1931-07-09

[Stage Direction]
Second report of the joint committee of both houses on the printing of parliament.- Mr. McLure.

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

Mr. DUFF:: 1.	Have instructions been issued to the contractors on the partly constructed railroad from Sunny Brae to Guysborough to cease work and remove their equipment?
2.	If not, will the government and Canadian National Railways proceed with the construction of the right-of-way, the placing of bridges, laying of rails and ballasting of road, this present season?

Questions
3.	Were bonds issued for sufficient funds to build said railroad?
4.	Was the sum of $3,500,000 or thereabouts provided in that or any other way for the purpose of said construction?


Mr. MANION:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Bonds were issued to provide for this and other capital expenditures occurring during 1930 and 1931, but not sufficient to complete the railroad.
4.	The act authorizing the construction of the above line actually authorized the expenditure of $3,500,000, plus 15 per cent, or a total of $4,025,000, but did not provide the mone3'.


MOOSE JAW SEED CLEANING PLANT
Mr. BURY:: 1.	(a) For what purpose or purposes was the seed cleaning plant at Moose Jaw constructed; (b) how far has it been used for these purposes since completion?
2.	(a) What sum was voted by parliament for its construction; (b) did said sum suffice; (c) if not. how was the deficit supplied; (d) if such deficit was taken from another item or other items included with said sum in one larger general vote, from rvhat item or items was it taken; and if from more than one to what extent from each?
3.	What were the dates of: (a) its completion; (b) the commencement of its operations?
4.	What is its total capacity in output of bushels of cleaned seed grain?
5.	(a) What portion, if any, is retained for operation by the government of Canada, and for what purposes; (b) what portion is leased; (e) to whom, for what period, at what rent and upon what other terms and conditions is such portion leased?
6.	What equipment has been purchased for it. and at what cost was it purchased?
7.	What has been its output in bushels of cleaned seed grain in each year since its completion to and including 1930?
8.	What is the cost, per bushel of cleaned seed put out, of administering (only) the plant, not including the cleaning of the seed?
9.	What is the cost per bushel of the actual cleaning?
10.	What was the average price per bushel paid to the grower each year for first generation seed handled in the plant, up to, and including 1930?


Mr. WEIR (Melfort):: 1.	(a) The assembling, cleaning, staring, and distributing of pure variety seed grain and other seeds; also the treating of seed to control smut and' other diseases, (b) The lessee 'reported receiving and cleaning more than 100,000 bushels of seed grain from inspected and registered crops.
2.	(a) Vote No. 41, 1929-30, "Seed, feed and fertilizer control, including grants to seed fairs, etc., and necessary buildings, also grant of $13,000 to Canadian Seed Growers Association, $625,000," included an item of $150,000 for the establishment of a seed cleaning and storage plant in Saskatchewan. (b) The amount provided in the item was not sufficient. (c) An additional $100,000, making a total of $250,000, was taken out of Vote No. 41, 1929-30, of $625,000; $35,000 was taken out of Vote No. 345, "Seed, feed and fertilizer control, further amount required, $35,000," 1930-31; the balance, to the total amount of $316,021.82, was supplied out of Vote No. 41, 1930-31, "Seed, feed and fertilizer control, including grants to Seed Fairs, etc., and necessary buildings, also grant of $13,000 to Canadian Seed Growers Association." (d) Such deficit was taken from the votes aforementioned. The items in the estimates of the Seed branch for 1929-30 from which the major portion of the deficit was taken were as follows: $50,000 for the construction of a Seed branch laboratory at Ottawa, and $50,000 for subventions to provinces on account of seed crop competitions, seed exhibitions, seed cleaning centres, etc; and for 1930-31, $34,000 was also taken from the item in th)e estimates of the Seed branch for subventions to provinces.
3.	(a) About December 15, 1929; (fo) About December 15, 1929.
4.	Total storage capacity: bins, approximately 50,000 bushels; sacks, approximately an additional 100,000 bushels.
5.	(a) The lease requires the lessee to provide an office for the seed inspector, (b) The completed seed elevator, (c) To The Saskatchewan Registered Seed Growers, Limited, for ten years, at the following rental: on or before the 31st day of July, 1930, $1,000; on or before the 31st day of May, 1931, $1,000; on or before the 31st day of July, 1931, $1,000; on or before the 31st day of May and July respectively in each and every of the years 1932, 1933, 1934, 1935, 1936, 1937, 1938, and 1939, $2,500; the first payment hereunder to be made on or before the 31st day of July, 1930.
6.	Cleaning machinery: 3 No. 7 monitors,
1	No. 5 monitor clover machine, 1 monitor flax mill, 3 Rich ring graders, 4 straight Carter disc machines, 1 seed polisher, 1 dual asper-ator, 1 Carter scalperator, 1 Canadian Fairbanks hopper scale, 1 1921 Toledo scale,
2	three-bushel Richardson portable grain sacking scales. At a total cost of $28,476.97. This amount includes installation of above equipment.
7.	Seed inspection records show the following quantities of seed to have been cleaned at the Moose Jaw seed elevator since its completion.
Questions

Season 1929-30
Bushels
Registered and certified wheat. 50,533
Other seed wheat	 4,663
Registered oats	 38,515
Other seed oats	 242,386
Registered barley	 6,236
Other seed barley	 13,522
Registered flax	 2,773
Other seed flax	 4,200
Total	 362,828
Registered and certified forage
crop seed	 38,527
Other forage crop seed	 72,329
Total	110,856
Season 1930-31
Bushels
Seed	wheat	
25,000Seed	oats	
25,000Seed	barley	
1,600Seed	flax	
2,000Total .,	
53,600
Pounds
Registered and certified forage
crop seed	 16,000
Other forage crop seed	 68,000
Total	 84,000
8.	Wheat, 46.62 cents; oats, 26.42 cents; barley, 37.30 cents; flax, 43.51 cents; rye, 43.51 cents. These figures are recorded as general expenses and do not include any freight or plant charges.
9.	Registered wheat, 18.7 cents; registered oats, 10.5 cents; registered barley, 14.77 cents; registered flax, 28.67 cents; registered rye, 17.07 cents; commercial seed wheat, 9.71 cents; commercial seed oats, 5.5 cents; commercial seed barley, 7.77 cents; commercial seed flax, 20.27 cents; commercial seed rye, 9.07 cents. These figures are recorded as plant charges.
10.	It is deemed improper to give this information, which is regarded as the private affair of the Saskatchewan Registered Seed Growers, Limited.


UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF-DORCHESTER
Mr. GAGNON:: 1.	How much money was spent in the county of Dorchester to bring relief to unemployment?
2.	How much for direct relief?
	'
3.	How many mans' days work were provided?
4.	How many families were granted relief thereby?
5.	What is_ the actual cost -of public works and undertakings which have been carried out?


Mr. BENNETT:: 1.	The Dominion contribution agreed upon for public works and undertakings to relieve unemployment amounted to $11,675.
2.	$174.49 has been paid to date in respect of direct relief.
3.	No information available by county.
4.	No information available by county.
5.	Total estimated cost of works undertaken, $43,000.


UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF-THREE RIVERS-ST. MAURICE
Mr. GAGNON:: 1.	How much money was spent in the county of Three Rivers-St. Maurice to bring relief to unemployment?
2.	How much for direct relief?
3.	How many mans' days work were provided?
4.	How many families were granted relief thereby?
5.	What is the actual cost of public works and undertakings which have been carried out?


Mr. BENNETT:: 1.	The Dominion contribution agreed upon for public works and undertakings to relieve unemployment amounted to $93,275.
2.	$5,52081 has been paid to date in respect of direct relief.
3.	No information available by county.
4.	No information available by county.
5.	Total estimated cost of works undertaken, $36S,500.
purchase of labrador


Mr. MERCIER (Laurier-Outremont):: Since January 1, 1931, have any negotiations been undertaken directly or indirectly with the government of Newfoundland for the transfer or sale of Labrador from the Dominion of Newfoundland to the Dominion of Canada?


Mr. BENNETT:: The question can be
answered only in the way that conversations have taken place, but no negotiations have been entered upon.
acting minister of marine


Mr. POULIOT:: .
1.	Who was the minister or the actirig minister in charge of the Department of Marine on October 4 and 6, 1930?
2.	Was the minister in Ottawa on those dates?


Mr. DURANLEAU:: As regards the first
question, I was myself in charge of the Department of Marine on the two dates men-

Questions
tioned, October 4 and 6 of last year. As to the second question, whether I was in Ottawa or elsewhere on those dates, the 4th and 6th October were Saturday and Monday, respectively. I cannot say exactly whether I was in Ottawa or Montreal. Probably I was in Montreal on the Saturday, because as a rule I go there on Saturdays to attend to business. On the 6th October I think I was in Ottawa, but I am not sure as I have no record of my movements on that date.


*Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	On what date did the Minister of Marine leave Ottawa for the west last fall?
2.	On what date did he return to the capital?
3.	Was an acting minister appointed during his absence?
4.	If so, who?


Alfred Duranleau: I left for the west
on the 1st November and came back to Ottawa on the 18th. Nobody was appointed acting minister during my absence.


ACTING MINISTER OF RAILWAYS
Jean-François Pouliot: Who was the minister or the acting minister in charge of the Department of Railways and Canals on October 4, 1930?


Mr. MANION:: The Acting Prime Minister.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-CARRIAGE OF MAILS
Mr. PECK:: 1.	Are the contracts between the government and the Canadian National Railway, for the carriage of mail, expressed in writing?
2.	Are such contracts for a definite time or terminable by notice?
3.	If terminable by notice, what is length of time required?
4.	What were the terms of the latest contract for the carriage of the morning mails between Peterborough and Lakefield?
5.	Was notice given by the railway of intention not to carry such mail after the twenty-seventh June last?
6.	If so, when and to whom was such notice given ?
7.	Was the railway justified in discontinuing such service?


Mr. CAHAN:: 1,	2, 3 and 4. No. The Railway Act provides that all railways must carry mails when required by the government.
5 and 6. No specific notification other than the railway time table indicating the withdrawal of these trains from service effective from the 27th of June, 1931.
7. The railway authorities believe a reduction in service to have been justified by the light traffic offering. There is still a daily mixed service between Peterborough and Lakefield and, in addition, the railway has
made arrangements with a bus line operating between these two points at regular intervals daily to honour through-tickets from Toronto.
As required by the Railway Act, notice of the proposed change in service was filed with the Board of Railway Commissioners, and no exception taken.	[DOT]


CANADIAN HISTORY OF THE GREAT WAR
Mr. SPENCER:: Referring to order in council dated May 27, 1921, P.C. 1652, and to statements in Hansard, page 3077:	_
1.	When will other volumes of the official History of Canada's part in the Great war be ready for publication?
2.	How many other volumes will be published?
3.	To whom is the task of writing the history given in each ease?
4.	As it is now ten years since the above order in council was passed authorizing the history to be written, how much of said history is now actually written other than the history of medical services, and when is it anticipated any other volumes will be issued?


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: 1.	No date can be given at present.
2.	Not known.
3.	The compilation and publication of the history is included in the duties of the historical section, general staff.
4.	In addition to the heavy preliminary work of collection, classification and co-ordination of relative documents and material, which is well advanced, the following progress has been made:-
(I)	the plan for all the general volumes has been laid out;
(II)	the material for four of them has been selected and arranged;
(III)	104 detailed maps of the operations, required for illustration, showing units down to squadrons, batteries and companies, have been compiled from original documents;
(IV)	the draft text of approximately one quarter of these four volumes has been written.


ALBERTA LAND SALE
Mr. SPENCER:: 1.	With regard to fraction of the N.W. quarter of section 20, township 54, range 2, west of the 4th meridian, did Mr. A. A. Hoath, Lea Park, Alberta, offer by letter to purchase the above land on the 14th November, 1911?
2.	If so, what was the action taken by the
department?	'


Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	No such application on Ottawa file. Agency file is now with province.
2.	This fractional area was disposed of under the regulations in that behalf to the owner of the adjoining land.
Privilege-Mr. Ferland


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-RIVIERE DU LOUP STATION
Jean-François Pouliot: Is the sum of $15,000 mentioned in reference No. 313 and included this year in the budget of the Canadian National Railways to repair the Riviere du Loup station, sufficient to cover the cost of renewing the roof and sewer system, of building a cellar and of solidifying the foundations and walls of the actual railway station at Riviere du Loup?


Robert James Manion: The sum mentioned is expected to cover the cost of repairs and improvements sufficient to meet objections raised by the provincial health authorities and others with respect to Riviere du Loup station arrangements.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. SPENCER:: 1.	How many persons have applied for pensions to the board of pension commissioners during the last twelve months?
2.	How many were successful?
3.	What are their names and the pension received in each ease?


THREE RIVERS HARBOUR
Alfred Duranleau: That the house go into
committee to-morrow to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to authorize a loan to the Three Rivers harbour commissioners not exceeding $700,000 for the construction of terminal facilities, upon approval by the governor in council of detailed plans, specification and estimates for such works, and the deposit of the debentures of the corporation to cover said loan.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: Will the Prime Minister inform the house when we may expect whatever legislation is necessary in order to meet the needs of the unemployed? The session is now far advanced. It seems as if we might have something of that kind in the near future.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I explained the other day it is proposed to introduce legislation of the character I then mentioned when we have practically disposed of the business of the house.



PRIVILEGE-MR. FERLAND DISMISSAL OF CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY EMPLOYEES AT JOLIETTE

Mr. C. E. FERLAND (Jolieitte) (Translation) :: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question
of privilege. When the House met yesterday, the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion), who seems to be more affected than any one else by the stifling heat which we are experiencing these days, forgot himself to the extent of using language, in referring to me, which I can only describe as improper. The hon. Minister of Railways asserted that at a public meeting held in Joliette, on July 1, last, I had made misstatements. He based his assertions on a report published in "L'Etoile du Nord" of Joliette, a well-meaning newspaper, whose report, however, is not complete and accurate on certain points. May I, Sir, correct the statement made by the hon. Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion). At that meeting held on July 1, I first expressed my disappointment to the people of Joliette as regards the decision taken by the management of the Canadian National Railways in dismissing 46 employees working in the railway shops at Joliette, 40 of whom were employed in the car-repair department, the other 6 belonged to the locomotive shop. I stated that this decision was arbitrary, unjust and illegal. It is unjust because, in this same section of the central division, when the Canadian National Railway's management found it necessary to reduce their staff in other localities they did so in a ratio of 10 to 20 per cent, while in Joliette, a reduction of two thirds was effected in the car-repair shops. I also stated that this decision was illegal, because it was carried out in violation of an existing contract between the Canadian National Railway and the city of Jolieitte, definitely binding the former, a contract which Sir Henry Thornton, President of the Canadian National Railway deemed it his duty to acknowledge and fulfil when previously a delegation made up of the members of the Chamber of Commerce and the city council of Joliette discussed the matter with him. Finally, I stated that on a question of vital importance and national interest to the town of Joliette, I thought that it behooved the hon. Minister of Railways to intervene when a request was made ito him in order to

Privilege-Mr. Ferland
prevent an injustice being perpetrated or a contract violated. I then publicly stated, that when I heard of the decision taken by the Canadian National Railways, I immediately communicated with the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals who to my great amazement, answered by letter that this matter came entirely under the Canadian National Railways management and that I should acknowledge with him that it would be useless for a delegation from Joliette to come to Ottawa.
In order to well establish the facts concerning the blame which I attach to the hon. Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion)-not with reference to his receiving a delegation, nor to having closed the door on a delegation which had arrived in Ottawa, but as regards his attitude on that occasion-I shall read the letter which I sent to the hon. Minister and his answer. I contend that this answer is evidence of his refusal to arbitrate in the matter and to listen to our grievances, and, even more, it is a declaration to the effect that it would serve no purpose for a delegation to come to Ottawa.
My letter is dated June 26, last and reads as follows:
(Text)
Dear Mr. Manion:
You will please find enclosed a telegram which I received this morning from Mr. Hector Mainville of Joliette, regarding the Canadian National Railway's decision to lay off forty men out of sixty men now employed in car department at Joliette, Quebec.
May I venture to say that the above decision is in violation of the terms of an existing contract which obliges the Canadian National Railways to maintain in permanence at Joliette (one of its divisional points) not less than fifty men in that car department, according to the interpretation of Canadian National Railways officials?
I wish you would kindly investigate and see that no unlawful act or injustice is done.
With my best regards, I remain, sir,
Yours truly,
Charles E. Ferland.
The telegram which I enclosed, and which was addressed to myself in Ottawa, reads as follows:
Officially decided by Canadian National officials that effective July first forty men out of sixty will be laid off in car department whereas at other points in this district reduction only amounts from ten to twenty per cent. Conditions most disastrous and delegation wants to meet you at your office soon as possible.
Again, on the 29th of June, I received a letter from the Minister of Railways and Canals reading as follows:
Dear Mr. Ferland,

I have received your communication of the 26th instant, and will pass it on to the railway 22110-227
management for their consideration, as the matter is one entirely in the hands of the officials. You will, therefore, appreciate that the deputation should see the management and that there would really be no use in their coming to Ottawa.
(Translation):	This letter, sir, is a vindication of my statement to the people of Joliette so greatly affected by the centralization of affairs in large centres such as Montreal and Quebec, and I think I was perfectly justified in stating-


Mr. SPEAKER (Text):: The hon. member has explained his side of the incident fully. The Minister of Railways and Canals explained his side yesterday. The question is now before the house for debate, and I trust that the hon. member will bring his remarks to an end shortly.


Charles-Édouard Ferland: I was just finishing, Mr. Speaker. I was stating that the report contained in the newspaper l'Etoile du Nord was not entirely accurate, and so I have to make an explanation in order that all the facts may be known to the house and to the public.
(Translation):	Now sir-


Mr. QUINN (Translation) :: That is all.
Mr. FERLAND (Translation) -the bitter speech of the hon. Minister of Railways delivered, yesterday, is the more to be regretted in my humble opinion, that my statement is consistent with his own letter. The wording of my statement has, perhaps, been reported with some variation because our local newspapers are not equipped to the point of having stenographers at their disposal, however, it is in keeping with the truth and raises a question of facts and rights which, in my humble opinion, is amenable to this house and the government, because the management of the National Railways is a service which comes under the administration of the affairs of this country.


Mr. MORAND:: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely the hon. gentleman is not going to be permitted to make a whole political speech on this matter.


Charles-Édouard Ferland: Now, sir, I shall also point out that-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Order. Will the hon.
member take his seat? As I have already said, the newspaper report was read yesterday by the Minister of Railways and Canals quoting remarks alleged to have been made by the hon. member for Joliette. The minister explained his side, and now the hon.

Privilege-Mr. Ferland

member for Joliette is explaining his side. The minister pointed out yesterday that the dismissal or retention of employees of the Canadian National Railways was beyond his power to regulate. I trust that -the hon. member for Joliette has now given his full explanation and that the house will be able to -go on with business. There is no resolution before the house. The hon. member I think has had an ample opportunity -to explain his connection with the incident referred to.


Charles-Édouard Ferland: I rise to another question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I shall say only a few words.
(Translation): In the last part of his speech, the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The question of privilege has been fully discussed.


Charles-Édouard Ferland: Mr. Speaker,-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker is on his feet; sit down.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member has said that the statement by the Minister of Railways and Canals was not correct, and he has given his version of the matter. That is all thait is necessary to say to the house, and the hon. member is not entitled at this time to argue whether or not the management of the Canadian National Railways is justified in what it did.


Mr. CASGRAIN (Text):: The hon. member has said that he has another point he wishes to discuss in reference to the same matter.


Charles-Édouard Ferland: I rise to a question of privilege and say to the house that the last statement in the speech of the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals is incorrect.
(Translation): The hon. Minister of Railways and Canals, made, in the last part of his speech, a statement which calls for a denial. He said:
I have brought this matter up, Mr. Speaker, because the hon. gentleman has been in the habit-this is not the first time-of making such mis-statements.
I wish to say to the hon. Minister of Railways that it ill becomes him to make off-hand charges which he cannot substantiate. I have made certain speeches in the House, in the course of my short stay in Ottawa, and I have held joint meetings during the last election, in five or six counties, however, never was any body able to point out that I had made mis-statements. In concluding my remarks and in order to be clearly understood, I shall use towards my hon. friend the same language

he used in making his charge against me: "I think there is decency and honesty in public life that should be respected even by the hon. Minister of Railways."


Robert James Manion: I think I am justified in replying shortly after the lengthy remarks of the hon. member. He says that according to the letters his statement is correct. I shall leave the decision of that point to hon. members who will take the trouble to read those letters. I say that he had no right to make the statement he made to the effect that I refused to see a deputation. I refused no such thing at any time. Neither the hon. member nor anyone else asked me to see a deputation, and for that reason I could not refuse.
In regard to the question of privilege which the hon. member now raises concerning my remarks about his statements at other times, I make the statement that in the past few years in the province of Quebec the hon. gentleman was one of the worst offenders in regard to the supposed Turkish and Egyptian wars.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: That is a fine example
to give.



UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: I should like
to refer to the remarks of the Prime Minister in reply to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth), concerning the measure to be introduced by the government dealing with unemployment relief. My right hon. friend said that such a measure would be brought down when the business of the house was disposed of. In making that statement I have no doubt he referred to other business already on the order paper, for certainly the measure for the relief of existing distress is as important as any matter before parliament at the present time. I assume my right hon. friend will in this connection, be introducing some legislation and I hope he will not wait until the last day or two of the session to place upon the order paper the resolution which would necessarily precede a bill to relieve unemployment. Hon. members ought to have a little time to consider any provisions before they are called upon to pronounce their views.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I shall afford the house every opportunity it may desire to discuss such a measure; my right hon. friend may rest assured of that.

