1937-03-15

Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received; a message from His Excellency the Governor General, signed by his own hand, reading as follows:
I have received with great pleasure the address that you have voted in reply to my speech at the opening of parliament, and thank you for it sincerely.
Tweedsmuir.
Government House,
Ottawa,
9th March, 1937.



VETERANS' ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. G. POWER (Minister of Pensions
and National Health): I desire to lay on the table of the house interim report of the Veterans' Assistance Commission, with correspondence relating thereto and supplementary recommendations, together with a list of members and secretaries of the honorary local committees. Five copies of this report have been tabled, and I have also arranged that copies shall be distributed to all hon. members of this house who were members of the pensions and soldiers problems committee of last year.


Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Transport):: I desire to lay on the table the annual report of the Canadian National Railways for the year ended December 31, 1936; the annual report of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine Limited and the Canadian National West Indies Steamships Limited for the year ended December 31, 1936; the report to parliament of George A. Touche and Company, auditors of the accounts of the Canadian National railway system, for the year ended December 31, 1936. These accounts are tabled in both languages. The annual reports of the railways and the steamships are being distributed this afternoon through the post office to each hon. member. These reports, together with the railway estimates and the auditors' report, will be referred to the standing committee on railways and shipping; and, Mr. Speaker, if I may obtain the unanimous consent of the house, I will move, seconded by Mr. Crerar:
That the resolution passed by this house on the 18th January, 1937, referring the following estimates to the committee of supply, be rescinded, and that the said estimates be now referred to the select standing committee on railways and shipping:
Vote 96 M.FJtA..-Canadian National Railways, eastern lines, 20 per cent reduction in tolls, $1,800,000.
Vote 97 M.F.R.A.-Railways other than C.N.R., 20 per cent reduction in tolls, $700,000.
Vote 293-Canadian National (W.I.), S.S. capital, $48,500.
Vote 361-Canadian National Railway, deficit 1937, $35,000,000.
Vote 362-Canadian National W.I., S.S. working capital, $500,000.


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):: I think it will be found desirable, if not necessary, that the items should continue in the supply bill; otherwise it will
C.N.R.-Reports Tabled

be essential that a separate bill be provided dealing with these matters, and they would not then be in the supply bill itself. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has indicated that it was his wish that appropriations should all appear in a supply bill if possible, and I think the resolution would be better if in terms it indicated that these items were to be referred to the standing committee and reported to the house without taking them from the supply items at all. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning has placed these items in his estimates and, being in the estimates, they will therefore form part of the supply bill. I quite agree with the minister that it is desirable to refer them to the committee and I thought possibly he would make the motion broad enough to refer to that committee as well the report that he has just .tabled, so that the one resolution would cover it all. If he would reconsider the resolution he might frame it in somewhat different terms. Possibly it would suit his purpose to let it stand and refer back to this order of business later in the day, making his resolution comprehensive enough to include the report in the reference to the committee and to ensure that the items would still remain in the estimates for consideration with a view to the framing of a supply bill when the time came. That, I gathered, was the policy laid down by the Prime Minister with respect to matters of the kind. The Minister of Finance will be able bo correct me if I am wrong.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The clerk of the house advises me that these estimates cannot be before two committees at the same time but that the report goes to the railways and shipping committee and is then referred back to the committee of supply. However, I should be glad to allow it to stand.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh, no-if that is understood.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
TREMBLAY DIVORCE BILL Mr. S. W. JACOBS (Cartier) moved:
That the petition of Maurice Tremblay, resented on the 4th instant, praying for a ill of divorce from Jeanne Rene de Sales La Terriere Tremblay, together with the report of the clerk of petitions thereon, be referred to the standing committee on standing orders for the purpose of considering the suspension of standing orders 92 and 93 (3) (a) and (b).
Richard Bedford Bennett: Explain.


Mr. JACOBS:: I understand that there has been some irregularity with regard to the

delays in connection with this bill, and in order to correct it I am moving that the petition be sent to the standing orders committee for the purpose of having their decision thereon. It will be reported back to the house.


Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: Has this bill gone through the senate, where all these bills originate?


Samuel William Jacobs: Yes.


Mr. POULIOT:: It must be on account of certain irregularities that the divorce is asked for.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Samuel William Jacobs: I rise to a question of privilege. In the votes and proceedings of Friday, March 12, I note that a vote was taken on Bill No. 59, with reference to the Industrial Loan and Finance Corporation, and I am declared to have been present and to have voted on this bill. I may say I was not here during the whole of last week, having been confined to my house through illness, 'and I am a little surprised to find that some person in my stead voted for me. I wish to say that the voice was not the voice of Jacob although the hands were the hands of Esau.



LORD'S DAY ACT

[Stage Direction]
Mr. H. E. BRUNELLE (Champlain) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 63, to amend the Lord's Day Act.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. BRUNELLE:: The proposed1 amendment has reference only to section 14 of the act dealing with penalties. The purpose is to make corporations which violate the law in question liable to penalties more severe than those now in force.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. ROWE (Athabaska):: Are criminal prosecutions taking place on the charge of vagrancy as the result of unemployment?

Questions


Ernest Lapointe: No information. Enforcement of the criminal law rests with the provincial authorities.


CENTRAL PLACE OF EXECUTION-QUEBEC
Mr. GARIEPY:: Is it the intention of the government to refer to the committee considering the execution of the death penalty the advisability of having in the province of Quebec a central place of execution ?


Ernest Lapointe: The government has no power to refer anything to the committee. The bill before the house does not deal with the place of execution.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. CHURCH:: What are the names, occupations, addresses, salaries, living and travelling expenses of the present federal radio commission?


Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	What are the names of the staff of radio station CRCT, in Toronto, and the length of service, rank, remuneration of each, and what were their respective living and transportation expenses during the past year?
2.	How many musicians and other officials are drawing federal pensions as well as salaries, and who are they?
3.	Who are the announcers at this station, and are they related to any musicians or others employed there? If so, what is the relation?
4.	How many of the musicians are: (a) union men; (b) non-union?
5.	What are the names of the announcers and musicians, and of the choir leader and quartette?
6.	How long has Mr. Lucas been employed; and are any members of his family also employed ?
7.	Have any other officials relatives employed?
8.	Do the choir leader, quartette, and the minister draw government pensions?
9.	Are any members of the family of Mr. Waddington, known on the radio as Frank Gladstone, employed? If so, what are the names ?


Clarence Decatur Howe: These two questions refer to matters of internal management in connection with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, having to do with salaries of major and minor employees. It has always been the practice in the house to decline to bring down details of this kind in connection with the Canadian National Railways, and I think that a similar policy should be adopted with respect to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I realize that these questions can be presented to a special committee in the case of the Canadian National Railways, and in my opinion the government must consider whether a special committee of the house should not review the position of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. That can be taken up another year.


Richard Bedford Bennett: From the date of the establishment of the radio commission until last year this house insisted upon having presented to it every detail with reference to the persons who occupied positions in that commission-what salaries they received and the dates of their appointment, and many other questions as well. I regard it as wholly erroneous and at variance with the general principle that governs the Canadian National matter to say that that rule should apply in this connection. The house has a right to all the information it is possible to receive with respect to the radio commission, which stands on a basis entirely different from that of the Canadian National Railways. I protest against this question not being answered; I protest against the attitude taken by the government in connection with it. It is at variance with their own established policy during five years. One recalls by looking at Hansard the attacks that were made upon the commission and the salaries paid, and to say that this house should not have that information now is to say that when in opposition we can insist on receiving information which under different circumstances we decline to give to the house. I think that on reconsideration the minister will conclude that the house has a right to the information. If he lets the question stand it would perhaps serve the immediate purpose.


Ernest Lapointe: I ask that these two questions be allowed to stand.
Questions stand.


RAILWAY GRADE CROSSINGS
Mr. LANDERYOU:: 1.	How many railroad crossings are there in Canada protected by: (a) gates; (b) automatic bell; (c) automatic bell and wigwag; (d) watchman; (e) flashing lights; (f) any other form of automatic protection?
2.	What was the total number of accidents on railroad crossings in Canada, in 1936?
3.	How many people were killed, and how many were injured on the above-mentioned crossings in 1936?
4.	How many people were killed or injured on unprotected crossings in Canada during the year 1936?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	(a) Gates, 204; (b) automatic bell, 159;
(c) automatic bell and wigwag, 717;	(d)
watchman, 90; (e) flashing lights, 10; (f) flashlight and bell, 17; bell and illuminated sign, 4; wigwag and watchman, 4.
2.	Total number of acidents, 1936, 243.
3.	At protected crossings; persons killed, 15; persons, injured, 45.

Questions

4.	At unprotected crossings: persons killed, 98; persons injured, 322. Total at all crossings: persons killed, 113; persons injured, 367.


BANK OF CANADA-SHAREHOLDERS
Mr. TAYLOR (Nanaimo):: 1.	What was the total number of shareholders of the Bank of Canada at the date of its last annual report?
2.	How many transfers of shares were effected during the year under review in the said last annual report of the Bank of Canada?
3.	What was the largest individual holding of class A shares of the Bank of Canada at the date of its last annual report?


Mr. DUNNING:: 1.	Class A shares, 10,423; class B shares, 1.
2.	Information regarding transfers not in the the possession of the government. According to returns tabled in the House of Commons on February 12, 1936, and February 4, 1937, the number of class A shareholders was as follows: December 31, 1935. 11.021; December 31, 1936, 10,423.
3.	50 shares-maximum- permitted by the Bank of Canada Act.


IMPERIAL CONFERENCE-AGENDA
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Will migration within the empire be on the agenda for the coming imperial conference in way for discussion and settlement in view of improved empire economic conditions?
2.	If not, will Canada's delegates bring it up for discussion?
3.	What steps will be taken there by Canada to promote British-born immigration to the dominions?


Ernest Lapointe: The hon. member will find an answer to his question in the Votes and Proceedings of Friday, March 12, where the agenda of the conference appears.


Walter Edward Foster: Answered.


ALBERNI-PACIFIC LUMBER CO.-RIGHT OF WAY THROUGH INDIAN RESERVE
Mr. MacNEIL:: Has the Alberni-Pacific Lumber Company secured or arranged to secure right-of-way through the Indian reserve situated on the Alberni canal immediately south of the municipality of Port Alberni, British Columbia?


Mr. CRERAR:: No.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. TUCKER:: 1.	What constitutes the "other assets" of the Bank of Canada valued at $5,417,407.96 as set
.
out in the statement of assets and liabilities of the bank filed this session as sessional paper No. 84?
2.	What individual items make up the amount of $350,718.63 given as the value of "bank premises" in said statement?
3.	What items make up the item "other liabilities" $1,273,197.48 in said statement?
4.	What were the total gross receipts of the said bank since it commenced business, and what expenditures have been made from said gross receipts which reduced the said gross profits to the net profits shown in the two annual balance sheets filed to date?
5.	What are the details constituting said totals of gross receipts and expenditures?


Mr. TUCKER:: 1.	Was any amount of money paid to the Bank of Canada by the government during the years 1935 and 1936 on account of: (a) interest on short term securities issued by the government; (b) interest on bonds issued by the government; (c) interest on the loan of money by the bank to the dominion; (d) any other item or items?
2.	If moneys were paid in respect of the item or items mentioned in question No. 1, what *was the amount paid in each of the said years and in respect of each of the said items (a), (b), (c) and (d) as set out in the above question No. 1?
3.	Was any amount of money paid to the chartered banks of Canada during the years 1935 and 1936 by the government on account of: (a) interest on short term securities issued by the government; (b) interest on bonds issued by the government; (c) interest on the loan of money by the banks to the government; (d) any other item or items?
4.	If any money were paid in respect of the item or items mentioned in the above question No. 3, what were the names of the chartered banks receiving payment, and what amount was received in each of the said years of 1935 and 1936 by each of the chartered banks in respect of the items (a), (b), (c) and (d) as set out in question No. 3?
5.	Did the chartered banks of Canada or any of them during the years 1929 to 1936 hold securities issued by the government?
6.	If the said chartered banks or any of them did during the years 1929 to 1936 hold securities issued by the government, what were the names of such banks, and what amount of securities issued by the government did each such bank hold in each of the said years of 1929 to 1936 showing the amount of: (a) short term securities; (b) bonds; (c) other securities so held?


Mr. DUNNING:: With regard to these two questions, in asking to have them made orders for returns I point out that some of the information therein requested is not in the possession of the government. As much information as possible will be brought down.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) has asked a question on which for some time I have had it in mind to seek information. But I realize that there may be some difficulty as to whether we should ask the Bank of Canada to dis-

Questions as Orders for Returns
close to the house its internal operations, if they are subject to competition from the chartered banks. I do not know to what extent that may be so in this particular matter. Bu,t I saw that item get into its present form of "other assets" and I have a shrewd suspicion what it is, and I therefore 'think this house is entitled to receive the information.


Charles Avery Dunning: Do you think it is?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I certainly do, because we provided for a fund to be utilized in a certain way, but an order in council was never passed to enable that fund to function. I am not strictly in order, Mr. Speaker, but I desire only to make this statement: the minister will recall that in 1935 we passed an act by which the bank was permitted to revalue gold, and the difference between the statutory value at that time and the market value was to be used for an exchange stabilization fund.


Charles Avery Dunning: I may tell my right hon. friend at once that any difficulty I had in mind does not relate to that item.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well I am glad to hear that. We provided by order in council that the fund thus created might be utilized for exchange stabilization purposes. I asked whether any order in council had been passed and ithe reply was in the negative; therefore this item does not refer to that. But as I say, I have a shrewd idea to what it does refer, and this house probably is entitled to receive the information. I say "probably"- I would modify that view if it were made apparent to me that in any way the effect of giving the information to the house would be inimical to the efficient operation of the bank.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is the whole point.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If the minister on his honour as a minister is of the opinion that it is inimical to the interests of the bank to give it, I think the bank's position would be one in respect of which the information would not be furnished to the government for that purpose.


Charles Avery Dunning: There is no doubt at all that with respect to the possibility of interfering with the internal management of the bank at this time the governor of the bank must be the judge whether to answer the question would hamper the operations of the bank. That is the view that the government take with respect to questions regarding 31111-lllj
the bank. Subject to that qualification the information will be brought down as asked for.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If I may be pardoned, it seems to me the minister's position-


Ernest Lapointe: The whole thing is out of order.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Just one word I think might be said without being out of order, on a matter touching the privileges of this house -the question whether the minister should not say he or the government is advised by the governor of the bank that it is not in the public interest that the information should be given.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is the position.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, I think that settles it.


Walter Edward Foster: Order for return.


DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR-LAY-OFF LIST
Mr. MULOCK:: 1.	How many permanent appointments from the lay-off list of the Interior department, not including transfers, were made by the Civil Service Commission in each year from January 1, 1932, to January 1, 1937?
2.	How many returned men under 40 years of age on the lay-off list of the Interior department, have not been re-assigned to any position; what are their names, age, number of dependents and date of superannuation in each case?
3.	How many employees on the lay-off list of the Interior department have died in each year from January 1, 1932, to January 1, 1937?


SWEDISH LANDRACE PIGS
Mr. BLACKMORE:: 1.	When were Swedish Landrace pigs first brought into Canada?
2.	How many were brought in?
3.	How many are now in Canada?
4.	At how many agricultural stations in Canada are there at present Swedish Landrace
pigs:
5.	What is the name of each station, and the number and sex of pigs at each?
6.	Do these pigs mature earlier than Yorkshire pigs?
7.	If so. how much earlier?
8.	Can farmers get these pigs from the stations at present?
9.	If not, how can they be obtained?


GERMAN REPARATIONS PAYMENTS
Mr. HALL:: 1.	What was the amount of money paid by Germany to Canada by way of reparation?
2.	What amount was turned over to the consolidated revenue fund?
3.	What amount has been distributed?

Questions as Orders for Returns
4.	How many claims were paid?
5.	How many applied for reparation?
6.	Do the claims of the ex-prisoners of war come out of this same fund?
7.	How many ex-prisoners of war sent in claims?
8.	How many of these claims were accepted?
9.	How many of these claims were rejected?
10.	What was the basis of payment on these claims?


DREDGING AND DRAINAGE WORKS
Mr. FERLAND:: 1.	Has the federal government carried out drainage works on cultivated lands, or dredging works in non-navigable or non-floatable waters, during the years 1934, 1935 and 1936: (a) in the province of Quebec; (b) in other provinces; (c) alone; (d) in cooperation witli provincial governments?
2.	If so, for what amounts in each case?



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT-ST. LAWRENCE RIVER-MARINE EMPLOYEES

[Stage Direction]
Mr. GARIEPY;
What were the names, occupations and domiciles of the persons engaged by the Department of Transport for governmental marine work on the St. Lawrence river during the months of January, February, March, and April, 1936, respectively?


Mr. BROOKS:: For a copy of all payrolls showing money expended, and to whom it was paid, on certain repairs made by the Department of Public Works to the government wharf at Harbour-ville, Kings county, Nova Scotia, during the year 1936.



HALLS HARBOUR, N.S., WHARF

Alfred Johnson Brooks: For a copy of all payrolls showing money expended, and to whom it was paid, on certain repairs made by the Department of Public Works to the government wharf at Halls Harbour, Nova Scotia, during the year 1936.



