1930-05-19

REPORT OF COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
Second report of the select standing committee on industrial and international relations.-Mr. McIntosh.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 245, for the relief of Hilda Walker Baker.-Mr. Young (Toronto Northeast).
Bill No. 246, for the relief of Mary Violet Baxter.-Mr. Lawson.
Bill No. 247, for the relief of Harry Hutcherson Davis.

Mr. Sanderson.
Bill No. 248, for the relief of James Lewis Watterworth.-Mr. Taylor.
Bill No. 249, for the relief of Harvey Men-nie Cross.-Mr. Church.
Bill No. 250, for the relief of Muriel Parke Wood.-Mr. Black (Yukon).

Bill No. 251, for the relief of Albert Hull.- Mr. Ryckman.
Bill No. 252, for the relief of Jessie Coles.- Mr. Young (Toronto Northeast).
Bill No. 253, for the relief of Annie Almeda McCormick.-Mr. Ross (Kingston).
Bill No. 254, for the relief of Madeline Schnarr Nichol.-Mr. Ross (Kingston).
Bill No. 256, for the relief of Phyllis Gertrude Smith.-Mr. Anderson (Toronto-High Park).
Bill No. 256, for the relief of Josephine Laura Calder.-Mr. Young (Toronto Northeast) .
Bill No. 257, for the relief of Minerva Gray. -Mr. Young (Toronto Northeast).
Bill No. 258, for the relief of Mary Jane McCrossan.-Mr. Harris.
Bill No. 259, for the relief of Robert Bruce Hart.-Mr. Harris.
Bill No. 260, for the relief of Hetmanska Bereta.-Mr. Harris.
Bill No. 261, for the relief of Lillian Alberta Sparling.-Mr. McQuarrie.
Bill No. 262, for the relief of Ebenezer Ward Russell.-Mr. Anderson (Toronto-High Park).
Bill No. 263, respecting the capital stock of Prudential Trust Company, Limited.-Mr. Casgrain.

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

Mr. JOHNSTONE (Cape Breton North Victoria) :: 1.	Is it the policy of the government to employ only Canadians on the Canadian National steamships ?
2.	How many, or in what proportion, are the Canadian employees on the said steamships?


Mr. CRERAR:: 1.	In accordance with the policy of the government in suoh matters, preference is, as far as practicable, given to Canadians in the employment of crews by the Canadian National Steamships management.
2.	The proportion of Canadians employed on the steamships is 85 per cent of the total of the crews carried. This figure does not take into account waiters and stewards carried on Canadian National West Indies steamers where, owing to climatic conditions, it is necessary to employ West Indians.


RADIUM TREATMENT
Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: I.	Did the government at any time pass an order in council refusing radium in treatment of ex-service men?

2.	If so, what is the number of the said order in council, the date, and the contents thereof?


Mr. KING (KOOTENAY):: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


COMPARATIVE TARIFF RATES
Mr. ADSHEAD:: The Winnipeg Tribune of May 5 gives the following table which purports to show the different rates of duties as under the old tariff and the tariff just enacted:-
Carload-	Old duty New duties
Celery	
$189	00	$450	00Tomatoes	
236	25	504	00Quart box	berries..	250	88	430	00Pint box berries..	..	245	76	366	64Cabbages	
120	00	440	00Onions	
165	00	231	001.	Is the above statement correct?2.	If so, how is the duty computed?


Mr. EULER:: .
1: No.
2. Duties are being computed in accordance with the resolutions submitted to parliament on the 1st of May, 1930.


PRODUCTION OF BUTTER IN CANADA
Mr. GIROUARD:: 1.	What quantity of butter was produced in Canada during the years 1927, 1928, 1929?
2.	What was the consumption of butter during the said years?
3.	What quantity of: (a) milk; (b) cream; was produced in Canada during the years, 1927, 1928, 1929?
4.	Wliat quantity of: (a) milk; (b) cream; was exported to the United States during the said years?
5.	What quantity of cheese was produced in Canada during the years 1927, 1928, 1929?
6.	What quantity of cheese was exported during the said years?
Mr. MALCOLM;
1. Canada's production of butter during the calendar years 1927, 1928 and 1929, was:
Years	Pounds
1927		 271,978,947
1928		 258,027,039
1929	Not available
2. Canada's consumption of butter during the calendar years 1927, 1928 and 1929, was:
Years	Pounds
1927		 273,431,070
1928		 280,657,076
1929	Not available
3.	Canada's production of (a) milk; (b) cream, during the years 1927, 1928 and 1929, was:
Questions
Years	(a) Milk (b) Cream
Pounds	Pounds
1927		 14.825,821,086 No separate
1928	 14,512,897,961	statistics
1929		Not available compiled
4.	Canada's domestic exports of (a) milk; (b) cream, to the United States during the calendar years 1927, 1928 and 1929, were:
Years	(a) Milk	(b) Cream
Gal.	Gal.
1927	
3,673,242	4,044,0731928	
3,959,812	3,042,7041929	
3,291,819	2,385,7545.	Canada's production of cheese during the calendar years 1927, 1928 and 1929, was:Years	Pounds1927	
138,472,3251928	
145,019,6781929	Not available6.	Canada's domestic exports of cheese during the calendar years 1927, 1928 and 1929, were:Years	Pounds1927	
110.533,0001928	
114,152,5001929	
92,946,100


EMIGRATION TO THE UNITED STATES-TAXATION
Mr. BOULANGER:: 1.	Does the Canadian government impose a tax on Canadians who migrate to the United States?
2.	Does the American government collect a tax from Canadians entering the United States?
3.	If so, what amount in each case?


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: 1.	No.
2.	Yes, from immigrants.
3.	$8 in the case of No. 2.


FRUIT IMPORTS-BRITISH PREFERENCE
Air. PECK:: What were the values of the imports under the British preferential tariff, during the last fiscal year, of fresh fruits referred to in proposed new tariff item numbered 92?


William Daum Euler: 


$148. IMPORTS-BRITISH PREFERENTIAL, INTERMEDIATE AND GENERAL TARIFFS
Edward Armour Peck: *
What were the values of the imports during the last fiscal year, under the British preferential, intermediate and general tariffs, respectively, of the class of goods referred to in proposed new tariff items numbered respectively, 87b, 87k, 306, 366, 388, 388a, 405a, 409a, 409o, 445, 445a and 445b?
Questions


William Daum Euler: 
DECREASE IN DAIRY CATTLE
Mr. GOTT:: 1.	What is the decrease in milch cows in Canada each year since 1925?
2.	What is the decrease in swine, per year, since 1925?
3.	How many pounds less of milk were used in the production of butter in Canada in 1929 than in 1925?
4.	How many pounds less of milk were used in the production of cheese in Canada in 1929 than in 1925?
5.	What was the total export from Canada for the years 1924 to 1929, inclusive, of: (a) pork; (b) bacon; (c) cheese; (d) butter; (e) milk and cream, condensed; (f) milk and cream?
6.	How much butter was produced in Canada each year, 1920 to 1930, inclusive?
7.	How much cheese was produced in Canada each year, 1920 to 1930, inclusive?


Mr. MALCOLM:: 1.	The number of milch cows in Canada, with increase or decrease, since 1925, was:
Increase (+) or
Years	No.	Decrease (-)1924	
3,726,985	-1925	
3,830,175	(+)	103,1901926	
3,839,191	(+)	9,0161927	
3,894,311	(+)	55,1201928	
3,792,522	(-)	101,7891929	
3,778,277	(-)	14,2452.	The number of swine in Canada with increase or decrease, since 1925, was:
Increase (-(-) or
Years	No.	Decrease (-)1924	
5,069,181	-1925	
4,426,148	(-)	643,0331926	
4,359,582	(-)	66,5661927	
4,694,789	(+)	335,2071928	
4,497,367	(-)	197,4221929	
4,381,725	(-)	115,642

3.	Statistics for dairying, 1929, not available. Comparing 1928 with 1925 there were 373,567,232 less pounds of milk used for butter production in 1928 than in 1925.
4.	Statistics for dairying, 1929, not available. Comparing 1928 with 1925 there were 241,336,965 less pounds of milk used for cheese production in 1928 than in 1925.
5.	Canada's domestic exports of (a) pork, (b) bacon, (c) cheese, (d) butter, (e) milk and cream, condensed, (f) milk and cream, during the calendar years 1924 to 1929, inclusive, were:
(a) Pork, fresh, chilled or frozen-
Years	Pounds	$1924	7,951,200	1,281,3021925	9,429,800	1,809,9451926	10,009,700	2,257,1471927	15,646,200	3,141,4401928	7,936,300	1,565,7081929	3,945,400	788,760(a) 'Pork, dry salted-	Years	Pounds	$1924	5,308,200	714,6291925	5,690,100	1,040,9981926	4,775,900	1,067,0361927	5,692,400	1,054,3511928	1,645,000	303,8391929	4,401,800	873,738(a) Pork, pickled-	Years	Pounds	$1924	1,516,100	176,0071925	2,166,500	288,0771926	2,012,800	327,3661927	3,175,700	528,6861928	1,433,500	191,0211929	1,837,500	194,039(b) Bacon and hams, shoulders and sides-	Years	Pounds	$1924	113,395,700	19,991,6361925	132,522,900	29,055,4901926	93,185,000	22,768,7821927	58,067,400	12,421,7551928	41,339,300	8,722,8171929	28,772,700	6,868,646(c) Cheese-	Years	Pounds	$1924	121,465,600	22,375,7871925	150,742,900	34,575,9801926	134,656,600	24,857,8681927	110,533,000	22,012,5431928	114,152,500	25,467,6421929	92,946,100	18,503,575(d) Butter-	Years	Pounds	$1924	22,343,939	8,000,5121925	26,646,535	9,917,5161926	9,814,000	3,352,8291927	2,696,000	1,068,6101928	1,994,800	805,0551929	1,400,400	583,065
Private Bills
(e) Milk, condensed, canned or preserved-
Years	Pounds	$1924	
47,515,600	5,319,3641925	
47,683,600	5,088,4411926	
41,249,500	4,522,6731927	
40,209,100	4,208,9751928	
32,006,700	3,463,7091929	
31,982,200	3,625,361
(f) Milk and cream-
Years	Pounds	$1924	
6,185,101	5,851,7731925	
8,391,680	7,784,2221926	
9,258,834	8,572,4481927	
7,718,158	7,850,0321928	
7,003,230	6,460,3191929	
5,677,573	5,661,7926.	Canada's production of butter, calendar years 1920 to 1930, was as under:Years	Pounds1920	
215,179,2241921	
228,744,6101922	
252,501,9001923	
162,834,6081924	
278,893,9371925	
269,494,9671926	
272,209,2871927	
271,978,9471928	
258,027,0391929	
Not available1930	
Not available
Note.-The figures for dairy butter production are estimates.
7.	Canada's production of cheese, calendar years 1920 to 1930, was as under:
Years	Pounds
1920		 149,735,417
1921		 162,617,494
1922		 136,321,116
1923		 152,124,376
1924		 150,158,004
1925		 177,672,129
1926		 172,248,376
1927		 138,472,325
1928		 145,019,678
1929	 Not available
1930	 Not available
Note.-The figures for home made cheese are estimates.


UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. FRASER:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, recommendations, memoranda, or other correspondence, between the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, or any of the departmental officials, and any person or persons relating to the
appointment of fishery guardians at Fort St. James and Fort George, British Columbia, for the season 1930.


WESLEY HAMILTON, CHESTEHVILLE
Mr. ROWE:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams and other documents passing between any person or persons and any department of the government or any official thereof, respecting a certain charge or charges laid against one Wesley Hamilton of Chesterville. for an infraction of the regulations respecting the grading of eggs, and the withdrawal of the said charge or charges.
CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS, PENSION OF LUDGER CARRIER Mr. L. K. LAFLAMME (Montmagny) (for Mr. Pouliot) moved:
For a copy of all correspondence, reports, petitions and other documents, concerning the application for a pension for Ludger Carrier, formerly an employee of the Canadian National Railways at Riviere du Loup.


Hon. J. H. KING (Minister of Pensions and National Health):: I would like to ask
the hon. member if this notice applies to war pensions or to railway pensions. If it applies to war pensions I think he should let it stand. Mr. SPEAKER: Stands.


PRIVATE BILLS
[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 139, to incorporate The Hamilton Life Insurance Company.-Mr. Bell (Hamilton
West).
Bill No. 141, for the relief of Verna Gladys Stannard-Mr. Geary.
Bill No. 142, for the relief of Christina McVicars-Mr. Lawson.
Bill No. 143, for the relief of Vivian Francis Young-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 144, for the relief of Erie Godwin Havens-Mr. Rutherford.
Bill No. 145, for the relief of Ruth Elizabeth Greene-Mr. Hepburn.
Bill No. 146, for the relief of Muriel Palmer -Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 147, for the relief of Elizabeth Anderson-Mr. Sanderson.
Bill No. 148, for the relief of Edith Elizabeth Gibson-Mr. Lawson.
Bill No. 149, for the relief of Margaret Wallace-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 150, for the relief of Mary Ellen Peever-Mr. Arthurs.
Bill No. 151, for the relief of Annie Emily Simpson-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 152, for the relief of Abraham Glea-dall-Mr. Pettit.
Bill No. 153, for the relief of Ann Pisano- Mr. Pettit.
Bill No. 154, for the relief of Florence Louise Pretoria Pollock-Mr. Black (Yukon).
Private Bills
[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 155, for the relief of Alma Vera Cochrane-Mr. Gray.
Bill No. 156, for the relief of Edith Jane Cartwright-Mr. Black (Yukon).
Bill No. 157, for the relief of Annie Hewitson Taunton-Mr. Harris.
Bill No. 158, for the relief of James Henry Loree-Mr. Hay.
Bill No. 159, for the relief of Cecelia Leta Rice-Mr. Harris.
Bill No. 160, for the relief of Audrey Lillian Connelly-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 161, for the relief of Robert Webb- Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 162, for the relief of Lillian Martha Cecile Martin-Mr. Lawson.
Bill No. 163, for the relief of Antoine Joseph Bourdon-Mr. Black (Yukon).
Bill No. 164, for the relief of Irene Clarice Bunting-Mr. Hay.
Bill No. 165, for the relief of Lawrence Wellington Robertson-Mr. Black (Yukon).
Bill No. 166, for the relief of Gordon Robert Foster-Mr. Geary.
Bill No. 167, for the relief of Andrew Chauneey Sanders-Mr. McPhee.
Bill No. 168, for the relief of Isador Simpson *-Mr. Boys.
Bill No. 169, for the relief of Royal May Frances Hider-Mr. Lawson.
Bill No. 170, for the relief of Margaret Caroline Watson-Mr. Harris.
Bill No. 171, for the relief of Myrtle Alice Niece-Mr. Young (Toronto Northeast).
Bill No. 172, for the relief of Broadus Baxter Fanner-Mr. McPhee.
Bill No. 173, for the relief of Meryl Grigg Fizzell-Mr. Arthurs.
Bill No. 174, for the relief of Mabel Ann Dixon-Mr. McQuarrie.
Bill No. 175, for the relief of Annie Pettit Nicholls-Mr. Heaps.
Bill No. 176, for the relief of Thomas William Treadway-Mr. Lawson.
Bill No. 177, for the relief of Pearl Robena Close-Mr. Ladner.
Bill No. 178, for the relief of Ivy Lillian Echlin-Mr. Boy's.
Bill No. 179, for the relief of Thomas Clifton Dawes-Mr. Sanderson.
Bill No. 180, for the relief of Herbert Dean Philip-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 181, for the relief of William Pearson-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 182, for the relief of William Woods -Mr. Young (Toronto Northeast).
Bill No. 183, for the relief of Mary Cameron McMillan-Mr. Young (Toronto Northeast)
Bill No. 184, for the relief of Bridget Gladys Vivian Tegart-Mr. Heaps.

Bill No. 185, for the relief of Charles Cob-lens.-Mr. Heaps.
Bill No. 186, for the relief of Esther Gertrude Wooder.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 187, for the relief of Eleanor Jane Moorhead.-Mr. Black (Yukon).
Bill No. 188, for the relief of Aubrey Robert Alee.-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).
Bill No. 189, for the relief of Edith Lerene Collins.-Mr. Lawson.
Bill No. 190, for the relief of Florence Ada Bark Simpson.-Mr. White (Mount Royal).
Bill No. 191, for the relief of Helen Theresa Baker.-Mr. Lawson.
Bill No. 192, for the relief of Harry Everett Marked.-Mr. Murphy.
Bill No. 193, for the relief of George Wellington Garfield Neal.-Mr. Murphy.
Bill No. 194, for the relief of Sarah Delia Baker Tribe.-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).
Bill No. 195, for the relief of Elsie Emily Disney.-Mr. Ryckman.
Bill No. 196, for the relief of Harry Douglas Towers.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 197, for the relief of Elizabeth Warga.-Mr. Sanderson.
Bill No. 198, for the relief of William Thomas Raines.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 199, for the relief of Enos Nuttall Davis.-Mr. Boys.
Bill No. 200, for the relief of Violet May McFadden.-Mr. Lawson.
Bill No. 201, to incorporate The Portage la Prairie Mutual Insurance Company.-Mr. McPherson.
Motion for third readings agreed to on division.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. H. KING (Minister of Pensions and National Health) moved that the house go into committee to-morrow to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to amend the Pension Act, to carry into effect the recommendations of the special committee on pensions and returned soldiers' problems submitted to the house on 14th May instant; and to provide for the salaries to be paid to the chairman and members of the pension tribunal, the president and members of the pension appeal court, and for pension to be granted to any member of the said bodies, or of the commission, on retirement; and for the salaries of the other proposed officials, and travelling and living expenses as prescribed;

Famous Flayers Corporation
and for the constitution of a branch of the department to be known as the veterans' bureau.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee to-morrow to consider the following proposed resolution:
That the time for receiving applications for insurance under the Returned Soldiers Insurance Act be extended for three years from the 31st August, 1930.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to
ask the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) whether he is in a position to answer the question raised on Friday last by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) regarding an alleged moving picture monopoly in Canada, the difficulties which have been experienced by the minority shareholders in the assertion of their position, and whether or not the government contemplates taking any action in the matter.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: The hon. Secretary of
State (Mr. Rinfret), anticipating that reference would be made to this matter, left with me a memorandum in connection with it. I do not know whether or not it is the wish of my hon. friend that that memorandum should be read to the house or laid on the table.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If the right hon. gentleman would read it, it would be available on Hansard. A great many people are interested in this matter, and I have received many communications in connection therewith.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The memorandum prepared for the Secretary of State and signed by the Under-Secretary of State, reads as follows:
Ottawa, May 19, 1930.
Famous Players Canadian Corporation, Limited, was incorporated on the 23rd of January, 1920, under the provisions of The Companies Act.
The capital structure has since been modified, and according to the last annual return, made under section 137 of The Companies Act, dated 12th May, 1930, the authorized capital is given as 600,000 shares without nominal or par value. Of these 378,395 have been taken up.
There is outstanding an issue of $3,000,000 debentures and $6,000,000 of bonds.
The names and addresses of the directors are:
Adolph Zukor, president, address: Paramount Famous Lasky Corporation, New York City.
Sir William Wiseman, address: Paramount Famous Lasky Corporation, New York City.
S. R. Kent, address:	Paramount Famous
Lasky Corporation, New York City.
I. W. Killam, address: Royal Securities Corporation, Montreal.
W. J. Sheppard, address: Waubaushene, Ont.
J.	B. Tudhope, address: Orillia, Ont.
J. P. Bickell. vice-president, address: Standard Bank Building, Toronto.
Arthur Cohen, address:	1200 Royal Bank
Building, Toronto.
The prospectus issued to the public in March, 1929, referred to in Mr. Stevens' statement, is not on file in the department.
So far as the Department of the Secretary of State is concerned, the government has not been apprized of any circumstances connected with the sale of the Famous Players Canadian Corporation. Limited, to the Paramount Famous Lasky Corporation.
It is difficult to understand why any reference to the government on this subject should be made. The Companies Act does not confer upon the Department of the Secretary of State or any other department of the government any authority to intervene in any action which may be taken by the shareholders in accordance with the provisions of the act. If the provisions of the act have not been completely complied with any relief upon the subject would be afforded by the courts.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Rather than unnecessarily take up time in moving the adjournment of the house in order to discuss this matter, I shall simply point out to the Prime Minister that there are three questions which it seems to me might be considered by this parliament and settled by governmental action. The first is in connection with the amendment of the Companies Act so as to provide for the control of a medium, not only of amusement but of education of this type. Considerable discussion has taken place as to whether companies carrying on this business should not be under the control of Canadian directors.
The second question which I have been asked to submit to the house is as to whether or not the present condition is not a violation of the Combines Act, and the third question is as to the rights of minority shareholders.
The question raised by the parties interested must be settled by the courts, as we

Famous Players Corporation
have nothing to do with that. The only-question to be considered is the policy to be pursued in a matter of such national importance, in view of the fact that it is alleged that production, distribution and exhibition of films are controlled by a company controlled and managed in a foreign country. This might create a condition which would necessitate governmental action, and this house should consider whether or not, before prorogation, governmental action should be taken so as to safeguard an interprovincial and a national business. This matter concerns the provinces from British Columbia to Prince Edward Island. It is not only with the films themselves we are concerned, but there is involved in the question the buildings in which such films are exhibited. I suppose the right hon. gentleman has seen the press report of the meeting which took place in Toronto a few days ago, at which meeting a very large number of Canadian shareholders expressed grave concern, not with respect to their investment but with respect to the national aspect of the question. I quite agree with the statement of the Under-Secretary of State that the rights of individual and minority shareholders in matters of this kind do not concern this parliament. That is a matter for the courts, but we should consider the national aspect of the question. The government might well consider the broad question of amendments which might be made to the Companies and other acts to meet the situation.


Hon. PETER HEENAN (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I had no information
that this question would be asked to-day. My hon. friend must realize that it is hardly right to discuss matters which are to be investigated under the Combines Investigation Act, but for his information I would state that this company is now being investigated.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I understand it is being
investigated in the United States.


OWNERSHIP OF LANDS BY ORIENTALS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. G. McQUARRIE (New Westminster) :: Mr. Speaker, might I be permitted to direct the Prime Minister's attention to a resolution standing in my name, being number 8 on page 18 of the orders of the day, suggesting a reference to the Supreme Court of Oanad*a on certain matters affecting orientals in Canada. May I -ask if the right 
hon. the Prime Minister will afford facilities for the discussion of that resolution before the close of the session? He no doubt realizes that there are matters involved in this resolution which are more or less uncertain, and I understand that the right hon. Prime Minister has written some letters regarding this matter. There seems to be some uncertainty as to the respective powers of the provinces and the Dominion. I do not think that this resolution would involve much discussion, because it is not controversial in character, but if it is impossible to bring it up for discussion, I would like to know if the government would take steps, without the passage of this resolution, to have such a reference submitted to the supreme court. The Prime Minister is quite familiar with the questions involved and I have no doubt that he appreciates the necessity for the reference.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, had my hon. friend given me any intimation of his intention to ask this question I would have been in -a better position to reply to him. However, my experience is that at the end of every session several hon. members ask for some special privilege regarding resolutions which they have on the order paper, but which have not been taken up. In the past it has not been possible to grant such a privilege to one hon. member and refuse it to another, and I am afraid if the door is opened by setting aside a time for the discussion of matters which do not come up in the regular order, we will be putting ourselves under obligations which it may be difficult to meet. I would not like to say more than this at the present time, but I will think the matter over.


William Garland McQuarrie: Would the government consider submitting this reference without the necessity of discussing the resolution itself?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Perhaps the
Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) could take that under consideration.


FASCIST FILMS SHOWN IN OTTAWA
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. S. WOODWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I asked a question on Friday of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) regarding the reported activities of the Fascists in Canada, to which I have not as yet received an answer.


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I have asked for information regarding this question, but as yet I have not received a report.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. JEAN FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata):: Mr. Speaker, I was not in the house
when the notice of motion for production of papers which stands in my name was called. For the information of the hon. minister, I would state that this notice of motion refers to a pension to be paid by the Canadian National Railways and not by the Pensions department.