Tariff Board



TARIFF BOARD


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) moved the third reading of Bill No. 47, to provide for the appointment of a tariff board.
He said: The bill as passed through the committee has been reprinted.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker,
when this bill was introduced and when the Prime Minister made his speech to the house on its second reading, lion, members and the public generally assumed that the tariff board which was being created was one which would hear the representations of parties who might be interested in any tariff changes proposed, or with respect to changes in the tariff which already had been made. I have no doubt they believed that once the tariff board was appointed the parties of their own volition or at least at the instance of the board itself might appear before the board to make representations with respect to proposed or actual changes in the tariff as they might affect different parties, either manufacturers, consumers, labour, those connected with the primary industries or any other class or any individual in the community.
The discussion on the measure however has made perfectly clear that such in fact is not the intention in connection with the proposed tariff board. The powers of the tariff board will of course be exercised in accordance with the provisions of the statute. Whether it will have the right tio exercise those powers at all, however, will depend on the terms of the instructions given by the Minister of Finance. Such restrictions mean that so far as the board is concerned, as regards its relation to the public, its usefulness is entirely restricted to such purposes as the Minister of Finance may himself direct. Such conditions are, I believe, wholly at variance with what the public conceives to be the real advantage of a tariff board.
I notice that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) is about to leave the chamber, and if it is convenient I would ask him to remain a moment or two so that I may address a special word to him. As hon. members are aware the Minister of Justice has always had great facility for presenting an argument clearly and forcibly. In 1912 w'hen a previous government brought down a bill for the creation of a tariff commission my hon. friend was sitting with the Liberal opposition, 22110-2271
and at that time he presented the Liberal point of view with respect to the measures then before the house. The objections which the present Minister of Justice then urged in connection with that bill are in the main the objections which we are now making to the bill which has been introduced by the government of which he is now a member.
I shall read to hon. members a part of the speech delivered by my hon. friend on February 13, 1912, in connection with the bill respecting a tariff commission which was before the house on that date. I shbll refer only to those parts of his speech which bear directly on similar features which appear in the present proposed legislation. In listening to his criticism the house may assume that I am stating the contentions of the Liberal opposition of to-day with respect to the measure now before us. The present Minister of Justice on that occasion spoke as follows. The quotation will be found at page 2940 and subsequent pages of Hansard, Yol. 2, Session 1911-12:
The board has no power to initiate anything, no power to take a single step without the special instructions of the Minister of Finance or the governor in council. I understood, when the bill was first brought in that the board was an independent and permanent board of inquiry, and would be instituted to make, apart from any special instructions from anybody, the inquiries set out in subsection 1 of section 4. But when wre come down to analyze the sections of the bill, we find that the functions of the board are subject to the direction of the minister. They cannot enter upon an inquiry, they cannot make a suggestion. they cannot do any of the things which the bill contemplates they should do, and which the public believe they are to do and which are made the main excuse for the introduction of the bill.
A little further on he said:
Is it not so that the whole design and scope of the bill is to furnish the finance minister and his party with special information, in disregard of the rights of the house and of the people in general to receive that information? To my mind, the bill would be far less objectionable if these words were eliminated as I have sugested.
Then he proceeded:
Here is a board of commissioners, a permanent and so-called independent board of commissioners who cannot make a move in gaining the information or facts which the government deems it important to know, which cannot even start an investigation without the positive direction of the minister. And when that investigation is completed, the report must be made to the minister. The matter starts with the minister, and, so far as this clause goes, it ends with the minister.
He continued:
But where do the members of this house come in; where do the people of the country
Tariff Board

come in? I am very strongly of the opinion that if this commission is to report, it should report to parliament and not to the minister. It may be beyond the power of members of this house either to get the result of the inquiry or the evidence on which the results are based if the bill is allowed to go in its present form. It may be that a large fund of information [DOT]null be available to the minister and his friends, but that surely is not the object of the bill.
Then he said:
-but we do object to these facts being elicited by any secret process and only by special directions.
Then after having referred to the superior advantages of the British method of gathering statistics, my hon. friend has this polite reference to the source from which that legislation-and this legislation also-seems to have been inspired-
They-
He was speaking of the way statistics are gathered in Great Britain.
They are collated and published under the authority of the board of trade, the president of which is a member of the cabinet. Why not adopt the British system in preference to this cheap Yankee device?
That was the contemptuous reference made at that time by my hon. friend to similar legislation inspired from the same source. Then a little further on he continued:
What is now proposed is a system modelled in fact upon the United States system. You appoint a permanent board the members of which are not clerks in any sense of the word. They are commissioners with high standing; you have exalted and dignified them, and you are preparing to pay them handsome salaries; you are giving them very wide and high powers; but these men, an independent board appointed for the purpose of acquiring information, cannot move hand or foot until the Minister of Finance beckons to them what to do; and upon getting the word from him as to how they shall proceed, there is no doubt that they will proceed in accordance with his wishes and those of the government of the day.
Finally my hon. friend says:
I want to point out this contingency: Suppose there is a demand on the part of the public to have a certain industry investigated, for instance, the shoe manufacturing industry, and the finance minister does not think it shoidd be investigated. Should not the tariff commission of their own motion, be entitled to go into that question?
I do not think, Mr. Speaker, it is necessary for me to add a word after quoting what the present Minister of Justice said at the time he was expressing his honest convictions of a measure identical in the features to which I have referred with the bill which is now before the house. May I point out that when this bill was being drafted and con-

sidered in the cabinet the Prime Minister had sitting at his right hand the present Minister of Justice-the one who had pointed out these limitations, these shortcomings, these restrictions, these faults and these frauds, in a similar measure when brought before this house a good many years ago. So there must have been continuously present to the mind of the Minister of Justice and also to the mind of the Prime Minister all of these aspects of the legislation and their full significance.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: Is it not true, however, that this bill differs from the other one in that the reports of this board must be made to parliament within fifteen days of the opening of parliament?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I cannot say as to that offhand, but that is a wholly immaterial feature for unless the finance minister himself decides that there is something to be investigated, no report will be made, and the only report made will be on those particular things -which the Minister of Finance himself asks the board to investigate.
I must say I am amazed, if the Minister of Justice was sincere in the objections lie had to that measure in 1912, as I believe he then was, that he should have remained a member of the present administration while the ministry was proposing to bring into this house a measure of the kind. I will not say anything as to what it reflects of the consequence of keeping bad company, or of what the result of a surrender of one's convictions in one direction, may come to mean in other directions as well; but I do not hesitate to say that when my hon. friend expressed himself as he did in 1912 he was speaking his own mind with great freedom, and, I imagine, also with a glad and a clear heart. In criticism of a similar measure, his objections made at that time with so much force and direction are quite as formidable to-day.
I will not go so far at the moment as the present Minister of Justice went at that time, and-say that the board should have the right of its own initiative to investigate any question it wishes without, in the first instance, special direction by the Minister of Finance; but I do say that, where parties believe themselves likely to be adversely affected with respect to proposed or actual tariff changes, they should be entitled to a hearing before the board. For that reason, believing that this provision will meet what the public at least conceive to be the first and main advantage of a tariff board where it is instituted for the purpose of protecting the

Tariff Board
parties that are likely to be affected one way or the other by tariff changes, I beg to move, seconded by Mr. Lapointe:
That Bill No. 47 as amended be not now read a third time, but that the same be referred back to the committee of the whole house with instructions that they have power to amend the said bill by making provision that any person feeling himself aggrieved by any existing or proposed tariff revision shall have the right to present his case before the tariff board.


Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) :: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted just
one single remark in reply to the speech of my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King), in which he quoted a speech which I made in this house some twenty years ago in regard to a measure similar in some respects to the measure which has been under discussion now for some days. 1 am only going to say that my answer to my right hon. friend will be found in the language of John Morley, an outstanding Liberal, afterwards Lord Morley, who on one occasion was questioned in regard to his change of views. He said:	"I admit quite
candidly that twenty years ago I entertaned many opinions which I do not now entertain, and if anyone can derive any satisfaction from my discarded opinions they are entirely welcome to do so".


Mr. HENRI BOURASSA (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, on this very matter I could refer to a speech still older than the one quoted by the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King). But I agree with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie); in fact I think if every hon. member of this house examined his conscience he would find that in the course of twenty-five years he has changed his mind in connection with many things. Whether or not he stayed with one party is immaterial, because party allegiance and sincere expressions of opinion are two entirely different things.
I simply wish to point out what seems to me an important aspect of this piece of legislation which has received little attention. It is partly dealt with by the amendment proposed by the right hon. leader of the opposition, and for that reason I will support that amendment, but I do not think it goes far enough. During the course of this debate I have been struck with the repeated assertion of the Prime Minister that the object of this measure is to create a court of law. No one is more qualified than the Prime Minister to define what is a court of law, and of course from a purely legal standpoint it would be ridiculous and impertinent
on my part to enter into a discussion with him. But I have given some time during my life to the study of constitutional developments, and if there has been one marked feature in the development of British institutions, representative or judicial, it is the tendency to separate judicial powers from legislative or executive powers. This has been done constantly, and for what purpose? It has been done to enable the citizens, the common people of the country, to have recourse to some body of supposedly impartial men to obtain justice, whether in matters of criminal law, civil law or administrative law. I think it may be stated that the basic principle of the judicial system in British communities to-day is that all courts of law should be available to all citizens of the country in order that justice may be done, provided that the matter referred to the court is within the jurisdiction of that court. Certain matters of law are within the jurisdiction of the superior court, while others come under district or circuit courts. There are other courts of still more limited jurisdiction. Certain types of cases come before the exchequer court, and we also have the various courts of appeal. But I think this is the first instance in the whole history of Canada of the creation of a court to which no citizen of Canada will be able to appeal. This is a court of law put up bj' the government for its own convenience, to which the only party who can apply is the Minister of Finance. The leader of the opposition suggests that whenever the government plans a change in the tariff this so-called court of law should be open to people who may be interested in opposing that change.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Not only at
that time but at any time; it should be open to anyone who has a grievance with respect to the tariff.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Then I did not quite
understand the amendment. May I see it, please?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It goes the
length of suggesting that anyone who believes himself aggrieved should have the right lo have his grievance heard by this board.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: The amendment reads:
By making provision that any person feeling himself aggrieved by any existing or proposed tariff provision shall have the right to present his case before the tariff board.
I did not hear the word "existing;" now I am enabled to support the amendment with all my heart. If this is adopted it will broaden the jurisdiction of this board to coincide precisely with what, in my young
Tariff Board

audacity, I proposed to the parliament of Canada at least twenty-five if not thirty years ago, when I found, to my amazement and disappointment, that, in spite of all professions of faith while in opposition, it was not true that there was a protectionist party and a free trade party, because the free trade party advocated free trade while in opposition but maintained protection while in power. At that time I made the suggestion to the old parliament that since protection was the accepted policy, and probably would remain so for many years to come, we should make at least some attempt to introduce into the management and application of our tariff some degree of efficiency, of scientific findings and of stability, with a sufficient degree of elasticity to permit such changes as might be necessary from year to year or from parliament to parliament to meet the exigencies of the situation. I then pointed out what for many years had been the policy pursued in France. In matters purely political I am not an admirer of the French system, but in matters economic I think there is no modern countiy that has been ruled more sensibly than the French nation, perhaps because they have been so foolishly ruled in other matters.
In France the situation was this: The politicians, feeling the uncertainty of the situation, with the very frequent changes of government, realized that at least the economic stability of the country should not be disturbed by changes in the composition of the parliament and of the cabinet. The result has been that although they have adopted the principle of protection and have followed it for many years past, they have not gone to extremes. In fact I think it might be said that apart from the short period of about one-half the reign of Napoleon II'I, after a treaty had been negotiated by Cobden between France and England, France has been the most consistently protective country in Europe. It did not go to the extremes to which Germany went or the extremes to which the United States has gone, or to which we are going now; but they have maintained the principle of protection. In the application of iheir tariff, however, they have introduced some practices which I think could be fruitfully studied by us and applied to a certain extent.
I have already pointed out the inconvenience of having only two models before us, England and the United States. Conditions in England are so different from conditions here that we cannot copy the economic policy of that country; that goes without saying. For many reasons which I am not

going to expound now, I think it equally dangerous to copy as servilely as we have been doing for the last thirty or forty years the policy of the United States. If we do that with the idea that we will reap the same results they have reaped, then we are living and playing in a fool's paradise. We need not imagine that by following servilely the extreme protectionist policy of the United States-and reaping the same evil consequences-we are going to make of Canada a self-sustaining country. If we cherish that idea, then, I repeat, we are living in a fool's paradise: For we shall never make of Canada a cotton-growing country. We shall never make of Canada a coaliproducing country, to the same degree as the United States, and supplying all the varieties of coal which are needed in a northern country like Canada. We can never make Canada a country geographically situated and composed like the United States with that enormous Mississippi valley crossing from north to south, which creates a current of trade in all directions. We cannot expect the same geographical conditions in Canada. We shall never be able to create and maintain an internal trade such as exists in the United States, where there is a population of 110,000,000 of consumers. We cannot hope to have such a trade in this country so long as our population remains as small as it is-and it will be comparatively small for many years to come-and scattered over an area larger than that of the country to the south of us.
We need foreign trade and therefore a tariff board like this should consider every question bearing upon trade. It should consider not only the conditions of production of industries; it should consider not only those various matters that are enumerated in the bill, but it should consider also what commercial results are likely to follow from the operations of the tariff on each industry. The board should consider whether by protecting this or that industry we are not hampering this or that trade, or the relations of Canada with this or that country that can produce similar goods at a cheaper cost than we can produce them in Canada-countries with a larger consuming community, enabling their industries to dispose of their surplus products under better and more advantageous conditions. In other words, you cannot view the simple question of industrial production without taking into consideration not only those factors which govern the production of the same articles in other countries, but the whole problem of trade internal and external.

Tariff Board
Taking the economic situation as it is, considering the needs and the exigencies of all classes of our population, I say that a board of this nature should be open to all claimants in all the provinces of Canada. The gardeners of Canada should be in a position to come and petition the board. The consumers of the west and the producers of the east, so far as manufactured goods are concerned, or, vice versa, the consumers of the east and the producers of the west, with respect to farm products, should be perfectly free to appeal to this so-called court of law for a hearing, in order that justice might be done. Every class in the community should be free to appear before this body constituted by the government to find out all the facts bearing upon our economic situation. All classes of our population should be as free to appeal to this court of law as the Minister of Finance or the Minister of National Revenue.
It is too late in the history of our institutions for us to countenance the idea that a parliament, which claims to be a democratic body representing the people, which claims to reflect the views of all the people, representing the interests and the exigencies of the country at large, should disguise as a closed court of law of this kind, what as a matter of fact is and ought to remain an administrative body, but an administrative body subject, if you like, to the authority of the government. I have no objection to its being subject to the government, because the government is responsible to parliament and parliament to the people. And when the people find out that they have made a mistake in giving a majority to this party or the other they may change the administration. But pending such changes, I submit that it is contrary to the basic principles of our parliamentary and judicial institutions to create a body which will be under the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the minister, a body which will act or remain idle according to the caprice of that minister, shutting its doors to all the interests of Canada. It is from that point of view and solely from that point of view that I object to the bill now before us.
If it was not for the reason I have given, I would entirely support the bill; because, as I have said, over twenty-five years ago I proposed the creation of a tariff board. I suggested it to my good friend, Sir Wilfrid Laurier; and he came very near adopting it, about the same time that he created the railway commission. I said to him:	Since
you are bound to maintain a tariff, why do you not establish a permanent board which
will investigate all tariff questions whenever called upon to do so-a board which will receive requests and counter-requests, proposals and counter-proposals; a board which will give a hearing to all classes and individuals who are interested in the tariff, whether it be to have it raised or lowered. Such a board would reduce to a certain extent the volume of your daily labours and would furnish you with all the elements, if necessary, of a yearly revision of the tariff. You would have figures, statistics and findings, internal and external, from year to year upon which parliament could rely. It could be a court of equity, but above all it should be a court of record, to which all those who wished to appear, to submit their views, would have access. That is what I suggested to Sir Wilfrid Laurier. And if the present government had proposed a measure of that nature I would have supported it.


An hon. MEMBER:: Never.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I can understand why
my hon. friends cannot appreciate my point of view, but I forgive them. For a short while I was myself a party man and I could not believe that a man could have a free mind. However, I freed myself and since that time I have determined to be independent. Of course, I have to make a choice. One cannot clasp one's hands all the time and pray for some extraordinary light to fall from heaven; one must decide on what is at hand. Until now I have not opened my mouth during the whole of this debate, because, being in favour of proper legislation along this line, I have been hoping that something would develop that would enable me to support the bill. But I find the Prime Minister bent upon making of this body a court of law empowered to do a great deal that a court of law can do, although its constitution is repugnant to the very principle of any court of law. Three men are here given the power to infringe upon individual or even political and civil liberty, putting men into jail if need be, as pointed out by the hon. member for Shel-burne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston). This so-called court of law is given all these powers; yet at the same time it is to be prevented from acting as a court of law, giving every man a fair hearing. If it were made simply an administrative body, a body constituted for the purpose of giving information to the government, with no powers which it might exercise over any class of our citizens, then, though I might describe it as rather impotent, it would not be obnoxious. But it is being given powers that are repugnant to all the
Tariff Board

interests of the people, and is given no powers which will make it useful to all classes and individuals in the country. For this reason I shall support the amendment and vote against the third reading of the bill.


Richard Bedford Bennett: One wonders just where the capacity
for changing, on the part of the right hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Mackenzie King), will end. One wonders whether that capacity is not being tested beyond endurance, for it is only in 1926 that the right hon. gentleman asked the house to believe that the tariff advisory board was the one thing that was desirable. Let us see what he gave Canada. I now read from the official record, the Canada Year Book, with respect to the Advisory Board on Tariff and Taxation:
The Advisory Board on Tariff and Taxation was created under the terms of P.C. 530 of April 7, 1926, for the purpose of advising the Minister of Finance in regard to tariff, taxation and other related matters.
The duties of the board are to inquire into and hear representations on all matters pertaining to the tariff and other forms of taxation, as may be directed by the Minister of Finance, and to advise the minister in regard thereto. The board is under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Finance and holds meetings whenever this appears to be necessary or desirable, and also whenever required by the Minister of Finance. It is authorized to avail itself of the assistance of the officials of the various departments, while the Minister of Finance, on the recommendation of the chairman of the board, may engage competent persons possessing special knowledge to assist the board in its investigations.
The tariff advisory board does not take the initiative in tariff investigations nor does it receive applications directly from persons interested in tariff investigations, but deals only with applications referred to it by the Minister of Finance.
One wonders just why this sudden change of front! One wonders just why these sudden suggestions!


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: It was not a court.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Certainly not, but it
was what was set up as a tariff board in lieu of a court, and the reason why the initiative rested with the Minister of Finance is the reason which the house has heard ad nauseam during the last few days, namely, the supremacy of parliament. Why is it that these applications must originate from the Minister of Finance? Because the ultimate responsibility for all tariff action rests with the government of the day, and it is through that minister that the government takes the responsibility so that parliament may act upon the initiative of the government.
[Mr. Bourassa.l
That is the reason. We have heard, during the last four or five days, the right hon. gentleman declaiming to high heaven that parliament is having its power crushed, we have heard that echoed and reechoed, until we are sick of the echo-that this was so, and that that was so-and now we find him rising in his place and declaiming against that very principle and declaring that anybody may go to the tariff board and make application without reference to government or parliamentary control in any way, shape or form. That is what hon. members are driven to for purely political reasons. The tariff board was good enough in 1926, but no application could be made to it except through the Minister of Finance. That was the case in 1927, 1928 and 1929. I heard the right hon. gentleman in those days pointing out the soundness of the measure and what it meant to the consumers of the country, but yet no application could be made except through the Minister of Finance. The reason is so obvious, so clear, so plain; you are not going to create any organization to report upon tariffs that has no relation to the government of the day and the parliament of which that government is the committee. The committee of this house that is reponsible for government to-day is called the cabinet. It is a committee of the House of Commons, and the responsibility of that cabinet is that it goes out of office unless at all times it can command the support of a majority of the members of the house. That being so, it is provided that there must be somewhere some responsible minister for every action that is taken with respect to the government of this country.
The action taken in this case is that of the minister when he sets in motion, by making a request of the board, the machinery whereby the information is obtained. How can this be otherwise? Are you going to have this board cluttered up by having everybody send in applications for changes in the tariff, or to have a minister responsible to parliament to deal with those applications? Is it to be order or disorder, method or lack of it? Is it to be responsibility of parliament or not? Hon. gentlemen opposite say: Give us disorder; give us no method; give us lack of control; give us anything that will enable us to talk, to address the language of the demagogue to the populace about a government that denies them the use of a court. The right hon. gentleman has been declaiming to high heaven about the rights of the people being taken away from them and their

having no opportunities to air their grievances. Everyone knows no government can remain in power that long defies public opinion.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the reason why the last government went out of power. May I go one step further and add this? All the applications are made to the Minister of Finance by consumers' leagues, manufacturers, those who have agencies in this country and who desire reductions in tariff as well as those who may desire increases. Then the minister determines whether or not he shall refer them to this board. He exercises his discretion and for the exercise of that discretion he is answerable to parliament. H he fails to make the reference, he subjects himself to a vote of censure of parliament. That is parliamentary government. One method is chaos and disorder; the other is orderly government of the country's affairs. The latter :s consistent and consonant with that principle upon which our institutions have grown up, of parliamentary responsibility and of every minister being responsible to parliament for the exercise, while in office, of his discretion.
In this case an amendment has been set lose which will violate every principle of parliamentary government, disregard every rule that has heretofore prevailed with respect to ministerial responsibilities, and say that everybody on the street may make an application which the board is bound to hear. That is mot my conception of the idea the Canadian people have with respect to matters of this kind. The right hon. gentleman did not have to go back nineteen or twenty years to find, as the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) says, opinions which they are perfectly welcome to take now that he has discarded them. My right hon. friend did not have to go back that far. If he had looked at his privy council order of 1926 he would have found the opinion which he commended to the people of the country at that time and during the last few years, but which opinion now, in the full glare of to-day's sun, he stands up and repudiates and disowns. I congratulate him.


Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Shelburne-Yarmouth) :: Mr. Speaker, as usual, the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) is trying by raising his voice and by gestures, to conceal the real argument and, by scolding and delivering a lecture, to omit altogether to answer the arguments which have been presented. My right hon. friend recently, during the debate, has
Tariff Board
been arguing that this board is not a board which makes any tariffs; that it is only a fact-finding board; that its powers are quite innocuous and only for the purpose of making researches with respect to cost productions and things of that kind. Now he has suddenly decided that it is part of the instrument of government and vitally concerns the principle of the responsibility of parliament. The argument which he has made all the way through this debate has been to the effect that this board is simply an economic research council, nothing more and nothing less, something to which people can go, in order, he says, that the facts may be established. As he says, the responsibility rests in the last resort with the ministry and with parliament in order to make tariffs, but the exercise of the responsibility of parliament comes after and not before the investigation by the board. The board makes its findings; the ministry then decides whether or not it will act upon those findings and bring them down in the shape of tariff legislation. That is no argument against the proposal that the board may be set in motion in other ways than at the behest of the minister. My right hon. friend quoted the argument that was made by the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie). The present Minister of Justice of course has by this time learned very pat that quotation from Morley. He has had to use it on a good many occasions, and it has become pretty threadbare. He knows it as we used to know Pitt's reply to Walpole which we learned from the schoolbooks. I do not believe that the opinions which my hon. friend the Minister of Justice gave utterance to in 1912 have really been cast off by him.


Hugh Guthrie: Oh yes, they have.


James Layton Ralston: I think they are simply
put away in moth balls, and if the necessity arises he might bring them out again. The chances are that he probably will not, but I do not think they are cast off; I think he believes in them to-day just as much as he ever did. My right hon. friend reads the constitution of the tariff advisory board. He has been saying right along that board was not worth the paper the order in council was written on, but now he has to invoke the organization of that board as a reason for the fundamentals and the foundation and basis of the court which he is setting up today . As a matter of fact, they are two entirely different things. One was a tariff advisory board. One was a board to which matters might be referred, a board before
Tariff Board

which-I do not believe any hon. member will contradict me in this-any man who asked that he might go was promptly allowed to go and present his case.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Only if the Finance Minister so directed.


James Layton Ralston: And he always gave his
consent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He did not.


James Layton Ralston: But what is the case today? I asked my right hon. friend yesterday if he would give an undertaking that before any change, any decrease or increase of duty were made, the case would be referred to the tariff board. His answer was in his usual dogmatic form: He will not. That means that it is going to depend altogether on the minister what applications shall go before the board, and that the minister does not propose to act in the way in which the previous advisory board was administered and permit people to go before that board when they desire to do so. That is the difference between the administration of the board to which he has referred and the administration of this new board.
May I say one thing more? My hon. friend from Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) has made the point clearly and distinctly that this house is now being invited to sanction the formation and organization, not of some tariff advisory board, not of any committee, not of any research council, but of something that is going to have the solemnity of a court of record, of something to which, to use the words of the Minister of Justice, men are to be appointed with handsome salaries, eminent men, he said, men of great dignity. That is the way he described them in 1912. He went on to say: After you have got all this splendid organization, what is going to happen? It is not going to start at all. Those were the words of the Minister of Justice in 1912, and I say that unless this amendment passes, that is exactly what will happen in this case. We will have all the trappings, all the dignity, all the solemnity, all the formalities, but after all, the board, with all respect to them, will be all dressed up and nowhere to go.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the amendment is absolutely necessary in order that this court, so called, may be useful in connection with tariff matters. I want to point out to my right hon. friend that the court, as he himself said, makes no finding. The court makes no tariff, the court does nothing which

the ministry cannot correct if it pleases to correct it. So there can be no objection whatever to a man going before this court and saying: I want the facts investigated in this particular case. There is nothing binding on the government or on parliament, according to what my right hon. friend himself says about this court. But the amendment would give an opportunity for the public of this country to get information with regard to matters in connection with which they are paying money in the way of duties, paying money in the way of taxes and imposts, in order that they might see if those taxes were properly imposed. So I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the amendment is one which should receive the commendation of this house. The comparison which my right hon. friend has made with the tariff advisory board has nothing whatever to do with the question. If he will say now that he will follow the same policy in the administration of this new board as was followed in connection with the tariff advisory board, he will go a long way towards meeting our views. But he has negatived that; he has said absolutely the reverse of that. He proposes to exercise jurisdiction in regard to this board just as the present Minister of Justice described it in 1912: It begins with the minister and ends with the minister. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that that sort of board and that sort of court is not in keeping with the institutions of this country.


Mr. G. G. COOTE (Macleod):: May I say, Mr. Speaker, that it is very difficult for some members of this house to get at the actual facts in this case because there has been so much of politics injected into it that it is hardly possible to know when members are really sincere and when they are playing politics. If the leader of the opposition had simply given his own opinion without quoting the remarks which the Minister of Justice made some twenty years ago, I would have attached a little more weight to the reasons he gave; and if the Prime Minister, in replying, had not taken the trouble to quote the policy of the Liberals with respect to the tariff advisory board, but rather had dealt with the merits of this bill, it would have been a little easier possibly to decide how much weight should be attached to the points that he made. I Was, however, very much impressed with the remarks of the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa). The Prime Minister, in putting this bill through its various stages, referred very often to the fact that the board was a court of record, and being a court of

Tariff Board
record I am inclined to feel at the moment that it should be open to everyone to appeal to it. The Board of Railway Commissioners, which is a somewhat similar organization, may be appealed to by anyone direct. I can easily imagine many circumstances under which the people of this country might like to appeal to the tariff board with respect to different cases which the Minister of Finance would not agree to submit to the board. Although, as I say, I have very great difficulty in making up my mind how I should vote on the amendment, at the moment, unless some further argument is advanced to change my opinion, I feel inclined to support the amendment simply because as I understand British law and the British system of justice anyone may appeal to any court. On that fundamental ground I feel this act should be amended in the manner suggested.


Mr. ROBINSON:: hon, member for Portneuf Had I voted I would have amendment.


