1931-07-13

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

[Stage Direction]
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I place the following questions on the table. The first question is:
Was the proposal to build a new railway station-
Mr. SPEAKER:: By what procedure does the hon. member undertake to give such notice? Questions to appear on the order paper do not require notice.


Mr. POULIOT:: I make the present motion because I left several questions with Mr. Beauchesne about a week ago which have not been printed on the order paper.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member has not adopted the proper practice in connection with this matter.



CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 113, to amend the criminal code.
Mr. LAPOINTE:: Explain.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: Mr. Speaker, I have been asked to give a brief explanation of the proposed bill. For the information of hon. mem-
Criminal Code

bers may I say that the bill consists largely of amendments to clauses which now appear in the criminal code. There are one or two new clauses, however, of which the first and most important is an enactment to punish what might be called nude parades or processions which sometimes take place in some of the western parts of the Dominion of Canada, and which have caused a great deal of trouble in the provinces of Saskatchewan and British Columbia. The present clause dealing with indecent exposure is not strong enough to prevent such parades and requests have come from the authorities in the western provinces asking that a new section be passed. The proposed penalty for taking part in nude parades will be up to three years' imprisonment.
The next section to which I shall refer prohibits the use of living bacilli as rat poison. The use of such bacilli is very dangerous and the Department of Public Health have asked that such use be prohibited.
The question of chicken stealing is one in regard to which the department has had a great many communications from all parts of Canada. I refer more particularly to the wholesale theft of poultry where organized gangs go out and clean out a poultry house in a few minutes. The penalty at present imposed is very slight and magistrates have taken a very lenient view of such thefts. The proposal is to increase the penalties.
The next change relates to the publication of false advertisements. Retail merchants' associations and better business associations have asked for the change, and there is a special clause protecting newspapers which in good faith publish such advertisements.
The next section provides for the adoption of Bill No. 34 on the order paper concerning the use of counterfeit seals, and applies chiefly to the liquor trade. This provision has been asked for by all the provincial governments with the exception of one, and by the liquor control boards of the various provinces. The section following concerns the same matter and is asked for by the Ontario Liquor Control Board whose seals in a great many instances have been forged.
The next section relates to the selling of goods falsely marked, and is placed in the act at the request of retail merchant associations throughout Canada.
Section 10 merely provides for the repeal of the section now in the criminal code in regard to the soliciting and carrying on of the insurance business. The section now in the code has been pronounced ultra vires by the

judicial committee of the privy council and the present change merely provides for the removal of that section.
Section 11 deals with false fire alarms. In some of the larger cities of Canada the practice of sending in false alarms has become prevalent. It is proposed to provide penalties for those sending in such alarms.
There is an amendment to the section in regard to injuries to animals.
The next amendment concerns appeals to the supreme court from the courts of appeal in the various provinces where there has been a difference of opinion in the appellate courts of those provinces.
Section 15 adopts Bill No. 46 now appearing on the order paper concerning bail in cases under appeal.
I think there is another slight amendment to section 1025 which I seem to have omitted from the draft bill but which I shall ask the committee to insert when the bill reaches the committee stage.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 119 for the relief of Lily Adele Caswell Dyson.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 120 for the relief of Thora Mary Balfry Walker.-Mr. Young.
Bill No. 121 for the relief of Marjorie Kathleen Younger Cooper.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 122 for the relief of Frank Godsoe Wilson.-Mr. Bell (St. John-Albert).

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
sitting of privy council
['This matter is in the hands of the pension appeal court. I understand the question has been argued before them, but they have not yet brought down their decision.']
Jean-François Pouliot: Was there a sitting of the privy council on the date of October 4, 1930?


Mr. BENNETT:: Mr. Speaker, I ask your
direction as to whether or not this is a proper question. Certainly such information has never been given before. Looking at some of the decisions, it seems to be abundantly clear that this is not the proper kind of question to ask, but I am entirely in the hands of the house.


Jean-François Pouliot: It is very inoffensive.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The question will stand
in the meantime.

Questions



Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: 1.	What is the total consumption of alcoholic liquor by quantity and value in the province of Quebec?
2.	What is the total consumption of alcoholic liquor by quantity and value in the province of Ontario?
3.	What is the total production of alcoholic liquor in the province of Quebec?
4.	What is the total production of alcoholic liquor in the province of Ontario?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think it might be difficult to answer this question in its entirety. I apprehend the hon. gentleman means the consumption as shown by the excise returns. Outside of that it would be impossible to say whether or not there might be alcoholic liquor consumed, because there are provisions for what is called "home brew," over which little control can be exercised.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Is that to be the answer?


MONTREAL HARBOUR COMMISSION EMPLOYEES
Mr. SULLIVAN:: 1.	How many men were employed by the Montreal harbour commissioners previous to July 28, 1930?
2.	How many men are now employed, and where do they live?
3.	How many men have been dismissed from
the Montreal harbour commission since July 28, 1930:	(a) and what were their names and
addresses; (b) why were they dismissed?
4.	Were any permanent employees appointed by the Department of Public Works in the district of Montreal from 1926 to 1931, if so, how many were at the time of appointment over 35 years of age and not returned soldiers?
5.	Have any employees, not residents of the district of Montreal, been appointed to permanent positions at Montreal under the control of the federal government in the following departments: (a) National Revenue; (b) Public Works; (c) Post Office?
6.	Are there any positions in the federal government service in the different federal departments at Montreal not under the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission?


Mr. CAHAN:: As to this question No. 19, Mr. Speaker, it cannot be answered until the time is fixed with respect to the fifth paragraph, which in its present form applies to all appointments since Confederation.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Stands.


CANADIAN PORTS-TONNAGE AND CHARGES
Mr. PLUNKETT:: 1.	What is the tonnage entering and clearing from the following ports in Canada for the last completed fiscal year: Sidney, Nova Scotia; Halifax, Nova Scotia; Saint John, New Brunswick; Quebec, Quebec; Montreal, Quebec;
Prince Rupert, British Columbia; Victoria, British Columbia; Vancouver, British Columbia; New Westminster, British Columbia?
2.	What are the charges or assessments made against all vessels entering and clearing from the above ports?
3.	How many of the above ports have harbour commissions?
4.	How many of the above ports are considered free ports or have only minor charges upon entry and clearance?
5.	Of the ports as enumerated in this questionnaire, which one has the least charges and wrhat is the nature of such charges for vessels entering and clearing from such port?
6.	What ports as enumerated in this list have compulsory pilotage charges, and what ports have not such charges?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Dropped.


TRANSHIPMENT OF CARGO FROM FRENCH OR SPANISH TRAWLER
Mr. RALSTON:: 1.	Is it a fact that permission was given to a French or Spanish trawler, within the past month to come into Halifax to tranship cargo?
2.	Was any permission applied for relating to a French or Spanish trawler coming into Halifax within the past month?
3.	Were any fish transhipped, and if so, what charges were collected?
4.	What were the circumstances, and will the correspondence be brought down with the answer to this question?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: 1 and 2. No.
3 and 4. Answered by Nos. 1 and 2.


MR. W. A. MORTON
Mr. BLAIR:: 1.	Was a contract entered into in July, 1930, with Mr. W. A. Morton of Richards Landing for the placing and maintaining of buoys for a period of three years from the date of said contract?
2.	If so, what yearly remuneration did said
contract specify?
3.	How many years has the said W. A. Morton performed the said service?
4.	Was said contract cancelled, if so, when?
5.	Was his work satisfactory?
6.	What is the reason for cancellation of said contract?


Mr. DURANLEAU:: 1.	Yes-for the maintenance of the buoy service in St. Joseph channel.
2.	$379.04.
3.	Six and one half years.
4.	Yes, as from 2nd July, 1931.
5.	No.
6.	On the ground that he had not been maintaining the service in accordance with the conditions of his contract.
Questions


QUEBEC AND MONTREAL BRIDGES
Mr. SULLIVAN:: 1.	Was the cost of building the Quebec bridge across the St. Lawrence, above Quebec city, charged to the Quebec Harbour Commissioners, and what was such cost?
2.	Has the new bridge across the St. Lawrence between Montreal and Longueuil been charged to the Montreal Harbour Commissioners?


Mr. CAHAN:: 1.	Capital expenditure on Quebec bridge, $21,706,664. This expenditure was borne by the government through the Department of Railways and Canals.
2.	Chapter 58 of the statutes of Canada, 1924, confers upon the corporation of the harbour commission of Montreal the power to construct a bridge across the St. Lawrence river upon certain conditions therein specified.
The last subsection of section 1 of the said act provides that:
The corporation may, for the above purposes, and from time to time, borrow money or issue and sell or pledge bonds for such amounts, at such rate of interest and on such terms and conditions as it may determine, and it may secure such bonds or loans by a mortgage or hpyothec on the said bridge and by a charge on the tolls and revenues thereof.


RIVIERE DU LOUP WHARF-PILE DRIVING
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	How many piles were driven at the
Riviere du Loup wharf:	(a) in 1929;	(b)
between August 7 and December 31, 1930?
2.	What was the cost of labour for driving these piles: (a) in 1929; (b) between August 7 and December 31, 1930, including the rent of a vessel, the use and repairs of a winch, and repairs of damages caused thereby to the wharf building in 1930?


Mr. STFAVART (Leeds):: 1.	(a) Mone; (b) Twenty.
2.	(a) Answered by No. 1; (b) Impossible to give labour cost as the driving of piles was done at various intervals when tide was convenient and at same time as other works, and hours of labour have not been kept separately.


MISS EDNA VANDERBURG
Mr. CHEVRIER:: 1.	Is Miss Edna Vanderburg employed as
stenographer at the government experimental farm at Indian Head?	_	_
2.	Is that position one under the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission?
3.	Was an examination held by the Civil Service Commission for the filling of that position?
4.	Did Miss Vanderburg successfully pass such examination?
5.	How many applicants tried the examination and what was the rank held by Miss Vanderburg at said examination?


Mr. CAHAN:: 1.	Miss Edna Vanderburg is shown in the records of the Civil Service Commission, as a stenographer grade 2 on the staff of the Department of Agriculture at Indian Head, Sask.
2.	Yes.
3.	Yes, two examinations were held.
4.	No.
5.	Miss Vanderburg was taken on by local selection in the absence of qualified eligibles, on October 13, 1930, and a temporary certificate issued in her favour for two months. The position was at once advertised for local competition, and Miss Vanderburg who was the only applicant, failed to pass the examination.
As it was felt that further advertisement might produce a better qualified applicant, the position was again advertised, and in the meantime Miss Vanderburg's temporary certificate was extended for another two months.
The second examination was held on February 7th, 1931, at which Miss Vanderberg and one other young lady were the only competitors. Both failed to pass the examination. In view- of the great difficulty experienced in the past in securing qualified stenographers grade 2 at Indian Head, the department was asked to state whether Miss Vanderburg's services had been satisfactory, and as a favourable report was made, it was considered advisable to retain her services in a temporary capacity until another opportunity might be given her to qualify.


SHELBURNE COUNTY MAIL CONTRACTS
Mr. RALSTON:: 1.	Who has the contract for carrying mails between south side Cape Sable island and North East Point wharf, Shelburne county, and what is the contract price?
2.	Who has the contract for carrying mails between Clark's Harbour and North East Point, Shelburne county, and what is the contract price?
3.	Who has the contract for carrying mails between Stony island and North East Point, and what is the contract price?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Contract has been awarded to Everette Chase at $675 per annum.
2.	Contract has been awarded to Everette Chase at $500 per annum.
3.	Contract has been awarded to Ethren Cunningham at $295 per annum.


ST. JACQUES DE L'ACHIGAN-CARETAKER
Mr. SEGUIN:: 1.	Who is the present caretaker of the public building at St. Jacques de l'Achdgan, in the county of Montcalm?

Questions
2.	Was Mr. Ludger Coderre, the previous caretaker, dismissed, and if so, by whom was his dismissal requested?
3.	Were there any complaints against the said Mr. Coderre, and if so, by whom were they made?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1.	Mr. Marcil Dugas engaged temporarily to look after the oaretaking of the building until the appointment of a permanent caretaker is made by the Civil Service Commission.
2.	Mr. Coderre's services were dispensed with owing to his having reached the age of seventy years.
3.	No.


MR. OSCAR DROUIN
Mr. DORION:: 1.	Did Mr. Oscar Drouin, of the city of Quebec, from December 29, 1921, to August 1, 1930, conduct any inquiries for the Post Office Department, and if so, what inquiries were held, and what was the amount paid to him?
2.	How many postmasters were found guilty through inquiries made by him?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Yes-Abenaquis, Beaupre, Belley, Berniqj; Clairvaux de Bagot, Cap au Corbeau, Chicoutimi Ouest,- Habertville Station, Jonquiere, Kamouraska, La Montagne, La Mare, Les Eboulements, La Patrie, La Tuque, Lac aux Sables, Metabetehouan. Normandin, Pont-briand, Port Alfred, Riviere Mailloux, St. Jacques le Mineur, St. Joseph d'Alma, St. Alphonse, St. Bruno Lac St. Jean, St. Agnes de Charlevoix, St. Isidore Dorchester, St. Anne de Beaupre, St. Clement, Ste. Marguerite de Dorchester. St. Gedeon Station, St. Gedeon. St. Tite des Caps, St. Paulin-[DOT] S4.314.03.
2.	26.


MR. WII.FRID STE. MARIE
Mr. DORION:: 1.	Did Mr. Wilfrid Ste. Marie, lawyer of
Hull, Quebec, from December 29,	1921. to
August 1, 1930, hold inquiries for the Post Office Department, and if so, what number were laid, where, and what amount was paid to him for such inquiries?
2.	How many unfavourable reports were made against postmasters, and how many of them were found guilty through the inquiries so held?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Yes, three: Notre Dame de la Salette, P.Q.; River Desert, P.Q.; Whitefish Lake, P.Q., SI53.05.
2.	Three; three.


MESSINES POSTMASTERSHIP
Mr. PERRAS:: 1.	What is the name of the present postmaster at Messines, in the county of Wright?
2.	Has he been permanently appointed or is he only acting?
3.	By whom was he appointed?
4.	On whose recommendation was he appointed?
5.	Did a post office inspector, or any other official of the Post Office Department, interview anyone in Messines for references in connection with the said appointment?
6.	If so, who?
7.	What was the name of the previous postmaster?
8.	Why is he no longer employed as such?
9.	Was any charge laid against him?
10.	If so, what is the nature of the said
charge ?
11.	By whom was it laid?
12.	If there was a public hearing of said charge, who testified in support thereof?
13.	Was that the sole reason for his dismissal ?
14.	How long had he occupied said position?
15.	How did he fulfil his duties during his term of office?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Edouard Lafreniere.
2.	Acting postmaster.
3.	Postmaster General.
4.	Notary F. A. Labelle.
5.	No.
6.	See answer to question 5.
7.	Frank Nault.
8.	He was dismissed.
9.	Yes.
19. Active political partisanship.
11.	Israel Labelle, Adelard Cecire, J. Belisle, Jos. Gorley and Alfred St. Jacques.
12.	Alex. Lafreniere, Wilfrid Lafreniere, Alfred St. Jacques, Adelard Cecire, Jonny Guitard. Germain Lafreniere, L. J. Gorley, Edgar Boutet.
13.	Yes.
14.	Twenty-seven years.
15.	No record of any complaints against his management.


BOUCHETTE POSTMASTERSHIP
Mr. PERRAS:: 1.	What is the name of the present postmaster at Bouchette, in the county of Wright?
2.	Has he been permanently appointed or is he only acting?
3.	By whom was he appointed?
4.	On whose recommendation was he appointed?
5.	Did a post office inspector, or any other official of the Post Office Department, interview anyone in Bouchette for references in connection with the said appointment?
6.	If so, who?
7.	What was the name of the previous postmaster?
8.	Why is he no longer employed as such?
9.	Was any charge laid against him?
Questions

10.	If so, what is the nature of the said charge ?
11.	By whom was it laid?	,
12.	If there was a public hearing of said charge, who testified in support thereof?
13.	Was that the sole reason for his dismissal?	_	_ _
14.	How long had he occupied said position?
15.	How did he fulfil his duties during his term of office?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Jos. Dessureault.
2.	Acting postmaster.
3.	Postmaster General.
4.	Notary F. A. Labelle.
5.	No. '
6.	See answer to question 5.
7.	L. H. Merleau.
8.	He was dismissed.
9.	Yes.
10.	Active political partisanship.
11.	Honore Bastien, Osias Roy, Jos. Dessu-reault.
12.	Joseph Dessureault, Osias Roy, David de Grammont, Honore Bastien, Joseph Poirier.
13 Yes.
14.	Twelve years.
15.	His management was fair.


LOW POST OFFICE
Mr. PERRAS:: 1.	Why have the two former post offices at Low, in the county of Wright, been closed?
2.	On whose recommendation was the new post office placed at the railway station?
3.	Why were the former postmasters of the said post offices retired?
4.	At whose demand?
5.	How long had they served respectively as such?
6.	What is the name of the new postmaster?
7.	By whom was he appointed?
8.	On whose recommendation?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	As one post office is sufficient to serve the district and owing to the reduced cost of service.
2.	Office placed at most central site.
3.	Locations not central for whole of district.
4.	See answer to No. 1.
5.	Postmaster-Low post office-from 12th July, 1927, to present date.
Postmaster-Low Station post office-from 1st October. 1926, to present date.
6.	John T. Kealey.
7.	Postmaster General.
8.	Notary F. A. Labelle.	*


GRACEFIELD POSTMASTERSHIP
Mr. PERRAS:: 1.	What is the name of the present postmaster at Gracefield, in the county of Wright?
2.	Has he been permanently appointed or is he only acting?
[Mr. PerrasJ
3.	By whom was he appointed?
4.	On whose recommendation was he appointed?
5.	Did a post office inspector, or any other official of the Post Office Department, interview; anyone in Gracefield for reference in connection with the said appointment?
6.	If so, who?
7.	What was the name of the previous postmaster?
8.	Why is he no longer employed as such?
9.	Was any charge laid against him?
10.	If so, what is the nature of the said
charge?
11.	By whom was it laid?
12.	If there wras a public hearing of said charge, who testified in support thereof?
13.	Was that the sole reason for his dismissal?	_	_	_14.	How long had he occupied said position?	_15.	How did he fulfil his duties during his term of office?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Joseph Lafreniere.
2.	Acting postmaster.
3.	Postmaster General.
4.	Notary F. A. Labelle.
5.	No.
6.	See answer to question 5.
7.	J. B. Merleau.
-8. He was dismissed.
9.	Yes.
10.	Active political .partisanship.
11.	Dr. Arthur Desjardins, Aime Gravelle, Fred S. Moore.
12.	Jos. Lafreniere, Edgar Boutet, Arthur Leeuyer, Aime Gravelle, Olivier Lafreniere, Simon Labelle, Dr. Arthur Desjardins.
13.	Yes.
14.	Five years.
15.	Management was fair.


AVIATION FATALITIES
Mr. AHEARN:: In view of recent fatal accidents, will the hon. minister of National Defence consider the advisability of giving flying club instructors absolute control of student and other flyers belonging to these clubs by regulations issued by the civil aviation branch of the Department of National Defence?


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: Under consideration.


UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. HEENAN:: For a copy of all telegrams and correspondence between any department of the government or any member of the government, respecting the entrance into Canada of workers from the United States at Fort Francis, Ontario, since April 30, 1931.

Unopposed Motions for Papers


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-RIVIERE DU LOUP STATION-REPAIRS
Jean-François Pouliot: For a copy of the specifications and details of repairs to Riviere du Loup station accompanying plan No. 17321-1, as approved by order 46476 of the Board of Railway Commissioners.


MR. JOS. COLLIN, BOND
Jean-François Pouliot: For a copy of the bond of the Employers' Liability Assurance Corporation Limited amounting to $10,000, accompanying the tender sent by Mr. Jos. Collin, general contractor, of Riviere du Loup, for the building of a new station at Riviere du Loup, which was forwarded to the Canadian National Railways and to the Department of Railways and Canals.


REPORTS BY MR. ALPHONSE GARON
Jean-François Pouliot: For a copy of the reports handed to the hon. Postmaster General by Mr. Alphonse Garon, inquiry commissioner, following inquiries held by him at Cacouna, Chemin Tache, Gironde, La Richardiere, Montagne Ronde, and Notre Dame du Lac, in the county of Temiscouata.


DR. G. R. DEVEAU-DISMISSAL
Peter Heenan: For a copy of all correspondence, applications, reports, memoranda, recommendations, and all other documents, to or from or in the possession of the Minister of Marine or any other minister or ministers of the government, or to or from any official or officials of the Civil Service Commission, or any other person or persons, relating to the dismissal of Dr. G. R. Deveau as marine doctor at Arichat, Nova Scotia.


Mr. DURANLEAU:: Mr. Speaker, I ask that this motion stand until to-morrow.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Resolution stands.


NORTH BATTLEFORD-AIR MAIL SERVICE
Mr. YALLANCE (for Mr. McIntosh):: For a copy of all documents, correspondence, memoranda, letters and telegrams exchanged between the Prime Minister's office since August, 1930, and any individual or association of individuals in the federal riding of North Battleford in connection with the cancellation or continuation of the daily air mail service now enjoyed by the city of North Battleford on the northern route of western Canada's air mail system.
For a copy of all documents, correspondence, memoranda, letters and telegrams exchanged between the Post Office Department since August, 1930. and any individual or association of individuals in the federal riding of North Battleford in connection with the cancellation or continuation of the daily air mail service now enjoyed by the city of North Battleford on the northern route of western Canada's air mail system.


PHILIAS BOURGET
Mr. BRASSET:: For a copy of all correspondence, reports, inquiries and other documents, regarding the dismissal of Philias Bourget, of Perce, in the county of Gaspe, as keeper of the lighthouse at Perce.


HATHERLEIGH POST OFFICE
John Vallance: For a copy of all correspondence, memoranda, letters, telegrams and other documents, exchanged between the department of the Postmaster General since August, 1930, and any party or parties in the federal riding of North Battleford, in respect to the change in the location and postmastership of the post office at Hatherleigh, Saskatchewan.


EDAM-POPLAR DELL RURAL MAIL ROUTE
John Vallance: For a copy of all correspondence, memoranda, letters, telegrams and other documents, exchanged between the department of the Postmaster General since August, 1930, and any party or parties in the federal riding of North Battleford, in regard to the establishment or otherwise of a rural mail route between Edam and Poplar Dell, Saskatchewan.


SIR HENRY THORNTON
Mr. CHAPLIN (for Mr. McGibbon):: For a copy of the order in council engaging Sir Henry Thornton as president and general manager of the Canadian National Railways.


DOCTOR LYLE TELFORD
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver South):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau): In the Vancouver Star of July 4, I notice an item stating that Doctor Lyle Telford of the city of Vancouver, who has been talking over the radio once a week for some considerable time, has been advised by the Department of Marine that this privilege shall be accorded to him no longer. I should like to ask the minister the reason for this curtailment of the right of free speech.


Alfred Duranleau: I have no personal knowledge
of the speeches made by the gentleman to whom my hon. friend refers, but I will inquire and report.


PENSION APPEALS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):: I
should like to direct a question to the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. MacLaren), as to whether he will expedite the delivery of the decision of the pension
Pasqua Indian Reservation

appeal court on the question of whether an ex-soldier now possessing a pension, or an assessment as it is technically called, who appeals for a greater assessment or pension and whose claim has been turned down by the pension board, has or has not the right to appeal to the regional tribunal. The question has been under discussion for eight or nine months, and thousands of applications are being held up because of the delay in coming to a decision.


