1931-07-14

CANADIAN NATIONALS ACT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. FERNAND RINFRET (St. James):: Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan) if he intends to proceed with Bill No. 24, an act to define Canadian nationals?


Hon. C. H. CAHAN (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend from St. James (Mr. Rinfret) very courteously gave me notice that he intended to ask this question, and I desire to make the following statement:
I regret that we will be unable to proceed, during the present session, with Bill No. 24, entitled "An Act to define Canadian nationals and to provide for loss or renunciation of Canadian nationality."
I think that the underlying principles of that bill meet with the general approval of this house. There is an increasing demand for such legislation from all Canadian religious organizations, which have missionaries in foreign countries; from Canadian commercial and industrial companies, which maintain agencies in other countries for the develop-

Inquiries for Returns

ment of their overseas trade; and from representatives and agents of the dominion and provincial governments, who, necessarily, reside outside of Canada. They all desire that provision should be made in our statutes whereby they and their families while residing abroad, may retain their status as Canadian nationals, and maintain their permanent domicile in Canada, though temporarily resident abroad while representing in other countries Canada and Canadian institutions.
Obviously, they also desire to have and to maintain the right for themselves and their families to return from time to time to Canada to visit their principals and their relatives and their friends, and, when deemed desirable, to resume their permanent residence in Canada.
To assure Canadian nationals of this right will require certain amendments and modifications of our existing immigration laws. Inasmuch as the Minister of Immigration is now constantly engaged as chairman of the special committee which is investigating the Beau-harnois project, it has been deemed expedient to postpone, for this session, further consideration of Bill No. 24, which has passed its second reading in this house, in the hope that some satisfactory compromise may be reached in respect of the amendments of the existing immigration laws, which should be made to protect fully the rights and interests of Canadian nationals and their families who are resident abroad and who may desire to resume their permanent domicile in Canada.



INQUIRIES FOR RETURNS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. F. CASGRAIN (Charlevoix-Sague-nay):: Mr. Speaker, might I inquire of the government when certain returns for which I have asked will be brought down? On May 11 an order was passed by this house for the production of certain documents with regard to an ice-breaker. I drew attention some time ago to the fact that this return had not been brought down. Also on June 1 an order was passed for the production of documents relating to the public building at Pointe-au-Pic in the county of Charlevoix. Also on June 18 an order was passed for the production of lists of all the officials and employees on the various ships or ice-breakers under the control of the Department of Marine in the province of Quebec, and a similar order was passed with respect to vessels under the control of the Department of Public Works. I should like to have these returns as soon as possible.


Mr. J. L. BROWN (Lisgar):: A return was ordered by the house recently with reference to a report by Mr. Little concerning the dismissal of Mr. Graham. The Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) said I was not likely to get as full a report perhaps as I wished. I should like to know as soon as possible just what will be the nature of the report to be furnished.


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Min ister):: The report was, in part, an into
departmental report and as such would not be brought down. So far as the balance of it is concerned, I understand it is in course of preparation.
Perhaps I should say to the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Casgrain) that one of the returns he refers to necessitates an enormous amount of correspondence in order to get the names of all the persons employed in various parts of the public service throughout the province of Quebec. This information cannot be collected in a day or a week. As perhaps the hon. member realizes, the number of returns asked for this session has been so very great as compared with previous sessions that the staffs of the various departments have been very much overworked. However, I will make further inquiries with respect to these returns.
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata):	Mr. Speaker, yesterday you advised
me that the clerk was looking into the matter relating to some questions that I desired to place on the order paper and that a decision would be arrived at in a very short time. I do not see those questions in votes and proceedings to-day, and I should like to be definitely informed on what authority my questions have not been placed on the order paper.



AUSTRALIAN TRADE AGREEMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday
evening I promised to table a copy of the Australian tariff; I do so now. I submit, however, that it would not be serving any very useful purpose to have it printed in full. I am tabling it for the consideration of the members interested. There are a few tabulations showing certain of the changes as far as we know; also a statement of primage duties and a statement showing certain prohibitions, which are all internal matters. I am having tabulated a list of the items affected by the schedules of the treaty, showing the com-

Royal Canadian Mounted Police
parisons, but that is not yet ready. At the moment I am drawing the attention of the house to what seems to me the inadvisability of printing the whole of this tariff.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Will the other tabulation be printed?


Henry Herbert Stevens: If the house so desires. ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE



RETIREMENT OF COLONEL STARNES AND APPOINTMENT OF MAJOR-GENERAL MACBRIEN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) :: Mr. Speaker, as a matter of general
public interest, I desire to mention the retirement of Colonel Starnes as Commissioner in Command of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The retirement is to become effective on the first of August next.
As most hon. members are aware, Colonel Starnes has had a very long and a very active career in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Hugh Guthrie: He joined the force as a young man of twenty-two years of age and has now served continuously over a period of forty-six years. Since 1923 he has been in command of the force. He has at all times given most excellent and most efficient service.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Hugh Guthrie: I would also announce
that his position has been filled by the appointment of Major-General MacBrien, to become effective on the first day of August next. General MacBrien commenced his military career as a constable in the Northwest Mounted Police. At the outbreak of the war in South Africa he joined the Canadian forces and served throughout that campaign, and at the conclusion of peace he spent about six years in the organization of the South African constabulary, which was organized very largely upon the lines of the mounted police in Canada. He has in that way had a great deal of experience in regard to police work. Subsequently he entered the permanent force of Canada and rose to a very high position as a military commander during the late war, and is to-day undoubtedly one of the most outstanding military men that this country has produced.	General
MacBrien will become commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police on the first of August next.
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE	(Quebec
East):	Mr. Speaker, I desire to associate
22110-237}
myself with the words of the hon. Minister of Justice in praise of Colonel Starnes, the retiring commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. His career should certainly serve as an example to all the servants of the crown and of the country. In my relations with him as head of the department for a few years, I may say that I have never met a more assiduous, devoted and loyal officer. I have no comment to make with regard to General MacBrien, who certainly is a fine officer and who has served his country faithfully; I have no doubt he will discharge his new functions with dignity and ability. My only reservation is that the system of promotion in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police might perhaps have been observed.



FARM AND UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, it is not improbable that hon. members, especially those who reside in western Canada, may be interested to know that the government, in view of the situation which obtains, has concluded to direct the purchase of 2,000,000 bushels of wheat, which will be ground into flour by the mills of the west, thereby enabling the municipalities and those requiring assistance to obtain flour at a very reasonable price. Where distribution has to be made, we will be in a position to do so without delay. This will produce approximately 450,000 barrels of flour, and the bran and shorts remaining also will be available if so desired. I mention this at once in order that hon. members who may be receiving communications from municipalities and other parts of the west may be able to reassure those who are so directly affected by the drought conditions in their provinces.


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (West Edmonton) :: May I ask whether this will be distributed in the usual way, by the municipal authorities?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That has not been settled as yet.



MONTREAL HARBOUR COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I regret that the Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau) is not in his seat; I should like to direct to him a question to which he may possibly reply at a later sitting of the house. I notice that several newspapers are carrying advertisements of the Montreal harbour com-

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
mission very similar to those issued early this year and last fall by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) in connection with the Canada first policy. I should like to ask the government, or the Minister of Marine, whether these advertisements have been authorized by his department, and whether they are to be continued.



WAYS AND MEANS


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. LaVergne in the chair.
Richard Bedford Bennett: If the committee will resume
its deliberations on section 2, now that the Australian schedule has been presented to the house, we will be able to proceed continuously, I think, with the exception of one item, and clear up the various items to which attention was directed last evening.
Customs tariff-6. Live hogs, per pound: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, lj cents; general tariff, 3 cents.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The committee will perhaps recall that since some of the items between item 2 and item 48 were affected by the Australian treaty items, we began with item 54a. We are now taking up the items from item 2 to item 54a, and the item under consideration is item 6.


John Livingstone Brown: 
Richard Bedford Bennett: The request for this increase came .from western Canada; various members representing western constituencies, as well as others interested in farming operations, believed that the tariff did not afford them that protection from unfair competition which is so desirable, and the item is being changed to free, II cents and 3 cents.


John Livingstone Brown: I presume the demand for protection is based on the supposition that large numbers of hogs have been shipped into Canada; I imagine that is the only basis there could be for such a request. It would be very interesting for the committee to know just exactly what has been the importation of live hogs, and I have taken the trouble to look up the statistics covering importations from the United States for the last four years. I have assumed that live hogs imported would run about 200 pounds per hog; the figures are given in pounds, and therefore I have taken them on that basis. In 1928 there were 2.802 pounds imported, which would mean about 14 hogs. It is true that in 1929 the imports

were a little larger; they amounted to 110,885 pounds, which at 200 pounds per hog would mean about 550 or a few more hogs. In 1930 the imports were 2,523 pounds, or 12 hogs, or a little more, and in 1931, 7,649 pounds, or about 38 hogs. That is to say, during the last four years, on this basis, the numbers would be 38, 14, 550 and 12. So that even the greatest number, 550, is so insignificant in comparison with the hogs produced in Canada that it is hardly worth while using printers' ink to make the change. Sometimes these demands for increases in duties come from people who do not know the facts, and I am sure that the representatives of western agricultural interests who made this demand for an increased duty on live hogs were simply not aware of the situation. This is not a matter of producing more revenue; it is not even a question of giving protection to the farmers. The increase is made simply for the purpose of fooling tihe farmers who allow themselves to be fooled. Let me point out to. western members who are so anxious to have so-called protection on agricultural products that this is something which appears to give protection to the farmer while in reality it affords no protection at all. What do 12 hogs amount to, or 14, or even 550, the greatest number in the last four years, in comparison with the large number of hogs produced and slaughtered in Canada? This is in reality a duty to fool the farmers.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: In the
same category as Dunning's cut flowers.


Mr. YOUNG:: Are any of these hogs
brought in for breeding purposes?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not covered by
the item.


John Livingstone Brown: I have the exports of live
hogs to the United States, and the comparison is interesting. In this case the figures were given in numbers of animals shipped. In 1928 the number was 116,581; in 1929, 6,758; in 1930, 1,793, and in 1931, 244. It is true that the exports to the United States have gone down of late years but they still exceed the amount of imports from that country.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hon. members of this
house, who perhaps are as well able to judge as the hon. gentleman, were very much concerned over a situation that had rapidly developed owing to the economic stress in the United States. The number of swine produced there has increased by leaps and bounds during the last few months. The hon. gentleman knows that, for he keeps himself thoroughly

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
familiar with what transpires. It will be remembered that ofdy a few years ago we sold nearly $3,000,000 worth of swine products to the United States. That market entirely disappeared by reason of the Smoot-Hawley tariff, and this is a precautionary measure. It can do no harm, and at least it will do some good; because if the occasion arises, as apparently it may, we shall have provided against it. Let me ask the hon. gentleman, does he suggest that hogs should be free?


John Livingstone Brown: It would make little difference.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Does he suggest that the item should be free?


John Livingstone Brown: I have no objection.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is all that is wanted.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-2.	Domestic fowls, purebred, for the improvement of stock, homing or messenger pigeons, and pheasants: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
Richard Bedford Bennett: This item was passed'but the fact is not recorded.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-7. Meats, fresh, n.o.p.:
(a)	beef and veal, per pound: British preferential tariff, 4 cents; intermediate tariff, 6 cents; general tariff, 8 cents;
(b)	lamb and mutton, per pound: British preferential tariff, 4 cents; intermediate tariff, 6 cents; general tariff, 8 cents;
(c)	n.o.p., per pound: British preferential tariff, 2 cents; intermediate tariff, 2£ cents; general tariff, 5 cents.
Edward James Young: The old rates were 2 cents, 21 cents, and 3i cents. The new rates are 4 cents, 6 cents and 8 cents. Why this large
increase?


Richard Bedford Bennett: This is the first item that is reflected in the Australian treaty; tariff item No. 7, meats, fresh, beef and veal, 3 cents per pound, lamb and mutton, 3 cents per pound; canned meats, poultry or game extracts being included in another item. My hon. friend will see that there is a difference between the two items of beef and veal of 1 cent in the British preference, 3 cents in the intermediate and 5 cents in the general tariff. Our treaty proposed to give them that preference, and this item has been raised accordingly.


Edward James Young: The preferential rate is higher than it was. The duty has been raised against Australia.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The Australian rate is 3 cents.


Edward James Young: I have not the same figure; what I have is 4 cents.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That was before the new treaty. Last night I pointed out that this was the first item, and if the hon. gentleman will look at schedule A, page 6, he will see the item.


Edward James Young: In the September budget we had, in the beef and veal item, rates of 2 cents, 2i cents and 6 cents. We have now 3 cents where formerly it was 2 cents.


Mr. OHAPLIN:: The Australian treaty in regard to meats gave a rate of \ cent per pound.


Charles A. Stewart: One cent.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: I have it before me; it is h cent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I suggest that the hon. gentleman turn to the present Australian
agreement. He had an erroneous figure a moment ago.
Mr. YOUNG; The present rate is 3 cents.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


Edward James Young: The old rates, after the September budget came in, were 2 cents, 2i cents and 6 cents under the general. Now, 3 cents is higher than either 2 cents or 2i cents.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The new rates are 4, 6
and 8 to afford a preference of 1 cent to Australia under the British preference. To effect that purpose our rates were increased.


Edward James Young: We raised our rates so that we could lower them again to Australia.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what the late
Minister of Finance desired but was not permitted to do.


Mr. SPEARMAN:: How much fresh meat of this kind came last year from Australia under the old treaty?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Of beef and veal we imported 2,000,000 pounds odd under the former item, valued at $198,000. There came from New Zealand, 1,336,000 pounds and from the United States 382,000 pounds. The Australian item covers lamb and mutton, and the imports from that country amounted to 1,257,000 pounds.
372S

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Alfred Speakman: How much came in
last year from the United States? My object in asking this question is to discover if any trade has been diverted.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Under the lamb and
mutton item 393,000 pounds came in from the United States; under the beef and veal item,
382,000	pounds; fresh meats, not otherwise provided for, 1,063,000 pounds valued at $156,800, chiefly from the United States.


Alfred Speakman: The effect of the treaty has been to divert some of this trade from the United States to Australia.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-8. Canned meats, poultry or game; extracts of meat and fluid beef, not medicated: British preferential tariff, 15 per cent; intermediate tariff, 30 per cent; general tariff, 35 per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-9a. Quails, partridges, and squabs, dead or alive, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, 10 per cent; intermediate tariff, 20 per cent; general tariff, 30 per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-9b. Rabbits, frozen, when imported exclusively for fox-breeding purposes: British preferential tariff, 12i per cent; intermediate tariff, 17J per cent; general tariff, 20 per cent.
Richard Bedford Bennett: This is a new item to
meet the suggestion made by Australia, it being free under the Australian treaty.


Mr. COOTE:: How is the department to
decide that these rabbits are actually fed to foxes after being imported?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The department has to
deal with many matters of this kind where the use to which the imported article is to be put is defined by the tariff. The regulations have met the situation heretofore in connection with defaulting.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-10.	Meats, prepared or
preserved, other than canned:
(a)	bacon, hams, shoulders and other pork, per pound: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 1| cents; general tariff, 5 cents;
(b)	n.o.p., per pound: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 3 cents; general tariff, 6 cents.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff

15. Beswax: British preferential tariff, 15 per cent; intermediate tariff, 20 per cent; general tariff, 20 per cent.
Pierre-François Casgrain: Representations in connection with this item have been made to

the house. I have received letters from concerns in the province of Quebec which are interested in the manufacture of candles, in connection with which they use a certain amount of beeswax. Two of these letters I will read in the French language
(Translation): J.-C. Frenette, of Quebec, has sent me the following letter, dated June 18, 1931:
Together with other candle manufacturers I wish to protest against this increase in this tariff item from 7J to 20 per cent, on beeswax.
It is unnecessary to repeat the reasons given by my fellow-manufacturers, however, may I state that I entirely agree with their request not to alter the tariff, at least on beeswax imported by candle manufacturers. This protection of 20 per cent will in no way benefit beekeepers or wax-bleachers, because they cannot supply us with the special product required in our industry.
Trusting that the request of the candle manufacturers will be granted, I beg of you to accept my sincere thanks.
J.-C. Frenette,
(sgd.) I. Hardy.
J.-B. Lasnier, Inc., of Levis, is another company which manufactures candles and utilizes beeswax. This company contends that the proposed changes to the tariff would really be detrimental to its trade. The following letter was forwarded to me by this company on June 18, 1931:
We wish to protest, together with other candle manufacturers, against this uncalled for increase of 300 per cent in the tariff of beeswax, from 7J per cent for the intermediary tariff, to 20 per cent for the general tariff, which changes have been in force since June 1, the date of the budget statement.
This increase probably made at the request of the Beekeepers Association of Canada, at the suggestion of the Ruddy Mfg. Co. of Brantford (Ontario) will in no way benefit this association or the Canadian wax-bleachers, and it will not have the results expected; namely, to oblige candle-makers to purchase their supply of beeswax in Canada; on the contrary it will hinder our industry which already has to compete with foreign industries and particularly those of the United States; it will bring about a proportional increase in the price of candles in Canada, and will the more accentuate this competition.
Our churches already much in need of money, and as a whole, the congregation already otherwise taxed, will have to meet this increase without any compensation forthcoming to whomsoever.
The candle manufacturers will continue to purchase their supplies from the same source, because they exclusively utilize pure beeswax, bleached by the sun and air, and that special product cannot be supplied to them by the Canadian beeswax bleachers, because the summer, being the only season when this operation can be carried on is too short, the changes in temperature too frequent and sudden, and therefore detrimental to this work. This exposes the wax-bleachers to great losses. The other bleaching processes, whether chemical, mechanical or electrical, principally the

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
latter, used by the Ruddy Mfg. Co. has the great defect of extracting the fat ingredient which renders it unsuitable for the making of candles, a defect which we were able to ascertain because, with the hope of encouraging this new industry, we made purchases from this company. However, the poor results obtained from their products force us to discontinue placing further orders with this firm.
May we further add that the Ruddy Mfg. Co. take advantage of this tariff increase to unfairly raise their price by some cents per pound when the market for beeswax is down and does not seem to pick up.
We place these facts before you in the hope that the tariff will not be raised, at least in respect to beeswax, which is imported by candle manufacturers. France seems to be the country which lends itself best to the bleaching of beeswax by the sun and air and the tariff of 71 per cent should not be changed.
Kindly accept our sincere thanks.
(Sgd.) J.-B. Lasnier, Sr. Inc.
per Alf T.
In view of these representations I think this item should not pass.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member in his presentation of this case has fallen far short of my expectations.


An hon. MEMBER:: He always does.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am rather surprised
that he has not made in this committee the presentation of the case which some of his colleagues made by circulars which were sent throughout the province of Quebec. I am rather astounded that he has not seen fit to assert that my hand is against the church, as has been stated in the circulars. I am rather amazed that it has not been said that in enacting this section I was acting for the Imperial Oil and the Standard Oil companies. That was said in the circulars, so why was it not said here? I have before me the circular put out by my hon. friends opposite in which it has been indicated that the tax on beeswax was a direct effort on the part of this man Bennett to make it more difficult to conduct services in the church, and that the price of candles would be greatly increased by reason of his action.


