1932-11-16

QUESTIONS

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

Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	How many federal charters were granted by the companies branch during the last fiscal year, 1931-32?
2.	What was the revenue of the companies branch during the same year?
3.	How many charters were granted: (a) in 1928-29; (b) in 1929-30; (c) in 1931-32?
4.	What was the revenue of the companies branch during these same years?


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: 1.	Letters patent	 760
Supplementary letters patent.. ..	197
Total	 957
2.	$263,833.
3.	(a) Letters patent	1,202
Supplementary letters patent. 328
Total	1,530
(b) Letters patent	1,280
Supplementary letters patent. 328
Total	1,608
to) Letters patent	 760
Supplementary letters patent. 197
Total	 957
4.	(a) $711,314; (b) $651,241; (c) $263,833.


DISMISSALS OF GASPE EMPLOYEES
Mr. GOBEIL:: 1.	Were there some dismissals of federal government employees for political partisanship in the county of Gaspe, Quebec, from October 1, 1926, to October 1, 1927?
2.	If so, on whose recommendation were such dismissals made?


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: 1.	Yes, 38.
2.	23 on recommendation of Hon. Rodolphe Lemieux; 15 on recommendation of the hon. the Minister of Marine and Fisheries.


NATIONAL RESOURCES INTELLIGENCE BRANCH
Mr. FAFARD:: 1.	Are steps now being taken to transfer the natural resources intelligence branch from the Interior department to the Department of Trade and Commerce?
2.	If such transfer is to be effected, to what branch of the Department of Trade and Commerce is the transferred branch to be attached?
3.	What are the functions of the natural resources intelligence branch?
4.	What is the number of persons employed in that branch?
5.	Out of the total number of persons employed in that branch, how many have been born in Canada?


Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	There is no such branch in the Interior department. The work formerly done by the national resources intelligence branch is now part of the work done by the national development bureau.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	The national development bureau is a bureau of information on Canada's resources, development, and geography and for the promotion of the sound development of Canada's national estate.
4.	71.
5.	52.


CENTRAL GOLD RESERVE
Mr. SPENCER:: What was the amount of money in the central gold reserve on the 31st of October, 1932: (1) in gold; (2) in dominion notes?


Mr. RHODES:: (1) $11,081,733.32; (2) $10,300,000.


MOTION FOR PAPERS
Mr. E. J. GARLAND (Bow River) moved:: For return showing the overages of each elevator company operating in the province of Alberta during each of the last ten years.

Radio Commission


Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I spoke to this motion on Monday at which time the hon. member was not in the house. I do not know whether or not he has read my remarks, but I might say that I pointed out that it has not been the practice of my or any other department to disclose the operations of any private concern. In the annual report of the Board of Grain Commissioners most complete statements are given of overages and other matters pertaining to the operation of elevators, but it has not been the practice to disclose what each elevator or each company had on hand. My hon. friend wrote the department some time ago and I think the deputy minister replied in much the same manner in which I am now replying. I would suggest to the house that if my hon. friend is agreeable this resolution be dropped for the time being until it is decided whether or not we should disclose the operations of private companies.


Edward Joseph Garland: The attitude of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) is quite understandable but I would draw his attention to the fact that a few years ago when the Grain Act was under revision a very full list of the names of companies operating and their overages was published and became part of the record. With all due deference to the minister, I fail to see when a company has a certain quantity of goods on hand a.t the end of the year why that information should not be considered as a matter of public concern.


Henry Herbert Stevens: If my hon. friend will drop the resolution for the time being and talk this matter over with me I am sure we can reach an agreement. There is no desire on my part to withhold any proper information.
Motion dropped.


RADIO COMMISSION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. PIERRE F. CASGRAIN (Charlevoix-Saguenay) (Translation):	Mr. Speaker, I
wish to inquire from the Solicitor General (Mr. Dupre) who, at present, is acting for the Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau), whether it is a fact that La Patrie of Montreal has obtained a permit to operate a broadcasting station, under the call CKEP?
Hon. MAURICE DUPRE (Acting Minister of Marine) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, in reply I wish to state that, yesterday, I notified my hon. colleague, the ex-Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), that I would make a
correction, today, to the statement I made yesterday. My statement was that no broadcasting permit had been issued since the Radio Commission had been appointed. I used the word "appointed." This may have been the cause of some ambiguity, I therefore wish to dispel such ambiguity, if it exists. I should have said: "since the commission had been sworn in." No permit was issued except one-and this is my reply to my hon. friend from Charlevoix-Saguenay-of 100 watts to La Patrie. The permit was issued by myself, as interim Minister of Marine, previously, however, to the commission being sworn in, the latter had no say in the matter.


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Quebec East) (Translation):: Does the hon. minister think it proper to issue permits to new stations when a commission is appointed in order to place radio broadcasting under state control?


Maurice Dupré: 'It is a
debatable question. If I assert it is, my hon. friend will maintain the contrary. I, therefore, will allow my reply to stand as I gave it.


Ernest Lapointe: It is
absolutely the opposite to what we did last session.


Maurice Dupré: We followed the ordinary routine. We equally granted these privileges to La Presse and the Star.


Mr. CASGRAIN (Translation):: May I, sir, put another question-with reference to the same subject-to the interim Minister of Marine? Some time ago, we were informed by the press that the Radio Commission was to undertake an inspection tour throughout the countiy. I trust that the commission will not overlook the electoral division which I have the honour to represent.


Mr. SPEAKER (Text):: I would call the hon. member's attention to the fact that this is not a time for debate.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I am putting a question, Mr. Speaker. (Translation): I wish to inquire from the hon. minister as to whether the commission will carry out an inspection tour in my constituency which comprises the following districts: Montmorency, Charlevoix-Saguenay, l'lle aux Coudres, Ashuanipe, New Quebec, the island of Anticosti and the Canadian Labrador coast. The reason for putting this question-and I leave it to the good common sense of all-is that in these districts which are far remote, there are localities where reception is poor.
British Duties on Copper


Maurice Dupré: In reply to my hon. friend, I may say that I have no idea what the plans of the commission are, however, I shall be pleased to communicate to them the request of the hon. member for Char-levoix-Saguenay.


SOCKEYE SALMON TREATY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
Hon. IAN MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Rhodes), in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Bennett), to inquire if the government is now considering the making of representations to the government of the United States with respect to the ratification of the sockeye salmon treaty.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I should prefer to
take this as a notice of question in order that I may make myself familiar with the recent developments within the department.
WINTER WORK IN OUR PORTS On the orders of the day:


Hon. FERNAND RINFRET (St. James) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I also wish to put a question to the Acting Minister of Marine (Mr. Dupre). As he is aware, the navigation season will soon close; generally, the employees whose services have been required during that season are placed at the disposal of the board of harbour commissioners. I wish to inquire whether it would be possible, this year, to request these various boards, especially those connected with inland harbours, such as Quebec, Three Rivers and Montreal, to employ, as much as possible, on winter work, the men who were at their service during the summer season.


Maurice Dupré: I can assure my hon. friend that I shall convey to the Minister of Marine, who will be back in a few days, the request he has just made.
SOLDIER SETTLEMENT On the orders of the day:


Henry Elvins Spencer: 
Hon. W. A. GORDON (Minister of Labour) :: Since, I believe, November, 1930, after a very thorough investigation of the condition in which soldier settlers in common with many others found themselves, I caused the various superintendents throughout Canada to be circularized by the then board and afterwards by the director, the instructions in substance being that every possible leniency be extended to soldier settlers; that where it appeared that a soldier settler, not through malingering, being able to pay just refused to pay, but through misadventure was unable to make his payments falling due on account of his loan, then in no case should departmental action be taken that would prompt or cause such a settler to leave his homestead. That policy has been consistently followed, is being followed today and will continue to be followed until prices revive and the settlers are in better condition.
ANGUS SHOPS, MONTREAL On the orders of the day:


Mr. J. A. MERCIER (Laurier-Outremont):: May I ask the Minister of Railways and Canals whether he is aware that any definite steps have been taken prior to today, as to the opening of the Angus Shops in Montreal?


Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways and Canals):: I know of no such steps.
BRITISH DUTIES ON COPPER On the orders of the day:


Mr. A. E. MUNN (Vancouver North):: I should like to address a question to the government. I notice by press reports this morning that the British government have suspended for the present the duties on copper in connection with the preference. This, no doubt, will lead to further negotiations. I should like to ask the government if it will not be possible in these negotiations to have the word "smelted," which was deleted, reinserted in the new agreement?


Henry Herbert Stevens: My' hon. friend is making statements of fact that, so far as my information goes, are not facts. There was no deletion of any words from anything in connection with the arrangements between Great Britain and Canada. As regards my hon. friend's question, he must know that it cannot be answered categorically at this time. The whole question of this and any other matters

Portsmouth Penitentiary
that affect Canadian interests will be carefully considered by this government in conjunction with the British government in due course.


Albert Edward Munn: My information is from reliable sources that the word was deleted.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Then I would state most definitely to my hon. friend that it was not deleted.


COOPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (Wetaskiwin):: I should like to ask the government if they have seriously contemplated giving up trying to make this capitalistic system work and have turned their attention to laying a foundation for a cooperative commonwealth?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The cooperative commonwealth has not been cooperating in the last few weeks.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Irvine: I was not making a joke.
I am glad the house is so humorous. I am asking a question and I expect an answer from the government. If my hon. friend was witty just now, I did not catch what he said.


PORTSMOUTH PENITENTIARY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. SAMUEL FACTOR (Toronto West Centre):: Has the Minister of Justice received the report from the Superintendent of Penitentiaries in connection with the riots in Kingston penitentiary?


Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice):: The report has not yet come to
hand. The investigation is rather a long one, 900 or more prisoners having been asked to make any complaints they have. That part of it is concluded. Now, I believe, the superintendent is examining the officers of the penitentiary and as soon as that is completed, he will make his report.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: May I ask the
government if they will give to members of the opposition the same opportunity as the Minister of Justice has said is being given to prisoners in the penitentiary, to make any complaints they may have to the government?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Hugh Guthrie: I think my right hon.
friend knows he has that opportunity and will have it on the supplementary estimates when they are before the house. In the supplementary estimates there is a vote for penitentiaries. I cannot commend the attitude of my right hon. friend in his question. It is no joke; it is a very serious matter, and the laughter with which his remarks were greeted by the other side of the house, was entirely uncalled for.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My remarks
were not intended as a joke.


Hugh Guthrie: The right hon. gentleman's followers took it as such.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is a very
serious matter. We have had no opportunity to voice any complaints on unemployment or anything else.


UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. CAMERON R. McINTOSH (North Battleford): I have a question to address to the Minister of Labour who is always very good in giving any information he can. Since the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens), has given to the house and the country approximately the number of unemployed according to the census of 1931 and since, by additions thereto, at the present moment we have over 700,000 unemployed in Canada, may I ask the minister if he can give to parliament approximately the total number directly and indirectly on dominion relief at the present moment?
Wesley Ashton Gordon: I do not know that I can be so
specific as to answer the question as "at the present moment." It would be rather difficult for me to do so. Again, it is rather difficult to define "unemployed." That has given rise to difficulties that confront anyone who tries to make an estimate. But I shall say that the total number, men, women and children, on relief, I think for the last month, is something over 800,000. I may say that that includes 144,000 who, according to governmental figures covering a period of ten years from 1919 to 1929, have been on the average unemployed. It also includes some 140,000, sometimes called transients, and as nearly as the Department of Labour can estimate, somewhere in the neighbourhood of 50 per cent of those-and probably it is more than that-are very new arrivals in Canada.


SOLDIER SETTLEMENT-MR. F. N. MURPHY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Wesley Ashton Gordon: Yesterday the hon. member for North
Soldier Settlement

Battleford (Mr. McIntosh), asked me a question in connection with soldier settlers. This question, which is to be found on page 1147 of Hansard, is as follows:
I have a question to direct to the Minister of Labour. I have in my possession correspondence in connection with a returned soldier by the name of F. N. Murphy, of northern Saskatchewan, who joined the first battalion early in the war and was demobilized in 1919. When he returned he was placed on land purchased by his father. The father never lived on the land, the soldier himself having lived there from the time it was purchased. Since this man has not had any revaluation of that land, no discount, while others who apparently were never in the front line trenches have had a revaluation, will the minister investigate the matter and see that justice is meted out to this returned man, who is trying to make a living on that land in northern Saskatchewan.
I made answer from memory to that question yesterday, but since then I have had an opportunity to inquire into the details of the matter and my answer of yesterday is borne out by the fact. Shortly put, Eugene Murphy, father of P. N. Murphy, the man to whom reference was made, entered into an agreement as a civilian with the then soldier settlement board on September 13, 1921, to purchase the west half of 28-47-6- west of the third meridian. Neither in the application to purchase nor in the agreement for sale nor in any subsequent correspondence between the department and Eugene Murphy was there any intent disclosed that he was merely buying this land for his son.
With respect to revaluation of soldier settlers' lands, I would refer the hon. member to section 68 of the Soldier Settlement Act. At the time the revaluation amendment was passed in 1927, F. N. Murphy was not a settler who had agreed to purchase any land from the board and consequently, although a returned soldier, was not entitled to benefit under that legislation. The father, Eugene Murphy, who had agreed to purchase the property from the board, being a civilian, was not entitled to benefit under the revaluation measure. The legislation with respect to the thirty per cent reduction became effective on May 30, 1930. On the decease of Eugene Murphy, the executor assigned the title and interest of the late Eugene Murphy in the agreement to which I have made reference to F. N. Murphy. F. N. Murphy was at no time qualified or established in accordance with the provisions of the act and regulations, which latter are statutory and define the powers of the department with respect to the establishment of settlers and the manner in which settlers may be qualified with a view to

such establishment. It may be observed further that F. N. Murphy is a settler who holds, not an agreement for sale with the department, but an assignment and extension of his late father's agreement and is not eligible under the provisions of the amendment above referred to to participate in the benefits thereunder.
The position is very plain. I was not a member of the House of Commons when the legislation was passed in 1927. I have no complaint to make as to the effect of that legislation, but I am sure that the hon. member for North Battleford (Mr. McIntosh) in making the observations he did yesterday was misinformed as to what the facts were. I believe that he was a member of this chamber when that legislation was passed and must have known that the soldier to whom he referred could not by any stretch of the imagination become entitled to a revaluation under the legislation.


Mr. J. K. BLAIR (North Wellington):: While what the minister has said might be correct, I think there are extenuating circumstances.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Order. Is the hon. member going to ask a question? There is no motion before the house and there is nothing to debate. If the hon. member has a point of order to state he has the right to state it.


John Knox Blair: I think in view of the extenuating circumstances in Mr. Murphy's case some leniency should be shown-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Order. I cannot see that any point of order is involved in that.


Mr. McINTOSH:: May I say briefly in reply to the Minister of Labour-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I have ruled already that there is nothing before the house. If the hon. member wishes to ask a question he is at perfect liberty to do so.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Then I shall if this is the only method of approach open to me. May I ask the Minister of Labour a question arising out of his answer regarding the case of F. N. Murphy of northern Saskatchewan? Must I take the answer which he has given me to-day as final, meaning that there is no further redress for this returned soldier on the land?


An hon. MEMBER:: You will look after him.

Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Yes, I will look after him and you, too.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I have no hesitation in trying to answer the hon. member's question. Plating it upon the ground that he is now taking, I can assure him that I entertain the same feelings towards the returned soldiers and to the same degree that he does, but as for transgressing the statutes of this country', which I have no authority to do and no intention of doing, I can only repeat what I said before. The answer I gave is final. It is given in pursuance of the statute that was passed in 1927, and undoubtedly, as I observed before, the provisions of that statute came under the keen observation of my hon. friend from North Battleford. He did not anticipate Mr. Murphy's case when the statute was going through, and I do not propose to transgress the statutes of this country on the application of the hon. member.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I thought the minister-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I have a question to ask.


Hugh Guthrie: The hon. member has exhausted his right, Mr. Speaker.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The minister has already answered the hon. member, and the entire time of the house cannot be monopolized by any one member.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I am not trying to monopolize the time of the house or anything else, Mr. Speaker. Might I ask the minister why he could not specially investigate F. N. Murphy's case under his own government's legislation of "peace, order and good government"? I would like an answer to that. Why?


BEAUHARNOIS POWER PROJECT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. D. EULER (North Waterloo):: I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether since the conclusion of the last session any advances in cash or any further guarantees have been given by the government to the Beauharnois corporation.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Obviously I am speaking without notice of the question, but I may say that there have been no advances other than those indicated by the returns already tabled in the house.


INQUIRY FOR RETURN
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. S. WOODSW'ORTH (Winnipeg North Centre): Might I ask the Minister of Finance whether certain returns which were to be brought down respecting government loans and guarantees to various institutions will soon be available?
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I advised the hon. gentleman yesterday that they would be brought down in the course of a day or so, and I fully anticipate that they will be laid on the table to-morrow.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: Thank you.


TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CANADA AND THE UNITED KINGDOM
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition): May I ask the government if there was any understanding that any portion of the trade agreement between Canada and the United Kingdom should not be put into force, so far as Great Britain was concerned, on the fifteenth of this month, that being the date on which the royal assent ii Britain was given to certain of the provisions of the agreement? Our understanding has been that the agreement went into force in its entirety on both sides, but according to today's press it would appear with respect to many items in the tariff and one article that the British government does not propose to take action in accordance with the terms of the agreement at the present time. Has there been any understanding between the government of Canada and the government of Great Britain that there would be that latitude accorded to either side?
Henry Herbert Stevens: I think my right hon. friend will recall that the agreements will go into full force as quickly as the necessary legislation and regulations and other provisions giving effect to the terms of the agreement can be passed by the two parliaments. There are one or two reservations I recall-I have not them under my hand-of a temporary character by the House of Lords which have to be dealt with separately because of certain legislation in Great Britain being affected.
1206	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements


BRITISH DUTIES ON COPPER
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. CHARLES B. HOWARD (Sherbrooke): May I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether in view of the action of the House of Lords in connection with the preference and the fact that one of the largest copper producing mines happens to be in his constituency, he will give that matter his personal attention?
Henry Herbert Stevens: I shall be very glad to.


CONSIDERATION IN COMMITTEE OP BILL NO. 8
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, November 15, consideration in committee of Bill No. 8, respecting a certain trade agreement between His Majesty's government in Canada and His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom-Mr. Bennett.-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury) in the chair.
Customs tariff-240. Ultramarine blue, dry or in pulp: whiting or whitening; paris white and gilders' whiting; blanc fixe; satin white: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 10 per cent; general tariff, 10 per cent.
Henry Elvins Spencer: We cannot hear what is taking place'.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Hanson, York-Sun-bury):: We are on schedule E, item 240. Carried.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The
minister is ready with his figures.


Olof Hanson: I have declared it carried. Nobody
appeared to have anything to say.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I do not believe this committee is properly constituted yet. I beg to move that the committee be empowered to revert back to the item just declared carried.


Olof Hanson: Very well, we shall do that.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: In connection with these items I wish the minister to give information in the courteous manner he gave it yesterday.


Olof Hanson: No member rose in his place when the item was called.


William Daum Euler: Oh well, do not be arbitrary.


Ernest Lapointe: Hon. members opposite are too noisy.


Olof Hanson: We are all too noisy.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The imports last year were valued at S205,000. Of that amount $104,000 came from the United Kingdom, and $72,000 from the United States.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-241. Litharge, other than for battery purposes:	British preferential tariff,
free; intermediate tariff, 15 per cent; general tariff, 15 per cent.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I should like to have the same information in connection with this item.


Mr. DONNELLY:: I cannot understand
why this item appears in the schedule.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The imports last year were valued at $136,000. Of that amount $64,000 worth came from the United Kingdom and $72,000 from the United States.


Mr. YOUNG:: Was there any home production?


James J. Donnelly: If the duty has not been changed, why does it appear in the schedule?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, I think at
times some confusion occurs, because some items appear in the votes and proceedings of October 12, which do not appear in the schedule to this bill. I believe there are some forty in number, and no doubt my hon. friend is confused.


Edward James Young: Can the minister give us the figures to show Canadian production of this article?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: This is part only of a
total production in Canada of red lead and litharge which amounted in all to $623,000.


Mr. TOTZKE:: Did we export any of this?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The exports under this
item are not classified, so I am sorry to say I cannot give that information.


Edward James Young: This item shows an increase in the intermediate and general rates, the British preferential rate remaining as it was before. I presume this was done in the interests of some Canadian industry. What industry was it?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: No; this change was not
effected at the request of a Canadian industry. It was requested by Great Britain, and was one of the terms to which we agree in the exchange of agreements.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

United Kingdom,
Customs tariff-242. Dry red lead and orange mineral; zine oxides, such as zinc white and lithopone:	British preferential tariff, free;
intermediate tariff, 15 per cent; general tariff, 15 per cent.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The imports last year
under this item were valued at $1,250,000. Of that amount $257,000 worth came from the United Kingdom; $681,000 worth from the United States, $168,000 worth from the Netherlands and $60,000 from Germany.


James J. Donnelly: Is any of this produced in Canada at all? Has it all to be imported?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: This is part of the sum
total which I gave under the previous item. The total production in Canada last year of red lead and litharge was $623,000. There is no division in the items showing which amount should be credited to each.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-245. Ochres, ochrey earths, siennas and umbers: British preferential tariff, 5 per cent; intermediate tariff, 15 per cent; general tariff, 15 per cent.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The imports last year were valued at $58,000, of which amount $6,000 worth came from the United Kingdom, $40,000 from the United States and $7,000 from France.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
_ Customs tariff-249.	Varnishes, lacquers,
japans, japan driers, liquid driers, and oil finish, n.o.p, per gallon: British preferential tariff, 20 cents and 15 per cent; intermediate tariff, 20 cents and 25 per cent; general tariff, 20 cents and 30 per cent.
Mr. SANDERSON:: I should like to have '.he figures to show the imports.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Last year the imports
were valued at $128,000. Of that amount $22,000 worth came from the United Kingdom, and $103,000 from the United States.


James J. Donnelly: Did we export any of
this at all?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Last year the exports of
varnishes were valued at S19,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-253. Putty of all kinds: British preferential tariff, 171 per cent; intermediate tariff, 271 per cent; general tariff, 271 per cent.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The imports last year
amounted to $19,000, of which $14,000 came from Belgium and $4,000 from the United States.


Edward James Young: In this item I notice the
British preferential rate is 171 per cent, while the intermediate and general rates are 271 per cent. The importations and rates of duty from the United States and Holland will not be affected by an exchange dumping duty, but importations from the United Kingdom will. The applied rate from the United Kingdom, forgetting about the excise, will be about 36 per cent, as against 271 per cent from other countries. I ask the minister if he believes Great Britain can compete on that basis?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I hope my hon. friend
will not think me in the slightest degree discourteous if I refuse to follow in connection with each item, the argument he produced several times yesterday concerning rates of duty. The best answer I can give is that Great Britain is satisfied with the item as it is, and feels that with this preference she can operate.