Hon. MURRAY MacLAREN (Minister of Pensions and National Health):: This matter is in the hands of the pension appeal court. I understand the question has been argued before them, but they have not yet brought down their decision.



WAYS AND MEANS


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Minister of Finance) moved that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of ways and means.
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: Before this motion carries
I should like to take a few moments to direct the attention of the house, and particularly of the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Murphy), to a grievance of rather long standing. I have taken up this matter with the Department of Indian Affairs and have been unable to get any satisfactory statement from them; hence the only course open to me is to bring the matter to the attention of the house. Being our wards, the Indians are without other recourse than an appeal to parliament. I for one have been always of the opinion that the government of Canada has sought to deal fairly with the Indians, and I should like to think that this position is maintained even in matters that may be considered by us of minor importance. It may be because I have been in the west for nearly fifty years that the Indians wrote me with regard to this matter. The unsatisfactory replies of the department led me to inquire more particularly into this case. With reference to a certain lease to the Antapa club covering a portion of the Pasqua Indian reservation, I asked the department:
Will said lease permit the members of the Antapa club to take liquor on to the Indian reservation?
The answer I received, on May 4, was "No." A letter from the department under date of April 23 went further and said:
fMr. Neill.I
The lease to the Antapa shooting club does not permit the members to bring liquor into that portion of the reserve under lease, in fact the lease contains a provision directly to the contrary.
Yet clause 6 of the lease reads:
It is further agreed that the lessee shall not nor will sell or permit or suffer to be sold on the said premises any spirituous liquors, ale, beer, or any intoxicating liquors whatever, except ....
Let me repeat that word:
.... except to members of the said club.
That is, the liquor is permitted to be taken to the premises of the club, which is contrary to the Indian Act and also, I believe, a breach of the Saskatchewan liquor act. That, I would say, is the first misrepresentation of the department. Then the department replied to a question of mine:
The letter which you have received and which purports-
Purports:
-to be signed by the chief of the Pasqua band is almost identical with one or two communications addressed to the department by Mr. Galwey-Foley.
This statement is made notwithstanding the repeated protests of the Indians; in fact, I am informed that a delegation of Indians actually came down here, so evidently an effort is being made by the department to side-step any inquiry. According to the department the whole difficulty is attributable to the interference of a troublesome white man. The letter proceeds:
This lease to the Antapa shooting club has given the department a great deal of trouble, which I am convinced has in the main been caused by the interference of persons resident in that district but not members of the band. In this connection I would mention particularly a gentleman by the name of P. N. B. Galwey-Foley, a white man, who I understand now lives at what is known as Leader's Point adjoining the Pasqua reserve.
I have yet to learn that it is a crime to be a white man, or to protest against injustices on the part of official white men towards the Indians. I do not know anything personally about this Mr. Galwey-Foley except that according to the correspondence brought down I note that he is an ex-imperial officer. Further, to use his own words:
With regard to my integrity, I have the honour to suggest the name of Sir Frederick Williams-Taylor of Montreal.
Yet the department apparently takes the view that he is just poor white trash who can be disregarded.


An hon. MEMBER:: What is the date of
that lease?

Pasqua Indian Reservation


James Shaver Woodsworth: I shall come to that in a few moments. Mr. Galwey-Foley wrote to the Hon. Charles Stewart under date January 4, 1930, as follows:
It is possible that you are unaware that prior to negotiations being opened for the lease in question it was customary for Commissioner Graham to furnish permits to his friends to shoot on the Pasqua reservation irrespective of the wishes of the Indians notwithstanding the fact that the number of persons supplied with these permits in many instances prohibited the Indians 'from availing themselves of shooting ducks on their reservation for their own immediate needs and I might further state that in the great majority of such eases the Indians received no compensation from those taking advantage of such permits. This state of affairs was in vogue for a number of years prior to application for a lease of the Antapa point being applied for and in my humble opinion constituted a very justifiable grievance from which however the Indians were unable to obtain any redress from the commissioner, notwithstanding their frequent protests; this phase of the situation continued up until the close of the shooting season just passed.
Now, some years ago there was an application from a Mr. McDonald for a lease and it was refused on the ground that it was for a millionaire of New York. Commissioner Graham, in a letter to the department dated August 27, 1926, stated that he had received an application from Mr. McDonald for a lease, and attached to this letter was a copy of one which Commissioner Graham had received from Indian Agent Dodd, intimating that Mr. McDonald wished to obtain the lease for a prominent millionaire of New York, a Mr. Bernard M. Baruch. A similar statement was made to the present Prime Minister by the former Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart, Edmonton) on May 20, 1929. I quote:
The present disagreement was brought about a year and a half ago by Mr. D. H. McDonald of Fort Qu'Appelle who without the knowledge or consent of the department held a meeting of the Indians and secured their consent to a lease of this point for. as we were subsequently informed, certain wealthy Americans including Mr. Bernard Baruch of New York.
It was considered by the department that reputable and responsible citizens of this country should receive first consideration.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: Canada
first.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes; reputable and responsible citizens of this country should receive first consideration. But I am sure my hon. friend does not want us to be deluded by t'he Canada first cry into doing a substantial injustice. Mr. McDonald is now deceased; but in the return I find this statement from him to the acting deputy superintendent general, Vancouver, September 9, 1927:
The statements that I am acting for United States citizens are untrue and evidently made to prejudice my lease. If necessary the department can confine shooting privileges in my lease to British subjects. I challenge the statements referred to in your letter. . .
I am a bona fide citizen and lifelong resident in province, and have complied with requirements of Indian Act in connection with lease.
The above telegram was confirmed and amplified in a subsequent letter, and I have no doubt that this gentleman was telling the truth. He definitely denies that he was acting for anyone in the United States, and he declares that if there is any doubt about it he is willing to have the shooting privileges given to bona fide citizens. The lease to him was rejected on this flimsy ground, and I should not mind it so much were it not that this misrepresentation is continually repeated. When I tried to get the letters from the department there was apparently a desire to withhold some of them from the return.
The department next invokes property rights and in a statement to me says:
For a number of years this club has owned and occupied a property on Dominion lands directly across from Antapa point, which is Indian land. Before the issue of this lease the members of this club, during a few days in each season enjoyed shooting privileges on this point and for these privileges were always fairly generous in their treatment of the individual Indians. As a matter of fact Antapa point is so located that had the shooting rights thereon been granted to other parties, the value of the club property for this purpose would have been completely destroyed, as the flight of the ducks from the marsh to the lake is directly over the point.
But let me point out that the property rights, so-called, were acquired after the negotiations. The final negotiations for the property referred to were completed only in the year 1927, when the five acres of land mentioned were purchased for the club from a local farmer. This was during the period when the late Mr. D. H. McDonald's application was under consideration. With regard to Mr. Graham's part in this matter, I wrote to the department:
It would seem to me that Mr. Graham could not in propriety occupy the dual position of being a member of the Antapa club and also the official responsible for the protection of the rights of the wards of the government.
To this the department made no reply.
It was then that I asked for that correspondence, and this gives still further ground for dissatisfaction. According to it it seems to me that Commissioner Graham cuts a sorry figure. I have read Mr. Galwey-Foley's charge of favouritism. Mr. Graham's letter to Mr. Scott, of January 14, 1928, with regard to one of his officials, says:



Pasqxut Indian Reservation
I may say I find fault with the agent for not first taking the matter up with the department either through this office or direct.
Apparently he is willing to let down one of his officials. Then Commissioner Graham, in a communication dated October 29, 1929, defending himself, states:
The two permits which I did issue were to friends from Winnipeg who were out shooting. ... I would ask the department to let this matter rest in my hands, and to notify the chief, through the agent, that they understand the situation and that the matter should be left in the hands of the agent and myself, to do as we think best. If they are given to understand definitely that it is in the hands of the department, it might make them a little more satisfied.
Here is the commissioner, himself interested in getting the permit, asking the department to leave the whole matter in his hands, and saying that if it is left in his hands the Indians, in his opinion, will be more satisfied. This is a rather interesting attitude for a public official.
Next comes a memorandum from Mr. J. C. Caldwell, director of the lands and timber branch of the Department of Indian Affairs to the deputy superintendent general, with an annotation, "I agree." This annotation, I presume, is from the deputy minister-the initials are D. C.S. The letter states:
I am compelled to state that I do not think the situation is clearly set forth in Mr. Graham's letter. There is no doubt whatever but that someone gave permission or permits to a considerable number of outsiders to shoot on Leader's point and this the Indians of the reserve very keenly resent. ... As Antapa point is now under lease to the Antapa Shooting Club of Regina, Leader's point is the only remaining shooting ground for the Indians and I do not think that any shooting privileges should be granted there other than that approved by the Indians themselves and given to Sir Frederick Haultain. I would suggest that Commissioner Graham be informed that such is the decision of the department and unless he is in a position to submit some very strong argument in opposition to also tell him that we propose informing Chief Pasqua to this effect.
Here we have the deputy minister taking the commissioner to task because of misrepresentations he has made to the department. Mr. Graham appears to be obedient but he is somewhat sulky. He writes to Mr. Scott, on November 16, 1929, as follows:
I shall see that your instructions are carried out to the letter, although I feel that we are now paving the way for a great deal of trouble for the agent and myself. I am disappointed that my way of handling the situation has not met with your approval. I note it is your intention to write direct to the chief, and I would point out that whatever letter you do write to the Indians will be passed round to the outside public, including the gentlemen I 
have referred to, and I would ask the department not to place me in an embarrassing position with the Indians by making it appear that I was in the wrong, as I still think I was handling the situation in the best interest of the Indians.
Here is an official who says that it must not be made to appear to the Indians that he is in the wrong. This man is himself a member of the club which receives the benefits which are in dispute.
Now we come to the lease itself.- I will not take up the time of the house by reading in full the charges made by the chief. He states that the lease was granted not only without their consent but practically against their wishes and in contravention of the treaty act. This lease was granted to a syndicate known the the Antapa Shooting Club of Regina Limited, of which club Indian Commissioner W. M. Graham is a member. The chief complains that methods bordering on coercion were adopted for the purpose of endeavouring to force his tribe to surrender what they regard as their rights as contained in section 51 of the Indian Treaty Act. The chief states:

and we have not to date received any compensation for loss of rental amounting to SI,150 which we were deprived of owing to the department refusing to sanction the lease which was far more advantageous to us and had been unanimously approved by my people.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Would the hon. gentleman refer to the terms of the lease itself?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I will come to that in a moment. The Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) had some knowledge of this matter, as has the hon. member for West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart), who was formerly the minister in charge of this department.


An hon. MEMBER:: Make it snappy.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am hurrying as quickly as I can. The history of the lease is briefly as follows:
In 1924 the Antapa club of Regina offered the Indians $150 per year for certain privileges. A lease was made out in 1925, which lease was returned. The reason is given. Under date of January 19, 1925, Mr. D. C. Scott wrote to Mr. W. M. Graham, as follows:
The agreement which accompanied this communication is returned herewith as it is of no use. It is not a properly executed agreement, neither is it a surrender from the band. If the enclosed surrender is approved by the Pasqua band upon return of the documents completed and attested, the question of lease will then receive consideration.

Pasqua Indian Reservation
At that time the Antapa club had no rights which were recognized; it had simply made an application and had offered a form of lease which was not in fact a lease. In 1926 Mr. McDonald made an application for a lease and offered $550 per year payable in advance. This is shown in the letter of the hon. member for West Edmonton to the present Prime Minister dated May 20, 1929. This letter gave a history of the case and stated that Indian Agent Geo. S. Dodd had been present at the meeting of the Indians, who were unanimously in favour of the lease to Mr. McDonald on the terms offered. Mr. Dodd explained at that time that the lease would be subject to the approval of the department. So far everything seemed to be in order. But other influences were at work. The following is a memorandum of Mr. D. C. Scott, dated September 29, 1926:
The Antapa Shooting Club in their application suggested an annual rental of $150 for the privileges involved, which sum in itself would appear sufficient but as the Indians have now signed an agreement and have been promised an annual rental of $550, the matter is, as you will see, very much complicated.
I should think it would be rather complicated. This club had as a member the Indian commissioner. An offer had been made by another party to pay a rental of $550 per year in advance, and that offer had to be side-tracked. It was stated that the offer was made by a New York millionaire, but we have the statement of Mr. McDonald, a former member of the provincial house, now deceased, to the effect that he was not asking for any but Canadian citizens. The following is a letter dated November 23, 1926, from Mr. D. C. Scott to Mr. E. B. Jonah, who was acting for the Antapa club:
It will be necessary for your club to obtain the consent of a majority of the voting members of the Pasqua band before the department could give favourable consideration to your application. A copy of the agreement which Mr. McDonald made with the Pasqua band is enclosed herewith, and I may add that it bears the signatures of a majority of the voting members of the band. It appears that the Pasqua band is opposed to granting any formal release or surrender of this portion of the reserve for the purpose indicated, but if you succeed in obtaining the signatures of a majority of the voting members to a similar agreement, the department is prepared to agree to the terms and conditions set forth in your letter, but of course these terms and conditions must be approved by the band before any further action can be taken.
That was the attitude of Mr. Scott in 1926, an attitude perfectly correct and I believe in harmony with the Indian Act. The signatures for the consent of the band have never been
22110-234 J
obtained and yet a lease has been granted under date of January 14, 192S. The hon. member for West Edmonton wrote to the present Prime Minister under date of May 20, 1929, as follows:
It is the practice of the department whenever possible and within reason to act in accordance with the wishes of the members of the band, but in this case it was felt that in the general interest an exception should be made.
The hon. member practically states that it is the practice of the department to act in accordance with the law when it suits the department. The minister was there to carry out the terms of the Indian Act, but he puts it aside on the ground that this exception is in the general interest. How is it in the general interest? It was in the interest of Mr. Graham and other members of the Antapa club, but it was not in the interest of Mr. McDonald who stated that he was willing that the lease should be made out in such a form as to permit only British subjects to shoot in that territory. Cancellation was refused and Mr. D. C. Scott wrote to Chief Ben Pasqua, under date of February 16, 1931, as follows:
It has been decided that this lease is of decided advantage to your band and sufficient reason has not at any time been advanced which, in our estimation, would justify cancellation.
Apparently the department has reviewed the situation and has refused to cancel the lease which contains clauses opposed to the Indian Act, especially with reference to the importation of liquor into the reserve. This lease was granted after refusal of the application of another Canadian who had offered more advantageous terms. This action was taken after the department had definitely set aside the act under which it is stipulated that the consent of the majority of the Indians must be obtained before a lease can be granted.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Would the hon. gentleman be good enough to indicate the term of the lease? I recall looking into the matter, and I thought the provision with respect to the term of the lease, as compared with the usual lease, was very much in favour of the Indians. Would he look at it?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I have the lease under my hand. I am not suggesting that on its face it is not a favourable lease.


Richard Bedford Bennett: As to the length of time.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The length of time is longer than might be expected and they get this money regularly. I would point out

Pasqua Indian Reservation
however that the club had to pay S550 instead of $150 because of the other offer that was made the Indians by Mr. McDonald.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am relying only on memory, but am I not right in saying that instead of its being a lease of the land within the Indian Act, it is merely a lease of the right to shoot? I remember when I investigated the matter I became impressed with that fact.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I know the Prime Minister, when in opposition, made some inquiries, and I think, if I may say so, he was somewhat misled by the department, as I was misled by the letters which I received. It was not until I looked into the correspondence that I felt that the department had not been playing fair. That is my only reason for having taken the matter up in the house As a layman I am not prepared to say just when a lease is not a lease, but I would point out to the Prime Minister that the lease itself is in this form:
By these presents doth demise and lease unto the said party of the second part. . . . and the lessee has hereunto affixed its seal.
And so on.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What did they lease- the land or the right to shoot?


James Shaver Woodsworth: The right to shoot.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what I thought.


James Shaver Woodsworth: This is the point: In the earlier negotiations the department had clearly recognized the necessity of obtaining the consent of the band. The document is constantly spoken of as a lease and in the earlier correspondence it is shown that the department insisted that the consent of the majority of the members of the band should be obtained. May I say further in reply to the Prime Minister: although I am not a lawyer, I believe a recent decision in the courts of Saskatchewan would seem to indicate that I am correct in suggesting that this bind of document is a real lease as contemplated by the Indian Act.
I would charge this: that there has been a series of misrepresentations by the department; that Commissioner Graham, a member of the Antapa club, through misrepresentation, managed to secure the refusal of the lease to one party, and to secure the lease for the club of which he was a member. I think that is a matter which requires departmental action. I know this cannot be settled to-day, but I have taken this occasion to lay it before the house, and I think the minister would be well advised to consider the state-

memt that his own commissioner, a public official, who is a member of the club, has managed to secure these privileges through misrepresentation of the general situation.
I have already pointed out that the clause with regard to liquor violates the terms of the Indian Act, a copy of which I have under my hand and which I can read if necessary. The lease is illegal as being granted without the consent of the band and undoubtedly the whole transaction constitutes a grievance which the Indians feel deeply.
That after all is the most important consideration that I could bring before the house, namely, that the whole manner of handling the situation constitutes in the minds of the Indians a very serious grievance. I know some members may say: They are only a few Indians; who cares? It may further be pointed out that some of the members of the club are quite respectable citizens of the city of Regina, I am given to understand that some of them do not know just the representations that were made in order that the lease could be secured1; indeed I can hardly understand that any respectable citizen would want to take advantage of people who are, after all, wards of the government. I ask for a thorough inquiry on the part of the department, and since the present minister has had nothing whatever to do with the past, I would urge that he consider the question of the cancellation of the lease which, I believe, has not been obtained by a method that would justify itself to the members of the house and to the country at large.


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (West Edmonton) :: As my name appears very prominently in the observations made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) with regard to this lease, although I can speak only from memory and one does not want to depend too greatly upon one's memory respecting a multitude of actions of this kind-


Richard Bedford Bennett: I hope not of this kind.


Charles A. Stewart: If my hon. friend will read the Indian Act he will find that the department and the minister have full authority to deal with matters that are in dispute so far as the Indians are concerned. It is quite true the department invariably tries to secure the consent of the Indians, but that is not always possible, more particularly, may I say, when people get into a dispute in regard to certain privileges that are being granted upon these reserves. That was the case in the instance mentioned by my hon. friend. It ran over a period of some two or

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
three years. The application was on behalf of a group of New Yorkers who desired to secure this privilege as against a group of gentlemen in Regina, some of them on the bench, and all, so far as I know, gentlemen of good repute. When the department was finally called upon to make a decision, it gave the lease at the same rental to the Canadian citizens living in Regina.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Does the hon.
member mean to sweep aside this declaration by Mr. McDonald?


Charles A. Stewart: Mr. Mc-
Donald, when he found he could not secure a lease for the New Yorkers, later made an application for himself. I did not pay much attention to that. His first application, as is very clear from the evidence the hon. member has himself given to the house, was on behalf of a group of New Yorkers. Subsequently when he found that was to be refused, he made application for himself, but in the meantime, the Regina club was quite willing to accept a lease and pay the rental that was asked. I am not going to say that I would change my opinion one iota with respect to the granting of this lease. If my hon. friend will study the Indian Act, he will find full authority for every action taken by the department. As regards taking liquor on the reserve, the law is very clear and all that has to be done is to institute prosecution. It is an infraction of the law.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It is permitted by the lease.


Charles A. Stewart: It is not
permitted by the lease. That is all I have to say in connection with the matter.


Hon. T. G. MURPHY (Minister of the Interior) :: I should like to ask the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woods-worth) one question. If I understood him correctly, he based his remarks just made on a complaint made to him by the Indians themselves. Is that correct?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I have based my
complaint on the most unsatisfactory and contradictory answers which I have received from the minister's own departmental officials.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: But in the first instance
the complaint was made to my hon. friend by the Indians? That was the reason he interested himself in the matter?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: Following that, the complaint is that the terms of the lease are not advantageous to the Indians; that they couldj make a better disposal of their property?


James Shaver Woodsworth: No. I shall have
to ask the minister to read my speech; otherwise I shall have to go over it again.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: During the course of the
hon. gentleman's remarks, if I heard him correctly-and I think I did-the complaint was that the department was not looking after the interests of the Indians who are the wards of the government. Therefore I ask him: Is it his complaint that the interests of the Indians are not looked after properly in . the terms of this lease?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I made the statement-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I must remind hon. members that the house is not in committee. Does the resolution carry?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the house went into committee of ways and means, Mr. Senn in the chair.


Richard Bedford Bennett: When the committee rose I think we were at item No. 89. Item No. 76b had been allowed to stand; we had adopted item 76c, and in connection with the items between numbers 71 and 76b there was one in connection with which I would like to learn whether or not it was adopted. The rates under 76c are all free, and I presume there will be no discussion concerning that particular item. I think I am correct when I state that we had reached item 89.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Senn):: Is No. 76c carried?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, it was, and I addea item 76d which was adopted.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, that is correct.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Very well, we shall proceed with item 89.
Customs tariff-89. Vegetables, prepared, in air-tight cans or other air-tight containers, the weight of the containers to be included in the weight for duty:
(a)	beans, baked or otherwise prepared, per pound: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 2 cents; general tariff, 3 cents.
(b)	corn and tomatoes, per pound: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 2 cents; general tariff, 3 cents.
(c)	peas, per pound:	British preferential
tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 2 cents; general tariff, 3 cents.
(d)	N.o.p.: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 275 per cent; general tariff,
30 per cent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If hon. gentleman will look at item No. 89 they will find that because
3680	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Custoins Tariff
of representations which have been made by the vegetable and other interests these items have been recast.


Mark Cecil Senn: Is item 76b passed?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes. Item 89 has been recast and hon. members will observe that at present it reads: Beans, baked or otherwise prepared, per pound, free, 2 cents and . 3 cents. Corn and tomatoes are on the pound basis; pears are on the per pound basis and the items not otherwise provided are free, 274 per cent and 30 per cent.


Charles A. Stewart: What is the object of mixing the specific and ad valorem rates?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The ad valorem rate is necessary when dealing with items not otherwise provided.


Charles A. Stewart: I understand.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Personally I prefer specific duties in matters of this kind. The n.o.p. item might cover many commodities which could not otherwise be included. For the information of the committee I shall set out a comparison of the rates, although hon. members have before them this information. The
(a)	section of item 89 formerly held the rates of free, 14 cents and 14 cents which has been changed to free, 2 cents and 3 cents. The
(b)	section of item 89 formerly held the rates of free, li cents and 2 cents, which has been changed to free, 2 cents and 3 cents. The former rates under section (c) of item 89, referring to peas were one cent, 14 cents and 2 cents, and have been changed to free, 2 cents and 3 cents. In this particular case the British preferential tariff is reduced from one cent to free.


Mr. VENIOT:: What quantity of canned
peas were imported last year from Great Britain? I am referring to item 89.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I understand. As a
matter of fact the importations from Great Britain have not been separated. The importations under the former item were valued at $373,000, coming chiefly from the United States and Belgium, and very few from Great Britain. The duty in that case has been reduced.