SASKATCHEWAN CENSUS ENUMERATOR

Mr. ELLIOTT (Kindersley):: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and other documents dated from January 1, 1936, relating to the appointment of Thomas Annett of Fairmount, Saskatchewan, as enumerator.



NATIONAL DEFENCE DEPARTMENT-CIVIL AVIATION SENIOR MAP DRAFTSMAN

Mr. MULOCK:: For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the department and the Civil Service Commission in connection with the temporary appointment on August 25, 1936, and the per-

manent appointment on November 2, 1936, of the senior map draftsman in the Civil Aviation branch of the National Defence department.



BLACK ROCK, N.S., WHARF

Alfred Johnson Brooks: For a copy of all payrolls showing money expended, and to whom it was paid, on certain repairs made by the Department of Public Works to the government wharf at Black Rock, Kings county, Nova Scotia, during the year 1936.



CANADA CREEK, N.S., WHARF

Alfred Johnson Brooks: For a copy of all payrolls showing money expended, and to whom it was paid, on certain repairs made by the Department of Public Works to the government wharf at Canada Creek, Kings county, Nova Scotia, during the year 1936.



WHITE SETTLEMENT, NR., POSTMASTER

Alfred Johnson Brooks: For a copy of all reports, telegrams and correspondence exchanged between the Post Office Department, the Postmaster General, the district superintendent of postal service at Saint John, New Brunswick, and others, recommending the dismissal of the former postmaster and the appointment of the present incumbent at White Settlement, Kent county, New Brunswick.



EXCISE OFFICERS' EXAMINATIONS-MONTREAL

Mr. BEAUBIEN (for Mr. Deslauriers):: For a copy of the examination papers of the under-mentioned candidates who participated in the civil service examinations for excise officers, grades 1 and 2, held in Montreal, June 10, 11 and 12, 1936: grade 1, Belanger, Jean Paul; Duval, J. A. (X; Faucher, Philippe; Ddseve, Joseph Charles; Lagace, J. L. S.; Lacas, Joseph Jean; Decline, Gaston E. Grade 2, Tessier, J. A. W.; Denis, M. J. A. L.; Duquette, Emilien; Leblanc, Damien; Roy, J. Francois. Also a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams, reports and other documents pertaining thereto, in the possession of the civil service commission, the Department of National Revenue at Ottawa and at Montreal.


Mr. RINFRET:: I have been in communication with the civil service commission, and I am told that at no time has the commission submitted to the house the answer papers of candidates in an examination. It is believed that it would not be in the public interest to furnish this material in a form in which it would become a public document, as would be the case in some measure in response to an order of the house. It is further pointed out -that these papers may be shown privately to an hon. member on his request, but that it would be highly improper and undesirable that they be made public in the way of a return. Therefore I will ask that this order be dropped.


Walter Edward Foster: Dropped,

Canada-United Kingdom Trade Agreement



UNEMPLOYMENT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture, for Mr. Rogers) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to provide for the alleviation of unemployment and agricultural distress and for such payments appropriated by parliament as may be necessary for all or any of the purposes of the proposed legislation.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-AIberni):: Will the leader of the opposition be kind enough, in order that we may adequately consider the Fraser river treaty, to lay on the table the correspondence in connection with the proposed modification, particularly in relation to the reservations that have been suggested?


Charles Avery Dunning: The leader of the opposition?


Alan Webster Neill: The leader of the government.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend is looking to the past.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, he is looking forward.


Ernest Lapointe: Anything that is not contained in the document itself certainly will be tabled as my hon. friend suggests.



BRITISH IMMIGRATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar). In a widely circulated memorandum it is stated that the question of the resumption of British immigration on a considerable scale is now under examination by his department. I should like to ask the minister whether he will give the assurance that no new immigration policy will be adopted without the matter being presented to parliament.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I understand that the
memorandum to which my hon. friend refers was submitted to the officers of the department for such study as they might care to give it. With regard to the latter part of the question,, I think my hon. friend may rest assured that he will have notice sufficiently in advance to enable him to say anything he wants to say on the question either within or without the house.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I think I asked a perfectly reasonable question, and I believe the minister should state whether the government propose to go ahead with this immigration policy without consulting parliament. I think I have a right to ask that question. It does not merit merely a facetious reply.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I certainly do not wish to be facetious with my hon. friend, but I think the reply covers the question sufficiently.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I do not so understand it, Mr. Speaker.


Ernest Lapointe: The
question is improper, in any case.



WAYS AND MEANS

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance): Mr. Chairman, I had thought, subject to the desire of the committee, that the most convenient way to proceed would be to take up the text of the trade agreement clause by clause, and that when we reached an article relating to a schedule, it would be an appropriate time to consider that schedule. Every member has been supplied with a copy of the trade agreement and with another document containing statistical information in relation to the volume of trade in connection with each item which will be under discussion by the committee. I think, then, we should start with the trade agreement itself and consider it section by section.
Richard Bedford Bennett: My own view, Mr. Chairman, having regard to some of the provisions of the agreement, was that possibly we would be further advanced if we considered the schedules first, particularly the schedule that has to do with rates of preference. I say that, for instance, because of the vague and uncertain terms of the paragraph that deals with dumping. I can conceive of nothing more difficult to appreciate and understand than the clause in this agreement dealing with dumping. It is an invitation to dump in Canada and then, if that invitation is accepted, Canada may do certain things. In the light
1764	COMMONS
Canada-United Kingdom Trade Agreement
of the schedules we may be better able to appreciate and understand exactly what is at issue, and I had thought possibly it would be preferable to go through the schedules first and then have our discussion on the text of the agreement. I have no very fixed preference in the matter, however. It may delay the measure a little to follow the minister's suggestion; perhaps we would have a better understanding as we went along, if we took the items as they appear.


Charles Avery Dunning: I want to meet the convenience of the committee, and particularly the opposition, in every possible way. I had thought the method I proposed would be perhaps simpler, in that it would relate all the clauses of the agreement to the schedules to which they referred, as we reached them, and possibly help us avoid being at cross purposes later in connection with the matters which will be dealt with. As to the method, however, I am entirely at the disposal of the committee.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is all right.


The CHAIRMAN:: This is the trade agreement between Canada and the United Kingdom, signed at Ottawa on February 23, 1937:
The governments of Canada and of the United Kingdom, recognizing that the revival and development of trade is an essential feature of the prosperity and well-being of all countries and to this end desiring further to facilitate trade and commerce between Canada and the United Kingdom, and having resolved to replace by the present agreement the agreement concluded between them at Ottawa on the 20th August, 1932, have agreed upon the following provisions:
Article 1:	The government of the United
Kingdom undertake that goods grown, produced or manufactured in Canada and consigned from any part of the British Empire which are now free of duty, shall continue to enjoy entry free of customs duty into the United Kingdom, subject, however to the reservations set forth in schedule I appended hereto.


Charles Avery Dunning: I would ask you, Mr. Chairman, to read schedule I.


Frederick George Sanderson: Schedule I is as follows:
As regards eggs, poultry, butter, cheese and other milk products, the government of the United Kingdom reserve to themselves the right, if they consider it necessary in the inter-iwts of the United Kingdom producer to do to review at any time the basis of preference so far as relates to the articles above enumerated and after notifying the Canadian government either to impose a preferential duty on Canadian produce whilst maintaining preferential margins, or in consultation with the Canadian government to bring such produce within any system which may be put into operation for the quantitative regulation of supplies from all sources in the United Kingdom market.
IMr. Bennett.]


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, the items mentioned in the schedule may be dealt with by the United Kingdom in a manner different from that in which they are now dealt with. I take that to be the sense of it. The old agreement contained a provision whereby, by mutual consent, there could be a modification of the agreement then made. This schedule provides that if there is a duty imposed by the United Kingdom they will consult with us and that we may .have a preference; is that right?


Charles Avery Dunning: No; schedule I compares with schedule A of the former agreement, and refers to certain dairy products. The provisions of schedule I are similar to the provisions of the old schedule A, with the difference of course that the three years certain mentioned in schedule A expired two years ago. Since that time the United Kingdom have had the right to do what schedule A empowered them to do, but they have not yet done so. They continue to reserve the right to do so.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I suppose the minister
does not place upon schedule I the construction the present Prime Minister placed upon it in 1932-that this is an intimation that England proposes to do it. I placed upon Hansard the observations in that regard made by the right hon. gentleman. He said it was quite clear that that was what England proposed to do. Has the minister any reason for believing that Great Britain has any greater intention to do it now than she had formerly? Has the government any reason to believe that the United Kingdom does contemplate taking such action?


Charles Avery Dunning: The position in that regard, Mr. Chairman, is not dissimilar from what it was in 1932, in that the United Kingdom then and since was engaged in a highly technical inquiry into industries covered by these commodities. At the time of the negotiations last summer the inquiry had not been concluded. Certain advances had been made, but the United Kingdom desired to be left as free in the new agreement as in the old one. I believe I am correct in saying that the report on one phase of the matter has been presented-the British milk report is now down, and of course it is available to the British government for consideration in formulating its own policy. It was with respect to that report particularly, and detailed examinations which were taking place with respect to other phases of the industry, that the British government desired under the new agreement to reserve its freedom of action, in the same degree as they had possessed it under the old one, after the expiry of the first three years.

Canada-United Kingdom Trade Agreement


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes; in other words, there were (three years in which we had the preference, that is, to 1935. The five years do not expire until 1937, but on August 20, 1935, the three years expired. After that Great Britain had freedom of action with respect to eggs, poultry, butter, cheese and milk products. But that freedom of action was limited to (a) imposition of a duty with a preference in favour of Canada, or (b) regulation by quota of importations from this country; or possibly both. The investigations ito which the minister has referred were concluded, I believe, some time ago. I believe they were completed before we left office, as a matter of fact, but the report was not made. The investigations with respect to some matters have been completed for some time. The question of a report is another matter altogether. This we regarded, and do regard, as a matter of very great importance.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If Great Britain is to regulate by quota the extent to which we may export eggs, poultry, butter, cheese and milk products to that country, then of course it becomes important, from our standpoint, lest the quota limited to Canada be such as to make our further operations very much restricted. That is one point we had under consideration.
The question of duties was very strong in the mind of one member of the British government. And the agricultural population of Great Britain, as indicated by the farmers' organization, is strongly in favour of a tariff against colonial and dominions produce. Of course this would probably apply equally to New Zealand or Australia. If it were applied to Canada it might become of transcendant importance. I do not know ito what extent the minister is able to give further information about it, but certainly in the fall of 1935, at the time the late government left office, the end of .the three years had almost been reached. Since that time the government of Great Britain has been carrying forward these investigations, looking towards the inauguration of a new policy. Whether or not that policy will come into being-of course it is entirely speculation on my part- I am asking the minister if he has any reason to believe that we might contemplate the imposition of a duty on Canadian eggs, butter, cheese or other milk products or, in the second place, the restriction of the extent of our exports by quantitative regulations in the form of quotas, or a combination of both. That is the only point to which I wish to direct attention; perhaps the minister can enlighten us upon it.


Jean-François Pouliot: Do the numbers of these items correspond with the numbers of the items in the agreement passed at the session of 1930? If not, would it be possible to have such a list?


Charles Avery Dunning: The hon. member will notice in the Votes and Proceedings of February 25 that there is a column containing figures in black type; then another column shows the existing rates which are the rates of the 1932 agreement between Canada and Great Britain. I understand the comparison my hon. friend wants to make is with a prior period?


Jean-François Pouliot: With 1930.


Charles Avery Dunning: There was no agreement in 1930. I did not think of bringing down comparative material of that type; it would have represented a considerable amount of work. I suggest to my hon. friend that he can obtain that information by having before him the Hansard of 1930 giving the budget. That would be a simple way of doing it. Any information I could furnish would simply be a reproduction, of the Hansard of that date. It is a little difficult to answer the leader of the opposition as one cannot know the mind of the British government with respect to the report which is before it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I only wanted to know what had been expressed.


Charles Avery Dunning: There are certain things that may be gathered from the report itself. The recommendation, now under consideration by the British government does not deal with import duties; it is a rather non-committal report in that regard,. It emphasizes the domestic market situation rather than import control. It cannot be said to be conclusive with respect to either of the alternatives contemplated in schedule I of this agreement or in schedule A of the old agreement. I notice my right hon. friend emphasized, and quite properly, the fact that the word "or" is used in schedule I, as it was used in schedule A of the old agreement. That is to say, the qualification involves either a preferential duty on Canadian produce, or, in consultation with the Canadian government, the bringing of such produce within any system which may be put into operation for the quantitative regulation of supplies from all sources in the United Kingdom market. That appears in schedule I, but it may not be adopted by the British government. I cannot say to my right hon. friend that I have any information that the British government is intending to adopt either alternative.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is all I want to know.
1766	COMMONS
Canada-United Kingdom Trade Agreement


Charles Avery Dunning: Perhaps I may tell him that the report is rather comforting from that point of view.


Mr. SENN:: Except with respect to the quantitative regulations in connection with supplies coming from' the other dominions. It seems to me that we are in a different position with regard to butter and cheese from that which we occupy and have occupied for some time with respect to bacon and hog products.


Charles Avery Dunning: We will reach bacon and hogs under another section.


Mark Cecil Senn: Has there been any consideration as to the quota Canada will receive should quantitative regulations be placed on imports of butter and cheese? In these products we are competing directly with other parts of the empire whereas in the case of bacon and hog products we are competing with outside countries.


Charles Avery Dunning: I think my hon. friend
will understand that at no time did I desire to intimate to the British government that there might be a possibility of quantitative regulations in connection with Canadian produce embodied in this schedule. The schedule itself involves consultation with the Canadian government and I thought it was far better to cross the particular bridge to which he refers when we got to it. I can say quite frankly that I viewed with horror the. possibility of the imposition of quantitative regulations on these commodities, and I told the British government so. They are well aware of the views of the Canadian government in that regard.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think it is fair to say
that those views are shared by the representatives of the other dominions. I am not quite certain, but I think the observations I made a moment ago might have suggested that they would utilize both. What I intended to say was that they could not utilize both.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is what I understood.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They could utilize either one or the other. The words used are "either" and "or." All I wanted to get from the minister was any intimation he might have as to whether the British government was considering the utilization of either. I know about the milk report and also about the others, in a general way. This agreement cannot be changed unless you consent to it, but schedule I goes further and says that after consultation they can change entirely this portion of the agreement, first, by providing
[Mr. Bennelt.}
for a duty on our products, giving us a preference, or, second, by imposing quantitative regulations.


Charles Avery Dunning: There is a slight difference, if my right hon. friend will permit me. They can impose a preferential tariff after notifying us, but they obligate themselves to consult us before imposing quantitative regulations. There is an important difference there.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is a distinction
without a difference.


Charles Avery Dunning: I regard it as important.
Article 1 agreed to.
On article 2:
The government of the United Kingdom undertake that the goods the manufacture of Canada enumerated in schedule II appended hereto when consigned from any part of the British Empire shall not on importation into the United Kingdom be subject to duties of customs higher than those specified in that schedule.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I take it that those are
the McKenna duties.


Charles Avery Dunning: Schedule II should be
read before we adopt article 2.


Frederick George Sanderson: Schedule II reads:
Motor cars (including motor bicycles and motor tricycles) and accessories and component parts of motor cars, motor bicycles and motor tricycles: rate of duty, 22% per cent ad valorem.
Stockings and socks of natural silk or where the value of the natural silk component exceeds 20 per cent of the aggregate of the values of all the components of the article: rate of duty, 28% per cent ad valorem, or 8s. per pound, whichever is the greater.
Reed organs (including harmoniums) complete: free.


Charles Avery Dunning: There is no parallel to article 2 in the former agreement. This is a binding by Great Britain of the existing rates of duty applicable to the articles mentioned in the schedule. They undertake not to increase the present duties on motor cars, stockings and reed organs, the products of Canada.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The McKenna duties, which govern there, were for a fixed time. I have not the English statute before me, but I should like to know how long it provides for the maintenance of this 22% per cent duty on motor cars.


Charles Avery Dunning: My understanding is
that they are intending to maintain the rates.


Richard Bedford Bennett: You will remember that the McKenna duties expired at a certain period. Whether they were renewed for a term of years, or just renewed, I cannot say. This article corresponds with the McKenna duties, against which the greatest

Canada-United Kingdom Trade Agreement
agitation has been carried on for a long time by free traders in England. It is a principle to which Mr. Asquith is supposed- whether he did or not I do not know-to have given his approval in Paris upon one occasion, and later the so-called McKenna duties were introduced. So far as we are concerned, all we know is that the rate cannot be higher than it is here.


Charles Avery Dunning: It cannot be higher, no matter what is done about the McKenna duties. The important fact is that the duty on silk stockings and1 socks made of real silk is reduced to 2S% per cent ad valorem, or eight shillings a pound, whichever is the greater. This reduction results in a preference of one third as compared with the existing preference of one sixth, and it is important from the point of view of Canada, as our exports last year, 1935-36, were $327,000 worth of silk stockings falling within this classification. In fact fifteen per cent of our total exports of those commodities went to Great Britain.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Our export of motor cars was, I suppose, limited.


