1933-04-25

[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. C. S. McLURE (Queens) presented the first report of the Joint Committee on Printing.


Right Hon.   S@: That the name of Mr. Chevrier be substituted for that of Mr. Power on the special committee appointed to consider and report on Bill No. 78, an act to amend the Pension Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. Sir GEORGE PERLEY (Acting Prime Minister) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That pursuant to the provisions of the Canadian Radio Act, 1932, the House of Commons hereby approves the purchase of the radio broadcasting stations and equipment of the Canadian National Railways by the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Commission for the sum of $50,000.
He said: In explanation I may say that this is a formal motion which is considered necessary as subsection (b) of section 9 of the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Act, 1932, provides that the commission shall have power, among other things to acquire existing private stations by purchase, subject to the approval of parliament.
His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution approves of the same, and recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury) in the chair.
Mr. LAPOINTE:: I would like to know how many stations were owned by the Canadian National Railways, and where they are situated.


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: There are five stations; Ottawa, Moncton, Vancouver, Halifax, and Montreal.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: Are they acquiring the five?


George Halsey Perley: They are acquiring the five.


Pierre-François Casgrain: For S50,000?


George Halsey Perley: For S50,000, a very moderate price. But of course it is only a transfer from one body which acts for the people of Canada to another similar body. It is like transferring property from one pocket to another.


Ernest Lapointe: Could the minister say
how much these stations cost the Canadian National Railways?


Mr. MANION:: I think they cost $123,000.


George Halsey Perley: The figure I have here as the original cost is $132,000 in all. During the sittings of the committee last year the Canadian National Railways stations were valued at $70,000.
4242	COMMONS
Radio-Purchase oj C .N.R. Stations


Mr. ELLIOTT:: I wonder if the minister
would tell us how this sum of $50,000 was arrived at.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Ernest Lapointe: Order. We will carry
this when we are ready.


George Halsey Perley: Negotiations took place between the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Commission and the Canadian National Railways with regard to the acquisition of these broadcasting stations. I see by the memorandum before me that these negotiations were carried on for six weeks or more in an endeavour to arrive at a fair valuation for these stations. Eventually it was decided that the fair price for them at the present time would be $50,000, and that amount was fixed.


John Campbell Elliott: Is there any apportionment for each station or is that the sum total?


George Halsey Perley: There is no
apportionment whatever, but for the information of my hon. friend I may say that I have the original cost of these stations, which is nearly twice the amount at which they were valued last year. According to these figures, more than half the total cost was represented by the stations in Ottawa and Vancouver.


Mr. EULER:: May I ask whether the $50,000 hereby appropriated is to be taken from the funds collected from licence holders?


George Halsey Perley: The money for
these stations will have to be taken out of the money voted by parliament for the radio broadcasting commission.


William Daum Euler: I am afraid the right hon.
gentleman did not get my question. I take it that the money will be taken from the fund created by the collection of the $2 licence fee from licence holders.


George Halsey Perley: This matter was discussed the other day, and I do not want to embark on a further discussion at this time. As a matter of fact the fees go into the consolidated revenue fund and can be paid out only by a vote of parliament. For that reason we have had under consideration a vote of $1,000,000, which really represents money that is being collected in fees, and which in one sense of the word might be said to belong to the radio commission. It must be voted by this parliament, however, before it can be released. Of course the money for the purchase of these stations and for everything else must come out of the money voted by parliament, and I understand that to date the collections from fees are larger than the amount being voted.


Mr. MERCIER (St. Henri):: I understand that the price has been fixed at $50,000. These stations were built and owned by the Canadian National Railways as a state project, and this amount of money already has been paid by the public, so I do not know why the radio commission must pay it a second time. These stations still belong to the public, so I think the price should be $1 and no more.


Mr. ILSLEY:: Would the right hon. gentleman say what is the power of the Moncton station?


George Halsey Perley: The station at
Moncton has 1,500 watts.


James Lorimer Ilsley: In the report brought in
about a year ago by a committee of the house it was recommended that there should be one 50 kilowatt station or three 500 watt stations in the maritime provinces.


George Halsey Perley: Pardon me; I
think I made a mistake. I think the Moncton station is 500 watts. I read it as 1,500, but I think it means one 500 watt station.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Could the minister tell the
committee whether it is proposed to have one powerful statidn for the maritime provinces or three 500 watt stations? The report of the committee was not definite on that point; it was left to the government.


George Halsey Perley: I am sorry I
have no information in that regard, but the radio estimates will be up again in a few days and the hon. gentleman can ask his question then.


Mr. POWER:: I should like to know why
it is necessary to present a bill in order to effect this purchase.


George Halsey Perley: I thought I had already explained that. As I understand it, it would have been quite in order to have included this purchase in the estimates, with an explanatory note, but that was not done. Now this arrangement has been completed, and subsection (b) of section 1 of the broadcasting act requires that all purchases of private stations shall be approved by parliament. This resolution is introduced for the purpose of securing that approval, and if the committee passes the resolution, as I hope it will, we intend to move that a message be sent to the Senate asking their concurrence.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Is it not a fact that the purchase of the stations and equipment has been made already, and was made in February?


George Halsey Perley: The arrangements have been made but the money has not been paid.

Radio-Purchase oj C.N.R. Stations


William Lyon Mackenzie King: But is it not
a fact that as between the radio commission and the railways the transaction has taken place and been approved by order in council?


George Halsey Perley: The right hon.
gentleman is quite correct. I said this matter was under negotiation for some time, and the final arrangements were made. The purchase cannot be completed, however, until parliament gives its approval.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: So far as parliament is concerned its function is merely that of a rubber stamp with regard to a transaction that has been completed.


George Halsey Perley: I am sorry I cannot agree with the right hon. gentleman. If parliament decides not to approve of this transaction it cannot be carried out.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is it not a fact that the radio commission is in possession of these stations and equipment?


George Halsey Perley: I cannot answer
that question definitely. I know they are in possession of one of the stations, at all events, but I do not know whether they have taken them all over. Possibly they may have done so, but the transaction oannot be completed until the money is paid, and the money cannot be paid without the approval of parliament.


Mr. MALCOLM:: 
Pierre-François Casgrain: Expropriated.


James Malcolm: Will the minister tell us how the amount was arrived at.


George Halsey Perley: My hon. friend has asked for information and he is quite entitled to it, but I am sure he wants to be fair-


James Malcolm: I do.


George Halsey Perley: -and he will realize that I have already given the explanation. Last year in the parliamentary committee the Canadian National stations were valued, being considered at that time to be worth $70,000. It is true they cost more, but that was the valuation placed upon them last year, when the bill was under discussion in the radio committee. Since that time there has been a further depreciation and it is considered that a fair value to-day would be $50,000. That amount was arrived at by arrangement between the officials of the Canadian National Railways and those of the radio commission.


James Malcolm: I submit that the value of a station cannot be determined only by what it cost, less depreciation; there are other factors that should enter into the calculation. For example, a station has earning power. Businesses are sometimes valued according to their capacity to earn money, and if you are going to value stations regardless of that capacity and value them only at actual cost less depreciation, then I believe you will buy some very cheap stations when they are taken over. It should be understood by the house and by those who own stations just what the basis of calculation will be when stations are taken over in future.


Pierre-François Casgrain: Who fixed the amount of $50,000 for these stations? On what basis of calculation was that figure arrived at?


George Halsey Perley: The amount was fixed by arrangement between the Canadian National Railways and the radio commission after several weeks of discussion.


Pierre-François Casgrain: I understand then that the Canadian National Railways have decided to accept a considerable reduction, with the

4244	COMMONS
Radio-Purchase oj C-N.R. Stations
result that there will be a further deficit which the railways will have to register.


Robert James Manion: Perhaps I may be allowed to say a word in this matter from the railway standpoint; I may be able to add something to the discussion.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.
Mr. MANION; The proposal for the acquisition by the radio commission of these stations was not made at all by the government. The directors of the Canadian National Railways dealt with the matter and decided that the railways should get out of the radio business inasmuch as it was costing them $80,000 per year,-at least, that was what it cost in 1932. It might be of interest to put on record the figures showing the cost in other years. In 1931 the cost was, in round figures, $326,000; in 1930, $420,000; and in 1929, $441,000. I have the figures going back over previous years, but that was the highest, $441,000 in 1929, and last year the cost was $80,000. The Canadian National Railways, through the directors and management, came to the conclusion that they were not getting anything out of the radio business with a cost amounting in 1932 to $80,000.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: Is that over and above the revenues?


Robert James Manion: That is what it cost them.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: In excess of the revenue?


Robert James Manion: That is the statement as it was given to me. The directors, as I say, decided to get out of the business and they approached the radio commission. It is true, as has been pointed out, that these stations tost $132,000, but that was some years ago, and the directors of the Canadian National decided that, taking depreciation into account as well as the cost per annum, it was wise for them to give up the business. They therefore approached the radio commission and after some negotiation the figure of $50,000 was decided upon, with which they were perfectly satisfied. They point out as well, in the statement they have made in regard to the matter, that the whole staff of the Canadian National radio broadcasting division has been taken over by the Canadian radio commission. They consider that they have made a very good deal in getting rid of their radio broadcasting facilities by selling them to the radio commission.


Ernest Lapointe: May I ask the minister whether the Canadian Pacific Railway is also going out of the radio broadcasting business?


Robert James Manion: I am afraid my hon. friend will have to ask the Canadian Pacific Railway.


Ernest Lapointe: I see.
Mr. MANIO'N: I do not know what they will do, but we are vitally interested in the Canadian National Railways. What the Canadian Pacific Railway does with its private affairs is entirely its business.


John Campbell Elliott: By whom was the appraisal made as a result of which the sum of $50,000 was accepted?


Robert James Manion: I do not think it was done as a matter of appraisal but, as the acting leader of the house has said, as a result of negotiations.


John Campbell Elliott: Without appraisal?


Robert James Manion: Just as any other group wishing to sell something to someone else would negotiate with the other parties who wanted to buy, so was it in this instance. Did I understand my hon. friend from Quebec East to say that the Canadian Pacific Railway was going out of the radio business?


Ernest Lapointe: No; I was merely asking whether they were going to go out of it.


Robert James Manion: As the hon. gentleman sat down I thought he said they were.


Ernest Lapointe: I don't know; I am
simply asking for information.


Pierre-François Casgrain: They will have the
advantage over the Canadian National Railways.


Robert James Manion: I do not think it is an
advantage but a disadvantage.


William Daum Euler: It seems to me there is a
very important principle involved in the buying of stations. The right hon. gentleman a moment ago said that the price was fixed at $70,000 by the radio committee last session. I happen to have been a member of that committee and I am sure that the committee itself set' no values on any stations whatever. Possibly values were brought in by the engineer's of the radio branch of the Department of Marine. The point I desire to make is this. I have no fault to find if the government allows nothing for goodwill; in fact, I think there is an element of danger in the future acquisition of radio stations, and I believe it was pretty definitely brought out and established in the proceedings of the radio committee last year that no amount should be allowed for goodwill for the very good reason that all radio stations were operated under licence, and the licence

Radio-Purchase of C.NR. Stations
expired in all eases within the year, so that no goodwill was established. It was pretty definitely laid down and perhaps was recognized that in the purchase of these stations no private owners of radio stations should expect to be paid for goodwill, no matter how profitable their stations may have been. I think that the government in future purchases of radio stations should definitely and absolutely bear in mind that when they buy stations they should pay nothing for goodwill, because that was the understanding in the radio committee last year, and it is important.


Pierre-François Casgrain: I think there is a great
principle involved in this matter. When the Canadian National Railways a few years ago embarked on the policy of radio broadcasting this policy was criticized a good deal by hon. gentlemen opposite when they were on this side of the house. At that time they said it was not right, that it was going to cost a lot of money. To-day we find that these same hon. gentlemen now that they are in office are trying to go out of the venture and to turn it over to the radio commission. As pointed out by my hon. friend from Quebec East, the advantage that is to be derived from the radio will all accrue to the Canadian Pacific Railway. That company will have the advantage of the operation of stations which they built and which they will continue to run in the future. By means of this legislation the administration is putting the Canadian National Railways in a most disadvantageous position as compared to the Canadian Pacific Railway. The Canadian Pacific will have an advantage over the Canadian National. It is by such tactics that the government is curtailing the activities of the Canadian National Railways. I think this resolution should be considered most carefully as it seems to me to be a step in the wrong direction and one which will enure to the benefit of a competitor of the Canadian National Railways.
While I am On my feet I should like to ask the leader of the government if it is the intention of the government to take similar action in connection with stations operated by private individuals and companies. I refer particularly to the station operated by La Presse, to station CFCF and to the station recently licensed and operated by La Patrie. Is it the intention of the government to take over these stations and, if so, what basis of valuation will be used?


George Halsey Perley: Will the hon.
gentleman tell me where the broadcasting stations of the Canadian Pacific are located?
53719-268J


Pierre-François Casgrain: I do not know where they are but if I am not mistaken an offer was made to the committee which was discussing this matter last year. A proposition was put forward by this railway to the government for the taking over of their broadcasting stations.


Mr. MORAND:: I do not think any better example of an attempt to make political capital out of these broadcasting stations could be found than that which is evidenced right now.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: Hon. gentlemen opposite must realize how ridiculous is their position. The Canadian Pacific Railway own no broadcasting stations and they had none last year when the committee was sitting. They have a phantom call letter which they use through other stations but they are not in the broadcasting station business. An effort has been made to show that one railroad is being discriminated against. It is nothing more than an effort to make political capital out of this matter.


Mr. MARCIL:: Mr. Chairman, I have no doubt that the Prime Minister of this country has a perfect right to introduce a resolution of this character, but I understood that such matters were under the control of the Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau). Has the minister given up his job in this connection? If these matters are to remain under his control, what will be his policy when it comes to buying other stations?


Ernest Lapointe: The radio business is under the control of the Minister of Marine. As a member representing the province of Quebec of which my hon. friend is the representative in the cabinet, I resent this matter being put through by anyone other than the Minister of Marine. What will the minister's policy be when it comes to buying station CHLP as well as the other stations in the Canadian National system. I do not think my hon. friend should allow any one of his colleagues, let alone the Prime Minister, take charge of his department and move a resolution which should be moved by the Minister of Marine.


Mr. DURANLEAU:: The leader of the government is a proper person to present such a resolution to this house. I had thought that this resolution would have been adopted without much discussion. It is quite evident that hon. members opposite are trying to make
4246	COMMONS
Radio-Purchase of C.N.R. Stations
political capital out of this question. The purchase of the Canadian National system by the radio commission is the best arrangement which could be made under the circumstances. Everyone knows that.


An hon. MEMBER:: I do not know it.


Alfred Duranleau: We are purchasing
five stations for $50,000. The radio commission went to the trouble of ascertaining just what these stations had cost, and it was found that the total cost amounted to $132,000. My hon. friends are asking if this is to be the basis upon which purchases will be made in the future. The basis of a purchase made by mutual agreement is the one accepted by the parties to the agreement. In case of disagreement, the parties will resort to arbitration. Then it will be the duty of the arbitrators to determine, according to the statute, the basis of the price and to decide whether an allowance for good-will will be made or not. I hold that this particular purchase is in the interests of the radio commission and of the Canadian National Railways. Radio broadcasting was not a profitable business for a railroad company, and the Canadian National Railways wanted to get rid of their stations. The Canadian Pacific Railway never were in this business.


Pierre-François Casgrain: They are broadcasting.


Alfred Duranleau: Hon. friends opposite are trying to make political capital out of this matter. They claim that we are trying to place the Canadian National Railways in a disadvantageous position as compared with the Canadian Pacific and they made that claim knowing that the Canadian Pacific did not own any radio station.


John Campbell Elliott: By whom was the valuation made?


Robert James Manion: I think I can .answer that question. The board of directors of the Canadian National Railways in consultation with the management and without consultation in any shape or form with this government lecided to sell the broadcasting system of the company. I repeat that that decision was arrived at without consultation with this government. They decided to get out of the business because they considered it was a losing proposition.


Mr. RALSTON:: The deputy minister is on the board.


Robert James Manion: He is one of seventeen members on the board. My hon. friend, on one of his periodical visits from Montreal, now claims that the deputy minister was on the 
board. Certainly he was on the board. The deputy minister was on the board in 1929 when my hon. friends in the late government permitted the Canadian National to commit the country to $250,000,000 worth of expenditure. If that government was willing to take all that responsibility, probably we shall have to take it for this. But the deputy minister was not instructed by this government. The board of directors of the Canadian National Railways decided to sell; they approached the radio broadcasting commission-and I have the correspondence under my hand-and the radio commission made them an offer of $50,000 plus rents, which have not been mentioned here, for the broadcasting studios in the hotel at Halifax, the hotel here, the office at Moncton and the building in Vancouver, so that they pay rents as well. After some consideration by the Canadian National and the radio broadcasting commission, the offer of the radio commission of $50,000 was accepted. We were not consulted about it and knew nothing about it as a government until the transaction was completed.


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: The Minister of Railways gave us the annual cost to the Canadian National Railways of the broadcasting system during past years running from $80,000 last year to as much as $400,000 a few years ago. Was that cost wholly connected with the broadcasting or did it include receiver sets on train coaches and so forth, the whole receiving end as well?


Robert James Manion: It would include all that, although it is not set out in the statement, except that it was operating expenses.


Alfred Speakman: Let me ask one other question. The mere sale of broadcasting stations does not in any way preclude the Canadian National Railways from utilizing the broadcasting stations by setting up the receiving system?


Robert James Manion: No but they have gone out of that.


Alfred Speakman: Do they intend to continue with that end of it?


Robert James Manion: Not so far as I know.


John Campbell Elliott: I gather from the minister's remarks that no valuation has been made of the stations by anybody familiar with the value of such stations.


Robert James Manion: The leader of the government stated that a valuation was made last year, and they were valued a year ago at $70,000. I have no further information than that.

Radio-Purchase of C-N.R. Stations


John Campbell Elliott: That was the valuation of the committee and it was not accepted.


Robert James Manion: I do not know.


James Layton Ralston: The Minister of Railways, in one of his periodical outbursts of irresponsibility, has not added very much to the sum total of the debate, particularly in so far as valuations are concerned. He wants to tell us how the valuation was made and he is very careful in replying to the hon. member for West Middlesex for fear the Minister of Marine may get up and stub his toe in some way. The Minister of Railways tells us that of course he knows nothing about the matter and was not consulted in the slightest. The board of directors of the Canadian National, on which there was sitting the deputy minister who, I presume, reports to his chief once in a while, solemnly sat in their office and made an appraisal of these stations at S50,000 although they had cost $132,000, and the Minister of Marine says: I will give you $50,000 for your stations. Neither one of them nor any other member of the government has yet been able to tell us on what basis this appraisal was made, whether it was made on replacement value or on a basis of revenue. Somebody said that depreciation was allowed, but we have not been told how much it was or at what rate. Who were the experts on the board of the Canadian National who knew what the depreciation should be on a plant of this kind? Not a suggestion has been made as to any really businesslike valuation. What happened was that a trade was made between two departments. The radio commission wants as good a start as it can get and it takes over a plant which cost $132,000 for nearly one-third of its value. The Minister of Marine starts out with an advantage over the Minister of Railways and the latter does not seem particularly concerned about the fact that he is giving away this plant which is worth $132,000. He immediately and characteristically goes back to 1928 and 1929 when large expenditures were being made, when he voted for them, when every member on the government benches voted for them, when every member in the railway committee voted for them, and now he wants to draw that red herring across the trail. The whole thing plainly and simply is this: that the radio commission is going to take this over at junk valife in order that it may make the best showing possible and the interests of the Canadian National Railways are permitted to drift entirely into the background in order that the Minister of Marine may make a good showing with his commission.


Robert James Manion: I do not wish to prolong this debate, but when the hon. gentleman
talks about irresponsibility I do not know anybody who is better authority on it than he is. I pointed out that this government had nothing whatever to do with the matter. I should like to indicate, what my hon. friend does not seem to understand, namely that the board of directors of the Canadian National Railways and not this government are handling the affairs of that railway so far as matters of this kind are concerned.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend just a few nights ago admitted very frankly that the board of directors of the Canadian National was more or less a political organization.


Robert James Manion: I did not make any such statement. There was an observation made in the house by another member that the appointments were largely political, meaning that they came largely from one political party. That is probably true; I do not question that. So far as the directors of the Canadian National Railways are concerned, they have been running the business of that railway and they and the management are the people who decided this matter.
Let me read the first fewT paragraphs of a statement which was handed to me by the Canadian National Railways and which is as much as I and this government know about the matter; except that we have to approve it just as parliament has to do. This is a statement dated February 10:
The board of directors decided in October, 3932, that we should take prompt steps to dispose of our radio broadcasting station and studio facilities and considered it desirable that the Canadian radio commission should be invited to acquire the Canadian National Railways station and studio facilities on a basis to be mutually agreed upon.
Negotiations were entered into with the radio commission through the director of publicity- that officer having taken charge of the radio activities of the Canadian National Railways in 1931.
The radio broadcasting commission has now made an offer of $50,000 for our facilities and also expresses its willingness, if its offer is accepted, to take over the personnel presently employed in the radio branch.
The transfer of the Canadian National Railways radio activities to the commission would effect a reduction in the railway's payroll of $45,000 per annum and a total reduction in expenses, founded upon 1932 experience, of upwards of $80,000 per annum.
The capital investment of the railway in the broadcasting facilities involved in the proposed transaction amounts to approximately $132,000 before depreciation charges. These depreciation charges on radio equipment could not fairly be assessed at less than 7 per cent per annum, particularly in view of the obsolescence factor.
I do not wish to read the balance, but those are the facts as given to me by the management of the national railways. I sub-
4248	COMMONS
Radio-Purchase oj C-N-R* Stations
mit again, and I deny to my hon. friend the right to contradict my word, that the government had nothing whatever to do with directing the Canadian National to get rid of the stations, but my own personal opinion is that the railway is well rid of the broadcasting. I submit that they should never have been in the radio broadcasting business. One of the greatest wastes that the railway made was that $400,000 which was spent in 1929 under the management of a group of directors appointed by my hon. friends opposite. I submit that one of the biggest blunders which they made was to put radio transmitters on the trains between here and Montreal. They were merely in the road, and to-day they have been taken off because they were of no use. The board of directors and the management decided thait they would be better off without this equipment, and I think the railway did pretty well to get rid of it for $50,000.


James Malcolm: I wish the minister would continue reading the statement. It gives a basis of calculation. He mentioned seven per cent annual depreciation. If he will continue reading the statement we shall know on what basis the price was decided.