Peter John Veniot: All right.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-90. Vegetables, prepared or preserved:
(a)	dried, desiccated or dehydrated, including vegetable flour, n.o.p: British preferential

tariff, 15 per cent; intermediate tariff, 274 per cent; general tariff, 30 per cent.
(b)	pickled or preserved in salt, brine, oil or in any other manner, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, 20 per cent; intermediate tariff, 324 per cent; general tariff, 35 per cent.
(c)	vegetable extracts or juices, liquid
mustards, soy and vegetable sauces of all kinds: British preferential tariff, 15 per cent; intermediate tariff, 324 per cent; general tariff, 35 per cent.	_
(d)	pastes, hash and all similar products composed of vegetables and meat or fish, or both, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, 15 per cent; intermediate tariff, 324 per cent; general tariff, 35 per cent.
Richard Bedford Bennett: In connection with item 90 there is a slight change, namely, the rewording of subsection (d). I would ask hon. members in the committee to look at that particular subsection. In administration some few difficulties were experienced, and as hon. members will observe the item now stands:
(d) pastes, hash and all similar products composed of vegetables and meat or fish, or both, n.o.p.
Goods of various kinds were classified indifferently and the proposed change is made for the purpose of aiding administration. Other than that there is no material change in the item, with the exception, of course, of the changes in rates.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Richard Bedford Bennett: 
Richard Bedford Bennett: Item 99d is a perpetuation of an existing item with a slight change in connection with bulk dates. There, is no change in the rates, and the change in the item is made merely for the simplification of administration.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Richard Bedford Bennett: We shall now proceed
to item 99e.
Customs tariff-99e. Dates, n.o.p., the weight of the package to be included in the weight for duty, per pound: British preferential tariff, one cent; intermediate tariff, lj cents; general tariff, 24 cents.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hon. members will
observe that there is no change in the item, but it appears merely to simplify administration.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Charles A. Stewart: The changes as to reclassification were made in September?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so.


Mr. McMILLAN (Huron):: Is it a fact
that the weight of the package has been changed, somewhat?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


Thomas McMillan: And the effect is to raise the duty to a certain degree?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Very slightly. In this
connection we are following the practice of other countries in connection with modern administration. It is difficult to consider the package as distinguished from the commodity so they are both included in weight for duty purposes.


Peter John Veniot: There will be a slight increase on account of the slight additional rate?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


Mr. SPENCER:: In regard to package
dates, the weight of the package refers only to the cardboard package in which the dates are placed?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-99f. Pigs, dried, per pound: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 3 cent; general tariff, | cent. When in packages weighing two pounds each, or less, the weight of such packages to be included in the weight for duty.
Richard Bedford Bennett: 
Charles A. Stewart: Do we get
any appreciable amount from Great Britain or the dominions?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, they come more
particularly directly from Turkey and Smyrna. They also come from the United States, some of which are the product of that country and some the product of foreign countries.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I am sorry I shall have
to ask the committee to let item 101 stand. The item would not appear if it were not for the Australian treaty.
Customs tariff-101a. Lemons: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is no change in connection with this item, there merely being a separation.


Peter John Veniot: Item 101 stands?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


Mr. ELLIOTT:: I see that formerly oranges and lemons were both in the same category, free, free, free; now oranges are free, 35 cents and 35 cents; while lemons remain free, free, fre. What is the reason for the distinction; has it reference to the Australian treaty?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes. As I said a moment ago oranges are produced in substantial commercial quantities in South Africa, the British West Indies and Australia. I will go into details when the Australian treaty is under consideration. I hope to file a copy of the treaty to-night, together with the appropriate resolution, so when we get back to this item the committee will be seized of all the facts.


Thomas McMillan: Then the item can be fully discussed?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so.


Mr. COOTE:: The items affected by the Australian treaty will stand until to-morrow?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes. I am purposing to table a copy of the agreement to-night so it will be in to-morrow's votes and proceedings. That will enable the committee to have some knowledge of it, and if it is not adequate the items can stand over until next day when they will have a clearer understanding of them.
Item 101a agreed to.
Customs tariff-105d. Jellies, jams, marmalades, preserves, fruit butters and condensed mince meats, per pound: British preferential tariff, 2f cents; intermediate tariff, 3| cents; general tariff, 5 cents.


Mr. YOUNG:: Is the slight increase in the duty on marmalades attributable to the duty on oranges, item 101a?


Richard Bedford Bennett: We will discuss that when we discuss the item. This item is exactly the same as before except for the deletion of the words "fruit pastes." There is a change from 2|, 3f, Zi to 2|, 3f and 5 cents.


Charles A. Stewart: Is that not a pretty stiff rate on the general?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, it is.


George Gibson Coote: That will include the weight of the tin container, I suppose?


Thomas McMillan: Is it expected that there will be any increase in price on account of the added duty under the general tariff?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The only increase, it will be observed, is in the general tariff. No marmalades are imported under the general
3682	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff _
tariff. The increase really affects jams, with respect to which an undertaking has been given that there will be no increase in price.


Charles A. Stewart: Does my
hon. friend say there is no importation under the general?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Of marmalades.


Charles A. Stewart: But this
covers jellies and preserves. I see under these two items we have imported 1.218,000 pounds.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Under the general tariff the imports amounted to $155,000, and they were chiefly from Great Britain-as a matter of fact 1,200,000 pounds.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Richard Bedford Bennett: If the committee please, we will not discuss item 106 now because it is affected by the Australian treaty. We might pass on to item 120, which is not affected by the treaty.
Customs tariff-120. Anchovies, sardines, sprats, pilchard and herring (not including kippered herring in sealed containers), packed in oil or otherwise, in sealed tin containers, the weight of the tin container to be included in the weight for duty:
(a)	when weighing over twenty ounces and not over thirty-six ounces each, per box: British preferential tariff, 3J cents; intermediate tariff, 5 cents; general tariff, 6 cents:
(b)	when weighing over twelve ounces and not over twenty ounces each, per box: British preferential tariff, 21 cents; intermediate tariff, 4 cents; general tariff, 4\ cents:
(c)	when weighing over eight ounces and not over twelve ounces each, per box: British preferential tariff, 2 cents; intermediate tariff, 3 cents; general tariff, 3) cents.
(d)	when weighing eight ounces each or less, per box: British preferential tariff, 11 cents; intermediate tariff, 2 cents; general tariff, 2J cents.


Peter John Veniot: Formerly kippered herring
was included, and all fish preserved in oil was under a specific duty. Under this item kippered herring is excluded and is subject to an ad valorem duty under item 121.


Alan Webster Neill: Item 123.


Peter John Veniot: Under that item kippered
herring would carry a duty of 20, 30 and 35 per cent. What are the importations under the intermediate tariff? I take it that kippered herring would be subject to the intermediate tariff under the favoured nations clause?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I take it my hon. friend has reference to paragraph (d) "when weighing eight ounces or less per box."


Peter John Veniot: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Under paragraph (d) we imported $453,000 worth, of which $393,000 came from Norway, $25,000 from France, $8,000 from the United States and $7,000 from the United Kingdom.


Peter John Veniot: The $393,000 worth from
Norway would come under the 30 per cent?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


Peter John Veniot: What is the wholesale price in Canada of kippered herrings in boxes weighing under eight ounces?


Richard Bedford Bennett: As I understand it, the
laid down price, including freight c.i.f. Montreal is 3|. This item has engaged the attention of the department for a good deal of time. Last fall a change was made in the rate that had theretofore existed. This practically restores the rate in force prior to September. There is a treaty outstanding with Norway, and representations were made by the consul general of that kingdom with respect to the matter, and we also received representations with respect to the industry in Great Britain. In view of the facilities for export provided for by our packers, one in particular, that sells the product in thirty countries, it was felt, having regard to the representations made last fall, which on investigation were found to be strictly accurate, that this item should be restored to its former position.


Peter John Veniot: This item previous to
September last was under a specific duty and all products of this kind coming in from any country whatever under paragraph (d) had to pay a specific duty of 2\ cents for an eight ounce box or under. Now, what are the facts? When this protection was given the kippered herring industry a few years ago the Norwegians could not compete with our Canadian products unless they reduced the size of their container. I do not mean competing in the matter of duty, but in the matter of trade and commerce. They could not sell their goods in Canada in competition with our own kippered herrings on a four-ounce basis, because if they put up a four-ounce can they had to pay the specific duty on eight ounces, since the item covered containers of eight ounces or less.
When they saw that our product could be put in four or five ounce tins and sold at retail for five cents-the poor man's cheap food-the Norwegian government undertook to see if they could not have a change made. An appeal was made to the government under the favoured nation treaty, with the result that it was changed from a specific to an

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
ad valorem duty. It may be argued that the duty is higher on the ad valorem basis and that therefore the protection should be greater, but such is not the case. An ad valorem duty of 30 per cent on the goods heretofore imported into Canada from Norway would not be so great as the specific duty, having regard to the way the goods are put up. Therefore when it is put on an ad valorem basis on a four ounce can, you are lessening the protection to our own industry. On a can selling at 3i cents wholesale the protection on an ad valorem basis will be less than one cent, whereas under the specific duty, on the class of goods Norway is putting up to compete with our Canadian kippered herring, the duty is over two cents. Therefore we are lessening the protection afforded our own industry and opening the door to keen competition from a foreign country.
This is not carrying out the policy laid down by the present government. While I am not a believer in high protection, I am a believer in protection to a certain extent, and since the government has adopted the policy of protecting our own industries I am asking that they stand by that policy. Why should they so arrange the duty on kippered herring that it is the only kind of fish which does not bear a specific duty? Why should they place it on an ad valorem basis in order to permit Norway to compete with our own industry? When kippered herring was put on a specific basis some two or three years ago those interested in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick made very large expenditures in order to prepare themselves to compete in the world market. One firm alone spent over $60,000 for that purpose; they are putting up their kippered herring in an elongated can, for the right to use which they had to pay over $10,000 to an American concern. They have gone into this business in good faith, but this change to an ad valorem basis will permit the Norwegian product to come into keen competition with these firms in Canada and will place them in a position where they will not be able to carry on in the same way.
I have already placed this matter before the Prime Minister, though not in detail. He was kind enough to give me a few moments of his time; I knew he was a very busy man and we did not discuss the matter at any length. Now I would ask him, before finally passing that item, to go into it once more. He may reply that he has already gone into it, but he has not looked at it in the way I have presented it to-day. It may be said that these people are complaining before they are hurt, but let me say that we know our business as far as fish is concerned. In the
maritimes, and especially in New Brunswick, we take second place to no one in ascertaining how a duty of this kind will affect our business, and I am prepared to state that a thorough investigation into this question will prove my contention. I am quite ready to leave the investigation in the hands of officials of the Department of Fisheries instead of the Department of National Revenue; I am sure those officials will report that we are correct in the stand we are taking in this matter.
Let me go further; there should be no change in duty, under a protective policy, that will permit an outside nation to offer keener competition than has been the case in the past. If you are to give a fair show to our people, in competition with the other nations of the world, why should you allow an outside country to compete under a system which is adverse to those of our own people who produce similar goods. It is said that we have entered into world competition in connection with kippered herring, but it is not exactly world wide competition in the kippered herring branch of the fish industry. We have captured the principal markets of the world, as against Norway, in the sardine business; we have secured the entire Australian market, and we export sardines to some eighty-six other countries. Only within the last three years have we gone fully into the kippered herring business, and now the act of the government in changing the duty to an ad valorem basis will cripple that branch of the fishing industry in the province of New Brunswick.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman
knows that this matter was carefully considered by the Advisory Board on Tariff and Taxation. Much evidence was given before that board, the chief witness on behalf of the industry in question being Mr. McLean, who admitted that in some instances the protection was in excess of 100 per cent. Last year, as the hon. gentleman will remember, the rate was I7i per cent, 27i per cent and 30 per cent, but the department ruled that this class of sardines should come under item 120 and carry a specific duty, to which reference was made, and it carried the rate that was embodied in the tariff of last September.
When that rate was published the Norwegian consul general indicated that his country would appeal from that decision as to classification. Norway has a treaty with this country somewhat older than the country itself, I believe, and they enjoy favoured nation treatment. The matter proceeded, and I personally explained to him that in view of
3684	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
the fact that the department had acted upon that assumption-whether it was legal or otherwise I was not in a position to declare-we would validate the rate and make inquiries before the next session of the house. He was content with that, or perhaps I should say he was very courteous about it and said he would take no further steps until the following year.


Peter John Veniot: I said I would lay my views before the house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am referring to the
consul general for Norway, who protested against the ruling of the department. He came to Ottawa and presented his case again, and an investigation indicated that as the item now stands it carries a rate of approximately 90 per cent.


Peter John Veniot: But it does not apply.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It carries that rate-the
ad valorem rate which existed before September last, except by ruling of the department, in connection with the obtaining of which perhaps the hon. gentleman is fully informed The rate now is something over 90 per cent, in addition to which there is incidental protection in connection with the various matters that go into the production of the commodity in question. My memory is that Mr. McLean in giving his evidence before the tariff board-I speak subject to correction-stated that they carried on their export business in ninety countries in competition with this very product. Obviously we endeavoured to adjust this rate so as not to imperil the trade which by contract we had with Norway, while at the same time according a protection that amounts, as a matter of fact, to something over 90 per cent, which was the rate that existed before September last, until such time as the new ruling was made by the department, against which the Norwegian government protested and which we validated in order that no question of that kind might arise. We assured the government of Norway that we would consider the matter in the meantime, and as a result of that consideration it is felt that the original proposal, which carried a rate of over 90 per cent, is not unreasonable in view of the evidence given by Mr. McLean himself before the tariff board.


Peter John Veniot: 
Richard Bedford Bennett: That is because they
are not sardines.


Peter John Veniot: Ours are sardines. The
name sardine is derived from the fact that these smaller fish were caught near the island of Sardinia. That is how sardines got their name. But the question now being considered by experts is this: Is a sardine a herring or is a herring a sardine? That question has not yet been settled. The great bulk of the business we are doing throughout the world is being carried on under the name of sardine. The kippered herring is in a different class altogether from what are known as sardines. Kippered herrings are not known on the market as sardines; they are altogether different. What was commonly known as the smoked herring was a business largely carried on years ago in the maritime provinces, but owing to improved methods, specializing in the kippered herring, many Nova Scotian and New Brunswick producers went out of business. Under the new system, however, they are trying to come back into the business. They are adopting a new method of producing kippered herring, and it is an injustice to the business of New Brunswick that any change should be made so as to give an undue advantage to Norway in competition with our own people, notwithstanding the favoured nations treaty. England has never attempted to change that treaty between France and themselves to help us. Why should we change our system of protection to our own people in order to favour Norway, especially when there is nothing in the favoured nations clause that gives them the right to come here and appeal against our decision? They may protest; but where have they the right to appeal against a decision of that kind? They may enter a protest, have conversations and carry on negotiations with Canada in regard to the duty. But I insist that they have no right to enter an appeal. No country has the right to appeal against any decision of the House of Commons in regard to its tariff policy.

Ways and, Means-Cusloms Tariff
What should we look like if we went to the United States and appealed against any decision of theirs? To-day we have a favoured nation treaty with Norway. If they imposed certain high duties against us, could we go there and appeal? We might discuss the matter with them, but that is all we could do. If they can show us reasons why we should not follow a certain course in this matter, then we can consider their representations. But, I repeat, Norway has no right under the treaty to appeal from any decision we may make in regard to our tariff.


Alan Webster Neill: With regard to kippered herring in sealed containers, not touching the question of sardines, under what item does the minister expect this article to come after he has struck it out of 120?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It will come under 123.


Alan Webster Neill: That is what I was thinking. The hon. member for Gloucester suggested 121, but that is fish preserved in oik. I agree with the minister. With regard to the attitude of the Norwegian government, I understand that they protested under their treaty. Have they a treaty which gives them more favourable terms than the British preferential tariff? Even if they demanded the British preferential tariff they would still be subject to 120.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps I should amplify this matter. My hon. friend from Gloucester said, with perfect clearness, that it was contended that a kippered herring was not a sardine, nor was a sardine a kippered herring. That was exactly the attitude of the Norwegian government. Their contention was that a kippered herring could not carry the rate charged against sardines, in which class it was prior to September. That is the whole question, and the very argument which the hon. member for Gloucester has now made is the argument that was made by representatives of the Norwegian government-that you could not classify these two under the same general designation. The board of customs arrived at a conclusion. The rates theretofore were 17-J per cent, 27j per cent and 30 per cent; and the producers in this country having prosecuted their claim with vigour, the department accepted their view and put a specific duty on kippered herring, classified within the sardine category. Against that the government of Norway protested. As I have said, we validated it last fall for the sake of regularity of administration, assuring them at the time that they would have ample opportunity to discuss the matter at length, which they did. The representations which
my hon. friend has made to me personally have been made by the industry itself as well as in the evidence given before the tariff board, which I fancy has been read by most hon. gentlemen. Representations were also made by Scotch fishermen. As the matter stands, we believe this will afford reasonable protection to the industry in Canada. I need hardly assure the committee that I would be the last man in the world to do anything which would adversely affect an industry in Canada, much less one in New Brunswick. I would point out to my hon. friend that he is in error in assuming for a single moment that the government of Norway undertook to indicate to us that our parliament meant to do what it did last fall.


Peter John Veniot: What about the basis of appeal?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Under the statute they had the right of appeal to the governor in council after the matter had been considered by the customs board. The hon. gentleman is thoroughly familiar with the circumstances and he must realize that it is in the interests of administration that it should not be arbitrarily declared that kippered herring comes within the sardine item. It could not be administered in that way without some statutory authority. When the statutory authority was granted it was indicated that the representations made would be studied. Evidence was given before the advisory board and as a result it is believed that ample security will be afforded to our own industry while at the same time there will be removed the grievances which the Norwegian government had presented both to our predecessors and to us, and which were threatening the friendly trade relations which existed between the two countries.


Peter John Veniot: Why not put herring in the same class as kippered herring? A herring is not a sardine, so why leave it under the specific clause? Norway is not competing against us in the herring line.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend knows better than I that the general conclusions of one group of scientists is that all these fish should be classified as herring. He is quite right in saying that the classification of sardines is what caused the difficulty in the exporting of our herring into Great Britain. This difficulty became rather acute and if my memory serves me right, under the old Cobden commercial treaty-


Peter John Veniot: That was in 1854.
3686	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes. Under that treaty they were given admission into Great Britain as sardines. It was agreed that practically a monopoly existed with respect to French sardines, and the contention now made is that from a technical standpoint these are not sardines at all, they are only herring. It is needless to say that they sell much more readily by being designated as sardines. The question of kippered herring and sardines became rather acute at one time, and we believe that this classification will indicate quite clearly that 'like competition shall be met with like rates, that herring shall compete with herring, sardines with sardines and kippered herring with kippered herring. When I was a boy they were called Digby chicken; they were small smoked herring put up in wooden boxes. Then the herring was put up in oil after being smoked, and was called snacks or kippered herring. Only a few days ago I had an opportunity of seeing samples of the Norwegian and Canadian packages. The one is an elongated package, while the other is more rectangular. I cannot help but think that our domestic producers are more worried than the circumstances would warrant. The cost laid down of the Norwegian product is not less than 3i cents, and I think it sells at five cents, so that there is a reasonable measure of protection.


Peter John Veniot: I do not wish to delay the committee nor do I want to attempt to draw a herring across the trail.


Richard Bedford Bennett: A kippered herring.


Peter John Veniot: From the experience which I have gained in the administration of the customs, in connection with the fisheries of my own province, and my knowledge of the method of doing this work, I am convinced that I am right. I am going to leave it at that because by the next session of this house we will have an opportunity of seeing just what takes place. If I am right I hope that the department will change its attitude.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If the hon. member will look at the item he will see that it includes not only sardines and sprats, but pilchard and herring.


Alan Webster Neill: I would like to call the
attention of the Prime Minister to item 116, upon which last year I was promised some consideration which has not eventuated. I notice that herring, pickled or salted, takes a rate of 50 cents per hundred pounds, while salmon, pickled or salted, takes a rate of one dollar per hundred pounds. I made the suggestion, in connection with which I thought

I had the support of the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Rhodes) that this matter should be taken into consideration when tariff revision was under consideration this year. A change in rate would enable the pickled herring industry of the Pacific coast to reach a little further east in competition with the Norwegian product.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The matter has not been overlooked and will be dealt with when we take up the resolutions in connection with the - Australian treaty.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-123a.	Crabs or clams in
sealed containers: British preferential tariff, 171 per cent; intermediate tariff, 40 per cent; general tariff, 40 per cent.
Alan Webster Neill: As this item has apparently
been overlooked in making up the comparative statement, would the minister advise the committee what increase is being made?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The old rates were 17i
per cent, 27i per cent and 30 per cent, which have been increased to 17i per cent, 40 per cent and 40 per cent. After allowing for the 10 per cent of possible imports from other countries, the rates of increase are about the same. Whether or not this increase will be successful will depend upon the efforts of our own people to meet competition from the orient.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-139. Glucose or grape sugar, glucose syrup and corn syrup, or any syrups containing an admixture thereof, n.o.p., per pound: British preferential tariff, J cent; intermediate tariff, li cents; general tariff, 1J cents.
Charles A. Stewart: What is the reason for the heavy increase being made?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member probably knows that glucose represents an advanced stage in the manufacture of starch. If the item had been allowed to stand as it was, while we would be affording some opportunity for competition on a fair basis with respect to the other commodities arising out of the use of Indian corn, we would not be affording an equal opportunity with respect to glucose, and the same might be said with respect to grape sugar and corn syrup, or syrups containing on admixture thereof. The old rates of 40 cents, 55 cents and 62i cents per hundred pounds are being changed to j cent, li cents and li cents per pound or 75 cents, $1.50 and $1.50 per hundred pounds. The imports amounted to nearly 2,000,000 pounds, chiefly under the general tariff. We produced in 1929, the last year for which we have

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
complete tables, something over 40,000,000 pounds of glucose, and about 18,000,000 pounds of com syrup.


Charles A. Stewart: One half
of the total is imports, is it not?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, it is one-tenth.


Charles A. Stewart: As against
40,000,000 pounds?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I said 40,000,000 pounds
of production, the last figure we have of glucose, as against about 1,800,000 pounds of importations. We have no specific figures separating com syrup from that item.


Charles A. Stewart: This is a
very heavy increase in duty. This is a case where it is more than 100 per cent of an increase which will undoubtedly have a tendency to increase the price, particularly on syrup. I do not think the question of starch is so important, but on corn syrup the increase runs 140 per cent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I hasten to assure the
hon. gentleman that if there is an increase in price, there will at once be a reduction in duty. There is an absolute guarantee against an increase in price.


Charles A. Stewart: Why is such a terrific increase in duty imposed if it is intended to remove it if the slightest advantage is taken of it? One cannot disabuse one's mind of the idea that there must be some reason for such a heavy increase. Yet we are told in the next breath that if there is any increase over present-day prices the whole increase in duty will be wiped off. If there were an increase of 20 or 25 per cent, one could understand the matter, but when an increase of this character is imposed one cannot but be forced to the conclusion that some advantage will be taken of it or there would be no necessity for it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I tried to tell the committee the other day, and I shall continue to state as we proceed with respect to a very large number of items:	The increase is subject to the criticism which the hon. gentleman has suggested, namely, that it is a very large increase, but it arises on account of the emergent conditions under which the industry is now functioning. The slaughter of our market to-day, three months, four months from now, has the effect of discouraging business in the future and, in the end, the utter destruction of business. The government has intimated that if this structure of ours that I and others found here is to be maintained, there must be no increase to the consumer
of the price that is charged, but we are perfectly willing, as I tried to make clear to the committee the other day, and, more than that, anxious to ensure that Canadians should have this market. This is an endeavour to meet the situation. I might say that the manufacturers asked for a much larger increase than that in view of their own experience of which they gave us a record, namely, the slaughtering in this market at given moments, not frequent, but just sufficiently often to imperil the stability of the market and the maintenance of Canadian industry. That is the reason for the action taken. I have met the situation frankly, and I tell my hon. friend what has been done has been done not by accident, but with deliberation and for a purpose which is quite clear and which I have no hesitancy in expressing.