Pierre-François Casgrain: I never signed that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was stated that my
purpose was to improve the Imperial Oil and Standard Oil enterprises. Let me hasten to assure the committee that such is not the case. I fancy that very few people have been misled by such statements but I desire to avail myself of this opportunity-I thank my hon. friend for providing the opportunity -to make a denial to the committee. I cannot hope that the same publicity will be given to the denial as has been given to the unfounded statements, but one becomes
accustomed to almost any form of attack. Imagine an attack as far fetched as to make such assertions when the beekeepers of Canada, in convention assembled, producing as they do very large quantities of wax, have suggested that they should be given a little more opportunity to carry on their business under fair competition. This industry has assumed great proportions and when we met their suggestions it was circulated amongst the confiding and faithful people that this action was being taken to strike a blow at the mother church.


Pierre-François Casgrain: I never said that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is politics as practised by my hon. friends opposite. This is one item in which an increase has been made in the British preferential tariff. The rates have been increased from free to 15 per cent, from 7| to 20 per cent and from 10 to 20 per cent. The proportion of beeswax entering into the manufacture of candles is not very great. I think hon. members know something of the enormous development which has taken place in this industry. In looking over the figures of production a few weeks ago I was amazed to find that the industry has assumed great proportions in every province of Canada. In the province from whence I come the production of honey has reached a figure which a few years ago would have been thought impossible. It is so in all the provinces. The gentleman, Mr. Baillargeon, is a manufacturer of candles. He has communicated his position to the department. He gave evidence before the tariff advisory board in connection with an application for increased protection on candles. Perhaps the hon. member for Weybum (Mr. Young) will recall the testimony and the application. We believe, in taking the course we have pursued, we have done something that will be of incalculable benefit to a very large number of people in every portion of every province of Canada; its application is not limited to one. I again assure my hon. friend (Mr. Casgrain) that when he replies to the communications that have been directed to him, he may give the most solemn assurance that there is no desire or intention on the part of that legendary figure, by name Bennett, that is being held up to the view of the confiding people of Quebec, in any way to interfere with the use of candles in churches, to increase their cost or to increase the profits of any refining company in the world.


Alfred Speakman: What was the importation of beeswax last year? I assume that this

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
is a laudable attempt upon the part of the government to maintain a high standard of living amongst our Canadian working bees.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Importations to the value of $76,000.


Mr. PARENT:: I have listened with great interest to the remarks of the Prime Minister about beeswax. The duty on this commodity has been increased 200 per cent under the intermediate tariff and 100 per cent under the general tariff. Under the old tariff schedule the general rate was 10 per cent whereas now it is 20 per cent. Beeswax is a raw product which is used in the manufacture of candles, but it has to be bleached before it is so used. It has been said that beeswax is mostly used in candle manufacturing. May I say that 60 per cent of the candles that are used in Canada are made of paraffin; 40 per cent with the proportion of 60 per cent of beeswax and the balance other products, such as paraffin and acid. In order to manufacture high class candles, the beeswax has to be bleached, and I have been informed that on account of climatic conditions beeswax cannot be property bleached in this country. The Chemical process of bleaching beeswax for candle making has not been a success, and it has not given any satisfaction. Therefore the candle manufacturers have to import their beeswax mostly from Europe. Two hundred thousand pounds h'ave been imported from France and Belgium and 40,000 pounds from England.
Sixty per cent of the domestic production of beeswax is used, or I might say, re-used in the honey-making industry, so that whatever balance is offered on the market is far from being sufficient to meet the Canadian demand for beeswax for candle-making, and this is the reason why so much is imported. At present there is a tariff of 25 per cent on manufactured candles, and this has not been touched. If there is an increase in the tariff on beeswax which is one of the primary products to be used in the manufacture of candles, and if the tariff on manufactured candles is to remain as at present, what is going to be the result? It will most likely be that candles will be imported from the United States. There will be no protection whatever and in this way the industry of candle-making in this country will be greatly affected. Therefore the committee should decide that this tariff should not be increased because it will not benefit the honey industry and it will not benefit the candle-makers; the duty on manufactured candles remaining

at 25 per cent, importation of the finished product will result. More than half a million dollars of capital is invested in the candlemaking industry of Canada and therefore the old rate of duty of 10 per cent on beeswax should remain.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I might say to my hon. friend that it was the Honey Producers Association and the Beekeepers' Association, national organizations, that pressed for this. The duty on beeswax in the United States is 30 per cent.


Louis-Étienne Parent: It may be that the honey producers might ask for some further protection so that they might be able to sell their products a little dearer, but have they proved that the bleaching of their beeswax has been successful in this country? It is acknowledged that owing to climatic conditions beeswax cannot be properly bleached in Canada in order to be used in making high quality candles to the satisfaction of the candle manufacturers, and as long as this raw product cannot be properly treated for use in making the finished product, I do not see that a higher tariff will in any way protect the honey industry.


Mr. COTNAM:: I should like to inform the hon. gentleman that a good quality of bleached beeswax is being produced in the factory of the Ruddy Manufacturing Company in the city of Brantford.


Louis-Étienne Parent: The Ruddy Manufacturing Company may have asked for protection, but I have under my hand letters which I shall read to the committee showing that since the duty has been increased, they have increased their price three cents per pound on beeswax. 1 have other letters from candle manufacturers stating that their product is not giving entire satisfaction. I did not want to mention this to the committee, but I have to do so in reply to the observations of the hon. member.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-16. Eggs in the shell, per dozen:	British preferential tariff, 2 cents:
intermediate tariff, 5 cents; general tariff, 10 cents.
Mr. REID:: Why is it that eggs should be allowed under the Australian treaty to enter Canada free in the months of January and February? Those are the months in which we expect a high price in British Columbia.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The reason is that those are perhaps the two months which would least affect the egg producers of Canada.

Ways and Means-Cuslnms Tariff
This was one of the few things we could do to assist in the passing of this treaty, and it will not seriously affect the egg producers of this country.


Thomas Reid: Will it be possible for Australia to dump eggs during those two months?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the hon. member may rely upon there being no dumping by Australia of their products in our market. They treated us last year with singular generosity with respect to matters of this kind, and the provisions of article IX of the treaty contemplate the maintenance of friendly relations that will prevent the possibility of friction arising in connection with just such matters as my hon. friend has mentioned. I think we can, if no untoward event occurs, look forward to the most friendly administration of this treaty, and the fact that article nine appears in the document is in itself some evidence that that is the purpose and intent of both parties.


Mr. NEILL:: We are going to get into a somewhat complex situation, Mr. Chairman, if we are going to discuss the Australian treaty in connection with these items. I think it would be better to wait until the treaty is under consideration. But now that the subject has been introduced, might I say with regard to the remarks of the hon. member for New Westminster that when he used the word "dumping" perhaps he did not mean it in the legal sense. The Prime Minister said that there was nothing to prevent dumping under the treaty. As long as eggs can be brought in from Australia during the months of January and February-those are the flood months of production in Australia-there is nothing to prevent enormous quantities being brought in and put in cold storage, and that, of course, would affect our market the whole year around. But as I say, perhaps that had better be considered when the Australian treaty is before us. But certainly that point is there, unless of course, you are going to specify that eggs brought in during January and February are laid in the month of January and February, which it would be practically impossible to do. The Minister of Trade and Commerce says that those are the months in which eggs can be brought in with the least interference with the Canadian poultry keepers. But those are the very months in which our poultry keepers hope to make up the loss which they have sustained during the rest of the year. If it is possible during those two months to bring in
eggs in unlimited quantities, it may be a serious blow to the egg producers in Canada. It will work along the same line as the duty on cracked corn and on alfalfa hay.


Mr. BARBER:: Under the old treaty eggs came in from Australia free the year around


Richard Bedford Bennett: No dumping duti
applied against them.


Mr. CAYLEY:: What quantity of eggs
came into Canada in January and February in 1930? I presume that most of them came in from the United States under the three cents tariff.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have not that information by months, but by years, and I am happy to inform the hon. gentleman that the action that was taken last year has seriously affected imports. They have fallen to 158,000 dozen for 1931, as compared with 2,853,000 dozen the year before.


Thomas Merritt Cayley: Was that under the three
cents tariff against the United States?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, that was the total
importation.


Mr. LUCAS:: What was the importation
if any, of eggs from Australia last year?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Practically none.


Alan Webster Neill: From what countries does
the bulk of the eggs come in under the intermediate tariff, and in what quantities? That is the item that is being raised.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Of the total of 158,000
dozen imported, 113,000 dozen came from the United States.


Alan Webster Neill: Under the intermediate
tariff?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, under the general
tariff.


Alan Webster Neill: What country sends the
most in under the intermediate?


Richard Bedford Bennett: There are many countries shipping eggs into Canada, but there have been no imports amounting to any particular value or quantity, because of the 158,000 dozen, 113,000 dozen came from the United States under the general tariff.


Alan Webster Neill: Then why the need for
changing the intermediate item if there is no movement?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Because of the treaty.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
IFaj/s and Means-Customs Tariff
Customs tariff-17. Cheese, when in packages weighing two pounds, each, or less, the weight of such packages to be included in the weight for duty: British preferential tariff, 3 cents per pound; intermediate tariff, 7 cents per pound; general tariff, 7 cents per pound.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-20a. Butter produced from the cocoa bean:	British preferential tariff,
free; intermediate tariff, 2 cents per pound; general tariff, 2 cents per pound.
Provided, that the governor in council may, when satisfied that cocoa butter is produced in Canada in quantity and quality sufficient to meet Canadian requirements, by order in council direct that there be substituted for this item in schedule A to the customs tariff, the following:	... ,
Butter produced from the cocoa bean: British preferential tariff, 3 cents per pound; intermediate tariff, 4 cents per pound; general tariff, 4 cents per pound.
From and after the publication of such order in council in the Canada Gazette, this item as it appears in said schedule at the time of the passing of this act shall be repealed and the provisions of the said tariff item as it appears in the last preceding subsection of this section shall be substituted therefor.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-28a. Tea, imported direct from the country of growth and production or purchased in the United Kingdom: British preferential tariff, 4 cents per pound; intermediate tariff, 8 cents per pound; general tariff, 8 cents per pound.
When in packages weighing five pounds, each, or less, the weight of such packages to be included in the weight for duty.
Provided, that tea shall be entitled to entry under the British preferential tariff upon evidence satisfactory to the minister that such tea has been produced wholly in the British dominions, colonies or possessions, and not otherwise.
Charles A. Stewart: What is the reason for this increase?


Richard Bedford Bennett: There has been a decrease in reality with respect to part of it. There has been so much misapprehension that once more may I direct the attention of my hon. friend from St. James (Mr. Rinfret) to the literature which has been sent out in regard to tea in the province of Quebec? There are two tea items which it might be well to consider together. There is item 28a, dealing with tea imported direct, and 29a, dealing with tea not otherwise specified or provided for. Under the tariff as it stood prior to the first of June all tea in bulk imported direct from the place of production or from the United Kingdom entered under item 28a at the rate of British preferential free, intermediate nine cents per pound, and general ten cents per pound. The importations in 1931 were as follows: 52,703,000 pounds, of which

21.375.000	pounds came from Great Britain,
19.651.000	pounds from British India, 8,546,000 pounds from Ceylon, and approximately
2.500.000	pounds from Japan. It will be observed that all other tea, including bulk tea not imported direct, as well as all package tea of all kinds, entered under the former item 29a at a rate of 10 per cent under the British preference, and 10 per cent intermediate, and 10 per cent general, with an additional specific duty of 10 cents per pound under the British preferential, and the same rate under the intermediate and general tariff. That was the tariff before the 1st of June. There has been a change of items as will be observed from 28a and 29a, the basis of the division being directness of shipment or otherwise in the first instance. In other words, the new 28a will cover all direct shipments of tea and all United Kingdom teas, whether in bulk or in packages, with a proviso that when in packages weighing five pounds or less the weight of the package shall be included in determining the weight for duty. Similarly the new item 29a will cover all indirect shipments of teas whether in bulk or in packages, with a similar proviso with respect to the weight of the package. It will be observed that the rates have been changed under old item 28a from free, 9 cents and 10 cents per pound, to 4 cents, 8 cents and 8 cents per pound, with the qualification that I have just mentioned as to directness of shipment and as to bulk and package tea. It will be observed in connection with item 29a, dealing with tea very largely consumed in the province of Quebec, that there has been a removal of the 10 cents per pound specific duty provided for under the former item as it stood prior to the first of June. The 10 cent rate has been taken out and the 10, 10, 10 cents left.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-29a. Tea, n.o.p., per pound: British preferential tariff, 10 cents; intermediate	tariff,	10	cents;	general tariff,	10
cents.
When imported in packages weighing five pounds, each, or less, the weight of such packages to be included in the weight for duty.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-35.	Hops, per pound:
British preferential tariff, 8 cents; intermediate	tariff,	16	cents;	general tariff,	16
cents.
Charles A. Stewart: What is the importation of hops?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The importation last
year was 2,746,000 pounds, valued for duty

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
purposes at $408,000. Our exports for the same period amounted to about $48,000 in value. The production is largely limited to British Columbia, where last year it amounted to nearly 1,200,000 pounds.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-39. Starch, including corn starch, potato starch, potato flour and all preparations having the qualities of starch, the weight of the package to be included in the weight for duty, per pound: British preferential tariff, 1 cent; intermediate tariff, 2 cents; general tariff, 2 cents.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-43a.	Powdered milk, the
weight of the package to be included in the weight for duty, per pound: British preferential tariff, 24 cents; intermediate tariff, 5 cents; general tariff, 5 cents.
Alfred Speakman: What are our imports
of powdered milk?


Richard Bedford Bennett: We have no detailed
statistics. An application has been made for an item defining powdered milk, powdered cream, powdered buttermilk and powdered skim milk, but it is too difficult in this first effort to deal with an item of this kind to attempt to make that separation having regard to administration. So far as we know powdered milk produced in this country last year had a value of about $1,240,000; condensed milk, $2,700,000; condensed skim milk about $575,000. The rate provided will apply to all these powdered milk products. This item appears in the tariff because of the strong representations made by the National Dairy Council, and at the moment all forms of powdered milk will be covered by the item. It may be possible as we progress that a separation can be made, but at the moment all those products are covered by the broad term "powdered milk."


Alfred Speakman: What is the value of
the imports under that general heading?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Unfortunately there is no method by which to determine what they are. An effort was made by going over some of the invoices, but it was impossible to determine it with any degree of exactitude as it now stands; hereafter it will be.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-48. Peas, n.o.p., per pound: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, J cent; general tariff, 1 cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-62.	Rice, uncleaned, unltulled or paddy: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
The governor in council, when satisfied that Australia can supply Canadian requirements, may by order in council, direct that there be substituted for tariff item 62 in schedule A of the customs tariff, and the enumeration of goods and the rates of duties of customs set opposite the said item in schedule A the following:
Customs tariff-62a.	Rice, uncleaned, unhulled or paddy: British preferential tariff, 25 per cent; intermediate tariff, 25 per cent; general tariff, 25 per cent.
From and after the publication of such order in council in the Canada Gazette, tariff item 62 as it appears in the said schedule at the time of the publication of the said order shall be repealed and the provisions of tariff item 62a shall be substituted therefor.
Richard Bedford Bennett: If the committee will
permit-and it is entirely for the committee to say-we will proceed now with the items of which I gave notice last night and which hon. gentlemen have before them in votes and proceedings. The first item will be No. 62, rice, uncleaned, unhulled or paddy. Hon. members will recall I said that until the Australian treaty had been tabled I might not properly go on with it. I think what this item means is abundantly clear from the mere reading of it. We are giving Australia this preference, and as and when they are able to supply our entire requirements-which they believe will be within a reasonable time -it is provided that the rate of duty will be 25 per cent.


Edward James Young: If we bring in rice from any other source Australia will not have this preference?


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is no limitation on the importation, but obviously the commodity would be imported from Australia. Last year I explained to the committee that we brought in about 449,000 hundredweight and we paid for it about $1,100,000. The effect of this is merely to give that preference to Australia.


Mr. TOTZKE:: From what countries were
our chief importations?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The largest importation was from the United States.


George Gibson Coote: Does the department believe that Australia will furnish us with rice at the same price as we are paying now?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Australians agreed
not to raise the price.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
Richard Bedford Bennett: The next item arises out of the seed group, 76b, the item that I gave notice of yesterday.
Customs tariff-76b. Seeds, viz: Field, root, garden and other seeds, when in packages weighing one pound each, or less: British preferential tariff, 15 per cent; intermediate tariff, 30 per cent; general tariff, 35 per cent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member for
Bow River (Mr. Garland) raised this question yesterday, and I stated that a new item would deal with these small packages of seeds. This is the new item.


Mr. EULER:: May I ask whether this includes bulbs, or is there a separate item?


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is a separate item.


William Daum Euler: Is there any change?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, bulbs are not dealt-with in this tariff schedule.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-95b. Passion fruit (passi-flora edulis): British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 15 per cent; general tariff, 20 per cent.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I need hardly say this is an Australian treaty item, which will be found in the votes and proceedings. This fruit is indigenous to Australia, where it has become a highly popular ingredient in the making of salads. That country is doing a veiy considerable export trade in this fruit. At the moment we cannot trace the imports, since there has been a change in rates under tariff item 96. This fruit is now given a separate classification at the rates indicated.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-99a. Plums or prunes, dried, unpitted, per pound: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 1 cent; general tariff, 1 cent. When in packages weighing 2 pounds each, or less, the weight of such packages to be included in the weight for duty.
Customs tariff-99c. Raisins and dried currants, per pound: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 4 cents; general tariff, 4 cents. When in packages weighing 2 pounds each, or less, the weight of such packages to be included in the weight for duty.
Richard Bedford Bennett: These items were permitted to stand yesterday. If the Australian treaty is referred to it will be seen that these two items should .be taken together. So I will ask my hon. friend from Argenteuil to move a new item which will conform to the treaty.


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: I beg to move that the following be substituted for tariff
[Mr. B nnett.l
item 99c, as contained in resolution N'J. 2 of June 1, 1931:
Customs tariff-99e. Raisins and dried currants;
(i)	for a period of two years from the date on which the Australian trade treaty comes into force, per pound: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 4 cents; general tariff, 4 cents:
(ii)	thereafter, per pound; British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 3 cents; general tariff, 3 cents.
When in packages weighing two pounds, each, or less, the weight of such packages to be included in the weight for duty.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I know the committee
is being put to great inconvenience through this method of considering these items, but necessity has arisen because of the delay in receiving the treaty, a circumstance over which we had no control. I am greatly obliged for the courtesy of the committee in permitting us to proceed in this way.