Mr. HEENAN:: I was paired with the hon. member for Digjby-Amnapolis (Mr. Short). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. SMITH (Cumberland):: I was paired with the hon. member for Antigonish-Guys-borough (Mr. Duff). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. IRVINE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Thompson). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. LUCAS:: I was paired with the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Esling) Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. HARRIS:: I was paired with the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Jacobs). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. RYERSON:: I was paired with the hon. member for Norfolk-Elgin (Mr. Taylor). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. McMILLAN (South Huron):: I was paired with the bon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. CARDIN:: I was paired with the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Cantley). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.
Mr. MoINTOSH: I was paired with the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Kennedy). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. DORION (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Verville). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.
[Mr. Coote.l


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: I was paired with the hon. member for Neeipawa (Mr. Murphy). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. VENIOT:: I was paired with the hon. member for York-Sunfoury (Mr. Hanson). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. GOTT:: I was paired with the hon.. member for Kent, Ontario (Mr. Rutherford). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Mr. Bennett, seconded by Mr. Guthrie, moves that Bill No. 47, to provide for the appointment of a tariff board, be read the third time. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Ernest Lapointe: When this bill was before the house for second reading the hon. member for Hants-Kings (Mr. Ilsley) presented the Objections held by hon. members on this side of the house and concluded by a motion concerning more particularly the method of appointment of the members of the proposed board and their tenure of office. When the bill was in committee some hon. members said that they opposed that motion because they were in favour of tlhe principle of a tariff board and hoped and expected that in committee their objections to the bill woud be removed.
The bill has been considered in committee and many objections have been raised to some of the provisions in it. Amendments have been offered but have all been rejected. Not all, but the main objections we had have not been removed and some of the questions asked have not been answered. If my right hon. friend will forgive me, I will say that when he spoke, to use words which he has employed but which were used by somebody else before him, he supplied more heat than light to hon. members of the house.
Hon. members on this side of the house are opposed to the bill in its present form becoming the lbw of the country and being placed on our statute books. For these reasons I move, seconded by Mr. Motherwell:
That the word "now" be left out and the -words "this day six months" be added at the end of the question.
Amendment negatived on division.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Shall the original motion carry?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: On division.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the third time and passed.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff



WAYS AND MEANS


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. MacDonald (South Cape Breton) in the chair.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Chairman, Before the house rose last night I was protesting against the lack of information with respect to the various tariff items which are before the committee at this moment, also against the little time that is available by way of discussion of these amendments this session. I was pointing out that the proposed legislation we have before us is only part of the tariff changes the ministry has introduced since coming into office, and that it was understood at the close of the special session last year that full opportunity would be given at this session to discuss the tariff changes that were then made. Obviously that opportunity has not yet come, and I submit that at this late stage of the session it will not present itself. Similarly with regard to the proposed tariff changes, there has been no investigation before any body with respect to the items that, are going to be considered. In former years, as I pointed out, either a committee of the cabinet had held public hearings, or some board had listened to representations of different parties with respect to the effect of proposed changes, and the house had before it the printed evidence taken at those hearings as a guide to enable it to make up its mind as to what in the public interest should be done with respect to them.
I also took very strong exception to the extent of the changes in the tariff, both in range and in revision upwards, and pointed out as well the arbitrary manner in which all these changes have been made. They have not been made as the result of any investigation whatever, but simply at the instance of the Minister of Finance without hearings in the past as to their effect, and from what he has indicated on the tariff bill, without any possibility of future hearings as to their effects unless he so consents.
I desire further to point out in particular that these changes at this time are likely to emphasize the depression under which the country is labouring, and make relief from that depression infinitely more difficult and prolonged. The changes are all in the nature of further restrictions upon trade. In that regard they are in accord with the policy of the administration. I have said over and over again-and the Prime Minister has not denied it-that his policy with reirpect to these matters is to prevent coming into this
country all commodities which can be manufactured or produced in Canada. He believes that the ideal for Canada is to make of this country an economic unit which will produce and manufacture everything that is required for domestic consumption, and he hopes to effect that by putting up the tariff walls high enough to prevent importations from abroad.
That there may be no doubt about that being the point of view of the ministry-[DOT] though some of my hon. friends opposite seem to differ from their leader in that regard

may I quote a very definite statement made by the member of the administration who holds the portfolio of Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens)? Shortly after the administration came into office the hon. gentleman gave an interview in Vancouver to a representative of the Canadian Press, in the course of which he outlined the ideal of the administration of which he is a member. The despatch is dated Vancouver, August 31. and on September 1 appeared in the different papers of the country, including the Ottawa Citizen, from which I am quoting:
"The new government led by Hon. It. B. Bennett aims first to build up Canada industrially and agriculturally by suitable protective tariffs," said Hon. H. H. Stevens, who left for Ottawa to-day to attend the special session of parliament called for September 8. "Our ideal is that nothing hereafter will be imported except what cannot be grown or manufactured or otherwise produced at home."


Mr. BELL (Hamilton):: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: And the Prime
Minister says "hear, hear."


Richard Bedford Bennett: I beg pardon, I did not speak.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Some one
opposite, one of his supporters said, "hear, hear"-I see it was the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Bell). I do not suppose the Prime Minister objects to the "hear, hear."


Richard Bedford Bennett: He does not.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That clinches the matter. The Minister of Trade and Commerce is further quoted as saying:
And if Canada cannot produce it, then we hope to get the goods from Britain or from our sister dominions.
May I again stress the quotation I have just read, and point out that the tariff changes which this committee is being called upon to consider at the moment have been made with the view of realizing the objective therein set forth. That, objective, of course, is what will
3576	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
be accomplished if and when hon. gentlemen opposite have had sufficient time to complete their program; but the tariff changes as introduced at the special session and at this session go a long way towards helping them to reach their objective by the method that they at present are adopting. Let me repeat, in part, the minister's words which I have already quoted:
Our ideal is that nothing hereafter will be imported except what canot be grown or manufactured or otherwise produced at home.
Obviously the reason the administration has made these tariff changes as extensive and as high as it has is to further its policy of keeping out of Canada anything that can be produced or manufactured here. I wish to repeat that that is a policy of complete restriction of trade. If Canada is not to allow commodities to come in here from other countries, she cannot expect that other countries will purchase commodities from her. I need not go into the economic reasons why it is that in international exchange, imports ultimately must be paid for by exports, and that exports ultimately must be paid for by imports, but such is the undisputed fact; and I say that any policy which restricts trade to the extent of shutting off importations means that at the same time we are shutting off the possibility of exportations.
What necessarily is the effect of a policy of that kind? If effective at all, it will in a very short time bring about a condition of restriction of trade worse than any blockade in time of war. It will put an end completely to Canada's trade on the high seas, and will effect in a very material way our internal transportation as well I pointed out last night that for years past this parliament has been seeking to improve the means for facilitating international trade by making large expenditures on our railways and our harbours and subsidizing steamships, in fact improving transportation and communication in all its branches at great expense, all with a view of extending our trade internationally. Now an administration comes into office which definitely declares it is going to prevent commodities from coming into this country if similar commodities can be produced or manufactured here, knowing when it makes that declaration of policy that unless we are prepared to admit imports from other countries they in turn will shut out our exports to them. It is for that reason we take very strong issue with hon. gentlemen apposite in connection with these proposed tariff changes. If they become effective and serve the object which hon. gentlemen opposite have in view 
we believe they will bring about in this country a very serious condition of stagnation so far as trade and business are concerned.
Hon. gentlemen opposite have an entirely erroneous conception of the means of enlarging the home market which they say it is their objective to promote by their policies. If the home market were a given locality a place, however large, one could understand the desire to further the purchase and sale of all goods within Canada itself, but a market is not merely a place where goods are sold; it is a place also where goods are bought. Unless there is purchasing power the fact that you have a locality in which men meet to exchange money for goods will not affect the situation very much one way or the other. What is needed is purchasing power, and that purchasing power in Canada will come in very large measure through what in the export trade of this country is sold abroad. As we develop the great primary industries of Canada, agriculture, manufacturing, lumbering, fishing and mining; as we conduct a large export trade in connection with the products of these industries, so there will flow into Canada from abroad the purchasing power which is necessary to create a market for the commodities which are manufactured here. May I make this further statement with respect to manufacturing. Canada has now reached the point where she is exporting manufactured goods to a very considerable extent; if I am not mistaken she is at the present time per unit of population with the exception of Great Britain in manufactures the largest exporting country in the world. If that is the case and this policy is carried into effect, what is going to happen to our manufacturers? Our manufacturers will be obliged to lose their foreign markets and to that extent, along with other industries and business generally in the country, that particular interest will suffer very greatly.
What I want to point out particularly to my right hon. friend is this, that he himself has indicated to this house that to-day international competition is such throughout the world that a very slight difference in costs may mean insolvency to particular interests, or may mean the total loss of markets. In order that I ma.y do my right hon. friend no injustice I should like to quote his own words uttered in this house within the last two days. They appear in Hansard of July 7 at page 3473. At that time my right hon. friend said:
I have had some little experience in bus-ness; at one time it was rather extensive. I was privileged to have some knowledge of almost every branch of business, whether it was the packing business, the paper business,

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
the insurance business, the electrical business, or what it might be, and I realized that the question of cost was an all-important one, because even if your profit be only | of a cent per unit, if your volume is large enough you make an enormous fortune. I know of one case in which the profit on the single unit of production of the company amounted to less than | of a cent, and yet the volume was so large that the return was magnificent and it looked as though it were too large a return upon the investment. Yet the individual unit return was small.
That relates to the profit side; a very small margin, if spread over a wide enough field, may bring in a very considerable profit. But a little earlier my right hon. friend spoke about the possibility of loss, the effect of costs on markets together with their relation to competition, and I direct the attention of my right hon. friend and of the committee to these words as deserving the most careful thought and consideration. In order that their full emphasis may be appreciated I would point out that not only are costs of production and manufacture being increased by the very high tariffs created at the last special session and proposed in the resolutions before the committee at the moment; not only is the cost of living and the cost of production being greatly increased by virtue of the range and extent of increase in the changes which are being made, but there is being added to the taxation this year, for the first time, a one per cent excise tax on everything coming into Canada. That one per cent tax is over and above the customs duties, which are also in the nature of a tax, and I venture to say that the effect of these two things combined will be such that the costs of production with respect to almost everything, particularly when we have regard to the extent to which the cost of living will play its part in determining the wages item in cost of production as well, will be so great as to occasion many of those exporting concerns of to-day the complete loss of their markets abroad. Here are the words of my right hon. friend, also at page 3473 of Hansard:
Compare 1919 with 1931. I had occasion about a year and a half or two years ago to examine the cost sheets of a very large enterprise, and I was amazed to find that costs are no longer worked out in decimals of one-tenth of a cent, but down to four decimal places; that is, for example, to -8716 of a cent. In these days of modern competition the question of costs has become the all-important factor, and the costs director of a company is the man who very often determines its solvency or insolvency. When it is said that you can compare 1919 with 1931, no regard is paid to modern accountancy and to the relation which modern competition has created between the cost side of a business and its resultant product.
Think of the portent of that pronouncement. My right hon. friend, out of his own experience in business in this country, has realized that the difference of .8716 of a cent in cost may mean insolvency to a business which up to that time had been solvent. Here are changes in tariffs of not a fractional percentage but of many percentages, and an additional one per cent excise tax as well. Consider what these vast changes in tariff are going to mean when they are reflected in the production and manufacturing costs of the country. My right hon. friend says:
.... the costs director of a company is the man who very often determines its solvency or insolvency.
May I say that he to-day is the costs director, in his present position and with the powers he possesses, not merely of a company but of a nation, and in that position the costs director of a nation is the man who very often determines its solvency or insolvency. I am genuinely afraid that if my right hon. friend is permitted to continue with his tariff changes to the degree to which he proposes to go, and the further extent to which he may wish to go; if he is permitted to make still more rigid interpretations of existing legislation by orders in council, by special valuations, by bulletin appraisals and the like, conditions will become such that not for one industry alone but for many hundreds of industries there will be a difference in costs so appreciable as to change what is solvency to-day to insolvency tomorrow. That is my real objection to these changes as they are now proposed, and I think this of all times is the last moment at which experiments of this kind should be made.
May I say further that my right hon. friend is having considerable difficulty, in raising revenues. I do not think he has considered for one moment the revenue feature of the tariff which he has brought down. With discernment and care and previous investigation, he might have found means through the tariff of raising a very considerable amount of revenue. But in most cases he has put the tariff up to such a point that he has destroyed anything in the nature of a revenue producing feature. I think he himself will say that avowedly it is not tariff revenue he is considering at all; it is protection pure and simple, protection carried to the point of prohibition of all commodities coming into this country which can be produced or manufactured here.
Now, whatever views he may hold on that subject, I submit again that the present condition of the country should have caused the

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
Prime Minister to move very cautiously in regard to the extent to which he would go in seeking at this time to put his views into practice.
The extent of the change which at this moment my right hon. friend is making in the tariff structure of Canada is the more surprising in that it runs directly opposite to the trend throughout the world which it is becoming more and more apparent will for the future be the prevailing one. It is true that immediately following the war there was In different countries a strong nationalistic development which asserted itself by way of increased tariffs and other forms of trade restriction. But the world has had a few years' experience of the consequence of that kind of policy, and the leading economists and many of the leading statesmen of the different countries of the world are to-day not only recognizing but asserting that unless the world can free itself from these nationalistic tendencies on the part of the nations there will be nothing but loss for all concerned. They are pointing out that what is needed to-day is not an endeavour on the part of different countries to raise tariffs to such a point as to invite further reprisals, but rather so to lower tariffs as to make possible more in the way of international exchange.
May I in passing direct the attention of the committee to the praise which has been bestowed upon the President of the United States for his action in suggesting a moratorium in regard to the payment of international debts between the different nations. IVhy have the countries joined in that great movement, and why has it been so universally applauded? The reason is that it removes one more restriction to international trade. It recognizes the desirability, not of purchasing everything within the confines of any particular country, but of enabling the nations to purchase one from another those things which each may have a comparative advantage in producing.
If that is sound doctrine with respect to a great movement such as that which the moratorium suggests in relation to international debts, I submit that the same reasoning will apply to other forms of restriction in trade. I wish to place before the committee two statements which seem to me to be most significant in this regard. They come from widely different sources but they represent that point of view which is being more generally entertained by those whose immediate concern is with large business.
The first statement was made by Sir Arthur Balfour, who in 1930 was chairman of the

British National Committee of the International Chamber of Commerce. Sir Arthur paid a visit to this country and he spoke in Winnipeg before the Canadian Club on April 23 of this year. I quote from the Canadian Press report as it appeared in the Gazette on the day following. These are his words:
"We have positively got to cease attempting to interfere with the laws of supply and demand," Sir Arthur Balfour, British industrialist and economist, said in an address today before the Canadian Club. "We have got to trade much more freely with one another if the world is to recover from its trade depression."
One of the greatest worries, said Sir Arthur, was that the agriculturist was receiving such low prices for his products, that he could not absorb the manufactured goods of the world. That was Canada's worry too.
"I think that tariffs have gone too far. They have their use arid place, but when they are applied to inefficient as well as efficient industries they go too far."
That is from a British industrialist who was chairman of the British National Committee of the International Chamber of Commerce, and it gives his considered opinion, reflecting the views of that body. The International Chamber of Commerce held a meeting in Washington this year, and there were presented to the president of that body representations from a newly formed Council for Tariff Reduction which has come into existence in the United States. It is the representative character of this new Council for Tariff Reduction and the very representative character of this International Chamber of Commerce that give great significance to the paragraphs I am about to read. I am quoting from the New York Times of May 7, 1931, an article which appears under this heading:
Drive To Cut Tariff Started Here To End World's Depression
Economists, Editors, Lawyers, Manufacturers and Many Other Leaders Back Plan Will Appeal to Congress Reduction in Armaments is Called Second to Ending of Port Barriers Letter Sent To M. Theunis Council for Tariff Reduction Puts Case Before the International Chamber of Commerce
The article reads:
The Council for Tariff Reduction is being formed by a number of prominent economists, editors, lawyers and manufacturers, it was announced here yesterday coincident with the sending of a letter by the newly organized body to Georges Theunis, president of the International Chamber of Commerce, now meeting in Washington, informing him of the belief of the members of the council that tariff walls must be lowered if world trade is to be revived.
Despite the unwillingness of the political parties to press for tariff reform at the coming session of congress, the council declared in its

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
letter to M. Theunis the intention of the new body is to press upon congress "the absolute need of prompt action at its approaching session in the reduction of the tariff of 1930, the ill effects of which have been immediately evident both within our borders and in international relations."
Among the prominent professors of economics who signed the letter and the announcement were Edwin R. A. Seligman, F. W. Taussig, David Saville Muzzey and Irving Fisher.
These names are all well known. Professor Taussig was a member of the tariff commission in the United States, and has been referred to by the present Prime Minister as the leading economist in that country to-day.


Richard Bedford Bennett: One of the leading economists.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes; and I am proud to say that he was a professor of mine at Harvard while I was engaged in the study of economics. Perhaps I am reflecting some of his views at the moment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They do not seem to have been very popular in the United States.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think they are becoming increasingly so. The letter sent to Mr. Theunis I shall now quote. And here I am attaching importance not merely to the source from which this communication comes, as representative of this council, and to the body to which it is addressed; I regard it as important also because of the views themselves and the appeal which they make to the minds of reasonable men who are thoughtfully studying conditions as they are in the world to-day. The letter reads:
In view of the advocacy of tariff reductions throughout the world by the International Chamber of Commerce at its previous meetings, and of your own address at the opening of the current sessions, you will be gratified to learn that there is in process of organization here a council for Tariff Reduction, which already includes several hundred leaders in economics, ethics, trade and industry. Despite the unwillingness of our political parties to face frankly within our own country this foremost world question, this council proposes to press upon the congress the_ absolute need of prompt action at its approaching session in the reduction of the tariff of 1930, the ill effects of which have been so immediately evident both within our borders and in international relations.
The council has not yet advanced its formal organization to the point of official expressions, but the attitudes stated in the correspondence of the members are definite. While it is generally recognized that the reduction of armaments, military, naval and aerial, is an urgent requirement to keep down national expenses and avert recurring deficits, our members realize that the lowering of tariff walls is the paramount necessity to permit economic laws to act in restoring world trade and national prosperity, a necessity pressing upon the several 22110-228
nations, and especially our own country, which has, unfortunately, led in tire enactment of skyscraping tariffs.
You may care to lay before the chamber or place upon its records the enclosed preliminary statement signed by the initiatory participants in the forming of the council. To these might be added the signatures of several hundred others, including many of the 1,028 economists who signed the protest to the president and the congress during the preparation of the Hawley-Smoot tariff
These signatures become the assurance that the opinions recently expressed in annual reports and public addresses by leaders in banking and industry have behind them the concurrence of an increasing number of our citizens, who recognize that to trade we must exchange and that to provide markets for our surplus manufactures, farm products, labour and capital we must be ready to remove the bars at our seaports which interfere so seriously with world trade. They are prepared to bring public opinion to bear upon our political leaders in favour of immediate tariff reduction and tliey_ desire to make known to those of liberal minds in other countries their sympathy and cooperation."
The statement of the organization of the council, with offices at 2 West Forty-fifth street, declared the tariff to be no longer a political, no longer merely a national, but a world-wide economic issue. It called attention to resentment engendered throughout the world by the Hawley-Smoot tariff, and declared that America, which has set the pace for high tariffs throughout the world, should now lead the way in tariff reduction.
Thus can our world market be extended, foreign customers increased, more home products demanded in exchange, unemployment decreased at home and abroad and a better home market developed through the increased purchasing power of our own workers in the wholesale round of economic progress promoting international goodwill and peace.
That statement, evidently most carefully prepared, sets forth as concisely and conclusively as any statement could, the argument for not increasing but decreasing tariffs if at the present time any change is to be made. I shall not repeat its arguments but allow the truth and force of them to speak for themselves.
May I conclude what I wish to say at this moment, by a further reference to the bearing of these tariff changes upon our own immediate pressing problem of unemployment? I feel that the government, by its action in making such extensive changes in the tariff, with their consequent trade restrictions, is pursuing a course which will not do other than increase unemployment. I know hon. members opposite sincerely believe their policies are going to result in stimulating manufactures and thereby increase employment. I am quite prepared to admit that at a certain stage of development in a country protection of a limited amount may under certain conditions with respect to particular

3580	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Custcnns Tariff
industries have that effect. But may I point out that Canada is at a stage of development very much beyond that of a country which is just beginning to take its place in manufacturing and in world commerce and competition. To-day the industrial life of this country is very widely and largely developed and there was not as recently as two years ago any pronounced demand even from the manufacturers themselves for further increases in the tariff. I venture to say that had it not been for the introduction of the Hawley-Smoot tariff bill, we would have heard practically nothing from Canadian manufacturers in the way of a demand for additional increases in tariffs. May I say this further:	I do not believe Canadian manufacturers have made any demand or request for the extensive increases in tariffs which are being proposed by the government. I believe they are in fact being greatly embarrassed by them.
May I repeat what I said the other day: In proposing tariffs as high as those which are before us in these resolutions, my right hon. friend is going directly opposite to what his predecessors in office of his own party always declared should govern in matters of protection in this country, namely: that it was not high tariffs; that it was adequate or moderate tariffs that were required, tariffs which would contain, if you like, the element of protection but certainly not tariffs which would go the length of prohibition. That is where I think my right hon. friend has made his mistake, and if instead of bringing forward of his own accord all these changes, he had in the first instance had his proposed changes carefully looked into and studied from the point of view not merely of the needs of the industry of the country but from the point of view of the incidence of taxation-where the ultimate burden of these duties is going to fall as respects industries and as respects consumers, and the effect of that upon the question of trade and unemployment in Canada at present-if he had done all these things, I believe he would have proceeded in a much more statesmanlike way, and at the same time in a way that would have served infinitely better to solve the great problem of unemployment, and to advance the interests of Canada, an end which at heart I know he desires to achieve.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My right hon. friend
has for the third time this session repeated the observations which he has made to-day and yesterday. I know he has strong convictions about the matters with respect to which he speaks, but I do not think what he said 
yesterday or to-day is any more forceful than what he said in the course of a two-hour speech a few days ago. Nor can it be said that what he stated on that occasion differs materially in its terms or substance from what he said on another occasion. It is his privilege to repeat these matters as frequently as he thinks desirable; for he must be given the widest latitude in the conduct of the fortunes of his party. He assumes the responsibility and he knows best what course to pursue in that regard. But may I remind him of just a few facts, the first being that we are confronted with conditions and not theories?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is what
I was saying.


Richard Bedford Bennett: 
Mr. YOUNG:: How is it working out?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I say that conditions
in the Dominion as a result of the action taken are better than in any other part of the world to which reference can be made. Outside of the fearful havoc that has been

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
wrought by conditions over which man has no control, no country is better situated than Canada to-day, and I say with some degree oi pardonable pride that had the action we took last September not been taken I do not know what would have been the result so far as industrial conditions in this country are concerned.
Let me proceed to the next proposal that I make. There never has been a time in the history of this country in which its industrial and manufacturing life was threatened as it is to-day, and by to-day I mean both the months that have just passed, the present, and the future that lies immediately before us.


Thomas McMillan: What about
the country's agricultural industry?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I will come to that in
time. I have endeavoured up to the moment to indicate what the conditions were and the action that we have taken. We used tariffs, I said, to deal with one phase; we used dumping legislation to deal with another, in order to secure fairer competition. Then we dealt with the situation in a third manner, and this refers to agriculture as well as to ^manufacturing. It refers alike to manufactured products and to the products which the agriculturists of this country, through their organizations and societies, have asked us to protect and have sought from us legislation to that end, as I shall show as we go through the tariff schedules.
What did we do? We said that where you have goods coming into Canada at a price that makes it impossible for Canadians to compete, and where the dumping legislation is useless, we will confer upon the executive the power to place a price for duty purposes upon those products so that Canadians may still have fair competition and an equal opportunity. And we did that. We did it with respect to agricultural products. We did it with respect to fruits and vegetables. We did it with respect to dairy products, and with respect to every product of every kind that sought a market in Canada when we found that its admission to this market would destroy or seriously embarrass Canadian industry, be it agriculture or anything else. Under the circumstances those three measures were absolutely essential for the national life of Canada. I ask seriously: Will any hon. member of this committee say that under the conditions which he knows existed last fall the -whole industrial and agricultural structure of our life could have been saved had some action of that kind not been taken?


Thomas McMillan: I think the right hon. gentleman has taken action which will destroy it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Having taken that action in the methods indicated, let us watch their operations. In a world of great depression we find that we are able at least to stimulate our industrial life and our national life, and we have improved agricultural conditions by giving to that industry some markets which it did not theretofore possess.


Thomas McMillan: (Huron): Would my right hon. friend tell us what he 'has done?


Richard Bedford Bennett: None so blind as those wiho will not see. Having eyes to see, see not, lest seeing they should believe; ears to hear, hear not, lest hearing they should understand.