Robert James Manion: I shall be very glad to do it. I simply did not wish to take up the time of the house. The statement continues:
The director of publicity-
That is Mr. Thompson, who was put in charge of their publicity in 1931:
-recommends that the offer of the radio commission be accepted subject to an inventory of the facilities transferred to the radio commission being made and accepted by the commission so that the assets involved in the transfer will be definitely established. A short statement	of the	facilities	in question	is
attached.
If the	offer of	the radio	commission	of$50,000 for the Canadian National Railways radio broadcasting	facilities	is accepted,	anagreement will have to be made between the railway and the radio commission for the use by the commission of studio and office space in our structures at the following points: Chateau Laurier, Ottawa; Nova Scotian Hotel, Halifax; Canadian	National	Railways	office building,
Moncton: and the Canadian National Railways station at Vancouver. The rental fixed would include electricity and janitor service and it should be possible to make an equitable arrangement covering the whole of this feature of the contract.
The commission -would also be required to take over certain contractual obligations now in existence between the railway, and the owners of the Jackson building in Ottawa and the King's Hall building in Montreal, the former being a building on which the aerial towers of CNRO are placed and the latter a building in which the Montreal radio studios of the railway are situated.

The attention of the board is especially drawn to the fact that the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Commission desire to take over the facilities as of March 1, 1933.
Then there is a letter which I hardly need read from Mr. Hector Charlesworth to Mr. Thompson, director of publicity, dated February 9, 1933, in which he makes an offer of $50,000. He goes on to say that they are going to take over the personnel, a total of 21, of all classes.
The next statement which they handed me was an inventory of the radio broadcasting stations, showing the stations originally valued as follows:	Ottawa, $37,938.44; Moncton,
$25,765.19; Vancouver, $37,774.35; Halifax, $8,930.22; Montreal, $21,683.88.
The final statement which they handed me was one of the expenses in the past few years, as follows:
1923		$ 10,146 06
1924	
122,466	011925	
240.686	491926	
253,062	511927	
285,604	301928	
317.278	881929	
441,082	001930	
420,028 171931	
326.248	321932	
80,384	01
That is all that I have. This statement was given me by the Canadian National Railways at my request when I heard for the first time that they were anxious to sell the broadcasting facilities to the commission.


Charles Marcil: One thing has been made
clear in this discussion. The minister states that this is a bargain between two commissions and that the government assumed no responsibility in the matter and knew nothing about the transaction, and that parliament is simply called upon to vote the money, and that is the end of it. I think the minister has made a good defence of his department, but I should like to hear from the Minister of Marine a statement of the future policy of this commission, whether more than one station is to be acquired in each city. I think the house is entitled to that information. We are all interested in the success of this enterprise, and the minister might tell us what is the future policy regarding the acquisition of stations. Is the commission going to acquire one station in each city, or two or three, or one or more in each province? What is the intention of the government? I think we are entitled to an answer. We are all anxious to make radio broadcasting a success in Canada, and I should like to know what I am voting for, and what this resolution means. Does it

Radio-Purchase oj C.N.R. Stations
mean the acquisition of more stations next year, or what does it mean?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Pierre-François Casgrain: I think we should have
an answer from the Minister of Marine or the leader of the government. The hon. member for Bonaventure has put a question along the same line as I myself put to the leader of the government a few moments ago. What I want to know is whether this policy which we are called upon to confirm to-day is going to be followed up by a similar policy next year and the acquisition of more stations. How many more stations shall we be called upon to acquire and vote money for next year, and on what basis are these purchases to be made?


Mr. SPENCE:: Wait till next year.


Pierre-François Casgrain: Listen to me. You will have your turn to speak in a minute. I have asked the leader of the government if it is the government's policy to acquire other stations, such as CKAC, the station of La Presse, Montreal; CHLP, of La Patrie, Montreal, and other stations in that city, as well as other stations throughout Canada. Has the government that policy in mind, and is this the first step in that direction? My hon. friend from Bonaventure has put a reasonable question to the government, and I do not think the Minister of Marine should answer only with a smile. We like his smile, but we should also like to have his answer. We should like to have his own opinion and his own thoughts, not merely the thoughts of his leader. I should like to have an answer to the questions which I put to him and which the hon. member for Bonaventure put, and if he cannot answer he might ask the Minister of Railways, or possibly the leader of the government, what is the policy of the government in regard to this matter.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Pierre-François Casgrain: No, I am waiting for
an answer.


George Halsey Perley: Might I suggest to the hon. gentleman that these are questions that might very well be asked when we are discussing the radio estimates.


James Malcolm: No.


George Halsey Perley: Excuse me. Let
me suggest that as a matter of fact there is no policy laid down that I know of for the radio commission in regard to buying stations or anything of that kind. The radio commission was created by parliament and given great powers. It was appointed under the act of last session which was approved by the
whole house. These men have been carefully chosen and must be given an opportunity to develop their policy as they go along. I think the hon. gentleman realizes just as well as any of us that in advance it is impossible for us to tell him what stations the radio commission will buy, or anything of that kind. If they should decide to buy private stations, then in the negotiations between the radio commission and the owners it will be decided what price is to be paid. It seems to me that the radio commission should be given a fair chance of developing their work.


James Malcolm: I know, Mr. Chairman,
that it is impossible for us to move an amendment to increase the expenditure of money.
I think, however, that every member of the house realizes that a very serious principle is involved in the passing of this resolution. Unquestionably the radio broadcasting commission had the right to acquire every station in Canada. It was intended that they should have full charge of radio broadcasting throughout this dominion eventually, and if they are to have full charge they must acquire stations in the future.
My first objection to the resolution is that it does not deal fairly with the Canadian National Railways.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


James Malcolm: If hon. gentlemen will possess themselves in patience I will try to prove why .1 do not think we are doing so.


An hon. MEMBER:: Buying a white elephant.


James Malcolm: What the Minister of Railways pointed out with regard to the cost to the Canadian National Railways of radio broadcasting is quite correct. It was an expensive service to administer. Anyone who holds that it was not a necessary service is quite justified in taking that position. But as to the losses, one must remember that the Canadian National Railways operated a radio broadcasting service without revenue. They did not operate as a commercial station. They gave radio service to passengers on their trains; which was the purpose for which their stations were established. Whether or not the service lost money has no bearing at all on the value of the broadcasting equipment. Other stations operating as commercial stations are making money and have spent large sums of money in building up their stations. Therefore the fact that it was a good thing for the Canadian National Railways to dispose of the radio stations because they had no revenue from them should not in my opinion be the governing factor in deciding the value
4250	COMMONS
Radio-Purchase of C.N.R. Stations
of these stations. I consider that the value of a radio station should have some relation to the capital invested over a period of years. It should have some relation to the earning power of the station, some relation to depreciation and to replacement cost value.
The only reason I rose to speak on this subject was that I believe the Canadian National Railways should be paid, a sum based on some principle which will govern in the taking over of stations in the future. The Minister of Railways in the memorandum submitted to him by the management of the road did give some information with regard to depreciation. The Minister of Marine, who has charge of the voting of the estimates of the radio commission, said to the house that in so far as the purchase of these stations is concerned no goodwill was considered; a satisfactory bargain was made because the owners of the stations thought it wise to get' rid of them. I do not think that should be the governing factor, because the minister then went on to say that he could not admit the suggestion of the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler), that nothing should be allowed for goodwill because the licences lapse in a year. The minister denied that premise and said that in future he may allow for goodwill. I do not agree altogether with my hon. friend from North Waterloo, but, if, as the minister suggests, in furture purchases something may be allowed for goodwill, then I suggest to him that he should be fair to the Canadian National Railways and allow them a return for their investment on the same basis on which he proposes to purchase other stations in the future.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: Pretty well laboured.


James Malcolm: I do not think the labouring wras as bad as the reception.


Mr. PRICE:: I would like to ask the hon. gentleman if he is aware that a number of the broadcasting stations were equipped with apparatus that was purchased secondhand by the Canadian National Railways? That is a fact in connection with the apparatus at Moncton, it was secondhand all the way through. Would he want the broadcasting commission to pay for that as they would pay for new apparatus?


James Malcolm: I would have to answer that question by asking my hon. friend if reciprocity is any the worse policy because my friends took it secondhand from us?


An hon. MEMBER:: Put it back where it belongs, we never used it.


Mr. POULIOT:: Mr. Chairman, this afternoon we are fortunate in having an opportunity for free discussion, on account of the fact that the acting leader of the house is such a pleasant gentleman, and that those who are not so complaisant are across the border.
After those few words, Mr. Chairman, may I tell you that the first thing of importance that I noticed this afternoon was that the hon. Minister of Marine steamed up and the hon. Minister of Railways warmed up. But let us come back to cold facts. The Minister of Railways spoke about the expenditure on radio by the Canadian National Railways. In that respect Sir Henry Thornton was a pioneer. If it had not been for the radio policy of the Canadian National Railways we would have been without a station for many years. May I praise also the enterprise of the great Montreal paper La Presse, which has a very good station, CKAC. The figures of annual expenditure given by the Minister of Railways must include the cost of concerts given by the Canadian National Railways on their hookups from coast to coast. Now it is no longer the national railways who have to pay for that, it is the radio commission. There is something that I do not understand very well in the explanation of the Minister of Marine; he said that the purchase price of the radio broadcasting stations and equipment of the Canadian National by the radio commission is $50,000; and that this amount was arrived at by the radio commission itself, the minister will not deny. In his wide experience as a lawyer can he give me any other instance where the purchaser fixes the price of the thing he wishes to buy, and the seller says nothing? The Canadian National Railways had only to accept a figure given by the radio commission, the Canadian National had the knife at their throat, if they had not accepted the government would have cut their throat. They accepted ^because they could not do otherwise. But according to the inventory read by the Minister of Railways the actual value of the five stations is S132,000.


James Dew Chaplin: That is the cost, not
necessarily the value at all.


Robert James Manion: "Capital invested" was the term used, which means the cost.


Jean-François Pouliot: I admit there might be some depreciation in that. But what will be the effect of that transaction? The government will not disburse one cent; it will be two book entries, one for the Canadian

Radio-Purchase oj C.N.R. Stations
National Railways, and one for the radio commission. When the Canadian National Railways have a deficit they have to get the money from parliament to cover that deficit. If the price paid by the radio commission is unfair, the deficit will be higher. And even if the government have no ulterior purpose such as favouring the Canadian Pacific at the expense of the Canadian National, nevertheless the Canadian Pacific will say that the deficit of the Canadian National is greater on account of the fact that the transfer price of the radio was inadequate. That is why the matter should be adjusted in fairness to each party concerned. The government will not have to spend any money; it should simply make things right. Nothing has been said by the government with regard to what is to be paid for studio and office space, and for rentals. I should like to ask the Minister of Railways to tell us if any arrangement has been made between the radio commission and the national railways with regard to rentals. I should like to ask also if this purchase is to be the beginning of a coast to coast hook-up. This is why the questions pu)t by my hon. and learned colleague, the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Casgrain) and by the dean of the house, the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) are both timely and appropriate. If this is the beginning of a coast to coast hook-up I think we should know it so thait those concerned may be notified. There is not only one radio service in this country; since the Canadian National established broadcasting stations private firms and individuals have also done so. For example, we have the stations operated by La Presse and La Patrie, of Montreal. I will not ask what policy will be followed, but I wonder if the government has considered the effect of this step on the privately owned radio stations. In conclusion may I tell the acting leader of the government how pleased we are to see his face adorned with a gracious smile.


Mr. MITCHELL:: I should like to know what arrangements have been made for the absorption of the employees of these radio stations.


Robert James Manion: They have been taken over by the broadcasting commission.


The CHAIRMAN:: I think this discussion is out of order. The question before the committee is whether this purchase should be ratified in the sum of $50,000.


Humphrey Mitchell: The Minister of Railways has said that the employees have been taken over by the commission. If that was part of
the bargain I think the question was in order, but I want to know how they were taken over. If I remember correctly the legislation passed last year stipulated that all employees should be engaged through the civil service commission. I think the broadcasting commission should be made clearly to understand that this practice should be followed. It is quite possible that the staffs of these stations might be overloaded with the idea in mind that they would be taken over by the commission. It seems passing strange to me that the first official act of the commission should be to break the law under which it was created, with regard to the engagement of employees.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: This resolution has to do with the purchase of the radio stations and equipment. There is no other contract which is under discussion, so I think this subject is out of order.


Humphrey Mitchell: A good many things mentioned this afternoon were out of order, but they were not ruled out. I am not talking politics; if this was part and parcel of the agreement I think it is proper to discuss it.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: It does not come under the resolution.


Humphrey Mitchell: The minister has already answered.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I am sorry, but I must take the resolution as it appears, and I am bound by the rule of the house that all discussion must be pertinent to the resolution.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Humphrey Mitchell: No, it is not carried.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The hon. member can discuss the price, the equipment or the value of the broadcasting service, but the question of the employees does not come under this resolution.


Humphrey Mitchell: I understand that an agreement was necessary, and that the employees came under that agreement.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: But the agreement is not being discussed now; the resolution only deals with the purchase.


Pierre-François Casgrain: They cannot employ
these people unless they take over these stations.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: That does not come under this resolution, so I must rule the discussion out of order.


Pierre-François Casgrain: I think the hon. member has a right to discuss that matter.
4252	COMMONS
Radio-Purchase of C-N.R. Stations


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I am sorry, but I have just ruled that he is out of order, so the hon. gentleman must be out of order also.


Pierre-François Casgrain: Then I would appeal from your ruling.


Robert James Manion: With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, may I say that I do not see how we can discuss the taking over of these stations without bringing in other matters. As a matter of fact I think we might discuss the whole question of radio broadcasting. It strikes me that the hon. gentleman is not out of order in putting a question with regard to the personnel. Certainly since he has asked the question, and since the personnel is so important from the human point of view, I think the committee might agree to an answer being given even though we may stretch a point in doing so, though my own opinion is that the discussion is quite in order.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I must take the resolution as it is drafted, and certainly this is out of order. If the committee wishes to discuss this matter they may do so by unanimous consent; certainly I have no personal objection.


Humphrey Mitchell: I just wished to ask whether the taking over of the employees was part and parcel of the agreement.


Robert James Manion: I have not a copy of the agreement here, but I have a letter from Mr. Charlesworth, the chairman of the commission, to Mr. Thompson, director of publicity of the Canadian National Railways, from which I will read one paragraph. This letter is dated February 9, and contains the proposal to take over the broadcasting stations for $50,000. Mr. Charlesworth said:
We are also prepared to take over the personnel presently employed on your radio system as outlined in the pay sheets, which you left here at the time of your first visit. This includes a total of twenty-one of all classes, including Mr. Weir and Mr. Olive, who are at present assisting us in this office.
I presume it is true that the radio commission is under the civil service commission. I know nothing about it, but I presume they obtained the consent of the civil service commission to take over these employees. I doubt if the civil service commission under any circumstances could do better than let the commission take over the staff that has been operating these stations for some years.


Mr. SANDERSON:: I understand, Mr. Chairman, that you have made a ruling, from which an appeal has been taken by the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The discussion is going on, by consent. If the hon. member wishes to press the point of order he is privileged to do so.


Frederick George Sanderson: With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, consent must be given, and I have not heard that consent as yet.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I understood that consent was given. If the hon. member objects and wants to press the point of order he is entitled to do so, and personally I agree with him.


Frederick George Sanderson: I think you ought to observe the rules of the house.


George Halsey Perley: The question has been asked and the answer has been given.


Pierre-François Casgrain: The incident is closed.


Mr. DONNELLY:: Mr. Chairman, the
Minister of Railways and the acting Prime Minister, in speaking of the value placed on the broadcasting stations of the Canadian National, said that at the time the radio committee was sitting the Canadian National broadcasting stations were valued at $70,000. I understood him to say that at the time the radio committee was sitting the Canadian National broadcasting stations were valued at $70,000. Am I right in that assumption, and if so who fixed that valuation? The value subsequently arrived at, I take it, was based on that valuation of $70,000, and I want to know who decided upon the sum of $70,000.


George Halsey Perley: I heard one of the members of the committee of last year say that it was fixed by the engineer; one of the members of the committee said so here to-day. I have no knowledge of the matter except what was given me in this memorandum.


James J. Donnelly: In other words, it was
the engineers of the department who decided upon the initial valuation of $70,000; that is what I understand. The Minister of Railways, in discussing the Canadian National radio stations, gave certain figures in regard to costs. Will he inform the committee whether those figugres represent deficits or are they actual cost? In other words, was there any revenue to offset those costs?


Robert James Manion: That is the actual net cost; so far as I know there was no revenue. I will read to my hon. friend the statement as it was given to me:
Since the inception of the radio activities of the railway, activities which included radio reception on trains, the charges to operating expenses on radio account have been as follows:

Radio-Purchase oj C.N.R. Stations
Then they give the figures which I submitted. That, I take it, is net.


James J. Donnelly: I submit that there
must be some revenue, because they rented offices above their stations. There must be some revenue coming in. I should like to hear the Minister of Marine tell his side of the story. His colleague the Minister of Railways says that these statements represent a deficit to the Canadian National Railways, that the National railways should never have been in the business, and that he is glad to get rid of it because it is a lemon and a dead horse. Well, if it is a lemon and a dead horse to the Department of Railways it should be the same to the radio commission.


Robert James Manion: That is their business;
that is what they are engaged in.


James J. Donnelly: I want to know what
the Minister of Maxine thinks about it. Does he believe he has taken over a lemon and a dead horse, as it has been called, and if so does he regard it as a very good bargain? If it is a good bargain for the Minister of Railways to get rid of it, how is it a good bargain for the Minister of Marine to acquire it?


Alfred Duranleau: The Canadian
National Railways did not make a business of their stations; they were only for the service of the company in connection with their trains and for publicity purposes. The radio commission on the other hand intends to do business with these stations; it will do advertising and it hopes to do a good business.


Charles Marcil: How many posts are there in Montreal?


Alfred Duranleau: The radio commission has been in operation only three months. The officials are evolving a scheme of development throughout the whole of Canada along the lines of the report of the committee which was adopted last year unanimously in this house, and of course they have to comply with the statute. They must develop their system in accordance with their revenues, which are derived from licence fees and the business they will do through their stations. I cannot go further than that. The radio commission intends to implement the report of the committee in this regard.


Pierre-François Casgrain: I notice to-day that during the absence of the Prime Minister, who is possibly trying to negotiate a reciprocal trade agreement with the United States, some ministers of the government presiding over different departments are trying to negotiate among themselves another kind of reciprocal
agreement. Three ministers have spoken, and it seems to be a case of "You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours." These three ministers have taken part in christening this new bill. First there was the right hon. gentleman who is leading the house, the member for Argenteuil, then the Minister of Railways came to his rescue, and later on the Minister of Marine.


Alfred Duranleau: At the request of the hon. member.


Pierre-François Casgrain: Yes, at my request, because I like the hon. gentleman very much. He is a very mild man and he does not wish to commit himself too far. As the discussion has proceeded however we have not been able to gather much information. There is one thing I notice, though, and that is that some supporters of the government apparently do not appreciate the efforts of the ministers who are leading the government in the absence of the Prime Minister, because hon. members opposite have all deserted their seats. In this bill a present is being made to the Minister of Marine, and I think we are giving far too much to him. We are handing over to him one of the greatest assets of the Canadian National Railways, as my hon. friend (Mr. Malcolm) has pointed out. This valuable asset of the Canadian National we are transferring to the Marine department, but we have no guarantee that under this department we shall derive any more revenue from it. The Minister of Marine these days seems to be burdened with the care of many departments, and it is just possible that he may eclipse the Prime Minister himself. He has charge of the Department of Marine and, now that there is no Minister of Fisheries, he is acting in that portfolio; now he is head of the radio commission, though he says he does not administer it.


Jean-François Pouliot: And though he says he is at the foot of it.


Pierre-François Casgrain: The radio commission may be only crawling, but the minister is behind it. He does not tell us that he is not going to have anything to do with the administration of these new stations and that in the future he will not have a hand in the acquisition of new stations which may be brought under the jurisdiction of the radio commission and under the control of his department.


Alfred Duranleau: And with the consent of the house.


Pierre-François Casgrain: I have put some questions to the minister, and so has the hon. member for Bonaventure, but so far there has not
4254	COMMONS
Radio-Purchase oj C.N.R. Stations
been forthcoming from the government any satisfactory exposition of the future program in regard to the radio. Are we going to be called year after year, after this measure is adopted, to endorse this process of eliminating private stations by the purchase first, perhaps, of La Presse and also of that other station La Patrie, which was established for the sole purpose of making political capital through this newspaper, helping it to build up a clientele so that later on it might be taken over by the government, under the control of the commission, so that friends of the government might be made happy. In this whole piece of legislation before us we have in my opinion a bad precedent, and I for one do not subscribe to it, because I am afraid of the gift which is being made to the Minister of Marine. Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes. That is what the Minister of Marine should look to.


Alfred Duranleau: Is my hon. friend suggesting the purchase of the La Presse station?


Pierre-François Casgrain: I do not know whether it is going to be purchased. I should like to have some information. Is the government going to purchase in the future such stations as La Presse?


Alfred Duranleau: I would invite the hon. gentleman to read the report of the radio committee. It was adapted unanimously by the house last year, and the radio commission intends to follow as far as possible the lines of that report.


Pierre-François Casgrain: That is very vague.


Alfred Duranleau: It is not; the report is quite plain.


Pierre-François Casgrain: If the minister is in
charge of that department he must know what the report contains. He ought to be in a position to say yes or no; he should say in a few words what line of action the government is going to take in the near future. I think it is of interest to the members of this committee and also to the people at large to know if future transactions will be made along the lines of this one.


Mr. CANTLEY:: I should like to congratulate my genial friend, the Minister of Railways, upon getting rid of a white elephant and receiving $50,000 for it. It -has been stated that the equipment of the Moncton station was second hand and the experience which we have had with it seems to bear out that statement.. At Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, there was a station with about one-
quarter the supposed power of the station at Moncton. We were able to hear that station quite distinctly while we never could get the Moncton station although we were only about 110 to 130 miles away. That station was of no value so far as the maritime provinces were concerned. Its value to-day is only as scrap. The steel towers whioh to-day are unsafe are worth just about the cost of taking them down. There is probably a certain amount of copper-covered wire which would be worth, say, a cent and a half per pound. I do not think the scrap value of the whole station will exceed $1,500 or $2,000. If the minister can unload these stations upon *some other department and receive $50,000 he is entitled to our congratulations. He is receiving mine, at least.


John Campbell Elliott: What about the other department?