Charles A. Stewart: We understand, then, that for the first two years after the Australian trade treaty is in effect, the intermediate and general tariffs will each be four cents, and that after the two-year period the tariffs will be each three cents?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is correct.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Customs tariff-99g.	Apricots, nectarines,
pears and peaches, dried, desiccated, evaporated or dehydrated:	British preferential
tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 22J per cent; general tariff, 25 per cent.
Richard Bedford Bennett: It will be observed that
there is no change in the rates, but the item is new to meet the provisions of the treaty. Last year our imports were approximately
1,627,000	pounds, of which 1,300,000 pounds, in round figures, came from the United States. That is with reference to dried apricots. We imported 119,000 pounds from Great Britain, and 184,000 pounds from British South Africa. Our imports of dried peaches were 1,253,000 pounds, of which 1,187,000 pounds came from the United States. We cannot give in detail the figures of production in Canada of these dried and evaporated fruits, but the Australians feel quite confident that under this preference they will be able to supply a substantial part of our requirements.


Charles A. Stewart: I very much fear we will find considerably increased prices in the process.


Mr. McMILLAN (Huron):: There is nothing said about pineapples; is anything being done about that fruit?

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Richard Bedford Bennett: We are coming to that
in a moment.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-101.	Oranges, per cubic
foot: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 35 cents; general tariff, 35 cents.
Richard Bedford Bennett: This is an item which
yesterday I asked to have stand. As I explained yesterday this is a new item, oranges and lemons heretofore being linked together. The imports were 2,406,000 boxes, valued at about $9,500,000, coming chiefly from the United States. During the fiscal year 1930 the total value of our imports was $9,368,000 in round figures, of which $8,680,000 came from the United States, $361,000 from Japan and $211,000 from the United Kingdom. During the fiscal year 1931 there was a distinct development of trade with Australia and British South Africa, a considerable quantity of oranges from both countries being available last fall and winter in retail fruit shops both in western and eastern Canada. Perhaps it would be interesting to the committee to learn something of the imports for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1931, together with the places of origin:
Country	Boxes	ValueOreait Britain	83.437	.$ 373.700Austral! a	25,189	97.475Bermuda	75	225British South Africa. .	17,589	64,324British Guiana	39	66British West Indies. ..	807	2.447Hong Kong	470	1,789Jamaica	15.580	70,499Palestine	179	348Trinidad	101	236Brazil	10,829	34,011China	1	3Honduras	346	2,072Italy	41.171	147.519Japan	104.219	319,698Mexico	1.795	3,141Portuguese Africa.. ..	1.130	5,487Sipain	23.261	88.141United States	2,080.218	8,281,741The separate classification is for	the purpose
of securing, if possible, a larger proportion of our requirements from empire sources, and the item in the treaty, it will be observed, is predicated upon that assumption.


Mr. MORAND:: Is there a common
standard of measurement throughout the world? I see that oranges of various kinds are coming in in bags. How is the value for duty purposes arrived at?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The measurement is by cubic feet and I understand that there is no difficulty in administration.


James Dew Chaplin: It seems to me that the
measurement of oranges by cubic feet is going to present some difficulty to the department. I understand that at present if a box of oranges spreads out a little the customs officers insist on bringing it out even in order to get the cubic measurement. Evidently it will be a difficult matter to handle. Has the minister made provision for the manufacturers of jams and marmalade? Has any consideration been given to them in this matter?


Edward James Young: Tariffs do not increase
prices.


James Dew Chaplin: I am not asking the hon. gentleman; I am asking the Prime Minister. I did not know we had a new minister over there.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member for
Weyburn (Mr. Young) thinks he could at least make a better job of it than some of us, and imder the circumstances he must be permitted to have his say. There is no special provision with regard to oranges such as the hon. member refers to. The yardstick of measurement is one that has been in vogue for a long time and the Australian treaty negotiators regarded it as preferable. As it was a standard with which we were well acquainted, the government, on the advice of its technicians, accepted it.


Alan Webster Neill: Subsection 2 of resolution
No. 17 provides that in the event of anyone taking advantage of the tariff the duty will be removed. Under that provision are oranges regarded as an agricultural product?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That provision applies
to Canadian products.


John Livingstone Brown: Is there any prospect that
in the immediate future Australia or other British dominions will be able to supply our needs?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I gave the figures to
indicate the extent to which in recent years various parts of the empire have been able to produce oranges. The information at hand is that South Africa is making very great strides in this regard. Our Australian friends were quite confident of their ability very soon to meet the difficulties of production now that they have some assurance of a continuing market; and from Australia and South Africa and Jamaica, to say nothing of other possessions in the West Indies and of that part of South Africa known as Rhodesia, the indications lead us to believe that a very substantial part of our requirements will be met within a reasonably short time.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


John Livingstone Brown: I have here an extract from the Jamaica Gleaner, the concluding part of which reads:
But it is scarcely to be imagined that the Canadian consumer would take kindly to any increase in the price of his oranges. Our output of oranges will have to show at least the probability of development on a large scale before the preference in Canada can come within the bounds of the practical.


Charles A. Stewart: What will
be the duty on the ordinary box of oranges?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Approximately 70 or 75
cents.


Charles A. Stewart: I am entirely in accord with the idea of inter-empire trade. But having sampled most of the oranges produced in the empire, I think it must be admitted that the oranges coming from British countries do not compare with the California fruit. It seems that we are adding a substantial duty on those oranges. Perhaps we may look upon California oranges as a luxury, and I am not averse to taxing luxuries. But we have been importing between eight and nine millions of these oranges annually and the duty does seem to be considerable. Naturally people have been buying the better quality of oranges, the prices having been almost equal. Now undoubtedly these oranges coming from the United States will be classed as a luxury fruit. I am inclined to think that the revenue will not suffer materially, because people will pay the extra 87 cents a box, or whatever it is, to secure the superior quality.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is about 70 cents a box.


Charles A. Stewart: This is a tax on a food which is becoming more and more popular eveiy year in Canada. I have heard the importation of oranges criticized on the ground that it affected the consumption of Canadian apples, but I fail to see the necessity for such an increase in the duty to provide a market for imports from the empire. If empire countries produced the same quality of fruit then no one would suffer materially, because I think there is ample competition within the empire to regulate prices.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: How many oranges are there in a box?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It ranges from 180 to 320.


William Daum Euler: What would be the duty in ad valorem terms?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps other hon. gentlemen could answer that more readily than I.


William Daum Euler: It is rather difficult to judge intelligently from the specific rate just What the increase in price will be. .	a


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member for
Parkdale (Mr. Spence) informs me that the value of a case varies from $5 to $5.50; the duty would range from 70 to 75 cents, so that it would amount practically to 12 or 14 per cent. I would say to the hon. member for West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart) that during recent yeans South Africa, including Rhodesia has so increased the export of oranges to Great Britain that last year they sent nearly one million cases. I took some little trouble to investigate the condition of the fruit coming in from South Africa, and I was amazed at what I found:. Modem cold storage facilities have been so improved as to permit the ready movement of fruit provided the proper precooling steps are taken when the fruit is taken from the tree. The fruit is delivered to the ships under conditions which have become a matter of scientific exactitude and it is delivered in London in an amazingly good condition. I did not think it possible that fruit could travel such .great distances and be delivered in such excellent condition, but it is being done.
Our friends in Australia, as do our friends in South Africa, feel quite confident that with the opening of this market to them so freely, they can develop a considerable trade. Orange juice has to some extent been superseded by tomato juice in the public use, but it is believed that this step will result in a great stimulus to the production of oranges within the empire and greatly improve our present position. Those who have tasted the oranges produced in the West Indies and Jamaica are amazed at the quality. I do not pose as an expert, but I do say that the oranges from South Africa appear to me to be as fine in flavour as any I have been privileged to eat. This is an experiment in the development of empire trade, and from the evidence before us, we believe it will be successful.


William Richard Motherwell: I am going to surprise my right hon. friend by telling him that I am in favour of this item.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That statement delights me greatly but it makes me fear that I may be wrong.


William Richard Motherwell: I had the opportunity of investigating the possibilities of increasing not only the quantity but the quality of oranges imported from Jamaica. A policy of this kind will certainly encourage interempire trade. It is the same principle under

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
which we raised the duty by 50 cents per stem on bananas under the general tariff, and allowed them to come in free under the British preferential.


James Dew Chaplin: This is the only item in the whole tariff where a duty is charged on the cubic measurement. This commodity will come in mostly by vessel, and ocean rates are charged on that basis. We should have a box which could be calculated easily as to cubic measurement, or else we will have trouble with the people handling these goods. There will not be two customs officials in the whole country who will measure these boxes alike, and a change should be made for the benefit of the traders of this country.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The administration has not been found to be difficult nor is it believed that it will become more difficult because this happens to be the standard or yardstick of measurement provided for in the treaty.


George Gibson Coote: I would like to enter a protest against an increased duty on oranges. Thousands of cases of this fruit are used in the hospitals in order to furnish drinks to the patients, thousands of doctors prescribe the juice of the orange for practically every patient they have and it is about the last thing that should be singled out for an increase. Orange juice is practically a medicine and it is needed by many people who cannot afford to buy oranges at their present price.


William Richard Motherwell: I understood my
right lion, friend to say that there were about one hundred oranges in a cubic foot, which would make the increase about one-third of one cent per orange. That is about the smallest possible recognition which could be given to empire oranges.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is my understanding of it.


Mr. HANBURY:: I understand that these oranges are to be imported into Canada in wooden boxes and I would like to ask the Minister of Finance whether the suggestion has been made to Australia that they use Canadian lumber in the manufacture of these boxes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I hasten to assure my
lion, friend that being wiser in our day and generation than were our predecessors, who did not include lumber in the last Australian treaty, the suggestion has been noted and I am happy to say that so far as may be reasonably possible, effect will be given to it.
My hon. friend will remember the feeling of resentment which was expressed by some Canadians who had purchased commodities produced within the British Empire and found that they were packed in boxes made of wood which came from Sweden. I assume that that is what my hon. friend had in mind when he made his observation.


Mr. ELLIOTT:: What is the relative price of the best Australian and best Californian oranges?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The business in Australia has not been developed to proportions comparable to that of California, but during the past year or two Australia has been shipping some oranges into Canada. I understand that there is a shipment en route of some 15,000 boxes, and the price must have been below the California quotation in order to meet that competition. Australia feels quite confident that within the next year or two she can secure a very substantial portion of this business, and then there are South Africa, the West Indies and other sections of the British Empire to be considered. This is looked upon as being one of the most hopeful developments which might be expected from this treaty. It must be remembered-this will appeal particularly to some hon. members opposite-that some commodities from Australia must find access to this market. This is one of the items where there is a very good prospect for development.


John Campbell Elliott: I thank the Minister of
Trade and Commerce for his answers but I do not seem to get the information which I was desirous of securing with regard to the relative prices of Californian and Australian oranges. I understand he is unable to give it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I do not happen to have it under my hand.
Mr. EiLLIOTT: The great danger in connection with this is that we are imposing a duty of 35 cents per cubic foot on oranges and all we are going to be able to do is to increase the price by that amount to the consumer, not only on the oranges on which we collect a duty but on those that come in free. Is the Minister of Finance able to state whether or not in the different orange producing countries they have a system of grading similar, for instance, to our system of grading apples in boxes?


Richard Bedford Bennett: South Africa and Australia have perhaps gone further than most other countries with respect to grading. My hon.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
friend will no doubt recall that in a grocery store in this city plums and peaches from South Africa were on sale during last winter and they arrived here in excellent condition.


John Campbell Elliott: When a box of oranges comes in from Australia or any other country, is it marked No. 1, No. 2 or No 3 in a way similar to that in which Canadian apples are marked when they are shipped?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is putting it too strongly to say that there is an exact comparison, but broadly speaking, sizes determine No. 1 or No. 2 or No. 3. There is a fair degree of uniformity, but I should not like to mislead my hon. friend by saying that there is any absolute uniformity as between the countries.


Mr. TAYLOR:: Could there be inserted in this clause a provision which would exempt oranges that go into the manufacture of marmalade? I have a telegram from a marmalade manufacturer in my riding, complaining of the additional cost to them of their raw material, that is, their oranges. I noted just a minute ago the minister mentioned that South African oranges were getting a market in Great Britain. This telegram reads:
New tariff on oranges if applied to Seville bitters is equivalent of reducing the import duty on orange marmalade from England by one-half cent a pound. This together with advantage English manufacturers have on buying sugar for export at two dollars and ten cents below Montreal prices and buying their containers at much lower prices than Canadian manufacturers as well as lower labour costs will prevent Canadian manufacturers from competing with English manufacturers in our own home market.


Richard Bedford Bennett: 
Edward James Young: My right hon. friend told me last night there was no marmalade coming in under the general tariff.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is no traceable quantity.


Edward James Young: Marmalade under the preferential tariff is at the same rate as formerly?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes. This is a small part of the production of jams.


Mr. FRASER:: The item in the treaty
reads:
Free during the months of May, June, July, August, September and October: British preferential tariff during the other months of the year.
Would these oranges not come in free during the whole year under the British preferential tariff?


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is quite true. The only answer is that we have undertaken with Australia to maintain that irrespective of what change, if any, we may make in the British preferential.


Alfred Speakman: I quite realize, as I suppose all of us do, that in order to maintain or develop trade between this or other countries we must give a quid pro quo, and that possibly there is no more suitable commodity than oranges on which we can give a preference. I realize too, that this will bring about a substantial increase in our revenue, because the oranges will continue to come in and upon them that duty of approximately seventy-five cents a box must 'be paid. It is equally obvious that for some time at least, when you take into account the very large quantities imported from the United States, and the very small quantities imported from within the British Empire, this will mean simply an additional cost of these oranges in this country of about seventy-five cents a box, with, in all likelihood, an additional cost for orange marmalade or any kind of preserves made from oranges, because if the duty is not increased at the present time to meet the increased cost of the raw material, it will undoubtedly have to be increased in the near future. At this time when people find it so extremely difficult to pay for fruits or for fruit preserves at present prices, it seems rather deplorable that we are obliged to make a definite increase in the cost of that essential fruit and of the preserves made from it. Of course we cannot do anything about the matter. I realize we have to sacrifice something in order to obtain a market for some of our own goods, but again, just as has so frequently been the case, the result is that the general run of consumers-I am not speaking particularly now of the farmers -will simply have to pay a little more in order that certain industries may be able to climb on their shoulders over the tariff walls of other countries.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Henry Herbert Stevens: I might take a few
moments to draw the attention of the committee to the history of tariff as it relates to oranges. About twenty to twenty-five years ago Canada used to receive a very considerable portion of her supply of citrus fruits, chiefly oranges, from the West Indies and other countries. Then the Citrus Fruit Union of California was formed, and this citrus fruit union became a very highly developed and efficient organization. The formation of that organization and its control, through the tariff, of the United States market resulted in the destruction of citrus fruit production, as far as oranges are concerned, in the West Indies. Most of the growers there abandoned the production of oranges because they were denied access to the United States market, and as a result Canada suffered. The price of citrus fruit rose considerably and for twenty years or thereabouts it has been I think entirely under the dictation of the Citrus Fruit Union of California without any competition. All this time or most of it this same citrus fruit was on the free list so far as Canada was concerned-. The result to this country was the higher price that we have paid for the fruit. The standard price for lemons, for instance, a few years ago was 20 cents a dozen and less, while in recent years lemons have rarely dropped as low as 20 cents. I am not complaining; I am not criticizing the Citrus Fruit Union, but the effect on Canada was an increase in price. We believe that, not this year, perhaps not next year, but within a reasonable time, Australia, South Africa, probably all of the West Indies, and other parts of the British Empire, will again get into the citrus fruit business, and with a market such as we have to offer in Canada we really expect that as a result of this action the price of citrus fruit within the next few years will actually drop instead of being increased. I venture to say that even this year, at the commencement, when it is rather too much to expect it, there will really be no increase in prices.


William Richard Motherwell: I think that the
reason of that is that the duty is so small; it is less than one-third of a cent per orange. I am disposed to agree with the minister in this case, although I rarely agree with his deductions on tariffs, but in this case he happens to be Liberal, and I am nofgoing to oppose him.


Edward James Young: I confess I cannot understand the wording of this item. It says free during the months of May, June, July, August, September and October, and the British 22110-238
preferential tariff during the other months of the year. Now the British preferential tariff is free, so I would take it that these oranges are to be free in May, June, July, August, September and October, and free during the rest of the year.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have already explained
that. We are giving to Australia a guarantee that as long as the treaty exists oranges shall be on the free list so far as Australia is concerned. At the present time we are leaving oranges free under the British preference, but it does not follow that they will always be free under the British preference. We will be at liberty to change the British preferential rate, but the rate for Australia will be free whatever we do with the British preference, with the limitation fixed in the treaty.


Thomas McMillan: Then why insert that stipulation?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am afraid it must be
my fault or my hon. friend would have caught the point, because I have already explained it twice. At present oranges are free under the Australian treaty and under the British preference. We have undertaken with Australia to keep oranges free during certain specified months no matter what we may do to the British preference.


Thomas McMillan: Why insert this stipulation if you have made them free for the whole year?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I need hardly explain to
the hon. gentleman, with his well-known qualities of understanding, that during the other months of the year this parliament might make the British preference one cent. This provision ensures freedom of entry during the months mentioned whatever the British preference may be. It would not be correct to say, free the year round, for the British preference might not some day be free.


Edward James Young: Speaking from memory it
seems to me that normally oranges are cheaper in the spring months, and if the government saw fit at some future time to impose a one cent duty under the British preference, we could surely let Australian oranges in free the year round.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They have not asked
for it.


Wilfred Hanbury: This item contemplates that there are certain months of the year during which Australia is not anxious to furnish our requirements, and in the other months there will be a surplus. It is reasonable to

3740	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
assume, if we give this advantage 'to Australia, that there should be storage facilities in Canada sufficient to take care of our requirements when Australia cannot supply them. Are the Australians contemplating providing storage facilities in Canada so that their oranges may be placed on the market evenly throughout the year, or if not, is the government contemplating any action to facilitate the marketing of these oranges, or will it be ldft in the hands of private importers?


Richard Bedford Bennett: We have not gone into that matter as yet.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-104a. Fruit pulp, other than grape pulp, not sweetened, in air-tight cans or other air-tight packages:	British preferential tariff, 1J cents per pound; intermediate tariff, 21 cents per pound; general tariff, 3 cents per pound.
Richard Bedford Bennett: The item covered by this amendment, which will be found in the votes and proceedings of yesterday, is inserted in the tariff schedules by reason of the Australian agreement. It is a recording of the former item 781, under which the imports were nearly 500,000 pounds, all from Australia. If the committee will be good enough to read the item, they will observe that grape pulp is left out; that is pulp that is capable of being made into jams and preserves. It comes in in the form indicated, in air-tight cans or other air-tight packages. The rate fixed is the rate agreed upon with Australia.


Mr. ERASER (Cariboo):: Is this a new
rate?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The former rate was free. The rates now are as indicated.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-106. Fruits, prepared, in air-tight cans or other air-tight containers, the weight of the containers to be included in the weight for duty:	*
(a)	apricots, peaches and pears:	British
preferential tariff, 2 cents per pound; intermediate tariff, 4 cents per pound; general tariff, 5 cents per pound;
(b)	pineapple: British preferential tariff, 3 cents per pound; intermediate tariff, 4 cents per pound; general tariff, 5 cents per pound;
(c)	n.o.p.:	British preferential tariff, 2
cents per pound; intermediate tariff, 4 cents per pound; general tariff, 5 cents per pound.
Richard Bedford Bennett: This provides for an increase in the rate on pineapples, of which the hon. gentleman spoke,
Mr. MeMILLAN (Huron): You intend to leave it at five cents per pound?


