1932-11-15

UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF

Hon. W. A. GORDON (Minister of Labour) :: I desire to lay on the table of the house several orders in council passed pursuant to the relief measures, all referring to payments of money.



REPORT OF PIG COMMISSION

Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I wish to lay on the table of the house the report, asked for last night by hon. members, of the British reorganization commission on pigs and pig products.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. BOTHWELL:: 1.	What returns, if any, has the government received from the Saskatchewan relief commission, or the Saskatchewan government, this year, on account of the notes taken from farmers of that province for relief extended from September 1, 1931, to date?
2.	What moneys, and on what dates, have been advanced by the government to the Saskatchewan relief commission, or the Saskatchewan government for relief purposes, since March 31, 1932?
3.	What is the amount of indebtedness incurred by the Saskatchewan relief commission, and not paid, up to November 1, 1932?


Mr. GORDON:: 1.	None.
2.	To the Saskatchewan government for the credit of the Saskatchewan relief commission for relief: May 19, 1932, $1,500,000; July 25, 1932, $2,000,000; August 18, 1932, $1,500,000 and for seed and seeding operations: April 6, 1932, $2,000,000; April 12, 1932, $2,000,000; May 4, 1932, $2,000,000.
To the Saskatchewan government by way of loans to enable the province to make loans to municipalities, and for other governmental services: April 24, 1932, $500,000; September 14, 1932, $646,962 04.
3.	No information.


UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF-GRANBY, QUE.
Mr. TETREAULT:: 1.	Did the municipal council of the township of Granby make an application for unemployment relief money in 1930?
2.	If so, what was the amount?
3.	On what date did the provincial government of Quebec produce its accounts with respect to this application?
4.	Were representations made to the federal government regarding the settlement of these accounts?
5.	If so, by whom and on what date were such representations made?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: 1 and 2. Under the Unemployment Relief Act, 1930, federal approval was given to a program of relief works submitted by the province of Quebec on behalf of Granby township, consisting of road works, water works, and bridge work, the total estimated cost of which amounted to $6,000, to which the Dominion government agreed to contribute 25 per cent or $1,500.
3, 4, and 5. No accounts have yet been received from the provincial government in respect to the works above referred to. On August 11, 1932, the Dominion wrote to the province stating that it wa3 understood that accounts covering the works referred to had been forwarded to the province by the municipality, and asking if accounts would be rendered to the Dominion government. Under date of August 24 the provincial authorities replied stating that they were awaiting a reply to communications addressed by the province to the municipality.


CLARK STEAMSHIP COMPANY
[Stage Direction]
Mr. LaVERGNE:
1.	Did the Clark Steamship Company receive subsidies from the government during the past ten years?
2.	If so, what were the amounts of subsidies and for what purposes were they granted?
Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) For each season of navigation on the St. Lawrence from 1922 to 1924, inclusive: (1) Quebec and Natashquan, etc., $85,000 per

Questions

season for a weekly mail, passenger and freight service on the north shore; (2) Quebec, Gaspe and Paspebiac, $30,000 per season for a fortnightly passenger and freight service on the south shore.
(b)	For each season of navigation on the St. Lawrence from 1925 to 1934, inclusive;
(1)	Quebec and Natashquan, etc., $85,000 peT season for a weekly mail, passenger and freight service on the north shore, with larger ships;
(2)	Quebec (or Montreal) and Gaspe, $60,000 per season for a weekly passenger and freight service on the south shore, with larger ships.
(c)	Murray Bay and North Shore (winter service) : (1) December, 1928 to March 1929, inclusive two round trips each month between Murray bay and north shore ports: Subsidy, $32,900 for the season. (2) December 1929 to March 1930, inclusive two round trips each month between Murray bay and north shore ports, Subsidy, $32,900 for the season.


SS. ARCTIC
Mr. CHEVRIER:: 1.	What amount of money, if any, was paid
by the Canadian government to any one as compensation, damages or otherwise in connection with the death of Wilfrid Caron, third officer of the ss. Arctic?	_
2.	What amount of money, if any, was paid
by the Canadian government as compensation, damages or otherwise in the case of the death of Desmond O'Connell, drowned in trying to save one Wilfrid Caron on the night of July 9, 1923?	.	.
3.	If any money was paid in the case of Desmlond O'Connell: (a) to whom was it paid; (b) what was the amount paid; (c) on what date was it paid?
4.	Were the lives of Wilfrid Caron and Desmond O'Connell covered by any Workmen's Compensation Act?
5.	If any settlement was made in both or in either of the above cases, what were the terms and who were the parties thereto?


Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	$3,920.44 (Grant $3,500, funeral expenses, etc. $420.44).
2.	$1,914.65 (Grant $1,500, funeral expenses, etc. $414.65).
3.	(a) His mother, (b) $1,500 (c) June 30, 1924, $500, July 26, 1924, $1,000.
(a)	Lueien Warren (b) $179.45 (c) Oct. 23, 1923.
(a)The Journal Dailies (b) $11.20 (c) Nov. 9, 1923.
(a)	Brady & Harris (b) $224.00 (c) Nov. 9, 1923.
4.	The legal officers of the crown did not think so and special grants were obtained from parliament.
5.	Answered by No. 3.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Were employees of the Post Office Department dismissed since the month of August, 1930, on charges of political interference in connection with provincial elections?
2.	If so, how many of these employees were dismissed since that date in each province for political interference in connection with provincial elections?


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT-RESIGNATIONS
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Since August 1,	1930, have any postmasters resigned after receiving a circular from the Post Office Department?2.	If so:	(a) to how many postmasters in
each province were circulars forwarded; (b) how many postmasters resigned in each province after receiving these circulars; (c) what are the names and respective addresses of those who resigned in the province of Quebec, and the date of resignation of each postmaster?



WHEAT MARKETING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: The Prime Minister said yesterday that he would ascertain whether orders in council had been passed concerning guarantees for the sale of grain.


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) :: I was about to rise to inform the
house that the order in council of September 12, 1931, P.C. 2238, was dealt with last year and was also referred to by the Minister of Finance in the budget. Order in council P.C. 1576 of July 11, 1932, was precised and notice thereof given in the Gazette according to the terms of the statute of July 16, 1932, at page 133. Order in council No. 2077 of September 20, 1932 was precised and an abstract then made was published in the Gazette on October 1, 1932, at page 784, all in accordance with the terms of the statute. I will lay them on the table now or send them to my hon. friend. Perhaps they had better be laid on the table.	.



SOLDIER SETTLEMENT-MR. F. N. MURPHY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. CAMERON R. McINTOSH (North Battleford):	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,

Farm Relief-Saskatchewan
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.
Wesley Ashton Gordon: Had the
hon. member referred this inquiry to me or *to the soldier settlement board, the information would have been promptly forthcoming. There is no question in my mind, without even referring to the file, that this returned soldier would have received a revaluation under the remedial legislation passed by this house if he had fallen within the statute as then passed. There is no question about it. In all the files I have reviewed I have never come across one single case where a returned soldier was refused the right to take advantage of this remedial legislation. As regards the present case, I will look into the matter and a reply will be given either directly to the hon. member or in the house.


Mr. McINTOSH:: I might say for the
benefit of the minister-[DOT]


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I am giving him information. I might say for the benefit of the minister that every request made of the department met with but one answer, namely, ''Mr. Murphy is not a returned man"-referring to the soldier's father. I think it is time an impartial investigation was held and the matter cleared up, because up to the moment nothing has been done-nothing but discouragement to the soldier affected.



FARM RELIEF-SASKATCHEWAN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. F. DONNELLY (Willow Bunch):: I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. I have here a telegram which I have received from the secretary of representatives of eleven villages in the drought-stricken area of southern Saskatchewan. They state that they are unable to pay their share 53719-731
of the cost of direct relief this winter because they have not the money. They are willing, however, to obligate themselves to repay later on their share of the amount required. Will the Prime Minister assure the house that the government will help these villages to finance the situation so that they may be in a position to take care of their destitute in the coming winter. Is he willing to confer with the representatives from this drought-stricken area with a view to enabling them to meet the situation?	,


Richard Bedford Bennett: The position has been made so
clear and so many times that one is rather surprised that such a question should be asked by any hon. member. The Dominion government has no contact with villages or other municipalities. They will make their claim: to the provincial administration and the government of the province communicates with the dominion. It is the only constitutional means by which communication can be maintained between the municipalities and the-dominion, namely, through the provinces; and in all other provinces, as in that province, such communications are going on from time to time as the occasion may necessitate. If the villages will communicate with their government at Regina, I am perfectly certain that that government will take the proper action.


Thomas F. Donnelly: I want to thank the
Prime Minister for the consideration he has given these destitute people.



RADIO COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JOSEPH A. BRADETTE (Timis-kaming-Nortb) (Translation):	Mr. Speaker,
according to a newspaper item recently published, the radio commission is to undertake an inspection tour, shortly, throughout Canada. In the absence of the hon. Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau), perhaps the hon. Solicitor General (Mr. Dupre), might inform the house whether it would be possible for the commission to begin its inspection in New Ontario, where radio reception is very poor?
Hon. MAURICE DUPRE (Acting Minister of Marine) (Translation):: In reply, may I
state that nothing has been decided in this respect. However, I shall be pleased to communicate to the commission the wishes of my hon. colleague.
1148	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements



BROADCASTING LICENCES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Ernest Lapointe: May I ask the Solicitor General, the Acting Minister of Marine, whether it is true that new licences for broadcasting stations have been issued recently.


Maurice Dupré: I do not think any have been issued since the commission was appointed.



TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CANADA AND THE UNITED KINGDOM

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, November 14, 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. LaVergne in the [DOT]chair.
The CHAIRMAN:: We are on article 6. Shall this article carry?


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: I presume that now that the government has tabled the report of the pig commission in the United Kingdom -we shall be in a position to get a summary of it today. Of course, it does not remain long on the table before it goes into the usual channels of distribution. Sooner or later it will be available to the house. Could we get a summary today from the minister?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I would point out again to the committee that as far as the government is concerned we are most anxious to give the fullest possible information. I have before me a brief summary of this report but it must be remembered that until this report has been given effect to by legislation of the British parliament, discussion, other than the perusal of an interesting document, cannot have any effect upon the acceptance or otherwise of the agreement. I think that fact should be borne in mind, otherwise we are liable to get into a long discussion in connection with the views of the British pig products commission without adding anything to the usefulness of the debate. I again assure the committee that as far as I am concerned and I am sure as far as the government as a whole is concerned, we are most anxious to give the fullest possible information compatible with the reasonably expeditious passing of the business before the committee. There has not been time to study the very voluminous report of this commis-
IMr Dupre]
sion, but after glancing through it I believe the following points might be of interest to the committee.
First, that although Great Britain consumes sixty per cent of the world's exports of pig products, the industry in that country is poorly organized and has at least fifteen important weaknesses.
Second, the bacon supplies must be stabilized and imports restricted. The sale of pigs under an annual contract system between pig raisers and the curers, together with the application of a quota system on imports, are recommended.
Third, the curers receive spasmodic instead of regular supplies due to the allocation of a large amount of pig production to the pork market. I might say that this report differentiates very clearly between bacon hog production and pig products or ordinary pork production. Segregation of the bacon and the pork requirements is recommended, the former to be carefully controlled by contracts and import quotas, the latter to be left unregulated.
Fourth, the cost of production of bacon in Great Britain is much too high owing to inefficiencies in the industry. I want to make it clear that these are the views of the commission; I am offering no opinion.
Fifth, research in connection with pig offal and other by-products is to be undertaken.
Sixth, a well organized markets intelligence service responsible to the development board is to be inaugurated.
Seventh, a pigs marketing board and bacon marketing board responsible to the pig industry development board are recommended for the rationalization of the industry and a quota advisory committee to determine requirements of bacon in Great Britain.
Very roughly stated, these are the matters dealt -with in the report. There are certain statistics given but I think they really repeat what were given yesterday. However, for the information of the committee and its guidance and enlightenment, I shall give the percentages of total imports from different countries. The report gives the following percentages for the period January to August, 1932:
Per cent
Denmark	 64
Poland	 9'8
Netherlands	 5-9
United States	 4-5
Sweden	 3 * 7
Lithuania	 4-2
Irish Free State	 1'4
Canada	 3
Other countries		3-5

United Kingdom


Thomas F. Donnelly: According to an editorial which appeared in a recent issue of the Live Stock Journal, it would appear that what the minister has just said is correct, that, practically speaking, this is to be a quota system.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is difficult to hear the hon. member.


Thomas F. Donnelly: I gather from this editorial that this matter is to be organized in England along much the same lines as the wheat pool was organized in Canada, the farmers of Great Britain are to sign up and those who do sign up will receive certain consideration and certain prices for their hogs, while the others will receive no consideration whatever. Perhaps I had better read a sentence or two from this editorial which puts the matter in shorter form.


An hon. MEMBER:: What paper is that?


Thomas F. Donnelly: The Livestock Journal,
a well known British publication. The editorial reads:
The farmers will be guaranteed a return that is to vary reasonably with the cost of feeding of normally used feeding stuffs. It will not be a price obtainable by anybody who may choose to send a pig to the nearest factory regardless of the factory's current requirements. It is one to be paid for pigs contracted to be sold.
In other words, the man who signs this contract will be guaranteed a price and the man who does not, will not be guaranteed a price. What I should like to know is whether the Canadian farmer who exports hogs is to be in the position of the farmer in Great Britain *who signs a contract or of the farmer who docs not.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I must repeat that editorial opinions based upon this report, no matter how intelligent they may be, cannot be accepted as the decision of the British parliament. It would be but poor speculation for me to answ'er the question of my hon. friend. I emphasize again the futility of entering into a discussion of this question of contracts. I am bound to say to my hon. friend, if I say anything, that it is suggested in the report that there shall be contractual arrangements entered into internally between growers and producers and, externally, with importers, the whole basis being the regulation of the pig and pork industry of Great Britain. I appeal to hon. gentlemen and state that any opinion which I might offer is quite worthless because the British government itself has not come to a decision upon the matter. I think hon.
gentlemen should be at least reasonable in the questions they ask; I am willing to answer any question which it is possible to answer, but there are certain things I cannot answer. I do not wish to be discourteous to my hon. friend, but I think he will see the point in my observation.


Thomas F. Donnelly: I quite agree with the minister that anything he might say to us apparently is not of any value in connection with this matter. I am thoroughly convinced that this is another promise, a promise to do something which will never materialize. I say to the minister that the farmers throughout the country have been fed up with these promises and we think it is time we got something real, something which will be of some advantage. Last night the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) told us that he never advocated a greater production in pigs. I sat in the audience up in Clinton in South Huron and listened to him speak. If he did not advocate a greater production in the hog industry then I do not understand the King's English-I'm a Chinaman.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Thomas F. Donnelly: He told us distinctly
that in 1931 he did not advocate going into pigs but he told us also that he went around the country and sold a lot of sows to the farmers. He said he had gone out of the pig growing industry himself at that time, but he said that at the time of speaking he had again taken up pig raising. He said that he thought we were going to get a better price for our hogs and he advised our farmers to go into the hog industry. There is no mistaking the words he uttered there. I do not understand English if that is not the impre-sion he left on the audience. This is just another promise, another shifting, and the farmers getting nothing. We had the same thing during the 1930 election campaign and we are still getting it.


Mr. WEIR (Melfort):: It is scarcely necessary to rise, because no one knows better than the hon. gentleman who has just spoken that if he was in the Clinton audience and heard what I said, he did not hear me say what he reports me as having said.


Mr. YOUNG:: If I correctly understand
article 6 of the agreement, it is this, that Great Britain declares her intention of establishing a quota system, and further on that if she does so, our share of the quota will be

Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
2,500,000 hundredweight which will be admitted into British ports free of duty. But that admission free of duty is conditional on Great Britain establishing a quota system. Supposing she declares her intention of establishing such a system, and in the report just read by the minister that is recommended to the British government. For my part I find it very difficult to understand how she can make a quota system work, and it is my opinion that when she has tried it, the British government will have to modify its plans and perhaps have to abandon that system. If then Great Britain does not establish a quota system; if she desires to protect her hog producers by means of a tariff, then under this agreement not a single pound of Canadian bacon can enter the United Kingdom free of duty.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend is all
wrong in that. That is provided for in the agreement.


Edward James Young: The article distinctly states:
In any legislation which they may submit to parliament for regulating the supplies of bacon and hams from all sources into the United Kingdom-
-up to a certain point. That is only the quota regulation. Under no other condition shall we get free entry.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is mot so.


Edward James Young: That is the way the article reads.


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: In studying article 6, in which naturally I take a certain amount of interest, I must confess with others I am unable to determine exactly what measure of assistance will be given. That has not yet been decided. The interpretation I can draw from it, however, is (thus, that the condition of the pig industry in Great Britain being unsatisfactory, a commission has been appointed which has now completed its work, its purpose being the reestablishment of the pig industry there, which must carry with it some degree at least of price stabilization . at a decent level. This may be done in one way or another. The quota system may be applied in different ways, but one application of it might well be this, that having estimated the number of hogs which can properly be produced in Great Britain, they will admit into that country freely no more than sufficient to make up any deficiency as between the amount produced at home and that required for home consumption. When one speaks of

regulating the hog industry and regulating imports, the most common way of regulating imports is to erect some sort of barrier against imports in excess of the amount required, and this barrier would in all probability be a tariff in some shape or form. Then, within the amount necessary, a certain amount will be allotted to the different dominions, each of whom might ship in freely within the restricted marketing field the amount allotted to it. The probabilities then are-and again I am in, the position of all others that we do not know just what Great Britain will do-if the importation is regulated and restricted by means of some form of tariff against other commodities and against quantities in excess of the British requirements, the effect will be a rise in price and we, having our product admitted free up to the maximum allowed us, will receive the advantage of that increase. I see at least some hope, while not one that would lead me as a farmer to raise many hogs, that after the law has been passed and the regulations brought down, we shall share in the improved conditions and better markets in Great Britain.
There is, however, another point I want to bring forward at the moment. I am not going to stress again the question of exchange. That applies, of course, to hogs as to other commodities and it has been thoroughly dealt with on all sides and on many occasions. But let me suggest that with hogs above anything else, if we are to take advantage of this market, we must be in a position to regulate, supervise and control not only our own hog production, but our hog export and our hog market. To take full advantage of this, it will be essential that the marketing board which was discussed a few months ago should be established, because to me at least, it is obvious that one of the chief conditions under which the British importers will do business with Canada will be that they may depend at all times upon receiving from this country the requisite number of hogs week after week and month after month, no matter what the state of the market may be. I come from the mother country, but that was a long time ago. From what I know of British habits, from what I have read and heard from men with whom I have spoken, I gather that the British importer will not take the trouble to advertise and to develop a taste for hogs or any other commodity

United Kingdom
coming from Canada or any other country unless he is quite certain that, after he has developed that appetite and the potential market, the market will be filled.
While the conference was in progress and while I was in attendance to gather the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table, I had an opportunity of coming into contact with a number of the delegates and officials there. That question was discussed by me with them and there was unanimity on the part of all those from Great Britain with whom I spoke, that while that country would be quite willing to transfer a portion of her trade in bacon and other commodities from Denmark and other countries outside the empire to Canada, that could be done only if the British importers and consumers were as well assured of receiving a regular supply of uniform quality from us as they are now assured of receiving from Denmark. The same provision applies to oattle. To my mind it is obvious that if we are to get this business, the appointment as soon as is reasonably possible of an export board which can supervise and control that trade, becomes essential. I know this is in the mind of the government. May I express the hope that in order that we may take as full advantage as is possible of whatever conditions may be imposed

and it will be noticed that I am not speaking now of what conditions may be imposed-not only will the question of exchange be dealt with, but a marketing board will be established which will be able to guide, regulate and control that trade so that we may take full advantage of any opportunities that are offered.


Mr. POULIOT:: Would it not be appropriate to quote Shakespeare on the matter? Is it not refreshing to think that this agreement can be compared with that well known play A Midsummer Night's Dream?


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: Much Ado About Nothing.


Jean-François Pouliot: This article is very interesting; it relates to the pig industry, but it should read the "potential" pig industry. To complete article 6 may I read an excerpt from page 124 of Hansard of October 12, when the right hon. the Prime Minister said:
Under favourable marketing conditions and with a price maintained continuously above the cost of production, Canada has potential possibilities-
Those potential possibilities are synonymous with hog futures:
-for the production of 8,590,000 hogs by 1937-
When several of us and many farmers throughout this country will be dead, as well as many hogs:
-permitting of an export volume of 300,000,000 pounds of bacon and 10,000,000 hogs by 1942, permitting of an export volume of 500,000,000 pounds of bacon and hams.
That is an enormous, a voluminous quantity of hogs and bacon and ham. During the last weekends I had the opportunity to visit and meet farmers in different communities in Ontario and Quebec, and I find that the farmers are reading Hansard with great interest. They read the speeches made by every member of this house and pay particular attention to the speeches delivered by the right hon. gentleman who leads the government. They tried to read between the lines of the excerpt I have just quoted to understand what the right hon. gentleman meant by potential hog possibilities. They asked me for an explanation and I gave the same explanation to the farmers of Ontario that I gave to the farmers of Quebec. I said:	Suppose Joe want to
borrow $500. He goes to the bank manager who asks him, "What is your security?" Joe replies, "I can offer yiou gilt-edged security, something as good as a first-grade bond, and that is my potential hog possibilities in five years, that is, the hogs I shall have by 1937." Then another fellow said, "What should I do to get $1,000?" I told him that was very easy, that he had only to go to the bank manager and offer him as security his potential hog possibilities in the next ten years. "Oh," he said jokingly, "write it down on paper and I will go to the bank manager and see him about it."
The reason, Mr. Chairman, why the farmers are in difficulties at the present time is because of the low prices of agricultural products. Conditions are so bad that in one township not far from here the farmers owe $75,000 for tax arrears. Will they be able to pay those tax arrears with potential hog possibilities? I do not know, but it seems rather doubtful. Prosperity was to come back, but as the lady has not yet returned I hope that the government will do something more definite for the relief of the farmer than simply to offer him these potential hog possibilities.

Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements


Alfred Speakman: There is one point I forgot to mention in connection with the export price, and it is really a very important point. As those who are at all familiar with the industry well know, a small exportable surplus hanging over the market and with no adequate facilities arranged for its sale, has a very deleterious effect upon the domestic price. Last year, for example, for about two months centreing around August and September, the average price of hogs in Canada fell from eight to four cents a pound. No new factor had been introduced during that time except this, that our production had slightly increased and that in consequence there had come on the market five per cent of an exportable surplus. The advantage of being able to export such a surplus is not merely in the price which you may receive for that exportable surplus itself, but there is the greater advantage of ridding the domestic market of that quantity in excess of domestic requirements. It does seem to me that to have even an open market in which we can get rid of that exportable surplus, even though the price may not be very attractive, has a very beneficial and stabilizing effect upon the prices received for the far greater number of animals sold in Canada itself. That is one point which we must keep in mind when we are considering the export of such commodities as hog products and other products of that type, when for the present at least and during recent years the number we export is but a very small percentage of our total sales.