WAYS AND MEANS


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Sir Eugene Fiset in the chair.
2. Resolved, that the customs tariff, being chapter forty-four of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1927, be amended by repealing subsection two of section six thereof and by substituting the following therefor:-
(2) Excise duties or excise taxes shall be disregarded in estimating the market value of goods for the purpose of special duty when the goods are entitled to entry under the British preferential tariff, intermediate tariff or any more favourable tariff.
The CHAIRMAN (Sir Eugene Fiset):: This resolution was amended by adding thereto the following as section 2a:
2a. Customs duties of the United Kingdom shall be disregarded in estimating the market value of goods for the purposes of special duty when the goods are entitled to entry under the intermediate tariff or any more favourable tariff and are bottled in bond in the United Kingdom and imported direct therefrom.


Mr. CAHAN:: When the committee were discussing this item on Thursday and Friday of last week, I called attention to the fact that in the province of Quebec a number of factories were deeply interested in the matter under consideration and the bon. member for Lincoln also directed attention to the fact that in his own constituency and elsewhere in the province of Ontario a number of silk factories were also concerned. In order that I may present my views more clearly before the committee, I wish to state generally that this item affects particularly the broad silk industry of this country and importations from Japan of silk of that class and description. The broad silk industry was started in Canada by the incorporation of the Bruck Silk mills at Cowansville, Quebec, in December, 1921. That was the first really substantial effort made with respect to the production of silk cloths in this country. According to returns which are published in the financial journals, that company now has SSOO.OOO invested. It began to market its production in Canada in 1923, and this initial
enterprise was followed by the incorporation in 1923 of two other companies which commenced operations in 1924.
From this small beginning there are to-day eight silk plants in Quebec and six silk plants in Ontario in actual operation, and another plant of very considerable size is projected and I understand is now under way for the production of broad silk alone at Valleyfield, Quebec. The total looms installed number about 1,200, and when the proposed plant at Valleyfield is in operation, 200 looms will be added, making about 1,400 looms in all. In addition to this there are certain Canadian celanese factories, some of them in Quebec, with approximately 500 looms. These factories make a product that is being and has been used in recent months to take the place of Japanese importations. This would make a total productive capacity of about 1,700 looms actually installed, with 200 more about to be installed, or a total of 1.900 looms which will give employment to approximately 1,200 people as wage earners. The proposal under discussion affects all of these people of whom no less than 1,400 are resident in Quebec.
I have gathered from the technical returns published a statement regarding a number of these factories in both Quebec and Ontario. This is an industry which is located largely in towns of comparatively small population where the employment given is of great advantage to the people living in those smaller communities. At Cowansville in Mis-sisquoi county, which is represented by the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi, there is the Bruck Silk Mills, Limited, which has a capital investment of $800,000. This was the company which was incorporated in 1921 and to which I made reference. According to the latest returns which I could find, it has 240 broad looms suitable for and actually engaged in the manufacture of broad silk cloths. It has 5.600 spindles et cetera. This is a most important industry in Cowansville which, according to recent returns, has a population of less than 1,200.
At Drummondville in the constituency of Drummond-Arthabaska, which is represented by one of my hon. friends opposite, there is a silk company known as Roessel, Louis, and Company, Limited. It manufactures broad silks and has about 1,800 spindles and 100 looms for the manufacture of this special silk cloth.
There is at St. Hyacinthe the Consolidated Silk Mills, Limited. St. Hyacinthe is a manufacturing town of some considerable importance. It has a population, however, under 12,000 people. The Consolidated Silk Mills,
2218	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
Limited, manufactures at St. Hyaeinthe broad silks, and they have, I understand, about fifty looms in operation although the company was only recently established. In Acton-vale, in the constituency of Bagot there is now operating the Silk Mills of Canada, Limited. It manufactures broad silks, and I have here a list of the classes of broad silks which the company manufactures. They have one hundred looms engaged in these operations. At Cap de la Madeleine, in Champlain county, represented also by one of my hon. friends opposite, there is the Canadian T.S.R. of Lyons, Limited, which has one hundred broad silk looms in operation at the present time. In addition, there is the British American Silk Mills, Limited, of Montreal, which manufactures broad silks, with about forty looms in operation. Then there is at Louiseville, in Maskinonge county, in the constituency of Berthier-Maskinoruge, represented by my hon. friend opposite, Mr. Gervais, the Associated Textiles of Canada, Limited, which has one hundred looms in operation.
I looked into the returns from the province of Ontario as well, and I found that at Brantford in the county of Brant, Ontario, there was the Dover Silks, Limited, operating forty looms; the Niagara Silks, Limited, also operating at Brantford, with seventy-six broad silk looms and five hundred and forty silk spindles, and so on. At Brantford also Slingsby Silks, Limited, manufacture broad silks. At Galt, in Waterloo county, Ontario, Newlands and Company, Limited, manufacture broad silks, having twenty-four broad silk looms and seven thousand spindles in operation. Also at Galt there is the firm of Stauffer-Dobbie, Limited, which has twenty-five broad silk looms. There is also at Galt the Riverside Silk Mills, manufacturing broad silks; I have not the specifications with regard to their plant installations. At Port Dover, in the constituency of Norfolk-Elgin, there is the Dover Silks, Limited, which was established in 1S128, and has at present in operation twenty-four looms. At St. Catharines, in the constituency represented by my hon. friend the member for Lincoln there is Grout's, Limited, which also manufactures broad silks and is reported by the trade to be one of the largest and most efficient mills in the province of Ontario if not in Canada. At Toronto, I find the E. and J. Silk Company, Limited, which first began operations in 1923 manufacturing broad silks, and which has at present in operation some forty-two broad silk looms and thirty ribbon looms. Then there is the Otto Jaegge and Sons, Limited, at Toronto, also manufacturing broad silks. So this is an industry of very considerable importance to a number of towns 'Mr. Gahan,1
in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario.
My hon. friend the Minister of Finance was somewhat mistaken, I think the other night with regard to the circumstances under which the present dumping duty against Japan was first levied. I suggested at the time that he was splitting hairs in the discussion, and as he left it to the committee to decide who was splitting hairs I wish to draw particular attention to the law governing the case. Under the customs tariff, chapter 44 of the revised statutes of Canada, 1927, section 6 was enacted with respect to the special or dumping duty. This clause was enacted so far as I can ascertain in 1907, where it appeared in the statutes of 1907, chapter 11, as section 6. I quote:
In the case of articles exported to Canada of a class or kind made or produced in Canada, if the export or actual selling price to an importer in Canada is less than the fair market value of the same article when sold for home consumption in the usual and ordinary course in the country whence exported to Canada at the time of its exportation to Canada, there shall, in addition to the duties otherwise established, be levied, collected and paid on such article, on its importation into Canada, a special or dumping duty, equal to the difference between the said selling price of the article for export and the said fair market value thereof for home consumption; and such 'special or dumping duty shall be levied, collected and paid on such article, although it is not otherwise dutiable.
Then follow some few lines which do not apply to the present case, and then comes subsection 2, which is all-important. I quote:
6 (2). Excise duties shall be disregarded in estimating the market value of goods for the purposes of special duty when the goods are entitled to entry under the British preferential tariff.
There was there a clear enactment, I suggest, to the effect that a special exemption would be made in favour of exports from those countries which come under the British preferential tariff; but there was a clear and emphatic provision in the statute to the effect that, excepting those exports which come from countries entitled to the British preferential tariff, the foreign excise duties should not be disregarded. Now the amendment proposed by the Minister of Finance to that section which I have just read simply retains the express words of the section as it previously existed and adds the words " or intermediate tariff or any more favourable tariff." So that the clear intention of this amendment is to exempt not only the countries which are entitled to the British preferential tariff, but those other countries which enjoy the intermediate or any more favourable tariff. My hon. friend is proposing now a specific enactment which will have this dual effect. First, it will take from the

Ways and. Means-Customs Tariff
British exporters of silk goods a -certain preference which they now have over foreign countries in the markets of Canada; that is, it will limit the British preference. In the second place, it gives to the manufacturers of Japan and other foreign countries, which do not come under the British preferential tariff, a much more favourable entry for their exports of silk into the Canadian markets, where they come into competition with the products of our own mills.
My hon. friend made an elaborate comparison between the imports into Canada from Japan for the years 1928 and 1929, and from his statement he seemed to be under an entire misapprehension as to when this provision came into effect with respect to Japanese exports. For instance, -the present Japanese trade arrangements with Canada came into force in 1913. At the time Japan was well aware of the existence of the tariff act of 1907, the terms of which have continued to be in force down to May 1st this year, when the budget was announced. Japan, I am instructed-, some time after the great earthquake first imposed an excise tax upon silk products.


Mr. DUNNING:: Does my hon. friend
know the year?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I sa-id it was after the
great earthquake that some special taxes were brought into force in Japan. That earthquake happened in the summer of 19123, but as a matter of fact the dumping duty was not brought into effect as against Japan for several years -after the earthquake. The exact date that the excise duty was imposed in Japan I do not know and I have not been able to ascertain. But according to file No. 145080, by circular of May 6, 1929, purchasers' bulletin No. 3569, purchasers of Japanese silk goods in -Canada were notified that:
According to Japanese government authorities there is levied in Japan- a consumption tax of 10 per cent of the value of the textiles of domestic manufacture as sold to purchasers for home consumption.
That was the first notice, I am instructed, that the trade had of the bringing into force of this extra duty against Japanese silk. This circular was issued on May 6, 1929. Therefore the excise tax could not have been considered by the department of customs prior to that date in imposing the extra dirmpage tax on importations of silk fabrics.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am afraid my hon
friend is wrong, because the old regulation under which the department of customs had been operating from 1919 onwards was cancelled on June 28, 1928, effective August 1, 1928.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Quite so. Nevertheless I
am instructed by those dealers that although the department issued on June 28, 1928, a circular providing that the dumping clause should not apply to goods purchased before that date and imported before August, 192S, it apparently was not brought to the notice of the department that a consumption tax had been imposed in Japan, and I am instructed that as a matter of fact the department did not take notice of the imposition of that consumption tax before it issued its circular to the trade of May 6, 1929. Furthermore, that is borne out to a large extent by the returns showing imports into this country of raw silks since that date, because the importations of raw silks have largely increased; and on the other hand the importations of silk fabrics from Japan have very considerably decreased in the months since May 6, 1929. So that if the date, as I am instructed it is, is correct, it applies only to the trade returns after May 6, 1929, and therefore it applies only to the eleven months of the fiscal year 1929-30.
Now, my hon. friend made some criticism of the manufacture of silks in Canada. I quote from page 2171 of the Hansard of Friday, May 16:
Mr. Dunning:	To close the discussion, may
I say to my hon. friend that they must have known what the Canadian tariff was when they established their factory at St. Catharines.
He is dealing there with the establishment of the silk factory at St. Catharines in the county of Lincoln to which I referred.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is no criticism.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: We will not split hairs over words of that kind, if you please. It was a suggestion, then, that when they started their factory away back in 1923, or whatever the year was, they should have called the attention of the department to the fact that a change was needed by them, if such a change would be in their interest. But I quote:
[DOT]-they knew perfectly well at the time they established their business that what has since happened in respect to the application of the dumping duty was not then in operation. It was merely a legal quirk, a legal twist, which brought it into operation. This parliament made no change.
Mr. Cahan:	The government did, by order
in council.
Mr. Dunning:	Legally it was discovered that
the dump did apply and that the imposition of excise duties in any country automatically rendered the goods exported to this country liable to the dump. This was not an action by this parliament, and I wish to draw a clear distinction there.
I suggest that the hon. minister was splitting hairs, because when, in 1907, the parliament of Canada deliberately enacted section 6, paragraph 2, in the form in which it appears at
2220	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
the present time, it deliberately declared that the paragraph was operative except in respect of those countries entitled to the British preferential tariff. Excise taxes and duties would be regarded in estimating the market value, and when parliament had declared its deliberate intention to that effect the promoters of these factories, the companies which initiated this new and flourishing business in Canada, knew, from the statutes of Canada, that parliament had deliberately declared that if the Japanese government should impose thereafter a consumption tax it would be taken into consideration in estimating the dumping duty against Japanese products entering the Canadian market.
On the other hand, in 1913 when the Japanese government made its new trade arrangement with Canada, which was in the same year, incorporated into an act of this parliament, the Japanese government knew full well that if they imposed a consumption tax in Japan, such tax would correspondingly raise the minimum of duty imposed in Canada on importations of silk fabrics from Japan into Canada. There is therefore no ground under the Japanese trade arrangements for making this change in favour of the Japanese factories. It seems to me that in making the change proposed in the budget of May 1 there is an attempt to take away the preference in the Canadian market held by the factories of Great Britain over the factories of Japan. When I asked the hon. gentleman on whose initiative these changes were made which place the Canadian silk factories in jeopardy I was informed that certain importers had asked for the changes, and the names of Eaton's and Simpson's were mentioned. In Hansard at page 2156 I find the following:
Mr. Dunning:	If my hon. friend will permit
me, the largest importers in the country made representations, people like Eaton's and Simpson's.
I am glad to learn from the answer of the minister that His Excellency the Minister Plenipotentiary from Canada to Japan, Hon. H. M. Marler, did not initiate a change which is likely to prove so disastrous to many of the industries now established in his own province. This request is made by the importers I have mentioned, however. In the course of trade importers such as those mentioned can buy job lots of silk fabrics from Japan-


Charles Avery Dunning: 
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I have no doubt their
statement would be general because in the ordinary course of their business where they can buy in a slaughter market abroad and bring in fabrics to sell cheaply in this market in which the standard price in this country is established by the cost price of production, they can make much larger profits as jobbers and distributors than it would be possible for them to make if they bought Canadian goods supplied to all the dealers throughout the country. It is a very serious question, however, when this government through its Minister of Finance declares that jobbers of that class are to be preferred over manufacturers established in this country-


Charles Avery Dunning: I said no suoh thing.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: -who are supplying the
same class of goods.


Charles Avery Dunning: I said no such thing.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: There is no other inference which could be drawn reasonably and equitably in view of the statement on Friday last of the hon. gentleman. The proposed amendment to subsection 2, section 6, chapter 44 of the revised statutes, the Customs Tariff Act, so far as silk importations are concerned, applies chiefly to silk products from Japan which enter under items 560 and 560a. Item 560 is as follows:
Woven fabrics, wholly or in chief part by weight of silk in the gum, not degummed or bleached, not less than 20 inches in width, imported for the purpose of being degummed, dyed and finished in Canada.
Item 560a is:
. Woven fabrics, wholly of silk, exceeding 26 inches in width.
Under these two items the larger quantities are imported from Japan into Canada. I find, however, that there are importations under section 560b and 560c. I have before me a comparison showing the results upon the importations of silk fabrics into Canada from Japan, comparing the five months from November, 1928, to March, 1929, and the five months from November, 1929, to March, 1930. These figures show that under the dumping duty as then applied the yardage from Japan was very largely decreased. Comparing November, 1928, with November, 1929, there was a decrease from 410,825 yards to 148,024 yards.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: That is under item 560.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Yes, item 560 only. Making a similar comparison under item 560, the importation of 412,743 yards in December, 1928,

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
decreased to 245,240 yards in 1929. Under the same item 560, comparing January, 1929, with January, 1930, there was a reduction in imports from 640,487 yards to 305,662 yards. Comparing February, 1929, with February, 1930, there was a reduction of imports from Japan under this one item from 508,720 yards to 312,719 yards, and * comparing March, 1929 with March, 1930, there wras still a reduction, though not so great, from 555,338 yards to 409,430 yards. Comparing the five months of one term with the five months of the other to which I have referred, there was a reduction in our imports from Japan under item 560 from 2,528,113 yards to 1,421,075 yards, showing that the Canadian factories were able to utilize and supply the Canadian market.
Now let us consider item 560a, and make the same comparison for the same months. In November, 1928, there was an importation from Japan of 352,312 yards which in November of 1929 was reduced to 88,228 yards; in December, 1928, there was an importation under this item of 416,110 yards, which in December, 1929, was reduced to 210,449 yards.


Eugène Fiset: The hon. gentleman's time has expired.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: My friend the Minister of Finance may take notice that he can enforce the rales, but we are going to discuss this ' item thoroughly.


Charles Avery Dunning: My friend is very unfair; the Minister of Finance never said a word about the rules. The Chairman called attention to the fact that my hon. friend's time had expired.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I think my hon. friend directed the attention of the Chairman to the fact.


Mr. CANNON:: My hon. friend only has to sit down and then get up again; we are in committee.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That should be quite unnecessary, but I will get up again later.


James Dew Chaplin: Mr. Chairman, the other
day when the minister was discussing the trade of Japan, he evidently overlooked the fact that under this very item there came from the United States to Canada something over 84,000,000 worth of raw silk.


Charles Avery Dunning: In what year?


James Dew Chaplin: The imports of silk and
its products shown in the trade returns as coming from Japan do not give a true picture of the total Canadian consumption of Japanese silk, since a large amount of Japanese raw
silk is imported through the United States and appears in our trade returns not as an importation from Japan but as an importation from the United States. In this item is included, during the fiscal year ending March 31, 1929, raw silk to the value of $4,528,205 which, when added to the imports of silk and its products received directly from Japan for the same period, brings the total up to $12,6^3,000. That is just in one article, raw silk and its products.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend is sure
that silk came from Japan?


James Dew Chaplin: No, but since 85 per cent of all the natural silk in the world comes from Japan it is quite natural and reasonable to suppose that the great bulk of this silk came from that country. That is the position I take in respect to that matter.
In respect to the importations under item 560, which refers to woven fabrics, which were just placed in Hansard by my hon. friend who spoke before me, I want to fill out the importations under item 560 in the yardage from Japan during the five months term of November to March. The other day, when I was discussing the matter, the minister said the two years were so much alike that he could not see where the manufacturers of Canada were being injured. I pointed out to him that within two months from the time this order went into effect with respect to this dumping law the trade with Japan was affected.


Charles Avery Dunning: What two months? I
hope my hon. friend will not be offended because I have asked him this question; my reason for asking it is because his colleague from St. Lawrence-St. George mentioned what I had not previously known, if it turns out to be correct, that the silk trade was not aware of the rescission of the order of August 1, 1928, until the following May.


James Dew Chaplin: It did not come into effect until August 15.


Charles Avery Dunning: August 1, 1928.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: No, it did not come into effect until May of 1929, in actual practice, or at least I am so informed by those who are in the trade and should know. They have shown me the circulars they received from the department.


Charles Avery Dunning: The actual date of the
coming into force of the order was August 1, 1928, and apparently my hon. friend from Lincoln is going on the same information I have.
t	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


James Dew Chaplin: I understand that the
order was to come into effect on August 1, and consequently-


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: But it was not applied to
the trade in silks until May, 1929.


Charles Avery Dunning: If that is the case, how could it affect the trade?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Well, it did not come into
effect until then.


James Dew Chaplin: I am afraid I am going
to prove that it did have some effect. At any rate, Mr. Chairman, as I understand it from the manager of the mill from which I get my information, the order did not come into effect until August.


Charles Avery Dunning: August of 1928?


James Dew Chaplin: Yes. He naturally
assumed that it would be some time before any change would begin to show. Orders were on the way; no doubt some were on the water, and consequently he takes his figures, as far as his returns are concerned in order to prove his case, from November of 1928, and I am placing on Hansard now in respect to item 560, the customs returns showing the importations from Japan. For November of 1928, the returns show 410,825 yards imported, as against 148,024 yards imported in November of 1929.


Charles Avery Dunning: I have the figures in
dollars.


James Dew Chaplin: I have them as well in
dollars. The value in dollars for that month is $231,537 as against $101,307. For December, 1928, the yardage is 412,743 as against 245,240 for 1928. The dollar value for 1928 is $225,408 as against $130,518 for 1929.


Charles Avery Dunning: There seems to be some difference in our figures.


James Dew Chaplin: This covers item 560,
woven fabrics wholly or in chief part by weight of silk in the gum, not degummed or bleached.


Charles Avery Dunning: There must be something wrong with my hon. friend's figures, as the figures given to me by the customs department do not correspond with his.


James Dew Chaplin: The statistical department gave me some figures over the telephone which corresponded with those I read the other day.


Charles Avery Dunning: I have the figures for 1930 as well.


James Dew Chaplin: I have the figures down
to March, 1930.


Charles Avery Dunning: What figures has my hon friend for March, 1930, so that we may check up?
fMr Dnnning.il


James Dew Chaplin: The figure for Japan for
March, 1929, is $298,318 and for 1930, $213,619.


Charles Avery Dunning: Our figures seem to be
completely out; my figures for March, 1929, are $362,000 and March, 1980, $283,000 giving the round figures. That is for woven silk cloth in the gum.


James Dew Chaplin: Item 560a, which is woven fabrics wholly of silk, exceeding twenty-six inches in width-


Charles Avery Dunning: That is not in the gum, that is woven silk fabrics?


James Dew Chaplin: Yes, but exceeding twenty-six inches in width. The figures for that item for November, 1928 are 352,311 yards as against 88,000 yards for 1929. The value is $120,982 for 1928, as against $29,590 for 1929. Has the minister those figures?


Charles Avery Dunning: I have not those comparative figures.


James Dew Chaplin: I will put them on record, as I understand they came from the department. They are as follows:
	Yardage	Value
December, 1928	. . 416,110	$133,794December, 1929	. . 210,449	66.468January, 1929.	. . . 743,413	236,463January, 1930.	. . . 539,794	157.492February, 1929.	. . . 652.931	209,383February, 1930.	. . . 395,024	110,303March, 1929. .	. . . 1,101.256	353.854March, 1930. .	. . . 588,292	164,597The totals for	the five months	period of1928-29 as compared with the same	period in1929-30, are as follows:	Yardage	Value1928-29	. . 3,266,021 $1,054,476	1929-30-	. . 1.821,787	528,450
These figures show a very considerable reduction in both yardage and value, applying not only to item 560 but to item 560a.
I would like to supplement my remarks of the other day with respect to wages. I have in my hand a comparative wage scale prepared by the United States tariff commission which gives the rate of wages for the United States, Switzerland, Germany, France, Italy, China and Japan. The highest wages paid in silk manufacture are those paid in the United States. The weekly wage paid to weavers in the different countries is as follows:
Weekly
wage
United	States	 $34	27
Switzerland		10 18
France	
6	31Japan	
2	54
Apparently they are in need of the unionization of labour in Japan in order to increase their rates of wages.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Charles Avery Dunning: Was that last figure for
France?


James Dew Chaplin: No, for Japan. That rate of wage seems to be astounding, but there is a note with reference to that wage to the effect that some allowance is made for meals. While I was at home I received a statement from the manager of the factory at St. Catharines to the effect that weavers are paid an average of $29 per week.


Mr. YOUNG (Weyburn):: Could the hon.
member give us the figures as to the wage cost in the production of silks; I mean, how much of the total wages goes into the making of a yard of silk? I would like to have that figure for the United States as well as the other countries.


James Dew Chaplin: If you figure all the labour cost in Japan in producing a yard of silk, it will not amount to very much. If you take $2.54 a week and allow another 50 per cent on top of that for the food that may be given, it will mean around $4. That, however, is two and one-half times less than they are paying in Switzerland, and the rate in Switzerland is one-third of what they are paying in the United States and Canada.


Edward James Young: The hon. member cannot give us the relative figures?


James Dew Chaplin: No. I have a great deal of information. I would be very glad to get it for my hon. friend, because he is anxious at times for information. I have taken considerable trouble to secure the statistics I have, but unfortunately I cannot manufacture information. Wages of female weavers amount to $16 to $19 per week, the average, so I am told, in this particular factory being $17.70. There are in the mills mechanics who look after these big weaving machines and who earn a higher wage than I have mentioned, but there are not many of them and $37AO per week given as their scale of wages. It seems to me ridiculous and next door to brutal to cause a factory of this kind, one of the most efficient looking factories that a person ever saw, employing highclass people and paying a high standard of wages, to run the risk of being put out of business because we allow the product of labour at $2.50 to $4 to enter into competition.


Mr. WARD:: How many employees are
there in that factory?