Charles Avery Dunning: Last year it was $2,725,-
000.	Again, fifteen per cent of our total exports of motor cars went to the United Kingdom. Our exporters much feared an increase of this duty against us, and they regard as an assurance of some value the binding of it for a three year period.


[Stage Direction]
Article agreed to.
On article 3:
The government of the United Kingdom undertake in respect of the goods the growth, produce or manufacture of Canada enumerated in schedule III appended hereto that the difference between the rate of the duties of customs on such goods on importation into the United Kingdom when consigned from any part of the British Empire and the rate upon similar goods the growth, produce or manufacture of any foreign country shall not be less than the rates set out in that schedule:
Provided that the duty on either wheat in grain, copper, zinc or lead, as provided in this agreement, may be removed if at any time empire producers of wheat in grain, copper, zinc or lead respectively are unable or unwilling to offer these commodities on first sale in the United Kingdom at prices not exceeding the world prices and in quantities sufficient to supply the requirements of United Kingdom consumers; and,
Provided further that while the arrangements contained in the report of the import duties advisory committee of the 2nd July, 1935, are in force, the duties on lead and zinc shall be in accord with the proposals in appendices B and C of that report.
Schedule III (See Article 3)
Article
Wheat, in grain	
Butter	!.!!!!!!!!!!"
Cheese	
Apples, raw (excluding apples consigned direct to a registered cider
manufacturer for use in making cider)	
Pears, raw	
Apples, canned	
Eggs in shell-
(a)	Not exceeding 14 lbs. in weight per great hundred	
(b)	Over 14 lbs. but not exceeding 17 lbs	
(c)	Over 17 lbs	
Condensed milk, whole, sweetened or slightly sweetened	
Condensed milk, whole, not sweetened	
Milk powder and other preserved milk excluding condensed milk,
not sweetened	
Honey	
Copper, unwrought, whether refined or not, in ingots,'bar's, biocks,
slabs, cakes and rods	
Timber of all kinds imported into the United Kingdom in'subt,. , ,stilntl,al quantities from Canada, in so far as now dutiable_
fcish, fresh sea, excluding fish livers...
Chilled or frozen salmon	
Salmon, canned	\.
Other fish, canned			
Asbestos	
zinc	;;;;;;;;;;	
Lead	' '
Patent leather not forming part of another'article'and'goods'composed wholly of patent leather	
Margin of Preference
2s. per quarter.
15s. per cwt.
15 per cent, ad valorem.
4s. fid. per cwt.
4s. 6d. per cwt.
3s. 6d. per cwt., in addition to the difference in the rates of duty in respect of sugar content.
Is. per great hundred.
Is. fid. per great hundred.
Is. 9d. per great hundred.
5s. per cwt., in addition to the difference in the rates of duty in respect of sugar content.
Gs. per cwt.
6s. per cwt.
7s. per cwt.
2d. per lb.
10 per cent. 10 per cent, ljd. per lb. 10 per cent. 10 per cent. 10 per cent. 10 per cent. 10 per cent.
ad valorem, ad valorem.
ad valorem, ad valorem, ad valorem, ad valorem, ad valorem.
15 per cent, ad valorem.
1768	COMMONS
Canada-United Kingdom Trade Agreement
Richard Bedford Bennett: It seems to me that from the standpoint of the future it is desirable that the minister make some statement as to the last proviso of article 3. I fancy that very few hon. members have had an opportunity to read the report of the import duties advisory committee of July 1935, and it might be desirable, inasmuch as we are perpetuating these arrangements, that such a statement be given by the minister so that it might appear on the record and references be made to it at any time.


Charles Avery Dunning: Anticipating that difficulty, Mr. Chairman, the nature of which my right hon. friend is aware-


Richard Bedford Bennett: I know, but it is not on Hansard.


Charles Avery Dunning: -I draw attention to the fact that in appendix B, on page 40 of the copy of the trade agreement and connected papers, will be found the proposals for the modification of the import duty on lead and the provisions of the Ottawa agreements relating thereto, under which we are at present operating. The article of the agreement as just read ensures that the provisions contained in this appendix B shall be continued in force so long as the arrangements contained in the report of the import duties advisory committee of July 2, 1935, which are the arrangements contained in the, annex on page 40, are in effect; the duties in this schedule regarding lead and zinc shall be modified in accordance with those arrangements. For reasons which they state to be connected with defence, there is a strong desire on the part of the British government to build up a zinc and lead industry in England itself. That is, indeed, part of the reason for the annex to which I have just made reference, and is further clarified by reading letter No. 1 on page 38 of the document now before members of the committee, which is a letter on this matter from the Prime Minister of Canada to Sir Francis Floud, High Commissioner in Canada for the United Kingdom. Perhaps I had better read it so that it may be on the record in Hansard.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Might it not be well for the minister to permit Hansard to place on record the annex on pages 40 and 41, so that the material may be there for those who desire to know how this restriction comes about?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: A number of hon. members may not have followed the details of the lead and zinc items of 1932 and the dealings with them. This committee was set up and made a report. In addition to that, some problems with respect to rearma-
(Mr. Dunning.]
meat have arisen, notably questions of refining zinc and lead in England-that is bringing in pig lead and rough zinc and refining it. As a matter of fact a large refinery for that particular purpose was built in England. If the minister thinks it desirable, as I do, that he shall offer the explanation he has here and state that details will be found in the annex, I suggest that it be printed as part of Hansard, and if he proposes to read letter No. 1, which is an amplification of the explanation, I think that it, with the two annexes referred to, should be available for the purpose of completing the record.


Mr. MARTIN:: I think it would be helpful if the minister would tell us what the import duties advisory committee is, and whether Canada has a body corresponding to it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


Charles Avery Dunning: 
Charles Avery Dunning: I shall now read the letter signed by the Prime Minister of Canada which appears on page 38 of the printed document setting forth the trade agreement and connected papers, so that the committee may have clearly before it the understanding that was reached:
Letter No. 1
Ottawa, February 23, 1937.
Sir,
With reference to article 16 of the trade agreement signed this day, I have the honour to inform you that the Canadian government, having taken note of the statements of the United Kingdom government in the course of the recent discussions:
(1)	that it is essential to the national security that the production of the zinc smelting industry in the United Kingdom should be maintained at a satisfactory level;
(2)	that at any enquiry into the question of the effects of imports of zinc from oversea empire countries on the maintenance of the production of zinc in the United Kingdom at a satisfactory level having regard to the needs of national security, the Canadian zinc producers would have the opportunity of submitting evidence, and
(3)	that the government of the United Kingdom would consult the Canadian government before taking any decision to impose a customs duty on imports of Canadian zinc into the United Kingdom,
agree that it will be open to the United Kingdom government, after such enquiry and after consultation with the Canadian government, and notwithstanding the provisions of article 1 of the trade agreement, to impose a customs duty on imports of zinc produced or manufactured in Canada, without prejudice however, to the provisions of article 3 of the agreement.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I should like to know what that means.


Charles Avery Dunning: The maintenance of the preference.
It is understood that no customs duty will be imposed on Canadian zinc which is not equally applicable to zinc from other oversea empire sources.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your obedient servant,
W. L. Mackenzie King.
Present market conditions with regard to lead and zinc completely eliminate this problem for the immediate future from the standpoint of t'he British government; but the letter I have just read, together with the annex which is placed on Hansard, clearly covers the ground with respect to any possible occasion upon which the British government may desire, for the purpose stated in clause 1, national security from their point of view -among other things that the production of zinc, in the smelting industry in the United Kingdom, should be maintained at a satisfactory level. Provided action is desired by the British government the letter indicates the basis upon which it must be taken. My right hon. friend says he cannot understand the relation to article 3.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No; perhaps I had better amplify that. It does seem strange to talk about a letter modifying an article and then to say that it is without prejudice to that article. It is absurd. Perhaps I did not use the proper terms with respect to it, but these are the words in the letter:
-agree that it will be open to the United Kingdom government, after such inquiry and after consultation with the Canadian government. and notwithstanding the provisions of article 1 of the trade agreement, to impose a customs duty on imports of zinc produced or manufactured in Canada, without prejudice however, to the provisions of article 3 of the agreement.
So that we have a letter which will modify, without prejudice, the whole of the article. What it was desired to do was what the minister said, namely, to make it without prejudice to the maintenance of the preference; but what is contained in this document is without prejudice to the provisions of article 3.


Charles Avery Dunning: I can scarcely believe that my right hon. friend has missed the first sentence in the letter:
With reference to article 16 of the trade agreement signed this day . . .


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so.

Canada-United Kingdom Trade Agreement


Charles Avery Dunning: Article 16 is the one that enables either government to take up with the other the question of the modification of any part of the agreement. The Canadian government is agreeing in this letter in advance, under the provisions of article 16, as to the manner in which the peculiar situation in zinc and lead may be met. That is really the whole point.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is an odd way to express it.


Mr. MacNICOL:: I understand the minister to say that in connection with the article pertaining to lead and zinc the British government for security purposes hope to build up a lead and zinc industry.


Charles Avery Dunning: No; if my hon. friend understood me to say so I could not have conveyed my meaning properly. There has been established a refining industry for lead and zinc in the United Kingdom, and the British government deems it of importance from the standpoint of national defence that this industry should operate, and that is the consideration which they desire to have kept in mind at all times and upon which they can approach us in accordance with the terms of the annex and the letter.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I congratulate them
upon the maintenance of the industry in the old country and I hope that this government will follow that principle and not be so hard on the industry in Canada.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The provisions of the agreement in article 16 are merely the provisions, in other words, of the old one, the old language not having suited the critical attitude of mind of those who drafted the present agreement. Not being perhaps quite scholarly enough for them it is expresed in other terms. The old1 agreement, in part was written or approved, I believe, by a lord chancellor, but this is obviously an improvement upon it, because it provides in article 16 that if they desire to vary the terms of the agreement then they may do so! The old agreement conveyed exactly the same meaning but in different words; something in the language "lacked the cool repose of Vere de Vere."


Charles Avery Dunning: The language is identical.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, there is a slight difference. If it is identical, I am glad to hear it, because it is the only instance in which there has not been a verbal change in order that it may be said that a different agreement has been prepared. That is the reason I put the articles on Hansard side by
side, so that there might be no misapprehension. There is, however, something that does affect us. The Canadian consumer must not be forgotten, and with respect to zinc and lead I think the Canadian consumer is forgotten. I had considerable difficulty and some differences of opinion, very acute differences of opinion-so acute as to bring about rather strained relations for a time-between certain gentlemen and myself. It is monstrous that Canadian consumers of zinc and lead should have to pay for that zinc and lead the price in London plus freight back here on it.


Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: Hear, hear.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Now I know I am wrong.


John Gordon Ross: I am glad the
right hon. gentleman admits for once that he is wrong.


[Stage Direction]
Article agreed to.
On article 4:
The government of the United Kingdom undertake that until the 19th August, 1942, tobacco grown, produced or manufactured in Canada and consigned from any part of the British Empire shall enjoy on importation into the United Kingdom the existing margin of preference over foreign tobacco, so long, however, as the duty on foreign unmanufactured tobacco does not fall below 2s id. per lb., in which event the margin of preference shall be equal to the full duty.
Charles Avery Dunning: This continues the present arrangement, with a very slight difference in drafting. I was pleased to hear my right hon. friend's remarks with respect to the drafting and shall convey them to the British and Canadian draftsmen who were engaged somewhat critically in this task. It is interesting and useful from a lawyer, because as a layman I sometimes feel diffident with respect to bills that are drafted for me for presentation to the house and which when they get to another place receive the attention of another expert draftsman who sometimes deems it desirable to make changes. I believe we can regard it as, shall we say, a disease of draftsmen to attempt to improve on the work of each other-or perhaps it is not without merit that they should try to do so. Of course from time to time it is possible to improve even language, I believe.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is hardly a correct statement, but it is not a matter of great importance. The late Lord Bowen made an observation which might be applied with some force to what the hon. gentleman has said. It was with reference to the address presented to the late Queen Victoria by the judges of
1772	COMMONS
Canada-United, Kingdom Trade Agreement
England on the opening of the new courts of justice. " Conscious as we are of our limitations and failings," Lord Bowen said. I suggest that we substitute " conscious as we are of the limitations and failings of each other." Possibly that might apply here. What I desire to point out is that if hon. members of the committee who now sit to the right of the Speaker desire to have a correct appreciation of this article they should read the comments of the present Prime Minister when he was leader of the opposition. When they have done that I fancy they will hesitate to vote for it, because many of them voted against it in 1932 and gave reasons for doing so. There have been no changes since; in fact it continues until 1942. It is one of the clauses of the agreement that is covered by a British statute which provides for a preference not for five years but for a period of ten years, from 1932 to 1942, and the present Prime Minister then pointed out how terrible it was to make a matter so important as tobacco subject to the condition that it should be effective:'
... so long, however, as the duty on foreign unmanufactured tobacco does not fall below 2s. OJd. per lb., in which event the margin of preference shall be equal to the full duty.
He explained at some length how iniquitous such a provision was and the effect it would have on the Canadian producer, subjecting him to a contingency that never should be contemplated. I assume the members of the committee are in no such state of mind today; they have seen a great light. There is my friend the Minister of Justice; I can remember how he voted


Charles Avery Dunning: But he does not smoke.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, but not as to this
particular item alone-all of them. It was so offensive to hon. gentlemen that we should have any such thing as this, but now they all with one accord give their approval. They have seen a great light. I do not know whether they travelled from Jericho to Jerusalem, or just to Damascus.


Ernest Lapointe: I am
listening to my right hon. friend-to some extent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They have agreed with
me now.


[Stage Direction]
Article agreed to.
On article 5:
The government of Canada, recognizing that it is the present policy of the government of the United Kingdom to promote the orderly marketing of bacon and hams and of meat in the United Kingdom with due regard to the
[Mr. Bennett.1
normal development of trade, declare their willingness so far as their power extends to continue to assist the government of the United Kingdom in carrying out this policy and, in particular, to furnish from time to time estimates of forthcoming shipments of bacon and hams and cattle and beef.
As regards bacon and hams, the government of the United Kingdom undertake:
(1)	that any duty or levy which may be imposed on bacon and hams imported into the United Kingdom shall not apply to imports of Canadian bacon and hams when consigned from any part of the British empire;
(2)	that there will be no regulation by them of such imports unless the rate at which the trade from Canada progresses towards two and one-half million hundred-weight per annum should become abnormal and such as to endanger the effective working of the system of supply regulation;
(3)	that no such regulation would be put into effect without prior consultation with the government of Canada.
As regards cattle and beef, the government of the United Kingdom undertake:
(1)	that any duty or levy which may be imposed on cattle or beef imported into the United Kingdom shall not apply to imports of Canadian cattle or beef when consigned from any part of the British empire;
(2)	that, if so requested, they will make themselves responsible for Canadian interests in any international conference that may be set up to arrange for regulating supplies imported into the United Kingdom and will use their best endeavours to ensure that Canada secures an equitable share in the trade in cattle and beef;
(3)	that any agreement for the setting up of such a conference, to which they may become a party, will not provide for any reduction in imports of Canadian fat cattle and beef into the United Kingdom below recent levels;
(4)	that any such agreement will recognize that special provision may become necessary for increased shipments of fat cattle and beef from Canada and will provide for specified reductions, if necessary, in shipments of chilled beef from foreign countries;
(5)	that there will be no regulation of imports of cattle or beef from Canada unless, after consultation with the government of Canada, it appears to the government of the United Kingdom that the effective working of a general scheme for the orderly marketing in the United Kingdom of meat cannot otherwise be secured.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I wonder if the minister has fancied what his leader would have said in 1932 in view of what he said about the rest of the agreement. Having in mind their previous arguments and votes, the attitude of those who sit across from me is most amazing. Let us look. First of all the government of Canada says it recognizes that the policy of the United Kingdom is a certain type of policy, and desires to help them carry out that policy. That is No. 1. They are to continue to assist the government of the United King-

Canada-United Kingdom Trade Agreement
dom. We undertake to assist them by giving them information. But this says in particular :
. . . to furnish from time to time estimates of forthcoming shipments of bacon and hams and cattle and beef.
Cattle and beef are added.


Charles Avery Dunning: Which we have been
doing under the old arrangement.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We were not under the
same obligation in respect to cattle and beef


Charles Avery Dunning: But we have been doing it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, we were doing it before this government came into office, but that was not a treaty obligation as it now is. There is no doubt that if we are to continue to occupy a place of any importance in the market of Great Britain with respect to bacon we shall have to do two things: (1) maintain a standard of quality beyond question; (2) assure the British government that they shall have some idea of what we can supply in order that they may know how they are to meet their requirements. I quite agree with this provision of the agreement. In other words we have the most valuable market in the world, which we can only keep if we play cricket with the British government in connection with the requirements of their people. Shortly put, that is the st-ory. And it is an extremely difficult thing to do in a country the size of this.