Thomas McMillan: (Huron): Let us have
the answer.
Mr. B'ENNETT:	Under those circumstances, with that situation confronting us and having passed the legislation to which I have alluded, we now reach another session. Does any hon. member of this committee for a moment believe that it is an easy task to deal with these matters? Last night my right hon. friend said that he doubted whether or not the Minister of Finance had studied the items in the budget or knew what they meant.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Could my right hon. friend tell us the effect of them.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My reply is that not
only once but many times the Minister of Finance has gone over those items, and-*


James Layton Ralston: Repetition.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, repetition in industry, but not in speech. The Minister of Finance has gone over those items many times and endeavoured as best he could by calling upon every means at his disposal to ascertain just what could or should not be done to prevent the collapse of this country. When I say "collapse" I use the word advisedly.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does my right hon. friend think that any one individual on earth is capable of taking upon himself so great a problem of interpretation?


Richard Bedford Bennett: While I make no professions of greater capacity than my right hon. friend opposite-[DOT]


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would not
profess anything of that kind.
35S3

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is not a question of
mere profession. Throughout my life I have learned that what I have to do I am usually able to do; I make up my mind and proceed on that theory.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is my right
hon. friend always right?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No; I admit my own
fallibility, and before I have concluded I shall say more in that regard.
My right hon. friend has said that this session of parliament was called very late; it was. It was called four days later than the first parliament called by my right hon. friend in the year 1922.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, but that was within three not eight months of taking office. At that time there was only a moderate program of legislation, and there was no attempt to change the whole tariff.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My right hon. friend
called ministers of experience; he had no change of governor general to contemplate, and there was no protracted vacancy of that office. As I have said, this session of parliament met at a date four days later than the first session of my right hon. friend after the year 1921. On that occasion Mr. Fielding delivered his budget speech on May 28; the budget speech of this administration was delivered on June 1. On the former occasion, however, the discussion did not last as long as it did at this session. There were no two-hour or four-hour speeches; there were no long reiterations of the same tale day after day, day after day. Those hon. members who care to look at Hansard will find there the evidence of what I now state.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will my right hon. friend tell me the number of tariff changes made in the budget of Mr. Fielding, and the number now proposed?


Richard Bedford Bennett: As my right hon. friend
will remember, there was a very substantial number of tariff changes made by Mr. Fielding in 1922.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: On the contrary, there were very few.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We must remember also
that Mr. Fielding as a practical man clearly indicated then and later that faced with certain conditions he must apply practical means, not theories, and he proceeded so to do. As a result there was placed upon the statute books of Canada taxation with respect to stamps, with respect to cheques, with respect
to money orders, with respect to transportation, with respect to a sales tax which at one time was as high as 6 per cent and was 1: let-lowered to 5 and then to 4 per cent. He placed all these imposts upon the people, and did so because he was confronted with certain conditions. Being a practical man and applying a practical mind to the situation, he proceeded in the manner I have indicated.
To-day we are faced with what I conceive to be the most serious situation with which Canada has ever been confronted. Why? Because the depression has not been limited to Canada, but has been world-wide in its effects.


Charles A. Stewart: My right hon. friend admits that now.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, it has developed as I have indicated; there has been a gradual increase of depression.


Charles A. Stewart: That was not what my right hon. friend said last year.


Richard Bedford Bennett: At that time it had not begun in some countries.
The depression to which I have referred being world-wide in character it followed that every country used its best endeavours to lessen it. That meant that every country was endeavouring to sell its surplus product to some other country in order that it might relieve its own financial situation. Canada retained its position among the nations of the world as the fifth greatest trading country. Canada's position however is more difficult than that of any other nation, for the simple and obvious reason that we live side by side with a nation of 120,000,000 people, separated from them by only an imaginary line, a people w'ho arc carrying on the greatest industrial development known to the world of to-day, and which has riches to compare with those of any other country in the world. What happened? For months and months and months they declined to release their inventories by selling at home at low prices, and sought a market in this country at almost any price they could secure. Let me illustrate. I have in mind competition which came not from that country but from a country across the water. The other day there came into my office the proprietor of a pin factory which has been doing business in the city of Montreal for thirty-five years and to a large extent supplying the entire requirements of this country. He had with him a small wire ring upon which were 144 safety pins of graduated sizes ranging in length from

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
two inches to about a quarter of an inch. That ring of pins manufactured in Germany was actually being sold retail for five cents a ring.
Mr. McMILLAN (Huron).: Does not the Prime Minister think that the consumers of Canada would like to buy pins at that price?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I put this problem to the committee: Can you take the responsibility of saying that that small industry which had developed in thirty-five years to become one of a very substantial nature, giving employment to a substantial number of Canadians, should now be crushed and destroyed because of a world-wide depression which enabled a competitor to place 144 safety pins on the market for five cents.


James Layton Ralston: We want to be practical, not theoretical. How many men did that industry employ?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I understand upwards of fifty people.


James Layton Ralston: Oh, oh.	.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member laughs -fifty people are nothing to him. But I say to him that I am concerned about the welfare of one Canadian.


James Layton Ralston: Will my hon. friend
permit me?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not desire to be
further interrupted. Now, Mr. Chairman, I will mention another industry that employs very many more hands, amounting to hundreds. For instance, pianos are no longer sold to the extent they once were, because phonographs and radios to some extent have displaced those instruments; but they are still manufactured in this country in a small way compared with the extensive production that once prevailed in the industry. To-day because of the economic depression to which I have referred and the keen intent and purpose of other countries to sell their products within Canada, foreign manufacturers are offering grand pianos at $180. We cannot buy the wood to make them at that price. Are you prepared to destroy that industry or not? Yes or no. That is the question I had to answer, and you will find in the schedules the answer to it-I am not prepared to do it.
I will give another illustration. We have invested in this country millions of dollars in the radio industry, but that industry is small and insignificant compared with the 
industry in-shall we say-the great republic to the south. Their inventories were enormous. They had manufactured and manufactured and manufactured; and they looked and looked for a market. Then it became necessary to get any price they could to reduce their inventories. Is this country's radio industry to be destroyed for that purpose or not? That is the question. Take fruit. Last fall I stood on the road at a small junction point in British Columbia and saw seven carloads cf fruit that had just been brought in from Washington and Oregon. A few hours before I had been busy talking to those who have been trying to establish orchards in British Columbia and who are seeking only a fair return for their capital and labour. But they could not get a market for their fruit in competition with this imported product, because having obtained a high price for the requirements of their own people, the United States fruit growers had thrown their surplus upon the Canadian market to destroy Canadian fruit growers. Was that fruit growing industry a matter of importance to this country, or was it not? Was it important to develop in Canada a fruit growing industry, or was it not? Was it important that Canadians should or should not have fruit grown on their own land? That question had to be considered. It was considered. The answer was given in the seasonal tariff that wo passed last September.
Go down to the eastern townships and ask the people there with respect to the application of the same principle. Take butter- about which there has been so much talk. The price of butter has been reduced throughout the world, but we said when we were in opposition that butter was a commodity which should and could be produced by Canadians because it is a natural product of a country such as Canada. In days gone by Canadians were exporters of butter to the markets of the world. Then what happened? Because of short sighted action on the part of the government that industry was destroyed, and we became importers of the commodity to the extent of $9,000,000 from one country alone. Because we made that treaty with that result it followed of course that the inevitable would happen, and the Canadian people so influenced the mind of the government of the day that they gave notice terminating the treaty, with results that are well known.
Now, those are facts. I could give other illustrations. I could start with the lowest form of agriculture, the small truck garden on the outskirts of our cities, and trace the in-

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
dustry up through the larger garden to the orchard and describe the great industry that is involved in canning fruit and vegetables, and finally deal with the manufacturing industries of various kinds such as I have indicated. I aay that the government deliberately concluded that its duty was to pass such legislation as would prevent those who competed with us, whether they live far away or nearby, from destroying the national economic integrity of this country. By so doing we have added to the employment of our people; for every dollar's worth of goods brought in from abroad that might and could be made here, I repeat, means just that much less value in the way of work for a Canadian.


Mr. BRADETTE:: I wish the Prime
Minister could see the conditions in my own section.


Mr. SPENCE:: Go behind a wailing wall somewhere.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman is talking of the pulp and paper industry, over which this government could not have any control, this being an exporting industry. When we turn to our exports let us remember what they are and what they were. I took the trouble, just for my own satisfaction, to look at the figures. The agricultural and vegetable products of this country exported in
1929	represented a value of $255,307,675; in 1930, with decreased values, the exports of those products had fallen to $160,064,906-or a lessening of 37.2 per cent That was the net result of the depression to which I have referred and the reduction in value of our great grain products. The exports of animals and animal products decreased from $74,924,000 in 1929 to $52,779,000 in 1930, or 29 per cent. But during the first seven months of
1930	the exports of our wood and paper industry had decreased only to $150,000,000. The figure for the corresponding period in 1929 being $165,000,000. Then when the great overproduction of pulp and paper became apparent, through no fault of this government,-except with respect to one plant at least-because the provinces have sole control in regard to the matter, thousands of men who had looked to that industry for employment, small men who cut their pulp-wood and sold it to the mills-mills that no longer were occupied in producing paper; the cost of production, lowered though it was in every possible way, did not compensate in any sense for overproduction, and there was no demand either for pulp or paper or for
the pulpwood-those men found themselves without a livelihood, and so at once in Ontario and Quebec there was an increase^ of unemployment brought about by the creation of conditions over which the federal government, be it Liberal or Conservative, had no control. That is known to everyone. That is not a matter which touches upon our national life, except in so far as it touches upon our trade. I say to the right hon. gentleman that he must be aware of the fact that our exports-and I am coming to that phase of it in a moment,-are largely the natural products of this country, and in the very nature of things they comprise to a very considerable extent the raw materials of the industries of other countries. Look at the imports of paper into this country, made in many instances from our pulp.


Edward James Young: What kind of paper?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Paper made from Canadian pulp in American mills for the production of Canadian magazines and farm journals. Does the hon. member want to know their names ? I shall be glad to give them to him privately at any time.


James Layton Ralston: What are you going to
do about it?


Richard Bedford Bennett: What we have already
done; we have passed legislation by which that drawback has been removed, and Canadian magazines and papers are being printed on the products of Canadian mills.


James Layton Ralston: Do we produce the
magazines?


Richard Bedford Bennett: We produce the paper on which they are printed; that is what I am talking about. Does the hon. member forget what his Minister of Finance did with respect to a drawback on certain agricultural magazines?


James Layton Ralston: I know exactly what was done.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then my hon. friend
knows that the net result was to give business to American mills to provide paper for those magazines, and that has been done away with.


James Layton Ralston: Are those mills still buying Canadian paper?


Richard Bedford Bennett: They are doing so
wherever possible, and before I finish I will come to that point. The necessity for other

Ways and Means-C vs toms Tariff
countries to buy our raw materials ensures us a market. That is the position and will continue to be the position if we only observe the elementary rules with respect to the government of our own affairs.


Edward James Young: Can they not get it anywhere else?


Richard Bedford Bennett: In many instances they cannot. I wonder if the hon. member does not know that Providence has been very kind to this country. We have more wonderful resources than almost any other country in the world. There are some forms of minerals necessary for the production of high class steel that can be obtained in this and no other country. It is tme that other countries have small deposits not easy of access, but these things have not yet come to light nor are they known to the commercial world.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Richard Bedford Bennett: When the committee
rose I had about concluded the statement I was making. But I desire to answer one question that was raised, namely, with respect to export or external trade. I pointed out that our exports had consisted largely of natural products, partly or wholly fabricated, such as vegetables, animal products, wood pulp and paper and non-ferrous metals. The statistics of the country establish clearly that we sell the commodities we do because people must have them; and that is borne out by the fact that our sales of paper in the neighbouring republic are not curtailed except to such a normal extent, in the absorption of newsprint, as one would expect under the present depressed conditions. Its entry is free, and the total decrease in sales for the first seven months of 1929 as compared with the first seven months of 1930 was 8-9 per cent. The decrease in non-ferrous metals, which are produced in abundance in this country and exported in the condition I have mentioned, was only 6-6 per cent. This shows clearly that where the requirements of other countries are as I have indicated, we are still selling our commodities to them. And these commodities, in the main, consist largely of paper and pulp and non-ferrous metals. This is abundantly established by the evidence we have before us. It is also true that in some instances our lumber sales have been taken 
from us in other countries by the lumber of our competitors, and we have been forced out of those markets. That arises from the very circumstances to which I have alluded.
A\ith respect to our export trade, it is idle for the right hon. gentleman opposite or anyone else to suggest that any government in Canada is not desirous of increasing that trade. But it might be well always to remember that every dollar of imports into this country represents, as I have said so often, the export trade of some other country; and to the extent to which we limit the export trade of another country into Canada, if we can supply the commodities ourselves, we enhance our own position. My hon. friend from Weyburn is constantly reminding us that tariffs can do nothing for agriculture-


Edward James Young: Or anyone else.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am glad the hon. gentleman adds, "or anyone else." He is fair enough to make his statement universal in its application-that tariffs can be of no benefit to anyone at any time, ill any place or under any circumstances. The statement means, of course, that all the rest of the world is wrong and the hon. gentleman right, which I am sure must be gratifying to one possessed of such extensive knowledge.
And now may I make an observation with respect to the last statement of my right hon. friend opposite with reference to revenue tariffs. Henry George, in his book Protection and Free Trade, has something to say in this regard, and I could not help recalling it this afternoon If you are to have protection, he says, you cannot justify a revenue tariff under any circumstances; for if you believe in the principle you must apply it and not use it as excuse for raising a revenue. That, most economists are agreed, is but a subterfuge; it is nothing better than hypocrisy. Aou apply the principle of protection and then disclaim it, arguing that it results in revenue. As Mr. George points out, by extracts from others who hold similar views, that, is an unsound principle.
This can quite fairly be said with respect to agriculture: that while the wheat grower as such cannot reap benefits from tariffs, every small community in eastern Canada does, to the extent that industry may develop, creating a demand for the products of the farm.


Edward James Young: May.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Richard Bedford Bennett: 
Edward James Young: Do not forget'it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I shall not forget it, because it is the basis of the right of Canadians to live; it is the right they have. That right we shall protect. I might say, if I were so minded, in regard to the observations that were made this afternoon, that with respect to export trade, we considered the matter from the standpoint of another country. That in itself concedes the soundness of our position.. Go and ask any other country to give up part of its market to oblige the Dominion of Canada. Will it do so? Not one of them.


Edward James Young: Is anybody asking us to do it?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I oan say this: The only way in which that principle enunciated by the right hon. gentleman to-day can be carried out is just by doing that very thing. That is the difficulty in the world to-day. I have so often said that I am not tied to tariffs by any affection. Tariffs, I repeat, are merely the instruments that we use for our purposes, and as every other country is using them to the extent I indicated this afternoon, this .country cannot remain unprotected in a protected world. Everyone admits that. When I talk to my friends from the other side of the line, they at once admit the soundness of our position, namely, to care for Canada and protect it in the midlst of a protected world.
These schedules to which attention is now being directed we believe are prepared for the purpose of giving effect to the principles I have stated, and we have an assurance that prices will not rise by reason of their going into effect. We are confident, from our own experience and observation, that the competition which is created within our own borders will ensure us that measure of pricelowering which is essential for our development. Of that we feel certain. I cannot take time tonight, but I may do so before the session ends, to deal with some of the monstrously erroneous statements that have been made in connection with certain industries. In one instance it was indicated to the Canadian people that the loss by reason of prices which

it is said they had been compelled to pay on account of the tariff is greater than an entire year's revenue of the company affected. This is a small detail, but it is important to bear in mind how easy it is to dranv wrong conclusions from erroneous premises. I can only commend these schedules to the committee as an effort made by the government to advance the interests of the Canadian people as a whole, of agriculture, labour, the manufacturer, and every other interest within our borders.


Edward James Young: I wish to protest on this
occasion against the cold indifference with which the Prime Minister views any efforts on the part of hon. gentlemen on this side of the house to secure information. The very day his budget was brought down I placed on the qrder paper a resolution asking for the production of the briefs and representations made by the publishers in regard to tariff matters. Expecting that I might be refused that information, I at the same time wrote a letter to the publishers themselves, asking them if they would furnish me with copies of their briefs and if they had any objection to my using them in public. I received a reply from them stating that their representations had been given to the government; that they did not feel justified in giving them to me without consulting the government, but that they had no objection whatever to the government giving them to me or making them public. Nevertheless, although we wanted this information at this time in order to discuss these items intelligently, we have not got it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I got the hon. gentleman's note after he had mentioned the question the other day. To what brief does he refer? The gentleman whom he mentions did not file a brief; he filed a short statement in connection with item 184 in the tariff schedules, the magazine schedule. I intended to ask my hon. friend just to what he did refer. I certainly did not quite understand him.


Edward James Young: I have not seen all the
documents that have been filed. I understand they have filed certain documents asking for particular considerations, and I wanted to know what they were. The gentleman referred to in the letter did not feel justified in giving me any information in confidence, but he told me to apply to the Prime Minister and he would ask his principals if they had any objection to giving it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not know exactly
to what document the hon. member refers.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
If it is the one dealing with the magazine duties, the gentleman whose name he mentions in the letter is the one who saw me and gave me some memoranda with respect to the matter. If it is that-and I know of none other at the moment-there is no reason why the hon. gentleman may not peruse it as much as he likes. If the gentleman has a copy of it he can give it to my hon. friend. Is that what is meant?


Edward James Young: I have also the impression
they applied for certain things in regard to drawbacks; at least they were interested in drawbacks. I have not seen the documents, but I should like to get possession of them. I do not believe my right hon. friend is trying deliberately to keep us in the dark, but he has such a refined sense of honour in keeping things secret, I think he is overstraining it a little in not giving us information that would be really useful to us and that would not hurt anybody else if it were in our possession.
He told us this afternoon that when he came into power last fall unemployment was rampant in Canada. He did not say that it is better to-day, but he said that if we were in power, it would be still worse. I think he told the people he would end unemployment if he came into power.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And he will.


Edward James Young: I have under my hand the
bureau of statistics figures of employment for June of this year and every other year since 1921, and this is what I find for the manufacturing industries:
Month-	Index number
June, 1930	 113.6
June, 1931	 99.4
This year it is the lowest it has been for many years. The figures for all employment are as follows:
Month-	Index number
June, 1930	 116.5
June, 1931	 103.6
Again it is down in a month where normally one would expect employment to be at the peak. It is lower in June in the manufacturing industries, which are the industries of my right hon, friend's special consideration.
For May and June of this year the figures for the manufacturing industries are as follows:
Month-	Index number
May	 100.7
J une	 99.4
We find that employment in June is lower than in May. In other words, unemployment is becoming worse instead of better in
spite of the new tariff launched last fall by my right hon. friend, a tariff which he seems to think has saved the country.
He said a short time ago that by lessening the trade of other countries with Canada we could improve our own position. I cannot understand the mentality of a man who takes that view. I cannot conceive how anybody can think that by injuring his neighbour he can help himself. Trade is exchange for mutual benefit. If it did not pay us to buy the goods of foreign countries, we would not buy them.


Robert James Manion: Is not home trade good too?


Edward James Young: Yes, it is good, and if it did not pay us to buy home-made goods we would not buy them.


Robert James Manion: If two Canadians trade between themselves, then according to my hon. friend's theory, there are two profits for the two Canadians, but when a Canadian trades with an American there is only one profit. But apparently home trade does not matter to my hon. friend.


Edward James Young: My hon. friend has heard of the jack-knife policy, where you trade your knife from one hand to the other, and expect to grow rich by so doing.


Robert James Manion: The hon. gentleman said that trade profits both parties to it, and I agree.


Edward James Young: I say that we exchange goods for mutual benefit. When we buy goods from foreign countries it is because they have something which we want more than they do, and when we sell to foreign countries it is because they want our goods more than we do. We make an exchange and both parties benefit. My hon. friend asks why we should not exchange all our goods between ourselves. Why cannot we sell all our wheat to Canadians? Simply because they could not begin to buy it. That is why we have to buy goods from other countries if we wish to sell our goods to them, and when you shut foreign goods out of this country you are denying the whole of our exporters a market. How are we going to be paid for our wheat, our copper, our nickel, our pulpwood, our paper, if we do not accept foreign goods in exchange? The trouble in this country is that for the goods we export we cannot get much, and then when we buy goods from foreign countries the customs officer steps in and says that on the things that we are to receive in exchange for our wheat he will
3590	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
impose a duty of 25 or 35 or 40 or 50 per cent, as the case may be. When you shut goods out of this country you are simply saying to the exporters that they must take just that much less for their wheat, for their pulpwood, for their nickel, for their paper, and so on. How can anyone hope to benefit himself by adopting that dog-in-the-manger policy, by that beggar-my-neighbour policy, thinking he can benefit himself by hurting hi3 neighbour?
The right hon. the Prime Minister has admitted that this protective tariff could not be of much benefit to the wheat farmer, but, he said, in this budget he has given the farmer a compensating adjustment to the extent of five cents a bushel on his wheat. Up to when? While this adjustment is being made, while the home market is being developed sufficiently to take care of the farmers' products. And this adjustment is to last for one year! Does my right hon. friend really believe that by giving the farmers of the west five cents a bushel on their wheat for this year, we shall at the end of that period have developed our manufacturing industries in this country and increased our population sufficiently to absorb the entire wheat crop? Surely he cannot believe that. I pointed out on a former occasion that this five cents a bushel on wheat amounts to about eight per cent of the price of the farmers' wheat, but the exploitation that he is made to suffer because of this tariff amounts to about 30 per cent of his entire income. And we are offering him what? Five cents a bushel compensation for 30 per cent spoliation, and you call that a compensatory adjustment to the wheat farmer.
My right hon. friend mentioned a number of articles this afternoon to illustrate what he had done for the people of this country. In the first place he mentioned safety pins.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: What does a bachelor want with safety pins?


Edward James Young: Yes. My right hon. friend tells us that because somebody outside offered to sell safety pins in this country very cheaply he found it necessary to shut them out. I looked up the trade returns on pins, and I find that our import of pins last year amount to $128,000, on which a duty of $30,000 was paid. I could not find the domestic production, but looking up our exports I found that pins and needles were grouped together, and that we exported pins and needles to the amount of $502,000, and our imports amounted to $514,000. So our imports and exports substantially balanced. If we are

doing ourselves harm by buying pins from abroad, surely we are benefiting by selling pins abroad, and as I said, our imports and exports are about the same. But my right hon. Iriend is going to shut out this $128,000 worth of pins, and in doing so 'he is going to lose some $30,000 of revenue.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Edward James Young: That is right. He tells us that by so doing he is going to keep in employment some fifty men. He could pretty nearly pay them their wages out of the revenue he is losing. I wonder if my right hon. friend has any idea how many women in this country, with children around them, find even such a cheap thing as pins very scarce and hard to get. It is all right for hon. gentlemen to laugh, but I know. Go into almost any house where there are children and you will find how scarce pins are. In order to carry out 'his policy, my right hon. friend will actually steal the pins from the little babies in the cradle.
My right hon. friend also spoke of what his government had done to encourage the piano industry in this country. He told us that the development of the radio and the phonograph had nearly ruined the market for pianos, that there was not much demand for pianos now, and the result was that other countries were offering to sell pianos in Canada cheaply, and he proposed to increase the duty to keep them out. Imports of pianos last year amounted to $288,000, and our exports to $218,000, so there is not very much difference. Here again my right hon. friend proposes to sacrifice revenue to the amount of $86,000 in order to encourage the making of pianos in Canada. Why are there not as many pianos sold in this country as formerly? Radio and the phonograph may account for it in part, but not entirely. There are thousands and thousands of people in this country who would buy a piano to-morrow if they could. WThy do they not do so? Because the price of a piano is just beyond their reach. It is for no other reason on earth. If my right hon. friend wants to create a market in Canada for pianos, let him bring down legislation that will bring the price of pianos within the reach of the people. Let him introduce legislation reducing the price of pianos, and immediately he will bring new buyers into the market for pianos, thereby increasing production and giving more employment. But by increasing the duty on pianos he puts them out of the reach of just so many more people, and ruins the market that he is trying to create.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
My right hon. friend also spoke of book and magazine paper which he had shut out. I am speaking from memory, but I believe that the history of book paper coming into this country is this. It carried a certain rate of duty. Then some two or three years ago a rebate was granted to the Canadian publishers on book paper, printing ink, the machinery that they use, and generally on the articles that enter into their production. The result was that our Canadian publishers were able to effect a saving in the production of their magazines, which saving they put into improvements and betterments in the magazines. By improving their magazines they increased their sales to such an extent that they multiplied by three the amount of book paper which they required to use. in producing Canadian magazines. My right hon. friend told' us that our Canadian publishers must use Canadian paper. I understand that it actually costs the Canadian publisher 10 per cent more to print a magizine on Canadian-made paper than on American-made paper, because the Canadian-made paper is of inferior quality. So my right hon. friend is compelling the Canadian publishers not only to buy paper at a higher price, but also to use an inferior product which adds 10 per cent to the publishers' production costs.
My right hon. friend also spoke of certain metals which we have, and which no other country has, and he thinks we can force the rest of the world to buy them at our own price. Let us take nickel, for example, which possibly my right hon. friend had in mind at the time. We own So per cent of the world's nickel.


Mr. GORDON:: Ninety per cent.