James Dew Chaplin: There are 200 looms in the one plant. I do not know what that means. I suppose it means around 200 employees. Besides that, there is in the city a dyeing plant that employs sixty peoDle The
dyeing of this product is done, not in the plant itself, but outside in a silk weaving mill. We should hesitate about strafing another industry. There are in my locality mills of other types that are not running half time. This is a plant which has been established within the last five or six years; it did not get going until 1924 or 1925. and now in 1930 we begin to take its protection away from it. What does a 22i per cent tariff figure against labour at the rate of even $4 or $5 a week? It looks like giving something for nothing. Even if you had double the duty you could hardly take care of a situation of that kind.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I will simply complete the
yardage which I was giving. I followed the figures given by the hon. member for Lincoln and they are consistent with the change having been made at the date at which I say it came into effect, because his comparisons are made between five months of an anterior date and five months of a subsequent date. But taking those five months from the figures which the hon. member for Lincoln has given, and taking items 560, 560a, 560b and 560c, in the first period of five months, before the dumpage came into effect there was an importation from Japan of 5,982,044 yards. That was reduced in the latter five months' term under the dumpage to 3,348,789 yards, or a reduction of 2,633,255 yards, comparing the five-month term prior to the dumpage with the five-month term subsequent to the dump-age. That difference in yardage was supplied by Canadian factories, giving employment to a very considerable number of people.
Furthermore, I am instructed that the importations which were made from Japan by jobbers and sold in the Canadian market, were sold at only very slightly under the Canadian cost; that the profit was made by the jobbers and distributors and that the Canadian consumer, so-called, received no advantage whatever by reason of those large importations from Japan. In fact, I am advised by experts that the factories in Canada are as well equipped and as efficiently managed as any similar factory now existing in the United States, and that the product of the Canadian silk mills is never sold in Canada at as high a price as prevails in the United States markets for the product of their own mills. This is due to the very slightly decreased cost of labour in Canada as compared with that in some of the mills in northern United States. I am also instructed that the Canadian mills are far more efficiently managed than the Japanese mills, because this is a recent production in Japan, and that Japan is no better equipped for it
2224	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
by installations of machinery than we in Quebec are equipped for the manufacture of the same class of fabrics. The sole advantage Japan has is in her low labour cost and I submit again that there should be for the Canadian factory a compensating duty to cover the difference between the wage rate that prevails in any foreign country and that which exists in Canada, that is, a wage rate comparison based on equal hours of labour. It is absurd to suggest that our provincial governments shall introduce and enact legislation controlling hours of labour, precluding the employment of women at night, precluding the employment of children at any time, and then have the parliament of Canada dictate that those factories, where those humane conditions prevail shall be compelled to sell their manufactured products in their own markets in competition with the slaughtering in our markets of the surplus of those foreign countries where such low standards of living exist. That is the gist of the issue which is before this house. Furthermore, I am not entering upon a general discussion, but time and again I have impressed upon this house the absolute necessity of encouraging the establishment of small industries in our country towns and villages. The future welfare of this country to a large extent depends upon encouraging such manufacture in our smaller towns and villages in order to give employment there to a class who, to secure employment otherwise, are compelled to go to the United States and enter the factory life of that country. There is no reason in the world why the commodities covered by some hundreds at least of items in this customs tariff should not be manufactured in Canada, in Canadian factories established in the towns and villages from one end of this country to the other. At the present time, according to estimates of the United States census, there are at least
1.500.000	people Canadian-born living in the United States and engaged in industry and trade in the United States. That result is due to the fact that, according to the statements for the last calendar year, we are importing nearly $1,000,000,000 worth in round numbers of the commodities produced by the United States for consumption in this country. The United States to-day, despite the tariff that we have, dominates and controls Canadian industry by reason of the fact that we are not protected against their production. The reaction to that fact is that we have
1.500.000	people bom in Canada who are today engaged in industry and trade in the United States, obtaining employment there by producing in that country goods and commodities which are imported into Canada for
[Mr. Cahan.)
consumption. It is a large issue. It is the most important issue that can come before this house and before this country, and . therefore I think that we are justified in emphasizing the importance of this silk manufacture in Canada which has developed in recent years, and which does give employment in the province of Quebec at the present time to 1,400 people engaged on the looms alone, ' outside of the dyeing and outside of the operating of the engines and other accessory equipment. It is an industry which has 'brought encouragement and happiness to many people in many of the smaller towns, and they regard with very great apprehension the change proposed in the tariff at the present time.


William Daum Euler: I am not sure that I can add anything of interest to what has been said. My hon. friends opposite, quite properly from their point of view, have debated this question from the standpoint of protection to silk manufacturing in Canada, and they have cited examples of low wages and that kind of thing which gives the Japanese and other foreigners a great advantage over the Canadian manufacturer who is paying higher wages.
I am entirely in agreement, and I have said so before in this house, with those on the other side or on this side who think that the low cost of production in foreign countries might very well foe taken into consideration when we fix our own tariff. I still think that.
In connection with this excise duty on silk,
I am not sure whether the committee has all the facts. They are very simple. In Japan, on the sale of silk at home, at 10 per cent excise tax is added. That adds to the home consumption value. If the silk is sold for $1, for instance, with the tax it would sell for $1.10. That would be the price that would have to be taken into consideration When it is imported into Canada, and it might involve the dump. When the goods are sold to Canada or any other country outside of Japan that excise tax is not paid. But so far as the purpose of establishing the dump is concerned, you must take the value at which the goods are sold in Japan, the country of origin.


James Dew Chaplin: That is the fair market value.


William Daum Euler: That would be the fair
market value in Japan. Perhaps my hon. friends would also agree with me in this, that when we come to the establishing of a dump, this factor should be borne in mind, namely, the cost of production in the country of origin, plus a reasonable profit. If they are selling below the home market price, of course a dump is established. But the benefit to the

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
manufacturer or exporter in the country of origin should be taken into consideration. As a matter of fact, in regard to this excise tax, when the manufacturer exports to Canada or when he sells those goods at home, he gets absolutely no benefit as such from the application of the excise tax, because that goes to the Japanese government.
The point I got up to make is this, and it has been made before by the Minister of Finance. Our friends opposite have argued this question from the point of view of protection. They may be quite right in that; but if it is a matter of protecting the Canadian manufacturer of silk, it does seem to me that this is not the proper method of doing it. This excise tax which involves the application of the dump, and which may serve as additional protection for the Canadian manufacturer, might disappear to-morrow by the action of the Japanese (government, over which we have no control whatever-a circumstance which my hon. friends will admit does not provide a very safe way of protecting any industry, if we want to talk protection. For instance, the Japanese government might put on an excise tax of 50 per cent to-morrow or the next day, or it might wipe out the excise tax altogether. The point I make is this, that it is an entirely fortuitous circumstance which essentially has nothing to do with the matter of tariffs or protection. If my hon. friends argue that because of lower costs in Japan, because labour is cheaper, there should be a higher protection or safeguarding, as my hon. friends might say, of the Canadian silk industry, I should think that is a proper subject of consideration for a higher tariff. But this matter of excise tax is entirely outside our control and should not be regarded as a safe factor in the matter of providing protection, if you wish to call it such, for the Canadian manufacturer. That would be my argument. It does seem to me that it should not enter into the question so far as the dump is concerned. My hon. friends should not forget that the adding of an excise tax to the home price does not preclude our charging customs tax on the value, including the excise tax in the country of origin. It involves only the question of the dump.
Something was suggested about the cost of labour in Japan. I have no doubt that that cost is a great deal lower in Japan than in this country. But I am also told, and I think it is pertinent to the discussion, that whereas there is now the 22i per cent tariff against Japanese silk, the cost of the labour that enters into the manufacture of silk in Canadian mills is only something like 26 per cent. -So the disparity is not as great perhaps as 2419-141
my hon. friends thought. But if it is a matter of providing greater protection, if you like, to the Canadian manufacturer, this does not seem to me the proper method of doing it, because it cannot be depended upon. It may be wiped out at a moment's notice by the Japanese government. I suppose my hon. friend is ready with the words-


James Dew Chaplin: Perhaps you will say them for me.


William Daum Euler: No. I know what my hon.
friend is thinking of-countervailing duties. These have no application for the simple reason-I am getting away from the subject, Mr. Chairman, because I am getting at what is in my hon. friend's mind-that after all, we have a fixed tariff below which our tariff will not go. Therefore this case is not at all parallel with the other. I have no objection to arguing as to the possible necessity of doing something more for the Canadian manufacturers of silk fabrics, but in that case I think the proper course to take is to raise the tariff, if you like, and that should be done only after the whole matter has been considered by the tariff board.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Is it not a fact that in
1907-I am not certain of the year, but at any rate it was when the Hon. W. S. Fielding was finance minister-this principle was introduced by him and established after a thorough discussion by parliament, that is, as to how the fact of dumping should be ascertained and when the clause should be applied. Why abrogate that principle now without giving some notice? If in the same tariff you had provided for an increase in these tariff items, 560, 560a, 560b and 560c, so as to give a corresponding increase in the regular duty, then there might have been some ground for the argument that the dumpage duty should be wiped out. But my hon. friend is suggesting that we should destroy some six factories in the province of Quebec and seven or eight in the province of Ontario by this change, place their working people on the streets, and then after they are down and out we should come in and ask for increased duties on these particular items. That is a perfectly ridiculous contention it seems to me. Why not allow the principle, which the late Hon. W. S. Fielding, established, with the support of the Liberal party in this house with regard to dumpage, to prevail, until you make some corresponding compensation to these people whose protection you are wiping out to a very considerable extent?

2226	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


William Daum Euler: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to continue the debate, but I should like to make one observation. I would be very sorry if what my hon. friend appears to fear should happen, that is, the destruction of certain silk factories in this country. But does not my hon. friend know that under a government which, I think, he supported a regulation was passed-not an order in council-exempting these excise taxes from being taken into consideration for the purpose of establishing the dump.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: When was that?


William Daum Euler: In 1919.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That was before a single
silk factory of this class was established in Canada.


William Daum Euler: But my hon. friend will
admit that that action was absolutely illegal.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It certainly was illegal under the statute.


William Daum Euler: No Minister of Customs or
of National Revenue has any power by regulation to avoid the law which is definitely laid down there. That is why it was restored in 1928.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I do not see the force of
my hon. friend asking me if I was in favour of an illegal procedure which I knew nothing about. But if it was illegal, why not adhere to the act which the Liberal party passed, and which was in force until May 1?


William Daum Euler: My point is that if I find
something done illegally I will try to make it legal, and then if it is wrong, I will try to make it right by legal means.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That would be splitting hairs with greater precision than the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) is capable of-


William Daum Euler: No.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: -because under section 6
of this act the imposition of the dumping duty is legal, is it not?


William Daum Euler: Quite so; but it was illegally withheld from 1918.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am not going back to
1918 when I was not a member of this house. I do not hold myself responsible for all the peccadilloes of the Liberal party, the Conservative party, the Unionist party or any other party. I say this dumpage is legal under chapter 44, section 6, of the revised statutes of 1927. It has been regarded as legal during

the past two years. It was never enforced against Japan because it was not brought to the notice of the customs department prior to a certain date, which I trust will be fixed by a specific announcement from the minister. But prior to a certain date it was not brought into force against Japan's exports of silk to this country because it was not known here, or if it was known it was overlooked by the customs department, that the 10 per cent consumption tax had been imposed by Japan. Therefore do not ask me to support this proposal because of some illegality which prevailed under an administration years ago. Let us deal with the conditions as they prevail to-day. Up to the first of May legally the tax was in effect in this country. Under that condition our silk factories were able to supply to a large extent the home market, they had gained the upper hand in dealing with Japanese competition. Now you are wiping out 10 per cent of their tariff protection, and you are not giving them any corresponding increase in the regular duties. If the dumpage is to be wiped out, at the same time a corresponding tariff increase should be given. That is my contention.


William Daum Euler: Is it not true that these silk factories were almost all established at the time when they had not this additional 10 per cent protection on account of the excise tax?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: They were established at
that time, but Japan was not sending into this country these classes of fabrics, because the development of their manufacture in Japan is a very recent development, a development whereby Japan is brought into competition with the equally recent development of the silk industry in this country.


William Daum Euler: I agree with my hon. friend
that it might be necessary to do something: more, but my submission is that what is proposed is not the proper way in which to do it. I think my hon. friend will agree with me if he thinks logically-as he always does-that the proper method, if something should be-done, is by a change in the tariff itself.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I advocated in the house
last Thursday or Friday evening that the more logical way would be to increase the duty on these specific items; but on the other hand we have been dealing with it under the statute which I have quoted, which was passed in 1907 under the Laurier administration, when the late Hon. W. S. Fielding was Minister of Finance. That statute is clear and specific-

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
in its terms, and every Canadian manufacturer of silk when he entered upon this new enterprise was aware that the statute then prevailing would in certain exigencies and under certain conditions give him protection in the Canadian market to that extent.


William Daum Euler: But which might disappear
at any moment at the behest of a foreign nation-something over which we had no control at all.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Quite so. In view of certain provisions in this tariff, my hon. friend should not mention tariffs which come into force at the behest of a foreign nation. It is a provision however which should be considered in dealing with the quantity of protection which should be received by Canadian factories. The fact is that, in this country, we have a tax upon productive energy amounting to nearly 25 per cent of the entire output of the productive activities of Canada, and that tax goes into the municipal, provincial and federal treasuries. We have a business tax upon corporate enterprises, and this tax enters into the cost of commodities. Every tax imposed by this government in the way of direct taxation enters into and increases the cost of production. So that in Japan when they impose a consumption tax it enters no more directly into the real cost or prevailing market price to the consumer in Japan than does the imposition of business, sales and other taxes which are imposed as additional burdens upon our people. Therefore, so long as that statute remains in its present form and so long as the customs tariffs on the articles contained in items 560a, 560b, 560c and 560d remain as they are, I protest against the amendment here suggested.


William Daum Euler: Surely my hon. friend knows that so long as the law remains in its present form it will have to be carried out in the same manner as we have been carrying it out since 1928. The Minister of Finance proposes to change the law because he believes that the principle is unsound.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I protest against the change of the law.


William Daum Euler: Oh, that is your reason.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I assumed that my hon.
friend understood that I was protesting against the change in the law.


James Dew Chaplin: We have a peculiar situation before us; we have a minister of the crown changing an excise law, and we have another minister saying it is wrong in principle, but if 2419-14X4
the hon. gentleman wishes to save the manufacturers who are leaning to a certain extent upon that excise law the tariff should be increased.


Charles Avery Dunning: There is no excise law
affected.


James Dew Chaplin: The minister knows that
it is a change of the excise.


Charles Avery Dunning: No, I do not know that at all. It is an amendment to the Customs Tariff Act and it has nothing to do with Canadian excise.


James Dew Chaplin: This is just another case of splitting hairs.


Charles Avery Dunning: No, it is a ease of fact.


James Dew Chaplin: It is strange that certain
things are found to be wrong in principle at a certain time when such principles have been maintained in this house for twenty years. In the words of the Prime Minister, they are vicious principles. The minister adopts the principle and hangs on to it as long as he can, but when it begins to burn his fingers he calls it a wrong principle. The fact that this trade was receiving a certain amount of protection, and in order to cut off that protection it is discovered that the principle is wrong. Then the other minister comes along and states that the tariff should be raised if anything is to be obtained from it. Who has the running of the thing? These people knew nothing about this change, nor did they know how if was going to affect them. They were not invited to attend before the tariff board. How could they ask for a change in the tariff? I suppose the minister found out that no examination into the matter was made by the tariff board. The other minister knows very well that nothing can b< done and that the reference will not be made to the tariff board. If this is a matter which should come before the tariff board, why not take the whole matter before that board? The matter we have in hand is of as much interest to those people as if it were in the tariff. It has been there for the best part of two years. The minister shakes his head, but I would remind him that it was August 15, 1928.


Charles Avery Dunning: Your colleague stated
that it was the following March.


James Dew Chaplin: I know my colleague
stated that, but it is possible that he has not the facts as clearly as I have them. I ask the minister if he denies that it is two years; of course he will not. They have had the benefit of this tariff and it is now proposed
2228	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
to take it away without notice to them at all and without any corresponding increase in the tariff. The other minister, the Minister of Customs, states that he is a protectionist and that the proper way to approach the matter is to go before the tariff board. The result will be that no relief will be given. Improper action is being taken; this matter has not been taken before the tariff board in respect of either the duty, the wages or anything else. As a matter of fact, this country knows nothing about the conditions existing in the trade, and it is my opinion that we have no right to make a change of this kind without having first made proper inquiry.


Charles Avery Dunning: I do not wish to follow my hon. friend's acrimonious method of discussion-


James Dew Chaplin: It may be due to my
unfortunate manner.


William Daum Euler: The hon. gentleman did not mean it that way.


James Dew Chaplin: I do not wish to be
acrimonious at all. I am, however, trying to be forceful, I have too much at stake to assume that attitude.


Charles Avery Dunning: I should again point out to the committee that my hon. friends' statements in regard to the existing law before the amendment are undoubtedly correct. On the other hand, it is also correct that notwithstanding the law in 1919 the government of the day issued a regulation stating that foreign excise taxes were not to be taken into account when arriving at the dump duty.


James Dew Chaplin: Was that done by order
in council?


Charles Avery Dunning: It was done by regulation of the department, authorized by order in council. Prom that day in 1919 until August 1, 1928, foreign excise taxes were not taken into account, in spite of the fact that the law said they should be. This government did not inaugurate that condition; it existed from 1919 to 1928. These silk factories came into existence during the period when the excise tax of foreign countries was not taken into account. My hon. friends will point out immediately that in the case of Japan the excise tax did not come into existence until 1922 or 1923. Still, five years elapsed before any action was taken to consider the foreign excise taxes in levying the dump duty. Then in August, 1928, in some manner it was discovered that the law in this respect was not being complied with; the regulation of 1919

was rescinded and the matter reverted to the condition in which it was prior to May 1, when this budget was brought down.
I am pleased to say that according to my information my hon. friends' apprehensions as to the ruination of the silk industry are entirely unfounded. My hon. friend from St. Lawrence-St. George and my hon. friend from Lincoln know that the figures which they quoted embrace the whole silk industry, and embrace far more than the portions of it which could possibly be affected by the various excise taxes in Japan being considered with respect to the dumping duty on entering this country.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That is not so with respect to the figures which I gave; they apply to the particular items which I gave in the tariff.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend stated them very cleverly; he used the figures affecting the whole industry. He repeatedly referred to broadcloth looms, whether or not the broadcloth loom end of that mill was an important end of the mill business or a minor end and he included those amongst his figures for the whole industry. I do not blame him-


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I gave the number of broad looms as far as I could do so, in order that the minister might see clearly the extent of the industry which would be affected, and which I say is imperiled by this change.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, in his .other figures my hon. friend included many figures which did relate to the whole industry, and which went beyond the broadcloth loom industry.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I defy the hon. gentleman, as a matter of privilege, to mention a single figure of the class he has mentioned.


Charles Avery Dunning: I wonder if I could not have the floor, just as a matter of courtesy. My hon. friend spoke for over two hours on this matter.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Do not make erroneous
assertions, then; stick to the facts.


Charles Avery Dunning: As to the adequacy of the tariff rates actually in effect I am not in a position to say, further than to state that the tariff rates are the same to-day as they have been for a great number of years past; they are exactly the same as they were during that long period from 1919 to 1928, -when this position which we are now trying to rectify did not exist. They are exactly in the same position they were in when the industry was first established; they are 22i per cent under the intermediate tariff and 30 per cent under the general tariff. With respect to the ques-

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
tion of how wages affect the matter, my hon. friends have referred to the low wages of Japan and have given some information from the United States in order to show the wages paid in that country. I do not know how authentic that information may be; perhaps we might secure information more directly in regard to that matter rather than just take the evidence of some individual before the United States tariff commission.
However that may be, we have information as to the salaries and wages paid in Canada, and remember this is not wages alone but salaries and wages paid in the silk industry in Canada in 1929. These amounted to $3,820,000, and the total value of the product of the industry is given at $14,476,000, so that salaries and wages all told amounted to approximately 25 per cent of the total products sold. I have not figured it out exactly, but that is approximately correct. That being so I submit that my hon. friends have not a very good case when they represent that this industry is going to be ruined because of the return to-day to the exact position in relation to that tariff which they occupied up to August 1, 1928, as stated by my hon. friend from Lincoln, or March, 1929, as stated by my hon. friend from St. Lawrence-St. George. For the moment I do not care which date is correct, but I say that it is too much to ask us to believe that this industry is going to be ruined by being returned to the condition under which it was established and under which it operated during all the years from 1919 to 1928. It is too much to ask us to believe that it is going to be ruined, especially when its payroll, salaries and wages, amount to about 25 per cent or 26 per cent of the total value of the commodity. These people know perfectly well that if they think their tariff is not high enough and if they can demonstrate that fact publicly, they can apply for a reference to the tariff board, and I would be delighted to give them that reference. However, in my view that is no justification for maintaining a condition which is manifestly unsound in principle.
My hon. friends discussed this question as though silk were the only commodity which would be affected. As a matter of fact this matter affects the whole of Canada's tariff relationships with the world. No other country of which I have knowledge has a provision whereby a dumping duty is created because an exporting country has an excise tax upon a particular commodity. That condition does not exist anywhere else. My hon. friends confined their discussion entirely to silk, but we do not know what day an excise regulation in some other country may bring about a similar
condition with respect to other commodities. Frankly, if I thought this change would have the effect of ruining the industry and throwing people out of work I would not propose it for a moment, but I have become so accustomed to hon. gentlemen opposite making that statement with respect to anything proposed that I require a little more evidence than their mere say-so before I am prepared to believe that ruin will result.


James Dew Chaplin: Evidently the minister intends to have a trial and see how far it can go in that direction.


Charles Avery Dunning: No, that is not fair
either.


Mr. LADNER:: I desire to say a few words under this item, because there is involved in this discussion a principle of far-reaching effect upon the working people and the industries of Canada, particularly the working people. British Columbia is the third province in the Dominion in the value of manufactured products, and Vancouver ranks fourth among the cities. In 1927 the gross value of our manufactured products was $246,000,000, and to-day it could be properly estimated at about $2SO,000,000 or $290,000,000. In 1927 there were 47,740 employees with a payroll of $56,000.000; to-day on the basis of the statistics furnished by the Dominion government, probably there would be about 60,000. In 1927 there were 1,509 plants with a capital investment of $325,000,000'.
A few days ago we had presented to parliament and passed a measure known as the Fair Wages and Eight Hour Day Act, 1930, the principles of which I heartily support. The words of one section of that bill are significant as embodying the need in this country for some protection to labour and the industry of Canada from the unfair competition of the oriental countries such as China and Japan. The section to which I refer is in these words and has reference to contracts with the government of Canada:
All persons in the employ of the contractor, subcontractor, or of any other person doing or contracting to do the whole or any part of the work contemplated by the contract shall be paid such wages as are generally accepted as current from time to time for competent workmen in the district in which the work is being performed for the character or class of work in which they are respectively engaged; provided that wages shall in all cases be such as are fair and reasonable	
The point I wish to make in that regard, Mr. Chairman, is one which very vitally concerns the people of British Columbia and particularly the workers in the industrial life of that province. My hon. friend from Lincoln

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
produced an authoritative statement of comparative wages in connection with the silk manufacturing business in Canada, the United States and other countries; the statement shows that for the forty-eight hour week, male weavers in the silk industry in the United States received $34.27. In Canada they receive $29; in Japan they receive a wage of $2.54, which with food allowance, amounts to about $4 and in China male skilled workers receive $1.80 per week. What I desire to bring to the attention of the government is this: We in Canada, and particularly those interested in these matters in British Columbia, realize the need of a reasonable protective tariff which will protect not only industries but the labour that goes into our industrial life from the competition of those workers in the orient who receive such low wages. It is utterly useless to put low tariffs upon goods coming into this country; to make regulations and laws respecting fair wages and the eight hour day and at the same time allow products to come in from Japan and China where weekly wages of $4 and $1.80 respectively are paid as compared with $29 in Canada for the same class of work. I desire to place that principle before the house and bring it to the attention of the Minister of Finance. Reductions have been made in a great number of these items, which will unnecessarily and adversely affect the working people and industrial life of this country. My submission is that when the government entered the waters of protection, instead of putting one foot in they should have gone in and had a swim for the good economic health of Canada. Had they done that a great number of industries in Canada would have been beneficially affected and the working population of this country would have been much better off. However, that was not done and we in the west are faced with competition from countries where labour is so cheap and where the standards of living are not comparable with those obtaining in this country. The arguments presented by my hon. friends should receive the favourable commendation of the minister and consideration should be extended to the adverse effects and possibilities of competition from oriental countries. No policy is sound or statesmanlike which is not founded in the welfare and happiness of the masses of our people.