Charles A. Stewart: I think my hon. friend is somewhat safe in making the prediction, although one cannot tell what the fluctuations in price will be, that prices on secondary products will not increase, at least in the immediate future. Rather, indeed, they should go down, following the trend of the primary products. The spread is too great. Why in the world, in the face of a situation such as that, we need such excessive rates of duty, I confess I cannot understand, particularly as the government have very drastic authority to prevent dumping. The fixation of price is a weapon which they can use any day. While manufacturers can get behind duties such as my right hon. friend is imposing, there is bound to be a tendency to take advantage of them. I venture the assertion now without much fear of contradiction, that had it not been for the increases in duty last September in connection with textiles and other products, prices would have been lower in Canada to-day. The manufacturers have promised not to increase the price, but the protection which they enjoy by excessive rates of duty gives them the advantage of maintaining their products at a price level not warranted by the trend of events so far as manufacturing production is concerned. That is my complaint against these excessive rates of duty. This is a food product that everybody, particularly in western Canada and I presume in other parts of the country as well, must use. Why there is a necessity for such an excessive rate of duty as this I cannot understand.


Mr. GERSHAW:: As the minister well
knows, there is in southern Alberta about a half million acres of land under irrigation, and men living on that land are very anxious
3688	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
to develop the beet sugar industry. In view of its great potentialities, and in view of the business it will bring in the way of employing men to help the growers, farmers, dairymen, railways and so on, it seems this would be an industry well worth while assisting. Great Britain and the United States grow from beets about 20 per cent of the sugar they require, while we produce only about 6i per cent. It would seem that most of our sugar comes from Cuba and Porto Rico. Refined sugar from Cuba enters the United States at a duty of 82.12 per 100 pounds and Canada at a duty of $1.89 per 100 pounds. In view of the fact that the duties have Increased so much on grape sugar, can those who are hoping to get into the beet sugar industry have any expectation in the near future of help for them to carry on?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member for Medicine Hat has referred to a matter that required no argument on his part to convince me of the importance that should attach to it. I was privileged many years ago to do something towards establishing a beet sugar industry in the irrigation belt near Calgary. There is now at Raymond an industry which has flourished, but which has recently been acquired by the eane sugar interests. There was a beet sugar industry in eastern Canada; I think there were two in the county of Kent, and they have been acquired by cane sugar companies. The question as to just what assistance can be given and how it can be given to the beet sugar industry is one that is not as easy of solution as it appears. If it were, I am satisfied that my hon. friends opposite would have solved it years ago. It has been complicated in recent years by reason of the West Indian treaty. We have endeavoured by that treaty to ensure the purchase of our sugar requirements in the raw state from British possessions. A part of that sugar will undoubtedly come from Australia; a part has come from the Fiji islands; another portion of it has come from another part of the world in the Far East, and a large portion has recently come from the West Indies. The hon. gentleman is quite right in what he says with respect to Cuban sugar. The real truth is that Cuban importations have had the effect of Very seriously injuring the sugar refining business in Canada. I suppose the hon. gentleman saw in the newspapers a few days ago a case in point. The truth is that sugar from Cuba has been dumped on our market at a tremendously low price, so low that our beet sugar people could not meet it at all. I had very definitely concluded that a bonus should be given to the beet sugar industry. I was

satisfied from representations made that that was the only method by which we could ensure the development of the irrigation areas south o,f Medicine Hat and east of Calgary, a great district which has been settled in a small way but which might easily be settled in a much larger way. To my regret I found that it was not possible to carry into effect the idea I had in my mind, and having regard to our treaty obligations and other matters to which I have referred I need hardly tell the committee that what I would have been doing, had the original thought in my mind been given effect to, would be to bonus the cane sugar refineries.


Alan Webster Neill: Beet sugar?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, what I would have been doing would be to bonus the cane sugar refineries which at the moment I was not prepared to do. The matter is being carefully studied to ascertain if something cannot be done to meet the situation to which reference has been made. I might point out further that following the sale to the cane sugar interests of the industry at Raymond those who are interested in beet sugar are finding it difficult to secure the capital for another plant. It seems to me that it may be almost impossible for them to do so unless very considerable assistance is afforded by the government. I can only say to the hon. gentleman that I have not abandoned hope that some satisfactory solution may be found, but in all frankness, having regard to our treaty obligations with respect to the West Indies and to the ownership by the same interests of both the refineries and the factories in the centre west, we are faced with a matter of extreme difficulty. Having said this much I need hardly add that the matter has not escaped the attention of the government.


Frederick William Gershaw: Will the new owners of the refineries at Raymond continue to operate the industry? The Prime Minister mentioned that difficulty was being experienced in the securing of capital for new plants. I am wondering if the present plant will continue to operate at its present capacity.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend knows that a large quantity of beets has been planted for conversion into sugar, and my understanding is that at least for this season there is no question concerning the operation of the factory. Although my figure may be somewhat overestimated, I think the production is in the vicinity of 20,000,000 pounds.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Thomas McMillan: What is the investment in that industry?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Roughly speaking, refineries cost about a million dollars each. The one in question cost a million dollars, and when installed it was not absolutely new.


Thomas McMillan: I am referring to the investment in the corn syrup industry.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I thought the hon. member was talking about the beet sugar industry.


Thomas McMillan: I should like to know the number of employees and the wages paid.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I explained to the hon. member that the factories are not operated as glucose or syrup factories alone. Glucose is the advanced stage in the manufacture of starch, and corn syrup is a product arising out of the use of the raw material which enters into the manufacture of such products as starch, glucose and corn syrup. It is impossible to say how many hands are employed with respect to one particular part of the industry, but in the various parts of Canada, employment is afforded to a considerable number of persons. At one point in this Dominion which undoubtedly some hon. members have passed while travelling west, there is an idle factory. With improved general economic conditions the present proposed legislation would ensure its operation. I need not say there is any demand which at the moment would warrant its operation. I am sorry that I cannot answer my hon. friend's question in connection with the exact amount invested in these enterprises.


Edward James Young: A moment ago the Prime Minister made a statement concerning the extension of the sugar industry in Canada. Would he tell us what percentage of the Canadian market is already supplied by Canadian refineries?


Richard Bedford Bennett: We are not dealing with the sugar item, and I am not at present prepared to go into that phase of the matter. A few years ago we were exporters of substantial quantities of refined sugar. Our factories and refineries would be capable not only of meeting our requirements, but of meeting them at least twice over; in other words we have facilities capable of taking care of our own requirements and of supplying an equal quantity in addition. While we are not discussing the sugar item yet I think the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Gershaw) adequately indicated why and how our export business was lost.


George Gibson Coote: In reference to the statement of the Prime Minister that there would be no increase in the price of syrup due to the increased tariff, I should like to ask whether there is any one in his department charged with the duty of ascertaining whether or not prices are advanced. It seems to me such provision would be essential.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Since last year an effort
has been made to keep a record of prices, and if any complaint is received it is forthwith investigated.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: Are there any reports
on those investigations?


Richard Bedford Bennett: They are not that kind
of investigation, being of a departmental nature.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Does the Prime Minister know that during the budget debate I made a complaint in connection with which I gave price lists showing that the prices of certain commodities had been increased, and that those commodities were the ones upon which the tariff had been raised at the last session. I gave the names of the firms and also the price lists for 1930 and 1931. I gave the prices prior to and following the tariff legislation of last fall.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Those were imported
items.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: No, they were articles
made by the Emerson people, of Winnipeg. Saskatoon and Edmonton.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The items in connection
with which increases took place were all imported. The matters to which my hon. friend referred were investigated and subsequently the Massey-Harris Company, the Cockshutt Plow Company and one other concern published advertisements in the daily press indicating that there had been no increase in prices and desiring at once to correct the erroneous impression left upon this house and the country. The truth is that obviously imported items would be increased in price.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: The commodity I refer
to particularly was made by the Emerson people of Winnipeg, Saskatoon and Edmonton. I am informed that their factories are in the city of Winnipeg, and that the increase in the price of their product corresponded exactly with the increase in the tariff. What is the Prime Minister's information on that point?
36W)

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Richard Bedford Bennett: The evidence was that
there was no increase in the price of any implements made in Canada. That fact was clearly established, and the large manufacturing companies risked their reputations by making public declarations to that effect. The firm in Winnipeg certainly made it clear that with respect to goods produced in Canada the statement was not true.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: The statement I made
in the house concerned a matter which received a great deal of publicity in western newspapers. So far I have seen no denial by any firm. I believe my statement was accurate, namely, that the smut cleaning machine about which I am speaking is made in Winnipeg by the Emerson Manufacturing Company.


George Gibson Coote: Does the present item include the commodity commonly known as sugar syrup? If not, what is the rate of duty on that particular commodity?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Did I understand the
hon. member to ask the rate on raw sugar?


George Gibson Coote: Does this include what is
commonly called sugar syrup, as well as corn syrup?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, this covers only the
one class of syrup.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Would it not be natural for a Canadian manufacturer to take advantage of the tariff when his competitors in foreign countries are not able to compete with him? Would he not take substantial even if not full advantage of the tariff?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have intimated to the
hon. member and to the other members of the committee on more than one occasion that there is legislation in force to protect the country against such a practice, and I have no reason to believe that advantage has been taken of the tariff as has been suggested by the hon. member.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Suppose that is so, the Prime Minister knows the cost of raw material has gone down far more than the price of the finished product. It is very easy for him to say the prices of commodities have not risen since the special session last September, but surely in view of the decreased cost of production of the raw material which goes into the manufacture of commodities, he ought to be able to give the committee some information as a result of any investigations he has made whether those firms have taken advantage of the tariff, even if they have not increased the price of their commodities since the tariff was raised. I think the house 
and the country are entitled to know if the department through its officials has made any investigation along these lines, because, as I have said before, and I repeat it now, if the prides of the commodities which we have to buy do not come down to the level of the commodities we have to sell, I do not see how we are going to carry on-I am speaking of the agriculturists-for the Prime Minister has said that we cannot expect much higher prices for our farm commodities for some time to come. Unless the prices of the commodities that we have to buy come down to the level of the commodities we have to sell, I do not see how the farm industry is going to survive.


Mr. TOTZKE:: At the special session last
September the Prime Minister read a number of letters from manufacturers undertaking not to take advantage of the tariff and increase their prices. Has he any similar undertakings with respect to t'he tariff items which are now being increased?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have not brought any
here, but in considering this item I have stated to the hon. member that assurance was given that the price would not be increased.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: How can the Prime
Minister say that if he has not made any investigation?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have indicated to the
hon. member that in no case where the undertaking has been given has there been any breach of it so far as we have been able to ascertain.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: But assurance has not
been given in every case.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Certainly not. The hon. member knows, perhaps as well as any member of this committee, that the economic stress has greatly decreased manufacturing production, and he doubtless knows that the unpaid liabilities for implements, due not only to Canadian producers but to producers outside Canada who have maintained branches in this country, amount to millions of dollars, and that at the moment there have been practically no purchases at all of agricultural implements in western Canada. It is obvious that a reduction in price can come about only if there is a demand for the article produced, for the cost of production will not decrease materially until increased requirements lower the unit cost of production. It is one of those matters which I am sure the hon. member thoroughly understands and which works in a complete circle. On the one hand you desire to obtain a reduction in the

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
cost of production, and on the other hand it is not possible unless there is an increased demand for the manufactured article; and until there is such an increased demand as will enable the factories to operate at a lower cost per unit how are you going to get a decrease in price? In the meantime while raw materials may decrease in value, that decrease is more than offset by the increase on the unit cost of production, brought about by a curtailment of production due to the economic depression through which we are passing.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: In other words, it means that the only man who will be able to go through this economic depression will be the man who can hide behind the tariff. It cannot mean anything else. If the lack of business has increased the cost of production of the manufacturing industry to the extent the Prime Minister has intimated, and the manufacturer is going to make up that increased cost of production by putting the tariff on the price of his commodities, then we are back to the statement that has been made in this, house time and again since I have been a member-that the agricultural industry and other consumers will absorb the whole depression. I do not see how it can be otherwise, if the Prime Minister's argument is sound, that through the depression having resulted in a lower volume of business the cost of production in our factories has increased, and consequently the prices of manufactured commodities will not go down materially. I think I understand the Prime Minister's argument rightly; if not, I am ready to be corrected before I proceed further. If I am not corrected, then my interpretation of the Prime Minister's remarks must be all right. If the cost of production due to the depression which exists to-day has placed the manufacturer in that position; if that be true, as the Prime Minister has said, then the people who buy those manufactured commodities, the agriculturists and consumers generally, are paying for the whole depression which the manufacturing industry is suffering from to-day. I have made this statement before, and I repeat it. The Prime Minister knows it to be true probably better than anybody else, because having lived in the west he knows that the wheat grower, the butter producer and the stock man are not going to be able to continue to produce unless they are able to buy what they require at prices comparable with the prices they receive for their own products. I think it is just as well that the argument of the Prime Minister should go out to the country so the people 22110-235
may know that the farmers and the consumers generally are shouldering the burden of the manufacturers who are able to get behind the tariff.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, it is idle [DOT]to take up the time of the committee making statements so little warranted as that which the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Beau-bien) has just made. The other evening I read to the house that 15,000 manufacturers had made income tax returns showing that they have suffered a net loss of nearly $100,000,000, notwithstanding which they have maintained their plants and paid out $388,000,000 in wages.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Nobody denies that; I have not denied that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If that is not bearing the burden I do not know What is. There they are maintaining their plants with the demand for their daily production not equal to the demand for wages and other costs; there they are, losing money steadily to the extent of nearly $100,000,000 and still paying out $388,000,000 in wages. And this effort on their part to bear their share of the economic depression is met by statements such as that to which we have just listened 1 That is one of the difficulties in this country-an endeavour to arouse one section of the country against another-


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: I resent that statement.
Mr. BENNETT-an endeavour to make it appear that the agriculturist is suffering and someone else is getting the entire benefit. In my judgment that is not rendering any service to the country. There are the facts; they cannot be controverted or denied. In this period of distress it is quite obvious that the over-production of cereals was reflected in the tremendous reduction in prices, because last December there was sufficient wheat in the world to meet the requirements of the entire consuming population for twenty months, with no further production. That was the statistical evidence. The reduction in the price of wheat as a commodity is well known to every member of the committee, and that diminution in the selling price is reflected at once, of course, in the -diminution in purchasing power on the part of those among whom the money circulates. If the producer of primary products is not able to purchase his implements, of course it follows that the manufacturer has his interest charges running against his inventory, which he cannot reduce. There is no doubt about that, and in turn he must absorb that loss; we have

3692	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
endeavoured to ensure under this legislation that he shall not pass it on to the producer, and the record of the financial position of the various enterprises engaged in the production of agricultural implements both here and elsewhere, whether they be in this country, in the United States, in France or in Germany, sufficiently answers the observations made by the hon. gentleman.
It is idle to make statements as wholly unwarranted as those which the hon. gentleman has made and endeavour to pass them off as facts, because the record of the Department of National Revenue makes clear what the position has been. I might go further, if I desire, and point out to hon. gentlemen what they must read in the press every day, that the condition of industry in this country is even worse than that of agriculture. Every thoughtful man knows that.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Impossible.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Impossible? All I can
say is that it is impossible with respect to people who for three successive seasons have had no crops; of course nothing could be as bad as that except the destruction of an industry by fire, without insurance. I am eliminating that, of course; that is disaster; that is not a normal condition. But if you apply the rules that should be applied with respect to normal conditions, and eliminate those which are due to what you might call acts of God, I think you will observe that there could not be anything in this country much worse than the condition which has overtaken industry; it is quite like that which has overtaken agriculture.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: The Prime Minister is
very fond of giving everybody a lecture when he says anything which does not agree with his own views. The Prime Minister can give me all the lectures he wishes, but he is not going to change my attitude with regard to legislation of this kind. In the first place, the Prime Minister admitted that industry was having a very hard time, and he almost admitted that the tariff legislation was brought down to take care of that condition. The Prime Minister talks about manufacturing being in had shape, but the picture he gave us the other day in regard to western Canada was fairly black also. This was what we heard from the right hon. gentleman who gave us two lectures during the session with regard to statements we had made as to conditions in western Canada. I do not think anyone could have drawn a darker picture than that of the Prime Minister.
I have no desire to hurt any industry in this country; my only desire is to give the primary

industries a fair show. Under the tariff legislation which has been introduced since this government has been in power, the primary industries have no show. I made the statement that the manufacturing industries were taking advantage of the economic depression to hide behind the tariff concessions, and to a certain extent the Prime Minister has confirmed that statement by saying these changes were necessary to take care of the overhead. If many of these industries threw out their watered stock perhaps they would not be in such bad condition. In addition, many industries overbuilt and increased their capacity during the war, thinking it would last forever; now they must be protected in order to take care of that unnecessary expenditure. What about the farmer? What about his income tax? He cannot even pay his municipal tax, or his school tax in order to give his children primary education. I resent any lecture from the Prime Minister accusing anyone on this side of the house, myself in particular, of trying to hurt any industry. The Prime Minister need not pose as the saviour of industry in this country, except through the tariff.


Mr.   Sem@Deputy Speaker and Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Shall the
item carry?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Just a moment; there is one statement which must not be allowed to go unchallenged. The Prime Minister made no such statement with respect to the effect of the tariff on manufacturing industries as was indicated by my hon. friend. The Prime Minister did say that economic conditions had severely tried those industries, which the statistics clearly prove. It is equally clear that there is no endeavour to shift the burden of that economic condition on to the purchaser. On an average quarter-section of land consisting of 150 acres in grain and wheat, if the average production were 10 bushels per acre the total would be 1,500 bushels which, at 5 cents a bushel, would be $75. No farmer in western Canada has made any such contribution to tariff items this year.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: How can the Prime
Minister ascertain how much the tariff has cost each farmer in western Canada? He has given nothing to this committee to indicate how he could come to that conclusion. The Prime Minister did say that industry was in very bad shape, and there can be no doubt that, if he makes that admission and gives them this tariff concession, they are going to take advantage of it. Those are not my words; they are the words of the Prime Minister.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, just the opposite; I said they would not take advantage of it.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Has the Prime Minister ascertained whether prices should not go down in view of the lower prices of the raw materials which enter into the manufacture of many articles? The Prime Minister intimated that he did not expect the prices of commodities to go down because of economic conditions; I think I am right in that construction of his remarks.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: If I understood the
Prime Minister correctly that is my interpretation of what he said. Therefore industry is taking advantage of the tariff in order to keep up prices, instead of letting the prices go down in conformity with the prices of the raw products. The Prime Minister cannot get away from that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is singular that anyone should continue to make statements such as those which have just been made. My hon. friend stated that the Prime Minister said the manufacturers had taken advantage of the tariff. What I said was that they would not be permitted to do so, and that the Massey-Harris Company and the Cockshutt Plow Company, our largest manufacturers of agricultural implements, have advertised lower prices. That anyone who can read can see and understand. . That is the position to which I made reference, and as to my observations with regard to present conditions in western Canada, I do not suppose anything could more clearly indicate the unfairness of the remarks just made by my hon. friend. These conditions have arisen since June 1, and have been brought about through lack of moisture. Everyone knows that hope deferred maketh the heart sick, and the people of the west waited, waited and waited for rain. It came probably ten days too late to ensure a crop, but at least it may ensure some green feed. Now an hon. member of the committee stands up and says that his party were criticized for having talked of the condition of this country, but that the Prime Minister himself admits that condition. The condition to which I referred the other day as a national calamity has arisen, as everyone knows, because of a lack of rains in the month of June.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: But conditions were bad even before then. I know the Prime Minister does not want to bother with anyone, but he knows that the conditions as we depicted them in the debate on the address were not a
22110-235}
bit overdrawn. They have been aggravated by a lack of moisture, I admit. But the conditions were absolutely as we depicted them at that time.


Charles A. Stewart: The Prime Minister has said that the secondary industries need protection because of the terrific loss they have sustained in this period of depression.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


Charles A. Stewart: I am sorry I misunderstood the right hon. gentleman.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not the way I put it; that is the hon. gentleman's inference.


Charles A. Stewart: My understanding of the Prime Minister's remarks-


Richard Bedford Bennett: I said there was an emergency in the country.


Charles A. Stewart: Well, the Prime Minister is referring to the present condition, the depression through which every industry in Canada is passing. He might well say, however, that the primary industries have suffered a much greater loss, comparatively, than the secondary industries. I would ask any hon. gentleman who owns a considerable area of farming land in Canada whether he has not sustained a 100 per cent loss. If he were forced to liquidate at this moment, would not his loss amount to that? The Prime Minister says, "We are giving you 5 cents a bushel". But it is not only the wheat grower who is affected; it is not only western agriculture that is suffering but agriculture throughout Canada. And there are others who have been very seriously affected. The man who has put his money into the mining industry has suffered a loss. If he were to liquidate his assets to-day, what would they amount to compared to what they were two years ago?


Mr. MANION:: What about all other industries?


Charles A. Stewart: That is precisely my argument.


Robert James Manion: W:hy try to imply that the whole burden is being put upon the back of the farmer?
Mr. STEW7ART (Edmonton): Of course it is being put on the back of the farmer.


Robert James Manion: Nonsense.
3694	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Charles A. Stewart: It is put upon the back of the primary producer every time, as my hon. friend will find out if he keeps on with this policy. When my hon. friend who has just interrupted me was on this side his constant argument was that the reductions we were making in the tariff, small and irritating as he said, would ruin Canadian industry. But in no period of our history were secondary industries in a more prosperous condition than they were under that tariff. We are arguing in the light of facts; we are not arguing on theories. Now, the statement which is invariably made is that increases in the tariff are intended to benefit labour. May I ask how many people of the ten millions are employed in secondary industries in Canada? Not more than one million; yet you are taxing the whole nine million for the benefit of these, if you put your argument on the basis of employment.


An hon. MEMBER:: What about their families?


Charles A. Stewart: But the fact is that labour does not get the benefit of these increases. Labour does not get any more employment, nor does it get higher wages. It has never so benefited under any system of this kind. When the Prime Minister says that he is doing all this for the sake of the secondary industries, I take issue with him, and I tell him that the primary industries are suffering to a much greater extent. And why load the whole burden on the primary industries? That is exactly what a policy of this kind does, and that is why we do not believe in increases that amount in many cases to complete exclusion. The Prime Minister says that if there are any increases in prices he will immediately remove the duty. But he is doing nothing for the primary industries, and by this legislation he is maintaining values in the secondary industries at a level beyond that which he can justify.
Mr. VAT,LANCE: The Prime Minister has stated time and again that the cost of implements of production will not be increased to the primary industries. I am going to cite some instances to show that they have increased. I know that he will say that the goods which I shall mention are imported, and I will admit that before he says it. But I want to show the difference that the tariff is making to the farmer. The farmer cannot to-day buy his implements at the prices at which he could obtain them last year. The Prime Minister has stated definitely that the whole object of these increases is to shut out

imports, and the result is that the farmer cannot get his implements to-day as cheaply as he could a year ago. Let us take the catalogue of MacLeod's of Winnipeg, a firm doing a big business in western Canada. A 14 inch gang plough last year sold for $97.50, and in the 1931 catalogue it is $113,50. Yet the Prime Minister says that prices will not go up.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That does not apply to imported articles.