Charles Avery Dunning: Very difficult.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I recall that I obtained figures from the Department of Trade and Commerce to answer one cable from England, and figures also from the Department of Agriculture, and they were not the same. The endeavour to coordinate the figures, as was done, involved, a good deal of difficulty. In the end we made the best guess we could *-I use the word '"guess" with hesitation, but that is what we did. I think we must try to do something better than that.
I recall a discussion in England with a representative of the Danish government. England* has ibeen a great customer of Denmark. This agreement of 1932 to a very considerable extent deprived Denmark of a market for her bacon and gave it to Canada. This gentleman said: "The only thing I can say is we have lost part of our market, but we are nearer to England than you are, and we perhaps study their requirements a little more closely than you do."


Charles Avery Dunning: There is no question about that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: 
Charles Avery Dunning: Between $25,000,000 and $30,000,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He put it at $36,000,000, to be exact, for one year, which is a tremendous increase in new wealth. But I want to dwell upon this point, that when you get to beef and cattle you are in an entirely different realm. As sure as we are here, Mr. Chairman, this idea of using the British market as a convenience and using the United States as the market that serves you, is entirely wrong. When you find some difficulty, because of tariffs or otherwise, you turn to the British market, but you give them no constancy or
1774	COMMONS
Canada-United Kingdom Trade Agreement
certainty of supply, and that is the most ruinous thing that can. happen. It is right on us now.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is our difficulty.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Of course it is; as I pointed out last year, I felt that when we negotiated the agreement with the United States. You see, if we could look to the United States with the same degree of certainty as we can look to Great Britain in connection with the marketing situation it would be entirely different, but we do not know what sudden changes may take place in the attitude of the legislators to the south of us, whereas with respect to our own country wTe have every assurance that nothing will be done that will be prejudicial to the interests of the dominions or their market in Great Britain without complete discussion and timely notice. I can only say that I look upon the addition of beef and cattle to this agreement as representing the effort the English consumer has made to ensure some steadiness of supply from this country, but it does appear to be fairly clear that as things now are the number of cattle that will go from Canada to Great Britain will not be very great. As a matter of fact our cattle exports have been getting smaller, as compared with .the days when we had to deal with the problem of the relaxation of regulations and restrictions that tied us u>p. I was looking up the figures not long since. I wonder how many members of this house realize that at one time we shipped over 200,000 head of cattle to Great Britain in one year.


Charles Avery Dunning: We shipped 216,000 head in 1927.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If you go back to the eighties, when we were relatively a poor country-


Charles Avery Dunning: No, I am wrong; the figure I gave was the total exports.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I thought it was rather prior to that.


Mr. STEVENS:: 1922.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In 1922 we sold over 200000 head to Great Britain. That trade was carried on in the old days until some low tariff -man such as President Cleveland of the United States would come into power and say, "I guess we will let Canadian cattle in." Then for three or four years Canadian cattle would be sent to that market, and the British market would be lost. Then President Wilson came along and we got free entry. After that everything went south; then one morning we found ourselves without a market at all, and people were ruined. Those familiar with ranching in western Canada know that some

of the largest ranchers went bankrupt. One gentleman, whose assets at one time were estimated at $7,000,000, did not leave an estate large enough on his death to pay the costs of probate, and that was brought about by the emergency United States tariff on our cattle.
If the government can do anything to assure a steady supply of cattle to the British market, I think it should be done. I know how difficult it is, because certainly I have tried. We should not allow the idea to develop that the only market for Canadian beef and cattle is the market to the south. If we could induce our people to ship a steady flow of even 50,000 head of cattle per annum it would mean a great deal, so long as 50,000 head went forward each year. But when you have 50,000 one year, 25,000 another year and 75,000 another year, with uncertainty as to the flow of cattle across the ocean, you will have just the condition that confronted us. I have no hope, for instance, that under changed conditions we shall continue to have ready access to the United States market. That may continue to be the case during the term of the Democratic party, but you must look a good deal further ahead than that. It is not a matter of five or six or eight or ten years; you must take the long view of it.
I am sorry to see this item extended to include beef and cattle, but on the other hand I quite appreciate the reason for it, and since it is here I think we must do our very best to assist the British government. But I am quite sure that if conditions were reversed the welkin would ring in this parliament, as it rang in 1932. We would be told that to take our policy from the United Kingdom or to undertake to assist Great Britain to carry into effect its policy, which is its business, would be so very contrary to the whole spirit of our institutions that I would almost expect them to fall.


Mr. LEADER:: I think the remarks of the leader of the opposition are very timely. Only the other day I noticed in the Commercial Intelligence Journal that we were not keeping up a constant supply of live stock for the old country market, which made it difficult to secure the confidence of those engaged in that trade there. Speaking from memory I believe that last year we exported to the United Kingdom about 33,000 head of cattle, though we had the privilege of shipping at least 50,000 head to that market. This year I believe the number is even smaller, due to the fact that prices have been much better in the United States. You cannot blame the breeders of cattle for selling in the best market, and that is why cattle are going to

Canada-United. Kingdom Trade Agreement
the United States at the present time. I do believe, however, that it is very important that we should strive to maintain our market in the old country, which after all is the most stable of all export markets. I think the government might very well undertake some scheme under which a fund would be created-


An hon. MEMBER:: Subsidies.


Harry Leader: Pay a subsidy, if you wish, so that a situation such as exists to-day might be looked after, and so that we might guarantee to the old country market at least 10,000 head of cattle per month the year round. Then, when the price dropped in the old country, or when the price in the United States or any other market exceeded the price in the old country and the Canadian producer desired to get all he could out of his cattle, the government could step in and subsidize the breeder of cattle so that at least those 10,000 head per month would go forward to the old country market. I think that suggestion is worthy of consideration. I believe it will have to be done unless we are prepared to reestablish that market every few years, which is very hard to do. We should endeavour to maintain that market, and it seems to me something could be done in the way of undertaking to furnish a continuous supply of cattle to the old country.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: I think the suggestion that has been advanced by the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Leader) is an excellent one. Really I cannot see how we can maintain a steady flow of bacon without some such scheme. I was wondering whether the leader of the opposition would tell us what ideas he had in mind for stabilizing the market. If there is something better than a subsidy, we are ready to listen to it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Referring to the remarks of the hon. member for Portage la Prairie, and the desirability of maintaining a supply of beef cattle in the British market, may I say that I entirely agree with the desirability of achieving that end. In the past, one of the great difficulties has been the securing of shipping equipped to carry cattle. A shipping concern wishing to carry cattle must maintain stalls on its ships, and the equipment for handling cattle, and by installing that equipment they find it difficult fully to utilize their space on return cargoes. For this reason shipping companies have been somewhat loath to fit out their ships, because the original cost runs about $14 to $16 per stall. They do not wish to make this expenditure unless they are assured of a continuous supply of cattle.
That is one factor, a very important one, with which we have had difficulty in the past. I agree that we have used the British cattle 31111-112
market as a convenient market or, perhaps I should say, a convenience market-a market to suit our convenience.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is better.


Henry Herbert Stevens: When we have a surplus we supply it, but when the United States market opens up and other conditions are advantageous, we desert the market in the old country. That is a bad state of affairs, and one which I believe could be overcome by organization among the larger shippers, who export cattle in substantial quantities, of which there are only about half a dozen. So far as the number engaged is concerned, the matter could be handled easily. I believe there could be cooperation among the larger shippers, and shipping companies, and perhaps the government would sit in. The question of subsidy might arise, but I believe the problem could be overcome without going that far. When subsidies are paid a condition is immediately created which very often in the long run will do more harm than good. I believe the matter could be dealt with without resorting to subsidies.
I rose to speak particularly with regard to the British bacon market, which is of vastly more importance to the Canadian producer than is the cattle market. One of our difficulties in the British market lies in the fact that Canada has not made a genuine effort to put on that market the best bacons she can produce. I am not making that statement carelessly, because I hold in my hand the sworn statement of Mr. E. J. Smith, the president of the packers' association, who at the time in question admitted that grade A bacon, which fixes the price of Canadian bacon on the British market-and incidentally, on the sworn evidence of Mr. Stanley McLean, fixes the price of hogs in Canada-consisted of sides varying in weight from 50 to 70 pounds. They are grouped 50 to 55 pounds, 55 to 60 pounds, 60 to 65 pounds and 65 to 70 pounds, and all go into grade A. He further admitted, according to his evidence which I have under my hand, that the hogs which went into the production of those sides included selects, bacon, lights and heavies. Any farmer who sells hogs knows that when he sells a heavy or a light he is penalized a dollar' or a dollar and a half, and sometimes as much as two dollars for that hog, as against the base price which is based upon bacon hogs.
Someone may say, " Well, the difficulty is to get selects and bacons." Again I refer to the sworn evidence of Mr. Stanley McLean, in which he admitted that fifty per cent of the hogs would grade selects or bacons. If our export business were composed more largely of selects and bacons the Canadian farmer would be getting a better price in Canada for his hogs. Even with the tremendous in-

l776	COMMONS
Canada-United Kingdom Trade Agreement
crease in the last two or three years, the export of bacon to the United Kingdom does not exceed more than thirty per cent of the total production. A very few years ago it was only about five or ten per cent. If the price of bacon on the British market fixes the price of hogs in Canada, as the sworn evidence declared, we have a condition whereby the thirty per cent exported determines the price of the hogs which go into the production of the other sixty or seventy per cent in Canada. That is a tremendously important point. In my opinion it far outweighs the added value of the British market, which I do not minimize a particle. In fact I take a great deal of pride in the thought that in 1932 I supported the agreement. I believe the bacon arrangement was one of the best features in it, so that I am not by any means minimizing the importance of it.
I am trying to point out how certain conditions work back to the Canadian farmer. I hold in my hand the result of a year's careful study; some may say that it does not amount to very much, but it was very difficult to compile. It has been verified by actual references to officials of the Dutch, Polish and Danish governments. I shall refer to the statement in my hand at sufficient length, Mr. Chairman, to satisfy the rules and to warrant its inclusion on Hansard, because one cannot read a statement of this kind in its exact form. May I say that I am now referring to the statement that the price of bacon in England determines the price of hogs in Canada. I suggest therefore it is reasonable to say that the price of Danish bacon in London fixes the price of Danish hogs, and that the price of Dutch bacon in England fixes the price of Dutch hogs. I offer these statements as reasonable deductions.
The table contains a comparison of hog and bacon prices, which have been carefully worked out. The information contained therein has been analyzed by the best advisers I can get, both 'here and in the countries to which reference was made. I hold in my hand some of their comments. The information is for the year 1934-35. I am sorry my study covered a period a year ago and that because of t'he time taken to make the references I could not bring all the figures down to date. The first column shows the prices of Danish bacon in shillings and the second column shows the prices of Danish hogs in Canadian cents. These prices have been reduced to Canadian money in order to make a comparison with Canadian prices. The third column shows t'he prices of Dutch bacon in London while the fourth column shows the prices of Dutch hogs in Canadian cents. The fifth column shows the price of Canadian bacon in London while the sixth column shows the prices of Canadian hogs. The. statement then shows the differentials between Dutch and Canadian hogs. I shall refer to the differential between Danish and Canadian bacon before I take my seat, but for the moment I am disregarding them. The statement is as follows:
Comparison of Hog and Bacon Prices
Month	1 Danish bacon (London)	2 Danish hogs	3 Dutch bacon (London)	4 Dutch hogs	5 Canadian bacon (London)	6 Canadian hogs	7			8 Differential Dutch hogs over Canadian
							Hogs equalized			
							-	Dutch	Cana- dian	
1934										
71	15	81	8-2	10%	16-5	8-2	8-3April...	96	15-5	82	15	71	8-2	12	15	8-9	61May	79	17-5	73	14-5	74	8-6	OK	14-5	8-6	5-974	14	81	9-2	10	15-4	9-2	6-2July....	90	18	88	13-5	79	9-4	8	13-5	10-2	3-3Aug	88	15	86	12-5	89	8-6	5	1.3-1	8-6	4-580	12-5	97	8-6	20	15	8-6	6-494	12*5	81	8-2	15	12-5	9-4	31Nov-	83	19	79	12	81	8-2	OK	12	8-2	4-284	12	78	8*3	10	12	9-1	2-91935	Jan	86	19 5	84	13	78	8-7	10	13	9-5	3-5Feb....	84	13	74	8-6	15	13	9-8	3-286	14	79	8-2	8	14	8-9	5-178	14*5	73	8-8	5	14-5	9-2	5-383	15*5	78	9-3	5	15-5	9-8	5-788	15-5	84	9-8	5	15-5	10-3	5-294	13*5	86	9-9	10	13-5	10-9	5-6Sept-	90	14	82	9-4	10	14	10-3	3-7
Average differential-4 [DOT] 7 cents per lb.
Loss to Canadian farmers:
1934	bacon to Britain 119,717,600 lbs. at 4-7 cts. lb. = $5,626,727.00
1935	"	"	"	= $5,852,331.90
(But, all Canadian hogs are paid on basis of London, although less than 15% of total bacon production goes to Britain.)

Canada-United, Kingdom Trade Agreement
I do not know what the figures were last year, but prior to that time ninety per cent of the exports of bacon ,to Great Britain were made by one concern. It has been declared that the British market fixes the prices for hogs in Canada, but I am putting this statement on Hansard to show that if that is correct, there is something wrong with the price the Canadian fanner is getting for his hogs as compared with the prices the Danish or Dutch farmers receive. Eeference may be made to the differential in freight, but on the other hand the matter of exchange operates the other way. There is not very much difference in that respect.


Charles Avery Dunning: Has my hon. friend allowed for the time factor? I was told in Great Britain that that is important.
Mr. STEVE,NS: In order to adjust the time factor all that one has to do is to compare the Canadian hog price with the bacon price of two months away. It will be seen upon examining the statement that there is little difference. There is such a uniformity in the prices for hogs that the variations in the prices of bacon are not reflected properly, apart altogether from the comparison with Dutch prices. All one has ,to do is to adjust the time between the purchase of the hogs and the production of the bacon, which is well determined. There is no difficulty in doing that.
Why is it that the Danes get from 10 to 14 shillings, and not very long ago as high as 19 shillings, above ,t'he Canadian price? We know that Canadian bacon made from select and bacon grade hogs is on a parity with the best Danish bacon. The chef at the Picadilly hotel at London made a test of Russian bacon, Canadian bacon, Danish bacon and another type. This gentleman is one of the most noted chefs in London and without knowing the origin of the different bacons he was testing, he gave first place to the Canadian. This bacon was produced by Schneider's of Kitchener, a very good company but shipping only comparatively small quantities. There is a point I should like to draw to the attention of the government at this time, one which is vital to this transaction we have made with Great Britain. We have the bacon hog grades of lights, heavies, bacons and selects, and then we have four definite grades of bacon ranging from 50-55, 55-60, 60-65 and 65-70. Why is that done? I will tell you. This matter was brought to my attention some years ago when I was Minister of Trade and Commerce. I had a conference with the representatives of the Canadian packers and against my wishes they gained their argument that there was a market for number two bacon in England. Therefore, they insisted on this 31111-1121
differentiation in the classes of hogs. No man can say that a heavy hog will produce as good bacon as a select or bacon type hog, especially for a discriminating market such as Great Britain. They insisted upon this variation in the grading of hogs.
This brings us to another point. How is the price of bacon fixed in England, or in the London market? The price of Canadian bacon is fixed by a committee composed exclusively of Britishers, representatives of British importers and distributors. I do not for a moment suggest that they are not fine people and good businessmen; I think it will be found that they are among the best. But I submit that it is absolutely unfair, bearing in mind that the price of British bacon fixes the price not only of the hogs that aTe shipped overseas but of the sixty or seventy per cent that are not so shipped, to have the price of Canadian bacon determined by a committee composed entirely of representatives of distributing houses in England. I know it will be answered that some of these gentlemen represent the Canadian distributors. That is true:	Canada
Packers have as their agents some of these gentlemen who are in business over there, making their profit out of the bacon they sell in England, and I certainly should expect them to look after their own interests first. The packers are protected, because, on their own statements, according to a letter written by Mr. McLean in January of this year, they know what to expect on the British market; they know how that market declines in certain months in the autumn, and they anticipate that decline; and the price of hogs in Toronto, in Winnipeg and in other Canadian markets drops in anticipation of the decline they anticipate, based upon their knowledge over a period of years of the British market.
My reasons for saying what I have said are these. First, I want to emphasize the value of the British market to the Canadian producer, but I lay upon this government the responsibility of seeing that the producer gets the full value of that market. That, I think, is a duty which rests upon us as a parliament, and particularly upon the government. I believe that, as the price spreads report recommends, we should inquire carefully as to this committee which fixes the price of Canadian bacon in the British market; we should ascertain definitely whether the Canadian farmer is getting a return equal to that of his competitors in other countries.
There is no differential in the practice of packing. We can cure and pack these products just as cheaply as any country in the
*
1778	COMMONS
Canada-United Kingdom Trade Agreement
world. Of that there is no doubt; or if there is, let us know it, because there is no secret about dealing with these products. I say emphatically that we owe the producer of this country the full measure of the return made available for us by this excellent agreement, and I congratulate the minister on this particular section for having continued the earlier agreement. I should like to refer briefly, before sitting down to this clause respecting-


Mr. CLEAVER:: Mr. Chairman, before the hon. member leaves the subject of bacon and hogs, would he mind indicating what steps he thinks should be taken to confine the grade within the limits to which in his opinion it should be confined?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes. I am not pitting my judgment against that of others; I am basing my statement on the views of experts; and I have no hesitation in saying that the weights fifty-five to fifty and fifty-five to sixty, which is the way they are now graded, should be included-but none others-in grade A.