James Dew Chaplin: Will the minister tell us the American duty on broad silk in the gum?


Charles Avery Dunning: I will look that up for my hon. friend.


Mr. KAISER:: I understood the Minister of Finance to say that he is willing to submit
[Mt. Ladner.]
this question to the tariff board, but I would like to know which end of that board he is going to select to consider this question. This board is composed of one or two defeated Liberal candidates, and about sixteen employees whose home address is given as Ottawa. That particular state of affairs does not require any particular explanation, but I notice there is one gentleman whose first name is Thomas-I wonder if he is named after me-and whose surname is King, whose home address is given as Washington, District. of Columbia, United States of America. I do not know what that gentleman's duties are, unless they are to turn on the electric fan to waken up Mr. Deachman after he reads these budget proposals, but it would seem to me that a Canadian could be found to look after this work without having to go to Washington. There are plenty of men around here looking for positions, and perhaps the minister can tell us why this man from the United States happens to be employed by the tariff board.


Charles Avery Dunning: He is a Canadian.


Mr. HOCKEN:: How long has he been in the United States?


Charles Avery Dunning: I cannot say that.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: He has been living there for about ten years.


Charles Avery Dunning: He is there yet.


Lucien Cannon: He was in the press gallery two years ago.


Charles Avery Dunning: I understand that he is the press correspondent in Washington for a number of Canadian papers; his whole connection is Canadian.


James Dew Chaplin: The American duty on
similar material coming into that country from Japan is 55 per cent.


Edward James Young: Do you want them to make our duties for us?


James Dew Chaplin: I thought that when I mentioned that the hon. member would jump immediately at it and say: That will be a good duty for us to use. That is what you have been doing in reference to other commodities, only in those oases you did not know what the duty was. I did not expect the hon. gentleman to bite so quickly, but he must remember that he voted for the budget. The Minister of Finance appears to be a little busy just now.


Charles Avery Dunning: I cannot look up information for my hon. friend and listen to him at the same time.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


James Dew Chaplin: I did not want to repeat myself; I wanted to speak to the minister himself and not to some of my hon. friends over there, as that would be useless.


William Daum Euler: The hon. member is not acrimonious?


James Dew Chaplin: I hope not.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am ready to listen to my hon. friend now.


James Dew Chaplin: The Minister of Finance placed some weight upon the fact that the wages paid bore a very small relation to the cost, but the minister did not mention that we were dealing with an article higher in cost than any other article used, except the precious metals. We are dealing with an article which costs $2.25 per pound going into the United States.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend appreciates that they obtain their raw material free.


James Dew Chaplin: I understand that, but I am speaking of the duty. They may have the raw material free, but they do not get it for nothing.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is, free of duty.


James Dew Chaplin: I thought the hon. minister meant that they were getting it for nothing.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am not quite so
ignorant as that.


James Dew Chaplin: The minister claims that the relation of labour to the cost of the material is approximately only 25 per cent; what has that to do with it?


Charles Avery Dunning: And salaries.


James Dew Chaplin: What has that to do
with it? Suppose we were dealing with an article which cost considerably more than this, would that have any bearing on the case?


Charles Avery Dunning: I think it would, yes.


James Dew Chaplin: In what respect? I would like the minister to explain that.


Edward James Young: The duty is
high enough to pay the wages; that ought to be clear enough.


James Dew Chaplin: Wages are paid for the
amount of work done, and not on the value of the original article. The wages paid enhance the value.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend says that labour enhances the value of the article, while I claim that labour enhances not only the value but the cost of the article.


James Dew Chaplin: The value is the cost.


Charles Avery Dunning: 
Mr. CANTLEY:: Not always.
Item as amended agreed to.


The CHAIRMAN:: The next will be item
28a of the third resolution, which reads as follows:
Customs tariff-28a. Tea imported direct from the country of growth and production, and tea purchased in the United Kingdom, when in wrappings, cartons or other packages of not less than five pounds weight each.
Provided that tea shall be entitled to entry under the British preferential tariff upon evidence satisfactory to the minister that such tea has been produced wholly in the British dominions, colonies and possessions, and not otherwise: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 9 cents per pound; general tariff, 10 cents per pound.


Charles Avery Dunning: An amendment was
agreed to whereby the word "more" was to be substituted for the words "not less" in the last line of the item.


John Frederick Johnston: Shall the item as
amended carry?


Mr. MANION:: Would the minister explain what that means?


Charles Avery Dunning: This item was held up
in order to permit me to obtain some information with respect to the amount of tea cleared for consumption in the months prior to the budget, as compared with similar months in previous years. This information was asked for by the hon. members for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) and St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan). I have the whole table, but the month of April is, of course, the pertinent month, if I may judge from the question. I am leaving off the odd hundreds. The clearances under the preferential tariff were as follows:
Pounds
April, 1928	 2,002,000
April, 1929	 2,243,000
April, 1930	 2,260,000
That means pounds of tea that were cleared from customs for consumption in Canada in the month of April in each of the past three years. It will be seen that more tea was cleared and duty paid on it in April of this year than in April of either of the two preceding years. That, I think, answers everything that was

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
asked with regard to tea. If the figures are required as to tea which came in under the general tariff, it is only a small amount, but it can be given. It is as follows:
Pounds
April,	1928	
393,000April,	1929	
345,000April,	1930	
193,000
But of course the general tariff is not changed with respect to tea.


Robert James Manion: Is the figure which the minister gives as the number of pounds cleared, the same as that of the number of pounds entered under the tariff?


Charles Avery Dunning: Entered for consumption is what I mean.


Robert James Manion: Imported?


Charles Avery Dunning: No; tea may be held in bond. I am speaking of tea on which duty was paid. That is the important point. In April, duty was paid which, had the stocks remained in bond until May, would not have been chargeable, so I assume what my hon. friend wanted was information respecting the quantity of tea which was cleared while the duty was in effect and on which duty was paid. The figures as I have given, them demonstrate that more tea paid duty in April, 1930, the month immediately preceding the budget on May 1, than was cleared and paid duty in April, 1929, or in April, 1928.


John Anderson Fraser: I should like to direct the attention of the minister to the questions that were asked. I submit that he has not answered the questions asked by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre the other night. I will read the question for the minister's information. This is what the hon. member for Vancouver Centre said:
Mr. Stevens:	Will the minister be good
enough to bring down certain information on this item ?	1. should like to have information
to this effect: the importations for each month, January, February, March and April; the amount released from bond in each of those months, and the amount in bond at the end of each month. I think that is easily available for the leading ports in Canada and for the whole of Canada.
As I understand the matter, the minister gave only the amounts that were released in one month.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, in each of the three years, but I have under my hand and shall be glad to table the whole statement, which deals with every month of each of those three years giving the clearances on payment of duty which is the main point. I do not want to get mixed up with this matter which touches 
me very closely. My hon. friend knows very well the important matter was the amount of duty paid, because if there is anything in the story to which the hon. member for St. Law-rence-St. George referred, it would be shown in the payment of less duty in the month prior to the budget, would it not, the holding of tea in bond deliberately, not paying the duty on it, in anticipation of a reduction in duty so that less duty would be paid after the first of May than would have to be paid if the tea was cleared prior to the first of May? I think I have straightened that out by giving the figures for the month immediately preceding the budget. I can table the figures showing the amount of duty paid with respect to every month in each of the three preceding years; that is, this year, 1929, and 1928. My hon. friend's question referred to imports. May I point out to him that I do not propose to confuse the issue as between imports of tea and tea which is released from bond by a payment of duty. I know nothing of the volume of imports, but from the point of view of the budget what is important is what tea paid duty; because no matter how much tea comes into the country, until it pays duty it is not liable for duty; it may be held in bond. My point is that the quantity of tea imported is not pertinent to the question at issue. It makes no difference whether the tea is in the country or not. I have not the information for the reason that the Customs department write me to this effect with regard to the amount of imports-and I think my hon. friends want to be fair with me; they do not want to confuse imports with the amount of tea released from bond. They know perfectly well the point is the payment of the duty and I want to stick to that. I asked for the other figures; in fact, I forwarded the exact nature of the question asked and requested that it be answered. This is the reply that I received:
In accordance with your request I am enclosing statement of the monthly imports of tea entered for consumption in Canada from April, 1920, to April, 1930, with separate imports entered under each tariff item as show-n for each month from April, 1928, but for the months of the two preceding years, total imports under all tariffs are shown as separate figures are not available covering the monthly imports under general and preferential tariffs under this period.
I pointed out that the intermediate and general tariffs have no bearing both because of smallness of volume and on account of there being no change in the tariff.
Returns from the different ports showing imports remaining in bonded w-arehouses are forwarded to the department only at the close of each fiscal year and these returns cover the

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
complete fiscal period. All of these returns have not yet been submitted for the fiscal year ended March, 1930, so that I am not able to quote the figures of the tea remaining in bonded warehouses at the end of March, but these will be supplied as soon as they are available.
The whole point is the amount of tea released from bond by the payment of duty, and as I have mentioned, more tea was released by the payment of duty during the month of April, 1930, than in the same month of each of the preceding years. So far as the figures for the other months are concerned, I shall be glad to put them on Hansard.


John Anderson Fraser: My only point was to
indicate to the minister that he was not answering the question as it had been put to him. My reason for doing that was that the hon. member for Vancouver Centre was not in the house and I wanted to avoid putting the minister to the trouble of again taking uip the question when the 'hon. member for Vancouver Centre should come in and find that his question had not been answered according to the way he had put it to the minister, I do not think the minister has yet put on Hansard the information for which the hon. member for Vancouver Centre has asked.


Charles Avery Dunning: Not all of it, I quite
admit, and I am prepared to do what is very difficult to db. My hon. friend understands that our customs records are based upon duties paid. The payment of duty is what counts in the customs records. In the customs department there is no record of goods held in bond at every port throughout the country. They become part of the general customs record when they are released from bond by the payment of duty. In order to get figures respecting the total quantity of any commodity which is held in the customs ports it would be necessary to communicate with each of the ports and ask for the quantity of that commodity held in bond on a particular date. The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George, elaborating the question asked by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, explained why the information was desired. What I bring down in that connection absolutely removes the point so far as the reason for the question is concerned, but I can assure my hon. friend and his colleague from Vancouver Centre that if the further information, which is entirely irrelevant, is required, it will be obtained by my colleague the Minister of National Revenue from the various customs ports throughout the Dominion, because that is the only way in which it can be secured.


John Anderson Fraser: The hon. member for Vancouver Centre pointed out that it might be necessary to go to the Minister of National Revenue to secure that information.


Charles Avery Dunning: It could not be got anywhere else. The information that I have given came from the Miinster of National Revenue.


Robert James Manion: The government puts out
every month a report-T get it myself-showing the imports of all these different commodities, so that there would be no great trouble in getting the figures asked for.


Charles Avery Dunning: They are not imports
until they pay the duty.


Robert James Manion: They are not called imports until they are taken out of bond?


Charles Avery Dunning: They are not officially in the country until they pay the duty.


William Daum Euler: They are not entered until
they actually pay the duty.


Robert James Manion: And so the figures that we get do not contain anything that has not been taken out of bond?


William Daum Euler: Exactly.


Robert James Manion: Then this part of the question cannot be answered.


Charles Avery Dunning: Oh yes, it can. The
information can be obtained, but it will take time to secure it.


William Daum Euler: It would be a terrible job.


Charles Avery Dunning: But it can be got. I
do not intend to leave any loop hole for my hon. friends to say that the information cannot be given. It can be given, but it will take time to get it. It will serve no purpose, but we shall be glad to try to get the amount of tea held in bond at any period my hon. friends want. I submit, however, that I do not intend to have the real issue as put forward by my hon. friend from St. Lawrence-St. George beclouded. The only way in which a man who knew in advance the contents of this budget could profit by his knowledge was by holding back, and the figures show that so far from there being any tea held back, a greater amount of duty was paid in the month of April preceding this budget than had been paid in the corresponding month of the three previous years. I am quite satisfied to leave it at that. But I will ask my hon. friend the Minister of National Revenue to get the information regarding the stocks in bond-

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


William Daum Euler: If my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre still wants it.


Charles Avery Dunning: If he still wants it.


John Anderson Fraser: I was not concerned at
all in what had been said by the hon. member for St. Lawrence- St. George or in the inferences that the Minister of Finance drew from his statement. I was simply concerned in seeing that the answer given to the hon. member for Vancouver Centre was full and complete.


Mr. LUCAS:: When this question was under discussion on Friday evening last, the hon. member for St. Jahn-Albert raised a question in regard to a rebate being paid on the stocks of tea in dealers' hands. I have a letter this morning from a wholesale house in my constituency calling my attention to that very thing, and stating that when the tax on tea was imposed in 1918, the stocks on hand were inventoried and the tax collected, and my correspondent asks if the government should not now in fairness give a rebate of the duty paid on the tea in the dealers' hands when this budget came into force. As the dealers in 1918 were followed up and made to pay the tax, it would seem only fair, since they were penalized then, that they should be given the benefit this time. I would like to have a statement from the Minister of Finance upon the point.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend was in
the house the other evening. I am quite sure he does not think that the dealers themselves paid the tax when it was instituted. They had an opportunity of passing it along to the consumers of tea, and I would be very much surprised if they did not do it. It would be good business and quite proper for them to do it. The other evening in response to my hon. friend from St. John-Albert I indicated that while there was not much hope, the government was gathering all the facts with respect to the matter. I do not want to hold out any hope that we can establish the principle of refund of duty with respect to budget changes, but the Minister of National Revenue is gathering information now as to what is involved. My hon. friend will easily see the difficulty that I pointed out the other night. There is not only the large dealers involved, but every grocery store in this country would have some tea on its shelves on which duty had been paid, and if it is correct in principle to refund the duty to anyone, it is sound to refund it to everyone. That would be a

procedure attended with some difficulty, not only from the point of view of fairness, but from the point of view of complexity. However, the matter will be looked into.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: I have some figures here
which I might be allowed to put on Hansard without reading. There are a few instructive points which they bring out. They show the quantity of tea imported into Canada, the value, and the duty collected for the twenty years from 1910 to 1930. The first point worthy of note is the marvelous increase in the consumption of tea in this country from 1916 to 1918. I do not know whether that was due to the inauguration of prohibition in Canada or what, but the consumption jumped from 40,000,000 pounds in 1916 and 37,000,000 pounds in 1917 to 58,000,000 pounds in 1918. Then the consumption got down to normal, and in 1930 it was 38,102,295 pounds. The value, of course, corresponds with the importation. In the matter of the duties collected, for the ten years up to 1920 previous to the coming into power of this government, the total duty paid on tea was $2,907,082. In the ten years during which this government was in charge of the affairs of this country the duty collected was $26,882,981, or an increase over the ten previous years of ten times, or 1,000 per cent. So it is nearly time something was done to take the duty off tea. The average consumption of tea per head in Canada per annum is four pounds. The consumers saved, by this reduction of seven cents per pound, 28 cents per head per year. That is the total saving to each inhabitant of Canada per year under the present proposal.


Jean-François Pouliot: That is not a question;
it is a statement.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: I do not wonder at that
remark from someone who is incapable of multiplying four by seven.


Jean-François Pouliot: Will my hon. friend, as a
doctor, tell us if tea is injurious to health?


James Dew Chaplin: What have you to say
about it as a lawyer?


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: When we come to discuss
public health I shall be glad to inform my hon. friend whether tea is more injurious to health than something else.


Jean-François Pouliot: Would my hon. friend tell me whether there is more caffein in tea than in coffee?

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: You drink tea for one year, then whiskey for one year, and then coffee, and tell us which you feel better on.


Jean-François Pouliot: As far as I can see, my
hon. friend is not on the water wagon.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: To continue with my statement, the saving to each individual in Canada is one cent every thirteen days.


Charles Avery Dunning: That includes all the
babies who do not drink tea.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: May I put these figures on Hansard without reading them?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Read it.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: Perhaps the Minister of
Finance will consent to my putting it on Hansard.


Jean-François Pouliot: I object. It is most interesting information and we shall all be glad to hear it.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: These are the figures:
Canada's Imports Of Tea And Duty Collected Thereon
(Years ended March 31, 1910 to 1930)
Years ended March 31st 1910	lbs.	Quantity 33.178.366	Value $ 5,347,854	Duty collected $ 7,0321911 	34.259,053	5,654,883	4,2511912	38,402,110	6,706,575	4,4631913	
1914	
1915	
1916	
1917	
. 1918	
1919	lbs.	40,296,055 37,628,322 40.830.701 40,655.939 37,654,868 58,333,119 17,174,279	6,843,620 6,649.716 7.364,250 7,271,900 7,954.786 13,713.427 3,793,724	4,236 5,506 8,957 7,931 4,952 15,648 11,8011920	
1921	
1922	
1923	
1924	
1925	
1926	
1927	
1928	
1920	
1930	lbs. 	lbs.	32,339,350 33,422,902 38,844,703 40.278.205 39.725,559 36,255,149 37,378,910 37.091,340 38,658,494 39,425,956 38,102,295	8.336.163 9,668,785 9.132,093 10,356,757 12.504,104 11.727.343 12.188,046 12,236,714 12,310,414 11,752,521 10.694,379	2,832.305 2,572,929 2.914.002 3,055,820 2.804,036 2.487,958 2,567,496 2,565,243 2.648.003 2,670.801 2.596,693
If the hon. member for Temiscouata would like to have further details, I advise him to go to the Bureau of Statistics.


John Frederick Johnston: Shall the item carry?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: No, Mr. Chairman. The minister was good enough to put on Hansard certain statistics with regard to the quantities of tea for the month of April. Will he also give the figures for the months of January, February and March for the last three years?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, I have the information here.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I should like to have the information for those months. One month does not amount to much.


Charles Avery Dunning: I shall be very glad to
give the exact figures.


James Dew Chaplin: I would suggest to the
minister that the sheet be published in Hansard. The information will be appreciated.


Charles Avery Dunning: Have I the consent of
the house to put it on Hansard?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Certainly.


Charles Avery Dunning: Then I will give the
statement to Hansard.
The statement follows:

Statement showing the Total Monthly Imports of Tea entered for consumption in Canada under different tariffs from April 1928 to April 1930
Month	April, 1928 to March, 1929	April, 1929 to March, 1930	General Tariff	Preferential Tariff	General Tariff	Preferential Tariff	Lb.	Value	Lb	Value	Lb.	Value	Lb.	Value$	$	$	$303,616	59,651	2,002,977	704,382	345,991	72,844	2,243,528	696,178382,020	80,222	2,935,637	1,000,680	398,041	87,674	2,709,652	856,960379,919	77,866	3,132,730	1,075,486	330,060	64,144	2,711,242	854,739July	313,106	63,662	2,468,581	828,012	313,401	65,782	2,646,338	815,819August	382,537	79,465	2,683,137	876,708	380,371	84,038	2,659,607	911,938September	436,063	88,865	2,981,244	951,758	463,667	87,694	2,823,951	832,456October	612,063	127,557	3,434,122	1,023,946	447,139	90,135	3,951,251	1,157,287November	641,115	120,820	3,136,421	902,977	659,008	125,315	2,912,695	788,184December	372,873	73,094	3,042,303	844,270	334,489	72,199	2,560,801	694,799January	260,686	54,863	2,665,226	744,886	321,635	69,977	3,015,424	801,825February	739,804	74,610	2,593,979	769,660	413,658	84,393	2,521,803	639,525March	396,197	78,751	3,519,600	1,050,330	312,838	63,759	2,625,705	676,715Totals	4,839,999	979,426	34,595,957	10,773,095	4,720,298	967,954	33,381,997	9,726,425
April, 1930
193,374	$37,877	2,260,355	$579,845


"X". Trade statistics are compiled only for complete monthly periods, so that figures for May, 1930, are not yet available
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
I would point out that of necessity the figures for April, 1930, stand out alone because the tabulated information is for comparable periods in each year. However, I think the statement will be quite plain to hon. members.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


John Frederick Johnston: When the committee
rose at six o'clock we were considering item 28a, as amended.
Item as amended agreed to.
Customs tariff-36.	Compressed yeast, in
bulk or mass of not less than fifty pounds, per pound: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 2J cents; general tariff, 3 cents.


John Anderson Fraser: Will the minister tell us
the importations in regard to that particular item.


Charles Avery Dunning: The total imports were
valued at $352,000, of which $351,000 came from the United States, and a small amount from Great Britain.


John Anderson Fraser: One thousand dollars'
worth.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-37. Compressed yeast, in packages weighing less than 50 pounds, the weight of the package to be included in the weight for duty, per pound: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 5 cents; general tariff, 6 cents.
John Anderson Fraser: Will the minister give us
the same information in connection with that item?


Charles Avery Dunning: The total imports were
valued at $4,997, of which $4,600 worth came from the United States.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-38. Yeast cakes, the -weight of the package to be included in the weight for duty, per pound:	British preferential tariff,
free; intermediate tariff, 5 cents; general tariff, 6 cents.
Charles Avery Dunning: There were very small
importations in connection with this item-only $305 worth from the United States.


John Anderson Fraser: I wish to quote from the
budget speech of the Minister of Finance as it appears at page 1631 of Hansard. Speaking in reference to the British preference, he said:
The importance of this enlargement of the preference is indicated by the fact that Canada
imported last year over two hundred million dollars' worth of the commodities on which we are now increasing the British preference.
In connection with the items with which we have just dealt I find that of a total importation valued at approximately $360,000 about $1,700 worth came from Great Britain. In making the calculation of $200,000,000 I would ask the minister if the $360,000 or the $1,700 items were taken into consideration. In other words, did he take into account the total amount of commodities imported when he said that $200,000,000 worth would be affected by the British preference, or did he consider only the $1,700?


Charles Avery Dunning: If my hon. friend had read another part of the address from which he quoted he would have noticed that I said there were some fifty items of a class concerning which there had been no great quantities of imports from Great Britain, but that in connection with some a certain amount of trade might be developed. I said that it seemed absurd to maintain a tariff in the British preferential column with respect to such items. In arriving at the total imports to which he referred none of these fifty items were taken into account because of the fact I have just mentioned.


Robert James Manion: I do not think the question has been clearty answered. In connection with the $200,000,000 worth of imports referred to by the minister, concerning which I think he said these preferences would apply, were they imports from the British Empire or from the world in general?


Charles Avery Dunning: They represented $200,000,000 -worth of imports from anywhere. In arriving at the total I did not use any of these fifty items, which would be relatively noneffective as far as Great Britain is concerned.


James Dew Chaplin: The wording used by the minister was probably not as clear as it might have been. Although he might just as well have done so, the minister did not say that the $200,000,000 worth of imports would come in from Great Britain.


Charles Avery Dunning: Of course I did not.


James Dew Chaplin: But the minister was very careful to give us a long list of so many dozen or so many hundred items with new British preferential rates. I suppose the minister did not count in that number the fifty items referred to.


Charles Avery Dunning: Which number?


James Dew Chaplin: In the number of items now imported free from Great Britain.
2238	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Charles Avery Dunning: Of course I included them.


James Dew Chaplin: I would like to know how much of this 8200,000,000 worth is likely to come from Great Britain.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Or from the British Empire.


Charles Avery Dunning: That will probably develop as we proceed to deal with the various items. My hon. friend knows very well that no one can gauge the tendency of traders to take advantage of any given situation. Others outside of this house have attempted to assess what are the possibilities along that line, and certainly the people in Great Britain and the United States who go into these matters appear to be of the belief that a substantial volume of trade is affected. I am quite sure that a very substantial volume of trade will be affected, dependent very largely of course in some instances upon the enterprise of the British industrialist and to some degree upon the extent to which he is willing and able, as I indicated in the budget address, to meet the service given by his effective competitor to-day. As we go through the various items I shall be glad to give such detailed information as we have in regard to each of them.
Mr. MoGIBBON: Has not the minister's staff made any attempt to do this work?