John Vallance: But the fact is that the farmer has to pay so much more to-day for a gang plough.


An hon. MEMBER:: Some implements have gone down.


John Vallance: They have not. A disc harrow in 1930 was $39.25, and this year it is $46. Who pays for that? You are going to shut these implements out entirely, or you will make the producer pay so much more for them. Take repairs.


Robert James Manion: Why not buy Canadian goods?


John Vallance: Why should we be taxed to this extent in order to buy Canadian goods? We have to compete on the open market with everyone else, and we have a right to expect-some consideration. Take wagon repairs-


An hon. MEMBER:: Give us Massey-
Harris.	.


John Vallance: We do not care where the implements come from or who makes them. We want to buy in the same market as that in which we have to sell.


Mr. MORAND:: Even if your Canadian workmen die of starvation.


John Vallance: We have to defend the interests of those whom we represent, just as my hon. friends over there must speak for those whom they represent. I have no quarrel with them. But I claim the right to speak for those in whom I am interested. Last year wagon wheels were $7.90; this year they are $11.50. Who has to pay that difference? Hon. gentlemen tell us to buy Canadian goods. But surely we should be allowed to purchase some of our requirements from outside Canada. The fact is that this tariff is made for the purpose of completely shutting out imports.


An hon. MEMBER:: What is the size of the wheel?

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


John Vallance: The size of the wheel makes no difference. These are. comparative prices, as between 1930 and 1931, for the same articles. It would not make any difference if the wagon were as small as a baby carriage. I have the catalogue here and there are some items in the 1930 list which do not appear in the 1931. Because of the increased tariff importations have been made impossible. I object to these increases in the rates on implements of production.


Jean-François Pouliot: During the last campaign it was stated that the farmers would find it easy to pay more for agricultural implements because they would receive, more for their products. To-day they are receiving less for their products while they have to pay more for their agricultural implements.


Mr.   ABOUND@: The Prime Minister stated that 15,000 factories had lost $100,000,000. Were those factories all located in Canada?


Richard Bedford Bennett: They were all making returns to the Department of National Revenue.


Edward James Young: Then all the losses were incurred in Canada?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


Albert Frederick Totzke: I understood the Prime Minister to say that these factories would not take advantage of the increases in the tariff. Will he assure the committee, that they are not going to take advantage of the tariff or that they are not going to increase the prices of their commodities?


Richard Bedford Bennett: There has been no increase in the duty in the case of repairs, either at the last session or at this, so that increase cannot be made referable to the tariff.
Mr. VALLAN'CE: Would not wagon repairs come under the wagon schedule?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Repair parts.


John Vallance: I have the catalogue here. I will pass it over to the Prime Minister if he so desires.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: Does the Prime Minister know of any other country which has quadrupled the duty on farm implements as Canada did last September, and then claimed that the prices will be kept down by the government so that the farmers will not be exploited?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not carry in my head the customs tariffs of other countries, but I do know that any country would have been warranted in taking the action which was taken in Canada last fall if such action did
not involve a higher cost to the farmer for his implements. The undertakings that there would be no increase in price will be found upon the pages of Hansard. The Canadian market had been divided with foreign manufacturers, and the Canadian manufacturers felt that they could continue their business on such a scale as to ensure there being no necessity of increasing the price.


William Richard Motherwell: Are the prices not higher to-day than they would have been had the duty not been raised? If my right hon. friend takes that ground, then he will have to tell it to the marines, because we do not accept that statement.


Albert Frederick Totzke: The Prime Minister admits that the manufacturers are taking advantage of the tariff.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He does nothing of the kind.


Albert Frederick Totzke: He admitted that to me a moment ago.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He did not.


Albert Frederick Totzke: I asked him if he had the assurance of the manufacturers that they would not take advantage of the tariff or would not increase their prices, and he stated to me that the manufacturers would not increase their prices. The gang plough which the farmer used to be able to buy for $95.25 now costs him $113.50. Those are the prices quoted for the same article, and the tariff is responsible for the increase. That price has to be paid whether we buy a plough which is imported or one which is not imported.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member is talking about an imported article. Why did he not say that?


John Vallance: I did say that in the beginning.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Why does he not say quite frankly that he prefers to buy an article not made in Canada? If he buys anything not made in Canada he will have to pay that much more for it.


John Vallance: I do not think the
Prime Minister is justified in making that statement. I said I was willing to admit that I was dealing with an imported article.


Robert James Manion: Why not buy a Canadian article?


John Vallance: Why should I buy a
Canadian-


Robert James Manion: Why not?
3696	.	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Custoins Tariff


John Vallance: It is quite true that
the government may not be responsible for our having to go out on the world market and meet the competition of everyone, but the government wants us to buy in a restricted market.


Robert James Manion: If my hon. friend can
buy a Canadian article for the same or a lower price, why should he not do so? Why should he insist on an imported article?


John Vallance: You cannot do it.


Robert James Manion: He quoted the prices on the imported article.


John Vallance: You cannot go into the market and buy a Cockshutt gang plough for $95.


Robert James Manion: If a good deal of help
will be needed in the province from which the hon. member comes, the necessary funds are not going to come from the United States; they will have to come from Canada. My hon. friends are not selling their wheat in the United States, so it is not a case of selling wheat and taking goods in return.


John Vallance: I am not saying the
imported goods-


Robert James Manion: Why buy imported goods
when one can obtain just as good in Canada?


John Vallance: Show the Canadian
farmer that he can buy a gang plough to-day for the catalogue price quoted last year and he will buy the Canadian made article. The tariff has raised the cost of the imported article from $95 to $113.50, and the farmer has been deprived of that competitive price.


William Richard Motherwell: The Minister of
Railways and Canals forgets that there are certain implements manufactured in the United States which the prairie farmer prefers. These American companies have been in business a much longer time than the Canadian companies. We like to buy American ploughs and we intend to buy them whether the duty is on or off. On the other hand, we like Canadian binders. I would not buy any other binder, and I have not for years. The government wants to make me buy both articles from the Canadian manufacturer, and then pretends that the price has not been put up or kept up by the big jump in tariff. Why did not Great Britain put on a high tariff like this and then try to convince her people that it would not cost them any more? She did not do that because she knew she could not put that kind of stuff across.


Robert James Manion: My hon. friends are arguing that the United States prices are so low, in spite of the fact that that country is the most highly protected in the world.


Mr. SIMPSON (Algoma):: The item under discussion deals with com syrup.


Thomas McMillan: We are discussing-


Thomas Edward Simpson: We have not
reached the items covering agricultural implements, and this discussion should take place at that time.


Thomas McMillan: The question
being discussed is whether or not the tariff has increased the price to the consumer.


John Vallance: This discussion would have to be repeated, and I think it had better be finished right now. If the chairman rules accordingly, I should like to read from a book which I hold in my hand and which contains an address delivered by the Prime Minister. This portion is entitled "Canada from East to West" by R. B. Bennett, member of parliament, Calgary. The whole book is called "Addresses delivered before the Canadian Club of Montreal", so I suppose this was delivered before that club.


An hon. MEMBER:: What year?


John Vallance: Season 1911-1912. This is what the present Prime Minister has to say about tariffs. He talks about pitting one end of the country against the other, causing dissension. Listen to this:
Then as to taxation. Nothing so tends to make men so discouraged and disheartened and unrestful as an uneven system of taxation, whether it be local or any other. Keep this maxim in mind, that all taxation should be borne in proportion of the ability of the man to pay it. The man in the west says he is paying too much. Last fall I went into the homes of these American farmers and talked to hundreds of them. I will give you the reply of a man which is typical of them all. He said, "Mr. Bennett, I came from Minnesota, and I can buy stuff from the store there and bring it in here for the price I have to pay for it here. The local cost is the price in the United States plus freight and duty. How long will they stand for that do you think? I am talking to you straight-that is a very serious problem. Do you mean to tell me that is just and fair, that on every article used in the west the price should be exactly the United States price plus freight and duty?"
Does he say it should be now?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Will the hon. gentleman finish his speech?


John Vallance: The right hon. gentleman does not want me to read the whole book?

Beauharnois Power


Richard Bedford Bennett: It would do the hon. gentleman good.


John Vallance: Does the Prime Minister still hold those views?
At six o'clock the committee took recess
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Progress reported.


BEAUHARNOIS POWER PROJECT
[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. A. GORDON (Minister of Immigration and Colonization!: Mr. Speaker, if by unanimous consent the house will revert to the order for motions. I should like to move, seconded by Mr. Dupre:
That a message be sent to the Senate requesting that their honours will give leave to the Honourable Wilfrid Laurier McDougald, one of their members, to attend and give evidence before the special committee, appointed by the House of Commons, to investigate from its inception, the Beauharnois project for the development of hydro-electric energy by the use of the waters of the St. Lawrence river, so far as the matters referred to are within the jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada, and without restricting the generality of the foregoing words, in particular, to investigate the matters referred to in the speech made in the House of Commons by Mr. Robert Gardiner, the honourable member for Acadia, on the 19th May, 1931; and
That the clerk of the house do carry the said message to the Senate.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. GORDON:: I should like to move further:
That a message be sent to the Senate requesting that their honours will give leave to the Honourable Andrew Haydon, one of their members, to attend and give evidence before the special committee, appointed by the House of Commons, to investigate, from its inception, the Beauharnois project for the development of hydro-electric energy by the use of the waters of the St. Lawrence river, so far as the matters referred to are within the jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada, and without restricting the generality of the foregoing words, in particular, to investigate the matters referred to in the speech made in the House of Commons by Mr. Robert Gardiner, the Honourable member for Acadia, on the 19th May, 1931; and
That the clerk of the house do carry the said message to the Senate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
George Gordon: I should like to move further:
That a message be sent to the Senate requesting that their honours will give leave to the Honourable Donat Raymond, one of their members, to attend and give evidence before the special committee, appointed by the House of Commons, to investigate, from its inception, the Beauharnois project for the development of hydro-electric energy by the use of the waters of the St. Lawrence river, so far as the matters referred to are within the jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada, and without restricting the generality of the foregoing words, in particular, to investigate the matters referred to, in the speech made in the House of Commons by Mr. Robert Gardiner, the honourable member for Acadia, on the 19th May, 1931; and
That the clerk of the house do carry the said message to the Senate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
The house again in committee of ways and means, Mr. Cowan (Port Arthur) in the chair.
Mr.   CHAIRMAN@Mr. Cowan, Port Arthur: When the committee rose we were considering item No. 139, concerning glucose or grape sugar.


Frederick William Gershaw: The Prime Minister has explained that in southern Alberta the people interested in cane sugar have control of the situation. Supposing in one of the districts the farmers' local raised sufficient capital to start a beet sugar industry, could they expect help by way of bonuses, and would the right hon. gentleman indioate how much?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am sure the hon.
member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Gershaw) realizes the great difficulty there would be in bonusing an industry in a particular locality, or in limiting the operation of such legislation. It is that difficulty which has stood in the way of something being done at the present session. Bonuses and bounties which heretofore have been limited to apply to particular industries, such as the lead bounties and copper bounties, would in this case operate over a very wide area, namely the provinces of Alberta, Manitoba and Ontario. I should be very glad to listen to any suggestion the hon. member may have to make by which we could work out a scheme to accomplish the end he has in view. During the recess I purpose to devote to this particular matter such time as I have at my disposal, believing as I do that without some assistance the industry in western Canada will not flourish and that it is important that there should be an opportunity for its development.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
3698	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
Customs tariff-168. Malt flour containing less than 50 per centum in weight of malt; malt syrup or malt syrup powder; extracts of malt, fluid or not; grain molasses-all articles in this item upon valuation without British or foreign excise duties, under regulations prescribed by the minister, per pound: British preferential tariff, 3 cents; intermediate tariff, 3 cents; general tariff, 5 cents; and, British preferential tariff, 25 per cent; intermediate tariff, 30 per cent; general tariff, 35 per cent.
Richard Bedford Bennett: This is an item which
was introduced really at the instance of the importers, the effect being to increase the British preference. The product of the British manufacturers is very highly favoured in Canada. It will be noted that the ad valorem rates are not changed, but that the specific rates are changed to 3 cents, 3 cents, and 5 cents.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-181a. Pictorial post cards, greeting cards and similar artistic cards or folders: British preferential tariff, 22) per cent; intermediate tariff, 32) per cent; general tariff, 35 per cent; and, per pound: general tariff, 5 cents.
Item agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Cowan, Port Arthur):: The next item is No. 184.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Items No. 184 and 184a may stand. I do not hope to be able to change the terms of the latter item, but it will be amplified so that it may be easier of administration. There is no change in the principle of the item.
Customs tariff-192b. Sandpaper, glass or flintpaper, and emery paper or emery cloth: British preferential tariff, 15 per cent; intermediate tariff, 22) per cent; general tariff, 25 per cent.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-195. Paper hanging or wall papers, including borders or bordering; British preferential tariff, 22) per cent; intermediate tariff, 32) per cent; general tariff, 35 per cent; and per pound: general tariff, 2 cents.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-199b. Containers wholly or partially manufactured from fibreboard or paperboard, per pound:	British preferential
tariff, 1 cent; intermediate tariff, 1| cents; general tariff, 1) cents. Provided that when imported under the general tariff the duty shall not be less than: general tariff, 35 per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-207. Blood albumen and dried blood: British preferential tariff, 5 per cent; intermediate tariff, 7) per cent; general tariff, 10 per cent.
Item agreed to.
[Mr. Bennett.l
Customs tariff-208h. Ethylene glycol, when imported by manufacturers of anti-freezing compounds to be used exclusively in the manufacture of anti-freezing compounds, in their own factories: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-208i. Animal glands, wet or dry, when imported by manufacturers of pharmaceutical and medicinal preparations for use exclusively in the manufacture of such preparations, in their own factories: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-210. Peroxide of soda; silicate of soda in crystals or in solution; bichromate of soda; nitrate of soda or cubic nitre; sulphide of sodium; nitrate of soda; arseniate, binarseniate, chlorate, bisulphite and stannate of soda; prussiate of soda and sulphite of soda: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-210b. Barilla or soda ash; sal soda, per pound: British preferential tariff, i cent; intermediate tariff, 3/10 cent; general tariff, 3/10 cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-230. Castile soap, the weight of the cartons and wrappings to be included in the weight for duty, per pound: British preferential tariff, 1 cent; intermediate tariff, 1 cent; general tariff, 2 cents.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-238a. Manufactures of celluloid, or of which celluloid is the component of chief value, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff. 15 per cent; intermediate tariff, 32) per cent; general tariff, 40 per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-265.	Oil, whale, including
spermaceti: British preferential tariff, 12) per cent: intermediate tariff, 30 per cent; general tariff, 30 per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-265a.	Fish oils, n.o.p.:
British preferential tariff, 12) per cent; intermediate tariff, 20 per cent; general tariff, 22) per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-282.	Building brick and
paving brick: British preferential tariff, 12) per cent; intermediate tariff, 20 per cent; general tariff, 22) per cent; and per ton: general tariff, $1.	.
An hon. MEMBER:: Is this brick with which to build the tariff wall?


John Campbell Elliott: There is no change here except the additional $1 per ton?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is right.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
Customs tariff-282a. Manufactures of clay or cement, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, 12J per cent; intermediate tariff, 20 per cent; general tariff, 224 per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-296b. Magnesite, dead-burned, sintered, caustic-calcined or plastic magnesia; magnesium carbonate, basic or otherwise, excepting crude rock: British preferential tariff, 20 per cent; intermediate tariff, 274 per cent; general tariff, 30 per cent.
Item agreed to.	^
Customs tariff-296d. Feldspar, ground but not further manufactured: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 20 per cent; general tariff, 30 per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-305. Flagstone, sandstone and all building stone, not hammered, sawn or chiselled, and marble and granite, rough, not hammered or chiselled:	British preferential
tariff, 10 per cent; intermediate tariff, 124 per cent; general tariff, 20 per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff 306. Marble, sawn or sand-rubbed, not polished; granite, sawn; paving blocks of stone; flagstone and building stone, other than marble or granite; sawn on not more than two sides: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 20 per cent; general tariff, 35 per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-306a. Building stone, other than marble or granite, sav-n on more than tw-o sides but not sawn on more than four sides, per one hundred pounds: British preferential tariff, 10 cents: intermediate tariff, 20 cents; genera! tariff, 25 cents.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-306b. Building stone, other than marble or granite, planed, turned, cut or further manufactured than sawn on four sides, per one hundred pounds: British preferential tariff, 30 cents; intermediate tariff, 45 cents; general tariff, 50 cents.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-306c. Marble, not further manufactured than sawn, when imported by manufacturers of tombstones, to be used exclusively in the manufacture of such articles, in their own factories: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 15 per cent; general tariff, 20 per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-307.	Marble and granite,
n.o.p., and all manufactures of marble or granite, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, 30 per cent; intermediate tariff, 35 per cent; general tariff, 40 per cent.
Mr. SPEAKMAN:: Do we import much in the way of stone and marble material?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, substantial quantities. I could give the importations under each item if desired. It is believed the operation of this tariff will encourage to a considerable extent the use of our own granite and marble. There is a very large deposit of marble in Quebec, and to a smaller extent in British Columbia, and there is stone in most of the provinces. We had imports under this item of $340,000; $78,000 under another item, and $450,000 of building stone and marble under a former item.


Alfred Speakman: I imagine' these duties would be practically prohibitive.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There has been great
pressure from many quarters to give the industry a chance. If it is to be developed it must be given sufficient opportunity, and this tariff will provide the opportunity.


Alfred Speakman: I am not complaining.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: Does the price fixing arrangement apply to these items as well as to the others that have been dealt with?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.
- Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-308. Manufactures of stone, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, 20 per cent; intermediate tariff, 30 per cent; general tariff, 35 per cent.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-318. Common and colourless window glass: British preferential tariff, 74 per cent; intermediate tariff, 124 per cent; general tariff, 124 per cent. Provided, that the governor in council may, when satisfied that common colourless window glass is being manufactured in Canada in quality and quantity sufficient for Canadian requirements, by order in council direct that there be substituted for this tariff item the following: Common and colourless window- glass:
(a)	in sheets not exceeding 80 square inches in area, per pound: British preferential tariff, If cents; intermediate tariff, If cents; general tariff, If cents;
(b)	in sheets exceeding 80 square inches but not exceeding 120 square inches in area, per pound: British preferential tariff, 2f cents; intermediate tariff, 3 cents; general tariff, 3 cents;
(c)	in sheets exceeding 120 squire inches in area, per pound: British preferential tariff, 3f cents; intermediate tariff, 44 cents; general tariff, 44 cents.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Here is an item that I
am sure hon. members will be glad to talk about.


Mr. HANBURY:: Mr. Chairman, I notice
under this item the governor in council are taking to themselves authority to change the duty when they are satisfied that common colourless window glass is being manufactured

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
in Canada in sufficient quantities to meet Canadian requirements. Once again I should like to draw the attention of the Minister of Finance to the fact that certain areas in Canada cannot procure to advantage their glass from the central provinces, and I would ask him to keep that in mind should he at any time decide to change the duty on this item. I realize the difficulty of having, you might say, sectional tariffs, but at the same time the situation in British Columbia, particularly with reference to greenhouses and building construction, is such that we do hope the minister will keep it in mind and make some provision so that the glass consumers in that province will be protected until such time as Canadian manufacturers of glass can meet their requirements economically.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not an unreasonable request. Might I also indicate that there are vast deposits of raw materials between the lakes and the mountains that should be utilized. For instance, at Redcliff, near Medicine Hat, there is a very extensive glass industry; in fact it is the backbone of that community at the moment. I have great hopes>
that within a reasonable time there will be a development of that industry to meet the position taken by the hon. member for Van-couver-Burrard (Mr. Hanbury).


Thomas McMillan: Let the item
go through. The fact is, no importance or stability can be placed on any of these rates, as the minister can and will change them whenever he may feel inclined so to do.


Wilfred Hanbury: With reference to the remarks of the Minister of Finance, I would remind him that the freight on glass is a very large item and that even glass produced in the area to which he refers would be very much more expensive than the glass now imported , from Belgium and England.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-322a. Laminated glass, sheet or plate, and manufactures thereof, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, 17| per cent; intermediate tariff, 22J per cent; general tariff, 25 per cent.
John Campbell Elliott: I take it this is the finished product, otherwise known as non-shatterable glass for use in automobiles?
Mr. BENNETT; In a general way that is what laminated glass is.


John Campbell Elliott: Will my right hon. friend tell me what is the drawback on laminated glass at the present time?


Richard Bedford Bennett: When we finish these
items, if the committee will accept my view there will be none; the item dealing with drawbacks will provide for no drawback on laminated glass.