John Gordon Ross: And only from
selects.


Henry Herbert Stevens: And they should be from selects and bacons. I should like to say a word or two about grading. We have a very good grading system, particularly where hogs are sold on open markets, but great numbers of hogs are delivered direct to the packing plants. The system may have been changed in the last year or two-if it has I do not know_but formerly they were not graded or weighed under government supervision when they were delivered direct; and we recommended definitely, and I have an idea that the recommendation was adopted, that they should be weighed by government weighers when delivered direct to the packers. I would put only these two particular grades under grade A, and I would classify the others as grade B. and let grade B have the lower price. If we did that, grade A would be well up to the Danish price, and what a difference it would make to the Canadian producer, even on the present allocation of price in Canada by the packers, if instead of getting 79 shillings he got 89 or 92 shillings, which would be ten or twelve shillings more for the higher grade. So long as you have in grade A heavies and lights and other classes which have no business there at all, the whole grade gets a lower price than Danish bacon; whereas if the selects and the bacons only were included in the grade A class you would get ten to twelve shillings, and in some cases

more than that, above the present price, which would be reflected in the return to the producers.
I intend to conclude with a word on this particular clause. On the face of things it might look as though we were blindly complying with an agreement to restrict, or permitting one party to the bargain to impose arbitrary restrictions. But that is not at all the point at issue; it never has been. The point at issue is that, due to propinquity and its standard of quality, Danish bacon secured a very strong hold on the British market, as also did the bacon of Poland, Ireland, Holland and some other countries. They were improving their standard of products, were in close touch with the British market, and gave good service. By reason of distance we were at a considerable disadvantage. But in 1932 the British, very generously, I think, with respect to an item of this kind, because as the Minister of Finance knows, from time immemorial bacon has been looked upon as a favourite item almost a sacred, on the British breakfast table-


Charles Avery Dunning: Particularly bacon.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Particularly bacon. Great
Britain gave us a quota of two and a half million hundredweight on the British market, which was far beyond anything that we were then equipped to supply; in fact, up to the present we have supplied, I think, not more than half that quantity in any one year. In doing that the British government had to impose a quota on other countries, that is, notify other countries that they could not exceed a certain amount. If we had suddenly increased our production without notice to them, and without any assurance that it would be maintained, it would have disturbed their whole internal market as well as their relations with other countries. Therefore they asked that Canada advise them from time to time what she could supply; I believe the request was that we should indicate for three month periods, as long as six months ahead, what the probable supply would be.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is the present
arrangement.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is simply a common
sense, businesslike request from the British government to ourselves, and everything possible should be done as no doubt is being done, to comply with it.
The fixing of the price of Canadian hogs by the price of bacon in Great Britain lays upon the government as well as upon those who control the packing business a most onerous responsibility. Personally I do not

Canada-United Kingdom Trade Agreement
believe that the Canadian hogs slaughtered and marketed- as Canadian bacon should necessarily be on the same basis as export bacon. I know that the general law applies; but after all, in these days the general laws of supply and demand and so forth are being shot to pieces, to use a colloquialism, by every country in the world, and we are faced with these conditions everywhere. My opinion is that we should study these matters first from the standpoint of the producer, because if there is one class that has suffered it has been the producer, particularly producers of live stock and wheat.
I have one further observation to make; I do not like to say this, but perhaps it ought to be said. The argument is advanced that if you look at the profit on meats you will find that it is only a quarter of a cent per pound, or something like that; and of course, if you accept that at its face value, you are silenced; there is no answer. But this is what I cannot get over. During the last six years Canadian farmers as a class from- coast to coast have been suffering perhaps mo-re than any other class because of the low prices of cattle and hogs. The Canadian farmer has been suffering hardships which he ought not to be asked to bear. But during these same years the packing industry has passed through the most prosperous period in its existence. It will be observed that in a four year period- it may have been a five year period prior to 1935-they set aside, in addition to these depreciation reserves to which I have referred, reserves equal to one-half their total capital and had further reserves that were not disclosed until uncovered by an- investigation. Again, I am not for a moment saying that merely for the purpose of calling attention to this healthy condition shall I say among the packers; but I do say that in the light of all the other points I have raised it is due to the farmer that this house should scrutinize, and scrutinize with a degree of attention approaching suspicion-, some of the statements that are made to farmers as an excuse for the low price of their products.


Mr. BLAIR:: I appreciate the remarks of my hon. friend (Mr. Stevens). The difference between what the Dutch farmer gets for his bacon and the price in England, and the difference between what the Canadian farmer gets and the price of Canadian bacon in Britain, is a question that should be very seriously considered by this house. Unquestionably the Canadian packers are making it difficult for the Canadian farmer to raise pigs. I am sure that those who have raised pigs in Canada must realize that they have been doing so at a loss for a number of years. I
have here a letter from Mr. Stanley McLean of Canada Packers, an outstanding man, who disagrees with some of the opinions that have been expressed. He says:
In other words, if Canadian hogs had been as good as Danish hogs, the Canadian farmer in the last three years would have received for the hogs he produced an additional $12,000,000 per year.
That is an important statement.
The fact that the Canadian, farmer did not receive this extra $12,000,000 per year was a misfortune.
That is from Mr. Stanley McLean of Canada Packers. It is believed that the spread is too great between the price paid in Great Britain and the price paid here to the Caaadian farmer. The hon. member has referred to the differential in prices, and I was going to bring that up. I have figures-they are the same as he has given

showing an average of about 4-7 cents as the differential between what the Canadian farmer gets and what the Danish farmer gets in relation to the profits made by the packer. Our packers seem to take all the profits, leaving a small margin of loss for the farmer.
There is another matter to which I would call attention, something I have been working at for the last eight or nine years. I started nine years ago and made a poor success. At one time I was in touch with certain Danish professors; in fact, these gentlemen from Copenhagen were at my home. They said I would never get good bacon and hams from Yorkshire hogs. I had two hundred of them, and these gentlemen laughed at me and said, "These hogs have no hams on them; they have just two posts for hind legs and you will never get hams from them." I got reports from Denmark, and this professor gave me the differentiation between the shoulder and the side. Danish hogs have a larger ham than shoulder. Our Yorkshire hogs are wild animals; they have not been really domesticated. The Danes have beaten us in bacon, eggs, and butter on the British market. Their industry is highly specialized, and I suggest we take advantage of specialization along these lines.
Eight years ago I appealed strongly to the Minister of Agriculture of that day (Mr. Motherwell). One of his assistants was named Arkell, and they wrote to me that they had tried Canadian bacon on the British market and that it tasted better than any Danish bacon. Well, I do not care what they like or do not like. If they want Canadian bacon, we can keep a few Canadian hogs for them; but what we want to know is what the British market wants. It was from that point of view that I argued with them eight
1780	COMMONS
Canada-United Kingdom Trade Agreement
years ago. Then the Hon. Mr. Weir got in, and by persistent efforts he imported the Swedish Landrace. It is not a Danish pig but it is far superior to our Yorkshire. It is different from the Danish landwehr which is a better type. I received from Copenhagen a statement comparing the two types with our own Yorkshire. The Swedish is midway between, but is a part Red York, and in the British market it is priced exactly between the price of Canadian bacon and Danish bacon. Danish bacon is generally ten shillings per hundredweight-112 pounds-above the Canadian; Swedish runs about five shillings above Canadian. You will find by your weekly reports that that keeps fairly steady. The trick is here. If we in Canada are going to compete with Denmark on the British market why should we not secure a type of pig that the British people want, and then try and cure that pig by the system they require?
Another thing. Hon. Mr. Weir imported some fifty or sixty of these Swedish pigs from Sweden, and I believe he would have brought in the Danish pig but for the interference of the oligarchy in the Department of Agriculture here. I believe they prevented the Hon. Mr. Motherwell bringing them in. I never blamed him; I blame the department. I blame the department for not allowing Mr. Weir to bring them in, and I blame the same department for not allowing Mr. Gardiner to bring them in. I am not sure of the personal views of the minister, but it is from that department I got ,the opinions. To show how brilliant they are in the Department of Agriculture, I was there the other day and I said to t'he man in charge of the publishing, "You should send to the members of the agriculture committee the live stock market report." He said, "We do; we send them every week." I said, "You do not." He said, "I will show you," and he got out the list of names. The first was Shaver, the next Eccles Gott. I said, "They are out of the house." The next was George Spotton and the next Tom Cayley. I said, "They are dead. Your list has not been revised for the last six years.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is right.


John Knox Blair: I should like to know why the members of this house are not getting that report. That shows how they are conducting their affairs. I touch my hat to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). I have great appreciation of the service he has rendered already, but I will take my hat right off to him if he will go there and

dismiss about one-third of them. They are simply deadbeats, not alive to the world, but dead as Caesar's ghost.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then they do not need the lethal chamber.


John Knox Blair: They say it is impossible
to bring these pigs in because of the foot and mouth disease. I said, "I will go to the books and see what you have in your department." I wanted the latest on foot and mouth disease, but I could find nothing less than thirty years old. If you go to the library over there, I doubt if you could find anything more modem now. The foot and mouth disease is not a congenital disease; the department well knows it, and the man talking to me well knew it-he was a veterinary. Those pigs could be removed at birth with perfect safety. I said, "I will pay the expense of keeping these pigs under quarantine for two generations. You bring them in and leave them here, and surely by that time if they have any disease we shall know." But he said no; for the welfare of the animal husbandry branch he would not.
I am indebted to Hon. Mr. Weir for bringing in these Swedish pigs. I believe he was conscientious and made a noble effort to help the Canadian farmer. Here is the first report on those pigs, and I have followed them carefully since they came in for experiment. I want to draw attention to how these six York pigs compared with the two Landrace pigs. The average age of the York pigs was 189j days, and the average weight was 208 pounds. The average age of the Landrace pigs was 161 days, and the average weight 212 pounds. The Landrace pigs, in 28| days less time, were four pounds heavier than the Yorks. That is the poorest report we have of the Landrace pigs.
The next experiment took place in Hull; I followed them to Hull. These men have told the truth as far as I know, although they were opposed to the pigs. Here we have six Yorks and two Landrace. The Land-race, 55 days younger than some of the Yorks, weigh as much as the Yorks. Hon. members who are not farmers surely can appreciate this: You have two pens of pigs, Yorks and Landrace; you have finished feeding the Landrace pigs and 55 days after they have been shipped, you are still feeding a bunch of Yorks. The cream, the profit, is all gone. With the permission of the house I should like to put these tables on Hansard.


Mr. MacINNIS:: On a point of order. A few evenings ago the hon. member for Wey-burn (Mr. Douglas) wanted to put some figures

Canada-United. Kingdom Trade Agreement
on Hansard and the Minister of Justice, leading the house, said it was out of order. A few days later someone else on the government side got away with it. If it is not good for us on this side it is not for the other side.


John Knox Blair: I will read them.


Charles Avery Dunning: On the point of order, I think on reflection my hon. friend will admit that he was wrong in the case he refers to with regard to hon, gentlemen on this side of the house. My recollection of the incident is clear; no objection was taken.


Angus MacInnis: I did not say there was any objection taken, but the leader of the house could have objected1 as he did when we on this side tried to do it.


Charles Avery Dunning: Further, without trying to limit the generality of the discussion, may I say that some of it at least would more properly take place on the estimates of the Department of Agriculture than on the clause of the agreement. Not that I can urge it to a final ruling, because I suppose one could say that anything connected with ham, bacon or cattle might be discussed, and of course Landrace hogs might become Canadian bacon which might be sold in the British market. While I suppose my hon. friend can connect it up, I do suggest to him and others who might follow the same line of discussion that a more fitting time for much of the material would be on the estimates of the Minister of Agriculture.


Frederick George Sanderson: Any hon. member has the privilege of placing any documents on Hansard provided he has the unanimous consent of the house. If not he can read them if he has time.


Mr. SPENCE:: I suggest that the hon. gentleman be allowed to put them on Hansard without reading them. It will take less time, and be more accurate.


Mr. HEAPS:: I have no objection to the hon. member putting these figures on Hansard1 by consent of the house, but if he is going to do it we want the same privilege extended to every hon. member of this chamber.


An hon. MEMBER:: This is very important.


Abraham Albert Heaps: The figures are no more important to the hon. member for Wellington North than the figures of the hon. member for Weyburn last week were to him. If it is understood that every hon. member will have the same privilege, I have no objection.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This is a very important statement. Perhaps the hon. member might read part, and then let it go in.


John Knox Blair: I suppose I am obliged to read these figures, Mr. Chairman.


Frederick George Sanderson: The hon. member has received unanimous consent to place the tables on Hansard without reading them.


John Knox Blair: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The tables are as follows:
Test by Experimental Farm, Ottawa
Yorks			Swedish Landrace		
Age	Live	Age	LiveNo.	in days	weight	No.	in days	weight1	193	227	1	163	2122	204	210	2	159	2123	189	105	4	200	204	322	4245	181	210	1,3166	171	202	1,0971,138	1,248	In 1,000 days, increase over	219 lbs.1,097	
Average
Days	weight
lbs.
Average age of Yorks	
189J	208Average age of Landrace	
161	212Landrace	in	
28J days less time are	
4 lbs.
heavier than the Yorks.
The average number of Landrace born per litter was 9 16 pigs.	_
The average birth weight of the Landrace is 3 26 in comparison to 2-48 and 2-68 of the Yorkshires.
1782	COMMONS
Canada-United Kingdom Trade Agreement
Carcass Data at Swine Field Day, Guelph, June 15th and 16th, 1936
Hog
Carcass
Tattoo No.	Wt.	Age	Wt.	Dress- ing	Rail Grade	Length	Back fat	Belly	Shoul- der	Mid- dle	Ham	Official Placing	Comment%	%	%	%	1	227	193	172	75-7	A	321	21	G+	28-3	49-3	22-4	2	York2	210	204	163	77-6	B	31}	21	F	31-1	45-5	23-4	7	York3	195	189	155	79-4	B	31	1}	G-	29-9	44-0	26-1	8	York4.	202	200	155	76-7	A	31	11 1	G-	31 *3	44-8	23-9	4	York5,...	210	181	168	80-0	A	31}	2} 1 2}	G+	30-1	46-6	23-3	5	6 ... 	202	171	159	78-7	A	31	u	G+	29-5	47-6	22-9	1	York
Two Landrace Pigs Slaughtered at Hull, June 5, 1936
7	220	149	168	76-4	A	31	H 1	G	28-9	46-0	251	Landrace8	210	149	160	76-2	B	31 1	1} 1	G-	28-7	46-8	24-5	Landrace 262P
Kindly notice the age, weight and grade of the Landrace pigs compared with the Yorks.
Carcass Data at Swine Field Day, Guelph, June 15th and 16th, 1936
Hog
Carcass
Tattoo No.	Wt.	Age	Wt.	Dress- ing	Rail Grade	Length	Back fat	Belly	Shoul- der	Mid- dle	Ham	Official Placing	Comment%	%	%	1.	227	193	172	75-7	A	32}	2i	G +	28-3	49-3	22-4	2	Yorks2.	210	204	163	77-6	B	31]	2}	F	311	45-5	23-4	7	Yorks3.	195	189	155	79-4	B	31	1}	G-	29-9	440	26-1	8	Yorks4.	202	200	155	76-7	A	31	U 1	G-	31 -3	44-8	23-9	4	Yorks5.	210	181	168	800	A	31]	2] 1 1	G+	30-1	46-6	23 3	5	Y orks6.	202	171	159	78-7	A	31	2 li	G+	29-5	47-6	22 9	1	Yorks
Two Landrace Pigs slaughtered at Guelph, June 15th, 1936
7	205	163	163	79-4	B	30}	2 1	G-	27-8	4S-4	23-8	6	Landrace8	195	151	159	81	A	30}	If 1	G-	31	45-5	23-5	3	25 6P Landrace258P
Kindly notice the age, weight, and grade of Landrace pigs compared with the Yorks. The farmer has to feed the York pigs 30 days longer to be the size of the Landrace. This partly explains why the Danes buy our grain and drive us off the British market. Last year we only filled half our quota.
I should like to direct altention to the experiment at Guelph. Six pigs were taken there and slaughtered one day, cut up the next day and examined carefully. The weight of cne Landrace pig yas 195 pounds, as compared with a Yorkshire weighing 210 pounds. The Landrace pig was fifty-five days younger, but dressed four pounds more than the Yorkshire. What is more, I saw a professor there lecture to two hundred farmers and tell them to raise the Yorkshire pig, one of which took fifty-five days longer to grow and dressed four pounds less than the Landrace. I was very angry at the professor: I asked him, "Have you no consideration for the farmer or are you simply considering the grading of pigs for Canada Packers?" He said, "Yes, the time required in growing these pigs should be taken into consideration."

