1935-05-31

[Stage Direction]
Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster) moved for leave to introduce a bill to amend the Currency Act.
He said: Three changes are contemplated by this bill. The first is to increase the silver content of the silver dollar from -800 to -925, as it formerly was until 1921, I believe. The second change is that silver coins be made legal tender for any amount. At present silver can be refused for payments over S10. The third change is in regard to notes, that notes also be made payable in silver. But the real object sought in the three changes is a further step towards Canada's recognition of silver either as currency or as a base for currency.
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister):: I followed the hon. gentleman with some care, and if the objects sought are as indicated it is not competent for a private member to introduce that legislation. It would impose a further charge upon the revenues of the country for the acquisition of silver to the extent of -925 as against -800.


Mr. SPEAKER:: As the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) raises the question of order-


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: It might be allowed to stand for second reading, and the question be considered by Your Honour.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, it is first reading. The motion might stand until Your Honour has opportunity to look into the point of order.
Motion stands.



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice; for the Minister of Labour) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 79, to amend the Combines Investigation Act.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: This is an amendment to the present law, and is really a transfer of the duties of the office from the minister, now the Minister of Labour, to a commission to be set up under another statute. The chief change is that where the word "minister" occurs the word " commission " is inserted.


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (West Edmonton) :: Are there not some further provisions for strengthening the act?


Hugh Guthrie: There may be some slight amendments. There are other bills dealing with the matter, and this bill will not be proceeded with further until the other bill is brought to the house.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



REGULATION OF WHALING

[Stage Direction]
On the order, government notices of motion:
Richard Bedford Bennett: In order that all the members of the house may have opportunity to consider this resolution I shall not move it until Monday, as the Senate will not be sitting until Tuesday. We can deal with it Monday and it can then go to the other chamber.
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): Is this resolution concerning whales also directed against sharks?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not think it has any application to the hon. member for Temis-couata.



NATURALIZATION PAPERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. C. H. CAHAN (Secretary of State):: The hon. member for South Battleford (Mr. Vallance) recently passed across the floor of the house to me three letters which had been sent out by the proper officials of the Department of the Secretary of State dealing with naturalization, asking why information had been required as to whether, in each case, the applicant had become established in Canada and was permanently employed.
The granting of naturalization by the Secretary of State is a matter entirely within his discretion and therefore inquiry has to be made to ascertain whether the applicant has properly entered Canada-"landed," as the term is-and as to his character and qualifications for naturalization. There are now pending in the department, owing I think to the imminence of a general election, some eight or nine thousands new applications, and it takes considerable time to make inquiry in each case. In respect of these three applicants, whose names I will not mention, each is a citizen of Jugoslavia, and each has been properly landed in Canada. But we have received frequent protests from one end of this country to the other against granting naturalization certificates to applicants who

Interest Act Amendment
are not established in the country and who for the time being are on city or municipal relief. Therefore in order to ascertain the facts in each case a letter was written, and these are the letters handed to me by the hon. member for South Battleford. One of these citizens of Jugoslavia arrived in July of 1927 and, according to the reports in the possession of the department, he is now on city relief. The grant of a naturalization certificate has been held in abeyance until we receive evidence that he is permanently established in the country. The second arrived in July, 1929, and the facts before us establish that he has been on city relief since December, 1930. The third arrived in Canada in March, 1927, and the facts as represented to us are that he has been on relief since July 1931.
Under those circumstances I think it was perfectly proper for the officials while holding these applications in abeyance, though not refusing them, to write the applicants to ascertain whether since the date of the applications, when they were on relief, they have been able to establish themselves permanently so as to maintain themselves in this country. Though I did not know of these particular letters I take full responsibility for the action of the officials of the department in writing them.



FREDERICTON, N.B., WHARF

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hugh Guthrie: On May 23, during a discussion of the public works bill, the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Veniot) requested information as to what lawyer was retained in regard to the transfer of a wharf at Fredericton, New Brunswick, and I promised to ascertain the name and let him know. I now beg to inform him that Mr. Cnarles L. Dougherty of Fredericton acted on behalf of the government on that occasion.



BRITISH IMPORTS FROM CANADA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): On May 23, at page 2997 of Hansard, a question of mine with regard to British imports of Canadian products was answered. The first paragraph of the question was:
Were and are there any quotas affecting British imports of Canadian products?
The answer given mentioned only bacon and hams and oats and oat products. May I ask the government if no other 'Canadian products have been affected by quotas since
1930, and when I ask that question I have particular reference to wheat. My second question is this:	Since Mr. McFarland has
been ill has Mr. Cutten, formerly of the Chicago grain exchange had anything to do with the wheat or grain business in Canada in any way, shape or form?
Richard Bedford Bennett: So far as the first question asked by
the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) is concerned the answer is no; there has been no quota of any kind, shape, form or description suggested with respect to wheat imported into Great Britain.
The answer to the second question is also no. The name of Mr. Cutten, used in the sense in which my hon. friend has just used it, is -entirely new to me. I know of no relationship in any shape or form that Mr. Cutten has with the business of the marketing of wheat controlled by the pool, with respect to which the government has an interest. I do not know anything about his private business. Now that the hon. member has mentioned Mr. Cutten's name I think at one time he was a member of the Winnipeg grain exchange. I do not know whether or not he is still a member of that exchange but I do recall having seen his name among the names of the members of the exchange.
INTEREST ACT AMENDMENT On the orders of the day:


Mr. G. G. COOTE (Macleod):: My bill
to amend the Interest Act, which was introduced some time ago, has been before the banking committee for a considerable period. I am informed that the chairman of the banking committee is in England, and I wonder if the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) would be good enough to arrange to have the committee meet and appoint an acting chairman so that this bill and any other business to be dealt with by the committee may be proceeded with in the absence of the chairman.


Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance):: I shall make inquiry. I have been advised that the chairman is on his way back to Canada now, but in any event arrangements will be made for the sittings of the committee.
PENSIONS FOR THE BLIND On the orders of the day:


Mr. A. A. HEAPS (North Winnipeg):: I should like to ask the chairman of the committee on industrial and. international relations when the committee will meet to con-

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
sider the resolution submitted to it some few *weeks ago in relation to pensions for the blind.


Mr. F. W. TURNBULL (Regina):: The meeting of the committee on industrial and international relations was announced two or three days ago in the votes and proceedings. It has been called for Tuesday, June 4.



OFFICIAL RECEIVERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. L. BEAUBIEN (Provencher):: I
should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes). Has the department issued instructions to the official receivers under the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act to go about the country holding meetings and speaking to the farmers in regard to the debt adjustment act?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am aware of no such specific instructions, but I will make inquiry and advise my hon. friend at the next sitting.



WAYS AND MEANS


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. Morand in the chair.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, if it is agreeable I should like to proceed with the tariff items contained in the tariff schedule as it appears in votes and proceedings of March 22. We will begin with item No. 28.
Customs tariff-28. Coffee, green, imported direct from the country of growth and production, or purchased in bond in the United Kingdom, per pound:	British preferential
tariff, free:	intermediate tariff, 3 cents;
general tariff, 3 cents.
Provided, that coffee, green, shall be entitled to entry under the British preferential tariff upon evidence satisfactory to the minister that such coffee has been produced wholly in the British dominions, colonies or possessions, and not otherwise.


Mr. YOUNG:: What is the change?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The only change is to
make the provision with respect to empire content in coffee the same as it has been for years with respect to tea.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-28a, agreed to.
Customs tariff-39, agreed to.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have an amendment to
move with respect to which references have been made from time to time, and which comes as a result of findings of the tariff board. My colleague will move the following:

I beg to move that schedule A to the customs tariff, as amended by resolution No. 5 of March 22, 1935, be further amended by inserting therein the following item, enumeration and rates of duty:
39d-Rosin sizing: British preferential tariff,
5 per cent; intermediate tariff, 7J per cent; general tariff, 10 per cent.
This is to preserve the status quo with respect to this commodity, in the event of action being taken.


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: I move accordingly.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-65a, agreed to.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Before proceeding with
item 99c I wish to move an additional item 66a, as a result of a finding of the tariff board, reference No. 13, with respect to biscuits. I shall file the report when the committee rises. Meantime it is available to any hon. member. My amendment is:
I beg to move that schedule A to the customs tariff, as amended by resolution No. 5 of March 22, 1935, be further amended by inserting therein the following item, enumeration and rates of duty:
66a-Biscuits, sweetened or unsweetened, valued' at not less than 20 cents per pound wholesale f.o.b. any port in the United Kingdom, said1 value to be based on the net weight and to include the value of the usual retail package:	British preferential tariff,
free; intermediate tariff, 30 per cent; general tariff, 30 per cent.
The only change is that the British preferential rate which hitherto stood at 20 per cent is now made free.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: I move accordingly.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-99c, agreed to.
Customs tariff-101b. Oranges, the produce of Palestine (when imported direct from the country of growth and production or from a country entitled to the benefits of the British preferential tariff) during the months of January, February, March and April: general tariff, free.
Mr. LUCAS:: Would the minister please
explain why this in included. It is free-under all categories?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The change is for this
reason. Hitherto oranges from Palestine had to come direct. This amendment will permit them to come via all British ports. As a matter of fact they are trans-shipped to London, and this will permit them to maintain their position, although they come via London rather than by direct shipment.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-156. Ethyl alcohol, or the substance commonly known as alcohol, hydrated oxide of ethyl or spirits of wine, n.o.p.; gin

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
of all kinds, n.o.p.; whisky and' all spirituous or alcoholic liquors, n.o.p.; amyl alcohol or fusel oil, or any substance known as potato spirits or potato oil; methyl alcohol, wood alcohol, wood naphtha, pyroxylic spirit or any substance known as wood spirit or methylated spirits, absinthe, arrack or palm spirit, brandy, including artificial brandy and imitations of brandy, n.o.p.; cordials liqueurs of all kinds, n.o.p.; mescal, pulque, rum shrub, schiedam and other schnapps; tafia, angostura and similar alcoholic bitters or beverages; and wines, n.o.p., containing more than forty per cent of wood spirit, per gallon of the strength of proof: British preferential tariff, $5; intermediate tariff, $10; general tariff, $10.
Provided, as to all goods specified in item No. 156 when of less strength than the strength of proof, that no reduction or allowance shall be made in the measurement thereof for duty purposes, below the strength of 15 per cent under proof.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The only change is that made in connection with rates.


Mr. RALSTON:: I understand this is simply complementary to the change in the excise rate. The change in the British preference on spirituous liquors is complementary to the change in the excise rate.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: 
[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-156a agreed to.
Customs tariff-159 agreed to.
Customs tariff-164.	(a) Wines of the fresh
grape of all kinds, except sparkling wines, imported in barrels or in bottles, containing less than 35 per cent proof spirit, when the produce of Australia, New Zealand or the Union of South Africa, per gallon: British preferential tariff, 25 cents.
(b) Wines of all kinds, except sparkling wines, imported in barrels or in bottles, containing 35 per cent, or over, but not more than 40 per cent proof spirit, when the produce of Australia, New Zealand or the Union of South Africa, per gallon: British preferential tariff, 55 cents.
Provided that six quart bottles or twelve pint bottles be held to contain a gallon for duty purposes under this item.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I beg to move that the rates of duty, under the British preferential tariff, set opposite sub-items (a) and (b) of tariff item 164, as contained in resolution No. 5 of March 22, 1935, be amended to read as follows:
Item 164.	(a) British preferential tariff,
20 cents; (b) British preferential tariff, 40 cents.
The previous rates were 25 cents and 55 cents. These rates were reduced as a result of the South African treaty by order in council and this motion is intended to have them corrected in the tariff schedule.


James Layton Ralston: Was that order in council passed since the budget speech?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Since the preparation ot
the budget yes.


James Layton Ralston: I understand that Austrar lia and New Zealand are included specifically and such was not the case before?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Item as amended agreed to.
Customs tariff-169.	Books, viz.: Novels,
or works of fiction, or literature of a similar character, unbound or paper bound or in sheets, but not to include Christmas annuals, or publications commonly known as juvenile and toy books: Bi'itish preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 22J per cent; general tariff, 25 per cent.
James Layton Ralston: I understand the incidence of this item will be to permit the freer import of books from France. As I understand it there are more books published unbound in that country than in Great Britain but on looking at the schedule this would not seem

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
to work out. As I see it, all that has happened is a reduction of the British preferential tariff.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Under the French treaty
France has the British preferential rate.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-178c agreed to.
Customs tariff-180c agreed to.
Customs tariff-187a agreed to.
Customs tariff-198b agreed to.
Customs tariff-199d.	Cigarette papers,
gummed or not, in tubes, booklets or packets: British preferential tariff, 174 per cent; intermediate tariff, 32J per cent; general tariff, 35 per cent.
James Layton Ralston: I understand that items
197c, 198b and 199d are all French treaty items?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Quite right.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-199e agreed to.
Customs tariff-208a agreed to.
Customs tariff-232e agreed to.
Customs tariff-242 agreed to.
Customs tariff-247a. Artists' and school children's colours, n.o.p., in tubes, cakes, pans and pastels, for painting in oils, water colours or pastels, under regulations prescribed by the minister: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 274 per cent; general tariff, 30 per cent.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I beg to move that item 247a, as contained in resolution number 5 of March 22, 1935, be amended to read as follows:
247a. Artists' and school children's colours, n.o.p., in tubes, cakes, pans, and vials, and fitted boxes containing the same; artists' brushes; pastels, of a value of one cent per stick, or over; all the foregoing for painting in oils, water colours or pastels; artists' canvas, coated and prepared for oil painting: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 27i per cent; general tariff, 30 per cent.


James Layton Ralston: That is to include brushes which were not in the previous item?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: We have included brushes and artists' canvas.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Item as amended agreed to.
Customs tariff-255 agreed to.
Customs tariff-281a. Fire brick, n.o.p., for use exclusively in the construction or repair of a furnace, kiln, or other equipment of a manufacturing establishment:	British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 124 per cent; general tariff, 15 per cent.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I beg to move that item 281a be amended to read as follows:
281a. Fire brick, n.o.p. of a class or kind not made in Canada, for use exclusively in the construction or repair of a furnace, kiln or other equipment of a manufacturing establishment:	British preferential tariff, free;
intermediate tariff, 12J per cent; general tariff, 15 per cent.
I am pleased to say that the British have concurred in the wording of this item.


James Layton Ralston: I am afraid that that will take away some of the enthusiasm with which some of us greeted the number of reduced items in the budget of my hon. friend. My hon. friend knows that the moment you put in the phrase, "of a class or kind not made in Canada" you are asking for a repetition of the tin plate controversy. The question will arise as to whether the making of 1,000 bricks in Canada will be sufficient to bring a certain brick within this phrase and deprive it of the benefit of the reduction. Are fire bricks made in Canada in very large quantities and will the change in this item result in a large importation of Scotch fire brick?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The situation which arose in connection with tin plate will not arise in this instance as there is already a fire brick industry in Canada. The object of the amendment is to admit a particular type of Scotch fire brick used in the lining of metallurgical furnaces. This brick is not produced in Canada and probably will not be produced in this country. The object as disclosed in the tariff will have been accomplished, but by adopting this amendment we protect the existing business with respect to a class of brick which is made in Canada and has been for many years, brick of an ordinary type, not of the type we had particularly in mind when the original tariff item was brought down. I think the best evidence of the fact that it will not work an injustice is found in the circumstance that the British government have concurred in the amended wording.


James Layton Ralston: I did not listen to the amendment as closely as I should have. May I ask does the amended item still only apply to brick for use exclusively in manufacturing establishments?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes. It was not changed in any respect other than to include the words, "of a class or kind not made in Canada."


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Has this reference to the complaint I brought to the minister's attention in regard to Clayburn brick?	.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It meets the situation with which my hon. friend is familiar, that of the Clayburn brick.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I want to thank the minister.


Charles A. Stewart: This is an important item particularly for the mining industry. I was rather pleased to note that brick was coming in free from England, but I am bound to say that I think this amendment will put a stop to the importation of that brick. The minister says there is one industry in Canada but that it is not manufacturing brick used for lining purposes. He will find the very same objection will be raised despite the fact that the British exporter has raised no objection, as the minister says. Personally I never could understand why the freight rate from Great Britain to Canada and across Canada to the place of use was not sufficient protection for an industry.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My hon. friend will bear in mind that prior to the amended item the brick he has in mind was subjected to a duty of ten per cent under the British preference, and they are now made free. I think the fears of my hon. friend are not well founded. I have some little knowledge of the metallurgical industry, and the type of fire brick used in the lining of furnaces for melting such commodities as copper, nickel and other metals has to stand a very intense degree of heat and it requires a class of brick which is not made in Canada. That brick will now come in duty free. It is essentially a product peculiar to Scotland, but the amendment including the words "of a class or kind not made in Canada" will protect brick which is manufactured in Canada for use in certain industries where the qualities of the brick required are not of the type to which I have referred. It will be a distinct concession to the metallurgical industry which uses this type of Scotch brick, and on the other hand it will permit those Canadian industries which produce in Canada brick which is suitable for purposes other than those for which the Scotch type of brick is used to continue to hold their market.


James Layton Ralston: If it had not been for the tinplate case I would not have thought very much of this phrase "of a class or kind not made in Canada," but this phrase as a result of and arising out of that tinplate case was so construed as to make it a delusion and a snare to those who are looking for reductions in tariffs. When you find a clause like this invoked to impose the higher rate
because say five per cent of the total consumption in Canada happens to be manufactured in Canada, making it permissible by reason of this clause to impose a duty on the other ninety or ninety-five per cent, then it seems to me that we have a right to be concerned about the insertion of a clause like that in a tariff item. I accept my hon. friend's assurance to the full in this particular case. There is an industry I understand in Canada which does make a substantial amount of fire brick. But that phrase, "of a class or kind not made in Canada" does not give nearly the assurance it used to before the tinplate case came up. I think possibly the department-it is not my hon. friend's department but the Department of National Revenue-may have learned a lesson and may have realized from that case that they cannot make rulings of that kind unless a large percentage of the product is manufactured in Canada, but I would want to be assured of that before I gave very enthusiastic support to the insertion of a rider of this kind.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, I am
advised by the technical officers of the department that this brick is of a type which is very easily identified. For example, they have a silicon brick, a black magnesite brick, a carbide brick, and so forth, all of which types are well defined and well known and easily identified and cannot possibly be confused with clay brick. Furthermore I am informed that by far the larger part of the brick used in the metallurgical industry is of this type, which will now come in duty free, and that the clay brick which we are protecting represents I believe something like ten per cent of the total quantity of brick used in the metallurgical industry of Canada. For these reasons I say with all deference that I feel quite sure the fears of my hon. friend from Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston) and of my hon. friend from West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart) will be found to be not well founded.


Charles A. Stewart: I do not
like that phrase, "of a class or kind not made in Canada."


Mr. REID:: The minister must admit that bricks are coming in under the name of fire brick, and that the Clayburn brick is identical in appearance, shape and name with the Scotch brick from Glenboig.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-326, agreed to.
Customs tariff-326b, agreed to
[Stage Direction]
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
Customs tariff-380. Toilet Articles, (d) With cheques', diamond or other raised pattern on contact surface: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, $8; general tariff, $8.
James Layton Ralston: Is this also an item to
which the phrase "of a class or kind not made in Canada applies"?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: No, Mr. Chairman.


James Layton Ralston: This particular commodity is not made in Canada?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am advised that it is
not made in Canada. My hon. friend will observe that we do not make any provision of that kind here.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-384, agreed to.
Customs tariff-386 (k), agreed to.
Customs tariff-386 (r). Strip, cold rolled, when imported by manufacturers of pipes and tubes, for use exclusively in the manufacture of pipes and tubes, in their own factories, under regulations prescribed by the minister: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 5 per cent; general tariff, 5 per cent.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have an amendment,
Mr. Chairman, to move to this item. I beg to move that item 386 (r), as contained in resolution No. 5 of March 22, 1935, be amended to read as follows:
Sheets or strip, cold rolled, when imported by manufacturers of pipes and tubes, for use exclusively in the manufacture of pipes and tubes in their own factories, under the regulations prescribed by the minister: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 5 per cent; general tariff, 5 per cent.


Hugh Guthrie: I move accordingly, Mr. Chairman.


James Layton Ralston: And you leave out skelp?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes. There is no such
thing as cold rolled skelp, I am advised by the tariff board.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Item as amended agreed to.
Customs tariff-388, agreed to.
Customs tariff-388 (b). Iron or steel angles, beams, channels, columns, girders, joists, tees, zees and other shapes or sections, not punched, drilled or further manufactured than hot rolled, n.o.p.; piling of iron or steel, not punched or drilled, including interlocking sections, if any, used therewith, n.o.p., per ton: British preferential tariff, $4; intermediate tariff, $7; general tariff, $7.
James Layton Ralston: Piling of iron or steel,
not punched or drilled, previous to this item was dutiable when coming from Great Britain?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes. The rates were 25
per cent, 35 per cent and 40 per cent.


James Layton Ralston: And now 25 per cent
comes off.