Mr. SANDERSON:: Mr. Chairman, I noticed in the press this morning that the Hon. Howard Ferguson, Canadian High Commissioner in London, had given a statement to the press-I think on Saturday-in which he prophesied that, owing to article 6 of this treaty, the hog industry in the Dominion of Canada would make every Canadian farmer rich within the next year or two. I would like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce if it is possible that the High Commissioner has some information about this matter that the minister has not got. No answer.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Chairman, that sort of tactics is not fair. My hon. friend knows very well that as long as he is on his feet I am not privileged to get up. He is not going to get away with that sort of thing.


Frederick George Sanderson: I am sitting down.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I was waiting until my hon. friend followed the- ordinary course in debate and sat down to permit me to rise.

There is an answer and a very definite answer. In the first place it would be an extraordinary thing if Hon. Howard Ferguson did not have more up-to-date information than I have about what is happening in England; there is no doubt in the world that he has, because he is a very live individual and is very closely in touch with what is going on. It might be of interest to the committee for me to give the substance of a cablegram that we have received from our own officers in London. It is to the effect that the British government has already taken action to reduce the imports of bacon from continental countries by twenty per cent, effective midnight November 22, and that Danish prices and Canadian prices have advanced four shillings per hundredweight already. I am not advancing that, and I would suggest to my hon. friends opposite not to interpret it as such, by way of suggesting thait. some wonderful utopian period is being ushered in. I am stating it as a simple fact. It is an indication which I think we can reasonably accept that this particular arrangement is going to be beneficial to Canadian trade.


Frederick George Sanderson: I had no intention of being discourteous to the minister at all.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Frederick George Sanderson: I wish to say to hon. members opposite that I have nothing to learn from them. Apparently the minister is not quite sure whether the High Commissioner in London has any more information about this matter than he has. I shall come nearer home. A few days ago the Minister of Agriculture in the Ontario legislature, Colonel Kennedy, made a statement in which he pictured a very rosy future for farmers in the hog industry. He said that in a year or two the hog industry would increase ten fold or twenty fold, and that it would come to a point-and I am suggesting that he is probably a prophet or a son of a prophet-whereby as a result of this wonderful treaty the farmers in the province of Ontario would be able to pay theii taxes from their activity in the hog industry. Perhaps he had some information the Minister of Trade and Commerce has not got.
A few moments ago the minister said discussion was futile; I think that is correct. There is not a single, solitary commitment in article 6 which will benefit the farmers in Canada engaged in the hog industry. It is all eye-wash and window dressing. It is possible that something may work out of it, but in the meantime there is nothing to it at all. The minister and his supporters say, "Look

United Kingdom
at what this government has done for the farmers in Canada." A few moments ago he quoted prices, and in that connection I want to say to him that on Saturday in the county of Perth the farmers received only 2.90 cents per pound for their hogs. That is the lowest price paid for hogs in the history of farming in the province of Ontario. Yet this government comes to parliament with not even a half-baked article concerning this important industry. They would have been far better if they had left to some future date, this alleged aid to the hog industry, because I want to tell the Minister of Trade and Commerce-and the Prime Minister who, I am glad to see, is in his seat-that the fanners of the province of Ontario are fed up, sick and tired of promises made by this government to them. They want something real. They want the government to fulfil some of its promises. If this agreement is all that is to be offered the farmers of Ontario, so far as the hog industry is concerned, they will soon learn that there is nothing to it at all.
True, this discussion is futile, but the fault is not with the opposition but with the government. They bring in an article which means nothing at all. It simply means that if so and so happens, or if the commission happens to report so and so the United Kingdom may take a certain amount of Canadian bacon and ham at world prices. It offers no solace or comfort to the farmers in Ontario. I make that statement despite what the Prime Minister, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, the Minister of Agriculture in Ontario or that great mogul the High Commissioner in London, may have to say.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, I will come to the rescue of the Hon. G. Howard Ferguson, and explain why he has given an interview to the press. At page 14 of the Montreal Gazette for Saturday last I find the following:
The High Commissioner, the Financial Times said, predicted that Canadian farmers were going to be more prosperous than they had been for a long time and that the British bacon quota -would do more for them than any other single thing.
There is one reason for that statement, and it is this: Mr. Ferguson, the High Commissioner is a farmer. On his farm down at Kemptville he has great potential hog possibilities.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Jean-François Pouliot: Why do you protest? I
am defending him with all my strength.


William Richard Motherwell: Mr. Chairman, I
am not going to prolong this debate but I should like to express my appreciation of the fact that the minister by tabling the British hog commission report has at least given something to hang our hats on.


Jean-François Pouliot: Do the hon. gentlemen
opposite desire the Hon. Mr. Ferguson to carry his potential possibilities with him?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The hon. member for
Temiscouata should remember that the House of Commons is a gentleman's club. In this particular instance the hon. member for Melville has the floor.


William Richard Motherwell: We have something before us that we can hang our hats on. We are now in a position to go home and tell our constituents that after persisting a long time we received a summary of the report upon which all our hopes have been raised for the past two or three months with respect to anticipated hog production and marketing in Canada, and throughout the empire. True, the summary is not very extensive, but perhaps it is the best the minister could give. As I mentioned yesterday I have before me a summary which appeared in the Livestock Journal, made by a very reputable editor. Although the summary before me goes much farther than does that of the minister, it bears out to a great extent what he has said. It indicates also that about three-quarters of the report concerns the production of hogs. Great Britain has reached the stage when she has to do something to reduce the vast number of breeds of hogs obtaining in that country. But we know that in Canada that action was taken long ago. They are about ten years behind us in this and other respects in relation to the grading of farm products. A great deal of their activitiy has been directed towards securing good quality, and an effort to secure a desirable type of bacon hog for the market. Then, further, the summary before me mentions a number of matters in connection with breeding. I shall not go into that, however, except to draw attention to it. A comparatively small part of the report deals with marketing. I do not know that we can dio anything but simply wait and see how this thing turns out. I would appeal to the government, however, not to encourage our farmers to enter into an active hog producing campaign at a time when hogs sell for only two cents a pound at western points.
1154	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
I would suggest that we do not produce more and more hogs until we can see what the effect of the agreement may be on hog prices. Those countries nearer to the British market will learn more quickly the condition of the bacon market, and we do not need to scurry into the production of more hogs, thereby probably sagging the market still lower.
We have in Canada a low farm commodity price, a condition such as we have never known before, a condition which affects not only hogs and hog products but the entire list of farm commodities. In fact, Mr. Chairman, never since Adam was a boy, as the old saying goes, have hogs been as cheap as they are today. Yet the government is not only contemplating but has actually entered into a campaign for greater hog production. I make that statement, notwithstanding what has been said by my good friend the minister. I came back on the train with some of his officers, and I have been reading the newspapers which latter certainly indicate that that was the purpose of their meetings in Saskatchewan. I believe the government would do well to be a little canny in entering into one more crusading campaign looking to more hog production, for fear they make the situation worse. Time enough to get excited when we see how the trade arrangement works out. In the meantime all we can do is to look on, and continue steadily with our own operations-not jumping in and jumping out-but continue steadily with our program of always growing some hogs for the market, to the extent of the feed and water supply available and the prevailing prices. By that process we will hit it right sometimes, at all events. But jumping in and jumping out, you may miss it both ways, miss it at every jump. I *would strongly advise against any such policy.
May I refer to the answer given yesterday to the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown):
Mr. Brown: Is there any suggestion in the report that they might put a tariff on foreign hogs ?
Mr. Weir (Melfort): Before the commission went into session a suggestion was made by certain associations in the old land that a tariff should be put on against even the dominions, the pig producers of the United Kingdom to have preference over all. However, I do not think that that is recommended in this report.
Well, I sincerely hope not only that the minister does not think it, but that he is quite sure it is not recommended. But I wish to draw it to the attention of the committee that there is in the old country a very definite desire on the part of the pig association, or whatever the official name is, to have a duty

levied on foreign hogs and also on the hogs of the dominion. There is no question about that.
May I ask the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir), if there were any other organizations, departmental officials or anybody who supported this idea, either before the hog commission or before the economic conference here in Ottawa so that we may know just Where we stand in respect to this matter; and why a quota was selected instead of a small tariff, such as apparently the pig growers in the old country really desired?
May I also ask the Minister of Agriculture- the Minister of Trade and Commerce will excuse me directing my question to the Minister of Agriculture, who was after al the first to divulge that he had the report; I quite understand he may have got it that morning and not had an opportunity of telling his colleagues-if there was any discussion before the commission that he is aware of, indicating that other organizations or associations or individuals were also desirous of having a duty placed upon bacon and hams in the United Kingdom?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Canadian associations or United Kingdom associations?


William Richard Motherwell: My question included all. Whether it was before the commission in Great Britain or before the economic conference here in Ottawa.


Robert Weir: I do not think we are in a position to state what confidential recommendations were made in reference to it.


William Richard Motherwell: Well, Mr. Chairman, that is the answer we always get. Anything that transpired at our own economic conference cannot be told, but we are told what transpired outside, before the commission in Great Britain. Well, I suppose if that is all that I can get, it is all.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I quite agree with the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) that it is absolutely useless to enter into a detailed discussion of this matter, because we do not know the nature of the legislation to be passed in the United Kingdom upon the recommendation of this commission. I would like, however, to direct one observation to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I have read the digest of the recommendations of the commission, and to my mind it does three things, besides setting up very elaborate machinery; first, endeavours to increase the price both to the producer in

United Kingdom
England and to the producer in Canada; second, to stabilize the price; and third, to eliminate foreign competition by progressive limitation of foreign imports, directed mainly at Denmark. Now, Mr. Chairman, you also find in the recommendations of the commission that they hope in two years to double the production of bacon in the old land. So even if there were any advantage in this article, any "potential possibilities" as referred to by a previous speaker, for the producer of bacon in Canada, if as a result of the advocacy of the Minister of Agriculture and other hon. members the farmers of Canada go extensively into hog production, what guarantee have we that we will not entirely lose the United Kingdom market, or that a tariff will not be imposed against Canadian bacon cf that kind in the old country?
I also see, in regard to the telegram read by the Minister of Trade and Commerce from the High Commissioner's office in London, that there is already in the old country a wide agitation against the increase in bacon prices. You will find organizations like the Wholesale Grocers' Association of Great Britain already protesting most vigorously against this increase. Bacon as we know is the food of the poor, and this is already being called in Great Britain a "stomach tax" upon the poor. Even if wp admit that there might be some benefit for the Canadian producer, there is great danger. There are going to be electoral contests staged in Great Britain, and this cry may be used by one or the other of the parties in regard to the "stomach tax" on the poor for the alleged benefit of producers of hogs in Canada. This whole agreement is crowded with potential perils such as I have mentioned, and instead of helping the cause of empire unity it is full of menace towards that cause. I think it is a pity if we are going to raise a barrier between the ordinary consumer in the old country and the producer in Canada, although I am in favour of any fair method that can help our producers.
But I agree with the minister that there is no use discussing this now, we do not know what the old country is going to do, whether they will accept the recommendation of that commission, which I think is a very able commission, so I do not see how the house can discuss this article any more than articles 1, 2, 3 and 4. The only article we can discuss is No. 5, because there we have something definite.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: I should like to ask the minister if he acted on the suggestion made from this side of the house, that he
inquire of the British government whether their interpretation of this section is in accord with his own; the point being that the minister contends, I understand, that the British government by this section obligates itself not to put any duty on bacon coming from this dominion for five years. If that is the view also of the British government we ought to know it authoritatively.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The position taken is that we have the agreement before us, and as I stated last night there is no dispute or misunderstanding as far as the British government and this government are concerned on the interpretation of this clause. Certainly it would be most inadvisable that upon any query being made as to the meaning of it a cable should be sent to the British government asking a re-interpretation, when the government, as far as we are concerned, are perfectly satisfied with the interpretation.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not agree with my hon. friend. If a difference of view arises in the House of Commons of Canada as to the meaning, and the minister is unable to say authoritatively that the British government interprets the section as he does, then it seems to me it is a duty which he owes to hon. members of this house and to the hog producers of this country to obtain as quickly as he can an exact statement from the British government. I believe the minister will yet regret not sending the message.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Jean-François Pouliot: Before it is carried may I make a suggestion to the government? I am very glad the Prime Minister is in his seat. Yesterday we heard that the government had guaranteed the wheat of the west. Whether it is good or whether it is bad I am not yet ready to express a view, but may I ask the government seriously to consider if it is not advisable to give the same warranty to the farmers who raise hogs, to those engaged in the dairying industry, in potato-growing, to those who have greenhouses, to those-


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Order. The hon. member must state his question.


Jean-François Pouliot: Well, I will put the question with reference to the hog industry, and it will not be with regard to a possible hog industry but the actual industry.


Mr. GOTT:: What about the decline in exports due to the Australian treaty?


Jean-François Pouliot: I thought the hon. gentleman was an expert only in onions.
56	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements


Eccles James Gott: In bacon alone there was a decline of $20,000,000.


Jean-François Pouliot: Let the hon. gentleman discuss that with Mr. Ferguson, and while he is in England we will have peace in the House of Commons. If the move that has been made by the government with regard to guaranteeing wheat is a good move, it is just as good for the hog industry. If it is necessary for the wheat industry it is just as necessary for the hog industry and for agriculture as a whole. For this reason I ask the Prime Minister whether he is not ready to consider at once guaranteeing the hog industry in order to provide some actual relief to the farmer in Canada the same as is done for the wheat business.


[Stage Direction]
Article agreed to.
On article 7:
His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom will invite parliament to pass legislation which will secure for a period of ten years from the date hereof to tobacco, consigned from any part of the British Empire and grown, produced or manufactured in Canada, the existing margin of preference over foreign tobacco, so long, however, as the duty on foreign unmanufactured tobacco does not fall below 2/OJd- per pound, in which event the margin of preference shall be equal to the full duty.
Eccles James Gott: I have no desire to hold up the debate for one moment, but I should be remiss in my duty as a representative of a tobacco district if I did not point out one dangerous aspect of this agreement. I hope that my recommendation in this regard will be accepted. Article 7 reads:
His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom will invite parliament to pass legislation which will secure for a period of ten years from the date hereof to tobacco, consigned from any part of the British Empire and grown, produced or manufactured in Canada, the existing margin of preference over foreign tobacco, so long, however, as the duty on foreign unmanufactured tobacco does not fall below 2/OJd. per pound, in which event the margin of preference shall be equal to the full duty.
The tobacco growers of Canada certainly appreciate the fact that through legislation we are going to have 49 cents per pound preference on all tobacco grown in Canada, but I would draw attention to these words: "grown, produced or manufactured in Canada."
1 would point out the possibility of United States flue-cured tobacco being brought into Canada and manufactured in this country for export, in connection with which there is a rebate of 99 per cent. That would permit the

Canadian manufacturer to import American flue-cured tobacco on which he would pay the duty, and he would then enjoy a refund of 99 per cent of the duty if the tobacco were manufactured for export purposes. I hope the government will close up that gap by adopting these words: "grown, produced or manufactured in Canada from Canadian tobacco." That is all I want changed.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, I note, at page 128 of Hansard, English version, October 12, that the right hon. Prime Minister stated that the preference would greatly benefit those who grow the variety of tobacco known as Bright, in the district of Norfolk. I should also like to inquire whether the farmers who grew the varieties known as " Petit Quesnel, Petit rouge " and " Parfum d'ltalie "-the latter being really a Canadian tobacco, notwithstanding its foreign name-will equally benefit by this preference, or whether it is but a sham. That is of great interest to farmers. It is not only a question as to whether preference will be really profitable to farmers of the district of Norfolk who grow the variety of Bright tobacco, but it is equally one of protecting the farmers who grow the "Parfum d'ltalie, Petit rouge " and " Petit Quesnel " and all the other good varieties.


Eccles James Gott: Speak in English.


Jean-François Pouliot: I apologize to the hon. member if I spoke a language that he does not understand. However, in order to be fair I will continue in English. I hope the government will be as fair to him as I am.


Eccles James Gott: I am probably the only member in the house who follows the hon. gentleman's speeches.


Jean-François Pouliot: I thank the hon. gentleman for that remark and for his benefit I will continue to speak in English.


Eccles James Gott: Many thanks.


Jean-François Pouliot: My hon. friend is certainly a genial colleague and he speaks very good French. Now, Mr. Chairman, there is something astounding in connection with the tobacco situation. I want to quote the words of the Prime Minister in his speech delivered on October 12. It is the credo of Toryism. It is an explanation by one who did not sleep on the night the agreement was signed. He

United Kingdom
was on vigil and his remarks are of the utmost importance. That is why I am glad to quote them. The right hon. gentleman said:
In 1930, the United Kingdom imported 236.934,505 pounds unmanufactured tobacco, of which Canada supplied 3.976,017 pounds, while Canada's total exports for that year were 5,365,869 pounds. In 1929, Canadian exports were 7,244,045 pounds while for the first seven months of 1932 they were 8.941,215 pounds. The maximum Canadian production was in 1931, being 51,300,000 pounds.
Those figures show that the Canadians smoke Canadian-grown tobacco. The right hon. gentleman continued:
Canada's potential production of Bright flue-cured tobacco for five years may be conservatively estimated at 50 per cent increase, and within ten years at 100 per cent increase.
This is only a guess on the Prime Minister's part and there is nothing in it. We are promised a great future for tobacco just as we have been promised a great future for hogs, but this promise is just as empty as the pockets of the farmers. If they do not die of misery in the next five years they will be able to grow 50 per cent more tobacco; if they live for ten years, they will be able to grow 100 per cent more tobacco. I am sure tills promise was made in good faith but there is nothing behind it, it is just a potential possibility for the tobacco growers. I should like to have something definite about this matter, I should like to have the particulars in connection with le petit Quesnel, le petit rouge et le parfum d'ltalie.


Mr. SEGUIN (Translation):: I cannot
allow this item to carry without pointing out that I am rather amazed that my colleague the hon. member for South Essex (Mr. Gott), wishes to congratulate the government on the clause inserted in the trade agreements in connection with tobacco, when the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett), explained this part of the agreements, I was astonished to hear him state that the existing duties would be maintained; I can find no changes. I immediately put the following questions to the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens):
1.	What were the existing duties on Canadian tobacco entering the British market previous to the agreements entered into at the last Imperial conference?
The hon. Minister gave me the schedule comprising all these duties. I already had them.
2.	What are the duties in force as a consequence of the agreements of the last Imperial conference?
To this the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce replied:
That article 7 of the agreements between the United Kingdom and Canada, signed on August 20, 1932, secures for a period of ten years to Canadian tobacco the margin of preference above indicated on foreign tobacco, so long, however, as the duty on manufactured tobacco does not fall below 2/OJd. . . .
That is, the hon. Minister replied that there had been no change and that the preference which existed previously, would be continued for a period of ten years. I -wonder, sir, what advantage will the Canadian tobacco grower derive from these trade agreements, since the preference remains the same. It is true that it is contended that our tobacco trade with the empire could be greater, considering the United Kingdom's large tobacco imports. However, if no further preference is given, I cannot see how our tobacco trade with the empire will increase. Our tobacco growers will therefore reap no benefit. The preference existing since 1923, is maintained, and, to make things worse, it is stated that this will be continued for ten years. I think that it is most deplorable for our tobacco growers, and I cannot do otherwise than draw the attention of the government to the fact.


Mr. CAYLEY:: Mr. Chairman, there are a few points in this article which I should like the minister to make clear. I notice that the preference to be given is about 49 cents, but no guarantee is given that this preference will be maintained. The article reads:
^ His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom will invite parliament to pass legislation which wiill secure for a period of ten years from the date hereof to tobacco-
I shall leave out the next clause because it does not refer to Canada. The article continues:
-grown, produced or manufactured in Canada, the existing margin of preference over foreign tobacco,-
If we stop there we are sure of the 49 cents or the two shillings half penny per pound preference, but we must go on.
-so long, however, as the duty on foreign unmanufactured tobacco does not fall below two shillings half penny per pound, in which event the margin of preference shall be equal to the full duty.


Eccles James Gott: I think the hon. member has not read the article correctly; two shillings half penny per pound is not 49 cents.


Thomas Merritt Cayley: How much is it?
1158	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements


Edward James Young: He does not know.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The question asked by my hon. friend is not unreasonable; he suggests that should the British parliament reduce the duty on tobacco to a point below two shillings half penny per pound-


Thomas Merritt Cayley: How much is that in Canadian money?


Henry Herbert Stevens: At par it would be about 49 cents but at present rates of exchange it would be worth 38 or 39 cents. Should they reduce the duty to a figure below two shillings half penny per pound, then the margin of preference would not be equal to that amount. That is arithmetically correct, but may I point out that in 1919 the margin on tobacco, stemmed or stripped, ten per cent or less of moisture, was eighteen and one-sixth pence; in 1925 it was twenty-seven and one-quarter pence, and in 1932, twenty-seven and one-quarter pence. The general tariff in 1925 ranged from eight shillings two pence per pound to nine shillings one penny, in one case for tobacco with ten per cent moisture or less and in the other, for tobacco with more than ten per cent moisture. The corresponding general tariff rates in effect today are nine shillings six pence per pound and ten shillings six and a half pence per pound. There is very little likelihood of the British parliament abandoning the duties on tobacco, that is something of which I think we need have no fear. As long as the duty is above two shillings half penny per pound, then we get the margin of preference I have indicated. They are guaranteed for a period of ten years from the date of this agreement.
May I take the opportunity, while I am on my feet, of pointing out that in 1925 legislation was passed in Great Britain fixing this rate of duty for a period of ten years and giving to us the preference which I have just indicated.


Eccles James Gott: 1923.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My information is 1925,
but it may be 1923 if my hon. friend says so. Be that however as it may, in this conference we picked up the same principle, the same preference and ensured it for a period of ten years.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Continued it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Continued it for ten years from the date of this agreement. May I say to the hon. member for South Essex who spoke a moment ago, there is no need to have any apprehension about the question of

manufactured tobacco, partly or wholly composed of foreign raw tobacco, because the whole matter is based upon the raw leaf tobacco and the original document, the privileges and advantages of which we have enjoyed for eight years or more, is simply carried into this agreement and continued for another ten years. So if we have had no disability during the past eight years, we are unlikely to have any difficulty in the ensuing ten years, even though the interpretation he puts on the article is correct, with which interpretation he will permit me to say I do not agree.


Thomas Merritt Cayley: Then I take it that the
new agreement is in no way different from the 1923 agreement that was entered into; this is a continuation of that agreement for ten years from the date of this one.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The 1923 legislation.


