There is no parallel between the ootton and woollen industries; the latter is an industry indigenous to this country.
My second point is that the cotton industry is very largely controlled by a few large concerns. This is peculiar to the industry and quite proper; I have no fault to find with it. But the woollen industry in Canada has been established for over a hundred years, it is scattered throughout the Dominion, and is based on the principle of individual factories rather than large concerns as in the cotton industry. In other words, it is an individual rather than a trust or combination business. It might be wise, Mr. Chairman, to bring about an amalgamation of some of our woollen concerns and place them on a larger producing basis, but that is an economic question that does not enter into a consideration of this tariff. The point is that during the last century we have established a large number of individual woollen factories, built up by Canadian enterprise, and these individual industries are being jeopardized bj the tariff revision immediately before us.
I think I might summarize very briefly the attitude of the minister or of the government towards the cotton industry and the woollen industry. In respect of the cotton industry it is a policy of deceit; in respect of the 'woollen industry, a policy of destruction. ^Referring again to the artificial silk industry, 'this does not enter into competition with the woollen industry to anything like the degree that it does with the cotton industry; and where artificial silk does affect woollen goods it is only those finer and higher classes upon which a duty might very properly be imposed, and which might be classified almost as luxuries. But the ordinary woollen goods worn by the ordinary citizen year in and year out are of a character not brought into competition with artificial silk at all.
My hon. friend the minister made reference to the United States. He quoted the duties imposed in the United States, which
[Mr. Stevens. 1
are very high, and in order to impress them on the minds of the committee I might indicate what they are; they are well worth considering. The duties imposed in the United States are exceptionally high as compared with our own. They are as follows:
Woven fabrics, weighing more than four ounces per square yard, wholly or in chief value of wool, valued at not more than 60 cents per pound, 24 cents per pound and 40 per centum ad valorem; valued at more than 60 cents but not more than 80 cents per pound, 37 cents per pound and 50 per centum ad valorem; valued at more than 80 cents but not more than $1.50 per pound, 45 cents per pound upon the wool content thereof and 50 per centum ad valorem; valued at more than $1.50 per pound, 45 cents per pound upon the wool content thereof, and 50 per centum ad valorem.
I wonder if the committee realizes the extent of these duties imposed by the United States. Then take blankets and similar articles. The duties are as follows:
Blankets and similar articles, including carriage and automobile robes and steamer rugs, made of blanketing, wholly or in chief value of wool, not exceeding three yards in length, valued at not more than 50 cents per pound, 18 cents per pound and 30 per centum ad valorem; valued at more than 50 cents but not more than $1 per pound, 27 cents per pound, and 32i per centum ad valorem; valued at more than $1 but not more than $1.50 per pound, 30 cents per pound and 35 per centum ad valorem; valued at more than $1.50 per pound. 37 cents per pound and 40 per centum ad valorem.
That is the duty on woollen blankets, that is, blankets made of wool, or partly of wool. It will be observed that the duty in the United States is altogether beyond anything that we have ever suggested should be imposed in Canada. I have not checked the figures, but I venture the statement that they are perhaps two, three or four times as much as the corresponding items in our tariff. The minister said last night: I suppose my hon. friends opposite want us to put on a tariff as high as that of the United States. We have made no such suggestion, Mr. Chairman. What we are asking for, as I have already indicated, is an adjustment of the tariff that will permit the Canadian industry to be maintained in a condition of real prosperity in Canada.


Mr. ARTHURS:: To enable them to live.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, it has indeed come
to that, that some of them are asking merely for the privilege of continuing their existence in Canada. I continue this brief examination of the United States condition, and in checking up the United States government returns, at pages 624 and 625, I find that they had a production of raw wool, in 1926, of 269,000,000

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
pounds, and imports of 299,000,000 pounds; that is, they imported approximately the same amount as they produced. But their imports of manufactured wool were 37,000 long tons, or about 82,000,000 pounds valued at $70,000,000. I ask the committee to consider this point for a moment. The United States imported woollen manufactured goods at the rate of 60 cents per capita-$70,000,000 worth as against 120,000,000 people, while in Canada, which is more a wool using country, we imported $40,000,000 of manufactured woollen goods, or at the rate of $3.50 per capita, or about six times as much per capita as the United States. It may be said that there is no argument in that, but the point I want to make is this: The minister suggested that the woollen industry in the United States was not flourishing because it had a high tariff. That was his implication, but I do not think it is his opinion. It was just that kind of general statement used frequently by those who argue for free trade to prejudice the public mind against the principle of protection. That is all it was, and that is all it was intended to do. But the facts belie hi3 statement.
The United States, as I have already indicated, use in the production of woollen goods some 568,000,000 pounds of wool; that is their total consumption of wool used in manufacturing. They export only 14,000,000 pounds out of 56S,000,000 pounds that they use in manufacturing; so practically all the wool they import and almost all the wool they grow they use in their own factories. Their importations are only 82,000,000 pounds, or about 12 per cent of the total amount of their production. So it will readily be seen, Mr. Chairman, that the United States is virtually self-contained so far as the woollen industry is concerned. They have built up a strong, virile industry there which is being maintained, and which is serving the needs of the people.
Now I wish to turn to another point in the minister's speech. He referred in a very casual way to the question of wages as if that were a subject of no importance. I am not going to go over the arguments that have already been presented as to what a very small factor, after all, is the duty so far as the internal production of woollen goods is concerned. For instance, I think my hon. friend from South Wellington demonstrated that most excellently last night when he showed that the amount of the duty on a suit of clothes costing from fifty to sixty dollars was between fifty and sixty cents. That would be the effect of the duty, so iit does not influence the consumer, but what
is its effect upon the worker? My hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre yesterday made a statement which impressed me very much. He said that if the workers of Canada could be persuaded that they were receiving any benefit from the imposition of a duty upon the manufactured article, they would support the imposition of such a duty, or words to that effect. The minister gave us some figures last night which were very interesting, and which I think ought to be considered very carefully by this house. Comparing wages, and taking Great Britain at the figure of 100, he said that the wages in France would represent 50, Italy 40, and Canada 160, as compared with 100 in Great Britain.


Mr. HEAPS:: What is the hon. gentleman's interpretation of those figures?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am using the minister's figures, although last year I gave an exact comparison of the actual wages paid in Great Britain, France, Germany and Canada. But I am using the minister's own figures, and an interpretation of those figures I think would show this, that in Canada we have to pay four times as much in wages per diem as they do in Italy, over three times as much as they do in France, and over 160 per cent of the wages paid in England. Now I ask my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre to give this thought consideraton. Before the manufacturer gets one atom of protection, you must give him a protection that will bridge the difference between those wages, that is, in so far as the wage content of cloth is concerned. Now the wage content of manufactured cloth, I am informed, is 55 per cent of the value of the cloth.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: Is it not true that figures were presented to the tariff board showing that protection was granted equivalent to the entire wage bill?


Henry Herbert Stevens: W'e are unfortunately at a disadvantage in not having the evidence indexed and before us in proper form, but I recall the time when the presentation was made. I believe it was made by Mr. Deachmian.
. Mr. ADSHEAD : I have the figures here.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have on two separate occasions carefully analyzed these wage figures based upon the data and statistics supplied me by the Labour department of Canada. Speaking from memory I may say that the result of my deductions indicated that the difference was almost double so far as Great Britain is concerned, about three times so far as France and Italy are concerned, and with a similar difference as regards Germany.
1634	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Mr. WOODS  WORTH@: By reason, of the
lower cost of living in those countries, is not the nominal wage really higher than it seems?


Henry Herbert Stevens: That does not enter into this point. I know what my hon. friend has in mind and in some respects his argument is sound, but it does not apply here. The figures I compared were the actual wages paid in Great Britain, Germany, France and Italy and the actual wages paid in Canada for the same work. I gave the figures last year and they are all on Hansard. And they were taken from the Labour department's own statistics. I am now taking the statement presented yesterday by the Minister of Finance, and now I submit to the minister that it is his obvious duty, if he is to do the right thing by Canadian workmen, to impose a tariff under the woollen schedules, equal to the difference between the wage scale in Canada and the wage scale in Great Britain, France, Italy and Germany, before he gives the manufacturer any protection at all. The position is inescapable. Let us for the moment leave aside What that difference is. I do insist, however, that it is the minister's duty, if he is to protect Canadian workmen- leaving the manufacturer out of it altogether for the time being-to impose a duty equal to the difference between the wage scale in Canada and those in other countries.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Does my hon. friend not
think that he ought to take into consideration all the various factors that enter into The cost of production in Great Britain and wfc :ch are higher than in Canada? Take the item of taxation, for instance, and various forms of insurance which have not to be paid over here.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am not objecting to that. Let me point out, however, that the cost of building in Canada as well as the cost of heating is very much higher than it is in England.


Abraham Albert Heaps: What about the income tax?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Well, the income tax is fairly oneTous here too, although it is not so severe as it is in England. But I am not disputing the point; I simply suggest that we stick to the question under discussion for the moment. So far as wages are concerned, we have a right to do justice to our Canadian workmen and to impose a protection on the manufactured articles equal to the difference between Canadian wages and wages paid in other countries.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Wages constitute
only one of the factors in the' cost of produc-
tion, and if other costs in Great Britain are higher than they are here surely the hon. gentleman cannot ignore them in his computation.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am not disregarding
them, and my hon. friend's position is sound, But I do not admit that the costs in other directions are generally higher in Great Britain than they are here. My own impression is that the costs there are lower, although their income tax exceeds ours. The minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I question whether their corporation income tax is higher than ours.


Abraham Albert Heaps: What about local taxation in Great Britain?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Local rates in Great
Britain are not, in my opinion, a bit higher than ordinary municipal rates in Canada. As a matter of fact, you can follow the general ratio of costs in Great Britain as compared with Canada and you will find that capital in Great Britain is cheaper than it is in this country. No one will dispute that. And that is a big factor. Then take taxes and insurance. There is no appreciable difference between the two countries; if anything, the insurance rates would be higher in Canada because of the general use of wooden buildings as compared with stone and brick construction in the old country. In Canada, again, we have a dual taxation imposed in many of the provinces both by the provinces and by the federal authorities, and it is higher than the corporation income tax in Great Britain. Personal income tax is a different matter; it does not enter into consideration until you have earned profit and paid it to the individual. So that personal income tax is not a factor; it must be eliminated.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: The hon.
member, I take it, would apply that principle fairly to all industry?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have no objection to
the application of it generally.


Edward Joseph Garland: Then the
next question is, would he apply it to the farming industry and allow the farmers the total cost of labour in the form of a bonus?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am prepared to discuss
that question on its merits and in its proper place. I have certain views which I might be induced to express on the subject some day. The committee, however, has before it a practical issue. We are not discussing any general theory of economics; what we are considering is whether we shall do so and so

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
with a given industry. I was discussing the question of building costs. The cost of heating factories in Canada, the cost of building a structure capable of being heated, is certainly much higher than it is in Great Britain. Parenthetically I may observe this: One reason why industry is developing on the Pacific coast of Canada and the United States -and there is a new development there-is the fact that climatic conditions are such that the overhead in relation to heating and the cost of structures is less than it is in the central portions of Canada and the United States where the climate is cold. So that on a fair analysis of cost figures it will be found that the British, French and Italian woollen mills have a distinct advantage over Canada. Xow I return to the question of wages.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Does the hon
gentleman consider the question of overcapitalization that prevails in this country watered stock, and so forth?


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend is introducing a question which is certainly a fair subject of debate. But in fixing the rates of duty the tariff board could very well ignore any question of over-capitalization; indeed, they would have to do so if they did their duty. I am not here advocating the practice of watering stock, but I may say that companies that have been established, as many of our Canadian woollen industries have been established, for a hundred years, and which have constantly turned back their profits into the business, are entitled to stock issue for these returns to the business. As an hon. member reminds me, we are now dealing with the question of costs of production and not with that of watered stock. I agree with my hon. friend that if there is undue inflation of capital, that fact ought to be ignored in the fixation of the duty. Let me, however, finish my rather disjointed argument on the question of wages. The minister cited it himself and I say to him and to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that before the manufacturer receives one atom of protection, you must impose a dut3' equal to the difference between wages here and wages in other countries that are competing with us.


Mr. WARD:: What percentage of woollen
goods consumed in Canada is imported from Italy?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have the figures with
me but I do not think my hon. friend desires me to check them up.


William John Ward: I think it is very important.
The hon. member has endeavoured to impress upon the house the necessity for a
balancing as between duties imposed and wages paid between the two different countries. If he is going to give Italy as an example he should give to the house the benefit of the imports.


Henry Herbert Stevens: If this is any comfort to
my hon. friend, I am willing to eliminate all other countries than,Great Britain which is the country from which we import the major portion of our woollen goods. We can thus eliminate Italy, France and Germany. All these countries do supply us with some woollen goods, the exact amount of which I have not in mind, but the preponderance of imports comes from Great Britain, and we can stick to Great Britain for all the practical purposes of this issue. I want to carry this wage question one step further. According to a well-established principle in the manufacture of woollen goods, fifty-five per cent is claimed to be represented in wages. That, I think, is a fair proportion. In that case, if we take the difference between wages in Canada and wages in Great Britain, it would be a simple matter to determine what amount of duty should be imposed in order first of all to protect the Canadian workman without giving any protection whatever to the manufacturers. That rate would be something in the neighbourhood of 22 per cent or 23 per cent.
I turn to one of these items. The minister under item 551b eliminates a duty of 12| per cent on yarns and warps and he puts them on the free list. The committee ought clearh' to understand what we are doing in this regard. We are giving a distinct advantage to one factory, a factory which is in the riding of the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Kaiser); but it is rather significant- and I make this merely as a statement of fact without conveying any impression other than the fact itself conveys-that this factory is located in the riding contested by the chairman of the tariff advisory board, a riding which he purposes contesting again. The house ought to know this fact and they can put on it whatever construction they like. The point is this, that one factory is benefited and since this revision has been made, I am informed that they have already cancelled their orders for these yarns to other factories from whom they have been buying these yams during recent years. These are worsted yarns which are used in the manufacture of plush. I presume the plush is used in upholstering automobiles and so on, these yams being used as the foundation upon which these plush goods are built up. The question which this house must decide is whether it is doing its duty by the


John Frederick Johnston: Order. My hon. friend has exhausted his forty minutes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Very well. I will speak
again in a few minutes, probably for another

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
forty minutes, although I would have been through in about five minutes more.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: I was extremely interested in the figures presented by my hon. friend; one of the things which struck me was his statement that with regard to woollens the wage costs -were 55 per cent of the cost of production. I have here a statement made by the gentleman who represented the woollen industry before the tariff advisory board, and I may say this is one of the benefits my hon. friends might derive from the members of the Consumers' League which they derided so much the other day. Mr. Barrett stated that the total wage cost amounts to 25 per cent of the selling value of the finished article.


Mr. EDWARDS (Waterloo):: Was that for knitted or woven goods?


Herbert Bealey Adshead: I could not say; it is
for woollen goods. My hon. friend gave the cost as 55 per cent, and even if there were a difference between the two classes of goods surely it would not be so great as that.


Alexander McKay Edwards: There is that difference.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: This gentleman represented the woollen industry before the tariff advisory board, and in his testimony stated that the figure of 25 per cent represented the wages plus the salaries of his company.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: My hon. friend has just
stated that that 25 per cent refers to the selling cost, which is very different from 25 per cent of the production cost.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: But then my hon. friends ask for a tariff which would provide for the difference between the wage cost of England and the wage cost of Canada, and surely a tariff of 35 per cent represents more than that difference.


Alexander McKay Edwards: That is the
production cost in the mill, but by no means the selling cost.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: In England the cost of
labour represents only 15 per cent, so this tariff means that the protection afforded the industry in Canada is double the wage cost of production in England. Then, with regard to the imports of woollens, my hon. friend has stated that these amounted to $40,000,000 in 1927.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, in 1926.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: That is quite correct,
but you must take that in proportion to the total volume of trade. In 1878 we find that
the imports of wollens amounted to 10 per cent of the general trade of Canada. That figure dropped in 1897 to 8 per cent and in 1927 to 5 per cent, so in 1927 our imports of woollens in relation to the total trade of Canada were less by a half than in 1878, when we introduced the national policy of protection.
Then reference was made to the difficulties in which the manufacturers find themselves. They were asked by the tariff advisory board to produce their books to show how much they were losing, but with one exception they absolutely refused to do so.


Alexander McKay Edwards: No, my hon friend is wrong there.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: I have the statement
here.


Alexander McKay Edwards: Although 1
will not do so, I could name at least two mills in which they put in their own men to investigate the books.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: The statement was also
made before the tariff advisory board that the trouble with the woollen industry is that in many cases plants were built during the war when costs were high and production was heavy; in many cases these mills were equipped for the operation of two shifts. Now they have found themselves unable to operate and make the profits they made during the war, and they ask that the rest of Canada be especially taxed to assist them.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am delighted that the
new rules permit one to take a little rest in the middle of a speech. My hon. friend, as to whose honesty of purpose there can be no question, has been a little misled by the terminology of the report which he has been reading. It is obvious that when you are considering the relation of the wages paid to the cost of production you cannot do so by taking the retail selling price or the wholesale selling price of the goods. I quoted official figures which were supplied by the Department of Labour, and these I offered not on my own authority but on the authority of the statisticians of the government. I think my hon. friend was quoting from a special pleading-


Herbert Bealey Adshead: I was quoting the evidence of Mr. Barrett, who represented the woollen manufacturers before the tariff advisory board.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The point my hon. friend made was based upon the selling price of the goods. I think he will agree after reflection that such a comparison is neither fair nor

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
proper, so there is no use pursuing that argument further. Then, with regard to the last statement of my hon. friend that the companies would not allow investigation of their books, there is a statement contained in this report which I have not immediately under my hand, in which they declared that they were given every possible assistance by those who appeared before them, and were allowed to examine books and so on. They not only made no complaint but they refer especially to it, in the following words:
In conclusion, may we express appreciation of the effective co-operation received from those who have appeared before the board.
I think my hon. friend, in justice to those who appeared, will not be inclined to press the suggestion that they withheld information, which I think would be unfair.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: The report said they
would not make their books available.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The report does not say
that, and I am sure we desire to be fair in this matter.


Mr. ROBB:: If my hon. friend will permit
me, I think it is fair to the mills to say that I have had no report from the tariff board that the mills were unwilling to give any information asked for. Indeed, I think the fact is quite to the contrary.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I believe it is so stated
somewhere in this report. I cannot place my finger on it for the moment but I believe I quoted it the other day.
I should like to return to what I was discussing a moment ago and that is the observations of the minister last night, or the purpose that he may have had in quoting certain statements from the press. Now I shall proceed first to refer to his quotations from the statements of gentlemen who appeared before the board. The minister said:
Then I have some comments upon the conduct of the woollen inquiry by some of those who appeared before the board. Mr. J. A. Burns, former president of the Canadian Woollen & Knit Goods Association, Toronto, said:
[DOT]'On behalf of the woollen manufacturers I would like to express our deep appreciation of the fair manner in which this investigation has been conducted."
Next the minister quoted a statement by Mr. Shaw who had this to say:
Might I associate myself and my confreres with the expression of appreciation just given by Mr. Burns?
Then the minister quoted Mr. Hodgson as follows:

May I be permitted to thank you and the board on behalf of Mr. Wood and myself for the very kind way in which you have received us?
These are simply expressions of courtesy. Surely the minister does not wish us to conclude that because these gentlemen courteously thanked the board for a fair hearing, therefore this schedule-based upon the minister's own common sense without one shred of evidence, without one shred of a finding or a fact from the advisory board- is wholly approved by them? The minister read this into Hansard for the purpose of giving out to the public the impression that the woollen industry, and these gentlemen in particular, were entirely satisfied with the schedule of duties before us.