Richard Bedford Bennett: At 3, 4 and 5 cents per pound.


Charles A. Stewart: Does this
apply to pineapple alone?


Richard Bedford Bennett: This is the treaty item, not the budget item. The old rate was half a cent.


Edward James Young: This is an increase?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


Edward James Young: Even to Australia?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, half a cent.
Mr. MeMILLAN (Huron): I would like to know the reason for this.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Australian rate will be one cent, and in order to give them a preference the rate has been increased to other countries. The rate to other Countries being three cents, and the rate to Australia being one cent, there is a preference of two cents to Australia imder the British preferential tariff, three cents under the intermediate tariff, and four cents under the general tariff. On importations of pineapple from the United States, for instance, the preference in favour of Australia would be four cents, and under the intermediate tariff the preference would be one cent less than that. So far as other countries of the British Empire are concerned-this is one of the few items of which this may be said-^Australia gets a preference of two cents more per pound on pineapple than would be available to those other countries.


Edward James Young: Where does it say that the Australian rate will be one cent?


Henry Herbert Stevens: In the schedule to the
treaty, page 7.
Mr. STEW'ART (Edmonton): This is giving Australia a considerable preference over the other British dominions.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, it is. I thought my hon. friend would ask that question. It prob-xbly does not put them on an equality with their competitors in other British possessions, for the principal point of production of pineapples outside of Australia is Singapore in the Straits Settlements, from which considerable quantities are exported and where labour conditions are such that the cost of production is very much less than elsewhere. One might say that the native population there receives much less for its labour than does the population of'Australia.


Alan Webster Neill: Why not in that case make
pineapples free from Australia and place the general tariff at four cents? We do not produce pineapples; therefore why put a tax on them?

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Charles A. Stewart: I was just
going to suggest the same remedy. As we cannot produce pineapples, it seems to me that the duty should be very low, and if we propose to give Australia a preference over the other British dominions why not allow Australian pineapples to come in free?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It will be observed on
reference to the item that these are:
Fruits, prepared, in air-tight cans or other air-tight containers, the weight of the containers to be included in the weight for duty:
(a)	apricots, peaches and pears, 1 cent per pound;
(b)	pineapples, 1 cent per pound;
(c)	n.o.p., 1 cent per pound.
There is a very considerable business done in Canada in canning pineapple.


Alan Webster Neill: Where?


Richard Bedford Bennett: In Canada, a very substantial business. This tariff is to prevent that business being entirely destroyed, while at the same time affording the preference I have indicated to Australia over other competing countries, the particular country being that to which I have just referred, where the wages of the native population are so low that even other parts of the empire have found it necessary to have recourse to the tariff to afford them fair competition.


John Livingstone Brown: How are fresh pinapples
affected?


Richard Bedford Bennett: They are not dealt with
at all. If my memory serves me aright, they are free.


James Dew Chaplin: Is any inquiry made by
the department with respect to the sanitary conditions under which pineapples are canned in the Straits Settlements? In this country we have very strict food and factory laws and our canning plants are frequently inspected by government officials. Yet, as I understand it, we allow canned goods to come into Canada without any knowledge at all of the conditions under which they are put up.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I always hesitate to bo
too critical with respect to conditions under which other countries cany on their business.


James Dew Chaplin: I am not criticizing, I am asking for information.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have only said that I hesitate to be too critical with respect to it. My information is that some form of sanitary inspection is provided for by the laws of the 22110-238^
Straits Settlements, but that the factory conditions are not such as obtain in modern factories in Canada and elsewhere. Certainly it is wholly within the mark when one says that the wages and conditions of labour of the native population in that community are very different from the conditions of labour and wages that prevail in other countries where we have stringent pure food laws. There are factory regulations in force _ in most exporting parts of the British empire, but obviously in Singapore they have not reached the same advanced stage in their canning operations as would be expected under the wholly different habits and modes of life that prevail in this country.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-109a. Peanuts, green, in the shell or not further processed than shelled: tariff on goods the produce of manufacture of Australia, free. The governor in council, when satisfied that Australia can supply Canadian requirements, may, by order in council, direct that there be substituted for tariff item 109a in schedule A of the customs tariff, 1907, and the enumeration of goods and the rates of duties of customs set opposite the said item inschedule A the following;
Customs tariff-109b. Peanuts, green, in the shell or not further processed than shelled: tariff on goods 'the produce or manufacture of Australia, free: British preferential tariff, 4 cents per pound; intermediate tariff, 4 cents; per pound; general tariff, 4 cents per pound.
From and after the publication of such order in council in the Canada Gazette tariff item 109a as it appears in the said schedule at the time of the publication of the said order shall be repealed and the provisions of tariff item 109b shall be substituted therefor.
Richard Bedford Bennett: These two items will be found on page 7 of the Australian treaty, one being the complement of the other. The committee will observe that green peanuts under the British preference are free and I cent under the intermediate and general, while peanuts green in the shell or not further processed carry a rate of 4, 4 and 4 cents; under the treaty they are free.


James Dew Chaplin: Does the Minister of
Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) know how Australian peanuts compare in quality with those from North Carolina or Virgina?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have not made a personal comparison, but I am informed that Australian peanuts are of excellent quality and compare very favourably with those produced in any other country. The Australians expect they will be able to fill our requirements as indicated in this item.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to. ,
3742	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
Richard Bedford Bennett: The next items will be 115 and 116 on page 3 of votes and proceedings.
Customs tariff-115. Mackerel, herring, salmon and all other fish, n.o.p., fresh, salted, pickled, smoked, dried or boneless, per pound: British preferential tariff, \ per cent; intermediate tariff, J cent; general tariff, 1 cent.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-116. Halibut, fresh, pickled or salted, per pound: British preferential tariff, i cent; intermediate tariff, 2 cents; general tariff, 2 cents.
Richard Bedford Bennett: As will be observed, there is an increase in the rate on halibut.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Items 184 and 184a may stand for the moment.


Charles A. Stewart: The leader of the opposition would like to be present when they are discussed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so.
Customs tariff-192. Tarred paper and prepared roofings (including shingles), fibreboard, strawboard, sheathing and insulation, manufactured wholly or in part of vegetable fibres, n.o.p.; blotting paper, not printed nor illustrated: British preferential tariff, 15 per cent; intermediate tariff, 25 per cent; general tariff, 35 per cent.
Hon. gentlemen will observe that this is :tem 192 in the budget resolutions, but owing to there being a slight amendment it appears in votes and proceedings at page 4. The Words "blotting paper, not printed or illustrated" have been added.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Richard Bedford Bennett: The next item is 200a
at page 18 of the tariff resolutions, with respect to which it is proposed to make an amendment that I will ask my colleague, the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Rhodes), to move.


Mr. RHODES:: I beg to move that the
following be substituted for tariff item 200a. as contained in resolution No. 2 of June 1, 1931:
Customs tariff-200a. Regenerated cellulose and cellulose acetate, transparent, in sheets, not printed: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 10 per cent; general tariff, 10 per cent.
Provided, that the governor in council may, when satisfied that regenerated cellulose, transparent, in sheets, is being manufactured in Canada in quantity and quality sufficient for Canadian requirements, by order in council direct that there be substituted for tariff item 200a the following:	-

Customs tariff-200a. Regenerated cellulose and cellulose acetate, and manufactures of regenerated cellulose or of cellulose acetate: British preferential tariff, 20 per cent; intermediate tariff, 30 per cent; general tariff, 35 per cent.
Here is a rather interesting circumstance which I feel it would be fair to bring to the attention of the committee. This is a chemical substance, the basis of which is pulp, upon which acids have operated. Since the budget was proposed the attention of the government lias been directed to an entirely new production of cellulose acetate in sheets which cannot be distinguished, except by laboratory tests, from regenerated cellulose. The amendment brings this newest development within the terms of the item. Perhaps I might bring it more forcibly to the mind of the committee as to what is meant when I say this is that thin, transparent substance in which candy boxes are wrapped, and which is so much used now in the wrapping of cigars and food products of various kinds, since it enables them to be kept free from contamination by outside sources.
Amendment agreed to on division.
Customs tariff-219a. Non-alcoholic preparations or chemicals for disinfecting, dipping or spraying, n.o.p.:	British preferential tariff,
free; intermediate tariff, 15 per cent; general tariff, 15 per cent.


Mr. ILSLEY:: Spraying materials have been free of duty since 1928, and at that time there was a drop in prices as a result of their being placed on the free list. These preparations are used very largely by the fruit growers of Canada, and I should like the Prime Minister to explain why he felt it necessary to restore the duty.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think my answer will
satisfy the hon. gentleman that the course being taken is one which he himself would pursue. As a result of the action taken previously, three Canadian plants were closed and have not since operated. Assurances have been given that prices will not be increased, and the plants already producing disinfectants of a certain type now will become increasingly engaged in the production of other forms of insecticides and disinfectants which are covered by this item. The horticultural society at their annual meeting supported this action, and if as a result there is any increase in price, as the hon. gentleman fears, the remedy lies in the hands of the government. I think u-hen one contemplates the fact that at least one or two of these industries are equipped and will at once proceed to manufacture when they have an assurance that the Canadian

Ways and Means

Customs Tariff
market is available, it will bo seen that we have at least taken the precaution to provide within our own boundaries for the production of a very necessary commodity without involving an increased price to the consumer.
I believe that is worth while, having regard to the existing conditions and the desirability of being in a position to deal with a matter of such importance within our own country.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Would the Prime Minister
tell me whether dry dusting materials are dutiable at the rate of 15 per cent, together with liquid preparations? They were classed with liquid preparations at the time the duty was taken off, if my memory is correct.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman will
observe that there is no change in the item.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Could the minister give me
an idea of how important these factories are which were closed as a result of the duty being taken off, and how many hands they employed?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Prior to 1928 these
arsenical insecticides were dutiable at 15 per cent, 171 per cent and 175 per cent, with others dutiable at 10 per cent, 15 per cent and 20 per cent. I have some knowledge of only about a half dozen of these factories; I am bound to say to my hon. friend that I could not give him even approximately the number of people who would be employed, but I am informed that a substantial number of people would find employment. They sent a delegation here; I took a statement, which was investigated; they were willing to undertake not to increase the price, and they realized what would be the result if that were done. They were all manufacturers of certain types of disinfectants or insecticides, but I think two of the factories had been closed for some two or three years. They were endeavouring to start up again with respect to another line and wanted also to be able to secure this production. I am inclined to think that under similar conditions the hon. gentleman would have adopted the same course.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I remember very distinctly the debate which took place when these articles were placed on the free list in 1928. Certain private members stated that factories would be adversely affected, and I tried to get an idea of how many people would be so affected, but was unable to do so. I formed the impression, perhaps wrongly, that the industries were not very important, and that is why I requested the information from the minister.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think I can procure some little information for my hon. friend at a later date. One of the hon. members has a very large plant of this character in his constituency, and I will communicate to my hon. friend the number of people employed there, though I believe I can give the details with reference to only two factories.


John Campbell Elliott: Does this refer to animal
dip, that is, sheep dip and cattle dip?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Any sort of dip; it is the same wording.


Mr. BOUCHARD:: Has the right hon. gentleman received any representations from the Canadian wool growers' cooperative society with regard to the powder they use for dipping sheep? This powder is used all over Canada, and I should like to know whether the Prime Minister has been assured that a real substitute will be found for this preparation, which is called the Cooper dip powder. Has the minister received any representations from the wool growers' cooperative or the sheep breeders' association?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am bound to say no such representations have reached me, and I am told by the officials that no such communications have reached the department. I will make a note to make further investigation, but certainly I have no knowledge of it myself.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: I should like to have this information, because this is a very important factor in sheep raising.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I want to place on record
my opposition to this item. I am opposed to it because in 1928, although it was stated that no difference would be made in the price when the duty was taken off, immediately after the duty was taken off the price of these spraying materials dropped in my constituency. Advertisements appeared in the local press offering spraying materials at considerably reduced prices. It is all very well for the Prime Minister to say that the price will not go up as a result of the duty. But it is going to be difficult for my constituents to keep a check on the prices. I shall do the best I can to keep a check on it myself, and if there is the slightest evidence of an increase in prices I will bring the matter to the attention of the Prime Minister. This is something of great importance to the people I represent, and before the item carries I want to have it recorded that I am opposed to it.
3744	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Charles A. Stewart: Was any intimation given to the fruit growers and others interested of the application made by the manufacturers of this commodity?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The horticultural council recommended that this be done.


Charles A. Stewart: Through
the influence of the manufacturers?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I cannot say through
whom. I know they made that recommendation.	[DOT]	'


Charles A. Stewart: I cannot
help thinking that those who will be affected will learn too late, to their sorrow, what has happened to them.


Alfred Speakman: It is rather difficult to understand how it will be possible for those firms who have gone out of business to resume without increasing prices. Apparently they went out of business because they could not meet the prices. Is it expected that if the entire market is assured to them through a virtual monopoly they will be able to produce at a lower cost than they have been able to do? I cannot understand how they will be able to carry on, seeing that, unable to manufacture at present prices, they have been obliged to shut down.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The curtailed production has had the result I have indicated. One large firm had on hand a very considerable quantity of arsenate of lead which was used in the production of their commodity. When their business was curtailed, because of the circumstances to which I have alluded, they stopped operations. They still have that raw material and it is unimpaired; age has not affected it. They believe, as I do, that the increased production, resulting from a greater demand by reason of the domestic market being available, will ensure their being able to carry on their business. The hon. member for Hants-Kings (Mr. Ilsley) places altogether too modest a value upon his own resourcefulness, for I am satisfied that if his constituents are called upon to pay enhanced prices-barring, of course, an increase in raw material, for which he will always make allowance-it will not be very long thereafter before the government is made aware of the fact.


Alfred Speakman: I trust that the Prime Minister's hopes will be realized and that the manufacturers will be able to carry on. But I understand that they ceased producing when imports began to come in under the
{Mr. list y.]
free list, because they could not meet the prices. I think it is rather doubtful that this tariff will enable them to carry on. It is an interesting experiment and-I have no axe to grind-I hope they will succeed.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The Prime Minister says
that the Canadian Horticultural Council passed a resolution or in some other way expressed themselves in favour of this increase. Has he a record of the stand they took?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, I have not. The
hon. member for Yale (Mr. Stirling) is one of the members of that council and he can give some evidence on the point.


Mr. STIRLING:: This question was considered at the annual meeting of the horticultural council. The fruit growers represented there by their delegates did not raise any objection to the increase in the protection on these spray materials for the special purpose of increasing production to meet their requirements.


William Richard Motherwell: Does this item include chemical sprays used for the killing of weeds? If it does I have strong representations from those who manufacture these chemicals. They say that the change is going to increase the cost of chemicals which are being tried out generally in the west by the municipalities for the destruction of weeds.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Chemicals are not
covered by this item. Some may come under the item and others may not: that is the only fair way to put it and be frank. The chemicals the hon. gentleman mentions will not come under the item; compounds will.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The hon. member for Yale
represents an important fruit growing constituency in British Columbia and he follows with great care the proceedings of the horticultural council. I have tried to do so myself, and I understand that what happened in the council this year was this. Certain members desired higher duties on apples and they felt that they would be hampered in their demand if they objected to higher duties on spraying materials. That is the reason for the stand they took. The hon. gentleman says they took that stand because they desired an increase in the production of these goods-


Richard Bedford Bennett: In Canada.


James Lorimer Ilsley: -in Canada, yes. But I think the hon. gentleman will agree with me

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
when I say that the reason they took the position they did was that if they did anything else it would have an adverse effect on their own demand for a higher duty on apples.


Grote Stirling: I do not know where the hon. member met those individuals who desired a higher duty on apples. I have neveT met them.


James Lorimer Ilsley: There is no question about it that demands have been made for higher duties on apples. In the Halifax Herald of Monday, July 13, 1931, there appears a report to the effect that the government has placed higher duties on apples for the purpose of protecting the home market. There is a long despatch reporting the paternal and beneficial action which the government has taken in connection with this industry. There certainly was a demand. The hon. gentleman and I look on these matters from different points of view. I think a better policy for the apple industry would be to keep down costs of production and place such articles as spraying and dusting materials on the free list. That would be better than attempting to keep up the prices of the product by these high valuations for duty purposes and higher duties.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-219c. Proprietary or trademarked preparations, non-alcoholic, such as are used only for disinfecting, dipping or spraying, when in packages not exceeding three pounds each, in weight, the weight of such packages to be included in the weight for duty: British preferential tariff, 15 per cent; intermediate tariff, 25 per cent; general tariff, 25 per cent.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I beg to move that the
following be substituted for item 219c:
Customs tariff-219c. Non-alcoholic preparations or chemicals such as are used for disinfecting, dipping or spraying, when in packages not exceeding three pounds each, in weight, the weight of such packages to be included in the weight for duty: British preferential tariff, 15 per cent; intermediate tariff, 25 per cent; general tariff, 25 per cent.


Mr. MacLEAN:: Would anything under
three pounds in weight come in free?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Over three pounds would be considered as bulk, under three pounds would be covered by this item.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: They would be in the
same category as far as duty is concerned?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


John Livingstone Brown: Is the item sufficiently
general in its terms to include anything which might be brought forward as an insecticide? I notice that a discovery has been made which
is likely to prove effective in the treating of warbles in cattle. Every hon. member knows that that disease causes a very serious loss to agriculturists, and if a preparation has been found which is effective for that purpose it is desirable that it be made as easily available as possible to all farmers.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This is the same language as has been used for many years. The item covers all forms of compounds used for the purpose of disinfecting, dipping or spraying. As the hon. member knows, there is a provision in the statute which permits action being taken by order in council to place a commodity on the free list or to reduce the duty.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Item as amended agreed to.
Customs tariff-232c.	Gelatine, edible:
British preferential tariff, 174 per cent; intermediate tariff, 25 per cent; general tariff, 274 per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-366b. Parts of watch movements, finished or unfinished, not including plates: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 15 per cent; general tariff, 15 per cent.
Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member for
Weyburn (Mr. Young) raised a question last evening and I said that items 366b, 368 and 369 might stand. This is a new item, and the rates have been changed from free, 124 per cent and 124 per cent to free, 15 per cent and 15 per cent.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.	*
Customs tariff-368. Clocks, time recorders, clock movements, clock-work mechanisms, and clock cases: British preferential tariff, 20 per cent; intermediate tariff, 30 per cent; general tariff, 35 per cent.
Provided, that when imported under the intermediate or the general tariff rate, the duty shall be not less than, each: intermediate tariff, 50 cents; general tariff, 50 cents.
Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member for
Weyburn was inquiring as to why parts of watch movements might be imported at a lesser rate than the finished product. It has always been the policy to encourage the importation of parts rather than the finished product in order that labour, which is an important item, should enter into the assembly of these parts. In connection with watch cases it has always been said that no advantage was ever taken of the duty. The largest producer in this country, now passed to his reward, was able to say that he had saved the country
3746	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
a considerable sum by not taking advantage of the duty. These items maintain the differentiation between parts and the finished product.