There is just one other point I want to mention. I would like hon. members to notice the age and weight and grade of the Landrace pigs as compared with the Yorkshires. The farmer has to feed a Yorkshire pig for thirty days longer in order to get a lower dressed weight. I could have made it much more than thirty days, but if I am lying I want to be lying on the right side. This partly explains why the Danes are able to buy our grain and drive us off the British market, as they have been doing for years. Last year we only half filled our quota, because we could not afford to feed our pigs. What with the differentiation mentioned by another hon. member, and the type of pigs we are compelled to grow, we cannot compete with the Danes on the British market. I may be wrong,

Canada-United, Kingdom Trade Agreement
but it seems to me a real crime against our farmers that this should be permitted. The Swedish pigs should be distributed among our farmers.


Mr. FURNISS:: Mr. Chairman, I have been very much interested in the discussion this afternoon, particularly in what has been said by the hon. member for Kootenay East and the hon. member for Wellington North. I am a farmer, and I am interested in seeing that the farmer gets as much as possible for his hogs. Perhaps a conversation I had last fall with a pork packer might interest this committee. That conversation was induced by a market report appearing in the Farmer's Advocate, which was called to my attention by one of my neighbour farmers. Under the heading Hog Prices Drop, the article says:
Last week hog prices tumbled from 35 to 50 cents, closing at 8.50 for bacons off trucks at Toronto.
Then several other quotations are given which I need not read. The significant part of this report follows:
Canadian bacon in the old country held steady with the previous week, which was 7 shillings below the same week a year ago. On the other hand Danish bacon was quoted for the week ending September 18 at 15 shillings above the same week a year ago. English, Irish and Swedish bacon were all quoted, the week above mentioned, from 8 to 10 shillings above Canadian.
I wrote the editor of the magazine and asked if that statement was correct, and the reply I received was that he had no reason to think it was not correct. So I went to a pork packing plant not far from' where I live to inquire into the matter, and in the course of our conversation I referred to the price spreads committee, to which the hon. member for Kootenay East referred. Mind you, I hold no brief for the pork packers, but there may be some merit in his reply, which was: "There was something about the production of bacon that the price spreads committee did not get at. He explained it in this way: "We will never have bacon in Canada as uniform in quality as they have in Denmark, because they impart all their feed, and they feed to a formula in order to produce pork of the best quality as cheaply as possible. The quality of pork or bacon that we get in Canada depends largely on the grain grown in the locality where the hogs are fed."
I think there is something in that argument, because as long ago as I can remember I heard farmers discussing the relative qualities of bacon from hogs fed on com and hogs fed on peas. It may be that there is something in the quality of Danish bacon
which cannot be seen or told by the weight of the bacon in the particular grade. I think that is something the Department of Agriculture should take up: Perhaps I should have mentioned these points when the estimates of that department were under consideration, but when the discussion turned this way I thought it would not be improper to introduce this question.
There is just one matter about which I should like to ask the hon. member for Wellington North. Was any record kept of the amount that was fed the Yorkshire pigs and the Landrace pigs?


John Knox Blair: Records were kept, but I have not an accurate record here. It is in terms which I do not very well understand.


[Stage Direction]
Article agreed to.
On article 6:
The government of Canada undertake that the goods the growth, produce or manufacture of the United Kingdom enumerated in Schedule IV appended hereto, when conveyed without transhipment from any part of the British Empire enjoying the benefits of the British preferential tariff into a sea, lake or river port of Canada, shall not be subjected to duties of customs higher than those specified in that schedule.
The government of Canada undertake as regards goods the growth, produce or manufacture of the United Kingdom other than those enumerated in Schedule IV that, under the British preferential tariff, no new protective duty shall be imposed and no existing protective duty increased except after an inquiry at which United Kingdom producers shall enjoy full rights of audience.
John Ritchie MacNicol: I should like to say some' thing wth regard to article 6 of the budget What the industrial worker in Canada wants more than anything else is permanency and stability in his job. I quite realize that some of the items contained in schedule IV do not reduce the rates of duty to any great extent, though of course others do. Perhaps the effect on industry just now will not be anything like as detrimental as might have been the case but for the fact that, as everyone knows, every pound of steel that possibly can be imported into Great Britain is being secured by that country, and their shipments of steel are not very great. On the whole the steel industry, on account of the war scare in Europe, is not affected as adversely as it would have been. But what everybody in industry is frightened to death over is this: How far is it going to go? Every year for the last ten years or more of Liberal rule the whole industrial fabric, including hundreds, thousands, and up to a million workers in industry have been alarmed by the constant,
1784	COMMONS
Canada-United Kingdom Trade Agreement
never-ceasing tariff tinkering. The party now holding office, the Liberal party, brought in a budget in 1922 in which it reduced the tariff on some 50 items, more or less.


Mr. GOLDING:: Hear, hear.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The hon. member says " Hear, hear," but he is not talking for the industrial worker.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Thank you for that, sir- although I thought it was another hon. member. Thank you for your " Hear, hear." Then in 1923 the Liberal party gave a ten per cent discount on all British preference items imported from Great Britain. At that time the country had a very able Minister of Finance, and I will not say we have not such to-day. I confess I think a great deal of the Minister of Finance.


John Gordon Ross: Carried.


John Ritchie MacNicol: He has improved very materially since he came east.


John Gordon Ross: That is the worst knock he ever got.


John Ritchie MacNicol: His association with business in the east has broadened him out a great deal. May I quote what the late Mr. Fielding said in 1923, as it appears at page 18 of a pamphlet containing his budget speech:
There is a thought ivhich does not receive as much consideration as I think sometimes it should be given in public discussions, and that is the desirability of something like tariff stability. Business men do not like to be always threatened with changes in the tariff. There is no finality in legislation either as respects that tariff or as respects anything else.
Further on he says:
Speaking broadly, it is possible to give the country a reasonable assurance of stability of tariff.
I say the very same thing about the workers in industry. I know something about industry, and about the attitude of mind of the worker. He is just as much interested in tariff schedules as any industrialist, because he knows his job depends on the tariff protecting the plant in which he works. How can there be any permanency in employment if we are going to have anything but permanency in tariff schedules?
Here we have a new set of tariff schedules. The government of the province of Ontario has adopted or is about to adopt a minimum wage regulation. How can they carry out any minimum wage regulation in that province if there is a constantly changing tariff? I submit it would be very difficult to do. When in

office in 1924, the Liberal party cut the tariff on a long list of items. I shall not enumerate them, but will content myself with saying that the list was long, and the change seriously interfered with employment in industry.


William Henry Golding: No.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The man who says "No" does not know what he is talking about.


William Henry Golding: That is your opinion.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I can prove it right now. That is my opinion.


John Gordon Ross: Give your figures.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I will give them; I did not intend to do so, but I will. In September, 1924, J. R. Shaw of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, appearing before the unemployment conference in Ottawa told the government of the day that their tariff policy was ruinous to employment in industry, and backed up his statement with a long list of industries which had closed from 1921 to 1924. Among those industries there were 240 making foodstuffs of one kind and another, which in the previous three years had closed their doors as a result of the tariffs imposed by the dominion government. There were 24 tobacco industries; 19 fertilizer industries; 85 connected with oils, chemicals and drugs; 43 making pulp and paper supplies of one kind or another; 271 engaged in the preparation of lumber and wood products; 49 furniture manufacturers-and quite a number of furniture factories are ready to close their doors today; 81 engaged in making building materials, and all kinds of materials in connection with the building industry; 31 concerns manufacturing agricultural implements and tools-


John Gordon Ross: What about this year? Are they going to close this year too?


John Ritchie MacNicol: -18 making carriages; 172 engaged in some kind of iron and steel fabrication; 23 manufacturing leather products and 24 in the footwear industry.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: What is the hon. member reading from?


John Ritchie MacNicol: I am reading from a report submitted in Ottawa on September 4, 1924, to the government of the day by the Canadian Manufacturers' Association.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Oh.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Someone says "Oh"; it is all very well to say "Oh".


Mr. DONNELLY:: Can the hon. member tell us how many factories were opened in that time?

Canada-United Kingdom Trade Agreement


John Ritchie MacNicol: I will tell the hon. member this-and other hon. members from Saskatchewan-that the workers in Ontario are becoming alarmed. The Prime Minister of Canada represents a Saskatchewan constituency. The Minister of Finance is a former premier, as is the Minister of Agriculture. Parliament has done little else in the last year or two but vote for the province of Saskatchewan. The worker in Ontario wants some stability in his job; otherwise he cannot put up the money to help Saskatchewan. In 1925 the list of reductions to the tariff by the present-


William Henry Golding: Will the hon. member permit a question? He has told us about the industries which closed up. Would he now give us the total number employed in industry between the years 1921 and 1930?


John Ritchie MacNicol: No, but I will do better than that for the hon. member. In a few minutes I shall make a statement in reply to something said a day or two ago by the Postmaster General, because I must set him right. At the same time I will set the hon. member right. The statement was with reference to emigration, and men being thrown out of work.


William Henry Golding: Give us the number employed.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I would like to proceed in chronological order. May I repeat that in 1922 there were cuts on some 50 odd items. In 1923 there was a ten per cent cut, or a ten per cent discount. In 1924 there was a long list of tariff cuts on all kinds of manufactured goods made by Canadian workers. In 1925 also there was a short but very important list of items cut. In 1926 there were 40 important items cut, but by 1927 the wise words of the late Hon. Mr. Fielding, as uttered in 1923, had apparently sunk in. The castigation and severe thrashing which the government received in the 1925 election for its tariff cuts apparently had sunk in, with the result that in 1927 there were no tariff cuts. In 1928 there were 169 reductions in the tariff, affecting commodities most of which were made by Canadian workers. In 1929 changes were made in 35 items. When the present Minister of Finance came into office in 1930, changes were made in from 250 to 300 items. In the 1936 budget, 150 items more or less were affected, while in connection with this agreement there are 27 pages of items. As one who has been long
associated with industry I say it is about time the Canadian workers and the Canadian manufacturer were given a little relief from attack by the government through the cutting down of tariffs and the cutting out of jobs.
Perhaps I have not gone through the items as closely as I should have, but I have noted some of the changes. The agricultural implement manufacturers are not the bandits and robbers they have been called in this house. In any event, their workmen are as fine as can be found in the world. Those workmen use Canadian products. I am opposed to any interference with the jobs of Canadian workers. What do we find? We find that in 1922, 1923, 1924, 1925, 1926, 1928, 1929 and 1930 there was an attack, either small or large upon the agricultural implement manufacture' and his employees.


William Henry Golding: In the number employed?


John Ritchie MacNicol: If the hon. member will look at the Canada Year Book he will get the figures of employment in the agricultural implement plants.


James J. Donnelly: There have been very few employed in the manufacture of implements since 1930.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The hon. member knows that a world depression has existed, but even during that time the manufacturers kept quite a number of men employed. In connection with the manufacture of blankets, cottons, flannels, woollens and knitted goods changes were made in 1922, 1923, 1927 and 1928. The same thing has happened in connection with the manufacture of boots and shoes. The tariff on these articles was cut in 1922, 1923, 1928 and, while I am not sure, I believe it is being cut again this year. There are a lot of plants in this country making machinery of one kind or another. I find that the government now in power has always taken delight in crucifying the worker in the machinery plants of this country. Reductions in the machinery tariff were made in 1924, 1925, 1926, 1928, 1929 and 1930. I am not referring to the manufacturers of agricultural machinery; I am referring to the manufacturers of woodworking machinery, iron working machinery, mining machinery and other types.
A moment ago I said that I wanted to refer to what the Postmaster General said a day or two ago, and in doing so I shall reply to the hon. member for Huron-Perth.
1786	COMMONS
Canada-United, Kingdom Trade Agreement
The Postmaster General lives in the city of London, and perhaps he can make a manufacturing establishment out of a school house. Here is a report of his meeting in Hamilton a day or two ago:
Hon. J. C. Elliott, Postmaster General for Canada, who also spoke, dealt extensively with explanations of Canada's new trade treaties and with statistics showing an increase in international trade.
"Tory rule in Canada has always brought with it a depression and an exodus of our youth to the United States when opportunities here became scarce," Hon. Mr. Elliott said.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Hon. members say "hear, hear," but no one knows better than the Postmaster General that that last statement is not based on facts. What happened when the party of the Postmaster General came into power in 1921?


John Gordon Ross: Prosperity.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I represent thirty to forty thousand workers, and when they are out of work they do not consider there is any prosperity. That may be the kind of prosperity the hon. member for Moose Jaw wants, but it is not the kind I want.


John Gordon Ross: I take objection to the remarks of my hon. friend. There was prosperity between 1921 and 1930.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I am going to give a
little picture of how prosperous tbe workers were in 1922, after one year of Liberal rule and tariff cuts. Emigration to the United States increased. The number of Canadians leaving this country for lack of something to do here increased. In December, 1921, the number of Canadians who left Canada for the United States was 3,057. In June, 1922, a total of 4,S99 left Canada. In December, 1922, the number increased to 7,468, and in June, 1923, it had increased to 18.879.


Mr. ELLIOTT (Middlesex):: I should like to say to my hon. friend that at no time during my remarks in Hamilton did I use the words "Tory rule." What he says now as to what I said then about Tory rule applies to Conservative rule.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The Postmaster General
knows-


Richard Bedford Bennett: That it is six o'clock.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I shall continue after six.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.

After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Charles Avery Dunning: We are on article 6, Mr. Chairman.


Frederick George Sanderson: On schedule IV.
Customs tariff-ex. 8. Extracts of meat and fluid beef, not medicated: rate of duty, 10 per cent.


John Ritchie MacNicol: WThen the house rose at six o'clock I had nearly finished. I was speaking about the report of the speech made by the Postmaster General in Hamilton on, I believe, March 13, and was analyzing the statement that "under Toiy rule-


John Campbell Elliott: The 12th, it was.


John Ritchie MacNicol: -"there was a great exodus to the United States." I pointed out that from 1930 to 1935 migration to the United States was prohibited, and Canadians could not have gone into that country even though they wanted to. Shortly before that I was pointing out what happened under a Liberal administration following 1921. I gave the figures of emigration from Canada to the United States for several different months in three different years. I will add this, that for the whole of the year 1922, under Liberal rule, the average monthly emigration of Canadians to the United States was 5,190, and for the whole of the year 1923 the monthly average of Canadian emigration to the United States was 15,165. The total for 1922 was 62,289, and for 1923, 181,973. I have not the totals for 1924, but for the first six months of that year, under Liberal rule-and, I maintain, largely as a result of the constant slashing of the tariff by the Liberal party in the years 1922, 1923 and 1924

the emigration from Canada to the United States was as follows: January, 15.513; February, 13.993; March, 13.409; April, 17.517; May, 17,216; June, 19,177. Those figures do not at all bear out the statement quoted as having been made by the Postmaster General at Hamilton. Perhaps he did not make it, and the newspaper report is wrong; but if he did, it is founded on an error as far as the Conservative party is concerned.
I was asked earlier in my speech by an hon. member, and neglected to answer, how many businesses were started under the Liberal administration in 1922, 1923, and 1924 up to the time of the report made by John R. Shaw, of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, to the unemployment conference

Canada-United Kingdom Trade Agreement
which met in Ottawa on September 4, 1924. There were 934 businesses started and 1,351 closed.


Mr. DEACHMAN:: What year was that?


John Ritchie MacNicol: Up to 1924.


Robert John Deachman: Between 1922 and 1924?


John Ritchie MacNicol: 1922, 1923, and 1924.


Mr. McINTOSH:: Is that actual or speculative?


John Ritchie MacNicol: I doubt very much
whether a responsible citizen, the head of a great organization, would come to Ottawa and present to an unemployment conference, called by the government, fictitious figures. They are not mine; I take them as they were quoted. At that time I was in business and attended more than one such conference. The meaning of those statistics is that during the three years mentioned there was a net contraction in Canada of 417 businesses. During the dinner hour my attention was called to the fact that I had not completed the list of the businesses which closed. It is not in the notes of Hansard, and I must have left it out. This report shows that six rubber goods factories and twenty-three factories for autos and auto supplies were closed.


Charles Avery Dunning: Automobile factories?


John Ritchie MacNicol: Automobile and automobile equipment factories.


Charles Avery Dunning: Twenty-three?


John Ritchie MacNicol: Well, the number twenty-three was given by the chairman of the Canadian Manufacturers Association on the occasion I refer to. He may be wrong. As to that I do not know.


Charles Avery Dunning: Sounds exaggerated.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Well, maybe, but if you consider bumpers and wheels and-


John Campbell Elliott: Nuts.


John Ritchie MacNicol: -cushions and other
articles that enter into an automobile, I suppose it may be correct. There were also closed seven toy factories, six glass parts factories, 156 textile factories of one kind and another, including wearing apparel, and 73 miscellaneous. I give that list as it was given at the unemployment conference. I assume that the government of the day would check it over, and I never heard that its accuracy had been disputed.
I may be asked how many factories started in Canada as a result of the beneficial tariff introduced by the present leader of the opposition when he was prime minister of this country. The Ottawa correspondent of Business Week-I do not seem to have the date- says 272 branches of United States industries were established in Canada between 1930 and 1935: these included 23 manufacturing vegetable products; 8, animal products; 20, textile products; 25, wood and paper products; 73, iron products; 33, non-ferrous metal products; 10, non-metallic mineral goods; 63, chemical products; and 17, miscellaneous.


Charles Avery Dunning: Can the hon. member give us the number of factories that closed during that period?