Thomas Cantley: Although my statement
may be disputed by hon. members opposite, I contend that this is just another illustration of the way in which the Canadian National Railways was loaded up with extravagances. These installations were never of any value although they cost a million and a quarter to begin with and over a million dollars a year to operate.


Mr. HEAPS:: It would seem that hon.
members have objections to other stations being taken over by the government at some distant time. I think the time to deal with that aspect of the question- will be when the government are in a position- to announce to the house that they intend to take over other stations. At the present time I do not intend to deal with that phase of the matter which seems to be somewhat extraneous to the question which we are now discussing. It has been claimed by some hon. members that we are not dealing fairly with the Canadian National railway system. Personally I feel that we are dealing fairly with the company. The price to -be paid -has been determined by the two parties to the transaction and evidently both are quite satisfied. The broadcasting system may have been a white elephant upon the hands of the railroad company but, on the other hand, it is quite obvious that this system may become a valuable asset to the radio commission. The railroad company was in the transportation business while the radio commission is in- the broadcasting business. The railway company did not have the advantage of the $2 fees which will be collected by the radio commission. These fees will pay the interest upon the capital invested,

Radio-Purchase oj C.N.R. Stations
and possibly pay off the capital itself. I feel that the radio commission is doing the obvious thing in taking over a utility which belonged to another department and I am satisfied that both sides have made a good bargain.


William Daum Euler: I have no desire to delay the discussion but I would like to deal very briefly with two points which have been raised. The first is with regard to the policy of the government in the taking over of additional stations. It seems to me that this matter of policy was pretty well decided by the report of the radio committee which sat last session. I should like to read two of the clauses from the recommendations of that committee, as follows:
(a)	That one of the first duties of the commission be the establishment of trans-Canada chain broadcasting through the securing of the necessary land lines as soon as possible.
(b)	That a nationally-owned system of radio broadcasting be instituted, and that all stations required for its proper organization be eventually acquired, same to be financed from the revenues accruing to the business of broadcasting, without expense to the taxpayers through the public treasury.
I need not read any more than that. It seems to me that those recommendations lay down a pretty definite general policy in connection with broadcasting. I take it that the taking over of the Canadian National broadcasting system is the first step in the carrying out of that policy. I am not sure whether it is fair to expect the government to say at the moment just how fast they will move in carrying out the recommendations of the committee. It seems to me that the radio bill which was passed last session was passed for the distinct purpose of implementing the recommendations of the committee. It must be remembered that the report of the committee was adopted by the house. I am not going to find any particular fault-I certainly am not playing politics-if the government are not in a position to say that next year or the year after they will take over such and such a station. I take it that sooner or later

it ought to be sooner.-they will take possession of the general broadcasting business in Canada.


Ernest Lapointe: Did the committee of which my hon. friend was a member contemplate that before the members of the commission were sworn in a new licence would be issued to permit a new station to go into operation?


William Daum Euler: Briefly, my answer would be no. Although I have no desire to raise a question at this time, personally I am not entirely satisfied with the way licences have
been granted. I have one particular station in mind and the proceedings in connection therewith certainly do not meet with my approval. I will not say anything more in connection with this matter for fear of starting the hon. member for East Essex off on a speech, although I would not mind listening to him.
There is one other point I would like to make. With all due deference to my good friend the Minister of Railways, I do not think he is quite fair in his reference to the outlays made by the Canadian National Railways in connection with broadcasting. After all, the purpose of the installation of receiving sets in the trains was not just an extravagant method of entertaining the passengers, it was a definite means of attracting business-just another form of advertising. I am not going to say just what success that advertising had-I might not have done the same thing if I bad been in authority-but I think it is true that the railway company did obtain considerable publicity through the installation of receiving sets on the trains. No one can say definitely what returns will be received from any particular form of advertising. The railways have expended hundreds of thousands and perhaps millions of dollars in advertising.


James Dew Chaplin: Hotels.


William Daum Euler: Yes, the hotels have to be
advertised if one is to make anything of * them. The Canadian National advertised their hotel at Jasper and the Canadian Pacific did the same thing for their hotel at Banff. Hundreds of thousands of dollars were spent in advertising the railways and it is necessary to do this. No one can say just how much in dollars and cents the Canadian National Railways received in return for this work of broadcasting, but surely it is not right for anybody to give to the house and the country the impression that this money was absolutely wasted.


Robert James Manion: I do not think it was suggested that it was absolutory wasted although a great dahl of it was.


William Daum Euler: I want to be fair to the
minister, but he left the impression, I think unintentionally, that the sums of money that were expended from year to year-and he gave them in increasing amounts-were just wasted on a sort of plaything on the Canadian' National Railways. It was nothing of the kind; it was advertising. I think it brought to the railway some results, but whether commensurate with the amount of money expended, I am not prepared to say.
4256	COMMONS
Radio-Purchase of C-N.R. Stations


Mr. VERVILLE (Lotbiniere) (Translation) :: Mr. Chairman, this resolution simply
means the transfer of an amount of $50,000 from one place to another. The Canadian National Railways will receive $50,000 from the Radio Commission, while the Treasury, on the one hand, will receive what, on the other hand, it has disbursed. May I put a question to the hon. Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau):	A permit was granted for a
broadcasting station in Montreal. Some one assured me that this permit was granted to a Tory newspaper. I have no knowledge of the fact, at all events, it was granted to La Patrie. For some time past, programs have been broadcasted from that station in which speakers of the Federation de clubs ouvriers de la province de Quebec are allowed to state what they please against established order, the Quebec government and the municipality of Montreal. I am wondering whether there exists a contract containing a clause which prohibits any unfavourable comment against the Dominion government. May I inquire from the minister as to whether the following public rumour is true, namely, that the government granted this broadcasting permit with such a proviso?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried, carried!


Mr. CASGRAIN (Translation):: The minister is going to reply.


Alfred Duranleau: Mr. Chairman, I have already replied to this question when the estimates on radio broadcasting were discussed, at a recent sitting of the committee. The speeches delivered, at La Patrie broadcasting station, by officials of the Federation des clubs ouvriers de la province de Quebec, so far as I have been able to judge, having purposely listened to them on two or three occasions, had absolutely nothing objectionable. May I inform my hon. friend that numerous citizens of Montreal contend that this propaganda carried on by the Federation des [DOT] clubs ouvriers de la province de Quebec is quite legitimate, that freedom of speech is equally granted to the small associations and workmen as to powerful corporations, and, as long as these speeches are not of a nature to rouse the people against established order, we consider that members of that association are entitled to criticize the measures or acts of any government or even the present municipal administration of Montreal. Quite recently, if I am not mistaken, these gentlemen sharply criticized the previous municipal administration of Montreal, which proves that this association

is free from political consideration. The hon. member is misinformed when he states that at the La Patrie broadcasting station officials of the Federation des clubs ouvriers are allowed to deliver speeches which are objectionable or of a nature to rouse the people of Montreal. Would my hon. friend mention the circumstances and dates when such speeches were made?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: If the
hon. minister will wait a minute I shall quote one of these speeches.
Mr. VERVILLE Translation): It is a difficult task to defend, in the house, citizens attacked through the medium of broadcasting. It is true that under an act passed at the last session of the Quebec legislature, associations known as Universites ouvrieres are declared dissolved and deprived of their rights; however, it behooves the Dominion government to take the necessary steps to prevent the spreading of false principles. Such schools, moreover, should never have taken root in Canada. It behooves the Dominion government to enforce the laws of this country and prevent, by all possible means, the infringement of citizens' rights.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: 
Ernest Lapointe: How long has my hon. friend been speaking?


Mr. GRAY:: Although the Prime Minister is absent, he has apparently left a substitute for him in this house in the penson of the hon. member for East Essex (Mr. Morand). If this resolution carries it will be placing in the hands of the commission another five stations for it to administer. In view of that, I think it is fitting, before we place any more stations under the control of the radio broadcasting commission set up by this house, that we should draw to the attention of the Minister of Marine that the chairman of that commission since Saturday has been going about this country not only making political speeches, I submit, but imputing motives to members of this house which I submit are wholly uncalled-for and unwarranted. I feel sure that it has been called to the attention of the minister that the chairman of this commission has stated that those members of this house who have been trying to elicit information from the minister had their questions suggested to them and the whole movement engineered by New York interests.


Mr. SPOTTON:: He ought to get his
whiskers trimmed.


Alfred Duranleau: Did my hon. friend hear the chairman of the radio commission?


Ross Wilfred Gray: I am quoting what I read in the newspaper. I can quote from the Montreal Gazette of Monday, in which the chairman of the radio commission is reported as having made a speech, a political speech I submit, to a non-political gathering in Montreal. I further find that speaking in Toronto he is reported in to-night's evening Citizen as follows:
"We'll be all right if the politicians will only leave us alone."
Does he mean by that the minister? Does he mean that he is being given politicians that he cannot do anything with in the appointments that have been made to the commission? Or does he impute that those of us who are trying to elicit information from the minister are doing it merely for politics, and that we are not interested in the radio commission as it stands? I ask the minister when he will place a curb on the indiscreet verbosity of the chairman of this commission.


Jean-François Pouliot: The question is of great
importance. I remember very well that on another occasion-


An hon. MEMBER:: Sit down.
4258	COMMONS
Radio-Purchase of C-NR- Stations


Jean-François Pouliot: The Prime Minister told
my hon. friend to sit down one day, but.I am not going to allow my hon. friend to tell me what I shall do. When the Prime Minister told him to sit down, he sat down like a schoolboy. I am not in the category of those who sit down when they are told to by anyone. I stand up when I speak, and that is much better. Moreover, I would have left the party if its leader had told me like the Prime Minister told the hon. member for East Algoma (Mr. Nicholson) to sit down at the special session.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order.


Jean-François Pouliot: I apologize to my hon.
friend if he was not the one.


George Brecken Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, I made no observation whatsoever, and I submit that the hon. member for Temiscouata has no right to make an attack on me in that manner while I sit perfectly quiet in my seat.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, I wholly
accept what my hon. friend has said, and if my hon. friend did not say what I understood him to say-


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The hon. member for East Algoma has said that he did not interrupt, and therefore the hon. member for Temiscouata must accept his denial without discussion.


Jean-François Pouliot: Certainly, Mr. Chairman. I have already said in very plain language that I apologize to the hon. member for East Algoma if he did not interject when I got up.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: He has already stated that he did not speak.


Jean-François Pouliot: I repeat for the third time, Chairman, that I apologize. When I am wrong I admit it at once. I should have addressed my remarks to the hon. member for East Edmonton, the desk mate of my hon. friend from East Algoma, who I understand made the interruption.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The hon. member for
Temiscouata knows, I think, that he must not word his apology to say "if the hon. member for East Algoma did not say that." He must accept the denial of the hon. member without qualification and apologize.


Jean-François Pouliot: If the hon. member is
willing to suggest to me any other formula than the one I used for my apology I shall be very glad to accept it because I am not

stubborn. I do not wish to fight against the rules. I wish to be fair to every member on the other side of the house. When they are polite I am polite, but when they are impolite I fix them.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I would suggest to the hon. member for Temiscouata that any gentleman could have found words with which to accept the denial of the hon. member for East Algoma and apologize.


Jean-François Pouliot: Is the chairman satisfied
with my apology?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: It is not for me to
be satisfied, but the hon. member for East Algoma.


Jean-François Pouliot: The hon. member for
East Algoma has not complained of my apology, and he has to be satisfied according to the rules of the house. When the interjection was made I at first understood that it came from my hon. friend from East Algoma, and what I said in reply should have been addressed to his desk mate who actually made the interruption. Is that clear, sir?
What I am standing up for now is to defend the rights and privileges of the House of Commons, of hon. members on the other side as well as those on this side. May I now through Hansard tell Mr. Charlesworth or anyone else who is not respectful of the rights and privileges of the members of the House of Commons that they will be fixed in due course? They are the servants of the public, and they should not forget it, and when they are disrespectful it is the duty of the Minister of Marine to fix them, in order that we may not have disagreeable incidents in the House of Commons. Now if Mr. Charlesworth is not any more polite than he has been he will have to receive a lesson, the same lesson that is given to impolite boys. And the fact that he wears a beard will not change the form of chastisement.


Charles Gavan Power: That is not worn where you are going to hit him.


Jean-François Pouliot: We will first start by pulling it!
I am sure, Mr. Chairman, that we are delighted to hear this defence of the rights of parliament. May I say just one word more? The other day I heard the Minister of Marine saying he was not to interfere with the work of the commission. Is he not the boss? I said that at the end of the sitting-it is not recorded in Hansard-but my idea is that the minister should be the boss of the department, and if the minister is afraid to inter-

Major-General McNaughton
fere with the work of the commission, it is feebleness, it is weakness, it is unworthy of any minister of the crown. He should say boldly to any one of the civil servants under his control: I wild treat you fairly, but you must act fairly too; you are responsible to me for what you do because I myself am responsible to the House of Commons for anything you do. That is my idea of parliamentary government, that is my idea of democracy. Those are the broad principles for which England and Canada have fought many times. May I remind the minister in order that he may not disgrace himself any more by saying he wild not interfere with the work of the commission and this and that, that he should remember he is the boss and he must not be afraid to take the responsibility for anything that is done by civil servants under his control, and if what they do is unfair or against the rules he has made he has only one thing to do-put them out.


Alfred Duranleau: Mr. Chairman, I do not rise to defend the chairman of the radio commission about what was read a moment ago by one of my hon. friends. These articles were not brought to my attention, the chairman of the radio commission was not asked if he had made such statements or not, and I do not think it is proper to criticize the chairman of the commission on statements appearing in the papers, unless they are admitted by him.


Ross Wilfred Gray: He has not denied it.


Alfred Duranleau: If anything wrong is brought to my knowledge, and if the statute gives me the power to intervene, I will do so. I desire to tell my hon. friend from Temis-couata (Mr. Pouliot) that I know my duties perfectly well and I intend to perform them to the full, but I have to remain within the statute. I intend to exercise the control which has been given to the Minister of Marine by the statute creating that radio commission, which statute was adopted unanimously by the house last year, if my hon. friends are not satisfied with the powers which were granted to that commission and to the minister they have only one thing to do, that is to ask for the repeal of that statute or for an amendment of it. My duty will be performed to the full within the act. ,
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.


Right Hon.   S@: That a message be sent to the Senate informing their honours that this house has adopted a resolution approving of the purchase of the 53719-269
radio braodeasting stations and equipment of the Canadian National Railways by the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Commission for the sum of $50,000 and requesting that their honours will unite with this house in the approval of the said purchase:
And that the clerk do carry the said message to the Senate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frederick George Sanderson: 
Hon. D. M. SUTHERLAND (Minister of National Defence):: 
Mr. BROWN:: Is that salary subject to the ten per cent deduction?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Yee.

Unemployment Camps



UNEMPLOYMENT CAMP-VALCARTIER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. Minister of National Defence (Mr. Sutherland) if he can answer the question I asked yesterday about the mode of selection of unemployed men being sent to Yalcartier camp? Apparently the selection is entrusted to three or four hon. members from Montreal, sitting on the other side of the house. I would like to know whether it is the policy that those men should be selected by members of parliament; if so, why my hon. friend from St. Henri (Mr. Mercier) and the other members from Montreal should not be asked to select them as well as members who are supporting the government?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: When the present plan
with regard to sending men to Valcartier and Petawawa was entered into the officers in charge of the district at Montreal were advised to get in touch with the members for St. Ann (Mr. Sullivan), St. Antoine (Mr. Bell) and Jacques Cartier (Mr, Laurin), not with the idea of picking out 'the individual men who were to go in those contingents, but with the idea of talking over the situation generally as to what should be done under the circumstances in Montreal. What they have done is, I believe, to work with the chairman of the Montreal unemployment commission with regard to it. I am informed that the plan is working out very well indeed, and it is not the case that a man who desires to go to the camp must have any particular O.K. from a member of parliament.


Mr. C. B. HOWARD (Sherbrooke):: I
should like to direct a question to the minister along these lines also. I have a letter from the city clerk of the city of Sherbrooke stating that there are 125 unemployed single men in that city, and asking if the minister would try to have at least some of these taken to Yalcartier.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Undoubtedly the
city of Sherbrooke has every right to ask that this be done, and I shall be very glad to take it up and communicate with the hon. member.


Paul Mercier: I
should like to address a similar question to the minister. I have received applications from boys and single men in the western part of Montreal who would like to go to ValfMr. Sutherland.]
cartier. Am I authorized to issue a letter in this connection or am I obliged to refer these applications to the other members from Montreal?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: The hon. gentleman certainly would not be obliged to refer these applications to his colleagues from Montreal. I would suggest that he take up these questions with the commissioner of unemployment of the city of Montreal, who I am sure would be very glad indeed to cooperate with him.
TREATY WITH FRANCE On the orders of the day:


Pierre-François Casgrain: I should like to ask the government
if there is any truth in the dispatch which I read in the Montreal Star last night to the effect that this week we might expeot finality in the negotiations with France in connection with a trade pact and that the government was only awaiting an answer from France before bringing the treaty before parliament. Has the Minister of Finance any information as to when the treaty may be brought down?


Right Hon.   S@: I may tell my hon. friend
that these negotiations are still proceeding; they have not yet reached finality. I have not seen the articles to which my hon. friend refers, but sometimes statements are made that are not official.
MALT EXTRACT TAX On the orders of the day:


Pierre-François Casgrain: I noticed in the Montreal Star
that the hon. member for West York (Mr. Lawson) was reported to have said, at a meeting in Toronto, that the tax on malt extract used in making home brew would be withdrawn or drastically reduced. Is there any foundation for that statement, and when the hon. member made it had he received any information or intimation from the government that this would be done?


Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance):: The statement in question, Mr. Speaker, was made entirely upon the responsibility of the hon. member for West York (Mr. Lawson). As Minister of Finance I have always taken the position that announcements with regard to tariff and taxation proposals should be made in the house. I think I can conscientiously say that I have consistently maintained that position, and I propose to continue to do so. So far as I am concerned the statement is without warrant whatever.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff



THE GOLD STANDARD

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. J. GARLAND (Bow River):: I presume the answer just given by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) would apply also to the statement made by the same hon. member, during the course of the same speech, to the effect that Canada left the gold standard two years ago.



RADIO LICENCE-LONDON

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Daum Euler: I should like to ask the Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau) whether an application has been made by and a radio licence granted to any person in the city of London.


Alfred Duranleau: Not to my knowledge, but I will take this as a notice and give my hon. friend an answer to-morrow.



WAYS AND MEANS


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. MacDonald (Cape Breton South) in the chair.
2. Resolved,-that schedule A to the customs tariff, being chapter forty-four of the revised statutes of Canada, 1927, as amended by chapter seventeen of the acts of 1928, chapter thirty-nine of the acts of 1929, chapter thirteen of the acts of 1930 (first session), chapter three of the acts of 1930 (second session), chapter thirty of the acts of 1931, chapter forty-one of the acts of 1932, and chapter six of the acts of 1932-33, be further amended by striking thereout tariff items 79, 99c, 101, 123a, 157a, 173. 194, 203a, 203b. 206a, 208, 208e, 208o, 209, 210e. 278. 315. 315a. 316. 327, 353, 366b, 385a, 409j, 409q. 417. 438b, 438d, 445c, 471, 475, 476a, 485, 520c, 568, 571, 682a, 756, 783, and 799, the several enumerations of goods respectively, and the several rates of duties of customs, if any, set opposite each of said items, and by inserting the following items, enumerations and rates of duty in said schedule A:-
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Since we are about to enter on the budget resolutions I should like to ask the Minister of Finance if he would indicate to the committee the order in which he intends to take up the resolutions generally, and also if it is the intention to stay with the resolutions until we get through. We are anxious to facilitate the business, and we could probably make better headway if there were some understood arrangement.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I should be quite content to accept such order of procedure as would be agreeable to the committee and to the house. If it is convenient I should be quite prepared to continue with the tariff items until we have concluded them and go on with the taxation proposals. The first paragraph is to be taken up by the Minister of National Revenue; he is indisposed to-day, otherwise we would have proceeded with that.
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.: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, fifteen per cent; general tariff, twenty per cent.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: This is a parent item; there is no change in either wording or rates, but it appears because the next item involves an amendment by way of reduction in the tariff.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-79c. Seedling stock for grafting, viz.:-Plum, pear, peach and other fruit trees: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
Mr DONNELLY:: This item has been taken out of item 79?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes; this item is free across the board


Mr. YOUNG:: Under this item seedling
stock for grafting is put on the free list, while formerly it was free from Great Britain and dutiable from outside the empire. I should like to know' who asked for the change.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The nurserymen made representations to us that they were unable to obtain a sufficient supply in Great Britain. After negotiations with the British government we were enabled to ascertain that they were not in a position to supply the necessary nursery stock. As a matter of fact, Britain herself is to some extent an importer from France. Under the circumstances it wTas decided to restore the item to the free list.
Customs tariff-99c. Raisins and dried currants:
(1) Until July 31, 1934, per pound: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 4 cents: general tariff, 4 cents.
(21 Thereafter, per pound: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 3 cents; general tariff, 3 cents. When in packages weighing two pounds each, or less, the weight of such packages to be included in the weight for duty.
4262	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Edward James Young: What change has been made in this item?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: There is no change in the item, either as regards the wording or the rates. The item lias been extended one year at the request of Australia.


Edward James Young: What is the duty when the currants are not in packages?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If the currants are packed in small two pound packages the package itself is weighed with the raisins and considered in the computation for duty. If the raisins come in bulk the bulk package is not subject to the same treatment.


Edward James Young: But the rate is the same in either case?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes, except that with the two pound package the package itself is weighed with the raisins for duty purposes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-101. Oranges, n.o.p., per cubic foot: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 35 cents; general tariff, 35 cents.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-101b. Oranges, the produce of Palestine (when imported direct from the country of growth and production) during the months of January, February. March and April: British preferential tariff...; intermediate tariff, ....; general tariff, free.
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: Who
asked for this change?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Many representations were made to us from different quarters in favour of the action which we have taken to admit Palestine oranges free of duty during the months indicated. This is an orange of superior quality and flavour and a certain amount of trade has developed with Palestine. We thought it was a move in the right direction.


William Daum Euler: Will this conflict with importations from other parts of the British Empire such as South Africa? Have there been any protests?	*


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The only protest we have received from any part of the empire was from Jamaica. Palestine is a mandated territory, class A mandate, and even though we have oranges free under the British preference and subject to a duty of 35 cents per cubic foot

under the intermediate and general, last year we imported eighty-eight per cent of our oranges from the United States. There is therefore still ample room for the West Indian and more particularly the Jamaican orange. In these circumstances we felt that they had no legitimate right to complain of the free entry accorded to Palestine.