Edward James Young: All right; we will say ninety per cent. We can more than supply the entire world demand for nickel. The development of the nickel industry in Canada has reached the point where it is necessary not only to supply the present market but to create a larger one. The. problem confronting nickel companies to-day-and I think hon. gentlemen opposite will agree-is how to find new uses for their product.


An hon. MEMBER:: How about a five cent piece?


Edward James Young: They have to find new uses- and in answer to my hon. friend I will say the five cent piece is to be given to the wheat farmer. If the policy of my right hon.- friend is carried out, the cost of producing nickel will be increased, the cost on the world's market will be increased and the use of that commodity will be thereby limited.


George Gordon: How does he do that, if he adopts the reverse policy?


Edward James Young: If the reverse policy is adopted nickel will come into use for different things; more buyers will come into our markets; there will be a greater demand for nickel; there will be more men employed in its production, its refining, its transportation, and thus many other industries will be assisted.


An hon. MEMBER:: Rot.


Edward James Young: It is not rot-these are actual facts. However sincere my right hon. friend may be, his policy is having the very reverse effect. The other night I tried to explain that the production of manufactured goods per capita is much greater measured in dollars and cents than the production of primary products per Capita. When manufactured goods are shut out to the extent my hon. Mend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) would sugest, namely $800,000,000 a year, you are shutting out goods and creating employment for 147,000 men, who will be required to produce those goods at home, but. you would be throwing out of employment twice that many men because those $800,000,000 worth of imports must be paid for by $800,000,000 worth of exports. Those exports would be of primary products the .production of which requires twice as many men as the production of manufactured lines. Therefore by increasing the prices in this country my hon. friend's policy is bound to restrict still further the buying power of the people, cause a further slackening up of business, and create more instead of less unemployment.


Mr. FRASER (Northumberland):: Will the Prime Minister assure this committee that he will alpply impartially to all branches of Canadian industry the policies he has so often emphatically announced to this assembly?


Richard Bedford Bennett: So far as it is possible to do so, he will.


Mr. EULER:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to submit a question to the Minister of Finance, and I hope he will answer it more fully than he answered a question I directed to him a few days ago. I am sure he must have known that his reply at that time did not constitute an answer at all.
He has repeatedly stated, and said again tonight, that he wants such a tariff as will give a fair opportunity and ensure equal competition to Canadians. When I spoke on the budget I said that I had no fault to find with that kind of tariff. On that occasion I stated
3592	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
that the Prime Minister had repeatedly expressed his desire to have such a tariff as would ensure that all commodities possible of production in Canada would be made in Canada. If I am misquoting him I should be pleased to be corrected, because I find a difficulty in reconciling those two principles. I should like to ask the Prime Minister to make an explanation, because if he enacts such a tariff as will provide fair competition and give an equal opportunity to Canadians, he does not imply exclusion. If there is competition at all, goods must be coming into the country; if it were not so there could be no competition whatsoever. To my mind such a condition does not agree with his other principle, namely the imposition of a tariff which will shut out such goods as can be produced in Canada. I am honestly asking for information on this point and I would appreciate an attempt on the part of the Prime Minister to reconcile those statements and make his position clear.


Richard Bedford Bennett: May I remind my hon.
friend (Mr. Euler) that I said all the Canadian required was an equal opportunity and fair competition, and I added, as has been my habit, that no Canadian asks more, if he is certain that he will at least have a market for his product.


William Daum Euler: Does my right hon. friend
think that that necessarily follows?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes. Give any Canadian an equal chance with his competitor; give him fair competition, as distinguished from unfair, and he will get the business.


William Daum Euler: All the business?


Richard Bedford Bennett: He may not get it all,
but he will get all he wants. The reasons are quite obvious. I have said nothing about prohibitions, but did say I was anxious that the Canadian should manufacture everything he required if it could be produced in this country under conditions of fair competition and equal opportunity. To do more than that might mean on the one hand exploitation and on the other hand putting a premium on inefficiency. If you gave him less, it would be unfair; if you gave him more, you would be placing a premium on inefficiency. Unfairness and destruction would result in the first case and exploitation in the latter.


William Daum Euler: I thank my right hon. friend for the explanation he has given, but I think he will find, as most business men admit, that where there is equal opportunity and fair competition both competitors will sell some

goods. I am not objecting to that, but I think the inference thrown out by the Prime Minister that if the Canadian ha3 an equal opportunity he will get all the business is perhaps a little more complimentary to Canadians than I -would care to oe,-and at that I have a veiy good opinion of the Canadian people.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: Mr. Chairman, as no item has been called this would appear to be a sort of supplementary budget debate. I am not going to prolong it, but I lliink it has some value inasmuch as at least it gives us an opportunity of understanding each other's viewpoints. We look upon the protection policy of our hon. friends opposite- especially their efforts of last fall-as something in the nature of a disease which will have to run its course before any remedy can be effected. My hon. friends opposite look upon low tariff men or no tariff men as those afflicted with another sort of disease. If at least we can reach the point where we respect, each other's viewpoints the present discussion will not have been without some purpose.
May I point out to the Prime Minister that it is one thing to put up a tariff such as that of last fall, especially on farm implements, and it is quite another thing to make the farmers buy those implements, to buy implements they do not want to buy, or to use implements which they find are not best adapted for their particular purposes. Purely the Prime Minister remembers the reciprocity struggle and the bitterly disappointing effect it had on the farmers in the west. Although the reciprocity pact provided for a lowering of tariffs, western farmers were so disappointed because of losing the American market for their farm produce that many of them deliberately bought more farm machinery from the United States than they had ever done before. That may have been shortsighted, it may have been in some cases foolish, but it was very natural.
I do not think however that the experience at the time of the reciprocity pact will be repeated on this occasion. I have two reasons for making that statement. Although the tariff has gone up tremendously and we do not know where it will end, I do not think that the tendency to buy more farm machinery from the United States will grow. In the first place just now, the farmers have nothing to buy with; their purchasing power is lower than I have ever known it to be. They are tinkering up their old harness, patching up their machinery and making it operate as long as they can. If the tendency to which I referred does not revive-that is the buying
JUL\' 9, 1931
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
of more American farm machinery, no thanks are due to this government because they have done everything in their power to encourage it. But it will not be done for another reason. During the eight or nine years that the King government was in power we believe our gradual reduction of duties all along the line-increasing the British preference and decreasing the duties on farm equipment and many other commodities-had the effect of promoting a better feeling 'between the west and the east, particularly between our western farmers and our eastern manufacturers. I wonder if anybody will deny that? That good feeling still largely prevails unless my hon. friends opposite have already driven it away entirely by their tariff policy. But, as I said before, no thanks to this government. They are inviting the west almost to do it, and when we think of the other things that the government have done,, especially to the wheat pool, it will be surprising if there is not resentment shown in that or some other way-possibly by the ballot. I suggest to my hon. friends opposite their oareful consideration of what I have stated before they go too far with their high tariff policy-they have gone pretty far already.
Since the Prime Minister has referred to butter, let me also refer to it. Why did he double the duty on butter that the farmers themselves asked for? The national dairy council asked for a duty of only four cents a pound when they appeared before the tariff board, and they got it. On more than one occasion in my presence they were advised by the late hon. Mr. Robb to take their case before the board. They dlid not do so at the time because they felt they had not sufficient evidence to justify an application; later on they presented their case fior a four cent tariff, and, as I have said, their request was conceded at once by the tariff board. That was all the protection they wanted, and yet my right hon. friend went twice as high- he placed the duty at eight cents. I wonder if that is what he did with the manufacturers? When our administration w'ent out of office I did not know any manufacturer who wanted a higher tariff. I was not around the year before, and they may have come bo the government for higher protection, but I do not think they did. If the present government dealt with the manufacturers as they did with the dairymen, then they must have given them twice as much as they wanted. That is what, we object to. We should like to know why the government did it. Perhaps the Prime Minister will tell us now why he gave the dairymen twice as much duty on butter as they asked for. The dairymen actually
objected to that duty of eight cents per pound. If the right hon. gentleman carries out that ,policy all along the line in connection with other commodities, he might tell us so. We have been criticized for adopting a tariff for a revenue, because such a tariff embodies a certain amount of protection.


Mr. HACKETT:: Will the hon. gentleman permit a question?


William Richard Motherwell: When asked in a nice way like that, certainly.


John Thomas Hackett: What duty did the
Dunning budget impose on butter?


William Richard Motherwell: Four cents.


John Thomas Hackett: Against the United States?


William Richard Motherwell: Whatever the
countervailing duty was.


John Thomas Hackett: It was twelve cents.


William Richard Motherwell: I think so, but it did not matter very much-there was no butter coming from there anyway. For the past forty years our main source of butter supplies when we are short has been the Antipodes. When other Conservative administrations have been in power on more than one occasion our butter imports rose as high as 7,000,000 pounds a year, but this excited no comment, until recently. My hon. friends opposite do not seem to know yet the difference between a protective tariff and a revenue tariff. A protective tariff is primarily for protection, the revenue factor being so incidental that it often almost disappears. That is why this government is short of cash and will continue so as long as it persists in its policy of higher and still higher protection. On the other hand, a tariff for revenue is primarily for revenue, with such protection as incidentally goes with it. That is all I desire to say. If my hon. friend from Stanstead (Mr. Hackett) wishes to ask another question I shall be glad to answer it if I can.
1. Resolved. That it is expedient to amend the Customs Tariff, being chapter forty-four of the revised statutes of Canada, as amended by chapter thirteen of the acts of 1930 (first session), and chapter three of the acts of 1930 (second session), by repealing sections two to eighteen, inclusive, thereof and by substituting tile following therefor:
(2)	In this act, and in any other act relating to the customs, unless the context otherwise requires,
(a)	"free" in any one of the said tariff columns means that the goods opposite which the word appears, and to which the tariff in the said column applies, may be imported and taken out of the warehouse for consumption in Canada, without duty;
(b)	"gallon" means an imperial gallon;
3594	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
(c)	"hoop, band and strip" when applied to
iron or steel mean flat forms not more than fourteen inches in width and less than -1875 inch in thickness;	.
(d)	"in diameter" when applied to pipe and tubes means the actual inside diameter;
(e)	"iron" includes "steel";
(f)	"M ft." represents and has the meaning
of the words "one thousand feet board measure" ;	.
(g)	"n.o.p." represents and has the meaning of the words "not otherwise provided for";
(h)	"p.c." in any one of the tariff columns in schedule A to this act represents and has the meaning of the words "per centum", ad valorem;
(i)	"plate" when applied to iron or steel means a rectangle, circle or sketch as cut in a plate mill, more than fourteen inches in width and -1875 inch or more in thickness, with variations from such thickness not exceeding -015 inch;
(j)	"proof," "proof spirit" or "proof spirits," when applied to wines or spirits of any kind, means spirits of a strength equal to that of pure ethyl alcohol compounded with distilled water in such proportions that the resultant mixture shall at a temperature of sixty-two degrees Fahrenheit have a specific gravity of 0-9187 as compared with that of distilled water at the same temperature;
(k)	"rolled iron" or "rolled steel" means iron or steel hot rolled only;
(l)	"sheet" when applied to iron or steel means a rectangle more than fourteen inches in width and less than a plate in thickness;
(m)	"ton" means two thousand pounds avoirdupois.
Paragraph agreed to on division.
2.	The expressions mentioned in section two of the Customs Act. whenever they occur herein o-r in any act relating to the customs, unless the context otherwise requires, have the meaning assigned to them respectively by the said section two; and any power conferred upon the governor in council by the Customs Act to transfer dutiable goods to tile list of goods which may be imported free of duty or to reduce the rates of duty on dutiable goods is not hereby abrogated or impaired.
Paragraph agreed to on division.
3.	Subject to the provisions of this act and of the Customs Act, there shall be levied, collected and paid upon all goods enumerated, o-r referred to as not enumerated, in schedule A to this act, when such goods are imported into Canada or taken out of warehouse for consumption therein, the several rates of duties of customs, if any, set opposite to each item respectively or charged on goods as not enumerated, in the column of the tariff applicable to the goods, subject to the following conditions, viz:
(a)	The rates of customs duties, if any, set forth in column (1), "British preferential tariff," shall apply to goods the produce or manufacture of the following British countries when conveyed without transhipment from a port of any British country enjoying the benefits of the British preferential tariff into a sea, lake or river port of Canada:
(i)	The United Kingdom,
(ii)	The British colony of Bermuda,
[Mr. Motherwell.
(iii)	The British colonies commonly called
the British West Indies, including the following:
The Bahamas,
Jamaica,
Turks and Caicos Islands,
The Leeward Islands (Antigua, St. Christopher-Nevis, Dominica, Montserrat and the Virgin Islands),
The Windward Islands (Grenada, St. Vincent and St. Lucia), Barbados,
Trinidad and Tobago,
(iv)	British Guiana,
(v)	British India,
(vi)	Ceylon,
(vii)	Straits Settlements,
(viii)	New Zealand,
(ix)	Union of South Africa,	.(x)	Southern Rhodesia,	.(xi)	any other British colony or possession admitted to the Irene fits of the British preferential tariff in Canada, in the manner hereinafter provided;
Provided, however, that goods entitled to the benefit of the British preferential tariff shall be accorded such benefits when such goods are shipped on a through bill of lading consigned to a consignee in a specified port in Canada when such goods are transferred at a port in a British possession, and conveyed without further transhipment into a sea, lake or river port of Canada;
(b)	The rates of customs duties, if^ any, set forth in column (2), "intermediate tariff," shall apply to goods the produce or manufacture of any British or foreign country to which the benefits of such intermediate tariff shall have been extended in the manner hereinafter provided, when imported direct from such foreign country or from a British country; ^
(c)	The rates of customs duties, if any, set forth in column (3). "general tariff," shall apply to all goods not entitled t-o admission under the intermediate tariff or under the British preferential tariff;
(d)	Proof of origin, as prescribed by the minister shall he furnished with the bill of entry at the custom-house for goods admitted to entry under any of the tariffs in schedule A: and the decision of the minister shall be final as to the tariff or surtax applicable in any case to imported goods by reason of their origin;
(e)	Goods for which entry is claimed under the intermediate tariff must be bona fide the produce or manufacture of a country which has been admitted to the benefits of the intermediate tariff;
(f)	Every manufactured article to be admitted under the British preferential tariff must he bona fide the manufacture of a British country entitled to the benefits of the British preferential tariff, and a substantial portion of the value of the manufactured article must have been produced by labour in one or more of such countries.
(2)	The governor in council may make such regulations as are deemed necessary for carrying out the provisions of the several tariffs mentioned in this section.


James Layton Ralston: We will have an opportunity of discussing the items later?

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, these are the administrative clauses. In the main they are just as they were before; for instance, in No. 3 we have in subsection (a) the words, "sea, lake cfr river port of Canada," instead of as formerly "sea or river port." Each item will have to be considered.


Edward James Young: Referring to clause 1 (b)-


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Bury):: That has been carried.


Edward James Young: No matter; we did not have our copies before us. Clause 1 (b) reads:
"gallon" means an imperial gallon;
In a bulletin issued by the customs department it is said that with respect to gasoline "gallons" shall mean wine gallons. Why is a gallon an imperial gallon except when we import gasoline? If we went to a filling station and found the man filling up our tank with wine gallons of gasoline we would have him arrested. Yet when paying duty on gasoline we have to pay it on the wine gallon.	,


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the hon. gentleman is in error. The same standard sized receptacle is used in the main for the handling of gasoline. My memory is that forty-two wine gallons are equivalent to thirty-five imperial gallons, but I am speaking subject to correction.


James Layton Ralston: One-sixth more, roughly.


Richard Bedford Bennett: At any rate the imperial gallon is defined by our standards and is fixed as the measurement. In order that there may be no misapprehension we insert in this statute that "gallon" means an imperial gallon.


Edward James Young: Why does the customs department issue a bulletin saying that when importing gasoline for duty purposes the gallon shall be the wine gallon?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think my hon. friend is wrong in respect to that. I apprehend he has in mind the question of the fixing of price for duty purposes where the gallon of the country of origin is the wine gallon; that is, the gallon measurement in the United States is the wine gallon, and as it is referring to that country's production the wine gallon may be used in that regard. I will ask the commissioner.


Edward James Young: And does not that have the effect of still further increasing the duty?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am informed that the imperial gallon is the standard for duty purposes.
Paragraph agreed to on division.
4.	The governor in council may, by order in council,
(a)	from time to time, extend the benefit of the British preferential tariff to any British country not named in paragraph (a) of section three, and from and after the publication of such order in council in the Canada Gazette the British preferential tariff shall apply to goods the produce or manufacture of such British country, subject to the provisions of this act;
(b)	from time to time, withdraw the benefit of the British preferential tariff from any British country, other than the United Kingdom, which has received the said benefit, and from and after the publication of such order in the Canada Gazette, the general tariff or the intermediate tariff, as mentioned in the said order, shall apply to goods the produce or manufacture of such British country, subject to the provisions of this act;
(c)	from time to time, extend the benefit
of the British preferential tariff to any territory administered under a mandate of the League of Nations by any British country, to which British country the benefit of the British preferential tariff has been extended; and from and after the publication of such order in council in the Canada Gazette the British preferential tariff shall apply to goods the produce or manufacture of such territory, subject to the provisions of this act;	-
(d)	from time to time, withdraw the benefit of the British preferential tariff from any territory administered under a mandate of the League of Nations which has received said benefit: and from and after the publication of such order in the Canada Gazette, the general tariff or the intermediate tariff, as mentioned in the said order, shall apply to goods the produce or manufacture of such territory subject to the provisions of this act;
(e)	from time to time, extend to any British country the benefit of rates of customs duties more favourable than those of the British preferential tariff, and from and after the publication of such order in the Canada Gazette, the rates of duties so ordered shall apply to goods the produce or manufacture of such British country, subject to the provisions of this act;
(f)	from time to time, withdraw from any British country to which they have been extended rates of customs duties more favourable than those of the British preferential tariff, and from and after the publication of such order in the Canada Gazette, the British preferential tariff or the intermediate tariff, as directed in the said order, shall apply to goods the produce or manufacture of such British country, subject to the provisions of this act;
(g)	from time to time, extend the benefit of the intermediate tariff, in whole or in part, to any British or foreign country the produce or manufactures of which have previously been subject to the rates of customs duties set forth in the general tariff, and from and after the publication of such order in the Canada Gazette, the rates of duty set forth in the intermediate tariff, so far as they are men-


I1EVISED EDITION COMMONS
[Stage Direction]
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
tioned in tke said order, shall apply to goods the produce or manufacture of such British or foreign country, when imported direct from such foreign country or from a British country, subject to the provisions of this act;
(h)	from time to time, withdraw the benefit of the intermediate tariff from any country to which it has been extended, and from and after the publication of such order in the Canada Gazette the rates of customs duties set forth in the general tariff shall apply to goods the produce or manufacture of such country, subject to the provisions of this act.
Paragraph agreed to on division.
5.	The importer of goods entitled to the benefits of the British preferential tariff shall be entitled to a discount of ten per centum on the amount of duty computed under such tariff, when such goods are conveyed without transhipment from a port of a country enjoying the benefits of the British preferential tariff inta a sea, lake or river port of Canada.
(2)	Goods entitled to the benefits of the British preferential tariff shall be entitled to the discount authorized by this section, when shipped on a through bill of lading consigned to a consignee in a specified port in Canada, when such goods are transferred at a port in a British possession and conveyed without further transhipment into a sea, lake or river port of Canada.
(3)	The discount mentioned in this section shall not apply to duties on any of the following articles, viz., wines, malt liquors, spirits, spirituous liquors, liquid medicines and articles containing alcohol; sugar, tobacco, cigars and cigarettes.
(4)	The said discount shall not apply in the case in which the duty does not exceed fifteen per centum ad valorem, or, in the case of a specific duty or a specific and ad valorem duty combined in which the computed rate does not exceed fifteen per centum ad valorem, or to goods admitted into Canada which have the benefit of reductions provided for in the Canada-West Indies Trade Agreement, 1926. *
Paragraph agreed to on division.
6.	In the case of articles exported to Canada of a class or bind made or produced in Canada, if the export or actual selling price to an importer in Canada is less than the fair market value of the same article when sold for home consumption in the usual and ordinary course in the country wdience exported to Canada at the time of its exportation to Canada, or is less than the fair market value or value for duty thereof as determined under the provisions of section thirty-six of the Customs Act, or is less than the fair market value thereof as fixed by the governor in council under the provisions of section thirty-seven of the Customs Act. or is less than the value for duty thereof as determined by the minister under the provisions of paragraphs (a) and (e) of section forty-one of the Customs Act. or is less than the fair market value thereof as fixed by the minister under the provisions of section forty-three of the Customs Act, there shall, in addition to the duties otherwise established, be levied, collected and paid on such article, on its importation into Canada, a special dumping duty, equal to the difference betwreen the said selling price of the article for export and the said fair market value thereof or value for duty thereof; and

such special or dumping duty shall be levied, collected and paid on such article although it is not otherwise dutiable.
Provided that the said special duty shall not exceed fifty per cent ad valorem in any case, and the following goods shall be exempt from such special'duty, viz:
Goods of a class subject to duty under the Excise Act.
Provided, notwithstanding, that on importations from Australia under the Australian Trade Agreement Act, 1925, the said special duty shall not exceed fifteen per cent ad valorem in any ease.
Notwithstanding anything in this Aot contained the levying and collection heretofore of special or dumping duty in cases where the fair market value of goods was determined by the minister, acting or purporting to act under the provisions of section forty-seven A of the Customs Aot, as enacted by section three of chapter eighteen of the statutes of 1922 (section forty-three of the Customs Act, R.S., 1927), is hereby ratified and confirmed.
(2)	Excise duties or excise taxes shall be disregarded in estimating the market value of goods for the purposes of special duty wdien the goods are entitled to entry under the British preferential tariff, intermediate tariff, or any tariff more favourable than the general tariff.
(3)	Customs duties of the United Kingdom shall be disregarded in estimating the market value of wines for the purposes of special duty when the same are entitled to entry under the intermediate tariff or any tariff more favourable than the general tariff and are bottled in bond in the United Kingdom and imported direct therefrom.
(4)	"Export price" or "selling price" in this section shall be held to mean and include the exporter's price for the goods, exclusive of all charges thereon after their shipment from the place wdience exported directly to Canada.
(5)	If at any time it appears to the satisfaction of the minister that the payment of the special duty by this section provided for is being evaded by the shipment of goods on consignment without side prior to such shipment, the minister may in any case or class of oases authorize such action as is deemed necessary to collect on such goods or any of them the same special duty as if the goods had been sold to an importer in Canada prior to their shipment to Canada.
(G) If at any time it appears to the satisfaction of the minister that any person owning or controlling or interested in a business in Canada and also in any other country, or any person carrying on a business in any other country and owning or controlling, or interested in a business operating in Canada, and by reason thereof is enabled to import goods for further manufacture or assembling or for resale, and while complying with the legal requirements on importation disposes of such imported goods, whether in the form as imported or as further processed, assembled or manufactured, at prices below the duty paid value thereof as entered at customs plus or including all charges upon the goods after shipment from the place whence exported directly to Canada, including sales, distribution and advertising costs, and plus, if any, the cost of processing, assembling or further manufacturing in Canada, the minister may declare that goods of such class or kind wrere and are on importation subject to an additional