James Alexander Robb: Not at all. They were entirely satisfied with the hearing, and that is all I said.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is what I have been trying to point out to the minister, not only to-day but the other day as well. The results of this hearing are somewhere, heaven knows where, perhaps in the mind of Mr. Moore-


James Alexander Robb: They are before the committee.


Henry Herbert Stevens: There is not one fact or result before the committee, not a single finding not a single comment-not one. That is what we are complaining of. To my mind this house ought to go on record as censuring the board for dereliction of duty in presenting this report. Here is what the board say and the report speaks for itself:
Moreover, the transcripts contain the arguments of the applicants and their opponents, which, in our opinion, cannot be satisfactorily summarized, and after mature deliberation we have concluded that to attempt a summary would be not only unfair to those who have argued before the board, but as well would render to you and to parliament an incomplete service. The obvious intent of argument-*
I wish the committee particularly to note this:
The obvious intent of argument is to influence those who have authority over the matter under discussion.
Thus it is that we have deemed it our duty to pass on to you the transcripts containing the records of our public proceedings, with only explanatory comment.
I have' been unable to find any explanatory comments. They may be scattered through a mass of evidence unassimilated, undigested and unindexed, without comment, not brought into juxtaposition one with the other, but scattered-part of a hearing to-day and the balance of the hearing two weeks hence-and

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
then we are asked to go through all that evidence, bring one part and correlate it to another, and make up our minds as to what was presented. The board has been organized for two years, and Mr Moore has been sitting for more than a year, day in and day out, hearing witnesses, able to judge of their veracity and their capacity, and yet he does not vouchsafe one atom of advice or comment to this parliament. That is what I complain of, and I complain of the action of the minister in putting on Hansard, extracts from the press and the comments of certain gentlemen, and now trying to say to this house if we would permit him: This is the evidence that these people have had a fair hearing, and that they are perfectly satisfied with the findings. I say again, Mr. Chairman, that this house ought to censure the board, or as an alternative, censure the government, for they are responsible for the board's action, for presenting to the house a report as barren of information as this report is. I am not going to say any more on that at present.
I conclude with the observation, that as far as the woollen schedules of the present tariff are concerned, they bear every evidence of ruin for a number of factories, if not for the whole industry. Here is a factory which, we will say, has one half of its capital wrapped up in the spinning of yarn and the other half devoted to the purchase of machines for the utilization of these yarns. The effect of this clause to which I have referred will be to put out of business that part of the factory which is spinning yarns and allow the other half to continue operating. Does anyone presume to suggest that this, for a time at least, will not spell ruin to that industry? It means that the industry must convert its capital, its investment and its machinerj' into some other use and sustain the loss of such conversion, whatever it may be. I therefore impress upon the minister the seriousness of his action, and even yet hope that he may see his way clear to remedy this injustice which is being done to this industry. After all, the matter is one involving the welfare not of one or two concerns but of the whole industry of the Dominion.


James Alexander Robb: Each year since 1924 I have been accused by hon. gentlemen of destroying industry, so that my hon. friend's speech is not at all new to me. To-day we are discussing, not automobiles nor agricultural implements but woollens, and as I listened to my hon. friend I tried to make up my mind just what was the object of his remarks. Was his speech intended as an attack on the board
or on the chairman of the board? Was it intended as an attack on the minister or on the policy of the government?


Henry Herbert Stevens: It was intended as an attack on the government.


James Alexander Robb: On the government?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Absolutely, because the
government is responsible for this action.


James Alexander Robb: I was going to give my hon. friend another guess. I was wondering whether his speech was an attempt to prevent the woollen manufacturer, who yesterday announced that he intended establishing in Victoria, from coming over and locating.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It just happens that I met that gentleman when in the old country recently.


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend must have
persuaded him to come.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, but I was glad to hear that he was coming. It may be interesting to point out that before coming he received a guarantee from the city of Victoria of the bonds of the company to the extent of $125,000, and in the second place a concession of free water-which is a very important factor in the cost of manufacturing woollen goods- to the extent of 200,000 gallons per month. With these inducements he has come and I am exceedingsly glad that he has done so. In addition to this he will receive twenty-seven acres of land free of taxation.


James Alexander Robb: That does not enter into it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I would consider it a fair factor.


James Alexander Robb: Everyone knows that towns
and cities throughout Canada vie with each other in offering inducements to industries to establish in their midst. My hon. friend has at least made it clear that he is advocating some higher tariff for the woollen industry. He does not say how high, but I am not doing him an injustice when I say he is advocating a higher tariff for the industry.
Mr. STEVEN'S: I will never run away from that.


James Alexander Robb: The inference is made that this government is responsible for having so reduced tariffs as to injure the woollen industry. I have before me the brief which the woollen industry themselves presented to the tariff board. This is their own brief, their own statement. They claim that:
Wool manufacturing has been declining steadily in Canada since 1897, with the exception of two or three war years when importa-
1610	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
tions of manufactured goods from abroad were largely shut off and when orders for woollen goods were sold to other countries-*
-and when they had the great business they had at home.
I am not going to go through their arguments for higher tariffs; but when they come to the question of what governments have done to injure them, they make this statement which will be found on page 12 of their brief presented to the tariff board on the 1st February, 1927:
In 1919 there was a reduction of five per cent in the duties on goods imported from Great Britain-*
This government was not in office in 1919. We are not responsible for reducing that tariff by five per cent.
-and in May, 1920, a reduction of 71 per cent on goods imported from foreign countries.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That was the war tax
which was taken off. There was a war tax, a horizontal tax, imposed on everything and at the conclusion of the war it was taken off everything.


James Alexander Robb: The point I am making is that at that time the people of Canada were united. The government was not a Conservative government. I am not blaming, nor am I giving them credit for this. We had in office at that time a Union government and it was the policy of the countiy that we should reduce duties on woolllens.


Abraham Albert Heaps: The only excuse I have for
rising now and detaining the committee for a moment or two is that last night and this afternoon we have heard two new principles enunciated by the Conservative party. Last night we had the idea of the economic independence of Canada and to-day we have had enunciated by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) the principle that protection is for the purpose of conserving the standard of living for the workers in this Dominion.


Henry Herbert Stevens: As a matter of fact we
have always contended that as one of the main principles and reasons of protection.


Abraham Albert Heaps: The only regret I have to
make is that it has not worked out in practice.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It has not had much of
an opportunity.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I will come down to facts if the hon. gentleman wants them. A year ago last October I was in the city of Vancouver, right in the constituency of my hon. friend and I happened to meet some manufacturers of woollen goods who came to me

and said that they wanted more protection for their industry. I asked them where their main competition came from and against whom they would like to be protected. The answer was: Eastern Canada. I should like to know how you can protect those manufacturers of knitted and woollen goods in British Columbia against what they term cheap importations from the eastern part of the Dominion. They complain about the low wages paid in the east. I have heard manufacturers in the city of Winnipeg complaining about competition from Montreal on account of the low wages paid to the women engaged in industry in that particular city. Protection has given no benefit to those large manufacturing centres in eastern Canada, because if protection did protect the worker, why is it necessary to have in those provinces minimum wage acts? Why is it necessary at the present time in Quebec for a commission to inquire into the question of minimum wages for girls working in the textile industry and various other industries in that province?
The hon. member also enunciated the theory that because wages are lower in Great Britain than they are in Canada, we should have some protection given to the manufacturer here against the lower wages of Great Britain and, I believe, Italy as well. What is the hon. member going to ask us to do when the competition comes from a country where wages are higher than in Canada? What about importations from the United States? I have been in this house for just three sessions, but during that time I have heard members of the Conservative party say: Look at the United States; look at the high wages they are paying there. If the United States are paying higher wages than Canada, then according to all logical reasoning we ought to cut off the tariff entirely against goods coming from the United States. I do not however suppose the hon. gentlemen will for a moment suggest doing anything of that kind because the main competition is not so much on goods from Great Britain as from the United States.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Not on the woollen tariff schedule.


Abraham Albert Heaps: 
Mr. KENNEDY:: What does the hon.
member mean by that?


Abraham Albert Heaps: That is that we should buy
nothing from another country but sell everything to it. That cannot be done. I believe the greatest punishment a nation can impose unon another is to establish a blockade against it. In the past few years we have had examples of this. When a nation has been unfriendly to another nation it has endeavoured to compel that nation to become economically independent by blockading its ports. That is punishment one nation has inflicted on another for doing something of an unfriendly character. I do not think the Conservative party are doing themselves credit, or doing any good to the cause of closer imperial relations by taking the attitude they have on this particular question. I should like to see Canadian goods consumed in Canada as much as possible. 1 want to give protection to the workers in this country. Where there are lower standards of living in other countries than there are in Canada, the manufacturers are entitled to protection against imposing a lower standard of wages on the workers. The statement of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is one to which I entirely subscribe. It is unfortunately true that the protection that has been given in the
Dominion of Canada has not in the least degree given any protection to the worker; the protection has been entirely a benefit to the manufacturer. When the workers get a certain amount of protection, you will find that they will take the attitude that the workmen do in Australia, where they are for protection, but the first protection given in Australia is not for the manufacturer, but for the work people engaged in industry. I have made these few observations on account of these two new ideas enunciated by the Conservative party last night and to-day. This idea of economic independence to me is one which it is impossible to carry out, and if it were attempted to be carried out, it would mean economic stagnation in the Dominion of Canada.


Mr. EVANS:: I wish to say a few words
on this matter, and my remarks will very largely take the form of questions addressed to the hon. member for Vancouver Centre.
I do not admit the right of any government to place a tariff on any goods whatsoever to be consumed at home, but if there is an industry essential to the welfare of this country which is seeking protection, then I think that that industry should be willing to lay its books on the table and let us see its profits, and whether or not it is over-capitalized. If it seeks protection, we should know the reason why.
But suppose, as the hon. member for Vancouver Centre states, that the actual wages paid here are much higher than the wages paid in European countries. That is a handicap to the manufacturer, I admit, but who does the hon. gentleman suggest should shoulder that difference? What industry is there in Canada to-day that is so prosperous that it can shoulder the difference? The hon. gentleman has overlooked the facts as they are. Perhaps he will answer that question yet. He says that it is the duty of the government to grant as much protection as will cover that difference. Upon whom will the burden fall? I have said before in this house, and I repeat it now, that those who advocate protection in Canada will never know what protection means until the farmer is placed in such a position that he can charge a price for his product sold in the home market that will give him a profit over the whole of his production whether sold at home or abroad, and when he is in a position to do that, he will be doing exactly the thing which the protected manufacturer is now doing. In what way does my hon. friend think the primary producer can overcome that same difficulty regarding wages? How does he think that we who have to com-
1642	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
pete against the cheap labour of the world, of Europe, Asia and other countries, can overcome that same difficulty in wages? Is the agricultural industry so prosperous that it can shoulder the difference? I say that it is not, and because of the protective system in Canada to-day we are losing farmers continually from the land. We are in less numbers in Saskatchewan to-day than we were five years ago, despite all the immigration that has come in there. The handicap of wages is due to the very system that my hon. friend himself is advocating, which handicaps even the class that is to shoulder the burden which he would thus increase. But not only has the farmer borne the burden of protection for all the other industries to manufacture in Canada for the Canadian market, but the protected manufacturer has used the trade penalties to charge the home consumer a price that gives him a profit over the whole of his output whether sold at home or abroad. I can name industries that have done that, the steel industry, in particular, and I can mention other industries to prove the case. I wonder, when a revision of the tariff is taking place now to an extent that we have not seen for some years, why hon. gentlemen will not face the facts as they are. Does the hon. member for Vancouver Centre believe that the agricultural industry can shoulder this extra burden now? Does he know anything about agriculture?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I surely do. I spent my boyhood in it.


John Evans: Is the hon. gentleman engaged in that industry? On what other industry would he place this extra burden, if not on agriculture? The prices that the agriculturist has to pay to-day are far in excess of those paid in any other country with which we have to compete, and they are raised out of line with other countries of the world through the protective system increasing the cost of living. I would draw the minister's attention to this one fact, that the twine industry to-day is doing very well. It gets its raw material free, and there is no duty on its finished product. Does the hon. gentleman mean to say that the wages paid in the twine industry in Canada are the same wages that are paid in Belfast? No. The twine industry is doing very well, even after having to shoulder the burden of increased wages in a protected country. Why cannot the woollen industry do the same? It should be a maxim to be followed in this country that when raw material is placed on the free list for the manufacturer, his finished product should also be on the free list.

Since this discussion began, no proof has been given that the woollen manufacturers are . in a bad way. No auditor's name has been quoted. The books of none of these companies have been laid on the table, nor even before the tariff board.


Alexander McKay Edwards: The hon.
member stated that the books have not been opened to audit. That is quite untrue. The books have been audited in many cases by the auditor, but it is quite obvious that a manufacturer will not make public his business for the benefit of his competitor. But the tariff board has that information; the Minister of Finance has said so.


John Evans: I have not seen their books, and the tariff board has not seen them.


James Alexander Robb: The accountants representing the tariff board have seen them, and the books have never been refused in any case where they were asked for.


John Evans: Before this house should be asked to give them protection, we should know exactly how they stand.


Mr. McGIBBON:: Is not the fact that so many firms have gone out of business after having been in business for forty or fifty years sufficient evidence for my hon. friend? V hat more evidence does he want?


John Evans: I do not know why they are out of business, but I would think it was because of incompetency in their methods and lack of up-to-date machinery.


Peter McGibbon: They ought to engage
the hon. gentleman as general manager.


John Evans: Whenever the farmer complains, we are told in this house that he is behind the times and that he should adopt modern methods. I say the same with respect to other industries. Most of the finished articles in the woollen schedules carry a duty of 35 per cent. That is an import penalty, and yet the protectionist advocates would blindly increase the burden on the class to which they are looking for the home market. Is it reasonable? But I have never yet heard from any hon. gentleman in this house a logical argument for protection. Protection kills itself in the end; it works against industry, no matter how high the tariff. Strange to say, to-day the British manufacturer can get over the tariff wall of any country just as easy as he can get into a free trade country. But where the argument of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) falls flat is in the fact that he has begged for protection against countries pay-

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
ing a lower wage than obtains in Canada. Yet he himself has been an advocate in this house for protection against the United States because of the higher wages there. How can he reconcile those two statements? How inconsistent the argument for protection has always been.
If the woollen industry of the Dominion is suffering from a lack of protection, I ask again, how is it that our woollen manufacturers can compete in countries, against which hon. gentlemen say they must be protected. Our woollen manufacturers have done very well in the export market in years gone by. Either they can compete without any protection, or else they are fleecing the home consumer by charging him a price to give them a profit on the whole output, whether sold at home or abroad. As I said last night to the minister, I take it as being only fair and reasonable, that these woollen schedules should be withdrawn for a time and be reconsidered. It is unreasonable to allow the revenue of the country to be impaired by complete free trade in raw materials when the home consumer is charged over one-third as a penalty on what he has to buy. It is unfair, it is class legislation in the worst form, and brands the government as serving only one group, comprising the capitalists and manufacturers of this country. I still wish him to explain, if he can, why this is being done at the present time. Not only in the tariff, but in the income tax also the capitalist is being relieved and a proportionately greater burden is being shifted to the working classes. Is there any British fair play in such a policy? it is unreasonable. This means placing the burden on those who are working double the hours that obtain in urban industries. Even our women and children on the farms are being discriminated against. I can take hon. gentlemen into districts where our children do not even know how to play. You are placing this burden on the sweated labour of the families now homesteading on the farms of Canada. I say again, it is unfair.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Mr. Chairman, my attention has been drawn to an error on my part. I said that the companies had refused to have their books investigated. What I intended to say was that they had refused to make their statements public, with the exception of one company. The Penman Manufacturing Company made their statement public.


Alexander McKay Edwards: It is difficult, Mr. Chairman, as anyone will at once admit who has given any study to economics, to frame a tariff schedule "'Inch will be fair 56103-105
all around, for so many things dovetail into other things that when you attempt to frame a tariff in regard to one article, you find yourself confronted with the fact that by so doing you are adversely affecting some other article closely related to it.
In regard to the woollen industry, it has always appeared to me that one of the first questions we should ask ourselves is, whether or not in a country like Canada it is advisable to encourage the sheep industry for the production of wool to be used in turn for the manufacture of woollens in the Dominion. In asking myself that question I have never been able to come to any other than one conclusion: that Canada is specially adapted, climatically and otherwise, for the raising of sheep. Therefore, it is a country where the sheep industry should be encouraged in every possible way, a country where every encouragement should be given to our farmers along that line. We should produce vast quantities of wool, and we should manufacture that wool into the finished article. I do not think it is possible for us to raise sheep as cheaply as they can be raised in Australia and New Zealand; consequently those countries can produce wool more cheaply than we can. But because of that fact are we to decide that we will go out of the sheep industry and let Australia and New Zealand supply our requirements? Hon. gentlemen like my hon. friend from Rosetown (Mr. Evans) take that position. It is the favourite attitude of the free-trader: let that country which is best adapted to the production of any particular article supply it to other countries not so well favoured, and let the latter devote themselves to some other line that they are best adapted to produce. I do not think that is a sound position to take, nor a position which any one of us in this Dominion dare take.
It has always appeared to me that the persons to be first considered in fixing a tariff schedule with respect to the woollen industry are our farmers who keep sheep and produce wool; and that to give them the encouragement which they deserve there should be a duty on wool to place them in a fair position in relation to their competitors in other countries enjoying certain climatic and other advantages. That in my judgment is where we should start in fixing a tariff on wool and wool products, our first object in view being the welfare of our farmers, the producers of wool; our second object should be the welfare of our manufacturers of woollen products, they being in a secondary position to the primary producers, the farmers.