Thomas Merritt Cayley: But while the minister
sees no possibility of any change arising out of the latter part of this article, at the same time I wonder why men from all parts of the empire discussing this problem, should insert that. It seems to me they must have seen a possibility of some change in the future and, indeed, in the near future, or they would not have inserted that clause. If it is no good there, it should be left out. Perhaps the minister will tell me that it might just as well have been left out. Before I take my seat, although this may not be applicable to this article, I should like the minister's opinion regarding the 99 per cent drawback that is given to foreign tobacco manufactured in Canada and then reshipped.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend possibly
means my opinion in regard to the system of drawbacks generally, in this instance applied to tobacco. If one might be permitted to digress into a purely hypothetical question, I may say to my hon. friend that I have never very strongly favoured the 99 per cent drawback system. It has been accepted and practised in Canada for many years.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: And all over the world.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes. There are, however, times when the 99 per cent, which is generally accepted, may be too high, but at the present moment I would prefer not to be drawn into, shall I say, an academic discussion of the matter. I have doubts as to the advisability of the drawback in regard to some lines. So far as tobacco is concerned, I have not studied the situation from that angle, so I am unable at the moment to give my hon. friend an intelligent opinion on the subject.

United Kingdom.


Thomas Merritt Cayley: As regards the latter part
of this article which refers to the possibility of duties on foreign tobacco being reduced, the minister spoke of that as not being important. Might it just as well have been left out entirely?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The British regulations
protect us fully in regard to the 99 per cent drawback on foreign tobacco being manufactured in Canada and then being exported, so my hon. friend need have no fear on that point. My officers have looked up the regulations in regard to that and I am assured that is correct.
As regards the suggestion to leave out this last phrase, I would say this to my hon. friend: If he will look at it in a broad and general way, it is clear to me that the British delegates said this: The practice has been in Great Britain for many years to charge a rate of duty running around nine shillings a pound. If I have the date correctly, 1925, eight years ago, Great Britain extended to empire countries a preference of forty-nine cents a pound, or approximately fifty cents. They carried that on in perfect good faith during that period of eight years. They now say to us: We will extend that for ten years-and they do so-but ten years is a long period and I suppose that the British delegates felt that it was reasonable to say that should in the future the British duty fall below 2s. O^d., which was the spread, then the full amount of the duty, whatever it might be, would be the spread, because it merely sets the thing in an accurate light. But in the face of all the evidence we have before us and the practice and custom of all countries in dealing with duties on liquors and tobacco, there is very little likelihood of that coming up.


Eccles James Gott: Will the minister assure the
tobacco industry that there will be no chance of importing raw leaf from the United States, receiving the 99 per cent drawback, manufacturing the raw leaf and shipping it into Great Britain?


Henry Herbert Stevens: All I can say to my hon. friend and all I think it is reasonable to ask me to say is that the British regulations do not permit it at the present time and there is no indication that there will be any change in those regulations.


Eccles James Gott: Only through the words as
contained in the article: "Or manufactured in Canada."


Henry Herbert Stevens: More than that. The
hon. member will notice in the article it refers to this:
Grown, produced or manufactured in Canada, the existing margin of preference over foreign tobacco.
Foreign tobacco is emphasized in this clause.
So long, however, as the duty on foreign unmanufactured tobacco-
Again it is emphasized. My point in that regard is that the clause in itself provides sufficient protection, but if the hon. gentleman or any other hon. member questions the clarity, shall I say, of the language used in the clause, then I fall back on the British regulations and say that they, at the present time and as they have been throughout, would not permit and clearly protect the Canadian grower of tobacco against the contingency which he fears.


Thomas Merritt Cayley: Has the minister those
regulations that we may know beyond doubt?


Henry Herbert Stevens: For me to elucidate the
British regulations fully is, I confess, very difficult. We must bear in mind that in Great Britain they operate their tariff provisions in a manner different from ours. The Imports Duties Act, the McKenna Duties Act and the other various acts are separate statutes. Then they clothe the board with certain powers and that board passes regulations from time to time. I could plough through the different acts and so forth, but frankly, I believe the committee would be very much bored if I were to do so. I shall read part. This is a document known as Notice 27A, dated August 23, 1920, dealing with "Preferential duties of customs in Great Britain and Northern Ireland on goods consigned from and grown, produced or manufactured in the British Empire." I submit, Mr. Chairman, that it would be doing an injustice to the committee for me to read this at length.


Thomas Merritt Cayley: Might I just ask this
question? Is any distinction made between manufactured tobacco, Canadian grown, which is exported to Great Britain, and manufactured tobacco, partly Canadian and partly American, which is exported to the British market?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Great Britain from time
immemorial has put sugar and tobacco, both of which are very important items of revenue for Great Britain, into the same category, and they do not allow the mixing of either sugar or tobacco empire grown with the foreign product. In order to earn the preference it must be an empire product.
1100	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements


Eccles James Gott: That explains the whole
thing. I am perfectly satisfied now, but before I was not.


Mr. ELLIOTT:: There is no doubt that
this margin of preference need not be retained if Great Britain sees fit to reduce or abandon it. Am I correct in that?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I must respectfully decline to have words put into my mouth. I would rather express it in my own way. I will repeat what I said before. Since 1925 the duty on tobacco has been from 9/6d. up to 10/6id. per pound, depending on the moisture content, and for eight years we have enjoyed a preference of 2/'0jd. per pound, or roughly 49 cents. There has been no question about it whatsoever. Under this article that preference is continued, but the reservation is made that should the British parliament reduce the duty on tobacco to a point below 2/0id. the margin of preference to Canada and empire countries will be simply the remaining full amount of duty whatever it may be.


John Campbell Elliott: That is exactly as I heard the minister the first time, but it does not answer my question at all. I suppose the question does not need an answer because I take it, and I just wanted the minister's confirmation of my interpretation if he thinks I am correct, that there is nothing whatever in this section to prevent the government of the United Kingdom from reducing the margin of preference from 2/0Jd. or 49 cents per pound, or from wiping it out altogether. But if there is anything to prevent that to which the minister can direct my attention, I shall be very glad if he will do so.


Henry Herbert Stevens: There is nothing specifically stated in the article to prevent them doing it, but there is the history of the taxation of tobacco in Great Britain which stands behind the article. From time immemorial tobacco has been one of the chief sources of revenue for Great Britain, and it is wholly unlikely that they will reduce the duty from 9/6d. to below 2/- per pound. Furthermore, this applies not only to Canada but to all parts of the empire, to South Africa, Southern Rhodesia and other empire countries, all of which are equally interested with ourselves.


John Campbell Elliott: I take it that my hon.
friend feels that the government of this country is reasonably safe in trusting the government of the United Kingdom not to reduce this margin of preference.
[Mr. Stevens.l


Henry Herbert Stevens: Quite.


John Campbell Elliott: Then I should like to ask why the government of this country were not able apparently to induce the British government to take for granted that this government could be relied on not to reduce the preferences given in schedule E and referred to in article 9. Apparently the government of this country is bound hard and fast not to reduce those margins of preference. Why the distinction? In the one case it seems that it was necessary to have this government bound absolutely tight not to reduce the margin of preference, while in the other this government apparently seemed to think they could take it for granted that Great Britain would not reduce the margin of preference, and they did not bind Great Britain in the agreement. What is the reason for the distinction?


Henry Herbert Stevens: There is no difficulty, none whatever, in answering that question if we are permitted, Mr. Chairman, to proceed to the discussion of schedule E.


John Campbell Elliott: I would prefer the minister to answer it now because the question arises properly out of the construction of this article.


Henry Herbert Stevens: There is no difficulty whatsoever in answering it, Mr. Chairman. I am simply pointing out to the chairman that we would be wandering; that is all, and I do not wish to wander without the house knowing that I am quite aware of it. The answer can bo stated very simply and clearly. In schedule E there are some 223 items, and speaking offhand about half of them involve the imposition of duties-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: More
than half.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend can state the proportion as he sees fit; we will not dispute over that. In another proportion of the items there are decreases. Consequently a more specific declaration was required than is required in this instance. Furthermore, as I have said at least three times already, we are here dealing with a duty which has been in force for approximately eight years, and under this agreement we are simply carrying forward into another extended period of ten years what we have been enjoying for a period of eight years. We had therefore no hesitation whatsoever in accepting the position as outlined in article 7.


John Campbell Elliott: I think I understand the minister clearly, that it was necessary in regard to the items mentioned in schedule E, numbering several hundred, that a definite

United, Kingdom
agreement should be arrived at, but that with regard to the one item referred to here it was apparently not considered necessary to have a definite agreement with the United Kingdom. I want to say that although the minister has given the same explanation three times, which was not an answer to the question that was asked, each time that he gives it I find it a little more difficult to understand why one country should be bound and the other not be bound to maintain a certain margin in preference.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The minister seems very loath to give any credit whatsoever to what took place at the economic conference of 1923.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Not at all.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: But I am afraid in this instance at least he will have to give some credit.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Very gladly, if it is due.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have in my hand the Summary of Conclusions of the economic conference of 1923, and the paragraph which relates to tobacco reads as follows:
At present the duty on tobacco varies according to kind, being of course higher on cigars than on unmanufactured tobaccos. On the latter it is about 8s. 2d. per pound, on which the empire enjoys a preference of one-sixth or, say, on raw tobacco of Is. 4d.
That was as long ago as 1923. The British government was then giving a preference to the other parts of the empire of its own volition, and had been doing so for some time previously because it suited its own purposes. It did so under its own fiscal system without being bound in any way. The paragraph continues:
His Majesty's government would be prepared to adopt the course proposed in regard to sugar, i.e., to stabilize the existing preference for a term of years or alternatively they are prepared to increase, the preference to one-quarter, i.e., to about 2s. on unmanufactured tobacco at present rates, the amount of the preference of course varying as the basis varies.
As a result of consultation with the oversea representatives concerned, it has been decided to adopt the second alternative, that is to say, to raise the preference from one-sixth to one-quarter.
So that it was at the conference of 1923 that the decision was made by the British government of its own free will to make the preference what it is at the present time. Legislation was introduced in the British parliament after the conference in accordance with what the British government of the day
said it would do and it was approved by the British parliament. They fixed the rates after consultation. At the present time I understand, as the result of this conference, they are continuing the preference in accordance with the terms of the article in the agreement we have just read.
There is the difference however-and it serves to illustrate a point I have been trying all along to make-between a system of consultation between different governments of the empire, being each free to act upon its own position, and a system of bargaining which binds governments for a term of years to maintain tariffs at certain levels. The relative merits of the two methods is, I think, apparent. In 1923 the British government took the course which served its own interests, but which after conference it believed would best further the interests, also, of the empire and has maintained that course without having any question arise as to whether or not it was bound and restricted in its fiscal freedom by virtue of some agreement with the dominions, to maintain certain duties against the interests and will of the British people. The British government has kept the duties on because it served its interests and those of the empire so to do.
Now we come to this year's plan, and we find that the moment discussion on the article respecting tobacco is opened, a difference of opinion arises as to whether or not in this clause the British freedom in fiscal matters is not being restricted in some degree, as a consequence of the agreements signed at the recent conference. In other words in consequence of fixed duties, or duties purporting to be fixed for a term of years, one begins to sense at once the feeling of restriction and restraint. In one quarter it is asserted, on the other hand in another we have doubts and misgivings as to whether or not the conditions set forth will be carried on for the period mentioned. I believe it is wholly advantageous to the British government to do as it pleases with its own fiscal policy, just as we who are on this side desire to do with respect to the articles under schedule E in the agreement. Certainly, from the point of view of Canada, it is much better that producers here should not be led by any false hopes or false beliefs into embarking upon a scale of production which, later on, they may find has not been justified, in view of action which the British government may take are perfectly free to take in the matter of reducing duties, or, if they so wish, of eliminating them altogether.
Article 7 agreed to.

1162	COMMONS
Imperial Conjerence-Trade Agreements
On article 8:
His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom -will invite the governments of the non-self-governing colonies and protectorates to accord to Canada any preference which may for the time being be accorded to any other part of the British Empire, provided that this Clause shall not extend to any preferences accorded by Northern Rhodesia to the Union of South Africa, Southern Rhodesia and the territories of the South African High Commission by virtue of the customs agreement of 1930; and further will invite the governments of the colonies and protectorates shown in schedule D to accord to Canada new or additional preferences on the commodities and at the rates shown therein.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Shall I read schedule D?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Schedule D
covers nearly four pages, and it is not necessary to read it. I call to the attention of the committee these words in article 8:
His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom will invite the governments of the non-self-governing colonies and protectorates to accord to Canada any preference . . .
And so on. The word "invite" as used in this article is, I presume, intended to convey the same meaning ns it dioes in other articles of the agreement. I understand it means that His Majesty's government will undertake to see that the non-self-governing colonies and protectorates grant a certain preference to the dominions-in this particular instance, to 'Canada. That means that the British government undertakes to see that the non-self-governing colonies and protectorates will be obliged to raise certain of their duties against the world, in order to give a preference to the dominions, in other words, impose additional taxation upon themselves. That is part of the agreement to which we in this free parliament are asked to lend our support, an agreement which is to bind the colonies which have not yet acquired the full right of self government, and protectorates which are still powerless in dealing with their own fiscal matters. The effect of the article is to impose taxation upon the people in those non-self-governing colonies and protectorates, without any previous expression of the will of the people themselves.
I have not time to read to the committee articles concerning this particular clause which have been appearing in the British press and in the press of other countries. May I say in a word however that in the mind of so great an authority on international economic and fiscal questions as Sir Arthur Salter and in the minds of many others, it constitutes the worst feature of the entire agreement. It

opens up a question so large as to cause one to be amazed at the slight consideration which its implications could have received. One wonders that anything of the kind could come from a conference lasting so Short a time and with so many other matters of grave concern to consider.
In a word I shall attempt to express the significance of what I have in mind. Up to the present time the rest of the world has in matters of international trading enjoyed a certain feeling of good will towards the British empire, because until recently, all countries were free to trade with Great Britain and with her colonies and protectorates on a free-trade basis. Foreign countries were free to trade with the great colonial empire of Britain on the same terms as did the United Kingdom and other parts of the empire. In what is known as the colonial empire foreign countries of the world had enjoyed the same trading privileges as had the different parts of the empire. The provision now before us, however, to the rest of the world makes of the colonial empire a closed preserve, instead of an open market. What may result by way of retaliation against British trade is a matter exercising the minds of the people in Great Britain and may well concern us as well here in Canada. The article means that, as parties to the agreement, so far as we are concerned, we are taking the position that so far as lies within our power we are going to make a closed preserve out of the colonial empire in order that in the words of the Prime Minister, we may shut out the foreigner. That is economic war on a world scale, when it is attempted in this fashion. It has the inevitable effect in matters of trade of setting other nations of the world against the British Empire.
I have before me an article written by F. W. Hirst, a former editor of the Economist which appeared ini the Nineteenth Century of October, 1932. Speaking of this particular matter he says, after reference to other dangerous features of the agreement.
I can hardly believe that the House of Commons will tamely renounce its power to reduce at any time any tax which it has levied; for this is the most ancient and esteemed of all its privileges, the historical basis and the very essence of its authority.
It goes on to speak about the effect of making these tariffs permanent for a period of five years, in addition to imposing them at all. He has a further paragraph as to the effect of this particular kind of article in the agreement on foreign trade.
To this should be added the danger involved in the adoption by Great Britain and the

United Kingdom
dominions on a much extended scale of discriminating duties against foreign countries. A free trade empire disarms foreign hostility; an empire which aims at closing or partially closing its markets against foreign countries invites hostility; and such a policy may end in another series of disastrous tariff wars, which would make the task of universal disarmament not merely difficult, but impossible.
I have in my hand the exact quotation from Sir Arthur Salter, who has been referred to many times and whose reputation needs no commendation in this house. In an article which Sir Arthur wrote a very short time ago, which has been widely quoted from in the press, he says;
Last, and not least important, what will be the relations between Great Britain and the dominions on the one hand and the vast colonial 

or non-self-governing-empire on the other? Will the governing principle of policy continue to be to lead each constituent unit as far and as fast as possible along the path of both prosperity and a participation in government? Will it be an open empire, supplying its resources and offering its markets freely and equally to the world? Or will it tend to be more of a closed preserve in breach of the main traditions of the last century?
So far we have been considering the selfgoverning members of the British Empire, and it is they who conducted the negotiations. But it was contemplated throughout that the preferential arrangements agreed upon would in general apply also as regards the "colonial" empire; that is, that large part of the empire which is in whole or in part non-self-governing. The colonial empire is likely, then, to enjoy- or to suffer-the consequences of the Ottawa decisions. But it cannot, I think, be denied that their interests received a very subordinate consideration. We find no proposals for specific preferences for characteristic products of the colonial empire, such as rubber.
This opens a new issue in imperial development of the utmost importance. Increased imperial preferences with the dominions raise, as we have seen, the problem of most-favourednation treatment, the principle incorporated in agreements with equal and independent states. The application of preferences to a dependent empire, especially of preferences decided with special regard not to its interests but to those of the self-governing members, raises the question as to whether the basic principle of policy should be the "open-door" or the "closed preserve."
The former has been the guiding principle of British policy for more than half a century.
Elsewhere he goes on to speak of the concern to the rest of the world.
Nevertheless, it is not only of the utmost importance to the British colonies themselves; it is also (to adopt phrasing from the report of the United States commission of 1922) a matter of serious concern to the rest of the world if, in the greatest empire, the old mercantile principle of the reservation of colonial products and colonial markets to the mother country is reintroduced. The breach with the old British tradition is not yet very considerable, if we measure it by its economic 53719-74J
effects; but it is a recent innovation, which has already been extended, and is likely to be extended further as a result of Ottawa.
We thus see that Great Britain has recently made a substantial, though still partial and incomplete, change in her domestic policy from free trade to protection. She has made some tentative, but hesitating steps towards the goal of an integrated imperial economic unit by negotiation with the self-governing dominions. She has simultaneously taken a few steps towards a closed colonial empire.
Elsewhere he goes on to stress again how dangerous that particular policy is, not only to the trading relations of the British Empire with the rest of the world, but even to the peace of the world. I say, Mr. Chairman, that for a parliament that has reached its present autonomous position after years of struggle such as we have had in this dominion, I think it ill becomes us, having regard to the rights and future evolution of these non-selfgoverning dominions and protectorates, by any act which it is possible for us to avoid, tt>
reduce them still further in their position of subordination to any government in any part of the empire.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Chairman, I think it only fair to the committee to disabuse the minds of hon. gentlemen of much that is apparently concerning the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King). In the first place it will be noted that His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom undertook to invite the governments of the non-self-governing colonies and protectorates to accord to Canada certain preferences, schedule D. I am glad to be able to inform the house that the following colonies have already, very gladly and cheerfully, passed legislation giving effect to this article in the agreement: Jamaica, Trinidad, Antigua, St. Vincent, British Honduras, Fiji, Federated Malay States and Hongkong.


An hon. MEMBER:: They were told to do it.	*


Henry Herbert Stevens: And there may be some additional of which we have not yet been officially advised.
Now the right hon. gentleman referred to what is commonly known historically as the Boston Tea Party, and indicated that this is on a par with what lost the thirteen colonies to the British crown. In that instance it will be recalled that taxation was proposed direct from London. In this instance each of the colonies passes its own legislation and deals with the matter voluntarily on its own behalf.


Ernest Lapointe: Upon invitation.
1164	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements


Henry Herbert Stevens: Then the right hon.
gentleman said-he did not use this language himself, but he quoted an article, apparently with approval, in which it was indicated that Canada had done nothing in return for the concessions granted.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, there was no reference in anything I read about Canada's part in it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Then I misunderstood the article quoted from Sir Arthur Salter. He may not have used the word "Canada," but he did state that the colonies received nothing in return.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not think so.


Henry Herbert Stevens: However, be that as it may, the fact is that in schedule F there is a list of items particularly requested by the colonies, of immediate and direct practical interest to them. I shall not read them in detail, I only draw the attention of the committee to schedule F. This was an arrangement that was made between the British authorities with advisers of the colonies present, and the matter was most cordially discussed, and has been cheerfully accepted by the colonies, and the concessions granted have been given as I have indicated.
In addition to what I have said in regard to schedule F, many of the items in schedule E are of distinct advantage to the colonies, and Canada extends to the colonies the British preference, extends to them certain special concessions, and we receive from the colonies in return the concessions indicated in schedule D. That I think is all that it is necessary to say at the moment in reply to the right hon. gentleman's observations.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The paragraph which my hon. friend had in mind, I think, is this, from Sir Arthur Salter's article:
The codonial empire is likely, then, to enjoy -or to suffer-the consequences of the Ottawa decisions. But it cannot, I think, be denied, that their interests received a very subordinate consideration. We find no proposals for specific preferences for characteristic products of the colonial empire, such as rubber.
I think that what my hon. friend has just said about all that has been done being done simply at the instance of the advisors of the colonial empire rather than at that of representatives from their legislatures, with whatever limited powers they may have, bears out the truth of what Sir Arthur Salter says.


Henry Herbert Stevens: There were members of their legislatures here. Furthermore, schedule F contains a list of items of peculiar interest to the colonies.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Were there any official delegates from the British colonies or protectorates at the conference?


Henry Herbert Stevens: If the right hon. gentleman refers to members of governments, I am not aware of any.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I mean
official delegates.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Not in the sense my right hon. friend has in mind. There was the Secretary of State for the Colonies, with Sir Edward Davson. and some others representing the colonies.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They are all shown in the official list as advisers to the Secretary of State for the Colonies.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Sir Edward Davson represented the West Indies at the last imperial conference in London.