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
special or dumping duty not exceeding fifty per cent and authorize such action as is deemed necessary for the collection thereof.
(7)	If the full amount of any special duty of customs as herein provided has not been paid on goods imported, the customs entry thereof shall be amended and the deficiency paid upon the demand of the collector.
(8)	The minister may make such regulations as are deemed necessary for carrying out the provisions of this section and for its enforcement.
James Layton Ralston: Is there any change in
this?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, the one subsection
has been slightly changed, though perhaps it has not been changed from what was the practice under the regulation. The duty paid value is now defined as the cost plus or including all charges upon the goods after shipment from the place whence exported directly to Canada, including sales, distribution and advertising costs. In practice I believe that rule has been followed, and it is now embodied in the statute itself.
Paragraph agreed to on division.
7.	Goods imported into Canada the product or manufacture of any foreign country which treats imports from Canada les favourably than those from other countries, may be made subject by order of the governor in council in the case of goods already dutiable to a surtax over and above the duties specified in schedule A to this act, and in the case of goods not dutiable to a rate of duty, not exceeding, in either case, thirty-three and one-third per centum ad valorem.
(2)	Goods the product or manufacture of any foreign country imported into Canada in vessels admitted to registration under the laws of such foreign country may, if such foreign country imposes higher duties of customs upon goods imported into such country in vessels registered in Canada than upon the like goods when imported in vessels of such country, be made subject by order of the governor in council in the case of goods already dutiable to a surtax over and above the duties specified in schedule A to this act, and in the case of goods not dutiable to a rate of duty, not exceeding, in either ease, thirty-three and one-third per centum ad valorem.
(3)	Within the limitations in this section hereinbefore prescribed any such goods may by such order in council be made subject to a surtax or rate, as the case may be, differing from the surtax or rate to which another class of goods may be thereby, or by any other such order, made subject.
(4)	The governor in council may make regulations for carrying out the purposes of this section and may by order in council suspend the surtax or rate in whole or in part from application to the goods of such foreign country or any class of such goods.
15) The decision of the governor in council shall be final on any question which may arise regarding the application of a surtax or rate imposed pursuant to this, section.
Paragraph agreed to on division.
22110-229j
8.	Notwithstanding anything in this act, fish and other products of the fisheries of Newfoundland may be imported into Canada free of customs duty until otherwise determined by the governor in council, by order published in the Canada Gazette.
Paragraph agreed to on division.
9.	Fish caught by fishermen in vessels registered in Canada or owned by any person domiciled in Canada, and the products thereof carried from the fisheries in such vessels, shall be admitted into Canada free of duty. The minister may make such regulations, if any, as are demed necessary for carrying out the provisions of this section.
Paragraph agreed to on division.
10.	Notwithstanding anything in this act, goods other than tobacco, cigars, cigarettes, spirituous or alcoholic liquors and articles specified in schedule A of the West Indies Trade Agreement Act, the produce or manufacture of British Honduras, Bermuda, the Bahamas, Jamaica, Turks and Caicos islands, the Leeward islands (Antigua, St. Christopher-Nevis, Dominica, Montserrat and the Virgin islands), the Windward islands (Grenada, St. Vincent and St. Lucia), Barbados, Trinidad and Tobago, and British Guiana, when imported direct therefrom shall not be subject at any time to more than fifty per centum of the duties imposed on similar goods as set forth in the general tariff under regulations by the minister.
Paragraph agreed to on division.
11.	The governor in council may by order in council make such reductions of duties on goods imported into Canada from any other country or countries as may be deemed reasonable by way of compensation for reductions on Canadian products granted by any such country or . countries.
Paragraph agreed to on division.
12.	On the materials set forth in schedule B to this act, when used for consumption in Canada for the purpose specified in that schedule, there may be paid, out of the consolidated revenue fund, the several rates of draw-back of customs duties set opposite to each item respectively in that schedule, under regulations by the governor in council.
Paragraph agreed to on division.
12 (2) If pig iron imported into Canada mixed with pig iron made in Canada has entered into the manufacture of mowing machines, reapers, harvesters, binders and attachments for binders, the drawback payable in pursuance of this section, under regulations by the governor in council, may be computed on the total quantity of pig iron, including pig iron made as aforesaid entering into such goods: provided, however, that the total drawback payable shall not exceed ninety-nine per cent of the duty paid on all the pig iron imported and used by the manufacturer of such goods in manufacturing such goods and other goods.
Paragraph agreed to on division.
13.	The importation into Canada of any goods enumerated, described or referred to in schedule C to this act is prohibited; and any such goods

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
imported shall thereby become forfeited to the crown and shall be destroyed or otherwise dealt with as the minister directs; and any person importing any such prohibited goods, or causing or permitting them to be imported, shall for each offence incur a penalty not excedeing two hundred dollars.
Paragraph agreed to on division.
14.	The governor in council may, from time to time, prohibit the importation into Canada of any goods originating in and exported directly or indirectly from any country not a contracting party to the treaty of Versailles, executed at Paris, France, on the 28th day of June, 1910, and any order of the governor in council prohibiting the importation into Canada of any goods from any such cou'ntry shall be published in the next following issue of the Canada Gazette. Any goods imported in violation of the terms of this section shall be forfeited to the crown and shall be dealt with as the minister directs.
Mr. BENNETT; The language of this section is somewhat more ample than it was previously.
Paragraph agreed to on division.
15.	Whenever the governor in council deems it to be in the public interest to inquire into any conspiracy, combination, agreement or arrangement alleged to exist among manufacturers or dealers in any article of commerce to unduly promote the advantage of the manufacturers or dealei's in such article at the expense of the consumers, the governor in council may commission or empower any judge of the supreme court, or of the Exchequer Court of Canada, or of any superior court or county court in Canada, to hold an inquiry in a summary way and report to the governor in council whether such conspiracy, combination, agreement or arrangement exists.
(2)	The judge may compel the attendance * f witnesses and examine them under oath and require the production of books and papers, and shall have such other necessary powers as are conferred upon him by the governor in council for the purpose of such inquiry.
(3)	If the judge reports that such conspiracy, combination, agreement or arrangement exists in respect of such article, the governor in council may admit the article free of duty, or so reduce the duty thereon as to give to the public the benefit of reasonable competition in the article, if it appears to the governor in council that such disadvantage to the consumer is facilitated by the duties of customs imposed on a like article.
Paragraph agreed to on division.
1G. The governor in council may from time to time, as he deems it expedient, order that goods of any description or class specified in such order, imported into Canada, shall be marked, stamped, branded or labelled in legible English or French words, in a conspicuous place that shall not be covered or obscured by any subsequent attachments or arrangements, so as to indicate the country of origin; and said marking, stamping, branding or labelling shall be as nearly indelible and permanent as the nature of the goods will permit.
(2) All orders made by the governor in council under this section shall have effect from and
(Mr. Bennett.]
after the day on which the same are published in the Canada Gazette, or from and after such later day as is appointed for the purpose of such orders, and during such time as is therein expressed, or if no time is expressed for that purpose, then until the same are revoked or altered.
(3)	All such goods imported into Canada after the date of the coming into force of any such order of the governor in council which do not comply with the requirements of such order, shall be subject to an additional duty of ten per centum ad valorem to be levied on the value for duty purposes, and in addition such goods shall not be released from customs possession until they have been so marked, stamped, branded or labelled under customs supervision at the expense of the importer.
(4)	If any person shall violate any of the provisions so established relating to the marking, stamping, branding or labelling of any such imported goods, or shall deface, destroy, remove, alter or obliterate any such marks, stamps, brands or labels, with intent to conceal the information given by or contained in such marks, stamps, brands or labels, he shall be liable on summary, conviction to a penalty not exceeding one thousand dollars, or to imprisonment not exceeding one year, or to both fine and imprisonment.
(5)	The minister may make such regulations as are deemed necessary for carrying out the provisions of this section and for the enforcement thereof.
Paragraph agreed to on division.
17. In the event of producers of goods taking advantage of any duty imposed under this act to increase the price of such goods to the consumer, or using any such duty to maintain prices at levels deemed by the governor in council to be higher than should prevail, having regard to general economic conditions in the country, the governor in council, may reduce or remove such duty.
(2) In the event of any one such producer violating the provisions of this section, the governor in council may impose upon all the products of such producer, or any of them, an excise duty equivalent to the amount of customs duty which would be paid by such goods if the same were imported into Canada under the provisions of the genei-al tariff, and the same shall be collectible as a tax, and the provisions of the Income War Tax Act as to the collection of taxes shall be applicable hereto.
Provided, that neither subsection of this section shall apply to agricultural products.
2. Resolved. That schedule A to the customs tariff, being chapter forty-four of the revised statutes of Canada, 1927, as amended by chapter seventeen of the acts of 1930 (first session) and chapter three of the acts of 1930 (second session), be further amended by striking thereout tariff items 2, G. 7. 8, 10, 15, 1G, 17, 20a, 28a. 29a. 35, 39, 48, 55, 63. 67, 69, 71, /la, 79 72a 72b. 73, 74, 75, 76. 89, 90, 99a, 99c, 99d 101 105d. 106, 120, 139, 168, 184. 192, 105' 199b 207, 210. 210b. 230. 238a, 265, 282, 296b, 296c. 296d. 305, 306. 306a. 306b. 307, 308, 318. 326b, 327a. 348. 348b. 348c, 356, 366, 368', 380, 386 (f). 386 (g). 386(m). 386 (n), 386 (o), 402a, 403b. 409e, 409q, 412, 422a, 427a, 438a. 438c. 438d, 440c, 440j, 445a, 445e. 446a, 451a, 451d. 461. 476b, 479, 506a. 507. 507a, 511, 516, 519, 521a, 536, 550d, 5.60a, 564, 569c,

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
578, 586, 588, 597, 604, 605, 605a, 606, 607, 608, 609, 613, 624, 651, 651a, 652, 653, 655, 665a, 670, 688a, 711, 796, 798, the several enumerations of goods, respectively, and the several rates of duties of customs, it any, set opposite thereto, and by inserting the following items, enumerations and rates of duty in said schedule A:


Peter Heenan: I should like to move an
amendment, adding the following subsection to section 17:
The governor in council may direct from time to time that any industry, the products of which receive protection under this act, shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the governor in council that freedom of association for employees for all lawful purposes is permitted in the operation of such industry, and that the hours of labour and rates of wages are observed consistent with the provisions of the labour part of the treaty of Versailles, concluded at Paris, France, on June 28, 1919.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I hardly think that would be in order on this section.


Peter Heenan: That is the amendment 1
intend to move. I might say that when the question was brought up at the regular session of 1930 the present Prime Minister suggested an amendment in similar terms, and after a good deal of discussion the then Prime Minister stated that he was willing to deal with the whole tariff measure rather than with any single industry, so it was left at that. The then leader of the opposition, the present Prime Minister, acquiesced in that decision. Again at the special session of 1930 I had the honour of proposing this same amendment. During t'he discussion the Prime Minister accepted the amendment at one stage


Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps it would assist
the hon. gentleman if I were to say that we will let section 17 stand, because in any event it involves the numbering of the sections that are dealt with. While I think the hon. member is not strictly in order in proposing his amendment to this section, he might proceed if he wishes to do so, though it will be observed that in subsection 2 the various items dealt with are mentioned, and we will leave -that in the event of some of them being slightly changed.


Mr. SULLIVAN:: I did not exactly understand what the hon. gentleman was proposing. Had it something to do with the unions?


Peter Heenan: Did I understand the
Prime Minister to say we might proceed with this discussion now? I will not detain the committee at any great length. In 1930, during the special session, I had the honour of proposing practically the same amendment,
and the Prime Minister stated that he saw no reason why it should not be accepted after some changes were made in the phraseology A little later in the discussion the Prime Minister thought it would be reasonable if we left this matter over until this session, when we would be dealing with the whole tariff. This is the first opportunity we have had since that time, and consequently I offer this as a suggestion to the government,.
I do hope the Prime Minister will take this opportunity of seeing to it that these industries which are protected by the people of Canada will be forced to treat their employees properly. I realize that there are different scales of wages in different parts of the country, and that different hours of labour are maintained in different industries and different localities, but the Prime Minister says it is wrong in many ways to have unfair competition from other parts of the world. It is equally unfair that industries in certain parts of this country =hould have an advantage over industries in other parts, through a different in the treatment accorded to the empllo3rees. I have in mind at the moment the province of British Columbia, where they have a minimum rate of wages for workmen in all industries and where they have the eight horn- day. Yet we have industries in other parts of the country that will not pay a decent wage and that are *working their employees long hours. It is just as bad for an industry in one part of the country to treat its employees unjustly as it is for one country to treat its citizens unjustly.
In addition, as has been stated, we are a party to the treaty of Versailles, to which we have affixed our signature. One of the provisions of the treaty of Versailles, with the conventions arising out of it, was that we should adopt an eight -hour day. I had thought until last session that this was purely a provincial responsibility; I had never dreamed of associating it with tariff measures. But the present Prime Minister and some of his colleagues showed how it could be carried into effect by making it obligatory on the part of those industries that are receiving protection from federal legislation to apply the principle in their operations. If I recall rightly, the Prime Minister at the time twitted me, as Minister of Labour, for not taking part in the discussion. I may confess that I could not take part in the discussion because I was bewildered. For many years I had been led to think that questions of hours and wages were provincial responsibilities, and I could not understand all at once how the principle

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
could be made to apply in connection with federal legislation with respect to the tariff. So that I could not take part in the discussion under those circumstances. But I agreed with what the Prime Minister, at that time leader of the opposition, said, speaking from this side of the house.
This matter has now been two years before the house. I submit that it will not work hardship on any industry which is treating its employees fairly to have this principle recognized, and it will in a measure equalize the conditions that obtain in industry throughout Canada. I make this suggestion in the hope that the government will now accede to it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is obvious that the hon. gentleman's reason for not engaging in the discussion to which he refers was not that he was bewildered at what had been suggested; it was his long attachment to the administration with which he was associated. However, I can only say, with reference, to the measure which we have just passed, that we have endeavoured to meet the situation under the tariff board. It would be idle to add the provision to the customs tariff without having some machinery whereby the facts might be ascertained; and as the law now stands direction will be given to have inquiry made. The hon. gentleman himself will be the first to realize that no action could be taken unless an inquiry were made. Any action taken would have to be based upon the findings of that inquiry. Knowing that the hon. gentleman and the hon. member for AVinniipeg North Centre would have something to say about the matter, I did give it consideration, and I say again that the provisions under the tariff board with respect to inquiries meet, in our judgment, the case that has been indicated.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The statement of
the Prime Minister is satisfactory only in part. We took the matter up the other day when the section in the tariff board bill relative to this subject was under discussion. In so far as provision is made for inquiries, that would seem to me to be satisfactory. But I note that in clause 17 now before us the Prime Minister is attempting to safeguard the consumer. Conceivably, clause 17 might not be necessary in view of the tariff board regulations as they were expounded to us the other day. Yet that clause appears in this measure, definitely providing that if any producers take advantage of the tariff to maintain prices at levels which the governor general in council deem to be higher than are warranted, then the protection may be removed. As I understand the remarks of

the hon. member (Mr. Heenan), he . is arguing that similar provision should be made with respect to the employees. If it is necessary in this legislation to insert a clause providing for the protection of consumers, it does not seem unreasonable to ask that the protection to be accorded to the employees should be definitely and explicitly stated. I have all along maintained that so-called protection of industries was no guarantee that the workers in industry would be protected, and it seems to me that if the Prime Minister is in earnest in his desire to protect Canadians-he has so frequently said that Canadians must be protected-there is no reason why, definitely and explicitly, Canadian employees should not be protected and provision be made guaranteeing that protection. We have machinery for inquiry, but we have no guarantee whatever that if wages are found to be insufficient, or if working conditions are not desirable, there will be any action to redress these conditions. It would seem to me that if this matter were entrusted to the governor in council and if it *were stated definitely that, should the general conditions of labour not comply with a certain standard, then the protection shall be removed, that would give us something to work upon. The Prime Minister himself made a clear-cut Statement in this regard when the steel schedules were being discussed a year ago. In fact, it was he himself who suggested a clause of this kind. He said that if a year went by and changes were not made he would see, if he were returned to power, that such provision would be made. As a matter of fact on!)' modified changes have been made. In one of the factories under discussion the men, it is true, are not working eleven and thirteen hours they are working, some of them, ten hours. They should be working only eight hours. I have no information as to whether the hours have been reduced in the other factory in Algoma. I submit that the principles which were enunciated at that time by the Prime Minister, then leader of the opposition, apply to-day, especially now that the right hon. gentleman has the power in his own hands. I urge him to . insert such a clause.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Clause 17 is not the
appropriate place to take it up. I suggest that 17 be passed, the hon. gentleman reserving his right to take the matter up again by way of amendment or otherwise. I will afford him facilities for discussing it.


James Layton Ralston: The Prime Minister's
suggestion that the bill already passed provides for an inquiry of this kind is futile in con-

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
nection with this tariff, because this tariff has been made without the intervention of the tariff board. It is not likely that there will be any inquiry on the part of the tariff board so far as these particular items now before us are concerned. Whatever inquiry was thought necessary has already been made and the matter has been disposed of, and therefore the benefit of such a section as has been suggested is lost in connection with these items. The Prime Minister suggests that there is no machinery. As I understand the matter, the amendment suggested by the hon.' member for Kenora-Rainy River is that the governor in council shall have power to make an inquiry or shall make an inquiry, and there is sufficient provision in the Inquiries Act for that purpose.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman who has jusft Spoken will perhaps realize that many of the applications now being made to the United States board are for reductions, and reference of particular items has been made to that board notwithstanding the fact that the tariff items were adopted by congress and approved by the president about a year ago. I have no reason to believe but that items in the tariff as it now stands will frequently be referred to the tariff board. I say that for this reason: I do not know whether the hon. gentleman was in the chamber or not all the time that I was speaking this afternoon, but I endeavoured to suggest -and I think my suggestion is warranted by the facts-that an emergency condition such as now prevails is the justification for the action that was taken; that in some instances mere tariffs are not ample for the purpose, and that, in order to cover the situation regard must be had to the third measure that I mentioned, namely, the fixing of a price for duty purposes. I can assure the hon. gentleman that I contemplate that the Minister of Finance of the day will frequently refer matters of this kind to the tariff board-


Ernest Lapointe: He may.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes; I give it as my
opinion that he frequently will do so for the purpose of ascertaining just what the President of the United States has been able to ascertain recently in connection with several matters when the duty has been reduced all the way from 4 to 50 per cent. That at any rate is my hope.


James Layton Ralston: That is only the exception rather than the rule.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is true.


Peter Heenan: I do not want to indulge
in political talk or I could very well quote
what some hon. members on the other side said, indicating the enthusiasm they displayed in connection with this very same matter in the regular session of 1930. I remember quite well some of the present ministers of the government then taking the position that we could say to the industries: Yes, we shall give you protection provided you protect the workingman of the country, and only on that condition. Their enthusiasm seems to have died down since that time. I do not, however, want to go into that. I would much rather let the government or any party take the credit of doing what I wish, so long as it is done. We have in Canada industries-and I have experienced this myself-that will not permit their men, under penalty of dismissal, to join a labour organization, and this notwithstanding the fact that Sir Robert Borden on behalf of the Dominion of Canada appended his signature to the Treaty of Versailles giving these men freedom of association. We have United States companies establishing industries in this country and telling our Canadian workmen: No matter what the laws of your country are; no matter what the treaty of Versailles has to do with the matter, we are going to run this industry and you will work the hours we proclaim or you will leave this job. I think the Prime Minister himself would be the first to say that it is not fair for one industry in a province to make its employees work ten hours a day while another industry of a similar character in * the same province is making its employees work eight hours a day. I do not think that is fair. The proposal that I make is not ambiguous. It says simply: '
The governor in council may direct from time to time that any industry, the products of which receive protection under this act, shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the governor in council that freedom of association for employees for all lawful purposes is permitted in the operation of such industry.
All the government has to do is to ask the industry if they are allowing their employees the right to organize. If we had something like this, we would not be confronted rvith what I was up against when I was Minister of Labour, because I had nothing back of me except that I could say that Canada was a signatory to the Peace treaty. I had no law, not a sentence in the whole of Canada that I could find, to say to employers of labour that they should maintain freedom of association. If we had a clause like this in the tariff legislation, the Minister of Labour or the Prime Minister could say to those concerns that are discriminating against their employees: This is the law of Canada, and if you will not abide by

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
the laws of this country, we shall have to-take other steps to see that you do. This is all this clause will do, and I think if the Prime Minister will only consider my amendment, he will accept it.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: I understand the hon. member is not pressing this as an amendment to section 17, but submitting it as section 18, an additional section.


Peter Heenan: I want to insert it where the Prime Minister thinks suitable.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman will perhaps recall the language of the then Prime Minister after he had taken time to confer with his legal advisers as to what the position was. Only the other day I had this matter looked into. The judgment of the privy council which stated that this parliament had acted ultra vires in declaring that to solicit insurance under certain circumstances was a criminal offence, and which carries the law to an extent that had not formerly been thought possible, has been looked upon by some as indicating that that power to solicit exists. I am bound to say I thought the difficulty the then Prime Minister pointed out was leas than subsequent investigation would indicate would be the case.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, that is perfectly frank, for you cannot single out a particular industry.


Ernest Lapointe: The difficulty has become more weighty now.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, the then Prime Minister had the advice of the Minister of Justice at that time, and I have the same. The hon. gentleman will find that you cannot select one particular industry. I have endeavoured under section 17 to provide for the selection of an industry, that is one of many that is exploiting the consumer. The hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth expressed some doubt about the value of the section. All I am endeavouring to do is to say that quantum valeat, for what it is worth, we are endeavouring to enact it.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Whatever difficulty may have prevailed last year when a particular industry, that is the steel industry, was singled out, would not prevail in the insertion of a clause of this character in the schedule.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, it would.


James Shaver Woodsworth: This would apply
generally.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The difficulty is of industries being in different provinces. The hon. member pointed it out frankly a moment ago, but perhaps the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre did not hear him. The difficulty was in applying it and the method by which it could be enforced.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It still remains true that if special consideration is given to any industry, whether located in British Columbia alone or in all the provinces, this is a special grant by the Dominion government or by the people of Canada, and the government has a perfect right to state the' conditions under which the grant shall be given. I think that is true.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This is not a grant.


James Shaver Woodsworth: We would be laying down a general rule that would provide if any industry were seeking in any way to obtain special consideration from the government- and I do not think the leader of the opposition would say there is anything in the constitution to prevent a general provision of this kind-the Dominion government is competent to determine the conditions which must prevail. The government is already taking that power with regard to the fixing of (he price of goods. If they are fixed too high, the government says they must be reduced or else the special privilege will be withdrawn. If the Dominion parliament has authority to do that, it has also authority to impose other conditions; all I plead for is that in making the general provisions the working men be not left out. Clauses protecting him ought to be as explicit as the provisions with regard to the protection of the consumer.


Hugh Guthrie: I think my hon. friend does not realize that the matter of imports into Canada is one that comes especially under the jurisdiction of this parliament. The levy of a customs duty is not in the nature of a grant in any way, shape or form. It is a provision under which goods are admitted into this country, and the fixing of prices, which my hon. friend mentioned, is not the fixing of the price at which goods shall be sold in various provinces of Canada, but the fixing of a price at which they shall be valued for the purposes of customs duties. The difficulty in regard to hours of labour, joining associations and matters of that kind, is that these are not matters over which this parliament has any control or jurisdiction. If it were a money grant 1 assume conditions could

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
be attached, but it is not a money grant. It is a matter affecting imports into this country, which is especially placed under the jurisdiction of the Dominion authority.


Peter Heenan: The hon. member for Bow River said the other day that he noticed that sometimes lawyers disagreed. That was a revelation to me. I always thought that they agreed. The present Prime Minister when he was leader of the opposition in 1930 said that we had the power to attach conditions. He said, at page 2374, of Hansard of May 21, 1930:
I confess, Mr. Chairman, that there is only one question in my mind: Have we the power? The answer must be in the affirmative. Having the power, then should we not exercise it? I put that to my hon. friends opposite, because here we have no division of opinion; we are all committed to it.
After the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition talked the matter over they decided that it had better stand over to a later date, when they might apply that provision to all the tariff measures. I remember that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre asked the present Prime Minister if he would support a move along that line at a, later date, and at. page 2740 of Hansard of that date the present Prime Minister said:
The question is not an unfair one, and I have no hesitancy in saying that unless a reasonable excuse is offered I propose to do so.
I could quote from several other hon. gentlemen who took the position that we ought not to grant either a bonus or tariff protection.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was a bounty in that case.


Peter Heenan: I know it was a bounty, but it is the same thing as a bonus.


Hugh Guthrie: A bounty is in the nature of a grant, and when we make a grant we can attach conditions.


Peter Heenan: I was coming to that. I
heard someone behind the minister whispering that it was a bounty that was being dealt with at that time. I say that we were not dealing with a bounty at that time, but with a. tariff measure. The trend of the whole debate in 1930 was that we could attach any conditions we liked with respect to any industry that was given tariff protection. I believed then that we could, and I believe so now. If we do not do it, it is because we have not the wish to do it.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I fail altogether
to follow the argument of the Minister of Justice. Let me read section 17.
In the event of producers of goods taking advantage of any duty imposed under this act to increase the price of such goods to the consumer-
I ask, what producers? The Minister of Justice would seem to imply that it is producers in the United States or in Belgium or in some other foreign country. If his argument is worth anything it must be producers outside Canada, but as a matter of fact the producers which this clause lias iu view are the producers here in Canada, the producers of competitive goods produced in Canada, and if the producer in Canada takes advantage of his opportunity to raise the price above the level that is deemed proper, then the governor in council may act. I submit that the proposal made by the hon. member for Keaora-Rainy River is in principle very similar to this. If the producers in Canada undertake to produce goods under unfair conditions the governor in council shall have the right to cancel the tariff privileges that are being granted. Now if we have the right to cut down the price, of goods, I think we have also the right to protect the people who are engaged in making them. It seems to me that the principle is the same, and I would hope that the Prime Minister would see the necessity of protecting the large body of workers who are involved in a matter of this kind. He has so definitely and emphatically stated that the idea underlying the government's tariff policy is to protect Canadians that I cannot understand why he should refuse to undertake definitely to protect that large body of Canadians known as labour men.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Surely the hon. gentleman realizes just what the issue is. He certainly has beclouded it. Last year the issue was the question of a bounty, the grant of a sum of money, and I expressed certain opinions with respect to it. To-day the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River endeavours to say that the governor in council can deal with specific industries. There are in this country, we will say, nine industries in nine provinces. In four of them every detail of the treaty of Versailles is observed; in the other five it is not. What are you going to do ahout it? That was a different case altogether from the one before us. In that case a bounty was given to an industry. There is an additional reason why you could not attach any such provision here. The

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
defence of anyone affected would be that he was complying-with the laws of the province, and that the province has complete control, as the supreme court said.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Might I ask if the right hon. gentleman considers that an adequate defence?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is a complete legal
defence, because this is not a grant.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It is not a money grant, I will admit, but is it not the grant of a certain privilege? I shall not call it a special privilege if the Prime Minister objects to that phrase.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is not a privilege. If there are nine industries, one in each province, and in four every rule and regulation of the treaty of Versailles is observed, how can we deal with the other five?