Edward James Young: I do not blame the minister for not wanting to follow me in my argument, because that argument applies to practically every item. Practically every item in the British preferential column should have 181 per cent added to it before it should be compared with the rates from other countries. When that is done it will be revealed that in many cases the new preferential rate is higher than the rate to the outside world. That makes a farce of the whole trade agreement. I do not blame the minister for not wanting to follow me in my argument, but I believe it is the duty of hon. members on this side of the house to place on record in every case what the applied rate will be, so that the world will know the exact meaning of the agreement.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am perfectly content that my hon. friend should place his interpretation on the application of the duty, and have it on record in Hansard.


James J. Donnelly: If I bought $100 worth of this article bringing it from the British Isles, what is the actual duty I would have to pay?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The duty would be 17i per cent, less 10 per cent for direct shipment. The same precisely as last year and the year before under this act.


James J. Donnelly: Plus dumping duty and excise tax. I want to know what duty I would have to pay.
1208	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I would have to get the figures in each ease from the Department of National Revenue. As my hon. friend knows, the exchange rate varies every two weeks. I could not give it at the moment.


James J. Donnelly: I understand it is about $3.73. You ought to be able to figure it out.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why don't you figure
it out?


Edward James Young: I do not think the minister's explanation has been quite satisfactory. The Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ryckman) is in his seat, it is his duty to figure that out. If none of the ministers know, the minister's officials are before them, there are no men in Canada better qualified than these officials to tell us what these rates would be.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I hope that my hon. friend is not under the impression that we do not desire to give complete and full information. If my hon. friend from Willow Bunch (Mr. Donnelly) wishes a specific answer with respect to the duty on a pound of putty as of today I will have the computation made and brought down before the committee rises.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-254. Gums, viz.:	amber,
arabic, Australian, copal, damar, elemi, kaurie, mastic, sandarac, Senegal, tragacanth, gedda, and barberry; gum chicle or sappato gum, crude; lac, crude, seed, button, stick and shell; ambergris; pontianac:	British preferential
tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 15 per cent; general tariff, 15 per cent.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The imports last year under this item amounted to $750,000, of which $14,000 came from the United Kingdom, $617,000 from the United States, $81,000 from British Honduras, and $23,000 from New Zealand.


Mr. HOWARD:: Does the finance minister realize that most of the items mentioned in No. 254 are the raw material for manufacturers in Canada, and that when he increases those items it means he is increasing the cost of their product and their sales price to the Canadian consumer?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: All the gums in this item are available through empire sources of supply; and the London market in gums, if not the greatest, is one of the greatest markets in the world. Therefore I do not subscribe to the statement of my hon. friend that it involves an increase in price. As a matter of fact three of the items embraced in this list can be obtained only within the empire.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I was basing my statement on the figures the minister gave. There were practically no imports from the British Empire last year, nearly all were from the United States.
" Mr. RHODES:	Because they were purchased from United States sources it by no means follows that the articles originated within the United States. The three items I referred to, and they are very important items, are lac, kaurie and copal; there are also perak and damar.


Albert Frederick Totzke: The minister might tell us whether this London market was in existence prior to this date. The exports from there might have come in under the old rates. They were free then?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes, but there was no preference and for that reason we might very well buy them all, as we have many other commodities, through New York.


Albert Frederick Totzke: It would follow that the
price would be increased to the consumer in Canada.


Mr. ELLIOTT:: In view of the very small amount that came in from empire countries last year and the large amount from the United States, does the minister think that the difference in duty will enable British countries now to ship these articles in?


Henry Herbert Stevens: This happens to be one
item that I discussed with the representatives of the colonial governments and the practical men, the advisers, from the West Indies and other colonies. Some of these gums are produced in the West Indies. The large dealers in New York bring the gums there, and from there they are warehoused and merchandised to Canada. The large market in the United States naturally gives a merchant in New York some advantage over one in Canada, particularly where there is no duty, as in the case prior to this. Under this tariff, as far as the West Indies are concerned, we will trade directly through Canadian channels by Canadian National boats to Canadian ports, without any additional cost to the consumer, because the market is a fairly standardized market. Others of these gums oome from India and the African colonies, I have not in mind the details. These are dealt in on two big markets, as far as we are affected, namely New York and London. Heretofore there has been no duty, the result was that the propinquity of the New York market to Canada has given them some advantage; but with this duty the business will in all probability, be diverted to the London market giving the

United Kingdom
empire sources the opportunity of merchandising their own products direct to Canada, and it is not expected that there will be one particle of increase of cost to Canadian dealers.


Mr. DUFF:: They can still come through the United States in bond from the West Indies.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, they could not, and secure the preference.


James J. Donnelly: Has the minister any guarantee that there will be no additional cost?


Henry Herbert Stevens: We have the usual guarantee of trade practice, and what we consider satisfactory assurances in that regard.


John Campbell Elliott: If these articles originate within the empire and have been so developed or finished in the United States-


Henry Herbert Stevens: I did not say that.


John Campbell Elliott: Well, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) said that or suggested that. If he did not I want to be corrected. I understood him to say that a great many of them came from parts of the empire originally, and were treated-


Henry Herbert Stevens: No.


John Campbell Elliott: -in the United States, and prepared for market.


Mr. MORAND:: Warehoused.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is a very ordinary term in trade. The hon. member for Anti-gonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff) understanding shipping thoroughly, will appreciate this. Warehousing, storage, is what I am talking about.


John Campbell Elliott: Was there no treatment further than just handling or warehousing?


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is all.


John Campbell Elliott: A year from now we will know whether there is anything in this or not. I hope both the ministers and the other members of the house will be here at that time and be able to see what the outcome is. But, being free, only a little over $4,000 came in from empire countries last year as against
S177,000	from the United States. This 15 per cent duty is not going to have the effect of bringing these goods from empire countries, but it is going to have the effect, I am satisfied, of increasing the price to the Canadian consumer.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend has not got the right figures. Already some of the biggest world dealers, empire dealers, have been in Canada, if they are not still here, making contacts for development of this business in Canada, and it is on a very satisfactory basis.
The total amount imported from empire sources was $118,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-256. Printing ink: British preferential tariff, 12J per cent; intermediate tariff, 171 per cent; general tariff, 25 per cent.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Imports last year were valued at $272,000 of which $38,000 came from the United Kingdom and $232,000 from the United States.


William Daum Euler: How much was produced
in Canada?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: About $2,000,000 worth. It is a highly developed industry here.


Edward James Young: Are all varieties of printers' ink produced in Canada, or do some varieties have to be secured from other sources?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: There are certain inks we
have to import. They will be dealt with in the following item; I think rotogravure inks are the ones in question. I believe all others are manufactured here.


Mr. VENIOT:: What is the reason for the reduction in the general tariff from 25 per cent to 20 per cent?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It is the other way about; the general tariff is increased from 20 per cent to 25 per cent.


Edward James Young: Mr. Chairman, under this
agreement the rate from Great Britain is 12i per cent. Add to that the 18-J per cent exchange dumping duty and you get a British rate of 31 per cent, to say nothing of the excise tax. Hitherto ink from the United States has paid a duty of 20 per cent, but when that rate was in effect Great Britain could not compete. I want to know how Great Britain can compete under a 31 per cent duty as against a 25 per cent duty. The net result will be an increase of 5 per cent on inks coming from the United States, with absolutely no chance of importations of the same articles from Great Britain. This is a straight protective tariff.


Mr. RYCKMAN:: I really think I must intervene for a moment. The hon. gentleman has repeated his formula over and over again, but that formula is fallacious. He does not see it, but perhaps I may be able to explain

1210	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
it to him. I sat quietly last night while the hon. gentleman spoke about the dumping duty on cigarettes and how much more must be paid, and said that Great Britain could not break through the barricade because of that dumping duty. There is no dumping duty on cigarettes; there is no dumping duty on anything that pays an excise tax, and I believe my hon. friend, with his experience, must know something about that. Now the hon. gentleman has instanced this last case, and he wants to know how business can be expected with Great Britain exporting under a 31 per cent duty as against a 25 per cent duty to the United States.
A moment ago an hon. gentleman opposite gave the case of a Canadian importer taking $100 with -which he desired to buy goods. As every hon. member knows who has considered the question

as I am sure the hon. member for Weyburn has considered it-in the country with the currency depreciated to the greatest extent you can buy the greatest amount of goods for your money. Surely that is plain. So what happens to the importer with his S100? He goes to Great Britain and pays less there and contributes more to the revenue. If he goes to France or to the Netherlands with his $100 he pays more to the man who sells him the goods and contributes less to the revenue. The astute English business men who were over here asked for the chance to do business with us, and with the pound depreciated this will work to their advantage. Surely my hon. friend will not object if the revenue of this country is increased. That is the situation. One hundred dollars is not a constant sum all through the game. You can get more goods for less money in Great Britain and contribute more to the revenue, while in France you get less goods and pay the country a smaller sum. It is very simple.


Edward James Young: Yes, it is very simple. If
my hon. friend had been in the house some days ago when we were discussing this question of currency and its effect on prices he would have heard some references to its effect on prices in Great Britain, The depreciation of the British pound has affected the price level in Great Britain by something like two and a fraction per cent. The minister 6ays that because the British pound is depreciated we can buy more goods with our Canadian dollar. That is true in terms of the British pound, but when we go over to Great Britain and buy a commodity we pay for it in British pounds, and the British producer determines his price on a cost basis figures in British pounds.


Henry Herbert Stevens: With what do you purchase your British pounds?


Edward James Young: You purchase your British
pounds with Canadian dollars, and the world price of commodities is not affected by what any country does with its domestic currency. The world price is fixed by world conditions and is always measured in terms of gold; that is the ultimate measure. Now the minister says we can buy more British goods with our Canadian dollars, and that therefore the British exporter will get more goods into this country. As a matter of fact, taking this particular item covering printer's ink, when you buy a given quantity of printer's ink in Great Britain, that ink is sold in competition with the world. Britain's price must be somewhere in close relationship with prices in other countries, and when you bring those goods to Canadian shores, no matter with what currency you pay for them, you must pay a duty of 12\ per cent plus another duty of 181 per cent in addition to the excise tax. When you buy the same article in New York you pay a duty of 25 per cent, despite what the minister may say.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Plus exchange.


Edward James Young: Yes, plus exchange in each
case.


Henry Herbert Stevens: You have ignored the
exchange with the United States all through your argument.


Edward James Young: I am glad my hon. friend
mentioned that, because when we were discussing this matter of exchange the other day I asked the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Revenue if they had imposed an exchange dumping duty on countries whose currencies were not depreciated. They laughed at the idea, and said they had not.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Of course we did not.


Edward James Young: The United States dollar
is valued at par, and the duty on the article is 25 per cent. With the British pound you add an exchange dumping duty of 18J per cent, making the British rate 31 per cent as against the United States rate of 25 per cent. The minister cannot get away from that.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-256a.	Rotogravure ink:
British preferential tariff, 12i per cent; intermediate tariff, 17J per cent; general tariff, 20 per cent.
Item agreed to.

United Kingdom
Customs tariff-264. Essential oils, n.o.p., including bay oil, otto of limes, and peppermint oil:	British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 7i per cent; general tariff, 7J per cent.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Last year the imports
amounted to about S715,000 in value, of which
8121.000	came from the United Kingdom,
8379.000	from the United States and $122,000 from France. There is practically no production in Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff- 276b. Cotton seed and crude cotton seed oil, when imported by manufacturers of cotton seed meal and refined cotton seed oil, for use exclusively in the manufacture of such commodities, in their own factories: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 10 per cent; general tariff, 10 per cent.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Last year the imports
were valued at $1,600,000, of which $386,000 came from the United Kingdom and $1,216,000 came from the United States.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-277. Palm and palm kernel oil, unbleached or bleached, not edible; shea butter: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 10 par cent; general tariff, 10 per cent.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The imports last year under this item were valued at $33,000, of which $2,000 came from the United Kingdom, and
530.000	from the United States.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-278.	Oils, viz.: Cocoanut,
palm and palm kernel, not edible, for manufacturing soap; carbolic or heavy oil; olive oil for manufacturing soap or tobacco, or for canning fish: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 10 per cent; general tariff, 10 per cent.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Our imports last year were valued at $1,916,000, of which $130,000 came from the United Kingdom, $1,555,000 from the United States and $117,000 from Ceylon.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-284. Earthenware tiles for *oofing purposes:	British preferential tariff,
:ree; intermediate tariff, 32J per cent; general ariff, 35 per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-287.	Tableware of china,
porcelain, semi-porcelain, white granite or ironstone: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 35 per cent; general tariff, 35 per cent.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The imports last year under this item were valued at $3,050,000, of which $2,336,000 came from the United Kingdom, 53719-77J
$34,000 from the United States, $227,000 from Japan, $153,000 from Czechoslovakia, $117,000 from France and $113,000 from Germany.


Edward James Young: This item shows an increase in the intermediate and general rates, the preferential rate remaining free. According to the figures just given by the minister, Great Britain in the past has practically dominated this market. I take it that the importations from France and Germany were of special varieties not produced in Great Britain. Why was it necessary to increase the rates in order to give Great Britain a further preference when she already controlled the market?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If those importations were of special varieties, then they should pay something to the treasury of this country. As a matter of fact, while Great Britain did dominate the market, at the same time we imported commodities to the value of over $700,000 from foreign countries.


Edward James Young: I take it that the minister accepts the doctrine that special varieties of what we might call higher class goods should pay a higher rate than the more common varieties?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-288. Earthenware and stoneware. brown or coloured and Rockingham ware; "C.C." or cream-coloured ware, decorated, printed or sponged; and all earthenware, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, 25 per cent; intermediate tariff, 35 per cent; general tariff, 35 per cent.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The imports last year under this item were valued at $470,000, of which
S173,000	came from the United Kingdom, $152,000 from the United States, $50,000 from Germany and $43,000 from Japan.


William Duff: I notice there is a 25 per cent duty against goods coming from Great Britain; why was not that rate made free the same as the other items?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: There is a very large establishment in western Canada and one in Quebec which manufacture these articles. All I can say is that this being part of the agreement it is evidence that the rate agreed upon was satisfactory to the United Kingdom.


William Duff: It may not be satisfactory to the consumers of Canada that these two plants should have a 25 per cent protection. It will mean that the consumer will have to pay 25 per cent more for this commodity.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
1212	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
Customs tariff-289. Baths, bathtubs, basins, closets, lavatories, urinals, sinks and laundry tubs of earthenware, stone, cement, clay or other material, n.o.p.:	British preferential
tariff, 20 per cent: intermediate tariff, 35 per cent; general tariff, 35 per cent.
The imports last year were valued at $336,000, of which $256,000 came from the United Kingdom, and $77,000 from the United States.
William Duff: What was the Canadian production?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The production in Canada last year of sanitary earthenware was valued at $3,200,000.


Mr. POWER:: On the theory that cleanliness is next to godliness, why not make this item free?


James J. Donnelly: I notice that the only rate changed is the intermediate and I should like to know why this rate was changed when there were no imports from the countries enjoying that rate.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I do not know that I can give my hon. friend a specific answer as to why this individual item was increased except to say that it widens the degree of preference to Great Britain.


Charles Gavan Power: It is the same.


James J. Donnelly: It is the same to the United States.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The intermediate under the old rate was 30 per cent and it has been increased to 35 per cent.


James J. Donnelly: Why was it changed?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Because it widens the
margin of preference.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Not only in
the case of this item but in the case of the previous two items an increase has been made in the intermediate rate while the general rate has been left the same. In each instance the intermediate rate has been raised to the level of the general. Is not the real reason for this change to take away any opportunity which may offer in the way of negotiating trade agreements with other countries that are prepared to give special concessions to us? Do not these items illustrate that this whole tariff has been framed not so much to give preference to Great Britain as to make impossible trade with other countries of the world?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I cannot quarrel with my
right hon. friend in his interpretation of the agreement but I assure him that from our

point of view the object was to widen the preference and increase the importations from British Empire sources. Of course that will be done only to the extent which we diminish imports from foreign countries.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think these
changes have been made to further the objective as stated by the Prime Minister, namely, to shut out the foreigner.


Henry Herbert Stevens: He never said that.


Edward James Young: He said, "that is the one
thing we have done."


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is reported on page 835 of Hansard.


James J. Donnelly: I cannot see why the
intermediate rate should be changed as no goods have come in under that rate. Goods came in under both the general and British preference and there must be some other reason for this change.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If none came in before
then no one will be injured. Great Britain accepted this change as a wider preference and the only preference which could be given under the circumstances.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I should like to quote from page 835 of Hansard as follows :
Another says that we have closed the doors of the world's markets, that we have shut out the foreigner. Sir AVilfrid Laurier said that that was one of the first things he was going to do if he got the British preference, and that is the one thing we have done.


Edward James Young: The only thing they have
done.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Who is right, the Minister of Trade and Commerce or the Prime Minister?


Mr. CAYLEY:: The minister has told us
that the total production in Canada is valued at $3,200,000 while the value of the total imports amounts to only one-tenth of this amount. As far as I can see the only parties who will be benefited will be the Canadian manufacturers. -


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: There is another point of
view which I think is of equal value, that it will make competition all the more keen between the Canadian and British manufacturers.


Thomas Merritt Cayley: The British manufacturer
is not coming into the market; he imported only $256,000 worth.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

United. Kingdom
Customs tariff-300. Crucibles of clay, sand or plumbago: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 15 per cent; general tariff, 15 per cent.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The importations last
year under this item were valued at $61,000, of which $40,000 came from the United Kingdom and $21,000 from the United States.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This is another case of shutting out the foreigner. Previously this item was free to all countries but now the intermediate and general rates are 15 per cent.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I douibt if a 15 per cent
duty will of necessity shut out the foreigner.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It will help.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Admittedly it will help,
but it is not by any means a prohibitive duty.


Mr. REID:: Are any of those crucibles
manufactured in Canada?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If so, they are not listed
as such. We have no record of any being manufactured in Canada,


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-ex 312. Asbestos in any form other than crude, and all manufactures thereof, when made from crude asbestos of empire origin: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 224 per cent; general tariff, 25 per cent.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The imports last year were as follows:
		From	From
		United	United
Total	Kingdom	StatesAsbestos packing.	.$ 58.000	$24,000	$ 32,000Asbestos brake lining 240,000	55,000	184,000Asbestos, n.o.p. .	. 257,000	22,000	224,000


Thomas Merritt Cayley: What are the Canadian		
productions?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Our total exports last year amounted in value to $3,437,000, the great bulk of which was crude asbestos.


Charles Gavan Power: What was the production
of manufactured asbestos?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: We exported manufactures of asbestos to the value of $105,000, of which $60,000 went to the United Kingdom.


Charles Gavan Power: What was the production
of manufactured asbestos?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I shall try to get those
figures. I do not have them under my hand at the moment.


Charles Gavan Power: Has the minister received
representations from Canadian asbestos firms to this effect; I have received a letter but I do not have it with me. As I understand the matter, asbestos yarn enters Canada under a 20 per cent duty, but asbestos brake lining, which is made up from yarn, comes in free and competes with a certain Canadian industry. The yarn is the raw material of a certain Canadian industry and pays 20 per cent duty, while the brake lining is a manufactured product and comes in free. Perhaps representations have been made to the government along these lines, because I have seen a letter protesting against the anomaly that seems to exist. I am not asking that the rate on the manufactured article be raised, but I am suggesting that the rate on the raw material be lowered in order to give Canadian manufacturers an opportunity to do business.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member is correct; as he has pointed out, there is an anomaly in respect to this article, but in connection with these agreements we dealt only with the items as touching these agreements. The question of revision is one which will have to be dealt with at the regular session; that is the only time when we can deal with the anomaly.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-318. Common and colourless window glass: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 15 per cent; general tariff, 15 per cent.
Customs tariff-319. Glass in sheets, and bent plate glass, n.o.p.:	British preferential
tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 25 per cent; general tariff, 25 per cent.
Customs tariff-320. Plate glass, not bevelled, in sheets or panes not exceeding seven square feet each, n.o.p.:	British preferential tariff,
free; intermediate tariff, 25 per cent; general tariff, 25 per cent.
Customs tariff-321. Plate glass, not bevelled, in sheets or panes exceeding seven square feet each, and not exceeding twenty-five square feet each, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 25 per cent; general tariff, 25 per cent.
Customs tariff-322.	Plate glass, n.o.p.:
British preferential tariff, 20 per cent; intermediate tariff, 30 per cent; general tariff, 35 per cent.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The imports last year under item 318 totalled $650,000, of which $30,000 came from the United Kingdom, $14,000 from the United States, $501,000 from Belgium, $57,000 from Czechoslovakia and $36,000 from Germany.
Under item 319 the imports amounted to $275,000 of which $88,000 came from the United Kingdom, $51,000 from the United States:
1214	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
$63,000 from Belgium and $45,000 from Czechoslovakia.
: Under item 320 our imports amounted to $608,000 of which $124,000 came from the United Kingdom, $488,000 from the United States and $46,000 from other countries.
Under item 321 our imports totalled $173,000 of which $69,000 came from the United Kingdom, $77,000 from the United States and $27,000 from other countries.
Under item 322 our imports totalled $271,000, of which $128,000 came from the United Kingdom, $55,000 from the United States and $73,000 from Belgium.


Charles Gavan Power: I do not want to be sarcastic, but will the minister tell us whether there were heavy importations of glass somewhere around September or October, 1930?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I will secure the information for my hon. friend. I may assure him I have no information of any special imports at that time. My hon. friend may be quite right in his assumption.


Charles Gavan Power: I do not know.
: Mr. EULER: Are we at liberty to discuss any of these items, particulars of which have been given by the minister?


Olof Hanson: I could not refuse the hon member anything.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Perhaps it would facilitate the work of the committee if we discussed them all together, if that is agreeable to the committee. It is rather difficult to deal with them separately.


William Daum Euler: At the moment I desire to discuss just one item, namely, 320, plate glass, not bevelled, in sheets or panes not exceeding seven square feet each. When one looks at the rates that obtained before, namely, British preferential tariff, 7i per cent and 10 per cent from all other countries, and compares them with the proposed tariff rates, namely, free under the British preferential tariff and 25 per cent from all other countries, because the intermediate and general rates are the same, one would think this is perhaps an outstanding effort to transfer business from foreign countries to Great Britain. I have no particular quarrel with that at the moment, but I should like to give to the committee information that I have received, which points to the conclusion that this change in the tariff is going to have exactly the opposite effect of that desired or intended. One would think from this, since this kind of glass is placed on the free list in Great Britain, the cost to the

Canadian consumer should be less if anything, and also that the business should go to the British producer of this kind of plate glass. That would, I think, ordinarily be true, but under the circumstances of which I have knowledge, and perhaps the minister has also, it does not appear to me it is going to work out just in that way. I am told by glass importers in this country, men whose word I have no reason whatever to doubt, that practically all of this kind of glass which comes into Canada, comes from four countries:	Great Britain, Belgium, France and the	United	States,
the importations from the United States, according to the figures given by the minister, being by far the greater. The glass manufacturers of those four countries are in a combine, what is usually known as a cartel. It was understood pretty well that the business went largely to the British and Belgian manufacturers and also to those of the United States. This importer of glass states that this is almost surely going to be the result, that the foreign manufacturers are now going to be absolutely shut out, but the United States manufacturer or the Belgian manufacturer, being a member of the same cartel of which the British manufacturer is a member, is not going to yield the advantage which he has under the provisions of that cartel, and the consequence will be that the British manufacturer must yield to them. The final result will be that the British manufacturer, who has a preference under this agreement will increase the price of the glass he sells to Canada. That seems a rather anomalous condition, that while the duty on glass coming from Great Britain is being reduced from 7J per cent and made free as against a 25 per cent handicap on foreign countries, in order to enable the Belgian and the United States manufacturer to compete in the Canadian market with the British manufacturer, as he has a right to do under their cartel arrangements, the British manufacturer, not because he wants to, but because of his obligations under the cartel, will have to increase the price of glass to the Canadian consumer in order that the foreigner may get his share of the business. That is the way the matter has been put to me. As confirmation of it, I am informed that the British producer of glass was not at all in favour of this arrangement. Perhaps the minister can say with regard to that. It may be that those who made the arrangements had not the fullest information in regard to the situation. Further, here is a most peculiar situ-

United Kingdom
ation. The price of this particular kind of glass is 15 per cent less in Canada today than it is in Great Britain, the country of manufacture.