James Layton Ralston: And in the item before,
twenty-five per cent comes off?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-390c, agreed to.
Customs tariff-401, agreed to.
Customs tariff-402c. Wire of iron or steel, coated with zinc or spelter, curved or not, in coils, not more than -144 inch and not less than '080 inch in diameter, with tolerance not to exceed -004 inch, when imported by manufacturers of barbed fencing wire or of wire fencing for use exclusively in the manufacture of barbed fencing wire or of wire fencing, in their own factories: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 10 per cent; general tariff, 10 per cent.
Charles A. Stewart: The duty
on wire fencing remains the same. This is for the use of manufacturers, and the completed article still carries the 10 per cent?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: There was an anomaly in the tariff prior to this, inasmuch as the fence came from England duty free and yet there was 10 per cent duty on the wire going into the manufacture of the fence. Now the fence is free and the wire will be free.


Charles A. Stewart: I am not
quite clear about that. Under the conference item there was a duty of 10 per cent on manufactured barbed wire?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: This is not barbed wire
but plain wire.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-407, agreed to.
Customs tariff-407a, agreed to.
Customs tariff-410o, agreed to.
Customs tariff-413a. Machinery, of a class or kind not manufactured in Canada, and complete parts thereof, for use in the manufacture of nets or netting for the fisheries, when imported by manufacturers for use exclusively in the making of such nets or netting, in their own factories, but not for use in making nets or netting commonly used for sportsmen's purposes: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 5 per cent; general tariff, 10 per cent.
Mr. NEILL:: What change is there?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The only change in this
item is in the wording and consists in the insertion of "complete parts thereof."


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
Customs tariff-i24. Fire engines and other fire extinguishing machines and complete parts thereof:	British preferential tariff, 10 per
cent; intermediate tariff, 30 per cent; general tariff, 35 per cent.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have an amendment to
move:
Fire engines and other fire extinguishing machines and chassis for same, complete parts of the foregoing, n.o.p.
It is largely a question of wording.


James Layton Ralston: Is there any other item that covers fire engines at all?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: No.


James Layton Ralston: To what does the n.o.p. in the amendment refer? Where might it be otherwise provided?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am advised by the commissioner of tariffs that the words n.o.p. have been inserted for the purpose of ensuring that we do not inadvertently raise the rate upon parts that may already come in under other items of the tariff.


James Layton Ralston: The n.o.p. would apply to the whole item?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes.


George Gibson Coote: What is meant by complete
parts?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am advised by the
technical officers that the term, which has been in use for many years, means that the part itself shall be a complete entity and adaptable as a part to the machine for which it is intended to be used and shall not be a part which might be utilized in the construction of some other machine or attached to some other piece of machinery for some other purpose.


George Gibson Coote: There might be two parts to a certain gear on a machine. I do not see how anyone outside the department could tell whether the department would regard the piece being imported as a complete or an incomplete part.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I would not dare attempt to enter into a detailed definition of what constitutes a complete part, but it is a question of administration and the construction which the department, shall place upon the words "complete parts." It has been administered for fifty years and involves hundreds of items, but the explanation I originally gave is the one passed on to me by the officials. It is the only explanation I can give. It is merely designed to ensure that the part shall be for the purpose intended, namely, to be used in connection with the particular type of machine
and not to come in, under the guise of a part for that particular machine, to be used for other purposes.


George Gibson Coote: Would a bearing for a wheel on a fire fighting machine be a complete part or not? Occasionally we have complaints from people throughout the country in regard to what they consider are arbitrary rulings cf the customs department and they cannot fit them in with the Customs Act as they read it. I thought we might get an explanation from the minister as to precisely what is meant.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am afraid I cannot give any additional information.


Edward James Young: I understand that the interpretation heretofore given to "complete part" was a part .ready to -be put on and needing no further processing. The department, however, has lately put on a new interpretation, thereby shutting out parts that should continue to come in under the lower rates.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My attention has not been directed to any change in the method of administration by the department. They administer as many as a hundred items a day, dealing with parts, but so far as I am aware there has been no change in the method of administration.


Edward James Young: The member for Lisgar is not in his place, but he has in his possession at the present time a complaint that a wheel is denied entrance to the country because a certain gear which ordinarily would be attached is not on it. It would appear to me that the wheel is a complete part.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: That may be true, but it
does not follow that it is a new method of interpretation. I have no doubt that the decision in the individual case is in conformity with the practice of the department running over a period of years. But if my hon. friend has any instance in mind, and if he will be good enough to let me have particulars, I will see that inquiry is made to confirm my belief that the method of administration has not been changed.


Mr. GERSHAW:: Can the minister give
any further definition of the word machinery; does it just apply to moving parts, or would it include such things as filters and evaporators and diffusers and apparatus of that kind which might be used in a factory?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My information is that
the customs now and always have interpreted the word machinery to mean something having moving parts, not something fixed.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
Customs tariff-424a, agreed to.
Customs tariff-427d, agreed to.
Customs tariff-428e, agreed to.
Customs tariff-428f, agreed to.
Customs tariff-434, agreed to.
Customs tariff-434a, agreed to.
Customs tariff-434b, agreed to.
Customs tariff-435, agreed to.
Customs tariff-438f, agreed to.
Customs tariff-4401. Aircraft and complete parts thereof, not including engines, under regulations prescribed by the minister: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 25 per cent; general tariff, 27J per cent.
George Gibson Coote: Are there any aircraft manufacturers in Canada?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I believe there have been a few but in the main it is an assembling proposition as far as Canada is concerned.


George Gibson Coote: I would like to make a plea to the minister to take the duty off aircraft under all tariffs.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: That is what we are doing here.


George Gibson Coote: Only on machines imported
from England.


James Layton Ralston: And under regulation.


George Gibson Coote: I have been told by men
who I think are practical Canadian airmen, who served in the air force, that machines of the type best adapted for air service in Canada are now made largely in the United States, not in England. I think that the air service of Canada is being handicapped foy the present tariff regulations. I cannot see that we have any worthwhile aircraft industry in Canada that we are assisting. We have only a few assembling plants, that are locked up most of the time; when they get an order I am told they open up and the workmen are put to work for a few days or weeks assembling parts, but those who want to use these machines in Canada are paying greatly enhanced prices because of that. I do not think there are many machines imported from England, unless by the Department of National Defence. I do not know whether they pay the duty or not, perhaps the minister would be good enough to tell us. It might be wise to refer to the tariff board the question whether aircraft and parts should not be put on t*he free list all across the board. It does not seem wise to penalize the air service in Canada, particularly at this time, by the comparatively heavy duty that exists against ma-

chines imported from the United States. It is machines of the type made in the United States that are best adapted for most of the work for which airplanes are required in Canada. I hope the minister will consider referring this matter to the tariff board, to ascertain whether or not it would be wise to remove the tariff altogether.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: In the first place may I observe that there have been no increases or decreases in the general tariff in this budget, for reasons which I indicated at the time, and which will be apparent to all hon. members. It will be observed also that we are now making aircraft from Great Britain free, which hitherto have been subject to duty. To that extent we are giving a preference to Great Britain. I do not profess myself as competent to express an opinion as to the relative merits of British aircraft as contrasted with those coming from other countries, but I should be greatly surprised if Great Britain with her experience in engineering as well as in the use of aircraft is not in a position to compete with any country in the world. If she is not able to do so at the moment I have no doubt she will soon place herself in a position to do so. It may be that there are certain types of aircraft peculiarly adapted to the conditions on the North American continent which would call for certain qualities which perhaps might not be so essential for aircraft used on the continent of Europe. That may be so, but if it is I have no doubt in the world that with the opportunity of free entry to the Canadian market Great Britain will adapt herself in the matter of aircraft to the requirements of that market. There are two types of machines, the De Havilland and Bristol, of British manufacture, which I am told by airmen are eminently satisfactory machines, the equal of any in their class in the world.
My hon. friend asked whether aircraft used for government service are subject to duty. They are, the government pay duty the same as anyone else.
I do not think I can usefully add anything more. Perhaps later the question of the free entry of aircraft under both the intermediate and general tariff might be a proper subject of discussion. But in the meantime I submit that we have gone a very long distance in making them free from the mother country, giving Great Britain an opportunity to share to a greater degree in this marke.t


Charles A. Stewart: May I ask why the engines are excluded?

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: They are in a separate item.


Charles A. Stewart: Are they free also?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes.


George Gibson Coote: I would like to say this further word. I do not doubt that manufacturers in England can make just as good a machine as is made anywhere in the world. I am only passing on to the minister representations made to me by two men, one who served for years in the Canadian air force, and is now in private service, and the other in private service. They said that the type of machine which is most in use in Canada is more readily available in the United States than in England. That is, there is a certain type of passenger and freight business in Canada similar to the business in the United States, and the machines suitable for that are somewhat different from those usually made in England, on account of economic and business conditions, the length of the trips they have to make and the character of the freight that they usually carry. The other point is in regard to the difficulty of securing repairs for an English machine. For an American machine, repair parts are always available somewhere on the continent at least, not farther away than New York or Chicago. With an English machine, if a certain repair part which is not often called for is required a plane might be held up for a couple of weeks before that repair part could be obtained. Evidently we cannot expect to build up an airplane industry in Canada. If that is the case, now when the air service is having a very hard time carrying on-and this service is something we should encourage in Canada-I certainly think it would be wise at least to have the tariff board make a very careful inquiry into the situation so that we might have the benefit of all the technical knowledge that would be available to that board, which of course is not available to us.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My hon. friend has placed his finger upon a difficulty which is not confined to the aircraft industry but is experienced by people in Great Britain who desire to compete in the Canadian market. I think one of the reasons, perhaps the predominant reason why Canadian consumers show a preference for United States products, is the circumstance that they can secure repair parts and quick delivery, and that has been the handicap which hitherto has prevented Great Britain from utilizing as large a share of this market as the tariff conditions would warrant. But I am happy to say that there
is a changed attitude on the part of the people in Great Britain; they realize that if they are to occupy this market to which free entry is offered by the tariff they must provide for service. I think my hon. friend will find that the British aircraft manufacturers are making preparations, and that the preparations are well under way, to provide for service in Canada and to eliminate to a very large degree the difficulty of which my hon. friend has spoken.
I will not enter into the larger question of the adverse balance of trade as between the United States and Canada or the adverse balance the other way as between ourselves and the mother country, but that is a point of which we must not lose sight in dealing with the question of the tariff.


George Gibson Coote: I wonder if the minister
has the figures showing the number of aeroplanes imported during the last two or three years and the countries from which they came, together with the value. I should like those figures if they are available; if not I can get them later on.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have not the figures for
a number of years; I have them for the last fiscal year. Our total imports amounted to $161,000, of which $135,897 came from the United States, $22,793 from the United Kingdom and $2,936 from Germany.


George Gibson Coote: Has the minister the number of machines as well as the value?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: No, I regret to say that
the machines are not segregated, but that is the total value of the aircraft and parts imported.


Mr. HOWDBN:: I should like to ask the
minister as to the position of the department with regard to the importation of second hand aircraft, and a case in point will illustrate what I mean. A friend of mine who carries on a trapping business has difficulty in getting in his supplies and getting out his furs, and he hires aircraft to bring in the one and take out the other. I understood from him that he could buy what I might call a first class second hand machine for about $600 or $700 While the cost of a new machine would be something like $4,000 or $4,500. That is why I rise to ask this question as to the position of the department in that regard. It may be that second hand aircraft are not permitted to enter the country at all, but I should like to know definitely.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I need not direct the
attention of my hon. friend from St. Boni-

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
face and of the committee to the difficulty we in Canada would experience in this regard, that we would become a dumping ground for crippled and broken down second hand aircraft to a tremendous extent if we allowed them to come into Canada at all. Not only would we be subjecting the lives of our airmen and mechanics to the dangers incident to rattletrap second hand machines; we would also be exposing to danger the lives and property of the inhabitants of the country. No one can tell me that a second hand machine is as good as a new machine. In certain instances a reconditioned machine may be in very good shape but who is to draw the line as to how far one might go in saying that a machine is reconditioned to the point where it is safe to use? I can only speak from my own experience as a motorist. I can say that the rattletrap second, third, fourth and fifth hand motor cars that one meets on the highways these days are a menace to life and limb.


Edward James Young: But they are Canadian made.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I do not care where they are made; we are discussing the question of second hand machines, that is all. That is the main reason why we prohibit the entry of second hand machines into Canada. We do not want to become a dumping ground for broken down machines from other countries.


John Power Howden: I quite appreciate what the minister has said, but here is a particular case in point. This man is employing these machines, which are owned by some United States firm, to bring in his supplies and take out his furs. Evidently it is one of these very machines, which apparently is giving very good satisfaction, that he could procure. Apparently, however, it is quite impossible to bring one of these machines into the country. The man would be quite satisfied to purchase this machine if he had the opportunity to do so, and since it would be his own neck that he would be breaking I suppose it would be largely his own business.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: That is not the trend of the times to-day as far as governmental activity is concerned; the idea is to protect the citizen against himself. I may say, however, that there is nothing to prevent anyone from importing a machine from Great Britain duty free, though we do draw the line at the importation of second hand machines from any quarter.


Mr. MARCIL:: Does that apply to second hand motor cars also?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes, it does.


Charles Marcil: From both England and
the United States?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes.


Edward James Young: If it is the duty of the government to protect us from breaking our necks in second hand United States machines would it not be equally the duty of the government to protect us from breaking our necks in second hand Canadian and British machines? I cannot see the distinction.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am not saying there should be a distinction. A man purchases a new machine to-day; to-morrow it is second hand. But he has purchased a new machine; he does not import a machine that has been used by somebody else, that is second hand when he purchases it in the first instance. I would not want to enter into the realm of logic, even if I were capable of doing so, with my hon. friend from Weybum, because I am sure I would be lost in a maze in a very short time. I may point out to him, however, that we do prohibit the importation of second hand machines whether they come from Great Britain or any other country.


Charles Marcil: The automobile is under provincial jurisdiction; it must carry a provincial licence and must be inspected by provincial officers and so on.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes, but they cannot get into Canada without federal authority.


Charles Marcil: Once they are on the highway, however, they are under provincial control.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend the minister has made a very serious reflection on a number of members of parliament this afternoon in connection with these second hand motor cars. I am driving a seven year old car myself; I imagine there are some other members sitting around my hon. friend who are doing the same thing, and we do not think we are endangering the lives of citizens. However, we will forgive the minister for that statement. I rose to ask the minister to what the regulations will apply which are referred to in this item. My hon. friend will note that the provisions of this item apply under regulations to be made by the minister.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: May I say to my hon.
friend that I am in precisely his class in regard to motor cars; this will be the seventh year for my car also, but it is still in a fair state of preservation. I had reference to cars much more dilapidated than one I happen to drive now, and I am sure much more dilapi-

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
dated than the one driven by the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth. These regulations have reference to the circumstance that the importation of air craft is in itself a peculiar procedure. They do not come in by rail or by boat, but in many cases fly in. Those craft must come in under certain regulations as to where they shall land, to what inspection they shall be subjected, to wThom they shall report, customs inspection and so on. That is the point to which the regulations will have reference.


James Layton Ralston: It has not to do with the rate?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: No, nothing at all.


James Layton Ralston: Or does not permit the
exclusion of certain aircraft?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: No.


Mr. POULIOT:: What was the revenue
derived from this ten per cent from the time it was imposed until to-day?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have not the information before me, but I could get it from the Department of National Revenue.


Jean-François Pouliot: I suppose if the duty is
removed there will be no more money available for petty dredging around minister's property?


George Gibson Coote: Could the minister tell us
the number and value of aeroplanes made in Canada during 1934. He gave us statistics about importations.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The last information in that connection is for 1932. It shows that aeroplanes and hydroplanes manufactured in Canada were valued at 8128,000 and parts and supplies at S138,000. That is the last information I have, but I assume there must be information later than that which I hAve not before me.


George Gibson Coote: I have only a final word to
say regarding the duty on aeroplanes. In Canada we have a great deal of territory in which there are no railways or motor roads; I refer to that part of Canada sometimes known as the great north. The planes being used to open that country must carry large quantities of supplies. In many instances they are really freight vehicles. I wish to repeat what has been said to the minister-and I do not claim to know anything more than what I have been told-that aeroplanes which can be bought in the United States are much better adapted to the kind of work I have mentioned than any planes available in England. I was quite interested in the statements made concerning automobiles. The tariff on 92582-202
aeroplanes in my view corresponds closely to that on automobiles. I understand that automobiles may enter free from England, but that fact does not seem to hinder the price of automobiles from being unduly high in Canada. Surely those prices must be much too high when we find ministers and ex-ministers driving cars seven years old. Many of the rest of us are driving old cars, too,-but that only serves to indicate the situation.
If we do not do something about the matter of reducing tariffs on aeroplanes we will be building up in Canada an aeroplane industry, something which I suggest we cannot afford. I am sure we cannot afford a motor industry, and I have heard that men in high places have recently made the same statement. We have built up an industry, and now we do not know what to do about it. It is too expensive to keep up, and we cannot olose it up without a lot of trouble. So far as automobiles are concerned the result is quite apparent. When I was home recently a man in my constituency told me he paid SI,430 for a six cylinder Studebaker Dictator, with a built in trunk. When he was in Kalispell, Montana, immediately south of us, he saw a similar car priced at $974, indicating a difference of S456 or 47 per cent. I give the minister the facts as they are handed to me.
I suggest that eventually we will build up in Canada the same situation in regard to aeroplanes as now obtains in connection with automobiles. Now is the time to deal with the question, before too many assembling plants have been set up. If one wishes to buy a Belanca plane, one very popular in the United States, one must buy it through the Belanca corporation in Montreal. I know of one man who wrote this corporation in the United States asking for prices on their machines at factories in that country, but he did not receive even a reply to his letter. He wrote the same company in Montreal and received a very prompt reply giving the prices.


An hon. MEMBER:: How much.


George Gibson Coote: I have not the letter before me; it is upstairs. I did not expect to have an opportunity to discuss the matter. I am deeply interested in air service for Canada. Flying in this country has a great future and I suggest all these artificial handicaps should be removed. Undoubtedly the opening up of the north country depends upon aeroplane service. That is the only sensible way of opening up the countiy, and I suggest we should make the aeroplane available as cheaply as possible to those people who wish to go in to develop the country. I believe we would be paying a tremendous price for

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
the small amount of good we would do English manufacturers by leaving the tariff as it is now. To use an old expression we would be paying through the nose. From a national standpoint I would suggest it would not pay us to maintain this tariff, something which eventually would build up a sort of baby aeroplane industry in Canada, an industry which would have to be babied for years to come. I should like to see the matter tackled now before developments have gone too far. Certainly I have no desire to delay passage of these items, but I have brought the matter to the minister's attention simply to impress upon him its importance. I do not believe it would do any harm to have the tariff board examine into the whole matter.


James Layton Ralston: I have only one or two
observations to make. In connection with the building up of a Canadian aeroplane industry I believe I may say to the hon. member that so far the history of that industry in Canada has been one of grief and disaster. Any duty which has been imposed has not been sufficient to build up what the hon. member has described as a Canadian aircraft industry. I agree with him that if we could possibly get along with importations it would be far better for us to avail ourselves of aircraft manufactured in Great Britain and the United States rather than with our limited population and comparatively small demand to attempt the development of an industry of our own. There is only one reservation regarding strategy and defence. It is possible that for those reasons an industry of the kind might be encouraged to operate, but when I had the honour to have some responsibility I was not convinced of that, although I did my very best to give work to the industries in Canada which in a limited way were manufacturing aircraft.
I believe the hon. member is quite sound so far as his observations concerning commercial aircraft are concerned, unless it be that we should have a nucleus of an industry for purposes of strategy or defence. So far as the British aeroplane is concerned I do not think my hon. friend's information is quite correct; I have some doubt about it. I have found that one could obtain almost any type of plane he wished from a British manufacturer. I have this to say, however, that as aviation is playing a great part in our national development, aircraft ought to be available as cheaply as possible. I am in favour of the British preference. I should like to see the British aircraft industry given an edge, and I agree, with the minister, that in view of the remoteness of the place of manufacturing from the 
market and additional sales expense the British aircraft industry does not have a great deal of the edge in this market. I agree with the hon. member who has taken his seat, however, that one of the basic elements in connection with our national development is as extensive, and strong a development of aviation as possible. If the aircraft we want cannot be obtained in Great Britain at a fair price it seems to me that we might well consider the suggestion of the hon. member that there be a reduction in the duty on American aircraft. Aviation is too important to be throttled by high duties. Instead of prohibiting the importation of American aircraft, the tariff has only had the effect of producing revenue. Aircraft comes in from the United States just the same and when you divide the amount of duty by the total number of miles travelled I do not think you will find that the cost of air transportation has been greatly increased. It seems to me that there are two points: first whether British aircraft is absolutely satisfactory for all purposes and secondly if the duty against American aircraft adds any substantial cost to the development of aviation in this country.