1644	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
My hon. friend who has just sat down (Mr. Evans) said that he has never heard a sound argument for protection. Of course, I cannot agree with him. I am not referring now to any arguments that I have attempted to advance in favour of protection; rather I have in mind tariff conditions in the various countries of the world. When I see their statesmen advocating protection, it seems to me that they at least are of average intelligence and capable of advancing sound arguments in favour of the protective principle. But let us take the country from which my hon. friend came; what about the Key Industries Act of the old country? What about the success which has followed the efforts of the British government in placing a comparatively high duty on the importation of automobiles? Even free-traders in England have come to the conclusion that certain industries are entitled to protection, and they are giving those industries protection. Under protection those industries are succeeding, with advantage to the working people of the old country, and with distinct advantage to the domestic consumers of the articles produced, because they are being produced under protection at a less cost than when those industries were operating under free trade. That is a situation which, I contend, strongly confirms the soundness of the protective principle.
But let me give another instance which comes right down to the question of tariff in relation to the woollen industry, the cotton industry, and so on. We have certain factories in the province of Ontario. Is it not a fact that we have in this provinoe of Ontario a minimum wage law, under which the owners of factories are obliged to pay a minimum rate of wages to their employees? They cannot go below a certain rate paid, for instance, to girls working in their factories. The law of the land compels the manufacturer to observe a certain standard, and the wages paid under this standard are found to be double the wages paid in some industries in England to girls employed in the same kind of work there. I venture to say that there is not a member of this house, not a member of the government, who would suggest for a moment that the minimum wage law should be abolished. That being so, we are at one on the necessity for a minimum standard of wages for our workmen. As I say, the minimum wage paid to the girls in these factories in Ontario is double the wage paid for similar work done by presumably just as efficient girls in England. Now, having subscribed to that law, of compelling the manufacturers to pay a certain wage, is it not logical to afford 
the manufacturers here some protection against foreign manufacturers producing the same kind of goods at a very much lower cost? The question may be argued from any point of view, but I argue from the standpoint of fair play. It is not because of what one government is doing; it is because the law of the land with respect to minimum wages places a certain responsibility upon the manufacturer in this country and leaves him at a decided disadvantage in competing with the manufacturers of similar goods in the old country where wages are lower.


Abraham Albert Heaps: The minimum wage law applies in Ontario ; does not the manufacturer in Ontario, according to my hon. friend's argument, deserve protection against low paid labour in Quebec?


Alexander McKay Edwards: The law is enforced in British Columbia too, I may say. My hon. friend's position as indicated by his question is not tenable. Within the bounds of a family there must be give and take; there is no getting away from that. You might as well say that the state of New York should impose no restrictions not acceptable to Pennsylvania, say. The fact is that the farmers of the northern states, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan are operating at a decided disadvantage in competition with the farmers in the southern states whose products are cheaper. But the northern farmers have no redress; there is no possible way of the difference being. overcome. In the northern states there is a severe winter to cope with, whereas climatic conditions in the south are advantageous. But it is a very different thing when you come to put on the statute books a law intended to protect the country from unfair competition from abroad, where the people do not help to pay our taxes. Obviously we cannot pass a law in Canada prohibiting the goods manufactured in Quebec, say, from entering Ontario, or the products of some other province being shipped to any other. Nevertheless the minimum wage law exists, and I submit that in all fairness, and logically, a country such as ours, with a minimum wage law enforced in certain provinces, should give some consideration to the manufacturers who are compelled to operate under that law. The minimum wage law places them in a position of disadvantage as compared with manufacturers producing similar goods in other countries where there is no such restriction.


John Evans: What has made the minimum wage law necessary?

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Alexander McKay Edwards: My hon.
friend must know as well as I do that the object of the law is to ensure to the workers in industrial concerns in those provinces which have adopted it, a scale of wages which will make for a decent standard of living, a standard such as we think ought to obtain in Canada. We cannot dictate to England what its standard should be; it is for England to take action in that regard. But we can say, and we do say in Canada, in certain provinces at any rate, that girls working in our factories shall receive at least such a waqe as will afford them a fair chance in life; and we ought to say to England and to other countries as well, "We do not propose to let you send free into this country, to flood our markets, the products of cheap labour where the standard of living is below ours." My hon. friend from North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) spoke about England being a great customer of Canada and suggested that we should not impose restrictions upon her goods coming into this country, seeing that she freeiy admits most of our products.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I did not say that. What I did say was that if we did not take in return goods shipped from Great Britain, economic factors would compel her to go into the markets of the world where British goods are bought in return.


Alexander McKay Edwards: Great Britain will buy her wheat from the Argentine, the knifed States, India or from any other country if she can get it cheaper there than in Canada. British statesmen are not fools; they are not throwing away money; they will not pay 15 a bushel for Canadian wheat if they can get it at S4 a bushel from other countries.


Miss MACPHAIL:: Would it not be perfectly logical for us to buy our woollen goods where we could get them cheapest?


Alexander McKay Edwards: It would,
perhaps, from my' hon. friend's standpoint, if I can come to any conclusion as to what her politics amounts to. But we are laying down a policy for Canada and not for Great Britain, although it does seem to me that the government has been more concerned in fixing a fiscal policy in favour of the United States and other countries rather than for the benefit of the people of Canada. We are here to legislate for Canada, and I do not subscribe to the sentiments expressed by my hon. friend from North Winnipeg that because we are a part of the British Empire and because Great Britain buys freely from us, we should let down our tariff walls entirely, let our industries go to pot, and allow the
56103-105^
goods of that country' unrestricted access to our markets. The statesmen of Great Britain have laid down a policy which in their judgment is best-for whom? For Canada? Not at all; they have laid down a policy which they believe best for the people of Great Britain, and if we exercise the same common sense we will lay down a policy with as little regard for what they think as they have for what we think. We should define a policy in the best interests of the people of this country', and no statesman in the British Isles will whine about our tariff being too high for their manufactured goods; they are too good sportsmen for that. Britishers will say that Canada is exercising its rights to do what is best for the people of this country, just as they' in Great Britain exercise their right in the same way. It is not a question of sentiment at all, although as a matter of fair play 1 would rather buy goods from Great Britain than from any other country in the world, because they are our best customers. If I had two customers, one of whom bought from me very extensively and who allowed me to sell my' goods to him freely, while the other customer bought as little as possible and sold as much as he could, I think in all fairness I would give much more consideration to the man who was treating me more generously. I think that is what we should do as a nation. The United States tariff is against us on everything; it is as high as they can possibly make it, and on some things which affect our farmers very acutely it is almost prohibitive.
What attitude is taken by my hon. friends to my left in that regard? I ask them if they can advance any sound reason why we should permit butter, cheese and eggs to come into this country from the United States when that country desires to send them here in order to stabilize their markets, at a tariff of three or four cents per pound on butter, while we must pay twelve cents a pound if we desire to do the same thing? Yet that is the very thing which my friends advocate all the time. They have carried their free trade ideas beyond the point of sound reasoning to a ridiculous extreme. As far as our farmers are concerned, I say that if the United States place a duty of twelve cents a pound on our butter, I would never allow a pound of butter to enter Canada from that country under a duty of less than twelve cents a pound, and I would treat them in the same way with regard to eggs and hay. As long as they maintain a duty of $4 a ton against our hay I would not allow a ton of hay to come into Canada from the United States for less than $4 a ton.
1646	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
Mr. YOUNG (Weyburn)':	Would you do
the same thing with boots and shoes?


Alexander McKay Edwards: I would
consider how it would affect Canadian indus* try, because I do not believe any industry in Canada should be permitted to exploit the people. That is not reasonable or fair. My hon. friend thinks he is very smart in asking that question. If the United States has no duty on a particular article, would I remove the duty on that article also? That is the effect of his question, and it does not amount to anything; it does not show any vast amount of intelligence. I have stated certain items on which I would raise the tariff, and I have given my reasons for so doing. Now, if my hon. friend has any ideas worth giving, let him get up and say why he favours a duty of four cents a pound on American butter while they are charging us twelve cents.


Mr. YOUNG (Weyburn):: Probably we
want the butter.


Alexander McKay Edwards: Then my
hon. friend's answer is only a probable answer after all, although I thought I might get something definite from him. I will put it to him again:	If we had a surplus of
20,000,000 or 30,000,000 pounds of butter, in which case there would be no possibility of our starving for butter from the United States, what would he say?


Edward James Young: Their butter
would not be coming into Canada, and the price would be determined by the world market.


Alexander McKay Edwards: Now my
hon. friend goes back to the old crutch upon which hon. members from the west lean when they have nothing better, but that crutch is cracked and broken and bent and twisted.


Mr. BROWN:: My hon. friend mentioned
hay. Who would benefit and who would suffer if the duty on hay entering Canada from the United States were increased to $4 per ton?


Mr. PRESTON:: The farmers.


John Livingstone Brown: In order to prove that
you would, have to show some hay was being imported, but according to the figures there is none.


Alexander McKay Edwards: Therefore
the principle of the thing does not count at all, I suppose? I wonder if my hon. friend from Lisgar is now showing concern about the horses, as to whether they are going to get enough hay to eat? The principle is

there. If in any part of Canada we have a surplus of hay which we desire to ship into the United States in order to relieve the market situation, we must pay a duty of 84 per ton. If you turn it the other way around, however, and have a surplus in the United States which they desire to ship into Canada to relieve their market, they are allowed to bring it into this country at $2 a ton.


John Livingstone Brown: That iis a theoretical argument which has nothing to do with the facts of the case.


Alexander McKay Edwards: I think it
has, although I have not the figures under my hand.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I will give iny hon. friend the figures. In 1925 we imported something over 10,000 tons, and in 1926 something over 8,000 tons.


Alexander McKay Edwards: As usual,
the hon. member for Lisgar did not have the facts.


John Livingstone Brown: I put the figures on record
for last year.


Alexander McKay Edwards: That is the line of argument usually adopted by the hon. member for Lisgar. He will search the records until he finds something he considers favourable; he will pick out a particular year or month and place those figures on record, then pat himself on the back and consider that he has produced an argument which will turn fiscal questions upside down. In regard to hay I was arguing on the principle of the thing, but we are told that 10,000 tons of hay were imported from the United States. Did that have any effect on our farmers in Canada? If that hay had not come in from the United States the price of Canadian hay certainly would not have gone down; t'he market would have been a litttle better and the price a littie higher. Surely there can be no question of that. W'hat has happened time after time? Consider the question of eggs.


James Alexander Robb: Mr. Chairman, I do not object to hon. gentlemen talking from now until the first of July about woollens, but I do submit to you that eggs are not involved in this item.


Alexander McKay Edwards: I will admit that there is a good deal in the objection of the minister. I was making a general application of the argument, and I am quite sure the minister understood my point. I will not carry that further, because I do not want to take up the time of the com-

Way it and Means-Customs Tariff
mittee unnecessarily, although I believe if I wanted to argue the point of order I would have fairly good grounds upon which to do so. I got up to stress this point in regard to wool:	That inasmuch as we have in
this country a minimum wage law which has been endorsed by the members of this house -at least there has been no attempt made to get rid of it; I do not think any hon. member would advocate anything of the sort -that since we as a people, or as a government, or as a party, or as members of parliament have subscribed to that minimum wage law and thereby arbitrarily placed the manufacturers of woollens in this country at a disadvantage in competing with other countries that have not got a minimum wage law, in all fairness it is up to us to take that into consideration and give those manufacturers a reasonable amount of protection against cheaper production costs and unfair competition which has been forced on them. That is the position I take, and I was drawn into a discussion on other points. I do not wish to take up the minister's time unnecessarily but I was applying the argument in the case of woollens to the case of eggs, hay and other commodities, as the minister understood very well. However, I appreciate his desire to get along with business and I do not want to interfere unnecessarily or unfairly with that desire.
I will just say in conclusion that in the fixing of the schedules on woollens the position which I have always taken, no matter on which side of the house I sat, was that I believed that any government in this country approaching the matter from the right angle or the right viewpoint would consider it from the standpoint of the farmer, of the man who keeps the sheep and the man who produces the wool, and recognize that the manufacturer should be secondary to the producer.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-549a.	Hair, cleaned or
uncleaned, but not curled, dyed nor otherwise manufactured; and horse hair not further manufactured than simply cleaned and dipped or dyed:	British preferential tariff, free;
intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
James Alexander Robb: There is no change here.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-549b. Hair, curled or dyed, n.o.p.:	British preferential tariff, 12J per
cent; intermediate tariff, 174 per cent; general tariff, 20 per cent.
James Alexander Robb: There is no change.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
James Alexander Robb: I beg to move that the
following item, enumerations and rates of duty be inserted in schedule A:
Customs tariff-549c. Haircloth, composed of horse hair in combination with any vegetable fibre: British preferential tariff, 20 per cent; intermediate tariff, 27j per cent; general tariff, 30 per cent.


Henry Herbert Stevens: This is a new item. We ought to have some explanation from the minister because we do not have that item before us.


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend will observe
it is a small item. The total imports for the year ending March 31, 1927, under this
item, were $74,970.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is very difficult for
us to grasp just the significance of an item of such a technical character which is read and does not happen to be before us. What is the reason for this item? I should think it would deserve some explanation. It is described as:
Haircloth, composed of horse hair in combination with any vegetable fibre.
We have already passed and dealt with vegetable fibre items.


James Alexander Robb: I am advised that identically the same item was in the old tariff, and in preparing the new schedules this item was inadvertently left out.


James Dew Chaplin: What was the number of the item in the old tariff?


James Alexander Robb: It was 645.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I will not ask the minister to give notice of any new items, but I think he should formally move them in every case. May I point out that this item is not the same as item 645 in the old tariff. The latter reads, "Haircloth of all kinds." The present item deals with haircloth in combination with vegetable fibre.


James Alexander Robb: The item reads:
Haircloth, composed of horse hair in combination with any vegetable fibre.
There has been a change in the definition.


Edward Joseph Garland: Is not vegetable fibre in a class by itself somewhere else?


James Alexander Robb: The vegetable fibres are contained in different items.


Edward Joseph Garland: Is vegetable fibre dutiable, and if so. to what extent?
1648	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


James Alexander Robb: If it is cotton it is dutiable, and if it is linen, it is dutiable. It is a mixture that comes in under this item.


Edward Joseph Garland: I feel very much as the hon. member for Vancouver Centre feels. The minister is not only bringing in a new item but he is adding something to the old item. Why does he now include vegetable fibre as well as the haircloth itself?


James Alexander Robb: I am advised that the old item covered haircloth of all kinds.


James Dew Chaplin: Yes.


James Alexander Robb: The customs officials advise that this is a better definition for administrative purposes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is where I differ. I simply put my layman's -opinion against the opinion of the experts. We have already dealt with a number of items, for instance here is one, item 542a, "Woven or braided fabrics .... wholly or in part of vegetable fibres." This would cover the very fabric the minister mentioned.


James Alexander Robb: It might or might not.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend will recall that in our discussions of last week this question arose on two or three occasions. It appeared that some manufactures were importing under one item, and some entering under another item, which occasioned a difference in duty. I do not know whether the same situation exists in the present case. My point is that in several of the preceding items we have dealt with vegetable fibres in combination with other material. Now we are putting into the tariff another item which seemingly would permit one importer who knew the tariff to enter his goods under this, whereas another importer would enter his goods under another item. It is very desirable that we should avoid that likelihood. I should like the minister to note my objection.


James Alexander Robb: I will loo-k into it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
James Alexander Robb: That the following item, enumeration and rates of duty be inserted in schedule A:
549d. Manufactures of hair, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, 22^ per cent; intermediate tariff, 30 per cent; general tariff, 35 per cent.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What was that in the old tariff?


James Alexander Robb: It is part of item 646.


Edward Joseph Garland: Is there any change here?


James Alexander Robb: There is no change in taxation.
fMr. K. J. Garland.]


Edward Joseph Garland: I should like the minister some time or other to consider the change made here. This is a very high duty but the item may not be a very important on-e.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-550. Rags and waste, wholly or in part of wool, the hair of the camel, alpaca, goat or other like animal, unfit for use without further manufacture, not to include used garments nor waste portions of unused fabric: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
James Alexander Robb: There is no change.


Edward Joseph Garland: In reference to this item I wish to refer to an answer made by the minister -the other day. The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Kennedy) had asked him this question:
Mr. Kennedy:	I would ask the minister
if he knows whether or not any ruling was made by a customs board or any other body which enabled wool which had previously come in under item 555 to come in free under item 554?
Mr. Robb:	I think that has been the
practice for a good many years.
Mr. Kennedy: What is the reason for that? It looks like sharp practice on someone's part to make a separate item under which sheep's wool is dutiable, and then to allow it in free under another item. This is the kind of thing which makes us think there will be grave difficulty in the future in connection with the different classes of rags which come in free and the others which come in under a duty.
The relevancy to this particular item is now made clear. I want to ask the minister first of all whether wool produced in Canada is of as fine a quality as wool produced elsewhere.


James Alexander Robb: I suppose that is a matter of opinion depending upon the man who owns the particular flock of sheep. Every man's sheep are better than those of another. Before my hon. friend proceeds, I will explain the question raised the other day by the hon. member for Peace River. I have this memorandum from the Dominion appraiser:
Under items 554 and 555, since the inception of the tariff in 1897, Leicester, Cotswold, Lincolnshire, Southdown and similar combings have been held dutiable under tariff item 555, while merino and crossbred combing wools have been admitted free of duty under tariff item 554.


Edward Joseph Garland: That is just the point. The merino and other wool is a very fine class of wool. It is true that it is not even grown in this country; we do not grow that particular quality, and so it is put off the dutiable list. In the cotton schedule the minister will find the anomaly that occurs

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
in the whole structure of this tariff and that is rather in keeping with the confusion which is apparent in our minds and in the appraiser's action. I am quoting from page 652 of the evidence in the cotton case. This was written to the chairman and members of the Advisory Board on Tariff and Taxation, and it is a presentation of their case by the Canadian Spool Cotton Company of Montreal protesting against the Wabasso cotton application. The charge made by these Montreal people is as follows:
During the past six years we have on different occasions tried samples of Wabasso Company's yarns, but these did not come up to the standard deemed necessary for our trade.
The minister under this new tariff places a duty on fine cottons, number forty and finer, although the company manufacturing them in Canada are, according to their own friends' evidence, not manufacturing them of a standard deemed necessary for their trade. He is imposing a duty on the fine cottons from England and then he takes the fine wools and allows them to come in free. I cannot understand the minds that have been at work on a tariff of this kind. The fine cottons are dutiable but the fine wools are free'. When hon. members to the right talk about improving the wool industry and the type of sheep in this country and all that sort of thing, they might, instead of raving about the industry itself, ask the minister why he allows free into this country-and I am not objecting to this by any means-fine wool, but imposes a duty on fine cotton?


James Alexander Robb: Raw cotton is free. My hon.
friend is speaking about manufactured cotton.


Edward Joseph Garland: Spool
cottons, number forty and finer, are dutiable.


James Alexander Robb: I changed the item. My hon. friend will remember that I changed the item, making it free under the British preference.


Edward Joseph Garland: Yes, under the British preference only. But they are dutiable under the intermediate and the general.


James Alexander Robb: They are.