William Daum Euler: What was the valuation of
the importation of clocks?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Clocks valued at $760,000 were imported; 8275,000 from the United States and $350,000 from Germany. It may be of no interest to the committee, but I might state that the watch I carry is the product of a Canadian manufacturer, and I think it sells for $2.75.


William Daum Euler: I was referring to clocks.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I gave the figures for
clocks.


William Daum Euler: I think there are only two
clock factories in the Dominion, one of which happens to be located in my constituency. Have representations been made by the clock manufacturers since these proposals were brought down as to the sufficiency of the rate proposed?


Richard Bedford Bennett: There are three clock
factories in Canada, one at Peterborough, one at Kitchener, and I believe one at Brantford. The brief filed by the clock and watch parts makers-I refer now to the cheaper watch which is something like a clock-asked for an increase over the existing rate. When this item was published these manufacturers indicated that an upward change would be highly regarded, but the largest producer, whose operations run to something over 2,300 watches and clocks per day, thought it worth while to allow the item to stand for a year as it gave a much better rate than had existed previously. I think the considerations which moved us to make this change might well have moved my hon. friend when he had the chance of doing the same thing.


William Daum Euler: I had not the opportunity
of making a change. I understood that the small producers who have found considerable difficulty in meeting foreign competition were not satisfied and felt that the change did not do them very much good.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What does the hon.
gentleman suggest?


William Daum Euler: I am not making any suggestion. I desire only to find out whether representations were made, and if so, what answer was given.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My memory is that one manufacturer said that he was pleased with 
the item and no further change was desired; another suggested an upward movement from 15 per cent to 27J per cent, and another suggested that the rate should be 30 per cent. As a matter of fact, the differentiation between parts and the finished product has been maintained. My personal view was that it might have been increased a little, but having regard to the reports of the industry generally, the changes should afford to Canada an opportunity to compete on fair terms against importations from at least the United States, and, I believe, from Germany. That is, I think, the representation that was most strongly made. I am speaking from memory and subject to correction.


William Daum Euler: It has always been represented that the purpose of protective tariffs was to foster new or, as they are so often called, struggling industries. If any industry could go into that category it would be the clock making industry. As I know from the experience of a factory in my own town, it had a struggle for many years. While I am not necessarily advocating, if the duty is regarded as sufficient, that it should be higher, it is still comparatively low, may I say to some of my hon. friends on this side, as compared with the tariff that has been given to what can hardly be described as infant industries.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend will see that clocks, time recorders, clock movements, clock-work mechanisms and clock cases are now 20 per cent, 30 per cent and 35 per cent. The general tariff of 35 per cent is, I think, a fairly reasonable one having regard to the information we had as to, shall I say, large capacity for production. I cannot recall that any communication came from the particular industry in Kitchener to which my hon. friend refers, but I shall endeavour to find out. during the recess if there has been any.


Edward James Young: Can the minister give us any information as to what it costs to put a watch movement in a casing? How much labour is involved?


Mr. DUFF:: Every little movement has a meaning all its own.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That depends entirely on the character of the movement. If it is a highly jewelled movement of a certain type, it costs a substantial sum of money. Everything depends upon the skill and care that has to be exercised with respect to it. These fine watch cases are of course now made in Canada, as the hon. gentleman may know.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
It depends upon the skill of the workman, the quality of the movement, and the fineness of the case. I could not give an estimate of the price.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: As we are speaking about clocks and watches, this will perhaps be the proper time to ask the Prime Minister: How is it that all the requests of the manufacturers are listened to and complied with while the requests from the farmers are not heeded? Will the Prime Minister allow me to speak on the question of wool, in connection with which the farmers put forward very strong recommendations for a tariff?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Can the hon. member name any other item than wool?


Joseph Georges Bouchard: Wool is a big item. It touches nearly all the farmers in Canada. 1 have had no opportunity of discussing this item, because it has not been called, but I remember very distinctly hearing the right hon. gentleman tell us last session that any of the items-


The CHAIRMAN:: Order.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: I hope, Mr. Chairman, you will let me finish this statement. I am just quoting the Prime Minister. He said very distinctly that any change that appeared in the tariff of the last special session might be discussed at a future session, and I have no other opportunity. I rise simply to ask the Prime Minister if he will give me an opportunity of discussing this question of a tariff on wool.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: This discussion cannot come under the item of clocks.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: I will ask the Prime Minister, who is so obliging-


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I am sorry I cannot allow that except by consent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps, Mr. Chairman,
you were not following the discussion last evening. I said very distinctly to my hon. friends opposite that by reason of what was said at the short session they might avail themselves of the opportunity to discuss any item that they desired to discuss. I understand that the hon. member for Kamouraska is instituting a comparison between the tariff items that touch industry and those that touch agriculture. I should think he would be within his rights, having regard to the arrangement that was made, in instituting such a comparison at this time.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: I am grateful to the
Prime Minister for the permission he has just
given me. I am not a firm believer in high protection as a means of helping the farmers, but if the government is going to do something in regard to raising the tariff, whatever advantage may accrue to the farmers should be taken by them. I suppose the Prime Minister is aware of the many representations that were made through the Minister of Agriculture in regard to having a tariff on wool. Wool is imported in very large quantities, and I should like to quote from a letter addressed to the Minister of Agriculture under date of December 26, 1930, and signed by the manager of the Canadian Cooperative Wool Growers, Limited. I will read just the last paragraph of this letter. It states:
AVith the exception of carpet wools as described, all other wools imported into Canada, to all intents and purposes, may be described as competitive with Canadian grown wool, and any further exceptions would materially reduce any advantage to Canadian sheepmen in a general tariff on wool.
On the same date, the manager of the same cooperative wrote to the Minister of Agriculture another letter, and I am quoting just the fourth paragraph which states:
When talking with Mr. Breadner on Tuesday, he stated that any tariff legislation should be specified, and that such a basis for duty as 20 cents per pound of clean content, would leave the amount to be collected on wool in the grease variable. That is true, at the same time it seems to be worldng out satisfactorily in the United States, where they have wool appraisers for this work, and where each invoice on imported wool, bears the estimated shrinkage figures.
As explained to Mr. Breadner, if it was necessary to name a specific rate on wool in the grease, we would have to be guided by the 20 cent rate on clean scoured wool, using the shrinkage of 30 per cent which is the shrinkage on a large part of wrool imported into Canada. In other words, on this basis the duty on wool in the grease would be 14 cents per pound.
Later I wrote to Mr. George O'Brien, manager of the Canadian Cooperative Wool Growers, Limited, to ascertain what has taken place, and I received this letter dated June 30, 1931:
Dear Air. Bouchard:
We are in receipt of your message of June 26, and we are sending you copy of the letter sent the Hon. Mr. Weir, which contains insummary a report of the Sheep Conference in Toronto. AA7e also enclose copy of letter and brief filed at Ottaw'a with respect to wool. Our correspondence on this subject has been large, and we have included the Department of Agriculture, Department of Finance, , and Department of National Revenue.
AATe also took up the question of lamb and mutton, and that has been dealt with, though we are not informed at this time as to where these products stand in the new Australian trade agreement.
Bank Act

The letter concludes with this paragraph:
The wool ]>osition is bad, and yet we use more wool in Canada than we produce, and even according to the Canadian Textile Journal, 85 per cent of the wool used in Canada is of the hind we grow in Canada.
G. E. O'Brien,
Manager,
Canadian Co-operative Wool Growers Limited.
The copy of the letter enclosed reads as follows:
Toronto, March 26, 1931.
lion. Robert Weir.
Minister of Agriculture,
Ottawa.
Honourable Sir,-
At the conclusion of the annual meeting of the Canadian Co-operative Wool Growers Limited, held in Toronto on March 26, 1931, those in attendance went into special conference on problems relating to the Canadian sheep industry. There were present between fifty and sixty sheep farmers and ranchers from every province in the Dominion, representatives of the Dominion and provincial departments of agriculture, as well as representatives of the packing industry, live stock marketing and wool marketing organizations-a gathering that certainly represented a real cross-section of all the interests related to the sheep industry in this country.
A very full and free discussion was entered into by all present during the full afternoon and evening sessions, and it was pointed out that we are not producing nearly as much wool and lamb as we are using in this country, and that consequently there should be much room for expansion. It was unanimously agreed, though, that any such expansion was not possible on a profitable basis unless the home market was reserved and developed for Canadian producers by adequate protection on lamb, mutton and wool in all its forms.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair.


AUSTRALIAN TREATY
Henry Herbert Stevens: May I lay on the table
a document which I have had prepared dealing with schedule B of the Australian treaty? This is for the information of hon. members, and if the house desires, I would suggest that it be printed in the votes and proceedings so that it will be available to-morrow.


Charles A. Stewart: I think it would be well to have it printed.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Then it is understood
that it will be printed and appear in the votes and proceedings.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILL


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 99, respecting the Eastern Telephone and Telegraph Company-Mr. Black (Halifax).

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, June 5, consideration of the motion of Mr. Angus Miaclnnis for the second reading of Bill No. 45, bo amend the Canada Shipping Act,
Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, while this bill was under discussion recently the Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau) assured the house that the Canada Shipping Act would be ready for revision next session. In view of that assurance I ask leave to withdraw the bill.


Mr. SPEAKER:: By consent of the house, Bill No. 45 to amend the Canada Shipping Act is withdrawn.


Ernest Lapointe: Unanimously.
Bill withdrawn.



BANK ACT AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, June 26, consideration of the motion of Mr. Spencer for the second reading of Bill No. 49, to amend the Bank Act.
Mr. H. E. SPENCER (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: If any other hon. member wishes to speak on this motion he should do so now, otherwise the sponsor of the bill will close the debate.


Henry Elvins Spencer: When this bill was last under discussion, Mr. Speaker, I felt the house was not so much against the purpose of the bill as against the penalties that I was seeking to have enforced!. My aim, of course, is to limit the rate of interest to 7 per cent as provided by the Bank Act, and if the penalties I propose are considered too severe, I shall be perfectly willing to have the bill amended in this respect. Therefore if this motion passes I will ask one of my colleagues to move that the bill be referred to the banking and commerce committee for further consideration.

Criminal Code-Unlawful Assembly


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Those in favour will please say "aye."


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Aye.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Those opposed will please say "no."


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: In my opinion the noes have it. I declare the motion lost.
And some hon. members having risen in their seats;-


Henry Elvins Spencer: I think six members rose, Mr. Speaker.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I saw only four standing. I declare the motion lost.
Motion negatived.	[DOT]



CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, July 7, consideration of the motion of Mr. Woods-worth for the second reading of Bill No. 19, to amend the criminal code (unlawful assembly).
Mr. .T. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre): Mr. Speaker- [DOT]
Pierre Édouard Blondin: I think the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) has already spoken on the bill-perhaps more than once. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Mr. WOODSWTORTH:: I spoke in favour
of my bill when it was introduced, but I have not spoken on it since that time; I think I have the right to close the debate. If I may say so, possibly you, Mr. Speaker, are confusing this bill with the amendment to the Immigration Act, on which I also spoke.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: If the hon. member
sponsoring the bill has not spoken for the second time he has the right to speak now and close the debate.


Hon. IAN MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: Without at all discussing the merits of the bill I should like to rise to a point of order to enable me to obtain your guidance, Mr. Speaker. So far as I can, see from both Canadian and English authorities the moving of a bill which is part of the orders of the day is not a substantive motion but ah ancillary motion, as defined by Campion in his text book. I should like to have your ruling upon that point, Mr. Speaker.


Alan Webster Neill: It always has been allowed,
since we have been in the house; the member moving the second reading of a bill always has been allowed to speak in reply, I do not care what the rules are.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Prior to 1927 what is
now standing order 43 was rule 21, subsection 2, and it contained the words "second reading of a bill." Standing order 43, citing the circumstances in which a member has the right of reply, did not include the words "the second reading of a bill" after the revision of the rules in 1927. This was not done with the idea of changing the rule, but because those words were considered superfluous. Notwithstanding what is stated in Campion, which I have examined, it has been the practice in this house to allow a reply on the second reading. It seems to me that, a second reading being a most important stage in the passage of legislation-, a reply should be allowed. It was allowed on March 20, 1930, and again on May 30, 1930, and unless this house chooses to change its practice in that respect I would allow a reply on the motion for second reading of a bill.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am
quite satisfied.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker, during several of the occasions devoted to private bills this measure has been under consideration, and I think it has been viewed from a number of different angles. I would point out that there has been a great deal of misunderstanding as to the purpose of the bill. There have been those who have taken the stand that it has to do with sedition, but the clauses in the criminal code having to do with sedition will remain untouched. If any man utters any seditious words he is still liable to be charged with sedition. My bill was simply intended to safeguard the right of free speech, because of certain practices which have grown up in a number of our cities during recent months.
There is little for me to add to what I said when introducing the bill. It has been said that the bill is poorly drawn. Let me say that I obtained the best legal advice available, not merely the advice we have at our disposal here but outside legal advice in drawing the bill, and the phraseology to which a great many of the legal members have objected is supplied by those who have had considerable experience with the law. I

Criminal Code-Unlawful Assembly
remember very well a few months ago when a certain bill was 'before this house it was ridiculed by some members of the legal profession until they found that the draftsman was a man recognized as being in the very forefront of his profession. Ever since that time I have not had very much fear when presenting a matter like this, especially when I know it has been carefully prepared by a legal authority.
There was one point I should have liked to present earlier, and I think I shall add it now, because it seems to me to bear very directly upon the whole subject matter. I have reference to a decision appearing in the Ontario law reports, in the case of Rex vs. Patterson. It seems to me, if I may say so, looking at it from the layman's standpoint, that it is rather a serious blow at the freedom of the individual, and if this sort of thing is to go on unchecked we may find that our freedom of speech is curtailed. I shall read from the judgment of Middleton J.A., appearing in the Ontario law reports of December 11, 1930:
All this satisfies me that the accused was a member of an assembly, lawful in its inception, but unlawful in its execution, because it was determined to meet force by force and to resist the officers of the law. It is quite immaterial that the officers of the law may have been mistaken in their interpretation of the police regulation, or that the regulation itself may be invalid. This does not justify the use of force against constituted authority, or even against any other, to the disturbance of public peace. The conviction must be affirmed. I would commend the learned county court judge for his good sense and moderation in dealing with this case.
Mulock. C.J.O., and Grant. J.A., agreed with Middleton, J.A.
There are just two points I should like to mention, though perhaps the house will think I have considerable temerity in criticizing a judgment of this kind. I should like to direct attention to this sentence:
It is quite immaterial that the officers of the law may have been mistaken in their interpretation of the police regulation	
That is going altogether too far. It is a most dangerous position when the officers of the law are upheld even though they may be mistaken with regard to their interpretation of a police regulation. Then comes the second part of that sentence:
.... or that the regulation itself may be invalid.
Again I think we are proceeding on very dangerous ground. In this instance the trouble was that a group of citizens proceeded to have some sort of parade, thinking they

were quite within their rights. As a matter of fact they were not disobeying any police regulation, yet the officers told them to disperse. As was shown by the evidence, the officers had no right to interfere because the men who were on parade were not disobeying any police regulation whatever. The officers were entirely mistaken, and when these men stood on their rights as citizens and said they had a right to walk through the streets they were arrested by the police, who were upheld in their act. I say that sort of thing is dangerous to our citizenship. Then let me read from the minority judgment of Magee, J.A.:
This appellant, leading a peaceable procession, and said but not proved to have been acting in breach of some by-law, is arrested and, instead of being charged with breach of by-law, for which he might be fined, is charged with a crime for wdiich he might be imprisoned. The hands of our peace officers endeavouring to enforce the laws should be upheld and strengthened, but I am unable to convince myself that on the evidence here presented this conviction should stand, and therefore I would allow the appeal.
Then Fisher, J.A. said:
I fully agree with the conclusion of my brother Magee that this appeal should be allowed, and I desire to add that the crown has utterly failed to produce-as it was bound to-any witness proving that persons in the neighbourhood had reasonable grounds to fear that the peace would be disturbed tumultuously, or to provoke other persons to disturb the peace tumultuously.
The appeal was dismissed, Magee and Fisher dissenting. I thought it was well perhaps to add this Hamilton case which bears very directly on my contentions of a few weeks ago.
It chanced that in my presentation of the bill I mentioned the city of Toronto, and I instanced some of the practices of the police which I considered inimical to the maintenance of free speech. A number of hon. gentlemen from Toronto seemed to regard this as a direct attack on that city. That is not so. I also mentioned similar instances from the city of Montreal. I have just mentioned one that relates to Hamilton and I have mentioned some with regard to western Canada. But some of these gentleman seem to be very jealous of any criticism of Toronto. In fact, when the bill was last under discussion one hon. member declared that the city of Toronto did not need to be defended. He went on to speak of the admirable things that had been done in Toronto-the enormous amount given in Christmas relief and the sums contributed to the patriotic fund. Just what that has to do with the criminal code

Criminal Code-Unlawful Assembly
I fail to see, but evidently he thought that something was needed to counterbalance the criticism of Toronto.
Now, I am a native of Toronto, so that I have nothing particularly against that city. My father and mother before me were natives of Toronto. I cannot therefore be regarded as altogether an outsider. But it does seem to me that in the last few years Toronto, more than any other city in Canada, has been adopting a great many of the most reprehensible practices which we read of as occurring in some of the larger eastern American cities. It is nothing to be proud of that these practices, which we denounce when we observe them in American cities, should be tolerated when they prevail in a city under the British flag. I should rather like to think that in advocating such measures as this we are in reality standing for the very best British traditions. I think we are. Unless I was entirely misled when I was a child, I was given to understand that Britain stood for freedom of speech. Yet I heard the other day one of those hon. members who are opposing this bill say that the people of Toronto do not believe in free speech. He gave as one evidence of this the fact that a very small number of electors had voted for a certain communist candidate. The hon. gentleman is confusing the idea of free speech with some sort of extravagance on the part of certain communists of Toronto.
I do not know that it is necessary for me again to dissociate myself from the communist party. Someone says it would not do me any good. That is a very smart remark. But let me say that if anyone would like to know how the communists regard me all he has to do is to read the columns of The Worker, the communist paper, or other communist publications circulated in the country. I am not a member of the communist party, but I do believe that we are in danger of being stampeded because of the prevalence of a number of communists in the country. And even though they opposed me and both my colleagues at the last election. I say none the less that I stand for free speech. It was only the other day when I was in the city of Windsor that a meeting which I was addressing was almost broken up by a group of communists. I do not like that kind of thing and I will not stand for it, because I believe that I should have the right to freedom of speech. If the trades and labour council call a meeting, as they did on that occasion, they should have the right to conduct that meeting without interruption by communists. That is only fair. But that is a different thing altogether from taking the ground that the communists have no right to speak in public or otherwise to voice their ideas. A number of the ideas of the communist party are not my ideas, but that does not mean to say that I should try to have them suppressed by force. If one set of opinions are suppressed by force it will be only a matter of time until other ideas are similarly suppressed. So that even though the communists are bitterly opposed to us we still stand for freedom of speech, and I trust that in this position we shall be joined by a great many other citizens.