Mr. NEILL:: Will not this interfere with
the Australian treaty?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: No, nor with South Africa; they ship in another season entirely. It does not interfere with them in the slightest degree.


Edward James Young: These oranges are admitted in January, February, March and April; why not throughout the year? I understand they are very good oranges.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: These months suit importation from Palestine. They are the only free months having regard to our treaties with South Africa and Australia.


Mr. REID:: These oranges are imported
into the old country months ahead of that. Why should they not come here in the month of December just as the Japanese oranges called tangerines do?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: We could not grant free
entry in December because that month is preempted by the Australian treaty.


Abraham Albert Heaps: The only months during
which it is convenient for the people of Palestine to export are the months mentioned.


Mr. MacLEAN:: Was there a delegation
from the West Indies?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: A delegate came from the
island of Jamaica and had an interview with the government, and while I cannot say that he went away satisfied, we were able to give him evidence to show that his people were more alarmed than hurt.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: With respect to the protest made by Jamaica in this matter, it occurs to me that our obligation is greater to the West Indies than it is to Palestine, which is a mandated country. Of course, I am interested in Palestine and all its early associations, but commercially our obligations should be discharged first to the AVest Indies. Is there likely to be any conflict? I do not like the thought of Jamaica being jostled to one side.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I agree with my hon. friend that, other things being equal, we should give the preference to those within the empire. Without any treaty obligations, and outside the West Indian treaty, we gave free entry to Jamaica the year round, and I pointed out to the delegate from that island that they were not presenting a good case to us when they indicated that their objection to free entry on the part of Palestine oranges was that Jamaica would have to come into competition with Palestine and that therefore their oranges w'ould sell at a lower price. I suggested to them that it was rather a peculiar representation to make to a minister of the Canadian government, that the Canadian people would secure oranges at a lower price. As a matter of fact however, on balance, I think Canada has dealt very fairly, if not indeed generously, with the West Indies. We give them the benefit of a splendid steamship service which costs this country around three quarters of a million a year, and in that connection I may point out, as I pointed out to the representative of Jamaica, that frequently if West Indian shippers have an opportunity to use a tramp steamer they do so to the detriment of the Canadian service which is put on at a great expense. Furthermore, through our preference to West Indian sugar, which the West Indian avails himself of to the last fraction of a cent, we are in effect giving a subvention to the West Indies amounting to several millions a year. Then, bearing in mind the further fact that there is still an opportunity in the Canadian market to replace a portion of that eighty-eight per cent supplied last year by the United States, I think we have treated the Jamaicans fairly in the circumstances, if not generously.


William Richard Motherwell: So long as it is
understood that all mandated countries are to be considered as being on a parity with our British dominions and colonies, and if we are under an obligation in that respect, I have nothing further to say. I do not think however that we should go out of our way to put such countries on an equal footing with other parts of the empire if they are not actually so. The fact that Jamaica may not happen to have a good case is merely incidental; another colony might have an excellent case.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: We were not under any
obligation to Palestine. Palestine was a class A British mandated territory and to the extent we imported oranges from that country we would have an opportunity to increase the shipment of Canadian goods. To the extent
that Canadian goods were shipped there would be an opportunity afforded for the development of our Canadian ports and the providing of business for our transportation systems. It must be borne in mind that this provision is limited to direct shipments.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-123a.	Crabs, clams or
shrimps in sealed containers: British preferential tariff, 171 per cent: intermediate tariff, 40 per cent; general tariff, 40 per cent.
James J. Donnelly: Why the increase?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: We want to place shrimps in the same category as crabs and clams because they come into direct competition with our own product. The competition from oriental countries has been somewhat unfair.


James J. Donnelly: What was the tariff
on shrimps?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Formerly the rates were
17i per cent, 27} per cent and 30 per cent.


James J. Donnelly: Do those apply to
crabs?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: There is no change in the duty on crabs and clams. We are simply classing shrimps in the way I think they ought to be classed as they come into direct competition with our own product.


Edward James Young: Why the increase in the duty?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The increase is brought
about by the classification of shrimps with clams and crabs.


Edward James Young: Crabs and clams previously carried 27} per cent and 30 per cent; they are now carrying 40 per cent, so there must be an increase.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: There is no increase on
clams and crabs. The rates given in the parallel columns are those which formerly obtained with respect to shrimps.


James J. Donnelly: Where do we import
our shrimps from?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Almost entirely from Japan.


[Stage Direction]
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
4264	'	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
of the minister, subject to the Excise Act and to the regulations of the Department of National Revenue: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
Edward James Young: Who asked for this?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It is impossible to give a
comprehensive answer to that question in every case. This is a conference item. It was ascertained that Great Britain was unable to supply this commodity in sufficient quantity and we restored the status quo which obtained prior to the British agreement. This action was taken with the consent of the British government.


William Daum Euler: Is it produced in Canada?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: No.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-173.	Books and cards,
including playing cards, embossed or grooved, for the blind; and books for the instruction of the deaf, dumb or blind; maps and charts for the use of schools for the blind: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
Albert Joseph Brown: This item and the succeeding one show a reduction. I am in favour of the government getting the fullest amount of revenue possible out of some of these items, but-


Mr.   OOTT@: These are playing cards; the hon. member does not use them.


Albert Joseph Brown: I would like to know the reason for the reduction. Has the government found that the duties were so high that they would not produce revenues?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I may tell my hon. friend that this item was put in purely on compassionate grounds.


Albert Joseph Brown: That would be true of this item which refers to books for the blind?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes.


Albert Joseph Brown: That would be a good reason as far as this item is concerned. But I was thinking of the next item.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: We could take up item 194.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-194. Playing cards, in packs or in sheet form, n.o.p.; cards and sheets partly lithographed or printed, for use in the manufacture of such playing cards, per pack or equivalent: British preferential tariff, five cents: intermediate tariff, seven cents; general tariff, eight cents.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: There is no change in the rates of duty, but it has been found that the payment of duty has been evaded by the sending in of cards in sheets printed on one side. Previously these sheets were classified as lithographed material. By simply cutting up the sheet a pack of cards is made which can be sold in direct competition with those manufactured in Canada and this change will apply the same duties to these sheets.


Pierre-François Casgrain: Who asked for this legislation?


Albert Joseph Brown: I do not understand the 15 per cent, 221 per cent and 221 per cent in the parallel columns.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: That is the duty they paid when classified as pictures. They will now pay the same rate as playing cards. Representations were made by the manufacturers of playing cards that they were being subjected to unfair competition and it was to prevent the evasion of the payment of duty that these sheets have been put in the same classification as playing cards.


Pierre-François Casgrain: Where are these manufacturers located?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: There are three plants in Canada; one at Montreal, one at Windsor and one at Toronto.


Albert Joseph Brown: There is also an excise duty?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: There is no change in the duty.


Edward James Young: As I read the outer three columns, the present rates on these cards, whether in packs or in sheets, would be five cents plus 15 per cent, seven cents plus 22', per cent and eight cents plus 221 per cent.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: You do not add them together. Hitherto lithographed sheets have paid duties of 15 per cent, 221 Per cent and 221 per cent, which is less than the specific rate.


Edward James Young: The card manufacturers
asked for this change?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-203a. Chemical compounds composed of two or more acids or salts soluble in water, adapted for dyeing or tanning: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, ten per cent; general tariff, ten per cent.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
Provided, that when such chemical compounds are permitted free entry into the United Kingdom, by licence, under section (2) of the Dye-Stuffs Act (1920) the rates of duty shall be:	British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have an amendment which I will ask my colleague to move.


Mr. STEVENS:: I move that the word "free" be deleted from line 2 of the proviso.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Some of these articles are not free in Great Britain and it was intended that this tariff item should be applicable only to free items.


Edward James Young: When you strike out the word "free," what do you intend to substitute?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Nothing. Some of these commodities are subject to duty upon entering Great Britain, while some go in free; all
are under licence.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Item as amended agreed to.
Customs tariff-203b. Aniline and coal tar dyes, soluble in water, in bulk or in packages of not less than one pound weight: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, ten per cent; general tariff, ten per cent.
Provided, that when such dyes are permitted free entry into the United Kingdom, by licence, under section (2) of the Dye-Stuffs Act (1920) the rates of duty shall be: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have the same amendment in respeat to this item and for exactly the same reason:
That the word "free" be deleted in line two of the proviso.
I would like 'to ask my colleague, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, to move it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I move that.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Item as amended agreed to.
Customs tariff-206a. Bacteriological products or serum sub-cutaneous injection:	British
preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: This is a conference item
Which is being placed back on the free list.


James J. Donnelly: What is the reason for
doing this? Is it on account of the discussion we had when these items were up last fall?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The real reason was the
difficulty of getting credit for returned unused serum which very rapidly deteriorated, and the fact that serum can be supplied more quickly from the United States.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: How many of
the conference items are being changed?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Five, up to this point.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-208. Boracie acid and borax in packages of not less than twenty-five pounds weight:	hydro-fluosilicic acid; tannic acid;
ammonia, sulphate of; cyanide of potassium; cyanide of sodium and cyanogen bromide; antimony salts, viz.: tartar emetic, chloride and lactate (antimonine); arsenous oxide; precipitate of copper (crude); verdigris or subacetate of copper, dry; sulphur and brimstone, crude or in roll or flour; argols; iodine, crude; bromine; sulphide of arsenic; carbon bisulphide: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: This is correcting a purely typographical error.
Item agreed, to.
Customs tariff-208e. Cresylic acid and compounds of cresylic acid, used in the process of concentrating ores, metals or minerals: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, fifteen per cent; general tariff, fifteen per cent.


Edward James Young: What is the change?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: This is the existing item.
It is here because at a later stage we take out xanthates, and deal with that.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-208o. (i) cream of tartar in crystals: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, ten per cent; general tariff, ten per cent.
(ii) Tartaric acid crystals: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
James Layton Ralston: Any change there?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: This is a conference item which we have, with the approval of the British government, restored to its former position. This is used largely in the drug trade, making cream of tartar.


James J. Donnelly: Who asked for the
change and where is the commodity imported from?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Last year we imported:
From-	Value
United Kingdom	 $76,000
Germany	 61,000
United States	 31,000
That is of the tartaric crystals.


Edward James Young: The British rate remains unchanged and the rates from other countries are lowered?
42G6	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It is restored to the free list.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-208u. Xanthates, for use in the process of concentrating ores, metals or minerals:	British preferential tariff, free;
intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-209. Potash, muriate and sulphate of, crude; saltpetre or nitrate of potash: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-209d. Potash, chlorate of, not further prepared than ground:	British
preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
On and after July 31, 1933: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, fifteen per cent; general tariff, twenty per cent.
Edward James Young: Any change there?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: There is a change. We are putting this commodity in precisely the same position as chlorate of soda. There is a reduction company at Buckingham near here, which is equipped and prepared to supply the market in Canada for both commodities, and which cannot make one without making both. It is illogical that one should pay a rate of duty and the other should be on the free list. We are placing both at the same rate.


Edward James Young: Is the minister putting a duty on the by-products?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: No. This would be an entirely new production. They are not making either at the present time, but they will make both as a result of the conference act.


Charles Gavan Power: In what industry is it used?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It is called the Electric Reduction Company.


Charles Gavan Power: But in what industry?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The mining and metalmaking industries.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: Where are the imports from?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Last year the imports
were as follows:
From-	Value
Germany	 $37,500
Sweden	 36,000
United States	 10,000
United Kingdom	 5,000
A total of about $90,000.


Edward James Young: A value of $90,000 and the minister is putting a duty of from 15 to 20 per cent on it. That will mean from $15,000 to $18,000, for one industry. How many men will this industry employ and what wages will those men receive? This is a potential industry.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am sorry to say that I
cannot tell my hon. friend how many men will be employed, because this is an entirely new industry; nor for the same reason can I tell him how much the men will be paid. I presume they will be paid the fair going wage; that is the only answer I can give him.


Edward James Young: The minister is going to
take $20,000 out of the pockets of the people of this country and hand it over to a certain industry. The understanding is that in return for this outlay a certain number of men will be employed at certain wages. Surely the minister should have some particulars.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My hon. friend raises the
age-old question as to who pays the duty. He knows quite well that 'in some cases the importer pays the duty, and in some instances the exporter pays it. Very strong representations are being made to us at the present time in connection, for instance, with the export of apples from the Annapolis valley. They say that notwithstanding the fact the Canadian apple has a preference of four shillings and sixpence per 100 pounds, United States competition is so keen that they are absorbing that tax. There are unquestionably cases where the exporter pays the duty. I do not for one moment subscribe to the view that because a duty of 20 per cent is placed on a commodity, 'that commodity will cost 20 per cent more. In that connection let me point out that already there is a duty of 20 per cent on chlorate of soda, and we are now placing the same duty on chlorate of potash to give a Canadian industry an opportunity to supply both. Under present conditions we wmuld probably have to import both, whereas under the revised tariff, with a duty on potash, we do not have to import. As a matter of fact there is the anticipation that the Canadian company can not only supply the Canadian demand, but become exporters as well.


Charles A. Stewart: As a matter of fact we have supplied our own potash, and as regards the age-old question about which my hon. friend speaks, it is admitted by his own party and himself that the consumer pays the duty. However, we shall not go into that.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I do not want my hon.
friend to misconstrue my remarks. I said that in some instances the importer paid the duty, but -there are instances where the exporter pays it. The question is one of weighing the evidence in individual cases as to which pays the duty. In some cases they share it. To correct another error of my hon. friend, let me say that no chlorate of potash is made in Canada.


Charles A. Stewart: What are
the expectations regarding -imports from Great Britain?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Britain is not in a position to supply it.


Charles A. Stewart: There is no reason then for putting -this commodity on the free list so far as Great Britain is concerned?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: At a later stage she may
ship it to Canada under free competition.


Edward James Young: My hon. friend says that
the exporter pays the duty. He knows, or should know, that if the exporter dares to pay the duty, the Minister of National Revenue will stop him. He will impose a dumping duty and forbid the exporter to pay. He insists on the people of Canada paying the duty. My hon. friend also said that one of these products is already being made in Canada, and that you cannot make the one without the other. If that is so, why put this duty on?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It cannot be made
economically; that is the only answer. I do not want my hon. friend again to put words into my mouth that I did not use. I merely made the statement in response to my hon. friend's very positive assertion that ipso facto the importer in al'l cases pays the duty. What I said was that in some instances undoubtedly the importer pays the duty and that in other instances the exporter pays the duty, and in- some cases they halve the duty.


Edward James Young: Can my hon-. friend give
an instance where-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My hon. friend must not
get so excited. There will be ample time for discussion. I merely wanted to make the position clear. I was not attempting even in connection with this one item to say -that the duty was paid by the exporter or the importer or both. I was not attempting to apportion the duty at all so far as this item was concerned. I was merely dealing with the general principles laid down by my hon. friend.


Edward James Young: My hon. friend is very
careful not to get on solid ground. Can- he give one instance where the exporter of goods to Canada pays the duty and is permitted to do so by the Minister of National Revenue -one single instance?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have not any doubt I
could find any number of them.


Edward James Young: Then for goodness sake do
not tell the Minister of National Revenue or he will stop it.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: In no event would that
question arise in connection with a commodity not produced in Canada.


James J. Donnelly: Where is chlorate of
potash manufactured in Canada, and by whom?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It is not being manufactured in Canada to-day but it will be manufactured at Buckingham in Quebec.


James J. Donnelly: You think it will?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am sure, by July of this year.


James J. Donnelly: It will not be the same as with glass at Hamilton?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If we have the same
experience with this as we had with glass, we shall take exactly the same action.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-210e. Nitrate of soda or cubic nitre when imported for use as a fertilizer, or in the curing or pickling of meats, or when imported by manufacturers of explosives for use exclusively in their own factories in the manufacture of explosives: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
James J. Donnelly: What change is made
in this item?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: We are enlarging the free list to include this item.


James J. Donnelly: In what respect?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: By including it when the
article is used in the pickling of meats.


James J. Donnelly: Who asked for this
change?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The packing industry.


James Layton Ralston: I see the words are used, "or in the curing or pickling of meats."


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes, that is it. We are enlarging the free list by permitting importation for that use.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Edward James Young: Does this also apply to what is used by the farmer in curing his own meats?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I assume it would. That is a question of administration.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have a motion here, Mr. Chairman, to include a new item, to admit solutions of peroxide of hydrogen to the free list under the British preference.


Charles Gavan Power: We have enough peroxide blondes here now.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: This has been requested by Great Britain and has been agreed to by us as an enlargement of the conference agreements.


Charles A. Stewart: Making it
free?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The only change made is that we are removing the duty of 15 per cent and putting the article on the free list.


Charles A. Stewart: Hear, hear.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. MacDonald, Cape Breton):: That will be item 219, to be inserted after 210e.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have another item to move to include, under similar circumstances and for similar reasons, to put cod liver oil on the free list under the British preference.


James Layton Ralston: Under what circumstances is that item being put on the free list?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Great Britain requested the same privilege as is now being given to Newfoundland with respect to that commodity and we agreed.


James Layton Ralston: Is there, or has there been, any importation of cod liver oil from Great Britain?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The imports in 1932
amounted in value to $142,000, of which 864,000 came from Newfoundland, $54,000 from Norway, $22,000 from the United States, and $1,500 from the United Kingdom.


James Layton Ralston: Are these importations of crude or refined oil, or both?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: They were not differentiated because there was no item before. They entered as fish oil, n.o.p., so I can only give the value. The new item is crude or refined.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend is sure that the importations that he gave of fish oil refer to cod liver oil?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-278. Oils, viz.: cocoanut, palm and palm kernel, not edible, for manufacturing soap: carbolic or heavy oil: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, ten per cent; general tariff, ten per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-278d. Olive oil for manufacturing soap or tobacco, or for canning fish: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-315. Carbons or carbon electrodes over three inches in circumference or outside measurement and not exceeding thirty-five inches in circumference or outside measurement; carbons of a class or kind not produced in Canada, when imported for use in the manufacture of dry batteries and dry cells: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
Thomas Reid: I notice that the last clause says, "carbons of a class or kind not produced in Canada, when imported for use in the manufacture of dry 'batteries and dry cells." There are carbon electrodes used in steel furnaces running from' three to ten inches in diameter. What about those? This article mentions specifically carbons for dry batteries and dry cells.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: With respect to the first two items, 315 and 315a, the wording is entirely for purposes of clarification, to make certain that it covers electrodes as well as carbons, and bringing it into harmony with the wording of the next item. Secondly, it is to ensure free entry of carbons of a class or kind not produced in Canada for use in the manufacture of dry batteries and dry cells.


Thomas Reid: Are there any carbon electrodes manufactured in Canada? I know they are used in steel electrical furnaces. I have used lots of them up to ten inches in diameter.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes, they are manufactured in Canada.


Edward James Young: Did not the minister say that these words were used only for clarification?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: That was with respect to the first two items, namely, 315 and 315a.


Edward James Young: I am dealing with item 315, and I find there these words which are not

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
in the original item, "carbons of a class or kind not produced in Canada when imported for use in the manufacture of dry batteries and dry cells." Why are those words added?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: They had free entry before.


Edward James Young: The words, "of a class or kind not produced in Canada" did not appear in the old item.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: That is quite true.


Edward James Young: Why are they inserted here?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My hon. friend will observe that there is an increase in the duty under item 316 which follows. The wording here ensures that there will be continued free entry-[DOT]


Edward James Young: On certain ones.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes, of a class or kind not made in Canada. The others are of a class or kind made in Canada, and there is an increase in duty.


Edward James Young: Hitherto these things have
come in free, all of them. Now the minister is going to allow free entry only to those of a class or kind not made in Canada. Will he tell us why those words have been inserted in the item?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I can give no additional
information except to say that these articles which hitherto have come in free will continue to come in free, with the exception of those on which we place a duty under the next item.


Edward James Young: But the minister must have had some reason for putting these words in.
At six o'clock the speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock. PRIVATE BILL


VANCOUVER, VICTORIA AND EASTERN-NORTHERN PACIFIC AGREEMENT
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, April 24, consideration in committee of Bill No. 48, to confirm an agreement between the Vancouver, Victoria and Eastern Railway and Navigation Company and the Northern Pacific Railway Company-Mr. McDade.-Mr. LaVergne in the chair.
On section 1-Agreement ratified and confirmed.
Robert James Manion: With regard to this section, Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to offer.
It is in accord with the remarks made by the Prime Minister the last time this bill was up for discussion in the house, and is designed to prevent this railway from abandoning any line or service without the consent of the Board of Railway Commissioners. This amendment is also in accord with the amendments which we propose to move with regard to the Canadian National-Canadian Pacific bill, which is now before the house. I move that the section be amended by adding the following:
provided, however, that no abandonment of the portion of the line of railroad referred to in the said agreement shall be made without the approval of the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. LaVergne in the chair.
Customs tariff-315.	Carbons or carbon
electrodes over three inches in circumference or outside measurement and not exceeding thirty-five inches in circumference or outside measurement; carbon® of a class or kind not produced in Canada, when imported for use in the manufacture of dry batteries and dry cells: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
Edward James Young: Under this item certain
carbons and carbon electrodes were admitted free, but now a smaller number will be so admitted ; the words "of a class or kind not produced in Canada" have been added. When the house rose at six o'clock I was arguing that these words must have been put there for a purpose, and I should like the minister to tell us exactly what that purpose was.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, the carbons which are affected by these tariff items are manufactured by one company only, as I understand it.


Edward James Young: What is that company?
Mr.RHODES: The Canadian National Carbon Company. The effect of items 315 and 315a is merely to maintain the position as it exists to-day, namely, that all carbons will be admitted free of duty with the exception of

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
those which are now subject to taxation under item 316, which follows. That is to say, a duty is imposed upon certain of the larger types of carbons under the intermediate and general tariffs. I may say to my hon. friend that so far as I am aware there has been no opposition to these proposed tariff changes from any quarter.


Edward James Young: They are only coming to
life. A certain company now undertakes to make certain carbons in Canada, and because of that the classes of carbons which they undertake to make are to be excluded by a higher duty. Can the minister tell us what quantities of these carbons we have been importing in the past?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Is my hon. friend's question directed towards all the items or merely towards the particular item before the committee? In order to answer the question fully I may say that under item 315 our total importations last year amounted to $235,600. Those came entirely from the United States, and of course they will continue to come in free as heretofore. Under item 315a, which covers carbons more than 35 inches in circumference, last year we imported goods to the value of $43,000. entirely from the United States. The importations coming under the classification contained in item 316 amounted last year to $72,000, and of that sum $46,000 came from the United States and $25,000 from Germany.