Edward Joseph Garland: That is the inconsistency.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Item 550a agreed to.
Customs tariff-550b. Garnetted material, wholly or in part of wool, the hair of the camel, alpaca, goat or other like animal, obtained by disintegrating yarns or fabrics, prepared for use; waste portions of unused fabrics, rags and waste, wholly or in part of
wool, the hair of the camel, alpaca, goat or other like animal, sold by weight, not to include remnants nor mill ends, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, 7i per cent; intermediate tariff, 10 per cent; general tariff, 12jj per cent.
James Alexander Robb: I beg to move that the following be substituted for item 550b:
Customs tariff-550b. Garnetted material, wholly or in part of wool, the hair of the camel, alpaca, goat or other like animal, obtained by disintegrating yarns or fabrics, prepared for use, n.o.p; waste portions of unused fabrics, machine-cleaned waste, wholly or in part of wool, the hair of the camel, alpaca, goat or other like animal, n.o.p., not to include remnants or mill ends:	British
preferential tariff, 7J per cent; intermediate tariff, 10 per cent; general tariff, 12J per cent.


Edward Joseph Garland: What is the reason for the change?


James Alexander Robb: It is to make the wording
conform with that of the similar clause under the cotton schedule.


Edward Joseph Garland: The minister had in the original item the words "sold by weight."


James Alexander Robb: That is struck out.


Edward Joseph Garland: Why?


James Alexander Robb: For administrative purposes.


Edward Joseph Garland: I think he was very wise there.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am a little suspicious
of the words "machine cleaned," injected into this item. I am not sufficiently acquainted with the methods to know whether there is any substantial difference between machine cleaned and cleaned in some other way. What is the significance of these words?


James Alexander Robb: We are advised by the customs officials that machine cleaning is one of the modern methods of handling this product and they have asked that these words be inserted.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Under what item does
the other class "not machine cleaned" come?


James Alexander Robb: It comes in under some of
the previous items.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That which is not machine cleaned comes in under the free item. That which is machine cleaned pays a duty of 7\ per cent, 10 per cent and 12 per cent. Is that right?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.
Item as amended agreed to.
Item 550c agreed to.
1650	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


James Alexander Robb: I beg to move to insert the
following new item in schedule A:
Customs tariff-550d. Batts, batting and sheet wadding, n.o.p.:	British preferential
tariff, 12J per cent; intermediate tariff, 22! per cent; general tariff, 25 per cent.


James Dew Chaplin: What was the number of the old item?


James Alexander Robb: Number 520.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Item 520 covers a multitude of sins.


James Alexander Robb: The old rates were 15 per cent, 22| per cent and 25 per cent.


Henry Herbert Stevens: In this item we are again faced with the old difficulty. It is utterly impossible to know just what the reason is for this. I confess framkfy that I am unable to offer any criticism, but here are the facts as I see them. Under the old item 520, the duties were 15, 22! and 25 per cent, and the item included foatts, batting and sheet wadding of wool and cotton. WTe have here a new' item 521, covering batts of cotton and so forth, carrying duties of 5, 10 and 12! per cent. Then we have batts of wool, which the minister proposes 6hall carry duties of 20, 22! and 25 per cent. It would be most interesting to learn just why the change from the old rate was made, and why cotton batts should be 5, 10 and 12! per cent, and wool batts 20, 22! and 25 per cent.


John Frederick Johnston: The resolution reads
12!, 22! and 25 per cent.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Then I was mistaken.


Edward Joseph Garland: I do not
know' why the change has taken place, and why this is separated, and I think the hon. member for Vancouver Centre is entitled to an answer to his question.


James Alexander Robb: In the old item there was
only the word "batts", and it was not easy to administer because in some cases wool and cotton were coming in mixed. The customs authorities have asked for a separate classification for administration purposes. There is very little change involved.


Edward Joseph Garland: What are
the imports?


James Alexander Robb: There is no separate classification, but the imports are very small.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The imports were not very large. The total imports last year were only
[Mr. Robb.l
400,000 pounds, about $61,000. That included batts, batting and sheet wadding, which comes under the old item 520. I do not suppose it is of any great significance.


James Alexander Robb: No.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-551. Yarns composed wholly or in part of wool, the hair of the camel, alpaca, goat or other like animal, but not containing silk nor artificial silk, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, 20 per cent; intermediate tariff, 22| per cent; general tariff, 25 per cent.
Henry Herbert Stevens: What is the change here?


James Alexander Robb: There is no change in the
British preferential. The intermediate tariff is reduced from 27! to 22! Per cent, and the general from 30 to 25 per cent. The total imports last year were $240,386. The estimated reduction in taxation is $628.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: What were the imports
under the British preference?


James Alexander Robb: They amounted to $229,000.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: That is the greater part
of the imports. There is no change?


James Alexander Robb: Very little change.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-551a.	Yarns and warps
composed wholly or in part of wool, the hair of the camel, alpaca, goat or other like animal, imported by manufacturers for use exclusively in their own factories, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff 12J per cent; intermediate tariff, 17! per cent; general tariff, 20 per cent.
Mr. FRASER:: What were the importations?


James Alexander Robb: The imports for the year
ending March 31, 1927, under item 558, were $3,614,888. There is no change in taxation.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The imports were all
practically' from Great Britain?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-551b.	Yarns and warps
composed wholly or in part of wool, the hair of the camel, alpaca, goat or other like animal, imported by manufacturers for use exclusively in their own factories, in the weaving of woollen or worsted fabrics (but not including carpets nor floor rugs): British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 10 per cent; general tariff, 12! per cent.
James Dew Chaplin: What is the number of
the old item?

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


James Alexander Robb: The old item numbers were
558, 559 and 560, and the duties respectively were 12^, 17i and 20 per cent; free, free, free; free; free; free. The total imports of yarn for the year ending March 31, 1927, under 558, were $3,614,888.


John Anderson Fraser: That is the same figure
the minister gave a moment ago.


James Alexander Robb: I suppose they have divided
it up. It is estimated that of this total, yarn valued at $1,000,000 is used by manufacturers of worsted fabrics, and the saving in taxation on that score alone will be $125,000. This concession will help mainly the worsted manufacturers. as the manufacturers of woollens usually find it necessary to spin their own yarns in order to secure the pattern and type of cloth required. In regard to items 559 and 560, importations for weaving purposes will under the new item enter free under the British preference, as formerly.


Edward Joseph Garland: This is
another item that looks to me very much like an increase, in spite of what the minister has said. He gave the importations under item 558, which was formerly dutiable, but he did not say anything about the imports under item 559, which was free. Has the minister the total value of the imports under item 559? This was free before; it is now dutiable. There is another item, 560, not included under this, which also was free. I think on the whole this is an increase in the duty, and if you study the trade returns I think you will find that the increase will damage the hat and cap industry seriously, as it will increase the cost of manufacturing braids and things of that kind used in hat and cap manufacturing.


James Alexander Robb: If my hon. friend is right,
then my hon. friends opposite have been wrong in delaying this item.


Edward Joseph Garland: The minister should not waste his time and mine worrying about who is right and who is wrong. It is his business to tell the committee what is the matter with the item under consideration.


James Alexander Robb: I submit that there is nothing the matter with it. This is a concession to the trade, and as a result we shall have cheaper cloth.


Mr. PECK:: This item affects an industry
in my own city, and I shall therefore endeavour to point out what is the matter with it. We discussed this question pretty fully last evening, particularly the hon. member
for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie), whose city is also affected by this change in the tariff. The change, as I understand it, is this, that worsted yam, which previously had a reasonable protection of 12^ per cent against the British manufacturer, is now put on the free list. That leaves the manufacturer of worsted yarn without any protection at all against his English competitor. Under the protection that has been accorded this industry for several years, a good many of the factories engaged in woollen production have built up a business, and they manufacture the yarn for their own industry. It is not the raw material, as was pointed out by the Minister of Finance the other day; it is the material which is partly manufactured and represents about one-third of the labour in producing the finished commodity. In my city we have two industries engaged in woolen production, both under one management They have been manufacturing their own yarn. The persons employed in the manufacture of a portion of the production number 189, and the annual payroll is $141,704.
Now, I understand that the manufacturers have waited upon the Minister of Finance and presented their views. It is my purpose now to say a word or two on behalf of the men employed in the industry, for if these tariff changes become operative they are likely to lose their occupation, which to them would be a very serious matter. As we all know, the woollen industry has not been on a very good footing for some years, and many of the men engaged in these factories have had to be content with part time employment. The proposed changes will enable British manufacturers, emplojdng labour at a much lower scale of wages than obtains in Canada, to compete with our own manufacturers, and it is extremely likely that that portion of the mill in Peterborough in which the yarn ia produced will be forced to close down, thus throwing the men out of work. This condition will not be confined to Peterborough, it will exist in industries located in other towns which will be similarly affected, as was so ably pointed out last night by the hon. member for South Wellington. This being so, between seven and eight hundred men employed in the manufacture of Canadian yam are very likely to lose their employment. I would ask the minister to lay this matter over for another year, so that in the meantime the facts may be presented to him in a clearer fashion than is possible at the present time. What is gained by passing this item? What will be the resultant benefit to the consumer? Very few people are much in-
1652	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
terested in whether they pay a few cents more or less for an article; but it is a very serious matter to those Canadian workmen who will have to face the prospect of unemployment. Again I ask the minister to let this subject stand for a year at any rate, in order that he may give it more careful consideration.


Alexander McKay Edwards: Mr. Chairman, I feel I cannot allow this item to pass without another word of protest. I should very much. like to find myself sharing the opinion of -the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) that this is an increase. But fine yams-40's and finer-came in under the old tariff at 12| per cent, and that is the only portion I am interested in. Practically all those yarns came from Great Britain. If there was any quid pro quo, so to speak, for the consuming public there might be some justification for this change in the tariff. The case has been so well presented by my hon. leader (Mr. Bennett), by my hon. friend from South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) and by my hon. friend from Peterborough (Mr. Peck) that I do not feel it necessary again to go over the ground that they have so ably covered. Let me take as an example of what would happen under this item to the selling price of an ordinary suit of clothes, valued at about $40. The actual cloth from the mill entering into that suit would be yards at about $2.25 per yard, or somewhere in the neighbourhood of $8. In other words, only 20 per cent of the cost of the suit is in the cloth. To manufacture that cloth-known as 14, 15 or 16 fine worsted, meaning 14 ounces, 15 ounces or 16 ounces to the yard-approximately a pound and an eighth or a pound and a quarter of yam yer yard is used. This shrinkage from a pound and a quarter of yam to a pound per yard of cloth is due to the fact that the natural oil of the wool and the lubricating oil that becomes impregnated in the yarn during the process of spinning are taken out in the scouring. If that 4J pounds of fine worsted yarn were purchased in the old country at to-day's price and at the current rate of exchange it would cost $1.28 per pound. The previous duty on worsted yarn^ was 12J per cent. According to my figuring, this would amount to 72 cents; the hon. member for South Wellington placed tlm duty at 60 cents. What would be the saving to the consumer, the man who buy3 the suit of clothes? If you could say to him "You will save anywhere from two to five dollars on a suit of clothes," then there would be some justification for this change in the tariff. But there is a saving of only 72 cents, and to effect this saving you are taking from 
the mills that spin their yarn to manufacture their woollen and worsted cloths practically 40 per cent of their business and putting it on a free trade basis. Up to the point where the wool is changed into fine yarn the work is done by the heads of families, the cleaning, scouring, carding and spinning involving heavy coarse labour. After the yam has gone through those processes it is put into the looms and handled by female help. So the damage that is being done to 40 per cent of the workers in these mills affects the heads of families, and consequently presents a very serious situation. To bring its gravity homo to the minister I need only cite two cases In one town of 3,500 people we have a mill employing a thousand hands, and in another town of about 5,000 people, a mill employing 228 hands. Those mills are typical of the industry. We have several of them in the constituency of South Waterloo. This part of the tariff schedule dealing with fine worsted yarns should be reconsidered, for the proposed change will give nobody any particular benefit, and it is fraught with serious consequences to many of our Canadian working people.


Edward Joseph Garland: The light
has failed.


Alexander McKay Edwards: My hon.
friends to my left are always talking about the manufacturer being benefited by these tariff changes. Let me say that no manufacturer of yam is being benefited by this item; and there is no doubt that the 72 cents or the 60 cents, as the case may be, that is being saved under the tariff will not be passed on to the consumer. It will slightly reduce the cost of yarn, but it will put out of business a large part of the manufacturers' equipment. In the large mill I spoke of-it is located in Hespeler-the housing and spinning equipment represent an investment of practically one million dollars. In the other mill-located in Preston-the investment is between $400,000 and $500,000. I am not going to say that the employees in that mill will be thrown out of work entirely-


John Frederick Johnston: I do not want to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but the electric light having failed the reporter may have difficulty in following his notes, and I would suggest that we call it six o'clock.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair, and the house took recess.

Private Bills
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


PRIVATE BILLS
[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 74 for the relief of Dorothy Estelle McCutcheon.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 75 for the relief of Adelaide Marie Moore.-Mr. Church.
Bill No. 76 for the relief of Delia Elizabeth Davies.-Mr. McPhee.
Bill No. 77 for the relief of Edith Duff McCoo.-Mr. McPhee.
Bill No. 78 for the relief of Kathleeen Marion Baldwin.-Mr. Ryckman.
Bill No. 79 for the relief of Frederick James Lee.-Mr. Anderson (High Park).
Bill No. 80 for the relief of Laveania Maud Kelly.-Mr. Stewart (Leeds).
Bill No. 81 for the relief of Arthur John Evans.-Mr. Harris.
Bill No. 82 for the relief of Margaret Constance McIntyre Fairbanks.-Mr. Kay.
Bill No. 83 for the relief of Lina Elizabeth Foster.-Mr. Ross (Kingston).
Bill No. 84 for the relief of Winifred Osborne Gimblett.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 85 for the relief of Ruby Jean Standing.-Mr. Young (Toronto Northeast).
Bill No. 86 for the relief of Albertine de Varennes.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 87 for the relief of William Bye Kasken.-Mr. Young (Toronto Northeast).
Bill No. 88 for the relief of John Alexander Parsons.-Mr. Church.
Bill No. 89 for the relief of Martha Golding. -Mr. Church.
Bill No. 90 for the relief of Reginald Key. -Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 91 for the relief of Madeline Massey Knox.-Mr. Smoke.
Bill No. 92 for the relief of James Parker -Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 93 for the relief of Dorothy La-Belle.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No 94 for the relief of Richard Henry Orr.-Mr. Edwards (Ottawa).
Bill No. 95 for the relief of Marjory Sterne Boyd.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 96 for the relief of Florence Louise Parsons.-Mr. Goodison.
Bill No. 97 for the relief of George Daniel MacDonald.-Mr. Lennox.
Bill No. 98 for the relief of Evelyn Connor. -Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 99 for the relief of Annie May Caldwell.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 100 for the relief of Florence Marjorie Cressman.-Mr. Young (Toronto Northeast) .
Bill No. 101 for the relief of Esther Buck Scott.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 102 for the relief of Norah Jones. -Mr. White (Mount Royal).
Bill No. 103 for the relief of Albert Wood. -Mr. White (Mount Royal).
Bill No. 104 for the relief of Louisa Bal-dock.-Mr. Geary.
Bill No. 105 for the relief of Albert John Morison.-Mr. Harris.
Bill No. 106 for the relief of Amelia Judd Wasserman Berliner.-Mr. McPhee.
Bill No. 107 for the relief of Ernest Edmund Parrington.-Mr. Bowman.
Bill No. 108 for the relief of Margaret Beaton Hale.-Mr. Preston.
Bill No. 109 for the relief of Annie Constance Vipond Coleby Lazier.-Mr. Edwards (Ottawa).
Bill No. 110 for the relief of Gladys Caroline Isbell.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. Ill for the relief of Victoria May Hardwick.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 112 for the relief of Annie Alice Tushingham.-Mr. Harris.
Bill No. 113 for the relief of Rita Peden.- Mr. Smith (Stormont).
Bill No. 114 for the relief of Lome William Paterson.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 115 for the relief of Albert William Hornby.-Mr. Anderson (Toronto High Park).
Bill No. 116 for the relief of Marguerite Adele Berwick.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 117 for the relief of Harriett Ellen Isabel Kirkpatrick.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 118 for the relief of Martha Evelyn Taylor.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 119 for the relief of Winnifred Clark.-Mr. Bowen.
Bill No. 120 for the relief of Maria Eremca, otherwise known as Marcia Eramko.-Mr. Robinson.
Bill No. 121 for the relief of Albert Glenn Steinberg.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 122 for the relief of Charles Frederick Spittle.-Mr. Thorson.
Bill No. 123 for the relief of Helen Lazelle Margaret Zeller.-Mr. Cayley.
Bill No. 124 for the reilef of Rachel Pearson.

Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 125 for the relief of Ida Myerson. -Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 126 for the relief of Arthur Wellington Henry.-Mr. Ste\vart (Leeds).
Bill No. 127 for the relief of Dorothy Warren Gorrie.-Mr. McPhee.
Private Bills
[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 128 for the relief of Stanley Edmunds.-Mr. Church.
Bill No. 129 for the relief of Irene Frances Phebe Fricker.-Mr. Young (Toronto Northeast) .
Bill No. 130 for the relief of Jean Maxwell Douglas.-(No Petition).
Bill No. 131 for the relief of Constance Brown Kinsman.-Mr. Heaps.
Bill No. 132 for the relief of William Wilbur Blackburn.-Mr. Anderson (Toronto High Park).
Bill No. 133 for the relief of Viva Venetta Rahmer.-Mr. Anderson (Toronto High Park).
Bill No. 134 for the relief of George Ranney Price.-Mr. Lennox.
Bill No. 135 for the relief of Percival Bovill. -Mr. Hocken.
Bill No. 136 for the relief of Paul Char-boneau.-Mr. Lennox.
Bill No. 137 for the relief of William Franklin Darby.-Mr. Harris.
Bill No. 138 for the relief of Lome Wilbert Helmer.

Mr. Ryerson.
Bill No. 139 for the relief of Mary Marjorie Jacques.-Mr. Edwards (Ottawa).
Bill No. 140 for the relief of John Edward Gladstone King otherwise known as John E. King.- (No Petition).
Bill No. 141 for the relief of Winnifred Lilias Maunsell.-Mr. Edwards (Ottawa).
Bill No. 142 for the relief of Hazel Kathleen Mulligan.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 143 for the relief of Jessie McLean. -Mr. Rothwell.
Bill No. 144 for the relief of Winifred Margaret Pope.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 145 for the relief of Elizabeth May Thomley.-Mr. Rennie.
Bill No. 146 for the relief of Norton Webster Kingsland.-Mr. Young (Toronto Northeast) .
Bill No. 147 for the relief of Alice Edith Knowles.-Mr. McGregor.
Bill No. 148 for the relief of John McArthur.-Mr. Young (Toronto Northeast).
Bill No. 149 for the relief of Charles Alfred Turner.-Mr. Edwards (Ottawa).
Bill No. 150 for the relief of Olive Druker. -Mr. Anderson (Toronto High Park).
Bill No. 151 for the relief of Lillian May Chandler.-Mr. Lennox.
Motion for second reading agreed to on division.
Bill No. 69, respecting The Interprovincial and James Bay Railway Company-Mr. Parent-was read the second time and referred to the select standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Customs tariff-551b.	Yarns and warps
composed wholly or in part of wool, the hair of the camel, alpaca, goat or other like animal, imported by manufacturers for use exclusively in their own factories, in the weaving of woollen or worsted fabrics (but not including carpets nor floor rugs): British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 10 per cent; general tariff, 12J per cent.
Alexander McKay Edwards: At six o'clock I was discussing the serious damage which will undoubtedly be done to the workers in textile mills through this change in the tariff. I was about to say that I was not sure that they would be thrown, out of employment entirely, but I believe that these mills will try to change their equipment so as to spin coarser yarns. This will result in throwing on the market the coarser yams which are now used in the knitted goods trade, to the general disturbance of the whole textile business. I have nothing to add on this subject. I felt that I should protest once more against this change, but the ground having been so well covered and the case so clearly put by the hon. member for South Wellington, I may well leave it where it stands. I want to second what the hon. member for We3t Peterborough (Mr. Peck) has said; I think it would be wise to leave this item in abeyance until some further investigation is made by the department.
Mr. ROBB; I am afraid I cannot accede to that request; I think we had better put the legislation through as it is. I would remind my hon. friend that parliament will meet again in another year, and there is no desire to do injustice to any industry. I am advised that this will work out to the general advantage of the industry in Canada.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: The minister has given the imports under item 558. What imports have there been under 559 and 560, the items which were formerly free and which are now dutiable under the intermediate and the general tariffs? I want to see whether there is an increase or a reduction.