An hon. MEMBER:: Quebec is free.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I do not know
whether Quebec is any freer in this regard than Toronto, because in recent times the city police have been very active in Montreal with respect to the communists.
Since one or two other members have had so much to say with reference to communism, perhaps I may be permitted to add a few words on the subject, although it seems to me to be apart from the bill before us. Someone the other day said that the O.B.U. was the same thing as communism. I am not and never have been a member of the O.B.U., but I have had occasion in the last ten years to study closely the various labour organizations in this country, and the man who states that the O.B.U. and communism are one and the same thing is absolutely mistaken. The
O.B.U. is an organization in the industrial field. It was the result of an effort some years ago to get all the different trade unions into one large industrial body. It largely failed in its purpose although it is still in existence as an organization. But it was not a political organization at all, whereas communism is.
May I point out that however much some may dislike some of the doctrines of communism, there is after all no law in this country against it. It is not an illegitimate organization. Hence the communists ought to be allowed to carry on their meetings so long as they do not interfere with the freedom of others. If anyone is afraid of their talking sedition, the law is there and they can be prosecuted. Indeed, I often wonder why some of those who are opposed to the appearance of the oommunists in public do not adopt the reasonable course and charge them with sedition. The law, I say, is there and these people, if they preach sedition, can be dealt with under it.
It was only yesterday that my colleague from Vancouver called attention to still another infringement upon free speech. Accord-
3752	COMMONS
Criminal Code-Unlawful Assembly
ing to our information a prominent medical man of the city of Vancouver, who is also a member of the independent labour party, has been broadcasting. Some of the people in Vancouver did not like what he was saying, but a great many did. A complaint was made to the broadcasing company as well as to the department at Victoria. I have not as yet received the papers which would give me an accurate account of Avhat took place or just who is to blame, but this doctor has been notified that he can no longer broadcast over this particular station. Here seems to me to be another danger to freedom of speech. When a broadcasting station is given a licence by the Department of Marine and Fisheries it has a certain general duty toward the public. If any man is willing to pay for the right of broadcasting he should be permitted to do so.


Richard Burpee Hanson: And say anything he likes?


James Shaver Woodsworth: No, and the hon. member knows perfectly well that that is not what I am advocating. If he says anything which is seditious, he can be charged with sedition.


An hon. MEMBER:: What kind of doctor was he?


James Shaver Woodsworth: A medical doctor belonging to the medical association of British Columbia.


An hon. MEMBER:: Who was he?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Doctor Lyle Telford. I am just instancing this as being another instance of the curtailment of free speech. If this kind of thing is permitted it would mean that this new instrument for publicity, the radio, would be in the hands of a few, and if that few did not like what was being said or did not like the particular political doctrine which was being taught, they could suppress that speech and prevent that individual from giving any more broadcasts. To adopt that principle is to relinquish all our British ideals of freedom of speech.
There are laws against sedition, which laws can be invoked at any time. A man can be charged, regularly tried and convicted, and that is the proper method to pursue. We ought not to have a censorship such as some of our cities have been seeking to set up.
Regarding some of the charges made against the police of Toronto, let me direct attention to the fact that the hon. member for Toronto West Centre (Mr. Factor) confessed that intimidation had been used in connection with the rental of halls in the city of Toronto. I

know from those who have attempted to rent halls that; that has been the case, that the hall owners have been told that if they permitted such and such an organization to rent their halls they would have their licences cancelled. When I presented this bill I instanced a number of cases in which that action was taken within recent months. I say that that is an unwarranted extension of the licensing powers of the police and a distinct curtailment of freedom of speech..
All I am asking for in this legislation is that certain safeguards should be set up which would give the citizens a right to free speech so long as he did not violate the law. Hon. members say that they are quite willing to have free speech within the law; that is all I am asking for. If he goes outside the law the man who is guilty can be prosecuted; all we are asking for is free speech within the law. Just how far this restriction of freedom affects organizations other than the communist organization was made quite evident in the case of the Fellowship of Reconciliation, whose only crime was that they wanted to hold a meeting in the advocacy of free speech. They were not tiying to propagate the principles of communism, although that would not have been a crime; all they wanted to do was to hold a meeting in the advocacy of free speech, but they were prevented from obtaining a hall. I do not believe that such action is in the best interests of the people of this country.
This bill simply provides for the general right to assemble; it insists that before action can be taken there must be a danger of an immediate breach of the peace; that in judging of the character of the speeches an isolated word or phrase is not to be taken, but that the speech must be judged according to its general nature and character, and that the people called upon so to judge shall be firm and reasonable persons. The last phrase provoked a good deal of ridicule, the suggestion being made that there were no such people in the city of Toronto and that we would have to import them from other parts of the country. That particular phrase was taken from a judgment closely connected with this matter. I would not have chosen those words myself; I adopted them because of the legal advice which I had to the effect that they followed very closely a precedent in this regard. I am not seeking in any way to throw open the doors for seditious speech, I ask only, as is stated in the explanatory note, to provide a safeguarding clause to ensure that the general nature and character of speeches upon public affairs must be the

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
ground for regarding any meeting as unlawful. Surely we are in line with the very best British traditions when we insist that whatever else happens in this country, in times of peace at least, we must preserve the fullest freedom of speech and assembly.
Motion negatived.



IMMIGRATION ACT AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, July 10, consideration of the motion of Mr. Woods-worth for the second reading on Bill No. 44, to amend the Immigration Act.
Motion negatived.
Pierre Édouard Blondin: The list of private and public bills having been exhausted, the house will revert to committee of ways and means.



WAYS AND MEANS


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. LaVergne in the chair.
Joseph Georges Bouchard: When the committee
rose at six o'clock I was, through the courtesy of the Minister of Finance, discussing the question of wool. I do not desire to detain the committee much longer, but I should like to finish the letter I was reading. It continues:
The opinion was very freely expressed that such nurturing of the industry would result in higher grade produce and the introduction of sheep upon more of our farms. The necessity of some means of grading lamb and mutton was also strongly emphasized as an inducement towards better produce and as an assurance to the public of quality, resulting in greater consumption.
The following resolutions were accordingly drafted and unanimously agred upon:-
This meeting, called in conference on the sheep industry in Canada, with representatives of the producers of wool and mutton from every province in the Dominion, urges upon the government the necessity of the home market for their products, by means of a duty on all lamb and mutton, and a duty on the complete wool schedule from wool in the grease to yarns, and all waste therefrom, rags and shoddy. This duty to be sufficiently high to ensure to the producers a reasonable profit over and above cost of production.
These last few words would seem to anticipate what we find in the tariff board bill. The report on this meeting is headed:
Home Market Sought By Canadian Sheep Men
Ask Ottawa for safeguards against imports of wool and lamb-general conference follows annual meeting of Canadian Cooperative Wool Growers.
I will quote just a few sentences:
Preservation of the home market for Canadian grown lamb and wool was requested of the federal authorities at Ottawa in a resolution passed at the sheep conference which followed the annual meeting of the Canadian Cooperative Wool Growers in Toronto on March 26. Taking advantage of the presence of sheep raisers from all over the Dominion as well as representatives from the provincial and federal departments of agriculture, the packers, and others who attended the meeting of the cooperative, after the regular business, general questions were discussed and progress made in defining a sheep policy for Canada. It was pointed out that as we are not producing nearly as much wool and lamb as we are using in this country there was much room for expansion; that such expansion would be of great benefit in promoting sound mixed farming, but that unless the home market was reserved and developed for Canadian producers of lamb, mutton and wool in all forms, to ensure a reasonable profit over the cost of production, satisfactory progress could not be expected.
Just recently, on July 2, I received a letter which was forwarded to me by Mr. O'Brien, manager of the Canadian Cooperative Wool Growers, Limited, giving a little brief in regard to this question. This is the concluding portion:
Current wool prices to the grower in comparison with prices on white wool blankets at wholesale mill prices of 83 cents per pound f.o.b. Canadian mills, enjoying protection under British preferential tariff of 221 per cent plus 20 cents per pound, give a true picture to the present position of Canadian grown wool.
May I quote from the general report of the last meeting of the Canadian Cooperative Wool Growers, Limited, held at Toronto on March 26:
In this connection it was encouraging to note the following editorial comment in a recent issue of the Canadian Textile Journal. It read: "Once development of the woollen industry is based upon development and expansion of domestic wool production it will be on firm ground, and we believe this can be accomplished over a period of five years without added cost of either mutton or wool clothing to the consumer."
The president of the Canadian cooperative concludes as follows:
We appreciate this note of encouragement and cooperation from our textile friends.
At the end of this convention, the Toronto Daily Star came out with an interview headed:
Ask Bennett's help in wool distributing.
Head of sheep raisers reminds premier of Liberals' promise of asistance.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I ruled before that the hon. gentleman was out of order in discussing an item not before the chair. I have ruled before that any newspaper comment on the debate is out of order.
3754	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Joseph Georges Bouchard: May I say that according to this editorial the tariff board under the Liberal regime had promised a duty on wool? I will conclude by saying this: If I crave the indulgence of the committee to speak on this question, it is because in the Dunning budget there was a tariff of 35 per cent on woollen fabric. But when we come to the drastic changes that took place in the tariff last fall, we find under the item 554b, "woven fabric composed wholly or in part of yarn or wool or hair" and so on, a general tariff of 40 per cent, or an increase of 5 per cent; but in addition to this we have an additional specific duty of 35 cents a pound under the British preferential tariff; 30 cents a pound under the intermediate tariff; and 35 cents per pound under the general tariff. This is an additional specific duty which to my mind is to bake care of a tariff that should have been put on wool. When I look up the United States tariff, I see that item 1108 covering woollen fabric, and so on, carries a duty of 50 cents per pound as a specific tariff, and 50 per cent ad valorem duty. I understand tkat the 50 cents per pound is imposed to take care of the tariff on raw wool. The inconsistency in our tariff is this, that you had a specific duty of 35 cents per pound on woven fabrics to take care of the tariff on wool in the fabric, but you have no tariff on raw wool. I shall not press this matter any further at the moment, but I draw it to the attention of the Finance minister in the hope that this question will receive further consideration when the new tariff board is functioning.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was agreed, Mr. Chairman, that there should be an opportunity afforded for general discussion with respect to the items that were, in the view of my hon. friends opposite, but very inadequately discussed in the September session; hence the observations of the hon. member for Kamouraska, (Mr. Bouchard). May I say to him that he has overlooked just one factor with respect to wool, and it is the vital factor in determining the action of governments. It was the vital factor in determining that no action was taken by the tariff board.
This country has fewer sheep in it to-day than it had, say, twenty-five or thirty years ago. The entire number of sheep in Canada in 1928 was 3,415,000, and in the year 1871 the number was 3,153,000. The increase has not been at all commensurate with the demands. For instance, the entire wool production in this country is somewhere in the vicinity of 22,000,000 pounds a year, and the actual consumption of wool approximates 80,-
[The Chairman.]
000,000 pounds. Part of the reason why there is an importation of wool is that the wool thus far produced in this country is not suitable for the purpose of producing the quality of cloth that is sought. In other words, in any event, with the wool we are now producing in this country, it would be essential to import wool from Australia, New Zealand or some other country.
The question is, what action can be taken to ensure (a) an increase in the number of sheep in this country, and (b) such a quality of wool as would ensure the production of a sufficient quantity to meet in the main the requirements of this country. I need hardly say to the hon. gentleman that the problem during the short period in which this government has been in power has engaged its serious attention. If during the nine years he was content to support the government of that day he can point to any action taken by that government which increased the production of wool or of sheep in Canada, I shall be glad to hear of it. No such action was taken. The sheep industry has undoubtedly suffered in Canada.
I need hardly say that we propose, if we arc allowed a reasonable time within which to take action, to see that that state of affairs does not continue. One would think from such observations as those to which we have just listened that there had never been an opportunity afforded to the party to which he belongs to effect any of the reforms to which he refers. You would think they had been in the cold shades of opposition all their lives, and that this government had had for years and years an opportunity to effect the reforms which were much needed, and which are now rapidly being effected. I have not the slightest doubt in the world that when this matter has been carefully studied and all its implications are understood, we shall be able to devise a remedy to meet the situation. The reason that the duties were imposed upon the products of wool, namely, cloth and woollen goods, was that at the moment our factories and mills were closed absolutely by reason of the action taken by the preceding government, and we had either to stimulate and secure an industry that should be indigenous to this country, namely, the woollen industry, or let it perish. We took the course indicated by the schedules of last year, and if the hon. gentleman will give us, not as long as nine years, but half that time, he will find that the number of sheep in this country will have greatly increased, and that the production of wool will have been greatly adavanced, and we shall be producing the raw material from which our cloths are made to an extent that

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
we have not heretofore done. No animal is more valuable than the sheep to a farming country such as this, and perhaps there is no country in the world where sheep could flourish more profitably than in some parts of Canada. The sheep is valuable alike for its wool and for the food value of its meat. The sheep is one of the most productive of the animals upon farms. The records are clear upon that point. The sheep enriches the soil upon which it flourishes. It serves the agriculturist for food and clothing. To the extent that legislative action may stimulate that industry it will be taken, but may I say to the hon. gentleman that had he in the first year he came to this parliament to support the government of that day shown the zeal for the industry that he exhibits to-night, we might have hoped for some little reform on the part of the government which he supported.


William Richard Motherwell: I think I can show where there is a vast difference between conditions to-day and conditions when we were in power with respect to wool and the woollen industry. Go back to last September. I have not the tariff before me, but my recollection is that the tariffs were put up 35 and 40 per cent. That was on behalf of inter-imperial trade.


Richard Bedford Bennett: On behalf of the woollen industry of Canada.


William Richard Motherwell: The Liberal policy on wool has always been to give the poor people, especially in the northern part of this country, woollen goods as cheaply as possible consistent with quality. That has been our policy, and the farmers were always, willing up to recently to produce their wool free in order to make their contribution towards free woollen fabrics. But now it is a horse of a different colour altogether. We have woollen goods coming into this country now under a duty of 40 per cent, shutting out the cheap woollen goods that we have enjoyed during all these past years. Why should the farmer be expected to make a sacrifice on behalf of free wool when the woollen manufacturers are getting 40 per cent protection, which is the position to-day? So far as I am concerned I am still in favour of free wool, and I would rather see the duty on the manufactured article put back to where it was, so that our people could get cheap woollen goods, than have further sacrifices made by the farmers in supplying free wool, while the manufacturers are getting 40 per cent protection. That is going a bit too far in discriminating against the various 22110-239
classes in Canada, and I am not surprised that the hon. member for Kamouraska is struck by the disparity.
I should like to make a suggestion. There is a provision in the revised statutes of 1927 with respect to wool. It reads:
Wool, namely, Leicester, Cotswold, Lincolnshire, Southdown combing wools, or wools known as lustre wools and other like combing wools, such as are grown in Canada:
The rates were 2 cents under the British preference, 2i under the intermediate and 3 cents under the general. If we had that in force with a reasonable interpretation as to what constitutes good wools or wools corresponding to Australian wools-


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not in force
now.


William Richard Motherwell: I cannot see where it has been .repealed. If my right hon. friend can show me that that has been repealed I shall have no more to say. The trouble is the tariff board has interpreted it as meaning that Australian wools did not compete with even the best Canadian wools, and my contention is that they do compete with our finer wools.


Mr. MANION:: I do not wish to delay the proceedings, but before the tariff hearing a few months ago a Canadian manufacturer of woollen goods made the statement, and was not contradicted by any one, that good Canadian woollen goods in comparison with imported woollen goods are much cheaper today than they have ever been. So my hon. friend's statement about the price is just as erroneous as a lot of other statements from the opposition-that simply because you raise the tariff up goes the price of the commodity. That applies only to the imported article, and surely our Canadian-produced woollen goods should be good enough even for my hon. friend, provided their quality is equal to that of the imported.


William Richard Motherwell: My hon. friend
knows that if the tariff had not been put up woollen goods would be still cheaper than they are to-day.


Robert James Manion: No. Hundreds of instances could be given to the contrary. In the United States the higher tariff has lowered the prices of hundreds of commodities.


William Richard Motherwell: Does my hon.
friend argue that our woollen mills are putting out a larger volume than they did formerly?



Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Robert James Manion: I do not know about that. I am simply giving him the statement of a Canadian manufacturer of woollen goods, and that statement was not contradicted by anyone present.


Charles A. Stewart: It is a good many moons since Canadian wools were as cheap as they are to-day. And why should they not be cheap?


Robert James Manion: That is what I am saying, but my hon. friend from Melville (Mr. Motherwell) has been aiguing to the contrary.


Charles A. Stewart: The manufacturing of all Canadian woollen cloths is making excellent progress. Why should they not be able to manufacture cheaply? The point is, the producer of wool cannot live at the price he is getting for his product. Almost every article produced on the farm is in the same category.


Robert James Manion: That is on another line
altogether.


Charles A. Stewart: I know, but when my hon. friend says cloth is cheaper today, I ask him why it should not be cheaper.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend from
Melville asked when the item to which he referred was repealed. It was repealed by item 549 of the tariff which was enacted on February 17, 1928, by the government of which he was a member, and wool was put on the free list.


William Richard Motherwell: But the question
raised by my right hon. friend was as to whether it exists at all now. I contend1 it does not.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is free now.


Edward James Young: The Minister of Railways
(Mr. Manion) said he had heard a Canadian woollen manufacturer make a certain statement at a tariff hearing with regard to woollen cloth, which statement was not contradicted. When he made that statement was anybody given a chance to contradict him or even to cross-question him?


Robert James Manion: Yes. Your friend, Mr. Deacbman was present and able to butt in at every possible opportunity and make misstatements as he makes them on all possible occasions.


Charles A. Stewart: Surely my hon. friend would not call that a hearing?


Robert James Manion: Yes. Anybody who wished to speak at that hearing was heard, and heard gladly.


Pierre-François Casgrain: A Tory hearing.


Ernest Lapointe: An impartial hearing!


William Richard Motherwell: Is the three cent duty levied on wool coming into Canada?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


William Richard Motherwell: Then it is free?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is all free.


William Richard Motherwell: It depends upon
the administration of it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.	My hon. friend's
government made it free in 1928 in the tariff o*f that spring abolishing the item. The item now stands free under all tariffs. That was the contribution my hon. friend made to the wool producers of Canada.


William Richard Motherwell: Nothing of the
kind. This was in the revised statutes of 1906 and stood at a straight 3 cents.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It stood until 1928; then my hon. friend rescinded it.


William Richard Motherwell: It is standing still.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, it has gone. It was repealed in 1928 and wool was made free. I am glad my hon. friend is sorry he participated in the execution of the wool grower, because apparently all this while he has been under the impression that wool carried the duty mentioned in the revised statutes of 1906. It will be recalled that Washington Irving's Rip Van Winkle did really wake up- and my hon. friend is another Rip Van Winkle.