Charles A. Stewart: From my
short experience here in Ottawa I have come to the conclusion that there will be too many restrictions in connection with this item, no matter how it is phrased. The government will have to take the responsibility of reducing the duty. I can remember quite well when we reduced the duty on automobiles some years ago. There was a tremendous amount of opposition exhibited by the companies themselves but the reduction did not hurt them. I am not at all sure that the purchaser got the full advantage of the reduction and I am confident that the duty on automobiles could be reduced very materially without doing the industry any harm. There are a number of items where reductions could be made. There could be a very substantial reduction in the duty on farm machinery. The tariff board will hear all sorts of objections, valid and otherwise, from manufacturers in connection with the reduction of duties, but the fact remains that for years the people of this country have been paying through the nose for machinery needed in the development of this country. So far as I am concerned I believe that the only way to cure this situation is to reduce the duties and if this is done I think we will still have the manufacturers in this country. I believe the ingenuity of the Canadian manufacturers and mechanics is such as to enable the meeting of competition from any part of the world. I am sick and tired of hearing of mass

IFai/s and Means-Customs Tariff
production and the necessity for large markets before we can compete in the manufacturing of the machinery which is so essential to the development of Canada. I believe there is only one way in which to cure this situation, reduce the duties which are imposed for the protection of our manufacturers.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member for West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart) seems to have a suspicion in connection with the restrictions but if he is referring to the regulations provided for in the wording of this item, I would point out that his fears are not well founded.


Charles A. Stewart: I am speaking in the light of some years' experience.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I would point out to my
hon. friend that the wording of this item has not been changed in the slightest degree. These regulations were necessary because of the peculiar character of this import as indicated to the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston). The wording has no reference to the question of duties or the value for duty purposes or anything of that kind, it merely affords an opportunity to the department to increase imports. Without attempting to enter into a general discussion of the merits of protection for industry, may I point out to my hon. friend that he and I am afraid the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth to a lesser degree as well as the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote), forget that this discussion arises out of an item where we have wiped out the duty.


Charles A. Stewart: Only so
far as Great Britain is concerned.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The aircraft industry is
fairly substantial at the moment and I take it it will increase considerably in the next year or two. We have permitted aircraft from Great Britain to come in free but we have not disturbed the intermediate or general tariffs. After imports have come in under this item for a year or two it will be time enough to consider what is the effect of these rates of duty. My view is that this reduction will result in a large increase in the importation of British machines and their servicing because of the fact that protection is afforded in this matter. It follows that we will have keen competition in connection wTith the importations which come in under the intermediate and general tariffs. If we have not gone as far as some hon. members would wish us to go, we have at least made a substantial advance by admitting this article duty free when it comes in from another country.
92682-202i


Alan Webster Neill: I wonder if the minister would let me have a couple of minutes to deal with a matter which I want to hang on to this item although the connection is not very close. The only excuse for doing this at this point is that the matter to which I wish to refer is one which would come up at this time if we were dealing with it. I refer to item 445b which deals with radio machinery. I am not referring to the importation of radios as such, but rather to the importation of the parts, particularly electrical parts, used in the manufacture of these sets. The present rates are free, 25 per cent and 30 per cent. I follow the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote) in suggesting that the minister might give instructions to the tariff board to look into this matter with a view to seeing if there could not be a substantial reduction made in the duty on parts brought in for the use of amateur stations. The work being done by these amateurs is very valuable but I do not think it is appreciated to the extent it should be and to the extent it is by those who are on the inside. These people spend an enormous amount of time and energy and money in experimenting and perfecting their amateur machines and the experience they gain is of great value to the industry as a whole. Last winter there was a tremendous storm in British Columbia when the rain and snow combined to cause considerable damage. Over large areas all telegraph and telephone lines were entirely out of commission. Our communities are run on a hand to mouth basis these days; country stores do not put in supplies to last three months or more like they used to, they buy from day to day. The result was that in some areas they ran short of food but these amateur wireless stations offered the use of their appliances and time in order to provide communication. The telephone company connected up with them and they furnished this valuable service entirely without charge. I do not think it would have been possible for them to have rendered this service had they not spent considerable time and money experimenting on their machines. For some reason which I have not at my finger tips at the moment these people do not find it convenient to get their material from Great Britain and they want to be able to obtain it from the United States. It is of a class or kind not made in Canada so that no harm would come to any Canadian industry if they were allowed to enter free. While I do not have it before me I could supply a list of what they suggest should be allowed to come in. They are mostly comparatively small items, and I am told that the larger part,

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
if not the whole of it, is of a type easily identified as for the use of amateurs only. It could not and would not be used for commercial purposes. Commercial men would not attempt to bring it in and sell it for commercial use. I think that is correct. If the minister would refer the matter to the tariff board all that information could be obtained. It- would not do any Canadian manufacturer any harm because the stuff is not being made in Canada, nor would it hurt the British people because they do not make that type of manufacture. If the minister would be kind enough to consider it and possibly submit it to the tariff board I think he would find that there is a good deal in the contention that I am making.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Without going into the merits of the case presented by my hon. friend from Camox-Albemi (Mr. Neill) may I point out to him that the item to which he refers is a conference item and is included in the British agreement. That provides for an irreducible margin of protection and it would not therefore be competent to disturb the item during the life of the agreement unless it were by consent of Great Britain. So the matter cannot be inquired into by the tariff board so long as the British agreement applies.


Alan Webster Neill: But it might be found on investigation that the Britisher was not selling anything anyhow, and that he would not object to a change.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I would have no objection, I might say to my hon. friend, in fact I should be very pleased, to bring the matter to the attention of the British authorities, and if it happens that they consent to an inquiry with respect to this item, well and good.


Alan Webster Neill: I would undertake perhaps
to get a short brief on the subject from some of the amateur associations.


Mr. ELLIOTT:: I did not catch the amount of the duty collected under the British preference on this item last year.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: For 1934 our imports from the United Kingdom totalled S22,793.


John Campbell Elliott: That is the total imports?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Total imports from the
United Kingdom.


John Campbell Elliott: And the tax would amount to ten per cent of that?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes, S2,279.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-451, agreed to.

Customs tariff-451e.	Slide or hookless
fasteners: British preferential tariff, 30 per cent; intermediate tariff, 37J per cent; general tariff, 40 per cent.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have an amendment here, Mr. Chairman, it merely adds the words "zipper fasteners." That term has now become generic and represents a class that is recognized and well defined.


Hugh Guthrie: I move accordingly, Mr. Chairman.


James Layton Ralston: This is an increase in
tariff recommended by the tariff board, is it not?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: That is right.


James Layton Ralston: And it applies to wha.t we all know as zipper fasteners?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes.


James Layton Ralston: Which are now manufactured in Canada?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes.


James Layton Ralston: Can the minister give us an idea of the amount manufactured in Canada, in dollars?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The figures I have are for the year 1932, but I should be glad to give the figures for subsequent years to the committee. The total value of fasteners manufactured in Canada in that year was S483.6O0. Then, in addition, the manufacture of buckles amounted to $34,000.


James Layton Ralston: That is the item on which the ten per cent increase is made?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: And the imports for that
year amounted to $246,720.


Charles A. Stewart: About one-half of the amount manufactured?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes.


Mr. SANDERSON:: Can the minister say where these fasterners are manufactured in Canada?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: By two firms in Montreal and one in Hamilton; I think they are incorporated companies.


James Layton Ralston: How many people are
employed?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have not those figures
here but I shall be glad to get them for they are all in the possession of the board.


James Layton Ralston: Would the minister get
the total amount, in dollars, of the manufactures in Canada and the total amount of imports for 1933 and 1934; also the total

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
number of employees working on this particular item on which an increase of ten per cent is made; also the wage bill, one of my colleagues suggests.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I shall be very glad to get the figures as to the value, but it may be difficult to get exact figures as to the number employed for the reason that it is difficult to segregate the hours of work that the employees in the industry might devote to zipper fasteners and to other types of (manufacturing carried on by the same company; but to the best of our ability we shall endeavour to get the information.
-Mr. RALSTON: And the wages too.


Mr. ILSLEY:: Can the minister state the
countries from which they are imported?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The division of that
figure which I gave, $246,000, is as follows: Imports from the United States, $129,396; United Kingdom, $51,493; Czechoslovakia, $45,177. Those figures are for the year 1932, as I have indicated.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The operative duty then
will be the 40 per cent rate under the general tariff because the largest volume of importation is from the United States, and the general rate from now on is to be 40 per cent.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: That is right.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Is this a conference item?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: No, this is a tariff board finding.


James Lorimer Ilsley: But is this an item covered by the agreement with Great Britain of 1932?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: No, these changes are
effected on the findings of the tariff board.


James Layton Ralston: The minister can find all the information I asked for with the tariff board, I think.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: All except for the difficulty I mentioned respecting the number of employees.


Edward James Young: They .must have pointed
that out to the board when they made their application.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: No doubt.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Item as amended agreed to.
Customs tariff-475b, agreed to.
Customs tariff-506b. Wooden doors of a height and width not dess than six feet and two feet, respectively:	British preferential
tariff, free: intermediate tariff, 22J per cent; general tariff, 25 per cent.
Mr. FRASER (Caribou):: May I ask what is the significance of this change?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It is the result of a finding of the tariff board.


Charles A. Stewart: Are there
any imports from England at all?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: No, the imports have been negligible.


Edward James Young: What is the idea? If the imports are negligible why not make it free under the general rate too?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Representations were made by Great Britain.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-522d'.	Yarns and warps
wholly of cotton, mercerized, number forty and finer, imported, under regulations prescribed by the minister, for sale to manufacturers, to be further manufactured in their own factories: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate (tariff, 25 per cent; general tariff, 25 per cent.
Mr. BOUCHARD:: As the minister is no
doubt aware, an increasing quantity of mer-3erized cotton is being used throughout the whole industry for weaving purposes. Does this same exemption that is given to the manufacturer apply also to the home weaver?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: This item is precisely the same in its intent as it has stood for a number of years back. It has always been a manufacturer's item. The only change we are making is to widen the item so as to permit warehousing. Importation had to be made direct by the individual manufacturer and had to go into his factory, and it meant frequently that he had to stock up, locking up a considerable proportion of capital. Now he can utilize the goods only as he requires them, taking them out of the warehouse, and still have the same advantage of the lower tariff.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-530, agreed to.
Customs tariff-542b. Linen fire hose, lined or unlined: British preferential tariff, 25 per cent; intermediate tariff, 32j per cent; general tariff, 35 per cent.
George Gibson Coote: Were the majority of these changes recommended by the tariff board? If so. in what way do they report? Do they submit a written report?

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes. When I refer to reports of the tariff board they have been tabled in the house in all instances. For example, with reference to the change I mentioned in connection with biscuits, I have under my hand the report and it will be tabled as soon as the committee rises and the house is again in session. This present change was not a tariff board change.


George Gibson Coote: In regard to the item covering zipper fasteners, would that be a tariff board recommendation?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes; my hon. friend will find that the report is tabled in the house.


James Layton Ralston: So that it may appear in the report, will the minister mention the items covered by tariff board reports.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My hon. friend will get the full information in the budget speech; if not I will see that the record is made complete.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-546, agreed to.
Customs tariff-5-47, agreed to.
Customs	tariff-554b,	agreed	to.	.Customs	tariff-556a.	agreed	to.Customs	tariff-555b,	agreed	to.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I beg	to move that schedule
A to the Customs Tariff, as amended by resolution No. 5 of March 22, 1535, be further amended by striking thereout tariff items 559 (i), 569 (ii) and 569a, and by inserting in said schedule A the following items, enumerations and rates of duty:
Customs tariff-569 (i). Hats, hoods and shapes of hair-felt or of wool-and-hair-felt, under such regulations as the minister may prescribe: British preferential tariff, 22J per cent; intermediate tariff, 30 per cent; general tariff, 35 per cent.
Customs tariff-569 (ii). Hats, hoods and shapes of wool felt: British preferential tariff, 221 per cent: intermediate tariff. 30 per cent; general tariff, 35 per cent; and per dozen: British preferential tariff, 75 cents; intermediate tariff. $1.25; general tariff, $1.25.
Customs tariff-569 (iii). Hoods, and shapes, knitted, crocheted, plaited or woven in a single piece, and hoods and shapes of braid, not sewn, under such regulations as the minister may prescribe: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 10 per cent; general tariff, 10 per cent.
Customs tariff-569 (iv). Hoods and shapes, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, 22J per cent; intermediate tariff, 30 per cent; general tariff, 35 per cent; and per dozen: British preferentai tariff,-; intermediate tariff, 50 cents; general tariff, 50 cents.
Customs tariff-569 (v). Hats, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, 22i per cent; intermediate
IMr. Coote.}
tariff, 30 per cent; general tariff, 35 per cent; and per dozen: British preferential tariff. 75 cents; intermediate tariff. $1.50; general tariff, $1.50.
Customs tariff-569a (i). Berets of wool, knitted and fulled: British preferential tariff, 22i per cent; intermediate tariff, 30 per cent; general tariff, 35 per cent; and per dozen: British preferential tariff,-; intermediate tariff, 65 cents; general tariff, 65 cents.
Customs tariff-569a	(ii). Caps, bonnets
and berets, n.o.p., under such regulations as the minister may prescribe:	British preferential tariff, 22J per cent; intermediate tariff, 30 per cent; general tariff, 35 per cent.


James Layton Ralston: Will the minister allow this item to stand?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes.


James Layton Ralston: I recollect that there was a good deal of agitation about this item -with regard to hats, hoods and shapes. At the time the Prime Minister was in France some change was made. A tentative arrangement was made with him which was protested very vigorously by some manufacturers in Canada. Can the minister tell us whether or not under the French treaty any substantial change was made and what the effect was on the duties collectible under the item?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The reduction was only on berets, but I will look up the record and give my hon. friend an exact answer after I have refreshed my memory. In the meantime this whole item will stand.
Item stands.
Customs tariff-571a. Carpeting, rugs, mats and matting of cocoa fibre: British preferential tariff, 30 per cent; intermediate tariff, 37J per cent; general tariff, 40 per cent.


James Layton Ralston: I am looking at the
schedule to the budget speech-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The amendment which I have moved is the result of a finding by the tariff board. That report is only now here for tabling and will be tabled to-day. The present item, 571a, is already in the schedule and in the budget as well.


Charles A. Stewart: That is an increase.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: This is an item which was dealt with as a result of a finding by the board. It is a reduction under all tariffs.


James Layton Ralston: I have here the schedule to the budget speech and under item 572 I find oriental and imitation oriental rugs or carpets. I should like to know how item 571a got into the printed resolutions when it was not in the schedule to the budget speech.

II'nys and Means-Customs Tariff


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The reason is that the finding of the tariff board came in after the budget, and when it came in and was tabled we had this 571a added.


Charles A. Stewart: The minister says it is a reduction. According to the item here it is an increase right across the board.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: No. My hon. friend has not noticed that the specific duty has been dropped under the budget. For instance there was a duty of 10 cents per square foot under the general and also the British preferential. That has been dropped.


Charles A. Stewart: Is my hon. friend convinced that the increase from 15 to 30 per cent and from 22J to 37J per cent and from 25 to 40 per cent will not .more than offset the 10 cents per foot?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I may say first that this is without a single exception implementing recommendations based on findings of the tariff board, with respect to every single item in the tariff which has been referred to. I have pursued that policy, and propose to continue to do so. To answer the question specifically I may say that 10 cents per square foot represents almost 900 per cent in some cases, so it is by far the larger item, and represents a real concession.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
James Layton Ralston: I want to withdraw what I said to my hon. friend about his budget speech. I find that item 571a comes after 572; that is what misled me.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It was because the report came in subsequently, and they had to slip the sheet in.


James Layton Ralston: I only want it to be on record that the correction is here.
Customs tariff-572. Oriental and imitation Oriental rugs or carpets; carpeting, carpets and rugs, n.o.p.:-
(a)	If valued at less than two dollars per square yard: British preferential tariff, 30 per cent; intermediate tariff, 35 per cent; general tariff, 40 per cent.
And per square foot: British preferential tariff, 3 cents; intermediate tariff, 15 cents; general tariff, 20 cents.
(b)	If valued at two dollars or more per
square yard:	British preferential tariff, 30
per cent; intermediate tariff, 35 per cent; general tariff, 40 per cent.
And per square foot: British preferential tariff, 5 cents; intermediate tariff, 15 cents; general tariff, 20 cents.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: This is merely an amendment dealing with verbiage. It is to delete the semicolon after the phrase "or carpets" in line one, and insert in lieu thereof the word "and."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Item as amended agreed to.
Customs tariff-598. Brass band instruments, n.o.p.; parts of pianofortes and parts of organs:	British preferential tariff, free;
intermediate tariff, 22^ per cent; general tariff, 25 per cent.
John Campbell Elliott: Would the minister state how much caime in under the British preference last year?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The amount was very small. It is to be hoped that now they are made free it will be larger. The total amount which came in from the United Kingdom last year had a value of $2,738.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-603, agreed to.
Customs tariff-609, agreed to.
Customs tariff-621, agreed to.
Customs tariff-624a, agreed to.
Customs tariff-650a, agreed to.
Customs tariff-682. Fish hooks, for deep-sea or lake fishing, not smaller in size than number 2-0; fishing nets and nettings of all kinds; threads, twines, marlines, fishing lines, rope and cordage of cotton, hemp, manila or other vegetable fibre, not exceeding one and one-half inches in circumference, to be used for fishing purposes or for the construction or repair of fishing nets; the foregoing not to include such articles used for sportsmen's purposes and to be subject to such regulations as the minister may prescribe:	British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
Alan Webster Neill: I should like to thank the minister and his officials for their courtesy in adjusting the wording of this item. The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Hanson) and myself took it up last year and had a good deal of correspondence about it. The change helps to make it easier for the fishermen to get their cord in for their nets, and to that extent makes it cheaper for them to operate.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-691, agreed to.
Customs tariff-696, agreed to.
Customs tariff-783. Internal combustion 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 pneu-
318.3
[Stage Direction]
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
matic tires, larger than thirty inches by five inches, steering gears and front and rear axles, and complete parts thereof, 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, 20 per cent.
George Gibson Coote: Would the minister explain the significance of this item?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The phrase "internal combustion" is substituted for the word "gasoline" in order that the manufacturers of motor trucks may import engines of the diesel or semi-diesel type; and, secondly, the phrase "of the foregoing" is substituted for the word "thereof" in line 8, as being a clearer rendering. Otherwise the item, which covers chiefly goods of a class or kind not made in Canada, is not changed in rates or wording.


George Gibson Coote: Is there no change in the rate of duty at all?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: No, except of course that the construction placed on "internal combustion" by enlarging the definition from "gasoline" will to that extent mean a reduction in all tariffs.


George Gibson Coote: May I direct the attention of the minister to something very peculiar in connection with the price of motor trucks in Canada? I notice that from Great Britain they are free, subject to 17J per cent duty under the intermediate tariff and 20 per cent of the general tariff. But the prices which we are compelled to pay for them in Canada, compared with prices in the United States, are considerably more than 20 per cent higher. I do not know how to account for it.
Also on April 1, an answer was given to a question which I placed on the order paper asking for the number and average value of the motor trucks produced in Canada and exported in the years 1933 and 1934, and the number and average value of motor trucks produced in Canada for home consumption in each of those years. The answer gave the number exported and their value for those two years, but said that information was not available as to the value 'f those produced in Canada for home consumption. I am unable to understand why the department would have a record of the number of trucks exported and their value, but no record of the value of those produced in Canada for home consumption. One of my reasons for calling
TMr. Neill.]
attention to the matter is that the average value of all motor trucks produced in Canada for export in 1934 was 1348. That sounds like a reasonable price for a motor truck. One of the cheap trucks produced in Canada is the Chevrolet half-ton delivery truck, which is priced1 at $685 at the factory at Oshawa. I do not think there is a smaller truck made than the half-ton size. In other words, the price of the cheapest truck at the factory in Canada is $337 more than the average value given for all trucks exported. These figures seem to indicate that we are being compelled to pay far too much for our trucks. I hope the minister will see his way clear, while he is still Minister of Finance and before this session is over, to reduce the duty on motor trucks. A motor truck to-day is one of our farm implements, in many districts it has entirely displaced1 waggons, and we cannot afford to pay these very high prices. There is a good deal I should like to say about motor trucks and also motor cars, but I will content myself with again urging the minister to see that the necessary action is taken to make motor trucks available to us in Canada at a price nearer that which our competitors in other countries must pay. I feel satisfied that the trucks which are exported are sold to our competitors outside of Canada at a lower price than we in Canada must pay for them. I do not think there is any doubt about that; certainly these figures indicate it.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Mj^ hon. friend of course will appreciate that this administration have placed motor cars, including motor trucks, on the free list under the British preference. With respect to the general question of motor cars, my hon. friend would not expect me to enter into a discussion of the matter for the reason that the whole question has been referred to the tariff board, who are now conducting an exhaustive inquiry into it. Until they have reported, in any event, no action could be taken.


George Gibson Coote: Does that inquiry cover trucks as well as cars?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes, the whole motor industry.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-1021. Rolled round wire rods in the coil, of iron or steel, not over three-eights of an inch in diameter: when used in the manufacture of galvanized iron or steel wire, curved or not, numbers nine, twelve and thirteen gauge, with variations from such gauges not exceeding four one-thousandths of an inch: drawback, 99 per cent.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I want to move an amendment, substituting the following:
Customs tariff-1021.	Round rolled wire
rods in the coil, of iron or steel, not over -375 inch in diameter: when imported' under the British preferential tariff and used in the manufacture of galvanized iron or steel wire, curved or not, -144, -104, or '092 inch in diameter, with tolerance not to exceed -004 inch, but not when such wire is for use in telegraph or telephone lines: drawback, 99 per cent.


James Layton Ralston: What is the change?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It provides a drawback of 99 per cent under the British preference in connection with that class of wire which, it will be observed, has been made free for use in making barbed wire, under item 402c of the schedule.