John Campbell Elliott: I believe it is 25 per cent at present, and I take it from the latter part of the clauses referring to drawbacks that it will be 60 per cent. I would refer to item 1055:
Materials, including all parts-when used in the manufacture of goods enumerated in tariff items 438a and 438b.
I take it that laminated glass is one of the parts of automobiles, and that it would come under those items, carrying a drawback of 60 per cent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman will realize that the items with which we will deal presently will also deal with that substance. When we relate the two I think my hon. friend will see an improvement in favour of the Canadian development of the laminated glass industry. If the hon. gentleman desires to raise the point further when we come to the other items, I shall be glad to refer back to it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-326b. Glass eyes for human use:	British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-348.	Copper scrap, and
copper in pigs, blocks or ingots; cathode plates of electrolytic copper for melting, per pound: British preferential tariff, 1 cent; intermediate tariff, 1J cents; general tariff, \\ cents.
Item agreed to.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I wish to add, for clarity of administration, a further item, which I will read to the committee and which will be moved by the Minister of Fisheries:
Customs tariff-348b. Tin plate scrap, when for use exclusively in recovering copper from acidic mine waters in connection with copper mining operations: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
I suppose the committee realizes that in connection with copper mining operations there is often carried, not in solution but in suspension, considerable quantities of copper. This tin plate scrap which is to be allowed in free is for the purpose of assisting in the recovery of this copper held in suspension in the waters coming from the copper mining operations.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
Customs tariff-348c. Brass scrap and brass in blocks, ingots or pigs; copper in bars or rods, not less than 6 feet in length, unmanufactured, n.o.p.; copper in strips, sheets or plates, not polished, planished or coated; brass or copper tubing, in lengths not less than 6 feet, and not polished, bent or otherwise manufactured: British preferential tariff, 5 per cent; intermediate tariff, 10 per cent; general tariff, 10 per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-356. Nickel in bars or rods, not including bars or rods depolarized or otherwise processed for use as anodes, and nickel in strips, sheets or plates:	British preferential
tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-366. Watches of all kinds: British preferential tariff, 20 per cent; intermediate tariff, 30 per cent; general tariff, 35 per cent; provided that, when imported under the intermediate or the general tariff, the duty shall be not less than, each, intermediate tariff, 40 cents; general tariff, 40 cents.
Edward James Young: What are the rates of duty on a watch casing, a watch movement, and a watch movement in a casing respectively?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Watch actions and movements, finished or unfinished, are dealt with under item 366a, and come in at free, 15 per cent and 15 per cent. When they are imported under the intermediate or the general tariff, the duty shall be not less than 40 cents under each tariff. The next two items I am going to ask to have stand, because the very point the hon. gentleman is about to make applies with respect to them.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-366a. Watch actions and movements, finished or unfinished: Bristish preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff. 15 per cent; general tariff, 15 per cent; provided that when imported under the intermediate or the general tariff rate, the duty shall be not less than, each: intermediate tariff, 40 cents; general tariff, 40 cents.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff:-376a. Chromium metal and tungsten metal, in lumps, powder, ingots, blocks or bars, and scrap of alloy metal containing chromium and tungsten, when imported by manufacturers for use exclusively for alloying purposes, in their own factories: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-377d.	Billets of steel of
Bessemer quality, when imported by manufacturers of seamless steel tubes for use exclusively in the manufacture of seamless steel tubes, in their own factories: British preferential tariff, free: intermediate tariff, 5 per cent; general tariff, 5 per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-380. Plates of iron or steel, hot or cold rolled:
(a)	not more than 60 inches in width, n.o.p.,
per ton:	British preferential tariff, $4.25;
intermediate tariff, $6; general tariff, $7.
(b)	more than 60 inches in width, n.o.p., per ton: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, $3; general tariff, $5.
(c)	flanged, dished or curved, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, 10 per cent; intermediate tariff, 25 per cent; general tariff, 30 per cent: provided that the governor in council may, when satisfied that iron or steel plates are being rolled in Canada up to a width of 120 inches, and that the same oan be rolled in quantity and quality sufficient for Canadian requirements, by order in council direct that there be substituted for sections (a) and (b) of this tariff item the following:
(a)	not more than 120 inches in width, n.o.p., per ton: British preferential tariff. $4.25; intermediate tariff. $6; general tariff, $7.
(b)	more than 120 inches in width, n.o.p., per ton: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, $3; general tariff, $5.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-386(f). Hoop, band or strip rolled or drawn, coated or not, when imported by manufacturers of mats for use exclusively in the manufacture of mats, in their own factories: British preferential tariff, free: intermediate tariff, 5 per cent; general tariff, 5 per cent.
Richard Bedford Bennett: There is a slight change to be made in the wording, to meet a question of administration. The amendment to be proposed by the Minister of Fisheries is that the following be substituted for item 386 (f).
Customs tariff-386(f). Hoop, band or strip, hot or cold rolled or drawn, coated or not, when imported by manufacturers of mats for use exclusively in the manufacture of mats, in their own factories: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 5 per cent; general tariff, 5 per cent.
Item as amended agreed to.
Customs tariff-386(g). Sheets, plates, hoop, band or strip, not tempered or ground nor further manufactured than cut to shape, without indented edges, when imported by manufacturers of saws or straw cutters for use exclusively in the manufacture of saws or straw cutters, in their own factories: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-386 (n). Hoop, band or strip, hot rolled, in coils not less than 100 feet in length, when imported by manufacturers for
[Stage Direction]
ILoi/s and Means-Customs Tariff
use exclusively in the manufacture of cold rolled iron or steel, in their own factories: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 5 per cent; general tariff, 5 per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-386 (o). Hoop, band or strip, cold rolled, electro-galvanized, six inches or less in width, in coils of not less than 100 feet, when imported by manufacturers for use exclusively in the manufacture of rolling doors of steel, in their own factories:	British preferential
tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 71 per cent; general tariff, 71 per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-399b. Tubing, of wrought iron or steel, not more than 1 inch in diameter, in lengths not less than 6 feet, coated with metal, not polished, bent nor further manufactured, when imported by manufacturers to be further processed in their own factories: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 71 per cent; general tariff, 71 per cent.
Richard Bedford Bennett: This item must be slightly modified.


Mr. RHODES:: I move that the words "other than zinc" be inserted after the words "coated with metal."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Item as amended agreed to.
Customs tariff-399c. Pipes and tubes, not exceeding 2 inches in diameter, made from puddled iron, when for use exclusively in casing oil wells:	British preferential tariff,
free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I move that the following be substituted for this item:
Pipes and tubes, not exceeding 2 inches in diameter, made from puddled iron, when for use exclusively in recovering crude petroleum: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.


Charles A. Stewart: Would it
not be free for drilling wells for water?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The effect of petroleum on a certain kind of pipe is to corrode it, and this puddled iron is to prevent such corrosion.


Wilfred Hanbury: Is it not used in larger sizes?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


John Campbell Elliott: What other articles will the amendment include?


Richard Bedford Bennett: None.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Item as amended agreed to.
(Mr. Bennett.]
Customs tariff

402a. Woven or welded wire fencing, of iron or steel, coated or not, n.o.p.; wire doth or wire netting, of iron or steel, coated or not: British preferential tariff, 25 per cent; intermediate tariff, 35 per cent; general tariff, 35 per cent.
Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: I protest
against this item. It seems to me to illustrate-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps I may anticipate the hon. gentleman's objection by informing him that there is to be an additional item providing for the importation of special fencing for use exclusively on fur farms, and under regulations to be prescribed by the minister.


Edward Joseph Garland: Why for fur farming only? Why not for sheep farming?


Richard Bedford Bennett: This item is intended to encourage the production of wire netting in this country. Representations were made that the netting used for fox farming purposes was of a special kind imported from Great Britain. No other representations were made to the department, and so far as we know the Canadian product for other purposes has been quite satisfactory.


Mr. LUCAS:: What were the importations last year?


Richard Bedford Bennett: They amounted to


Mr. BROWN:: I protest against the increase in wire fencing. This is one of the most important articles of farm equipment in the west, and now, if we are to follow the counsel of so many of our eastern advisers to go into mixed farming, we shall need more wire fencing. The sheep industry is becoming very general in Manitoba and the cost of fencing adds largely to cost of operation. I must protest against this increase.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This item does not touch the matter to which the hon. member refers.


Mr. IRVINE:: Has the minister had any
assurance that the price will not be increased?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes; assurance has been given.


Milton Neil Campbell: The largest imports of the commodity come from Great Britain. Is this ordinary farm fencing, or is it ornamental fencing, or fox fencing, or what? If the minister has that information I should like to get it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The item has no reference to the class of fencing mentioned by the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown).

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
The fencing to which he refers comes under another item, which has not been touched either by amendment or by rewording. This refers largely to ornamental fencing and fencing of that kind. It includes the fencing used on fox farms. The fox farmers in various parts of Canada represented that they had been accustomed to a certain type of fencing manufactured in Great Britain for which they were paying the rate now on the schedule, and they asked to have that rate maintained. It is maintained in the amendment which will be offered by the Minister of Fisheries. The only change is in item 402a, with respect to which assurance has been given that there will be no increase.


Milton Neil Campbell: I presume that it is
not ordinary barbed wire.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


Charles A. Stewart: Having had some experience with the definitions of tariff items, I fancy that woven wire fencing is the ordinary fencing used by farmers.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That item, 402, is not
touched. That item is woven or welded wire fencing, of iron or steel, from wire not more than T44 inch and not less than '080 inch in diameter, with tolerance not to exceed -004 inch, also wire fencing, of iron or steel, coated or not, n.o.p. The rates are free; 121 per cent; 15 per cent.


Mr. CAYLEY:: I have received a wire
from the John Morrow Screw & Nut Company of Ingersoll, asking that twist drills be placed under the tariff item carrying a duty of 35 per cent instead of 30 per cent as at present. I believe this matter has been called to the attention of the Prime Minister.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is an application for an increase on steel used in the manufacture of certain tools. After careful consideration we concluded that it would open up too many items in the iron and steel schedule. That schedule had been before the tariff board and action had been taken. We endeavoured to disturb it as little as possible. We decided not to take the action suggested by the telegram brought to the attention of the department some months ago.


John Livingstone Brown: There will be no increase in the duty on ordinary wire fencing used on the farm?


Richard Bedford Bennett: We have not touched that item.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Under what item would ordinary fencing come?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Item 402, to which I referred a moment ago.


Milton Neil Campbell: Would that item cover mast of the ordinary wire fencing?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am advised that practically ninety per cent would come under that item.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: Mr. Chairman, I beg to move that the following item be inserted in resolution No. 2 of June 1, 1931:
Customs tariff-402b.	Woven netting, of
iron or steel, coated, made from wire of 17 gauge or heavier, with meshes not smaller than one inch and not larger than two inches, with specially strengthened joints, when for use exclusively on fur farms, under regulations prescribed by the minister:	British preferential tariff, 15 per cent; intermediate tariff, 27i per cent; general tariff, 30 per cent.


Mr. MacLEAN:: I desire to thank the Minister of Finance for taking this action. This is a very important article in our province. Representations were made to the minister and to the Minister of National Revenue by the fox breeders' association. I received a telegram myself from the president of the association, which I forwarded to the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Revenue, and I am pleased to see that the minister has given attention to this matter and left the duty as it was.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Customs tariff-403b. Flat or woven flat, including steel strip, in the coil, coated or not, [DOT]064 inch in thickness or thinner, with tolerance not to exceed -002 inch, when imported by manufacturers of corset clasps, steels, wires and dress stays for use exclusively in the manufacture of corset clasps, steels, wires and dress stays, in their own factories: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 5 per cent; general tariff, 7i per cent.
Richard Bedford Bennett: It is desired to make this item a little clearer, and my colleague will move an amendment thereto.


George Halsey Perley: I beg to move that the following be substituted for item 403 (b):
Customs tariff-403b. Flat or woven flat, including steel strip, in the coil, coated or not, [DOT]064 inch in thickness or thinner, with tolerance not to exceed -002 inch, when imported by manufacturers of corset clasps, steels, wires and dress stays for use exclusively in the manufacture of corset clasps, steels, wires and dress stays, in their own factories: British preferential tariff, free: intermediate tariff, 5 percent; general tariff, 5 per cent.
Item as amended agreed to.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
Customs tariff-403(e). Steel wire, when imported by manufacturers of machine card clothing for use exclusively in the manufacture of machine card clothing in their own factories: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-409e. Spraying and dusting machines and attachments therefor, including hand sprayers; fruit or vegetable grading machines and attachments therefor; apparatus specially designed for sterilizing bulbs; pressure testing apparatus for determining maturity of fruit; pruning hooks; pruning shears; animal dehorning instruments; and complete parts of all the foregoing: British preferential tariff, free: intermediate tariff, 15 per cent; general tariff, 25 per cent.
Item agreed to.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I think this item will be made somewhat clearer by the amendment which my colleague will move.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I move that the following be substitued for item 409e:
Customs tariff-409e.	(i) Spraying and dusting machines and attachments therefor, including hand sprayers; apparatus especially designed for sterilizing bulbs; pressure testing apparatus for determining maturity of fruit; pruning hooks; pruning shears; animal dehorning instruments; and complete parts of all the foregoing:	British preferential tariff, free;
intermediate tariff, 15 per cent; general tariff, 25 per cent.
(ii)	Fruit and vegetable grading, washing and wiping machines and complete parts therefor: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 10 per cent; general tariff, 10 per cent.
Item as amended agreed to.
Customs tariff-409q. Complete parts for repairs, if imported on or before the thirty-first day of March, 1932.
(i)	For the implements or machinery enumerated in tariff items 409c, 409e, 409f, 409g. 409j, 409o, 409p, and 439e: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 10 per cent; general tariff, 10 per cent.
(ii)	For the implements or machinery enumerated in tariff item 409b: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 7i per cent; general tariff, 7i per cent.
(iii)	For the implements or machinery enum: erated in tariff item 409d: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 6 per cent; general tariff, 6 per cent.
(iv)	For the implements or machinery enumerated in tariff items 409h and 409n: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 10 per cent; general tariff, 15 per cent.
(v)	For the implements or machinery enumerated in tariff items 409i and 409k: British preferential tariff, free: intermediate tariff, 17J per cent; general tariff, 17J per cent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If the hon. member for South Battleford (Mr. Vallance) will look at this item he will see that it extends the time to which the old rates apply to March 31, 1932, the end of the next fiscal year.


John Livingstone Brown: It has been brought to my attention that the cream separator companies are charging an extra price claiming that the duty had been raised on repair parts for cream separators. I cannot discover that this duty has been raised at any time, but probably some change has been made by the department in the classification of these repair parts. It is clearly stated that they come in free when used by manufacturers in the manufacture of machines, but they are not free when sold to the farmers. In these days when farming is being carried on at a great loss we cannot afford to pay extra prices for repair parts for our machinery. The prices have been raised 15 per cent because of a supposed increase in duty, whereas I think a change has been made in the classification.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There has been no change made since the change in administration. I happen to know that these parts are free when imported by manufacturers in connection with their operations. I suppose in most cases the farmer does not import directly but buys through an agent. I am trying to ascertain if a change has been made in the designation because I know no change has been made in the tariff.


John Livingstone Brown: I know that the DeLaval company notified their agents that the prices had been raised 15 per cent.


John Vallance: I want to thank the
Minister of Finance for drawing my attention to the fact that complete parts for repairs of all these machinery items are free. One would infer from his remark that I was discussing this before the dinner recess. I want to assure him there is nothing in the foregoing that I was discussing regarding repairs.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was not my hon. friend. It was another hon. gentleman.


Milton Neil Campbell: I presume the intention in this case is that after the 31st March, 1932, the increased duty applies. Is that so?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That does not follow.


Milton Neil Campbell: While I appreciate the fact that the postponement of the higher duty has been put through in this budget, at the same time I think we should be prepared next year to consider a further postponement. Last year I drew the minister's attention to this and showed him the effect of increased duties on implement repairs, and the increased price this would mean to farmers who have United Sta>tes-made machinery. At that time, of course, many of us thought these United States companies would establish plants in

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
Canada, but owing to the depression many of them will probably never do so, at any rate, not at the present time, and if the high rates of duty went into effect the farmers would be penalized. I trust the Minister of Finance will see to it that no such rates are put into effect, at least until some of these United States companies have a chance to establish plants in Canada.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Some months ago the
hon. gentleman directed attention to this matter, and what has happened is that we have dropped any change in the tariff until at least after the 31st of March, 1932. Obviously I would not venture to express any opinion as to what may happen after that. At any rate, until that time the hon. gentleman may be assured there will be no change.


Milton Neil Campbell: What I want to be
clear on is whether or not the increased rate went into effect automatically.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No. I should like to
speak with further reference to the question asked by the hon. member for Lisgar. The commodities to which he refers are dealt with under item 442b:
Materials which enter into the construction and form part of cream separators when imported by manufacturers of cream separators, for use exclusively in the manufacture of cream separators, in their own factories, under regulations prescribed by the minister.
Then follows item 442c:
Articles of metal when imported by manufacturers of cream separator parts for use exclusively in the manufacture of cream separators parts, in their own factories, under regulations prescribed by the minister.
Free; free; free. This refers to both items. I cannot see just where the difficulty has arisen unless it be that the farmer has purchased from some importer other than one importing for his own factory.


John Livingstone Brown: The usual way of buying
repairs for cream separators is to buy them from the dealer in the town where one lives. I know the dealer in my town received notice last summer that the price for repairs was up 15 per cent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It would seem to me
then this has nothing to do with the tariff, but by arrangement between the dealer and the factory producer, the former has increased his price.


John Livingstone Brown: Well, they were blaming it on the tariff.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member for
Lisgar knows that in his constituency everything has so often been blamed on the tariff since he has been there, naturally this is one of those instances.


John Livingstone Brown: I thought they were wrong. They were blaming it on the coming budget.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
'Customs tariff-412. Machinery, being presses for use in the printing of newspapers, of not lees value by retail than $1,500 each, of a class or kind not made in Canada: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
Richard Bedford Bennett: There is no change in
rates. It is only a change in the wording.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-422a. Concrete road-paving machines, self propelling, end loading type, with a capacity of 21 cubic feet of wet concrete or more; concrete and asphalt road finishing machines; form graders; sub-graders; trench and ditch excavating machines, round wheel or vertical or ladder boom, chain and bucket type, for digging vertical or sloping bank ditches; back filling machines and equipment, mounted on self-propelling wheels or crawling traction, semi- or full-revolving boom and scraper type; steam or air driven pile hammers or extractors; well-points; truck turntables; all the foregoing of a class or kind not made in Canada, and complete parts thereof: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 10 per cent; general tariff, 12J per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-427. All machinery composed wholly or in part of iron or steel, n.o.p., and complete parts thereof:	British preferential
tariff, 15 per cent; intermediate tariff, 27i per cent; general tariff, 35 per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-427a. Rolling mill rolls, when imported by proprietors of rolling mills for use only in rolling iron or steel.
Provided, that the governor in council may, when satisfied that rolling mill rolls for rolling iron or steel are being manufactured in Canada, by order in council direct that this tariff item be cancelled: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
Richard Bedford Bennett: There is an amendment
with respect to this item, to remove any doubt. The amendment I have suggested is as follows:
427a. Sand cast rolls and chilled cast iron rolls, imported by proprietors of rolling mills for use exclusively in rolling iron or steel: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
Provided, that the governor in council may, when satisfied that sand cast or chilled cast iron
3706	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tanff
rolls, or both, are being manufactured in Canada, by order in council direct that this tariff item, in so far as it affects either or both of such rolls, be repealed.
We have not yet reached the stage in Canada where we are producing those steel rolls:


Mr. REID:: There is no difference in the manufacture.


George Halsey Perley: I move the
amendment.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Item as amended agreed to.
Customs tariff-440c. Racing shells or oars therefor, when imported by a bona fide amateur rowing club in Canada for use exclusively by such club: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 25 per cent; general tariff, 25 per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff - 440j. Trawls, trawling spoons, fly hooks, sinkers, swivels, sportsmen's fishing reels, bait and hooks, and fishing tackle, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, 20 per cent; intermediate tariff, 25 per cent; general tariff, 30 per cent.
Richard Bedford Bennett: There is no change in
rates.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-445a. Electric head, side and tail lights; electric torches or flashlights and complete parts therefor:	British preferential
tariff, 20 per cent; intermediate tariff, 30 per cent; general tariff, 30 per cent.
Richard Bedford Bennett: The change in this item
is adding the words, "and complete parts therefor."


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-445e. Electric and galvanic batteries, n.o.p., and complete parts thereof, including separator walls of wood, cut to size or not: British preferential tariff, 15 per cent; intermediate tariff, 25 per cent; general tariff, 27i per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-446. Electric steam turbo generator sets 700 h.p. and greater, of a class or kind not made in Canada, and complete parts thereof: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 15 per cent; general tariff, 20 per cent.
Richard Bedford Bennett: This is to meet municipal installations of steam plants, and it will be observed that it takes care of them to 700 horse-power and greater, but not under, of a class or kind made in Canada, and complete parts thereof.


George Gibson Coote: Do we import many of these from Great Britain?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


Charles A. Stewart: This does not take the place of electric motors on which the British preference remains at 25 per cent?


Richard Bedford Bennett: This is the steam-driven turbine for the generation of electricity. The technical name is electric steam turbo generator. This is for municipal installation.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-446a. Manufactures, articles or wares, of iron or steel or of which iron or steel or both are the component materials of chief value, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, 15 per cent; intermediate tariff, 27J per cent; general tariff, 35 per cent.
Item agreed to.

Richard Bedford Bennett: 370S

IKaj/.s and Means-Customs Tariff
Australia and ourselves with respect to only one item. There being no provision whereby we could safeguard our interests without terminating the whole agreement, the government yielding to the unanimous views of the House of Commons gave notice to terminate that agreement with results which have not been pleasant to contemplate. Now by the provisions of article IX in this agreement to which I point with, I hope, not too great pride, such contingencies are provided for. It is our earnest hope and confident belief that with an arrangement such as this our relations with the great sister dominion of Australia will be placed upon a permanent basis. Whenever slight differences arise which become so acute as to make it desirable that we shall no longer continue to treat one particular item as an item under the agreement, we may for the moment terminate the provisions of the agreement with regard to that item, and when we adjust our difficulties the agreement will continue with full force and effect.
I think it will be found that the provisions of this agreement with respect to the newsprint and the lumber industry, and also with respect to other matters to which reference will be made, are peculiarly acceptable to this country at this particular time. We will offer the bill confirming it for first reading at as early a date as is convenient, and meantime I am giving notice to-night to that effect. Hon. gentlemen will find a copy of the agreement with the first page only of the bill that deals with the confirmation of it. We could get only two hundred copies printed this morning, but our own people can defer securing their copies until my hon. friends opposite are provided for.


Ernest Lapointe: Hear, hear.
Customs tariff-4.">
1 d.	Papier mache shoe
buttons, shoe eyelets, corset eyelets, shoe eyelet hooks, shoe lace wire fasteners: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-461. Safes, including doors; doors and door frames for vaults; scales, balances, weighing beams and strength-testing machines of all kinds, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, 10 per cent; intermediate tariff, 30 per cent; general tariff, 35 per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-475c. Plates and electrotypes of metal, for printing music: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
Item agreed to.

Customs tariff-479. Materials and articles, when imported by manufacturers of artificial limbs or parts, for use exclusively in the manufacture of artificial limbs or parts, in their own factories: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-516. Blinds of wood, metal or other material, not textile or paper: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 30 per cent; general tariff, 35 per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-519. House, office, cabinet or store furniture of wood, iron, or other material, in parts or finished: British preferential tariff, 20 per cent; intermediate tariff, 30 per cent; general tariff, 45 per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-519a. Wire screens, wire doors and wire windows; cash registers; window cornices and cornice poles of all kinds: hair spring and other mattresses; curtain stretchers, furniture springs and carpet sweepers: British preferential tariff, 20 per cent; intermediate tariff, 27J per cent; general tariff, 30 per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-536. Batts, batting and wadding of wool, cotton or other fibre, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, 12J per cent; intermediate tariff, 22J per cent; general tariff, 25 per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs	tariff-549e. Filter press cloth
made from human hair, imported by manufacturers of linseed oil for use exclusively in the manufacture of linseed oil, in their own factories, under regulations by the minister: British preferential tariff, 20 per cent; intermediate tariff, 27J per cent; general tariff, 30 per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-551b. Mohair yarns, imported by manufacturers of cut pile fabrics for upholstery purposes for use exclusively in the manufacture of such cut pile fabrics, in their own factories; British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 10 per cent; general tariff, 12J per cent. Provided, that the governor in council may, when satisfied that mohair yarns are being produced in Canada in quantity and quality sufficient for Canadian requirements, by order in council direct that this tariff item be repealed.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I beg to move that the following be substituted for tariff item 551b as contained in resolution No. 2 of June 1, 1931:
Customs	tariff-551b. Mohair or alpaca
yarns, imported by manufacturers of cut pile fabrics for upholstery purposes, for use exclusively in the manufacture of such cut pile fabrics, in their own factories: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 10 per

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
cent; general tariff, 12J per cent. Provided, that the governor in council may, when satisfied that mohair or alpaca yarns, or both, are manufactured in Canada in quantity and quality sufficient for Canadian requirements, by order in council direct that this tariff item, insofar as it affects either or both of such yarns, be repealed.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Item as amended agreed to.
Customs tariff-560a. Woven fabrics wholly or in part of silk, not to contain wool, not including fabrics in chief part by weight of artificial silk, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, 27J per cent; intermediate tariff, 40 per cent; general tariff, 45 per cent; and, per lineal yard: intermediate tariff, 10 cents; general tariff, 10 cents.
Edward James Young: In this case there is an ad valorem duty of 45 per cent plus a specific duty of 10 cents per lineal yard. What does that figure out at?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It depends on the value of the importation and the weight. I should like to say very frankly to the committee that this item represents a deliberate effort to maintain the silk industry. There are several small silk plants in Canada. They are manufacturing, I think, as economically and efficiently as any industries in this country. They have a substantial capital investment and in the very nature of things give employment to a large number of people as compared with the entire value of the product. I have reason to believe that the interests largely concerned in the success of similar enterprises in the United States have substantial stock holdings in these enterprises. I am further advised, and I am certain from my investigations, that under existing conditions they could put their product into this country and stop the activities of our mills. I have on my desk samples of the products of both the mills south of us and in Canada and of those in other countries. The mill at Louiseville, Quebec, is one of the industries to which I refer; that is not wholly, but in part, common ownership. There are others similarly situated, and after hearing what had to be said and investigating the matter as fully as possible, having regard to the apparent effort on the part of those who had substantial inventories in other countries to find here, if possible, a market, we concluded that it was desirable to maintain this industry, for reasons that I think are fairly apparent. The action indicated by the item in the tariff is the action which we believe will serve that purpose.