James Layton Ralston: Could the minister give
us the weight?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am sorry I have not that information. The production in Canada of carbons of all kinds, that is to say, carbons which would come under these three items to which I have referred, amounted last year to $1,500,000, so the committee will observe that this is a very substantial industry in Canada. That manufacture was confined largely, if not entirely, to the class of goods coming under item 316.


Edward James Young: And now this company is
going to extend its operations and make other kinds of carbons, so we put them under a duty. The minister told us the total importations under items 315 and 315a, but evidently part of those importations is to be left on the free list. Has the minister any figures as to the percentage of those importations which would be affected by this change?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The best answer I could
give to that question is contained in the relative figures I have just submitted to the [Mr. Rhodes.1
committee. I may point out to my hon. friend and to the committee that the company which manufactures this large volume of carbons coming under the classification contained in item 316 is also a very heavy importer of the class of carbons contained under items 315 and 315a.


Edward James Young: Naturally we would expect
that the company which is asking for high protection on the article it has to sell would want its raw materials to come in duty free. The minister did not need to tell us that.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-315a. Carbons or carbon electrodes exceeding thirty-five inches in circumference or outside measurement:	British
preferential tariff, free:	intermediate tariff,
20 per cent; general tariff, 20 per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-316. Electric light and arc carbons, pointed or not, and contact carbons, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff 22J per cent; intermediate tariff, 32J per cent; general tariff, 35 per cent; and, per pound: British preferential tariff	; Intermediate tariff, 20
cents; general tariff, 20 cents.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-327. Spectacles; eyeglasses, and ground or finished spectacles or eyeglass lenses, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, 20 per cent: intermediate tariff, 27J per cent; general tariff, 30 per cent.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: There is no change in this. This is the parent item, and it is named for the purpose of providing for the next item, which is free.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-327a. Contact eyeglasses or lenses, designed to be worn in direct contact with the human eye, under the lid: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: This is a new item which
admits free of duty a class of lenses known as contact lenses, manufactured solely in Germany. It is attached to the eyeball under the lid. Naturally it is of very delicate and highly scientific construction and has the effect of enabling those who are practically blind to see at least partially; and in some cases it restores sight to a remarkable degree. The item is included largely on compassionate grounds.


Edward James Young: Suppose some Canadian
grinder offers to make them in Canada: will the minister give us an assurance that the duty will not be put on at some time in the future?

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I could not give an undertaking to bind future governments or parliaments, but I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that there is no possibility whatever of an industry starting up in Canada to manufacture a unique lens of this kind. Obviously it does not lend itself to quantity production. These glasses cost $53 and are almost entirely handmade by highly skilled experts. So far as one can forecast the future, I think I am safe in saying that there is not the slightest possibility of any tariff being imposed on this item in the near future.


Mr. JACOBS:: Is Germany the only country in which this article is being manufactured?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: All that have been imported heretofore have come from Germany.


Samuel William Jacobs: Is there any other place in
the world from which they could come?
Mr. RHODES':	If any other place makes
them they can come in.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-353. Aluminum, and alloys thereof, crude or semi-fabricated, viz.: Pigs, ingots, blocks, notch bars, slabs, billets and blooms: bars, rods and wire: angles, channels, beams, tees and other rolled or drawn sections and shapes; pipes and tubes; plates, sheets and strips, including circles; leaf or foil, less than *005 inch in thickness, plain or embossed, with or without backing; wire and cable, twisted or stranted, reinforced with steel or not; aluminum powder: British preferential tariff, free: intermediate tariff, 30 per cent; general tariff, 30 per cent.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: This is the n.Ojp. portion
of the parent item. It enables us to deal with item 353a. We found that there was not available in Great Britain a sufficient quantity of aluminum scrap to provide for the needs of the Canadian industry and therefore, after a conference with the authorities of the British government, it was agreed that we should eliminate 353a from the conference item, so that it is now restored to the free list, under the British preference, under the intermediate and under the general tariff.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-353a. Aluminum scrap: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
Provided, that nothing shall be deemed to be aluminum scrap except waste or refuse aluminum, fit only to be remelted.
Mr. RALSTON; In connection with the conference items, in respect of which adjustments have been made, is any corresponding adjustment contemplated in the British tariff
-I do not mean with regard to this particular item but so far as items in the British tariff are concerned. Are there items in the British tariff that are being adjusted as against us?
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: There are compensating
adjustments which are either contained in the provisions laid down in the budget or which we Shall move as we proceed. I might mention telephone apparatus, for instance. That was free under the British preference in accordance with the conference agreement, but Great Britain has now agreed to our restoring the duty on it.


James Layton Ralston: Does the minister mean
that there are adjustments within our own tariff-compensating adjustments?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes.


James Layton Ralston: I was asking, however,
whether Great Britain was making any changes in her tariff to compensate us for such adjustments as we are making.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: No, except to harmonize with these.


Edward James Young: I would point out to the minister that this is a manufacturers' item. The raw material of a certain class of manufacturers is admitted free whereas it used to carry a duty of thirty per cent. Is there any corresponding reduction in the consumers' item?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. gentleman says that this is a manufacturers' item. Of course, it is available to anyone who wishes to use aluminum scrap.


Edward James Young: But no one will buy scrap unless he intends to manufacture something out of it.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Nor will he otherwise buy pigs or ingots or any further finished forms.


Edward James Young: But that is not the question. We are reducing the duty on the raw material used by certain manufacturers. Are we at the same time making a corresponding reduction in the duty on the finished product made from that raw material?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: We are now dealing only with aluminum scrap.


Edward James Young: Are we going to deal with the finished product, after the scrap is made into some utensil?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have no doubt parliament will decide to do so from time to time as occasion arises.


James Layton Ralston: As the tariff board recommends.	[DOT]


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
4272	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
Customs tariff-366b. Parts of watch movements. finished or unfinished: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 15 per cent; general tariff, 15 per cent.
Provided, that when imported under the intermediate or general _ tariffs, the duty on plates, designed to hold in place four or more wheels or other moving parts shall not be less than, per plate: British preferential tariff, ...; intermediate tariff, 10 cents; general tariff, 15 cents.
Charles A. Stewart: What is the change?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: This enlarges the item, widening the opportunity for importation under the free list. Hitherto the item as it originally appeared in the conference agreement dealt only with hot rolled stainless steel. This enlarges the item 'by admitting cold rolled and highly polished steel.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-385a. Sheets, plates, hoop, band or strip, of rust, acid or heat resisting steels, hot- or cold rolled, polished or not, valued at not less than five cents per pound: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 20 per cent; general tariff, 20 per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-409j. Fanning mills; pea-viners; corn husking machines; threshing machine separators, including wind stackers, baggers and self feeders therefor; complete parts of all the foregoing: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 15 per cent; general tariff, 25 per cent.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: This is only a portion of the parent item. It appears to enable U3 to deal with 409r, which follows, one removed.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-409q. Complete parts for repairs, under regulations prescribed by the minister:
(i)	For the implements or machinery enumerated in tariff items 409c, 409e, 409f, 409g, 409j, 409o, 409p and 439c: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 10 per cent; general tariff, 10 per cent.
(ii)	For the implements or machinery enumerated in tariff item 409b: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 7i per cent; general tariff, 7J per cent.
(iii)	For the implements or machinery enumerated in tariff item 409d: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 6 per cent; general tariff, 6 per cent.
(iv)	For the implements or machinery enumerated in tariff items 409h and 409n: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 10 per cent; general tariff, 15 per cent.
(v)	For the implements or machinery enumerated in tariff item 409k: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 174 per cent; general tariff, 17J per cent.
Albert Joseph Brown: This item, 409q, we had
occasion to bring to the attention of the house before. It deals with repair parts of
TMr. Ralston.1
agricultural machinery. It has been discussed in the house on different occasions, it was brought up last session and again this session. It contains one very interesting stipulation:
Complete parts for repairs, under regulations prescribed by the minister.
I have no doubt the house would like to have an assurance that these regulations will not be of the kind passed last year, about May 25, when a distinction was drawn between repair parts imported by the makers of implements and those that were imported by other persons, notably the companies in Winnipeg that undertook to import parts from the United States from those concerns that make repair parts for all implements. This was proved to be a very serious matter last year. It meant that the price of these parts was increased to the consumer here during the season. I am told that in some districts in Saskatchewan dealers failed to provide themselves with repair parts and farmers were put to great inconvenience. The regulation passed last year was one of the most iniquitous I have known. It made a distinction between two classes of dealers in the same goods. We are happy to know that the protests made against this regulation were effective. This item contains the words, "under regulations prescribed by the minister," and I would like to get the assurance of the minister that no regulation similar to the one passed last year will be introduced in connection with this item.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The purpose of this item is to eliminate the provision which was included in the item some three years ago limiting its operation to a period of time. The time for the application of this item was extended upon two different occasions and if the present item was not included it would mean that higher rates of duty would have prevailed after March of this year. Our intention is to make permanent the present existing low rates. In reply to the hon. member for Lisgar may I say that the words, "under regulations prescribed by the minister" appear in innumerable items in the tariff. These words have appeared in this .particular item for a number of years and they were in the item during the administration of the government which I assume my hon. friend supported upon occasions.


Albert Joseph Brown: They did not pass the regulations which this government did.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I could not give any undertaking as to what regulations will be prescribed by the present or any future Minister

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
of Finance. However, I can assure my hon. friend that there is nothing sinister in the item and I have no doubt it will be administered to his satisfaction.


Albert Joseph Brown: After the trouble the government got into last year, I am sure they will not repeat their action.


William Richard Motherwell: I have not as much confidence in the government as has the hon. member for Lisgar. The Minister of National Revenue can do anything he likes as far as the tariff is concerned and there is no finality in any of the regulations which may be passed by the government. During the past few years the farmers have been buying very few new implements; they are tinkering and patching up the old machinery. It was little short of a crime to shoot up the tariff on repair parts the way it was done last year. Even after the rates were reduced, they were still ridiculously high. Some of the dealers in the smaller villages were unable to carry stocks and any repair parts ordered had to be sent from Regina or Winnipeg. They were sent by express and with the express charges added to the duty it made the cost of the repairs almost prohibitive. In some cases it would have been almost cheaper to buy a new machine. I warn the government that if there is any more of that kind of monkeying there will be a row all over Canada. If that kind of thing is repeated the government will need to tie their heads on their shoulders if they do not want something to happen.


Mr. RYCKMAN:: In view of what has been said, I feel I should say a word or two in answer. The speaker who first introduced this subject seems to be treating matters regardless of the facts. I am surprised that a gentleman with his past history and the knowledge which we know he possesses should make statements which are wholly untrue. There was no regulation passed that had a different application to one from that which it had to another, and I defy my hon. friend to produce such a regulation. In reply to the former Minister of Agriculture I would say that his friends out there did not want to buy anything else but goods made in the United States.


Edward James Young: That is all nonsense.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: One firm wrote to me
and told me that they had sent out 1,800 circulars. What did those circulars say? They stated that because of the action taken by the government they had been compelled to increase their prices ten per cent and knock off the cash discount which had previously been
given. That was an erroneous statement. What happened? As soon as this action was finally taken an hon. member of this house asked the government to refund the money which had been paid in duty. After they had said that they had taken care of this matter in the manner I have indicated, the plea was put forward by an hon. member that the government should return the money which had been paid in duty.


Albert Joseph Brown: I had nothing to do with the action taken by any of these companies. I have not the slightest doubt that commercial companies would take such action as that indicated by the Minister of National Revenue. The minister has stated that I made a statement which was not in accordance with the facts. I want to know what that statement was. We will have to go into this matter a little more fully. We are all aware of the course which was pursued with regard to the duties on repair parts for agricultural implements. We know that the application of the higher rates of duty was postponed from time to time. About March 1, or some time early last session, the hon. member for South Battle-ford brought this matter to the attention of the Prime Minister. At that time the Prime Minister gave a somewhat discourteous answer. He intimated that the hon. member should know better than to ask a question which could be answered only after the budget had been brought down.


Mr. GOTT:: Is that discourteous?


Edward James Young: It is typical.


Albert Joseph Brown: The higher rates of duty
were to be imposed on April 1 and about that date the hon. member for South Battleford asked the Minister of Finance for information regarding the higher rates of duties. The Minister of Finance stated that he was happy to inform the hon. member that the matter was being taken care of by order in council. A few days later the budget came down and the Minister of Finance stated that there was only one change in the tariff. He referred to this particular item and indicated that the lower rates of duty would be in effect for another year. We accepted that as satisfactory. But some time about May 25, so we are informed, while this house was still in session, an order went forth from some department of government, either finance or inland revenue, that those lower rates of duties should apply only when repairs were imported from firms that actually made the implements and the higher rates of duty were imposed upon all repair
4274	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
parts produced by companies across the line which make a specialty of manufacturing repair parts.
I had occasion to buy some ploughshares. They are perhaps one of the most important items that come into this particular list. When these companies began to supply the farmers with ploughshares, we were able to get for about $5 ploughshares for which we formerly paid $10 a pair. The dealer in my town, who, I believe, is a supporter of this government-and I do not know whether he will be at the next election; I do not think he will-along with other dealers brought the matter to my attention and the fact was that the price of ploughshares was raised, I cannot at the moment say how much. What we object to-and the statement I have made is in accordance with the fact-is that the high rates of duty were imposed upon repair parts coming from the United States when they were imported from companies manufacturing repair parts, but they were not imposed when the repair parts were imported from companies that made the machines for which the repair parts were intended. If I have made any statement that is not in accordance with fact, I want the Minister of National Revenue to tell me what that statement is. I have stated the case exactly as it exists.
The matter was brought to my attention by a Winnipeg film the head of which, I may say, has also been a supporter of this government. I have known him for many years as a Conservative. As soon as I got his letter, I wrote to the minister about it. I did not receive a reply for some time, but later I got an answer stating that the government was considering the question. Before I came to the house last fall, I went to the head of the firm in Winnipeg and asked whether the matter was exactly as he had represented it to me in the early part of the summer. I found that no change had been made; that the high rates of duty were still being imposed and collected. On the first opportunity I had I presented the matter to the house and we had the satisfaction of knowing that two days afterward the obnoxious regulation was cancelled. These are the facts of the case. My object in speaking of it now is just to ensure that such a regulation will not be passed again, and that no distinction will be made between two makers of ploughshares or anything else. Have I made any statement that is not in accordance with facts?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: If the hon. member will sit down, I will tell him.


Albert Joseph Brown: The minister took occasion to make a somewhat sneering remark that from what he knew of me he would not have thought I would make such a statement. That was altogether uncalled' for.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: The statement to which I referred is, I have no doubt, within the recollection of the house, and if not, it will be found in Hansard to-morrow. He said that regulations were made by the administration which had different applications to different people, and some were privileged and some were not. I say that that is not correct.


William Richard Motherwell: If I heard the minister aright, he has not made an explanation at all, and he certainly made a gross misstatement a little while ago when he said that I and my friends insisted on buying our repairs from the United States. That is a contemptible libel. I wish I had stronger language to use and could get past the chairman with it; and I want it to be considered as having been used. The farmers of the west, prior to this government coming into power, were more and more buying agricultural machinery in Canada. There was such a low tariff we could afford to do this and good feeling had developed between the farmers of the west and the farm implement manufacturers who were doing well, under a low duty. This tribe across the floor, after raising the duty on implements all along the line to 25 per cent and promising to keep the duty on repairs down to the old Liberal duty as if that were a great act of grace and compassion to the farmers, did not even keep that promise. They put the duty on repair parts up to the same rate as that on the original machinery. Then the Minister of National Revenue, after his own colleagues had apparently disciplined him into reducing the duty by a change in regulations tells us that we are making untruthful statements when, as a matter of fact, if he would examine himself he would not have to go out of his own seat to find that it was he who was making untruthful statements. I do not know what else to do except to go across the floor and see what I can do further by way of persuasion, with my hon. friend. Those of us who have had to lose our hides in buying farm machinery repairs know the difference between 25 per cent and 15 per cent, and we know the difference between six per cent and 25 per cent on the original article; yet they try to mislead the people outside and my friends to my left will tell us that there is no difference between the two parties with respect to the tariff. One is just four times as high as the

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
other on nearly all the farm machinery we use. We thought we were getting a little mite of a concession that one might put in one's eye and see none the worse for it, with regard to repairs; then the government took that away and tried to flim-flam the people that they did not do such a thing. It was his own colleagues plus himself, since the house met last October, that passed the regulation to lower the duty on repairs and thus remove the grievance complained of. The farmers of the west, in these times of depression, do not care where the repair parts are made; very few know where they are made; all they know is that this government socks them every time with high duties and hard regulations difficult to comply with.
Did the minister tell the hon. member for Lisgar wherein he made a misstatement? No; he gives us just the usual mumbling reply, trying to get past, but, if I know anything about the matter, he is not going to get past this time.


Albert Joseph Brown: Not a member from Manitoba on that side will say that I have not stated the facts, because they have had representations from these machine companies just as I have, and I have no doubt they have made representations on the subject to the minister. I am not going to submit to the remark that I made a statement which was not in accordance with facts. I have stated the facts. Will the minister himself say that the duty on repair parts coming from the United States was not 25 per cent? No; he will not make the statement. Well, that is all the statement I made and the distinction was between the two classes of dealers I have indicated.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: The statement I made was explicit; it was in answer to the hon. member for Lisgar's remark that regulations with a different application to different companies had been made by the Minister of National Revenue. That is contrary to the fact.


Edward James Young: What is the fact?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Anything that was done by the Minister of National Revenue had application to everybody who came under any such regulation. If Hansard is consulted tomorrow, it will be found that the hon. member for Lisgar made the statement I have said he did.
With regard to the ex-Minister of Agriculture, I must say that he certainly gets away with a great deal, but it is a pleasure to listen to him. He occupies a unique position in the house. He can make any statement, and eome-53719-270
times those of us who cannot possibly agree with any part of what he is saying are pleased indeed to hear him carry on something that is in the nature of, well, I will not say buffoonery, but if anyone else can think of some word that is parliamentary to describe it, I will endorse it. The point is clear that those who are interested in this matter wanted to get their parts from the United States. The fact that the item is in the tariff shows that. The hon. ex-Minister of Agriculture denies that, although the item could have no application to anything else.


Charles A. Stewart: You could not get them anywhere else. They are manufactured only in the United States.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Of course, but the exMinister of Agriculture does not take that into consideration at all. He gives us a pleasant harangue which we can enjoy because there is humour in it if there is not sense.


Ernest Lapointe: We cannot say the same of yours.


Albert Joseph Brown: Let us take a concrete case. I have a John Deere plough. I could buy shares from the United States made by this company which makes a specialty of manufacturing parts for $5 a pair; I am giving approximate figures. If I buy John Deere shares in Canada from a John Deere company I pay about $10 a pair. That is the situation that we objected to. The 25 per cent duty was levied against this cheaper class of shares which we have found in our experience serve our purpose just as well as the higher priced shares. The same is true of binder canvas and a number of other items, but ploughshares are the biggest item in the list. The minister may quibble about the duty being applied to all people. Well, I suppose that is true of all people importing exactly the same kind of goods. But here we have two classes of importers or dealers who are handling repair parts and in each case the parts serve the purpose for which they were intended, but in one case a duty of 25 per cent is applied and in the other a duty of 6 iper cent. So the Minister of National Revenue cannot get away with any quibbling of that kind.


Mr. MULLINS:: I took up with the Minister of National Revenue the matter which the hon. member for Lisgar has mentioned long before he had anything to do with it.


Albert Joseph Brown: You did not get any results.


Henry Alfred Mullins: I did. You see the results to-day. I know to whom my hon. friend is referring. It is Mr. Ackland. The hon. member for Lisgar is trying to take all the credit.

4276	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
As a matter of fact the farmers of the west are buying agricultural machinery cheaper today by 25 per cent than they could buy it under hon. gentlemen opposite. What more evidence do you want? By the way, when the hon. member for Lisgar talks about "shears" does he mean ploughshares? Shares is the right pronunciation, and I am glad to put him right. If he does not understand it, let him look it up in the dictionary. The gentleman to whom my hon. friend referred was a Conservative and he came to me in the Carlton Club and told me that a certain firm was manufacturing these parts in the United States, and that they could be supplied in this country. I brought the matter, as I have said, to the attention of the minister and he was kind enough to remedy the situation, and now my hon. friend from Lisgar is trying to take the credit for it. He wants to go back to Lisgar and parade as a low tariff champion, that he has done something for agricultural implements. Why, Mr. Chairman, forty years ago when the duty was 35 per cent I bought a binder for $120 or $130, as did many hon. gentlemen and they were cheaper then even with that duty than you can buy them to-day. What does it matter what the duty is as long as you can buy the implements cheaper? I repeat, you can buy them cheaper to-day than you could under hon. gentlemen opposite.


Albert Joseph Brown: The minister must be praying to be saved from his friends. The hon. member for Marquette said that he went to the minister with a grievance and that the minister remedied it. What was the grievance and what was the remedy? That is what we want to know. As a matter of fact, the remedy came two days after I brought the matter to the attention of the house last fall.


Henry Alfred Mullins: The hon. gentleman has asked me a question and I want to answer it. The remedy was that Mr. Ackland came to see me, and I think my hon. friend from Lisgar will agree that he came to me before he came to him. I brought the matter to the attention of the minister and that situation was remedied, and to-day you can buy ploughshares cheaper than you could years ago when my hon. friends opposite were in power.


Alfred Speakman: There is no question
that the facts were as stated. Repair parts were to come in under a low rate of duty, 6, 7 and 10 per cent. Unquestionably the duty was so arranged by regulation that the low rates applied to the manufacturers of certain lines of goods, but certain dealers termed pirate dealers had to pay the higher rate of duty, 25 per cent, on ploughshares, [Mr. Mullins.1
binder canvas and other articles. There is no doubt at all that that increased the price. Complaints were made by many farmers from western Canada that the price had been increased by at least the difference in the duty. Naturally the matter was brought to the attention of the government and finally it was rectified. As to who deserves the credit I do not know or care. A great many members from the west, Conservative, Liberal and Progressive, were all familiar with the*?aets. I was one of those who sent a wire to the Prime Minister, and others did, and perhaps action was brought about as the cumulative effect of pressure from all sides and by the irrefutable facts themselves. The facts were as has been stated. The situation was brought about by a regulation, and the result was a higher price, and every farmer in Canada knew it.