Charles Avery Dunning: I gave the result of that estimate in the budget speech. No one can give even an intelligent guess as to the extent to which the preference in each particular case may be taken advantage of. From what I have heard since the budget became public I have great reason to believe that it will be taken advantage of to a very marked degree in connection with many of the commodities touched.


Mr. McGIBBON:: I meant the total; has the minister no idea at all in that regard?


James Dew Chaplin: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that the very statement of the minister that $200,000,000 of trade was affected had an important bearing on what the people in the old country thought of the tariff, before they knew anything of the items at all; it gave the impression that these markets were being thrown open to them to that extent. That is what happened. How could even the best of business men say what was going to happen in the case of certain things without knowing what were the items in the budget? They could not tell anything about it. They do not even know yet, let alone knowing at that time.


Charles Avery Dunning: Well, Mr. Chairman, in that regard I can only say that the leading items in the budget, at the request of old country authorities, were cabled over there immediately, and certainly the detailed information was available to the people of the United States before that exhaustive analysis which has been published throughout the United States was made. I shall leave it at that.


Peter McGibbon: Surely, Mr. Chairman, the minister is not firing a blank cartridge, so to speak.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am sure it is not blank.


Peter McGibbon: Surely this budget is
predicated on some intelligent conception of the business which might be transferred, and that is what we want to know. Is the budget based on a survey of business conditions, or is it simply a kind of guess at things? Surely the department has made some estimate.


Charles Avery Dunning: I gave that estimate in the budget address.


John Anderson Fraser: The minister must have had some basis for making that statement with regard to $200,000,000. Could he give the house any idea of how he arrived at that amount?


Charles Avery Dunning: We calculated Canada's trade with respect to all the items dealt with in the budget with the exception of fifty which I stated in the budget address were of a relatively unimportant character as far as Great Britain was concerned. The estimate was based on an absolute calculation, and a conservative calculation, of Canada's trade in that connection.


Richard Bedford Bennett: As I understand it-and I am sure we are all under obligation to the minister for his explanation-the $200,000,000 represented the sum total of the imports into this country from all sources of goods touched by these tariff changes?


Charles Avery Dunning: Except the fifty items.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, they were practically negligible.	[DOT]


Charles Avery Dunning: Not negligible except so
far as Great Britain is concerned. The fifty were negligible only as far as Great Britain was concerned


Richard Bedford Bennett: Naturally, as the minister said the other day-


Charles Avery Dunning: -not as far as our total imports are concerned.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They would be relatively unimportant in that regard also. There were the items of hay, straw, and natural gas.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
The $200,000,000 represents the sum total or the aggregate of the import trade of this country from all sources, other than the fifty items to which the minister has referred.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The American tariff has
not been touched with respect to something like 391 items; it remains just where it was, so that the only possible chance of increased trade is not by reason of an increase against the United States with respect to nearly 400 items buit by reason of a reduction of the tariff as against the British Empire. In other words, the incentive to British Empire trade, and the only incentive there is to it, is the extent to which, with respect to nearly 400 items, there has been a reduction in the preferential tariff. It cannot be otherwise, in view of what the minister has said; so that all these changes mean that we have 500 or more items in the tariff, in respect of which in some instances the slightest possible changes have been made. We add them together, and they make $200,000,000, excepting the fifty items referred to. Then we say "this tariff touches $200,000,000 in the aggregate", but it indicates nothing as to how the transference of that trade from one source to another will take place, and the minister says that is left in the cloudland of doubt and conjecture.


Charles Avery Dunning: No, I said that with
respect to each item I would give such information as I had.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, but now I am dealing with the aggregate. I do submit to the minister that he must realize how misleading that is. How far would you get in connection with a private business if you said that the sum total of all the goods you bought amounh ed to $1,000,000 and then said, "We have concluded that we will make no change in the basis of trade with our principal customers, but we will make it a little easier for somebody else three thousand miles away to trade with us", and then say that the sum total affected is $1,000,000. I submit that is doing what is intended should be done, namely, leaving an erroneous impression upon the public mind. In the analysis, stripped of everything, it gets down to this, that of a tariff containing nearly 600 items, with respect to the United States nearly 400 items have not been touched, but with respect to Great Britain there have been increases in some cases and decreases in others. We know that the effect will be of increasing trade in the one case and diminishing it in the other, but the minister is going to give us the imports and the exports under each item and then leave us
to guess, as well as himself, as to what the result may be.
I commend to him Mr. Snowden's observations, thanking business men, as he did in his budget, for the information supplied to him by which he was able to predicate almost what revenue he would receive by reason of the changes he made, not with absolute certainty but within a million pounds or so. The value of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in Great Britain is determined not by his guesses but by the accuracy of his estimates. Anyone can guess; anyone can sit down, add up all these imports and then simply say that we have touched $200,000,000 worth of trade; but how we touched it the minister does not know.


Charles Avery Dunning: We have touched it very definitely by widening the British preference with respect to the commodities covered by the items.


Richard Bedford Bennett: How many of them?


Charles Avery Dunning: How many cases?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is quite apparent from the figures I gave in the budget address. I have not them at hand but they can be found quite easily. With regard to taking the advice of business men, nearly every one of the items we are now discussing has been before the Tariff Advisory Board in public hearings at which business men were present. I should like to pay my tribute to the business men of this country for their cooperation in that regard. I indicated it in the budget itself, but no one of these business men could possibly indicate the extent to which a particular line of goods would be affected by the widening of the British preference; no one could tell to what extent in one or two years that trade would be diverted say from the United States to Great Britain. It is not possible to do that; my hon. friend knows it is not possible for anyone to gauge all the factors which enter into a transaction of that kind. From the evidence available it would appear that the British people are sufficiently alive to the opportunity of obtaining trade which formerly went to the United States as to warrant the hope for a substantial increase this year in these commodities.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Could the minister tell me if yeast cakes and compressed yeast are manufactured in Canada?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.
Mr. BENNiETT: There has been no change made in the American tariff?


Charles Avery Dunning: No.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Richard Bedford Bennett: The British tariff has
been taken off entirely, and that will probably mean the displacing of Canadian goods with British goods. These goods are manufactured in Canada and heretofore there has been a duty against them on importations from the British Empire and from the United States. Does the hon. minister propose to displace Canadian-made goods with British-made goods?


Charles Avery Dunning: The answer is no.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Why the change, if we are not going to obtain more trade under the British preference?


Charles Avery Dunning: We are importing $360,000 worth per year from the United States, which will carry in the future the same tariff as it has carried in the past.


Richard Bedford Bennett: How much did we get from Great Britain?


Charles Avery Dunning: Very little.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I understand it was


Charles Avery Dunning: It was $1,700.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Fleisohman's yeast has
been purchased in large quantities. This product is dependent upon its freshness, and Canadian factories have been supplying requirements. The American parent company has shipped a substantial quantity into this country, and they have had to compete against that tariff for the last three years. We have received only $1,700 worth from Great Britain, and that quantity probably has been used for malting purposes.


Charles Avery Dunning: It was not on the free list until now.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Previously the rates were 3 cents from the United States as against 2 cents from Great Britain for compressed yeast in bulk; 6 cents from the United States as against 4 cents from Great Britain for compressed yeast in packages, and 6 cents from the United States as against 4 cents from Great Britain for yeast cakes. The intention is to take off the British rate and leave the other rates as they are at present. That will do one of two things; it will either diminish the quantity coming in from the United States, or cause Canadian products to be displaced by British products. Which is it to be? If the American product is to be displaced, well and good, but if the Canadian product is to be displaced, I submit that that is all to the bad. The minister says it is being put on the free list and all we have to do is to sit down and see if a

Canadian industry is to be ruined, or if importations of $360,000 are to 'be replaced by Canadian products. That is the real issue in this case, as with many other items in the list. With the enormous market for these products which exists in the United States and in Canada, it is idle to think that the American product will be displaced; the result will be that competition will be made that much harder for the Canadian industry.


Robert James Manion: In delivering his budget speech the minister gave a summary of the reductions and increases, which appears on page 1631 of Hansard. On the previous page, there appears a summary in connection with iron and steel, and I would like to know if the general summary included that given for iron and steel.


Charles Avery Dunning: It included everything.


Robert James Manion: The summary which appears on page 1631 includes the previous summary?


Charles Avery Dunning: The final summary is
complete.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-47. Beans, n.o.p., per pound: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 11 cents; general tariff, 2 cents.
Mr. FANSHER (Lambton):: What amount was imported during 1929, and what amount of duty was collected thereon?


Charles Avery Dunning: In 1929 we imported 327,000 bushels, valued at $1,128,000.


William Russell Fansher: And the duty collected?


Charles Avery Dunning: I shall have to calculate that.


James Dew Chaplin: That is the total importation?


Charles Avery Dunning: I can only approximate that information, because the imports are not divided according to the intermediate and general tariffs. Assuming that the whole quantity came in under the general tariff, the duty collected would be about $82,000.


Robert James Manion: Did most of it come in under the general tariff?


Charles Avery Dunning: We received 120,000
bushels from Belgium, 83,000 bushels from Japan, 73,000 bushels from the United States and 18,000 bushels from Great Britain.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Those would be transhipped from Great Britain.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Charles Avery Dunning: They qualified for the British preference, which would mean that they would be grown somewhere in the empire.


William Russell Fansher: What were the exports for the same period?


Charles Avery Dunning: The exports were so small as not to be included in my notes. I could have that looked up, but apparently they were very small.


William Russell Fansher: Are those
figures for the calendar year?


Charles Avery Dunning: For the fiscal year 1929.


William Russell Fansher: Ending March 31, 1929.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is right.


William Russell Fansher: Could the
minister give us the same figures for the succeeding fiscal year ending March 31, 1930?


Charles Avery Dunning: Those figures are not available except in a very fragmentary and unchecked form.


William Russell Fansher: The minister will observe that these figures have a very important bearing.


Charles Avery Dunning: During the fiscal year of 1929 we exported 45,000 bushels.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Under the old classification the rates were 15 cents, 22$ cents, and 25 cents per bushel, while the new rates are given in pounds. What difference per pound would that make?


Charles Avery Dunning: There are 60 pounds to ths bushel.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Under the general tariff the old rate was 25 cents per bushel, while under the new tariff it is 2 cents per pound, which would mean SI.20 per bushel as against 25 cents. Am I correct in making that statement?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Beans are used very freely in the west anid an increase of 480 per cent is almost unthinkable. I cannot understand how i Liberal government on an article of diet like this would increase the duty by 480 per cent. I do not think it is good business. I would ask the minister to consider returning to the old rate, except for the provision making beans free under the British preferential tariff.


Charles Avery Dunning: The bean growers applied for a hearing before the tariff board and my hon. friend, in common with every-2419-142
one else, has access to the evidence which was given with respect to the matter. With regard to the question of percentages, that observation as to an increase of 480 per cent reminds me of an old story that I have probably told in my hon. friend's hearing before, but it will not hurt to repeat it because it illustrates how illusory the use of percentages can sometimes be in relation to practical facts.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It depends on how they are used.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes. I am very chary
of using percentage illustrations, because of the traps into which they may lead one. There was a number of years ago a very famous member of the British parliament named Sir Wilfrid Lawson. My hon. friend may have heard of him. He was not a prohibitionist, but a great temperance advocate. He was a member of the British house and he was fond of asking questions designed to elicit information which would be of service to him advancing the cause he had at heart. On one occasion during the Ashanti war he asked a question as to the proportion of casualties among total abstainers in the Ashanti expeditionary force and he was staggered1 when he got the information that 50 per cent were killed and 50 .per cent died. That looked terrible, but being a persistent old gentleman he made further inquiry and found that there were only two total abstainers in the Ashanti expeditionary force, one of them having been killed and one having died. That illustrates that the percentage method of approach does not always reveal the facts of the situation. The bean growers to my mind made out a case for their request before the tariff board; hence I am proposing now to grant it.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Leaving the percentage
alone, I say it is four times as much. If that will not suit the Minister of Finance, I do not know what will. I know of no other country that has increased its tariff four times as much as before. I would move:
That item 47 be free under the British preference and the same as it was previously, namely, 22i cents under the intermediate tariff and 25 cents a bushel under the general tariff.


Richard Bedford Bennett: May I remind the
minister that he has not yet told us what the bean growers asked for. What did they ask for? They did not ask for this award.


Charles Avery Dunning: I cannot be quite sure.
I think it was 2$ cents. My hon. friend knows and he might tell me.



Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am asking because the evidence is in my room. I looked at it last week, but I do not want to trust to memory.


William Russell Fansher: The
minister intimated that he had some figures for the calendar year. Would he give us by months the importations since March 31, 1929?


Charles Avery Dunning: I will try to find them. The Trade of Canada for the calendar year does not give the information month by month, as my hon. friend requests, but it gives the information for the whole year. The total imports for the calendar year 1929 were 229,000 bushels.


Mr. SENN:: May I ask the minister whether the bean growers, when they submitted their brief, suggested that beans should enter free under the British preference?


Charles Avery Dunning: They did not.


William Russell Fansher: When I asked for the exports of beans, I did not suppose any account was taken of the number of Canadian canned beans that were exported.


Charles Avery Dunning: In the information I gave I was dealing only with the item before us. We shall come to canned beans which, of course, constitute an entirely separate item.


William Russell Fansher: But the minister can readily see it has a bearing on our exports of this product, because a certain quantity might be canned in this country and exported. If possible I should like to know the number of bushels of Canadian beans that were exported as canned beans.


Charles Avery Dunning: I cannot distinguish in the canning between Canadian beans which were canned and imported beans which were canned. The only information I can give is our exports of canned beans. The origin of the particular bean is not traceable. The figures I am now giving include the weight of the can and the weight of the liquid. My hon. friend will understand that they do not bear an exact relationship to the dried beans. We exported 13,700,000 pounds of beans in tin cans. I suppose that would include a little pork.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What was the invoice price per bushel of beans last year according to the trade returns?


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend will note these figures and then he can follow me in my calculations. In 1929, leaving out the odd hundreds, the amount was 327,000 bushels at a value of $1,128,000. That would be $3 and a fraction per bushel.
LMr. Dunning.l


Richard Bedford Bennett: A friend of mine who was in one of these large canning factories not long since-told me that he saw there a large quantity of Japanese and Belgian beans and some beans from the United States, and I understood that the proprietors had said that the Japanese and Belgian beans had cost much less than that. I suppose this figure lumps them all, and that it is impossible to tell from it just what the cost is. I understood that it was in the vicinity of $2.50, but that may or may not be accurate.


Charles Avery Dunning: The Canadian price, which is somewhat of a guide, of course, because the prices must be competitive, was $3.30 for that year.


James Dew Chaplin: The trade returns for 1929 show that 82,000 bushels of Japanese beans came in, valued at $298,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is a little more than $3 per bushel.


Mr. KENNEDY:: To how many countries from which we imported beans n.o.p. in 1928 or 1929 will this British preference reduction apply? The countries from which we imported beans were the LTnited Kingdom, United States, Belgium, France, Hungary, Japan, the Netherlands and Roumania. I suppose the United Kingdom would be the only one to which this reduction would apply.


Charles Avery Dunning: The product of other parts of the British Empire would enter under the British preference through Britain normally in connection with a commodity such as beans. Britain is the great market in Europe for this class of commodity. I do not know of any direct trade in beans between Canada and any other part of the British Empire. We got 18,000 bushels from Great Britain in the fiscal year 1929. That might have been produced in any part of the British Empire which is eligible for the British preference.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: What countries would be entitled to the treaty rate of one and a half cents?


Charles Avery Dunning: All the countries that now supply us with any considerable supplies, chiefly Japan and Belgium.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: Do I understand that the old tariff was 25 cents a bushel?
Mr. DUNNING': Y*


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: And the proposed duty is $1.20 a bushel?


Charles Avery Dunning: That is right.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


William Russell Fansher: What were our imports of canned beans for 1929?


Charles Avery Dunning: We brought in $95,000 worth of canned beans in the calendar year 1929.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It will be observed that of the beans that came into Canada last year the greater part came from treaty countries, Japan and Belgium chiefly, our imports from those two countries approximating 170,000 bushels, as against 110,000 bushels from the United States and the small quantity of 18,000 bushels from the British Empire. I take it, therefore, that it is perfectly clear that the imposition of the tariff at the present rate is to encourage the production of beans at home and to protect Canadian agriculture. That is what it must be for; it could not be for British trade. The minister will observe that the rate for treaty countries is now 90 cents per bushel, and that last year the duty was 22i cents with respect to the two treaty countries principally affected. Do I understand it to be the minister's view that an increase of 400 per cent protection is exactly what is required to develop the bean industry in Canada? I do not want there to be any misapprehension about it.


Charles Avery Dunning: The protection is not 400 per cent. My hon. friend knows better than that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The increase in the tariff is from 22j cents a bushel to 90 cents a bushel for treaty countries, from which last year we bought the major part of our bean requirements. That is the intermediate tariff. That is an increase in the tariff of 400 per cent. Do I understand it to be the government's position that it was necessary to increase the bean duty 400 per cent to supply adequate protection to the Canadian bean grower?


Charles Avery Dunning: I am not going to talk
in percentages.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But this is a clear case.


Charles Avery Dunning: In my judgment the
bean growers made out a case with respect to the production of beans in Canada, and with respect to oriental competition particularly, and continental competition, but not to the same degree. Beans can be grown in Canada. It is a commodity which we should be producing in many different parts of this country. That is the position.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the minister is
perfectly frank. This increased duty is imposed for the benefit of the Canadian farmer and the producer of beans in Canada. What the percentage increase is, of course, is a 2419-142.J
matter of no great moment to my friend from Weyburn as long as the protection is adequate and sufficient. So far as we are concerned, we desire to see the bean industry fostered and safeguarded and benefited. We are not assuming any responsibility as to the extent to which the hon. gentleman may think it desirable to impose taxation for that purpose, but how my hon. friend from Lisgar would have made the welkin ring in days gone by at 400 per cent increase in the tariff.


Mr. BROWN:: It is not 400 per cent, but 300 per cent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Four times 22| is 90.


Mr. McINTOSH:: The increase is 300 per
cent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well then, 300 per cent.
I am glad that the hon. member for North Battleford is satisfied that 300 per cent of an increase in the tariff is reasonable and adequate protection, but he objects to 400 per cent as a little too much. How the welkin has rung in days gone by at an increase of 10 or 20 per cent! How any increase at all has been denounced by some hon. gentlemen! How the cry has gone forth that the farmer never could benefit from protection! Where is the consumers' league now? Page Mr. Deachman.


John Livingstone Brown: It never should benefit the farmer, did the hon. gentleman say?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Never could; I am quoting the hon. gentleman and the consumer's league.


John Livingstone Brown: Never could ultimately.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Now we have it; I suppose we have reached the ultimate. I think if my hon. friend will study Archbishop Trench's book on words he will find that the ultimate has now been reached. How the hon. gentleman in days gone by used to launch those fierce tirades against protection and indicate how little advantage it could possibly be to the farmer! How my hon. friend from Weyburn used to denounce the Conservative party as the party of high protection! Will he or the hon. member for Saskatoon point to a 300 per cent increase in any Conservative tariff?


Mr. YOUNG (Saskatoon):: Perhaps the
hon. gentlefiian would appreciate the situation a little better if he said that the duty was one-third of a cent and is now one cent and a half.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh no, the former duty
was a little over half a cent a pound.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Alexander MacGillivray Young: About a third, and the proposed rate is one and a half. These figures are probably less confusing than those large percentages.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so. But how delightful they were in days gone by to hon. gentlemen opposite! How they used to revel in them and roll them under their tongue!
BROWN: I beg my hon. friend's pardon. For . my part I never have used those percentages, I recognize what folly it is to talk in percentages only, as I pointed out the other day.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am so glad the hon.
gentleman never used those figures. Of course, he never could have used them, because the Conservatives never made such increases. Look at the happiness with which they accept this three hundred per cent increase! What a happy crew!


An hon. MEMBER:: Are you happy?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I should say so. Any
man is happy when he sees his doctrines put into practice. But he realizes that novices in the application of them often make mistakes.


William Daum Euler: They make a mess of it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They often do, they make a great mess of it-as the hon. minister will discover shortly when he gets up to Waterloo. Let us have no misunderstanding. The tariff has been increased on beans three hundred per cent against treaty countries from which we obtained the major importations of our beans last year, as necessary for the protection of the Canadian farmer. And the Liberal party that yesterday denounced it now accepts it. Those delightful free trade gentlemen, with whom I have passed many pleasant hours, are now the custodians of the faith in protection that formerly they abused in terms so loud. My friend from Lisgar says he is not the custodian of the faith; but I observed by his vote the other day that he swallowed this tariff. Surely that must be so.


John Frederick Johnston: The hon. member for East Calgary (Mr. Adshead) moves in amendment that item 47 be free under the British preference and be the same as it was previously, namely, 22J cents per bushel under the intermediate tariff, and 25 cents per bushel under the general tariff.
I find at page 164 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms the following quotation from the 13th edition of May, page 544. dealing with standing order No. 60:
Proposals for the variation or modification of taxation can therefore be made in the committee; but these proposals must be grafted 
upon the financial scheme submitted by the government, and must not affect the balance of ways and means voted for the service of the year. Amendments, therefore, can be proposed to substitute another tax, of equivalent amount,-[DOT]
The amendment in my opinion conflicts with that authority in two particulars:	First, it
would affect the balance of ways and means voted for the service of the year; secondly, it is not an equivalent amount. Therefore I rule the amendment out of order.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: On the point of order,
may I refer you, Mr. Chairman, to paragraph 556 at page 165 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, where it is distinctly stated :
The house can make amendments which diminish the amount of reduction of taxation, or postpone the day when the reduction takes place, although the amendments may increase to that extent the charges proposed to be levied upon the people.
So long as an existing tax is not increased, any modification of the proposed reduction may be introduced in the committee-
I am introducing it in the committee; I am not increasing the tax at all, Mr. Chairman.


John Frederick Johnston: I am afraid the hon.
gentleman does not appreciate the fact that the house may do certain things that the committee may not do. We are in committee of ways and means at the present time.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: May I repeat my citation again:
So long as an existing tax is not increased, any modification of the proposed reduction may be introduced in the committee on the bill,-


James Dew Chaplin: Do you rule, Mr. Chairman, that a member of the committee cannot move to reduce a tax?


John Frederick Johnston: Yes, that is my ruling.


James Dew Chaplin: Then I think you had
better revise it, Mr. Chairman.


Charles Avery Dunning: Is it not rather a question, Mr. Chairman, as to the stage of the proceedings at which action of this kind may be taken? I am not familiar with the rule, but as I understand it action may be taken at a certain stage in the proceedings.


Mr. ARTHURS:: I have repeatedly heard the Minister of Finance reduce or increase taxation in committee of ways and means.


John Frederick Johnston: A minister of the crown may move to reduce or increase taxation, but not a private member.


James Dew Chaplin: Mr. Chairman, I think you will find that that is wrong. A minister of the crown can move to increase, but any member can move to decrease taxation.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Peter McGibbon: It has been done in this house many times.


Mr. HEAPS:: Mr. Chairman, will you explain what is meant in paragraph 556 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms where the author cites May as authority for the statement:
The house can make amendments which diminish the amount of reduction of taxation,-
Does it mean that only a minister of the crown can make such an amendment?


Charles Avery Dunning: As I understand, Mr. Chairman

I am not arguing for or against the point of order-the house is competent to reduce taxation, but it is a question as to the stage of the proceedings at which such action is in order. The section that my hon. friend quoted refers, I believe, to the stage of a bill. We have not yet reached that stage; there is no bill before the house; this is a committee of ways and means. By and by what this committee does takes the form of a bill; that bill then goes to the committee of the -whole, and there I believe it is competent for a private member to move such an amendment as that now moved by my hon. friend from East Calgary. I am not clear whether or not it is competent for a private member to do it at this stage. You, Mr. Chairman, will have to decide that.


Abraham Albert Heaps: May I ask if at this stage it is in order to move that the duties shall come into effect one year or two years from this date?


John Frederick Johnston: I think such a motion would be in direct conflict with the authority that I have just cited.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Paragraph 556 states that the members of the house have certain rights.


Mr. ERNST:: Read it.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I will read it. This will be found at page 165 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms:
The house can make amendments which diminish the amount of reduction of taxation, or postpone the day when the reduction takes place, although the amendments may increase to that extent the charges proposed to be levied upon the people.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend will notice the expression "the house"; not, "the committee of ways and means."