Thomas F. Donnelly: I am sorry that the
Minister of Agriculture is not here, seeing that we are dealing with the marketing of agricultural products. I have known for some time that the marketing of wheat and grain has been under the Department of Trade and Commerce, but it is news to me that the marketing of all agricultural products should be under that department. I always thought that the Department of Agriculture in Ottawa had to do with the marketing of agricultural products, while the provincial departments of agriculture were concerned with production. Now the Minister of Trade and Commerce has taken charge of it all and we are inclined to ask, Why a Minister of Agriculture at all in these times? The Minister of Agriculture says himself that his presence is important. I notice a clipping in the Ottawa Journal in which there is a report of a speech made by the minister in Kansas City. The dispatch is dated November 13. The report reads:
Hon. Robert Weir, Canadian Minister of Agriculture, told a luncheon gathering at the American Royal Livestock and Horse Show here Saturday that "agriculture is one of the most important considerations in the trade plan we are formulating."
The minister was one of a number of agricultural authorities of other nations to address the luncheon and he spoke very briefly. In complimenting those responsible for conduct of the show, he said:
"I believe I need only remind you of the importance of my presence at the parliament

United Kingdom
session at this time to convince you how important I consider this show that I would take a day to attend it/' the minister said.
He admits himself that he is important and we have to agree with him. I think his presence here is necessary. I notice, under schedule D, No. 14, that reference is made to bacon and hams coming from Ceylon. A little while ago I referred to hog production and I was told that I was altogether wrong. I have here the press report in the Toronto Globe, showing what the Minister of Agriculture said, at Clinton on September 29:
In regard to prices, the minister said he could make no prophecy on this subject. "But I will tell you this," he added: "Two years ago I sold my hogs; today I am buying hogs."
What does that mean? It means simply, if I understand what the minister is talking about, that the price of hogs will improve and that he is going into hog production himself, and is advising the farmers to do the same. Every farmer at the meeting at which the minister spoke took that meaning from his words. That was what he was advising the farmers to do, to go into hog production. But that is not his only utterance. He has made other statements and I have here a clipping from the Ottawa Citizen of September 16, 1932, in which he is reported to have said:
"The British government has definitely committed itself to a policy of restriction with the object of raising the price of bacon in the United Kingdom," said Mr: Weir today. "If they can carry out this commitment the price of bacon should be higher in Britain within a year. Our farmers, if they wish to take advantage of the advance in prices, should make provision now for it takes 10 months to produce a hog. Too much emphasis cannot be placed on raising the right kind of pigs that produce select bacon. Unsatisfactory hogs which cannot be exported, always tend to depress our market."
In order to assist the farmers the practice started a year ago will be augmented. It provides them with select sows, bred to select boars at the actual cost they would bring at the slaughter houses. The government pays half the freight, and bears the cost of experts "who choose the sows at the live stock yards and. the other expenses. In this way farmers can get high grade bred sows at very little more than they will get for their under grade ones.
These are definite statements made by the Minister of Agriculture, and any man who understands English surely can take no other meaning from his words than that he is advocating that farmers of Canada go into the production of hogs again. I cannot understand why he should say, as reported at page 1138 of Hansard:
I have not at any time, either before or after the conference, advocated a campaign for increased hog production, whether the price was 2 cents or any other price.
The statements contradict one another, and I leave it to the committee to judge just what he meant.
Article 8 agreed to.
On article 9:
His Majesty's government in Canada will invite parliament to pass the legislation necessary to substitute for the duties of customs now leviable on the goods specified in schedule E the duties shown in that schedule, provided that nothing in this article shall preclude His Majesty's government in Canada from reducing the duties specified in the said schedule so long as the margin of British preference shown in that schedule is preserved or from increasing the rates under the intermediate or general tariff set out in the said schedule. _______


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Consideration of this article will involve taking up the items in the schedule one by one. Before that is commenced, may I say a word as to the chief objection we have to the schedule, considered as a whole. It is that it seeks to raise the tariff still higher and seeks to maintain the tariff at a certain rate over a period of years. That is an innovation so far as this parliament is concerned. I do not think that ever before this parliament has bound itself to maintain a tariff schedule of any appreciable extent if of any extent at all over a period of years. We have already discussed very fully the reasons why such should not for one minute be admitted as a precedent or a correct procedure, but I should like to add to the quotation I gave a moment ago from Mr. Hirst's article in the Nineteenth Century of October, what that distinguished authority has to say in regard to the same sort of thing where it is being done by the British government across the seas. It helps to make clear wherein the position which the Liberal party in Canada is taking is on all fours with the position taken by at least two of the political parties in the old country:
But there is also a grave constitutional objection to making the customs duties of the United Kingdom dependent for a term of years on the will of one or more colonial legislatures. It is an exact inversion of the policy of George III and Lord North, which lost us the American colonies. The colonial assemblies at that time preferred to fight rather than submit to a trilling customs duty on tea which Great Britain imposed.
The present parliament may persist, even in the face of shrinking trade and employment, in its determination to maintain or increase protective duties. But surely it cannot pretend to prevent its successors from touching the taxes which it is about to impose, or the taxes which it has already imposed since it was elected? Earlier in the year Liberals foresaw the danger, and issued a warning in the shape
1166	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
of a resolution passed by a unanimous rote of the National Liberal Federation at its annual meeting in April. The resolution ran as follows:
"In view of the Ottawa conference and the danger that this country may find itself committed by commercial treaties with the dominions to permanent tariffs of a discriminatory character on imports from foreign countries, it (the National Liberal Federation) gives notice in advance that no such treaty can be permitted to interfere with the constitutional right of parliament at any time to reduce or remove any such taxes."
This constitutional right is a privilege won from the crown by centuries of hard struggle; and it should be equally precious to the parliaments of the self-governing dominions, on whom it was freely conferred by the wisdom of our own legislature. I can conceive of nothing more invidious than this interference by the dominion governments with our right of control over our own budget. Curiously enough, it is a right which two important British ministers emphasised so lately as February 9, 1932, during the tariff debate. Mr. Baldwin said:
"Much of the debate has run on the difference between the permanent and the temporary nature of the tariff. There is no such thing as permanence in polities. Whatever one parliament does, it is in the power of another parliament to confirm, to increase, to diminish, [DOT]or to abolish."
Here we have the true constitutional doctrine, xmambigously expressed by the leader of the Conservative party. Mr. Walter Runciman (President of the Board of Trade) said in the same debate:
"The other objection taken to our proposals is that they are permanent. Certainly nothing in our fiscal system is permanent. The yearly budget comes up for discussion here and for examination in committee of ways and means, and is varied from time to time according to the constitution of the house and the opinion of the electors."
That, Mr. Chairman, expresses the position of the Liberal party of Canada quite as emphatically as it does the position of the Liberal party in the old world with respect to this innovation of maintaining tariffs by binding agreement. We regard it as being unsound constitutionally, as being in no sense a legal method of procedure, and as being fraught with no end of possible serious consequences. The object of this innovation has been made abundantly clear by the Prime Minister, and it is to the intent of the legislation quite as much as to the legislation itself that we are opposed so strongly. The Prime Minister has told us that the purpose of the legislation was to make the foreigner pay some tribute for the privilege of trading within the British Empire. Speaking in Calgary on September 6, of the effects of the agreements reached at the recent conference, he said:
One thing was certain, however, that nations outside of the empire would be asked to pay
IMr. Mackenzie King.]
some tribute-for the privilege of trading within the empire.
So far as Canada is concerned, that tribute is: to be paid by the. higher taxes which it is now sought to impose under this agreement. It was equally emphatically stated by the Prime Minister that the object was to shut out the foreigner. That again is the purpose of this higher tariff which we are now being asked to enact. We want to have trade within the British Empire, as has been said repeatedly, but we do not want it at the expense of the possibility of trade as well with other countries of the world. In so far as Canada is concerned we believe that she should be free to trade with all countries just as largely as her interests may seem to render it wise for her so to do and as she may find it possible to do.
There is another feature about this particular tariff schedule which is thoroughly bad and that is that it has been so arranged as, in many cases, to do away with the difference between the rates of duty of the intermediate tariff and of the general tariff. That undoubtedly has been deliberately designed so as to make next to impossible the arriving at trade agreements with other countries by destroying the margin of trading benefits which would offer favourable opportunities to the formation of such agreements. I do not believe that it is possible to emphasize too strongly how inimical to the future development of Canada's trade this particular legislation is likely to be, and particularly so at this time in the world's history when everything is more or less in a state of flux and where there is very little in the way of certainty, from one year to another as to what one country may be able to continue to do or as to what changes in trade conditions may come about in the relations between any one part of the empire and other countries or between different parts of the empire themselves. As regards the agreement itself, I think when we begin to discuss it item by item, we shall see that it is not so much an agreement or tariff schedule for the purpose of promoting trade within the British Empire as it is a schedule of tariff rates to make increasingly difficult and in many instances impossible, trade with the rest of the world. It is because of these features that, in the first instance, we object to the schedule considered in its entirety. As we discuss the different items I think it will be seen why, with regard to the interests of the Canadian consumer, with regard to the interests of the Canadian producer as affected

United. Kingdom
by the cost of living and the costa of production-I shall not except the interests of the Canadian manufacturer because he is interested also in the cost of living and the costs of production-the tariff rates as imposed by this schedule are bound to work injury rather than good and to make more restricted than ever the present strangled condition of trade in Canada.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am sure the committee does not wish to thresh out again a question which has been discussed over and over, but I cannot allow the observations of the right hon. gentleman to pass without very briefly reiterating what has been said previously by the Prime Minister, by other hon. members of the house and by myself. In so far as the major portion of the general tariff schedule is , concerned, there is nothing in the world to hinder this parliament from taking any action it likes in raising, lowering or abolishing duties imposed. Schedule E constitutes about one-fifth of the whole tariff; there are about two hundred and twenty-three items as compared with one thousand, roughly speaking. In regard to those particular items we do undertake by this agreement to maintain a spread; there is no question of that, but in so far as the article read a moment ago by the right hon. gentleman, dealing with the freedom of parliament, is concerned, I need hardly state that freedom is still present. However, we expect parliament to respect this agreement just as this and other parliaments have respected the agreements which were made by the right hon. gentleman for four and twelve year periods. I should like to direct his attention to a most amazing inconsistency in his position. This afternoon he twitted me because I had failed to give him credit for securing the tobacco preference for ten years.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I did not say
that.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That was something to be boasted of. I have under my hand the minutes of the conference of 1923, in which appears the statement that the Liberal party had secured that preference.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Not at all. 1 said that the British government had given it voluntarily.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The preference obtained by the right hon. gentleman was for ten years- that was virtuous, but this being for five years, it is iniquitous. I shall not labour further this question other than to say that the references to margin of preference and the preservation of the margin of preference are limited to schedule E of this agrement.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I shall have to read the whole schedule unless there is general consent not to do so. I can bring the schedule before the committee item by item.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It was understood at the outset that we would take up the agreement article by article, and that as we dealt with each article we would deal with the schedule referred to therein. This we would wish to do item by item.


Mr. RHODES:: So far as I am concerned I would be quite content to take up the schedule item by item, with this pious hope that when we come to deal with the same items in committee of ways and means, we shall not repeat ad nauseam the same discussion which we carry on in this committee.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I make
quite clear to my hon. friend why we wish to take up the schedule item by item? We do not want to be asked to vote for the third reading of this bill until we know what is in the schedule, what the extent and effect of the tariff changes proposed are likely to be. We had to vote on the second reading without a knowledge of what we were doing, but we do not want to vote in the same way on the third reading if there is a possibility of avoiding doing so. If my hon. friend would prefer to go into committee of ways and means now and take up the tariff resolutions, we shall be agreeable to drop further discussion of the agreement at this stage, and take up ways and means, dispose of the resolutions and then come back to the other articles of the agreement. We shall from discussion of the tariff resolutions in committee of ways and means know all we wish to know about the various tariff proposals. Whichever is more agreeable to my hon. friend, we are prepared to do.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am ready to discuss the question with the Prime Minister, but the leader of the opposition will recall that the Prime Minister gave what he considered and what, of course, we consider as very cogent reasons why we should proceed with the agreement in the first instance before taking up the schedule in ways and means. To put it briefly, he said that to do otherwise would be putting the cart before the horse. But if it would facilitate the proceedings and secure the passage of these agreements through the house, the matter might be worthy of discussion.


Ernest Lapointe: It is just as well to discuss the schedule first.
1168	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: While I am on my feet,
may I say that the right hon. gentleman, in making some observations with respect to these agreements, made his strongest objection to the circumstance that in many of the items the intermediate tariff had been placed upon a parity with the general, and therefore impeded our bargaining power with other countries with respect to the items in question. I have only this to say to my right hon. friend, whether his argument be sound or not, he was unfortunate in broaching it at the moment when we are going to consider the schedule item by item, because the very first item in the schedule is cocoa butter, and with respect to that item, the duties on the intermediate and general tariffs have been precisely the same for a number of years and through several revisions under his leadership. If, therefore, it be sound policy to have the intermediate and general tariffs on the same level with respect to cocoa butter, the argument applies with equal force to other items in the schedule. I have only this observation to make, that my right hon. friend would have been well advised to have waited until we had passed this item and come to some other item which had received from us different treatment from that given by my right hon. friend.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Then we shall deal
with the schedule item by item.
Schedule E-Canada.
Customs tariff-20a. Butter produced from the cocoa bean, per pound: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 3 cents; general tariff, 3 cents.


Thomas F. Donnelly: From what countries
do we import cocoa butter? Is any manufactured in Canada? How much comes from the United States and how much from the United Kingdom? Is this some preferred trade or will some Canadian industry be assisted?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: For the fiscal year ended March 31, 1932, we imported 4,400,000 pounds of cocoa butter worth $654,000, of which $618,000 worth came from the Netherlands, $14,000 worth from the United States and $10,000 worth from the United Kingdom.


Edward James Young: Canadian production?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Production in Canada in 1930 amounted to 1,500,000 pounds worth $329,000.


Edward James Young: I notice that the average price of the importations from Britain is about twenty cents a pound, and from other countries, about fifteen cents a pound. I presume that is due to the difference in exchange. These are the values for duty.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have before me no statistics as to the cost of an individual pound. I take it my hon. friend has used his pencil and divided the cost by the number of pounds.


Edward James Young: Yes.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My hon. friend must bear in mind that cocoa butter, like many other commodities, has varying degrees and qualities, so that one would not be safe in making a computation of that character and putting the proper price per pound on the highest grade of cocoa butter.


Edward James Young: Will the minister say that the value of imports from Great Britain as stated, are the values for duty as fixed by our customs department? He says that we received $10,000 worth from Great Britain.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: That would be the value for duty.


Edward James Young: 
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The figures do not segregate the total poundage and allocate them to the different countries. I gave merely the total imports and the value was allocated to the different countries.


Edward James Young: The point I want to make is this: When the government say that they imported so many thousand dollars' worth of goods of a certain kind from Great Britain, how do they arrive at that valuation? Is that not the value for duty as reported to the customs officials, on which value duty is collected?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The figures given in the quarterly report of the Trade of Canada indicated that the importations from Britain during that year were 47,045 pounds.


Edward James Young: That does not answer my question. An importation of 47,045 pounds valued at $9,774 brings the price to almost twenty cents per pound, but I find that the price from other countries amounts to only fifteen cents per pound. I want to know whether that discrepancy is not accounted for in this way: in reporting the quantity we get from Great Britain, you call a pound $4.86f, and that is the way in which you arrive at the figure $9,774. That is correct, is it not?

United Kingdom


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: That question ought
properly to be directed to my colleague, the Minister of National Revenue.


Edward James Young: He is in his seat. He can answer.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I do not see what bearing it has upon the case in point.


Edward James Young: It has a tremendous bearing. Perhaps the Minister of National Revenue will answer.


Mr. RYCKMAN:: 
Edward James Young: That brings us then to this position, that for the first time in the history of Canada the trade returns, official figures, published by the government, with respect to our trade with other countries, are not to be relied on. They report that we have a trade of so many thousands or millions with other countries, and now on the minister's own confession we find that these figures are not reliable and that the 89,774 worth of this commodity which we are supposed to have bought from Great Britain is really only
86.636	worth.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My answer to that would be that it shows that we have all the more opportunity for doing trade with Great Britain.


Edward James Young: It means this, that my hon. friends opposite have been more successful than they have themselves boasted in shutting off trade with this country. It means that Canada's trade has been stifled to a much greater extent than even my hon. friends claim. It also means that our trade statistics are no longer reliable.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: It is unfair to say that. Everyone knows that in the present fluctuating state of the pound its value for duty purposes is S4.86j. My hon. friend is ready at arithmetic and he can easily figure it out for himself. His suggestion that the trade returns give a false impression is unworthy of the hon. gentleman.


Edward James Young: If it is true that 89,774 is equal to 86,636, then I am wrong; but if
86.636	is less than $9,774, I say that the returns are false.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My hon. friend is entirely overlooking the fact that the actual number of pounds is given in the figures here. My hon. friend, of course, can make any argument
he likes on that, but it is quite improper for him to say that the figures are not correct. It may be that his argument is sound with respect to the value, but that is another matter entirely.


Edward James Young: When we get the annual returns of Canada's trade the amount is given in dollars and cents, and the figures are not reliable according to the minister's own admission.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It is quoted in both pounds and dollars and cents.


Edward James Young: The total figures are not quoted in both pounds and dollars. They are quoted in dollars. When the conference was in session and the British delegates were figuring on the possibilities of trade in cocoa butter, for instance, with Canada, were they told that these importation figures were not reliable, that 89,774 was really not the true figure?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: They did not have to be told; they knew it.


Edward James Young: I think it is a pretty serious state of affairs when we can no longer turn to our own official trade returns to find out the truth about what we want to know. Now my hon. friend says that we take from Holland $618,000 worth. We are increasing the rate from two to three cents a pound under the intermediate and general tariffs. I presume the object is to divert trade from the Netherlands, because the big importation is from the Netherlands, the imports from the United States amounting to only 814,000 and from Brazil to S11,000. We have been told frequently that the object in raising these duties it is to hit back at those who have been raising their tariffs against us. I want to ask the minister now, what tariffs has the Netherlands been raising against us?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Obviously, Mr. Chairman,
I would not come armed with statistics to answer questions of that character. There has been no raising of tariffs by the Netherlands against us, so far as I know, and even if there had been, that would be a matter for the Netherlands. I am sure that my hon. friend will still adhere to his position that the Netherlands is perfectly free to make its own tariffs to suit its own purposes. It is not so long since I heard the argument extremely well made, if not by the hon. member for Weyburn by hon. members who sit around him, that the British delegates at the conference were shrewd enough at making bargains to take us into their camp. I can assure my hon. friend that they were
1170	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
thoroughly cognizant not only of the matter of poundage but as to the imports of commodities covered by this agreement.


Edward James Young: Perhaps so, but the people
of Canada were not so enlightened. When we saw from the trade returns reported that our trade had shrunk to $570,000,000, we thought that that was the actual state of affairs, but we find it has shrunk to away below that. Apparently the Netherlands has not been raising tariffs against us, but now we are raising tariffs against the Netherlands. Are they any different from us? Will they not retaliate by raising their tariffs against us? I would ask the minister what our trade, imports and exports, was with the Netherlands last year.


Jean-François Pouliot: 
Henry Herbert Stevens: I am sure that we have all been entertained by the humorous remarks of my hon. friend. I was asked for our trade with the Netherlands. Our imports from the Netherlands in 1931 were $7,287,000, and in 1932, $5,827,000; and our exports to the Netherlands in 1931 were $10,477,000, and in 1932, $13,502,000. May I say to the hon. member for Temisoouata, who has been having a most interesting joke all to himself, and has shared it in part with hon. members on this side of the house, that there is not much danger of that which he has in mind happening, because goods the product of foreign countries, if they are to secure the British preference in Canada, must have a certain proportion of British Empire content. I believe they must have 50 per cent empire content. The increase in duty is comparatively small when the article is translated into the use to which it is usually put, namely for use in confectionery. The actual application of the three cent rate as opposed to the two cent rate will make no serious difference, but it will have the tendency of diverting trade to British Empire concerns.


Edward James Young: The minister has told us that in the year ending March, 1932, we sold to the Netherlands goods valued at about $15,000,000, and purchased from them only about $5,000,000 worth. In that instance trade was almost three to one in our favour. In this one item alone he slaps at that trade, and is going to reduce the $5,000,000 worth of trade with Holland by two-thirds of a million dollars. I ask the committee, Mr. Chairman, if that is in the interests of Canadian trade? I ask this question: Is there not likely to be a reaction on the part of the Netherlands to a course of that kind? I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce how much wheat we sold to Holland, and whether or not this agreement is going to affect our sale of wheat in the future?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Shall the article carry?


Edward James Young: No, it does not oarry.


Mr. COOTE:: While the minister is getting the information I should like to ask whether or not we have a trade agreement with the Netherlands, and if under that agreement the Netherlands enjoy the benefit of the intermediate tariff?


Henry Herbert Stevens: We have a trade agreement with the Netherlands through what is known as a most favoured nation treaty. They enjoy the intermediate rate. The hon. mem-

United Kingdom
ber for Weybum asked for figures in connection with wheat. In 1931 we exported 7,672.000 bushels; in 1932 we exported 8,473,000 bushels.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I think these questions should be asked in a discussion of the agreement in general. We should confine ourselves to the articles themselves.


Edward James Young: We are dealing with the
items now.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I had not quite completed my remarks when the chairman called me to order.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I repeat that I believe the committee should confine themselves to the article. A discussion of the general trade of Canada should not be had at this time.


Edward James Young: It certainly should.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am bound to point out that in countries such as Holland the credited trade is that landed at the great ports, and shipped from Holland into Germany and other European countries of the interior. Therefore one must be careful when making an estimate of trade figures concerning Holland.


Mr. NEILL:: Would it not go through
Holland in bond?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Not necessarily. They are merchandised at the ports of entry.


Edward James Young: My hon. friend seems to be under the impression that no harm can be done by raising the tariff against a country which merely sells our goods for us, or a country which does not buy merely for home consumption. I am not so sure about that. If in the minds of Hollanders we should raise the idea that we are attempting to aim a blow at their trade with us, there is bound to be an unfavourable reaction in that trade. I should like to figure out, or have the minister figure out for me-which would be better -what the actual applied rate will be from the Netherlands. The price of cocoa butter from that country averages about fifteen cents a pound, carrying a duty of three cents a pound, or about 20 per cent. In addition to that there will be an excise tax of three per cent which will be based not on one dollar but on $1.20, or the duty paid value. Is that correct? So, with those figures we find that the applied rate on this article from Holland will be about 23f per cent. Let us compare that with the rate on the same article from Great Britain, which comes under the British preference. In the schedule we find that for Great Britain the tariff item reads " free ". Then we have an exchange dumping duty of from six to eight
cents per pound, or roughly speaking about 20 per cent. To that we add the three per cent special excise duty. I should like to ask the minister what will be the difference in the actual applied rate on this commodity coming from Great Britain and from Holland?


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend has it
under his hand.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member need not attempt to confuse the committee by dealing with excise as if it were applicable to this item alone. It applies to all of them.


Edward James Young: I know it.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: For purposes of comparison he may as well eliminate excise from the discussion.


Edward James Young: No, no.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: He may as well not consider excise at all, because it applies to other importations.


Edward James Young: The minister does not know what I am coming at.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: From the viewpoint of
my hon. friend's argument, it does not matter. I do not know what question the hon. member has submitted to me but I am called upon to answer.


Edward James Young: All right, I will answer it myself. Hon. members will recall that we have always contended the special excise tax is nothing more than a customs duty under another name. The actual applied rate on this commodity from Holland is going to be 20 per cent on the valuation of fifteen cents per pound, plus three per cent excise, making a total of twenty-three and a fraction per cent. The actual applied rate from Great Britain will be about the same thing. So, where is your boasted preference? Undoubtedly the rate is now free from the British Isles, but when the commodity is brought in we will find that the British exporter will pay practically the same rate as the Hollander. There is no question at all about it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Then, my hon. friend ought to be happy.


Edward James Young: No,-because another factor comes into it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Another nigger in the wood pile.


Edward James Young: My hon. friend wants to know why I insist upon counting the excise tax. I shall tell him why. Because the Canadian produced article does not pay it. This
1172	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
article ostensibly produced for the benefit of the British exporter will benefit nobody but the Canadian producer. The minister has told us that we produced a million and a half pounds of this commodity in Canada. We import four million pounds. The increase in the duty is one cent per pound; therefore the increase in cost to the Canadian consumer will be $55,000. My hon. friend says that does not amount to much. If every item in the tariff schedule which, on the surface, does not appear to amount to much, were eliminated, we would not have much tariff left. It may look very small, only a cent a pound on a commodity we do not use to any very great extent. In the aggregate however it amounts to $55,000.
I want to know what Canadian industry is affected. Can the minister tell us where this product is manufactured in Canada, and by whom?