An hon. MEMBER:: Are you opposed to
that?


William Daum Euler: If my hon. friend has anything to add to the argument or wishes to dispute mine I shall be very glad to listen to him after I am through. The point I want to make is this: The purpose of this arrangement is to transfer business from foreign countries to Great Britain, and, as I have said, I have no particular fault to find with that if it can be done without increasing the price to the Canadian consumer. On the face of it, one would not expect the price to be increased; in fact, it should be decreased because the item now enters free whereas formerly it paid a duty of 7-1 per cent. But if it results as those who spoke to me say it will, surely it is an unfortunate condition for the Canadian consumers because at the present time they are able to buy this glass 15 per cent cheaper than it can be bought in the country of manufacture. In fact, the gentleman who communicated with me went so far as to say that those importing glass in Canada will buy just as much as they can at present prices because they believe that under the agreement they will have to pay more before very long.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Only a few days ago I
had a conference with the principal distributors of glass who are purchasers in Canada, and will be to a greater extent under this arrangement, in the presence of the representative of the principal British exporter, and I may say to my hon. friend that they were absolutely satisfied with the assurances that were given by the British producers that there would be no increase in price.
I would point out to my hon. friend with respect to the cartel arrangement, if such exists, that it is not all-embracing so far as the industries in Great Britain are concerned, and further, there is one industry of which I have knowdedge in Great Britain which was purchased by Canadian interests a short time ago, and which is about to be started on a very active scale, and which has never had any active associations with any former cartel or any cartel now existing.


William Daum Euler: Located in Great Britain?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes. My information is
that there is ample oapacity in the existing plants of Great Britain, apart altogether from
the plant to which I have just referred, to make for very keen competition. In view of the fact that the distributors in Canada are satisfied that there will be no increase in price and with the assurance of the representative of the leading British firm who appeared before me, I am satisfied to take their assurances that that- condition will not come about. But if they did not live up to their word I think my hon. friend would find that the competition I spoke of would more than take care of the situation. At least, that is my judgment of what would happen. I would greatly regret if the condition of which my hon. friend has spoken did arise, because in that case the results of the arrangement would be unfortunate.


William Daum Euler: I wanted to advance that view as it was communicated to me in the best of faith, I believe. Time will tell.


Edward James Young: I would have thought that profiting by the experience of September, 1930, the government would have been very careful about introducing this legislation. I well remember, on the last Saturday sitting of the short session of 1930, the Prime Minister standing up in his place and telling us that the government were increasing the duty on glass. What for? Because, he said, the consumers of glass in Canada are in the grip of an international cartel, and we are going to encourage the establishment in Canada of a factory that will produce glass for our own use at a reasonable price, free from the tentacles of this cartel, and we have satisfactory assurances, the Prime Minister said, that the price will not be increased to the Canadian consumer. What happened? The ink was hardly dry on that arrangement before the price of glass in Canada doubled.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Then what happened?


Edward James Young: What I hope will happen again in this case. As I say, the price of glass was doubled, and it was discovered that this firm which was going to open a glass factory in Canada was owned and controlled, body and soul, by that very same cartel. We were raising the duty on glass in Canada to protect ourselves from that very cartel, and actually we were delivering ourselves into its hands. The minister asks: Then what happened? What happened was this: Such an agitation arose in the newspapers and throughout the country when the fallacy of the government's position in saying they could accept those assurances from the manufacturers was seen, that there was nothing for it but to remove the duty.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Oh no.
1216	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements


Edward James Young: It was shown beyond per-adventure that those assurances were not worth the paper they were written on, if they were written. They could not be depended on, and as the price of glass increased, the government removed the duty. We are being told again now that the government have received satisfactory assurances that the price will not be increased in this case, and the minister says that if it is increased the competition of Canadian producers outside the cartel will force prices down. It did not the other time. The minister also says that the distributors of glass in Canada are satisfied. They did not complain the other time because they saw what was coming and they got in their supplies beforehand to take advantage of the increased price. Article 4 of this agreement provides that if at any time Canadian producers cannot supply Great Britain with her requirements at world prices the preferential duties do not apply. Why not such an arrangement for Canada? I ask the minister what provision this government has made to protect the Canadian consumer similar to the provision which the British government has in this agreement to protect the British consumer. Has any such provision been made?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The answer to my hon. friend is under his nose. This article is free, and we cannot make it any more free. My hon. friend also says that Great Britain has undertaken that if certain things happen the preference will be taken off. We are taking off the duty before we start, because glass is to come in free. While we differ from the hon. member very markedly in the theories he propounds in regard to tariffs and other matters, at least we have always given him credit for being sincere and fair. But is he fair in his criticism of the Prime Minister and the government in connection with the glass episode of two years ago? What happened? Down to a certain point the hon. member set out the facts correctly, but at that point his prejudice prevented him from giving just a little bit of credit to the government for something they did. What happened? The moment it was clear-and it did not take long to make it clear-I will go farther and say the moment there was evidence the company was about to break faith, or did not intend to keep faith, the Prime Minister, who was in London at the time, was cabled by his colleagues in Canada. Immediately a cable was sent back which said, "Take that duty off." That was a very salutary action, because it showed the industries of Canada-and there are many industrialists who are prepared to

take advantage of conditions-that as far as this government is concerned they had broken faith with an undertaking, and that the government would not tolerate such action.
Whatever else my hon. friend may charge us with, whatever else he may say concerning our policies, no matter what his condemnations of our actions may be, I suggest that at least he should have the courtesy to extend credit to the Prime Minister and government when they took action promptly, expeditiously and definitely. In connection with these items I fail to understand the attitude of the hon. member. What have we done in this instance? So far as Great Britain is concerned we have taken off the duty in the glass schedule. My colleague the Minister of Finance has stated clearly,-and I am prepared to corroborate everything he has said,- that the glass industry of Great Britain is by no means tied up in a cartel. There is competition, keen competition, and there is no doubt in the minds of the British government, the British delegation or the British glass industry that this is one of the most valuable things we can give Great Britain under the treaty.
Here is an instance where we meet the views of the leader of the opposition. He has complained that we have not eliminated the duty in connection with many items, and has asked why we did not lower the rates. In this instance we have wiped them out. Could we do more? The hon. member for Weyburn has said that this is a farce and that it is of no value. But I ask him this question: Could we do any more than we have done? I think if he will reflect for a moment concerning the action of the government in connection with a Canadian industry which had received protection two years ago, and had failed to carry out its obligations, he will decide that the government acted in a most expeditious manner, and that the removal of the protection offered at that time was in the interests of Canada. He must further agree that in this instance, where we have placed glass on the free list, we have done all he could have asked us to do, no matter what his theories or ideas may be.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The minister has asked if they could have done more. Let us look at the three items concerning glass, to which he has just made reference. Examination will show that while there has been a small reduction in order to give Great Britain free entry, there have been considerable increases in both the general and intermediate tariffs. If we examine tariff item 318 dealing with common and colourless window

United Kingdom
glass we find that while the government has decreased the British rate by li per cent, it has increased the intermediate rate 2i per cent.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No; there is a reduction
of 7^ per cent.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The figure
before me appears to be 1J but it may be blurred.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The figures on the right
hon. gentleman's schedule may be blurred, but he will find the old rate was 7i per cent.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My copy reads li per cent, but there may be a flaw in the printing. I beg the minister's pardon. Then, let us take the next item. We find that there has been an increase in the intermediate rate from 22j per cent to 25 per cent, making the intermediate and general tariffs the same. That change would prevent any arrangement being made with another country. Then, in connection with "plate glass, not bevelled, in sheets or panes not exceeding seven square feet each, n.o.p." the British preferential rate is changed from per cent to free, and in both the intermediate and general rates there is a change from 10 per cent to 25 per cent. Clearly that change is made to shut out the foreigners.
In other words a survey of the schedules taken together shows a net result of a very considerable increase in duty on articles needed for purposes of construction and shelter, articles which serve domestic, business and commercial ends.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The right hon. gentleman
omitted to indicate that in connection with common and colourless window glass, where the duty was formerly 7^ per cent it is now made free.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The minister
indicated that before.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Quite so. Concerning glass in sheets, where the duty was formerly 17i per cent it is wiped out entirely.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I mentioned
that.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Then, the right hon. gentleman referred to plate glass, not bevelled, and stated that there had been increases in the intermediate and general rates. He did not lay stress on the fact that we had wiped out entirely the former duty which obtained under the British preference.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes I did.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The right hon. gentleman
did not refer to item 321, "plate glass, not bevelled, in sheets or panes exceeding seven square feet each, and not exceeding twenty-five feet each, n.o.p." In connection with that item the former rates were: British preferential tariff, 15 per cent; intermediate tariff, 25 per cent and general tariff, 27i per cent. The new rates are: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 25 per cent; general tariff, 25 per cent. The committee will note that the British preferential rate is free, that the intermediate rate has not been disturbed and that the general rate has been reduced 2{ per cent.


Peter John Veniot: In connection with item
318 I should like to point out that while the Minister of Trade and Commerce has complained that hon. members on this side of the house have not been quite fair, in giving reasons why the government have abolished the duty on plain glass he himself was not fair. What are the facts? I believe it was on September 17, 1930, that the item was first dealt with. At that time the tariff on imports of plain glass was changed from per cent ad valorem to a specific duty of 4J cents per pound.
Immediately, on September 23, two or three days after the change had been made, importers of glass in Canada sent out circular letters in which they pointed out that on account of this increase in duty a 120 pound box of plain glass which had formerly cost $5.63 would have to be sold wholesale for a little over $11. I remember well that when the change was made I pointed out that it could not be satisfactory. I asked the minister if it would not be possible to leave the item, and to make a provision in it to the effect that when a Canadian firm could supply the demand, the specific duty should apply. The reply from the Prime Minister was that the item could not be so treated. He said they had received an absolute guarantee from a firm in East Hamilton that the increase in duty would not involve an increased price to. the consumers. What are the facts? The letter from the' firm in east Hamilton did not lay down any such proposition. The letter laid down this proposition: As the cost of production is lowered by the increased production we will give the benefit of the lower cost to the consumer.


An hon. MEMBER:: Is that the assurance?


Peter John Veniot: Now, one minute. It was
stated on the floor of this house that within three or four weeks 350 to 400 men would be employed in East Hamilton. Was that
1218	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
firm given three or four weeks to prepare their manufacturing establishment and go on with the work? No. Look at the record; you will find that between the 9th and 14th of October, an order in council was passed bringing back the duty to an ad valorem basis of 7i per cent and abolishing the 110 per cent increase. The firm were not given the opportunity, they stated in their communication and in interviews in the press that they were not given the opportunity to proceed along the lines that they had laid down. If when the order in council was passed abolishing the specific duty that firm had been given more time, as they asked, they might have been in a position to go on preparing the manufacturing establishment. But no, they were distinctly told that they would not have the benefit of this increase. The reason for the government withdrawing the increase in duty was that a howl went up throughout the length and breadth of the land when it was seen that before the industry could be established in Canada the importers of common glass were taking advantage of the duty and doubling the price to the consumer. It was not because this firm had broken faith with the government.


Edward James Young: The Minister of Trade and Commerce complains that I was not quite fair, did not give the government the credit due them for the action they took in removing the duty they put on glass in September, 1930. I am going to be generous with the government and give them all the credit they want. I will give them full credit for removing that duty with no other object in mind than the public interest. But then I ask this question: In view of the fact that the people who broke faith then making it necessary for them to remove the duty that they had put on at that time, are the same people who control the glass manufacture of the world today. why do the government put themselves in their hands again? It is true that they have removed the duty from glass coming from Great Britain, but in some cases they have increased it on glass from other countries, and, it being all under the same control, why do they put themselves in the hands of that cartel?


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is not all controlled by the cartel. That is the reason.


Edward James Young: Why not do the same as
the British government did in article 4, say that unless they can supply all that we require, at world prices, this preference does not apply.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
(Mr. Wniot.i
Customs tariff-319. Glass, in sheets, and bent plate glass, n.o.p.:	British preferential
tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 25 per cent; general tariff, 25 per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-320. Plate glass, not bevelled, in sheets or panes not exceeding seven square feet each, n.o.p.:	British preferential tariff,
free; intermediate tariff, 25 per cent; general tariff, 25 per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-321. Plate glass, not bevelled, in sheets or panes exceeding seven square feet each, and not exceeding twenty-five square feet each, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 25 per cent; general tariff, 25 per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-322.	Plate glass, n.o.p.:
British preferential tariff, 20 per cent; intermediate tariff, 30 per cent; general tariff, 35 per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-ex 339. Lead capsules for bottles: British preferential tariff, 10 per cent; intermediate tariff, 27J per cent; general tariff, 30 per cent.
James J. Donnelly: Will the minister tell
us what the imports were?


Henry Herbert Stevens: There is no separate information regarding importations. It is a comparatively small item, a new item in the tariff in fact. It came under the general item before.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-340. Type for printing, including chases, quoins and slugs, of all kinds: British preferential tariff, 7J per cent; intermediate tariff, 17J per cent; general tariff, 20 per cent.
Mr. SPEAKMAN:: Was there much imported last year?


Henry Herbert Stevens: We imported $100,000 of
which $39,000 came from the United Kingdom, and $58,000 from the United States.


Alfred Speakman: I see it is altogether
by way of reduction in this case.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-341. Babbit metal and type metal, in blocks, bars, plates and sheets: British preferential tariff, 10 per cent; intermediate tariff, 20 per cent; general tariff, 20 per cent.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Here is an
important article. There is no lowering of the duty against Great Britain but there is an increase in the duty both intermediate and general from 15 to 20 per cent. I suppose that is another effort to shut out the foreigner.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

United Kingdom
Customs tariff-348d. Copper in bars or rods, when imported by manufacturers of trolley, telegraph and telephone wires, electric wires and electric cables, for use only in the manufacture of such articles in their own factories: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 10 per cent; general tariff, 10 per cent.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Was all the importation of this item from the United States last year?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There again, both copper and iron bars when imported by manufacturers for use only in manufacture, were free in all cases, both under the British preference, the intermediate and the general tariff. Now they are ten per cent under the intermediate and general. None of this material came from Great Britain, the minister has just told us. It simply means that there is going to be an additional cost for construction, which will be passed on to the consumer, and the foreigner will be more effectively shut out.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-349. Brass in bars and rods, in coil or otherwise, not less than six feet in length, and brass in strips, sheets or plates not polished, planished or coated: British preferential tariff, 5 per cent; intermediate tariff, 10 per cent; general tariff, 15 per cent.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Figures please.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Importations, 8142,000, of which $48,000 were from the United Kingdom and $94,000 from the United States.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-350. Wire, of all metals and kinds, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, 10 per cent: intermediate tariff, 30 per cent; general tariff, 35 per cent.
Henry Herbert Stevens: Importations $79,000, of which $13,000 from the United Kingdom, and
864,000	from the United States.


Edward James Young: Those are not the figures I have.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: In the last two items, the figures given by the minister are different from those we get from the trade returns.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It may be a different period. This is for the fiscal year 1932.


Alfred Speakman: Does this item include all kinds of fencing wire?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Other than iron or steel.


Edward James Young: 
Henry Herbert Stevens: Of course my hon. friend
has established a premise to suit his conclusions.


Edward James Young: Perhaps you can shatter it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In addition to what the hon. member for Weyburn has said let me point out that the net result of the change is another very considerable increase in the duties. There has been a slight reduction in the British preference, from 15 per cent to 10 per cent, but as against that there have been increases from 17i per cent to 30 per cent in the intermediate tariff and from 20 per cent to 35 per cent in the general tariff, making the rates almost prohibitive as far as the intermediate and general tariffs are concerned. Here again we have a very considerable increase in the cost of production in this country.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff

350, 351, 353, 353a, 354, 361, 711: Aluminum and alloys thereof, crude or semi-fabricated, viz., pigs, ingots, blocks, notch bars, slabs, billets and blooms; scrap; bars, rods and wires; angles, channels, beams, tees and other rolled or drawn sections and shapes; pipes and tubes; plates, sheets and strips, in-
1220	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
eluding circles; leaf or foil, less than '005 inch in thickness, plain or embossed, with or without backing; wire and cable, twisted or stranded, reinforced with steel or not; aluminum powder: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 30 per cent; general tariff, 30 per cent.
Henry Herbert Stevens: Here we have several
items combined into one. The total imports amounted to *1,590,000, of which $417,000 came from the United Kingdom, $1,056,000 from the United States and $117,000 from other countries.


James J. Donnelly: Are these figures for all the items?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes. These are a number of items virtually all the same consolidated into the one item now known as 353.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Nearly all
those items refer to material used for construction purposes, and there has been a very considerable increase both in the intermediate and general tariffs, thereby increasing the cost of production.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-352. Coin locks of which solid brass or bronze are the components of chief value, plain, polished or plated: British preferential tariff, 15 per cent; intermediate tariff, 35 per cent; general tariff, 40 per cent.
John Campbell Elliott: May I ask where these
come from at the present time?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: This is a new item, and
we have no trade figures available that would enable me to answer the question of my hon. friend. I may say, however, that in Great Britain they are specializing in the manufacture of this type of lock, and they particularly requested this item.


Thomas Merritt Cayley: Would the minister tell us what a coin lock is?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It is a lock with which my hon. friend no doubt has come in contact in various public places, in which a nickel is dropped in a slot for the purpose of opening a door.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-354. Manufactures of aluminum, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, 15 per cent: intermediate tariff, 30 per cent; general tariff, 30 per cent.
Edward James Young: Could we have the figures on this item, please?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Last year the imports under this item amounted to $1,000,000, of which $61,000 came from the United Kingdom, $913,000 from the United States and $29,000 from other countries.


Edward James Young: Is there any Canadian production?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It is almost impossible to segregate the items to indicate the Canadian production under this particular item. The total production of aluminum of all kinds in Canada was valued at $4,500,000.


John Campbell Elliott: In this case the preference is given by an increase in the intermediate and general tariffs instead of by reducing the duty under the British preference, as was done in some other cases. I wonder if the minister could tell why that plan was adopted in regard to this particular item? This is a very substantial increase in connection with a commodity that comes very largely from countries other than those within the United Kingdom.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I can only give my hon. friend the answer that it was part of the general agreement and apparently was satisfactory to our associates from Great Britain.


James J. Donnelly: Can the minister tell us how much aluminum kitchen ware is manufactured in Canada?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: That is the next item.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This item 354 also serves to illustrate wherein what we have before us is not so much intended to increase the British preference as to increase the general tariff and shut out the foreigner. Under the general tariff the old rate was 25 per cent; now it has been increased to 30 per cent. Under the intermediate tariff the old rate was 22i per cent; now it is 30 per cent also. The intermediate and general tariffs have been made the same, evidently with the intention of making it more difficult for any agreement to be reached with any foreign country which would help trade between our country and other countries of the world, and help the consumer in Canada.


Edward James Young: Hon. gentlemen opposite have complained that I have harped too much on the exchange dumping duties, and they have suggested that they would like a change of argument. I find that in computing the duty on goods coming from Great Britain I have been overlooking one factor, that is, that the duly levied will be based on the par value of the pound. Let us see how this will work out in connection with item 354a. Let us take the case of a man who purchases in Great Britain aluminum worth one hundred pounds sterling, which in Canadian money is $373. In this case the duty is 20 per cent, but that duty is levied on the pound at $4.86, or on the value of this purchase at $486. The actual amount

United Kingdom
paid is $373, so the duty figures out to something like 26 per cent on the actual value of the goods, as against a 30 per cent duty against the foreigner. That does not take into account the exchange dumping duty, either. Perhaps the Minister of National Revenue can explain that away.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I have already explained it, and I am sorry my hon. friend cannot understand. The Canadian importer will come home with more goods, if he buys in Great Britain, than he will obtain in another country. That is the answer, and in addition the revenue of the country is increased.


Edward James Young: That might be an answer if it were correct, but it is not correct.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-354a. Kitchen or household hollow ware of aluminum, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, 20 per cent; intermediate tariff, 30 per cent; general tariff, 30 per cent.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The imports last year under this item were valued at $153,000, of which $7,000 came from the United Kingdom and $133,000 from the United States.


Alfred Speakman: What was the Canadian production ?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Last year the Canadian
production was valued at $1,499,000.


Alfred Speakman: This is an article of
increasing importance in the household economy of the average housewife of Canada, and I should imagine that the net result of the change will be an increased production for the Canadian manufacturer rather than a diversion of trade to Great Britain. This is another case where the preference has been created by increasing the tariff against foreigners. Considering the total imports in comparison to the Canadian production, and the fractional percentage of those imports which come from Great Britain, it seems to me that in all likelihood the net result will be an increase in cost to the housewife. I must confess that this sort of preference does not appeal to me as being at all sound.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I doubt if there is any
possibility of an increase in cost to the housewife, because I am informed that the capacity in Canada is sufficient to supply five times the requirements for this class of goods.


James J. Donnelly: I did not hear the
value of the Canadian production, and I should like to know also if the minister has received a guarantee from the Canadian manufacturers that they will not increase the price because of this change?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The production last year
was valued at $1,499,000. So far as this agreement is concerned, we have received no guarantee from the manufacturers; in fact, they were not consulted in this respect.


James J. Donnelly: No guarantee has been received from the Canadian aluminum manufacturers?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: So far as I am aware the first knowledge they had of this change was when the items were published in the newspapers.


Mr. POULIOT:: This item reminds me of
Russia. A large quantity of oil was imported from Russia in order to provide production for the manufacturers of aluminum. There seems to be a mystery in connection with this oil business. Sometimes we find a snake in a barrel of molasses, but nobody seems to know what is in these cargoes of oil which are arriving from Russia. I am wondering if this preference will not have the effect of destroying the good results which it is expected will be obtained by the importation of oil from Russia. I should like to know also if the aluminum company has agreed to this preference.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I cannot enter into a discussion with my hon. friend with respect to the oil phase of his argument, but apparently the Canadian manufacturers of aluminum are in a position to supply this article at a price attractive enough, based in terms of oil, to our Russian friends to cause them to want to do business with the Canadian interests. I cannot see how this tariff will affect any opportunities which the aluminum company might have, to do the same thing in the future; it will have no bearing upon the cost of their commodity so far as exports are concerned.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am just coming to the point of my argument. The aluminum manufacturers have traded with Russia, receiving oil in return for aluminum. If we get aluminum from Great Britain, what will we receive as compensation? What will the British manufacturers of aluminum give us in return for this preference?