Mr. SANDERSON:: What were the importations last year and from what countries?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The importations were 8,240,000 yards, valued at $4,366,000, of which $1,731,000 worth came from the United States and nearly $1,500,000 from Japan.


Edward James Young: If I understood the Prime Minister aright he has revealed a most amazing situation. We have been told that it is desirable so to adjust our tariff that American manufacturers will establish branch factories in this country. Now we are told that certain American manufacturers who have established branch factories in Canada for the manufacture of silk will close them unless we raise our tariff still higher and allow them to make a still greater profit from their Canadian factories, out of the pockets of the Canadian people, to be taken to the United States. That is an amazing situation. I do not think we should tolerate it for one moment- to induce factories to come here by a high tariff, and then have them tell us that unless we give them a higher tariff they will close down and throw their workmen out of employment I should like to ask the Prime Minister how many people are employed in the factories; what is the total wage bill; what percentage of the product represents wage costs; what is the duty he expects to lose by shutting out these products, and any other information which will give us a clear understanding of what this will cost us.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Might I ask the hon. gentleman to be good enough to read from his book the answer to the questions he has asked?
Mr. Y'OUNG: I only have some notes here which I jotted down while my right hon. friend was talking.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman has the information.
Mr. Y'OUNG: Where?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Right beside him, as I understand it.


Edward James Young: No, I have not.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I thought my hon. friend told me he had it. I have not the information that has been requested; I did not undertake to prepare it with respect to all the industries in Canada. But my hon. friend did not quite follow me. I did not say they controlled the industry, but that they had an interest in it, and that they also had an industry in the United States. There are

IFfij/s and Means-Customs Tariff
several thousand people employed in the industry in Canada, scattered over the two provinces of Ontario and Quebec. I have not before me at the moment the exact number, nor have I brought other information with me, because we are dealing with only one phase of the industry, not the whole of it. If it is desired, the item could stand until the information is forthcoming.


Charles A. Stewart: I think it would be. well if we had that information, because to my mind this is one of the very extravagant increases in this schedule, amounting to almost 100 per cent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Depending on the value.


Charles A. Stewart: In the
cheaper lines of silk it runs to approximately 100 per cent. There are mills already established under the existing protection, and I fail to understand the necessity for this very drastic increase in tariff. I should like to know how many people are employed in this industry.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I shall be quite content to have the item stand. Perhaps my hon. friend has that information before him, in his brief.


Charles A. Stewart: No, I have not.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I can get it for the industry as a whole. I am sure the hon. gentleman understands that it cannot be segregated.


Charles A. Stewart: We are asking for the information having to do with that part of the silk industry covered by this drastic increase.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I cannot give the information in respect to the portion of the industry covered by this item, but with respect to the silk industry as a whole, last year the silk production in this country was valued at in the vicinity of $12,000,000, speaking from memory. This is an exceptional condition now prevailing; it is really an emergency. I quite agree with what the hon. gentleman has said; the rate is very high as compared with the present rate, but I may tell my hon. friend what one of the gentlemen who came to us said to me about it. He said, "I am in this business in the United States in a very large way. My people have a small interest in Canada, only in one place. In the United States we have taken steps to prevent the importation of these goods by rates of 55, 60 and 65 per cent, and unless some action is taken, with our surplus inventories in the United States your mere dumping duty will

not be sufficient to shut out these goeds." Of course there are very large importations from countries other than the United States. After the matter was very carefully gone into it was realized that a specific duty was necessary in addition to an ad valorem duty, unless we imposed an ad valorem duty that seemed out of all proportion to what such a duty should be. Those are the facts of the matter, as it stands.


Thomas McMillan: So you are
putting on'a specific duty in order to deceive the people and not let them know the cost?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, to give them knowledge.


Edward James Young: Did I understand my right hon. friend to say that this was an American who came with this information?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, he said he came
from New York.


Edward James Young: And he asked that the Canadian duty be raised?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, he presented the
situation as it wras. He did not ask for an increase in the duty; he put it in this way, that he had confidence in the intelligence of the Canadian people who desired to protect this industry from destruction, and I am inclined to think he was right.


Edward James Young: This American is very much interested in Canadian industry.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, he said quite frankly what I afterwards found to be true. I might correct my hon. friend's statement in regard to the money being made, because this industry has not yet made money. This gentleman fold me he would make much more money if he were able to supply Canadian requirements from his mills in the United States, and it did not require very much arithmetic to see why fhat should be so. But, having made an investment here, not in his own company but in a stock investment which is rather widely held, he and his associates believed that the Canadian people would be interested in knowing what was the situation; from other sources I took the trouble to verify his statements, and this is the result. I hardly expected that it would commend itself to my hon. friend, but I still believe that in this time of stress we cannot afford to let that industry, employing several thousand people, suffer. One of the people who came to me represented a plant in the Welland district near St. Catharines, I believe, and he made the position perfectly clear. The other application, as I say, was from this gentleman from New York. He did not come with any group of people; he simply

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
came up on the train and said, "Here is the position as to costs, and here is our position as to sales. We would be better off financially if we could supply the Canadian market from our American plants." I saw at once the force of that argument, because they could keep their large plants going to capacity, and would be much better off in that way. We chose this course.


Edward James Young: My right hon. friend says
this gentleman told him that he would make more money by supplying the Canadian market from his American factories, but he knew perfectly well that if the tariff were lowered so that the American product could enter, the products of factories in France, Germany and other countries could enter also. He wanted high protection so his Canadian branch factory could enjoy a monopoly.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He has not a monopoly,
and I am sure my hon. friend knows that. There is no relation between the Welland plant and the other plant mentioned; they are competitors. One of the real objections urged against this tariff was what I daresay my hon. friend saw in the newspapers, that we had too many silk factories in Canada, that competition had grown too keen, and that they could not expect to make much money because ten million people could not absorb the products of the number of mills there are in this country. That was the position taken by some people. I put to my hon. friend the converse of the position which he took.


Edward James Young: Let us accept that statement; let us say there are too many factories in Canada to have all their products absorbed by the Canadian people. What is the remedy? There is only one; that is to reduce production costs to the point where these products can be exported in order to capture some of the world market.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Our best hope of capturing some of the world' market is to have a market at home. We shall capture some of the world market, as we have done in a small way, but we cannot hope to do so extensively unless we can produce something at unit rates of cost comparable with those of competing countries. As matters now stand, I think my hon. friend will agree that unless some such action as this is taken we shall certainly not have a silk industry in Canada.


Charles A. Stewart: If with the duty at present in force we cannot have a silk industry in Canada, then it seems to me it is a pretty expensive luxury.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Under present economic conditions, with distress sales all over the country, I Should like the Committee to understand my view of the situation. Every business man opposite me, if he will take the trouble to investigate, will arrive at exactly the conclusion I have reached. This is an age, not of competition in production but of competition in reducing inventories; and in the effort to reduce inventories prices have been disregarded and commodities offered on a basis not heretofore thought possible. Now we have to conclude what action we shall take, not starting at the very threshold of these undertakings, but facing the fact that the undertakings are with us. For instance, the silk industry was not established last fall, nor the fall before that. It has existed in Canada for many years, having been slowly developed. Whether hon. gentlemen opposite or we ourselves, facing the issue to-day, would decide upon developing a silk industry in Canada, I cannot answer. I am sure some hon. gentlemen opposite would say it was not desirable; I am sure some of us on this side would say the same. But the fact is that the industry is here; the investment has been made.


Charles A. Stewart: We have the raw product for rayon silk.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is a separate thing. In this industry we had last year a production amounting to S12,000,000, and under the tariff of 1928, 810.000,000. I put to the committee the question I had to ask myself, and the only answer I could give was that I was not prepared to see the industry destroyed. I ask one question further: What- action may I take in this emergent condition as will ensure the maintenance of the industry without permitting exploitation? What the committee sees before it is about as reasonable as we can do under the circumstances, high though it looks. I actually had in my desk- I should not care to say where they came from-samples from various countries, and the fact is that the price at which one of these articles, similar to one produced in this country, can be produced abroad represents just 50 per cent of what it costs to produce here.


Wilfred Hanbury: Does not the dumping clause take care of that?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No. I asked myself that very question. The hon. gentleman is a man of business, and I could point out to him many cases in which the dumping clause will not effect the purpose we have in mind. That is why we put in force the section to which

I)T ayn and Means-Customs Tariff
I referred the other day. I know of no other way to save the situation in the present emergency. This is not being done for the sake of doing it. If I thought there was any other method by which it could be done, my colleagues and I would not take this course. But because we can see no other way we are bound to proceed as we are doing. Not that we might choose to create this industry if we had the power to determine that. But the industry is here and I am not prepared to take the responsibility of seeing it destroyed.


Edward James Young: Perhaps I may tell the Prime Minister what information we should like to have. We want to have the total investment in Canada,-


Richard Bedford Bennett: That might be difficult
to get.


Edward James Young: -the number of employees, the salaries and wages paid, the cost of raw material, the percentage of the total product paid in wages, total production, total imports, duty collected, and the number of factories which are under American control.


Richard Bedford Bennett: With respect to the last question, I am afraid I cannot satisfy the hon. gentleman's laudable curiosity. I observe that the questions he has put are in the sequence in which they appear in the last year book. I shall therefore endeavour to transfer to a sheet of paper the information contained in -the year book and read it to the committee.


Peter John Veniot: Does this discussion relate
to the silk industry as a whole?


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend from
Gloucester will perhaps have heard the observation of the hon. member for West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart) that the rayon industry is entirely different; and the celanese industry depends on the chemical action of certain acids on cotton and wood. The experiments now being carried on at Drummondville and in the United States seem to indicate the possibility at an early date of treating wood in such a way that it may take the place of cotton. I believe the experiments have been reasonably successful and that we may soon expect wood properly treated chemically to be the raw material of both rayon and celanese. This item refers to what might be called the silk industry as distinguished from the artificial silk industry. My remarks had reference to an industry the raw material for which is imported.


Peter John Veniot: There appeared in La Presse of Saturday, May 2, an interview with Mr. 
Brupbaeher, manager of the Brupbacher Silk Mills, Limited, Valleyfield. Mr. Brupbacher said :
A just protection established on a basis of equity cannot but help all industries of all countries. Canada will lose nothing by continuing this principle.
He goes on to give data with regard to this industry in Canada:
The rapid expansion of the silk industry in Canada during the last eight years constitutes one of the major points of the economic development of our country. In 1922 Canada had seven factories. In 1928 this number reached twenty-two. The capital invested increased from $4,618,448 to $28,278,656. Our factory is the youngest in Canada.
This is one of the factories for the establishment of which credit was given to the new tariff. As a matter of fact, its construction began in May 1930, at the time the Dunning budget was introduced. According to this authority on silk manufacture in Canada, under a moderate tariff the silk industry has succeeded. In seven years it has increased its invested capital from nearly $5,000,000 to a little over $28,000,000. This gentleman, who is one of the founders of the silk industry-in Canada, is certainly not asking for greater protection. It might be well to consider that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Nothing could more
clearly demonstrate the difficulty of the situation than the item which the hon. member has just read, a copy of which is on the files in the department. I said to the committee, what any hon. member can abundantly satisfy himself upon, that there was no break in domestic prices, with respect to many of the inventories of goods such as this, until as a matter of fact very recently. This is what happens in every crisis.


Peter John Veniot: This was in May, 1931.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The crisis has occurred
in Europe and there comes a time when the peak is reached and there is either a breaking up or an improvement. The position I desire to make clear to this committee is one I would like hon. members opposite, especially the hon. member for Weybum (Mr. Young) to look into between now and to-morrow in order to satisfy themselves of what I have said. The inventories held by the silk and allied concerns were very considerable. Most of these companies did not believe that the economic crisis through which the world was passing would reach anything like the acute stage it has reached at the present time. They held on hoping against hope that they would not be compelled to sacrifice the price of their domestic production, but alas there

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
came a time when other countries would not absorb their surplus production at any price, and the price of inventories dropped As a matter of fact the situation in May was not anything like it is in July, and in July it is worse than it was last month. The resolutions of which I will give notice tonight contain specific modifications; I only wish I did not have to take this action, but I am convinced as to the necessity.


Peter John Veniot: The right hon. member
states that this extremely high duty is being placed upon this commodity in order to meet an emergency which has arisen since May. How does he expect to meet the situation if the emergency disappears during the next four or five months?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Under the general statute we have the right to reduce duties.


Peter John Veniot: I know that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And that action has been taken before. If it were not that I and my colleagues were convinced of the necessity, the time of the committee would not be taken up in this regard. I do not blame any party for the condition which exists, but I believe the duty is cast upon the government to see that this industry is not destroyed. The provisions of the law are such that we cannot increase a duty by order in council, but reduction can be made. I commend this to the committee.


Peter John Veniot: There is no other method of meeting this emergency?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Prices for duty could be fixed. That would be exercising the third power I mentioned a few days ago, which was vested in the executive by the legislation of last fall. Hon. members opposite have, not unfairly, criticized that form of action-


Peter John Veniot: It is the law.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is a form of the law
which we will use as little as possible.


Edward James Young: Hear, hear.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I say that to my hon.
friend. If it were not for my firm belief as to the necessity, it would not be there, but being there we will use it as little as possible. Land my colleagues felt that the proper place to deal with this matter was in this committee. We felt that the committee should be told the exact position and be asked for its judgment.


Peter John Veniot: The budget was submitted on June 1, and these various items were part of the budget. The emergency referred to by the right hon. gentleman did not exist on June 1.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh, yes, it did.


Peter John Veniot: There may have been some threat of it, but there certainly was no such emergency on June 1 when the budget was submitted. There was no such emergency existing at the time the interview to which I referred took place, and no change occurred between that time and the introduction of the budget on June 1. I am not convinced that the right hon. gentleman is correct when he says that this high tariff has been put into effect in order to meet an emergency.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In any event the item is
to stand.


Edward James Young: The right hon. gentleman ha3 stated that our silk manufacturers, thinking the depression had reached the bottom and that prices would not go down any lower, held their goods off the market in the hope of being able to realize higher prices.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not say the manufacturers in Canada; I said out of Canada.


Edward James Young: Not in Canada?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I tried to make it clear that the manufacturers in other countries had enormous inventories which they are now attempting to push into this country or any other country in which it would be possible to gain entry for their goods. I ask my hon. friend to interview any merchant who has to do with these matters and find out what his experience has been during the last six weeks. My hon. friend's information is my information.


Edward James Young: Would my right hon. friend tell the committee whether the Canadian manufacturers had large inventories?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have asked that the item should stand in consequence of what the hon. member said.


John Campbell Elliott: Could the minister give the committee an idea of the range of prices of fabrics included in this item?


Richard Bedford Bennett: My recollection is that it runs from 40 cents per yard, or perhaps a little less, up to something like $5 per yard.


John Campbell Elliott: It strikes me that a duty of 10 cents per lineal yard on a silk selling for 40 cents per yard is altogether out of pro-

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
portion to the same duty on silk selling at $5 per yard. There is a 25 per cent duty plus a 45 per cent duty, a total of 70 per cent which the poor person has to pay when buying a fabric costing 40 cents per yard as against the same duty per yard which is paid by the fortunate person able to pay $5 per yard for the fabric he purchases. It seems to me unfair that in one case the duty should be ten times as much as in the other.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, this committee is fertile in resource and I would ask it what suggestion it has to make in order to deal with the facts which I have outlined and which the committee can verify for itself, member for member. What suggestion has any hon. member to make with respect to a specific duty in addition to the ad valorem duty? The first suggestion was to apply the duty by weight; it was found that that would not work out. The next suggestion wa3 to apply it according to the fineness of the texture of the fabric, as is the case with some of the woollen items; that was rejected. The next suggestion was to take length as the standard or yardstick; that one has been adopted. If the committee can suggest a better one, I hasten to assure it that I shall endeavour in anyway in my power to see that it is adopted.


John Livingstone Brown: Is there any necessity for adopting a specific duty?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Aes; in view of the circumstances to which I have alluded, I see no other way of dealing with the matter.


Mark Cecil Senn: Before the textile items are all put through, I should like to place before, the committee the condition of another branch of the textile industry, namely, the knitted goods industry. When the duty was raised last fall on different classes of textiles, there is no doubt this was a great benefit to various branches of the industry. As an example I may say that my Liberal opponent in the last campaign is engaged in the. textile industry and at the time of the election that industry was working four days a week and short hours. The last I have heard about it is that since the duty was raised last fall, it is working twenty-four hours a day and six days in the week. That, however, is not the case with the knitted goods industry. When the duty was raised on other branches of the industry last fall, owing to the provisions of the French treaty it was impossible to accord the same 
treatment to the. knitted goods industry. Schedule D of the French treaty sets the duty on knitted goods at 25 per cent and because of that it prevents any increase in the British preferential rate, as the rate on British goods cannot, of course, be any higher than that on similar foreign goods. In addition to that it prevents any increase in the tariff on this class of goods from some twenty-one other countries which enjoy the privileges of the French treaty. These countries include Japan and Czechoslovakia. The last available figures which I have for imports of this class of goods are as follow's, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1930:
Country	Amounts
United Kingdom	 $1,815,000
All countries	 2,916,000
France	 110,000
As the amount imported from France is only $110,000, the provision of the French treaty setting the duty at 25 per cent is of no immediate advantage to France, because only a very limited amount comes from that country, but at the same time is a very great disadvantage to the Canadian industry and to Canadian workers.
The artificial silk knitted industry is in the same situation as that of other knitted goods. Artificial silk yarns are coming into Canada to-day at a higher rate of duty than artificial silk knitted goods. For that reason it is increasingly difficult for the knitted goods industry to operate and carry on. I think in justice to the knitted goods industry some change should be made that would make it possible for the present administration to accord the same treatment to that portion of the textile industry as is being accorded to every other part of it.
Item stands.
Customs tariff-569c. Hat braids, of a class or kind not made in Canada, whether woven, knitted or plaited, not exceeding four inches in w'idth, imported for use exclusively in the manufacture of hat bodies or shapes, but not for use in the ornamentation or trimming of such bodies or shapes, under regulations prescribed by the minister: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tari, free.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-578. Regalia, badges and belts of all kinds, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, 27£ per cent; intermediate tariff, 30 per cent; general tariff, 45 per cent.
Item agreed to.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
Customs	tariff

589. Charcoal, per ton:
British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, $7.50; general tariff, $7.50.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Purely as an administrative matter, and to remove any possible doubt, I wish to add to this item the words "from wood."


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I move that amendment.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Item as amended agreed to.
Customs tariff-597. Pianofortes and organs: British preferential tariff, 20 per cent; intermediate tariff, 27J per cent; general tariff, 30 per cent.
Provided, that when imported under the intermediate or general tariff the duty shall be not less than, each: British preferential tariff, ... .; intermediate tariff, $75; general tariff, $75.
Edward James Young: I notice there is a duty of 30 per cent under the general tariff, with a minimum of S75. That is to say, if a piano valued at $200 enters Canada, the duty would be $60, but there is a special provision which says that it must be not less than $75. That is another way of saying that the cheaper piano shall carry a higher rate of duty than the more expensive one. In that there is a discrimination against the poorer people who cannot buy expensive instruments. In view of what the Prime Minister told us the other day regarding the situation in the piano industry, could he not do something for that industry by making pianos cheaper and thus bringing more buyers into the market?


Richard Bedford Bennett: To make pianos cheaper would mean that they would come from some other country than Canada. The hon. gentleman can satisfy himself, by going to the factories in Montreal or cities in Ontario, that the actual cost of the materials that enter into the production of a piano of the cheaper kind represents more money than the price at which, for the reasons I indicated a few minutes ago, they are now being offered for importation into Canada. I wonder if the hon. gentleman realizes that pianos are not dearer in Canada; they have become very much cheaper in the last few years. Of course there is a class of piano, the concert grand, that is highly expensive, costing thousands of dollars. We imported some of them last year from Germany. We have imported them from the United States. One of them made in Philadelphia has had a reputation for almost a century now. There is one of the same type made in New York state. What one might call a piano of general use is one that is being sold at a reasonable price in this country.


Richard Burpee Hanson: A cottage piano.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, but recently they have been dumped into this country at a price which we cannot possibly meet. The piano people waited upon the government; they produced evidence of the cost in their own factories, and I have no hesitation in saying to hon. gentlemen that they will be glad to show them their methods of production. These factories are not nearly as active as they were before the radio came into general use.


Charles A. Stewart: Is that not the cause of a large part of their difficulty?


Richard Bedford Bennett: As I said to my hon. friend the other day, I do not desire to minimize that. After all, however, $75, is as the committee will realize, 30 per cent on $250, and on the basis of reasonable value for the commodity offered, I think the committee will say that a reasonable price for the production of pianos would not be less than $250.


Edward James Young: In Canada a fairly good piano would cost from $500 to $700.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Less than that.


Edward James Young: My right hon. friend could not get a piano he would be any more than proud of for $700. A fairly good radio costs about $200. If a $200 radio is displacing a $600 or S700 piano the only possible way for the piano to gain ground is to find some means of reducing the price. Every measure taken to raise the prices of the piano places it under a still greater handicap as compared with the radio.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff.-597a. Musical instruments of all kinds, n.o.p.; phonographs, graphophones, gramophones and finished parts thereof, including cylinders and records therefor; and mechanical piano and organ players: British preferential tariff, 20 per cent; intermediate tariff, 27J per cent; general tariff, 30 per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-604. Belting leather in butts or bends: sole leather; and all leather further finished than tanned, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, 15 per cent; intermediate tariff, 25 per cent; general tariff, 25 per cent.
Item agreed to.
*Customs tariff-605. Leather produced from East India tanned kip, uncoloured, when imported by manufacturers of boots and shoes for
[Stage Direction]
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
use exclusively in lining boots and slioee, in their own factories; genuine reptile-leathers: British preferential tariff, 124 per cent; intermediate tariff, 15 per cent; general tariff, 15 per cent.
Richard Bedford Bennett: In connection with this item the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Rhodes) will move an amendment to clarify a difficulty concerning colour, which was raised by some hon. members opposite. The amendment will read as follows:
605. Leather produced from East India tanned kip, uneoloured, or coloured other than black, when imported for use exclusively in lining boots and shoes; genuine reptile leathers: British preferential tariff, 124 per cent; intermediate tariff, 15 per cent; general tariff, 15 per cent.
Having had occasion to buy leather boots undoubtedly hon. members will know what kip is. Some difficulty arose with respect to the classification of this commodity, to overcome which the amendment adds the words "other than black." There is a special item with respect to the exception. The rates are not changed in the present amendment.


John Livingstone Brown: How is sole leather affected by these changes?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Sole leather is dealt with by item 604, which has just passed. However if the hon. member desires information I shall be pleased to give it.