Henry Herbert Stevens: This material is used very largely in the production of confectioneiy. When translated into terms of confectionery, providing the whole duty is charged to that commodity, it amounts to about one-fifth of a cent per pound. Surely that is nothing to be alarmed about?


Edward James Young: These are hard times, and
we have to look after the small things. I did not ask the minister who consumed this stuff, I asked him who produced it in Canada. I want to know what industry is getting this $55,000. Where is it being made, who is producing it, how many employees have they, what do they pay in wages? I want to find out what this industry is costing.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Surely it is not reasonable to ask us to have under our hands virtually all the information that the Bureau of Statistics have in regard to the manufacturing concerns in Canada. I confess that we are prepared to go to great lengths in satisfying my hon. friend, but I am sorry I have not under my hand that information.


Edward James Young: I know I am asking a lot,
but my hon. friend must not forget that these men who came and asked for this tariff must have given the government the information. Surely the government did not give them this without knowing something about their business. I said a moment ago that this diversion was going to cost $55,000, but that is on the basis of an increase of one cent a pound in duty, but the total duty will be three cents a pound, and the total cost to the people of Canada will be three times $55,000, or $165,000. I want to know what the people of Canada

are getting in exchange for that $165,000 extra that we are going to pay for our cocoa butter. What do these people pay in wages?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, it would
take a verbal contortionist to attempt to follow my hon. friend in his discussion. If I attempted to accept his various premises I would be hopping like Eliza from one cake of ice to another. If only I could nail him down to one thing at a time I could answer him.
In the first place he said: Who asked for this protection? Let me say that nobody asked for it. It was not dealt with as a matter of protection at all. It is one of the items on which we agreed with the British government to give them a preference. It was not dealt with on the basis of protection at all. My hon. friend is labouring this three per cent excise tax upon imports again. He could not do more than repeat over and over the arguments he made in the house last year. We cannot get any further ahead in the discussion on that item. Let us agree with my hon. friend that to the extent that that three per cent excise is applied it means an additional three per cent protection. My hon. friend knows well that the statement, was made last year, and we still adhere to that position, that while undoubtedly it affords incidental protection to a certain extent, it was applied as a matter of producing revenue.
Another thing my hon. friend assumes, and I cannot follow him in that assumption, is. that the people of Canada are going to pay $55,000 more-


Edward James Young: I do assume that.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Of course he multiplied
it and had it up to $165,000, it is well that I interrupted him or he would have had it up to half a million. But as a matter of fact if these goods come from Great Britain nobody pays the $55,000. If on the other-hand they come from countries which have to pay the three per cent tax, then the $55,000 goes into the treasury of this country. Even if that is done it by no means follows that it would cost the people of this country one cent more to purchase the ultimate finished goods into which cocoa butter goes, because as pointed out by my colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) translated into terms of confectionery, if the whole $55,000 were charged to that com-, modity it would mean an increased cost of only one-fifth of a cent per pound on the best material. I will say in that case it would.

United Kingdom
unquestionably be assumed by the manufacturer and not passed on to the public, unless we introduce a one-fifth cent piece in Canada.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Alan Webster Neill: I rise to a point of order. I wish to correct an error in Hansard of yesterday, in connection with these tariffs. At page 1115 of Hansard the Minister of Trade and Commerce gives two tables showing some comparisons of duties in relation to the present trade agreements. It is merely a clerical error. He gives the British duty on eggs as Is. 2d. to 2s. Id. per dozen, -which is a gross mistake, because it runs from Is. to Is. 9d. per great hundred. That is an entirely different thing. I do not think the minister would like to have an incorrect statement like that remain on the record.


Edward James Young: Judging from his remarks
just before six o'clock, the Minister of Finance did not quite grasp the point I was trying to make. I do not think it is due so much to lack of understanding on his part as to a want of clarity on mine. However, I will try to explain briefly now what I had in mind. Under this legislation the duty on cocoa butter is to be increased from two cents to three cents per pound both in the intermediate and in the general rates, while the nominal rate under the preference will still be free. Now, we import 4,000,000 odd pounds, and one cent per pound added to the price *of that would represent $40,000 a year. We produce at home 1,500,000 pounds, and one cent per pound added to that would be the *equivalent of $15,000, or a total of $55,000 per year. That, I pointed out, would be the cost of diverting this trade to Britain. When I said that the cost to the country would be three times that amount, or $165,000, I meant that the total rate of three cents per pound would be charged the Canadian people and that would be what the industry in Canada would cost us. The cost of protecting the industry, I indicated, would be the total rate *of three cents per pound or $165,000 a year.
The minister said that the object of this legislation was to give a preference to Britain, and he quoted figures to prove that the rate from Britain under the new arrangement would be practically the same as the rate from other countries. During the supper hour
I secured the latest bulletin from the department in regard to the exchange rate. The pound today is quoted at $3.73, and the value declared by the department is $3.71; that, subtracted from $4.40, leaves 69 cents. That 69 cents then is the dumping duty that will be imposed on the pound sterling in the next two weeks. Sixty-nine cents on a valuation of $3.73 is 18i per cent, so that the dumping duty from Britain will amount to 18i per cent; and adding to that three per cent we get the duty paid value, which would be approximately 21 per cent. That will be the duty on this article coming from Great Britain. The rate from the Netherlands or the outside world will be three cents a pound on a valuation of 15 cents, or approximately
20	per cent. Add to that the three per cent dumping duty on $1.20 and you get 23 j per cent or thereabouts, so that the preference to Britain is not three cents a pound but about
21	per cent. That is about all the preference that Britain is getting under this arrangement.
The minister says that this was done to give Great Britain a preference. May I ask him whether, at the time this item was put in the schedule, he had in mind giving Great Britain such a slender preference as that?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I can only answer my hon. friend's remark by saying that if Britain had a preference before, which was the contention of hon. gentlemen opposite-that the tariff remained free, two and two, under them-we certainly have increased the preference to the extent that we have changed it to free, three and three. With respect to the other portion of the hon. gentleman's argument, I have nothing to add to what I said before dinner.


Edward James Young: I am not so much concerned with what was done before. If the Liberal party were not logical in their stand, that is their own funeral. I want to know what the situation is now. Here we are passing legislation under an agreement with Britain, under which she is to have apparently a preference of three cents a pound on this article. But the fact is that when we figure it out the preference amounts to only two per cent, a mere negligible fraction. My contention is this. If the rate of three cents a pound is high enough to shut out that article from Holland or from other countries, a rate substantially the same will shut it out from Britain, so that we shall be getting the product made in Canada. My hon. friend says that this is a revenue item, and the Minister of Trade and Commerce made a very good point when he said that this is an article
1174	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
that may be regarded as a luxury inasmuch as it is used in the making of confectionery, so that it could very well cariy a revenue rate. I agree with him, but what I am afraid of is that this legislation will operate in such a way that no revenue will accrue, for the simple reason that the goods will be shut out of Canada; so that while we pay the extra three cents a pound duty we shall not be paying it into the revenue of the country but into the pockets of certain Canadian manufacturers. The question I asked before supper and the question I ask now is: What is the Canadian industry which is affected? Where is it or where are they located, what number of men do they employ and what do they pay in wages?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The industry affected is
the very large and widespread biscuit and confectionary industry which covers the whole of Canada. It would be quite impossible to answer my hon. friend's question categorically, in detail, nor do I consider it advisable or appropriate to take individual companies by name throughout Canada in relation to this or any other item.


Edward James Young: The industries mentioned
by my hon. friend are the consumers of the product. Who are the producers?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: They are both.


Edward James Young: The confectionery manufacturers, then, make their own cocoa butter.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Some of them do.


Edward James Young: Is there any industry that
makes it on a commercial scale?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am informed that there
is ample capacity in the industry to meet all Canadian requirements.


Edward James Young: That is not the question.
Ample capacity to meet all Canadian requirements means, I take it, that the minister intends so to frame the tariff that all Canadian requirements will be supplied by Canadian factories, which is the very thing I was afraid of. It will divert revenue from the treasury into the pockets of certain manufacturers, and I want to know who they are.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I will repeat once more, and for the last time so far as my hon. friend is concerned, that if the importations come in free no duty is paid. If the importations do pay a duty then the revenue goes into the treasury. So that my hon. friend's deduction that the increase from two to three per cent in the duty means an increase in the amount of money that will be made by the manufacturers is entirely wrong. He is mistaken,

With respect to his question as to what industries are affected, I may say to him that that is not a question which ought to be answered in detail.


William Richard Motherwell: It is a perfectly proper question.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Does my hon. friend mean to assert that I should mention the individual companies by name?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes. Do they want to be hidden in the cellar?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It is not what they wish to have done; it is a question of the proprieties. I have told my hon. friend what he has a right to know in answer to his question.


Edward James Young: The minister says that if the importation comes in free no duty is paid. Now I have shown that the importation will mot come in free even from Britain. It will pay approximately 21 per cent, almost as much as it will pay coming from Holland. I wish to know, and I think the members of this committee have a right to know, what industry is affected by this. From what the minister says, the industry in Canada is going to supply the entire Canadian market with a certain product if it gets the three cents per pound duty, and that industry will take the three cents a pound out of the pockets of the people. We have a right to know who they are.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Surely the minister can give that information. Parliament is entitled to all the information in detail. This is really like a new budget and I think the minister should reconsider the answer he has given.


Mr. ILSLEY:: The question is a very important one. I can remember that in connection with the tariff schedules of 1930 the Prime Minister when acting as Minister of Finance did not hesitate to speak about specific industries. There was in particular a glass industry at Hamilton which it was hoped would be promoted by certain high tariffs which were discussed in this house. No injustice to any particular industry suggests itself to my mind or, I imagine, to the mind of any other hon. member.
The one feature of the argument of the hon. member for Weyburn which I think is deserving of some consideration by the Minister of Finance is his contention that the imposition of these duties does not give effective preference to Great Britain. If the minister has an answer to that argument, I should like to hear it. I must say that I was surprised as

United Kingdom
the hon. member for Weyburn developed his argument, but if he is correct in saying that the duty against Great Britain is practically as high as the duty against Holland, then it would seem that these duties are not such as will divert trade from non-empire to empire countries but will simply impose additional protection for the benefit of Canadian industry. If that is so, surely we are justified in offering the severest criticism of what the government has done in this respect. If because of its protectionist mandate received in 1930 the government felt that it was its duty to give additional protection to the cocoa butter manufacturers of Canada, there was only one proper way in which to do it, and that was by means of a regular budget. In that case the rates of duty could be altered as conditions changed and as the wishes of the people of the Dominion of Canada might dictate. If the hon. member for Weyburn is right and the effect of this particular duty-doubtless there are hundreds of other articles in the same category-is not to divert trade from foreign to British sources, is not to give additional business to manufacturers or producers in other parts of the empire, but is simply a left-handed way of giving additional protection to Canadian manufacturers, a trade agreement is not the proper place for such an item. Being placed in this agreement the rate cannot be changed without a breach of our obligations in honour to the parties to the agreement.
I do not think the Minister of Finance can toss this argument off in the summary way in which he has sought to dispose of it. He read a lecture to the hon. member for Weyburn and said that he proposed to say this and say it for once and the last time. It seems to me that the argument is a very serious one and should be answered. The members of this committee are entitled to know whether this schedule is merely a subterfuge to give additional protection to Canadian manufacturers or whether it is to bring about a bona fide diversion of trade from non-empire to empire sources. If it represents a real concession to Great Britain, I for one would not go very far in arguing against it, because I realize that there must be two parties to an argument; we must make concessions in order to get concessions. I think we are getting some valuable concessions under this agreement, but if this particular item is merely a subterfuge to give additional privileges to certain producing interests in this country, the committee and the house should know.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member for Hants-Kings (Mr. Ilsley) has just done what is very frequently done in this house; he has attributed to me a statement which I did not make. He could not torture the English language in such a way as to make me say what he claims I did say. I think I should be the last person to say to the committee that I refused to say more than so and so. What I did say was that I would repeat to the hon. member for Weyburn for the last time something which I had repeated prior to the dinner recess. That is entirely different from saying that if the hon. gentleman submitted a question to me I would refuse to answer.
I want to say to the hon. gentleman that although I have not recently been in the house quite so long as he has, I have been a member for a great many years. I came into this house nearly a quarter of a century ago, and I do not propose to take any instructions from him as to the manner in which I ought to conduct myself in this house. Hon. gentlemen opposite are very fond of exercising, as they have every right to do, their right to speak and to present their arguments. Sometimes they present those arguments in a vehement manner; sometimes they are presented, as my hon. friend has just done, insan unfair manner, but the moment an hon. member on this side replies, hon. members opposite claim they are receiving a lecture. At no time have I ever attempted to take an attitude of that kind.
Coming to the argument of my hon. friend, I would say that this increase in the intermediate and general tariffs of one cent per pound was not imposed at the instance of the Canadian manufacturers.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I heard the minister say that.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: We never saw them. This was imposed as part of the agreement which we made with the mother country. The increased duty was given as a matter of preference, for that and for no other purpose.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Does it give it?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My hon. friend has suggested that because we increased the duty from two to three cents per pound we have therefore increased the protection to a Canadian industry. Let me say to him that under the government which he supported the tariff was free, two and two. Did that protect, or did it not?


Edward James Young: Apparently it did.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I submit that it is only a question of degree.
1176	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements


James Lorimer Ilsley: Precisely.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: This increased duty was imposed as a preference, the idea being to divert as much of this trade as possible to the mother country, and it does divert it to the extent to which it comes in free. The argument that there is an increased cost to the consumer falls entirely by the way. The item comes in free today just as it did under the government which my hon. friend supported. It has been suggested that because I did not wish to give names I was withholding information which should properly be given. I do not wish for one moment to withhold any information which this committee should properly have. If the committee insists, I shall give the names, but I do not see that any good purpose will be served.


Edward James Young: We insist.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Is there any reason why we should not have them?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It is only a question of discussing the business of individual companies. The hon. member for Hants-Kings referred to glass, but that is an entirely different matter. In that case the duty was imposed upon the distinct understanding that the price would not be increased. It was increased, and the' government acted promptly to restore the *old position.


James Lorimer Ilsley: There is no difference.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My hon. friend apparently has a thirst for information, perhaps brought [DOT]on by too much confectionery. The manufacturers of cocoa butter in Canada are Fry's and Bakers. I am informed that all the other confectionery manufacturers are importers of this commodity.


Edward James Young: Could the minister give us the number of employees and the wages paid?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have not those statistics.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: And the ages of the wives.


Edward James Young: If my hon. friend is interested in that information, he can get it, but we are not. What we are interested in and what we 'have a right to know is how many employees will be supported by this form of regulation, what they receive in wages, and what it will cost the country. I have no desire to make .political capital for the Liberal party out of .this incident, but the minister has stated that the duties were the same under the Liberal government. I say they were not, because at that time the preference meant free entry. There was no dump duty on exchange, and that is the

manner in which the increase has come about. My hon. friends opposite have said: of course, the British pound is below par and we must add a special dump duty of 69 cents on a valuation of $3.73, or something like eighteen per cent. We never did that. Then in addition, there is the three per cent excise tax.


Mr. CANTLEY:: You never did anything.


Edward James Young: We never did that. The rate, free, under the Liberal regime was f-r-e-e. Now it means twenty-one per cent. We would like to 'have this information.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am sorry but I have not that information.


Edward James Young: I suggest that the item stand until the minister can give the committee the number of employees and the wages paid.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My hon. friend may ask for the figures, but they are not obtainable. I am advised that the Bureau of Statistics does not compile figures unless more than three or four industries are affected; therefore the figures are not obtainable.


Jean-François Pouliot: I do not wish to intervene in this part of the debate for long, but I remember distinctly that during the special session the Prime Minister said that he was raising the tariff in order to decrease unemployment. At the same time he indicated the relation that existed in his mind between high tariff and employment. Therefore, if the Minister of Finance is a true disciple of the Prime Minister, he must follow in his footsteps, and in that case he must undoubtedly learn before raising the tariff, the number of people who will benefit from that increase in securing work. I base my argument on the Prime Minister's statement: This is why I believe it is very strong.


Edward James Young: There is another question I should like to ask the minister. He says that this was done with the object of giving Britain a preference. I want to ask him whether the British delegates asked for this preference and, if they did, whether they understood it would amount to only two or three per cent.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I shall not foT a moment attempt to become responsible for what the understanding of the British delegates was in respect to the implications of this or any other item of thte tariff. I can only assume, as do hon. gentlemen opposite and, I think, quite properly, that the British are shrewd traders, keen business men, and they knew very well what they were about.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

United Kingdom,
Customs tariff-79. Florist stock, viz.: Azaleas, rhododendrons, pot-grown lilacs, rose stock and other stock for grafting, seedling carnation stock, araucarias, bulbs, corms, tubers, rhizomes and dormant roots, n.o.p.; seedling stock for grafting, viz.: Plum, pear, peach and other fruit trees: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 15 per cent; general tariff, 20 per cent.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: How
many, if any, of these items come from Great Britain?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Imports under this item
were $677,000, of which $28,000 worth came from the United Kingdom; $38,000 from the United States, and almost the entire remainder from the Netherlands.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Does the statement which the minister has before him indicate which of the items would come from Great Britain?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am sorry I cannot give the individual items. The item is a complicated one and the amount covers the whole.


Jean-François Pouliot: Rhododendrons grow wild in South Africa.


Alan Webster Neill: I trust the hon. member for West Kootenay will hear me say that I support this item. I am sure he will be gratified. This is a very modest form of protection, only 15 per cent and 20 per cent. While it is not popular to advocate protection in these days of reaction against the extreme high tariff policies of hon. gentlemen opposite, yet I am ' not ashamed to say that to a moderate degree I am in favour of a tariff especially on a new industry. There has grown up in British Columbia, possibly in the district represented by the hon. member for Nanaimo and also in the district I represent, an industry in this class of bulbs. The growers have been very hard hit in the last year or two, because when Britain imposed a duty on foreign imports it practically shut Holland out of the British market, with the result that Holland redoubled her efforts and unloaded her goods on the Canadian market with disastrous consequences to this young and growing industry. In my district there is a man who has made a specialty-I think he is known throughout Canada-of the production of rhododendrons; growing and propagating them in the open air he could supply the whole of Canada. I do not know whether the hon. member for Vancouver Centre intends to oppose this item-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No.


Alan Webster Neill: -but I intend to support it and I hope the hon. member for West Kootenay will be pleased.


George Gibson Coote: I think the first two items illustrate the very dangerous nature of the agreement which has been negotiated, because we are raising the tariff against Holland on goods that come largely from that country, and it is only natural to expect that Holland will not feel very gracious towards us over this treatment. Holland has been a good customer for Canadian wheat, and I am afraid we are doing a very unwise thing in imposing what may seem to be small, irritating tariffs, but which may result in action by Holland to cancel the treaty that we have with that country. When I was in Montreal within the last ten days I met a man who had just returned from Europe, and who said he had been talking to one of the largest wheat importers in the Netherlands in an effort to interest him in Canadian wheat. The importer, however, said that they were no longer interested in importing our wheat because we did not seem to want to take any goods from them. That is something we cannot ignore. I regret very much that in negotiating this trade agreement with Great Britain, instead of raising tariffs against countries like Holland, we did not offer Britain some concessions, for instance, in the form of a reduction of tariff on textiles. That would have been of much greater benefit to Britain and of considerable benefit to Canada, and it would not have put us in so much danger of losing our trade treaty with Holland, which is so good a customer of ours. The figures given this afternoon indicate that Holland is buying twice as much from Canada as we are buying from her. It is unfortunate that we should raise duties against such a good customer in order to secure this trade agreement. It is one of the objectionable features of the agreement.


Alfred Speakman: I should like to say very plainly that in this matter I am in absolute agreement with the principle advanced by the hon. member for Macleod. In the first place I am strongly in favour of trade within the empire. In the second, I have no objection at all to diverting trade from a country that will not buy our goods to one that will. It, is however, bad policy and unsound business, at a time when markets are being so largely closed against us, to alienate a good customer like Holland which has consistently purchased from two to three times as much in value of our goods as we have bought from her. This is going against the principle which has been enunciated of diverting trade from countries that will not trade with us to countries that will, and I join very strongly in the protest of the hon. member for Macleod. It surely would have been possible to make an agree-

1178	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
ment with Britain without attacking one of the few countries that will do business with us, especially when we consider the number of countries that have practically closed their doors to us and the comparatively small and specialized nature of the business that nations such as Holland carry on.


Edward James Young: I am in hearty agreement with the sentiments of the two hon. gentlemen to my left in regard to antagonizing Holland. A story very similar to the one told by the hon. member for Macleod came to me of a miller from Holland at present in western Canada who was approached with regard to purchasing Canadian wheat. " Why should I buy Canadian wheat?" he asked. " Why not?" was the retort. " Because your government " he replied, " has imposed prohibitive duties on the very few things that Holland sells to Canada, and so there is no reason on earth why we should buy your wheat. You have done your level best to destroy Holland's trade with you, and I am not going to buy your Canadian wheat. That is my answer."


Alan Webster Neill: Would the hon. gentleman
regard a duty of 15 per cent as prohibitive?


Edward James Young: On some articles, yes. Formerly these articles came in free from all countries. Now they are free from Great Britain. 15 per cent intermediate, and 20 per cent general tariff. If Great Britain coidd not compete when they were coming in free, can she compete when the effective duty is 21 per cent? Because you have to add the dumping duty on to your excise tax and it makes a duty of approximately 21 per cent against these goods coming in from Great Britain, as compared with 15 per cent plus 3i per cent under the intermediate tariff. The rate is actually higher on goods coming in from Great Britain than from other countries.


Alan Webster Neill: Then you cannot kick.


Edward James Young: That is not where my kick comes in. My kick comes in here, that we are putting on a tariff against all countries which is going to shut out these goods and compel us to buy them from the Canadian producer. I want to ask the minister if any representations have been made to the government by anyone in Canada interested in the production of these goods that these duties be imposed; and if so, by whom?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am not aware of anybody in Canada having asked that these duties be imposed.


Edward James Young: I understand that there have been such representations.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am not aware of any, and I am advised by my technical officers that we were not requested to impose these duties. The same observations apply to this as to the other item. It was a matter of negotiation between our delegates and those of Great Britain.


Edward James Young: Surely the British delegates never asked that a thing that was coming in free should now be taxed 21 per cent, a higher rate under the British preference than under the intermediate tariff. I understand that representations were made by a company which aspires to produce certain of these goods in Canada, and the people of Canada are going to be made to pay. Further, this tariff will not bring in any revenue because it will be prohibitive, and the people will have to buy the Canadian goods.