William Richard Motherwell: I think it has been amply confirmed that there was a grievance, and so far as I am concerned, I am willing that the hon. member for Marquette Should get the credit for redressing that grievance by going to somebody and he going to somebody else, and finally to the government. The reason we are bringing this question up to-night is that we want no more monkey-shining of that nature, either with repairs or anything else. What happened was that after we got a statement in the house assuring us that we would get a low rate on repairs, after we went home a higher rate was applied. We do not want to have that kind of business repeated. Apparently the Minister of National Revenue thought that what I was saying a few minutes ago was an attempt at humour. I never felt less like being humorous in my life. Apparently my 'hon. friend does not appreciate when I feel like going to the ex-tremest lengths possible in trying to get a little horse sense filtered through his cranium on agricultural matters. I 'hope the Minister of Finance will take his colleagues in charge and if the government are going to let him run at large much longer, at least let them give him the hint that he must not repeat his unwarranted action of last year.


James J. Donnelly: There is no doubt whatever that there was a grievance in regard to the importation of repair parts for agricultural implements. The hon. member for Marquette has admitted that there was one, and we all know it. With regard to the manufacture of implements, there are two classes of cases. We have in western Canada farmers who came in there from the United States, good farmers, and who brought their machinery with them-

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
not that they wanted to buy machinery made in the United States rather than that made in Canada, but they had this machinery and brought it with them. There are hundreds of them in my constituency. Many of these old implement concerns in the United States have gone out of business, and therefore owners of the machinery are not able to get repairs from the parent company. But many companies have started up all through the United States making repair parts for different machines. These men could not get repair parts from these manufacturers in the United States without paying the higher rate of duty. If you had a John Deere plough, as the hon. member (for Lisgar mentioned, you could order a ploughshare from the John Deere company in the United Staes and get it in at the lower rate of duty, but if you ordered it from one of these repair part concerns you had to pay the higher rate. That was the grievance, because hundreds of people could not order from the parent company; there was no parent company and they were obliged to order from these repair part companies. Therefore, as the hon. member for Lisgar said, the regulations did not apply equally, one man paid a low rate of duty and another had to pay a high rate. So when the hon. member for Lisgar said that regulations were passed by this government that did not apply to all people alike, he said what was absolutely true. That is what Mr. Ackland referred to. He handles these repair parts, not for any line company but for the different agencies in the United States, and he was anxious to get this lower rate of duty so that he could sell on the same low cost as before. What we are asking for to-night is that the minister will see that no such regulation is made effective again, whereby some have to pay a high rate of duty and others a low rate. This regulation continued in force all last summer; the grievance was not remedied until the fall when repair parts were not needed. It is in the summer time we do the farming, not in the winter.


Edward James Young: The Minister of National Revenue made a statement that we on this side of the house cannot allow to go unchallenged. He stated that our friends in the west wanted to make all their purchases in the United States. The effect of the regulation that he put into force last year was not to stop the importation of goods from the United States, but to say to the farmers of the west: If you want to buy goods imported from the United States you must buy them from certain favoured individuals. A certain charmed circle were given the benefit of the 53719-270J
lower rate; everyone outside that circle was compelled to pay the higher rate. Those belonging to the charmed circle were charging a price nearly twice as great as the others were charging. The minister had no right to make the statement he did, and we resent it. We resent the attempt to force our purchases into the hands of particular manufacturers.


Henry Alfred Mullins: The hon. gentleman is wrong. Manufacturers of agricultural implements in the United States can always bring in their repair parts at the lower rate. These ploughshares imparted by Mr. Ackland were sold by the blacksmiths throughout the country and sold cheaper. I do not want the hon. member to take all the credit for that, because I think I had something to do with it, in fact I think the Minister of National Revenue will bear me out when I say that I had considerable to do with it. However, if it is any satisfaction for the member for Lisgar to take the credit and to get a few.-votes, it does not bother me.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why didn't you start earlier?


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: May I ask the hon'.
member for Marquette one question? Why didn't the hon. member have the minister rectify it before the winter if he was so much interested in the farmers getting cheaper implements? The hon. member for Marquette knows that if you buy repair parts from these independent companies you can buy them at least seventy-five per cent cheaper than you could from the companies which make the machines. The farmer was buying these parts from independent companies who do nothing else but make repair parts, for the simple reason that he could not afford to pay the prices the parent companies were charging. Yet this government and the Minister of National Revenue put a duty of twenty-five per cent on those cheap repairs, which the farmer needs to-day more than ever because the prices of his commodities have gone away down, and allowed repairs to come in from the parent companies at six per cent duty. Yet my hon. friend from Marquette, who wants to take credit for having this duty removed, allowed it to go on all summer. If my hon. friend from Marquette has as much influence with the minister as he claims, he should have used it throughout the summer and not allowed this injustice to continue for six or seven months.


Henry Alfred Mullins: The hon. gentleman is
entirely wrong. I brought it to the attention of the minister and it did not take all summer. It has been remedied. I want to ask
4278	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
these two hon. gentlemen who arc championing cheap implements if they a^e not now buying implements ten or twenty per cent, yes thirty per oent cheaper than they were before?


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: I will answer the question if you will let me.


Henry Alfred Mullins: This talk about the tariff bogy is all for votes; there is nothing to it. We are buying implements cheaper to-day than we ever did under the regime of the hon. gentlemen, any time from 1822 to 1930.
Mr. . BEAUBIEN:	Since this government
has been in power the farmer has no purchasing power to buy implements, and he has to buy repairs.


An hon. MEMBER:: Where? Canada or
the United States?


Ernest Lapointe: Where they make them.


Henry Alfred Mullins: I realize it just as well as hon. gentlemen opposite.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Then you should not be sitting over there.


Henry Alfred Mullins: You are just playing to
Hansard, trying to get a lot into Hansard to go to the country with. I will not stand for that. Let us 'be fair and not play that game any longer. I don't care two Straws about getting on Hansard, but I want to play fair. .1 am as much a champion of cheaper implements and of aid to the farmer in western *Canada as either of the hon. gentlemen opposite who spoke.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: The hon. member for
Marquette knows that the duty on these implements was equalized in the month of October, doesn't he?


Henry Alfred Mullins: The hon. gentleman knows very well it has been remedied, does he not? Will he answer the question, yes or no?


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Yes, it has been remedied.


Henry Alfred Mullins: Then whait more do you
want? That is all there is to it.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: I can say to the Minister of National Revenue and to the hon. member for Marquette, that it was rectified in October, but the duty was imposed all summer, when we needed repairs. I am pleading with the Minister of Finance, the Minister of National Revenue and the hon. member for Marquette not to allow the same trick to be played this summer. That is the point. I hope my hon. friend from Marquette will see the Minister of
IMr. Mullins.]
National Revenue before he goes back to his constituency, or see him now, and tell him that if he ever does that sort of thing again he will cross the floor and join the C.C.F.


Henry Alfred Mullins: The hon. member has
taken too much on himself. I want to ask what he was doing during the eight years his party was in power. To-day in western Canada we have cheaper machinery than we have had for several years


Albert Joseph Brown: I should like to make an
explanation, in case any person might accuse me of making a wrong statement. I want it to be understood that the ploughshares to which I referred are not the same type of shares mentioned by my hon. friend. One is called the soft centre share, and this is supposed to be the best ploughshare, but the farmers have found from actual experience that the crucible share, which is imported from the United States, serves their purpose equally well. That is the share to which I referred, and I want that understood in case it might be thought that I was referring to the same implement.


Eccles James Gott: After this extended controversy with regard to repairs to farm implements, Mr. Chairman, in view of the unemployment problem in Canada I should like to ask the minister if some means could not be devised whereby all this repairing could be done in Canada by Canadians.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-409r. Weighers for use as parts of threshing machine separators, and complete parts thereof:	British preferential
tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 10 per cent; general tariff, 10 per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-417. Machinery and complete parts thereof, and structural iron and steel, of a class or kind not made in Canada, when imported for use exclusively in the construction or equipment of factories for the manufacture of sugar from beet-root, under regulations prescribed by the minister: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
Edward James Young: What is the change here?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The only change is that
it confines the free items to those of a class or kind not made in Canada.


Edward James Young: Once again our old friend "of a class or kind not made in Canada" appears in the tariff. If it is not in an item to-day it appears in it to-morrow; it seems to spring up in an item overnight, as the manna appeared to fall from heaven-and I think this is manna to some people. Would the minister tell us who will benefit by this change?

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I might point out that
last year the total importations coming under this item amounted to only $8,500, but the provision is placed here so that dumping may not take place to the detriment of certain Canadian industries which can supply these commodities. I have particular reference to certain continental competition.


Edward James Young: Must we pass an act to
provide for the elimination of competition to the extent of only $8,500?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: This is to prevent the
threatened importation of slaughtered goods to the detriment of Canadian industry.


Edward James Young: That is not a satisfactory
explanation. A gentleman once appeared before the tariff board wanting a higher duty, I think on enamelled ware. When asked why he wanted it he said because the goods were being dumped into Canada from Japan, but when the board looked up the importations from Japan they amounted to something less than $10. Surely this small importation is not sufficient justification for this change.


Charles A. Stewart: What rate
of duty will prevail here?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If it came under the
machinery item the duty would be 15 per cent, 27i per cent and 35 per cent.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-428d. Magnetos and complete parts thereof, when imported by manufacturers of internal combustion engines, for use exclusively in the manufacture of such internal combustion engines, in their own factories:	British preferential tariff, free;
intermediate tariff, 17J per cent; general tariff, 20 per cent.
Mr, RHODES: This reduces the duty, which at present is 15 per cent, 25 per cent and 30 per cent.
Edward James Young: Is there any corresponding
reduction in the consumers' item?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: This is a consumers item.


Edward James Young: No, this is only for manufacturers.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It will reduce the cost of
the engine to the extent that the cost of the magneto is reduced.


James J. Donnelly: Who asked for the
change ?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The manufacturers of internal combustion engines asked for it.


Charles A. Stewart: But the duty-will remain the same to anyone else?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: They will be no good to
anyone else.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, magnetos are used on all internal combustion engines. We are buying magnetos for our engines all the time.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Surely my hon. friend does
not object to this reduction.


Charles A. Stewart: No, but I
should like to see it extended to everyone. It extends only to importations from Great Britain now.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: No, the reduction is all
along the line. Under the old item the intermediate duty was 25 per cent and the general duty 30 per cent. It is now reduced.


Edward James Young: But that is not the whole
explanation, surely. It is true that the reduction is made across the board to the manufacturer, but what about the private individual who wants to put a new magneto on his engine, and what, about the man who buys the engine after the manufacturer finishes with it?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: He should pay something
to the treasury.


Mr. VALLANCE:: Is this confined to the
manufacturer? Is it a fact that anyone who wants this repair will not receive the same consideration?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Certainly. There are hundreds of items in the tariff whose provisions are confined entirely to the manufacturers. Those items have been there for years; there is nothing new about it.


John Vallance: But that does not justify it. I am sorry I was not here a moment ago, but we had the same principle in connection with farm implement repairs. I do not think it is fair, and I wish to lodge a protest,.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I think my hon. friend is in error with regard to repair parts.


John Vallance: That was the case under the arrangement last year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-438b. Automobiles for conveying passengers only, n.o.p., valued at retail at place of production, when new, with standard equipment complete, at not more than twelve hundred dollars each; motor trucks with standard equipment (not for use on railways or tramways), not to include machines or other articles mounted thereon or attached thereto for purposes other than for loading or unloading the truck; chassis for motor vehicles specified in this item:	British preferential
tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 17i per cent; general tariff. 20 per cent.
Edward James Young: What is the change here?
4280	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: We are widening the item. Hitherto it was restricted to ears for carrying goods only. Now we are removing the restriction; we are adding to the purposes for which cars may be imported.


James Layton Ralston: This covers cars for conveying passengers only.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-43Sd. Horns, distributors, instrument board lamps, oil gauges, gasoline gauges and parts thereof, thermostats, oil filters, carburetors, purifiers for oil, purifiers for air, lock washers, speedometers and parts thereof, vacuum tanks, fuel pumps and j)arts thereof, composite gaskets of metal and asbestos, steering wheels and rims therefor, one piece welded axle housings, machined or not, instrument bezel assemblies, dash heat indicators, electric ignition locks, steering gear locks, transmission locks, or combinations of such locks, and parts thereof, cylinder lock barrels and keys, bearing spring shackles and automatic radiator shutter assemblies, ammeters, radiator shells, body cowls, and body stampings of metal, including front, rear, side and door stampings, not further manufactured than welded or riveted for shipping purposes, all the foregoing being of a class or kind not made in Canada, when imported by manufacturers of goods enumerated in tariff items 438a, 438b, 438c, 438e and 538f, for use only as original equipment in the manufacture of motor vehicles enumerated m tariff items 438a, 438b, 438c and 438f: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: There is an amendment to be moved to this section, which will widen the item and reduce the tariff. The amendment is the insertion of the words "and parts thereof" after the words "spring shackles." Under the provisions of the tariff now spring shackles may be imported complete, but if you wish to import parts you pay a higher rate of duty. This amendment is designed to permit parts to come in at a lower rate of duty.


Edward James Young: To manufacturers only.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The whole item is a manufacturers' item. It is a manufacturers' item in the tariff now, as it has been for some time.


John Vallance: What is the amendment?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Mr. Ryckman moves that the item be amended by inserting the words "and parts thereof" after the words "spring shackles" in line 12 thereof.


Mr RHODES:: This item is included to permit the parts of spring shackles to come in at a lower rate of duty. The budget provision enlarged the old item 438d in four or five places. It permitted the free entry across the board of an enlarged list of articles. For IMr. Young.)
instance, parts of gasoline gauges are added; fuel pumps and parts thereof are added; the word "metal" is substituted for the word "copper". Heretofore the parts admitted free were confined to copper; now we use the word "metal" which includes a wider range of commodities. Again, free admission has heretofore been limited to ignition locks, but under the modern development of the motor car there has been devised a lock which is not only an ignition but a transmission lock as well, and because of the change it would consequently be subject to duty. We are now making the new type free. This amendment deals not only with shackles but the parts thereof so that the item has been very considerably amended along the lines of free entry.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Suppose I want to buy one of the articles mentioned for a car I own; do I come within the same category as the manufacturer?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: This item is precisely in the same terms as it has stood for some years
Mr. BEAUBIiEN: Suppose I own a car that needs one of these repair parts, one of the locks to which the minister refers. What rate of duty should I have to pay in comparison with the manufacturer?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If the hon. member imported the part he would have to pay rates varying from 25 to 37i per cent according to the classification.


John Vallance: Suppose I imported one of these parts from a foreign country. Would it cost me more ultimately than if I bought the part from the manufacturer who is allowed to bring it in free?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I cannot answer that, because I do not know what the manufacturer would charge; but assuming that the hon. gentleman could not purchase it from the manufacturer he would have to pay the duty on the part.


John Vallance: It says, when imported by the manufacturer. Does that permit him to import a part for one implement when he wishes to sell it as a repair part?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The provision is intended to permit the manufacturer to import solely for the purpose of assembling. I believe this provision was inserted as an amendment in the tariff as far back'as 1926.


John Vallance: Suppose I buy a part for repairs; has the manufacturer the same privilege of bringing in the part under this item to supply it to me?

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: No; the intention was that it should be used in manufacturing. The item so states.


James Layton Ralston: What is the difference between this item and the old item in 1932?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have already enumerated the five changes that are made but I will repeat them. Heretofore gasoline gauges, in line 2, could be imported duty free, but not the parts of gasoline gauges. We now enlarge the item by permitting parts as well as gauges themselves to come in. In line 5 we have something entirely new: we permit the free entry of fuel pumps and parts thereof. Heretofore gaskets of copper were admitted free, and we now enlarge the item by substituting for the word "copper" the word "metal," which deals with a wider range of commodities. As regards steering gear locks, a duty would be called for on the new type of lock which properly speaking is not a steering lock inasmuch as it combines both ignition and transmission features, and under the interpretation which would have to be placed upon it in keeping with the old wording, that modern lock would be dutiable. We are now widening the item to include the modem type of lock, and the amendment which I have moved is to include the parts of shackles.


Edward James Young: Is there anything left out of the item?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My hon. friend will see that it embraces a very large list.


Edward James Young: Annular ball bearings appeared in the old item; it is not here.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: We are coming to that. It is still free.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Under this item certain repair parts such as carbureters and so on are allowed to come in under certain rates if imported by the manufacturer. Suppose I wanted one of the repair parts enumerated in this item and obtained it from a manufacturer who imported it under this tariff. Naturally if the manufacturer got it under a lower tariff than I could get it, I would get it from him. How is that situation met?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I do not believe there has ever been any difficulty in the administration of the item since its inception in 1926. It must be imported by the manufacturer of the original equipment.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Will there be a check-up?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It will be a very simple thing to keep a check-up because we know the output of the factory and how many parts go into the machines manufactured.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
. Mr. RHODES: I will ask my colleague to move an amendment.
Edmond Baird Ryckman: That schedule A to the customs tariff, as amended by resolution No. 2 of March 21, 1933, be further amended by deleting therefrom tariff item 438f and inserting in lieu thereof, the following:
Motor omnibuses, for conveying passengers only, having seating capacity for not less than ten persons; chassis for same: British preferential tariff, free: intermediate tariff, 30 per cent; general tariff, 40 per cent.


Charles A. Stewart: What are the importations?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: This is a conference item which has been in effect for less than six months and no statistics will be available until the end of the year. I am informed that there have been substantial importations and that these will be accelerated by this amendment.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: There is another amendment I am going to suggest.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: That schedule A to the customs tariff, as amended by resolution No. 2, of March 21, 1933, be further amended by striking thereout tariff item 438g, and inserting in lieu thereof the following:
Motorcycles or side cars therefor, and complete parts of the foregoing: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 20 per cent; general tariff, 30 per cent.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Customs tariff-438h. Annular ball bearings and parts thereof, when imported for use in the manufacture of goods enumerated in tariff items 438a, 438b, 438c, 438e, and 438f, for use only as original equipment in the manufacture of motor vehicles enumerated in tariff items 438a, 438b, 438c and 438f, under regulations prescribed by the minister: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Hitherto the importation of these ball bearings was confined to the manufacturer and the purpose of this item is to permit distributing and supply houses to import them. It is expected that there will be a considerable acceleration of imports from the mother country.


Edward James Young: It does not read that way, it says, "for use in the manufacture of goods".
4282	COMMONS
Ways and. Means-Customs Tariff


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes, but hitherto they had to be imported by the manufacturers. This necessitated the importing of substantial quantities and the locking up of considerable capital which in some cases the manufacturer could ill afford to do. It will now be possible for supply houses to import these articles and warehouse them in Canada to be purchased by the manufacturer as required.


Edward James Young: It is only when they are sold to the manufacturer, not when sold for repairs?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It will permit their being
imported by others than the manufacturer.


Edward James Young: When an importer sells
to a manufacturer he gets them in duty free, but if he sells to -a private individual for repair purposes, they are not free.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: That has always been the case.


John Vallance: Just in the same position as the others.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It may seen to be an
innocent item but my information is that this amendment will have the effect of increasing business with the mother country by $1,000,000 per year.


William Richard Motherwell: To what minister
do the words, "under regulations prescribed by the minister" refer?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: They refer to the Minister of National Revenue.


William Richard Motherwell: The bearings are
not for the minister, they are for the manufacturer?	[DOT]


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: There is another amendment.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: That the following item, enumeration and rates of duty be included in the list of items indicated in resolution No. 2, of March 21, 1933, as for insertion in schedule A to the customs tariff:
438i. Repair or replacement parts, complete, not including tops, bodies or rubber tires, for motor vehicles entitled to enter under the British preferential tariff under tariff items 438a, 438b, 438c and 438f: British preferential tariff, free.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Previously a motor car
could be imported from Great Britain free of duty but it was necessary to pay duty upon parts. This item will admit such parts free of duty.


James J. Donnelly: For the manufacturer
only?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: No, repair parts.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Customs tariff-440n.	Complete parts for
repair of engines enumerated in tariff item 440m: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 12| per cent; general tariff, 15 per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-445c.	(i) Electric telegraph
apparatus and complete parts thereof: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 25 per cent; general tariff, 30 per cent.
(ii) Electric telephone apparatus and complete parts thereof: British preferential tariff, 10 per cent; intermediate tariff, 25 per cent; general tariff, 30 per cent.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: There is no change so far
as telegraph apparatus is concerned. This is a conference item. Under the conference agreement telephone apparatus was made duty free. We found out that that provision would have imperilled in fact, would have wiped out a very large industry in this country. After consultation with the British authorities, they agreed to a restoration of the duty to 10 per cent instead of the 15 per cent which had hitherto obtained under the British preference.


Mr. DUFF:: The minister says that under the present tariff the British preferential rate on electric telephone apparatus and complete parts thereof was free, but under the proposed tariff there is a duty of 10 per cent. That means an increase of 10 per cent. He says that this has been arrived at by conference with the British government in order to save an industry in Canada. Does the minister by that industry mean the Northern Electric Company?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes.


William Duff: Does he know the Northern
Electric Company is a subsidiary of the Bell Telephone Company?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have no official knowledge of that fact; in fact I do not know I have any private knowledge; it may be so.


William Duff: I am going to object to this
increase in tariff, because it affects telephone companies in other parts of Canada. If this item goes through, the maritime telephone companies, for instance, the Nova Scotia Telephone Company and the New Brunswick Telephone Company and, I presume, the telephone companies of the west, will have to pay tribute to the Northern Electric Company. It is a well known fact that the Northern Electric Company is a subsidiary of the Bell Tele-

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
phone Company; that the Bell Telephone owns 51 per cent of the Northern Electric and that the balance of the stock is owned by another manufacturer of the same kind of goods in the United States. It is not fair to other telephone companies that instead of their being able to import these goods from Great Britain at a 10 per cent reduction, this special duty of 10 per cent is imposed in order to keep the British goods out or to compel the other telephone companies to pay an additional 10 per cent on their equipment.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: In the first place my hon.
friend for years supported a government which imposed a duty of 15 per cent under the British preference on these articles and they were placed upon the free list by this government as a result of the conference agreements. But it has been found out that, having regard to the difference between the wage paid to British and that paid to Canadian artisans, this industry could not live under free competition. The question is not one of the Bell Telephone Company or the Northern Electric Company as being its subsidiary, if it is; that is not important. The question is this: That industry under normal conditions employes 7,000 workmen and pays out in wages $10,000,000 a year. It would be a very serious matter to the industrial life of Canada and to the city of Montreal in particular if that industry were wiped out as it would be if the item remained free under the British preference. I think the circumstance that the British government have assented to our representations in this respect is evidence of the reasonableness of the request made to them to vary the conference agreement in this one regard only.
Some hon. gentlemen opposite-and I do not object to this-have seized upon certain articles where an increase in duty is imposed, but they allow to pass, without a word emanating from them, item after item which have been carried this afternoon and evening either placing articles on a lower scale of duty or making them free.