Abraham Albert Heaps: Allow me to complete t'he citation:
So long as an existing tax is not increased, any modification of the proposed reduction may be introduced in the committee on the bill, and is regarded as a question, not for increasing the charge upon the people but for determining to what extent such charge shall be reduced.


Mr. CAHILL:: We have not reached the bill yet.


Charles Avery Dunning: The citation explains the position as I stated it a few moments ago. Any proposed reduction may be introduced in the committee on the bill.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: I may move my amendment in committee on the bill?


John Frederick Johnston: Yes. Shall the item
carry?


James Dew Chaplin: No, Mr. Chairman. I notice that some 10,000 bushels of beans came from the United Kingdom and paid duty under the general tariff. The total of British importation amounted to 18,000 bushels. The general tariff at that time was 25 cents a bushel; it is now $1.20 instead of 25 cents a bushel.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


James Dew Chaplin: So that my leader was not very far astray when he referred to the increase in percentage. The increase is made from 25 cents a bushel to $1.20 a bushel, or almost 400 per cent.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: It is 480 per cent.


James Dew Chaplin: It is almost a 400 per cent increase. So that there is an increase of 300 per cent on the intermediate tariff and 400 per cent on the general tariff. I am a pretty good protectionist, and I could not ask for better than that. I may tell my hon. friends that I will not oppose it.
iMr. MANION: I would like to ask the minister why in this case only he changed the measure from bushels to pounds. The bushel measurement is applied to buckwheat and barley; cornmeal is measured by the barrel and oats by the bushel. The original rating last year was per bushel, but it is changed this year without notice to a poundage basis. There is no note to show that the old rate was figured by the bushel. I would most respectfully ask the minister if the change was made for the purpose of leaving the impression with hon. members on this side of the house that it effected a reduction rather than an increase.


Charles Avery Dunning: No.


Robert James Manion: It is rather peculiar that the other commodities are measured in terms of bushels or barrels, whereas in this case, where there is such an immense increase over the rate applicable last year, there is a change. In order to make it more readable it should have been left at the bushel rating, and if that unit of measurement had been continued
2246	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
the new rates instead of being free, \\ cents and 2 cents respectively would have been free, 90 cents and $1.20. The publication of these latter figures would have shown a more frank attitude on the part of the minister, and I would ask him why the change has been made from bushels to pounds.


Charles Avery Dunning: If my hon. friend would read the evidence which was adduced before the tariff board he would note several reasons. I am sure he will give me credit for believing that he has more intelligence than to be deceived in the presentation of a matter of this kind. I cannot hope to deceive him.


Robert James Manion: Some of the public may be more easily deceived.


Charles Avery Dunning: No, I would not say that. As a matter of fact, there are two reasons. The bean growers themselves represented that their product was dealt with on a poundage basis during different processes of manufacture; and in addition to that there is the fact that the various countries of the world do not use the same standards of measurement. A pound is a pound, and it is very easy to calculate by that system.


Robert James Manion: To complete my argument I submit that this commodity should have been entered at the bushel rating.


Peter McGibbon: This might be a convenient place, after the attention the minister has given to the bean growers, to give us some reason for the government discarding its past policy and accepting the present one. The country would be very much interested in an explanation of the action of the government in this respect.


John Anderson Fraser: How many beans came from Great Britain under the British preference during the year ending March 31, 1929?


Charles Avery Dunning: There were 18,000 bushels from Great Britain, of which I believe 8,000 bushels were entitled to preference.


James Dew Chaplin: Yes, the minister is correct in that statement.


Charles Avery Dunning: I have not the information before me in the form necessary to supply an exact answer for my hon. friend. The hon. member for Lincoln confirms my statement that 10,000 bushels came in under the general tariff.


James Dew Chaplin: Yes, the exact amount is 7,714 bushels.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: What is going to haippen to the plank in the Liberal platform which calls for free trade in foodstuffs?


Charles Avery Dunning: We are going to put it along with a number of planks in my hon. friend's platform.


James Dew Chaplin: May I ask the Minister of Finance why it is that in one year he has changed his mind? I have a vivid recollection of his saying one year ago, in reference to beans: Increase the duty on beans for 300 growers?-Nothing doing.


Charles Avery Dunning: The hon. gentleman cannot quote that; bis contention is not correct, and he knows it.


John Anderson Fraser: I think the minister gave me an incorrect answer to my question. Only 547 bushels came in under the British preferential tariff; that is my interpretation of the information at my disposal.


Charles Avery Dunning: I did not look at the figures. My hon. friend from Lincoln was bind enough to supply them, and I accepted them.


John Anderson Fraser: I would like to have the figures cited correctly. I say that there were only 547 bushels.


James Dew Chaplin: I have before me the 1929 returns, and they show that under the treaty 7,714 bushels came in from the United Kingdom.


John Anderson Fraser: That is correct.


James Dew Chaplin: Valued at $26,277.


John Anderson Fraser: And to make the record complete, under the British preference there were 547 bushels valued at $1,491.


James Dew Chaplin: That statement also is correct.


William Russell Fansher: In making the increase did the Minister of Finance have in view the raising of additional revenue, oi simply increasing the protection of the bean growers?


Charles Avery Dunning: As I have stated on
numerous occasions, any industry in Canada, whether it be the bean growers, the piano manufacturers, or any other, can appear publicly before the Tariff Advisory Board. Application can be made for either an upward or a downward revision in the tariff, and I am prepared to examine the facts brought out at that public hearing. I ask hon. members to examine those facts, and if they do not think the facts brought out justify the result now before the house, let them vote upon it.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Leon Johnson Ladner: Would the minister accept the recommendations or findings of such a board? Can the public feel that if they go to the expense of presenting a case, the minister will accept the recommendation?


Charles Avery Dunning: No government of Canada will ever delegate its primary responsibility, or place it in the hands of an appointed board; the decision must rest with the government, which must exercise its judgment upon the facts. In this case, rightly or wrongly, we have exercised our judgment in respect to the information received and_ the facts brought out at the public hearings, which are of public record.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Are the tariff adjustments contained in these proposals the findings of the tariff board, or are they instances in which the government, exercising the reservations which have just been referred to, has made alterations differing from the findings of the tariff board? In other words, do the budget proposals express the findings of the tariff board?


Charles Avery Dunning: The tariff board is part
of the Department of Finance. The officers of the tariff board are officials of the Department of Finance, and the procedure is not and never has been by way of recommendation. The procedure is and always has been a consultation between the minister and his officers with respect to the facts brought out at the public hearings.


Peter McGibbon: I think the remarks of
the minister justify a little more questioning on our part. To my mind this brings out a very essential fact which overshadows all others. It is this: If either party in this house appeals to the country on a definite policy, are the people entitled or are they not entitled to consider that party seriously? Are these policies to be discarded on their return to office, simply through political expediency? That is the main issue on this budget, whether the government can discard with impunity its professions of the past. That is the question the people of this country are asking to-day.


William Russell Fansher: Then the
minister thinks that this measure will be of material advantage to the bean growers? Has he come to that conclusion on the advice of the tariff board? Is that Why this change has been made.


Charles Avery Dunning: A number of years ago
the government announced as its policy the setting up of a tariff advisory board to hear public representations on tariff matters,
whether those representations were for upward or downward revision. As a low tariff man I cannot take the ground that all changes in the tariff must be downward, if I have accepted the provision that there shall be an inquiry and if I have taken the position that I am prepared to consider the facts whatever those facts may be. That is the position which this government has taken and which it takes to-day.
So far as the future fortunes of the bean growers are concerned, they are like all other agriculturists. My hon. friend will remember the raisin pool in California. I had occasion to examine it on three different occasions in the hope that it would give some information as to the proper course to follow in respect to other products of the soil. I found this, which has been true with respect to other commodities: The pool definitely raised the price of raisins in California; there is no doubt about that. The effect of raising the price of raisins, in the course of a few years, was to increase materially the acreage of land in California devoted to growing raisins, and when more people got to growing raisins there were more raisins and as a consequence the prices did not remain up. That is an actual fact; we know it to be true. If an industry dependent on the cultivation of the soil is prosperous, more people go into that industry.


Robert James Manion: Is that not true of industry generally?


Charles Avery Dunning: It*is not so much true
of other industries as it is of the agricultural industry.


Mr. COTNAM:: When did you become
a convert?


Robert James Manion: It suits the minister to
talk from the standpoint of the agricultural industry. That applies just as much to any other industry as it does to agriculture. That is the protectionist argument.


William Russell Fansher: I take it, then from the remarks of the minister, that perhaps this measure may work a temporary benefit, but in the long run he is of the conviction that, as happened with the raisin pool, it will work to the detriment of the producer?


Charles Avery Dunning: I am not prepared to
say that.


William Russell Fansher: Am I to infer that from the remarks of the minister?


Charles Avery Dunning: I am not prepared to say that definitely. Somebody over here said that I was a recent convert to this idea. I may

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
tell him that away back in 1924 at the British Empire Cooperative Conference, when the cooperative consumer societies of Great Britain were urging that the course we were following in Canada as grain growers would have the effect of raising the price of bread in England, my answer was that it is easy to increase the production of breadstuffs; the extension of wheat acreage in a year, given profitable wheat raising, will ensure the production of a sufficient quantity to take it out of our power as growers to force the prices up to unreasonable levels. I have been preaching this doctrine for years with respect to agriculture.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: I was not referring to that as far as the minister was concerned; I was referring to his recent conversion to protection.


Charles Avery Dunning: Oh, I am not a protectionist.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: Then what are you?


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: I should like to ask the
Minister of Finance if he can tell us exactly to what we are restricted at this stage of the discussion?


Charles Avery Dunning: You will have to ask the chairman.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: We cannot move to increase or to decrease the rate of duty at this stage. Are we confined under all these items simply to a discussion and nothing else?


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend from East Lambton is getting up again, but before he does so I should like him to answer one question. I understand that beans aire grown to some extent in his part of Ontario. Has he any bean growers in his own riding?


William Russell Fansher: Yes, I have.


Charles Avery Dunning: Many?


Mr. EVANS:: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister if the tariff on this item has been raised on the representations of the bean growers themselves?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


James Arthurs: In view of the remarks
of the minister with respect to an hon. member to my left, in which he implied that the hon. member had very few if any bean growers in his riding, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance if he has been converted by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In a recent speech in this house the

Minister of Trade and Commerce used almost exactly the same arguments as those which have been proffered by the Minister of Finance. In that connection I should like to ask the minister how many furniture builders he has in his own constituency?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: The minister said something about the facts being brought out by the tariff board, and I think he also stated that this revision is in the interests of the bean growers. Would he mind telling me what outstanding fact it was that led him to concludue that the increase would be in the interests of the bean growers?


Charles Avery Dunning: I listen with some care
to representations of farmers in connection with their own industry, and in my judgment the case of the bean growers was well prepared and well presented. I would listen to wheat growers just as well; I have done so many times and expect to do so again.


Robert James Manion: May I just ask the minister one question before he leaves the subject? In view of the fact that the minister has changed his mind in regard to the need of protection, or the amount of protection under this item, is there any reason, just supposing by some accident he got into this same position next year, why he might not change back again?


Charles Avery Dunning: I can tell my hon. friend that in the light of the facts put before the tariff board I am content with this decision. I am not going to pretend that five or ten years hence further facts may not be developed at a hearing before the tariff board on the same subject by the same people, which might even convince me that conditions have changed, but I see no immediate likelihood of that happening.


Robert James Manion: Why not say four years
hence? There will be another election then.


Charles Avery Dunning: I had no reference to
that.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-49. Buckwheat, per bushel: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 12J cents; general tariff, 15 cents.
John Anderson Fraser: What were the imports
under that item?
Mr. DUNNING; The total imports were $16,125, all from the United States.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
Customs tariff-50. Buckwheat meal or flour, per one hundred pounds: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 45 cents; general tariff, 50 cents.
James Dew Chaplin: What were the imports under this item?


Charles Avery Dunning: 


James Dew Chaplin: None from the United
Kingdom?


Charles Avery Dunning: No.


James Dew Chaplin: You do not expect to get any?


Charles Avery Dunning: That is possible, but I
included this in the fifty items which I specified. It is possible there may be some importations under this item.


John Anderson Fraser: Where do the imports come from?


Charles Avery Dunning: From the United States.


John Anderson Fraser: All the imports?


Charles Avery Dunning: Out of a total of $4,000, we received from the United States $3,900 worth.


John Anderson Fraser: What other country?


Charles Avery Dunning: The amount was so small that it does not appear here.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-52.	Barley, n.o.p., per
bushel: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 22J cents; general tariff, 25 ' cents.
John Anderson Fraser: This is another one of the fifty items?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, so far as Great Britain is concerned.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-53. Cornmeal, per barrel: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 22J cents; general tariff, 25 cents.
James Dew Chaplin: This item would be in the same category, you do not expect to have large importations from the United Kingdom?


Charles Avery Dunning: As a result of this change, it is possible that considerable importations may come from South Africa. The commodity is called maize in that country, and it must be considered that we imported $234,000 worth from the United States. The proposed change will give a spread of 25 cents per barrel, and although this item may be included in the fifty non-effective items of which I spoke, I am not without hope that some business will develop.


James Dew Chaplin: When the duty was 25 cents per barrel, no cornmeal came in from any country other than the United States.
Mr. DUNNING': My hon. friend will notice that the old spread was only 5 cents per barrel as between Great Britain and the United States.


James Dew Chaplin: I cannot find out that any cornmeal ever came in from Great Britain.


Charles Avery Dunning: Not apart from the United States, that is right.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-56. Oats, per bushel: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 9 cents; general tariff, 10 cents.
Provided that, if any country imposes upon oats produced in, and imported from, Canada rates of duty higher than are enumerated in this item, equivalent rates of duty shall be imposed upon oats entering Canada from such country.
Robert James Manion: What are the imports of this item, and where from?


Charles Avery Dunning: In 1929 we imported
3,036,000	bushels of oats valued at a little over $1,500,000, practically all of which came from the United States.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: What were the exports?


Charles Avery Dunning: The total exports were valued at $10,240,000, of which $4,000,000 went to the United Kingdom, $2,170,000 to the Netherlands, and $1,900,000 to Belgium.


James Dew Chaplin: I suppose you are not looking for any increased business with the old country in this item; it is one of the fifty items?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Mark Cecil Senn: What will be the duty under the countervailing clause?


Charles Avery Dunning: The United States congress is still discussing the new tariff. The present tariff is 15 cents per bushel-my hon. friend will notice the countervailing clause applies to this item-and the proposed tariff is 16 cents per bushel.


Mr. KELLNER:: Did the farmers ask for this change?


Charles Avery Dunning: No.


An hon. MEMBER:: Who did?


Charles Avery Dunning: This is a matter of policy.


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


Charles Avery Dunning: No.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
Customs tariff-57. Oatmeal and rolled oats, per one hundred pounds: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 50 cents; general tariff, 60 cents.
Provided that, if any country imposes upon oatmeal or rolled oats produced in Canada, and imported from, Canada rates of duty higher than are enumerated in this item, equivalent rates of duty shall be imposed upon oatmeal or rolled oats entering Canada from such country.
James Dew Chaplin: What is the position in connection with this item? What were the imports from the United Kingdom?


Charles Avery Dunning: Out of total importations valued at $46,000, $45,000 worth came from the United States. While this item is in the fifty non-effective items, I am told that there is some hope of importing oatmeal, particularly of the old Scotch variety.


An hon. MEMBER:: Haggis.


James Dew Chaplin: You would not expect a Scotchman to pay more for it?


Charles Avery Dunning: He would get it 'in free from Scotland; that should be attractive.


James Dew Chaplin: Probably they would send it over for nothing.


Leon Johnson Ladner: What are the exports from Great Britain?


Charles Avery Dunning: Of a total of $46,000 of imports, $45,000 worth came from the United States.


Leon Johnson Ladner: My information is that the imports from Great Britain amounted to $438.


Charles Avery Dunning: That might be. I am not looking for any great trade in this item, but many mickles make a muckle..


James Dew Chaplin: What were the exports of oatmeal to the old country?


Charles Avery Dunning: I have not those figures for last year.


Robert James Manion: Does the hon. minister
know the proposed American duty?


Charles Avery Dunning: I understand it is 80 cents per 100 pounds.


Robert James Manion: No change in that.


Charles Avery Dunning: No.


Robert James Manion: If the American rate remains at 80, our rate will go up to that figure?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Customs tariff-58. Rye, per bushel: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 9 cents; general tariff, 10 cents.
Provided that, if any country imposes upon rye produced in, and imported from, Canada rates _ of duty higher than are enumerated in this item, equivalent rates of duty shall be imposed upon rye entering Canada from such country.
Robert James Manion: I suggest to the minister that he would save considerable time if he would give us in connection with each item the imports and their source.


Charles Avery Dunning: That was my intention, but there seems to be such a keenness of interest in these matters; someone always gets up to ask a question before I can offer the information.


James Dew Chaplin: We were afraid that the Chairman would call out " carried."


Charles Avery Dunning: I think you will find he will be fair. The importations of this item amounted to 155,000 bushels valued at $167.000, practically all of which came from the United States. The exports were valued at $10,809,000, of which about $5,000,000 went to the United Kingdom, $2,173,000 to Germany, $1,569,000 to the Netherlands and $1,158,000 to Norway.


James Dew Chaplin: This is another item in whidh you do not expect any trade from the old country?


Charles Avery Dunning: Not at all.


Leon Johnson Ladner: According to my examination of the records, the amount imported from the old country was valued at $106.
Mr. DUNNING; It is absurd to retain a duty against rye coming into this country from Great Britain.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-59. Rye flour, per barrel: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 45 cents; general tariff, 50 cents.
Robert James Manion: What are the imports of this item?


Charles Avery Dunning: The imports were valued at $24,000, all of which came from the United States.


Leon Johnson Ladner: None from the United
Kingdom?


Charles Avery Dunning: It will be noted that the old spread between Great Britain and the United States was quite small, amounting to only 17 cents per barrel. Under the new tariff there will be a spread of 50 cents per barrel in favour of Great Britain.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: What about the countervailing duties?


Charles Avery Dunning: They do not apply to this item.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-60.	Wheat, per bushel:
British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 12 cents; general tariff, 12 cents.
Provided that, if any country imposes upon wheat produced in, and imported from, Canada rates of duty higher than are enumerated in this item, equivalent rates of duty shall be imposed upon wheat entering Canada from such country.
Leon Johnson Ladner: Could we have the imports of this item?


Charles Avery Dunning: It may seem absurd, but we imported last year from the United States wheat to the value of $729,000.


Leon Johnson Ladner: And $12 worth from Great Britain.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is absurd to have a tariff of 8 cents per bushel against wheat coming in from Great Britain, and that is the reason it is being put on the free list. The proposed United States tariff is 42 cents per bushel, and the countervailing provision will apply in this instance.


Mr. WHITE (London):: Is not some of this wheat ground in bond and exported?


Charles Avery Dunning: This item does not cover wheat flour; it is wheat which is subject to duty.


John Franklin White: It might have been ground in Canada and then exported and the duty refunded.


Charles Avery Dunning: Had it been treated in that fashion it would not appear as wheat *which had paid duty.


John Livingstone Brown: Did any wheat come in
which paid duty?


Charles Avery Dunning: The importations last year were valued at $729,000.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: Under the old tariff
this commodity was covered by two separate items. Under the one item, number 60, it came in free.


Charles Avery Dunning: There was in the old
wheat item a countervailing provision. One would think, to hear some of the speeches on the budget, I had invented countervailing duties. The old item was:
Wheat flour and semolina when imported from a country which imposes a customs duty on wheat flour or semolina, manufactured in Canada, per barrel: 30 cents; 50 cents; 50 cents.
That was the tariff brought into effect, by the way, on June 6, 1919. That was a countervailing tariff.


James Dew Chaplin: That is a fixed duty.
There is nothing countervailing about it. The duty is absolutely fixed; it does not increase or decrease with the duties of other countries.


Charles Avery Dunning: To my mind it is a
restricted countervailing tariff, for the reason that if another country does not impose a duty on a like article coming from Canada, this item does not apply.


William Gordon Ernst: They cannot raise our duty. It is not a countervailing duty.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is so regarded. Under the old item we imposed a duty of only fifty cents no matter how high the other country's duty went. Under the countervailing proposals now before the committee on various items, our tariff is fixed at what we consider proper, but in addition to that our tariff goes up or down as the case may be.


William Thomas Lucas: Is the minister not quoting
from No. 61?


Charles Avery Dunning: I am sorry; I should
explain to my hon. friend I quoted the wrong item, but the same principle applies. Wheat is free under the old tariff, but when imported from a country which imposes a customs duty on wheat grown in Canada, the rate is eight cents, twelve cents and twelve cents. That is the existing countervailing provision on wheat.


William Gordon Ernst: That is not countervailing;
it is a fixed tariff.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is a tariff which says that we are willing to lower our duty if the other country does the same.


Leon Johnson Ladner: But not increase it.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, because we state
that wheat from the United States is free unless they impose a duty against our wheat. If they do so, then our duty will be eight cents, twelve cents and twelve cents, no matter what duty they impose on our wheat.


Robert James Manion: But the United States
tariff at the present moment is forty-two cents, and if these are countervailing duties our tariff would be forty-two cents as well.


Charles Avery Dunning: Perhaps my hon. friend
can find another for it. I know our tariff is termed in the trade and between the two countries a countervailing tariff.


William Gordon Ernst: A fixed provisional tariff.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Leon Johnson Ladner: I have before me tariff
schedules 60a and 61a. They are maximum rates which come into force for entry into this country in the vent of the other country placing a tariff on those commodities, but it does not permit our rates increasing beyond those maximum rates in the event of the other country increasing their tariff. In other words we have a high tariff but they have higher and higher tariffs.


William Gordon Ernst: Now it is a brick-for-brick
tariff.


Charles Avery Dunning: We are willing to cooperate with the United States in pulling down the wall.


William Gordon Ernst: To a certain fixed minimum.


Charles Avery Dunning: Under section 11 of the
customs tariff, we also have a provision whereby we can reduce the tariff below our rate.


William Russell Fansher: The
old item, I suppose, was not considered by the board?


Charles Avery Dunning: No.


William Russell Fansher: This is a matter of government policy.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


William Russell Fansher: What is that policy? Retaliation or what?


Charles Avery Dunning: The policy with respect to wheat is to say more effectively what section 11 of the customs tariff has said for a number of years. For a number of years section 11 has made what is virtually a standing offer with regard to certain commodities.


William Gordon Ernst: Will the minister -read the
section?


Charles Avery Dunning: I am not sure if it is
with respect to wheat.


William Gordon Ernst: I do not think it is; I think it is a general gesture of good will.


Charles Avery Dunning: Section 11 reads:
If the President of the United States, under authority of the United States Tariff Act of 1922, determines to reduce the duties imposed by such act on the following articles, that is to say:-cattle; wheat; wheat flour; oats; barley; potatoes; onions; turnips; hay; fish as enumerated in paragraphs-
And then it gives the paragraphs.
-the governor in council may by order in council make such reductions of duties on such articles imported into Canada from the United States as may be deemed reasonable by way of compensation for such reductions on Canadian products imported into the United States.
That provision, which existed in our law since 1923, remains, but in addition we say 
in the tariff that while our rate of duty on wheat with respect to the United States remains at twelve cents, there shall be a countervailing provision upward and we have in addition the provision to enable us to meet them in any reductions.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Have we not
heard it in the house time and again that it is impossible to protect the western wheat grower?


Charles Avery Dunning: It is.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Then why this
duty? Is this not a contradiction of the doctrine we have heard enunciated for years?


Charles Avery Dunning: No.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: What is it? Is it retaliation? Is it a countervailing duty? It seems to me to be absurd to give people protection when they do not want it. When they have said in the house that they do not need it; that it is impossible to help them, why insert this provision in the tariff?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs	tariff-61.	Wheat flour and
semolina, per barrel: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 56 cents; general tariff, 50 cents.
Provided that, if any country imposes upon wheat flour or semolina produced in, and imported from, Canada rates of duty higher than are enumerated in this item, equivalent rates of duty shall be imposed upon wheat flour or semolina entering Canada from such country.
Robert James Manion: Will the minister give the imports under this item?