John Ritchie MacNicol: The report does not give it and I have not the figures here, but the facts are probably as stated here. But the minister knows just as well as I know-and I know personally-that a great number of splendid factories were started in Canada during the time the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) was Prime Minister.


Mr. YOUNG:: Is my hon. friend trying to prove that employment was greater between 1930 and 1935 than between 1925 and 1930?


John Ritchie MacNicol: Oh, no, I am not trying to prove that, but I do say that as a result of the beneficial tariff policy of the ex-Prime Minister, between 1930 and 1935, there was much more employment in Canada than there would have been but for that policy. I do not want to get into an argument with my hon. friend for Huron North (Mr. Deach-man); he and I are as far apart as the poles. He may have been secretary of the Consumers' League, but that does not mean a single solitary thing to me; that did not give any employment. The only man that I want to get into an argument with is the man who can tell me how many men he gave employment to.


Robert John Deachman: How many men did the hon. member's policy give employment to? Take a typical Canadian city, Hamilton. Let him tell us how many men his policy gave employment to in that city. That would be interesting.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I certainly can, and I am glad the hon. gentleman has asked that question because I can plainly see that he is so far removed from employment and industry that perhaps he cannot grasp the situation. I will mention only one factory.


Robert John Deachman: Give all.
1788	COMMONS
Canada-United Kingdom Trade Agreement


John Ritchie MacNicol: No, one will do. I could give a great number, and in fact I have given the list before so that it is not necessary to repeat it now. He has spoken of Hamilton so I will mention the Dominion Foundries and Steel Company. As a direct result of the tariff policy of the late government, giving protection on steel plate over forty inches and I believe up to sixty-six inches, in that one plant alone a goodly increase of men were employed making steel plate which would not have been made in Canada had it not been for the fact that steel plate under sixty-six inches was protected. I will go further. I believe the present Minister of Finance has the best interest of the country at heart, as he sees it, but with due respect to him I will say that the number of men in the Dominion Foundries and Steel Company's plant in Hamilton can be increased materially if his government will increase the protection, on steel up to seventy-eight inches, twelve inches more than at present. A short time ago I saw a statement which perhaps the hon. member for Huron North also has seen.


Charles Avery Dunning: Perhaps my hon. friend will be interested to know that the plant he mentions was never so busy as it is to-day.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Yes, and the minister knows why as well as I do. It is because the British companies that make steel plate are at present as busy as they can be making steel plates for battleships, cruisers, destroyers and so on. The minister knows very well that there is not much, if any, construction steel coming to Canada to-day from the old land. There may be some, but I believe the quantity is shrinking. And for the same reason.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is not the only thing they make.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Construction steel may
not be shipped out of England at present because of the insufficiency of steel at home for the manufacture of necessary war equipment, and therefore it is no wonder that the steel business is active in Canada. During the late government's administration the company in question equipped their plant to make steel plate over forty inches, and the very fact that they were able to roll steel up to sixty and seventy inches resulted in employment for a good many more men.
The Minister of Agriculture on March 9 last, made the following remarks as reported in Hansard:
I am one of those who believe that if we want to sell our wheat in the old country market we should be prepared to bring back

to this country the shirts we wear when we are producing that wheat, the pants we wear when we grow that wheat, and the boots and shoes we wear when we grow that wheat.
I venture to suggest that the Minister of Justice does not agree with the Minister of Agriculture that boots and shoes should be imported.


Ernest Lapointe: I did not hear the argument, but on general principle I would side with the Minister of Agriculture.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The Minister of Justice
knows that they make very fine shoes in the city of Quebec. I do not blame the Minister of Agriculture for speaking as strongly as he can for his agricultural friends and trying to get material for them at as low a price as he can, but he is a minister of the crown now, and he must think of all Canadians. He has to think of the workers in the factories throughout Canada, and if he goes to Hamilton to make a speech he may not say to the workers in that city: How would you like to have your boots and shoes, your clothing, textiles and cottons, brought in from Great Britain? He cannot ask that question in Hamilton because in the audience there will doubtless be a good many textile and cotton workers listening to what he has to say. No; that is not sound doctrine. We have all got to work together in this country, and if the hon. member for Huron North does not know it-and I do not suppose he does-I may tell him that there are hundreds of thousands of men employed in industry throughout Canada. There are, of course, some men working in Huron, but because there are not many thousands of men working there is no reason why the hon. member should persist in season and out in attacking the workers of Hamilton, Oshawa, Toronto, and other cities throughout Canada.
I would ask the hon. member for St. Johns-Iberville-Napierville (Mr. Rheaume) whether the bringing in of sewing machines from Great Britain, as no doubt some will be brought in under the lower duty, will provide employment in the city of St. Johns. I would ask the hon. member for Wellington South (Mr. Gladstone) whether the bringing in of lawn-mowers from Great Britain, providing employment for workmen over there, will help the workers who make lawn-mowers in Guelph. I would ask the hon. member for Brantford City (Mr. Macdonald) whether chocolate imports will help the chocolate workers in Brantford City, or whether helping the biscuit makers in Great Britain by means of imports from that country will help the

Canada-United, Kingdom Trade Agreement
biscuit makers in the city of London, Ontario. Will the bringing in of hollow-ware from Great Britain at a lower duty give plenty of work to the hollow-ware workers in London, Ontario.
Take the fine paper workers in Cornwall and Mille Roches, Montreal and other paper making cities; will this give work in those cities? Suppose steel girders were admitted at a lower rate of duty from Great Britain; it is not going to happen at the moment on account of the war scare, but if the war scare passes they would be admitted, some coming perhaps from Belgium, processed a little in Great Britain; would that provide work for the steel workers of Hamilton and Sault Ste. Marie? And I ask hon. members in whose constituencies there are textile mills whether the bringing in of $25,000,000 worth more or less of British textiles will help the textile workers in Sherbrooke, Montreal, Hamilton and Kingston-I wish the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) were here to get that last. I do wish the hon. member for York North (Mr. Mulock) were here to-night, because I should so like to ask him whether the bringing in of lead pencils from Great Britain in large quantities will help the pencil makers in Newmarket-a new industry.


Charles Avery Dunning: I take it my hon. friend is in favour of this trade agreement with Great Britain?


John Ritchie MacNicol: Yes.


Charles Avery Dunning: I understood so. I know he wants to be helpful. Perhaps he would be good enough to indicate what he suggests we should take from Great Britain in exchange for our exports of wheat, metals, motor cars and all the other things we send th^re.


John Ritchie MacNicol: As I am not the Minister of Finance I do not propose to tell the minister what he should do.


Charles Avery Dunning: But I want advice.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I am first for the Canadian worker, because I was one of them for a long time.


Charles Avery Dunning: And are yet.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I try to keep their interests paramount, because sitting in this house there are too many free traders from Saskatchewan, and I am sorry to say we have one from Huron North, Ontario. What business wants, and what the workmen want, is stability in the tariff. We all know that during the ten years more or less when hon. gentlemen opposite were in power there was
a constant procession of tariff cuts. It is surely time to end that, and to let business get set, so that the worker who stands at the machine can feel that that machine is going to continue in operation, and not be put out of business by a tariff cut. I realize the problem the minister is up against, and I want to help in any way I can-


Charles Avery Dunning: That is the line I want.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Labour and capital are crying out for stability. Industry and labour ask that the government cease the constant cutting of tariffs; let them become stabilized, and get on with production along established lines. To-day they are all scared to death. A man said to me when I was home over the week-end, "There is the Prime Minister down in Washington. He will be coming back with a bag full of tricks, and next year we shall have an onslaught of tariff cuts."


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


John Ritchie MacNicol: It is interesting to observe hon. members thumping their desks in anticipation of another onslaught of tariff cuts. I will tell them what will happen U them, the very same as happened in 1925, when they were trimmed to a frazzle. But they did not go out of power then because we had free trade groups from the west at that time and they kept them in power. But they were trimmed to a frazzle in 1930-


An hon. MEMBER:: What about 1935?


John Ritchie MacNicol: Keep right on along the road you are going and out of power you will go the first chance.


William Henry Golding: Mr. Chairman-


Frederick George Sanderson: I think I had better remind the committee now, in order to clarify the situation, that we are on schedule IV, item ex 8, extracts of meat and fluid beef, not medicated.


William Henry Golding: There were some statements made to which I wish to refer. Since the question has been discussed I think an answer should be permitted. Let me say at *the outset that I appreciate the addresses given in the house by the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) because I believe he is absolutely sincere in what he says, and also that he makes a careful study of any questions before he speaks. This afternoon he said that thousands of industrial workers were thrown out of employment by the tariff reductions in 1923. I asked the hon. member to give a statement of the number employed for the years from 1922 to 1930 in order that
1790	COMMONS
Canada-United Kingdom Trade Agreement
we might know whether thousands were thrown out of employment. I think the leader of the opposition will agree with me that that is a fair question to ask. It has not been answered.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I did not have the figures. I am not a walking encyclopaedia.


William Henry Golding: I quite agree. The point is that any hon. member who makes such a statement as that should have the figures. He ought to have the figures before he makes the statement.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I made the statement that thousands were leaving this country to look for work in the United States.


William Henry Golding: What I want is the number employed in industry in those years. I think that is fair.
Last year when the reduction in agricultural implement duties was being discussed the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Massey) made a statement, and the hon. member for Davenport supported him, as to the disastrous results that were going to happen from the reduction in the tariff on agricultural implements. Here is what the hon. member for Greenwood said:
I am sent here by an industrial riding; I am sent here to represent the industrial worker, and so long as there is breath in my body and red blood in my veins I will plead his cause. And I say to-day that the jobs of eighteen thousand men are at stake. Yes, and how many more jobs are there at stake in industries which contribute the raw materials?
His statement of eighteen thousand jobs being at stake related to the number of employed in the industry itself. Now I have the figures here, and I want my hon. friend to notice these figures. I want to put them on Hansard once more so that our friends will have them to refer to. I am going to try and get the figures for all industry so that we may know what we are talking about.
In 1922 there were 6,221 employed in the agricultural implement industry. What does that take in? I am quoting from a report given to the price spreads committee. It included the factory worker, the factory administration, the clerks, the selling agents, and the executives. They are all included in this number. The numbers for the succeeding years were as follows:
Number
employed
1923		 7,792
1924		 6,700
1925		 7,559

Here are the disastrous results!
1926..
1927..
1928.	.
1929.	. 1930'. . 1931. .
1932..
1933..
1934..
1935..
Number
employed
10,091
11,011
10,867
11,408
7,405
4,471
2,758
3,039
3,706
4,989
In other words from 1931 to 1935 the average number employed in the industry was 3,773, yet the hon. member for Greenwood rose in his place and told us that eighteen thousand jobs were immediately placed in jeopardy, which I submit is quite an exaggeration. I have followed these arguments for years and years, and I am satisfied that statements of. this kind are made for one purpose only, and that is to intimidate the industrial workers.
Let me refer to what actually happened in connection with the Massey-Harris Company, for example, in 1936. We have not the figures for the other companies as yet, but we hope to obtain them later. Instead of all these employees and thousands more, as my hon. friend said, being out of work, in 1936, we have the statement of the company that last year they employed 451 more persons than in 1935.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Of course; why not?


John Ritchie MacNicol: May I interrupt the hon. member? The hon. gentleman is an industrial worker, and I am sure he knows the reason for that situation. The greatest pork barrel in the history of the world was the $400,000,000 that the United States gave the farmers of that country as a bonus in 1936. Probably every farmer throughout the western states is buying machinery, and they cannot make enough machinery in their own country, so our factories are shipping machinery to the United States. That $400,000,000 was a huge pork barrel.


William Henry Golding: That is a nice way of getting around a ticklish question, but I am afraid my hon. friend will not be able to put that sort of thing over on the country. I want to say to my hon. friend from Davenport that I am an industrial worker and, further, that I am just as much interested in every industrial worker as he is. But I am also interested in the consumer.

Canada-United Kingdom Trade Agreement
Let me say this further. If there is going to be a trade agreement at all someone has to make concessions. Let me ask the agricultural implement maker this: If in 1936 we were able to lift some 220,000 head of cattle out of this market and sell them at a profit to our neighbours to the south, was that not worth while for his customers? What would have happened if there had been no agreement and these cattle had been left on this market? You can imagine how many implements these farmers would have been able to buy. I submit that the first concern of the implement manufacturer should be the position of his own customers. I submit further that if, instead of linking up with the manufacturers association and wanting a duty on everything, including his raw material, which is bound to increase the cost of the implement to the farmer, the implement manufacturer had gone with the farmer and tried to get lower duties on the materials entering into the manufacture of the implements, he would have served his own purpose and that of his customer very much better.
I am not going to conclude until I have also placed on record the amounts paid in salaries and wages during those years, starting with 1922 and giving only the even millions:
Salaries and wages paid
1922		$ 7.000,000
1923		 9,000,000
1924		 8,000,000
1925		 9,000,000
1926		 12,000,000
1927		 13,000,000
1928		 13,000,000
1929		 14,000,000
1930		 9,000,000
1931		 4,000,000
1932		 3,000,000
1933		 3,000,000'
1934		 3,000,000
1935		 5,000,000
Those figures are supplied by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. I have not the figure for 1936, but I am quite sure it will show a very substantial increase over 1935. As an industrial worker, anxious to see every other industrial worker prosper, I should like any member who reads those figures to tell me how the increase in duty on some of these implements in 1930, amounting to some 300 per cent, helped the position of the industrial worker at all. If these figures indicate anything, surely they indicate that the tariff reductions did not destroy the industry. I am quite satisfied they helped the consumer and also the industrial worker. That is my opinion.


Robert John Deachman: The hon. member for Davenport has had nearly forty minutes in which to discuss this question, and I crave your attention, Mr. Chairman, for less than ten minutes. My hon. friend suggested that I was not interested in labour. Let me suggest that 'he reconsider this question and face it honestly, as we ought to face it. I am interested in labour; I accept his word that he is interested in labour; I believe that every man in this house-I include also the women- is interested in the employment of Canadian labour at the highest possible wages that can be obtained. But we differ as to the method which will bring about the desired result. My hon. friend thinks a doctrine of exclusion is the proper one; he thinks we must retire from the main street and do business on a back road. I think we should do business in the markets of the world. That is the distinction between Liberalism, on the one hand, and Conservatism on the other. The Conservative looks forward to a contracting world, but the Liberal looks forward to an expanding world. I stand for the expanding world, and my hon. friend stands for a contracting world.
Permit me to prove my assertion, andi as an example I take the city of Hamilton. I take Hamilton because it is a great, proud industrial city, which has made great progress. It is a splendid city. I have been there once or twice, and I like it much better than Toronto because occasionally it returns a Liberal member to this house. In 1922, at the very time when, fate struck the Dominion of Canada, when, a Liberal government was coming into power and when every man in Hamilton ought to have shivered for fear of losing his job, there were 23,475 industrial employees in that city. In 1930, after eight years of that policy, just before the Liberals retired, there were 31,033 workers. I ask my hon. friend to check my figures. He will have time to do that and come back to this chamber before this debate is ended, and he can refute my contentions if I am wrong. Let me go over the figures again. In 1922 there were 23,475 workers; in 1930 there were 31,033 workers. Then lightning struck this country, with a change of government; a gentleman came into power who was going to wipe out all unemployment. We were going to have factories on every corner and prosperity such as men never knew before. In 1934, however, the number of industrial employees in the city of Hamilton had dropped to 24,072, a decrease of nearly 7,000. We were back almost to the level of 1922,-twelve years lost. The progress gained in eight years was

1792	COMMONS
Canada-United Kingdom, Trade Agreement
thrown aside-and then the backward movement. Let us consider the salaries and wages. In 1922 the figure was 826,000,000-I am leaving off the odd hundred thousands. In 1930 it was 839,000,000, and then in 1934 it went back to 825,772,000, or less than in 1922.
I put it to you another way: Between 1922 and 1930 the increases in wages in the city of Hamilton under a Liberal administration, under a low tariff, and under what the hon. member describes as a policy of ruin, was one-half as great as that which took place between the invasion of England by William the Conqueror and the coming into power of William Lyon Mackenzie King in 1922,. We gained
813.000.	000 in that period. When we started in 1922 the salaries and wages paid in Hamilton were only $26,000,000. At the end of that period, in 1930, it was $39,000,000.
Let us take the value of products-and here of course, price level has something to do with it. In 1922 production was only S100,000,000. Ini 1930 it had risen to $166,000,000. Why do not the hon. member for Davenport and those who support his view throw out their chests and cheer at that good news? Why do they not cheer an expansion to the extent of
866.000.	000 in one city of the Dominion of Canada under eight years of freedom? I challenge the hon. member now to take any other city he chooses to take. Let him go to Vancouver and from there follow down to Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, and right straight through to the Atlantic. What does he find? I know all this is useless; there is no use arguing with the hon. member. Macaulay said of James II that when he made a statement which was perfectly absurd and his court corrected him, he would always repeat the same statement in exactly the same words, believing that by repetition he had given a complete answer to those who took the opposing view.
The hon. member (Mr. MacNicol) will come before the house time and time again and he will have with him the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Harris). There will be the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Thompson), and the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Massey), who never fails to offer a prayer in defence of protection. They will all be here, and they will repeat these statements time and again before the debate is ended, telling us of the losses and the destruction which will come from lowering the tariffs.
I ask the hon. member again to go over the record; take it city by city, town by town, province by	province-take the
dominion as a whole, and what would he find?