Mr. SPENCER:: How many of these
flowers can be produced in either Great Britain or Canada?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I do not know that I can answer the question with absolute accuracy. I can only answer on the advice which is given to me. I am told that the production of practically all of these items is common to Great Britain and Canada, and in British Columbia there is a very substantial industry.


George Gibson Coote: In negotiating the trade
agreements was the matter kept in mind of trying to protect the trade we now enjoy with countries with which we have trade treaties? It seems to me that that is very important, and I should like to know whether care was taken not to interfere unduly with our trade with these other countries.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: There is an old maxim that you cannot make an omelet without breaking eggs, and you cannot enter into trade agreements designed to divert trade into empire channels without, to a certain extent, taking it away from other channels. In negotiating this agreement there was no desire to injure the trade of any country with which we have friendly trade relations, but if the incidents of the treaty is to take away a certain amount of business from other countries, it is simply the result of the agreement and it cannot be helped.


George Gibson Coote: Was any care taken to divert trade from countries which have a favourable trade balance against Canada rather than from countries compared with which we have a favourable trade balance?

United Kingdom


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: To a very large degree that might be true, but it must be borne in mind on the one hand that we felt we were receiving marked concessions from the mother country, and on the other hand we were met with requests from them in return. All I can say is that the agreement as finally reached is the result of the pooled judgment of the two delegations.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-83. Potatoes, as hereunder defined:	(a) in their natural state, per one
hundred pounds:	British preferential tariff,
free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, 75 ets.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: There is no change in either the wording or the rates of this item. It is inserted in the agreement merely for the purpose of guaranteeing the continuance of free entry.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-143a. Cigarettes, the weight of the paper covering to be included in the weight for duty, per pound: British preferential tariff, $3.50 and 25 per cent; intermediate tariff, $4.10 and 25 per cent; general tariff, $4.10 and 25 per cent.
Edward James Young: The old rate was $4.10 plus 25 per cent in all three columns. The new rate is $3.50 British preferential, S4.10 intermediate and $4.10 general, plus 25 per cent in each case. What will be the applied rate on these goods coming from Great Britain and from the outside world?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The details would be a matter for the National Revenue department, and I would not attempt to go into all the ramifications. But if my hon. friend will look at the parallel columns he will see the change in the rates.


Edward James Young: That is the change in the nominal rates: I want to know the change in what will be collected. Formerly it was $4.10 plus 25 per cent from Great Britain, and now it is $3.50 plus 25 per cent, plus the dumping duty of about 18 per cent, plus 3 per cent excise. I would like to have it all added up.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: Figure it out for yourself.


Edward James Young: I am directing my question to the Minister of National Revenue.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I think the figures are plain, and judging from past performances my hon. friend is very skilful in handling figures. It has been said that figures do not lie, but I was going to suggest, without any
53719-75i
offence, that the hon. member for Weyburn has made figures come closer to it than anybody else that I know of.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: No, I think we must give first place to the department over which my hon. friend presides.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Frankly I think the hon. gentleman should do his own arithmetic. If we do not challenge his results I do not want the hon. gentleman to imagine that we accept it; for I for one do not.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member for Weyburn need not be unduly alarmed about this item. So far from there being a reduction in revenue, if there is any change at all I anticipate that there will be an increase, and I will state why: There was imported last year S97,000 worth of cigarettes affected by this item, and it was felt that we would perhaps be able to increase the imports of this special type of cigarettes. If we do, our revenue will be increased rather than diminished,


Edward James Young: If the reduction is genuine-that might be true, but if this ostensible reduction should turn out to be really an increase in the duty, I do not think the importations will increase very much. That is why I asked my hon. friend to figure out what will be collected.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is a reduction.


Edward James Young: The minister says that figures do not lie, but some people come pretty close to making them do so. Remember what happened this afternoon in regard to the trade figures.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My hon. friend is ingenious and resourceful, and I have the greatest admiration for the nimbleness of his mind. This afternoon and early this evening he was arguing that an increase in tariff involved an increase in the cost of the goods. Now, if you please, he takes the other tack and suggests that if we reduce the duties we are still increasing the cost of the goods. I should like to know where my hon. friend would like to stay, which side of the argument he would like to take. As a matter of fact he knows perfectly well that under this item we are reducing the duty.


Edward James Young: 
Edmond Baird Ryckman: That is not fair. The hon. member may have been speaking in fun, but I resent any allegation of false figures. As long as the hon. member for Weybum has been living and walking around the pound lias stood at $4.86$. Today in England the value of the pound is at the same figure, and there has been no change. We have taken the pound at the figure England has placed upon it, namely $4.86j, and that is the ^figure today. Of course, probably because of the depression, the pound in New York stands at something like $3.32. Today the valuation fixed by the Department of National Revenue is $3.71. The fallacy of the hon. member's argument rests in the fact that he believes the pound will always be at $3.32, or $3.71, as the case may be. He believes that there will always be a dumping duty, and he hopes it will be continued, because every calculation he has made has been on the assumption of a dumping duty with the pound at $3.71 or $3.32. I ask the hon. member, for whom I have the greatest respect, not to say that the figures are false. The explanation is clear on the face of it; there is no doubt as to how the computation has been made.


Edward James Young: 
Richard Burpee Hanson: Really, that is silly-absolutely silly.


Charles A. Stewart: Do not be
alarmed.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am not a bit alarmed; it is just obstructing, that is all it is.


Edward James Young: I am trying to figure out
what this duty would be. As near as I can calculate it the price would be $5.26 per pound. Maybe I am wrong; if I am, perhaps

my hon. friend will check my figures or figure it out for himself. The duty levied under the general rate will be $5.57, leaving a preference of only 31 cents per pound. Is it the intention of the government to extend only that preference?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I can say nothing further
to my hon. friend. I cannot attempt to follow him in his argument. I have assured him that if he will look at the figures he will see that there has been a reduction in the duty.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-144. Cut tobacco, per pound: British preferential tariff, 80 cents; intermediate tariff, 95 cents; general tariff, 95 cents.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-145. Manufactured tobacco, n.o.p. and snuff per pound: British preferential tariff, 75 cents; intermediate tariff, 90 cents; general tariff, 90 cents.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-146. Ale, beer, porter and stout, when imported in casks or otherwise than in bottle, per gallon: British preferential tariff. 25 cents; intermediate tariff, 35 cents; general tariff, 35 cents.
George Gibson Coote: What reduction of revenue
is expected under this item?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It is doubtful whether
there will be any reduction; in fact if the importations increase as a result of the reduction in duty there will be an increase in revenue. The imports in bottles last year amounted in all to $388,000. Of that amount, $318,000 came from the United Kingdom and $55,000 from Japan.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-147. Ale, beer, porter and stout, when imported in bottles, per gallon: British preferential tariff, 30 cents; intermediate tariff, 50 cents, general tariff, 50 cents.
Provided that six quart bottles or twelve pint bottles shall be held to contain one gallon.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-152. Lime juice, fruit syrups and fruit juices, n.o.p.:	British preferential
tariff, 15 per cent; intermediate tariff, 25 per cent; general tariff, 25 per cent.
George Gibson Coote: What are the importations
under this item, and from what countries do they come?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The importations last year were valued at $204,000. Of that quantity $171,000 worth came from the United States and $22,000 from the United Kingdom.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

United Kingdom
Customs tariff-156. Ethyl alcohol, or the substance commonly known as alcohol, hydrated oxide of ethyl or spirits of wine, n.o.p.; gin of all kinds, n.o.p.; whiskey and all spirituous or alcoholic liquors, n.o.p.; amyl alcohol or fusel-oil, or any substance known as potato spirit or potato oil; methyl alcohol, wood alcohol, wood naphtha, pyrosylic spirit or any substance known as wood spirit or methylated spirits; absinthe, arrack, or palm spirit, brandy, including artificial brandy and imitations of brandy, n.o.p.; cordials and liqueurs of all kinds, n.o.p.; mescal, pulque, rum shrub, Schiedam and other schnapps; tafia, angostura and similar alcoholic bitters or beverages; and wines, n.o.p., containing more than forty per cent of proof spirit, per gallon of the strength of proof: British preferential tariff. $8; intermediate tariff, $10; general tariff, $10.
Provided, as to all goods specified in item No. 156 when of less strength than the strength of proof, that no reduction or allowance shall be made in the measurement thereof for duty purposes, below the strength of 15 per cent under proof.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-157a. Amyl alcohol or refined fusel-oil, when imported by the Department of National Revenue, or by a person licensed by the minister, to be denatured for use in the manufacture of metal varnishes or lacquers, to be entered at ports prescribed by regulations of the minister, subject to the Excise Act and to the regulations of the Department of National Revenue, per gallon: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 25 cents; general tariff, 25 cents.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-159.	Spirits and strong
waters of any kind, mixed with any ingredient or ingredients, as being or known or designated as essences, extracts, or ethereal and spirituous fruit essences, n.o.p., per gallon: British preferential tariff, $8; and 30 per cent; intermediate tariff, $10 and 30 per cent; general tariff, $10 and 30 per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-160. Alcoholic perfumes and perfumed spirits, bay rum, cologne and lavender waters, lotions, hair, tooth and skin washes, and other toilet preparations containing spirits of any kind:-
(a)	when in bottles or flasks containing not more than four ounces each: British preferential tariff, 60 per cent; intermediate tariff, 90 per cent; general tariff, 90 per cent.
(b)	when in bottles, flasks or other packages, containing more than four ounces each, per gallon: British preferential tariff, $5; intermediate tariff, $5 and 40 per cent; general tariff, $5 and 40 per cent.
George Gibson Coote: Would the minister tell us
what were the importations under this item, and from what countries they came?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: In bottles of four ounces
or less, importations were valued at 875.000. Of that amount 856,000 worth came from
France; 110,000 from the United States and 15,000 from the United Kingdom. In bottles over four ounces the importations were valued at $56,000. Of that amount $38,000 worth came from France; S12.000 worth from the United States and $4,000 from the United Kingdom.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-166.	Acetone and amyl
acetate: British preferential tariff, 10 per cent; intermediate tariff, 30 per cent; general tariff, 30 per cent.
Henry Elvins Spencer: Where does this come
from?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The imports last year
amounted to $10S,000, and came entirely from the United States.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Is it expected that trade
can be shifted to Great Britain?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: This is one of the items
upon which the British delegates laid particular stress. They felt they could supply this to advantage.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-168. Malt flour containing less than 50 per centum in weight of malt; malt syrup or malt syrup powder; extracts of malt, fluid or not; grain molasses-all articles in this item upon valuation without British or foreign excise duties, under regulations prescribed by the minister, per pound: British preferential tariff. 3 cents and 20 per cent; intermediate tariff, 5 cents and 30 per cent; general tariff, 10 cents and 35 per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-171. Comic periodicals for juveniles: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 10 per cent; general tariff, 10 per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-171. Books, printed, periodicals and pamphlets, or parts thereof, n.o.p., not to include blank account books, copy books, or books to be -written or drawn upon: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 10 per cent; general tariff, 10 per cent.
George Gibson Coote: Would the minister please
give us particulars of importations under this item?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The imports last year
were valued at $2,536,000, of which 81,476,000 came from the United States, $886,000 from the United Kingdom and $132,000 from France.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
1182	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
Customs tariff-178.	Printed advertising
matter issued by railway systems: British preferential tariff, free:
Henry Elvins Spencer: There is nothing in the
other two columns.


Edward James Young: There is probably none
coming from outside the empire.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: This item is applicable
only under the British preference.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-188. Plain basic photographic paper, baryta coated, adapted for use exclusively in manufacturing albumenized or sensitized photographic paper: British preferential tariff, free: intermediate tariff, 15 per cent; general tariff, 15 per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-192. Roofing and shingles of saturated felt: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 25 per cent; general tariff, 35 per cent.
Alfred Speakman: Is there any record of
the imports under this item?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am advised that it
is impossible to segregate the items, but the total importations last year under the whole item were $60,000 in value.


Frederick George Sanderson: Are these saturated
felt shingles manufactured in this country, and if so, where?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes, they are manufactured in this country in very large quantities. I am advised that there are about ten different industries manufacturing them.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: A different type from this, isn't it?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: A similar type. I understand. But I am advised that Great Britain has been specializing more in felt, whereas Canadian manufacturers have been specializing in asbestos.


Alfred Speakman: Is there any record of importations from Great Britain?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am advised that the only course open to the officers of the department was to take the whole item, importations of which amounted to $60,000 in toto; but there would be no way of segregating the amount which would be imported under the item we are now discussing.


Alfred Speakman: The whole thing is small, but could any estimate be made as to the proportion of goods of that character which will come from Great Britain?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The item is small, but if the hon. member will look at the parent item he will see it covers a very wide range of commodities-tarred paper and prepared roofings, including shingles; fibreboard, straw-board, sheathing and insulation, manufactured wholly or in part of vegetable fibres, n.o.p.; blotting paper, not printed nor illustrated. There is no method whereby we can compute how much the importations, if any, were under the item felt shingles.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-199. Waxed stencil paper for use on duplicating machines: British preferential tariff, 10 per cent: intermediate tariff, 32i per cent; general tariff, 35 per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-203.	Chemical compounds
composed of two or more acids or salts soluble in water, adapted for dyeing or tanning: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 10 per cent; general tariff, 10 per cent.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Was this free all across in the last schedule?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-203. Aniline and coal tar dyes, soluble in water, in bulk or packages of not less than one pound weight: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 10 per cent; general tariff, 10 per cent.
Edward James Young: This was free all across the line before?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes.


Edward James Young: Could the minister give the importations and the sources?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Importations last year were, in value, $2,000,000, of which $972,000 came from the United States, S570.000 from Germany, $320,000 from Switzerland, and $165,000 from the United Kingdom.


Charles A. Stewart: Does my hon. friend think that ten per cent will switch the trade to Great Britain?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Well, that is problematical.


Charles A. Stewart: They are satisfied?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: At all events the British
asked for it, and were satisfied with this spread.


Edward James Young: Our heaviest importations
came from the United States; only S165,000 came from Great Britain. The rate from the United States in the future is to be 10 per

United Kingdom
cent; the rate from Great Britain, forgetting about the excise, will be 18 per cent on the present value of the pound. If Great Britain could not compete with the United States when they were free on both sides, how is it expected she can compete now? The preferential rate will be actually higher than the general.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I cannot give any better
answer to my hon. friend than I gave to the hon. member for West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart). It was a matter of agreement, and our British friends were satisfied. We will see how it works out.


Edward James Young: They are easily satisfied.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-206. Bacteriological products or serum for subcutaneous injection: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 20 per cent; general tariff, 20 per cent.
Mr. HOWDEN:: May I ask why this has
been put on? Were very strong representations made to the government that this duty be put on these sera?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: This item was one of those which was specially requested by the United Kingdom delegates. The imports last year of commodities embraced in this item amounted in all to $115,000.


John Power Howden: May I ask how these
imports were distributed? To what extent did they come from Great Britain?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Almost entirely from the
United States.


John Power Howden: Have we any guarantee
that we shall have a ready and adequate supply of these important materials from the British manufacturers? Because it is very important that we should have an ample supply of these sera, available at all times.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I can quite understand
the interest of my hon. friend and his peculiar knowledge of the subject matter embraced in this item. I can only say in answer that inasmuch as this item was specially requested by the British delegates we must assume that they were particularly interested in it, and feel they are in a position to supply the requirements, both as to quality and quantity and delivery of our Canadian necessities.


John Power Howden: At a satisfactory price?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I should think so, unquestionably.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Custom tariff-207. Blood albumen: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 10 per cent; general tariff, 10 per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-208.	Sal. ammoniac and
nitrate of ammonia: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 25 per cent; general tariff, 25 per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-208. Oxide of cobalt: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 10 per cent; general tariff, 10 per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-208. Bichloride of tin and tin crystals: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 10 per cent; general tariff, 10 per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-208.	Sulphate of copper
(blue vitriol): British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 10 per cent; general tariff, 10 per cent.
James Lorimer Ilsley: AVhere does this commodity come from? How much do we import from the United Kingdom and how much from other countries? This is a very important spraying material.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The imports last year were valued at $140,000, of which $48,000 came from the United States; $37,000 from the United Kingdom; $30,000 from Belgium and $24,000 from Germany.


Mr. BROWN:: This item is of great importance to the agriculturist. It is just an extra burden laid upon him at a time when the prices of all farm products are depressed. Sulphate of copper is used very' extensively in the west in treating grain for smut, and Bordeaux mixture is used by fruit growers. This is an extra burden imposed on the farmer.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I must respectfully demur to the view expressed by my hon. friend. In the first place, the imports totalled $140,000, and the hon. gentleman must realize that this commodity is used in industry as well as by the agriculturist.


Albert Joseph Brown: It will be a burden on
industry, then.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I cannot understand how it can be a burden on industry because we have not gone so far as to put on a tariff for revenue. This comes free from Great Britain. If my hon. friend agrees that there should be tariffs for revenue, he cannot object to the free entry of this article.


Albert Joseph Brown: But it was free under all
tariffs before.
1184	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes, but does not my hon. friend think that the farmers of Canada would like to get a free commodity from Great Britain rather than from Germany, Belgium or France, if by so doing we can carry out an agreement?


Albert Joseph Brown: This is one of the items
that violate the principle laid down by the Right Hon. Stanley Baldwin at the opening of the conference, that we should secure preferences by reducing tariffs rather than by raising them.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If my hon. friend can inform me how we can establish a preference, with respect to an item which before was free to Great Britain, except by imposing a duty against other countries, unless we give a bonus on importations, then I shall be glad to hear what he has to say.


Albert Joseph Brown: This is one of the items on which I would not have tried to give a preference.


James Lorimer Ilsley: What is the domestic production of this article, if any?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: There is none produced in Canada.


Alan Webster Neill: Would the minister be good enough to allow us to go back for a moment to "ex 208-sal ammoniac and nitrate of ammonia." In the original this appears to be sulphate and not nitrate of ammonia. If I have not forgotten my knowledge of fertilzers, this is an important fertilizer ingredient, and the situation is much worse here than it is in connection with the item to which my hon. friends behind me are objecting, because the duty is not ten per cent but twenty-five per cent. Why is it described as nitrate of ammonia instead of sulphate?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: This does not touch sulphate of ammonia. The imports of sal ammoniac and nitrate of ammonia last year were valued at $114,000.


Alan Webster Neill: W7here was nitrate of ammonia before?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If my hon. friend will refer to the votes and proceedings he will see there an item of sulphate of ammonia in connection with ways and means.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: In connection with the item we are now discussing, the entire importation last year was from the United States, was it not?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Is the hon. member speaking of sal ammoniac?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No, sulphate of iron.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Wre have not come to that item yet.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-208.	Sulphate of iron
(copperas): British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 10 per cent; general tariff, 10 per cent.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Our imports last year
amounted to $11,000, of which $10,000 came from the United States and $1,000 from the United Kingdom.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-208.	Cream of tartar in
crystals and tartaric acid crystals:	British
preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 10 per cent; general tariff, 10 per cent.
George Gibson Coote: What were the importations last year?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The imports amounted last year to $308,000, of which $131,000 came from the United Kingdom; $61,000 from France; $61,000 from Germany, and $36,000 from the United States.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-208. Phosphorus and compounds thereof, n.o.p.:	British preferential
tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 20 per cent; general tariff, 20 per cent.
George Gibson Coote: Will the minister give the same information in regard to this item.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The imports last year were valued at $38,000 and came entirely from the LTnited States.


Mr. BOUCHARD:: Is rock phosphate included in this item?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: There are a number of other phosphate items, some of which will follow subsequently. The total importations amounted to $38,000 last year.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Is it expected that Great Britain will be able to supply our wants?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: That is the expectation.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: Can the minister tell me definitely under what item phosphate rock used as fertilizer comes in?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The item to which my hon. friend refers is not touched; it remains the same.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

United. Kingdom
Customs tariff-208.	Oxalic acid: British
preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 20 per cent; general tariff, 20 per cent.
George Gibson Coote: If the minister would give us the importations under each item it would expedite matters.
Mr. RHODES; The total importations last year under this item were $16,000, of which $12,000 came from Germany and $4,000 from the United States.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-208. Oxide of tin or of copper: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 15 per cent; general tariff, 15 per cent.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The importations last year, under the parent item from which this was selected, amounted to $57,000, of which $46,000 came from the United States.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-208. Sulphate of zinc and chloride of zinc:	British preferential tariff,
free; intermediate tariff, 20 per cent; general tariff, 20 per cent.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The total imports last fear amounted to $65,000, of which $40,000 came from the United States and $21,000 from the United Kingdom.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-208b. Bisulphate of soda or nitre cake:	British preferential tariff, free;
intermediate tariff, 20 per cent; general tariff, 20 per cent.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The imports last year under this item amounted to $130,000. They came entirely from the United States.


Alfred Speakman: In connection with this item I should like to make a very brief comment, which I think will apply as well to other items. This is the class of item where the total importations are not very high and there are no importations whatever from Great Britain. I understand the hope is that Great Britain will replace other countries in supplying these commodities but it does seem to me that this must inevitably be at a higher cost. AVhere Great Britain exports an appreciable quantity of any commodity, even though it is a small percentage of the total, it demonstrates that she is able to compete and sell at the market price, but where she does not export, the assumption cannot be otherwise than that she was not in a position or was not willing to sell in competition with other countries and at the price then prevailing. If she is prepared to take over the market in a commodity such as this, it must be at an
additional price. It seems to me that that deduction is not only logical but inescapable -if she could not sell at the price then obtaining, she will not be able to sell at the same price even though the market is her own. Her only hope of replacing other countries will be by a rise in price to such a point as will make sales possible. I may be wrong, and I hope I am, but it seems to me that that is the only logical deduction which can be drawn.
The question then arises whether or not the additional price to be paid by the people of Canada will warrant the diversion of trade. That is a moot point and my remarks in connection with this item will apply to others. This is not a large item and it may be possible that a slight increase in .price may be made without great harm being done. If it were possible for Great Britain to export even fifteen or twenty per cent of the total importations of a commodity, it would show that her manufacturers were capable of selling at the prices then prevailing, but when she does not expoi't at all, it seems to me that she will sell only at an increased price.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I always listen with interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Speakman) because I know he approaches these subjects from a thoughtful and studious point of view. It may be that his reasoning is sound; if it is, all I can say is that those who have been complaining that when we enter the British market under a preference of ten per cent we shall not obtain any increase in price, must admit that the same argument works both ways. My own impression is that it does not follow that there will be an increase in price. There is only a limited importation of the commodity in question, and I think we should be safe in taking the position that this being such a relatively small matter, it was not worth while for Great Britain to attempt to fight for the market. However, now that she has a sheltered market to the extent of this small preference, it will be to her advantage to attempt to supply this market, and in doing so I think the price will take care of itself. That, of course, remains to be seen. I hope my hon. friend is right.


Alfred Speakman: I hope I am wrong. I might point out to the minister that the parallel he draws does not apply. In the case of the preference given by Great Britain there is a clause in the treaty which states that we shall not take advantage of the duty in order to raise prices; we must sell at world prices.
HS6	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: There is that additional feature.