James Alexander Robb: I have repeatedly stated that there is a considerable reduction. The total imports of yarns were $3,614,888 and it is estimated that, of this total, yams valued at about $1,000,000 are used by the manufacturers of worsted fabrics. The saving on this score alone will be $125,000.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: That is dutiable. What about items 559 and 560 which formerly were free?


James Alexander Robb: There is no change so far as weaving is concerned; they are all free for weaving.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs	tariff-551c.	Yarns composed
wholly or in chief value of merino wool, not more advanced than singles, dry spun on the French or Belgian systems, but not containing silk nor artificial silk, imported by manufacturers of knitted goods for use exclusively in the manufacture of such goods in their own factories:	British preferential tariff, 10 per
cent: intermediate tariff, 17J per cent; general tariff, 20 per cent.
Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Is this a reduction or an increase?


James Alexander Robb: A reduction.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: There are some free
items here which become dutiable at 10 per cent, 17J per cent and 20 per cent. There is a 2| per cent reduction in the British preference on one item, but an increase in the other cases, so that I do not see how the reduction works out.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Where does this come
from?


James Alexander Robb: Practically' all under the
British preference.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: Is there any merino wool produced in Canada?


James Alexander Robb: I imagine there is a small
quantity.


Hugh Guthrie: Where?


James Alexander Robb: I could not tell you. I say
I imagine there is because I know a few farmers who have merino sheep, but the production is very limited.


Hugh Guthrie: Does this item make
merino wool free?


James Alexander Robb: This is a yarn item.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-552. Felt, pressed, of all kinds, in the web, not consisting of or in combination with any woven, knitted or other fabric or material: British preferential tariff, 15 per cent; intermediate tariff, 22J per cent; general tariff, 25 per cent.
Henry Herbert Stevens: What was the old tariff?


James Alexander Robb: There is no change.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-553.	Household blankets,
n.o.p., not to include horse blankets, automobile rugs, steamer rugs nor similar articles: British preferential tariff, 22.1 per cent; intermediate tariff, 30 per cent; general tariff, 35 per cent.
Henry Herbert Stevens: What was the old tariff?


James Alexander Robb: This is the same; there is no
change in taxation. A material reduction was made in the duty on cotton blankets. The total imports under this item amounted to $631,154.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: I would like to ask the
Minister of Finance, since this is an article very much used by the common people, and since he has seen fit to make reductions in the duty on raw materials entering into the manufacture of these articles, whether it would not be fair to the people to give them the same consideration in regard to the manufactured article. Not long ago I understood the minister to say in connection with the reductions on such items as formaldehyde and bluestone, when there was only one industry manufacturing the article, that he made the reductions because he considered that, the number of people using those articles to be a good deal larger than the number of people manufacturing them. There are 10,000,000 people who use blankets, and I do not see why that principle should not be applied to this item as well.


James Alexander Robb: Of course that argument would apply to all the items in the tariff.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: I understood the minister to lay' down that principle the other day.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Principles change with this government.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: In view of the fact that the minister has made a reduction in the duty on the raw material, while he has maintained the duty on the finished article, does he not think that the Conservative party have a real complaint against him for stealing their policy?


Hugh Guthrie: Does not the minister
think the item might be worded a little differently? It reads at present, "Household blankets, other than horse blankets,'' and I would suggest that it read "Blankets, other than horse blankets."


James Alexander Robb: Later I am going to make a
change in the schedule on horse blankets, so I think this might remain as it is.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
1656	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
Customs tariff-554. Woven fabrics, composed wholly or in chief part by weight, of wool, the hair of the camel, alpaca, goat or other like animal, not exceeding in weight six ounces to the square yard, when imported in the grey or unfinished condition, for the purpose of being dyed or finished in Canada: British preferential tariff, 10 per cent; intermediate tariff, 17i per cent; general tariff, 25 per cent.
James Alexander Robb: Hon. gentlemen will notice
that I have amended the proposed item and that there is a reduction from 22^ per cent to 17j per cent under the intermediate tariff.
Item as amended agreed to.	^
_ Customs tariff-554a. Woven fabrics, consisting of cotton warps with wefts of lustre wool, mohair or alpaca, generally known as lustres or Italian linings, n.o.p.:	British
preferential tariff, 10 per cent: intermediate tariff, 20 per cent; general tariff, 25 per cent.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: The minister might tell
us just what the imports were under the old items?


James Alexander Robb: This is an amendment to the
proposed item. For the year ending March 31, 1927, the imports under item 566 amounted to $1,005,499 and under item 561 to $182. The estimated reduction in revenue under item 566 is $100,549, while the estimated increase under item 561 is $45, making a net estimated reduction in revenue of $100,494.
Item as amended agreed to.
Customs tariff-554b.	Woven or knitted
fabrics composed wholly or in part of wool, the hair of the camel, alpac, goat or other like animal, not exceeding in w7eight five ounces to the square yard, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, 22J per cent; intermediate tariff, 30 per cent; general tariff, 35 per cent.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: This looks like an increase.


James Alexander Robb: No, it does not show up that way. A very small proportion of the imports came in under these items which have a tariff. The imports for the year ending March 31, 1927, are estimated at one-sixth of the total cloth imports under item 567, chiefly under the British preferential rate. These would amount to $3,795,000. The estimated reduction in taxation on the basis of the estimated imports is $190,000.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: But what about the
other three items?


James Alexander Robb: The estimate includes those. Item agreed to.

Customs tariff-554c.	Woven or knitted
fabrics, composed wholly or in part of wool, the hair of the camel, alpac, goat or other like animal, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, 27J per cent; intermediate tariff, 35 per cent; general tariff, 35 per cent.


James Alexander Robb: This is an amendment to item 554c as proposed.
Item as amended agreed to.
Customs tariff-554d.	Woven or braided
fabrics not exceeding twelve inches in width, whether with cut pile or not, wholly or in part of wool, the hair of the camel, alpaca, goat or other like animal: British preferential tariff, 27J per cent; intermediate tariff, 35 per cent; general tariff, 35 per cent.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Might I ask the Minister of Finance why this tariff item maintains the British preference at 27i per cent? That seems very high to give any preference.


James Alexander Robb: These are narrow fabrics. The British preferential rate is lower than the intermediate and the general rates.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: It is higher than any of the others that we have had up to date.


James Alexander Robb: That may be, but as I said before, they are narrow fabrics.


Alexander McKay Edwards: Does the
item include tape and braid?


James Alexander Robb: No, the braids are in another place.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
James Alexander Robb: I beg to move that the following item, enumerations and rates of duty be inserted in schedule A:
Customs tariff-554e. Woven fabrics, with cut pile, wholly or in part of wool, the hair of the camel, alpaca, goat or other like animal, n.o.p: British preferential tariff, 22i per cent; intermediate tariff, 32J per cent; general tariff, 35 per cent.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs	tariff-555.	Clothing, wearing
apparel and articles made from woven or knitted fabrics, and all textile manufactures, wholly or partially manufactured, composed wholly or in part of wool, the hair of the camel, alpaca, goat or other like animal, but not containing silk nor artificial silk, n.o.p.; fabrics coated or impregnated, composed wholly or in part of wool, the hair of the camel, alpaca, goat or other like animal, but not containing silk nor artificial silk, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, 27J per cent; intermediate tariff, 35 per cent; general tariff, 35 per cent.
James Alexander Robb: I beg to move that the following be substituted for item 555:
555. Clothing, wearing apparel and articles, made from woven fabrics, and all textile manufactures, wholly or partially manufactured.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
composed wholly or in part of wool, the hair of the camel, alpaca, goat or other like animal, but of which the component of chief value is not silk nor artificial silk, n.o.p; fabrics, coated or impregnated, composed wholly or in part of wool, the hair of the camel, alpaca, goat or other like animal, but not containing silk nor artificial silk, n.o.p: British preferential tariff, 27i per cent; intermediate tariff, 35 per cent; general tariff, 35 per cent.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I wonder if the minister will pretend that this is a reduction in the tariff.


James Alexander Robb: No, it is not a reduction.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: How does this square
with the past policy of the Liberal party? We started in the woollen schedules with putting raw materials on the free list, notwithstanding the declarations by the Liberal party in favour of a substantial reduction of the duties on the necessities of life, and so on. We have an increase here and it is a fairly large increase too. The rates at first proposed were 20, 274 and 30. Under the resolution which the minister proposes the rates will be 274, 35 and 35. How does the minister justify that increase in view of the declared policy of his party? The amendments that have already been put through in the case of wool have practically placed the raw materials of the woollen industry on the free list.


James Alexander Robb: I gave my hon. friend a few days ago, the figures of the importations with regard to materials that are affected here. They are comparatively very small.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Yes, but the minister has not given us any reason for this increase. I should like him to explain the reason for this increase in item 555.


James Alexander Robb: I do not admit that there is an increase in regard to the whole item. The importations are very small.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: There is no possibility of claiming there is a decrease in this item. If the minister did make such a claim it would simply prejudice all the claims he has made throughout the whole schedule.


John Frederick Johnston: Shall the item carry?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: No, Mr. Chairman, we
are waiting for an explanation. I want to know why the increase was made. There must be a reason for it, and the minister should be able to give it to us.


Hugh Guthrie: We will have the reason.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The reason is it is there; that is the whole reason.


James Alexander Robb: There have been a number of these items-cotton, flax, silk, and so on- where the importations are very small. I gave the figures with respect to them a few days ago and they are on Hansard. My hon. friend will recall that.


Hugh Guthrie: The hon. gentleman wants to know the reason for the increase.


James Alexander Robb: Reclassification.


Mr. FANSHER (Last Mountain):: The importations under these schedules would be small because the duties are prohibitive. This item covers knitted fabrics. A good deal has been said about the woollen industry and the condition it is in, but nothing has been said in regard to knitted goods. We all know however, that the knitted goods industry is in a very prosperous condition. In a cold climate like ours knitted fabrics are needed for six months in the year, especially in the west, and yet the highest tariff in the whole schedule appears to be imposed on clothing and various other items. In view of the declarations by the Liberal party at the last election, and especially of the western members, some explanation should be given as to why such duties are imposed on what are really necessities of life.


John Frederick Johnston: Shall the item carry?


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: No, Mr. Chairman, I think the Minister of Finance should give some explanation in answeT to the hon. members who have spoken. He has said that the importations are not large but I do not suppose he will advance that as a reason for increasing the rate of duty. I am very much interested in getting an explanation from the minister as to the reason for the increase in this item, or for that matter in any other item. He must have some reason for the action he is taking.


James Alexander Robb: I submit again to my hon. friend that according to the memorandum I have received from the officers of the department, who have gone carefully into the matter, there will be very little change in taxation. It is really a matter of reclassification. Certain items that were formerly in cottons and linens, and other classifications, now come in here, but the main importations are under item 567.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: There is undoubtedly an increase in the tariff and I should like to ask the minister again if he will just state the reason for it. Whether small, or not, there is evidently an increase, and I think
1658	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
we are entitled to know the reason for it. If the tariff board has recommended the increase, surely they must have supported it with some argument. If they did not do so the increase must have been recommended by someone else, and I should like to know why it is done.


James Alexander Robb: I will give my hon. friend the
imports. The total imports under item 567 amounted to $2,599,634. But I am not able to give the portion coming under this item that we 'have increased, because there is no separate classification.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister cannot say to what extent they are affected.


James Alexander Robb: There is a total of $1,247,000, but some of it comes under another item, clothing of linen, and as I explained to my hon. friend, the woollen fabrics are not affected in this. There is no increase in the woollen fabrics.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: But there is an increase in the other two items and I want to know the reason why.


James Alexander Robb: It is comparatively small and
it comes under other classifications that we have passed.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: That does not answer the question why the increase is made. That is the point we want to get.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is the real fact not that there is a thread of silk in it and they no longer classify it as woollen, so that the duty is higher in order to protect the woollen industry in Canada?


James Alexander Robb: No; it is not.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: I do not wish to harass the minister, but not long ago I heard the minister express-and I think he was sincere -extreme sympathy regarding employees of certain factories, saying that he did not wish to see the industry ruined because a reduction in the tariff in that particular item might affect the employees in that industry. Surely I may appeal to the minister to consider further this item, which is perhaps the most important one in the whole schedule of clothing and knitted fabrics, on behalf of the thousands of little boys and girls and workingmen who need these articles in their common everyday life. They are entitled to some reduction in the tariff on the necessaries of life which they use every day, especially after the statements made by the minister in regard to reducing the duties on the raw materials of manufacturers.


James Alexander Robb: If the goods cost less to produce, competition will take care of that and there will be a decrease.


Mr. CARMICHAEL:: I cannot help saying a word or two in connection with this item, because it recalls to my mind that during the last election there were inserted in all the local papers in my constituency glaring advertisements to the effect that all people were divided into two classes: they were either Conservatives or Liberals. That conclusion was arrived at on the basis of their tariff policy. I have before me part of the old 1919 chart that has been referred to so often in this chamber? It is an old maxim that you have to keep repeating, repeating and repeating and after a while perhaps it will soak in. In this chart we have these words as to the doctrine of the Liberal party:
That a revision downwards of the tariff should be made whereby substantial reductions should be effected in the duties on wearing apparel and footwear.
We have in the item before us a substantial change in the duties upwards. If it is Liberal doctrine to revise the duties downwards, then Conservative doctrine must be to revise the duties upwards, and if the party in power is revising the duties upwards we can conclude only that it must be following Conservative doctrine.


William Russell Fansher: Not as sincerely.


Archibald M. Carmichael: My hon. friend says: "Not as sincerely." An hon, member in this comer has persistently asked for a reason for this upward revision on this important item of wearing apparel, but the minister is unable to give the reason. I think the real reason is that this old shibboleth of the difference in tariff doctrine is merely a matter of words carried into action at election time and forgotten in between elections.


William Russell Fansher: 
William Russell Fansher: On the whole there is only a slight loss in revenue from this revision, according to the figures given by the Minister of Finance. The Liberal party pledged itself in its platform to provide relief by way of tariff reduction along these lines, and yet the first time these clothing schedules are touched at all, they are left at these

1660	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
ridiculously high levels and in a few instances the duties are increased. I maintain that this is not a reduction that one can see with the naked eye at all. It is mot a reduction that will be felt when one goes out to purchase any of these articles.
Now what is going to be done about it? To my mind there is in this country a strong feeling and a demand that these schedules should be reduced, and if the electors in this country come to realize that they cannot accomplish a reduction along these lines through the Liberal party, which pledged itself to provide these reductions, the low tariff element in this country is going to find expression in some other way. It has done that before. In spite of the assistance that has been given to the government through the increase of low tariff sentiment on the government side of the house since the last election, by the acquisition of a larger number of low tariff men from the province of Ontario and from the western provinces, it seems to me that the government is proceeding in the opposite direction to lower tariffs, and that it is not reducing the tariff after all the preparations that have been made to effect a reduction. The tariff board has given a year's study to this subject, and the low tariff men are in larger numbers than ever before on the government benches, and yet we are asked to put through these schedules with the rates as high as I have mentioned.
The plea of the government used to be that they could accomplish something if they had stable government. But what is being accomplished in these schedules? The agricultural implement schedules were not nearly as high as these, and yet a substantial reduction was effected in them. The automobile duties and other tariffs corresponded with these now before us in rates of duty, and yet a substantial reduction was effected in them, but we have no reduction in these clothing schedules, in spite of the fact that we now have stable government, with the Liberals in a big majority in the house. The Minister of Finance last night, in giving his reasons why all these reductions were being made in the way of placing raw wool and cottons on the free list, said:
The tariff board in considering how they could best help the industry-
He is speaking of the woollen industry:
-had two ways open to them; they could either put up the duty on the finished product, or give a concession on the raw material required for the industry. They took the latter course, and I believe it is sound.
But what about the consumer, Mr. Chairman? There was a pledge given to the con-IMr. B. W. Fansher.]
sumer in the Liberal platform of 1919, that these tariffs would be reduced, but the consumer is not mentioned or even thought of in these schedules. Consideration is shown only for the industry. The industry has had its raw material placed on the free list, while the duties on the finished article remain where they were. This budget provides no relief for the consumer. Is this all we are going to get from the tariff board? We asked for relief for the consumer, we asked for tariff reductions, and that is what we expected to get through our organization, the Consumers' League, but all we get is free raw materials for the manufacturers, and no corresponding reduction for the consumer. I feel that I should not let these tariff schedules pass without bringing them to the attention of the house to show the ridiculously high level at which they are being maintained. Let us remember that once these schedules are passed it is not at all likely that they will be referred to again for a number of years. Consequently we are committing ourselves to these schedules indefinitely. Are we making much progress along the lines of the Liberal platform and in the direction that the electorate expected when they voted at the last election for the Robb budget on the promise that there would be further reductions?


Mr. SPENCER:: Mr. Chairman, several
hon. members in this corner of the house have asked the minister the reason for the increase in this item 555. I for one should be glad to hear some explanation.


James Alexander Robb: At the risk of tiring the house, let me repeat that there is no increase of the tariff on woollen clothing. I admit that on a very small portion of the item "coated or impregnated, composed wholly or in part of wool, the hair of the camel, alpaca, goat or other like animal," there is a slight increase. But these goods are not wearing apparel; they come under a former classification, and are imported for the class of industry that the last speaker (Mr. Fansher) has just been discussing. They are used largely by the manufacturers of automobiles. Some of it is what is known as imitation leather.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: The minister says there
is no increase?


James Alexander Robb: No increase in woollen clothing.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: What about the proposal in connection with the British preference that the minister hinted at in his budget speech; will that be an increase?


192S
[Stage Direction]
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend is referring to the British labour content?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Yes.