James Layton Ralston: What is the difference between this and the present item 1021?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: This is restricted to the British preference.


Charles A. Stewart: The drawback?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Y'es.


Mr. CANTLEY:: What is the purpose of changing the sizes?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: We have taken the exact sizes and gauges that have been in the tariff item for some five or six years. They have not been changed by me in anything I have done.
Mr. CANTLEY': They have been changed, and I think it is very confusing. The British wire gauges have been the same for over a century, and I do not see any reason for changing the description now. I do not know how you are going to measure it.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I would be the last person in the world to attempt to discuss this matter with my hon. friend from Pictou, who has forgotten probably more than I will ever know about it, but I am only saying that I have kept the sizes as I found them.


Thomas Cantley: I think you had better revert to the original practice.


James Layton Ralston: It seems to me that the effect of the amendment is really to put a duty on foreign rods of this kind. As I understand it the drawback of 99 per cent applied to all countries, Great Britain, the United States and every other country. Now it is being provided that the drawback shall only apply to Great Britain, and therefore the duty against these other countries goes on automatically. Is that not so?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Except that they can get, and this item is designed to see that they do get, their wire from British sources under the British preference, or in Canada.


Charles A. Stewart: This is an increase against foreign imports, then.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If they want to import from foreign countries it is an increase.


James Layton Ralston: Then it is not giving Great Britain a preference by reducing the duty; it is granting the preference by putting back the duty against other countries.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: In a sense.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Items as amended agreed to.
Customs tariff-1024.	Rolled round wire
rods in the coil of iron or steel, not over -375 inch in diameter, when used in the manufacture of iron or steel, coated with zinc or spelter, curved or not, in coils, not more than [DOT]144 inch and not less than -080 inch in diameter, with tolerance not to exceed -004 inch when such wire is used by manufacturers of barbed fencing wire or of wire fencing for use exclusively in the manufacture of barbed fencing wire or of wire fencing, in their own factories: drawback, 99 per cent.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have an amendment to
move to this item, which I am advised is purely a question of verbiage, in order to make this item conform to item 1024. The amendment reads:
Rolled round wire rods in the coil, of iron or steel, not over -375 inch in diameter, when imported under the British preferential tariff and used in the manufacture of wire of iron or steel, coated with zinc or spelter, curved or not, in coils, not more than T44 inch and not less than -080 inch in diameter, with tolerance not to exceed -004 inch, when such wire is used by manufacturers of barbed fencing wire or of wire fencing for use exclusively in the manufacture of barbed fencing wire or of wire fencing, in their own factories: drawback, 99 per cent.
Provided' that drawback payable under this item is in lieu of drawback payable under any other item.


Charles A. Stewart: Just what
does that mean?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It means they may take
the drawback under one item or the other, but not under both.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Item as amended agreed to.
Customs tariff-1039 agreed to.
Customs tariff-1944. Fire brick: when used by manufacturers of iron or steel in the construction or repair of a blast furnace, open hearth furnace or rolling mill furnace: drawback, 99 per cent.
[Stage Direction]
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
Edward James Young: Why are these people given a drawback when other people using fire 'brick are not?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: We are really widening
the item. Hitherto the importation has had to be made by the manufacturer for use in his own plant. There has been no change in the item at all except to permit this fire brick to be warehoused so the manufacturers can use it as they need it, just as we have done in connection with yams in a previous item.


Edward James Young: That is to say, the fire brick coming in will pay the duty; it can be put into a warehouse and then if it is sold to a manufacturer of iron and steel the duty is paid back while if it is sold to anyone else there is no rebate?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: That is correct.


Edward James Young: Why the discrimination?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: There must be some good reason, for it has been there a good many years.


Edward James Young: I suppose it would be the
reason advanced by the makers of iron and steel.


Thomas Reid: May I ask why electric furnaces and converters are not included in this item? I notice that the item now reads:
When used by manufacturers of iron or steel in the construction or repair of a blast furnace, open hearth furnace or rolling mill furnace.
These bricks may be used in converters.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: As I am at present advised, and speaking from memory, I have not received a request to have the item worded to include electric furnaces. We took the item as we found it, and as I have indicated we enlarged upon it. So far as I can recall I can think of no objection to enlarging it to include electric furnaces, as suggested by the hon. member, but as I have indicated I have had no request to that effect.


Thomas Reid: I know that both electric furnaces and converters use the same kind of brick, and that that way of manufacturing steel is growing.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It. would seem that entry must have been permitted, otherwise I am sure we would have heard from electric furnace producers. They do not fail to become vocal in matters of this kind.


Charles A. Stewart: There is no question about electric furnaces becoming popular.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Quite so.


Edward James Young: Where in Canada is fire brick manufactured, and how many men are employed in the industry?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I cannot give the number of employees, but upon inquiry I might be able to secure that information. I believe there are about nine plants in Canada manufacturing fire brick, and the volume of their production is valued at about a quarter of a million dollars.


Edward James Young: I can remember a complaint being made some years ago by hon. members on the other side of the house to the effect that Canadian manufacturers were placed under considerable handicap because some one in Canada claimed he had clay to make fire brick and wanted the industry encouraged.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-1049.	Bituminous coal,
imported on or after March 23, 1935.
(a)	When converted into coke and the coke sold for use as fuel in other than a coke or gas plant, 50 per cent.
(b)	When converted into coke and the coke sold for use as fuel in other than a coke or gas plant; provided that not less than 35 per centum, by weight, of the bituminous coal so used, as covered by each drawback claim, was mined in Canada, 99 per cent.
Provided that drawback payable under this item is in lieu of drawback payable under any other item.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I shall ask to have the following amendment moved:
I beg to move that drawback item 1049, as contained in resolution No. 6 of March 23, 1935, be amended to read as follows:
1049-Bituminous coal, imported on or after March 23, 1935-
(a)	when converted into coke and to be sold for use as fuel in other than a coke or gas plant, 50 per cent.
(b)	when converted into coke to be sold for use as fuel in other than a coke or gas plant; provided, that not less than 35 per centum, by weight, of the bituminous coal so used, as covered by each drawback claim, was mined in Canada, 99 per cent.
Provided that drawback payable under this item is in lieu of drawback payable under any other item.


Mr. SUTHERDAND:: I move accordingly.


Charles A. Stewart: You increase the 3S per cent?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: No, there are no changes in the figures. What we are doing is this: We are carrying out the intent of the original item, namely that it should be for the users,

Customs Tariff
sold for fuel, and should not be so that they would get a drawback under the guise of coking for their own use. It is carrying out the original intention of the drawback item.


Mr. MACDOUGALL:: Would that not give a most distinct and favourable advantage to coke in the Montreal market. They are today selling it in Warsaw for $11.50 per ton and in Montreal for $7.80.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: This has no bearing upon that at all. As a matter of fact it is restricting the interpretation of the act, as was originally intended, and not permitting the item to be used by way of evasion.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: I wish to thank the minister for that information. After some study I was of the opinion that perhaps the dumping duty should be applied against coke and coal shipped to Montreal. I am grateful for the minister's explanation. This is very important to the province of Nova Scotia.


John Campbell Elliott: Is there a difference in the time at which the drawback is payable? Is the drawback payable before it is actually sold?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes, the customs authorities will act as long as they are convinced it is to be sold as fuel.


John Campbell Elliott: That is the difference?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes; otherwise you would have to stock up an enormous quantity and lock up a lot of capital.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Item as amended agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN:: (a)	the feathers or plumes of ostriches;
(b)	the plumage of the English pheasant and the Indian peacock;; the plumage of wild birds of groups recognized as game birds in any Canadian game law, and for which an open season is provided thereunder;
(e) the plumage of birds imported alive; nor to-
(d) specimens imported under regulations of the minister for any natural history or other museum or for scientific or educational purposes.


Mr RHODES:: Resolution No. 7 is purely a question of wording. It has been inserted at the request of the Department of National Revenue to conform to changes in the game laws brought about as a result of international conventions.


[Stage Direction]
Resolution agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
1.	Resolved, that the customs tariff, being chapter forty-four of the revised statutes of Canada, 1927, as amended by 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 six and thirty-seven of the acts of 1932-33, and chapters thirty-two and forty-nine of the acts of 1934, be further amended by adding to section 4 thereof the following subsections:-
(i)	from time to time, grant the most favoured foreign nation treatment to any British country or to any territory administered under a mandate of the League of Nations by any British country; and from and after the date specified in the order in council the most favoured foreign nation treatment shall apply to goods the produce or manufacture of such British country or mandated territory, subject to the provisions of this act;
(j)	from time to time, withdraw' the most favoured foreign nation treatment from any British country or any territory administered under a mandate of the League of Nations by any British country to which it has been extended; and from and after the date specified in the order in council the most favoured foreign nation treatment shall cease to apply to goods the produce or manufacture of such British country or mandated territory, subject to the provisions of this act.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: We are taking the first resolution under the customs tariff appearing at page 5. I should like to move an amendment which would have the effect of enlarging the resolution to enable us by order in council to grant favoured nation treatment to .other countries as well as British countries. I am in the hands of the committee, and I am content to add a provision under which the order in council should be reported to parliament within fourteen days of its opening. I know there is some hesitancy on the part of certain hon. members as to permitting changes by order in council.


Charles A. Stewart: It is to give favoured nation treatment?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes, by order in council. For instance, we entered into a trade agreement with Poland in which we gave them favoured nation treatment. By virtue of the fact that we had not authority by order in council to grant that treatment to Great Britain, actually Poland was in a better position than Great Britain with respect to certain
Customs Tariff

commodities included in that treaty. What we are asking in the amendment as submitted is to be permitted by order in council to give to Great Britain the favoured nation treatment we give to other countries. The amendment I should like to move is to enlarge the arrangement so as to enable us to give that treatment to any country, because at the present time there are negotiations with other countries which I believe will result in -our arriving at an understanding in the near future but probably not before parliament rises. In that event we would be able to grant favoured nation treatment to those countries. The obvious advantage would be that we could immediately give to the mother country the same treatment as we give to other countries should this resolution pass in its present form. Seven, eight or nine months might pass before a new parliament would be summoned and our hands would be tied in the meantime. It is not only a question of the lack of opportunity to grant the same treatment to Great Britain during that period of time, but the committee will understand that once a trade agreement is entered into and business arrangements are effected and trade channels are formed it is not always so easy to retrace your ground.


John Campbell Elliott: Would it be possible under the order in council to increase the duties?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: No, it is all a question of lowering the duties. The order in council as provided for in resolution number one would merely permit us to give Great Britain or any other British country the same favoured nation treatment as we give to any other country. Referring back to the case I cited, that of Poland, it would enable us to immediately place any British country upon the same level.


James Lorimer Ilsley: What the minister says is
correct in connection with (i), but what about
(])?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: We are using precisely the same verbiage as is now in the statute; give or withdraw, as the case may be.


Charles A. Stewart: I know the
government have taken extraordinary powers, but it has not the power to put into effect a treaty which affects tariff schedules with another country without confirmation.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: There are no schedules in connection with the trade agreements made with a number of countries; the wording is, "favoured nation treatment." As the matter stands at present we are unable to give that favoured nation treatment by order in council to any British country or any other country.


Charles A. Stewart: I would
expect that. I am not aware of the extent to which the government has taken the authority to enact by order in council what is nothing more or less than legislation, and I want to be clear in connection with this matter. For example, the government might negotiate a treaty with Poland which provided for favoured nation treatment, but that treaty would not go into effect until ratification.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Quite so.


Edward James Young: I understand we are amending this chapter by adding these two paragraphs. If paragraph (j) is already in the act it would not need to be in the resolution.


Charles A. Stewart: If you have power to do one thing you must have the power to do the other. If you have the power to make a treaty of this kind with Poland, to give favoured nation treatment without reference to parliament, then you would not need this power to give the same treatment to Great Britain.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I do not think my hon.
friend has expressed himself as clearly as he-did before. We will admit that we have a treaty and that it has been ratified by parliament. We would then have to turn around and make a specific treaty with the mother country. If we can do that by order in council we shall have the benefit of all the intervening months before parliament sits. But as I said before, I should be quite content to have it stipulated that where we made it applicable to another country the order in council would have to be presented to parliament within fourteen days of the opening of the next session.


Charles A. Stewart: That is no protection.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: In order that it could be
ratified. It is merely a question of our having the facilities for entering into trade agreements with the least possible delay. I cannot see any serious objection to that.


Charles A. Stewart: Assume that ratification has taken place and then it is discovered that there are items which affect the British preferential tariff; it is that that the minister wishes to cure.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Great Britain has never
had the benefit of favoured nation treatment.


James Layton Ralston: As I understand section
4	of the Customs Tariff, it permits the governor in council to extend or withdraw the benefits of tihe British preferential tariff or to extend or withdraw the benefits of the intermediate tariff. After a trade agreement

Customs Tariff
has been made with one country this section does not permit the governor in council to extend the benefits of that agreement to a different country in connection with which the British preferential, intermediate or general tariffs have applied. It seems to me that there is a different principle involved. There are only three tariffs authorized by parliament, the general, the intermediate and the British preferential, and section 4 does not give the right to extend these tariffs to various countries. I submit that you must obtain the right from parliament to provide schedules under the general, intermediate or British preferential tariffs and it seems to me that when you obtain that right would be time enough to provide that it could be extended to some other country.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Is my hon. friend keeping
section 11 in mind?


James Layton Ralston: I was looking at section 4.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Section 11 reads:
The governor in council may by order in council make such reductions of duties on goods imported into Canada from any other country or countries as may be deemed reasonable by way of compensation for reductions on Canadian products granted by any such country or countries.


James Layton Ralston: You do not use the
words "favoured nation treatment." While you are making an agreement with Poland you might at the same time make one with Great Britain, but as my hon. friend for Hants-Kings (Mr. Ilsley) points out, only reductions would be made under the authority of section 11.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: You would have to deal
with them commodity by commodity; you would not use the wrords "favoured nation treatment."


James Layton Ralston: I am trying to retain
the control of parliament over customs tariff items. There are really four classes of tariffs, general, intermediate, British preferential and special items provided under section 11 by way of compensation. My hon. friend wants to extend matters one step further. Having provided for special items by way of compensation to apply to a particular country my hon. friend wants to apply these to some other country notwithstanding the fact that there is no compensation provided by that latter country. My hon. friend has the power to carry this through if he so desires but with all deference I oppose the extending of that right of the governor in council.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I do not press my contention so far as that is concerned, but I submit that there is a sound reason for the action we have taken in the budget in asking for authority by order in council to grant favoured nation treatment to British countries. Otherwise we are in the anomalous position of placing British countries in an adverse position as compared with foreign countries. I think it is desirable that we should have the same authority with respect to every country, but if there is any serious objection I would not press it under all the circumstances at this stage of the session.


Charles A. Stewart: Why have you not authority under the present section 11 to do what you are desirous of doing? Is it because of a special treaty?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Until this budget we could not in terms grant favoured nation treatment to any British country, and it is a fact that there are favoured nation items which are lower than the British preference rates.


James Layton Ralston: But the term "favoured nation treatment" does not seem to be used in the customs tariff at all.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I will try to find the wording in the act.


Charles A. Stewart: Would the minister mind allowing this proposal to stand for the present?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Not a bit.


Charles A. Stewart: I for one would hate to raise any objection to a reduction in tariffs, nor do I want any discrimination against British countries, but it does seem to me that the minister's proposal requires some consideration before the committee should accede to it.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: There is no objection, Mr. Chairman, to allowing the resolution to stand, although it means precisely what it meant when it was brought down two months ago. At the same time I should like hon. members to bear in mind the question whether if we pass this resolution, as I trust we will, it might not be wise to enlarge it along the lines I have suggested.


James Layton Ralston: Perhaps I went further than I should have in, connection with this particular resolution. I was dealing rather with my hon. friend's suggestion to amend it to extend to other countries. I am not opposing my hon. friend's resolution to extend favoured nation treatment to British countries, but I do oppose extending it to any country.
Customs Tariff


James Lorimer Ilsley: I was under the impression that the government could always at any time reduce duties by order in council.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Specific items under section 11 of the Customs Tariff, but not with respect to favoured nation treatment.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Is not that the only practical end that is to be sought, the reduction of duties on certain items? I do not see what practical difficulty the government meet without this amendment. Suppose they make a treaty with another country. Then they find that under that treaty goods are coming in at a lower rate than the rate charged against other British countries. They can immediately correct that situation without any amendment such as the minister suggests.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: That is all that the amendment proposes to do.


James Lorimer Ilsley: But you do not need it; you can do it now.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: No, we cannot.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Is it not well settled that duties may be reduced or removed?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If there is a concession
under section 11 of the Customs Tariff, but we may not be able to get a concession at all, in which event we could not concede a reduction to Great Britain unless this resolution passes.


Edward James Young: I did not get an answer as to why (j) is included. If you have already the power to withdraw the most favoured nation treatment granted to any British country, why put in a clause giving you that power?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If my hon. friend will look up the Customs Tariff he will find in section 4 the powers granted to the governor in council. He will find that paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g) and (h) are all (parallel -grant withdrawals; grant withdrawals-by order in council. We are just following the same verbiage and the same course as is outlined in section 4 of the Customs Tariff. However, inasmuch as this resolution is to stand I do not know that there is any object in our pursuing the subject too far at this stage.


James Layton Ralston: Does my hon. friend
intend to move the amendment which he suggested?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If it were a question of
having this resolution put through as it is I

would withdraw the amendment, or would not press it at all events, although I think it is desirable that I should ask for the amendment.


James Layton Ralston: I suggest that we carry
this resolution as it is.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Inasmuch as one item is
standing we might as well let this stand.


Charles A. Stewart: Let this go through if my hon. friend is withdrawing his suggested amendment.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If it were a question of
clearing up the whole thing I would accept at once, but inasmuch as we have one tariff item standing-


James Layton Ralston: What was the item?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Hats.


James Layton Ralston: I just wanted to look at
that item. I think we can dispose of that.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The amendment I moved
is in conformity with the finding of the tariff board.


James Layton Ralston: Does my hon. friend want to revert to item 569?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If there is no objection,
yes.


James Layton Ralston: Referring to item 569 (i), 569 (ii), 569 (iii) and 569 (v), I wanted to look at the summary of the tariff board, which is on page 32 of the board's report. My hon. friend intimated that there was a reduction all along the line, which is quite apparent, except for one thing, and that is the fixed amount of 75 cents under the British preference, 11.50 intermediate tariff, and $1.50 general tariff. Perhaps my hon. friend could ascertain in respect of the articles covered by sub-item 569 (v) whether or not the amounts of the specific duty under the old item were greater than these amounts of 75 cents, $1.50 and $1.50, and if so what they were.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: In the case referred to the revision is downward. The old rates were 22J, 30 and 35 per cent, plus 60J cents, 65 cents and 67^ cents.


James Layton Ralston: The new rates are up
under this particular item. I do not know whether my hon. friend has the right item before him.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The old rate was 22J, 30 and 35 per cent, and, per dozen, 11.80, $1.95 and $2.02^. These have been changed to 75 cents, $1.50 and $1.50. So that there is a reduction there also.

Private Bills


James Layton Ralston: Is that the big item?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The value is not segregated; it is between hate, hoods and shapes. I am informed however that the item, though a large one, is not by any means the largest.


James Layton Ralston: The intermediate applies to France only?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: No; France and Italy both have the intermediate.


James Layton Ralston: I have no desire to have the item held. With regard to the other items, there is no disposition on this side to hold it up if my hon. friend is willing to go ahead with the resolutions as printed.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
2.	Resolved, that the aforesaid section 4 be further amended by adding thereto the following subsection:
(4)A. For the purposes of this act, the Netherlands Indies, Surinam and Curacao shall be regarded as comprising one country with the Netherlands.
Resolution agreed to.
3.	Resolved, that the aforesaid customs tariff be further amended by deleting from section 11 thereof the words "reductions on Canadian products" and by substituting in lieu thereof the word "concessions."
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: This widens the item; there must be a real concession. It means some quid pro quo.


James Layton Ralston: But it need not necessarily be in the present.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: That is going pretty far. I would defer to my hon. friend in the interpretation of a legal phrase but that is going rather far.


[Stage Direction]
Resolution agreed to.
4.	Resolved, that the aforesaid customs tariff be further amended by adding thereto the following section, as section 18 thereof:-
(18) In the event of any duty imposed under this act upon spirituous or alcoholic liquors having been reduced, if it is made to appear to the governor in council that in any province the prices of such goods to the consumer have not been reduced to, or are not being maintained at. levels which will give the consumer the full benefit of any such reduction, the governor in council may order that such reduction shall be no longer in effect and, upon publication of such order in the Canada Gazette, the full rates of duty theretofore payable on such goods shall again be in force and effect.
James Layton Ralston: Is that with regard to a particular province?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It is to be hoped that we shall not have to use the authority, but it is designed to prevent the provinces from
taking advantage of the reduction which was made for the purpose of attempting to make a contribution towards obviating, at least in part, the illicit sale of liquor. It was meant to hold this authority to prevent the provinces from evading that intention. I do not think they will evade it in view of this provision.


Charles A. Stewart: Has the
minister looked into the constitutionality of this action?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have not made specific inquiry but I have not had occasion to call it in question. I do not think there is any constitutional difficulty; the question of duty is solely within the purview of the dominion parliament.