William Richard Motherwell: Rip Van Winkle is awake enough on this question. No, it has been free all along, and what is more, if the tariff board want to interpret the present tariff on wool otherwise they have the authority to do so by levying a tariff of 2 cents British preference, 2| cents intermediate and 3 cents general on any imported wool that competes with Canadian wool. They have that authority yet.


Mr. EDWARDS:: What about taking the 12tj per cent duty off worsted yarns? That did more to destroy the Canadian wool industry than anything else.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-386m.
(i) sheets of iron or steel, cold rolled, when imported by manufacturers for use exclusively in the manufacture of sheets coated with tin: British preferential tariff, 5 per cent; intermediate tariff, 7i per cent; general tariff, 10 per cent;

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
(ii) sheets, hoop, bank or strip, of iron or steel, hot rolled, when imported by manufacturers for use exclusively in the manufacture of sheets, hoop, band or strip, coated with zinc or other metal or metals, not including tin, in their own factories: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
On and after September 1, 1931: British preferential tariff, 5 per cent: intermediate tariff, 7J per cent; general tariff, 10 per cent.
Richard Bedford Bennett: The only change made is to provide for the duty of 5, 74 and 10 per cent, being effective after the first of September, until which date these articles are free.


Mr. VENIOT:: The order in council was passed last August putting it into effect, and since then up to the present time it has been in effect at the rates specified here, 5, 74 and 10 per cent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is the other way about. Orders in council were passed extending the time when the new rates became effective to the first day of September, 1931.


Peter John Veniot: This statute perpetuates
that-if I may use the term-because since last fall a branch of the American Steel Corporation has started operations at its Ojibway plant. How many men are employed at the Ojibway plant?


Raymond Ducharme Morand: Between three and four hundred right now.


Peter John Veniot: I did not ask you; take
your seat. I want authoritative information.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It has not been customary to deal with the number of employees at any particular plant. I have not the information before me, but the hon. member for East Essex (Mr. Morandl, -who lives in that vicinity, says there are four hundred. I have every reason to believe he is one man who would know.


Peter John Veniot: I just heard him say about
350, so I do not know which one to believe. However, I will accept the lesser number.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: I may tell the hon. gentleman that at one time as many as 650 people were employed. Now the number is between 300 and 400.


Peter John Veniot: When was that one time?


Raymond Ducharme Morand: Within the last three or
four months.


Peter John Veniot: Now I wish to point out
one or two matters to the Prime Minister. We in the maritime provinces are very much concerned about this duty, since we use a great deal of tin plate in the canning of fish.
22110-239}


Richard Bedford Bennett: This is not the tin plate item.


Peter John Veniot: Yes, it is; it is the only
item I see under which tin plate might come. Let me say that the same concern applied to the former government for a duty to protect them if they established a plant in Canada. The reply of the tariff board was, "Would it not be much better for you to manufacture the plate in Canada and dip it here as well?" That is what they are doing now; they are dipping it in a solution at Ojibway and calling it tin plate. Under the present tariff, and since the Ojibway plant has been established, the finished article of iron plate, so called, rolled at the parent factory in the United States, is imported into Canada free as raw material. What is the finished article of one industry may be the raw material of another, and at Ojibway they only process this finished article which they import as raw material. They do nothing but dip it, and thereby they ' get their tin plate.
It is said that these people have pledged themselves not to increase the price. Let me point out that the price has been increased, and in addition to the increase in price the maritimes are discriminated against in connection with freight rates as well. This tin is purchased in boxes weighing 112 pounds; the plates are generally 14 by 20 inches, weighing about 100 pounds per box. In 1929 the f.o.b. price at Pittsburgh, from which place this raw material is exported to Canada to be dipped and called tin plate, was $4.03 per box, and in 1930 it was 84.35. That was the price in the world market, where we were buying our supplies. The duty on that purchase now will be 64 cents. Ojibway quotations last winter, through Montreal, were $5, which shows that the duty is added to the open market price.
In the matter of discrimination in connection with freight rates, the rate from Ojibway to the maritime provinces is 20 per cent higher than the rate from Pittsburgh to any point in the maritimes, and it is higher than the rate on tin plate from Wales, where we buy the larger proportion of our imports. Instead of encouraging empire trade this extra duty will prevent Welsh tin. plate being shipped to Canada, unless it can be bought at a lower figure than it has been selling for in the past, and the moment that is done the dumping duty acts. I hold in my hand a contract of the kind signed by people who purchase their cans, already made in different sizes, in Ontario. This is a three year contract, subject to tariff changes and so on, but the moment this duty was passed these people
3758	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
offered those for whom they were manufacturing cans to cancel their three year contracts, which had some months or perhaps a year to run, in order to enter upon a new contract beginning in January, 1931, under which, if the contract were made for a three year period, the purchasers might get a slight price reduction. I have a letter written by one of these firms located in Hamilton. The general manager of the company, in communicating with persons who desired to have their cans manufactured there as in the past, said under date of April 27, 1931 :
Referring to your letters in connection with prices for lobster cans, we have given this matter some thought, and while there is no justification from the standpoint of cost of cans for making any reduction in prices at this time, we have decided that it is desirable in the interests of our customers to do so.
The reduction was made because they attempted to cut down the cost of their production and the tariff was taken advantage of in order to keep up the price. That is one case, but there is a worse situation. Not only are we in the maritimes compelled to pay higher prices for our goods, but I find an article in the press under date of June 7 last setting forth certain actions taken by the railway commission. This article proceeds:
Canadian railways have not filed lower freight tariffs on new automobiles to meet competition with trucking by road, as have the United States railways, but freight rates in Canada are constantly being revised to meet water competition. Railway rates on flour and grain eastbound from the head of the lakes to eastern Canadian points were recently reduced by 71 cents per hundred pounds, the rate from Fort William to Montreal being cut from 321 to 25 cents per hundred pounds.
This is the point I wish to emphasize:
Freight rates on tin plate from Ojibway to fruit and vegetable canning points all over Ontario have also been lowered.
It has never been the practice to lower freight rates on short hauls; the practice has been to lower freight rates on long hauls, but there is no cut in the rate on the 1,400 mile haul from Ojibway to maritime points, while the rates to centres of fruit and vegetable canning in Ontario, which are almost contiguous to Ojibway, have been reduced. Since the government are trying to see that our industries have a reasonable chance to compete, even among themselves, I claim it is the duty of the government to see that there is no discrimination against the maritime provinces in connection with freight rates. If there is to be a cut to suit those points in Ontario, adjacent to Ojibway, in order to help the fruit canning industry, why cannot we get a corresponding cut on tin plate to

the maritime provinces, which will help us in the canning of our fish? In the maritime provinces, located at Port Elgin in the county of Westmorland, there is one of the largest fish canning factories in the world. We have also there, with branches in Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, a factory that manufactures from tin plate large quantities of cans for fish. There is another in the county of Charlotte, New Brunswick, whose output of cans is also considerable. These people are faced with this discrimination, and I would ask the Minister of Finance to look into the matter, especially from the point of view of freight rates, to see whether the railway cannot give a cut in rates. If they can give reduced rates on short hauls to certain centres in Ontario, we in the maritime provinces should receive equal treatment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The question of freight
rates is too large for discussion to-night.
Mr. VENI'OT: I just wanted to call attention to it.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: The freight rates were
reduced not because there was any wish to discriminate but because the trucks were taking the entire business away from the railways. They were able to distribute from Ojibway by truck, and that is why the railways cut the rate. They wanted to retain some of the business.


Peter John Veniot: That is a poor excuse.
Mr. MOR.AND:	It is not an excuse; it
is the truth.


Peter John Veniot: It may be the truth, but it
is a poor excuse. I did not say it was not the truth, but even the truth can be a poor excuse at times.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-4I0d. Well-drilling machinery and apparatus, and complete parts thereof, of a class or kind not made in Canada, and seamless iron or steel tubing over eight inches in diameter, for use exclusively in drilling for water, natural gas or oil, and in prospecting for minerals, but not to include motive power: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
Richard Bedford Bennett: The only change is the
substitution of the word "eight'' for "four."
<*- cent.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-415a. Refrigerators, domestic or store, completely equipped or not:
(1)	electric: British preferential tariff, 20 per cent; intermediate tariff, 35 per eent; general tariff, 40 per eent;
(2)	other than electric: British preferential tariff, 20 per cent; intermediate tariff, 27} per cent; £ren**-al tariff, 30 T,
Richard Bedford Bennett: This divides the item
into two parts in consequence of modern scientific discovery-electrical and other than electrical.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-422. Street or road rollers and complete parts thereof:	British preferential tariff, 10 per cent; intermediate tariff, 30 per cent; general tariff, 30 per cent.
Richard Bedford Bennett: There is an increase of
10 per cent under the intermediate and general.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-423. Electric dental engines: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 30 per cent; general tariff, 35 per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-438a. Automobiles for conveying passengers, only, n.o.p., valued at retail at place of production, when new, with standard equipment complete, at more than $1,200 each but not more than $2,100 each; chassis for same: British preferential tariff, 15 per cent; intermediate tariff, 22 i per cent; general tariff, 30 per cent.
George Gibson Coote: 
Charles A. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, this is one item in connection with which there is certainly no justification for an increase in the tariff. When reductions were made in the tariff on automobiles a delegation nearly four hundred strong came to Ottawa from the town of Oshawa and stated that if the reductions were persisted in the automobile industry of Canada would be destroyed. Any hon. member can read in Hansard the speeches made in this house upon that occasion by hon. gentlemen who were then on this side of the chamber. Citizens of Toronto came to 'Ottawa with the same plea, that the automobile industry would be ruined by the action taken by the then government. The government persisted in its course, and the automobile industry in common with other industries which enjoyed the tariff then existing Land which was claimed to be too low, increased in volume, increased in output and increased in sales to an unprecedented degree. It could not be said by any process of reasoning that the industry was crippled by the action taken by the then government because at no period in the history of the industry did it expand so rapidly. In view of evidence of that character I fail to understand why there is any necessity for an increase in the tariff on automobiles.
Hon. gentlemen opposite came into office and one of the things they did under the authority granted in September was to increase the protection on automobiles, which was done by fixing the price for duty purposes. They have now abandoned that position and are increasing the tariff.
Automobiles, except possibly cars of the type in which some hon. gentleman opposite are riding, can no longer be classed as a luxury; and I doubt if there is sufficient market in Canada for that class of car to warrant its construction here without the price being increased beyond a reasonable degree.
f Mr. eV>n+p 1
It is argued that this protection will give additional employment, but I do not believe the automobile industry has suffered any more than any other industry. Take agriculture or even the textile industry. The tariff on textiles was increased last year and now these factories have a glut of goods and no place to sell them. Automobiles are used by almost ever}' individual in the country. Perhaps there are innumerable people who own automobiles who should not have them, but I cannot understand why this industry should be picked out and given increased protection. The statement that the price will not be increased does not go down, because, as the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote) has said, there has always been a substantial difference between the selling price of cars in Canada and the selling price of similar cars in the United States. The Ford car is a splendid example. One factory is situated on the Canadian side, and another on the American side. A man buying a car on the American side has an advantage of nearly $100 over the Canadian who buys his car across the river.
I know it is useless to protest, as hon. gentlemen have the necessary majority to put these increased duties into effect, but I must state that in this particular the Canadian people have been bled ever since the inception of the automobile industry. They have been forced to pay too great a price for the privilege of owning a car in Canada, and now they will have to pay even more at a time when they can least afford to do so. I want to protest as strongly as I can against [DOT]these increased duties on automobiles.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am not quite sure
whether either- of the hon. gentlemen has taken the trouble even to read the items.


Charles A. Stewart: I took the
trouble to read them.


Richard Bedford Bennett: First, there is no change
in the price of a Ford car, nor is there any change in the duty upon any cars valued up to $1,200. That remains just at the figure that was fixed by the government of my hon. friends opposite.


Charles A. Stewart: Does my
right hon. friend make the statement now that the valuation fixed by order in council did not affect the price of the Ford car?


Richard Bedford Bennett: 
Charles A. Stewart: My right
hon. friend knows that very few machines come in under the intermediate tariff.


Richard Bedford Bennett: 
Charles A. Stewart: That was in existence before.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Certainly. It is being extended.


Charles A. Stewart: A few more items; that is all.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Exactly, but very
important ones.


Charles A. Stewart: The same provision, namely, if they are not made in Canada.	.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The point is that we are endeavouring by item 1055 to ensure that those component parts that are now being made efficiently and commercially in Canada shall be utilized, because the drawback against the imported articles would be only 25 per cent, and then with respect to another class the drawback would be only 60 per cent. The net result of that would be a car that would, we believe, cost less to produce. I cannot speak of this yet, because it is too soon to make any predictions with respect to it, but I believe there will be a reduction instead of an increase in the price of that class of car.
There is again this situation: Why after all, should we as members of the House of Commons have differences or disputes with respect to a matter of this kind? Both parties have said they want an automobile industry in Canada; we have deliberately said it. We have invited 8100,000,000 of capital to put itself into the industry in this country. That capital is now producing cars, giving employment to thousands of people and indirectly to many thousands more in connection at least with the materials that enter into the ultimate production of a car. We are all agreed as to that.


Miss MACPHAIL:: Will the Prime Minister not say that the capital invested in the automobile industry has had very splendid -eturns through the years?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I suppose the hon. member for Southeast Grey refers to what has been said so often as to the profits of the Ford Motor Company in the early days of its history in this country. This we do know, that the reports of the automobile industry during the last twelve months in Canada have been of lossess, not gains.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Could they not afford some losses? Have they not had very great gains?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Certainly they can afford to make losses, as all business can, until the receiver takes possession.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Would the automobile industry not be safe for quite some time?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I would say that the automobile industry has no greater assurance of safety than has, for instance, a great paper industry that went into the hands of a receiver yesterday. If the hon. member were sitting in her place a few years ago she would have said with profound certainty that that particular industry could have afforded to take losses and there was no likelihood of its going into the hands of a receiver; but the receiver is there and the industry is in his hands. All we have endeavoured to do, with the best capacity we have, is to evolve a scheme which we trust will ensure, on the one hand, efficiency and effectiveness in production, with the utilization of the maximum of Canadian materials, and, so far as is possible consistent with that doctrine, to make the component parts that enter into the construction of the finished article free from any tariff levy.


Thomas McMillan: What were the imports, together with the valuation and revenue obtained, of cars valued at from 81,200 to $2,100, and over $2,100?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The figures as to the revenue are not here, but as to the value, under item 438a, 5,000 automobiles were imported, valued at $5,999,681, or approximately $6,000,000, the imports being entirely from the United States. Under item 438b, which the hon. gentleman presumably has before him, the imports were 2,987 freight automobiles, valued at $3,913,000, chiefly from the United States, the imports from that country amounting to $3,656,000. Automobiles under $1,200 came in to the number of 12,927, valued at $7,549,535, chiefly from the United States, the imports from that country being $7,534,728.


Thomas McMillan: If you are going to give the industry 40 per cent protection on high priced cars, has the government never thought it would be in the interests of the country to take at least 15 or 20 per cent of an excise duty and put it into the revenues of the country, rather than into the pockets of the manufacturers?


An hon. MEMBER:: And increase the price?

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Thomas McMillan: It is the old story over again. I am surprised at the disposition of members of the cabinet, as well as of their docile followers, who have become so credulous that they believe almost everything they have been telling us.


John Livingstone Brown: Why does the finance
minister fix upon 1006 as the time we were irrevocably committed to upholding the automobile industry?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not do that. I
said that both parties had committed themselves to that industry, and I said that in 1926 we made a solemn declaration to that effect. The Minister of Finance of that day determined what action he would take, and he took it.


John Livingstone Brown: I understand that the
finance minister said that he was of the opinion that the automobile manufacturers never at any time had enjoyed such prosperity as they did under that tariff, or something to that effect.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I said that their protection had never been greater.


John Livingstone Brown: That is about the same
thing.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not necessarily.


Charles A. Stewart: I want to
deny the finance minister's assertion.


John Livingstone Brown: The tariff on automobiles
of the particular class referred to was reduced to 20 per cent, although we all know that part of the protection was put back again through customs regulations as to the discount to be allowed for duty purposes. The hon. member for East Essex spent the greater part of his remarks on the budget in an endeavour to prove that the automobile industry had suffered under that tariff.


Edward James Young: The finance minister said
a few moments ago that he would explain to us the orders in council setting up an arbitrary valuation of automobiles for duty purposes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have already indicated that. I said that in the case of automobiles up to a value of $1,200, the discount should not be greater than 20 per cent. That was what the order in council was.


Edward James Young: We would like an explanation of exactly how that worked out, of how it succeeded in transferring revenue from the Dominion treasury to the coffers of American manufacturers.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It has not worked out
that way.


William Daum Euler: I think perhaps the committee understands very clearly, or if it does not, it should, that by the action of the government the protection on automobiles has been twice increased; for the government have fixed the discount at 20 per cent, whereas, as a matter of fact, on various makes of automobiles imported, the real discount is considerably greater than 20 per cent, and in many cases runs as high as 38 and 40 per cent. I am not finding any particular fault; in fact I approve of maintaining the automobile industry in Canada, but during the session of 1930 when the old government was in office my right hon. friend was very much concerned, in the last week of the session, I think, as to whether the government of the day contemplated a uniform rate of discount. I know that he questioned me very particularly on the point. All I could say to him was that some consideration had been given to the application of the automobile manufacturers for the fixing of a discount at 20 or 17J per cent, or whatever it might be. My right hon. friend was then very particular to point out that if anything were done-he was not particularly opposed to increasing the protection-it should be done by statute, with which I quite agree. But the question I wish to ask the Minister of Finance is this:	Was the
fixing of the discount at a uniform rate of 20 per cent on automobiles imported into Canada done for the purpose of giving further protection, or to simplify the administration of the Customs Act? I will admit right here there was considerable difficulty in the Department of National Revenue in establishing whether the discounts were bona fide discounts, and investigation had constantly to be made. All of that difficulty is now obviated by having the rate of discount uniformly fixed at 20 per cent. My point is this: If it is intended that the protection shall be greater -and I think perhaps that was the purpose of the present government-whether, instead of increasing the protection by reducing discounts and furthermore increasing the protection by increasing the tariff to 40 per cent on these higher priced cars, it would not have been just as well to say protection shall be given by one means only, and that is by the tariff itself? I should like to hear from the Minister of Finance whether that was the purpose, whether he intended to increase protection in two different ways rather than in one way only; or whether the two-fold purpose was to simplify administration and increase protection at the same time?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman has asked-what I would expect from one who has administered the department-a very fair
3764	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
question. The difficulty that he experienced in the department of having to investigate the discounts on each particular car made the work of the department very cumbersome and delayed it also, as he very well said. But that was not the only purpose-the hon. gentleman is quite right. The twofold purpose, as I endeavoured to indicate a moment ago, was, first, to ensure uniformity, and, shall I say, rapidity in the transaction of business; secondly, to ensure against unfair competition depending upon whim or caprice of each individual dealer as to the discount that might be granted under pressure of economic tress. I endeavoured to point out a moment ago that the second purpose as well as the first was to ensure fair competition for the domestic producer.