James Alexander Robb: I am bound to say my hon. friends have convinced me to-night that they have not paid attention to what I have said in the past.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I admit it is somewhat difficult to hear the minister in this comer when so much conversation is going on throughout the chamber.


James Alexander Robb: Yes, I sometimes have difficulty in hearing my hon. friend because-


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Because of the continual chatter.


James Alexander Robb: -because ,of the busy atmosphere around me. I have told the house at least three times that in the budget we were serving notice on the world that in October we intended changing the percentage of British workmanship to qualify imports under the British preference. Australia had represented to us that 75 per cent would be fair; I think New Zealand suggested 75 per cent also; I do not recall whether South Africa favoured 50 or 75 per cent. We always took the position that 50 per cent would be about fair. Indeed, looking at our own exports to other countries, we were not very much interested in having the percentage higher than 50. This will be done, as it has been done before, by regulations issued by the governor in council. But we are not going to disqualify our own importers in any way by making the percentage of British labour content so high that the goods cannot come in. We want them. But we do not want the middleman on the docks at Liverpool to bring in goods fiom continental countries and then ship them here under the British preference, thus preventing British workmen from getting any part of the advantage of this change. We are not going beyond what the British manufacturers themselves have imposed upon our industries. I repeat, under the regulations we make there will be certain reservations, and there may be items that will not come in' under that 50 per cent. For instance, I am told that certain cotton yarns possibly could not qualify, those yarns will be exempted. I say to my hon. friend now that we will exempt such articles so it will be quite possible for them to come in under the British preference.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Is that left entirely to the discretion of the minister?


James Alexander Robb: I think it is done through the governor in council.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-556. Socks and stockings, wholly or in part of wool, but not containing silk nor artificial silk, valued at more than $1.50 per pound: British preferential tariff, 27i per cent; intermediate tariff, 32J per cent; general tariff, 35 per cent.
Donald MacBeth Kennedy: There is an increase.


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend will observe there are three classifications for that material. Under 556, which is the high rate, there will be an increase of $20,732; there is no change under 556a; under 556b there will be a net decrease of $43,305. So that on all three items there is a decrease of $22,573.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Will the minister explain the reason for dividing the item in this way? It seems to me there will be a lot of difficulty in connection with appraisals, and that it is an attempt to encourage our people to wear cheap goods. We do not want too much of such goods in Canada; our climate calls for the best kind of socks and stockings, especially for people working out of doors. For the life of me I cannot see why there should be this discrimination in the tariff. You would have to buy a pair of these cheap socks every week-perhaps every time you changed your shoes. It looks to me to foe an utterly foolish rearrangement.


James Alexander Robb: The items have been prepared after consultation with the tariff board and the officers of the Customs department. We are told by the appraisers, those who are conversant with the trade, that the highest grade takes in largely what are known as sports goods-fancy lines of hose. If my hon. friend is a golfer he may hit back at me, because I am told golf hose and golf jackets come in under the higher classification.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: No, I am not a golf enthusiast, but I know what it is to sit on a load of wheat at 50 below zero,-


James Alexander Robb: We are in the same class.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: -and I certainly object to paying an extra tax when doing that kind of work for the Dominion. I think the minister would be well advised to go back to the old items and treat them all alike.


James Alexander Robb: If I did that, my hon. friend would be losing this reduction of $22,573.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: That is an estimated reduction. I notice how readily the minister refers to these reduotion claims, but when we ask him to explain an increase he seems to find it impossible to segregate the imports under items that were previously free but are now dutiable. I would not take that tot
1662	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
seriously. I fancy the reduction in taxation will be more than offset by the increased expense in appraising and watching the different classes of socks coming in.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Is the increase or decrease based on the estimates of a year ago?


James Alexander Robb: It is based on the business
of 1927.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Item 556a agreed to.
Customs tariff-556b. Socks and stockings, wholly or in part of wool, hut not containing silk nor artificial silk, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, 20 per cent; intermediate tariff, 27J per cent; general tariff, 30 per cent.
Donald MacBeth Kennedy: We have been told
about some of the higher quality socks. Who are the victims condemned to wear socks under item 556b?


James Alexander Robb: I am in the class that will
wear the lower priced socks.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Items 557 and 5'57a agreed to.
Customs tariff-557b.	Garnetted material
wholly of silk, artificial silk or similar synthetic fibres, produced by chemical processes, obtained by disintegrating cocoons, yarns or fabrics, prepared for use; filaments or loose fibres wholly of silk, artificial silk or similar synthetic fibres produced by chemical processes, not more advanced than in the form of sliver; waste portions of unused fabrics, rags and waste, wholly of silk, artificial silk or similar synthetic fibres, not to include remnants nor mill ends, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, 5 per cent; intermediate tariff, 7J per cent; general tariff, 10 per cent.
Henry Herbert Stevens: What is the duty under
the oldi item?


James Alexander Robb: Under the old item the ratea were 7-J, 10 and 12|; they are all down now to 5, 7J and 10. It does not make much difference in the cost.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-558. Yarns and warps wholly of thrown silk, in the gum: British preferential tariff, 10 per cent; intermediate tariff, 12i per cent; general tariff, 15 per cent.
Alexander McKay Edwards: What were
the importations of thrown silk?


James Alexander Robb: S12.140.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Items 558a, 558b, 558c and 558d agreed to.
Customs tariff-558e. Yarns and warps, wholly of thrown silk in the gum, rovings, yarns and warps, wholly of spun silk, not coloured, imported by manufacturers for use

exclusively in their own factories for knitting underwear, for weaving or for the manufacture of silk thread: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 7J per cent; general tariff, 10 per cent.
Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Is the minister going
to let this pass without claiming a reduction? It looks to me like an increase but it may be a reduction.


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend is quite right;
I do estimate a slight increase but the business does not amount to anything.


Hugh Guthrie: Why increase it?


James Alexander Robb: We have increased it under
the intermediate and the general but it remains free under the British preference.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-559. Black mourning crapes: British preferential tariff, 10 per cent; intermediate tariff, 17J per cent; general tariff, 20 per cent.
Donald MacBeth Kennedy: This seems to me to
be the masterpiece of the tariff revision. There is a reduction of 2i per cent under the British preference on mourning crapes. Evidently the minister anticipates the general result of the introduction of his budget.


James Alexander Robb: IVhat does my hon. friend
mean by that? Does he want us to think that he was serious in his speech the other day when he referred to a possible alliance between the two groups opposite?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Items 560 , 560a, and 560b agreed to.
Customs tariff-560c. Woven fabrics composed iu part of silk, n.o.p., knitted fabrics wholly or in part of silk, not to contain wool: British preferential tariff, 22J per cent; intermediate tariff, 32J per cent; general tariff, 35 per cent.
William Russell Fansher: There
seems to be an increase; will the minister explain it?


James Alexander Robb: There is an increase in the
intermediate and the general but a reduction in the British preference. The bulk of the imports comes under the preference.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Items 560d, 560e and 561 agreed to.
Customs tariff-561a. Woven fabrics composed in part of artificial silk, or similar synthetic fibres produced by chemical processes, n.o.p., knitted fabrics wholly or in part of such artificial silk, not to contain silk nor wool. British preferential tariff, 22J per cent: intermediate tariff, 32J per cent; general tariff, 35 per cent.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
Abraham Albert Heaps: I think 35 per cent is too
high. This class of goods is bought pretty generally by all classes of our people, and I think if there is to be any reduction it should be in this item. I would ask the minister to give his reasons for retaining this duty at 35 per cent.


James Alexander Robb: Does my hon. friend mean
that the intermediate rate should be 30 per cent instead of 324 per cent?


Abraham Albert Heaps: I would like to see the
whole thing reduced.


James Alexander Robb: I would not like to reduce the whole schedule, because we have had practically no inquiry into the silk question, so we are not making many changes. However, I think there might be some reason for lowering the intermediate tariff to 30 per cent, because formerly there were two classifications at 30 per cent and only one at 324 per cent. With the permission of the house I will move that the intermediate rate be 30 per cent instead of 324 per cent.


John Anderson Fraser: What is the rate under the British preferential?


James Alexander Robb: It will be 20 per cent.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is 22| per cent in the
resolution before the committee.


James Alexander Robb: I intend amending that and
making it 20 per cent.


John Frederick Johnston: The item before me
reads 20 per cent, and I read that in the first place.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That does not make any
difference; the resolution before the committee reads 224 per cent, and can only be changed by motion of the minister.


John Frederick Johnston: The minister of
Finance moves that the preferential rate be made 20 per cent and the intermediate rate 30 per cent.


[Stage Direction]
Amendments agreed to.
William Russell Fansher: Did I
understand the minister to say that the tariff board have not passed upon the silk schedules?


James Alexander Robb: Not completely. They sat in
with me on this re-classification, but they have made no inquiry.


William Russell Fansher: It seems to me we can secure greater reduction^ when the tariff board have not made an irv'estiga-tion.


Felix Patrick Quinn: The item is not changed?


James Alexander Robb: It is a re-classification.
Item as amended agreed to.
Items 562, 562a and 563 agreed to.
Customs tariff-564. Woven fabrics wholly, or in chief part by weight, of silk or artificial silk, or both, imported in the web in lengths of not less than ten yards each by manufacturers of neckties for use exclusively in the manufacture of such articles in their own factories: Brtish preferential tariff, 174 per cent: intermediate tariff, 20 per cent; general tariff, 20 per cent.


John Frederick Johnston: The minister of
Finance moves in amendment that the word "ten" in the third line be deleted, and the word "five" substituted.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Item as amended agreed to.
Customs tariff-565. Embroideries, lace, braids, cords, chenille, gimp, fringes and tassels, whether containing tinsel or not, n.o.p.; bobinet, manufactures of lace, handkerchiefs, pillow shams and curtains, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, 25 per cent: intermediate tariff, 324 per cent; general tariff, 35 per cent.
John Frederick Johnston: The minister moves
in amendment that the words "nets, nettings," be included before the word "bobinet," and that the words "nets, nettings and embroideries" be included after the words "manufactures of lace." The item will then read:
Embroideries, lace, braids, cords, chenille, gimp, fringes and tassels, whether containing tinsel or not, n.o.p.; nets, nettings, bobinet, manufactures of lace, nets, nettings and embroideries; handkerchiefs, pillow shams and curtains, n.o.p.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Item as amended agreed to.
Customs tariff-566. Socks and stockings wholly or in part of silk: British preferential tariff, 25 per cent: intermediate tariff, 324 per cent; general tariff, 35 per cent.
Abraham Albert Heaps: I think the minister might
show his generosity and make a reduction in this item and in item 566a as well. This is one of the highest tariffs in the whole schedule, and I think a duty of 35 per cent on socks and stockings, which are used by everyone in Canada, is much too high.


James Alexander Robb: I am sorry I cannot meet
my hon. friend on that. These are regarded at least as a semi-luxury.


Mr. KELLNER:: I would like to ask the minister if stockings composed of part silk and part wool would come under this
1664	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
item or under the woollen item? The rate ia a little higher under this item, and if they were admitted under the other item the rate-would be 2^ per cent less.


James Alexander Robb: I cannot tell my hon. friend,
It would be a matter of interpretation by the National Revenue department.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: It seems rather strange
that the stocking with a silk content should come in at a lower rate of duty than the stocking with a woollen content.


Henry Herbert Stevens: There are more of them worn.


Abraham Albert Heaps: During the discussion yesterday it was mentioned that one of the reasons for the decline in the woollen industry was the increasing use of artificial silk. An increasing number of women are now wearing stockings made of this fabric, and that fact should be borne in mind in fixing the rate of duty. The interest of the masses should be considered and the duty made as low as possible.


James Alexander Robb: I think the next item takes care of artificial silk.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-566a. Socks and stockings wholly or in part of artificial silk or similar synthetic fibres produced by chemical processes, but not containing silk: British preferential tariff, 25 per cent; intermediate tariff, 32J per cent; general tariff, 35 per cent.
James Alexander Robb: There is a difference in the classification here.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Is the minister going to provide for some reduction in the duty?


James Alexander Robb: I said a moment ago that there had been no inquiry in the case of silk. I prefer not to make any changes in regard to these fabrics until there has been an inquiry.


Abraham Albert Heaps: And will the minister make a reduction in the duty after the inquiry has been held?


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend is making his suggestion at a very early period.


Mr. LUCAS:: What were the importations under this item?


James Alexander Robb: They amounted to $127,106.


Abraham Albert Heaps: That shows the need of a reduction in the tariff.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
I Mr. Kellner.]
Customs tariff-567. Clothing, wearing apparel and articles made from woven or knitted fabrics and all textile manufactures, n.o.p., wholly or partially manufactured; fabrics, coated or impregnated, n.o.p.; all composed wholly or in part of silk: British preferential tariff, 30 per cent; intermediate tariff, 35 per cent; general tariff, 37J per cent.
James Alexander Robb: I beg to move that the following be substituted for item 567:
567. Clothing, wearing apparel and articles, made from woven fabrics, and all textile manufactures. wholly or partially manuactured, n.o.p., of which silk is the component of chief value: fabrics, coated or impregnated, n.o.p., composed wholly or in part of silk: British preferential tariff, 30 per cent; intermediate tariff, 35 per cent; general tariff, 37J per cent.
The importations under item 583 of the old tariff, were $3,598,402. There is no change in the rate.


John Anderson Fraser: What about the other one?


James Alexander Robb: Part of the other one goes into this item as I explained a few moments ago.


John Anderson Fraser: You will have an increase of revenue there?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


William Russell Fansher: Will the minister explain what change has been made in comparison with the items in the old tariff?


James Alexander Robb: I explained that before in the case both of the cotton and linen items, and also that respecting wool.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I do not think the minister has explained why the increase in the duty was made. I think he did explain that certain materials were placed in this class, but he did npt explain to anybody in this house the reason for the increase in the duty.


James Alexander Robb: I do not know that I can offer any further explanation than I have already given. The material affected is a highly finished fabric and we could not place a lower duty on it than on the raw material from which it is manufactured.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: Does the minister feel
safe in raising the duty before there is an investigation rather than reducing it?
Item as amended agreed to.
Customs tariff-567a. Clothing, wearing apparel and articles made from woven or knitted fabrics and all textile manufactures, n.o.p., wholly or partially manufactured; fabrics, coated or impregnated, n.o.p.; all composed wholly or in part of artificial silk or similar synthetic fibres produced by chemical processes but not containing silk: British preferential tariff, 30 per cent; intermediate tariff, 35 per cent; general tariff, 37i per cent.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
I beg to move that the following be substituted for item 567a:
567a. Clothing, wearing apparel and articles made from woven fabrics, and all textile manufactures, wholly or partially manufactured, n.o.p., of which the component of chief value is artificial silk or similar synthetic fibres produced by chemical processes; fabrics, coated or impregnated, n.o.p., composed wholly or in part of artificial silk, or similar synthetic fibres produced by chemical processes, but not containing silk: British preferential tariff, 30 per cent; intermediate tariff, 35 per cent; general tariff, 37i per cent.


Felix Patrick Quinn: A (general revision downward.
Item as amended agreed to.
Customs tariff-567b. Church vestments of any material: British preferential tariff, 124 per cent; intermediate tariff, 174 Per cent; general tariff, 20 per cent.
Mr. FAN'SHER (Lambton):	Does not the
minister think there should be a reduction here? It seems to be quite a high tariff.


James Alexander Robb: What does my hon. friend
suggest


William Russell Fansher: (Salvation is
free.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-508. Knitted garments, n.o.p., knitted goods, n.o.p., knitted underwear, n.o.p., all to be valued at more than 90 cents per pound: British preferential tariff, 20 per cent; intermediate tariff, 30 per cent; general tariff, 35 per cent.
James Alexander Robb: I beg to move that the following be substituted for item 568:
568. Knitted garments, knitted underwear and knitted goods, n.o.p., all valued at more than ninety cents per pound: British preferential tariff, 20 per cent; intermediate tariff, 30 per cent; general tariff, 35 per cent.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Is this another of the items
that is going to be investigated by the tariff board?


James Alexander Robb: There has been no inquiry
yet.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Will there be a reduction in duty after the hearing?


James Alexander Robb: I could not make any announcement in advance of the hearing before the board.
Item as amended agreed to.
Customs	tariff-568a. Knitted garments,
n.o.p., knitted goods, n.o.p., knitted underwear, n.o.p., all to be valued at 90 cents per pound or less: British preferential tariff, 15 per cent; intermediate tariff, 30 per cent; general tariff, 35 per cent.


James Alexander Robb: I beg to move that the following be substituted for item 568a:
568a. Knitted garments, knitted underwear and knitted goods, n.o.p., all valued at ninety cents per pound, or less: British preferential tariff, 15 per cent; intermediate tariff, 30 per cent; general tariff, 35 per cent.


Felix Patrick Quinn: Who asked for the reduction
there?


James Alexander Robb: Now we are coming into the
schedule dealing with knitted goods. This has been partly before the board at least.
Item as amended agreed to.
Customs tariff-569. Hats, caps, hoods and bonnets, n.o.p.; hat and bonnet crowns and hat, cap and bonnet shapes: British preferential tariff. 224 per cent; intermediate tariff, 30 per cent; general tariff, 35 per cent.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Why the increase?


James Alexander Robb: There is no increase.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-569a. Unfinished hoods, composed of leghorn, manila, palm leaf, grass, willow or chip, not bleached nor blocked: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 5 per cent; general tariff, 74 per cent.
Donald MacBeth Kennedy: What is the reason for this increase-protection?


James Alexander Robb: It was free under all columns before. It is free now under the British preference.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: There is an increase?


James Alexander Robb: There is an increase amounting to $90.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Increased protection.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-569b.	Hat sweats, cap
peaks, hatters' tips and sides when cut to shape, imported by manufacturers for use exclusively in the manufacture of hats and caps in their own factories: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, 74 per cent.
Hugh Guthrie: Is any change proposed by the minister in regard to this item?


James Alexander Robb: These were free under all
columns previously. This item is a part of items 638a and 538. Item 638a was free under all classes. Under item 538 the duties were 15 per cent, 224 per cent and 25 per cent. These are all free now under the British preference, but it is proposed that under the treaty rates the duty will be 5 per cent,
1666	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
and under the general tariff, 7i per cent. The manufacturers have been asking us to make this item free under all classes, but we thought it would be better to have it in this way. I should be glad to hear my hon. friend's views on the subject.


Hugh Guthrie: I have not any very
definite views more than this. These bands and trimmings, that are known as sweat bands, are not and never have been manufactured in Canada. The bulk of the importation of them has always been from the United States, because the trade in Canada demands the United States sweat band. I realize the very laudable effort of the minister to drive this trade into British channels, but British sweat bands and trimmings are not suitable to the Canadian trade. I do not know who has asked for this change, and I do not think the matter was investigated by the tariff board. I think this is done just by the whim and fancy of the minister or his assistants. The whole schedule is got up without any principle; it is purely hapahazard, guess-work. Any communication that has come to me on the subject from manufacturers-and I have quite a large hat factory in my riding-has been merely to leave these matters as they were, free, free, free, from all countries.