Thomas Merritt Cayley: A few moments ago the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ryckman) answering the hon. member for Weybum (Mr. Young) made the statement that the dump duties in connection with exchange made no difference which he could see. This statement recalled to my mind an item which appeared
1222	COMMONS
Imperial Conference

Trade Agreements
in the Ottawa Journal of last evening. It is a despatch from Manchester, England, and reads:
The Manchester Chamber of Commerce is joining other cotton trade organizations in making representations to the Canadian tariff board concerning the Ottawa agreements and their resultant tariffs on the cotton trade.
The Manchester chamber believes reductions in the Canadian tariff already announced are unlikely to enable British cotton, artificial silk and textile exporters appreciably to increase their trade. The chamber emphasizes the importance of the earliest possible removal of the exchange rates, dumping duty and other additional taxes and to replace them all by one single straightforward tariff for each class of goods.


James J. Donnelly: This is another item in respect to which the British preferential and general tariff rates have not been changed, the only change being in the intermediate rate, under which there are no importations. The minister has stated that this change has been made without consulting the aluminum people, so the government must have had some other reason for taking this action. I should like to know the real reason for making this change. Was it done just to have a change, or why? No importations are coming in from the intermediate countries; they all come in under the British preferential and general tariffs. A change has been made in the intermediate rate and I should like to know what effect it will have on the ti'ade.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member will note that the increase in the intermediate rate is two and a half per cent. Inasmuch as we have placed a duty of 30 per cent upon the raw material, we could not properly place a lower duty upon the finished article, otherwise a premium would be placed upon the importation of manufactured goods.


Edward James Young: I presume the raw material is made up of aluminum in sheets, and I cannot understand why it is necessary to place a duty against that commodity. My information is that Canada is the cheapest place in the world in which to manufacture aluminum due to the fact that we have such immense water power close to tide water. Why should such an industry' have a protective tariff?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It is in conformity with the agreement arrived at to have aluminum free within the empire.


Edward James Young: I do not understand.


Alfred Speakman: It was suggested a
short time ago by one of my hon. friends to my immediate right that I had voted in favour of all of these items and therefore I

was heartily in agreement with them. It is quite true, owing to the way in which they have been brought down as part of an agreement, I have voted for all these items, just as my hon. friends have voted against every item which gave an advantage to us in the British market.


Edward James Young: Name the items.


Alfred Speakman: Just as they have voted against any preference, any advantage we might have in the British market. Owing to the fact that each had to defend an opposite viewpoint of one agreement, it is impossible to support one item without supporting all, or to oppose one without opposing all. Were these schedules brught down as part of a Canadian budget, if they' had no further implications and were to be considered wholly upon their merits, my attitude toward them might have been different. In view of what has been done, I am in exactly the same position as are my hon. friends; I have supported some things I do not like for the sake of things which I consider offer some value. I believe we get more than we lose. There are things which, I am sure, my hon. friends, in their hearts, would like to support, but they feel they cannot swallow others. Placing one against the other, and taking all we receive and all we pay, I believe we have an advantage, and for that reason I support the agreement. That, however, does not debar me from expressing any criticism I feel like offering with respect to the part of it with which I do not agree.


Jean-François Pouliot: 
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member will bear in mind that the provision with respect to empire content would provide that the aluminum in question would come from Great Britain rather than from Germany.

United Kingdom


Jean-François Pouliot: Nevertheless, the excerpt
which I have read shows the ingress that Great Britain has to foreign trade.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My hon. friend will realize that there is a large variety of items with respect to which an agreement of that character could be arranged just as there is under the Canadian tariff a large variety of items with which we could deal similarly.


Jean-François Pouliot: I point this out as a
matter of general principle only.


Edward James Young: On several occasions during the present debate I have endeavoured as best I could to figure out what the actual applied rate would be on goods coming from Great Britain. The ministers have not seen fit to accept my figures; they have said that they could not work the matter out in this way. I should like to ask the minister on this item. 354a, kitchen or household hollow ware of aluminum, n.o.p., 20 per cent under the preferential tariff, to figure out for us, or have his officials do so,-I am sure they can -exactly what the applied rate will be on $100 worth of aluminum coming in under that item, including the exchange dumping duty.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I shall endeavour to get that information for my hon. friend, as I have alreadr' agreed to do with the hon. member for Willow Bunch with respect to putty.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: I think my hon. friend from the west is unduly alarmed about this matter. The object is to keep aluminum out and let the Canadian manufacturer get all the advantage of the 30 per cent. It is protection to the extent of 30 per cent on a household article, and it is done for the purpose of giving the Canadian manufacturer the whole of the Canadian market. My hon. friends may not have intended to do that, but it is useless to say they are going to give the British any advantage in the Canadian market with a 20 per cent duty under the British preference. The whole of this market will go to the Canadian manufacturer, and the Canadian consumer will pay the price. That is the situation as I see it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Can the minister tell us what the duty was on kitchen or household hollow ware of aluminum at the time the present administration came into office, and also on the following item, nickel?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The rate of duty is the same as it was under the Dunning budget.


Edward James Young: Was that an answer to my question?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: No, to that of the leader of the opposition. Did my hon. friend wish the computation now? I am sorry to say I cannot make it now.


Edward James Young: The minister's officials can make it.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My officials assure me it would take considerable time to do it.


Edward James Young: Then let the item stand until we get it.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I shall undertake to give it to my hon. friend before we move the agreement out of committee.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-355, 356. Nickel in ingots or blocks, n.o.p.; nickel bars and rods, not including bars or rods depolarized or otherwise processed for use as anodes; and nickel in strips, sheets or plates: British preferential tariff, free.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: This is a new item. It is merely for the purpose of guaranteeing free trade in nickel within the empire. Our imports last year amounted to $221,000.


Charles A. Stewart: Whence did that nickel come?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: From the United Kingdom, $37,000; from the United States, $183,000, and $1,000 from other countries.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-361. Gold and silver leaf; Dutch or schlag metal leaf; brocade and bronze powders: British preferential tariff, 15 per cent; intermediate tariff, 30 per cent; general tariff, 30 per cent.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The imports last year were $96,000, of which $27,000 came from the United Kingdom, $39,000 from the United States and $30,000 from Germany.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-370. Rollers, copper, adapted for use in calico printing: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 10 per cent; general tariff, 10 per cent.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The imports last year
amounted to $88,000, of which $51,000 came from the United Kingdom and $37,000 from the United States.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Under the
British preferential, intermediate and general tariffs, this article came in free before. Both the intermediate and general tariffs have now been increased.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My right hon. friend is.
quite correct.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
1224	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
Customs tariff-377c. Ingots, cogged ingots, blooms, slabs, billets, n.o.p., of iron or steel, of a class or kind not made in Canada, when imported by manufacturers of forgings for use exclusively in the manufacture of forgings, in their own factories, under regulations prescribed by the minister, per ton: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, $3; general tariff, $3.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Our imports last year
amounted to $24,000, of which $3,000 came from the United Kingdom and $21,000 from the United States.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I notice that
the intermediate tariff has been raised from $2.25 to $3, and the general tariff from $2.50 to $3 per ton, making the general tariff almost prohibitive, I should say.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: It should help trade
with Great Britain.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Minister
of National Revenue says that this ought to help trade with Great Britain. May I say that I believe every hon. member on this side of the house is desirous of trading with Great Britain to as large an extent as possible so long as we can get for our money goods of equal value in quantity and quality. But on what grounds can the Minister of National Revenue justify any government taking away from the people the right to purchase where they please with what is the fruit of their labour, whether it be manual or intellectual labour? Surely one thing a man possesses with which he has a right to do as he pleases is the fruit of his own effort, whether put forth by hand or brain. What right has any government to say that he shall not be free to get the real value, not the nominal value merely of his labour, wherever he pleases? A man is paid wages for his labour or receives a salary for intellectual and other services; that is the nominal reward, the real reward is what that money will buy. When the Minister of National Revenue says that we must buy from Britain even if we have to pay a higher price for the commodities or accept commodities of a poorer quality, it seems to me that he is asserting on behalf of the government a power which no government has the right to exercise over the people, and which cannot be defended. I should like to hear the minister's defence of taking away from the people in this manner a part of their income; for that is what he is doing. It is an arbitrary method of taking from wage and salary earners a portion of their incomes as expressed in the real commodities which they can buy with the fruits of their labour.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: If I may answer in a few words the question of the leader of the opposition, when he was leader of the government in no case where a tariff was imposed by his administration did the workmen of whom he speaks not have to pay, because the goods came in under a duty. There is nothing new about that. I did not say to the right hon. gentleman that we " must " buy from Britain, but the object of this tariff, of the items wdiich have been considered and are afterwards to be considered, was, without wrecking any established interests, to influence trade to travel between the different countries of the empire. I think that that object has boon well accomplished in what has been done. All these tariff items were not fixed by us. There were two parties to the agreement, and the other party had to be considered. They knew what they wanted, and some of the items here represent what they wanted. The charge is made in England that we got the advantage, and the charge has been made in Canada, and in this house, that they got the advantage. But it is idle to say that wTe are interfering with the rights of the workingman or with the privileges of the people of Canada because under this item the duty is being raised fifty cents a ton in the one case and seventy-five cents in the other. To make that contention seems almost foolish, if I may use the word. This is the point that should be considered. These items are not ours unless we agreed to them. It may be that we should not have agreed to some of them if they had not been asked for, but we acceded to them because we felt that we also were getting advantages in the agreement. The agreement, I submit, is altogether consonant with the rights of every citizen of Canada, but the trouble with my right hon. friend and those whom he leads is that they want to buy from foreign countries whenever they possibly can instead of trading, as I submit should be done, in the interests of the empire.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend is quite wrong in his last statement. But referring first of all to the comparison he made between these tariffs and the tariffs under the previous administration, may I point out that under the previous Liberal administration the tariff in Canada was lowered time and time again to afford more in the way of freedom of opportunity to purchase commodities wherever the individuals in this country might wish to purchase them, and to provide more in the way of freedom of trade. Under the present government the tariff has been in-

United Kingdom
creased time and time again until it has now reached prohibitive heights. It has made trade altogether impossible, and according to the Prime Minister apparently that has been done deliberately with a view of preventing trade with other countries.
The Minister of National Revenue knows he is quite wrong when he says that we on this side of the house prefer to trade with foreign countries rather than with Britain. Let me tell him that the opposite is the case. We prefer to trade with Britain, other things being equal, but we do not propose to be told that we must trade with Britain no matter how adverse an influence that trade may have on our incomes. When you reach a point in the imposition of tariffs that you no longer receive revenue from them, when the tariff becomes prohibitive to that extent, its effect is simply to prevent trading, and it becomes an income tax in another form. It means that the individual-and the smaller his income the more he will feel the tax-is no longer able to purchase with his income the same number of commodities or get the same satisfaction of his wants which he otherwise would be able to get. It simply becomes a means of increasing the cost of living all around.


Mr. MALCOLM:: I would point out to the Minister of National Revenue that those of us on this side deeply resent the statement which he has made. So far as diverting trade is concerned, his own department is diverting trade right against the wishes and the desires of the government. Why is it that Japanese raw silk, which is sold at exactly the same price in New York and Yokohama, can be imported from the United States for less money than it can be imported from Yokohama? The excise tax on 100,000 yen worth of silk from Yokohama is $1,495 on the par rate of exchange of 49.85. The same shipment coming from the United States will pay an excise tax, on the current rate of exchange, 25i cents, of $765, and the importer makes $730 by importing it from New York rather than from Yokohama. The minister knows this, and knows perfectly well also that our transportation companies lose the haulage by water from Yokohama to Vancouver, and the haulage by rail from Vancouver to Toronto and Hamilton, Sherbrooke, Galt and other places. The trade is of course credited to the United States when it is really of Japanese origin. We wish to sell wheat to Japan, and my hon. friend by his departmental ruling on exchange is diverting trade to the United States from a friendly country. Our whole policy in the Dunning budget was to divert 53719-78
trade to countries willing to trade with us, and it ill behooves the minister to state that hon. members on this side of the house were trying to divert trade to foreign countries.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: It has been obvious to one who has had to do with the imports of Canada that there was a scurrying around to find out where, in these distressed times, goods could be obtained not at their proper value but below their value. There was an effort to bring such goods into Canada to compete with manufacturers in this country who are trying to make a living for themselves and their workmen. That is a well known fact.


James Malcolm: Was there any firm producing raw silk in Canada?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I am not talking about raw silk. Probably my hon. friend understands Japanese trade; I do not know any of the details concerning the Japanese case he has mentioned. I do know, however, that the people of this country have recognized that the party led by the right hon. gentleman opposite


James Malcolm: That has nothing to do with the subject.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: -were glad to trade out of Canada and out of the empire, when they could. A few cents difference in price would very soon interfere with the business being done in the interests of Canada. I state that positively, and I will take it back on no occasion, because it is a fact. What we are seeking now is trade within the empire.


James Malcolm: All right.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: To say that we want to keep out the foreigner is distorting the matter. The fact is that we want to trade within the empire and also to trade with the foreigner. But, if there comes a time when we have to choose, I tell my hon. friends opposite that I am for trading within the empire, and I think the majority of people in Canada hold a similar view. I believe we can help ourselves and our fellows. That has been the purpose before the government, and that was in the minds of the delegates from all parts of the empire who were parties to these trade agreements.


Jean-François Pouliot: The Prime Minister has made trade impossible, and now he is trying to correct his mistake.


Charles A. Stewart: If the minister is so anxious to trade with Great Britain,

1226	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
certainly his actions belie his words. Ever since this government has been in office it has increased duties against Great Britain on commodities Great Britain could sell to us. He forgets or ignores entirely the fact that when the Liberal party was in office it was aiming at a fifty per cent preference for Great Britain. That is something the minister failed to mention. The government opposite de-sti'oyed that objective the minute they were permitted to take office destroyed it completely-and now they have the audacity to stand up in the committee and state that the Liberal party wanted only to trade with foreign countries. Hon. gentlemen opposite are responsible for placing obstacles in the way of trade with Great Britain, and today the Canadian people are suffering in consequence of that very action. That is the position in which they have placed Canada, and it is to that attitude on the part of the government, reflected so definitely in these schedules, that we are objecting.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: This discussion originated out of a complaint on the part of the leader of the opposition to the effect that we had increased the duty under the general tariff by fifty cents and under the intermediate by seventy-five cents in connection with the item dealing with ingots, forgings, and so on. Let me point out to him and to the hon. member for West Edmonton, who has spoken with unusual warmth, even for him, that they are beside the mark in their statement of facts.


Charles A. Stewart: Not much.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: When the statement is made that under the Liberal regime the then government was aiming at a fifty per cent preference for Great Britain, hon. members on this side of the house are forced to the conclusion that the Liberal party must have been very bad marksmen. I have in my hand the celebrated Dunning budget, in connection with which, although it is not generally realized, there were very substantial increases in duties not only under the intermediate and general tariffs, but against Great Britain herself. Those increases were made on important items, imports which under normal conditions would involve large sums of money.
The leader of the opposition has complained, on behalf of the poor workingman, that there has been an increase of fifty cents in the general and seventy-five cents in the intermediate rates in the item I have mentioned. Let me point out to him that under item 377a of the Dunning budget respecting "blooms, cogged ingots, slabs, billets, n.o.p., sheet bars, of iron or steel, by whatever process made, n.o.p."

the duty against Great Britain was increased from SI.50 to $2.50 per ton. Under the intermediate tariff the increase was from $2.25 to $4 per ton, and under the general tariff there was an increase from S2.50 to $4.50. I ask the right hon. gentleman and those associated with him how he would characterize an increase of that kind, when today he complains that we have increased the intermediate and general rates by seventy-five cents and fifty cents respectively-not by $1.75 and $2, as was the case under the Dunning budget.
Then, let us turn to item 377 of the Dunning budget, "ingots of iron or steel n.o.p. per ton" and we find that the duty of $1.50 against Great Britain was not changed. But, if you please, they increased the intermediate tariff from $2.25 to $2.50, and the general tariff from S2.50 to $3. There was an increase in that item similar to the one of which he now complains.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What was done with the British preference?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Let us now deal with subdivision (d) of item 379 in the Dunning budget. This part of the item deals with "rods, in the coil, not over .375 inch in diameter, when imported by manufacturers of wire for use exclusively in the manufacture of wire, in their own factories." Under subsection (d) the old intermediate rate was $3.50 per ton, and the rate under the Dunning budget was $4.50. The old rate under the general tariff was $3.50 and under the Dunning tariff it was raised to $5.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The minister is not telling about the British preferential rate.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The British preferential rate remained the same in connection with the last two items I have mentioned. I am calling attention to the fact, however, that at that time the Liberal party was increasing the duty under the intermediate and general tariff precisely as we are doing today under the item now before us.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: One or two
items is very different from one hundred and fifty items.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: But I have referred to
items in the Dunning budget almost identical with the one now before this committee. The item now under consideration deals with ingots and forgings. From the Dunning budget I read an item dealing with "blooms, cogged ingots, slabs," and so on. I think it only fair to the right hon. gentleman and to the committee that I should indicate these facts,

United Kingdom
in view of his criticisms and those of his colleagues. There is a small increase under this item.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Under the
Dunning budget there were only about six items in connection with which the duty was increased.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Eleven.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I imagine the minister is splitting some of the items. In the present instance there are over one hundred and thirty items, without splitting at all, under which the duty is increased in the intermediate and general tariffs, and a very large number in connection with which the duty is increased against Great Britain.


Edward James Young: If the minister has the
Dunning budget before him perhaps he would point out an item in it in which the effective rate from Great Britain was made higher than it was under the general or intermediate tariffs.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes; if the hon. member will look at item 377a in the Dunning budget he will find that the preference against Great Britain had been $1.50 per ton, but under the Dunning budget it was raised to $2.50 a ton.


Edward James Young: That is not the question I asked. I want to know if the minister could name an item in which the effective rate from Great Britain was raised to a point higher than the effective rate from other countries.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I can only state the facts as I understand them. If the hon. member suggests that an increase from $1.50 to $2.50 a ton is not an effective increase, then I must say that I do not understand what an effective increase is.


Edward James Young: I am speaking of comparative rates.


Mr. HEENAN:: I was wondering if the
minister could explain the position we are in now. Some time ago we spent many thousands of dollars, through the Department of Trade and Commerce, I think, in propagating a new creed by which school children and other citizens of Canada obligated themselves not to purchase anything but Canadian-made goods. Now we have made an agreement with another country in order that they may send goods into Canada, which we have pledged ourselves not to buy.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Amend
the creed.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-378. Bars and rods, of iron or steel; billets, of iron or steel, weighing less than 60 pounds per lineal yard:-
(d)	Hot rolled, valued at not less than 4 cents per pound, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 12J per cent; general tariff, 15 per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-378. Bars of iron or steel, hot rolled, 5 inches in diameter and larger, when imported by manufacturers of polished shafting for use in their own factories, per ton: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, $7; general tariff, $7.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-378a, 378c. Sash or casement sections of iron or steel, hot or cold rolled, not punched, drilled nor further manufactured, when imported by manufacturers of metal window frames, for use in their own factories, per ton: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, $7; general tariff, $7.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-380. Plates of iron or steel, hot or cold rolled:-
(a)	Not more than 66 inches in width, n.o.p., per ton: British preferential tariff, $4.25; intermediate tariff, $8; general tariff, $8.
(b)	More than 66 inches in width, n.o.p., per ton: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, $6; general tariff, $6.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: This is a
terrible one. The general tariff on plates of iron or steel has been increased from $7 to $8 under (a); the intermediate tariff has been increased from S6 to $8, so that both intermediate and general are placed on the same level. Then under (b) there is an increase in the general tariff from $5 to $6 and in the intermediate from $3 to $6-it is doubled- and British preference is left the same in each case. Those two items alone, will serve materially to increase the cost of construction and other items that enter into general production costs and costs of living in this country.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: May I point out that the
three preceding items we passed showed very substantial reductions in the British preference. Naturally they passed by without comment. I do not complain of that. In the case of the increases to which my right hon. friend has just now referred, in most instances they are relatively less than they were under the Dunning budget. There the increase in one particular item that I have in. mind was from $2.50 general to $4.50, almost double, whereas in this case the increase is from $6 to $8 and $7 to $8. So the relative increase is very much less than on the item to which I have referred.
1228	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements


William Duff: Does the minister mean to
say that under the Dunning budget the rate was $2.50 and it is now $7?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: No, my hon. friend has
misunderstood-


William Duff: No, I have not; I am asking a question.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It was not on this same
item. I was only comparing relative increases. I said that the increase on the item to which I referred a short time ago was from $2.50 to $4.50 general. In this case the increase, as the right hon. leader of the opposition pointed out, was from $6 to $8 and from $7 to $8. I am not dealing with the same commodity; I am only making a comparison of relative increases.


William Duff: I understand exactly what
the minister is doing, but what I want to know is, on the item he was talking about what was the duty under the Dunning budget, and what is the duty under this agreement?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The rates under the Dunning budget were $4.25, $6 and $7, and for the next item, free, $3 and $5. The rates now are $4.25, $8 and $8 as against the $4.25, $6 and $7; and free, $6 and $6 as against free, $3 and $5.


William Duff: Quite a difference.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: 
Edward James Young: Any produced in Canada?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: There is only one producer. We have no statistics as to the amount of his production.


Alfred Speakman: Can the minister give
the value per ton of items coming under these specific duties? I want to get some idea of the ad valorem rate.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It would be very difficult to arrive at from any statistics we have before us, because there is variation in the sizes, the thicknesses, and the quality of the plates; and to take an average would be very misleading.


Alfred Speakman: I quite appreciate that.


Frederick George Sanderson: Is it not true that the importations of this commodity last year were very low, probably only a small fraction of what they were in previous years?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: In the wider width the
figure for last year was $1,560,000.


Frederick George Sanderson: I was calling attention to the fact that the importations were very much heavier in former years.


Alfred Speakman: That is what struck me, that with prices as they are at present for iron and steel the duty of $4.25, $6, $7 and $8 per ton must be a very heavy ad valorem duty, and must give an almost complete monopoly to this country.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am advised that most of this plate is worth $40 to $50 a ton, using round figures.


James Malcolm: How much would it cost freight and other charges to import a ton of this from Great Britain?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am afraid I could not answer the question; freight rates vary almost daily, as my hon. friend knows. But these heavy bulk commodities carry a very low rate. That is particularly true of ocean freight.