Charles A. Stewart: But you do not mean to say that because one province
is a sinner you will make all the others suffer.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The constitutional question does not arise at all, but the practical effect will be that the other provinces will be brought into line.


[Stage Direction]
Resolution agreed to.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I would ask that the amendment to No. I stand. The suggested amendment came from the Department of External Affairs and it would not be courteous not to confer with them before agreeing either to drop it or to insist on going on with it. For that reason I would ask that it stand.


James Layton Ralston: Does the minister intend to go on to-night after nine o'clock?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I do not think I can stand it, but I shall see.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock. PRIVATE BILLS


SECOND READINGS
[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 76, for the relief of Nora Ellen Moore McCabe.-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).
Bill No. 77. for the relief of Hildur Emilia Hill Soucy.-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).
Bill No. 78, for the relief of Ethel Ellis Callow Randles.-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).
Fisheries Act

[Stage Direction]
Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster) moved that the house go into committee on Bill No. 17, to amend the Fisheries Act, 1932, (as reported against by the standing committee on marine and fisheries).
He said: Before the motion is put I have a few remarks to make concerning the bill and what took place in the committee. It i3 not my intention to cover the ground I covered when the bill was first introduced. At that time I dealt with the matter very fully. But in view of the fact that the committee has reported against it I want to make some statement as to what took place.
First I draw the attention of the house to the fact that on that committee there are some thirty-five members, and that when the matter came up for final decision there were seventeen present besides the chairman, and the vote was nine to eight. In view of that I felt it my duty to protest against the report of the committee being brought in, and to make a statement relative to some of the evidence that was laid before it.
When the final report was laid on the table there was at least one paragraph in it that I do not think the committee considered at all. I shall not read the whole of the third report, but it states in part that:
After consideration, your committee is of the opinion that the public interest, as a whole, would not best be served by the passing of the proposed legislation.
Now that question was not discussed before that committee when the vote was taken. The question was simply put to the committee whether my bill should pass or not, and the vote was taken simply on that question. In view of the small number by which that vote was carried I ask the house to refer the matter back to the committee, not only for further consideration along the lines I have stated, but also in order that witnesses should be called. The matter is so vitally important that the fishermen concerned, men who are employed in gill net fishing in the Fraser river, should be called from the Pacific coast to put before the committee the actual facts of the case. Although I did the best I could I still believe that had those men been allowed to come before the committee they would perhaps have made a greater impression than I did.
Briefly I wish to review some of the statements that were made by the deputy minister, as many of his statements before the committee were misleading. I am not say-

ing they were deliberately so, but in my opinion they were put forward in such a way as to becloud the issue and so left a wrong impression with the committee.
In clause 2 he stated that fifty per cent of the seine boats were owned by the canneries. I dispute that statement very strongly. It may be true that only fifty per cent are owned outright by the canneries, but the committee were not informed by the deputy minister that another forty per cent are partly owned by them. At a mass meeting in the city of New Westminster at which the deputy minister and the district supervisor were present neither of them thought fit to refute the statement made by the fishermen there that ninety per cent of the seine boats were owned or controlled by the canners; they were either afraid or they knew better.
Then in clause 4 of paragraph 2 he states that the United States got most of the fish. That aspect was not gone into very fully, but if anyone cares to look at the record he will find that there were years when we on the Canadian side of the line put up more fish than the Americans.
Then the deputy minister in making his statement to the committee quoted the pack of fish, not the amount of fish caught. We on the Canadian side are catching more fish than are caught on the American side, and have so done for years, but what happens? The cannery men, who are endeavouring to control the whole industry, tell the fishermen how many fish they will take, and other fish by the thousands are often thrown overboard and so destroyed. That waste has taken place for many years. If all the fish caught in the Fraser river and the gulf of Georgia were canned the pack on the Canadian side would be as great as if not greater than that put up by the Americans. The American canners can all the fish caught on their side of the line, but that is not the case on the Canadian side. So it was very unfair for the deputy minister to state to the committee that the pack on this side is lower than on the American side, giving the committee the impression that the Americans were catching greater numbers of fish than we on this side.
Then he stated that there is no demand for second quality. One has only to go down to some of the stores in Ottawa and see second quality fish being sold. And what does the storekeeper tell you if you ask for a can of that fish? He says: I cannot get enough of this second quality to supply my customers. Yet the deputy minister says there is no demand for the second quality pack. I ask any hon. member of the house to go to any store

Fisheries Act
in which is exhibited the second quality pack, together of course with the first quality pack; I venture to say he will be told the same thing I was told right here in the city of Ottawa.
The deputy minister also states that no purse seining has been allowed for early sockeye salmon. That may be so, but this year the canners came out in their true colours; they were advocating that the whole area at the mouth of the Fraser river be thrown open at all times for purse seining. Then the deputy minister states that up to 1916 there was no sockeye fishing allowed after August 21. He omitted to tell the committee, however, that for years before 1914 the date was October 1. Then he tried to interject the statement that the British dealers reserved their best labels for Canadian goods in years past. Did he tell the committee that some of the British buyers are taking the second quality fish and actually asking for a rebate to take' off the- first quality lids? During the past year there has been a great demand in the old country for second quality fish, because by simply flipping off the second quality lids those fish can be sold in Great Britain as No. 1 quality.
If I had more time I could place a number of these definite facts before the- committee. The deputy minister stated that when the Fraser river emptied into the gulf it flowed north. At its mouth that river is almost two mi-les wide; it flows approximately five miles an hour, and it flows south, not north. He did not place anything before the committee in support of that- statement. I make the unqualified assertion that the Fraser flows south towards the international boundary line. Anyone who crosses from Vancouver' to Victoria can see the line of demarcation away towards the gulf islands; the waters of the Fraser are brown and muddy, in contrast to the clear salt water. He also said it had been decided to limit purse seining to a small area. That was not an exact statement of the fact, because the area embraces practically the whole surface covered by the waters which flow from the Fraser river. One of the most terrible statements made, if I may use that term, was that the area which I am asking to have cleared of seines was not frequented by gill net fishermen. When I was home during the recess I took occasion to call the fishermen together and place before them all statements made. I could produce at least a dozen affidavits that gill net fishermen have operated in the area under dispute for the last thirty or thirty-five years.
The deputy minister spoke of the inspection board. That board stated, I suppose after
being asked by the department whether they could tell by inspecting fish whether they had been caught by purse seines or by gill netters, that they could not tell by inspection. What did the deputy minister tell the committee, however? He said they had asked the canners. What is the use of arguing any further about this when, as I say, the canners own or control ninety per cent of the seine boats? What is the use of asking the cannery men whether the fish condemned had been caught by seines or gill nets? I suppose it is only human nature for them to say that the condemned fish were caught by gill nets, because naturally they are all for the seines and against the gill nets. But the inspection board, that board of brokers appointed to inspect the fish they are buying, say they cannot tell. A delegation of fishermen went to the canners two months ago and asked the canners if they could tell whether the fish were caught by gill nets or seines. They told the fishermen they could not tell, and it seems very strange- that those statements should be made to the deputy minister. The inspection board seems to be all right when its opinions agree with those of the department, but when the board is against what the department has been advocating, then the opinion of the board is ignored.
I claim that the area under dispute is brackish water. The water of the Fraser flows into the gulf for many miles, but that point was not elaborated very much by the department. They simply ignored the fact that I had claimed that it was brackish water. That is one reason- why I think the fisheries committee should have gone into this matter more thoroughly. Witnesses should have been brought from the coast; the cannery men should have been invited also; proper tidal maps should have been produced by the deputy minister to support his contention that after the Fraser entered the estuary of the gulf it flowed north and that the area under dispute was not brackish water. So many misleading statements have been made that I have not time to go into all of them; I can only touch a few, to which I should like to direct the attention of the house. But may I say that while there have been many arguments advanced with regard to the quality of fish and the method of catching them, very little if any argument has been advanced by the department in regard to the time of year when the fish are caught, which is an all important question as far as quality is concerned. What did the department do last year? This is very interesting. At a public meeting it was stated on behalf of the department that the FraseT river had been closed because sixty per cent of the fish were too poor in quality to be
[Stage Direction]
Fisheries Act
[Stage Direction]
canned, but two weeks later they opened up the river for fishing. This question has been asked and never answered properly:	If the
fish were not fit to be canned on September 12 last why, after closing the river for two weeks, was it decided that the fish were all right, as was shown by the fact that the river was opened for fishing again? As a matter of fact when the river was reopened two weeks later the cannery men, naturally enough, were afraid to can the fish caught, with the result that the fishermen took them across the line and received more for their fish than they would have received if they had been accepted by the Canadian cannery men.
Then it was stated by the department that the fishermen were not injured by reason of the fact that seines were allowed in this area, and it was stated further that in 1934 the fishermen received more money than they had received in the previous year. They overlooked the fact that there were actually more fishermen in that area than the number given out by the department. The department simply took number of licences issued in that area, divided them by the sum total of the price received and said, "There you are; each individual received so much. We have taken the number of licences and divided that into the total amount, and therefore the fishermen got more." I ask: Is that evidence? I say it is not evidence and we could prove the contrary; had the fishermen been given an opportunity to appear before the committee it could have been amply proven that hundreds of fishermen came from other areas into that area. The fact has been overlooked, also, that while it is true'some individual fishermen obtained larger catches, they might have obtained such catches and more because some individual boats were in operation twenty-four hours of the day.
In 1922 a commission was sent out to British Columbia to investigate the fishing industry, and the report adopted by this house stated that no seines should be allowed where gill nets could operate. Well, gill nets have been operating in that area for fifty years. It is strange that from 1922 nothing was done until 1933, at which time it was suddenly opened up. Why? That was done because other areas had been fished out and the cannery men were demanding more places for their boats; they have a certain amount of money invested in those boats. It is their idea to keep their boats operating for as long a period as possible and be in a position to move them from one district to another.
I state in all seriousness my belief that the fishing industry as a whole has suffered greatly
[Mr Reid.l
because we have had no minister of fisheries.
I make that observation advisedly and in all kindliness to the present acting minister. The present arrangement does not give the present acting minister or any person who may hold that office the proper incentive to go ahead and to look into all aspects of the field with a view to conducting the Department of Fisheries as it should be conducted. I claim that no matter how efficient may be the department in this city of Ottawa, the men on the Pacific coast and the fishermen engaged in the trade know more about the fishing industry than do the officials in the department. With^ the statement that we should have had a minister of fisheries I would couple the observation that the fishing industry is one of the most important. In 1929 the total trade in the fishing industry was valued at S53,000,000. In the fishing operations 65,391 men were employed and on shore 13.927 found employment, making a total of 79,318 persons. An industry showing that volume of trade and this large number of persons engaged in it might well have had a minister of fisheries who could have devoted the greater part of his time to the industry.
This is an instance of vested interests operating against the individual fishermen. When the price spreads commission was investigating conditions in the Atlantic coast fisheries I should like to have seen them investigate and take evidence from the Pacific coast. Had they done so I believe conditions revealed on the Pacific coast would have been far worse than those on the Atlantic seaboard. I believe the fishing industry on the Pacific coast is being mainly controlled by certain large interests in the east. It is a well known fact, I believe, that the Gundy interests control some fishing companies out there.
Then we hear talk about prices. It is very strange that although United States cannery men pay far more for their fish they can sell it much cheaper to the United States consumer than does the Canadian cannery man to the Canadian consumer. I hold in my hands two tins of salmon of the same variety, one a Canadian can and the other an American. I bought these cans of salmon because I thought it worth while to bring the evidence with me; there is nothing like producing the goods. Although the United States fishermen receive more money than the Canadian fishermen for the same variety of fish, the American consumer can buy a one pound tin of fish far cheaper than can the Canadian consumer. I say the vested interests in Canada are soaking it to the Canadian consumer. What do we find so far as No. 1 sockeye is concerned? In Canada the consumer is charged 35 cents

Fisheries Act
a tin while in the United States he is charged only 21 cents for the same variety. No wonder I have suggested that the price spreads commission should have considered this matter. No wonder I say that commission should have gone to British Columbia and investigated what is really happening out there.
Endeavouring to eliminate any observations I made in a previous speech, I shall proceed to state as briefly as possible the meaning of the measure before us. This appeal of mine is on the principle of the greatest good to the greatest number. Surely in these days, when we are wondering what we will do with modern machinery, when we are wondering what we will do with our idle men, when we have a bill which will save an industry and would bring about a condition whereby twice or three times as many men would be employed-surely under these circumstances it is very strange to have, it fall on deaf ears. The fame of Fraser river fishing has been built up during the past fifty years by individual gill netting. We see now that vested interests are making a demand to be allowed to go into the estuary of the Fraser river and to scoop out the fish by the thousands. If this is permitted not only will 2,000 men be driven off. and deprived of their livelihood but the great fishing industry of the Fraser river will be destroyed. I claim it is a serious matter, and that is why I make my appeal to the house. I am appealing to hon. members to allow this measure to go to the committee, or to send it back, so as to have witnesses from the coast. Ah, yes; witnesses from the fishermen would not be allowed to come here, but w-e find that the vested interests can always afford to send their representatives to speak to the deputy, and to state what they want. We know that in the last few days one of them has been very busy wiring back to the Pacific coast, and saying: "For heaven's sake, appeal to the members of parliament to kill Reid's bill." Is it any wonder I raise my voice on behalf of the fishermen? Surely they need some one to plead their case. I make a final appeal to this chamber to at least send this matter back to the committee; let the witnesses and all records be brought forward so that the statements made by the department will be more fully gone into.
Mr. A. E. MUNN (Vancouver North):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to discuss the bill in detail, because the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) has covered the ground thoroughly. First may I compliment the hon. member upon his gallant fight for the fishermen. I know that he has no personal gain in mind, he is simply fighting for
the individual and against the vested interests. He is thoroughly familiar with the situation in his constituency, and undoubtedly knows more about conditions at that point than I do.
I happened to be a member of the committee, and as such I was greatly disappointed to note that the committee chose to reject the bill. It is only in recent years that conditions in the territory in question have been different. I say the hon. member is not asking for too much, and I would voice my plea to have the matter returned to the committee. Let us in some way obtain evidence from the men affected, because we know there are thousands of them. I would plead with hon. members to take a fair minded view and, if necessary, to forget politics. I think we should endeavour to help a man who needs assistance and hon. members should consent to the request of the hon. member for New Westminster that this bill be sent back to the committee.


Mr. W. G. ERNST (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the committee which considered this bill I feel I ought to say a word or two by way of explanation. This bill seeks to eliminate purse seining in the waters not of the mouth of the Fraser river but adjacent to the mouth. The bill was referred to the standing committee on fisheries early in the session. A statement has been made, particularly by the last speaker (Mr. Munn), which would intimate to hon. members that fair consideration was not given to the bill by the committee. The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) appeared before the committee with charts and maps to explain his bill and was as well posted with respect to it as he has been to-night. The deputy minister of fisheries then explained the attitude of the department and the reason which prompted them to allow purse seining. The statement of the deputy minister was subsequently put into writing and circulated to every member of the committee. It was sent to the Pacfic coast and every interest affected was given an opportunity to make a reply. The fishermen's union made a reply through the hon. member for New Westminster, largely in the terms in which he has addressed the house to-night. With the exception of the particular fishermen's union represented by the hon. member, all the replies were opposed to the bill. The hon. member again appeared before the committee to answer as best he could the arguments of the deputy minister. After fair consideration, quite apart from politics, a vote was taken
Fisheries Act

and the bill was defeated. I fail to see where either vested interests or politics enter into the matter. There has been an imputation against what I might call the good name of the deputy -minister. During the five years I have been chairman of this committee I have had the privilege of working with that gentleman; I knew him before that time and I believe that every hon. member who has come in contact with him knows that he is sincere and honest in his endeavours to help the industry.
One or two words as to the merits of the bill. There are two sharply conflicting opinions with regard to this matter. One opinion favours unlimited purse seining, while the other favours the elimination of this type of fishing. The department has tried to steer a course between these two opinions. Purse seining is now permitted only during the late months of the year when the late sockeye and pinks are running; it is not permitted during the other seasons and at all times it is under strict regulation. The argument put forward by the department in favour of purse seining during this limited period is that it produces a better quality of fish for canning than does the gill net method. The purse seine takes the fish before they enter the river, before they reach any brackish water and before discolouration or loss of colour takes place. The statistics furnished by the deputy minister show conclusively that since purse seining was inaugurated in these waters the pack in that particular area has been far superior to the pack in previous years when the fish were taken by the gill net fishermen after they had entered the river. It must be remembered that the purse seiner takes the fish while they are still in the open water, while the gill netter takes the fish after they have entered the river. As I say, the statistics show that since purse seining has come into effect in that area the catch has been immeasurably improved so far as canning quality and marketability is concerned. The statistics showed also that despite purse seining the gill net fishermen were taking more fish than they had been taking previously. There is nothing more *o be added; that is the whole crux of the matter. As to the change of attitude of the department, the deputy minister explained that compulsory inspection of canned salmon was first started in 1933 and that limited purse seining became complementary to the compulsory inspection in order to provide a suitable product for our markets.


Charles A. Stewart: Did purse
seining commence only in 1933?


William Gordon Ernst: In that area. I am not
speaking from first hand knowledge; I speak only from the evidence given by the deputy minister.


Charles A. Stewart: But it
started only in 1933?


William Gordon Ernst: In that area. Purse seining is carried on in other localities along the coast, but it has been carried on in that area only since the compulsory inspection was put into effect.
Mr. ANGlUS MaoINNIS (Vancouver South):	Mr. Speaker, I have just a word or
two to say in connection with one or two points in this bill. In answer to the question asked by the hon. member for West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart) I would say that purse seining did not go into effect in thi3 area until 1933. This was not commenced because of the inspection; the department had wanted to put inspection into effect long before but the canners would not agree. Other areas had been fished out with purse seines and the canners wanted to get into this particular area which previously had been limited to gill netters. If purse seiners are to be allowed to continue to fish this area it will mean the depletion of the area to a point where it can be replenished only by long closed periods. As the hon. member who introduced the bill (Mr. Reid) has said, this is a struggle between large scale fishing and what is generally termed hand fishing. If the results obtained by the machine fishing went to the men in the community I would not have any objection, nor do I think anyone could object; but as the situation now is, the results all go to the canners. Some of the large shareholders of these canneries are not even residents of this country. During the last week or two we have been endeavouring to create employment and we certainly will not create employment by allowing the greater use of purse seines. I think the house should refer this bill back to the committee or pass it without reference back and give the men in the gill net fishing industry an opportunity to continue to earn their livelihood.


Charles A. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter in which
I took a great deal of interest in the early twenties, when I first came to Ottawa. I am surprised to learn that seine fishing has been allowed in the mouth of the Fraser river.


William Gordon Ernst: Not in the mouth.


Charles A. Stewart: Practically
in the mouth of the Fraser river, according to what I am told.

Fisheries Act
An bon. MEMBER:	It is not in the
mouth.


Charles A. Stewart: Just outside the mouth. At least it is in the area that was formerly prohibited, and that is the point at issue. Since 1933 the policy of the department in this respect has changed, and changed for the very obvious reason that the canners were not able to catch in the waters where they formerly fished. My hon. friend shakes his head, but I had a good deal to do with the controversy in the west when that decision was arrived at, and my hon. friend can be sure that if seine fishing is allowed there for any length of time it will put the gill net fishermen out of business. If that is the object to be attained, you will succeed admirably. My hon. friend says there is no politics in this, and I am not approaching it from the political standpoint at all; I am approaching it from the standpoint, at this time particularly if at no other, that seine fishing should be prohibited in order to provide employment for a greater number of men. My hon. friend has practically the same conditions down in the east, although I am not so familiar with conditions there. But if a certain amount of fish can be consumed it stands to reason that the greater the number of men employed in catching them the more employment there will be, and so far as I am concerned if this bill comes to a vote I am going to support it for that very reason, and despite the fact that the committee voted against it.


Hon. GROTE STIRLING (Acting Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, I have very little to add to what has been already said with regard to this bill. It appears to me that there can be no finality in dealing with legislation if a bill is to go through the ordinary course of first and second readings, be considered by a committee as closely as this matter was considered, then rediscussed here with the same statements repeated on both sides, and perhaps be sent back to the committee. It is a controversial matter, as I was careful to point out at the commencement of my remarks on the second reading, but it is a matter to which the department has given a very great deal of attention.
My hon. friend from West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart), at the last moment, shall I say, introduces his suggestion that perhaps seining has been permitted in this small area for the purpose of ultimately driving out the gill net fishermen.


Charles A. Stewart: That is
what will happen.


Grote Stirling: A more extraordinary
misconception, if the hon. member has listened to any of the statements which have been made heretofore, I can hardly conceive. Let me in a very few sentences simply put the case.
The late run fish come through the straits of Juan de Fuca, hugging the Washington shore. There they are taken in the cold, clear, salt water in enormous numbers for the purposes of the Washington canneries. When they get close up to the dividing line between the United States and Canada, which is not many miles from the area into which the Fraser river pours into the gulf of Georgia, they can first be taken by Canadian fishermen. They mill around in that triangle of water, beyond the brackish discoloured water of the Fraser, and in that water they can be taken, but they cannot be taken in that water by the gill netters. When I say they cannot be taken there I mean that the gill nettens principally do their fishing in the discoloured brackish water off the mouth of the Fraser, but as soon as the fishermen get into this cold, clear water where their nets are easily visible they do not succeed in taking fish, and they go back again to the brackish water. Therefore if these fish, where it is first possible to take them in Canadian waters, are not taken by gear that will take them they will not be taken by Canadians, and the amount of trade in canned salmon which Canada can do in world markets will not be as great as it otherwise would be.
My hon. friend the sponsor of the bill (Mr. Reid) has repeated here this evening a good many of the statements which he has made on two previous occasions. He has expressed considerable disagreement with the statements of the deputy minister. I should certainly have thought that the place to make known those disagreements was in the deputy minister's presence on the occasion when this matter was so fully discussed by the committee.