Ernest Lapointe: Greater protection, in
other words?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


William Daum Euler: Is it not also true, then, with regard to cars priced at not more than $1,200, that the protection is increased by reason of the fixing of the discount at 20 per cent?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think that is one case in which you could hardly say so, because that is about the discount allowed. The hon. gentleman knows that 20 per cent is the general rate of discount with respect to the cheaper cars; but in the higher class cars he is quite right, it did run to 35 per cent. I think there was one illustration of a high priced car on which the discount this year had gone as high as 38 per cent.


Alfred Speakman: The Prime Minister a few moments ago made a statement which I think is correct, that in every part of the house we are in favour of the maintenance of an automobile industry in this country. There is no difference of opinion as to that. But there may be a distinct difference of opinion as to the measures which are necessary for the maintenance of that industry. A substantial increase in protection is given by these tariff resolutions, not so much by way of the tariff itself but by way of valuation and of free imports of certain parts-which lower the cost of construction to the manufacturer but do not necessarily cheapen the cost of the car to the consumer, because that again is set by competition from the outside. To my mind any increased protection to this industry might very properly have been left over until the new tariff board was functioning, because it is an industry which we cannot 
say is suffering intensely at the present time, and its condition vitally affects everyone in Canada.
I should like to make an observation while I am on my feet-an observation that I have thought of making a number of times. This session I have never criticized the government for their tariff policy. I made the statement on one occasion that undoubtedly the government did come into power on the pledge of increased protection. I for one have no criticism to offer with resepct to that increased protection, although I disagree as to its effect on the country. I think it is fair to say, speaking for the farmers of my part of the country, that they are not desirous of seeing any manufacturing industry suffer. They are willing to stand for a good deal to keep every industry running in such a way as to ensure employment to Canadian working men. The average farmer thinks-and it_is difficult to convince him that he is wrong -that during this period of depression almost every industry and every activity in the country has the shock to some extent Boftened by legislation-every industry except the farming industry. The manufacturing industry has its prices safeguarded, as far as they can be safeguarded, by protective tariffs. I will admit at once that the difficulty of selling their goods to a limited market has caused them troublous times, and I do not say they are making profits now; but I do say that so far as we can do so by tariff legislation we are protecting them from the shock of this depression and making certain, as far as it is possible, that they shall sell their goods at profitable prices. In the same way transportation service is protected under the Railway Act, and it is administered to ensure that no matter what the value of the products they cany the railways shall at least receive profitable freight rates. Likewise our banks, our mortgage companies and our loan companies are safeguarded by law so that they may be able to conduct their operations on a profitable basis. But what about the farmer? He says, and very logically, that he is left unprotected to bear the shock of this depression. I say unprotected, because although this government is doing its best to protect our farmers, no one knows better than the Prime Minister that the tariff has been of very little benefit to them. The farmer is willing to bear his share of the depression, to tighten up his belt and fight his way through, but he does feel that so far as it can be fairly done every class in the country should bear its fair share of the burden with him, otherwise he will be overwhelmed.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Mr. McGIBBON:: I was very much interested to hear the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) say that everything in the way of protection shouldi be governed by the tariff. But I should like to ask him by what authority he changed the content of the Canadian car and applied it to all cars made in the shop instead of to the individual car. This change increases importation into this country and deprives the Canadian workman and the Canadian manufacturer respectively of thousands of dollars' worth of work and business. He did it absolutely without authority and without legislation.


Edward James Young: Mr. Chairman, a few
moments ago when I asked the Prime Minister if he would explain to the committee how the order in council fixing the discount at 20 per cent transferred the revenue from the public treasury to the pockets of the American manufacturers, he said it did not do so. 1 think I can demonstrate to the house that it does. Take the cost of the car that retails at SI,000, on which the discount allowed is 30 per cent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There are not any.


Edward James Young: I am taking approximate
figures. I have in my room accurate figures, but these will illustrate the point as well as any others. The discount on a car retailing at
SI,000	would be 30 per cent. The importer of that car would pay to the manufacturer in the United States $700. When he brings that car to the border the duty at 20 per cent would be 8140. The order in council says he must not accept a 30 per cent discount, but is restricted to a 20 per cent discount; it says therefore that the valuation of that car for duty purposes must be $800. It is valued at $800, and the duty being 20 per cent he pays $160 in duty. Very well; then the customs official comes to him and asks, "What did you actually pay the manufacturer for the car?" If he says, "I paid $800," the official will say, "Very well; you have paid the proper duty". If, on the other hand, he says, "I paid only $700," the official will pay to him, "You have violated the dumping laws of this country, and now we will fine you the extra $100 which you did not pay for the car." If the purchaser says, "May I pay that $100 to the manufacturer and so get away without paying the $160 duty?" He will be told that he can do so. What will be his decision? He has the choice of paying that $100 either to his principal in the United States or into the public treasury here in the form of a fine. Undoubtedly he will pay it to his principal in
the United States, and the result of this order in council will be to transfer revenue to the pockets of the American manufacturer which might have come into the treasury of this country.


George Gibson Coote: I would not further prolong the debate at this late stage of the session were it not for the reference made by the Prime Minister to the large amount of foreign capital invested in the automobile industry in Canada which he said it was our duty to protect. I should- like to direct the attention of the government to the statement contained in Hansard of March 29, 1926, in regard to the capitalization of the Ford Motor Company of Canada. It is shown that the original capital stock of this company amounted to $125,000, of which half, or $62,500, went to the Detroit company for certain rights they possessed. In 1926 the capital of the Ford Motor Company had increased to $7,000,000. No new capital had been put in; the balance of that $7,000,000 was taken from the profits which had been earned by the industry itself. A statement appearing in an article in the Financial Post of February 12, 1926, shows very clearly that all the capital stock of $7,000,000, with ithe exception of 8125,000, was earned out of the profits of the industry, and at that time the company's balance sheet showed a total net worth of $41,000,000. I think that company has done exceptionally well in building up a total net worth of $41,000,000 from an investment of $125,000, half of which was foreign capital.
Perhaps we are unduly alarmed with regard to the necessity of seeing that profits are returned on all this capital. Although this situation may seem satisfactory to the Prime Minister and the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler), I believe the farmers of Canada are getting a little weary of maintaining this industry if it is to cost us as much as it has cost up to the present; for it takes seven steers at Chicago prices to buy a truck at Detroit prices, and eleven steers at Toronto prices to buy a truck at that point, and the difference is even greater when it comes to a sedan. The increased percentage of farm products necessary to purchase a car in Canada applies to many other commodities than steers; I think it would apply to butter, eggs, wheat and many other things. This is the problem facing the farmer, and it is a problem which the government must recognize. How can they increase the return to the farmer so that he may pay these increased prices?
3766	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


William Daum Euler: The hon. member for Wey-burn (Mr. Young) has made a statement which I am sure was made in good faith but which I hope is not founded on fact. He claims that the 20 per cent discount works out in this way: We will say a car comes in on which the exporter in the United States allows a bona fide discount of 30 per cent. The department here allows a discount of only 20 per cent, and if the United States manufacturer does not actually sell his car on the basis of the 20 per cent discount the statement is made by the hon. member for Weyburn that the department applies the dump. Under the old administration of course that would have been quite impossible and quite unfair, because the dump is never applied unless the selling price in Canada is less than in the country of origin. I should like to know whether there has been any change in practice in that regard. If there has been a change and the dump is applied in a case like that I think it is an injustice.


Richard Bedford Bennett: When I heard the hon. gentleman make that statement my belief was that he was in error as to the application of the dumping clause. I am informed that it does not apply, and that he is wrong.
May I say to the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote) that for the first time in the history of the country an earnest effort has been made to make an adjustment between the farmer's production and what he may pay with respect to duties and tariffs. Even if he has a unit as small as a quarter-section of land on which he produces 1,000 bushels of grain he would get $50, which at least is some compensating adjustment since it is more than he will have paid with respect to customs duties. From whom does that money come, primarily and principally it comes from these very industries to which we are referring, from the men whom he says we cannot longer keep but who are not asking to be kept. That is unfair and unjust, and is not advancing the cause of those whom I think other people have at heart quite as much as those who talk so much about it when they say the farmer is always the man who is being held up. The farmer is being given a compensating adjustment which more than meets the sum which on the average he will pay in duties with respect to motor ears or any other items of this nature with respect to t'he tariff.


George Gibson Coote: I think he has already paid it.


Edward James Young: If, as the minister says, this dumping duty is not applied to the man who

buys his car for $700 instead of for $800, which he should pay under the regulation, then I ask the minister how he enforces his order in council.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: If that were true; if the automobile firms in the United States were making an extra $100 on each car, how would the hon. gentleman account for the fact that the Reo, the Graham, the Hupmobile and the Studebaker companies are all opening factories on this side of the line? Surely they would take advantage of that opportunity to make money. This legislation has forced these people to come over here and employ men on this side of the line, so that should be sufficient answer without going further into the matter.


Edward James Young: I have not had any communications with automobile manufacturers in the United States, but I have received a communication from a manufacturer of cartridges, which have been treated in a similar way. This manufacturer asks, "Why am I compelled by your Customs department to charge my Canadian dealers 10 per cent more for cartridges than I am willing to accept from them or than I am charging my American dealers?" The same thing applies to automobiles.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not accurate to-day.


Edward James Young: When did it cease to be accurate?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Some time ago.


James Dew Chaplin: I should like to refer to item 1055, which states in part:
Provided, further, that no drawback shall be paid under this item on importations of any of the undermentioned articles.
Then follows a long list of articles on which under the old system no drawback was supposed to be allowed. With respect to the articles I shall mention, namely, a clutch, a universal joint, a transmission or a starting unit, I want to ask the Prime Minister what drawback is to be given. On what parts of these units is a drawback now to be given? Is it to be. given on the parts thereof or on the material therein? If on the parts, I can say that if a drawback is to be allowed on parts of universal joints then there is no necessity for putting that there at all, for the reason that 95 per cent of that article is in parts. Every one can be imported as a part, and if they are to have a drawback they have no right to be there. It was understood that these articles were not to have a drawback at all. That was my understanding

Supply

Post Office
of the first reading; but this reading is changed now to 25 per cent. Why should there be a drawback? I am opposed to these drawbacks. This really means that you are paying a premium now to have parts made in the United States.


An hon. MEMBER:: What is the answer?
Mr, BENNETT: The answer is there; they are on the exempted list.


James Dew Chaplin: I know it read's that way.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is the hon. gentleman using the votes and proceedings of yesterday or of to-day?


James Dew Chaplin: I am reading from the votes and proceedings of yesterday, and I find in regard to the third item the following:
Provided, further, that on all materials and parts used in the manufacture in Canada of the parts enumerated in proviso (2) to the item there shall be payable, when such parts are used in the manufacture of the goods enumerated in tariff items 438a and 438b, a drawback of duty for domestic purposes of 25 per cent.
I wish the minister would be kind enough to explain 'that. I know what it means, and perhaps he will confirm my understanding * of it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It means exactly what it says. There can be no misunderstanding of the language. At page 5 of the votes and proceedings of yesterday there appears the item, "materials and parts, n.o.p."; and, subject to drawback:
When used in the manufacture of goods enumerated in tariff items 438a and 438b: 60 per cent.
Then:	[DOT]
Materials and parts, as hereunder defined, including all materials or parts wrought into or attached thereto; engines, bodies in the white. . . .
When used in the manufacture of goods enumerated in tariff items 438a and 438b: 25 per cent.
Then there is the proviso:
(1)	Provided, that no drawback shall hereafter be paid under this item unless at least 50 per centum of the cost of producing the finished article, not to include, after September 30, 1931, duties paid upon imported materials, has been incurred in Canada;
(2)	Provided, further, that no drawback shall be paid under this item on importations of any of the undermentioned articles.
And among those articles are universal joints.


James Dew Chaplin: Is there any drawback to be paid on the parts of universal joints?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The proviso is:
Provided, further, that on all materials and parts used in the manufacture in Canada of the parts enumerated in proviso (2) to the item there shall be payable, when such parts are used in the manufacture of the goods enumerated in tariff items 438a and 438b, a drawback of duty for domestic purposes of 25 per cent.


James Dew Chaplin: So far as that is concerned, I can tell the minister this, that all a man has to do in respect to universal joints is to put up a bench that will cost ten cents and bring these parts in and he can get the 25 per cent drawback. He does not need a factory or anything of that kind. And the same thing applies to all those other articles I have mentioned, such as transmission, clutches, axles, and so on. By having that drawback you prevent the main articles from being made in the steel mills of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I propose, if my right hon. friend (Mr. Mackenzie King) pleases, to move that the committee rise and report progress. We have not been in supply on the Post Office estimates and if there is no objection the Postmaster General can spend the next thirty minutes on his department.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: There would be no objection to having the Postmaster General go on to-morrow, by consent, if it suited his convenience.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Someone might object. I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Progress reported.


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT
[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) moved that the house go into committee of supply.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. LaVergne in the chair.
Post Office-salaries, $1,492,399.
Hon. ARTHUR SAUVE (Postmaster General) :: Perhaps it might be well for me to summarize briefly the operations of my department since I took charge of it. I hope that these remarks will prove to hon. members on both sides that my desire has been to administer this department with economy but at the same time to give good administration and meet the urgent needs of the
Supply-Post Office

public. There must also be taken into consideration the general financial condition of the country. The deficit which has occurred in the department is due to the decrease of revenue brought about by the crisis affecting this and other countries of the world, while the increase in expenditure is caused by the obligations for the development of service imposed upon the department by the former administration and authorized by previous parliaments.
The deficit for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1931, is estimated at $5,293,000. The estimated expenditure for that year is $36,292,603, while the estimated revenue is placed at $31,000,000. In 1927-28 the expenditure amounted to $32,379,195, an increase of $1,371,497. In 1928-29, the expenditure amounted to $33,483,058, an increase of $1,103,863.


Peter John Veniot: The hon. minister is referring to net revenue, not gross?


Arthur Sauvé: The increase in expenditure in 1930-31 is about $300,000 less than the increase in 1929-30. The increase in 1930-31 is estimated at $1,255,974, almost $800,000 of which is due to air mail service. The balance of the increase is due to the fact that the facilities accorded to the public were not curtailed. Notwithstanding the decrease in revenue, all services have been maintained, existing services have been extended and new services inaugurated. The increase in expenditure cannot be said to be due to the present administration but rather to the extensive nature of the service accorded to the public.
The present indications are that the revenue in 1930-31 will be approximately $31,000,000, a decrease of almost $2,000,000 as compared with 1929-30. In 1915 the postage rate on letters, other than for local delivery, was raised from two to three cents. This one cent tax resulted in a net increase in revenue amounting to about $3,000,000. In 1926 the war tax was removed from letters other than local which caused a loss of revenue amounting to about $2,600,000. At the same time the postage rate on letters to Great Britain and other parts of the empire was reduced from four to three cents.


Peter John Veniot: Not at the same time.


Arthur Sauvé: That is my information, but this matter can be discussed when we are taking up the details. In 1928 the source ol postal revenue was again reduced when the rate on letters within the British Empire was changed from three to two cents. On July 1, 1930, the rate on letters to certain countries within the International Postal Union was
[Mr. Sauve.l
reduced from eight to five cents. It will be seen that during the last few years several inroads have been made on the sources of postal revenue. Notwithstanding these reductions in postage rates, thereby diminishing postal revenue, the department has been obliged to maintain satisfactory services, extend existing services and establish new facilities, thus increasing expenditure.
The Post Office estimates show a decrease of $1,372,017.58. Part of this decrease is made up in salaries and allowances made possible by deleting for the present positions which have been vacant for some time and by decreasing the amount of mileage allowance made to railway mail clerks and the amount for temporary assistants. The reduction in. salaries and allowances will not mean that post office employees will be released. The reduction in mail service amounts to over $700,000, $412,000 being in the air mail.
The vote for miscellaneous expenditures has been reduced by $427,123.18. These reductions naturally preclude the possibility of general expansion or development of existing services, or the inauguration of new services, but with extremely economical administration we hope to maintain an efficient and satisfactory service, and at the same time to keep expenditure within the vote.
Salaries and allowances have been decreased by 8237,894.40. This is made possible by:
1.	Deleting provision for 366 positions in post offices and sixty-two railway mail clerkships which have been vacant for some time. Employees who are placed on the retired list or who leave the service for other reasons will not be replaced unless absolutely necessary.
2.	Reducing amount for temporary assistance by $120,000. This means that temporary employees will be taken on only in emergencies.
3.	Reducing amount for mileage allowance by $35,000. This is made possible by a reduction in personnel, pooling of crews of railway post offices and close supervision of assignments. No change has been made in the rate of mileage allowed railway mail clerks.
In the mail service the total decrease is $707,090. In the railway mail service the decrease amounts to $150,000. This is the result . of a rearrangement of mail services and railway train schedules as weil as close supervision of space units; in addition, no new services will be established. The reduction in the steamboat service amounts to $45,000. This is due to a falling off in mails offered for transportation on both the Atlantic and the . Pacific services. As regards the ordinary land service, including rural mail deliver}', there

Australian Trade Agreement
is no change. The vote in 1930-31 was $6,625,000 and the same amount is asked for 1931-32. While no curtailment will be made in the present services, the department will be unable to provide new services or to make extensions in existing ones. In the air mail service the reduction is $412,000. The general policy in regard to air mail is as follows: Air mail to outlying districts is a permanent feature of the departments policy. As regards all other air mail the government has considered it necessary to review the situation and to institute economies. In regard to the supply and repair of mail bags, the reduction amounts to $100,000. This is the result of economy in the use of mail bags, the purchase of a supply of cotton duck for letter bags being unnecessary for the reason that red striped bags formerly used for registered mail are being converted for use of ordinary letter mail and again placed in service.
In miscellaneous expenditure there is a decrease of $427,123.18. This is made up of a decrease of $5,000 in travelling expenses, $375,023.18 in stationery and printing, $40,000 in stamps, et cetera, and appropriations not [DOT] required for 1931-32, $6,500.
I think these explanations will satisfy my hon. friends opposite and also the committee in general.


Peter John Veniot: I am a little surprised,
though perhaps I should not be, that the new minister, the first time he deals with his estimates, should take advantage of the item under civil government to give an apercu of the work of his department. The questions he has discussed have nothing whatever to do with civil government. If he had commenced with the estimates of the Post Office outside service, the rather full explanation he has given would have had its place or raison d'etre. I did not desire, as the hon. member is a new minister, to raise the point of order that he has taken advantage of the civil government item to give this explanation, but under this item it is impossible, according to the rules of the house, for me to discuss the department in general or the report laid before the committee by the minister. It is now approaching eleven o'clock. I have no objection to the item under civil government being adopted to-night, but when the first item of the outside service is called I expect to have the privilege of replying to the statement made by the minister to-night. As one who is perhaps supposed to take a greater interest in the Post Office Department than other members on this side of the house, I will claim that privilege when we reach the items of the outside service.


Mr. MERCIER (St. Henri):: How many office appliance operators have you in the department?


Arthur Sauvé: There are 107.


Pierre-François Casgrain: Where are they located?


Arthur Sauvé: In Ottawa.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Guthrie the house adjourned at 10.50 p.m.
Wednesday, July 15, 1931.