Edward James Young: Of course.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Of the fifty-seven articles
in the budget, to say nothing of the amendments which I have submitted to-night, all of Which are for a lowering of duty, only five refer to an increase 'in the tariff and the remainder refer to either a lowering of tariff or a widening of the item. I think it is important that these considerations should be borne in mind.


Ernest Lapointe: Is my hon. friend objecting to our not criticising the reductions?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Not at all, but I am just
drawing attention to the emphasis in the one case as contrasted with the silence in the other.


Ernest Lapointe: When the minister does well, we approve.


Robert James Manion: Not openly.


William Duff: I do not think the first part of the minister's reply to what I said was a real answer. For instance, he referred to the fact that I had supported a government which had imposed a duty of fifteen per cent on these articles. Let me say-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Carried.


William Duff: If my hon. friend is in favour of the Bell Telephone Company or the Northern Electric Company, all right; I am not. It is quite true that I supported that government, but the Minister of Finance knows I am not in favour of any tariff, whether fifteen per cent or ten per cent, or five per cent. I am a free trader; I believe there should be no tariff restrictions, because the manufacturer in every case takes advantage of those tariffs and the consumer has to suffer. Whether it be the Northern Electric or any other company, if they cannot produce in this country goods as cheaply as we can buy them in Great Britain, then they should not be protected. We have heard a great deal in other days about flapping the flag, the mother country, and all the rest of it. Here we have the telephone companies, which are really the consumers of this commodity, not 'being able to buy from Great Britain because the government imposes a duty of ten per cent. I cannot agree with the minister's, shall I call it sob story, when he says that if this duty is not imposed, a certain number of men will be put out of work. I should like to know how much money the Northern Electric Company made in the last ten or twelve years. I should like to see a financial statement in order to find out whether this ten per cent duty is necessary. I say it is not; these people can manufacture the goods cheaply 'and they do not require the duty. It is not in the interests of the people of Canada that other telephone companies, owing to the imposition of this ten per cent duty, are taken by the throat and compelled to buy these goods from the Northern Electric instead of being able to buy them in the open market where they can get them the cheapest. If there were four or five companies in this country manufacturing these articles, the matter might be different.
4284	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
but there is only one and this means that the government, by the imposition of this duty, is giving that company a monopoly. I protest against any such monopoly.


Edward James Young: What were the importations from Great Britain under this item in the last three months?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am sorry I have not
those figures.


Edward James Young: Somebody has objected that the importations from Great Britain under this item have been so great as to threaten an industry. Surely the minister was told how much was being imported and what the extent of the threat was.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My hon. friend asked for
the importations in the last three months. I cannot give that.


Edward James Young: Since the conference.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The importations in 1932
were $1,111,000-


Edward James Young: One million dollars of importations-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My hoe. friend, with that
abounding energy and that exceedingly active mind of his, cannot retain his seat long enough to hear an answer to a question which he himself has put. I hope I am not unduly obstructing my estimates, because I endeavour to give the information sought and in as few words as possible, but my hon. friend is not helping me. Of this amount, $850,000 worth came from the United States and $260,000 worth from the United Kingdom.


Edward James Young: Importations amounting to a quarter of a million dollars are going to destroy this fen million dollars industry!


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The conference agreement
was ratified only a few months ago. It did not come into effect until October 13, 1932.


Edward James Young: That is why I asked for
the importations for the last three months.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The importations I have
given were for 1932, although for three-quarters of the year there was a protective tariff of fifteen per cent under the British preference and a much higher tariff under the intermediate and general. Under this proposal the tariff under the British preferential will be ten per cent, but even under the fifteen per cent British preferential and the twenty-five per cent intermediate and thirty per cent general tariffs there was imported telephone apparatus to the amount I have indicated. So my hon. friend must not
	*
hastily draw the conclusion that these importations came in under a low tariff; and if they did come in to that extent over a tariff protection of the size I have indicated it follows that they would enter in largely increasing quantities if the item were free.


Edward James Young: The minister told us a few
minutes ago that since the conference agreements came into effect it has been demonstrated that importations from Great Britain are coming in to such an extent that the life of this industry is threatened. That is why I asked for the importations of the past three months. The minister says that the greatest importations have come from the United States over a 30 per cent tariff. If 30 per cent is not going to exclude importations from the United States, how is a 10 per cent tariff going to save this industry from British imports?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have a high regard for
my hon. friend from Weyburn, but he will invariably, though quite honestly and with no ill intent, place words in my mouth which I never uttered. I did not say that importations had come in to such an extent that the industry in Montreal was threatened. I said that under free entry the effect would be to close that industry, and it is practically closed to-day.


Edward James Young: It is closed?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes, practically, and that
industry has been operating for years and has employed as high as seven thousand hands.


An hon. MEMBER:: It is not operating on that scale to-day.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: No industry anywhere in
the world to-day is operating on the scale on which it operated in normal times. As everyone realizes, we are passing through one of the most severe depressions that the world has ever seen.


Edward James Young: Might not that account for the closing of the industry?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It has a bearing on the
volume of business that is done in industry. If my hon, friend from Weyburn wishes the exact amount of importations since the conference agreements I shall be delighted to get that information for him, although it will take some time and will require a separate tabulation of innumerable items.


Edward James Young: We can have it to-morrow.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I cannot assure my hon. friend of that.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


James J. Donnelly: The minister takes us
to task for objecting to this raising of duty. He says that in the whole budget there are only some five or six items on which the duties are raised.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Five.


James J. Donnelly: And he says that there are hundreds on which the duty has been lowered.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I did not say that. I said that of the fifty-seven items dealt with in the budget there were five increases, and the rest were either enlarging the item or lowering the duty, or both.


James J. Donnelly: But the minister did not say that where the duties have been lowered they had been lowered for the benefit of the manufacturer, and not of the consumer.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Oh, no.


James J. Donnelly: In the majority of cases where the duty has been lowered it has been lowered because the manufacturers have asked for it. We see that all along the line; the duty has been lowered because the manufacturer wanted it, not because the consumer wanted it. In the majority of cases where the duty has been lowered it is because the manufacturer wanted to get the goods he needs to put into some machinery that he is manufacturing. That is the reason there are so many items on which the duty has been lowered.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I may say to my hon. friend that I did not take him nor any of his associates to task; that is one of the last things I would wish to do. But it is the right and the privilege of every hon. member to express his views; my hon. friend will not, I hope, deny that right to me, and he must not object if my view does not exactly coincide with his. My hon. friend will not think, I am sure, that I am taking him or anyone else to task if I venture to disagree with what he or his associates may say. My hon. friend made the bald statement that the majority of the tariff amendments lowering the duty had been made in favour of the manufacturer. As a matter of fact in a moment or two I shall be able to give my hon. friend the exact proportion. I can say now that the majority of the reductions were not in favour of the manufacturer either in number, volume or importance, but that on the contrary the majority in number, in volume, in importance, and in value are in favour of individuals as against the manufacturer.


Albert Joseph Brown: If the minister thinks we have been negligent in expressing our appreciation-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am not complaining.


Albert Joseph Brown: -I hasten to correct that omission on our part. I am not very much concerned whether the duties were lowered for the benefit of the manufacturer or of the individual. In so far as they have been lowered they meet with my approval. In regard to this particular item it is rather an unfortunate time to increase the duty on telephone supplies when so many thousands of people in the western provinces are taking out their telephones. Indeed, the taking out of the telephones is one source of embarrassment to the provincial governments in the west at the present time. They constructed these telephone lines on borrowed money, and it looked like good business and it was good business. The revenue was paying all the expenses, but now the telephones are being removed by the thousands, and the consequence will be that the provinces will suffer in their finances at a very unfortunate time. There is another thing which might have been taken into account and that is that this question might have been submitted to the tariff board before the duty was reimposed. The tariff board will have to consider this question of the relative cost of manufacture in England and in Canada, and it might very properly have been submitted to the tariff board which has now been constituted, before any action was taken. It just goes to show that from the standpoint of the consumer and of those who believe in the entry of goods under lower tariffs the British agreement is just that much worse than we thought it was last fall, by the removal of these items from a tariff which did seem to offer some relief to the consumer.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I may say to my hon.
friend from Willow Bunch that I have had a computation made of the items which we have considered up to now in committee to-day. We have moved twenty-six reductions, and of that number twenty were for the benefit of everybody and six were for the benefit of manufacturers. That is in contrast to the statement of my hon. friend that the majority of the amendments we have moved were in favour of manufacturers.


Edward James Young: I would ask the minister to let this item stand until he brings down the information he promised.
4286	*	COMMONS
Ways and, Means-Customs Tariff


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I will undertake before we move out of committee to give my hon. friend the information, but I must insist upon the item.


Edward James Young: It might be that the information brought down will not justify the item.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It certainly will not in the eyes of my hon. friend, but it will in the eyes of hon. gentlemen on this side. In these circumstances I hope that my hon. friend will, agree to the passing of the item on the understanding that I secure the information and give it to him to-morrow if I can, or if not at the earliest possible moment.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-445j. Electric dry shaving machines, of a class or kind not made in Canada, for use in removing human hair:	British
preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 10 per cent; general tariff, 10 per cent.
Charles A. Stewart: I rise on
behalf of my numerous friends to congratulate the minister upon this item. I can assure him that his kindness in reducing the duty is appreciated.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am appreciative of my
hon. friend's kind references, which I hope are well intended and not uttered in a mildly ironical sense. I may say that this item is not restricted to two manufacturers, but is open to everyone. While it may seem a trifling item the fact is that this industry has growm to very large proportions in the United States. The class of razor is of exceptional merit, I am informed, a beautiful commodity, and suitable not only to the man who shaves with the ordinary razor, but to those in hospitals and who have scars which make shaving difficult it is particularly useful.


Charles Gavan Power: You will be checked up by the radio commission for advertising more than five per cent.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If the expectations of the manufacturers in the United States are realized they propose to establish in the province of Quebec almost immediately an industry which in the first instance will assemble the parts, but which ultimately they expect to be a subsidiary to manufacture for the purpose not only of supplying the Canadian trade but of securing the advantage of the British preference within the British Empire. This one small and apparently insignificant item may, in time, result in a fairly substantial industry being established here Which will give employment to a considerable number of people.


Alfred Speakman: May I ask the minister if this little machine is responsible for the exceedingly close shave to which so many people have been subjected during recent years?


John Vallance: Solomon in all his glory!


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-464b. Steel die-blocks, of a class or kind not made in Canada, not less than fourty-four degrees of hardness by scleroscopic test:	British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-471. Belt pulleys of all kinds, n.o.p.. for power transmission:	British preferential tariff, 15 per cent; intermediate tariff, 25 per cent, general tariff, 27J per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-471a. Pressed steel belt pulleys, for power transmission: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 2'5 per cent; general tariff, 27£ per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-475. Stereotypes, electrotypes and celluloids of books, and bases and matrices and copper shells for the same, whether composed wholly or in part of metal or celluloid; positive and negative films of books: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
Humphrey Mitchell: I would like to know
the reason for the change in this item.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: This is designed to modernize the item. Hitherto certain plates could be imported free of duty for the purpose of enabling magazines to be printed in Canada, and the effect has been to give employment to a large amount of labour in printing magazines, several score in number, which prior to the tariff item of two years ago were printed in the United States and imported duty free. Since the item was first placed in the tariff imposing a duty on American magazines and admitting free the plates from which they were printed there has been developed a process by means of which these plates can be made by photography. The photograph has the effect, as I understand it, of etching the cylinder and producing a class of work which cannot be distinguished from set type. This polygraphic process will now be permitted free entry for the purpose of allowing the printing of magazines in Canada precisely as was hitherto the case with the plates.


Humphrey Mitchell: That may be the opinion of the government, but it is not the opinion

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
of the printers, the practical men engaged in the trade. This is a copy of a letter or resolution sent to the Prime Minister from Toronto Typographical Union No. 91. Towards the end of the resolution it says:
With hundreds of our typesetters out of work, we are amazed to find that it is proposed to allow plates to enter Canada duty free, thus taking away the only chance to place these men hack at work.
I have a similar letter from the Hamilton typographical union. It says:
We in Hamilton of the typographical union have raised voluntarily over $15,000 to take care of members of our organization who through no fault of their own are out of work, and to keep them from going on relief or standing m the bread line. With this condition prevalent all over the dominion in our industry we are amazed that it is proposed to allow plates to enter Canada duty free, thus taking away the only chance to place these men back at work.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, I gay to my hon. friend that this very item is designed to give employment to Canadian labour. If it does not go through there will be less Canadian labour employed. As a matter of fact the plates have been admitted duty free for some years. Those who adopted this resolution are apparently under the impression that if this polygraphic process were not admitted they would have the work here in some other way. They would not. Hitherto plates have come in, stereotypes and electrotypes-


Humphrey Mitchell: Mats.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes, giving a -replica of the magazine as published in the United States. This permits the employment of labour in printing, the purchase of paper and the use of ink in Canada, and the labour of mailing and shipping, and so on. It has been the means of giving largely increased employment to labour in Canada. Permitting the polygraph process to come in the same as the plates have hitherto done is merely modernizing the item, not changing the original intent at all.


Humphrey Mitchell: Mr. Chairman, I hold in my hand a brief submitted by the Toronto typographical union. I am fully conversant with the fact that the mats were imported into Canada, that the typesetting was done in the United States. I am conversant with the legislation that is in force in that country which prevents the importation of those mats into that country. In this brief, of which I think the minister has a copy, the typographical union complain of that condition in Canada. It hardly seems possible to me-
I am not a practical printer, I am merely passing on information that is sent to me- that the men engaged in the industry should be fearful of the conditions that would be brought about by the granting of their request.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My hon. friend overlooks one fact, and so do those for whom he speaks, who would agree with him, and that is that prior to 1931 when we placed a duty on American magazines, the whole magazine, all the labour, all the paper, ink and expenditure which went into its make-up, came from the United States. But after we imposed the duty it was found to be to the advantage of the American publishers to come over into Canada, which they did in large numbers. To-day scores of American magazines are being printed in Canada, providing labour for scores of Canadians, using Canadian paper and ink, and this is in part by reason of the fact that they are able to bring in the plates from the United States. And the negative is the modern process; it merely permits a continuation of a system which I submit has been to the advantage of the Canadian people as a whole and of Canadian labour in particular.


Humphrey Mitchell: Mr. Chairman, everything the minister says is true. The type of publication involved is such as True Stories- you know the kind of magazine I mean. The amount of actual labour has not been greatly increased, the cost of publication has been lessened. The circulation has been increased; predictions made at that time that it would reduce the circulation of this kind of publication have not been fulfilled. What the typesetters object to is the importation of these mats. They feel that they should receive the same protection that the printers in the United States receive. The law there definitely states that for anything that is printed in that country the type shall be set up in the United States. I would rather take the advice of a man engaged in the printing trades than my own opinion or that of a member of this house. They feel that this is going to throw hundreds of their men out of work and possibly deny them employment.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: 
Humphrey Mitchell: If the placing of a duty on these plates would reduce the circulation of such magazines as True Stories, Film Fun and Ballyhoo, probably it would be better for the people of this country, particularly the younger .people.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My hon. friend must not allow it to appear that this printing is confined to Film Fun, Ballyhoo and magazines of that class, some of which are actually prohibited to-day.


Humphrey Mitchell: They are on the news stands.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: That may be so, but some of them will not be there to-morrow. I may tell my hon. friend that many high class magazines are being printed in Canada to-day as a result of the tariff imposed.


Albert Joseph Brown: I am afraid this is another statement that will hardly bear investigation. Under the tariff policy of the government many of the better class magazines have had their circulation materially diminished. Only this week I saw a statement with regard to about a dozen of the better class magazines, including the Atlantic Monthly and Harper's Magazine, which showed that the circulation had been reduced by from 36 per cent to 40 per cent, while in the case of the Literary Digest I think the reduction was about 81 per cent. We recognize the fact that these higher class magazines are very desirable, but the net result of the tariff policy of this government in regard to magazines has been just as the minister has stated j they have permitted the importation of the plates of the trashy magazines, though I do not say they are all objectionable. In the main, however, they are the lower class of magazines and they have increased their circulation or, if not, certainly 
they have not lost circulation, while to a large extent the higher class magazines have been excluded.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am prepared to admit to my hon. friend and the committee that it might be debatable whether or not the policy of the government is wise. It may be that the policy of the government is not wise, but under existing conditions my hon, friend must not assume that because there has been a diminution in the number of subscribers to a magazine or newspaper, this is attributable to the tariff. Let me tell my hon. friend that there has been a reduction in the number of subscribers to magazines in the United States, and the number of Canadian subscribers to Canadian magazines, due to the fact that many people cannot afford to continue their subscriptions. For the sake of argument, however, let us admit that the policy of the government with respect to magazines is wrong. Then let me say to my hon. friend from East Hamilton that there would not be any Canadian labour employed if this tariff was removed; all the magazines would be printed in the United States.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: Does this item permit the importation of lithograph plates containing Canadian advertising intended for Canadian magazines? A number of our large Canadian industries have their advertising composed in the United States, and those plates must be imported. Would they come in free under this item?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: No, this item refers only to the importation of plates which are brought in for the purpose of printing in Canada the Canadian editions of United States magazines.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: And it is limited to that?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes.


James Layton Ralston: Would this include books?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Plates and matrices for advertising come under a separate item.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-476a. Glassware and other scientific apparatus for laboratory work in public hospitals; surgical operating tables and complete parts thereof; apparatus for sterilizing purposes, including bedpan washers and sterilizers but not including washing or laundry machines; all for the use of any public hospital, under regulations prescribed by the minister: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
William Richard Motherwell: I see that the
regulations are to be prescribed by the minister, and presumably that is the Minister of National Revenue. I wonder if I could get the attention of the Minister of Finance for a moment to ask just how these regulations are prescribed and carried into effect. My understanding is that the minister, or some of his staff, prepares the regulations and brings them to council, and council accepts, amends or rejects them. Then they are gazetted, after which they become law. Is that the procedure, or are they ministerial orders, determined entirely by the Minister of National Revenue? Perhaps I could get the minister's attention for a moment.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My hon. friend is getting my attention; I was simply directing a question to my official in order to answer my hon. friend. I was listening to every word he said. This provision with regard to the regulations to be prescribed by the minister has been here for years; we are not just inserting that now. The effect of the item is to enlarge the free importation for hospital use by adding parts for hospital tables. In this way the duty on these parts is reduced from 35 per cent to free. With respect to the regulations, since this is a hospital item those regulations would have to do with the proper policing of the importations to see that they were put to hospital use only. The regulations would be prepared by the Department of National Revenue, and would not of necessity be subject to order in council. They might be discussed in council, but they would not be the subject of order in council. May I point out to my hon. friend, however, that heretofore any person aggrieved had the right to appeal to the board of customs, but since the tariff board act has been passed, after May 1 of this year an appeal would lie to the tariff board. So I am sure my hon. friend will be gratified to know that there is an additional safeguard so far as the activity of the Minister of National Revenue is concerned.


William Richard Motherwell: That is some safeguard, of course, but I was a little afraid that the recital would be just about what it was. As a rule regulations prescribed by the minister meant, ini my time at all events, that the regulations were submitted to council and there agreed to or amended as the circumstances warranted, after which they were gazetted. Now it appears that they are to be ministerial orders under certain circumstances, and the only remedy is an appeal to the tariff board. This looks worse than I
anticipated. It would appear, then, that almost all these items we are considering come under the jurisdiction of the Minister of National Revenue without the necessity of submitting the regulations to council at all. In other words, if be wants to do some more pegging of the pound or fixing of valuation for duty purposes or for dumping duty propositions, nine-tenths of it will be in the hands of the Minister of National Revenue no matter what this parliament decides. I wonder if there is not some way of getting a twitch on the Minister of National Revenue so that we may have some of the desires of this parliament carried into effect with regard to' tariffs. So far as I am concerned, I know that it was very rarely in the days of the Liberal government that a ministerial order had such wide significance as it has to-day. Possibly the same law existed but it was very seldom made use of it. But now, with the door open to the Minister of National Revenue, we are decidedly alarmed at his activities in managing by many devices to put up the tariff, while his colleagues may know nothing about it.
Mr. RHODES1:	My hon. friend is unduly
alarmed. I would remind him that he sat in the government for nine years while this same provision was in the tariff. He may be somewhat perturbed by my colleague the Minister of National Revenue, but I can assure him that he has no reason to be. I am sure the hon. gentleman will realize that there is no other method whereby the item could be administered. Let me give a concrete illustration. If a sterilizer were brought in for use in a laundry it would be subject to a duty of thirty-five per cent, whereas under this provision, if brought in for a hospital, it is duty free. When the tariff provides that regulations shall be prescribed by the Minister of National Revenue it simply means that when, for instance, a sterilizer is brought in for hospital purposes it shall be bona fide for such use and not brought in under that guise and then surreptitiously used in a laundry.


William Richard Motherwell: I am aware that this provision with regard to valuation for duty purposes has been in existence for many years. It was there since 1922 I believe, but as I have already stated, it was very rarely invoked. Instead of its application being the exception now, as it was then, it appears to be the general rule so far as the Minister of National Revenue is concerned. It is entirely in the hands of that hon. gentleman, whose ambition in this direction seems to know no bounds. If there were some way of harness-
4290	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
ing that minister I think it would be a good thing so that there might be some sort of control not only with regard to the regulations but with regard to ministerial orders, which apparently can be got away with. I am not referring so much to the effect in connection with these particular items; I am speaking of a general policy, or rather the excessive use of a policy which was intended not for general application but for application in exceptional circumstances. I am glad to know that the Minister of Finance and his colleagues have on several occasions reversed the decision of the Minister of National Revenue, as in the matter of farm machinery repairs. But they ran for a long while before my hon. friends took such action; they did not take steps to meet the situation until there was an upheaval in the country. I suggest that the remedy should be applied in advance before the damage is done. I suppose if the law is there all that one can say is that it should be used with discretion and only in exceptional cases; but so long as the Minister of National Revenue has the desire to use it as if it were intended for general application instead of, as it is intended to be used, in exceptional circumstances, then all this talk about tariffs will be of little avail, because in the last analysis the Minister of National Revenue will have his say anyhow.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-485. Metal caps, for use in
the manufacture of electric batteries: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-486. Artificial larynx, for use in restoring speech: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
Charles Gavan Power: Who asked for this?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: This is a compassionate item.