Alfred Speakman: If a similar clause were applied to each of these items, the situation would be quite clear.


George Gibson Coote: I should like to know whether -or not the importations under, these items are for the use of manufacturers or consumers?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am advised that they are largely for use in manufacturing.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-208d. Calcium chloride, not in solution, for road-treating purposes only: 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 $463,000, almost entirely from the United States. I am advised that this is a commodity which can be supplied with advantage by the mother country. It is a bulk commodity and could be shipped cheaply by water transport.


George Gibson Coote: Were there any importations from the United Kingdom?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: No.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-208e.	Xanthates, cresylic
acid and compounds of cresylic acid, used in the process of concentrating ores, metals or minerals:	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 $221,000, of which $218,000 came from the United States.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-208h. Ethylene glycol, when imported by manufacturers of anti-freezing compounds to be used exclusively in the manufacture of anti-freezing compounds, in their own factories:	British preferential tariff, free;
intermediate tariff, 15 per cent; general tariff, 15 per cent.
George Gibson Coote: Could the minister give us the figures with regard to the importations under this item?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The imports last year amounted to $188,000, of which $101,000 came from the United States, $63,000 from the United Kingdom, and $22,000 from Germany.


Alfred Speakman: Is any of this compound manufactured in Canada? This is an article in very common use in this country and it seems to me as though the imports would hardly supply the demand.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: There is none manufactured in Canada.


George Gibson Coote: Does the minister anticipate that with these new rates we shall be able to buy anti-freezing compound as cheaply as heretofore?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I do.


George Gibson Coote: I hope that proves to be correct.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-209. Bichromate of potash, crude; red and yellow prussiate of potash: 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 $17,000, of which $12,000 came from the United States and $1,000 from the United Kingdom.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-210. Peroxide of soda; silicate of soda in crystals or in solution, bichromate of soda; nitrate of soda or cubic nitre, n.o.p., sulphite of sodium; nitrite of soda-; arseniate, binarseniate, chlorate, bisulphite and stannate of soda; prussiate of soda and sulphite of soda: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 15 per cent; general tariff, 20 per cent.
James Lorimer Ilsley: May I ask the minister
what was the reason for placing nitrate of soda in this particular item? It is a very important fertilizer, and my information is that no nitrate of soda is mined in the British Empire. I wonder if I am correct in that. Why was it made dutiable at 15 per cent intermediate and 20 per cent general? The consumption in Nova Scotia is, I am told, about 5,000 tons a year, and at least ever since I can remember it has always been free under all classifications. Practically the only source of mined nitrate of soda is Chile, whence it comes via the United States, and has always come in free. There may be some reason from the standpoint of the extension of British trade for making it dutiable at 15 per cent under the intermediate tariff and 20 per cent under the general, but on its face it appears to mean simply that the farmers of Nova Scotia who are importing nitrate of soda will pay 20 per cent duty on their importations whereas formerly they did not. The price of nitrate of soda runs from $40 to $50 a ton and I anticipate this duty-will increase the cost by $10 a ton.
Of course it is fair to say that there are substitutes. There are synthetic nitrates; there are other chemicals which have a nitrogenous content, but the most soluble and the

United Kingdom
most satisfactory type is Chilean nitrate. At least that is the opinion of farmers in my district. I note by item 210e that nitrate of soda for certain manufacturing purposes has been taken out of the general classification and still is free under all tariffs. It would appear prima facie there is an unjustifiable discrimination against the farmer and in favour of the manufacturer in relation to that matter of nitrate of soda. I have made some inquiries about the nitrate situation. I would not be taking up the time of the committee in talking about this matter if it were not one of some importance in the province from which I come. I am told that the ordinary substitutes which serve somewhat the same purpose are sulphate of ammonia and cyanimid. Cyanimid is manufactured at a plant near Niagara Falls and sulphate of ammonia is manufactured by the Consolidated Smelters at Trail, British Columbia. If I am incorrect in my statements I shall be glad if the minister will correct me. This, however, is the best information I can get, and it would appear that this imposition of a duty of 15 per cent under the intermediate tariff and 20 per cent under the general is simply a protective tariff for the purpose of forcing fruit growers and farmers to purchase these substitutes which are manufactured in Canada instead of the fertilizer to which they are accustomed. There are other nitrogenous fertilizers such as nitro chalk which is manufactured in Britain, and nitrate of lime, but they are not well known and not extensively used. I should be glad if the Minister of Finance would state the reasons for the change that was made in this particular case. If it really will have the effect of diverting trade into British channels without imposing an additional burden upon Canadian producers, I should like to know that, but from the best information I can get it is a burdensome impost. There is no reason for laying this burden on the farmers and removing it from the manufacturers.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I did not wish to rise and interrupt the hon. member for fear he would say that I was reading him a lecture.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I 'would not have minded.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My hon. friend seemed to take objection in that respect a short time ago. As a matter of fact lie is entirely in error. If he will look at item 653b in the tariff he will find that materials for fertilizers come in absolutely free; they are not touched at all.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: That is the compound.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The minister is entirely mistaken.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The minister is relying on the advice of his officials and he would prefer to take their advice at this time.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Are these materials not free only when they are used for compounding and manufacturing into fertilizers? Nitrate is used in its natural state.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If my hon. friend will read the item to which I made reference, he will find that it says:
Articles which enter into the cost of the manufacture of fertilizers, when imported for use exclusively in the manufacture of fertilizers: free, free, free.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is exactly what I said. Nitrate of soda, as I have been discussing it, is not used for that purpose; it is used for putting on the ground in its natural state. If it is brought in to be compounded or manufactured, everyone knows that item 663b makes it free; but unless it is to be used for manufacturing purposes or unless it is to be used for the manufacture of explosives in regard to which a special exception was made, it is dutiable at 20 per cent. The question I am asking the minister is this: Is there some reason of high policy that makes that advisable?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If the article to which my hon. friend refers is used in the manufacture of mixed fertilizers, it still comes in free.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is not the point. I am talking about its use other than for being made into mixed fertilizers; the way it is used in fertilizing orchards. Of course in the fertilization of potatoes, mixed fertilizers are put on, but I am told that about 5,000 tons of nitrate of soda a year are ordinarily used straight, without being mixed. Now it is made dutiable at 15 per cent under the intermediate tariff and 20 per cent under the general, and I think it is a reasonable question to ask what kind of policy is behind this action.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It remains to be seen
whether the commodity will cost any more than it did before. It still comes in free from Great Britain. As my hon. friend says, if they use it without mixing it and they import it under a duty, they will pay a duty. If they import it from Great Britain, they will not pay a duty. But if they mix it with any other commodity, they pay no duty, wherever it comes from. As a matter of fact they could inix it with sand if they wished so to do, so that the matter is not very serious.
1188	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements


James Lorimer Ilsley: Is any nitrate of soda mined in the British Empire?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: No.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Then that will dispose of
that argument.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: They can manufacture it.


George Gibson Coote: Perhaps we can find out the importations of this article and whence they have come.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The imports last year under the whole item, that is the parent item, amounted to 81,413,000, of which $1,086,000 came from the United States, $106,000 from Chile, $100,000 from Germany and $66,000 from the United Kingdom. That includes all the sodium.


George Gibson Coote: Would the minister now give us the importations of nitrate of soda by itself? Was the bulk of the importations from Chile?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Our imports for 1932 from Chile were 48,515 hundredweight, valued at $106,000.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: I endorse every word that was said by my hon. friend from Hants-Kings. We have been told so often that this government was going to make the tariff work for the farmer. I really do not see how it is working for the farmer. It does not work for the farmer with respect to butter or bacon, and it works against the farmer on sulphate of copper and on nitrate of soda. Nitrate of soda is a very important fertilizer which our farmers have been trained to use, and the funny thing about this duty, Mr. Chairman, is that there is practically no nitrate of soda produced in the United Kingdom. From the United Kingdom last year we received only $919 worth; from the United States $477,154; from Chile $106,156; from Belgium and Germany very little. What is the minister's explanation for taxing the farmer on this very essential fertilizer when practically none comes from England?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The answer I would give to my hon. friend is this, that it is not anticipated that the farmer will pay any more for this commodity.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: How do you know?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It remains to be seen. I may be quite wrong. If the price were increased as a result of the preference my

hon. friend's argument would be well founded, provided the farmers wish to use this commodity in its natural state; but if they use it in a mixed form, they pay no duty.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: It means that they must pay the duty or manufacture it themselves.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: No, they can mix it themselves. They can mix it with sand if they wish to do so. My hon. friend's argument would hold good if the price were increased as a result of this arrangement.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: It cannot be otherwise.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I cannot agree with my hon. friend.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: How do you know that the price will not be increased?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: That remains to be seen. We have made this agreement, and we disagree as to its results on this particular item. I believe I am right; my hon. friend thinks he is right; a year hence we shall know which is right.


Edward James Young: If at the end of a year you find that the price is increased, what can you do about it?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My hon. friend knows the answer himself. It will be just too bad.


Edward James Young: You cannot do anything about it. Who asked for this legislation?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The same answer holds as I have given with respect to other items. This item was a result of the negotiations. It was one of the items which was-


Mr. HOWARD:: Slipped over.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: No. It was an item agreed to by the representatives of the mother country and of Canada. It was not placed in the agreement at the instance of any Canadian industry. It was not placed here for the purpose of affording protection to a Canadian industry.


Edward James Young: It must have arisen spontaneously. No Canadian industry asked for it, no British industry was interested in asking for it, but yet it is here.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I cannot accept my hon. friend's ipse dixit. He says that no British interest asked for it. They may have approached the British delegation. We were not dealing with British industries, but with

United Kingdom
the British delegates. There were many commodities on which they sought a preference, and a preference, I might inform my bon. friend from Lisgar, by way of increased duties in some cases.


Albert Joseph Brown: I have no doubt of it.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: There is nothing sinister in this item.


Edward James Young: Will the minister say that the British delegates really asked for this item when they do not produce the commodity?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have every right to say that. We certainly did not force it upon them. I cannot take the attitude that we had a specific request from the British government with respect to every individual item, but many of these items were arrived at as the result of very long conservations, and other items were discussed which do not appear in the agreement at all, as my hon. friend can well realize. But the mere fact that this particular item is in the agreement and has been agreed to by the British government is sufficient evidence, I think, that it met with their approval.


Alfred Speakman: It does seem to me that perhaps with perfectly good motives the Canadian delegates in connection with this item must have been ill advised by their officials. The officials surely could not have been fully acquainted with all the facts. Here is an article which is used in very large quantities. It is used in one particular condition, in its natural state, and for one specific purpose, a purpose which no other single commodity and no mixture will answer. It is a material which the minister states is not produced in the British Empire. Obviously then it cannot be supplied directly from the British Empire. One of two things must happen: Either the farmers will continue to import this article in its original state from countries where they are getting it at the present time, in which case, as the minister says, the price will be increased by the amount of the duty, or else they will have to turn to some other material for their fertilizer, or use a compound which experience has taught them is not as suitable. I am not censorious, Mr. Chairman. I voted for the agreement because I think the good in it more than counterbalances the bad, but I do believe that this item has been inserted in the agreement through a misapprehension of the facts brought about by a lack of knowledge on the part of the Canadian delegates. I suggest that an inquiry be made as to the possibility of supplies of this material being obtained from countries within the British Empire. If that is found to be impossible, then utilize the machinery which is being provided, discuss the matter with the British government, and avoid imposing additional costs upon farmers at a time like this.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am in entire accord with my hon. friend from Red Deer; if this tariff change resulted in an increase in cost to the farmers it would be most unfortunate. But by no means does it follow that it will. I have found our British friends extremely reasonable in matters of this kind, and if it should happen that as a result of the agreement the farmers have to pay an additional cost, we could make representations to the British government. I have no hesitation in saying to the committee that if that is the result we will make representations, because I am quite sure they would be the last to wish us to continue an arrangement which might not be of advantage to them, and which would be a disadvantage to certain of our people.
I do not know whether I have made myself clear, but I should like to point out again to the committee that if this commodity is brought in in its raw state it is dutiable, unless imported from the mother country. I am advised by customs officers that it can be brought from anywhere if it is mixed. As I have said, if they only mix it with sand, the fact remains that it is mixed. I do not believe this item will prove any obstacle to the farmers, but should it prove to be a disadvantage I repeat we shall be only too pleased to make representations to the mother countiy.


Alfred Speakman: I appreciate what the minister has said, and what he is prepared to do. My suggestion is that the correctness of these two premises be ascertained:	First,
whether some disadvantage will accrue to the farmer if he uses it other than in its original state, and, second, whether it can be purchased from the mother country or other parts of the British Empire. If it cannot be used except in its original state, save at a disadvantage, and if it cannot be brought in from the British Empire, I think it will be unnecessary to wait until proof has been shown before dealing with the matter.


Frederick George Sanderson: Mr. Chairman, there
would seem to be something rather mysterious about this item. Apparently it has slipped in without anybody knowing anything about it. I suggest to the minister that the item may have been considered in the dying days
1190	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
of the conference when matters were rather hectic and in a state of chaos. Possibly the British delegates put a fast one over. Probably the Canadian Manufacturers' Association worked too fast for the Canadian delegates, and the Minister of Finance did not notice that.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I shall not admit that that happened. If it did, it happened without any knowledge. I am quite sure the hon. member for Red Deer will have no objection to the item if the commodity comes in without an increased price.


Alfred Speakman: I should be happy to
have it that way.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Quite so. I say that if as a result of the agreement the farmers are placed at a disadvantage, certainly we shall be glad to make representations to Great Britain.


Mr. MYERS:: I am very glad to hear the minister's assurance in connection with this item. I probably know as much about fertilizers as any other hon. member of the committee, because for many years I have had occasion to use it. Under ordinary conditions the mixture we use for almost all crops is composed of four ingredients, namely, nitrate of soda, acid phosphate, muriate of potash and sulphate of ammonia. As the minister has said, if these are imported from any country in the world and mixed, as they are mixed in many plants in the maritime provinces and, I presume in other parts of Canada, they come in absolutely free of duty from any country. Nitrate of soda is the one ingredient used at times by itself. In the cultivation of potatoes we seldom mix nitrate of soda in our fertilizer. The reason is that nitrate of soda, once placed on the ground, is exhausted; ten days after it is used it has done its work. No farmers put nitrate of soda in the fertilizers which they put on the ground before the potatoes are planted. They wait until the potato plants are above the ground, and then if the plant is weak or delicate, they may use the nitrate of soda. If the tops are rugged and vigorous, they do not need it. But occasionally we do have to use nitrate of soda, and I submit that with the price of potatoes as it is the farmers would be bearing a heavy burden if the cost of fertilizer was increased.
I feel certain the minister will consider this matter and that the farmers will be protected.


James Lorimer Ilsley: What the hon. member who has just taken his seat has said concerning potatoes could be magnified ten thousand fold concerning apples. Nitrate of soda, be-

ing a very soluble fertilizer, is most favoured by apple growers. The results obtained from the use of it are apparent in the same season. I cannot add much to what I have previously said, but I am told the ordinary consumption in Nova Scotia is about 5,000 tons a year. This is a very expensive fertilizer, costing $40 to $50 per ton, and to place a duty of 20 per cent upon it would mean an increase in price of about $10 a ton. I should like to read a paragraph from the speech made by the Prime Minister on November 8 as it appears in Hansard at page 955. I bring this to the attention of the Minister of Finance in the hope that with the good disposition he has shown he or the government may do something to take this item out.
The Prime Minister is reported as follows:
In schedule E, item 210, in respect of "nitrate of soda or cubic nitre n.o.p." a new item 210e has been added, as follows:
"210e. Nitrate of soda or cubic nitre imported by manufacturers of explosives for use exclusively in the manufacture of explosives in their own factories: free; free; free." Although item 210 as set forth in the agreement carries the rate of free, 15 per cent and 20 per cent. The two governments after consultation have satisfied themselves that the United Kingdom is not in a position at the moment to supply Canadian requirements of nitrate of soda.
Of course not; they cannot supply any.
But when it is in a position to satisfy Canadian requirements for all purposes the rate of duty will be as set forth in item 210.
My submission is that every good reason for making that exception in favour of manufacturers of explosives is a good reason for making it apply to the growers of apples. We cannot vary this agreement, we cannot move amendments, and we cannot, I suppose, rationally vote on items-or can. we? But certainly I would ask the Minister of Finance to take that matter up and see if he cannot get that nitrate of soda out.


Alfred Speakman: There was only one
possible reason for placing it on the free list as far as manufacturers of explosives are concerned, and that is that it would cost them more if it were not on the free list. Surely if it will cost the manufacturers of explosives more it will cost the farmers more if they have to use it in its original form, and surely it is much more important to see that the farmers are saved any additional cost than the manufacturers of explosives.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am quite content to have this item stand until I satisfy myself beyond question as to one or two of the questions which have been submitted to-night. I have

United Kingdom
given the answers which have been supplied to me by the officials of the department in ever}' instance. I will verify those before the next sitting.


Alan Webster Neill: I might mention one fact
which does not seem to have been touched upon regarding the inclusion of nitrate of soda in manufactured fertilizers. I understand there are certain chemicals or constituents of fertilizers with which nitrate of soda cannot be mixed; they react unfavourably against each other in some way. That is one reason why it should not be limited to that item, where it is included among manufactured fertilizers.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: May I suggest that if possible all these fertilizers be put under one name? I suspect that the manufacturers, who were better represented at this conference than the farmers, obtained this concession in order to be able to sell to the farmers compound fertilizers, which would probably be more advantageous for the manufacturer than for the farmer. This item is very insidious, because so many different names are employed ; you have " phosphorous and compounds thereof," "phosphoric acid," "acid phosphate," and so on. It is not clear at all. It takes an expert to decipher all these items as applying to the farmers. When we come to fertilizer compounds as taken out of the hands of the manufacturers it is clear, but when you come to the other items you have to look with a pair of double glasses to identify them. That is why I suspect that while the farmer was not represented at the imperial conference the manufacturers were given a good hearing.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I cannot allow the remarks of my hon. friend to go unchallenged. These items were taken out and put in their several branches purely as a matter of departmental technique. They do not apply by any means only to the farmers; most of these items are used in the tanning, textile, and mining industries, and very little in the farming industry. So that the deduction my hon. friend makes is not warranted.
Item stands.
Customs tariff-210d. Sodium, sulphate of, crude, or salt cake: British preferential tariff, i cent per pound; intermediate tariff, f cent per pound; general tariff, f cent per pound.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Imports last year under
this item were $80,000 in value, $52,000 from the United Kingdom, $26,000 from the United States.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-210e. Nitrate of soda, or cubic nitre imported by manufacturers of explosives for use exclusively in the manufacture of explosives in their own factories: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
Item stands.
Customs tariff-ex 211. Chloride of aluminum, or chloralum: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 10 per cent; general tariff, 10 per cent.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The imports last year were $13,000, of which $12,000 were from the United States and $1,000 from the United Kingdom.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-212. Sulphate of alumina or alum cake; and alum in bulk, ground or unground, but not calcined: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 15 per cent; general tariff, 15 per cent.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Imports last year amounted to $608,000, of which $522,000 were from the United States, $54,000 from the United Kingdom, and $30,000 from Germany.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Mr. DUPUIS (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, before you declare this item carried, may I refer to articles 171, 171a and 178 over which no discussion took place? I think that Canadian citizens of French extraction should be afforded the privilege of receiving books, coming from France, duty free.
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation): The hon. member cannot discuss the question without having a motion to this effect adopted.
I shall first put it to the vote.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I will so move, Mr. Chairman.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: It is moved by Mr. Casgrain that the committee revert to items 171 and ex 178 for reconsideration.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I suggest that if my hon. friend desires to make some observations in regard to this item, he will have his opportunity in ways and means. We will have to consider this item again in ways and means.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: With the understanding that we can discuss it in the committee of ways and means.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I do not wish to curtail
discussion, but when the subject was opened this afternoon I particularly expressed the hope that when we discussed item by item the schedules in the bill we would not repeat the
1192	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
item under ways and means. I do not wish unduly to curtail discussion under ways and means, but I wish to have that understood.
Customs tariff-215.	Stearic acid, n.o.p.:
British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 174 per cent; general tariff, 20 per cent.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Imports last year amounted to $83,000 of which $46,000 came from the United Kingdom, $22,000 from the United States, $13,000 from the Netherlands.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-216. Acids, n.o.p., of a kind not produced in Canada. British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 25 per cent; general tariff, 25 per cent.
Phosphoric acid: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 25 per cent; general tariff, 25 per cent.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It is impossible to segregate from the parent item the exact importations. The total importations under the parent item last year amounted to $236,000, of which $128,000 came from the United States, $67,000 from Germany, and $26,000 from Great Britain.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-216. Nitric acid, not including glass containers, when in packages weighing not more than one hundred pounds: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 20 per cent; general tariff, 221 per cent.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, it is not possible to give statistics relative to the importations of chemically pure acid. The total importations last year, under the item from which this was extracted, were $22,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-217. Sulphuric and muriatic acids, not including glass containers, when in packages weighing not more than 100 pounds, per hundred pounds: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 22J cents; general tariff, 25 cents.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The same explanation holds with respect to this.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-218. Acid phosphate, not medicinal:	British preferential tariff, free;
intermediate tariff, 25 per cent; general tariff, 25 per cent.
Joseph Georges Bouchard: This item is a new burden on the farmer's shoulders. If you will look at the quarterly report of the trade of Canada for the year ended March, 1932, you will see that not a pound of this fertilizer, called superphosphate or acid phosphate of lime, comes in from the United Kingdom. The bulk of it comes from the United States.

We imported $748,000 from the United States, a little from Belgium and over $200,000 from the Netherlands, and the duty collected last year under this item, if I am correctly informed, amounted to $7,574. This commodity is much needed by our farmers and unless the minister can give us some explanation I do not see why, in view of the fact that this fertilizer is not being produced in the United Kingdom, a duty should be imposed against the United States, Belgium and the Netherlands, especially when you remember that the promise was given the farmers that tariffs would always work in their favour. Far from that being so, I find that in this as in many other items the tariff is working against them.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My hon. friend has apparently overlooked the fact that the farmers for whom he speaks, when they imported this commodity, even from Great Britain, had to pay a duty of \2\ per cent -whereas today they import it free.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: Yes, but none comes from Great Britain.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I know, but we are speaking of the past. Because none has come in the past, it does not follow that none will come in the future, and even if the farmers import it from the United States, if they use it in mixture, they pay no duty at all.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: I gave the figures to prove that with the increased duty the amount collected from the farmers will be even greater in the future. The highest rates were: British preferential tariff, 12J; intermediate, 17i; general, 20. Now it will come free from Great Britain, but not a pound has come from that source.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes. Last year we imported $5,000 worth from Great Britain, according to the trade figures. The total importations last year were $194,000, of which $189,000 came from the United States and $5,000 from Great Britain.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: I wish the minister would tell me where he got his figures.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: These are the figures supplied by the Department of Trade and Commerce.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: And the figures I have given are supplied by the department too.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: They have a special set for the government.