James Malcolm: I do not think there is anything on which the minister would have been better advised to have a difference between the intermediate and general rates than on plates of iron and steel. Provided that Great Britain is given a preference so that the diversion of trade might benefit Great Britain, there is no reason why he should not make the intermediate lower than the general, to give more trading value. The importation of this steel is from Great Britain, Belgium, or the United States, I think the minister realizes that a two way tonnage can be built up via Hudson bay of cargoes of wheat to Belgium, bringing back steel plates, if industry is to develop at all in the west. I submit that in leaving both the intermediate and general tariffs at the same point the minister is handicapping himself very materially in doing any business with Belgium.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

United Kingdom
Customs tariff-381. Sheets of iron or steel, hot or cold rolled:	(a) *080 inch or less in
thickness, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, per cent; intermediate tariff, 20 per cent; general tariff, 20 per cent.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: What were the total importations?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Last year the imports
totalled $2,226,000, of which $340,000 came from the United Kingdom, $1,856,000 from the United States and $30,000 from Belgium.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This helps to
illustrate the really protective intent of this particular change. The old rate was 7i per cent, 12J per cent and 12 V per cent, while the new rates are 7i per cent, 20 per cent and 20 per cent. The minister just told us that the importations last year amounted to $2,226,000, of which $340,000 came from Great Britain. The rate remains the same on imports under the British preference, but is increased from 124 per cent to 20 per cent under the general and intermediate tariffs. As the general and intermediate rates carry the bulk of the imports, and the tariff is unchanged under the British preference, the item constitutes an increase under the general and intermediate tariffs of 60 per cent. The added cost to the Canadian consumers, if the imports remained the same, would be $140,000, and to this must be added whatever extra charges may be made by the Canadian manufacturers who will now enjoy an increase of 60 per cent in their protection. This is a drastic increase made under the pretence of aiding Great Britain.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My right hon. friend is
quite right from his point of view, but if the goods come from Great Britain they pay precisely the same duty they would have paid under the old tariff.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: But the consumers pay a good deal more.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Not necessarily; that remains to be seen. Our views differ in that respect and time alone will tell, as my hon. friend from West Middlesex said a few moments ago.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should say
to my hon. friend that this has been done on the part of the government with full knowledge that the dumping duties and the valuations, in the manner in which the tariff is administered at the present time, will be sufficient to shut out these imports from Great Britain.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I must differ with my right hon. friend there. The arrangement is made with the agreement of our British friends, who are satisfied that they can do business under it.


Edward James Young: Does the minister mean to
say that this exchange dumping duty will not be collected? There is no use saying they will not have to pay duty if they come from Great Britain, so long as that duty is imposed.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I did not say anything of
the kind, as my hon. friend knows full well.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Edward James Young: Mr. Chairman, this afternoon I made a request of the minister that he have his officers figure out an exact rate which would apply on item 354a, which covers household aluminum ware. I understood him to say that he would have this done during the dinner recess, and I wonder if he can. give the committee the figures.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I did not say I would have it done during the dinner recess; I said I would have it done by the officers of the Department of National Revenue before we came out of committee on this bill. It was too late to get the officers to-night, and I propose to have this information available at the next sitting of the committee.


Edward James Young: I want to protest against
this whole proceeding. There is no reason why this matter could not 'be figured out in ten minutes 'by the officers of the department. We are asked by the government to put into effect a tariff, and when we ask what that tariff is, they cannot tell us.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No.


Edward James Young: Yes. I asked what would
be the actual applied rates on certain goods coming in from Great Britain included in this tariff. The Minister of National Revenue cannot figure it out, the Minister of Finance cannot figure it out and the Minister of Trade and Commerce cannot figure it out. I asked that it be figured out by the officers of the department, and I am now told that they could not do it during the dinner recess. I have tried to do it myself, but the ministers tell me I am wrong. How do they know that I am wrong? I think we have a right to this
1230	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
information, and if we cannot get it in any other way, then I think the committee should rise and report progress and the house should continue with other business until the information is available.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The manner in which my hon. friend has treated this matter in the last two or three days, and is now treating it, does not strike me as being reasonable, and I say that in a courteous way. There is no doubt that one could take a hypothetical case upon which to figure and arrive at a certain result, but that would not give anything which would be reliable or definite. There is only one way in which this matter can be dealt with to justify the placing of the reputation of government officials behind it. Let us consider kitchen and household hollow ware. In the first place, my hon. friend has not intimated whether he wants the retail, the wholesale, the export or some other price. Let us take some common factor which is capable of an accurate comparison. For the sake of illustration, let us take pig iron. Let us take the London and Pittsburgh prices quoted on a day when we can get the exchange rate in both countries-it must be remembered that the exchange rate which varies from day to day is very important. When we can get the exchange factor, we can figure from that point, but this requires a search in the journals for particulars because in no other way can you obtain an accurate comparison. I think my hon. friend has been arguing, perhaps : not from false premises but from premises which are a little in error. He takes a certain amount of money and he translates that into a rate of exchange which might or might not be correct, and from that point he builds up his case. He is considering the exchange adjustment duty as though it were a penalty or a dumping duty, which it is not. What he speaks of as applying to Great Britain, applies to a score of other countries with depreciated currencies. I am taking up a little time, Mr. Chairman, in the hope that we can get away from a discussion of this matter upon every item.


The CHAIRMAN:: I understand the hon. member has made a motion that the committee rise.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It was not made in the form of a motion.


Edward James Young: I am quite willing to make such a motion.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I think my hon. friend is too' good natured to do anything like that at this stage.

In dealing with any one of a dozen countries with depreciated currencies it is obligatory under the law that those currencies shall be considered as of a certain value. When an article enters the country the customs officer must look up the quotations on the milreis, the lira, the franc, the yen, the tael, the dollar, the pound or other currency, depending upon where the article originates. During the war, and in recent years, when exchange rates were fluctuating repeatedly, it has been and is the custom to stabilize such rates for a week or two; an artificial exchange rate is declared, otherwise it would be hopeless to ask the customs officials all over Canada to be posted upon the day to day or hour to hour rates. Sometimes these set rates may be good for a year; it depends entirely upon the fluctuations in exchange as between this and other countries. The customs officer turns to his bulletin and gets the rate of exchange, and if the article in question has come from a country with a depreciated currency, under the regulations and the statute he must impose a penalty, if my hon. friend chooses to call it such, or an exchange adjustment duty, as I prefer to call it, which brings the invoice price up to that figure. I will not say that these fluctuations occur daily in connection with all countries, but they occur often enough to prove to be a confusing factor. It would be quite fruitless for us to take an item, strike an exchange rate which we think is right, and start to figure on that basis. As an example, let us take the differential in exchange between here and the United States. If we have a 30 per cent duty against a certain article coming from the United States, when that article enters Canada the Canadian purchaser must find dollars to pay for it in addition to paying the 30 per cent duty, and for those dollars he pays 13 per cent in exchange. He pays not a 13 per cent penalty but a 13 per cent premium upon American dollars 'with which to pay his indebtedness. My hon. friend will see that that is a factor which must be always borne in mind. In making his calculation my hon. friend adds or subtracts, as the case may be; he takes that differential in exchange and calls it a customs duty. It is not a customs duty at all; it may have a similar effect, but it is an exchange factor due to the necessity of buying other currencies with Canadian funds. Perhaps my bon. friend will accept the suggestion of the Minister of Finance, that we fake, say steel or iron or something which has a common factor where there is a world price, shall I say, in Pittsburgh or London, and figure out

United Kingdom
a comparison on certain commodities and give it to my hon. friend tomorrow. But I submit to him and to the committee: it is not profitable nor does it add to the information of the committee to raise on each item these hypothetical cases. We do not wish to be discourteous; we do not wish to say to my hon. friend each time: We do not agree with your figuring; we think you are wrong. I am quite certain the gentleman who has helped my hon. friend to do his figuring-my hon. friend will admit he has a good adviser in this-could undoubtedly figure it out quite well; but I think in some of the figures he gave he was calculating on the basis of a rate of exchange that must have been applicable a month or two ago. Therefore nothing is to be added to the arguments here or to the clarifying of matters by these more or less futile discussions over hypothetical cases.


Edward James Young: I do not think the problem is quite as difficult as the Minister of Trade and Commerce would seem to believe. The normal value of the pound is $4.86}. The government has said that it should be $4.40. The actual value fluctuates from day to day, so to avoid the difficulty my hon. friend mentions of having to take account of the fluctuations from day to day, every two weeks the department sets an average value for those two weeks. The other day, November 10, it issued this bulletin: "The average value of the pound sterling declared by the department for special duty purposes is $3.71, effective for entries during the period November 16 to 30, 1932." The actual value of the pound yesterday was $3.73 Canadian funds. The government had declared the average value for the present two weeks to be $3.71. They have also declared that the pound should be $4.40. I have been calling it an exchange dumping duty, but my hon. friend prefers to call it an exchange adjustment duty. I do not care what he calls it; it is a duty anyway; but that duty, whatever it is, shall be the difference between $4.40 and the rate they have fixed of $3.71, or sixty-nine cents. So that particular duty will be sixty-nine cents on an investment of Canadian money of $3.73. It is only a simple matter in artih-metic to figure out that that amounts to 18} per cent. That is how I have arrived at this exchange adjustment duty, if my hon. friend prefers to call it that.
What I have been asking all along is that the minister take the ad valorem or specific rate, or both, as the case may be, based not on the invoice value of the goods in Canadian currency, but on what is declared to be the value for duty; figure that out; add to it this 18} per cent and whatever the excise tax amounts to, and give us the total. In addition I believe there is ten per cent off the regular duty for direct shipment. That can be figured out. The arrangement the government has made for fixing every two weeks the average value of the pound in Canadian currency will avoid the difficulty of coming to an actual estimate. I do not see why we cannot have that total rate submitted to the committee in a few minutes. When we are passing these items, we have a right to know what the actual rate is going to be. I would be willing to wait until tomorrow, but by tomorrow many of these items will be through, and we want to know and have it right on the record exactly what the rate will be against Great Britain.


James J. Donnelly: Just before six o'clock, when we were discussing item 253, I asked the minister to tell me what duty I would actually have to pay if I bought that article in England. I wonder if he can give me the figure now.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My hon. friend is on precisely the same question as the hon. member for Weybum. I have told him we cannot give that computation now, but we shall do the best we can to give it before the committee rises.


James J. Donnelly: I make the same protest as does the hon. member for Weybum. I understood we were to have this at eight o'clock. It would take only a minute or two to get it. The Minister of Trade and Commerce said that it was difficult to arrive at prices. There should be no difficulty about that. We have the price scale of goods in England, in the United States and in different parts of the world. We can take the average price for those goods and figure out what the duty will be. In England, when they went off the pound sterling, it was believed the price of goods there would go up; on the contrary, it went down two per cent. In the meantime in the United States the price of goods has dropped about 14 per cent, so the price of goods in England, by her going off the gold standard, has been kept up by about 12 per cent. It is not very difficult to figure out what these duties should be.
The hon. member for Weybum, in figuring this out, has neglected one factor. The pound sterling at the present time is worth something in the neighbourhood of $3.73. The government calculates the duty not on $3.73, the amount paid for the goods, or on $4.40,
1232	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
but on S4.86J, which makes the duty even higher. This should be figured out so that the committee, as we go through the items, will know the actual duty that will have to be paid on each of them. If we do this we may find that the duties on articles coming from Great Britain are higher than on articles coming from other countries.


Mr. RALSTON:: I quite agree with the
hon. member for Weyburn and the hon. member for Willow Bunch. I do not see what difficulty there is in the ministers having prepared for the committee a computation which has been repeatedly given in the house and which, while it has not been challenged, at the same time has not been fairly met. It is because the country does not realize the total amount of duty which is being imposed that there is not a stronger protest against the system which is now in force in this country. The request which has been made is a reasonable one and it should be quite easy to work out the answer. I have had an opportunity more than once to do exactly the same thing in connection with various items, and unless the government is ashamed of the rate of duty which is being charged, it might at least give us the benefit of the computation which can be readily made in respect of any item. What we want is a statement from a responsible minister of the crown as to the percentage of duty actually chargeable in connection, let us say, with this particular item, at today's rate of exchange and at the current rate at which the pound is fixed. Then we shall have an idea just how much duty is being charged. Perhaps the house realizes in a general way how much duty is being imposed, but I do not think the country does and I do not believe this can be brought home to the government themselves until they take their lead pencils and figure out how much this imposition of a duty on the pound at par, when as a matter of fact the goods are being bought at, say, S3.72, means, plus the three per cent excise tax, plus, in some cases, a specific duty, plus an ad valorem duty. Then there is the special dumping duty representing the difference between the fixed rate of the pound for let us say the current two weeks and $4.40, which is the rate which has been fixed for the pound for some time. These are things which the committee ought to know and which the ministers can fairly be asked to give. There is no mystery about it at all. There is no reason why statisticians should not sit down and in fifteen minutes,
[Mr. Donnelly.)
if they are really serious, give us this information in connection with any one of these items.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My hon. friend from Shel-burne-Yarmouth was not present this afternoon or he would have heard me give an undertaking, in connection with a similar question which was submitted by my hon. friend from Weyburn, and another hon. member, that before we would ask the committee to rise and report the resolution we would ask for a computation to be made in each instance by responsible officials of the department.


James Layton Ralston: I heard my hon. friend give that undertaking tonight, but it does not assist us in getting at these figures now. I am suggesting that it could be done in ten minutes by anyone who is familiar with the matter, and there is no reason why we should have to wait till the last minute for the information.


Mr. SPOTTON:: If you were here more than one day a month you would learn about it.


James Layton Ralston: At least perhaps I am as ornamental as my hon. friend who is here all the time. I do submit, Mr. Chairman, that if my hon. friends are really serious about giving the committee the information a computation could be made in a very short time and we should not have to wait until the committee rises.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If my hon. friend is unwilling to give the information until just before the committee rises, perhaps he will be good enough to tell the committee whether the calculation of The Economist of London in its issue of October 22, 1932, is a correct one. The Economist has prepared a special supplement dealing with the Ottawa agreements. It is a careful statement of the effect of the tariff changes, and I should like to read to my hon. friend one of the paragraphs which deals with this matter. The statement is:
The (Canadian) tariff is, however, payable on the value of the article translated into dollars at the rate of $4.86 to the pound, and not at the actual rate of about $3.70 to the pound. In many eases this provision alone neutralizes the British preference in comparison with countries which are on the gold standard.
In addition to the ordinary tariffs, imports into Canada are chargeable with three other taxes. The first of these is the sales tax, now at the rate of 6 per cent, -which is not essentially protective, since it is also payable on home products.	The second, is the special
excise tax, amounting to 3 per cent, which, despite its name, is payable only on imports.

United Kingdom
These two taxes, making a charge of 9 per cent, are levied upon the value of the imports plus the tariff which has been paid. Thus, if $100 of imports are subject to a tariff of 30 per cent, these taxes will amount to 9 per cent of $130. or $11.70.
The third of the special taxes is the dumping duty. Until recently, this duty had scarcely any effect upon United Kingdom trade, because it was most unusual for traders in this country to sell their goods in Canada at a price below that charged here. But, owing to the fact that the Canadian government fix arbitrary and different values for the exchange of pounds into dollars when calculating prices in the United Kingdom and in Canada, this duty has become a heavy charge upon British imports into Canada. Under the ordinary regulations concerning this duty if an imported article is offered for sale in Canada at a price less than its "fair market value" in the country of origin, a duty equal to the difference between these prices' is payable. At the present time (i.e., the period October 16 to 31, 1932) the value of the pound is declared fixed at $3.82 for the purpose of calculating the selling price of British goods in Canada; but for the purpose of determining "fair market value" in the United Kingdom the pound is at present fixed at $4.40. Hence, at the rates now in operation, if the price of an article in pounds is identical here and in Canada, it is still necessary to pay a dumping duty amounting to 58 cents for everv pound of the value.
This dutv in particular has met with much opposition from Canadian importers of British goods, and even before Ottawa expectations had arisen that it would be reduced. These expecta-, tions themselves at the present time are an additional barrier to British trade, because they lead importers to delay buying stocks from the United Kingdom pending a reduction with the consequence that, when orders have to be executed at short notice, they frequently go to the United States.
I think that that is an exact statement of the situation with which it purports to deal. If in any particular it is wrong, will some member of the ministry please so inform the committee?
The CHAIRMAN; I would remind the committee that members are here to give their own opinions and not to quote editorials. I did not want to stop the right hon. gentleman.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I was quoting, Mr. Chairman, the calculation of a recognized financial journal of the highest standing with respect to the effect of these new duties upon trade.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The committee will
understand that it is easy to get the opinion of any man, but members are here to express their own opinions.


James J. Donnelly: It is not always easy
to get an opinion, Mr. Chairman, because we have been trying in vain all day to get the
ministry to give an opinion and make a calculation. Now when we have the opinion of an expert economist, why should we not be allowed to hear it?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The committee is always happy to hear the opinions of the hon. member for Willow Bunch, but quoting from books and editorials is absolutely out of order.


Henry Herbert Stevens: 
Edward James Young: We are not counting sales tax.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The sales tax should be eliminated from all these calculations.


James Layton Ralston: Except that the sales tax is applicable on $4.86f, when as a matter of fact the goods have cost only $3.72.


Henry Herbert Stevens: 
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I hope the minister will concede that the very circumstances he has mentioned are the reasons why, at this time at least, we should not have further difficulties placed in the way of getting goods from Great Britain. We have been told that the purpose of the agreement is to further inter-imperial trade. We have been told by the Prime Minister that the agreements are to prevent trade with other countries. In view of all that has been said, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the agreements are not going to help inter-imperial trade to any extent. I doubt very much whether there will be a greater tendency to trade within the empire than is evidenced by the information contained on the lead pencil I have in my hand. This article would indicate where the government is making certain of its purchases , at a time it is stressing trade with Great Britain.


An hon. MEMBER:: Purchased three years ago.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, it was not. This is a lead pencil bearing the notation "40 H.B. Government of Canada", and the United States is indicated as the country of origin.


Mr. McGIBBON:: Did not your government do the same thing?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, they did not.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: He could not get a pencil that is not made in the United States.


Mr. BOURASSA:: I cannot understand the position taken by hon. members on this side of the house. For three weeks they have been denouncing-and I denounced with them -these treaties as obstacles in our world trade. We stated that they would have the effect of forcing us to trade too closely within the empire. The argument put forward by the minister is quite sound; and, holding the views I expressed in opposition to the agreements, I consider that these dispositions, the effect of which is to decrease the difference between duties exacted on British goods and

United Kingdom
those exacted on foreign goods, tend to correct the defect in those treaties which we have denounced. Apparently, the difference between the duties levied on British goods and those levied on foreign goods is not quite as large as would appear from the schedules. Therefore I approve of those dispositions for the same reasons I have denounced the treaty.


James Layton Ralston: I was not in the house yesterday, and judging by what has happened this evening it would not seem that I had missed much because, as I understand it, we are still at the stage where we are asking the government to furnish a simple computation with regard to duties. The hon. member for Labelle, who has just taken his seat, has just given his reason for supporting the government in the present instance. The reason other hon. members and I object is that it imposes undue taxation upon the people of Canada. If hon. members opposite would look across the line to the United States where, I suppose, there is some commercial intelligence, they would find that notwithstanding the change in exchange, the dump duty which is applied against sterling here has not been applied so far as the United States is concerned. Therefore we must conclude that this is an invention of the Canadian government against goods from Great Britain. We might as well settle down to that. At this time we are asking for only a simple arithmetical computation as to the amount of duty chargeable in connection with a few articles. The Minister of Trade and Commerce has said that that information will be furnished tomorrow. That is different from the statement made by the Minister of Finance, to the effect that it would be furnished tonight before the committee rose.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: No, before the committee reported the bill.


James Layton Ralston: I thought the Minister of Finance said it would be supplied before the committee rose. At any rate we are confronted with the same difficulty all the way through the schedule. I submit that for the benefit of the government as well as of the committee we must, and ought to have the information which has been asked for. I hope the Minister of Trade and Commerce will see to it that the computation is made, and that a certain number of examples are set forth. I believe such information would show in a striking way the taxes being imposed upon the people of Canada by way of duties.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Edward James Young: No, it is not carried. The minister has given reasons why the government does not care to make the computations for which I have asked. They would not like to risk the reputation of any of the experts in government departments. They suggest hasty computations are unfair, and perhaps we cannot blame them. But I have no such reputation at stake, and I am willing to make a computation. If I am wrong, perhaps the ministers opposite will put me right. I have made a computation of what the actual applied rate will go on one British pound sterling worth of goods described in item 354a as kitchen or household hollowware of aluminum. It figures out like this: The quoted rate here from Great Britain is 20 per cent. That will be applied on $4.86f although the goods only cost $3.73 Canadian. This 20 per cent on $4.86 is equal to 26 per cent on $3.73; that would be the ad valorem rate. There is a ten per cent reduction if the goods are shipped direct to Canada, which would leave it 23-4 per cent. Then the special excise tax of 3 per cent, which is in reality a duty, will be based on $1-234 or 3-7 per cent. The exchange adjustment duty -my hon. friend preferred to call it by that name rather than exchange dumping duty- will be 18-5 per cent, making 45-6 per cent. In addition to that we have a portion of the 6 per cent sales tax. So my estimate is that the actual charges applied against a British shipment of these goods would be 47 per cent or more. If I am wrong, let the experts of the department say so. But I make this offer to the minister; I am willing to drop this whole matter until all these items are through the committee if the minister will promise that when we get into ways and means he will furnish us with another column to this schedule showing the actual applied rate, all things included, on all goods coming from within the British Empire.


Peter McGibbon: I think the hon.
gentleman would have more influence with this house if he had had the courage to go a little further. Why doesn't he move that this item be struck out?


Edward James Young: That would require a lot
of courage.


Peter McGibbon: Yes, which you haven't got. The arrangement is either beneficial or it is not; that is logical, isn't it? If it is beneficial, it should pass; if it is not, those who are opposed to it should have the courage to oppose it to the extent of moving that it be struck out. Will the hon. member who has just sat down do that?
1236	COMMONS
Imperial Conference

Trade Agreements


Edward James Young: I would do that in a minute if the chairman would not rule it out of order.


James J. Donnelly: Mr. Chairman-


Peter McGibbon: I will yield the floor
to the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Young) in order that he may have an opportunity to do that.


James J. Donnelly: This treaty is signed
and is supposed to be in effect, yet we are sitting here trying to find out what the treaty is and we are unable to do so. The public is anxious to find out what it is, and no one seems to know. How can we tell whether it is good or bad? We have been endeavouring for the last two days to find out something as to the rates of duty we have to pay. Unless we know something about it we just have to take a pig in poke.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Peter McGibbon: I am still waiting to
hear from the hon. member for Weyburn.


An hon. MEMBER:: You are too late; the item is carried.


John Campbell Elliott: It seems to me that the time of this committee will be saved by doing what has been suggested. I think the ministers in charge of this tariff are sufficiently reasonable not to ask the committee to pass the items without knowing what they really mean, yet that is what is being done. Is it the admission of the minister that the tariff as now sought to be passed is so complicated, so involved, so intricate, that the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Trade and Commerce with their advisers, cannot tell us offhand what the actual tariff is of which we arc now asked to approve?