Albert Edward Munn: He did so.


Grote Stirling: And the answers were given. To-night he desires to reiterate them, and surely there is no reason why he should not. But the house should not take it that those statements have in any way impressed the officials of the department because that is not the view held by the department. In this matter the only proper course for the department to take is to try to hold the balances even after a consideration of all the facts, and that is the desire of the department. Changes have come over the fishing
Customs Tarifj

industry in the last few years. The late run of fish has been increasing at a very considerable rate. The run of trade in the world's market has been increasing; there has been an opportunity for the sale of more first class canned fish, and the desire of the department is to assist the taking of those fish which can properly be canned so long as it can be done without detriment to any interest. That is the view of the department.
Mr. JEAN -FRAN QOIS POULIOT (Ternis-couata): Mr. Speaker, there is one reason why I cannot understand any opposition to this bill. It is because in some sections of the country seine fishing for salmon has been prohibited. That is so in the province of Quebec, and I do not see why it should be allowed in the province of British Columbia. No one wishes to enter into a controversy as to the merits or demerits of the deputy minister of fisheries. Personally I have never had anything to do with him; I do not know him and I am not going to pass judgment upon him. But what every member of the house can do, sir, is to pay a tribute to the member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid), who is sponsoring this bill, as one of the most assiduous members of the house, familiar with the problems of his own province, and a member who has at heart the interests of the people he represents in this house as well as the interests of the country at large. Therefore no one can be mistaken in following the course suggested by the hon. member, and that is the second reason why I shall vote for the bill.


Thomas Reid: I have just one word to say in reply, Mr. Speaker-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. gentleman has not the right of reply.
Motion negatived on division.




[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. M-orand in the chair.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The items under customs tariff have all been passed except resolution No. 1, which stood prior to the dinner hour.


Frederick George Sanderson: I should like to refer to item 451e, slide or hookless fasteners. This afternoon the minister was good enough to say that he would get certain information with regard to the manufacture of these zippers. He told us about the location of the plants and said he would endeavour to bring down information as to the number of hands employed, their wage bill for the year, and so on. Will he also endeavour to find out whether these three plants are under one control and working under one patent?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I shall be very pleased to get all the information which is available. If it is the wish of the committee to pass these resolutions before the information is brought down, I undertake that it will be brought down on second reading of the bill. Now, as regards resolution No. 1, there was a suggested amendment which was not pressed. I intimated to the committee my desire to confer with the Department of External Affairs and I may say now that I do not wish to press the amendment. I would therefore ask that the resolution be allowed to pass in its present form.


[Stage Direction]
Resolution agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the Income War Tax Act and to provide,-
1.	That
(a)	"earned income" be defined to include salaries, wages, and other personal earnings, including income derived from the carrying on of a trade (as a sole proprietor or in partnership), vocation or calling; provided, however, that the total amount of the "earned income" derived from any source, or combination of sources, shall in no case exceed $14,000 per annum;
(ib) "investment income" shall mean any income not defined as "earned income."
2.	That rates of surtax be imposed on all persons, other than joint stock companies, in respect of investment income as follows-:-
Included in any income exceeding $ 5,000 but not exceeding $ 10,000	2%
Included in any income exceeding	10,000 but not exceeding 14,000	3%On income	exceeding	
14,000	but	not	exceeding	20,000	3%On income	exceeding	
20,000	but	not	exceeding	30,000-	4%On income	exceeding	
30,000	but	not	exceeding	50,000-	5%On income	exceeding	
50,000	but	not	exceeding	75,000-	6%On income	exceeding	
75,-000	but	not	exceeding	100,000-	7%On income	exceeding	
100,000	but	not	exceeding	150,000-	8%On income	exceeding	
150,000	but	not	exceeding	200,000	9%On income exceeding	
[DOT] 200,000	10 %
tMr. Stirling.]

Income War Tax Act
3.	That the following income shall not be liable to surtax, either
(a)	all income up to five thousand dollars;
or
(b)	"earned income" up to but not exceeding fourteen thousand dollars; or
(c)	income equal in amount to the sum of the exemption and allowances for dependents to which a person is actually entitled under the said act; whichever is the highest.
4.	That
(a)	in determining "earned income" the amount of any salary or bonus shall be subject to adjustment commensurate with the services rendered and any amounts in excess of such adjustment shall be regarded as "investment income";
(b)	where an expense is common to both "earned" and "investment" income the expense shall be apportioned.
5.	That the corporation rate of tax be increased from 12J per cent to 13J per cent.
6.	That consolidated returns be not permitted except in cases where a subsidiary company is wholly owned by another company (directors' qualifying shares excepted); is in the same general class of business; the fiscal periods of the companies are co-incident; and both companies are operating in Canada, and under such other regulations as may be prescribed. When consolidation is permitted the corporation rate of tax on such returns shall be increased from 13J per cent to 15 per cent.
7.	That dividends received by shareholders be taxed by an allowance for depletion of 20 per cent in lieu of the present allowance.
Mr. FRASER; (Cariboo): With regard to the gold tax, is there not a duplication of taxation under this section? The tax was paid last year and it would seem that the income is being taxed again this year.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: There is an overlapping to this extent, that the original bill as brought down last year expired on May 31 this year and the income tax is applicable, under the provisions of the budget resolutions, as of the end of the fiscal year or the first of April this year. There is therefore an overlapping in part with respect to the months of April and May, but to that extent only.


Mr. FRASER (Cariboo):: This increased tax covers 1934 as well as 1935. To that extent is it not a further duplication? The gold producers have already paid the tax and you are going back and making this increased tax apply to 1934 income. At any rate, that is my interpretation of this provision.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: There is no increase in the tax. The provisions have reference to the depletion allowance, and the depletion allowance has reference only to the fiscal year 1935; it is not retroactive to cover last year in so far as the gold companies are concerned.


James Layton Ralston: Does the minister contemplate under the bill any amendment to this item or the item in connection with corporation taxes, so as to remove the duplication referred to by the hon. member?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have none in mind at the moment with respect to either the corporation tax or gold. There is one amendment which may be introduced in the committee stage of the bill with respect to the gift tax, but not with respect to the corporation tax or gold.


James Layton Ralston: It 'has been pointed out that there is a substantial increase in taxation so far as gold mines are concerned. There is a decrease in the depletion allowance. The depletion allowance was fifty per cent and is now thirty-three and one-third per cent. There is now an increase in. the corporation income tax rate and the net result, as calculated by those who are interested, is a forty-dour per cent increase in taxation on the net operating income of mines subject to the bullion tax. In addition to that, the bullion, tax remains on for the first five months of 1935. That is, the new increased taxes are put on and at the same time the old bullion tax remains for five months of 1935. I presume the minister has had representations in regard to this matter and has made a definite decision, but it does seem rather unfair and not what was contemplated when he brought down his budget statement. It was not contemplated that there Should be a definite increase and double taxation in connection with these mines when the general impression, was that there would be a decrease in view of the fact that the bullion tax was being removed.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If there is any injustice that ought properly to be remedied, I prefer to deal with it in committee stage on the bill. I have not been in close touch with my office for the last few weeks;, but on the whole, while there may be exceptions, the present set-up of tlie gold tax is acceptable. It may be that in respect of one or two companies it varies inequitably, and if on inquiry it appears that this is so, I shall be glad to deal with the matter on the recond reading of the bill.


John Anderson Fraser: I suggest to the minister that he give careful attention also to the question I have raised because I have information from a gold mining company that this is double taxation without any question about it, and I hope the minister will take care to see that it is not made applicable as a double tax. The contention is that the shareholder is now taxed notwithstanding that he has already paid the bullion tax. You make that retroactive.

Income War Tax Act


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: May I point out that the
principle of the double tax obtains in our present taxation structure and has obtained for many years. Personally I have no hesitation in saying that there is a very serious objection to that, but it exists in our whole income tax structure. We have a situation where a company has paid its full income tax, yet when that income, which has borne a heavy tax, comes into the hand of the individual shareholder he in turn is called upon to pay an income tax on it. I would hope that in better circumstances and happier times we shall be able to depart from that practice. But right or wrong it is there and has been for many years.


John Anderson Fraser: But the objection I am pointing out is that you are now coming back with this taxation and making it retroactive on the shareholder who has already paid the bullion tax.


[Stage Direction]
Resolution agreed to.
8.	That depletion allowance to be allowed to mining companies, the principal product of which is gold and silver, shall be 33J per cent in lieu of the present allowance.
James Layton Ralston: Will the minister permit me to say a word more, so that he may have this representation for consideration, when
the bill comes to be taken up? As I understand it, the situation is this, that by reason of the fact that the depletion allowance is reduced from fifty per cent to thirty-three and a third per cent and the corporation tax increased, there is a net increase of forty-four per cent in taxation. In addition, while that increase in taxation goes back to the 1934 period, the bullion tax is still on for the first five months of 1935, therefore there is not only a forty-four per cent increase in the corporation income tax, but there is also the bullion tax being paid at the same time.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I shall be very glad to inquire into that angle of the proposals at the same time.


[Stage Direction]
Resolution agreed to.
9.	That a1 tax of five per centum be imposed at the source on all royalties payable by Canadian debtors in respect of books, music and articles in magazines, to non-residents of Canada. The 12J per cent deduction to be abolished in respect of the foregoing.
Resolution agreed to.
10.	That a tax be imposed upon gifts inter vivos at the following rates, unless the income from such gift continues to be taxed against the donor, as provided for in the act;
Up to and including	$	25,000	- 2%Exceeding	
25,000	but	not	exceeding	$	50,000-	3%Exceeding	
50,000	but	not	exceeding	100,000-	4%Exceeding	
100,000	but	not	exceeding	200,000
5%
Exceeding	
200,000	but	not	exceeding	300,000-	6%Exceeding	
300,000	but	not	exceeding	400,000-	7%Exceeding	
400,000	but	not	exceeding	500,000-	8%Exceeding	
500,000	but	not	exceeding	1,000,000-	9%Exceeding	
1,000,000	.-io%
Provided that the rate be not applicable to gifts in the aggregate of $1,000 or less in any one year.
Resolution agreed to.
11.	That amounts charged by any company or organization outside of Canada to Canadian companies in respect of management fees, services, use of patents, processes or formulae used in Canada, shall not be allowed as a deduction if the non-resident controls the Canadian company through the holding of shares, by affiliation with other companies, by agreement, or in any other manner.
Resolution agreed to.
12.	That in respect of any taxpayer claiming reciprocal relief for taxes paid in Great Britain or any foreign country, such taxpayer shall not be allowed as against profits taxable in Canada the losses sustained in any such country.
Resolution agreed to.
13.	That the amount received from income bonds or debentures shall be deemed to be a dividend for the purposes of the act and

shall not be a deduction before determining the taxable income of the corporation paying any amount in respect of such income bonds or debentures.
James Layton Ralston: I was in touch with the officials of the department, and I think there is under consideration some amendment in order to provide for income bonds issued as a result of reorganization.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes, in the bill itself as already drafted there is an amendment which will take care of the situation. It will be apparent when I introduce the bill, and I assure my hon. friend it will be dealt with at that time.


[Stage Direction]
Resolution agreed to.
14.	That any enactment founded on the foregoing resolutions shall be deemed to have come

Special War Revenue Act
into force at the commencement of the 1934 taxation period and to be applicable thereto and to fiscal periods ending therein and to all subsequent periods, with the following exceptions:-
(a)	As to any mining company, the principal product of which is gold, which has contributed to the tax on the premium value of gold as enacted by part XV of the Special War Revenue Act, any enactment founded on resolution No. 8 shall be deemed to have come into force at the commencement of the 1935 taxation period and to be applicable thereto and to fiscal periods ending therein and to all subsequent periods.
(b)	That any enactment founded on resolution No. 10 shall be deemed to have come into force at the commencement of the 1935 taxation period and shall be applicable thereto and to subsequent periods.
James Layton Ralston: The same remark I made in regard to No. 8 applies to this.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes.


James Layton Ralston: I want to say a word in regard to No. 14. I have stood in my place so often and protested against retroactive legislation that I have begun to think it is perhaps of no use to do so. But I am sure the minister in his heart of hearts will agree -I think he has agreed-that in principle retroactive legislation is unsound. He said that taxation proposals have been made retroactive in the past, but he knows that those proposals generally had to do with reductions and not with increases. I submit in all seriousness and earnestness, not only on account of corporations but on account of individuals and income tax payers who are affected by lessened exemptions, that it is a bad principle, after a man has made his income tax return, after he has made his commitments for the year thinking he knew what the income tax was- and the same applies to corporations-that the government should come in and say that an additional impost shall be levied in respect of that year's income. It is wrong in principle; it is almost a violation of contract, because surely people are entitled to believe that the laws on the statute books applicable to a given period will be observed when the tax collector comes around. But that is not so if we act in accordance with resolution 14. by making these provisions retroactive. I protest with all the earnestness I can against that sort of legislation.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: In reply to my hon. friend let me say at once with absolute frankness that I agree in principle with the general tenor of his whole remarks. I have already made a similar statement on other occasions.
It is a real hardship to the individual and I believe in principle it works an injustice. I
regret to have to be associated with continuing what I believe to be an injustice. But there is an old saying that I think is particularly applicable in the case of a minister of finance dealing with a situation under difficult circumstances, that "he must need go that the devil drives." Nothing but the sheer necessities of the case would warrant my being a party to proposals of this character. I do hope that we are not far removed from the day when we shall get away from it entirely.


James Layton Ralston: I may make a representation to the minister when the bill comes up with regard to one flagrant case, where even the retroactive feature is applied inequitably. Some companies do not have their fiscal year correspond to the calendar year. The result is that retroactive feature applies to what they call the 1934 period, which in the case of some companies may have ended in March, 1934. The effect therefore of that retroactive section is that the whole increase in taxation goes back a year, or from March, 1934, to March, 1933. In other words, nine months of the 1933 business is being taxed at the new rate, simply because of the fact that the resolution and the bill foimded on it will go back to the 1934 period. I suggest to the minister that at least the retroactive feature does not go back beyond January 1, 1934. Even with that I submit that we are entirely violating the principle which he himself admits, and of which I submit no necessity justifies a breach.


[Stage Direction]
Resolution agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the Special War Revenue Act and to provide: -
1.	That schedule I to the said act, as amended by section twenty-six of chapter fifty of the statutes of 1932-33 be amended by adding thereto the following words:-
"Devices commonly or commercially, known as lighters, which produce sparks, flame or heat, n.o.p., 20 per cent.
Such devices when combined' with pencils, cigarette or other cases, on the combined value 10 per cent."
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have an amendment to
move to the effect that the minimum tax upon an individual lighter shall be ten cents. There has been some discussion with respect to this tax. I wish to say to the committee, and I hope that they will accept my statement as an exact statement of fact, that this tax was initiated by myself, and the sole idea in initiating it was to protect the revenue. They have a similar tax in Great Britain; they have one in France. The reason is obvious to those who make inquiry; a sub-
Special War Revenue Act

stantial source of revenue in this and other countries has been the tax upon matches. The yield from that tax has been diminished to a very large extent by the use of the lighter, which bears no tax. To give you an idea of what it means in the way of taxation, in England the minimum tax on a lighter is a shilling. Here I am suggesting it should be only ten cents; I think I am overmodest. In France the minimum tax is thirty-two cents and it goes up to $15.60 on an individual lighter. The revenue on matches last year dropped a quarter of a million dollars; it is in round figures $1,000,000 below what it was four years ago. The tax is introduced solely for the purpose of endeavouring to protect that revenue.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: A tariff
for revenue, not protection.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: To the extent that this tax discourages the use of lighters, to that extent it will increase the consumption of matches and restore to the treasury that measure of taxation. My amendment is:
Provided that in either case the tax hereby imposed shall not he less than ten cents in respect of each such device.
Resolution as amended agreed to.
2.	That schedule III to the said act, as enacted by section eighteen of chapter forty-two of the statutes _ of 1934, be amended by adding to or inserting therein the following words: "grain or seed cleaning machines; pit props and packwood for use exclusively in mines; casein."


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have an amendment to this resolution also, adding after the word " casein " the words " wood shavings and sawdust". It is designed to remove the sales tax from wood shavings and sawdust.


Thomas Reid: Before the resolution carries I should like to make another appeal to the minister with regard to the sales tax on peat moss. I realize that it would be hardly possible to imp.ose a sales tax against which some section of the country would not complain, but my information is that this tax was placed on peat moss due to the fact that some firm in Alberta was using peat to make insulating board which entered into competition with other insulating materials already on the market, and it was thought only reasonable and fair, since there was a sales tax on insulating material, that peat made into insulating boards should be taxed as well. In British Columbia, however, peat is not used for that purpose. In that province peat moss is used by the poultry-men, and heaven knows that with the present low prices for eggs and high cost of feed the poultrymen cannot afford to pay any tax. It is used for litter in the chicken houses, and

I appeal to the minister in all fairness to differentiate between peat moss used for the manufacture of insulating material and peat moss used for litter in chicken houses. The moss used as litter costs only about one-third as much as the moss used for insulating material, and it does not enter into competition with anything. I appeal to the minister on behalf of the poultrymen, and of course on behalf of the company putting up this material.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: At the moment I have not the data before me which would enable me to give my hon. friend a comprehensive answer but I will look into the matter, and if it is one upon which action can be taken I shall be glad to deal with it when we are in committee on the bill. In any case I shall be able to advise my hon. friend more fully at that time.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I should like to ask the minister why these cigarette lighters are put in schedule I of the Special War Revenue Act. I looked up schedule I to see what it contained, and the only other commodity dealt with in that schedule apears to be automobiles. I should think this would be an ordinary sales tax rather than an excise tax. Is there some reason for putting it in with automobiles?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am advised by my legal advisers that it is in its proper place as an excise tax. That is the only answer I can give my hon. friend, who of course is a much better lawyer than I am.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I thank the hon. gentleman for the compliment but I have found a great deal of difficulty in going through the various amendments and amendments to amendments contained in the statutes. If I may be permitted to make the suggestion, I think there should be a consolidation of the war revenue act in the statutes, for facility of reference. It occurred to me that there is a vast number of commodities subject to the sales tax, and this appears to be just another suoh commodity.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: No, this is an excise tax.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Could the minister explain
the difference? I cannot make it out from the act.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: This is a special excise tax on a given commodity and it is placed in the class with all other excise taxes which are applied upon an ad valorem basis. The only answer I can give is that the legal advisers tell me it has been placed in its proper schedule. That is the best answer I can give.
Resolution as amended agreed to.
3.	That schedule IV to the said act, as enacted by section twenty-nine of chapter fifty

Excise Act
of the statutes of 1932-33, be amended by adding thereto the following words:
"Articles manufactured or produced by the labour of the deaf and dumb in institutions in Canada established for their care, or under the control or direction of such institutions."


James Layton Ralston: I want to ask the minister if he has given serious thought to putting these articles in the schedule which provides complete exemption. I think the minister is to be congratulated on granting at least the fifty per cent exemption, but I wonder if he has considered going the whole way. I believe the committee would be prepared to do so if the minister approved.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I may say to my hon. friend that I gave this matter a very great deal of thought. Naturally one's compassions are moved in considering the question of the blind, the deaf and the dumb, but in the case of the blind I found that even the half remission works a hardship in the case of some industries which themselves are employers of blind people. Take the ease of a blind man who manufactures a broom. The mere fact that he is blind and that he goes about trying to sell the broom gives him an advantage in approaching the householder, whose sympathies are at once moved by the circumstance that the man is blind. Even the half remission in some cases has worked1 hardship to industries which have been established in this country for many years. If we went the whole way I believe it would work an irreparable hardship. What I have said with respect to the blind is true with respect to the deaf, who by this amendment we are placing for the first time on precisely the same footing as the blind. I have discussed this question with those who are blind and others who are associated with the work of the blind, and I think I can say that all fair minded men of that class to whom I have spoken have agreed that in going the half way/ we have gone as far as we reasonably can in justice to all our citizens.


John Campbell Elliott: Could the minister give
us an idea of the percentage of the total production of the country to which this would
apply?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: No, because there are no
such separate statistics kept for sales tax purposes.


John Campbell Elliott: Following the suggestion
of my hon. friend from Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston) it occurred to me that only a very small percentage of the production would be represented by competition of this kind.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: That would be quite true so far as income is concerned. Our hesitancy to remit the whole of the sales tax is not due to any consideration of revenue; it is due to the considerations which I have endeavoured to place before the committee, of weighing the scales fairly as between those established industries and the institutions for the blind which in many cases are in receipt of public funds and charitable subscriptions, in order to place them on something like an equality and not work an undue hardship upon industries which have no such assistance.