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: I wish to support the hon. member for South Wellington in his remarks in connection with this item. From the information which I have, the demands of the Canadian trade with respect to these articles are such that all imports must come from the United States. In England they do not make the varieties and styles that the Canadian people want and that correspond with the United States styles. If the minister could tell us just how much of the imports comes under the British preference and how much comes from other sources, we might be able to arrive at some conclusion. The hon. member for Vancouver South suggests that $178,000 worth come from United States and only $36,000 worth from Great Britain, bearing out the argument I am making. There is in Canada no factory making these goods; the volume of trade in this country will not warrant the establishment of a factory, and it appears impossible to switch any considerable amount of this trade to Great Britain because of the facts that I have stated, namely, our proximity to the United States, the similarity of styles and the many styles of bands that they have over there and that we insist on having here.
[Mr Robb.]
Therefore it seems to me that we are simply increasing the cost of the hat without any advantage whatever to any Canadian industry. I suggest that this item be taken under further consideration and be made free under all tariffs as it was before.


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend and the hon. member for South Wellington have placed me in a position where I am compelled toi accede to their wishes. Representatives of two of these different industries called upon me and made representations. They said that they could telegraph and get these goods sometimes over night and that Canadians preferred styles similar to those they observed on the hats of tourists coming into Canada from the United States. I was very frank with them; I said to them: If you can get your member to stand up and make a speech favouring free trade with the United States, I will listen to it. I move therefore that this item be amended so that it will read: "Free, free, free", in all columns.


Hugh Guthrie: I must thank the minister for his consideration in regard to this item. If he will do the same thing in regard to worsted yarns, I will mot have very much to complain of.


James Alexander Robb: We have passed that.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I wish also to thank the minister, but to explain to him that our reason for doing this is that no industry in Canada is being injured. That is the great distinction in these matters. I would not stand here and ask for this reduction if the effect were to be the deprivation of any Canadian workman of a job, forcing him to go to the United States to seek employment. We are doing this simply because no Canadian industry is being injured, but because on the contrary Canadian industry is being promoted.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I am very much interested in this matter. Has the minister taken this action without consulting the tariff board?


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Item as amended agreed to.
James Alexander Robb: With the unanimous consent of the committee, I move that we reconsider item 569a. If we are going to do this, we might as well make a job of it and put them all on the same basis.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
Customs tariff-569a.	Unfinished hoods,
composed of leghorn, manila, palm leaf, grass, willow or chip, not bleached nor blocked: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 5 per cent; general tariff, 7J per cent.
James Alexander Robb: I move that this item be amended so that it will read: "Free, free, free," in all columns.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Item as amended agreed to.
Customs tariff-569c. Braids or plaits, of chip, palm leaf, manila, willow, osier, rattan, straw, tuscan or grass; braids or plaits of artificial silk or similar synthetic fibre produced by chemical processes; braids or plaits of glazed cotton thread; all to be imported for use exclusively in the manufacture of hat bodies or shapes, but not for ornamentation or trimming of such bodies or shapes: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 5 per cent; general tariff, 74 per cent.
James Alexander Robb: I move that this item be amended so that it will read: "Free, free, free" in all columns.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Item as amended agreed to.
Customs tariff-569d. Woven fabrics, not exceeding three inches in width, in lengths of not less than eighteen yards, of a class or kind not made in Canada, generally known as "single, double or four shot corded ribbon", imported by manufacturers for use exclusively in their own factories in making the bands on hats or in binding the edge of the hat brim: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 5 per cent; general tariff, 7i per cent.
James Alexander Robb: I move that this item be amended so that it will read: "Free, free, free" in all columns.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Item as amended agreed to.
Items 570, 571 and 572 agreed to.
Customs tariff-573.	Enamelled carriage,
floor, shelf and table oilcloth, linoleum, and cork matting or carpets: British preferential tariff, 25 per cent; intermediate tariff, 32J per cent; general tariff, 35 per cent.
Henry Elvins Spencer: This seems a very high tariff on a product that is used by the very poorest of people. I would like the Finance minister to give us a reason why the tariff should be so high.


James Alexander Robb: This is one of the items upon which there has been no inquiry as yet by the board.


Henry Elvins Spencer: All the more reason why we should reduce it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Items 574 and 574a agreed to.
Customs tariff-574b. Webbing, with strands of rubber interwoven or braided therein, exceeding one inch but not exceeding twelve inches in width, imported by manufacturers for use exclusively in their own factories: British preferential tariff, 12| per cent; intermediate tariff, 20 per cent; general tariff, 25 per cent.
Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Why this increase? I
notice there was an increase in the previous item too.


James Alexander Robb: There is no increase in the
British preferential.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: But there is in the
other two tariffs. What is the reason?


James Alexander Robb: It has been represented to me that this industry which is a small one could not get along under any lower rates, and would be closed down.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Did the tariff board
make a recommendation on this item?


James Alexander Robb: I had consultations with the board but the industry did not appear before the board.


William Russell Fansher: This
item applies to more than manufacturing industries. There has been a great deal of immigration into Saskatchewan during the last five years, but we find that we have 1,600 fewer farmers to-day than we had five years ago, and it is because of such schedules as this. Are we to receive no consideration at all? I was pleased when two gentlemen to my right, evidently converts of the hon. member for Rosetown, stood up and asked for free materials from the United States for the manufacturer, but they protest vigorously against us when we ask for similar consideration in regard to what is the raw material in our production. I would urge the minister to give us the same consideration


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I can hardly look at
these items without thinking of some of the speeches I used to hear Liberal orators making in the province of Saskatchewan when I lived there some years ago. I never heard a Liberal speech in Saskatchewan in those days without hearing that if the Tories came back into power, the tariff would be raised as high as Haman's gallows. I cannot look at these increases without thinking of those claims, and wondering why it is that hon. gentlemen across the way think it should be so easy for us to co-operate with them, and so difficult for us to co-operate with the Tories. If anybody can tell me what is the difference between the Liberal
1668	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
policy and the Tory policy, not on the basis of the speeches made, but on the basis of the actual tariff reductions effected or increases made, I shall be glad to be enlightened. The speeches of the high tariff Tories I do not think should be taken any more seriously than the speeches of the low tariff Liberals, and I would like to know where the actual difference is as expressed in the tariff schedules.


Mr. YOUNG (Saskatoon):: If the hon.
gentleman will read the table printed at the end of the Prime Minister's speech the other day he will find some differences there.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Yes, on the basis of
speeches, but I am speaking of the schedules.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: I was speaking of the actual record.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: But what about these
items? Here are increases of 10 per cent in the British preference, and 5 and 7 per cent in the intermediate and general rates. What difference is there in this instance?


Mr. BOIVIN:: I would point out to the
hon. gentleman that in item 574a there is a reduction from 25 to 20 per cent in the British preference. In item 574b there is an increase of 5 per cent.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Nothing comes from
Great Britain under that item. The imports all come in from the United States.


Pierre-Ernest Boivin: I will give you the imports from Great Britain and the United States under item 574b, in 1026: United States, $144,801; United Kingdom, $47,649. There is actually a decrease in this item from 25 to 20 per cent.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I do not know what my
hon. friend is quoting from, but I have the record here. I will admit that it is compiled by this government, and it may be faulty, but I cannot be charged with that. For the year 1926 I find that "webbing, elastic, over one inch in width," was imported from the United Kingdom to the amount of $15,900, and from the United States, $389,000; other countries, $267.


Pierre-Ernest Boivin: The hon. gentleman is referring to 574b?


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is not described as
574a or 574b in the trade returns. It is described as "webbing, elastic, over one inch in width," and in the item before us it is described as "webbing with strands of rubber," which is elastic, "interwoven or braided therein, exceeding one inch but not exceeding twelve inches in width."


Pierre-Ernest Boivin: The items are changed. I
admit that the imports were $389,199 from the United States, and $15,992 from England. This item is changed to 574b, but the other item, 574a, refers to narrow goods, and under that item there was imported from the United States goods to the amount of $144,800, and from the United Kingdom, $47,649.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-575. Cordage exceeding one inch in circumference, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, 20 per cent; intermediate tariff, 22J per cent; general tariff, 25 per cent.
Felix Patrick Quinn: Has any consideration been
given by the Finance minister or by the tariff board to the representations made by the delegations from the city of Halifax and the town of Dartmouth regarding the cordage duties?


James Alexander Robb: There is no change in this item my hon. friend will observe.


Felix Patrick Quinn: So I notice. But were not very strong representations made to the minister and to the tariff board, on, behalf of an industry in the town of Dartmouth, for increased duties on cordage?


James Alexander Robb: Yes. A delegation waited on me and represented that unless an increased tariff on rope were granted the industry would not continue in Dartmouth. They wanted manila rope to be given a higher classification, and supported their request with petitions. I had officers of the department check up the petitions, and they found that two, one asking for cheap rope for fishermen, and the other asking for this higher classification, were signed by several of the same petitioners. Under the circumstances I thought it better to leave the item as it is.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-576. Window shades mounted on rollers, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, 20 per cent; intermediate tariff, 30 per cent; general tariff, 35 per cent.
Henry Herbert Stevens: We had window shade items before.


James Alexander Robb: Those were window shade
cloth; these are mounted.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Items 577 and 578 agreed to.
Customs tariff-590c.	Engines and complete parts thereof, when imported for use only in the equipment of aircraft: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 7J per cent; general tariff, 10 per cent. On and after 1st July, 1930: British preferential tariff, 15 per cent; intermediate tariff, 25 per cent general tariff, 27J per cent.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
Henry Herbert Stevens: "On and after 1st July, 1930." That is quite contrary to the usual practice, is it not? Will the minister explain why it is inserted?


James Alexander Robb: I am told it was in before, but expired this year. We are extending the period for two years.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-610. Belting for machinery, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, 20 per cent; intermediate tariff, 25 per cent; general tariff, 271 per cent.
John Anderson Fraser: What does the addition
"for machinery" mean in this item?


James Alexander Robb: It is asked for by the National Revenue department to make it plain that belting for machinery is covered, not other kinds-for instance, body belts.


John Anderson Fraser: There are conveyer belts.


James Alexander Robb: They would be classified as machinery.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I suppose this includes threshing machine belts?


James Alexander Robb: No, they would come in under a lower rate. That is why, "n.o.p." appears there.


John Evans: Is this the rate that will be paid by manufacturers for belting in their own factories?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


John Evans: Is this also the rate that will be paid for repairs for agricultural machinery?


James Alexander Robb: No, I should think it would be whatever the agricultural machinery rate is.


John Evans: I know that when a threshing machine is sold the drive belt is priced separately; it does not go with the machine. Is this the rate that will be paid for repairs for agricultural machinery?


James Alexander Robb: Yes, it will come in under
whatever the classification for the machinery may be. Threshing machines come under 447b: Wind-stackers, and threshing machine separators, including baggers, weighers, and self-feeders therefor, and complete parts thereof, 5 per cent, 10 per cent, 10 per cent. That would be the classification.


John Evans: Does the connecting or drive belt go at the same rate as the rest of the machine?


James Alexander Robb: That is my understanding.


John Anderson Fraser: Then how do you distinguish between a belt imported for a threshing machine and another for a sawmill?


James Alexander Robb: That is a matter for the customs administration; I could not explain it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I think the minister is not quite clear, because we have leather belting in item 605. 10 per cent, 121 per cent and 15 per cent. Then there are several other items of belting. There is belting of leather: 15, 20 and 22|; belting n.o.p.: 20, 25 and 27. Then there is this item now proposed, belting for machinery, n.o.p.: 20, 25 and 27i. It is quite clear that belting that would be purchased for agricultural or saw mill machinery or any other class of machinery would come under one of these heads according to the make.


James Alexander Robb: I am advised that it would
come as a complete part of the machine, but I am inclined to agree that if a hardware merchant in a country village handled material of this kind bought in rolls it would come under one of these classifications; it would not be a complete part.
Mr. FANiSHER (Lambton): How is it that this belting comes under the same classification as silk and artificial silk?


James Alexander Robb: These are some nondescript
items at the end but they are not under that classification.


John Evans: Does this item include what is under the old schedule, 411, malleable sprocket chain and link belting chain of steel-


James Alexander Robb: That is a steel product.


John Evans: Does any other item cover that?


James Alexander Robb: This item is a rewording of
610.


John Evans: What about 411 in the old tariff?


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend will have to enquire at the department; I hare not the information here.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Items 620, 621, 622 (now 626) and 627 agreed to.
Customs tariff-627a. Mitts or mittens of all kinds: British preferential tariff, 15 per cent; intermediate tariff, 25 per cent; general tariff, 30 per cent.
Henry Elvins Spencer: How many mitts came in under the British preference last year?

Ways and Means'-Drawbacks


James Alexander Robb: There is no separate classification of mitts; they are shown with gloves. It is estimated that the reduction will be $5,000. The imports last year of mitts and gloves amounted to $1,401,375. I cannot state what proportion comprised mitts and mittens.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Items 630, 681 and 682a agreed to.
Henry Herbert Stevens: The minister is not going on with the drawbacks to-night?


James Alexander Robb: It is only ten o'clock.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The leader of the opposition is not here.


James Alexander Robb: Perhaps we could take up
something else.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Read the item and we can enter it. This is a new resolution.


DRAWBACKS
[Stage Direction]
Resolved, that schedule B to the customs tariff, being chapter 44 of the revised statutes of Canada, 1027, be amended by striking thereout tariff items 1011, 1012, 1024, 1029, the enumeration of goods, and the rates of drawback of customs duties set opposite to each of the said items, and the following items, enumerations and rates of drawback of customs duties be inserted in the said schedule
B.	. ,
Customs tariff-1011. Botany yarn, single, numbers thirty and finer, on mule cops, tubes or cones, or in hanks, dry spun on the French or Belgian systems, in white only, not doubled or twisted, subject to drawback when used prior to the first day of October, 1928, in the manufacture of socks and stockings and jersey cloth-payable as drawback 99 per cent.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Is there any change?


James Alexander Robb: The only change is that this
drawback expires on September 30, 1928.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There was no date before. Why is the drawback entirely removed?


James Alexander Robb: The drawback was given to establish this industry, under the French and Belgian systems. It is well established now and it is considered reasonable that they should pay their share. It comes under a 10 per cent item.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In other words, they are going to be protected under the tariff and the drawback is taken away?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-1012. Woven fabrics in the web, subject to drawback when used in the manufacture of linings for hats and caps, or in the manufacture of hat shapes, and bonnet shapes, made from buckram-payable as drawback 99 per cent.
[Mr. Spemer.l
Richard Bedford Bennett: Buckram was covered by a special item in the tariff and was free for purposes of bookbinding.


James Alexander Robb: This is for hats.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is a drawback of 99 per cent?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: According to
my information, under the old tariff a drawback of 99 per cent was allowed on a completed lining. That item has been withdrawn, and it now reads; "Woven, fabrics in the web when used in the manufacture of lining for hats and caps" as amended. There is no objection to the item as it stands, as is pointed out in a letter which I have received. The writer says:
Paragraph 1012 under the old tariff allowed a drawback of 99 per cent on completed linings. This item has been withdrawn and it now reads, "Woven fabrics in the web when used in the manufacture of linings for hats and caps."' While this will be satisfactory providing we will he permitted to engage the help from the United States necessary to print and make up the linings, we call your attention to the fact that we have now at least 1,800 dozens of linings in stock on which we paid a duty of 37J per cent expecting a drawback of 99 per cent on same after we put these into hats and shipped them to consumers. We sold these linings practically at cost and depended on the drawback to avoid a loss. For instance, a lining for which we charged $3 per dozen cost us $2.93 per dozen after being put in the hat. You can see by this that we had to figure on the drawback to avoid a loss.
If this item cannot or will not be changed then we would like to 1m permitted either to receive the drawback until June 1, when our spring season ends and our fall season commences. or not have these tariff items enforced until then.


James Alexander Robb: I am disposed to meet my
hon. friend on that, but I do not see just how that can be done.


Richard Bedford Bennett: As it stands now there
is a drawback of 99 per cent in perpetuity, or until amended. Is that not so?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then there is no question of the drawback whether the material is used to-day, to-morrow or any time.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: There is a
different wording in the present drawback.


James Alexander Robb: Let me see if I understand my hon. friend correctly. The industry in bis constituency has imported the linings and manufactured them. That is now changed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It must be imported in.
the web, and that was not the case formerly.

Ways and Means-Drawbacks


James Alexander Robb: I am afraid I will be unable
to help my hon. friend. I think he had better take his chances, together with everyone else.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: If these imports were made before this change took place, would it not be a matter of justice that these drawbacks should be allowed?


James Alexander Robb: All these changes became
effective on February 17. My hon. friend's industry is in no worse position than any other industry in Canada. I have given him a considerable concession to-night, and I hope he will not press this point because it would be establishing a precedent which might become very expensive.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Would not the minister
consider that any importation made prior to the passing of the budget would be entitled to the drawback when claimed, although it might not be claimed before the passing of the budget? I think that might be done in the administration of these items.


James Alexander Robb: That is a matter for consideration by the Department of National Revenue, and it might be passed upon by the treasury board, although I am not sure of that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If the minister will observe, item 1011 fixes the date of October 1, 1929, within which certain named articles are to be used; item 1024 is in almost similar terms, but item 1012 places no limitation upon the time within which the rebate or drawback is to operate. As I understand the contention submitted to the committee it is that you should apply the same principle with respect to the intermediate item as to the other two. I think this is only precautionary, because I fancy the officers of the department will say, "Where the goods have been actually imported and the duty paid, the rate of rebate would apply as it then was", but apparently the government thought it advisable in the other two items to which I have referred to fix a date, namely October 1, 1929. Is it quite right that you should do that in those cases while leaving the intermediate item in such a condition that it will create a hardship amounting to financial loss with regard to the parties interested?


James Alexander Robb: These parties waited on me, and I do not think this will amount to very much. Of course this gentleman wants every dollar he can get, for which I do not blame him, but we made concessions to him to-night on four different items. I think he had better take his chances in connection with this item along with the other people.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I would like to call the attention of the minister to section 10 of the Customs Tariff Act regarding drawbacks, which is as follows:
On the materials set forth in schedule B to this act, when used for consumption in Canada, for the purpose specified in that schedule, there may be paid, out of the consolidated revenue fund, the several rates of drawback of customs duties set opposite to each item respectively in that schedule, under regulations by the governor in council.
So the governor in council has it within his power to pay that drawback under that section.


James Alexander Robb: I will make no commitment to-night, but if my colleague should recommend that and next year it is found that we have consented to it, I hope my hon. friend will not deal too harshly with us.