James Shaver Woodsworth: On that very same basis, on the ground that the industry is asking for a " special favour," if I may use that phrase, although I will put a question mark after it if the Prime Minister prefers. Here is a certain concession which this industry is seeking. I would say that the general provision should be that all industries benefited must live up to the requirements of the Versailles treaty. It does not make any difference if only some of them are living up to it. We simply maintain the position that no one can have this privilege unless he lives up to the treaty.


John Alexander Sullivan: It is not a favour that
we are asking, but a favour that the government is giving to the people of Canada.


James Shaver Woodsworth: That is the same
thing, and I say that the government of Canada which is granting the favour has a perfect right to say under what conditions that favour shall be granted. That is my point.


John Alexander Sullivan: The government of
Canada is not asking for favours, but it is asking for the opportunity to give favours to the people of Canada. They were elected for that purpose and they are living up to their promises.


Thomas McMillan: They are giving the benefit to the manufacturers.


Peter Heenan: In order that there may be no mistake concerning the discussion which took place in 1930 I wish to make some further remarks. The Minister of Justice said that at that particular time we were not
(Mr. Bennett.]
talking about bounties, and I think the Prime Minister has just made a similar statement.
I said I could refer to several statements made by members of the present government to indicate that when the question was raised in 1930 we were not talking about bounties. I wish to quote from the remarks of Mr. Stevens as they are to be found at page 2371 of Hansard 1930. At that time that hon. member was taking some of the ministers to task because they had not taken part in the discussion. In that connection he is quoted as follows:
_ I was referring to the three sitting in the front row. Not a minister has offered an explanation, not a minister has offered any sympathy or shown any interest in this matter. I am not sufficiently an expert to say that items 377a, -377b and 377c cover the ambit of this particular industry, but I imagine that they would
In that instance he was not speaking about bounties. The quotation continues.
In connection with these items we have an opportunity of saying to this industry, "Yes, the parliament of Canada is prepared to give you protection sufficient to enable you profitably to produce these articles"

the minister c-ould do that just as easily as sitting there lolling in his seat. .
On that occasion he was referring to the then Minister of Finance. The quotation continues :
-"but before such tariff will apply you will satisfy the governor in council that the conditions of labour, the hours of labour and the wages paid are such as will afford a decent living." That is What the government could do; that is what parliament could do, and I say right now that that is what parliament should do before it goes a step further.
We were not dealing with a bonus at that time; we were dealing with tariff items. At page 2374 the present Prime Minister said:
I think it should be done. It may mean great differences, but an amendment such as this, I think, would meet the situation.
"Provided, however, that the rates of duty set out under items 377, 377a, 377b, 377c shall apply only when the industry producing the articles enumerated therein have demonstrated to the satisfaction of the governor in council that there is maintained in the operation of such industry, hours of labour and rates of wages consistent with the provisions of the labour conference held under the treaty of Versailles.
That is not talking about bounty, but about a specific item.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And those two items were
the bounty items.


Peter Heenan: No, they are tariff items.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Richard Bedford Bennett: I thought one was a bounty item.


Peter Heenan: No doubt my right hon. friend has forgotten about it.


Ernest Lapointe: There was a discussion on the bounty and the tariff items.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, that is correct.


Peter Heenan: In fact, I think the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. MacDonald) brought up the question about the bounty, and Mr. Mackenzie King said:
We have not yet reached the bonus resolution. The leader of the opposition has been speaking of the Versailles treaty. That treaty is applicable throughout the whole Dominion and will be made applicable all along the line, or not at all.
Now we have the opportunity of dealing with it all along the line, and I submit the present is the proper time. Any industry treating its employees in a proper manner will not be dealt with harshly.


The CHAIRMAN:: Shall section 17 carry?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, and my hon. friends may revert to it if they wish.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Shall it stand?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No,-carried.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Is it understood that a section along this line will be introduced?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, it is not. The hon. member may propose another section as No. 18, but we will not accept it.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Section 17 carried.


Mr. NEILL:: Is section 17 carried?


Richard Bedford Bennett: We are passing section 17.


Alan Webster Neill: The chairman said it was carried.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, it is carried.


Alan Webster Neill: I thought section 17 involved the items in the schedule?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, that is contained in the next resolution.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Resolution No. 2 is now before the committee.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, instead of dealing with the first paragraph of that resolution, owing to the Australian treaty I suggest
that we go on to item 54a, if the committee pleases. In that way we may proceed without interfering with the questions mentioned in the Australian treaty.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Very well, we shall go on to item 54a in the schedule.
Customs tariff-54a. Indian corn, imported by manufacturers of starch or of cereal foods prepared for human consumption, for use exclusively in their own factories in the manufacture of starch or or such prepared cereal foods: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In order to simplify that item it has been split up, and the Minister of Justice moves that the following be substituted for tariff item 54a-
[DOT]54a. Indian corn, not including Indian corn for purposes of distillation, when imported or taken out of warehouse by manufacturers of starch or of cereal products for human consumption, for use exclusively in the manufacture of starch or such cereal products, in their own factories, under regulations prescribed by the minister: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
Except for distillation purposes, Indian com has been free. This amendment makes it clear that Indian corn used for breakfast foods and corn meal still continues to be free.
In reference to tariff item No. 55 I move that the following be substituted therefor:
55. Indian corn, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
On and after August 1, 1931, per bushel: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 20 cents; general tariff, 25 cents.
In connection with this amendment the date of August 1 was set because evidence was submitted to show that certain corn was on the ocean bound for the port of Montreal and other places. After August 1, 1931, it is proposed that the British preferential tariff shall be free, the intermediate tariff 20 cents and the general tariff 25 cents. For other purposes it will be free. I just wish to make that clear.


James Layton Ralston: In the maritime provinces Indian corn used for feeding purposes is a very important item. Do I understand that Indian corn for feeding purposes will be free instead of having imposed upon it a 20 cent or 25 cent duty such as was mentioned in the item when the budget was brought down?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The answer to my hon.
friend's question is that for feeding purposes and except for human consumption Indian corn will be dutiable.
3.808

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


James Layton Ralston: That is an increase, is
it not?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


James Layton Ralston: I know	my	right	hon.friend has decided what to	do	and I am afraidwhat I may say will be	of	very	little	use.
But I wish to go on record as strenuously protesting any increase of duty on corn used for feeding purposes. Something like 700,000 bushels are imported annually into the maritime provinces.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, that would be about the correct figure.


James Layton Ralston: This increase means an
additional tax of something like $140,000. Already the price has been raised. I have received information from one of the leading centres in the province of Nova Scotia to the effect that a farmer who has been paying $26 to S27 a ton for barley and $25 to $26 a ton for corn was quoted new prices, just after the bringing down of the budget, of $31 for barley and $32 for corn. I can only say that this is a very heavy tax on the primary producers in the maritime provinces. I think the suggestion is that possibly they may be able to use some other feed. My information is that barley cannot be used for the purposes for which they are using corn, particularly in connection with feeding poultry.


An hon. MEMBER:: The corn used is
mostly Canadian.


James Layton Ralston: A good deal of corn is imported from the Argentine. I do not think this is a very good beginning in view of the mission we sent to Argentina for the purpose of promoting closer trade arrangements with that country. I understood from the newspaper reports that there had been an extremely fine reception given to the Canadian representatives. I read in the Free Lance of Pictou, a newspaper published by one of the gentlemen who was a member of the delegation from Canada that:
He had had conferences with gentlemen holding high places in the governments of the Argentine and Brazil in regard to closer trade arrangements, and in both instances he was accorded a joyous welcome and given assurances that closer trade arrangements with Canada *would find them ready at the halfway mark to deal in a sympathetic way with proposals form the Canadian government.
Nova Scotia sells fish and coal to the Argentine. This affects Nova Scotia particularly. My right hon. friend is not only

shutting off that trade with the Argentine and making it more difficult for us to sell pur fish and coal there, but at the same time he is imposing a heavy tax of 20 cents a bushel on the feed used by our farmers.


John Thomas Hackett: Is it not admitted that the coarse grains of the west are equally as good as corn for all purposes, with the exception of poultry feeding and starch making?


James Layton Ralston: My information is that barley is not nearly as satisfactory as corn for the particular purposes for which our farmers down there use it.


John Thomas Hackett: Is that limited to poultry feeding?


James Layton Ralston: They simply have to pay the additional tax.


Mr. REID:: I rise, Mr. Chairman, to protest against the duty on corn. I am afraid this is going to be a great blow to the poultrymen of British Columbia. We of British Columbia, particularly on the Pacific slope, are peculiarly situated in that we are far removed from the grain fields, and we have great areas of land not adapted to general agriculture. We, have the climate, however, and the soil is well adapted to the raising of poultry and small fruits. I do not believe any other province has specialized in the poultry industry to such . an extent as has British Columbia. Ours is the only province that has gone into the poultry industry in a large way. Really it has become an industry pretty much along the same specialized lines as a manufacturing plant. Our poultrymen have specialized to such an extent that to-day British Columbia hold the highest records for egg production in Canada. But the poultrymen of British Columbia have to purchase all their grain from practically outside sources. As I say, the British Columbia poultry plants can be considered as being something like manufacturing plants

men go into the business with the sole object of producing eggs and poultry as a means of livelihood. This tariff tax is going to be an added cost on our production and we are now faced with a very serious state of affairs indeed. I believe I am right when I say some of our grain merchants have increased the cost of corn already. However, this duty will mean a difference of about fifty cents a sack or nine dollars per ton. I have heard it said in this house by many members that barley is as good a feed as corn for poultry. I hold in my hand the latest bulletin issued by the Department of Agriculture under the authority of the minister (Mr. Weir),.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
entitled Canadian Grown Grains in Poultry Feeding. I am going to deal with only one or two items in this bulletin in an endeavour to bring to the attention of the Prime Minister that barley cannot be substituted for corn for poultry feeding. There is no one grain adapted for the production of eggs; we must have a variety of grains, and barley cannot be wholly substituted for corn. To begin with barley is not as palatable as corn, and it contains much more fibre. Barley is deficient in what is known as vitamin A. This bulletin says:
In so far as vitamins are concerned all four grains are good sources of vitamin B, considering this to be the antineuritic vitamin the presence of which prevents the occurrence of a deficiency disease known as polyneuritis in fowl, and corn is the only one which contains the growth-producing antiophthalmic vitamin A, which is of importance in poultry work particularly where growing stock is concerned and in the prevention of ophthalmia, a deficiency eye disease not uncommon to poultry.
According to the chemical analysis-and here may I point out for the benefit of the Minister of Agriculture that it seems strange to me that we have to go across the line to get an analysis of our grains, as in this bulletin the analysis is taken from a United States bulletin-I find the chemical analysis shows that the fibre content of barley is just double that of corn. As to suitable poultry rations this bulletin says:
Experiment has shown that the early stage of the chick's life, or that during which what are known as "starter feeds" are fed, is the critical period in so far as nutrition is concerned. Consequently the compounding of rations for this period, ordinarily the first eight to ten weeks of the chick's life, requires great care.
As pointed out above, owing to ahe chick's comparatively tender digestion at this stage the caution as to keeping down fibre in the ration applies particularly at this time.
I ask hon. members to note this:
As a consequence it is suggested that barley should not be substituted for corn meal to any extent in the starter ration.


Mr. MULLINS:: Was that written by an
agricultural student or by a practical man?


Thomas Reid: You must ask the Minister of Agriculture for that information, this is his bulletin. It is true that the poultrymen in British Columbia did use a little more barley some time ago, but there were reasons for that: first, the farmers in Manitoba were practically giving their barley away so that it was much cheaper than corn; second, the poultrymen were practically giving their eggs away and were looking around for some grain at a price that would enable them to produce
eggs much cheaper than had been possible before. I think they would have use anything had it been practicable.
The other day I was noticing our importations of com from the Argentine. Last year we exported to the Argentina over $19,000,000 of goods, and we imported from them over $10,000,000 worth of goods, but I ask the committee to note that nearly half of our importations represented corn. I am afraid our good-will mission won't sound so good to the people of the Argentine when they learn that this duty has been placed on practically half of our importations from their country.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, this does not touch
importations of corn for distillation, for starch or for glue.


James Layton Ralston: The farmer has to pay
twenty-five cents a bushel, but for purposes of distillation-liquor-the duty is only seven and a half cents.


John Thomas Hackett: But it does not come into competition with barley.


James Layton Ralston: We are talking about the farmer using the thing he can use, to the best advantage, and I do not think anything could be a more definite answer to the question of the hon. member for Stanstead than the statement which has just been read from the bulletin issued by the Department of Agriculture.


John Thomas Hackett: No, the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth is speaking to a point which I conceded, namely that corn might be useful to the poultry industry. I was suggesting that the large amount of corn imported into the part of the country from which the hon. mem!ber for Shelburne-Yarmouth comes could not be and is not used in its entirety by the poultry industry and that in consequence barley, which is a substitute as far as cattle are concerned, might be used, and to that extent, its use might help the people of the west who wish to market a large quantity of barley for which there is no other market. [DOT]


James Layton Ralston: With all due respect to the hon. member for Stanstead and the Prime Minister, I think the farmers of Nova Scotia had better be consulted as to what they are going to use for feed rather than to have a tax and penalty placed on them for using the feed they think is 'best adapted to their purpose.


Ernest Lapointe: Why should my hon. friend advertise barley?

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


John Thomas Hackett: Simply because it is a Canadian product, though I believe nay hon. friend would not appreciate that argument Com is not grown here in quantities.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I should like to say to my hon. friends, that the difference between the distiller and the other users is that in the one case we get $9 a gallon in excise tax, so therefore the rate is much higher than 7J cents.


James Layton Ralston: But the 89 per gallon has nothing to do with the duty.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It has to do with the revenue. In the one case we get 20 cents a bushel, or 25 cents a bushel, and in the other case we get 7i cents per bushel plus S9 a gallon on the finished product.


James Layton Ralston: Then I will let any right hon. friend go down and tell the farmers of Nova Scotia that because the distiller has some other tax imposed upon him he has only to pay a duty of 7| cents a bushel on corn while the farmer pays 25 cents a bushel for the same thing.


Mr. RYCKMAN:: What would the farmers of 'Nova Scotia say if they were told that there are other farmers in Canada who would like to sell something to replace corn?


James Layton Ralston: It is not corn we are talking about in particular. The government are trying to tell the fanners of Nova Scotia that they must use barley rather than com, because the Minister of Finance and the hon. member for Stanstead know better what they should use than they know themselves.


Thomas Reid: On behalf of the poultry farmers of the Fraser valley I am only asking a fair chance to compete. We now compete in the world markets with our eggs; there are more eggs being produced in Canada than can be consumed here. We are looking for markets abroad, and on behalf of the poultry-men I am only asking that they be given a fair opportunity. Even if corn were grown in Canada the Pacific slope is too far removed from the corn area for that to be of much help. We are even far removed from the barley of Manitoba, and with the high freight rates barley costs between 826 and $30 a ton. This year we are able to buy greater quantities of barley because the farmers of Manitoba have been practically giving away that grain.


John Thomas Hackett: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question? What would the poultry farmers of British Columbia think if 
the protection on their product were removed? This measure only extends to the farmers of the prairies the protection already given the poultrymen of the Fraser valley.


Thomas Reid: I do not think the poultry-men would be very agreeable to that, but I assure my hon. friend that the protection given the poultrymen did not in any way hurt the purchaser of eggs on the prairies, because eggs have been cheaper there than ever before. The purchaser of eggs has been able to buy them for much less than ever before, even with the protection. The situation in the Fraser valley is almost pathetic this year. We have great areas of costly land there adapted only to this use, and I believe that since the first of January almost
100,000	birds have been slaughtered by men trying to meet their bills and others who have beer, forced to liquidate. This duty will be an additional burden, because com cannot be entirely dispensed with. The four grains are required, and corn is a far more suitable ration than barley which, as I said before, contains too much fibre. I could go on at greater length and give further statistics, but I do not think it is necessary. If we in British Columbia are to be denied corn I think the Prime Minister should consider very carefully a reduction in freight rates when that question comes before the house. If we are to be compelled to use Canadian grains only surely we on the Pacific slope should be able to purchase those grains as cheaply as they can be purchased in Japan or China. I must protest as strongly as possible against the imposition of this 25 cent duty.


Mr. ILSLEY:: I should like to associate myself with the protests expressed by the hon. member for Shelbume-Yarmouth and the hon. member for New Westminster. I realize that if the Prime Minister has set his heart on the imposition of a 25 cent duty on com that duty will be imposed; I hardly expect my protest to have any effect, but in justice to my constituents who have written me in large numbers protesting against this duty on com, I must say what I am now stating to the committee. I think there is nothing that has caused a greater outcry in my constituency than this proposed duty. The people who are raising poultry and producing beef and pork are up in arms against the government on this matter, and I wish to convey that message to the Prime Minister and ask him to reconsider his action.


Mr. WILLIS:: Replying to the remarks of the hon. member for New Westminster, I want to speak particularly in regard to the

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
efficacy of feeding barley rather than corn. The hon. member says that in the first place it is more expensive. I dealt with this matter earlier in the session, and I think I proved to the satisfaction of the house that barley is cheaper on the Pacific coast than corn. If the hon. member wants the exact figure I would say barley is 20 per cent cheaper than com on the Pacific coast, and that statement also applies to the Fraser valley.


Thomas Reid: If you take the hull off the barley would it be as cheap? Corn is a whole grain.


Errick French Willis: You can feed it as it is. In the first place I want to put this point before the committee, that barley is cheaper than corn, and in the second place I want to submit that barley is equally as good as corn for the feeding of poultry. I want to tell you why I make that statement. I refer to a series of pamphlets issued by the Department of Agriculture; if my hon. friend will turn to No. 128 of the new series he will find the material which on a previous occasion I placed before the house. In the second place I would refer him to experiments which have just been concluded at the Manitoba agricultural college, which have proved that for feeding purposes barley is better than corn. Those experiments were carried on over a period of two years.
Other hon. members have said that they cannot feed barley, that they must feed corn. That is a matter for experimentation; they do not feed barley because they have not done so previously. It is not because they cannot do so or because it is not equally good. Remember that the world's champion hen came from Saskatchewan, and it never had a bit of corn.


Thomas Reid: It came from British Columbia, not Saskatchewan.


Errick French Willis: That is quite correct, but
some three years ago the world's champion hen came from Saskatchewan, and it was not fed corn at all. So far as statistics are concerned, expert testimony can be given on both sides. But what the hon. member forgets is that on the coast he is getting protection for his fruit and his lumber and for everything which he produces and we are buying these things on the prairies. But when the tables are turned and we have something to sell which is cheaper than corn then he objects.


Alan Webster Neill: What protection is there on
lumber?


Errick French Willis: You get protection on
various articles, particularly on fruit and
vegetables; and there is also the question of freight rates. I say however that no one can prove, under any circumstances, that barley cannot successfully be fed as' well as corn. Remember that there are in the west 100,000,000 bushels of barley which cannot be sold except to the Canadian people. Let the hon. member bear in mind that there are other provinces besides British Columbia which he must help, just as the rest of Canada helps his province. This is one of the best measures we have had proposed in this country looking to the creation of a market for barley.


John Thomas Hackett: I do not wish to enter
into the controversy about the origin of the old hen. Whether she came from Saskatchewan or from British Columbia is a matter which history will undoubtedly record. The farmers in the eastern townships have always used corn and no doubt this duty will upset a very well established usage and trade in that area. I believe however that the farming community of the eastern townships, in the spirit in which they receive protection for their commodities, will be willing that the grain growers on the prairies receive like benefits for their products. I think I know my own people well. I believe that, despite any inconvenience they may experience, they will be willing at least to make the attempt to use Canadian barley as a substitute for American and Argentine corn. I wish in passing, however, to say that they are somewhat concerned lest the grain merchants who have imported corn duty free attempt to avail themselves of the duty with respect to corn upon which no duty was paid. I ask that the departments charged with inspection in these matters keep an eye on any who might attempt to make an unfair profit.
Coming back to poultry, I can assure my hon. friend from New Westminster that not all poultry are chickens-


An hon. MEMBER:: Nor all chickens
poultry.


John Thomas Hackett: Nor all chickens poultry. There are several very respectable members of the poultry family which do not glory in the name chicken. There are some that can swim. I am told that at Knowlton in the province of Quebec, in the county of my hon. friend from Brome, there is a duck farm on which there are raised from 60,000 to 100,000 ducks each year; I am sure it will be of consolation to the hon. member from New Westminster to learn that these ducks have been so well educated that they regale themselves on barley and yield a handsome profit without knowing the taste of corn. I make bold to suggest to the hon.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
member that he initiate an educational campaign among the chicks of the Fraser valley and cultivate in them a habit beneficial to the barley growers of the prairies.


Thomas Reid: You are speaking about a bunch of quacks.


Errick French Willis: The hon. gentleman is not speaking in either of the official languages.


James Layton Ralston: We always enjoy the felicitous remarks of the hon. member for Stanstead, and I am glad that he is able to speak for his constituents when he says that they are satisfied with this tax which is being imposed upon them. I am sorry I cannot say-the same for the farmers of Nova Scotia, judging by the protests I have received. This rax on Nova Scotians will amount to about 30 cents for every man, woman and child in the province, which is rather a heavy tax in connection rvith one commodity.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This is importation for all purposes. There are four cornmeal mills in one county.


Mr. ERNST:: Is the hon. member assuming that the farmers will continue to use corn?


James Layton Ralston: I am assuming that they will use corn. The Prime Minister might as well decide to put an embargo on tea because we produce milk, and so compel everyone to drink milk instead of tea. That would be just as logical. You could produce analyses to show that milk is an excellent food product and a good beverage, and on the strength of this my right hon. friend might compel us all to drink milk instead of tea. There is, I say, just as much logic in that as in compelling those engaged in a certain industry to use something else than the commodity which they require for their purposes. By the duty which he is putting on corn he is going to try to compel the farmers to use barley. In Nova Scotia we did think that the poultry business might survive. We have a water freight rate from the Argentine and we have an opportunity of selling to that country goods which we cannot sell to the central provinces, such as fish and coal. There must be food products imported into Canada against which my right hon. friend could impose an embargo, insisting that everyone eat fish, in order that fish produced in the maritime provinces might be sold.


John Thomas Hackett: There is a duty on fish.


James Layton Ralston: The hon. gentleman knows we do not import fish.


John Thomas Hackett: Yes, we do.


William Gordon Ernst: Is the hon. member willing, as
a Nova Scotian, to declare in this house that he would like to see the duty on fish and coal abrogated?	[DOT]


James Layton Ralston: I should not worry so much about the duty on fish so far as its benefit to our fishermen is concerned. There are a few items in the way of fish that are imported, and most of them do not compete with us. But I do not wish to see any abrogation such as the hon. gentleman suggests in connection with this industry which is already overburdened, not only as regards the conditions under which it works, but in connection with the duty on its implements of production. Now, I submit once more to the Prime Minister that he is going altogether too far in the policy on which he is embarking. Let us deal first with articles which people have used and are accustomed to using. Do not let us start in so early in this parliament to tell people who are engaged in an industry, who have been using certain products in the belief that they are the best, and whose judgment is backed up by the Minister of Agriculture in his bulletin, that they must use something else and impose a penalty or tax of this tremendous amount on them if they do . not obey.
I do not know the price of corn, but 25 cents a bushel, it seems to me, must be nearly a fifty per cent duty on that commodity. This, is a pretty high tax to impose on people in connection with farm products. The farming industry in the maritimes provinces is not in a condition to-day to stand a tax of this kind.


Mr. BOWMAN:: Is the hon. member
speaking for the party opposite?


James Layton Ralston: I am speaking for the
farmers in the maritime provinces.


James Langstaff Bowman: Is the hon. member not
speaking then as the financial critic of the opposition?


James Layton Ralston: I have answered my hon. friend.


Mr. ELLIOTT:: Can the Prime Minister
state the total number of bushels of corn shipped into Canada last year?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Approximately 10.000,-
000 bushels valued at $7,000,000, or seventy cents a bushel, the wholesale invoice cost.


John Campbell Elliott: Corn has been duty free
in this country for, I think, twenty-five or thirty years.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Richard Bedford Bennett: The distillers' rate has
been seven and a half cents, but otherwise it has been free.


John Campbell Elliott: At the time com was
made free in this country, it was regarded as a great boon to the farmers who were feeding dairy and beef cattle as well as to the poultry raisers. It is much more of a boon to-day owing to the fact that on account of the ravages of the com borer we have not been able in recent years to raise corn in many sections of Canada. I want to say to the Prime Minister that it will be a distinct disappointment to many farmers who have been feeding cattle for both beef and dairy purposes to know that in the future a duty of 25 cents per bushel is to be imposed upon corn shipped into this country. The hon. member for Stanstead referred to the ducks and he referred to the chickens.