[Stage Direction]
Resolution agreed to.
4.	That schedule V to the said act, as enacted by section nineteen of chapter forty-two of the statutes of 1934, be amended by adding thereto the words "goods enumerated in customs tariff item 692."
Resolution agreed to.
5.	That the said act be further amended by repealing subsection two of section eighty-seven thereof, as enacted by section twelve of chapter fifty-four of the statutes of 1931.
James Layton Ralston: I have forgotten what
section is being struck out.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: This has to do with the
sales tax on samples. It removes the sales tax in the case of samples which are distributed gratuitously by manufacturers in Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Resolution agreed to.
6.	That the said act be further amended by repealing subsection two of section eighty-eight thereof, as enacted by section twelve of chapter fifty-four of the statutes of 1932, and subsection three of the said section eighty-eight, as enacted by section ten of chapter forty-two of the statutes of 1934 and substituting for the two said subsections the following subsection:
"2. The tax imposed by this section shall not apply to the articles enumerated in schedule V to this act nor to any goods imported into Canada which are entitled to entry under the British preferential tariff or under trade agreements between Canada and other British countries."
Resolution agreed to.
7.	That any enactment founded on paragraphs one to six of this resolution shall come into force on the twenty-third day of March, one thousand nine hundred and thirty-five.
Resolution agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the Excise Act 1934, and to provide:
That section one of the schedule to the said aot be amended by striking out the words "seven dollars" in the second line thereof and substituting therefor the words "four dollars," and to provide, further, that in the event of
Excise Act
[Stage Direction]
any duty imposed under this act upon spirits, malt or beer having been reduced, if it is made to appear to the governor in council that in any province the prices of spirituous or malt liquors to the consumer have not been reduced to, or are not being maintained at, levels which will give the consumer the full benefit of any such reduction, the governor in council may order that such reduction shall be no longer in effect and, upon publication of such order in the Canada Gazette, the full rates of duty theretofore payable on such goods shall again be in force and effect.
That any enactment founded on this resolution shall come into force on the twenty-third day of March, one thousand nine hundred and thirty-five.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Can the minister give any information as to reductions in prices effected by provincial governments?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes, I have a complete
list from all the provinces, and I am in a position to say that by and large the complete reduction has been passed on, although there are places in some provinces where in connection with new brands or varieties it may not have been fully passed on. However I do not regard the incident as closed, because it is my intention to see that the spirit of the act is carried out and that in all cases the reduction is made effective. I intimated this [DOT] afternoon that I thought the provinces themselves ought to contribute. I can assure my hon. friend however that in those instances where the provinces have not carried out the full spirit of the act, it will be our purpose to see that they do so.


[Stage Direction]
Resolution agreed to.
James Layton Ralston: When the minister has
procured the information regarding the two items would it not be possible for him to table a statement somewhat longer, one which might require a little more preparation but containing information which no doubt he has at hand, namely the value of imports for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1935, in respect of items in the customs tariff on which reductions in tariff have been made under these resolutions.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes, I shall endeavour to
have that information.


Jean-François Pouliot: Several times since the
session resumed this month I asked the Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan) when the returns passed on April 3 in regard to increases and decreases in taxation since 1930 would be ready. This week the Secretary of State answered that it had been completed by the Department of National Revenue, but that it had to be revised by the Department of Finance and that it might be ready

by the middle of next week. Would the minister tell me when the return will be tabled? It is nearly two months since it was ordered.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: This is the first time the
matter has been brought to my attention, but I am advised that the return in question is quite voluminous. In any event I shall make inquiries and give my hon. friend a definite answer as soon as possible. As far as I am concerned the departments will make every effort to expedite the return.


Jean-François Pouliot: I thank the minister, but I would direct the attention of the committee to the fact that as soon as I rose to ask the question the deputy minister left the chamber.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member's statement of fact is correct, but the departure of the deputy minister had no bearing upon the hon. member's question. I had asked him to secure for me the bills I propose to introduce as soon as the resolutions have been reported. It was at my request he left the chamber, and I believe when my request was made even the preliminary part of my hon. friend's question had not been delivered. Therefore I suggest he must absolve the deputy minister and place the blame upon my shoulders.


Jean-François Pouliot: As I am open minded I do not place the blame on the shoulders of anyone.
Resolutions reported, read the second time and concurred in.



INCOME WAR TAX ACT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 80, to amend the Income War Tax Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 81, to amend the Special War Revenue Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 82, to amend the Excise Act, 1934.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

Supply-Agriculture-Marketing Act

[Stage Direction]
Hon.. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 83, to amend the Customs Tariff.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I ask the consent of the house to revert to motions to enable me to table two reports from the tariff board, one with respect to biscuits, sweetened and unsweetened, and the other respecting hats and hoods, each of which has been the subject of amendments in committee on the customs tariff.


James Layton Ralston: Mr. Speaker, since the minister has gained permission to revert to motions to lay-on the table reports from the tariff board, I should like to make a request. I am sure it would be of great interest to hon. members if it were possible to have printed at least the summary of these reports. As the minister knows, only three copies are made and one cannot examine them without reference to what has been laid on the table. I realize the preliminary portion of the report and the evidence would make a very lengthy document but I should like the minister to consider the possibility of having these summaries printed.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I think the suggestion of my hon. friend is an admirable one. I agree with him that it is desirable that copies of these summaries should be available to hon. members. It would be an entirely useless expenditure to attempt to print the whole document, and much more so to print the evidence, but I feel that the summaries should be available in printed form and arrangements will be made, if not this session at least in the future, to have this done.


Jean-François Pouliot: If the house will permit, may I make another suggestion to the minister. Would it not be possible for the government to inaugurate a system of bookkeeping whereby the revenues derived' from the Income War Tax Act and the Special War Revenue Act would be applied only for the payment of the interest on the debt incurred during the war, to the payment of pensions to veterans and other war purposes? If that were done the country would be in a position to realize the difference in expenditures.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I think my hon. friend would be well advised to make his suggestion at the opening of another parliament.


Jean-François Pouliot: Then it would be accepted by my good friends.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I can assure my hon. friend that if by any fortuitous circumstances I happen to be in the house and in a position to deal with his request, I shall do so sympathetically.



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Morand in the chair.
Natural Products Marketing Act, 1934, $545,500.
Jean-François Pouliot: To what products does this act apply, in what provinces is it in force and from what dates?


Hon. ROBERT WEIR (Minister of Agriculture) :: I am afraid it would take some time to get the information in the form asked for by the hon. member.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: How
many boards are functioning in the various provinces, and with what do they deal?


Robert Weir: Eleven.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: How
many in each province?


Robert Weir: British Columbia, six; Ontario, two;' British Columbia, Ontario, Nova Scotia, one; Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, one; the Dominion of Canada, one.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: In what provinces are there no boards functioning under the jurisdiction of the Natural Products Marketing Act?


Robert Weir: Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Of the eleven boards functioning in Canada, six are in British Columbia?


Robert Weir: Yes.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: With
what products are the six boards in British Columbia dealing, as well as the boards in the other provinces?


Robert Weir: Fruit export marketing scheme, September 8, 1934, for the entire dominion. British Columbia red cedar shingle export scheme, October 16, 1934. British Columbia tree fruit scheme, August 28, 1934. British Columbia dried salt herring and dried salt salmon scheme, October 22, 1934. Ontario
3210	COMMONS
Supply-Agriculture-Marketing Act
flue cured tobacco scheme, October 26, 1934. British Columbia lower mainland milk marketing scheme, January 1, 1935. Eastern. Canada potato marketing scheme, January 18, 1935. Western' Ontario ibean marketing scheme, February 1, 1935. British Columbia interior vegetable marketing scheme, March 4, 1935. British Columbia coast vegetable marketing scheme, March 4, 1935. Dominion of Canada jam marketing scheme, April 10, 1935.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The minister mentioned two boards operating in Ontario; what do they deal with?


Robert Weir: Flue cured tobacco, the western Ontario bean marketing scheme and the potato marketing scheme. There is the dominion apple marketing scheme and the eastern Canada potato marketing scheme.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The minister mentioned that there were two or three schemes functioning in more than one province. In what provinces do these operate?


Robert Weir: The jam marketing scheme operates in all provinces, as does the fruit export marketing scheme.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Is that under the jurisdiction of a provincial or a dominion board?


Robert Weir: These schemes are all under the jurisdiction of the dominion board.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Is there any instance where there is concurrent jurisdiction of a provincial and a dominion board?


Robert Weir: The milk marketing scheme in the lower mainland of British Columbia and the coast vegetable marketing scheme.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What
does the minister say about those?


Robert Weir: They are schemes in which the dominion is cooperating with the provinces.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The
dominion jurisdiction is operating concurrently with the provincial jurisdiction. Will the minister tell me what schemes have been rejected in connection with demands that were made in any province of the dominion with respect to products under the Natural Products Marketing Act?


Robert Weir: The schemes voted on and not passed were the Manitoba poultry marketing scheme, the Saskatchewan poultry marketing scheme, and the Alberta poultry

marketing scheme. Schemes not acted upon as not considered expedient, the export butter scheme-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Was that by the dominion board?


Robert Weir: Yes.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Are there any schemes now pending before any of these jurisdictions that have not yet been decided upon?


Robert Weir: I had better finish answering the first question first. Schemes returned to petitioners, Montreal lumber; British Columbia sheep and sheep products; Manitoba vegetables; British Columbia eggs and poultry; British Columbia doors; oyster shell and poultry grit.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Were
those rejected?


Robert Weir: They were returned to the petitioners.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: By whom?


Robert Weir: By the dominion marketing board.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is practically rejected.


Robert Weir: Yes, but not voted on. Just the first three were voted on.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Chairman, apropos of this item in the estimates I desire to make a statement in regard to the marketing of potatoes. In the Charlottetown Patriot of May 20, 1935, reference was made to a speech delivered by the hon. member for Prince (Mr. MacLean) at a Liberal convention held at Summerside. In this speech the hon. member is reported to have stated as follows:
Two	reasons were	ascribed	by	A. E.
MacLean, M.P.-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What is the hon. member quoting from?


Richard Burpee Hanson: From an extract from a Charlottetown paper.
Mr.	MACKENZIE	(Vancouver):	Which
paper and what date?


Richard Burpee Hanson: The Charlottetown Patriot, May 20.	The	extract
reads:
Two	reasons were	ascribed	by	A. E.
MacLean, M.P. at the Liberal convention held at Summerside on Tuesday night for the

Supply-Agriculture-Marketing Act
present deplorable condition in the potato markets of Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick.
First the action of the Canadian government under Premier Bennett in putting up a high tariff wall against Cuban sugar, causing the Cuban government to retaliate by putting up an impossible barrier against Canadian potatoes, thus losing to Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick one of their most profitable potato markets.
The item proceeds:
He condemned the government for putting a dumping duty on Cuban sugar with the result that Cuban sugar was prohibited from Canada.
I feel that in the interests of accuracy this statement by the hon. member for Prince should not go uncorrected. The facts of the situation pertaining to the tariff on sugar are that the existing duties came into force on April 16, 1926, when a Liberal government was in power. These duties gave effect to the provisions of the Canada-West Indies trade agreement, which was concluded on July 6, 1925, for a period of twelve years, and which was signed on behalf of Canada by the following representatives: Hon. George P. Graham; Hon. James A. Robb; Hon. Thomas A. Low; Hon. W. R. Motherwell; Hon. John E. Sinclair; Hon. P. J. Arthur Cardin.
Schedule A of the Canada-West Indies trade agreement provides for preferences on West Indian raw sugar over raw sugar imported from foreign countries. The preference varies according to the degrees of polarization, but it is provided that in the case of sugar exceeding 95 degrees and not exceeding % degrees the preference will amount to $1 per 100 pounds. This is in respect to tariff item 135, which covers raw sugar, while in respect to item 134 covering refined sugars the Canada-West Indies trade agreement provides that West Indian sugar shall receive a preference of not less than 25 per cent of the duty charged on foreign sugar.
To give effect to the preference on sugar provided for in the Canada-West Indies trade agreement the Canadian duties on sugar were amended and the new rates were brought into force on April 16, 1926. There has been no change in the duties on foreign sugars since that date, so that the hon. member for Prince is inaccurate when he states that the Canadian government under Premier Bennett put up a high tariff wall against Cuban sugar.


James Lorimer Ilsley: May I ask a question? That is not what the hon. member for Prince was quoted as saying, I think.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think so.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Did he not say that the
government fixed the valuation for duty purposes which had the effect of putting up the duties on refined sugar?
Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury:	He is not
so reported in the press, and I am answering the press report. In fact, as I have shown, the duties on Cuban sugar have resulted from the trade agreement between Canada and the British West Indies which was concluded when a Liberal government was in power, and even if West Indian sugar should be made free of duty there would still have to be a duty of $1 per 100 pounds on imports from Cuba of raw sugar ranging between 95 degrees and 96 degrees polarization in order to give effect to the provisions of the treaty.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is a pity that the hon. member for Prince (Mr. MacLean) is not here, but I am familiar with the attitude that he has taken repeatedly on this question, and what he says is that this government by order in council, prior to the change in the Cuban duty on potatoes, made a valuation on refined sugar for duty purposes which had the result of effectively shutting out refined sugar.


Richard Burpee Hanson: We never imported refined sugar from Cuba; never thought about it.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I am not sure about that. The hon. member for Prince is familiar with this whole matter; he has discussed it in the house with the Prime Minister and with the former Minister of Trade and Commerce, and would be anxious to discuss it now if he were present.
Mr. POiULIOT: May I ask the Minister of Agriculture what schemes were approved on or before December 31, 1934, in each province, starting with British Columbia first and coming east?


Robert Weir: I have given that information.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, here is the same old story. The minister comes here with his estimates, and we are not seeking to block them at all; we simply want information, and the information I have asked for is most reasonable and pertinent. We have to know what schemes were approved. It is only a very small number, and again I ask the minister what schemes were approved on or before December 31, 1934, and what schemes were approved and have been in

Supply-Agriculture-Marketing A$t
force since then. It is a most pertinent and relevant question, and I am sure the minister is able to answer it.


Robert Weir: I am afraid the hon. member did not hear what I said before. The information he has asked for I have already put on Hansard this evening, but I will read it again if he wishes.


Jean-François Pouliot: Let me summarize it. Would the minister be kind enough-we will give him time to do it-to tell the committee how many schemes, and they are not many, were approved and in force on or before December 31, 1934; and the number of schemes that applied to one province only or to all provinces.


Robert Weir: They are as follows:	Tree fruit scheme, August 28, 1934;
fruit export marketing scheme, September 8, 1934; British Columbia red cedar shingle export scheme, October 13,	1934; British
Columbia dried salt herring and dried salt salmon scheme, October 22, 1934; Ontario flue cured tobacco scheme, October 26, 1934.


Jean-François Pouliot: That is all? May I ask the minister the number of schemes that have been approved and in force since January 1, 1935?


Robert Weir: They are as follows: Milk marketing scheme, lower mainland, British Columbia, January 1, 1936; eastern Canada potato marketing scheme, January 18, 1935; western Ontario bean marketing scheme, February 1, 1935; British Columbia interior vegetable marketing scheme, March 4, 1935; British Columbia coast vegetable marketing scheme, March 4, 1935; Canada jam marketing scheme, April 10, 1935.


Jean-François Pouliot: Would the minister be kind enough to give us a compilation of trade figures showing the exports of each of the products he has mentioned since the marketing act came into force, and in the compilation will he give us the figures for the corresponding months of last year or the year before, when the marketing act was not in force, in order that we may see whether there has been any development of trade due to the Marketing Act?


Robert Weir: I have not this information available and it would require a good deal of work to compile it. But even if I did compile it I do not think it would have any bearing on this subject, because this is not a matter that has reference to the finding of new markets through trade policies. The same products have to be marketed, whether
[Mr. Pouliot.l
under the marketing act or not. As regards obtaining the information asked for, I shall be glad to get it for the hon. gentleman, though I do not think it has any bearing on the matter. It would be impossible to get it to-night.


Jean-François Pouliot: I thank the minister, but I am sorry to disagree with him on1 that point. In the early days of January the Prime Minister broadcast speeches in which he declared that the marketing act had been a boon to the farmer. Not only did he make that statement over the radio but it was published in the newspapers. Five hundred thousand copies of his speeches were distributed throughout the country. The right hon. gentleman said that owing to the marketing act the farmers were on their way to prosperity. There were only a few schemes in force then and the minister has not the information available. I have just asked him for information in line with the speeches delivered by the Prime Minister over the radio and he says it is not available. He may have the source of that information but he has not had it tabulated; otherwise he would have it now. It is nearly six months since the Prime Minister delivered his speeches over the radio, and how could he declare to this country at that time that the marketing act had been a boon to the farmers? It was a bluff as usual. Here we have a piece of legislation which is just as rotten as every other piece of legislation which has been brought down by this government since 1930. It is a bluff. We have heard from the lips of the Minister of Agriculture that it will serve no purpose in connection with exports; it will serve no purpose in connection with increasing the home market and improving it, because tariff walls are erected within each province. It is worse than ever. It is a scheme that comes from the heads of those brain trust fellows whom we should rather call brainless. The real cause of the farmer's troubles, the real reason why. he cannot sell his products, is the reason set forth by my hon. friend from Weybutn (Mr. Young) in his excellent report on price spreads. We must go back to the fundamental reason why the farmer is in difficulties; it is the fact that the consumer has lost his purchasing power owing to the nefarious policies of this government, for the reason set forth so ably by my hon. friend from Weybum.


Mr. McPHEE:: And others.


Jean-François Pouliot: The tariff policy of this government is the cause of the farmer's distress; that is evident. The decrease in exports has resulted in a decrease in home con-

Supply-Agriculture-Marketing
sumption, the reason being that a great many people who were working for the manufacturers in 1930 have been set back, because the manufacturers have not had such wide markets as they had when the Liberal government was in power. People were set back, they had less money with which to buy farm products, and therefore, even if the farmer had wonderful crops, it was useless; he could not sell his products. The prices of farm products fell and someone, either in the Department of Agriculture or outside it, had the ide'a of making the barriers higher so as to restrict the farmer's trade still further, not only by decreasing exports as a result of' the tariff dating back to 1930, but-


Mr. LOUCKS:: When you remember that
ninety-eight per cent of our primary products are consumed in Canada, except wheat and cheese, what has the tariff to do with it?


Jean-François Pouliot: Will the hon. gentleman
be kind enough not to speak so fast and to speak more distinctly? If he will do that I shall be glad to answer him. Will he kindly repeat what he said?


William John Loucks: The question is this.
When ninety-eight per cent of our primary products are consumed in Canada, except wheat and cheese-and I got my authority from the bureau of statistics-how can the hon. gentleman refer to the tariff as ruining the home market?


Jean-François Pouliot: I will answer the hon.
gentleman's question although I am not a farmer, but before I reply I want to tell him one thing. I remember distinctly that in his first speech, either in the session of 1930 or in the session of 1931, he made the statement that if the policies of this government were not in the interests of the country he would vote against them, and since then he has been blind enough not to see the disastrous effect of the policies of the government. It is therefore pretty hard to discuss the question with him.


William John Loucks: Answer the question.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mark you, sir-


William John Loucks: You have not answered
the question.


Jean-François Pouliot: What I have just said
is merely a preliminary observation, but I noticed that the hon. gentleman nodded when I referred to his speech and his independence in word though not in fact. But coming to his question, let me ask him to look back at Hansard of June 6, 1934. He will see there the decrease in home consumption of farm products; it is on record. But that is not
the only thing that is on record. When I asked the Minister of Agriculture several times whether he could give me some explanation of the decrease in home consumption of farm products there was no answer. Every time I asked the question he replied, " I will answer you to-morrow," and I waited patiently until he told me that the Prime Minister was too busy to look into the matter. That is the answer the hon. gentleman gave. When I mentioned that to him one day he rose from his seat and said he did not mean that exactly. I replied to him that I had quoted his words to the electors of the county of Russell in this good old province of Ontario, and had then said that if the Minister of Agriculture had told the truth they should have forced the Prime Minister to resign and if he had not told the truth the Prime Minister should have forced him to resign. That statement was received with cheers by that tremendous gathering. Well, sir, here is the answer to the hon. member for Rosetown (Mr. Loucks), he who says he is independent but who has been a slave since 1930. He is able only to interject silly interruptions when hon. members speak about problems which affect the farmers of this country. From time to time we hear "Quack, quack, quack" from him-no reasoning, no argument; he is just blind. I am sorry for him. Not only that, although I am not a practical farmer, I do spend my time and the best of my ability in trying to get some information in order to come to the rescue of these poor farmers who are still fooled by this marketing act legislation.


William John Loucks: Support the marketing
bill; that is the answer.


Jean-François Pouliot: How could the hon. gentleman explain it to his electors when he does not understand one iota of it? And when he said: " What about the sale of wheat?" was he able to answer when we asked him if he was not one of those who told the farmers not to sell their wheat in 1930, that they would get a better price? It was said throughout the prairie provinces by many members of the United Farmers of Alberta, by many members of his own party. What was the result? The result was that the pools still have their elevators full of wheat. We heard about quotas, but when it came to a practical question we heard that there were no quotas on wheat. We heard it to-day from the lips of the Prime Minister. What about his speeches made in England and all that? Now we are outside the question, but we went outside the question to meet the hon. gentleman on his own ground.