John Livingstone Brown: In view of the fact that the exports of sole leather are enormously larger than the imports, an increase of that kind would seem to be altogether unnecessary. The imports are trifling as compared with the exports.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I suppose the hon. member knows, as I should have stated with respect to another item this afternoon, that the action of our friends to the south has shut us out of that market entirely, with the result that we have to look to other markets.


John Livingstone Brown: We are not entirely shut out.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not entirely, but largely, since last year.


Charles A. Stewart: What is the necessity for the change in the definition of the item?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The amendment adds the words "other than black," owing to the fact that the black leather is used for another purpose. There is no restriction of the use to which it might be put, because it is of a different quality and may be used for the

manufacture of the boots and shoes themselves as distinguished from the coloured kip which is used only for linings. The change may appear to be very slight, but it is one of importance.


Charles A. Stewart: The black leather carries a higher duty?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I move in accordance with the terms of the amendment outlined by the Prime Minister.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Item as amended agreed to.
Customs tariff-606. Leather produced from East India tanned kip, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, 20 per cent; intermediate tariff, 25 per cent; general tariff, 25 per cent; and, per square foot: British preferential tariff, 4 cents; intermediate tariff, 4 cents; general tariff, 4 cents.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff'-607. Glove leathers, when imported by manufacturers of gloves for use, exclusively in manufacturing gloves, in their own factories: British preferential tariff, 5 per cent; intermediate tariff, 74 per cent; general tariff, 10 per cent; provided, that the governor in council may, when satisfied that the glove leathers specified in this item are being produced in Canada in quantity and quality sufficient for Canadian requirements, by order in council direct that there be substituted for this tariff item the following:
Glove leathers, when imported by manufacturers of gloves, for use exclusively in manufacturing gloves, in their own factories: British preferential tariff, 5 per cent; intermediate tariff, 74 per cent; general tariff, 20 per cent.
Richard Bedford Bennett: 
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I move in accordance with the amendment read by the Prime Minister.


John Campbell Elliott: I should like to know the meaning of the words "produced in Canada" as they appear in the item. I do not know whether the fact I am about to relate affects leathers which enter into the manufacture of gloves, but many other leathers finished in Canada are shipped in from various outside countries. Does the Prime Minister mean by the words "produced in Canada" that the skins shall be Canadian skins, or that they 'shall be shipped in from outside and finished in Canada?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member has
been following the items, I am sure, with great care, and he will observe that the classifications have been rather narrow due to the fact that leather is a commodity of so many grades and qualities that necessarily attention must be paid not only to qualities but also to colours, as we noticed with respect to kip. The words "produced in Canada" mean that the leather shall be produced in Canada as specified1 by the item, namely from hides or various other things of that sort, some of which might have been imported. In (the case of imjported leathers duties would be payable.
Mr. YrOUNG: What is the object in charging 10 per cent under the general rate until a factory is established in Canada, at which time the rate jumps to 20 per cent, while there is no change in the British preferential or intermediate tariffs?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Because the competition will come from countries other than those covered by the British preferential and the intermediate tariff. In addition to that, the hon. gentleman will remember that we have endeavoured in this tariff revision not to make any changes in the British preference rates, and I think there are only one or two changes in the whole list. The reason was obvious. I think if my hon. friend will take a little trouble to look at the exporting countries, he will have no difficulty in seeing that this increase will become essential to maintain our industry if we develop it to the extent indicated by the proviso.


Edward James Young: Will this change make any difference in the raw material of these glove makers?


Richard Bedford Bennett: We think not, and they have agreed not to increase the price.


Edward James Young: They cannot have agreed not to increase the price; they are not in existence yet.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend is hardly correct there. For instance, I recall one plant at Kitchener where glove leather is being produced, and there is another in Quebec.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Mr. RYCKMAN:: I beg to move that the following item be inserted in resolution No. 2 of June 1, 1931:
Customs tariff-607a. Leather, not further finished than tanned, in whole hides, in grains or splits, when imported by manufacturers of upholstering leathers, for use exclusively in the manufacture of upholstering leathers, in their own factories: British preferential tariff, 10 per cent; intermediate tariff, 15 per cent; general tariff, 15 per cent. Provided, that the governor in council may, when satisfied that the leather specified in this item is being produced in Canada in quantity and quality sufficient for Canadian requirements, by order in council direct that this tariff item be repealed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I need hardly say to the committee that this is the raw material for upholstery leather, and it constitutes a substantial industry in the province of Quebec.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Item as amended agreed to.
Customs tariff-608. Leather not further finished than tanned, and skins, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, 10 per cent; intermediate tariff, 17J per cent; general tariff, 20 per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-609. Belting, of leather: British preferential tariff, 20 per cent; intermediate tariff, 30 per cent; general tariff, 35 per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-611b. Leather garments, lined or unlined: British preferential tariff, 20 per cent; intermediate tariff, 35 per cent; general tariff, 35 per cent.
Charles A. Stewart: In this case the manufacturer not only gets his raw product at a moderate rate of duty, but the duty on his manufactured product is increased to 35 per cent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think I can satisfy my hon. friend from West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart). In reality it is a reduction. This is the first time the item has appeared in the tariff. In administration it was found that the leather garment lined with cotton paid

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
a duty on that basis, lined with wool it paid a duty on that basis, and lined with silk it paid duty on that basis; in other words, the linings determined the rates of duty. The rates now proposed are really a reduction. What is pointed out by my hon. friend is for the purpose of assisting the industry with respect to the importation of the raw material.


Charles A. Stewart: I can never understand why the consumer when he gets the raw material for his own use has to pay a higher duty than the manufacturer, particularly when I find the finished product carries an excessive rate of duty. Presumably there will not be any importation of the finished article because the high duty is imposed to prevent that, and the whole difference goes into the pockets of the manufacturer.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The argument which the hon. gentleman has now made is one with which I am not unfamiliar, and members of the committee who read the reports of the tariff advisory board will find that argument frequently presented on behalf of the consumers league. It is an argument that should be directed to all countries which impose tariffs to develop their manufacturing industries. My hon. friend will find that from the very inception of tariffs in this country that general principle has been observed. I take it the desire was to stimulate industrial 'development, it not being thought likely that consumers would purchase in such quantities as to make them factors in such a market. I suppose other reasons might be given; for instance, drawbacks and rebates have been granted because export trade is conducted on a free trade basis. Great Britain has always allowed rebates or drawbacks, the United States has done so, and so have we.


Charles A. Stewart: I can well
understand the use of drawbacks because the manufacture of the goods exported gives employment to our own people, and consequently the country is benefited. But where the discrimination is against our own people, as it must be in cases of this kind, I have never been able to see the virtue of such treatment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is universal in its
application.


Alfred Speakman: There is a point in connection with tariffs that applies very clearly to this particular item. I wonder whether it would be possible without destroying the tariff structure itself, to establish a graduated duty on such articles as leather

garments, and so forth, in order to induce the manufacturer to use Canadian raw material- hides, wool and other things. In that way it would pass on in some degree to the producer of raw material the benefit derived by the manufacturer from these tariffs. I think that might be a matter worthy of some consideration.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman has referred to something which, frankly, I should like to see applied, and I think he will find that one item in this tariff is a frank effort to apply it. In connection with automobiles my hon. friend will see, as we proceed to the end, an effort to apply that principle. It is a sound principle; there should be some incentive given to increase the use of our Canadian-produced materials, and I agree that it would be desirable to increase the use of the raw materials of this country in connection with the granting of tariff protection with respect to articles produced partly from domestic and partly from imported materials. As we deal with the item having to do with automobiles, not this evening but to-morrow, I would ask the hon. gentleman to remind me of this point, because I think he will find there an application in a small but effective way of the principle to which he refers.


Alfred Speakman: I am glad to hear what the right hon. gentleman has said; I have often thought of that, particularly in connection with wool and leather goods, where a certain percentage of our own raw hides and wool could be used. For years our raw hides have been simply a drug on the market, thrown into a fence corner and allowed to rot. Certainly I would like to see that principle carried further and applied to some of the raw materials produced by our farmers, in order to give them a little taste of tariff advantage in that way.


Edward James Young: I should be very sorry to see the suggestion of my hon. friend from Red Deer carried into effect. If we try to compel our Canadian manufacturers of leather goods to use Canadian leather, whether or not it suits their purposes, the people who buy those leather goods will suffer for it. In Canada we raise certain animals; their hides are useful for certain purposes, but not for other purposes. My hon. friend is a farmer. I wonder how he would like to buy a set of harness made from the side of a steer which grows heavy, thick hair, as compared to a set of harness made from the hide of a Texas steer which does not grow much hair at all.

Ways and, Means-CusLoms Tariff
He would find that it made a big difference in the quality of the harness.
In re^rd to the question of the exMinister of the Interior as to why there should be a higher rate on the finished article than on the half-finished article, I have just one observation to make. In the manufacturing process only about 50 per cent or less of the cost represents raw material, and when a manufacturer pays 20 per cent duty on his raw material he is paying that 20 per cent duty on half his production cost. But in selling his goods, if he gets only 20 per cent it is on the whole of his production cost. He has an advtange there, and when you give him a higher rate, say a rate of 35 per cent which you give here as against 20 per cent, you are giving him a double advantage which I think is quite unnecessary.


Alfred Speakman: I might say that the remarks of my hon. friend from Weyburn are perfectly correct, but those facts were so obvious that I thought it hardly worth while referring to them. I quite realize that there are many of our raw materials which are not suited for certain classes of work, and naturally I intended this to apply only where it could properly apply, to those raw materials which can be used.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think perhaps the hon, gentleman did not hear me read item 607a, which contains this proviso:
Provided, that the governor in council may, when satisfied that the leather specified in this item is being produced in Canada in quantity and quality sufficient for Canadian requirements by order in council direct that this tariff item be repealed.
That is the amended item, and that meets the very suggestion which, despite what my hon. friend from Weyburn says, I think is a sound one, that we should encourage the production within this country, at the earliest possible moment, of those which enter into the production of the finished article with which we are dealing.


James Dew Chaplin: The system of granting
rebates of duty which has grown up in this country during the last few years has been one of the curses of the system of protection.


An hon. MEMBER:: One of the curses?


James Dew Chaplin: Yes; there may be others as well, but if this could be corrected-and I understand from the Prime Minister he is on the way to correcting it-I certainly will approve of what he is trying to do. I do not
believe in the rebate system. I believe in protection, and I think if we can do away with the rebate proposition we will accomplish something worth while.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-613. Manufactures of leather, including manufactures of rawhide, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, 20 per cent; intermediate tariff, 35 per cent; general tariff, 35 per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-624. Bead, ornaments, and ornaments of alabaster, spar, amber, terra cotta or composition; fans of all kinds; statues and statuettes of any material: British preferential tariff, 20 per cent; intermediate tariff, 27J per cent; general tariff, 30 per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-624a. Dolls and toys of all kinds: British preferential tariff, 20 per cent; intermediate tariff, 30 per cent; general tariff, 40 per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-651. Buttons of all kinds covered or not, n.o.p., including recognition buttons, and cuff or collar buttons: British preferential tariff, 20 per cent; intermediate tariff, 35 per cent; general tariff, 35 per cent; and, per gross: British preferential tariff, 5 cents; intermediate tariff, 5 cents; general tariff, 5 cents.
Mr. A'OUNG:	Here again we have the
dual rate, the ad valorem and the specific. I would suggest to the Prime Minister that wherever this occurs he come to the house prepared to tell us what this will amount to, or else reduce it to an ad valorem basis.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
for which we were asked. We were invited to provide a much higher rate, and very representative gentlemen gave us instances of the difficulties they have experienced in connection with their industry. I believe there is at least one factory in the constituency represented by my hon. friend the former Minister of National Revenue. Investigations indicated that there was no doubt as to the soundness of their position with respect to the present danger to that industry, and this rate certainly does not provide an opportunity for exploitation. They still contend that the 5 cents a gross and the ad valorem rate will not enable them to meet the competition which is confronting them.


Charles A. Stewart: Where do
these buttons come from principally, Germany?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, and from Japan.
We imported $185,000 worth from Japan.


Albert Frederick Totzke: Has the Prime Minister
assurances from these manufacturers that prices will not be put up?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, they gave us an
assurance about prices.


Frederick George Sanderson: How many button
factories are there in Canada?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am afraid I cannot
answer that question. I am moderately certain of five, but beyond that I cannot go.


Edward James Young: Is this increase traceable to the investigation made before the former tariff board?


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend has found the reports of the proceedings before the tariff board very valuable literature, and if he will once more read the evidence he will realize how changed conditions are. This rate is slightly different from that which was requested at that time. But neither the rate then asked for nor any other was granted. As the hon. gentleman will recall, there was no decision upon the application.


Edward James Young: The factories did not go out of business.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They did not and I hope they never will. I hope they will continue to function.


Edward James Young: Nothing was done and they did not go out of business.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I need scarcely remind the hon. gentleman that such a statement can be made once too often. He will remember that the oldest book which we read records

the stoiy of those who declined to listen. There would be no flood, they said; and for a long time there was no flood. Then the deluge came and that was the end of them*


Wilfred Hanbury: And then Noah built a tariff wall.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, but he built an ark, and he pitched it within and without so as to make it watertight in order that those within might be saved. In this instance we are trying at least to make sure that those within our ark, Canada, Shall be saved from destruction.


Wilfred Hanbury: And the Australian treaty is the dove of peace.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That helps.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN:: Item 651a.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, that involves buttons manufactured from particular materials. There are one or two questions I want to speak to with respect to that, and it can stand.
Customs tariff-653. Brushes of all kinds: British preferential tariff, 174 per cent; intermediate tariff, 30 per cent; general tariff, 40 per cent.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-655. Pens, penholders and rulers, of all kinds: British preferential tariff, 15 per cent; intermediate tariff, 25 per cent; general tariff, 274 per cent.
Mr. GIROUARD:: What was the value of imports from Great Britain last year under item 655 and item 655a?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Under item 655, pens, penholders and rulers of all kinds, the imports were $1,126,000, of which $280,000 came from Great Britain and $580,000 from the United States.


Wilfrid Girouard: Has the Prime Minister received applications for an increased tariff against goods coming from Great Britain under that item?


Richard Bedford Bennett: We have not changed the rates at all. This is only the residue of the pencil item. The figures I gave included pencils, with respect to which there is no separate item. I did not quite catch the question in the first instance. My first answer dealt with-all items.


John Livingstone Brown: I presume that next year we shall not have on our desks Eagle pencils manufactured in the United States.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I commend the hon. gentleman's strong spirit of patriotism, and I may

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
inform him that we have just received a sample of the Eagle pencil manufactured in Canada. I shall write the manufacturers to see whether the hon. gentleman can be given a sample so that he may take back to his constituents some of the first fruits of his repentance.


Wilfrid Girouard: Has the Prime Minister received applications from the Eagle Pencil Company, the Dixon Pencil Company of Newmarket, and the Venus Pencil Company, for an increased tariff against goods coming from Great Britain under this item?


Richard Bedford Bennett: We received representations from the manufacturers for increased protection against Great Britain, and we advised them, in view of the statements made in connection with the present revision, that we felt we were not in a position to comply with the request, because increases have taken place only in two or three instances and they were incidental to the general purposes for which the revision was made.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-655a.	Lead pencils and
crayons: British preferential tariff, 15 per cent; intermediate tariff, 35 per cent; general tariff, 35 per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-G65a. Fuse, not metallic; British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 25 per cent; general tariff, 30 per cent.
Item agreed to.
Cvistoms tariff-670. Grinding wheels, stones or blocks, manufactured by the bonding together of either natural or artificial abrasives; manufactures of emery or of artificial abrasives, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, 15 per cent; intermediate tariff, 25 per cent; general tariff, 30 per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-682a. Net floats of aluminum or glass of a class or kind not made in Canada, for use only in deep sea or lake fishing, not to include floats for sportsmen's use: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-711. All goods not enumerated in this schedule as subject to any other rate of duty, and not otherwise declared free of duty, and not being goods the importation whereof is by law prohibited; provided that duty shall not be deemed to be provided for by this item upon dutiable goods mentioned as "n.o.p." in any preceding tariff item:	British
preferential tariff, 15 per cent: intermediate tariff, 25 per cent; general tariff. 25 per cent.
Edward James Young: This is the basket item-"all goods not enumerated." I do not not know who particularly would be interested in this item. Can the Prime Minister say where the requests came from?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I should say there were no fewer than two score and ten applications, and if my memory does not deceive me, probably sixty. It was general throughout the country. The hon. gentleman will realize why the applications were made. This is an item of such importance that under present economic conditions if it were left at the rates at present provided the effect might be disastrous with respect to many matters that fall within it. In order to maintain some measure of uniformity between other items and this one the rates have been raised as indicated, from 174 per cent to 25 per cent. Coming specifically within the item are certain drugs and preparations on which an increase was sought, and there are a great many items of that kind.


Edward James Young: The position is something like this. The manufacturer of a certain kind of drug finds that his product falls into the basket and he asks for an increase in the whole basket in order that he may obtain a higher rate for his particular line. And that happened with sixty other commodities. Requests were made for increases on sixty different articles and the Prime Minister responds by increasing everything in the basket.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman does violence to his own understanding when he speaks that way. He does not mean to put it in that form. The item in its present form has stood for about twenty years, and although there has been a very general change with respect to most other items, especially during the present stress and strain, this item has remained without a change during all that period. It is therefore out of line with the other tariff items. My hon. friend will agree that, if we are to apply to items that have been enumerated the general principles to which I have alluded in the course of the discussion, the basket item, to be in line with the others, should be increased at least from 174 per cent to 25 per cent. Of the importations under this item, $1,500,000 came from Great Britain and $18,250,000 from the United States. The total is much greater, but those are the largest items. The old rate was 15 per cent, 174 per cent and 174 per cent. It is not usual that the intermediate and general tariffs should be the same, but twenty years ago there was practically no protection
Ways and Means-Drawbacks

such as that to which I alluded during the discussion this afternoon, and so this item has been increased to be brought in line with the other items of the tariff. Although my hon. friend may disagree with the general principle of our tariff legislation, I think he will agree that there is in this increase a general recognition of the necessity of maintaining some relative proportion between the various items which go to make up the tariff as a whole.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
3. Resolved, that schedule B to the customs tariff, being chapter forty-four of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1927, as amended by chapter seventeen of the Acts of 1928, chapter thirty-nine of the Acts of 1929, chapter thirteen of the Acts of 1930 (first session) and chapter three of the Acts of 1930 (second session), and by order in council, be amended by striking thereout tariff items 1050 and 1055, and by repealing order in council, P.C. 1201, dated the seventh day of June, one thousand nine hundred and ten, and by inserting the following items, enumerations and rates of drawback of customs duties in said schedule B: -
Customs tariff-1050. Sugar, viz.: raw sugar produced in the British Empire, or sugar refined in Canada from raw sugars produced in the British Empire.
When used in the manufacture of wine in Canada-payable as drawback, 99 per cent.
James Dew Chaplin: When would the old law cease to be effective? A wine manufacturer may have in his storehouse sugar which he bought over one year ago; he has paid the duty and under the old law he was entitled to a drawback when he used the sugar. What provision is made for a case of this kind?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The item went into force on June 1, and it follows that the drawback of 99 per cent is referable to raw sugar produced in the British Empire or to sugar refined in Canada from raw sugars produced in the British Empire, when used in the manufacture of wine in Canada. Do I understand that the sugar in question was not produced in the British Empire?


James Dew Chaplin: Under the old law it did not need to be produced in the British Empire, and the manufacturer would be entitled to a rebate when he used it


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not know that I can add anything to what appears in the item. If sugar is bought in Cuba at prices destructive to the maintenance of the industry in the West Indies or other British countries, and the tariff is changed to make the rebate applicable only to British sugars, the importer of the Cuban sugar would lose the rebate. That is the position under the statute.


James Dew Chaplin: These sugars were bought months ago, and the old law has been in effect lor a number of years. The manufacturer must look ahead in making his purchases.


Richard Bedford Bennett: 
Edward James Young: Do the wineries use raw sugar in the making of wine?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not think it would be unfair to say that they could, but they have not been using raw sugar of late.


Alfred Speakman: Is this drawback given because the commodity produced covers a heavy excise tax?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is a gallonage tax.


James Dew Chaplin: It seems to me that there should be some redress in a matter of this kind. These people found a law on the statute book. They took the ordinary business precautions and purchased a quantity of sugar to be used in accordance with the law. The law is changed, and what are they to do with their sugar?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Sell it and buy British
sugar.


James Dew Chaplin: He has been told that if he does that he will be subject to the dumping duty.


Charles A. Stewart: The hon. member will have to vote Grit next time.


James Dew Chaplin: This is a serious matter. It is not a matter amounting to 75 cents or SI .50, it involves hundreds of thousands of dollars' worth of sugar. These men are told that they must not sell this sugar. They have paid the duty but they cannot obtain any rebate, and they have been told that if they sell the sugar it will be subject to a dumping duty.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If I import goods and sell them there is no possibility of the dumping duty being applied.


James Dew Chaplin: I am glad to hear that.
Mr. BENNETT I am advised that no such statement was ever authorized by the department. It is competent for any Canadian importer to sell goods and he will not be subject to the dump. He may sell them for less than what he paid, but the dumping duty will not apply.

Canadian Nationals Act


An hon. MEMBER:: Not if the goods are in the country.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Exactly.


James Dew Chaplin: I never said that the department had issued such a statement; what I did say was that the refiners had threatened this man that if he sold his sugar he would be taxed with the dumping duty.


Thomas Reid: Last year when the producers of strawberries could not dispose of their crop, the government of British Columbia advanced the price of the sugar necessary to process these strawberries in cold storage. Has the minister considered sugar used for this purpose.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This item would not cover that. I would like to pay a tribute to the hon. gentleman's resourcefulness as this is the first time the suggestion has been offered.


Thomas Reid: The government of British Columbia advanced the price of the sugar to the growers.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I will take up this matter with the departmental officials between now and to-morrow.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Progress reported.


AUSTRALIAN TRADE AGREEMENT
Richard Bedford Bennett: I should like to table a copy of the
trade agreement between Canada and Australia, in order that it may be printed in the votes and proceedings of to-morrow.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: I was going to
ask my right hon. friend whether it would be possible to give us the Australian rates,- preferential, intermediate and general, opposite the items which appear in the schedule of the agreement. Although the schedule states that the British preferential rate, for example, is the rate that will govern, we do not know what the British preferential rate in Australia is.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We are being advised
daily of changes in the Australian tariff rates. One came in on Friday. Their tariff is engaging their attention at present, but to the extent to which that information may be available, my colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) tells me that it will be given.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It has been
pointed out to me that article II, section 1, paragraph (b) reads:
To all other goods the produce or manufacture of Canada, when imported into Australia, the benefits of the British preferential tariff.
What are the items that would be included under that section?


Mr. STEVENS:: All the items that are not set forth in the schedule.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Could the
minister give us a list of them?


Henry Herbert Stevens: There are, I think, some
416 items. I shall endeavour to-morrow to give what the right hon. gentleman asks for but it may not be strictly accurate because the Australian parliament is now engaged in a revision of its tariff.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We shall be
satisfied with whatever reservations the minister wishes to make so long as we get such information as may be available.


Henry Herbert Stevens: We shall do the best we
can.
On motion of Mr. Bennett the house adjourned at 10.58 p.m
Tuesday, July 14, 1931.