Henry Herbert Stevens: We will hold him immune for anything of this kind.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Section 1024 agreed to.
Customs tariff-1029. Materials. When imported by manufacturers of hat sweats, cap peaks and hatters' tips and sides when used in the manufacture of such articles in their own factories-payable as drawback, 99 per cent.
James Alexander Robb: We have added the words "cap peaks" this year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs	tariff-1000.	Newsprint paper
covered by tariff item 197 and other paper covered by tariff items 197a and 198a. When used exclusively in the production of publications devoted primarily to agriculture, magazines or periodicals, published and issued at regular intervals and ejoying second class postal privileges, containing critical, informative and descriptive articles on various subjects, current topics, political and other news or reviews, criticisms or other informative matter, or fiction, being bound, wire stitched or otherwise fastened together: Provided that no drawback shall be paid under this item on trade journals, supplements of newspapers, publications devoted to the private interest of the publisher, or association publications, or publications devoted to the enterprise of the publisher, but not to exclude publications devoted primarily to agriculture-payable as drawback, 80 per cent.
James Alexander Robb: This is the amended item, which I move.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There was some talk of having this amendment printed.


James Alexander Robb: This amendment is to take the place of the present item 1060.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In reading the amendment the chairman said "197a and 198a." In the original motion the word "or" was used instead of "and."

Mrays and Means-Drawbacks


James Alexander Robb: I am prepared to accept the legal opinion of my hon. friend in a matter of this kind.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think probably "or"
would be correct. Perhaps the minister will give us an explanation of what the report of the tariff board was on this item.


James Alexander Robb: The tariff board thought that a 60 per cent drawback might meet the wishes of those who were asking for this change.
Mr. FRAjSER: What did they ask for?


Richard Bedford Bennett: They asked to have it
made free.


James Alexander Robb: They wanted it free. Then I had some representations that 80 per cent would be fair, and I took the responsibility of making the drawback 80 per cent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But there was a distinction between the original application made by Mr. Chipman, and the subsequent development of the application, according to the records we have here. I fancy the minister recalls what I refer to. He will recollect the application was made by Mr. Chipman.


James Alexander Robb: The inquiry into the application of Mr. Chipman and some others is not completed. It was thought fair to give them this concession and in the meantime the inquiry will go on.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The amended protection is vastly different from what was originally proposed.


Mr. CAHILL:: Carried.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman does not want to be unduly hasty.


Frank S. Cahill: I thought the hon. gentleman had concluded his remarks.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am on my feet at the present time and it would be well for the hon. gentleman to observe that fact. Only one of us can speak at a time, and if the hon. gentleman desires to speak I will sit down. This item is not as simple as it seems. The application in this matter was made by agricultural journals, and it was supported by certain trade journals. It is now limited entirely to the agricultural journals, and the item is altogether different from the terms in which it was introduced into this house. We should like to know just what the reasons are for that.


James Alexander Robb: I had representations made to me by the paper manufacturers. They stated that the resolution as introduced would be pretty wide. For instance it was represented
fMr Bennett.]
to me that it would enable large mail order houses sending out their advertising matter to get paper under the regulations as they were originally presented and receive the drawback. Accordingly the item has been tightened up in order to limit the purpose to that originally intended. That was done after consultation with the officers of the department.


John Anderson Fraser: To what journals does the
item apply now?


James Alexander Robb: I could not tell my hon. friend that; I have not a list of journals throughout the country.


Richard Bedford Bennett: About how much money will be involved?


James Alexander Robb: I cannot tell my hon. friend that.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Item as amended agreed to.
Customs tariff-1061. Woven fabric manufactured for covering the outside of books, of a class or kind not made in Canada. When imported by bookbinders for use exclusively in binding books in their own factories-payable as drawback, 99 per cent.
James Alexander Robb: I beg to move that the following be substituted for drawback item 1061:
1061. Woven fabric manuactured for covering the outside of books, of a class or kind not made in Canada. When used by bookbinders in binding books in their own factories-99 per cent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This item certainly is somewhat in conflict with the buckram item to which reference was made the other evening. Buckram is the word which was used in the linen schedule. This is a woven fabric, and certainly buckram is a woven fabric manufactured for covering the outside of books. Buckram not made in Canada came in under certain conditions. The article dealt with under this item is woven fabric manufactured for covering the outside of books, and provision is made for a drawback of 99 per cent. In the case of the other item, there is a duty but I forget the exact amount. There must be some explanation as to why these two items should appear in that way.


James Alexander Robb: There is an item with respect, to bookbinders' cloth.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what I am turning back to.


James Alexander Robb: Item 638 in the tariff relates to buckram adapted for the manufacture of hat and bonnet Shapes. I may tell my hon. friend that buckram is never used for bookbinding.

Ways and Means-Drawbacks


Richard Bedford Bennett: I may be mistaken but I was under the impression there was an item dealing with buckram for bookbinding.


James Alexander Robb: Item 531 in the tariff reads as follows:
Cloth such as is used for covering the outside of books when imported for use exclusively in binding books, under regulations by the Minister of Customs:	British preferential
tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
In this case we changed the tariff item into a drawback item because we learned the tariff item was being abused.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am, perhaps, a little dense, but item 531, which is still in the tariff, deals with cloth used for covering the outside of books. That is free. The item we are dealing with here is woven fabric manufactured for covering the outside of books and is subject to a drawback of 99 per cent. How can you get a drawback of 99 per cent on an article that is free of duty?


James Alexander Robb: The free item has been
repealed.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The minister said a
moment ago it is still in the tariff.


James Alexander Robb: It may come in under the item of coloured linens or cottons, but the drawback of 99 per cent is paid when the fabric is used for covering books.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Can the minister give us the new item w-hich takes the place of 531?


James Alexander Robb: Whatever classification it comes into now the bookbinders will get back 99 per cent of the duty if the material is used for bookbinding purposes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is a new item in the
tariff.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Formerly it was free. Now there is a drawback of 99 per cent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And there is a duty on it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Somewhere, but we do not know wheTe it is.


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friends will surely admit that there may be a difference in classification.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What I am trying to find out is where it is. We have repealed the old item, we cannot find the new item, and we are providing for a drawback of 99 peT cent. That is the position we are in.


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend will understand that any fabric, no matter what it is, imported for covering the outside of books will get a 99 per cent drawback.


John Anderson Fraser: It will be found under
item 540 in the new tariff.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am interested now only in the preparation of the tariff itself and not in the question of duty or no duty. Tariff item 569b reads:
Hat sweats, cap peaks, hatters' tips-
And so on. This is now free under all tariffs. I turn to the drawback item and I find these words:
When imported by manufacturers of hat sweats, hat peaks and hatters' tips-
And so on. These are the same words exactly and there is a drawback of 99 per cent. How can there be a drawback of 99 per cent on a free item?


James Alexander Robb: It might not be the same
item.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The words in the tariff
item are exactly the same as in the drawback item. Under the tariff item the rates are free, free, free, and now there is going to be 99 per cent drawback.


James Alexander Robb: They are going into another
classification.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There cannot be another classification when the words are the same. Is there a nigger in the woodpile? If there is, let us smoke him out.


James Alexander Robb: No, there is not.


Richard Bedford Bennett: W'hen the tariff was
originally prepared item 569b was dutiable at 5 per cent on the intermediate and 7i per cent on the general tariff.


James Alexander Robb: That is the finished item. The drawback is on the materials.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This item, when it came before parliament, was free under the British preference and dutiable at 5 per cent, intermediate and 7i per cent, general tariff. In committee the minister has taken out the 5 per cent and the 7i per cent.


James Alexander Robb: Where we are at cross purposes is the fact that the drawback item is for materials for manufacturing these hat sweats.


Richard Bedford Bennett: When the tariff came into the house the other day item 569b was not free under all tariffs, but now it is free under all tariffs, the 5 per cent and the 7i per cent having been struck out.


James Alexander Robb: But they still require the drawback on the materials.

Ways and Means-Drawbacks


Henry Herbert Stevens: Might I point out to the minister in regard to item 1061, that under the old tariff cloth imported for bookbinding was free under item 531. The minister indicates that that will come under item 541a.


James Alexander Robb: It may come under various
items.


Henry Herbert Stevens: There is a tariff now on
the item instead of its being free?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: But the minister has given a drawback only on such classes of fabrics as are not made in Canada, so instead of being free as it was under item 531, it is now dutiable except where similar goods are not made in Canada. We might as well understand the matter clearly. There is therefore a marked difference between the old rate and the new.


James Alexander Robb: Does my hon. friend want me to strike out those words?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, I am simply pointing out the facts.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Item as amended agreed to.
Item 1062 agreed to.
Customs tariff-1063. Materials, including all parts when used in the manufacture of engines for use only in the equipment of aircraft: Provided that on and after July 1, 1930, no drawback shall be paid under this item unless at least forty per cent of the cost of producing the finished engine has been incurred in Canada-payable as drawback, 50 per cent.
Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister will
observe the words "including all parts" after the word "materials." That would mean, of course, that manufactured articles which might be imported under any part of the tariff would carry a 50 per cent drawback, and they would have half the duty in competition with those that were made at home. I am directing attention only to the word3 "including all parts." One can understand the use of the word "materials."


James Alexander Robb: Some of them might be
finished.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-1064.	Seamless iron or
steel tubing over four inches in diameter, when used in the transmission of natural gas under high pressure from the gas wells to point of distribution-payable as drawback, 50 per cent.
Henry Herbert Stevens: Would the minister give us a brief explanation of this item?
	'


James Alexander Robb: The purpose of this item is
to provide the same rate of drawback as is provided in item 1017 on lap-welded tubing of iron or steel not less than four inches in diameter. Lap-welded tubing is made in Canada while the seamless tubing is not manufactured in Canada.


Henry Herbert Stevens: They are put on the
same basis?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-1065. Bituminous coal, when used in melting or evaporating salt produced in Canada: Provided that no drawback under this item shall be payable on coal used in producing salt or brine when such salt or brine is further manufactured than salt enumerated in tariff items 40, 41, 42 and 42a-payable as drawback, 99 per cent.
James Alexander Robb: I beg to move that the following be substituted for drawback item 1065:
Customs tariff

1065. Bituminous coal, when used in melting, evaporating and preparing salt produced in Canada: Provided that no drawback under this item shall be payable on coal used in producing salt or brine when such salt or brine is further manufactured than salt enumerated in tariff items 40, 41, 42, and 42a-payable as drawback, 99 per cent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Would the minister tel!
us approximately what sums are paid by way of drawback at the present time?


James Alexander Robb: I could not but I will get
an estimate of that for my hon. friend.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The whole sum of money paid?


James Alexander Robb: I will try to get that for
my hon. friend on Monday.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Our drawbacks are increasing very steadily. According to the last annual report we paid some $15,000,000 odd in drawbacks.	.


James Alexander Robb: That possibly would include
goods that had been exported to other countries. Does my hon. friend want that separated?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister is asking
the very question to which I desired to direct the attention of the committee. Originally drawbacks were a form of legislation used for the purpose of encouraging export trade. Whenever we imported raw materials of any kind and manufactured in Canada a product from them, on the goods that went out of the country we gave a drawback to the manufacturer. This of course was a great encouragement to the manufacturing business of the country. It stimulated foreign trade

Ways and Means-Drawbacks
and provided a ready means by which we kept our factories engaged in export business. That principle has been departed from. This principle proposes to grant a drawback for domestic manufactures for use in our own country. This means that you subsidize each individual man who comes within it to the extent to which he may use the particular material that is subject to the drawback. In this instance it happens to be coal. There are, we will say for the sake of argument, 100,000 tons of coal used by a particular person. There is, we will say for the sake of argument, a duty of ten cents a ton involved in it; that is $10,000. He gets a present of $10,000 because he happens to be engaged in a particular industry or a particular business. His neighbour, engaged in another line of business, in which he is consuming the same material, gets no such assistance from the treasury. Now I put it to the minister that the principle involved is wrong. The Minister of Trade and Commerce has explained why he has done it. He has an industry in his community that was affected by it. It has cost $60,000 to dredge the river to enable the ships to get up and bring the coal in, because one ship got stuck there. That is what happened; you will find it in the estimates. It has cost this country $60,000 or more to get the wharf and facilities to unload the coal that is to go to this particular industry. After the coal has been used in that industry, although there may be an industry across the street using the same kind of material for steam, there will be no drawback. At the end of the season one gets $10,000 in cash from the government because he sells his product in Canada, and the other gets nothing. That is discrimination of the worst character. That is not a proper performance, I submit, of the duties of government. I should like to know, if possible, just what we are paying out in drawbacks now.


James Alexander Robb: I will try and get the figures for my hon. friend.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: In considering
drawbacks, has the minister considered the advisability of allowing a similar drawback in respect of coal used in the production of rolled iron and steel, pulverized?


James Alexander Robb: I have a resolution to present as soon as this item is carried. I am not sure that it covers the product to which my hon. friend refers.


William Russell Fansher: Was
this item considered by the tariff board?


James Alexander Robb: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What was considered by the tariff board was an application by the salt manufacturers of Canada. They made an application, which was considered by the board, and with respect to which some evidence was given. The salt producers did not ask for this sort of protection at all. They pointed out certain conditions that existed, and they desired that legislation should be introduced that would place them on an equality with other producers of salt. The Minister of Trade and Commerce says that this is the way he has selected to do it. In other words, he has selected to give a present to particular people engaged in a particular business, as against their neighbours, rather than to make it of general application in which all might share. The principle is wrong. In this case it is barefaced favouritism, that is all, and the Minister of Trade and Commerce has himself admitted it.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Item as amended agreed to.
James Alexander Robb: I beg to move, Mr. Chairman, that the following drawback item, enumerations and rates of drawbacks of duty be inserted in schedule B to the customs tariff:
Customs tariff-1066. Bituminous coal when pulverized by proprietors of rolling mills for heating iron or steel for use only in the production of rolled iron or steel at their rolling mills-payable as drawback 99 per cent.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
James Alexander Robb: I beg to move to substitute the following for tariff item 219a:
Customs tariff-219a. 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.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Item as amended agreed to.
James Alexander Robb: With respect to 219b, I beg to move that the following item, enumerations and rates of duty be inserted in schedule A:
Customs tariff-219b. Formaldehyde, containing not more than 15 per centum of alcohol: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
It has been represented to me that this is used largely for treating grain to prevent smut and I am now moving that formaldehyde be made free under all tariffs.


Richard Bedford Bennett: To be consistent, the
government must place this item on the free list, but the effect of it upon one of the industries of this country the only one, as the

Ways and Means-Drawbacks

minister is aware, is going to be disastrous. Assuming two bushels of seed wheat to the acre, the protection afforded by this item is fifty-nine thousandths of a cent per 'bushel. It simply means the existence or the nonexistence of the industry in Canada. Is it desirable that we should have to import this very necessary material for the prevention of smut on wheat, or that we should be willing to pay fifty-nine thousandths of a cent per bushel protection? That is the question.


Edward James Young: Whom does the hon. gentleman mean by "we"?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I mean parliament.


Edward James Young: It is the farmer who will pay it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes. He will pay fifty-nine thousandths of a cent per bushel, and I ask, is it desirable that he should find himself in the position where none of this material will be manufactured in Canada, or that he should possibly have to pay fifty-nine thousandths of a cent per bushel and have his source of supply in Canada? Representations were made to me, and I assume to other hon. members, and the books were open to the minister, and the facts submitted to him. I have no interest in the matter beyond that of a citizen to whom these papers were sent, as they were no doubt to large numbers of the members of this house. I am certain that the minister is satisfied that it involves only fifty-nine thousandths of a cent per bushel.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Does not the hon. gentleman admit that putting on that amount of duty would increase the price of the article to the consumer?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Assuming that it does,
it means only fifty-nine thousandths of a cent per bushel, and I ask, is it desirable that the Canadian farmer dhould be dependent upon an imported supply of this very necessary material, or that he should possibly pay fifty-nine thcfhsandths of a cent per bushel to have this supply in Canada?


Frank S. Cahill: It is a small matter to argue about.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, but it means the
life or death of an industry in Canada.


James Alexander Robb: A representative of that industry complained to me that it would put him out of business, and eventually the farmers of Canada would pay more for the article. My answer to him was that the farmers wanted this, and I supposed they knew their business. That is why I brought in the resolution.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is it quite fair?


An hon. MEMBER:: A step in the right
direction.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is it a step in the right
direction to render it impossible for this industry to function here?-an industry that has reduced its capital stock from 86,000,000 to 82,000,000, whose books have been open to the minister and the officers of the department, whose officials I never saw until the dajr they interviewed the minister, and who left with the member for Rosetown the same document they left with me. I ask hon. members representing rural sections whether or not it is desirable to place the production of this very necessary article wholly in the hands of people outside of Canada who may be able to make the price anything they desire, and who will do so. We have had experience of it. There is no reason why we should not mention the industry. It is the Standard Chemical Company, owned in Great Britain. As I say, they had to reduce their capital from six to two million, because of their unsuccessful endeavour to establish a great industry in Canada. And any hon. gentleman who represents a rural riding knows how very powerful this particular disinfectant is. The hon. member for Saskatoon perhaps will be able to correct my description. It is a most powerful germicide, and, I understand, is used very largely in the fumigation of ships and buildings wherein people have been subject to infectious diseases. A very weak solution is used to prevent, so far as possible, a smut in wheat. Formaldehyde is composed of oxygen, nitrogen and carbon, so combined chemically as to form a very powerful germicide.
Now, if the possible effect of the tariff upon the price to the farmer is the very insignificant sum I have mentioned, are we wise in departing from that very limited protection, and thus placing our market entirely in the hands of mass-producing competitors? The important thing to remember is that this substance is produced in very large quantities in other countries where there is a great demand for it, whereas in Canada, owing to a limited market, it is produced in very small quantities. I can only reiterate that when the other day my attention was directed to this matter for the first time, I checked up the figures with some degree of care, and I said then I believe-and I still believe-that if the representatives of the rural constituencies were satisfied that only the insignificant amount mentioned was involved, they would not desire to destroy the industry in this country and place our farm population at the

St. Lawrence River Bridge Company
mercy of the chemical trust to the south of us. That is the problem for hon. members , to consider, and I am quite content with their judgment upon it.
My business for the moment in the position I occupy is to direct the attention of the committee to the fact and ask the minister if my statement of those facts is not correct, because, I submit, it is not sound for any minister of finance merely to say that it has been represented to him by the farm population that they wanted a certain thing, when, as he must now admit, they were not given the facts on which to base a correct conclusion. In my experience extending over thirty-six years I have observed no unfairness in the attitude of my fellow-Canadians when they have been fully seized of the facts. The minister told the people interested that they had made out a case, that the protection wa3 insignificant and in his judgment very reasonable. Now, because pressure has been brought to bear by others without the facts being placed before them, he says: I will remove the item from the tariff and put it on the same basis as the others, regardless of the effect of my action on the industry. I submit that that is not fair to the representatives of the rural constituencies who have not had an opportunity to be advised of the facts. I think it is the duty of the minister to place the facts before the house, not simply to say: Because somebody said they wanted me to do thus and so, I have done it. That is the position we must take in a matter of this kind.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not propose that
this item shall pass to-night. We may as well make up our minds to it now.


James Alexander Robb: It is eleven o'clock. All I
have to observe is that when I first brought these resolutions to the attention of the house, my hon. friend rather censured me because I was putting a tariff on formaldehyde


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not do that.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Monday, March 26, 1928