United Kingdom


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If my hon. friend will look at. page 261 of the quarterly report of the trade of Canada he will find it there indicated that we imported from the United Kingdom last year, 77,662 pounds.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: Will the minister be kind enough to tell me what quarterly report he has, because I have figures for the year ended March, 1932, and I am quoting from page 250.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: This is for the months of January, February and March, 1932. I have the figures for the twelve months ended March 31, 1932.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: The figures I have given will be found at page 250.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What item?


Joseph Georges Bouchard: This item, acid phosphate.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I would refer the hon. member to page 261.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: The figures appear at page 250.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: We are not on the fertilizer item but acid phosphate.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: Yes, and I read, "acid phosphate, not medicinal." In the item at page 250, at the top of the page, the commodity is referred to as superphosphate or acid phosphate. Has the term acid phosphate one meaning in one blue book and another meaning in another? It is indicated as a fertilizer.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am advised that the figures which my hon. friend cites at page 250 are the importations under 663b, and those would be additional to acid phosphate imported under item 218.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Are the British likely to be able to supply us with acid phosphate? This is a very important fertilizer which is widely used in the district from which I come, and as the minister's figures indicate, nearly all of it comes from the United States. I should like to know, and probably the committee would like to know, whether it can be supplied from British sources. Is there any reasonable prospect of that being done?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: This is one of the items on which the British delegates laid particular stress. They asked particularly for this item and they propose to supply in quantities. They indicate that they are in a position to do so.


Thomas Merritt Cayley: How much of this is produced in Canada?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: There is only one producer in Canada and as I advised the committee there are no figures available. The Bureau of Statistics does not release figures with respect to industries unless there are three involved, so that we have no figures to give.


Thomas Merritt Cayley: There is no large amount, then.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Quite a substantial amount.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: What is the name of the producer?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I do not know, and I am advised that we cannot get that information from the department.
Mr. McINTOtSH: Is there no information with regard to where the industry is located?


Mr. MALCOLM:: The minister is incorrect in stating that he cannot get the name of the company. He cannot give the amount but he can give the name of the producer.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I merely pass on the information given me by my officers, and of course my hon. friend realizes that that is the best answer I can give under the circumstances.


Charles A. Stewart: This will be one of the prospective industries?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: There is no mystery about this-


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Not to you but to us.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If the name can be procured I shall be happy to get it. I will endeavour to get it. I can see no objection to giving it.


Edward James Young: The statement appeared in the press not long ago that because of these items in this agreement a certain Canadian industry would start manufacturing fertilizers which would serve as a substitute for fertilizers now being used. We have the right to know whether this was done at the instance of that industry, whether it will be the only one to benefit and whether there were others interested in having this legislation passed.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I can only give my hon. friend the same answer I gave a moment ago -this was not asked for by any Canadian industry. It was one of the items upon which the British delegates laid particular emphasis; they regarded it as being among the important items, so much so that they included it in that group and that is why it is in the agreement.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
1194	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
Customs tariff-219. Sulphuric ether and chloroform:	British preferential tariff, free;
intermediate tariff, 25 per cent; general tariff, 25 per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-219c. Non-alcoholic preparations or chemicals, such as are used for disinfecting, dipping or spraying, when in packages not exceeding three pounds each, in weight, the weight of such packages to be included in the weight for duty:: British preferential tariff, 5 per cent; intermediate tariff, 25 per cent; general tariff, 25 per cent.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The imports last year under this item were valued at $25,000, of which $16,000 came from the United States and
S9,000	from the United Kingdom.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-229.	Soap, common or
laundry, per one hundred pounds: British preferential tariff, 50 cents; intermediate tariff, $1.50; general tariff, $1.50.
Edward James Young: What were the importations under this item, and the Canadian production?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The imports last year were valued at $560,000, of which $552,000 came from the United States and $7,000 from the United Kingdom. The production of soap in Canada was valued at $9,000,000.


Edward James Young: The figures for laundry soap are not given?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am sorry to say that the figures are not segregated.


Edward James Young: Could the minister tell us the approximate value per pound? I have figured it as being about 15 cents per pound on the importations; is that correct?


George Gibson Coote: While that information is being looked up, could the minister tell us whether any distinction is made between castile, toilet and other varieties of soap?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member will observe that the next item deals with castile soap.


George Gibson Coote: Mention is made of common or laundry soap and castile soap, but I was wondering if soaps other than castile are covered by a separate item.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I do not know whether or not my hon. friend has a copy of the tariff before him, but it contains three items dealing with soap. Item 228 covers soap powders, powdered soap, mineral soap and soap, n.o.p., which would include all soap except common or laundry soap and castile soap. Then the next two items cover common or laundry soap and castile soap. Those are the three divisions.


George Gibson Coote: It is only in connection with common and castile soap that any changes are being made?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes.


Frederick George Sanderson: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. It has been stated once or twice that no representations were made by manufacturers in connection with certain items. Were any representations made by Canadian manufacturers in connection with these soap items?


Henry Herbert Stevens: None whatever.


Edward James Young: Heretofore the duty on soap under the general rate was $1 per hundred pounds and under the preferential rate 65 cents per hundred pounds, a difference of 35 cents per hundred pounds in favour of the British manufacturer. Even with that preference the importations from Great Britain were negligible. We are increasing the general rate to $1.50 per hundred pounds, an increase of 50 cents, and decreasing the preferential rate from 65 to 50 cents. However, under the exchange dump something like $3 will be added to the British preferential, which makes that rate twice as much as the general rate which would apply to the United States. Great Britain was unable to compete when she had a preference of 35 cents, and she will have no possible chance of selling anything under this present arrangement. The only person who will benefit will be the Canadian producer of soap. We are told that he produces $9,000,000 worth of soap, and I should like to know how much additional we shall have to pay under this arrangement.


Henry Herbert Stevens: None whatever.


Edward James Young: The minister argues that
under this higher rate we will have to pay no more for our soap, but I contend that this arrangement shuts out the United States and will raise the price in Canada.


An hon. MEMBER:: Who said so?


Edward James Young: Hon. members opposite said so when they raised the tariff, and I will give the proof. If our Canadian maufacturers had not been taking advantage of the tariff to increase the prices, no American soap could have been sold because the Canadian manufacturer would have been able to undersell the American. However, he raised the price almost to or to the level permitted by the tariff, and because he did so, the American was able to sell in this market. The Canadian manufacturer has taken advantage of

United Kingdom
the tariff and he will do so in the future; he will raise his price by 60 cents per hundred pounds, and the cost to the Canadian consumer will be increased by that much. I should like to know who are the manufacturers of laundry soap in Canada, where the stock of the companies is held, the number of employees and the wages paid.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I shall not attempt to
answer that question because the information is not and could not be expected to be available. We have lowered the tariff, as far as British imports are concerned, from 65 to 50 cents per hundred pounds. The importation of this class of soap is not extensive as compared with the present production in Canada, but it is anticipated that there will be increased importations of British soap. The same thing applies to the next item, which covers castile soap, in which case we have taken off one cent per pound and allowed it to come in free from Great Britain. In both instances it is a lowering of the tariff.


Edward James Young: My hon. friend is not going to give the information for which I asked, but I think I have a little of it. Canadian manufacturers of laundry soap are branches of English firms.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Edward James Young: Where is Sunlight soap
manufactured?


An hon. MEMBER:: One or two may be.


Edward James Young: They are branches of English firms. This increase in the duty under the general rate is not going to benefit the British manufacturer in his home factory. It is going to affect the profits he makes in his Canadian factory, and that will be done at the expense of the Canadian consumer. The minister says he is not in a position to give us the information asked for in regard to Canadian production, but when we know that our soap is going to cost so much more, we have a right to know how much more will be paid to Canadian workmen in the form of wages. I would ask that the item stand.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Shall the item carry?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Edward James Young: Stand.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Carried.
Customs tariff-230. Castile soap, the weight of the cartons and wrappings to be included in the weight for duty, per pound: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, two cents; general tariff, two cents.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-229.	Soap, common or
laundry, per one hundred pounds: British preferential tariff, 50 cents; intermediate tariff, $1.50; general tariff, $1.50.
Edward James Young: Is item 229 carried?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Yes.


Edward James Young: Who carried it?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The committee did.


Edward James Young: No, they did not.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I asked: Shall the item carry? and nobody objected, so it is carried.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: On a point of order, I think we had better understand this situation clearly, otherwise we shall not make as much progress as we have been making. In regard to the item of common or laundry soap, the hon. member for Weyburn distinctly said that he wished it to stand. While some hon. members said "carried," the question was never properly put to the committee, and if, sir, you insist on forcing this to a vote tonight, we are prepared to have a vote.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: There was no question before the committee. After the hon. member for Weyburn asked that the item stand, I asked: Shall the item carry? and nobody spoke, so I called out "carried."


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I point out that in regard to a previous item the Minister of Finance very courteously stood it over in order to get some further information. I suggest that the Minister of Trade and Commerce might very well do the same in this case. We are quite interested in knowing who the producers of soap are in this dominion.


Henry Herbert Stevens: There is not the slightest objection on my part or on that of any other member of the government to giving all the information possible, but I submit to my hon. friend and other hon. gentlemen opposite: Is it quite reasonable to expect that a minister could come here with all the information he might be called upon to give?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No. Let the item stand.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I do not wish to delay the committee, but let me deal with the question asked by the hon. member for Weyburn. He asks: Who are the soap manufacturers in Canada? I suppose we all know pretty well, generally speaking, who they are: Lever Brothers; Proctor and Gamble; the old Royal Crown out on the coast, which firm is now, I think, absorbed by Lever Brothers; Pugsley,
1196	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
Dingman and Company. Unless I am mistaken some of the packers manufacture soap as well. There is a large number of soap manufacturers, and I submit this to my hon. friend from Weyburn, who has pretty stubborn views on matters of tariff: Does he honestly think it is reasonable to expect us to come here with all such information, including the number of employees? We can get it, but it is practically impossible to carry on the business of the house and bring all such information here. I ask the committee to take my word for this: I assure them that the manufacturers of soap did not come here asking for any increase in the duty on that commodity. Will they accept that as a very definite statement from me? I submit further that in these two items there is a lowering of the tariff to Great Britain. They are items in respect to where we might reasonably expect some increase of business with Great Britain, and the consumers in this country will not suffer a particle because, let me point this out to my hon. friend, the soap business is well diversified. In Canada quite a number of manufacturers are competing one with another, and in addition to that a number of manufacturers of soap in Great Britain who probably have not been exporting to this market may get in under this item with the reduced tariff. There is nothing whatever in the item that is alarming or that will cause any disturbance. In view of the fact that we have certainly done our best on this and other items to give to the committee the fullest possible information, I submit to my hon. friends that they should not press for this unduly.
In regard to the passing of the item, we all know that these items are not submitted formally in the way of reading a resolution and so forth. By courtesy from one side to the other we pass these items in perhaps an informal way. There was, however, no intention on this side to force the item through. I submit that we are trying reasonably to meet, as courteously as we can, the wishes of my hon. friends opposite.


Edward James Young: I have no complaint to make about the courtesy of either of the ministers, but my hon. friend asks whether it is reasonable for us to request the ministry to come down to the house with all this information for which we are asking. I shall answer his question by asking another: Is it reasonable of the government to ask us to pass this legislation, which will affect the price of these commodities to the Canadian people, without our knowing or making some attempt to find

out what the effect will be in additional cost to us, and what benefit we shall receive for this protection to Canadian manufacturers? -for it is nothing else. Does he not think it is reasonable for us to have this information, so that when we go back to the country to justify his action, we shall be able to tell the people what benefit we are to get from it?


Charles A. Stewart: I have been keeping perfectly still, waiting to hear the explanations for all these increases in the intermediate and general tariffs. There are 138 of them in the whole of this schedule, and it becomes more apparent than ever that this agreement will work detrimentally to the interests of the Canadian consumer. Another thing that is apparent is that wherever a manufacturer's item happens to be in question, it is given some preference, but on the other hand, if it is a consumer's item or one touching any of the basic industries, an increase is provided. I just want to say to my hon. friend and to some hon. gentlemen on the other side who are now objecting so strenuously to this item standing over, that when they come to examine these schedules they will find they are not just what they looked like at first glance. So far as I am concerned, I still oppose this agreement as vigorously as I can. I am waiting for the iron and textile items to voice more strenuous opposition, but may I say, in passing, that it becomes more apparent, when you hear the explanation of the ministry and look carefully into the schedules, what a neat piece of work this was as against the consuming public of Canada. They are the people who are going to pay the piper in both instances, and unfortunately we get from England nothing but what we have always had, and that is entry into their market free.


George Gibson Coote: Can the minister give the
committee any reason why there is a reduction in the British preferential tariff on two kinds of soap, that is, common or laundry soap and castile soap, while the great range of toilet soaps, large quantities of which are used in this country, is not changed at all? Is there any reason why there should not be an increase in the British preference on toilet soap?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The best explanation I can give to my hon. friend is that as to the first kind of soap, it was a matter of agreement; these items were satisfactory to our British associates. The other soaps to which my hon. friend refers are in the main a luxury soap and therefore ought to carry a substantial rate of duty.

United Kingdom


Thomas Merritt Cayley: Can the minister give us some assurance that there will be an increased importation from Great Britain because of this additional preference?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: That is anticipated.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-232. Glue, liquid, powdered or sheet, and gelatine, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, 17J per cent and 2 cents per pound; intermediate tariff, 25 per cent and 5 cents per pound; general tariff, 25 per cent and 5 cents per pound.
Mr. MALCOLM; Would the minister give the reason for the increase in the intermediate and general tariffs in the specific rates, and the reason for the reduction in the ad valorem rates?
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I do not know that I can give the technical explanation, but this is one of the items that was agreed to by the empire producers all around. It is satisfactory to our own manufacturers and to the British manufacturers.


James Malcolm: I hope the minister realizes the extent of the duty. A specific duty of five cents a pound is under normal conditions fifty per cent of the value of the commodity.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It is a high duty, I admit. The imports of glue last year were $235,000 in value, of which $123,000 was from the United Kingdom, $55,000 from the United States, $20,000 from Germany, and the balance from a large number of other countries. Our imports of gelatine last year amounted to $335,000, of which $60,000 came from the United Kingdom, $23,000 from the United States, $81,000 from Australia, $24,000 from Belgium, $22,000 from France, and $16,000 from Japan. These two items form part of a total production in Canada which amounted last year to $1,210,000, the major portion of which was glue, but the items are not segregated.


James Malcolm: 
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My hon. friend is inadvertently in error. The British rate was formerly 17i per cent and it is now 10 per cent, so there is a reduction in the British preference.


James Malcolm: And the intermediate and gc-neral rates are increased?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes.


James Malcolm: I do not want to bother the minister, but can he give the committee the value of our exports of glue stock last year?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Our exportation of glue stock for the year ending March 31, 1932, was $20,927.


James Malcolm: There has been no increase in our exports for the last two years. They have been decreasing.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Our export of glue stock in 1931 was $28,911.


James Malcolm: It has been as high as $90,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs	tariff-232b.	Vegetable glue:
British preferential tariff, 10 per cent; intermediate tariff, 35 per cent; general tariff, 35 per cent.
Item agreed to.	'
Customs tariff-232c.	Gelatine,	edibler
British preferential tariff, 10 per cent; intermediate tariff, 35 per cent; general tariff, 35 per cent.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Our imports under this
item last year were $113,000, of which $56,000 came from the United Kingdom, $11,000 from the United States, $17,000 from Australia and $15,000 from France.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-234. Perfumery, including toilet preparations, non-alcoholic, viz., hair oils, tooth and other powders and washes, pomatums, pastes and all other perfumed preparations, n.o.p., used for the hair, mouth or skin: British preferential tariff, 20 per cent; intermediate tariff, 40 per cent; general tariff, 40 per cent.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Our imports last year were $873,000, of which $165,000 came from the United Kingdom, the same amount from France, and $533,000 from the United States.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-236. Surgical dressings, antiseptic or aseptic, including absorbent cotton, lint, lamb's wool, tow, jute, oakum, woven fabric of cotton weighing not more than seven and one-half pounds per one hundred square yards, whether imported singly or in combination one with another, but not stitched or otherwise manufactured; surgical trusses and suspensory bandages of all kinds; sanitary napkins, spinal braces and abdominal supports: British preferential tariff, 12J per cent; intermediate tariff, 25 per cent; general tariff, 35 per cent.
119S-	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
John Power Howden: What was the value of
our imports last year?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Our imports last year
amounted to $439,000, of which $173,000 came from the United Kingdom, and $263,000 from the United States.


John Power Howden: Were representations
made to the Canadian government by Canadian firms with regard to this item?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: No, there were no requests from Canadian manufacturers with respect to this item. It was one of those items upon which the British government laid particular stress, and I am advised that Great Britain is in a position to supply many times the demand in Canada.


John Power Howden: The reason I ask is this: The cost of this commodity is excessive at all times, and the practice of the government on a number of items such as this has been to remove the duty altogether from the commodity coming from Great Britain, and to leave the intermediate and general rates as they were. I was wondering if that could not have been done in this instance. The action here taken is bound to increase the cost of this commodity to Canadians, and we can very well do with a cheaper article.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Carried.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Wait a minute.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If my hon. friend asked a question I am afraid I did not hear it.


John Power Howden: I was wondering if the government could not take the action in connection with this particular item that they have taken concerning others, that is to say, remove the duty on the English article altogether. A few minutes ago the minister said that this was one article in connection with which the British delegation was most definite. It would have been well for the Canadian people, and probably the British delegation would have been pleased, if the duty had been removed altogether. The minister has said no representations were made by Canadian firms, therefore I see nothing to prevent a removal of the British preferential rate.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: When I made the statement to which the hon. member refers, I was replying to the hon. member for Weybum concerning another matter. So far as I know, no representations were made by Canadian manufacturers, but it was felt that, having

due regard to Canadian manufacturers, we could do nothing less than preserve the existing preferential rate.


John Power Howden: If no objections were made by Canadian manufacturers it seems to me that even yet, the matter might well be considered, and the Canadian people given the advantage of a lower rate on this item.


Alfred Speakman: I find myself very much in accord with the hon. member who has just spoken. A commodity of this kind should be sold as cheaply as possible. In this instance the consumer is the one who is suffering, who is called upon to pay hospital bills, and in my view his interests should come before those of the manufacturer. Where the duty against Great Britain has not been changed, but that against competitors increased, there can be no doubt that some slight increase in price will be the result. I should have been delighted to see the preference given to Great Britain by a reduction of tariffs against Great Britain, the other rates remaining as they were. Medical and surgical supplies, above all other things, even the commodities used by farmers, should be allowed to come in as cheaply as possible. The people who require them are those who have been put to exceptional expense at a time when they cannot earn money, and their needs should come before those of the manufacturers. I am prepared to go so far as to place their interests ahead of those of the farmers. They stand in a class by themselves, and should be protected at all costs.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I believe the hon. members for St. Boniface and Red Deer are labouring under the misapprehension that in this item we are increasing the cost of surgical dressings and hospital supplies. My hon. friends are mistaken in that assumption.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Will the minister give an assurance to that effect?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: What is there to show that the prices will not be increased?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The bulk of dressings which come under this item are used for entirely different purposes than in hospitals. Representations have been made to me in connection with other phases of the tariff by deputations representative of medical and hospital interests, but I have had no expressions of disapproval of the action of the government with respect to this item.


Alfred Speakman: Some of the dressings
may have no relation to hospital work, but

New Government Loan
spinal braces and articles of that class are required only by those who are really in need of them.


Thomas Merritt Cayley: While the minister assures us that the cost will not be raised, will he hold out any hope that it may be lowered?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: As production increases
costs may be lowered. A deputation which appeared before me today pointed out that they had only recently sent a very substantial order to the mother country for surgical dressings, and they were quite satisfied with the prices quoted. Representatives of three of the largest hospitals in Canada called to see me, and that was their reaction.


Mr. JACOBS:: Did they come to express
their satisfaction?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I shall say that the conference was harmonious in every respect. In so far as this item was concerned there was no disagreement.


Thomas Merritt Cayley: Do I take it that the price is lower than it was? Is that why they were satisfied?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I regret to say I cannot
give that assurance.


Thomas Merritt Cayley: They would have no
reason to be satisfied unless the price had been lowered. The hospitals are having hard times these days.


John Power Howden: As I understand the
situation, the British preference remains the same, and the intermediate and general tariffs have been increased. A short time ago the minister said that in the past the large majority of these imports had come from the United States. If that is so one might expect that the price of these commodities would be raised. The British manufacturers are receiving no advantage because their preference is not being increased. We will do the British manufacturers no good, and the Canadian consumer will get the worst of it. I suggest to the minister that if at all possible the duties on the British commodities be removed altogether.


Mr. BLAIR:: Hospitals are charitable institutions in these days, and I am sure many of the hospitals will suffer from the effects of this change. Reports I have received would lead me to that conclusion, and I think some consideration should be given to the matter. .Hospitals are experiencing financial difficulties, and the minister must realize that by removing the tariff some help could be given to
them. We would do well to allow free entry of these items from Great Britain.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: We have received representations respecting other phases of the agreement, but we have received none in objection to this item. To the hon. member for St. Boniface may I say the result will be keen competition between Canadian and British firms for that share of the market which hitherto has been partly supplied by foreign countries.


George Gibson Coote: The minister says that the
hospitals had no objection to the changes in this item, but some of the patients will object when they have to bear the costs incurred by the additional tariff. We are making a very bad mistake in increasing the general tariff to 35 per cent on articles such as spinal braces. If these new tariff rates are to stand I think item 236 should be split, so that such items as spinal braces could be taken out of that class on which the general tariff is to be increased from twenty to thirty-five per cent, because many of these will be brought from the United States and will have to pay the thirty-five per cent rate.
Mr. McGI'BBON:	The hon. member is
mistaken; I think all these are made in Canada. There is not a hospital in the country that does not make them for their patients. We do not import them at all.


George Gibson Coote: I think the minister might
give the importations.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I gave the figures; I do
not know whether my hon. friend heard them. I explained that the larger portion had no reference to the hospital and medical supplies which the hon. gentlemen had in mind when they made their criticism in the first instance.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, before the house adjourns, if I may be permitted I should like to advise the house that although it was contemplated in its inception that the time within which the new government loan could be subscribed would be continued until tomorrow, we have today passed the mark which gives us the complete sum required. This is rather encouraging in the circumstances, because I do not think it is generally recognized that this is the first time in the history of Canada
Questions

that a bond has been issued in Canada by the Dominion government bearing a four per cent coupon. Having that in mind I think we have reason to be very grateful that tihe whole amount has been subscribed by the public.
I should like in this connection formally to recognize the splendid work which was done by the national committee under the chairmanship of Sir Charles Gordon and the vicechairmanship of Victor Drury, and by the members and associates who have worked so hard to bring about this successful issue.
On motion of Mr. Guthrie the house adjourned at 10.55 p.m.
Wednesday, November 16, 1932