Charles Avery Dunning: In 1929 Canada imported wheat flour valued at $540,000, of which $539,000 worth came from the tfnited States.


Leon Johnson Ladner: How much from the United Kingdom-$14?


Charles Avery Dunning: Practically nothing. This is not an article we are likely to get from Great Britain. It is really absurd to have a tariff on it from Great Britain.


Robert James Manion: I notice that the duty on wheat flour under this item is fifty cents a barrel, but the duty going into the United States is at the present time $2.04 a barrel.


Charles Avery Dunning: No. The present rate per 100 pounds going into the United States is seventy-eight cents, and their proposed rate is $1.04.


Robert James Manion: So that this tariff will go up to $1.04 automatically?


Charles Avery Dunning: Unless the United States change their tariff?	.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Has the minister a statement regarding exports of flour to the United
States?


Charles Avery Dunning: The figures are as follows:
Flour of Wheat Year	Barrels	Value1929	
1,980	$12,6001928	
5,921	36,186


John Franklin White: Would the minister give the figures for 1919 and 1920?


Charles Avery Dunning: I am sorry I have not those figures here.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-63a.	Rice bran: British
preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 17J per cent; general tafiff, 17J per cent.
James Dew Chaplin: Why is this item here?


Charles Avery Dunning: That is a question that I asked myself, because there are no imports at all under this item, but I am advised that it is a commercial commodity and ought to have a place in the tariff because there is no other description which could be applicable to it.


Peter McGibbon: What is it used for?
Mr. DUNNING': I do not know that either.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-67. Macaroni and vermicelli, per one hundred pounds: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, $1; general tariff, $1.25.
Leon Johnson Ladner: What are the imports?


Charles Avery Dunning: 
Leon Johnson Ladner: How much from the United Kingdom?


Charles Avery Dunning: Hardly any.


Leon Johnson Ladner: 
Charles Avery Dunning: 
James Dew Chaplin: What I do not understand about the matter is this. We have factories in this country making macaroni. In the district from which I come there are at least three firms making macaroni of a good quality, an article that is well liked. These firms employ quite a few hands. Why should we make this article free to any country?


Edward James Young: People might like another brand.


James Dew Chaplin: 
James Dew Chaplin: Is not that enough without making it possible for larger quantities to come in free? There is enough coming in now without reducing the duty in another direction and opening up another channel through which importations can come in.


John Anderson Fraser: Has the minister any figures as to the production of macaroni and vermicelli in Canada?


Charles Avery Dunning: I have none available here. There has been no complaint.


James Dew Chaplin: Was this matter discussed by the tariff board?


Charles Avery Dunning: No.


James Dew Chaplin: It never was, and yet a minute ago the minister said that a certain matter had come before the tariff board and we must take notice of the board's recommendation. Here is a matter that has not come before the tariff board. The people engaged in the business have no chance for their life at all-no chance to make an explanation of their position.


Charles Avery Dunning: They have made no
complaint yet.


James Dew Chaplin: How do they know about it?


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend would no doubt tell them.


James Dew Chaplin: That is one reason why
I want to have the minister make an explanation as to why this tariff change was made.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: If this item did not come
before the tariff board, are we to infer that this change represents the government's policy?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Peter McGibbon: I think we should have
a little more information. I have a factory in my riding. Why should they be subjected to unnecessary competition? What principle is
2254	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
the minister going on? Has the price been too high in this country? Why does he want to restrict the amount of business which this firm can do?


Charles Avery Dunning: The producers have
waited upon the officers of the department since this item became public, and have made no complaint about it. They suggested, however, that they would like a countervailing duty against the United States.


Peter McGibbon: Did the minister promise to give it to them?


Charles Avery Dunning: No.


Peter McGibbon: Why not?


John Anderson Fraser: Would the minister take
it into consideration now?


Charles Avery Dunning: Not now.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-69. Hay and straw, per ton: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, $1-75; general tariff, $2.
Robert James Manion: What are the imports?


Charles Avery Dunning: The imports amounted to 883,910, all from the United States. I never expect to see hay or straw brought in from Great Britain. It is an absurdity to have a tariff of $1.65 against hay coming from Great Britain, because it never comes in. This change is to wipe out an absurdity.


Leon Johnson Ladner: If it never comes in, what is the difference?


Charles Avery Dunning: No difference at all.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Is it not simply to make
a gesture before the public that there is a reduction in the British preference, when actually the reduction is a farce?


Charles Avery Dunning: No. I deliberately stated in the budget speech exactly what was in my mind and kept clear of the suspicion which my hon. friend imagines in his own mind. I made the matter very clear in my budget speech.


Mr. SIMPSON:: What is the United States tariff against Canadian hay?


Charles Avery Dunning: The present tariff on hay going into the United States is 84, and one of their tariff proposals is to increase the duty to $5.


Thomas Edward Simpson: Has there been any request for an increase in the Canadian tariff on hay?


Charles Avery Dunning: I know of none.


John Anderson Fraser: Is this a countervailing
duty?


Charles Avery Dunning: No.


John Anderson Fraser: Why not?


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friends are getting quite an affection for countervailing duties as we go along.


John Livingstone Brown: The finance minister did
not take into consideration the suggestion that we have heard in the last three or four years that this duty should be raised.


Charles Avery Dunning: I think my hon. friend from Macleod is the only one who has made any suggestion of that kind to me recently.


Robert James Manion: Is this one of the items which the minister mentions in his budget speech as being one of 589 free items under the British preference?


Charles Avery Dunning: In the total, yes, but I qualified that statement, as my hon. friend knows, by stating that there were some fifty items of a non-effective character.


Robert James Manion: Some place in his speech the minister may have done so, but let me read this pragraph, from page 1631 of Hansard, where the Minister of Finance says:
When this revision is completed the Canadian customs tariff will consist of 1,188 items of which 589 will be free under the British preference.
Hay is one of them. He goes on:
The changes proposed have the effect of greatly increasing the British preference in the Canadian market.
That is the complete paragraph that I have read. The minister may protest all he wishes, but without a doubt he meant the people of this country to think that there were 589 free items under the British preference every one of which would be of some benefit to Canada. He makes no reference at all in that paragraph to certain items that would not affect our trade, but some place in his speech-


Charles Avery Dunning: Right close by.


Robert James Manion: I do not see it. It certainly is not in the paragraph that I have read.


Charles Avery Dunning: I will read it to my hon. friend. I said:
There have existed in our tariff, for years-


Robert James Manion: What page is that?


Charles Avery Dunning: I am not quoting from Hansard, but from a printed copy of the budget speech.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


William Gordon Ernst: How many pages is that
from the other page?


Charles Avery Dunning: In the printed copy I have it is on the same page. I said:
There have existed in our tariff, for years, many items carrying rates of duty in the British preferential column, but relating to commodities in which none of the various British countries has been an effective trader. Some of these items represent materials or articles in which, for the present at least, British countries may continue to be more or less ineffective factors; others are clearly of a nature in which a wider preference may be of real value in promoting inter-empire trade. We have decided, therefore, to make free under the British preferential tariff a further group of fifty items of this class.
That is in the paragraph immediately preceding those headed "countervailing duties," and following those paragraphs is the summary which my hon. friend has just read.


Robert James Manion: It is on the preceding page, it is a full page removed from the paragraph I read. When he quotes the 589 items which he gives as free under the British preferential tariff, he adds:
The changes proposed have the effect of greatly increasing the British preference in the Canadian market.
The object is obvious and unless my hon. friends are extreme in their views-and of course they are-it is very plain what they meant.


An hon. MEMBER:: Save it up for- the campaign.


Robert James Manion: We are pointing it out to let the public know about the humbug.


Charles Avery Dunning: I want to say a word on "humbug." We have just listened to some of it.


Robert James Manion: My hon. friend can speak as an authority on it. Go ahead.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend read this, but he was very careful not to read what immediately followed it; he read this:
When this revision is completed the Canadian customs tariff will consist of 1,188 items of which 589 will be free under the British preference. The changes proposed have the effect of greatly increasing the British preference in the Canadian market.
The importance of this enlargement of the preference is indicated by the fact that Canada imported last year over two hundred million dollars' worth of the commodities on which we are now increasing the British preference.


Robert James Manion: Well, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Finance has just shown us the type of humbug he is putting over. He admits here to-night that the $200,000,000 worth referred to was not British preferential goods at all, but represented the total imports, including the items on which the tariff was changed.


Charles Avery Dunning: Oh, no.


Robert James Manion: He did admit it, not once but half a dozen times. The minister was asked what the $200,000,000 referred to. He said it referred to the goods from all the world that were affected by these changes in the tariff.


Charles Avery Dunning: Positively not.


Robert James Manion: What does it refer ito then?


Charles Avery Dunning: What I say to-night is what I said in the budget speech. Canada last year imported over $200,000,000 worth of the commodities on which we now are increasing the British preference; that is, the commodities on which the British preference is by this tariff revision increased, of those commodities-not all the commodities touched in the tariff, but the commodities on which there is a definite increase in the British preference-Canada imported last year, $200,000,000. I stated it moderately; it is more than $200,000,000 worth by far.


Robert James Manion: I accept the statement now made, Mr. Chairman, but the minister said that we imported $200,000,000 worth from all the world, not from the British countries.


Charles Avery Dunning: I never said in the budget speech that the $200,000,000 worth was imported from the British countries.


Robert James Manion: But the minister implied that-


Charles Avery Dunning: Not at all.


Robert James Manion: -and we are going to increase the British preference on such items as wheat, barley, buckwheat, hay, cut flowers, and other lines of goods that we do not import and never will import.


Charles Avery Dunning: I have listened to hon. gentlemen opposite squawking on various items we have dealt with, because there is a possibility, forsooth, that some day they may get in here. Before we get through with this revision I have no doubt those hon. gentlemen will be complaining in a sense exactly opposite to my hon. friend's objection. They will be complaining because goods may come in from Great Britain under some of the items we are considering. If goods are to be admitted, that is wrong; if they are not to be admitted, that is wrong too. I might re-

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
peat once more my words-and the Canadian people understood them correctly, if my hon. friends opposite did not:
The importance of this enlargement of the preference is indicated by the fact that Canada imported last year over two hundred million dollars' worth of the commodities on which we are now increasing the British preference.
Surely that is plain enough.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Did you not say in the budget speech that we imported that amount from all countries?


Charles Avery Dunning: Never. The speech is on record in Hansard. My hon. friend is attaching to it the meaning he wants to attach to it instead of the meaning of the plain English of the words.


Robert James Manion: And, Mr. Chairman, the meaning that the minister expected us to attach to the words. The minister says we will be complaining both ways. Let me tell him that this is what we are complaining of. We do complain of importations from Great Britain or from any other country in the world that will interfere with Canadian production and Canadian work and Canadian wages. On the other hand, we do object to the minister or anybody else putting out a list of 589 articles to which he is extending the British preference as if this would mean a great benefit to the British Empire, when as a matter of fact half of those commodities we will never import from Great Britain or any other part of the empire and never have.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend says we will never import half. I have admitted fifty in the budget speech. I have wiped out fifty absurdities. Now my hon. friend will kindly watch as we go along as to the rest of that "half."


Robert James Manion: It will be pretty near a half. We have checked the list up and those articles do not mean anything.


James Arthurs: The minister admits that fifty of these articles will have no immediate effect on the imports from Great Britain.


Charles Avery Dunning: May not have. Perhaps I had better read that part of my budget speech again to my hon. friend.


James Arthurs: We will take it as read. What number of those items were included in this S200,000,000 worth?


Charles Avery Dunning: Not one of them. I have stated it here half a dozen times.


James Arthurs: Hold on.


Charles Avery Dunning: I have stated here a half a dozen times that in calculating the $200,000,000 worth of business which is affected by the widening of the British preference I left out of account United Kingdom importations in addition to the fifty items which I admit are not effective. I repeat, I have stated that a half a dozen times. Perhaps my hon. friend will remember it.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: With regard to this $200,000,000 worth of imports, has the minister the figures for 1929, either the calendar or the fiscal year, showing the percentage of the $200,000,000 worth brought in under the British preference, the intermediate tariff and the general tariff?


Charles Avery Dunning: I do not deal in percentages. I deal in actual facts.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: All right, let us have the actual facts.


Charles Avery Dunning: As to the actual facts, I shall give them and make them a matter of record for my hon. friend with respect to each item as it arises.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: You cannot give the
totals?


Charles Avery Dunning: The totals are made by a count of the items. I have not the aggregate,


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: You had the totals when you said $200,000,000 worth.


Charles Avery Dunning: It was made up on an adding machine, of course.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: It would not be hard to give those figures.


Charles Avery Dunning: The figures are more than


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: What is the proportion of the $200,000,000 of imports in 1929 coming in under the British preference, the intermediate tariff and the general tariff? Have you those figures for the last year of which there is any record?


Charles Avery Dunning: We have not the figures divided by the various columns of the tariff. We have not them made up. But may I tell my hon. friend that the object is to endeavour to divert trade which now comes to Canada from the United States so that it may come from Great Britain or the British Empire.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I agree with that, that
is all right; but if we had the amount of each item coming from Great Britain under the British preference, and from the United States or any other country under, the general

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
tariff, it would be very useful information. It is a very easy matter to total up the various items with an adding machine and give us the amounts that came in under the British preference, the intermediate tariff, and the general tariff.


Charles Avery Dunning: I have not the information in that form.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Can you get it?


Charles Avery Dunning: It probably is possible
to get it; I cannot say offhand. In fact the total 'figures I am giving under each item *would probably bring us to that result, particularly when we come to the larger items. But I will see what can be done along that line. I may tell my hon. friend, however, that when he gets the information in bulk that way he will be in no better position to determine how much of that trade can be switched to Great Britain. There will come before this committee many items of which we are importing little or nothing from Great Britain. We were assured by the British Federation of Industries and by others who appeared before the tariff board at its various hearings that Great Britain can trade with us if we will give her the chance; we are trying to give her the chance, My hon. friends are always looking for some general maxim to apply to all commodities. No such maxim exists. Different types of the same commodity follow different channels of trade. One type of a particular commodity could be switched from the United States to Great Britain whereas another type of the very same commodity, for technical reasons connected with its manufacture, very frequently could not be switched. The supply of raw material or any one of a dozen other things must be considered. My hon. friend has asked me to generalize; I shall endeavour to get that general information for him, but L hope members of the committee will bear in mind that my staff is busy with these matters and it is possible to ask for informa* tion which takes more time than we have at our disposal, having regard to the immediate necessities.


James Dew Chaplin: For my part, I am quite
satisfied to have the minister particularise; I do not want the information in a general way. In his address on the budget he was pleased to speak in general terms and at the present time I would ask him for particulars. Up to the present I do not know of one item in connection with which the minister has *come out flat-footed and said that he expects -to get a certain amount of British trade.
2419-14*


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, I have said that.


James Dew Chaplin: I have gone over these
items carefully and I cannot find one in which the minister has so committed himself. I want to be informed as we go along; I had and still have some grave doubts about yeast. I certainly do not agree with the minister's conclusions as to that item.


Peter McGibbon: This evening I have asked the minister on two occasions if his department has estimated the amount of business which would be switched. Probably he did not understand my question, but in reply he said that he had made a statement in the budget speech. I wish to ask him at what place in his speech he made such a statement.


James Dew Chaplin: Regarding the 5200,000,000.


Charles Avery Dunning: I think the hon. gentleman is expecting a little too much detail.


Peter McGibbon: I want to know the
amount that will be switched from the United States to Great Britain, and I think the minister should give me an answer.


Charles Avery Dunning: I have answered that
question at least half a dozen times. We have enlarged the British trade with respect to $200,000,000 worth of imports.


Peter McGibbon: The hon. gentleman
apparently does not gra$p my point. He told me that he had given the information, and I asked him on what particular page of Hansard it is to be found.


Charles Avery Dunning: I did not hear the remark of the hon. gentleman.


Peter McGibbon: The minister told me
twice that he had estimated the amount of business Which would be switched from the United States to Great Britain.


Charles Avery Dunning: No, I did not say that.


Peter McGibbon: I beg to differ with the hon. gentleman; he told me that on two occasions.


Charles Avery Dunning: I have refused entirely to estimate what will be switched. One can only state the opportunities which exist. If my hon. friends can tell me what degree of initiative and what degree of service the British industrialists will be willing to devote to it. if they will tell me what sacrifices the United States industrialists are willing to make, an estimate might be attempted. To attempt to say that so many million dollars' worth of trade will definitely be diverted from

2258	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
the United States to Great Britain would not be an estimate but would be an intelligent guess. We have earnestly tried to create trade opportunities, and in the opinion of the department that is all that can be done.


James Arthurs: I understood the hon.
minister to say that his department had had the advice of members of British boards of trade and British manufacturers who had appeared before the tariff commission in Canada. In how many instances did British manufacturers appear before the Canadian board? ,


Charles Avery Dunning: Directly or indirectly, there were representations made on ten or twelve occasions.


James Arthurs: The minister said they appeared before the board.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, they did; I cannot however give the exact number of occasions.


James Arthurs: Would it be one or two occasions?


Charles Avery Dunning: More than that. In a number of cases representations were made, and those representations are on record.


James Arthurs: They might have come from the United States or from Honolulu.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-79b. Flowers, natural, cut, whether in designs or bouquets, or not: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, 25 per cent.
Provided thait, if any country imposes on such goods produced in, and imported from, Canada rates of duty higher than are enumerated in this item, equivalent rates of duty shall be imposed on such goods entering Canada from such country.
Charles Avery Dunning: In 1929 the imports were valued at $254,000, almost all of which came from the United States. In the same year Canada exported $206,000 worth, and most of it went to the United States.


Leon Johnson Ladner: The trade returns show
that imports from the United States in 1925 were valued at $135,000. That would indicate that there has been an increase from $135,000 to $254,000. The imports from the United Kingdom in 1929 were valued at $93.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes,


Leon Johnson Ladner: I suppose this is another item Which is not affected. It would seem that the tariff has been increased from 17i to 25 per cent. I am not objecting to it, but I ask the reason for the increase.


Charles Avery Dunning: Hearings before the tariff board prompted the increase, and quite recently there has developed the probability of Bermuda entering the trade under the free section. She would be in a position to supply Canada with cut flowers during the off season. With modern transportation facilities the flowers could easily be imported. In fact, there is not much reason why they should not be transported across the Atlantic, except that it is not sound economically. From the West Indies, and Bermuda in particular, it will be possible to get cut flowers into Canada.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Does the minister think it is fair to allow these flowers to come in duty free in competition with our own production, whereas in some of the other items, such as beans, there has been a protective increase to the extent of 400 per cent? I am asking for nothing but a fair, common sense adjustment.


Charles Avery Dunning: The people in Canada who are familiar with this business are very well satisfied.


Leon Johnson Ladner: They have expressed their approval?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Robert James Manion: In other words, the Canadian people in this business do not expect much competition from the British Empire. That would seem to contradict the minister's statement regarding the West Indies.


Charles Avery Dunning: They are prepared to
meet the competition.


Robert James Manion: I venture to predict that there will be very few flowers shipped from the West Indies to Canada. By the time they reached Halifax they would be two or three days old and they would not be of much value, nor would they offer very keen competition to the native growers. Is this one of the fifty items?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Robert James Manion: The minister places it in the category of those items in connection with which 'he expects no change.


Charles Avery Dunning: In connection with the fifty items I have said that a small trade may develop. I did no-t count it, that is all. In explanation-


Robert James Manion: I think you were right the first time.


Charles Avery Dunning: In explanation may I say that there is a possibility of developing trade.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
I think there are possibilities for a limited trade, and because I think that, I have said so.


James Dew Chaplin: May I inquire if the minister has looked into the matter of the punctuation of the clause relating to countervailing duties?


Charles Avery Dunning: I have not settled that
point with the department, but we shall look into it. We haye plenty of time between now and the time the bill is presented.


John Anderson Fraser: May I ask the minister the United States rate of duty on this item?


Charles Avery Dunning: It is 40 per cent.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-83. Potatoes, including sweet potatoes:
(a)	In their natural state: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
(b)	Dried, desiccated or dehydrated: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
Provided that, if any country imposes a duty on potatoes grown or processed in, and imported from Canada, an equal duty shall be imposed on potatoes coming into Canada from such country.
Robert James Manion: I would ask the minister
for details.


Charles Avery Dunning: Imports of potatoes into Canada in 1929 included:	Potatoes, dutiable
and free, $134,000; potatoes n.o.p., dutiable and free, $540,000; potatoes, dried, desiccated, or otherwise prepared, dutiable and free, $4,000. In the same year exports were valued at $3,083,000, of which $1,140,000 went to the United States, $1,506,000 to Cuba and $145,000 to Newfoundland. There is also a slight change in the wording. Under the present tariff item there is another of these modified countervailing provisions; that is to say, potatoes entering Canada are now free, provided the other country does not have a duty against us. If the other country has a duty then our duty goes to 20 cents under the preferential, 35 cents under the intermediate and 35 cents under the general tariff. That applies to countries that impose a customs duty on potatoes grown in Canada.


Robert James Manion: The minister did not say
where the imports were from.


Charles Avery Dunning: Almost entirely from the United States. I have not in my notes any imports from Great Britain; they are not of sufficient importance to be noted as coming from anywhere else.
2419-143J


Mr. RYERSON:: I should like to ask the
minister to what he refers when he mentions dutiable and free sweet potatoes. He gave the figures as being on dutiable and free imports. What does he refer to? I do not understand that there are any sweet potatoes coming in free.


Charles Avery Dunning: I will explain to my hon. friend as I read the item. Item 83 in the old tariff is for potatoes, n.o.p., and potatoes dried, desiccated or otherwise prepared, n.o.p., They are free from any place, under that item. Under item 83a, if they are imported from a country which imposes a customs duty on potatoes grown in Canada, the duty is 20 cents under the British preference and 35 cents under the intermediate and general tariffs. Then we have item 84, which includes potatoes dried, desiccated or otherwise prepared when imported from a country which imposes a customs duty on Canadian potatoes, so my hon. friend will see that in each case there is a free item and what I call a countervailing item in connection with the same thing, so that some of these articles come in free and some are dutiable.


John Anderson Fraser: Now you have put them all on the free list?


Charles Avery Dunning: In the same manner as
they were before, with a countervailing duty,


Mr. MACDONALD (Kings):: Previously
we had a duty of 35 cents per hundred pounds against potatoes coming from the United States. Under this tariff they are now free.


Charles Avery Dunning: No; under the old tariff potatoes from the United States were free provided that the United States let in our potatoes free also, but if the United States imposed any tariff-which they did-then our duty against them became 35 cents. The only difference between the present proposal and the existing tariff is that instead of levying a limit of 35 cents on potatoes coming into Canada, when another country imposes a duty against Canada the duty goes up in accordance with the duty levied against our product.


Edward Armour Peck: May I ask what the duty is
against our potatoes going into the United States?


Charles Avery Dunning: The present duty is 50
cents per hundred pounds, and in the bill of the United States Senate the proposal is to make it 75 cents. Then on dried potatoes, which also are included under this item, the duty is 2} cents per pound, and apparently it is not proposed to change that in the Senate bill.
2260	COMMONS
TCays and Means-Customs Tariff


Robert Edwy Ryerson: Could the minister tell
me what the duty is on sweet potatoes entering the United States?


Charles Avery Dunning: There is no distinction.


Robert Edwy Ryerson: Then sweet potatoes
coming in here now will carry that same iluty?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-84. Onions, in their natural state, including onions grown with tops, shallots. and onion sets, the weight of the packages to be included in the weight for duty: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 30 per cent; general tariff, 30 per cent.
Provided that when imported under the general tariff rate, the duty shall be not less than three-quarters of a cent per pound.
Herbert Bealey Adshead: Would the minister tell us why the package is included in the weight for duty? Are you going to charge three-quarters of a cent per pound, or 30 per cent, on wood?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Of course; this is a low tariff government.


Charles Avery Dunning: 
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Charles Avery Dunning: -if agreement possibly could be secured among the growers as to the seasons which would be applicable reasonably across Canada, having regard to the difficulties which developed in this connection when the hearing was held before the tariff board. As we come to the items concerned I shall offer amendments which I will ask my colleague the Minister of Agriculture to move, stating a period of the year during which the exact specific minimum mentioned in the schedule will be operative. The first of these items will be No. 87, I think.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes. We have not come to that yet.
TMr. Dunning.]