3214	COMMONS
Supply-Agriculture-Marketing Act
Now let us come back to the marketing act. Sir, the marketing act, like all the legislation concerning the farmer, has been brought in-why? To relieve the farmer in his distress? No, sir. It has been brought in on account of the complaints made by this side of the house to the government that nothing has been done for the farmer since this government came into power. Then they got their scribes busy writing line after line of stupidity, drafting these so-called laws. And afterwards we see them telling the farmers: Here we are helping you; here we are a blessing to you; we will bring you to the promised land. Ah, we know about that. That is a joke. That is bluff. There is nothing to it. If there were something to it, if those hon. gentlemen were in earnest, the first thing they would do would be to remedy the evils by removing the cause of them.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Themselves.


Jean-François Pouliot: This is exactly what
should be done: the tariff should disappear in order that the good farmers of Rosetown and all other constituencies of Canada could sell their products abroad, and the east could be free to sell its products to the west and the west to sell its products to the east living like brothers in this blessed land of Canada. That is what should be done, but nothing of that is done. We have paper piled ream on ream, Pelion on Ossa, bill after bill, used as a ladder to reach the top of the tariff wall. That Chinese wall had a very high top. Then what happens? There are no steps to come down the other side.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Just one big flop.


Jean-François Pouliot: The farmer will break his neck falling down from the high tariff wall on which he has been hoisted by those enactments. Well, sir, we are without information. The hon. gentleman is not in a position to tell this committee whether or not there has been progress due to this legislation. If there was any progress of any kind do you believe for a moment that the minister would not gladly come to this committee and say: Here is what we have done for the farmers; they have sold so many more bushels of wheat, so much of this, so much of that, more than for the corresponding month of the previous year? We should be told that thanks to this legislation the farmers of Canada have sold so much more tobacco, so much more potatoes, so much more of this and that, and you owe that to this government. The minister would

add: You owe that to myself. If he said that I would not blame him, because it would be an accomplishment. But as matters stand there is no accomplishment of any kind; rather it is a disaster. And how do they try to remedy it? They make it worse by that silly legislation which imposes a fine for everything and obliges everyone to have a licence. The cabinet should sit in the market square selling turnips and cabbages; they should go themselves to sell the farmers' products. They should employ many members who have not fat jobs. The hon. member for Rosetown will surely not be elected at the next election; he should be appointed to peddle the farmers' products from door to door, and then he would be useful to his country-if he could sell anything. If he talked to the prospective purchasers as he does to this house I do not think he would be very successful.
These remarks have lasted ten or fifteen minutes, giving the hon. gentleman time to compare the months during which the marketing act has been in force with the corresponding months of the previous year. Is he in a position now to tell the committee what benefit the farmers have derived from the marketing act for each product since it has been in force?


Robert Weir: I am sure the hon. member does not expect any person to take very seriously much of what he has said during the last ten or fifteen minutes. He has just repeated what has been so often repeated by many hon. members opposite, the charge that the present government has been responsible for the restriction of trade especially in connection with the products of the farm and the primary producer. I am certain that he knows full well that it was during the regime of the former government, under the leadership of the present leader of the opposition, that practically all the markets of the world were closed almost entirely to the products of the Canadian farm.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Jean-François Pouliot: Give him a chance.


Robert Weir: I do not state that as my opinion; it is a matter of record.


John Campbell Elliott: You cannot prove it.


Robert Weir: Tariffs were raised by country after country against the chief agricultural products of this and other countries, making it impossible for them to enter those markets.


Mr. VALLANCE:: Did the minister know that during the election campaign in 1930?

Supply-Agriculture-Marketing Act.


Robert Weir: Certainly.


William John Loucks: Mr. Dunning knew it.


Robert Weir: The Hon. Mr. Dunning stated in Saskatchewan in reference to wheat that every market of the world had been closed against Canadian wheat with the exception of the United Kingdom. I am not accusing hon. members opposite who were in the government or supporting the government at that time of being responsible for that. I simply state the fact, and hon. gentlemen opposite know it as well as any person, that during their regime tariffs were raised by other countries, practically all large importing countries against the products of our Canadian farms to such an extent that it was impossible to export them.


Arthur-Lucien Beaubien: The trade returns for 1930 do not show that.


Robert Weir: The only hope of some hon. members opposite appears to be to evade the question as soon as they leave the house and to get up and repeat over and over again the same statement, which they must know is not a statement of fact. I will give two illustrations, first the United States tariff against our cattle. During the 1929-30 session of congress the tariff was raised to three cents per pound, a prohibitive tariff under normal conditions. The effect of that increase is shown in the fact that between 1926 and 1929-30 in the neighbourhood of a quarter of a million head of live stock were shipped to the United States yearly, whereas after 1930 that export was almost entirely cut off. In 1929 more than 255,000 head of cattle, including calves, were shipped from this country to the United States. During the time hon. gentlemen opposite were in power the tariff against these cattle was raised to such an extent that the quarter of a million cattle that had been wont to find a market in the United States were turned back to this country simply because the farmers could not pay the tariff raised against them.
I will take another commodity that is of special interest to eastern Canada; I refer to dairy products. I will take one year,, 1927, which is fairly typical of a number of years prior to 1930. In the year 1927, in butter, cream, cheese and milk we shipped to the United States a quantity which, if it had been manufactured into cheese .alone, would have made 52,000,000 pounds of cheese. While hon. gentlemen opposite were in power, however, the tariff was raised against our dairy products to such an extent as to make it impossible for these products to enter that market to any extent, which meant that they were turned
back to this country to be added to the agricultural products already here, thus forcing down the market. There could be no other result.
All I ask is that hon. gentlemen opposite be as fair in these discussions as I know they are outside of political discussions. We welcome logical, true criticism of this government, but I say it is not a statement that even purports to give a true picture when the hon. gentleman states that these restrictions have been imposed on trade since this government came into power. The events to which I have referred took place before 1930.
In reference to the marketing act the hon. member also twisted-unwittingly, I have no doubt-the answer I made when I stated that it was not the purpose of the marketing act to find new markets. That was stated over and over again when the bill was under discussion in the house. The purpose of the act was simply to develop a more efficient system of marketing, to avoid wastage as far as possible and to bring the producers themselves closer to the marketing of their own products. In regard to any benefits that may have been derived through putting this marketing act into operation, perhaps the best answer I could give the hon. gentleman is that already we have had accepted eleven schemes under the act,, some of them very wide in their range, and there are now under discussion eighteen further schemes. Without any encouragement on the part of the government the farmers and primary producers have availed themselves of the benefits which they feel lie in the marketing act. For example, a fruit export board was set up. There was a great deal of criticism in connection with that board from several sections, especially the maritime provinces, but some of those who were most critical in the earlier stages and even after it was put into operation are now among its supporters. That result was shown in a vote that was taken at a conference of fruit growers held at Kentville last fall, when the vote in favour of the apple export scheme, if my memory serves me aright, was four hundred and ninety-five to one. That was the opinion expressed through the votes of the farmers themselves. The British Columbia tree fruit growers had a scheme in effect for some time before a vote was taken, administered by a local board. After it had been in operation for a year it was put to a vote, and ninety-six per cent of the growers voted in favour of it.
It may be said, if one wishes to go outside the marketing act altogether, that for example the quality of our products under that act have not been improved, though I believe
3216	COMMONS
Supply-Agriculture-Marketing Act
they will be improved indirectly. My hon. friend, however, stated that the marketing act has not accomplished certain things which it was never intended to accomplish. Personally I should prefer to leave it to the judgment of the farmers themselves who have been marketing their products under schemes submitted by them in which, in the two instances I cited, approval was voted by very large majorities. In addition there are other industries that wish to reap the benefits of this legislation. Last year representations were made to the government by the newsprint people of Ontario and Quebec, to see if it would not be possible for them to come under the provisions of the marketing act. Some of our prominent citizens in positions of authority, who stated very definitely that the marketing act should not be proclaimed at all until after a federal election, now are strongly supporting it.
In connection with the newsprint application I believe both Premier Hepburn and Premier Taschereau asked the government to do everything possible to assist these men, who requested that the government see if it would not be possible to bring this industry under the provisions of the marketing act. This act has been in operation only since last August; as yet it has not been in force for a year, but without any effort on the part of the government to encourage the farmers and primary producers to make use of it their appreciation of this measure is growing to such an extent that our chief concern is to cope with the demands made upon us to investigate schemes and put them into operation. The whole purpose of this act, no matter how it may be distorted, is this: It gives the producers of the Dominion of Canada their own parliament through which they can put into effect the will of the majority of the producers.


Jean-François Pouliot: The hon. gentleman has
repeated the story-I cannot call it an argument-that the trade of Canada has decreased because of the tariff barriers that were erected by other countries while the Liberal government was in power.


Mr. STEWART (Lethbridge):: Hear, hear.


Jean-François Pouliot: The hon. member for
Lethbridge says, "Hear, hear." May I ask him why this government take as a basis of comparison, with regard to trade, not 1930, the last year of the Liberal administration, but the year 1932, which was our rock bottom year due to the ill effects of the tariff legislation introduced by this government? I should like to know why the hon. gentleman's party are not 'air enough to take as

a basis of comparison the last year of the Liberal government. They are willing only to compare themselves with themselves, and at present they are not better but only a little less bad than they wrere two or three years ago. It is hard for the hon. member to answer that. The fact is that in 1930 our trade was nearly three times as great as it is to-day-four times as great if one considers everything. In 1930 we had twice as much external trade and twice as much internal trade as we have to-day, and the hon. gentleman knows it. He has only to produce the official publications from the statistical branch of the Department of Trade and Commerce to learn that fact for himself.
There is another very important point. The hon. member has said that the high tariff legislation of the United States was used against Canada while the Liberal government held office. In connection with certain items I admit that that statement is true. The reason the export of cream, milk, butter and cheese was smaller in the first part of 1930 was that the farmers of New England had come to Canada to buy cattle belonging to the Canadian farmer. It was impossible for the government to prevent the farmers from selling their own cattle. The production of butter, cheese and other dairy products decreased because the farmers had been willing to sell their cattle to the United States. Further than that, every person who lives either in eastern or in western Canada knows that the duty imposed by the United States on sawn lumber came into effect after the special session of 1930 as a measure of retaliation against Canada because of the high tariffs enacted by this government at that session. I would not have raised the point had not lumber and newsprint been mentioned.
May I tell the minister some facts about the newsprint industry. The real way to settle newsprint difficulties is not that of kneeling down before the pulp magnates, but that of having a minimum wage law for men in the province of Quebec. That has been advocated by at least one member on this side of the house. Only when there is minimum wage legislation for men in the province of Quebec will the lumbermen be treated fairly by the pulp magnates. Not only that; the minister knows very well that a delegation came to interview the Prime Minister in Ottawa. An understanding about the sale of newsprint was arrived at, but it was found to be of no value because one pulp company did not agree to the terms. Therefore the

Supply-Agriculture-Marketing Act
price of newsprint has fallen, and I cannot see how the marketing act will have any beneficial effect.
We have but to look across the boundary line to see that the NRA is a complete failure, due to a decision handed down by the Supreme Court of the United States, the highest tribunal in that land, in which it is stated that the codes of the NRA are ultra vires, and that they are not binding in law. The effect of the decision has been felt in Canada. The NRA was a failure; why? Because the government of the United States thought that that great country with a population ten times greater than ours could be self-sustaining. That mistake was made by the head of this government when at the London conference in 1930 the right hon. gentleman said to Great Britain, "If you refuse to support us, Canada can be selfsustaining." This was the Canadian NRA. The hon. member has said that the marketing act has nothing to do with exports. That is the weak point in it. That particular piece of legislation will not help the farmers to sell their products abroad, despite the fact that boards are empowered to raise or to decrease the tariff. There is a delegation of powers from the House of Commons to an incompetent and irresponsible board which can raise a tariff without reference to parliament. Therefore I say the matter of tariffs is relevant to this issue because the boards created by virtue of the act have powers to decrease or to raise tariff rates.
Sir, in 1930 we had the NRA in Canada. Not only that, but the Prime Minister has stated repeatedly that we have maintained our home market. That is a false statement, because the people are eating less farm products. Why? Because those who have lost their jobs have no money to pay for those products. That is the reason-and still we have something which almost equals an NRA code, and that in a country which is ten times smaller in population than the United States. We see reports of speeches delivered by Mr. Hull, the right arm of President Wilson. He is crying for external trade, and all men of vision in the United States are doing the same thing.
Here we have a system of schemes which do not help the farmers in the sale of their products abroad. The Minister of Agriculture has repeated his former statement that the legislation will not help the farmer so far as exports are concerned. This is the life preserver offered-a life preserver with a big stone in it. The farmer will be drowned if he uses it, and that is why I protest. If the
legislation had been sensible and had it been drafted in a way to give real and practical help to the farmer, whether it had been presented by the minister or by any other hon. member of the cabinet, I should gladly and heartily have given my support. But my deep conviction is that it is bad legislation, and that is why I object to it.


William John Loucks: You are all wet when you say that, and wasting time.


Jean-François Pouliot: I wonder if the wit of my hon. friend is dry. This is the kind of interjection we have when a member is endeavouring to inform the farmers so that they may not be deceived. When an hon. member does that he is greeted by the jeers of members of the calibre of the hon. member who has just interrupted. I am sorry for him.


William John Loucks: I do not want your sympathy.


Jean-François Pouliot: I have compassion for him, and my compassion is still greater because I see him laughing and smiling. He does not take it seriously; he is like the Prime Minister.


William John Loucks: Who would take your talk seriously?


Jean-François Pouliot: He is busy supporting the government, pro and con, despite any sensible considerations.


William John Loucks: Too bad you would not follow it.


Jean-François Pouliot: He is the boatman of
the Volga; he is ready to support the government blindly. I regret this because I feel sure that when the time comes his constituents will not support him blindly. They will ask him what he did in the house besides jeer at other members. They will ask him *why he did not take part in the discussion of these problems which concerned them.
I regret that this legislation has done nothing to increase the exports from this country. All it has done is to prevent the increase of our external trade. I regret also that one of the champions of this legislation is a salaried man in the Department of Finance. This man acts as judge under the creditors' arrangement act. I believe he is paid S25 per day plus expenses and he uses much of his time to write articles in praise of this legislation which he does not understand at all. This legislation is no good; it never has been any good and it will be no good in the future as a means of assistance to the farmers.


Robert Weir: The first reference of the hon. member for Temicouata
3218	COMMONS
Supply-Agriculture-Marketing Act
(Mr. Pouliot) was in the form of a criticism of a statement I had made. He objected to our making our comparison with 1932 rather than with the last year the previous government was in power. Does the hon. member for Temiscouata think it fair to take a period when the trade and prices of the world were altogether different from .what they are at the present time? If that is so, then we can only come to the conclusion that the present government was responsible for the world depression. The only fair comparison to make of the trade and exports of Canada year by year since the present government came into power or for the period the previous government was in power is to make it with world trade. In making such a comparison I believe we are on very sure ground when we take the report of the League of Nations which shows a great improvement in the trade of Canada during the last few years compared with other countries. The hon. member made one remark when he was first speaking which I thought was an oversight but when he rose again he repeated :t so often that I finally concluded he was really convinced that the marketing act gave the power to raise and lower tariffs. This act contains no provisions for the imposition of either interprovincial tariffs or tariffs upon goods coming into the country.
When I spoke before I made the statement that it had never been claimed that the marketing act would find new markets for the products of the primary producers. However, this act can wield a great influence, not so much in getting new markets-when I made that statement I had reference to the change? in tariffs-but in controlling the quality of the products which go into certain markets. For example, I am sure that hon. members from both the east and the west will admit that the steps taken, last year by the fruit export board had a very excellent effect in keeping up the quality of apples exported to the United Kingdom. Representatives from this country, including a representative of the fruit growers of Canada, went to the United Kingdom and at the request of the National Farmers' Union of Great Britain discussed whether or n.ot some steps could be taken to prevent the dumping of more or less inferior apples on the markets of Great Britain at a time when their apples were coming on the market. It was realized that if some steps were not taken to prevent the dumping of an inferior product, the government of the United Kingdom might be forced to take action in this connection. The Minister of Agriculture of Nova Scotia, the Hon. Mr. MacDonald, went over to the old country to investigate the matter of trade, and fMr. R. Weir.]
he was one of the first and most urgent advocates that something should be done. Something was done under this act, and during the last year the people of the old land were very much impressed with the quality of the apples which were shipped.
There is another point which we hear raised perhaps oftener than anything else. It is stated that .the increased tariffs have restricted trade. I think we are all more or less inclined to agree with that. When the former government were in power they talked about lower tariffs but it did not avail them anything because the tariffs of other countries were raised against our products. The psychology of fear was used in explaining the increase in tariffs to the different peoples. They were told of the flood of products which might come into their country. For example,, there were our cattle and dairy products going into the United States. The politicians and organizers would tell the producers that there would be such a flow of products that their markets would be completely lost. No matter how earnest the people of different countries may appear to be in their talk of reducing these tariff walls-'but only talk-I believe this marketing aot provides a means by which we can overcome some of the damage which has been done. This legislation provides a bargaining factor in our dealings with any country. We can agree to ship only certain quantities at certain times of a certain quality. I think we all agree that everything within reason should be done in order to break down tariff walls which hinder trade but hon. gentlemen opposite did nothing but talk in connection with that.


James Layton Ralston: We established a few figures in trade.


Robert Weir: 
John Smith Stewart: Would you change it?


Mr. MacLEAN:: I certainly would. Just
give us a chance-we will have a chance in the near future-rand we will change it and

change it pretty quick. And it won't hurt the refiners or beet growers either.


Jean-François Pouliot: You cannot change the
Prime Minister's speech.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: The situation is this.
What has this government done instead of giving some assistance to the farmers of eastern Canada so far as their potato market is concerned? The Minister of Agriculture has just told us of the wonderful things that have been done under the empire agreements; but what is the condition of the potato grower to-day in connection with those agreements? Has the potato grower derived any benefit from them? There is a market over there for all potatoes from the European countries, but Canada was kept out of it. Why did they not get something out of those agreements for the benefit of the potato growers of the maritime provinces? Nothing doing. The poor potato grower of the east was never thought of when those agreements were going through, and yet our friends on the opposite side will laud the agreements to the skies, telling the people what wonderful benefits the farmers have got from them. I condemn this government for not having done something, under the empire agreements, for the advantage of the potato growers of eastern Canada. That is No. 1. No. 2 is this:	I condemn the government for not having endeavoured to obtain a better trade arrangement with Cuba. I condemn them for having put that order in council through which prevented Cuban sugar from coming in. And No. 3 is this. Under the marketing act they have ruined the potato market so far as the growers of eastern Canada are concerned. What does the chairman of the board say? He denied the statement attributed to him, but in the Mail and Empire he is reported as having said in Toronto that the board kept out of Ontario and the city of Toronto no less than 700 cars of maritime potatoes this season.


An hon. MEMBER:: Shame.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: Hon. members shout
"Shame," and I say it is a shame. It is an absolute shame that a member of the board, paid by this government and supposed to play the game-


Robert Weir: The government
does not pay the chairman.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: The farmers do and that is all the worse. The farmers are taxed two per cent on their potatoes to pay these gentlemen. and instead of playing the game fairly this gentleman was reported as making the

Currency Act
statement which I have quoted. He may be in the gallery to-night and I do not care a continental if he is. He can deny it, but I do not believe that the Mail and Empire of Toronto misquoted him when it reported him as having said that the maritimes had lost the sale of 700 cars of potatoes this season in Ontario and the city of Toronto. Now what do we find? Under the old system, before this board came into being, we could sell in Toronto fifty-five cars of potatoes from the maritimes. The city of Toronto alone took about seventy cars per week and we contributed fifty-five cars of that total and Ontario sold the other fifteen. Now the tables are turned on us and instead of fifty-five cars we sell fifteen while Ontario and Quebec sell the other fifty-five. That is what the act has done for Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. All we have to do to be elected in the maritimes is to take these orders in council and the statement of the Prime Minister and wave them before the farmers and the result will be that every man put forward by the Liberal party will be returned to parliament.


Robert Weir: There is one point in connection with the hon. gentleman's statement. He knows as well as anyone in the house that as regards getting a market for Canadian potatoes in the United Kingdom, it. is not a matter of tariffs or agreements but a matter of the advice of experts in the old country, that potatoes from this country, because of the potato bug, should not be allowed to enter there,.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: I know that, and that is one of the things the hon. gentleman's government should have seen to.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why didn't you do it?


Alfred Edgar MacLean: There was no need; we had a market for our potatoes before this government got into power.


Robert Weir: The hon. member knows that every possible effort was made by the present government to establish, before the authorities in the old country that there was no danger in allowing our potatoes to go in.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: Was it ever brought out when the empire delegates were here?


Robert Weir: Yes.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: It was brought out
privately by correspondence between the different governments, but I do not think it was ever pushed when the delegates were here. If the government had desired to do something for the maritimes that was their chance, but they did nothing for us. The government should have insisted that we get this concession.


Robert Weir: It was discussed with experts from the United Kingdom and included in the draft agreements, but the objections were as I have stated.
Mr. VENI'OT: It is now a few minutes to eleven and I should hate to undertake to discuss this question in the short time at my disposal.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Monday, June 3, 1935