Mr. GEARY:: It is shown in the agreement.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My hon. friend knows perfectly well just what the tariff is in connection with any one commodity dealt with in these schedules. It is as clear as the noonday sun. The only question that arises is the mathematical and technical computation which has to be made by the trained officials of the Department of National Revenue, who have to deal with numerous factors, many of them variable from day to day, such as the price of the goods themselves, and the exchange. I have told my hon. friend, as I told the committee before, that I would endeavour, before we rise from committee, to have a number of typical instances worked out, following the inquiries made by hon. gentlemen opposite, and brought to the committee, deal-

ing with the duty on a given day on the basis of a given rate of exchange. I submit that that is a fair answer. It would be utterly impossible for us to attempt here to figure out complicated duties with all these variable factors on a given item on the spur of the moment. The duties themselves in their terms are known to my hon. friend; their application in individual instances is subject to the factors of which I have spoken.


James Layton Ralston: There is only one variable factor, isn't there-the rate of exchange on a given day?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: No, there are several variable factors. There is the question whether the goods are subject to excise duty. If they are, they are not subject to the so-called dump. And if they are of a class or kind not made in Canada they are excepted. So there must be technical knowledge with respect to the individual items in every instance. The question is not as simple as the hon. gentlemen would suggest it is.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Can the minister inform the committee how many of these types of goods are included in the items we are discussing, that is, not subject to excise tax and not made in Canada?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: There is one item alone, respecting chemicals and drugs, which covers every known drug or chemical used in Canada but not made in Canada. That illustrates the difficulty.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I think
the committee is entitled to that information. If we cannot get it today perhaps we covdd have it to-morrow afternoon.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: As I have pointed out, we will endeavour to get the information. But hon. gentlemen realize that with respect to any one of these questions they could, by going to the Depai-tment of National Revenue, obtain the information much more readily than they can under these circumstances. We cannot be expected to be prepared to give information of that kind offhand. But I assure hon. gentlemen that we will not press the committee to pass this until we have satisfied their reasonable curiosity.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The Minister of Trade and Commerce disputes assertions made in The Economist as read by my right hon. leader


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am not calling in question the fairness of the suggestion, neither am I offering any objection to the inquiries submitted. All I say is that we cannot give this information offhand.

United Kingdom


Mr. BOTHWELL:: Is it not a fact that customs officers are making these computations every day at the different ports in Canada.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes, on instructions from
the Department of National Revenue dealing with the variable factors of which I have spoken.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: I wonder how the customs officials work out these duties at the various ports of entry. Do they take as long as this to do it?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My hon. friend does not seem to realize that in this matter the Department of Finance is not the administrative department; it comes under the Department of National Revenue. We have not the information in our department; it must be obtained from the Department of National Revenue in the manner I have indicated.


Edward James Young: Will the minister not admit that we as members of this committee who are asked to pass these items are entitled in every case to know exactly what we are doing and what duties we are imposing?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Having heard the arguments of my hon. friend I would say that he is in dire need of a good deal of information, and it will be my endeavour to satisfy his curiosity so far as that may be possible.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: One point was raised by the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario which I think should be dealt with at once. The hon. member asked why someone on this side did not move to reduce or strike out one or other of the different items. May I say that if we refrain from such a course it is because we do not want to make a mere pretence of doing something which we know cannot be done in the circumstances. The Prime Minister has made it perfectly clear that this agreement is to go through exactly as it has been framed, and for us to move to reduce any item would be to simply pretend we were doing something which we all know will not be done. We desire to make it perfectly clear, however, what is the significance of these increases in duty.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I take no exception whatever to the statement just made by my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition. He has accurately stated the position, and I have nothing to add.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Customs tariff-381a. Sheets of iron or steel, hot or cold rolled, with silicon content of -075 per cent or more, when imported by manufacturers of electrical apparatus, for use in the manufacture of electrical apparatus in their own factories: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 12J per cent; general tariff, 12J per cent.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Are we taking only the one item now? We might take the next three items together.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: In the schedule to the bill my right hon. friend will see that there is only the one item.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is hoop steel, hot or cold rolled, is it not?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: No, we are dealing with item ex 381a.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: With reference to this item I see an increase from 12i per cent to 20 per cent in the intermediate and general tariffs, while the British preference remains the same. I also observe that the total importations last year amounted to about $2,225,000, and that of this total only about $340,000 came from Great Britain. Here we have a tariff increase of about 60 per cent which will cost the Canadian consumer about $140,000 more on this one item alone.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: No, my hon. friend is entirely in error. If he will look at item 386p in the votes and proceedings he will observe that there is no change in the duty under either the intermediate or the general tariff. We have reduced the British preference from 7i per cent to free.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think we are talking about different items.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-382a. Hoop steel, hot or cold rolled, plain or coated, -064 inch or less in thickness, not more than 3 inches in width, when imported by manufacturers of barrels or kegs or by manufacturers of flat hoops for barrels and kegs, for use exclusively in their own factories: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 121 per cent; general tariff, 12J per cent.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: This is a new item entirely. We have not disturbed the duty under either the intermediate or general tariffs; we have simply removed the present preference rate of 7i per cent and placed these goods on the free list.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We must be on the wrong item.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Look at item 386q.
1238	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My ton. friend is comparing a different item.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The chairman called item 382a.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: This is a new item, taken out of item 386q, or perhaps I should reverse my figures. May I suggest to hon. gentlemen that if they would use the bill instead of the votes and proceedings we might escape some confusion.


James Malcolm: There are two items bearing the same number.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: In the bill there is an item ex 382a.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Of course hon. gentlemen will understand that when "ex" is used it means that the item is lifted out of item 382. When it goes into the votes and proceedings it must be a new item, and there it will be found as item 386q.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Take page 16 of schedule E, and take item ex 382a. It is shown here with the proposed rates free, 121 per cent and 121 per cent. What were the old rates?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: They were 71 per cent, 121 per cent and 121 per cent.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Then
take the next item, which is also ex 382a, with the rates at 71 per cent, 15 per cent and 15 per cent. What were the old rates?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The old rates were 71 per cent, 121 per cent and 121 per cent. That item has not been called yet.


Mr. VALLANCE:: The Minister of Trade and Commerce says that in the votes and proceedings we will find these all under one item. What is his explanation now, after the Minister of Finance has said there are two different items?


James Malcolm: The fact of the matter is that the items are described in the bill not by their proper numbers but by the numbers of the previous items from which they were taken.


Frederick George Sanderson: Are these goods manufactured in Canada?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: May I ask my hon. friend to which item he refers?


Frederick George Sanderson: Item ex 382a and the following items, at the top of page 16.


Mr. CANTLEY:: No.


Frederick George Sanderson: I am asking the minister; he will answer.
[Mr. Stevens.J


Thomas Cantley: I thought you were looking for information.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am informed that there
is no hot rolled strip steel manufactured in Canada.


Frederick George Sanderson: The minister hesitates; is he absolutely sure of that?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My officials inform me that I am correct. I submitted the question to them before I gave the answer to the committee.


Frederick George Sanderson: Then were any representations made by the iron and steel interests of Canada with regard to these items?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: There was a joint agreement on the part of the iron and steel producers of the empire, who met at Montreal, in which they concurred in the proposals contained in these items.


Frederick George Sanderson: A joint agreement
between whom?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Between the iron and steel producers of the empire.


Frederick George Sanderson: Including, of course, the iron and steel producers of Canada?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes.


Frederick George Sanderson: And that joint conclusion was recommended to the government? Are these items the result of that agreement?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes, it was recommended to the government and adopted in the main by the government.


Frederick George Sanderson: And the government readily fell in with the recommendation?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: No. In some cases the
government changed entirely the recommendations, but with respect to the items in question my hon. friend will see that in the main we have reduced the preference from a stated percentage to free. I was dealing not with the whole list of submissions but with these particular items.


Frederick George Sanderson: In the main the government coincided with and agreed to the recommendations of the iron and steel interests of Canada in connection with these
items?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: In the main the government accepted the views of the iron and steel interests of the empire, including Canada; some of the recommendations were rejected.

United, Kingdom


Frederick George Sanderson: Did the government
make any investigation in connection with the iron and steel industry before they came to their conclusion, or did they just take the recommendation of the iron and steel interests?


An hon. MEMBER:: Rot.


Frederick George Sanderson: The hon. member had
better keep quiet.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I might say that the whole schedule was revised in 1930 and the government was in possession of considerable information. It was only in the light of the information which they had that the government came to the decision it did at the conference.


John Vallance: The minister has pointed out that all these items are not manufactured in Canada. What were the importations from the United Kingdom and other sources?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Under the heading of hot
rolled, narrow steels, the imports last year were valued at $256,000, of which $13,000 came from the United Kingdom, $205,000 from the United States, $19,000 from Belgium and $14,000 from Germany.


John Vallance: This change would have a tendency to transfer the trade with foreign countries to the mother country. At the time the representations were made to the government by the iron and steel industries, were the consumers also heard?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It would be impossible to consult the consumers unless we covered the whole of Canada, individual by individual. I can hardly conceive of that being necessary, inasmuch as we have placed these commodities upon the free list and in practically all instances removed the duties hitherto obtaining under the British preference.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Not on the free list.


Frederick George Sanderson: Is it fair to assume
that the government raised the intermediate and general rates from 7i to 12J per cent upon the recommendation of the iron and steel interests of Canada?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Not necessarily. I have
told my hon. friend that in the main we accepted the agreement arrived at between empire producers, but it by no means follows that in the case of an individual item the specific rates in question were those which
were recommended at the time. All I can say is that the items as they appear now were those which were finally agreed to by the representatives of Canada and the mother country.


Frederick George Sanderson: I think it is fair to assume that the government lent very attentive ears to the iron and steel industries of Canada.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: In the case of the item in question, the largest consumer in Canada was present and was agreeable to the proposal.


Edward James Young: Were all the secondary
manufacturers who use these commodities represented?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I would not undertake to say that all the secondary consumers were present, but I would say that the interests affected were reasonably represented.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The
Dominion Bridge Company?


Edward James Young: A secondary manufacturer who consumes large quantities of this commodity and is interested in its production might not be negligent with respect to his own interests in acceding to these duties. We should like to know whether the secondary manufacturers, the real consumers of these commodities, were represented by their association, we will say.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Do I understand that my hon. friend objects to the placing of a number of these items upon the free list?


Edward James Young: I just want to get at the facts. Certain manufacturers are consumers of this article and they will be affected by the change. In some instances the rates have been increased under the intermediate and general tariffs. Are these manufacturers who are affected by this increase being granted compensation by way of increases in other items?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It may be that there are other increases, but at the moment my hon. friend is taking objection to an item in which there is an increase of only 2i per cent in the intermediate and general rates.


John Vallance: Are we discussing both the items numbered 382a, or just one?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I really do not know.


John Vallance: The minister has stated that the rates are free, 12J and 12i. If we are discussing only the first item, I have nothing further to say, but I notice that the second item carries the rates 7|, 15 and 15. If we are discussing both items together, the minister's information is hardly correct.
1240	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It was requested that I give the imports last year in connection with this particular item. I stated that the only change in this item was an increase of 2} per cent in the intermediate and general rates, but my reference to the free list applied only to the first item.


Edward James Young: Will the minister tell us who are the users of this commodity, and just where we will find the item in this schedule in which they are interested and from which they will receive a compensation for the increased duty they are to pay?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It is quite impossible to answer in detail the question asked by my hon. friend. I might say that the item second removed from this one carries an increase in the intermediate and general rates which may have the effect of improving the condition of the consumers to which my hon. friend refers. There is no change made under the British preferential.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The minister has stated that the largest consumer of this particular article was consulted and was agreeable to the change, but I should like to have it made clear just who he has in mind in referring to the "consumer." There are consumers and consumers. Let us assume, for example, that this steel and so forth is required for bridge building. I suppose the last consumer would be according to my hon. friend's reasoning, the company that does the construction work on the bridge. If that be the case, I should like to point out that there is a consumer beyond that company, the ultimate consumer, who has to pay for the bridge; that includes those who cross and pay tolls and the like. I can understand the government permitting the iron and steel industry to divide up the British Empire amongst themselves and arrange what will be one man's finished product will be another's raw material, but to arrive at what will be paid by the consumer and taxpayer, in the last analysis we have to go as far as the users of the commodities. According to what the minister has told us, I am afraid all the government has done is to make things easy in the manufacturing line, but to arrange matters so that the actual burden will fall on the real consumer, who is the last man to pay.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: To answer the last part of my right hon. friend's question, I think his position is ill-founded, certainly with respect to the preceding item, because the ultimate consumer cannot be affected if the goods come in free as they do now. Let us take the present item. My right hon. friend has in

mind structural steel as used in bridge building. If an attempt were made to build a bridge with the materials that come in under this item, it would be unsafe for my right hon. friend to travel across it, even on foot. This is steel .080 inch or less in thickness. It is thin strip steel. When I said "consumer," I meant the immediate consumer.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I was referring to the ultimate consumer.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The ultimate consumer is always the one who must pay in the end, but if the immediate consumer gets a commodity cheaper, presumably the ultimate consumer will get his commodity cheaper.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Not if you make a monopoly of the industry in the meantime.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-382a. Band steel, hot rolled, [DOT]OSO inch or less in thickness, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, 7A per cent; intermediate tariff, 15 per cent; general tariff, 15 per cent.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: This next item has reference to precisely the same type of commodity, except that it is slightly thicker. The imports of this class of goods last year amounted in all to $235,000, of which $1,000 worth came from the United Kingdom, $213,000 from the United States, and $20,000 from Belgium.


William Duff: How much is manufactured in Canada?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Some of this thicker variety, I am informed, would almost come up to bar steel, and bar steel is produced in Canada; but I am told by my technical advisers there is no possibility of segregating the amounts, so far as our trade figures are concerned, to indicate the amount produced in Canada last year.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Let me point out the real significance of this change. Under the old rates the British preferential was 7j per cent. It remains at 7i per cent. Under this tariff the general tariff is increased from 12i per cent to 15 per cent, and the intermediate tariff is increased from 12J per cent to 15 per cent. In other words, the British preferential is left just where it was and the duty is raised against other countries, thus giving more in the nature of a monoply to the manufacturing industry in Canada.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I think my right hon. friend has inadvertently confused his items. He is speaking now of item 382b, band steel.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, item 382a.

United Kingdom


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I thought we had just
passed that, and the figures I gave were with respect to the second one.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend has quite unintentionally overlooked the second item; his eye has caught the first one.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I gave the figure for both.
I announced just now that the item I referred to was the companion item and had to do with the thicker class of sheet steel, and I was giving my figures with respect to 382b. In the case of 382b the original rate was $4.25 British preference.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We are not
yet on 382b.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I thought 382b had been
passed and I gave the figures with respect to 382b.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If the minister will look at the bill, he will see that there are two items 382a, side by side. My hon. friend, each time he has spoken, has let his eye fall on the first one where the British preference is free, and we on this side, who are watching the interest of the consumer, are looking at the second one where the rate is 7i per cent British preferential. I do not know why they should both be under the same item, but they are. The second one ought to be called 382a2, or something of that sort.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: They are derived from the same old item, but in one case we put the British preferential free and in the other it remains at per cent. I am sorry I was confused in my figures. I thought we had passed on to 382b.


John Vallance: Might I direct the
attention of the minister to this: the beginning of 382a is:
Hoop steel, hot or cold rolled, plain or coated, -064 inch or less in thickness.
Then 382a in the second instance says:
- 080 inch or less in thickness.
They are the same thing.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: No, they are not; they
are of different thickness and are used for entirely different purposes. One is cooperage steel and the other is used for a different purpose.


Peter Heenan: Can the minister tell me
now what percentage of the material that goes into this United Kingdom material is from the United Kingdom and what percentage comes from foreign countries?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It will have to qualify
under the empire content, otherwise it cannot come under the British preferential. My hon. friend knows the empire content is not less than fifty per cent.


Peter Heenan: The minister did not
catch my question. I realize the qualification is fifty per cent. The question I asked was this: Can the minister give us information as to what percentage of the material that goes into United Kingdom commodities comes from the United Kingdom and what percentage comes from foreign countries?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I cannot give my hon.
friend that information. It would have to be dealt with in each individual case in the Department of National Revenue; it is an administrative matter. I have no such figures with respect to any one of these commodities.


Peter Heenan: I am sure the ministry
must have thought of this when they were discussing the agreements with the British Empire delegates. Can he tell me the rate of wages paid in the industries in the United Kingdom and the hours the men work in those industries?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am sorry I have under
my hand no data which I could use to enlighten my hon. friend. It would be a very difficult and complex matter to follow one commodity through several industries with the many employees they have. I have not the computation.


Peter Heenan: The reason I ask the
question at this time is this: I know the Prime Minister refused to have the advice of men acquainted with labour, on labour matters at the conference. This is about the only government participating in the conference that did not have a man acquainted with labour matters as an adviser. Inasmuch as we have been discussing on some of the items, especially on article 21, the question of conditions of employment, I was wondering whether the minister had inquired into the conditions under which these commodities are manufactured so far as labouring men in Great Britain are concerned, also as to the conditions of labour prevailing in the countries from which Great Britain derives some of her raw materials. At an economic conference one would naturally expect economic questions of this character to be considered. It might also have been considered opportune to discuss the conditions under which these materials are manufactured in Canada, the

1242	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
hours of labour and wages of Canadian workingmen. I felt that all these matters should have been gone into at the economic conference, and I am sorry to hear from the minister that they were not considered.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: In answer to my hon. friend, if I can answer his observations, I would say in the first place that no question has been raised by labour anywhere, so far as I am aware, with respect to the hours of labour arising out of these conference agreements. Surely my hon. friend does not suggest that we in Canada should take a certain attitude with respect to what Great Britain should do with respect to hours of labour in industry and other matters which are entirely within the purview of the British parliament. Unless my hon. friend is prepared to take that position I cannot see the bearing of his remarks at the moment.


James Malcolm: I would point out to the minister that steel, for instance, is being treated as an empire industry, and I submit that in the case of an industry which you are standardizing as such the question of wages and working conditions might very well be gone into.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Shall that question be discussed on this item?


Peter Heenan: That is just the attitude
of the government, Mr. Chairman, that labour questions ought not to be discussed in connection with this agreement.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: They might better be discussed on the second or third reading of the bill.


Peter Heenan: We are interested, Mr. Chairman, in the question of labour content with respect to this item. The government evidently took notice of the labour content and labour conditions in Russia because they have repeatedly pointed out that it is their intention to shut out imports from countries which have a lower living scale than Canada. If we are going to permit the importation of empire commodities half of the labour content of which comes from foreign countries, surely we ought to take this question of labour content into consideration.


James Layton Ralston: This item as well as any other gives us an opportunity to ask the government whether any discussion took place or any understanding was arrived at that advantage shall not be taken of the preference by the British manufacturer to infMr. Heenan.]
crease the price to the consumer of goods not manufactured in Canada and coming in free under the British preference, and heavily taxed when imported from foreign countries. The ministers will remember that there is a provision in the Customs Tariff, which the government considers is of some use, to prevent an increase of price under the shadow of the tariff wall. Is the same thing to apply to British goods coming in either free or at a comparatively low rate of duty as compared with the duty on the same goods from foreign countries?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am not sure that I got my hon. friend's question quite right, as it was rather a long one. I think it was to this effect: Were there discussions at the conference regarding the adjustment as between different parts of the empire having regard to labour conditions in different parts of the empire?


James Layton Ralston: I am not speaking of labour conditions but of the cost to the consumer of goods which are coming in free under the British preference or at a low rate of duty and on which a heavy duty is charged against foreign countries. Is there any provision or understanding whereby the British producer will be penalized if he puts up his price to the Canadian consumer under the protection of the tariff wall imposed against the foreigner?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, not so far as there is any specific reference to it in the agreement. It will be obvious, I think, to all of us that should such a thing happen the value of the preference would be dissipated to the extent to which the abuse was perpetrated. Further, there is always the question of competition within Canada. There may be goods not made in Canada, to which, of course, that would not apply. But if my hon. friend asks if there is anything specifically provided in this agreement to deal with that situation I would say no, other than the declarations of general principle contained in the various articles that we shall come to after this article is passed, and where this question I think might more properly be discussed.


James Layton Ralston: This item gives me the opportunity to ask the question, but I am willing to defer the discussion if the minister wishes. The government felt there was some virtue in putting a section in the Customs Tariff whereby when producers of goods took advantage of the duty so as to maintain or increase prices to the consumer the duty can be wiped off. Is that correct?

United Kingdom


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend makes that statement as though it applied to all goods exported from Canada, but it applies only to a limited number of items-copper, lead, zinc, wheat and so forth.


James Layton Ralston: I find I have not made myself clear. I am saying that in the Customs Tariff there is a provision to the effect that in the event of a producer taking advantage of any duty imposed under the act to increase the price of his goods to the consumer or to maintain prices at levels deemed by the governor in council to be higher than should prevail, having regard to the general economic conditions in the country, the governor in council is empowered to remove such duty. That is provided in section 17 of the Customs Tariff as enacted in 1931. We have provided at least so far as the Canadian manufacturer is concerned that the consumer shall be protected against exploitation behind a tariff wall. That is what the government said they were trying to do, though some of us had a good deal of doubt about the efficacy of the provision; but let us assume that it is efficacious and that the consumer is protected against the Canadian manufacturer. Why should he not be protected in the same way against the British manufacturer who now is entitled to have his goods come in free or at a rate substantially lower than the rate imposed against the foreign manufacturer?


Henry Herbert Stevens: There is no corresponding provision in this agreement so far as I know.


James Layton Ralston: Does not the government think that there should be? Can there be any reason why we should attempt to protect the Canadian consumer against an increase by the Canadian manufacturer and not do exactly the same thing as against the British manufacturer, especially when, as I am reminded by my leader, they are given a monopoly? Take this very item. The Minister of Finance said that at least one large consumer had been heard. I happen to have a consumer in my constituency, a manufacturer of fish barrels, who uses a very large quantity of this stuff. Is there any provision in the Canadian tariff law or in the arrangements under the trade agreements which will enable the government to penalize a British manufacturer if he charges, let us say a ten per cent instead of a 74 per cent increase on the goods which he produces for a certain consumer? Against the foreign consumer there is 124 per cent duty, and against the British manufacturer there is only 74 per
cent, making a spread of 5 per cent. Let us assume the British manufacturer says: "I can go up to 10 per cent, because the American has to pay 124 per cent." Is there anything to prevent his doing that, with the result that the Canadian consumer my constituent, would not get the benefit of the five per cent duty and the spread between the British preferential and general rates?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Precisely that which has always existed, the well recognized principle of competition in trade. My hon. friend knows very well that this parliament is not likely to be asked to legislate to penalize a foreign manufacturer for any given act. But we have the open competition in trade, and in the item to which my hon. friend has just made reference there is free entry under the British preferential tariff.


James Layton Ralston: No, it is 74 per cent.


Henry Herbert Stevens: To which item are you
referring?


James Layton Ralston: To item 382a.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The British preferential
rate under item 382a is free.


James Layton Ralston: There are two items with that number; I am referring to the second one.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The argument presented
by my hon. friend in connection with the cooper in his constituency falls to the ground, because, under the former tariff, the British preferential rate was 74 per cent and the intermediate and general rates 124 per cent. Today the intermediate and general rates are 124 Per cent, and the British article comes in free.