Charles Avery Dunning: No, we have not come to it yet, but I am making the general statement with respect to vegetables. I do not think anyone can say with certainty, even yet, that these seasons will suit everybody. The growers have been very desirous of obtaining these increases; as far as they were concerned, of course they were quite satisfied as growers to have the season extend over the whole year in all cases, but they did not desire, from the point of view of their own business, that it should do so, and they have cooperated wholeheartedly in an endeavour to reach agreement among themselves as to what, having regard to the information they mow have about the various seasons, the proper length of time should be. As we proceed, I shall arrange for the moving of the necessary amendments.


Peter McGibbon: Probably the minister
could explain something to me. I quote now from his speech in this house two years ago, when he said:
Why, we had a plea for the onion growers. There are three hundred of them in Canada, and my hon. friends opposite want to tax all the people of the Dominion for the benefit of those three hundred onion growers.
Would the minister be g<5od enough to explain what light he got on the subject?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, I am quite prepared to say what I have said before this evening, that I am prepared to consider an individual situation in the light of the facts developed before the tariff board.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The facts have not
changed.


Charles Avery Dunning: No, these facts have not changed. I am unlike my hon. friend; I am not infallible.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Why does the hon. minister state something which is so obvious?


Charles Avery Dunning: That works both ways.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not think anything could be quite so obvious as the hon. gentleman's attitude in this case. No one can accuse him of being infallible in regard to tariff matters. No one who has read his speeches on the budget and at Regina can say that he is unlike Galileo, who, after he recanted, said:	"The earth does move,
though." I think the hon. minister is in the same position. In the meantime, what about onions?


Charles Avery Dunning: I have not recanted.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then this is a farce, the hon. minister is only putting it on to get past an election and then he will change. Apparently there is no reality in it after all.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: The minister has not
given an answer to my question as to why he includes the weight of the package in the duty.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is a matter of
administration. Perhaps the Minister of National Revenue could tell my hon. friend, but I do not see how it could be administered in any other way.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Would it not be possible to find the tare of a package?


Abraham Albert Heaps: When the minister was good enough to state to the house he was going to change the tariff on vegetables and-


Charles Avery Dunning: I did not say I was going to change the tariff at all.


Abraham Albert Heaps: The hon. minister stated that he was going to change it from an annual tariff-


Charles Avery Dunning: To make it apply during certain months.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Referring to the question
asked by the hon. member for East Calgary, I would direct the attention of the minister to the fact that in many cases the packages weigh more than the vegetables themselves. Take for example a case of lettuce packed in ice; the weight of the package and the ice would be more than that of the lettuce.


John Gordon Ross: When was a
duty ever charged on ice?


Mr. SPENCE:: This year.


Abraham Albert Heaps: The present schedule calls for a duty on the package and the ice.


John Gordon Ross: Did the hon.
member pay it?


Abraham Albert Heaps: I would like to know if the
minister could not arrange to have this duty collected on the vegetables alone, and not on the packages in which they are shipped.


Robert James Manion: What were the imports of onions?-they are rather hard on the eyes.


Charles Avery Dunning: I must confess I am
just a little tired.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Onions always did bring
tears.


Charles Avery Dunning: The imports of dutiable onions were valued at $697,000, and imports to the value of $62,000 came in free from Australia and New Zealand. We exported to New Zealand $28,000 worth and the importations from that country were of the same value.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Those were covered by
the treaty.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Abraham Albert Heaps: The minister has not answered the question I put to him. I want to know if it would not be possible to devise some way to separate the weight of -the vegetables from the container.


William Daum Euler: It would be extremely difficult to administer the act; in fact I think it would be absolutely unworkable. I dare say it would be physically possible to estimate or actually arrive at the weight of the package or container, but even the containers vary in weight. If the weight of the package were not included in the duty, then the rate would have to be raised.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The protection would not be ample.


James Houston Spence: The hon. minister should know that duty has never been paid on the weight of the package, it was an ad valorem duty. What is the use of talking like that? The minister does not seem to know his job.


William Daum Euler: My hon. friend knows very well that it was ad valorem or specific; now we have both.


James Houston Spence: Yes, that is right.


James Dew Chaplin: When the hon. minister brought down this tariff he complimented his clerks and the chairman of the board by saying: We have an orderly tariff.


Charles Avery Dunning: No, I did not say that; perhaps I had better quote what I did say.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The word was "orderly."


James Dew Chaplin: I mentioned it at the time because it put me in mind of the marketing which was being done in the northwest. I am very glad that the minister has changed his mind, because we certainly have not an orderly tariff on vegetables and fruits. We thought that three duties were sufficient, but the minister has added another one. He has the British preferential, the intermediate and the general tariff, and then he puts on a specific tariff-four tariffs instead of three. It
2262	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
may be all right, but I submit that the word "orderly" cannot be used in reference to this tariff.


Mr. GLEN:: During the course of the hearing before the tariff board of the application of the horticultural council, Mr. Burrows, the secretary, made the statement that the proposition submitted to the board would not increase the cost to the consumer.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What about the present tariff?


James Allison Glen: From what has taken place since 'the budget came into effect, it is evident that that statement made by that gentleman i3 absolutely incorrect. Throughout the whole of Canada to-day, fruits and vegetables imported into this country bear such a rate of duty that the cost to the consumer is necessarily increased. I do not propose to enter into any detailed statement regarding all the items in the tariff, because I think they can be embraced in one general statement. I do not know the fruit and vegetable trade as do my hon. friends across the way, but I can obtain information from someone who does. Mr. Savage, of Messrs. Plunkett & Savage, wholesale fruit merchants in Calgary, addresses an article to the consumers of Canada which I think is very illuminating so far as these particular tariffs are concerned. As I said during the course of the budget debate, I am wholly opposed even to a seasonal tariff, and I do not think that type of tariff gets away from the principle which is invoked in this budget. Any advantage which the producers hope to obtain is purely fictitious, and the day will soon come when they will realize that a tariff protecting their particular industry offers no protection at all. Many of those who asked for this protecitve tariff on fruits and vegetables are now satisfied that they have raised something which they would rather not have seen raised at this particular juncture. They may find that to-day the Canadian producers are somewhat averse to this particular tariff


Richard Bedford Bennett: And the coon came down.


James Allison Glen: I am not worrying about the coon. I am not talking about that just now. Mr. Savage is, I understand, a well known merchant and I am sure he is well known to the leader of the opposition.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He is one of my supporters.


James Allison Glen: This is from Mr. Savage:
Consumer:
Have you given any thought to the proposed tariff changes brought down in the budget by
Mr. C-hapIin.]
the government of Canada, May X, 1930? Are you prepared to accept the tremendous increased duty proposal? These increases were prompted by the specialized growers of fruit and vegetables of Canada which constitute approximately 2 per cent of our population in as far as importations against them are concerned. The facts are, if the budget is passed, that all the people of Canada must pay the bill.
I do not think there is any doubt about that at all.


Charles Avery Dunning: What is my hon. friend
quoting from?


James Allison Glen: I am quoting from a letter
that was written by Mr. S. S. Savage, a wholesale fruit merchant of Calgary. He says:
A casual examination reveals startling information. All cars of fruits and vegetables clearing customs since May 1 at all ports in Canada, the duties in my opinion will be more than double that previously charged. The importance of some of these duty charges I submit the following:-
The government in their tariff proposal is I10! ^untcut increasing duty on the commodity itself, but are charging a duty on packages-
That is directly contrary to the statement made a minute or two ago.
-and where a specific duty is levied, which is in 90 per cent of the cases, in addition to the weight of the commodity the weight of the package is included in the weight for duty. Even ice that is inside of containers to assure the safe arrival of perishable goods, is assessed.
Then he gives a number of instances of the duty that will be paid. I do not know that I need trouble the committee with them, but they are very large.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Put them on Hansard.


James Allison Glen: He continues:
As an example, in the instance of cabbage the duty will be equivalent to $25 per ton.
Onions, $15 per ton.
Carrots in bulk, $20 per ton.
Cauliflower will be approximately, $50 per ton.
Rhubarb, $25 per ton.
Spinach, $25 per ton.
Lettuce, including ice in the crate and the weight of the package will be around, $50 per ton.
Potatoes, $10 per ton.
Tomatoes, $45 per ton.
Celery, $50 per ton.
Cucumbers, $25 per ton.
Asparagus, $70 per ton.
Apricots, $25 per ton.
Cherries, $25 per ton.
Grapes, $45 per ton.
Cranberries, $60 per ton.
Peaches, $30 per ton.
Pears, $20 per ton.
Plums and prunes, $20 per ton.
Strawberries and raspberries, $70 per ton.
Apples f of 1 cent per pound including the weight of the package.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
Bear in mind all the above is the minimum duty. There can be a higher duty assessed, namely taking advantage of the ad valorem tariff, or whichever is the higher, you pay your money and the government take their
choice.	,	, ,,
1 wish to point out that 75 per cent of the fruit and vegetable business-
In this connection what the minister proposes will meet it.
-that is competitive with the United States that the season in which they are received covers the producing season in Canada of from thirty to ninety days. In the instance of tomatoes these are imported the year around into Canada and produced in Canada for a period of not more than three months, hothouse production excepted. Therefore the consumer is paying the same tariff the year around to protect the grower for a commodity that lie can only supply for from thirty to ninety days.
The proposed increase will undoubtedly mean increases in the price of the Canadian produced article as well as the imported article, and this will reflect in higher cost of living to our people of Canada, which will reflect itself iu the necessity for higher wages, which will not permit our manufacturers and producers to be able to compete with other countries, especially so when we are producing to supply world markets, which is a substantial policy of the Canadian government at the present time.
He goes on further to say this, and I think this is a very striking part of his letter:
The government and growers of Canada before allowing the present proposal to pass, should study the question in relation to the commercial condition in all of Canada. Surely it is not the intention of the government to adopt a policy that will tend to injure industry and agriculture itself. The Canadian consumer is and has been a very tolerant people, patriotic in fact, but in my opinion when they find a certain industry receiving a monopoly and trying to force an intelligent people to pay according to their views I feel certain they will be in a losing fight if the tariff as presented in the budget is passed. The people of Canada will undoubtedly tell the government when they go to the polls, that they are not believers in giving protection to the extent of what can be called a monopoly. I feel sure however, that inasmuch as our whole fiscal policy for the last sixty years has been built around a moderate tariff, that the consumer is still inclined to see a fair and reasonable duty levied for the purpose of revenue. I wish here to point out that the great producing areas of Canada are amply protected on all imports of fruit and vegetables when you consider the extra freight rates that have to be paid on like commodities as those produced in Canada. In the instance of importing to this market from British Columbia there is a rate on apples of seventy-one cents which is undoubtedly an excessive freight charge; a freight rate of forty-two cents on vegetables as against California of $2.10 per hundredweight and on vegetables from $1.65 to $1.85. In addition the icing charges are double and sometimes treble on all cars of fruit and vegetables as compared with British Columbia. Ill the case of Washington and Oregon the rates are a little lower than from California. It
therefore does seem to me that the position of our western Canadian grower in particular is a most favourable one as compared with the growers across the line from Canada who have to compete against the production of fruit and vegetables that come into their territory from all parts of the United States duty free. I therefore challenge the growers of Canada to prove through any bench of judges or an independent commission, that their position is worse than border states of the United States.
It just simply cannot be proved.
The Canadian producers that are clamouring and hollering for these prohibitive duties should concern themselves in production, producing more to the acre and varieties and qualities of fruit and vegetables that are demanded by our Canadian markets.
Then the writer says:
An excellent way of killing a home market is to raise prices. It is much more readily slain in that way than by prohibiting foreign imports. Moderate prices should lead to increased consumption. The fruit growers should be extremely grateful to the opposition developing to their demands. If they have their own way it is quite possible they will kill then-own market by driving the people to the use of foreign fruits which compete indirectly with their own production. You cannot force up the price of apples, pears, peaches, grapes, plums, and cherries, without leading to an increased demand for oranges, bananas, and pineapples, always providing of course that the price of tropical fruits is not increased by the artificial restriction of tariffs. The present position of the fruit grower in Canada is far from doleful, despite tales of woe from the weeping rooms raised for the purpose of drawing sympathy from the thoughtless and uninformed citizens. I know of no other instance where by protection a people are guaranteed a profit. Success can only' come when they learn to rely on their own resources instead of asking government pap and make the already overtaxed consumer pay for it.


Charles Avery Dunning: Will my hon. friend, for
the purpose of accurate record, say whether that is a letter published in the press, or what it is?


James Allison Glen: I understand it was published
in the press by Mr. Savage.


Charles Avery Dunning: A circular?


James Allison Glen: It was given to me as a
letter that was published.


Mr. STIRLING:: What is the date of it?


James Allison Glen: I have not the date. There
is no date tc it. Whatever may be the truth of the remarks as contained in the statement made by Mr. Savage, at all events I know that he is a wholesale fruit merchant in Calgary. In that letter certain things are stated far better than I could put them. I refer particularly to the remark he makes that this must certainly c*.,se increased prices to the consumer.
2264	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
Mr.. BENNETT: It has.
Mr.. GLEN: Of course it has. The main argument I have addressed on this question bears out the contention in Mr. Savage's letter that any tariff imposed on these articles must certainly be paid by the consumer by way of increased price. We have had the exemplification of that since the introduction of the budget. We know that the price to the consumer is greater, and those of us who live in the west know that he is not in a position to pay it. I think that these schedules ought not to be in this budget at all. It is the fault of our budget system that there may be a great many things in the budget with which you can agree and some things to which you are strongly opposed, but you have to vote either for or against the budget as a whole. You will find things that you know are detrimental not only to Canada but particularly to the people you represent. That is the case with this budget, more perhaps than with any other. The protective principle on agricultural products has been introduced, against which I must strongly protest and which I repudiate. I have never stood for it and I do not intend to stand for it. These fruit and vegetable schedules are detrimental to the best interests of Canada, arud they should be reconsidered. We cannot move amendments, but in view of the expressions of opinion coming from western Canada, where we shall suffer more than people in any other part of this country because of our long hauls, I strongly urge the Minister of Finance to reconsider these fruit and vegetable schedules in their entirety and come back with some method of alleviation.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Has the hon. gentleman
courage to move an amendment himself?


James Allison Glen: It is not a question of
courage. If you want to move an amendment, move it yourself.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is very strange, after this wholesale condemnation of the fruit and vegetable schedules by the hon. member for Marquette to find among the names of those who voted for the budget the name of Glen (Marquette). Surely the voice I have just heard is still the voice of that same gentleman, and the observations to which we have just listened were made by the same hon. gentleman who voted for the budget the other evening. Why this protestation now and the vote the other evening? Why support the government when it fears for its life, and oppose it when opposition is of no consequence? What is the reason?


Miss MACPHAIL:: Politics.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend from
Southeast Grey says "politics," and she usually is light. The hon. gentleman cannot be ignorant of the fact that during the last twenty-four months from one end of this country to the other, alike upon the prairies, in British Columbia, in Ontario and in eastern Canada, I have pointed out that all that was required for the purpose of enabling the Canadian fruit and vegetable grower to have an equal opportunity with his competitors was that at particular seasons of the year tariffs be made available that would prevent the dumping of foreign surplus products upon the Canadian market, thus destroying the home market of our own producers. Surely the hon. gentleman must recall that. Certainly in the Okanagan country, in as strong terms as possible, I referred to it. Then, lest it might be said that these observations were made where fruit and vegetables were grown, and not for the benefit of the consumer, I made the same observations in the cities of Edmonton and Calgary. I made the same observations in Winnipeg and Saskatoon and in eastern Canada. Why? Because in 1922, after a close analysis of the situation, it was realized by all parties in the house, except my friends to the extreme left, that it was desirable that the Canadian fruit and vegetable grower should have a chance to sell his product at a decent price as against competition that came to him by reason of the surplus products from other markets being pressed upon the Canadian market at a particular time of the year. Last year, for instance, just as our fruits were maturing in British Columbia, I happened to beatYahk junction, where seven carloads of American fruit had come in destined for the prairies. They represented the tail end of the American crop. The supplies necessary to meet the demand of the American people in Oregon and Washington had been provided, and the surplus was being sent forward at a price that enabled them to undersell the British Columbia producer. Some of these producers-there were gentlemen on the other side of the house, one at least, who passed through there a short time afterwards-actually showed me the results of their operations which spelt for them financial ruin, complete. They have been endeavouring to build up an industry in that particular area. I said to our friends on the prairies: Which do you prefer? To destroy industry in its entirety in the Okanagan and in British Columbia, or to enable it to live? Do you want in this country a foreign monopoly of

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
fruit whereby any price desired could be charged by the foreigner? That was the question. I never saw any difficulty at any time upon the part of fair-minded Canadian consumers in opposing such a possibility.


Edward James Young: What about the monopoly in British Columbia?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I cannot answer that
question; for I am not sufficiently familiar with the situation to answer it. But this I will say, that in the section which I visited last year there was no evidence of a monopoly.


Edward James Young: Was there not
a committee controlling the price?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not in southern British
Columbia where I was. They showed me exactly what they were doing, the competition they had to meet, and the efforts they were making to meet it. They did explain to me that they had a cooperative marketing board.


Edward James Young: And a committee of direction, which would haul any man to court who dared sell under their directions as to price.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They have a statute in
British Columbia, if that is what my hon. friend refers to. Of course it would have no validity so far as its operation outside the province of British Columbia is concerned.


Edward James Young: The committee
controls the price of our supplies on the prairies.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am not at all familiar
with its operations in that sense beyond what the hon. member now tells me. The statute to which I referred is a provincial statute-


Edward James Young: The committee are asking that American fruit be shut out except subject to their dictation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I trust that my hon. friend may be able to induce his Minister of Finance to see the error of his way, rather than seek to get one who sits on the opposition side of the house to reform his methods. The hon. gentleman will remember that in 1922 we passed a statute whereby the minister was empowered to make recommendations as to the valuations upon which prices were based for duty purposes at given seasons of the year. That is, it did not limit the time within which it might be invoked. It has already been explained to the house that that statute was put in operation during the all
too short life of the administration of Mr. Meighen, and it was found that its operation afforded the relief sought without increasing the price to the consumer. That is the main thing-without increasing the price to the consumer. The result was that it gave the Canadian market to the Canadian producer at a given time of the year.


John Gordon Ross: Does the hon. gentleman say that that order in council did not increase the price to the consumer?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Certainly.


John Gordon Ross: Never?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No. What was more, it was clearly indicated in Winnipeg, Calgary and elsewhere that the prices of the commodities referred to in the order in council had not been increased thereby over the fair market prices that prevailed even in other countries. That was the effect of it. Now what has happened? This government has placed upon the statute book a tariff on fruit and vegetables which applies all the year round. It is divided into two parts, an ad valorem tariff and a specific tariff, and whichever is the higher prevails. Its application in the city of Winnipeg and in Calgary is pointed out in the letter which my hon. friend from Marquette has just read. It was also pointed out in the Winnipeg Tribune, in the Winnipeg Free Press, and in other western papers. They were dealing not with theories but with actual oarloads of fruit and vegetables that came in from the United States at a time when they did not compete with the Canadian-grown fruits and vegetables; for we were not marketing them then, so that they did not in any sense interfere with the operations of the Canadian producer. I took the trouble since the budget was introduced to look a.t one of the markets in the city of Toronto, to see exactly where the vegetables that were being sold on that market came from. I observed that some of them came from Texas, some from the far Pacific slope, some from other parts of the United States. Now, at this season of the year, we are not growing cabbages, we are not growing strawberries, and we are not growing other fruits and vegetables that come in from the United States. So there is no reason why the consumer should have to pay an enhanced price by reason of the fact. The tariff that was in force before the government messed it up, as they did the other day, gave adequate protection to the producer at a time when he did not desire to interfere with his fellow-Canadians getting imported fresh vegetables and fruits that he was not growing. The act
2286	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
as it stood in actual operation provided a solution that was satisfactory to the people. My hon. friend from Weyburn (Mr. Young) put upon the order paper a resolution demanding that the order in council should be rescinded. In due course his notice of motion disappeared and the order in council was rescinded. Then there was a great gathering downstairs in the railway committee room. I do not propose to go into the details of that gathering-they were so admirably dealt with by my friend from Yale (Mr. Stirling) the other evening-beyond saying that in the discussion it became apparent that the vegetable and fruit producers themselves were satisfied with the operation of the order in council under the statute passed in 1922.


Edward James Young: Well, they might be.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Will my friend object to that? Now this government came in. Look at what they have done. At a time when protection is not required the maximum duty is applied; at a time when the maximum duty is required the minimum is applied. Instead of improving the position of our vegetable and fruit producers-as in the case of beans-they make it worse. Mark this, the government must follow some line of policy. They have made an increase of 400 per cent in the case of beans. Why do they not follow this policy in regard to fruits and vegetables? They have not done what the producers asked for before the tariff board. On the contrary they have adopted a principle of their own, which principle, as I have indicated is the application of a specific or an ad valorem tariff, whichever is the higher, with the result that the higher tariff will prevail at a time when it is not necessary, and the lower at a time when the higher tariff is required; and it is all the year round. What happened? The government of the day-shall I say?-compelled its supporters from the prairies to support that proposal.


An hon. MEMBER:: Nothing of the kind.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Did the government give a promise to those gentlemen that in committee they would reduce it? If so, a vote was given by a number of the members of this house without information on all the facts. That is the point. We have a right to know whether the government gave assurances to members from Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta that they would reduce this tariff. Did they or did they not induce them by those promises to vote as they did?


James Allison Glen: Do you wish an answer?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


James Allison Glen: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman has answered for himself. Then why did he vote for the budget in view of what he said tonight?


James Allison Glen: If you will give me five minutes I will answer.


Richard Bedford Bennett: When I am through the hon. member can do so if it will take that long. Why did he do that? Will other hon. gentlemen say the same thing?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sure.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Will they say that at the very time they were getting ready for the vote they were not having meetings with the horticultural council and the minister? Will they say that?


Charles Avery Dunning: Mr. Chairman, I should say here that I never met the horticultural council in conjunction with anyone else.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then we will say the minister met them alone, and the hon. gentlemen met the horticultural council without the minister, so there will be no misunderstanding.


Charles Avery Dunning: I may tell my hon. friend that a number of his supporters met the horticultural council.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so, in an effort to protect the consumers of this country by a just and fair tariff.


Charles Avery Dunning: It was quite proper for any hon. members to meet them.


Richard Bedford Bennett: On the first day of May this tariff came into force. This is now the 19th of May. In nineteen days thousands of dollars have been taken under this tariff more than will be taken under the proposals that the minister mentioned.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: And it shows up the high protective policy too.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Whose high protective
policy?


Alexander MacGillivray Young: Yours.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh no. Ours was a seasonal tariff. Why did the hon. gentleman vote for it?


Alexander MacGillivray Young: I voted for
the motion to go into committee of ways and means, and we are here now and will deal with the matter.

Private Bills-Procedure


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh, how amusing, Mr. Chairman, is the sophistry of the hon. gentleman from Saskatoon! He says: "I voted for committee of ways and means and we are now in it." That is his answer. That is the budget for him. That is the national policy now: "I voted for commitee of ways and means and we are now in it." Go and tell the citizens of the prairies that. Tell them: "I voted for committee of ways and means and we are now in it. That is my conception of my duty to the Canadian people."


Alexander MacGillivray Young: I did not say that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: "That is my view of the rights of the consumers and producers; I voted for committee of ways and means and we are now in it."


Alexander MacGillivray Young: No, you are distorting my words.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is the story of the hon. gentleman. Why, he looks his part. He voted for committee of ways and means and he is now in it, Mr. Chairman, and being in it the Minister of Finance proposes to get him out of it. Fie is suggesting that the way to get him out of it is to amend this item by reducing it. I ask again; why did you vote for it? Why do the Liberal organs in other parts of Canada say that those who voted against the budget voted against relief of the farmers? Why do they say any member from Nova Scotia who voted against the budget voted against the Duncan report? The sophistry works both ways. The hon. gentleman from Saskatoon voted for committee of ways and means, all the time reserving in his mind the right to express himself in committee of ways and means.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Tuesday, May 20, 1930