Charles Gavan Power: This is too much. We have enough larynxes now without artificial ones.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-520c. Linters of short fibres of cotton, bleached, and cotton pulp, when imported by manufacturers of paper, for use exclusively in their own factories in the manufacture of blotting or other grade of paper: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 10 per cent; general tariff, 12J per cent.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: There is no change in the intent of the law with respect to this item.

It is found that, for convenience in shipping, cotton is put up in the form of pulp rather than in loose linters as originally, and today, unless this provision were put in, cotton in the form of pulp would be subject to duty. Now we put pulp with linters and permit the free entry in either form.


Edward James Young: Is it a by-product of the
factories?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: No.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-522b.	Yarns, wholly of
cotton, coarser than number forty but exceeding number twenty, not more advanced than singles, when imported by manufacturers for use exclusively in their own factories in the manufacturing of cotton sewing thread and crochet, knitting, darning and embroidery cottons:	British preferential tariff, 7i per
cent; intermediate tariff, 15 per cent; general tariff, 20 per cent.
Edward James Young: This is a material reduction. Under the British preference the duty will be 71 per cent whereas previously it was 121 per cent plus 2 cents per pound. What does that amount to ad valorem?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I cannot answer that question because the item covers an extremely wide range of cotton yarns of different counts. The whole thing is highly complex and technical.


Edward James Young: Two years ago last fall we revised the tariff and enormously increased the duties on cotton goods. That was done for the benefit of the Canadian cotton manufacturers and we were told after it was done that ' they were prosperous. Now we find ourselves reducing the duty on their raw material. This will deprive the government of what revenue they were receiving from the importation of raw or partly manufactured cotton, but apparently there is to be no corresponding reduction in the consumers' item. Who asked for this, and what benefit is expected from it?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It was asked for by two manufacturing concerns in Canada, because under the tariff as it existed they were paying a higher duty on singles than on doubles. This will allow the doubling to be done in Canada, at a substantial reduction.


Edward James Young: We were under the impression that we had given the cotton manufacturers everything it was possible to give them, but apparently we were wrong.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My hon. friend is off the rails again. This is not for the cotton manufacturer at all.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Edward James Young: No?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: No, this is the thread manufacturer. The cotton .manufacturer would be opposed to the reduction.


Edward James Young: Isn't the cotton manufacturer the man who uses the yarn?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: No, the manufacturer of thread. The cotton manufacturers would be opposed to it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-523d. Woven fabric, wholly of cotton, imported for use as billiard cloth: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 27J per cent; general tariff, 32J per cent:	and, per pound:	British preferential
tariff, . . . .:	intermediate tariff, 3J cents;
general tariff, 4 cents.
Edward James Young: This is only for making billiard cloth.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Under the conference item we admitted ordinary billiard cloth free of duty. We did not know at that time that there was cotton billiard cloth. Britain has asked that it be given free entry.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-525. Woven fabric, wholly of cotton, specially treated and glazed, when imported by rubber manufacturers for use, in their own factories, exclusively as a detachable protective covering for uncured rubber sheeting:	British preferential tariff, free;
intermediate tariff, 30 per cent; general tariff, 35 per cent.
Alfred Speakman: A very substantial reduction is being made to the manufacturer to which I take no exception, but I would like to see a corresponding reduction made to the user of the finished article. There is no doubt that the ultimate cost of these rubber goods will be cheapened and I think the minister should take into consideration the passing on to the consumer part of this saving.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have every hope that this will be passed on to the consumer.


Alfred Speakman: If it is not, I suggest that the minister make a corresponding reduction in the duty on the finished article.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I will ask my colleague to move another amendment.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: That the following item, enumeration, and rates of duties be included in the list of items indicated in resolution No. 2, of March 21, 1933, for insertion in schedule A to the customs tariff:
564b. Woven fabric, of a kind not made in Canada, wholly or in chief part by weight of silk or artificial silk, or both, imported in the web in lengths of not less than ten yards each by manufacturers of umbrellas for use in the manufacture of umbrellas in their own factories: British preferential tariff, 10 per cent; intermediate tariff, 29 per cent; general tariff, 25 per cent.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-568. Knitted garments, knitted underwear and knitted goods, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, 25 per cent; intermediate tariff, 35 per cent; general tariff, 45 per cent; and, per pound: intermediate tariff, 25 cents; general tariff, 30 cents.
James J. Donnelly: The increase in this
item is the most substantial we have had, and I should like to know who asked for this increase.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I may say without hesitation that it was asked for by the manufacturers of knitted goods generally. This provision would have been included in the tariff revisions of 1930 and 1931, when very substantial increases were given to the manufacturers of woven goods, but for the provisions of the French treaty precluding our giving that additional protection which they had to have if they were to survive. The protection now given places these manufacturers in a comparable position to that of the manufacturers of woven commodities of a similar character. This increase affects a very important industry in Canada. The gross value of the production in 1931, which was not a normal year, amounted to $48,000,000. There are 161 industries with a wage roll of some 70,000 people and wage bill of upwards of $14,000,000.


William Duff: Do they require this extra
protection?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes, I believe they do;
most of them have been operating in the red.


John Vallance: Could the minister give us the importations of knitted garments?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: They vary according to the material. Woollen fabrics were imported from the United Kingdom last year to the extent of $145,000, and from the United States to the extent of $5,000.


John Vallance: Is that only knitted
garments?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am dealing only with
knitted garments. The importations of wool underwear amounted to $235,000, made uo of

4292	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
$216,000 from the United Kingdom and, 11,000 from Switzerland. The importations of knitted garments totalled $1,220,000, made up of $647,000 from the United Kingdom, $140,000 from the United States, $93,000 from Czechoslovakia, $66,000 from Belgium, $65,000 from Switzerland, $47,000 from Japan, $45,000 from Austria and $38,000 from Germany. The importations under the classification of unspecified amounted to $220,000, of which $105,000 came from the United Kingdom and $95000 from the United States.


James J. Donnelly: What were the total
importations from countries outside the British Empire?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I will give that in a
moment. It will be noted that the British preferential is not being changed, the increases taking place only in the intermediate and general tariffs. I might say that some of the competition, especially that which enters under the intermediate tariff, is very strong.


Albert Joseph Brown: I hope the hon. members from the prairies who support the government will take notice of the words the minister has used when referring to the substantial increases in the tariffs on woven goods which were made in 1930, as well as to the increases made under this item. There has been a disposition on the part of hion. members from the prairies who support the government not to state the increases which have been in the tariff. The hon. member for Souris has even gone so far as to claim that they were the low tariff party.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have no hesitation in repeating that the increase is substantial, but my hon. friend must not assume that because the duty is increased, it necessarily follows that the consumer will suffer.


Albert Joseph Brown: That does not touch the point I was urging. I claim there has been a substantial increase in the tariff.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am very happy indeed if my hon. friend gets any comfort from that expression.


Albert Joseph Brown: I want hon. members
opposite to know it.


James Layton Ralston: I get no comfort from it.
I feel that this is an item which should have been spared in the matter of increases. For two sessions we have protested against increases which have been made in other woollen items. Item 568a covers socks and stockings of all kinds upon which there is a
iMr. Rhodes ?
30 per cent British preferential plus seventy-five cents per dozen specific duty, a 32J per cent intermediate tariff plus $1.35 per dozen specific duty and a 35 per cent general tariff plus $1.50 per dozen specific duty. The item covering gloves and mitts carries 25 per cent British preferential, 35 per cent intermediate and 45 per cent general. So far my hon. friend has not increased the duty on the n.o.p. item, which I do not suppose represents more than fifty per cent of the total importations of knitted goods. The rate on knitted garments, knitted underwear and knitted goods, n.o.p., was 25 per cent British preferential. Now we have under the intermediate 35 per cent and twenty-five cents per pound, and under the general 45 per cent and thirty cents per pound. In some instances that might amount to a duty of nearly 100 per cent, and that is entirely too much for the Canadian consumer to be asked to pay. One thing or the other happens; the consumer is paying this to the manufacturer or the minister is getting it in the way of revenue on importations. When he says that the British preferential is not being increased, that is not much comfort because evidently there is an opportunity to buy these garments from other quarters at a lower price and these are being shut out or the consumer is being compelled to pay the difference. This increase is not justified especially in these times when people are going hungry and ill-clad.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My answer to the hon.
member for Willow Bunch in part, although I presume he will not admit it is an answer, is that last year the importation under this item amounted to $1,500,000. I am using round figures. Of that importation. $900,000 worth came from the United Kingdom and $600,000 worth from other countries. Therefore it will be observed that inasmuch as we are not touching the duty under the British preference and are widening the margin of the British preference, to the extent that we import, we shall stimulate importations by the mother country.


Charles A. Stewart: I know it is utterly useless to protest; I made my protest when I was discussing the budget, but I think this is an outrageous duty. The total production amounts to $48,000,000, so the minister informs us, and we have scarcely one per cent of imports, yet we are imposing duties on $46,000,000 worth of goods. It is useless for the minister to tell me or anyone else that the manufacturer does not take advantage of the tariff. If he does not take advantage of it why does he want it? Now we are being

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
asked to give the manufacturer another opportunity to soak the consumer a little harder than he has done in the past. There will be no importations under such duties as are being imposed by the present schedule. It is idle for the government to tell us that those duties are not taken advantage of when we see all about us full advantage being taken of them. If they were not taken advantage of, the real answer would be that there would be some imports. Imports are prohibited; the industry takes full advantage of the duty and we pay the piper.


John Vallance: Did I hear the minister aright when he stated that most of these manufacturing companies were now in the red?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes.


John Vallance: So that this is designed to bring about an increase in the price of these goods in order that the manufacturers may make money.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: No. My hon. friend would, I am sure, be the first to realize that a manufacturer who was operating at 25, 35, 40 or even 60 per cent of his capacity, was necessarily operating in the red, whereas without raising the price of his commodities one farthing, if he was operating at 100 per cent he could make a profit.


John Vallance: He has all the trade now.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Quite so, but my hon. friend must bear in mind that at present we are passing through very unusual times.


John Vallance: That is the reason we are objecting to this tariff.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I would agree with my hon. friend were the net result an increase in cost, but that does not follow. As a matter of fact the hon. member for West Edmonton made rather a sweeping statement. He will find that the price of commodities in Canada to-day compares favourably with that of commodities of a similar quality in other countries. If we in this country were to be subject to slaughter competition on the part of countries which manufacture in large quantities and can charge their own people a certain price but, by enlarging their manufacture, can spread their overhead over a larger volume of units, of course we would not survive. But if we prevent that slaughtering under those conditions and enable our own industries to operate to a normal capacity, they can do so 53719-271J	, J
and not increase prices. I assert that in the main, as a result of such protection as has been given in recent years, that has been the experience, and where it has been otherwise we have taken action as, for example, was done in the case of glass.


John Vallance: I have only one objection to what the minister has just said. He speaks of slaughter competition. Representing a rural district and realizing the prices the farmers are to-day receiving for the commodities which they have to sell, I ask: How does the minister expect them to stand quietly by and allow this? At the present time agricultural products must find a place on the markets of the world at slaughter prices; somebody has to take them. When does the price of a commodity become a slaughter price? Wheat to-day, even at the increased price that has existed in the last two or three weeks, is still being sold at distress prices. In the western prairies eggs are being sold at five cents a dozen and dairy butter at eight cents a pound. Are these slaughter prices? How can we afford to buy these manufactured goods? It cannot be done.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am talking about manufactured products, not agricultural commodities.


John Vallance: But we are receiving slaughter prices for the commodities we have to sell. Why should we not be allowed at some time to buy at slaughter prices? At all times I am compelled to sell at slaughter prices, but I am not permitted to buy at slaughter prices. It is that to which I am objecting. We were told by the party opposite when they were striving to get into power, what they would do for the primary producer, but the position of the latter is very much worse than it was when this government took office. I am not blaming the government entirely for that, but to-day everything produced on the farm is being sold at slaughter prices. Somebody has to take it. We should have the same privilege of buying goods at slaughter prices as other people have of buying ours.


James Layton Ralston: I want to add just one
word to what has already been said. The minister is either increasing prices or doing something for the benefit of the manufacturers in connection with $48,000,000 worth of goods which he says are being produced in this country. The only additional quantity the manufacturers can get in the way of orders
4294	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
is SI,500,000 which is being imported; I am referring to both British and foreign goods. That certainly cannot increase our manufacturers' capacity 10, 20 or 30 per cent as the minister has pictured. The division of this $1,500,000 worth among 161 industries cannot help the manufacturers one iota. What is the alternative? If they are really serious in presenting this picture, the alternative is that they expect the price to be raised. Only two things can be done; either the cost of production can be reduced by increasing capacity or the price must be raised, and in this oase it looks as if the price is to be raised. I know this has been decided upon; I suppose that is all there is to it, but I want to point out what the hon. member for Lisgar indicated this evening with regard to another item. The tariff board has been established, I presume for the purpose of examining into conditions of manufacture, of demand, the situation as to competition from other countries and whether that competition is fair or not, to find all the facts which the minister purports to have found to-night and to have embodied in this tariff item. As this item has waited ever since 1931, the minister might allow it to stand, let the tariff board deal with it and see whether there is any necessity for the large increase made in this item as proposed in the resolution submitted by the minister.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: With the first portion of
the remarks of the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth I am not in disagreement. But he must bear in mind this circumstance: if we were dealing with the question of protection for this industry as a thing apart, in view of the fact that to-day we have a tariff board established I would say that his objection was well taken. But at the time we gave increased protection to the woven goods industry we would have given it to the knitted goods industry also but for the fact that we were precluded from doing so by the provisions of the French treaty. Pressure was brought to bear upon the government at that time by the knitted goods industry-I know that my hon. friend from Lisgar will be surprised to hear me say this, but I say so quite frankly- that we should give them the same treatment as was applied to the woven goods industry because of the same needs. They were told at that time that but for the circumstance of the French treaty precluding us from giving them that treatment, they would have received it, and an undertaking was given at that time that if, as and when the French treaty was denounced they would be given the same 
treatment as was given this other class of industry to which I have referred. Therefore it is not unjust that we should carry out our undertaking given at that time despite the fact that to-day we have a tariff board established. One of the provisions of the agreement which we have with Great Britain is that as a matter of right the British manufacturer may appear before the Canadian tariff board in objection to the provisions of our tariff covered by conference agreements or otherwise. It will be competent for them at once to go before the tariff board and deal with these very items, and if there is cause for complaint along the lines indicated by my hon. friend from Shelburne-Yarmouth the remedy can be applied. I hope that my hon. friend and the committee will not consider me discourteous when I say that I do not think it is worth while to traverse again the ground that we covered one year and a half and two years ago when similar treatment was meted out to the woven goods industry.


Edward James Young: Well worth while.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Let us assume for the sake of argument that the contention of my hon. friend from Weyburn is right and that my contention as to what will happen is wrong, that his fears are realized and my hopes are not. The fact remains that the same argument which we held then we hold now with respect to this industry.


Edward James Young: Never learned anything?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes, we have learned from the experience of the past year and a half that an increase in the tariff does not of necessity involve an increase in the price of goods. On the other hand, to give only one instance-I do not propose to embark on one of those long dissertations upon protection- in the United States, which is the most highly protected country in the world, even in those piping days of prosperity when things were humming, many, many hundreds of articles of manufacture could be obtained cheaper behind the high tariff wall of that country than in most countries of the world, including some free trade countries.


Edward James Young: The United States has a big free trade area. '


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes, a free trade area behind a tariff wall. We have the same thing in Canada. Our area is larger, but we have not so many people. Having said so much I hope my hon. friends will not expect me to engage again in the kind of discussion that has ob-

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
tained1 hitherto. We only ask with respect to this one item that the same treatment shall be given as was given with respect to other tariff items having to do with the woven goods industry.


William Duff: The minister was good enough to tell us how many manufacturers were interested in this industry, the number of men employed, the amount of wages paid, and the value of its production for 1931. I wonder if he would give us the same figures for 1929 as to the number of factories, the amount of production, the number of men employed and the amount paid out for labour.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am sorry I have not those facts here, but I think the figures in each case would be much larger for 1929 than for 1931.


William Duff: The minister says that he has not the figures, but that the amount paid out for labour and the number of men employed would be much larger for 1929 than for 1931.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I would assume so.


William Duff: The minister says he would assume so. A moment ago he was asking for this tariff increase in order to protect this industry and protect the labour employed. Is it not a fact that in 1929 the tariff on these goods was very much lower, and that when that lower tariff was in effect there were more men employed in that industry and more money was paid out for labour?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The answer from my point of view is I think very easy. We are to-day in 1933. If conditions were the same as they were in 1929 there would not be the necessity of asking for this increased' tariff. I think that is the answer, which must be obvious. The conditions throughout the world to-day require different treatment entirely from that which obtained in 1929. My hon. friend says that since then the tariff has been very much increased. That is not so. We had the same tariff until March 21 last on this item as obtained in 1929.


William Duff: March of a year ago, not last March?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes, last March.


William Duff: Then increasing the tariff is not going to help the industry at all because the minister admits that conditions in the industry are due to conditions in Canada, which I contend are due to the policies of this government.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: On account of world conditions.


William Duff: It is world conditions to-day, but in 1930 the minister did not say it wa3 world conditions. I heard several Conservatives speakers in Nova Scotia then say that the conditions were entirely due to Canadian policies. The minister said that a number of these manufacturing industries were in the red. Let me tell him that I have some money in one of these industries, and my experience has been that the higher the tariff the less the dividend, and sometimes no dividend. So far as I am concerned I think it would be much better if they were made to stand on their own feet and had to carry on without being bolstered up by the tariff. The minister will never get them out of the red by increasing the tariff. It will simply mean they will da less business.


Charles A. Stewart: Take thenr off the bottle.


Edward James Young: The minister told me a little while ago that the domestic production was 848,000,000 last year. What was it in 1930 and 1931?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am sorry I have not
those figures here but I shal be glad to get them for my hon. friend. I shall also endeavour to get the figures which my hon. friend from Antigonish-Guysborough asked for.


Edward James Young: Would the minister also
bring down information as to the volume as well as the value?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If that is possible.


Edward James Young: I should be very glad to get the information.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Edward James Young: No, it will not carry tonight. This is one of the worst crimes in the whole category.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Oh, surely it will carry tonight. Otherwise we might as well rise.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Let it stand
and go on with something else.
Item stands.
Customs tariff

571. Carpeting, rugs, mats and matting of straw, hemp, flax tow, jute or paper; carpet lining and stair pads: British preferential tariff, 15 per cent; intermediate tariff, 22i per cent; general tariff, 25 per cent.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
4296	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
Customs tariff-682a. Net floats of aluminum, glass or cork, of a class or kind not made in Canada, for use only in deep sea or lake fishing, not to include floats for sportsmen's use: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I want to move an amendment widening the item, giving free entry to canvas floats as well as glass floats.


Alan Webster Neill: Before the item as amended
passes I would call the minister's attention to the fact that it ought to include the words "sinkers and floats including trawl kegs." A deputation waited upon the minister last year and he assured us that he would keep this in mind when the tariff was adjusted. I have a definite impression-the note I have on it is written by myself, but I certainly got it at the interview-that the minister agreed that sinkers and floats should be exempt from duty under item 682a and promised to keep it in mind for another year. It is the same proposition, and for the same purpose. All that is necessary is to put at the beginning of the item those words: "Sinkers, and floats, including trawl, kegs," and then go on with the words "of aluminum," etc., because then it would apply not only to nets but also to trolling, a very important branch of fishing. The item should read:
Sinkers,- and floats, including trawl kegs of aluminum, glass, cork-
The minister was kind enough to go into it very thoroughly last year, and that was his [DOT]considered opinion at that time. It is all in line with the policy of cheapening the fishermen's means of production.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The item can stand until I look into the matter, but I rise more particularly for the purpose of saying to my hon. friend that if he was under the impression that I gave him any undertaking with respect to what action would be taken concerning an amendment to the tariff, he is entirely in error, because whatever my limitations may be one thing I refrain from doing is to give any intimation as to what amendments will be made to the tariff. All I did was to say that I would give careful thought and consideration to my hon. friend's representations. I may possibly have expressed sympathy with his views, but in no case, either to him or to anyone else, have I said what would be done in respect to a tariff item.


Alan Webster Neill: Certainly not; I was misunderstood if I gave that impression. The words I used in this note are that he promised to keep it in mind for another year. I perhaps put my own interpretation on his geniality and the sympathy he exhibited. I

am satisfied that when he does look into it he will see the force of the contention.
Item stands.
Customs	tariff-756.	Artificial abrasive
grains, crushed or ground, when imported for use in Canadian manufactures: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.


John Vallance: What is this?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It is in the tariff to-day. It admits abrasives in bulk rather than calling for them to come in certain specified forms- abrasives or materials for making emery wheels, carborundum stones, and so on.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-783.	Gasoline and steam
engines, transmission assemblies and parts thereof, magnetos, starting motors, electric generators, propeller shafts, steel chassis frames, brakes, clutches, brake and clutch controls, steel road wheels, steel rims for pneumatic tires, larger than thirty inches by five inches, steering gears and front and rear axles, all of a class or kind not made in Canada, when imported by manufacturers of motor trucks with standard equipment (not for use on railways or tramways), not to include machines or other articles mounted thereon or attached thereto for purposes other than for loading or unloading the truck, for use only in the manufacture of such motor trucks: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 17J per cent; general tariff, 26 per cent.
James Layton Ralston: I notice generally speaking this item is wider in that it is not confined to motor trucks for carriage of goods only. Apparently it now includes all motor trucks without limit as to purpose.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: That is right.


James Layton Ralston: There is just one limitation-"not to include machines or other articles mounted thereon or attached thereto for purposes other than for loading or unloading the truck." I wonder what is in mind in regard to that.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It is merely widening the
item by permitting parts to come in duty free for the use of the motor bus which we have already admitted free by item 438b.


James Layton Ralston: The minister has not
answered my inquiry, which was as to what is referred to in the elimination of machines or other articles mounted thereon or attached thereto for purposes other than for loading or unloading the truck.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I think I can answer the
question by an illustration given to me by the commissioner of taxation. Heretofore if a motor truck were imported and after its importation a concrete mixer were installed upon it, it would be policed and followed to

Questions
the extent of calling for the payment of duty upon the truck equivalent to that imposed upon the concrete mixer, because the purposes for which the truck was imported hitherto were restricted. Under .the new wording, if a concrete mixer were an integral part of the motor truck it could be imported as if it were a portion of ithe truck itself, and therefore be subject only to the lower duty which applies to the truck.


James Layton Ralston: No, it is just the reverse of that.


John Vallance: So anything already
mounted on a motor vehicle would enter free; is that it?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Wednesday, April 26, 1933