James Layton Ralston: I understand that.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: How does he suggest that his cooperage friend in Yarmouth will be penalized by having to pay a higher price to a British producer?


James Layton Ralston: Probably I have been
very stupid in making my presentation. I am asking my hon. friend the simple question: How is the manufacturer in Yarmouth, Shelburne, or any importer of goods from Great Britain going to get the benefit of reduced duties unless there is some provision in the tariff to provide that if the British manufacturer puts up his price, let us say, 10 per cent, you may deprive him of the benefit of the duty as was done in the case of the Canadian manufacturer I mentioned. Surely that is a simple question. I am not
1244	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
asking what the duty was before; I am saying that this government has adopted the principle of protecting the consumer against possible exploitation. Having done that, have they done it with regard to goods coming into Canada from the British manufacturer when the goods are not manufactured in Canada at all? The Minister of Trade and Commerce has been talking about competition. The statement has already been made that there is no competition in Canada for this particular article because the American manufacturer cannot bring his goods in unless he pays a duty of 12^ per cent. Then, the British manufacturer has all the way from nothing up to 12i per cent to work on. Is there anything to prevent the British manufacturer from adding 10 per cent to his price because he has a protection of 12| per cent against the world?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: That item is passed. We are on the second item 382a, concerning band steel, hot rolled, etc.


James Layton Ralston: I am sure hon. members opposite will realize that it is difficult to confine one's remarks to one item. There happened to be two items with the number 382a. I find no fault with that, but I do not think the chairman should confine us too closely to one or to -the other, so long as we use one for the purpose of discussion.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I cannot follow my hon. friend's argument. If he wishes to protect his cooper down in Yarmouth against a preference contained in this trade treaty, the only alternative 1 can suggest is that we put the duty back to 7^ per cent and leave him as he was, under the tender -care of my hon. friend. I make that statement with all due deference. How does he expect the government to be able to follow the question whether a cooper down in Yarmouth, buying a few strips of cooperage steel, will know -that he is paying a price which represents the fair market value? Surely my hon. friend wants to compare equal things. He knows that there are in the treaty provisions to the effect that with respect to some commodities we must compete at world prices. He knows that there is a world price in wheat, copper, zinc and lead. But certainly there is not a world price or a world market for -cooperage steel, particularly when it comes down to such a small amount as would be required by the gentleman to whom my hon. friend has referred.


James Layton Ralston: I must say I find it equally difficult to follow the minister. The government has said in respect of Canadian made

goods that -they can follow the -price of an article on which a tariff is imposed, that they will see to it that the consumer is not exploited, that they will prevent the use of the tariff for the purpose of maintaining or increasing duties to the consumer. Now the Minister of Finance tells us that he cannot follow that down to the consumer. That was exactly the reason for section 17 which was put in in 1931. There -is no question that this government said they could follow the price to the consumer, and that they could find out whether or not a manufacturer was using the tariff for the purpose o-f increasing his price. Does section 17 mean anything at all?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My hon. friend's argument would have force if we were putting on a duty, but as a matter of fault we are -taking off a -duty and putting the article on the free list. For that reason I cannot follow him at all.


James Layton Ralston: I am calling my hon. friend's attention to a new principle which was , introduced into the Canadian tariff last year and which was received with great acclaim by hon. members opposite. The Prime Minister boasted of -it a great deal. The effect was that although the government was going to raise duties they would protect the consumer. I am pointing out that the government are now creating in Canada an absolute monopoly for British empire producers on this particular brand of steel. There is the difference between free and 124 per cent in favour of the British producer. The foreign producer has no chance at all. Having given that monopoly will the minister be as careful to see that the consumer is not exploited as he said he would be to see that the Canadian manufacturer does not exploit the consumer, by putting on the penalty of imposing a duty in case advantage is taken of the 12^ per cent rate? It seems to me that is a fair question and the minister ought -to answer it.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I understand it all right, but I am not attempting in a multitude of words to discuss my understanding for the purpose of burying the real kernel of the matter. Surely my hon. friend does not suggest that a duty of 12i per cent creates a monopoly in Canada. If he does, I can only say that for years he supported tariffs of 30 to 35 per cent.


James Layton Ralston: You cannot get away with that.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If a 12i per cent duty creates a monopoly, what does a 30 per cent duty create?

United Kingdom


James Malcolm: That is not the point.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I will not submit to the suggestion that because my hon. friend lays down the premise that a 12i per cent duty creates a monopoly, it therefore does. I do not subscribe to that at all.


James Layton Ralston: Is this any check on the British manufacturer? We have no manufacturers of this commodity in Canada; therefore there are only two places from which it can come, namely, the world in general and the British Empire in particular.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The discussion is out of order because the item has been passed.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Take the next item; the same matter comes up again.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariif-382a. Band steel, hot rolled, [DOT]080 inch or less in thickness, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, 7J per cent; intermediate tariff, 15 per cent; general tariff, 15 per cent.
James Layton Ralston: I shall make my point on this item; it will do me just as well. Here we have a case where the British preference was previously per cent, and still remains that way. But we have the intermediate and general tariffs increased from 12 per cent to 15 per cent. That means that we are giving to the British manufacturer a spread or a shelter of 7i per cent. In view of the principle which was laid down for Canadian manufacturers and to which the government subscribed, I am asking my hon. friend if the government have considered, or will consider, or if they have made any arrangement whereby, if the British manufacturer instead of simply bringing in his goods at the regular reasonable price, plus 7i per cent, puts on another per cent, or another 5 per cent, but still manages to come in under his American competitor-whether the minister will take into consideration the striking out of the duty which really protects the British manufacturer?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If my hon. friend thinks I am going to place myself in the position of stating that this government will police the prices of individual commodities and pursue them in small units down to the last consumer, I may say to him that he is entirely mistaken. The only answer that I propose to give is that if the British producer does not sell the commodity at a reasonable price he cannot expect to get the business or to keep it.


James Layton Ralston: 
[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-ex 382b. Band steel, hot rolled, more than '080 inch in thickness, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, $4 per ton; intermediate tariff, $8 per ton; general tariff, $8 per ton.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: How
much is imported from Great Britain, and what are the total imports?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I gave the figures some
time ago but was mistaken as to the item. The total import amounted to $235,000, of which $1,000 came from the United Kingdom, $213,000 from the United States, and $20,000 from Belgium.


James Malcolm: Can the minister give
the average value of this commodity, so that we know what the specific duty would be as an ad valorem duty?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am advised that the or-, dinary commercial forms would run between $35 and $40 a ton.


James Malcolm: This class of steel ist
rolled in Canada, is it not?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: To a certain limited extent;' if it is thick enough to be a bar it may be produced in Canada, but in the thinner forms I am told that it is not.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: According to the minister's own figures, only $1,000 worth was imported from Great Britain, which would be about 18 tons. There is a preference to Great Britain of 25 cents a ton, so that the total preference would be $4.50. When you study the figures and find that of total imports of $235,000 only $1,000 came from Great Britain, and then observe the change in the intermediate from $6 to $8 per ton and in the general from $7 to $8, it is a tremendous increase.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: This is one of the items
upon which the British representatives laid particular stress, and apparently they were quite satisfied.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: But on
the basis of last year's imports it gives them a preference of only $4.50 on the total.
1246	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Quite so, but they have
the preference as against $8 in the intermediate and $8 in the general.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Minister of Finance keeps talking about the British representatives being satisfied. I should think they ought to be, and I should think the Canadian manufacturers ought to be satisfied, because together they have been given a monopoly of the British empire on iron and steel-that is what it means. They could not ask for much more. But why does the minister not speak in terms of the Canadian consumers, the people of Canada who have to buy these materials and who use the articles into which in part they enter? No item could better illustrate what I have been pointing out. that under the pretext of doing something for British trade the present administration is really seeking to raise tariffs to create monopolies for special interests in the British Empire, and to exclude the foreigner. Let me illustrate; The present British preference on this item, $4.25 per ton, has been lowered to $4. Twenty-five cents per ton is the extent of the reduction in favour of Great Britain. Look at what has taken place in the matter of tariff increase. The general tariff has been increased from $7 to $8 per ton and the intermediate from $6 to $8 per ton, an increase of $1 and $2 respectively, and there is a reduction of only 25 cents in the British preferential rate. As was pointed out, only 18 tons came into Canada from Great Britain in an entire year; all the rest were entered under the intermediate or general tariff. Nothing could make it clearer that the whole purpose is to help privileged interests in the monopoly which has been given them by the government.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I take exception to my right hon. friend's attempting to place us in the position of having forgotten the consumer. We have not for one moment lost sight of the consumer. But when I replied to the hon. gentleman opposite by saying that this is an item in which the British government took particular interest, and that they were satisfied when they entered into the agreement,
I was dealing with it only in respect to the agreement. My right hon. friend suggests that to offer a reduction of 25 cents a ton is a very small concession. Let me say that if it is only 25 cents, it is 25 cents lower than was provided by my hon. friends in the Dunning budget, which he lauds so frequently. Furthermore, when he criticizes the increase in the intermediate tariff by $2 and in the general tariff by $1, may I point out that [Mr. I. A. Mackenzie.!
these increases are far smaller than those given in the items I mentioned this afternoon from the Dunning budget. It does not lie in the mouth of my right hon. friend, therefore, to criticize these items. I assure my hon. friends that it is my hope that the consumers in Canada will derive substantial benefit as a result-


An hon. MEMBER:: Of the extra prices they have to pay.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: -of the benefits which will accrue to them in the working out of these agreements, in the prices of various commodities.


James Malcolm: I think, however, the
Minister of Finance will admit that this whole discussion has arisen largely on account of his original statement that manufacturers of steel in Canada and Great Britain met and discussed and decided which items could best be made in Canada and which could best be made in the United Kingdom. In other words the whole business of the empire was divided among the manufacturers in the empire. The rate on this particular class of steel was $4.25 per ton under the previous budget, and the spread between the British preferential rate and the intermediate rate was $1.75. So the only preference the British manufacturer was given in this market was $1.75. He could not raise his price more than 81.75 without coming into competition with Belgium and the United States. The minister must see that, this agreement being for five years, and it being stated that the differential must be maintained, the British manufacturer who has been given the trade in this specific item, apparently by common consent, can if he so chooses, and if the minister does not wish to take advantage of his power under section 17 of the Customs Tariff, ride up to $1.50 or $2 a ton more than normal price, because the market is his. If the goods were made in Canada to any substantial extent, which the minister says they are not, of course Canadian competition might control the price. The minister has given us the figures, and none of this steel came into Canada from Great Britain under the existing tariff of $425 as against $6 intermediate, while $213,000 worth came in from the United States, and $20,000 from Belgium. The spread which is now created between $4 and $8 must of necessity be used, or there will be no diversion of this trade from the United States to Great Britain. If the British manufacturers could not get the business with a spread of $1.75, they naturally would ask for a greater preference. The minister has given them a $4

United Kingdom
preference. There is nothing in this act, unless as the hon. member for Shelburne-Yar-mouth (Mr. Ralston), says, the government take full advantage of section 17 of the Customs Tariff; to prevent the British manufacturers from riding as close to the cost from Belgium or the United States as possible. Then we ask, is the minister going to take advantage of section 17 of the act, which the Prime Minister said he will use to control the prices of the Canadian manufacturer? That is the question. You have apportioned certain items to British industries by common consent; you have agreed that the trade in certain classes of hoop and band steel and cold rolled steel which are not made in Canada in large quantities shall be given to the British manufacturer. That is splendid, if he can get the goods at world prices. But what is to prevent the abuse of the $4 preference? Is there anything in the act? Is the government going to take advantage of section 17? That is What we are asking the minister.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I told my hon. friend from North Bruce (Mr. Malcolm), a little while ago that there was a limited quantity of this material produced in Canada in thicknesses that approximate bar steel. There is nothing to prevent Canadian manufacturers from producing-


James Malcolm: Nothing except the
limited market.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Quite so. But he can be very sure that if there is an attempt on the part of the British manufacturer to ride up, as he says, to the height which the increased preference gives him he will find competition arising on the part of the Canadian producer. It is not long since I heard my hon. friend discuss the question of protection along general lines, and I must say that in large measure I subscribe to his point of view. He pointed out that the most dangerous thing that could be done would be to have a tariff too high, which would create that fierce competition. I am not saying this tariff is that high; I am not in a position to say that, but certainly if it is at a profitable height he will find that the Canadian producer will create that competition which will take care of any such condition which might arise.


James Malcolm: I think the minister will agree that when I made the remarks to which he refers I did say that when fierce competition existed the result was monopoly. We
are at that point now in the steel industry, because my hon. friend admits the meeting of all the manufacturers of steel in the British Empire for the purpose of dividing the market in this country.


Thomas Cantley: No.


James Malcolm: I am only taking the statement of the minister, who said the empire steel men did have a conference and did divide up the market. That may work to the benefit of the consumer if we get world prices, but the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth complimented the minister and the government on section 17 of the Customs Tariff, by which the government said they would not allow the consumer to be exploited. I think section 17 of the ant does provide a remedy, provided the government wish to put it into effect, whether the exploitation be by monopoly or otherwise. But the hon. member for Shelb urn e-Yarmouth has a right to point out that if the Canadian manufacturer is to be regulated by that section, when a certain line of business is given to the British manufacturer that manufacturer should also be regulated by the same section. I think that is the point.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I can only give one answer to my hon. friend, and it may not satisfy him. Let me assure him that as far as I am concerned personally I am prepared to stand or fall, as to the merits of this agreement, by the acid test of whether, in its working out, a situation such as he refers to will arise.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-382c. Strip steel, cold rolled or cold drawn, -080 inch or less in thickness, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, 7i per cent; intermediate tariff, 20 per cent; general tariff, 20 per cent.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: This is the same material, except that it is cold rolled. Last year the importations under this item were valued at $284,000, of which $18,000 came from the United Kingdom, $235,000 from the United States and $12,000 from Sweden.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What is the Canadian production under this item?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: There is only one producer in Canada; the production is not separately classified, and I cannot give the figures.


Mr. ILSLEY:: Is this the steel from which skates are made?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am advised that certain very fine qualities of steel coming under this specification would make skates.
1248	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements


James Lorimer Ilsley: As I understand it, the situation is that after this schedule is put into force there will be no importations from Great Britain. There are practically no importations from Great Britain now, as the figures given by the minister show, and with these duties in force it will be practically impossible for that class of steel to be brought in from the United Kingdom. The importations will continue from the United States. Some, however, will be produced in Canada; one company in Canada is making this kind of steel now. By the imposition of this additional protection against United States competition, and a degree of protection against British competition which makes importations impracticable, that company hopes to increase its ?ale of this steel in the Dominion of Canada. I am credibly informed by those who know that the result will be an additional heavy burden upon the skate manufacturers.
The criticism of the schedule that readily suggests itself to any member of this committee is that when you get schedules arrived at by agreement between primary manufacturers of steel products without taking into account the interests of the secondary manufacturers, you get a result such as we have in this schedule. It does not stop there, of course; it goes on to the ultimate consumer. I am not acquainted with the steel business; if the minister can point out any respect in which my predictions are not based upon fact I shall be very glad to have the explanation, but that is the story as I get it from those who should know.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My hon. friend from Pictou has had a wide experience in steel, and he tells me that skates are not made from cold rolled steel. But whether or not that is so is beside the question so far as the argument of my hon. friend is concerned. I am prepared to deal with that argument on its merits so far as I can. In connection with the export of skates, the skate manufacturer receives a 40 per cent drawback, even in connection with home consumption. Assuming that the manufacturer purchases in the United States the amount of steel necessary, the amount involved would be only six-tenths of five per cent, so I do not think the fears of my hon. friend will be realized in practice.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Where does the minister get the five per cent?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The general tariff is increased from 15 per cent to 20 per cent, so that the addition will be only six-tenths of five per cent. I do not think for a moment that this will have the alarming result which my hon. friend apparently foresees.


Thomas Cantley: My hon. friend from Hants-Kings has a little knowledge which leads him astray. I rolled thousands of tons of skate steel for the skate manufacturing company in Dartmouth, and I have yet to learn that any considerable quantity of the skates made there are made from cold rolled steel. As the minister pointed out, under the tariff the difference is a mere bagatelle.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I am amply repaid for my
interest in this particular item by having got the hon. member for Pictou upon his feet. Despite the fact that he has at times gone out of his way to make some very harsh remarks about myself, I have always paid him the tribute of being the outstanding authority on the steel business in this house. I would like to point out to the hon. member and to the minister that before I made any remarks about skate steel I asked the minister if the steel mentioned in this particular item went into the manufacture of skates and he replied that that was true to some extent. The argument I made was predicated upon that statement, not upon any alleged knowledge on my part of the steel or skate business. If there is another item in this tariff covering steel for this purpose, then the argument I made in reference to this item will apply to it.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Quite so.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Whatever the number of
the item is, there has been an increase in the intermediate and general rates from 15 to about 20 per cent, and a preservation of the British preferential rate at about 7i per cent. The argument which I have made has not been shaken in the slightest degree by the somewhat acid observations of the hon. member for Pictou or by the remarks of the minister. My argument is that when you get a division of the territory and the formation of a tariff schedule by the manufacturers of primary steel products in this country and Great Britain it is inevitable that the secondary manufacturers and, of course, the ultimate consumer, will have to pay an increased price, You will have injustices, you will have monopolies, you will have bad results all along the line.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-383.	Sheets, plates, hoop,
band or strip, of iron or steel:
(a) Coated with tin, of a class or kind not made in Canada, n.o.p.:	British preferential
tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 15 per cent; general tariff, 15 psr cent.

United Kingdom
(b)	Coated with tin, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 20 per cent; general tariff, 20 per cent.
(c)	Coated with zinc, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, 7J per cent; intermediate tariff, 20 per cent; general tariff, 20 per cent.
James Layton Ralston: Will the minister give
the value of the importations under these three items, and the Canadian production?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Under 383(a), the imports
last year were valued at $33,000, of which $27,000 came from the United Kingdom and $6,000 from the United States. There was no Canadian production as this is of a class or kind not made in Canada. The imports under 383(b) last year were valued at $3,252,000, of which $3,046,000 came from the United Kingdom and $206,000 from the United States.


Thomas Cantley: That is ordinary tinplate.


James Layton Ralston: What was the production in Canada.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: There is only one producer in Canada and we have no statistics of his production.


James Layton Ralston: Has the minister any idea of the number of employees and the value of the tonnage produced?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I cannot give my hon.
friend any figures. The only producer of this article is a branch of a large industry in the United States, the United States Steel Corporation, at Ojibway.


James Layton Ralston: I understand that the
production is very small compared with the importations.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have no figures, so I cannot enlighten mv hon. friend. Under 383 (c), the imports last year were valued at $915,000, of which $541,000 came from the United Kingdom, and $365,000 from the United States. The production in Canada was valued at $4,180,000.
Mr. RAiLSTON: I intend to refer particularly to 383 (b), coated with tin, n.o.p. I am not absolutely sure but I believe this is the commodity out of which most of the cans for canned goods are made.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Ordinary tin-plate.


James Layton Ralston: I would point out to the committee that the changes in this item serve to emphasize the point which I have been trying to make and which has been made most effectively by the hon. member for North
Bruce (Mr. Malcolm), namely, that an opportunity is now being given to the British manufacturer to take advantage of a spread of 20 per cent. This can be added to his cost of production which will increase the price to the Canadian consumer under the guise of an imperial preference. I submit that this item indicates the absolute necessity of the government taking some steps-I think this might be done under the statute-to see that the Canadian consumer is not penalized by these changes. As the hon. member for North Bruce has said, the British manufacturer can ride along behind this 20 per cent tariff and add 17i per cent or 18 per cent to his cost price, which even with the freight and other expenses will enable him to undersell goods from the United States. I submit that this is a striking illustration of how the cost to the consumer can be increased. This article is used extensively all over the country by fruit canners, fish canners and those engaged generally in the canning industry.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend has again asserted this doctrine in connection with this item, but there is a very definite and I think conclusive answer to his fears. As he states, tin-plate is used very largely in the canning of fish, fruits and vegetables, and lobsters and salmon. .


James Layton Ralston: Lobsters are supposed to be fish.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I will pause here to give mj' hon. friend the benefit of the knowledge of a student in Oxford university. He was asked what a lobster was and he said it was an animal, that it was red and that it went backwards. The professor said that that was a very good answer only it was not an animal, it did not, go backwards and it was not red. I might apply that to the argument of my hon. friend, but that is just an aside. The fact is that tin-plate is used I think most extensively in the canning of salmon, then in the canning of lobsters and then in the canning of fruits and vegetables. A very large proportion of these canned products are exported, in which case there is a drawback of 99 per cent of the duty paid as well as a drawback of the alleged or so-called dump duty. I trust that this information will dispel the fears of my hon. friend.


James Layton Ralston: How does a drawback
apply when the article comes in free?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I was referring to importations under duty. In the case of Great Britain where the so-called dump or, as I prefer to call it, exchange adjustment duty applies-
1250	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements


Edward James Young: Is there a drawback on that?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes.


James Layton Ralston: This is an exchange adjustment duty, as my hon. friend prefers to call it, but I have been pointing out the difference between free and 20 per cent. There is no rebate when the article comes in free from Great Britain.


Henry Herbert Stevens: But my hon. friend surely sees the force of my answer.


James Layton Ralston: No.


Henry Herbert Stevens: They can import the cans from the United States and get the 99 per cent drawback.


James Layton Ralston: What I am pointing out is this: if the British manufacturer adds 74 per cent to his price nobody gets a refund.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend has not my point. Whether they get it in free or from the United States at 20 per cent, it makes no difference, because they get 99 per cent drawback on the portions exported.


James Layton Ralston: Can the minister tell me the amount of production of the plant at Ojibway?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yesterday, when my hon. friend was not present, that point was fully discussed. Under the practice followed by all governments in the disclosure of statistics, it has never been the custom to disclose statistics where only one firm is involved. The question is one of fairness.


James Layton Ralston: It is very nice to be missed, and I am glad my hon. friend takes note when I am away; my absence evidently makes a difference. I am, however, glad to be present tonight. My hon. friend is unable to give me the amount of production at Ojibway?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, for the reason stated.