John Thomas Hackett: Not to the chickens.


John Campbell Elliott: He seemed to think for
both barley was just as good feed as corn. He is quite wrong in regard to both chickens and ducks. There is no question that for poultry corn is much better feed than barley.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


John Campbell Elliott: Yes; no matter what my
hon. friends opposite may say, I prefer to take the statement of the Minister of Agriculture in his bulletin to that of some of those who sit behind him.


John Thomas Hackett: Will the hon. gentleman
permit a question?


John Campbell Elliott: Just in a moment. My
hon. friend has had the floor two or three times. For dairy cattle com is much better than barley. I want to urge upon the Prime Minister that in view of the difficulty of raising corn to-day in many portions of Canada- and it is at present practically impossible to raise it in many sections of Ontario-


Peter John Veniot: And also in New Brunswick.


John Campbell Elliott: -and I believe also in
the east-to impose this duty means a prohibition of the importation of this commodity and this is going to cause hardship to those engaged in the poultry and cattle business.


Eccles James Gott: I have been waiting to hear a voice from western Ontario, the section of the Dominion of Canada which this duty particularly helps. I am absolutely surprised to hear an ex-minister condemn something that 22110-230
means an increase from 22,000 to 130,000 acres of corn in the counties of Essex and Kent alone, which are close to where my hon. friend resides.


James Layton Ralston: It means $140,000 from Nova Scotia.


Eccles James Gott: I may say to the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth that we purchased
69,000	bags of potatoes from his section and paid forty-nine and a half cents freight per bag to have them come into our county. We can sell the maritimes all the corn they want if they will pay the freight to haul it there, and we can produce 10,500,000 bushels of corn, enough to supply the whole Dominion.
I am sorry to see an hon. member from western Ontario rise in his place, and protest against a duty of twenty-five cents on corn. I think he will live to regret doing so.


Alan Webster Neill: It is curious to note that this debate regarding corn and hens has been carried on almost exclusively by members of the legal profession, with the exception only of the last speaker, whose name is generally more associated with onions than with corn; and the hon. member for New Westminster who really knows what he is talking about.


John Thomas Hackett: Will the hon. member permit me to say that with regard to ducks -and I may tell the hon. gentleman I know nothing about chickens and made no pronouncement regarding them-I happen to know something of them and any information I gave, to the committee rests upon experience.


Alan Webster Neill: I do not quite catch the idea.


John Thomas Hackett: I did not think you did.


Alan Webster Neill: The hon. member says he knows nothing about chickens, but the ideas he gave to the committee were founded upon experience. Experience of what?


John Thomas Hackett: Experience of ducks.


Alan Webster Neill: I am not dealing with ducks at the present time.


John Thomas Hackett: The hon. member is not. I was.


Alan Webster Neill: He did refer to chickens, and I will quote him presently. I just want to join with the hon. member for New Westminster in protesting against the imposition of this duty. People from the east do not perhaps realize the extent of the industry in British Columbia. In the old days hens were things that were generally kept around a farm in order to dirty up the machinery. When the farmer saw somebody coming, he grabbed one and killed it for lunch. I am told. We

3612	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
are sometimes told: If the egg market is low, why do you not keep a few cows? But it must be realized that these egg farms number up to 5,000 or 6,000 birds which are kept on five acres of land that, on account of their being suitable for chickens, are not adaptable for growing grain or potatoes. Such land, being high and dry, is good for chickens, but not suitable for any other form of agriculture, and indeed, it is quite impossible to go into dairying or mixed farming on such a limited area as five acres. If people in the east could get that into their minds, they would see how important this matter is. The hon. member for New Westminster said that egg producing had reached the basis of an industrial proposition. That is exactly the case and a difference of a cent a dozen in the cost of the eggs means the difference between loss and profit.
I spoke on this subject on the budget, and therefore I shall not detain the committee. I made the remark that there were three things you could not deceive: mother nature, a laying hen and a milking cow. I have seen people who have tried to do that and they made a dismal failure of it. I have in mind a man who got control of a farm. He was one of your patent expert book farmers; he did it all out of a book. He decided, according to the analysis of certain foods, he had to feed his stock only certain things. This worked beautifully on paper until the animals began to starve and die. If I recollect right, one of his book doctrines was that hogs should fatten on cabbages. It was all laid out according to the analysis that with cabbages and some other addition, the hogs ought to do beautifully. The trouble was that they did not do beautifully; they died, or at least starved. He had proceeded along certain lines laid down in a book, without having the practical knowledge of the farmer. You cannot deceive a milking cow. You may talk of expert knowledge and technique all you like, but the cow's milk will go down if you do not feed her the feeds adapted to a big flow of milk. The same with eggs. You cannot miss even a couple of hours in feeding a flock of chickens without it being recorded in a day or so in the egg basket. They are very sensitive, and fussy, if I may use the word.
It is ridiculous to suggest that you can substitute barley for corn. You can, of course, but at the expense of the eggs. Certainly you can substitute barley to a certain exent, but you always must have a certain quantity of corn, not only for the reasons given by the hon. member for New Westminster, but also

because in winter there is a heat-giving property to corn that is not possessed by barley. Experience has shown that hens must have a certain quantity of com.
We have heard again and again, almost to the extent of being tired of it, that the policy of the government is to give Canadians an opportunity of competing with their competitors on even terms. I presume that the proposition of Euclid holds good in this case, that the greater includes the less, and that the term Canadians would also extend to Canadian hens. What we are asking is that Canadian hens shall have an equal opportunity to compete with those hens that get their corn at a much lower price.
The hon. member for Souris claimed that barley was cheaper than corn. Probably it is; but it is the relative value that counts. Because a thing is absolutely cheaper, it does not follow that it is really cheaper to use it. There are plenty of things that are cheaper than corn, oats or potatoes, for instance, but you must take into consideration their relative value. Apart from the relative value, corn must be used no matter what the price is. My hon. friend from Souris spoke of a duty on fruit helping British Columbia fruit growers, and said that that ought to compensate us for the heavy duty on corn. I would suggest that some of the other members from British Columbia deal with that and say if it will appeal to the poultry raisers as a satisfactory argument.
We have also been told, and we have just passed a resolution to that effect, that if there is any rise in price in consequence of the duty, the duty will be taken off. Then better not put it on in the first place. This particular item is not to come into force for one month, but immediately notice of the duty was given the price of com went up about $9 a ton.
The hon. member for Stanstead said that the members from British Columbia representing the poultry raisers should be content because we would fix our minds on the increased duty on the product we raise, on eggs. There is some logic in that, I admit. It was superior to all this talk about trying to cheat the hen by trying to feed it barley when it wants corn, but the answer to my hon. friend is this. It was very much thrown up at me during the campaign that I was standing for the Dunning budget, which I adhered to then and still believe in, although it is not so popular now as it was a year ago. I said in the campaign that I was adhering to the Dunning budget, which imposed, under the countervailing duties, ten or twelve cents a dozen on American eggs. They pointed out that my opponent advocated the fixed in-

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
creased tariff that would be imposed by the party that he represented if it came into office, and in the budget of last September we find that the Prime Minister gave expression to that principle. But there was this difference. He did not raise the duty on eggs any higher than it would have been under the countervailing duties. I think he himself said that that was true, speaking generally, with respect to the whole budget. He took the figure as it would have been arrived at under the Dunning budget and made that a fixed rate, and pointed out that there was an advantage in having it fixed and known, that people could count upon it, that that was better than under the countervailing duties of Mr. Dunning's budget, where the rates were liable to go down at times. But there was this great difference, and this is the answer to the hon. member for Stanstead, that the Dunning budget did not ask the poultrymen to pay through the nose for this privilege. Under the countervailing duties of the Dunning budget they were given a duty of ten or twelve cents a dozen, as the case might be, against American eggs, and it might go higher if necessary, but the Dunning budget did not say that those duties were to be accompanied by a huge increase in the duties on everything that the poultryman had to buy, on his boots, his clothes, his incubators, and above all, on the feed that he feeds his hens. That is the answer to the suggestion that we ought to be satisfied with this duty. Under the Dunning budget we got the same duty against American eggs, and we did not have to pay this enormous tax-because it is an enormous tax-on the products that we use. When you remember how largely these feeds bulk in the cost of raising poultry, you will appreciate what a big difference it makes.
It is also correct what someone has already suggested, that in buying barley we are heavily handicapped by the excessive domestic freight rates on grain from the prairies to British Columbia. If the government would take cognizance of the case that has been put up in this house again and again this year for reducing the domestic rates to the same level as the export rates, a thing like this would not hit us so hard. Still the fact remains that we must buy corn even if the duty was one-half as much again as it is now. The person who has to pay this new duty is the poultry-man, and he is already at his wits' end to know how he is to make a living.


William Richard Motherwell: How much of this
corn is expected to be displaced by the barley? Approximately ten million bushels of corn are imported. Will that be reduced to about five million bushels?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I stated to the committee that ten million bushels of corn were imported for all purposes, including distilling, starch making, and for other purposes. The returns in the department do not indicate the quantity imported for each specific purpose, so I cannot very accurately answer the question. But we know that the production in Canada last year of Indian corn was roughly six million bushels. The corn used for dairy purposes in the silos of course is grown in Canada, and will continue to be grown for dairy purposes.
I cannot answer with respect to the other. I need hardly say to the hon. gentleman, who knows far better than I of the emergent condition existing with respect to coarse grains in Canada, that owing to conditions that need not be referred to again their value is practically nil except the product is sold in Canada. It is believed that this will assist to that end without placing any undue burden on those engaged in the production of chickens, upon which an extra valuation for duty purposes of thirty cents a pound has been given to protect the industry from unfair competition. The corn mills, which was the one thing urged on behalf of Nova Scotia, where small mills still continue to grind corn, will continue to require their raw material free of duty. So will the breakfast food producers, and, as I said, the starch makers and distilleries. The distilleries pay 7| per cent. That may not sound very good in some counties of Nova Scotia, but it is a fact at any rate.


William Richard Motherwell: This duty is imposed to encourage the barley growers, but the question arises, how much of an additional market will it give them? If it will give them an additional market for only three or four million bushels, and even that is problematical, is it worth while disturbing the whole poultry business for that amount? I appreciate the purpose of this duty on corn. There is no question as to what it is meant for. The question is what effect will it have? How many poultry producers will stop feeding corn to feed barley? Mighty few. For the reason that they want corn, and are going to have corn even if it is 25 cents dearer. Again, if barley is not substituted for corn you are just upsetting the whole apple cart with respect to the poultry growers for an infinitesimal advantage to the barley growers. I do not think the proposed duty will affect the price of barley one iota. It will merely give an additional market of three or four million bushels-a very small item when we consider that Manitoba alone produced 100,-
3614	COMMONS
Ways and Mean*-Customs Tariff
000,000 bushels of barley last year. I think it would be well to look into the advantages as compared with the disadvantages of the poultry industry. There would be some advantage in getting a market for probably
5,000,000 additional bushels of barley at most *if it materialized.


An hon. MEMBER:: Is the hon. member opposed to a tariff being placed on corn?


William Richard Motherwell: I am opposed if it does more harm than good.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Richard Motherwell: If it does more good than harm I am supporting it.


Robert James Manion: We are having another exhibition of fencing.


Richard Bedford Bennett: A great deal of the com from Nova Scotia comes from the Argentine. On that corn the duty is not 25 cents, but 20 cents less 10 per cent because of the treaty, making 18 cents.


Alan Webster Neill: What about the Pacific coast?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The same thing applies. Purchases have been very considerable from ships coming to Vancouver.


Alan Webster Neill: From the Argentine?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, through the canal.


Alan Webster Neill: Do we not get a large quantity from Manchuria?


Richard Bedford Bennett: A very limited amount


Alan Webster Neill: A few years ago there used to be ship-loads of it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The rate is 18 cents because under the treaty there is an intermediate rate of 20 cents less 10 per cent for direct shipment.


Mr. BROWN:: I am afraid that statement shatters the hopes of some of the men on the prairies who have been thinking of 25 cents.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Twenty-five from the United States.


Thomas McMillan: My appeal to
the Prime Minister would be that this is a very serious matter for the farmers of the province of Ontario. Over fifty years ago there was a battle royal on the part of those farmers to import feeding corn duty free. After years of fighting not only throughout the country but in this House of Commons that commodity was placed on the free list I think that took place in 1807 and from that day to the present irrespective of what government has been in power, they have always

seen fit to allow Indian corn to come into thi3 country free of duty. I may say in the locality from which I come, throughout my life time we have fed a mixture of corn and grains to fat cattle and dairy cows.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The corn fed to the
dairy cows would be ensilage, would it not?


Thomas McMillan: No; we have grown that corn, forty acres at a time, for silo purposes. We do not think however that it pays us in our section of the country to grow corn for grain purposes. There are some farmers who grow a small quantity for the feeding of poultry, and if they were not allowed to purchase it they might grow enough for their hogs. I would say to the Prime Minister however that this is a very serious matter. Hon. members who are engaged in agriculture know that we are locking to the British market for disposition of our beef animals and dairy pi oduets, and in that market we have to compete with the Irish and British farmers and the farmers from Denmark. All those men get their corn duty free, and they have always looked upon that commodity as one of their main grain foods. One of my cousins who was engaged in the grain business and the business of supplying feed to the dairymen of Paisley and Glasgow almost always made a practice of cutting up hay and straw and mixing grain with them. The manner in which they mixed those grains was determined by very careful feeding experiments which had been conducted for years by the experimental tables of the Rothamsted Experimental Station in England. That station has always been considered one of the most reliable in the world. Not only has that been the result of experiments conducted at that station but it is also the result of experiments conducted for many years by the farmers of Ontario.
With respect to the importation of com I may say that owing to the very emergent conditions existing among the farmers of the province of Ontario importations were somewhat less during the last year. The following table will give an idea of the importations:
Year	Number of bushels
1928		 14,999,000
1929		 14,128,000
1930		 14,839,000
1931		 10,055,000
I may say that those figures are given for the fiscal years ending March 31.
Without exception in years gone by we have had imported into the constituency from which I come many carloads of corn for feeding

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
purposes, and it will be a distinct disadvantage to the farmers of that section of the province of Ontario-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Would the hon. gentleman allow a question?-he is always most courteous in that regard. How many bushels of Indian corn did he purchase in the year for his farm and cattle? I should like to have an idea of an average purchase.


Thomas McMillan: I may tell you, sir, that until ten years ago I conducted my farming operations as vigorously as possible. However at the end of that year my eldest son passed away. For years before that time we used to buy two carloads of corn or about
2,000	bushels per year. Previous to the time Indian corn was allowed in free we purchased corn from the counties of Essex and Kent. For two years those purchases were made but were never a success because the corn of those counties had so much moisture in it that in large quantities it would not keep. After purchasing that corn for two years we discontinued the practice.


Eccles James Gott: The hon. member has spoken about moisture in Essex and Kent county corn. I should like to tell him there will be no moisture this year because in each county a drier has been installed.


Thomas McMillan: I wish to plead further with the Prime Minister. As farmers we should like to have the privilege, concerning which he has spoken many times in this house, of equal opportunity and fair competition. If this privilege is withdrawn from the province of Ontario it is withdrawing one of the greatest privileges the farmers in that province have enjoyed for many years in the business of live stock feeding.


Mr. SENN:: I would suggest that the hon. member speak for his own county.


Mr. DONNELLY:: I have been very much interested in this discussion in regard to the relative feeding values of barley and corn. We western farmers are interested in the duty because no doubt we have lots of barley to sell, and we are anxious to get our coarse grains on the market. But for the life of me I cannot see how this duty on corn is going to help us one iota. The member for South Essex tells us the farmers in his constituency are going to supply us with our corn and that this duty will boost the price.


Eccles James Gott: I did not say that.


James J. Donnelly: The economic condition of the farmers in western Canada and indeed throughout the country is so serious today that they want to get their barley cheaper. We want to get our barley down to eastern Canada cheaper. We want to lower freight rates so we can sell our barley and displace corn in the eastern markets. This duty will not enable us to do so. Many a farmer throughout the country believes firmlj- in his heart that nothing can take the place of corn when you come to fatten cattle. You cannot get the fat interwoven 'between the lean by feeding barley, you can only do it by feeding , corn. Many of our farmers know this, and the abattoir men also know it. That is why so many of them believe that corn is better than barley for feeding cattle. This duty will not do the farmers of eastern Canada one particle of good, nor will it help the farmers of western Canada to dispose of their barley. We want reduced freight rates so we can get our barley down here to displace corn.


Henry Alfred Mullins: I have listened with a good deal of attention to these professional men, and I wonder how many of them have used barley and corn for feeding purposes. The Prime Minister is absolutely correct in placing a duty on corn in the interests of the farmers of this country. In my constituency of Marquette barley is selling at eight and ten cents a bushel, and the farmers all over Manitoba have been appealing to us to get a duty placed on corn. As to the relative feeding values of corn and barley,
I have fed barley and I have fed corn, and I have made better gains feeding barley to my cattle than I ever did feeding them com. I prefer barley to corn any time, if it is handled by a proper feeder.
I wonder if some hon. gentlemen ever think of any other part of Canada but just their own little home circles-there are other parts of the dominion. Western Canada pressed for this duty to be placed on corn to help the western producer of coarse grains, that is, the man struggling on the land.


Alan Webster Neill: You were feeding big three or four year old steers were you?


Henry Alfred Mullins: I was feeding mature
cattle outside the city of Winnipeg and made a gain of two and a quarter pounds a day feeding barley; when I fed corn that I imported from the United States in carload lots I made a gain of only two pounds a day.


James J. Donnelly: You were not giving them enough.


Henry Alfred Mullins: I can make better gains on barley than on corn; so can anybody if he handles the feed properly.

Ways and, Means-Customs Tariff


Mr. LOUCKS:: As a farmer of western
Canada I know something of the feed value of barley. I think hon. members from Saskatchewan will at least endorse what I am going to say in connection with the feed value of barley for poultry. We have heard a good deal about chickens-I am going to mention turkeys. I think the flavour of the turkeys that we raise in Saskatchewan is unsurpassed, and we feed them on barley.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Except those of the
county of Charlevoix.


William John Loucks: I endorse what the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Mullins) has said. I have fed barley to feeder steers. I think hon. members from Saskatchewan will also endorse what I am going to say, unless they have had no experience, and it seems to me that some of them have not.


James J. Donnelly: Do you mean to say I am not a farmer?


William John Loucks: You cannot have had much experience feeding cattle or turkeys.


James J. Donnelly: I farm three times the amount of land you do.


William John Loucks: I am not a doctor, I am a farmer, and I am talking from practical experience as a farmer.


James J. Donnelly: So am I.


William John Loucks: I think the hon. member for Willow Bunch (Mr. Donnelly) will have to acknowledge that we in the west more than hold our own in the feeding of cattle for export. It is surprising to me that hon. members on the opposite side take such an antagonistic attitude with respect to this duty on corn, especially after the speech which the hon. member for Willow Bunch made on the address, in the course of which he criticized the hon. member for Rosetown (Mr. Loucks) for not taking the active part he should take in endorsing what he had said in favour of protecting the agriculturist all along the line. Now he is opposing the very thing I endorsed in my speech on the address. At that time 1 said I had a mandate from my constituents asking for protection. I do not know what the people of Saskatchewan will say to the hon. member for Willow Bunch and his friends when they go back home.


James J. Donnelly: We will take a chance.


William John Loucks: I am glad we have a sufficient number of members on this side of the house to ensure the passing of these tariff increases. I know that in the constituency of

Rosetown I will get a lot of credit for supporting the duty on com. Last year during the campaign the Prime Minister said that portection meant protection for all, and I think his statement is being verified by the putting of this duty on corn. I should like hon. members from Ontario and from British Columbia to give us a little cooperation on these lines. We in the prairie provinces did not howl our heads off when British Columbia asked for protection for her fruit. We were willing to help them in that direction even if it cost us a little more for the fruit we consume on the prairies. I can assure my hon. friends from British Columbia that when once they get educated to feeding barley to their stock they will not go back to feeding corn. AYe have had such success in Saskatchewan in feeding barley to steers, turkeys and chickens that we are well satisfied.
AVe should have a uniform policy on the tariff. In my speech on the address I said I was confident that what I was recommending would be given consideration in due time, and here we are now given an opportunity to support this duty on com. It will be a great pleasure to me to go back to my constituency and tell the farmers that, as the Prime Minister said during the campaign, protection means protection for all for farmers as well as for manufacturers. We have heard much from hon. members opposite against the various tariff items. As a farmer from Saskatchewan I should like to relpeat that the western farmers are not all opposed to increased duties, as one might imagine after listening to members opposite representing western constituencies. As I have said before this session, in my constituency, I think I was up against one of the greatest free traders in Canada, although my hon. friend from Weytburn (Mr. Young) might compete with the gentleman who opposed me, Mr. John Evans, who I understand is quite a free trader. At any rate I am glad to say that we are well satisfied to give this change a trial to see what the result will be. Most of us in the west are. still big enough to cooperate with the other parts of the dominion, and we only ask for fair play from the people of British Columbia. If we have, a chance I think we will be able to educate the people of that province, so they have nothing to fear from the tariff on corn. The hon. member for Souris has spoken of the tests which have been carried on, and I'hope the Saskatchewan members particularly will see their way clear to support this measure. We admit that things are bad in Saskatchewan; we would

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
like an outlet for our barley. We are going to have that outlet now, and we are glad to receive the support of the east. I am not criticizing the hon. members from British Columbia; their opposition is due to lack of education and nothing else, and we will overlook that.


Thomas Reid: I think too much has been said about British Columbia, particularly with regard to our lack of education; I cannot let that go by. No one could be more patriotic in buying Canadian products than the poul-trymen of British Columbia, but they believe in fair play. When they see people in foreign countries purchasing Canadian grain for less than we in British Columbia can purchase it, naturally they protest against any imposition of this kind. With reference to the feeding of turkeys I can tell my hon. friend that in British Columbia turkeys fed on wheat and corn command a price much greater than that paid for turkeys from Saskatchewan. If hon. members do not believe that statement I can get the figures.


Charles A. Stewart: I think
our farmer friends are unduly alarmed about this duty. The poultrymen will have to pay a little more for their corn, but the price of barley will not be increased. If it is any comfort to my Conservative friends in western Canada they can go home and tell their constituents they have put a duty on corn which they hope will increase the price of barley, but their constituents will have to be very gullible to believe that this will help them in any way. Hon. gentlemen opposite told the people of Canada that by putting a duty on butter the price would be increased, and that the same thing would happen in connection with beef, but we are exporting these commodities and will continue to do so, and the prices in foreign countries will continue to fix the prices at home. So I am not very much alarmed about the duty on corn. The poor old poultryman will have to pay the duty, that is all; the Ontario fanner who of necessity must use some corn will pay the duty also. As far as we are concerned in western Canada it is just so much eyewash with regard to getting an increased price for cur barley.


Edward James Young: Could the Prime Minister
tell us about how many bushels of barley he hopes to be able to market by this measure?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I intimated to the committee that since there was no separation of items I could not give any accurate information in that regard. That question was asked
by the former Minister of Agriculture. Professor Grant of the Manitoba agricultural cdllege gave a great deal of study to this matter. It will be remembered that he was employed as an expert by the former advisory board, and I am indebted to one hon. member of the house for a copy of the report he made upon the use of barley instead of corn. He closes his report with these words:
The necessity for these imports in the light of our present knowledge may be seriously doubted. Evidently the traditionary practice or the aping of "corn belt" feeding outweighs other considerations. The Canadian wheat pool, backed by authorities and experiment station records is, at the present time, putting on an intensive educational campaign to sell the merits of Canadian barley to eastern feeders of live stock.
He deals with the question at some length. This is rather an interesting document to the layman who is neither a chicken fancier nor an agriculturist. All I can say is that I believe the result of this effort will be at least to ascertain with certainty the relative values of barley and corn for the purposes indicated. Other governments have had this matter in mind on previous occasions, when the emergency was not so great and conditions wer* not so bad. I believe this will stimulate the use of barley for the purposes indicated by the report.


Edward James Young: Rather a costly experiment
I think.	.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think not.


Thomas McMillan: I was pleased indeed to hear the remarks of my right hon. friend the Minister of Finance but when ha speaks of the results of experiments with regard to the feeding of barley in comparison with corn I am satisfied that those experiments have not been conducted for a sufficiently long period to give a justifiable result. I may tell hon. members of this house that I was brought up at the feet of men such as Doctor Mills, Professor C. A. Zavitz, Professor Panton and Professor George E. Day, and those men


Felix Patrick Quinn: They are all dead now.


Thomas McMillan: No, they are
not, but those who have passed away, Professor Mills and Professor Panton, will be remembered as long as agriculture continues to exist in this country.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
3618	COMMONS
_____British American Oil Company
Friday, July 10, 1931.