James Layton Ralston: Apart from exportation, a very large amount of canned goods is consumed in Canada by Canadians and they are being subjected to what I have been pointing out, namely, this possibility of advantage being taken of the 20 per cent duty against foreign tin-plate in favour of the British manufacturer. I still urge upon my hon. friend as strongly as I can the necessity for protecting the consumer in this particular instance.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Just by way of supplementing what the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth said a few minutes ago
[Mr. Stevens.1
about the possibility of the British manufacturer taking advantage of the changes in the schedule to increase the price to Canadian consumers, would the minister kindly note this point: let us take item 383:
(a) Coated with tin, of a class or kind not made in Canada, n.o.p.
This commodity is not made in Canada; it has to come from Britain. Under the British preference it is free at the present time and it was free formerly, but whereas the intermediate and general rates were formerly only five per cent, they have now been raised to 15 per cent. What is to prevent the British manufacturer from immediately increasing his prices to the extent of the difference between the five per cent and the 15 per cent or increasing his price to the 15 per cent limit? There is nothing whatever to prevent him from doing that. The point, however, which I want to bring out at the moment, and which I do not think has been brought out as yet, makes the situation even worse. It is this: Under this agreement we have tied ourselves to abide for five years by the increased price which may be levied. What applies to this item applies to every case where there is a margin of preference. In other words, once the British manufacturer has seen his chance of increasing his price and has shoved it up to the limit of his opportunity, not only is there no redress by way of taking from him any benefit he may derive from any duty, because the item is free under the British preference; he actually can laugh at the Canadian government and people and say: Your government has agreed that you will be bound for five years by the margin of preference which has been fixed and you cannot alter that margin. And that margin in this case would give him 15 per cent, which is the rate under general and intermediate tariffs.
Let us take the next part of the item: "(b) Coated with tin, n.o.p." This is free under the British preference, and the rate under both intermediate and general tariffs is to be 20 per cent. Hon. gentlemen opposite tell us that for five years to come we cannot change the duty; we are in honour bound to maintain it. They cannot deny that the British manufacturer may immediately raise his price right up to the point where he begins to feel competition from abroad over either the general or intermediate tariff, because they are now made the same. Then when a protest comes from the Canadian government or the consumers generally, he will simply answer: We told you all about this matter; this is part of the arrangement; you left it to those of us who wished to make an empire

United Kingdom
monopoly of the iron and steel industry to carve the thing up in the way which would suit ourselves best; then you introduced legislation which would implement what we suggested in a manner which would make it binding upon Canada for the next five years. This is very serious. What I am pointing out is true of every single item in this entire tariff schedule where the rate is free so far as the British preferential is concerned and where there is a certain rate of duty for the intermediate and general tariffs and only as a lesser degree wherever a preference is given.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Every word, every argument that the right hon. gentleman has made now and for the last few hours on this point was applicable during all the years past when he was in office and when previous governments were in office.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: How could
that be? The tariff is now 15 per cent when it was formerly five per cent, and the government have tied us up for five years.


Henry Herbert Stevens: These rates have been in effect for ten, twenty years.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: They could be changed each year; they might have been changed any year.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The right hon. gentle-nan says in effect that where you have a spread between the British preferential and the intermediate of 10, 15, or 20 per cent, there is a danger of the British manufacturer taking full advantage of that and penalizing the Canadian consumer. That has applied ever since 1897 when the British preference was introduced; it applied then just as much as it does now. It applies to a much greater extent, I might say, under the Dunning budget.
Let me come specifically to the two items with which the right hon. gentleman has been dealing. The first item:
Coated with tin, of a class or kind not made in Canada.
This is free from Great Britain and 15 per cent under the intermediate and general tariffs. The facts are these: there are twelve or more companies in Great Britain rolling that class of commodity. There are five large concerns, all competitors in this market. This has been going on for years. It is true that we have increased the intermediate and general tariffs under this item to 15 per cent, but you can take the next item where the spread for years has been more than 15 per cent, and nothing has been said about it. The possibility does not arise any more now
than it did then. You have first the fact of competition; that is one thing. Let us take the second item to which my right hon. friend refers and about which he is very much alarmed. Previously the rates were: British preferential, 7J per cent; intermediate, 12 per cent, and general, 15 per cent. We have taken off the 71 per cent and made it free so as to let British competitive business enter Canada free. Now my right hon. friend says that what will happen is that these iniquitous British manufacturers will take advantage of the full amount of the tariff up to 20 per cent. I am reminded that this steel business, as I have already intimated, is the most heavily competitive business there is in Great Britain.


James Malcolm: What is more competitive than coal?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I would say it is equally competitive.


James Malcolm: What is the situation
with regard to coal? One concern in Canada has all the business.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, it has not. I was talking this afternoon to one of the biggest coal producers in England who is here on business, who markets his coal through other sources than the one at which my hon. friend has hinted. But, coming back to the iron and steel business, I do not think I need hesitate to give the name of an authority. I refer to Mr. Frater Taylor, who is one of the most competent authorities in Great Britain, a gentleman formerly resident in this country. I was talking to him a few months ago and he described to me the competitive nature of the iron and steel business of Great Britain. In fact, it has been so competitive that it has driven a great deal of the British business off the world market because of its internal competition, the cutting of prices and the ruination of some of the plants. Now, many of these plants and industries are improving under present conditions that obtain in Great Britain; their export business is improving considerably, and I can assure the right hon. gentleman and the committee we shall have here ample competition to obviate any fear that may arise in my right hon. friend's mind on account of the present rate.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No one knows better than my hon. friend that the whole trend of business has been towards consolidations and combinations, and nothing leads to combinations and consolidations more than tariffs. We have never heretofore had anything comparable to this attempt to create an
1252	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
empire monopoly in a particular industry. While there may have been at the time the conference was meeting here competition between certain concerns in one industry in Britain, after these gentlemen had all met together around one table and had agreed what they were going to do, there was no guarantee that that element of competition was going to be maintained to the same degree for the next five years. The minister says that it has not happened before that advantage has been taken of the tariff to raise prices to the extent that we are now raising the tariff, and for the reason that there has always been hanging over the heads of those concerned the certainty or the probability that in cases of the kind at the very next session of parliament the tariffs would be changed, and there has also been authority in our own tariff whereby when combinations do exist and enhance prices the government may take the initiative in lowering or removing the tariff duties. The government have told us the way in which they intend to protect Canadian consumers when they find that advantage is being taken of the tariff. They are going to alter the tariff. But that remedy cannot apply with respect to the commodities in this schedule, because there is no tariff to remove. That is the serious part of it, and not only is there no tariff to remove, but what is more serious still the government have tied themselves and the country into a position where no action can be taken for five years to come. In the normal way parliament would act by impliedly threatening these gentlemen that if they attempted monopolistic prices or the undue raising of prices the tariffs would be lowered. That is no longer possible. I do not wonder that we have been told over and over again that these British representatives went home pleased with what they had accomplished. They ought to be mighty well pleased, for they not only got a monopoly for five years, but a monopoly in such a form that they can put their prices up just to the point at which the tariff stands and have it maintained there.
It will also be observed that these tariff duties have been materially raised over the former tariffs. The former tariff of 5 per cent has been raised to 15 per cent in one instance, and in another instance the tariff of 124 per cent has been raised to 20 per cent. You now have the position in regard to two classes of commodities coming in under this very item that they will come in in each instance free of duty under the British preference, and this parliament is bound for the next five years not to remove the duty on the 
general tariff, which in one case is as high as 15 per cent and in the other 20 per cent, against all the other countries of the world, and then no matter how much advantage may be taken by British manufacturers of that protective feature to raise their prices. I do not believe that anything could possibly be worse.


Alfred Speakman: I have been listening with intense interest to learn something about the steel industry. I notice that one question in respect to one of these items has not been answered in spite of the extensive and intensive discussion. I think it is 383. It is that item under which the importation is almost wholly from Great Britain, over 81,000,000, the importations from other countries being so small and insignificant that they might well be ignored. The question I wanted to ask was why have the intermediate and general tariffs been raised substantially on this item? It could not have been to divert trade to Great Britain, because Great Britain already has practically the whole trade. Why were the intermediate and general tariffs raised unless it was for the purpose of permitting a price increase, as was suggested by the leader of the opposition and his friends? While listening to the discussion with a great deal of sympathy, I was sorry that that point was not answered and no explanation given.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Up until about a year
ago Great Britain had lost its tin-plate industry to the United States. It is a long and complicated story and I am not going into it in any detail, but during the past year Great Britain has been winning that business back. It is one of those items on which we can do Great Britain a distinct benefit and our own consumers certainly no harm, because I have been in close touch myself during the last few months with the big consumers of tin-plate in this country-the canners-and I assure the committee that the canners of Canada are delighted to have this tin-plate coming in free from Great Britain. Great Britain is capable of supplying this market, and this is one of the big pieces of trade we can give to her, a trade which historically has been Britain's, but which through circumstances which I shall not now analyze she lost three or four years ago to the United States. We believe that by this action, this trade may be kept to Great Britain. I assure the committee that there is no need to fear that the tin-plate manufacturers will penalize this market.


Alfred Speakman: I do not think it is
necessary for me to assure the minister that

United Kingdom
I was asking purely for information, and I certainly hope the result will be what it should be. The placing of any article on the free list certainly should not raise the price. My only curiosity was as to why the question was not answered and why the intermediate and general tariffs should be raised when Great Britain already had the entire trade. I gather it is to guard against the possibility in coming years of some foreign manufacturers flooding our market with these goods at unfair prices and thus putting the British manufacturer out of business. I hope that that is the reason, and that the effect of these new duties will be as we all hope it will be, to lower prices to the consumer.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Chairman, have we passed item 383, paragraph (c)?


Henry Herbert Stevens: We took them all together.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: They were all called together, but there is no objection to further discussion.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is one
feature common to all these last six items we have been discussing, and that is that in every case the intermediate tariff has been made the same as the general tariff. I need not read them all, as they appear in the schedule attached to the bill, but in all of these cases the intermediate has been made the same as the general tariff, although as the tariff previously stood that was the case in only two of these six items. The effect of that is that while we have tied ourselves to maintain these high rates for five years we are also making it impossible in that period of time to benefit by the difference between the intermediate and general tariffs in negotiating an arrangement with any other country which might help to offset the ill effects of the monopoly which is being created in this manner. The more one probes into this thing the more vicious it appears at every turn. It could not possibly be worse.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-385. Sheets, plates, hoop, band or strip, of rust, acid or heat resisting steels, hot rolled, valued at not less than five cents per pound:	British preferential tariff,
free: intermediate tariff, 20 per cent; general tariff, 20 per cent.
Alfred Speakman: I am in entire agreement with the leader of the opposition on the point he last raised. In my opinion it is the worst feature of these schedules that we have destroyed the intermediate tariff by
making it equal to the general tariff, and to the extent that we have done this in all these items we have destroyed our power to receive and retain special treatment from other countries in return. To my mind that is a very unfortunate feature.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What the hon. member has said applies not only to this item, but to sixty or more of them.


Alfred Speakman: I am not speaking of only six items, but of all the items in the
agreement.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.	.
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. MacDonald, Cape Breton):: Item 386 is next.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, 385a.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Please follow the bill.


Finlay MacDonald: We have now reached item 386.
Customs tariff-386.	Sheets, plates, hoop,
band or strip, of iron or steel, as hereunder defined, under regulations prescribed by the minister:-
(a) Plates, when imported by manufacturers for use exclusively in the manufacture or repair of the pressure parts of boilers, pulp digesters, steam accumulators and vessels for the refining of oil, in their own factories, per ton: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, $5; general tariff, $5.


Finlay MacDonald: I shall read subsection (m) later.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Last year the imports
under this item were valued at $184,000. Of that amount $41,000 worth came from the United Kingdom and $142,000 worth from the United States.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: They were all free before; why was the change made?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: To give a preference. This was an item upon which Great Britain laid particular stress.


Jean-François Pouliot: My remarks will be very
brief, because I am speaking on a matter of principle. Now that there is a change of government in the United States why should we alienate the good will of our neighbours?


Mr. ROBINSON:: How about the Hawley-Smoot tariff?


Jean-François Pouliot: The Hawley-Smoot tariff
was passed by the administration which the Prime Minister, with his scheme of waterways, has tried to support. Perhaps he was the best canvasser outside the United States for the Hoover administration. Now that that administration has been defeated we have to
1254	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
view matters from another angle. I am sorry to speak in that way, but as a Canadian it is my duty to do so. We are sorry to see trade continually decreasing, and for the sake of the people of Canada who are iru very bad circumstances on account of decreased trade, I make these few remarks. Are we to continue our trade decrease? That is the whole matter. I believe it is my duty to voice a protest, in the hope that better times will follow in due course.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: With regard to the remarks of the hon. member for Temiseouata, may I point out that it is hardly correct to say that there has been a change of government in the United States. True, there has been an election, but so far there has been no change of government.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: But, like this government, it will change very soon.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If there is one country in the world which has always taken the stand -and I am not finding fault with it-that tariffs are matters peculiarly of their own concern, it is the United States. I am sure it is the last country in the world which could take exception to any tariff legislation we may wish to pass, whether it affects them directly or indirectly.


Jean-François Pouliot: To a certain extent I
agree with what the minister has said. To his comments concerning the actual administration of the United States I cannot take exception. But every one in this country and in the world knows that President Hoover started a tariff war, and his example was followed by European countries. His experiment proved to be detrimental to Canada, nevertheless we know that his endorser in this part of the world was the Prime Minister of Canada.


Finlay MacDonald: Is the hon. member speaking to
the item in question?


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes, I think I am, and I shall state why:	I am speaking of the effect
a certain policy has had on the trade of this country.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Vicious protection.


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes, as the hon. member has said, it has been a policy of vicious protection. The important point is that we are on the wrong road. Extreme protection was originated by President Hoover. He took that course because he believed himself to be one of the saviours of the world.


Finlay MacDonald: I do not think the hon. member
is directing his remarks to item 386. Is he coming to it?


Jean-François Pouliot: No, I am not coming to
it; I am adding to it. I am against it. I cannot see what beneficial results can accrue from this change in tariff. I am speaking generally, and have chosen to make some statements on this item. I should like to express my views in the matter once and for all.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am thankful to hear the hon. members applaud, because it proves that they are listening. If they will listen I shall try to convert them, although I realize I have a very difficult task. I desire only to refer to some of the results of the movement towards general increase in tariffs which gained momentum three or four years ago. At that time President Hoover said he was protecting everybody; in fact he used the same language that our Prime Minister used afterward. What has been the result? There has been a depression in the United States and, under a similar policjq a depression in Canada, which is becoming worse from day to day. This is my protest, and I hope, Mr. Chairman, that you will record or register it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask the Minister of Finance whether in the resolutions which he has placed before the house there are items which do not appear in schedule E of the bill, but which relate to the matter we are now discussing?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The items do not relate
to the agreement as such, but they make the necessary adjustments in view of the fact that certain items have been split up and others have been taken out of the general list. They are what might be termed consequential items, and are introduced to bring our tariff in line with the conference alterations.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In item 386
as it appears in the bill there are two special items, namely (a) and (m). The part marked (m) is subdivided into parts (i) and (ii). In the resolutions which my hon. friend laid on the table there are, in addition, items 386 (p) and 386 (q) which do not appear in schedule E to the agreement. Do I understand from him that these last two are simply what he terms consequential or readjusting items?

United Kingdom


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes. As a matter of fact the particular items to which the right hon. gentleman has referred have been dealt with previously tonight.


James Malcolm: What is meant by the
expression "under regulations prescribed by the minister" as it appears in the main part of item 386?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: That wording is in the
parent item at the present time. Its purpose is to enable the Minister of National Revenue to impose regulations should he deem it necessary so to do.


James Malcolm: What regulations would
be needed in connection with this item that are not needed in others?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: These regulations are laid
down prescribing the method of entry and the declaration forms which are necessary in respect of goods for particular use. This is a matter concerning administration with which I am not personally very familiar, but I am told the practice has been followed for several years.


James Malcolm: Does it apply to other
items?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes, to quite a number of them.


James Malcolm: It seems rather strange.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: No; this is not new, it
was in the old item.


James Malcolm: While the minister's explanation is fairly satisfactory I hardly see why it should be in here and not in some other comparable items. Item (a) of 386 would appear to me to be almost a repair item, dealing with:
(a) Plates, when imported by manufacturers for use exclusively in the manufacture or repair of the pressure parts of boilers, pulp digesters, steam accumulators and vessels for the refining of oil, in their own factories.
Free from Great Britain. I may be mistaken, but I should judge that for the type of oil refining and paper manufacturing machinery for which these plates may be imported free from Great Britain, but are dutiable to the extent of $5 a ton from the United States, they would always come from the people in the United States who made the original machines. The minister pointed out that the sum total of imports of this class was only $114,000, and that practically all of it came from the United States. The
item has been free in all columns until the present. I hardly' think this change is going to be of any great help to British manufacturers. I think the manufacturers who have to import these plates to repair machinery will just pay the tax of $5 a ton.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: These two items are taken from the parent item No. 386 in our tariff, which reads as follows:
Sheets, plates, hoop, band or strip, of iron or steel, as hereunder defined, under regulations prescribed by the minister.
That is the heading of the article. I am informed that it has been in the tariff for many years. My hon. friend if he had before him the item would observe that it covers almost three pages; it is subdivided undei (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), down to (o). The first sub-item referred to here was in the original parent item as free, free, free, but it does not follow that the same applies throughout the subdivisions in the various columns, as I think my hon. friend had in mind; because the very next item carries a duty in the intermediate and general, and so do items (e), (f), (h), (k), (1), (m), (n), and (o).


James Layton Ralston: One item of (m) is free.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Quite so.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The minister
will notice that in this item 386 (m) there are two divisions, (i) and (ii). Under the rate as it was prior to the conference, in each case the intermediate was 74 per cent and the general tariff 10 per cent. Under the tariff as it now stands the intermediate in one case has been raised to 15 per cent and in the other to 26 per cent; and the general has been raised to 15 per cent in one case and tc 20 per cent in the other. Will the ministei tell us why, when they were both the same before, they are now different rates, in one case 15 and the other 20 per cent, as against 74 and 10 per cent? Why were they not both made the same as they were before?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: They cover two different
types of commodities.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: They did before.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Quite so. I am not in a
position to give a definite answer, other than to say that these are what emerged as a result of the agreement between the British and Canadian representatives.
1256	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The minister's reply enables me to state what I am most anxious to bring out, namely, the contrast, as far as enlightening the House of Commons in respect to what it is doing in a matter of taxation is concerned, between this way of making tariffs and the way tariffs have been made hitherto. In the old days, as my hon. friend well knows, before a revision of the tariff was attempted there was something in the nature of a tariff commission appointed. It used to be composed of members of the administration, who went from one end of the country to the other, and if tariff changes were sought the parties desiring them were allowed to appear and make out their case. Other parties were also heard, the farmers were given opportunity to state their views, consumers generally were allowed to appear and state their views, with the result that when the government came to the House of Commons with its proposed tariff changes it was able to give the reasons why the tariffs were being fixed at particular rates. Later, when that practice was discontinued, there was established a tariff advisory board, and before that board parties likely to be affected by any change in the tariff were given opportunity to be heard; so that when the Minister of Finance was presenting his budget with its tariff changes he was in a position to say, not merely that one party in interest had been heard, but that all parties had been heard and given a chance to state how they would be affected by the changes.
Now my hon. friend tells us: This was agreed to at the conference. Let us follow that. The conference was a secret conclave, no one except the members of the administration who were present knows anything about what took place, or is supposed to know. In other words the public, the ones who are affected by what has taken place, have no knowledge whatever of the reasons which actuated the administration, and the administration is now unable to give reasons, beyond "this is what was agreed to." And, as the minister told us a few minutes ago, agreed to as a result of discussions between the manufacturing interests in the old country and the manufacturing industries in Canada, the special interests which are being given added favours. How the government can expect the people of the country to have any confidence in a tariff fashioned in that way I fail to see.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: With what my right hon. friend has said as to what is known as a re-
[Mr. Rhodes.!
vision of the tariff, that is the bringing down of a budget and dealing with tariff items therein, I am in entire accord. But my right hon. friend must realize that it is a far different matter when you are dealing with an agreement, as we are at the present time. Of necessity conferences have to be in secret. It would be unthinkable-I do not know that in all history it has ever been otherwise- that agreements should be entered into between one nation and another in any other manner. My right hon. friend must also bear in mind that it very frequently happens, I might almost say invariably, that in the course of negotiations a country will grant in respect to individual commodities more concessions than it would at first be disposed to agree to, and the other might do the same thing. In the final analysis, in order to bring about a meeting of minds, there is compromise. Therefore with respect to individual items such as the one in question, it is impossible for me to give my right hon. friend any other reply than I have given. I submit that on this point there is a distinct difference between tariff items which arise by reason of an agreement between nations, and tariff items which are dealt with in the ordinary way in respect of a budget. In the latter case the question which my right hon. friend asked would be susceptible of answer, because it would be the direct result of the government's action with respect to its particular policy. In the case of an agreement it might be-I do not say it is-that in respect to these items we might very well have desired to carry them at the same relative levels a3 they heretofore held, but as a result of the conference discussions this is what emerged as something upon which ultimately we all could agree.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to my hon. friend-and I think he must admit it-that what we have before us at present is to all intents and purposes a budget. It is a very much larger tariff revision, I think, than has ever taken place in this house before. There may have been two others comparable in size, but really it is a very extensive revision of the tariff. If what had been done at the conference had been merely to increase the preference to Great Britain by the lowering of existing rates, leaving the intermediate and general tariffs where they were, I could see some force in what has just been said about arriving at an agreement in regard to the changes in the tariff. But it goes away beyond anything of that kind. This arrangement in-

United Kingdom
creases the general and intermediate tariff on over 130 items, I think, and when you split them up as has been done in the schedule you can easily make two or three times that number. It is an increase in the intermediate and general tariffs on all those items-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Not all.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: On the 130 or
more, yet in regard to all those increases there is no reason to be given as to why they are made, other than that it was agreed to by representatives of industries between representatives of the different governments, at a secret conference to which the public had no access at all. I think my hon. friend must see in his heart of hearts the weakness of his case.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I rise to say only one word. I cannot add to the argument I made previously; it may be good or bad. I think it is good and absolutely sound, and I can tell my hon. friend that in my heart of hearts I believe the answer I have given is the only one I could give in the circumstances.


James Malcolm: I should like to ask my hon. friend if he is the minister referred to who prescribes the regulations, or it is the Minister of National Revenue.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It is the Minister of National Revenue.


James Malcolm: I would feel a great deal more comfortable about it if it were my hon. friend. I think the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Trade and Commerce, both of whom are vitally interested in the questions of revenue and of trade, are sometimes defeated in their aims simply by the absurd regulations that are drawn up in the Department of National Revenue. Some of the benefits which are supposed to accrue under these treaties may be entirely nullified by regulations made in that department. If there is on disturbing factor in the busines world today it is that no importer knows under what rate he can import his goods. With reference to these regulations, if they are to be prescribed by the Department of National Revenue as it has been administered during the past year of two, I think the Minister of Finance should let us know what the regulations will be. This afternoon I pointed out one item which has been called to our attention; that was the importation of silk, in connection with which according to my information the regulations are defeating direct trade. I am quite sure that is not being done at the wish of the Minister of Trade and Commerce or of anyone else who wants direct -53719-80
trade with the countries with which we do business; it comes about simply because of a certain regulation which provides that if the goods come from the country in which they are produced the excise is collected on the par of exchange, while if they come from New York the excise is calculated on another amount, making it cheaper to bring the goods from New York than direct from the country of origin. There will be a number of regulations in the administration of these items, and I ask the Minister of National Revenue to take a little interest in the matter himself and not leave it entirely to a few officers in the department.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It by no means follows that because this provision is in the act, as it has been for many years, any regulations have been or will be set up under it. Upon that point, however, I will make the necessary inquiries and advise my hon. friend at the next sitting of the committee.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Guthrie the house adjourned at 10.55 p.m.
Thursday, November 17, 1932