He finds progress under Liberalism; not because it is Liberalism-oh no, progress because Liberalism accepts in part the way of freedom, and if Liberalism moves forward as it ought to do, in a still wider broadening of the opportunity for trade, then even the hon. members in the corner would be afraid to rise in their places and suggest that progress under Liberalism has been lacking. Lower the tariffs. I say to my hon. friends on the opposite side, who are with me spiritually but not physically: You have not gone far enough. If you go farther, if you expand Canadian trade, if you lower the tariffs, then your progress will be so clearly marked that even those gentlemen on this side who suffer, if not frailty of sight, at least a certain touch of intellectual strabismus, will be able to see the vision clearly, and understand the progress we are making.


Mr. HARRIS:: The hon. member for Danforth wants to make one or two observations.


Frederick George Sanderson: The hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Heaps) has the floor.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I think hon. members in both major parties are over-emphasizing the importance of tariffs on our internal and external trade. I listened, with a great deal of interest, as I always do, to the hon. member for Huron North (Mr. Deachman), who has just taken his seat. When he spoke with such enthusiasm I think he failed to realize that rvhen he endorses this trade agreement to-day he is endorsing exactly what the Conservative party did in 1932.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Absolutely; take Hansard and try to deny it.


Charles Avery Dunning: What about the reductions?


Abraham Albert Heaps: The amount of reductions between this agreement and the old one is not very great. Those reductions are extremely small. I think it goes without saying that they will not be contested too strongly by those who were here in 1932 and listened to the hostile criticism which the agreement introduced in that year received. They will not go so far as to say that they will not have anything to do with this agreement. I voted against the agreement in 1932 and I am not very anxious to support it in 1937, for the reasons I gave earlier in the year. When I see what the Liberal party objected to in 1932 and what they endorsed a few years later, I cannot take their arguments too seriously.
This afternoon and this evening the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) spoke at length and attempted to point out that

Canada-United Kingdom Trade Agreement
tariffs were a great protection for workers in Canada. From the day I came to the house I have maintained that tariffs are practically no protection for the workers. It cannot be shown where they have been a protection by way of keeping their jobs, nor can it be shown that through tariffs the workers have been protected with respect to the wages they have received.
I remember well that at the short session of 1930 tariffs were increased to a great extent. The tariffs on textiles went up; I believe the tariffs on furniture were increased, as were those on many other items. Yet it was not more than a year or so later that the employees engaged in these industries were subjected to reductions in their pay. Not only that, but in spite of the fact that the industries had received increased protection, the workers were unable to retain the jobs they had held in 1929 and 1930.
For these reasons I say that no great amount of importance can be attached to the question of whether a tariff goes up a little or down a little. Sometimes I am amazed at the amount of discussion engaged in by hon. members on the question whether the tariff should go up or down a few points. Of course, I realize that tariffs may be good talking points at election times. I remember what happened at the by-election in Hamilton in 1931, and I would not be afraid to repeat in 1937 exactly what I told the workers in Hamilton in the earlier year when I visited that city during the course of the by-election. I told them then that protection does not protect them at all. The hon. member for Davenport is in his seat, and I will tell him it neither protected them in their jobs nor in their wages, because had it done so there would have been no need for trade unions. If protection worked as some hon. members believe it does, when a tariff is put up wages should go up; but we have had the very reverse. When tariffs went up, wages went down. When tariffs went up in the textile industry, even the volume of employment went down. Volume in industry in the last two or three years has increased when tariffs were high, up to the year 1935, and will probably increase still more after 1935 simply because world volume of trade is increasing. The world volume is of far greater importance to Canada than the question of whether a tariff goes up or down a little bit.


Joseph Henry Harris: Mr. Chairman, I notice that article 6 is as follows:
The government of Canada undertake that the goods the growth, produce or manufacture 31111-1131
of the United Kingdom enumerated in Schedule IV appended hereto, when conveyed without transhipment from any part of the British Empire enjoying the benefits of the British preferential tariff into a sea, lake or river of Canada, shall not be subjected to duties of customs higher than those specified in that schedule.
The government of Canada undertake as regards goods the growth, produce or manufacture of the United Kingdom other than those enumerated in Schedule IV that, under the British preferential tariff, no new protective duty shall be imposed and no existing protective duty increased except after an inquiry at which United Kingdom producers shall enjoy full rights of audience.
The question I should like to ask the minister is this: In passing article 6 do we automatically admit or pass schedule IV?


Charles Avery Dunning: I can understand how my hon. friend has become confused. We cannot pass article 6 until we have passed every item in schedule IV. The first item in the schedule covers extracts of meat and fluid beef, but I do not believe my hon. friend thinks that this item has been before the committee since before six o'clock. The Chairman called attention to the item shortly after eight o'clock. I do not want to try to limit the general discussion on the tariff because I know I would not succeed in doing so.


Joseph Henry Harris: I should like to make just
one observation. Apparently the hon. member for Huron North (Mr. Deachman) has forgotten that there was a world wide depression. Having said that, I come back to the item under discussion and ask the minister: what were the imports?


Richard Bedford Bennett: If the hon. member will
pardon me. I have listened with great interest to the discussion that has taken place on the question of a tariff or no tariff. The objection I have is that when in opposition the government of the day adopted a free trade attitude, while in office they practise protection.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Freer trade.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If freer trade means
having closer alliances with the manufacturers, then you have freer trade. The hon. member for Huron North (Mr. Deachman) made one error which I could hardly imagine a man of his intelligence making. He compared conditions in boom days with conditions that existed eight years prior to that, making no allowance for increases in population, expansion of industry and increases in trade. I wonder if he knows that between 1930 and 1934, the year he last quoted, world trade shrunk 66 per cent? Is he also aware that the most outstanding fact between 1930 and
1794	COMMONS
Canada-United Kingdom Trade Agreement
1935 was that free trade England adopted protection, and that under protection there were fewer unemployed in England than there had been during the last quarter of a century? I merely mention these facts lest they have been overlooked by hon. members of this house. Merely to let these statements pass uncontradicted might indicate acquiescence.
I do not propose to follow the argument further, although a great deal might be said with respect to it. I could not permit these points to pass unnoticed in view of the character of the observations that were made.
The trade agreement which we are now discussing deals with a number of items contained in the particular schedule now before the committee. I put this question to the committee: To what extent does the government think the consumer in Canada is going to profit by a reduction of 2J per cent in the duty? I wonder if the minister is aware that on analysis our English friends have taken advantage practically to the limit of the preference granted to them? Their sales price has been the sales price of their competitors, with the exception of possibly a half or one per cent difference. A 2J per cent reduction is useless so far as the consumer is concerned. It only enables those who sell their goods in Great Britain to make a little larger profit on them. That is the experience I have gained from talking to people throughout this country. I have asked why there was not a larger sale of British goods in this market, and that is what I have been told. I have seen goods on store shelves that came from other countries and I asked why English goods were not being sold when there was a preference. I found, unfortunately or fortunately as you may want to put it, that the price at which English goods were being offered was the price at which other goods were being offered, with a slight reduction in some cases.
That is not the general principle upon which we have operated with respect to our preference in the English market. I have suggested to the manufacturers in Great Britain that if they expect to seek a market here, they must expect competition. The preference was not meant to inure wholly to their benefit; part of it should be passed on to the consumer, and the consumer would then buy more of their goods. I think that on analysis the minister will find that that is a very mild statement of the case.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am pleased to hear these observations from the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett), and I commend them particularly to the attention of the hon.

member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol). Obviously if what the leader of the opposition says is true, the consequences feared by the hon. member for Davenport cannot possibly occur.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so.


Charles Avery Dunning: In general terms, I would say that all that we heard in the budget debate as to the harm that was to be done to Canadian industry through this agreement cannot be so, if what the leader of the opposition now says is the fact. I submit that neither he nor I can correctly present a matter of this sort in general terms. I think he will agree with me when I say that the test of the situation to which he refers is to be found in a discussion of the individual items under review. I am quite sure that before we get through this schedule the leader of the opposition will be the first to point out the tremendous seriousness of some of the small cuts to which he has now made reference. I would point out that from the consumers' standpoint there is already evidence of benlefit in connection with certain items. I qualify that, as I must, in the light of the general situation to-day in Great Britain, where we have a generally rising price level and a general rise in the cost of production. There has been an even more pronounced rise in the price level in the republic to the south than has occurred in either Great Britain or Canada. Canada seems to be lagging behind somewhat in the general increase in the price level which has become, with one or two notable exceptions, almost world, wide. Because of that fact I submit that no government could adopt the attitude which the hon. member for Davenport recommended we should adopt with respect to tariff matters
The world is not stationary with regard to matters of trade, or with regard to matters of exchange, which is important; matters of trade restrictions, quotas, quantitative regulations and so forth. I do believe that if one could generalize correctly he would say that the tendency throughout the world is more toward the development of international trade thani it is toward the restricting of trade, as was the case during the major portion of the last five years. However, that general tendency needs to be qualified by a detailed study of the effect upon the major items of international trade. What one might say with respect to steel, for instance, would not be equally true with respect to textiles. What one might say with respect to textiles, might not be true with respect to some other major classification in the tariff. What is required, and what this government intends

Canada-United, Kingdom Trade Agreement
to continue to give with the machinery nt its disposal, is a continuous study of the world trade situation, and the empire trade situation. We shall continue to do what we consider is in the best interests of the Canadian people as a whole. If we can, we want to take account of the best interests of all Canadians. I would be the first to admit that every Canadian government is actuated by the same desire.
As I said in introducing the budget, the difference between us are differences as to the method of the attainment of objectives which we all have at heart, and which we can debate as much as we wish. The hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Heaps) takes a somewhat superior attitude with respect to both of the old parties in connection with this question; he says it does not really matter to the worker. Well, there is plenty of evidence that the terms upon which international trade are carried on do matter in many countries,-matter profoundly to the worker. Those of us who are responsible for government cannot adopt the detached attitude of the hon. member for Winnipeg North, and if he occupied a seat in the government I am quite sure that his air of detachment would speedily leave him and he would be quite as conscious as we are of our responsibilities and of the necessity of continuously studying the major factors of international trade.
Now, Mr. Chairman, If I could give a little information regarding extracts of meat, and get on with the job-the proposal is to reduce the tariff against Great Britain with respect to extracts of meat and fluid beef, not medicated, from the present rate of 15 per cent to 10 per cent. Our total imports of these articles in 1936 were valued at $229,000, of which $208,000 came from the United Kingdom. The concession is confined to that portion of the present item 8 of which the United Kingdom is the principal source of supply. As to the balance of tariff item 8 which includes among other things, canned meat, poultry and game, our principal sources of supply apart from our own country are Uruguay and the Argentine. An extract is being made from the item of the tariff of the article in which the United Kingdom is particularly interested, and a reduction of five per cent is proposed in connection with it.


Mr. WARD:: I had not intended to speak at this time, nor did I take part in the budget debate proper, but in view of some of the statements made by certain hon. members opposite, particularly the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol), and the other by the hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr
Edwards), I was led by the expressions of fear and the wails of woe that came from that quarter of the house to examine certain figures, which I proposed to put on Hansard
I should like to deal with a point which arose a few moments ago when the leader of the opposition spoke of what he called the inconsistency of the hon. member for Huron North (Mr. Deachman). In 1928 the income from our farms was $1,533,000,000, but by 1932 that had dropped to $528,000,000, or about one-third. When we hear of the condition of the workers in our factories, the unemployment they have suffered, and the losses the manufacturers themselves have sustained, may I remind hon. gentlemen that the answer is that the income from their consumers has dropped to about 35 per cent of what it was prior to 1930. The other day the hon. member for Waterloo South spoke of hundreds of men and women having been given employment in Kitchener because of the policies of the present leader of the opposition when he was in office. I would remind him that during the first three years the Conservative administration was in power, namely from 1931 to 1933, unemployment increased in Canada at the rate of about 200,000 a year. So that if the policies of the government of that day did increase employment in Hamilton or Kitchener or some other industrial centre, for each additional man or woman so employed at least six or seven must have been thrown out of work in some other part of the country. That. I think, is a reasonable deduction, and I believe that at all times it will be found that the increase in employment due to raising the tariff and any advantages it may bring to workers in the cities will be offset by the effects upon those in the farming sections of this country.
At this time may I answer some other questions that have been asked during the last couple of hours. It is with satisfaction that I compliment the government on their suggestion to appoint a commission to investigate the relationships between the provinces and the dominion. This allusion in this debate may seem far-fetched; I see the leader of the opposition shaking his head.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We are getting so close
to the item; that was the reason!


William John Ward: I hope to show in the next
few moments that there is a very direct relationship.


Charles Avery Dunning: If my hon. friend will
permit me, there will be a splendid opportunity later to discuss that matter. This is going farther away from the item, I think, than we have ever got yet.
1796	COMMONS
Canada-United Kingdom Trade Agreement


William John Ward: I should like to agree with
the Minister of Finance. Of course, all these matters are closely connected with tariffs and their relationship to the economic life of the community. It seems to me-whether it is meat extracts or farm implements or cotton goods-it is pretty hard to separate them.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Butter and fluid beef!


William John Ward: I come now to a statement
which I think will be a fairly adequate reply to some observations of the hon. members for Davenport and Waterloo South. It comes from no less an authority than the present Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers), who was formerly on the faculty of one of our great universities as professor of economics. Using his figures, I find that in 1936 Manitoba paid in the form of tariff bonuses to the manufacturers in a very small part of central Canada no less a sum than $20,775,000, or $277 per capita. When hon. members speak, as I think the hon. member for Davenport did, of Ontario and Quebec being a milch cow for the western provinces-


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was Sir Richard
Cartwright who some years ago made the remark about the milch cow. You are getting a little mixed up.


William John Ward: Hon. members from Toronto and other industrial centres need to be reminded that western Canada has been feeding that cow very well for a long time, and the fact that in all these years we have had no recompense for the feed given to this cow explains very largely, I think, the condition of the western provinces to-day.


Mr. STEWART:: You are getting a pretty fair amount of feed just now.


William John Ward: Well, I do not know. Manitoba has paid in one year S20,775,000 in the form of tariff bonuses to the manufacturers of this country; we have never had any such amount paid back either in relief or in any other form. I think it behooves us all _ to recognize that Canada is a great dominion made up of many parts, and that we cannot have a prosperous country by continuously bonusing and subsidizing the secondary industries and giving no consideration to the foundations of our wealth; that, in fact, is what we have been doing in this country from the beginning of its history.
Our financial and railway and fiscal policies have been always in the interests of the secondary industries. No wonder that the western provinces, far removed from tide water, with long rail hauls, high freight rates, and paying enormous sums in the form of tariff

bonuses without any compensating factors, are becoming poorer and poorer. I hope it will come to be generally recognized -that agriculture must be put in -a position where the farmers will be able to buy the things they need. The trouble to-day is that agriculture is not in that position. All one has to do is to visit the farms on the prairies and see -the worn-out equipment the farmers are trying to carry on with. No wonder the implement manufacturers are not selling the number of implements they should; they would sell more if the farmers could afford to buy them. If we are going to continue subsidizing and bonusing every little industry in Canada, then I suggest that we shall have to subsidize and bonus agriculture. There is no escape from that. At a later day I shall have something to say with regard to bonusing or in some way compensating agriculture for the maintenance of the huge machine we call secondary industries.


Mr. MAYBANK:: Will the minister at some convenient time explain the loss in imports under this item? In 1931, the exports amounted to $63,000, and in 1932 they were $30,000. The next year they dropped to $20, the next year something less, and finally to nothing.


Charles Avery Dunning: I can give the answer now. The hon. gentleman is quoting the figures relating to the whole of item 8, whereas what we dealt with from item 8 was only that part of the present item comprising extracts of meat and fluid beef, not medicated.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-20a. Butter produced from the cocoa bean: rate of duty, free.
Charles Avery Dunning: There is no change in this item, but I would point out that while it was bound free in the 1932 agreement it was also bound with respect to the margin under that agreement, but is not so bound under the new one.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-23. Preparations of cocoa or chocolate, n.o.p., and confectionery coated with or containing chocolate, the weight of the wrappings and cartons to be included in the weight for duty: rate of duty, 124 per cent; and 24 cents per pound.
Charles Avery Dunning: This is a reduction in the rate.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-34. Mustard, ground: rate of duty, 174 per cent.
Charles Avery Dunning: No change.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Canada-United Kingdom Trade Agreement
Customs tariff-41. Salt, n.o.p., in bags, barrels and other coverings: rate of duty, free. Bags, barrels and other usual coverings used ,. in the importation of the salt specified in this item: rate of duty, free.
Charles Avery Dunning: No change since 1906.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-65. Biscuits, not sweetened: rate of duty, 12J per cent.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Will the minister make a statement as to what effect, if any, is anticipated?


Charles Avery Dunning: 
[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-65a. Diabetic breads and biscuits, under regulations prescribed by the minister: rate of duty, free.
Charles Avery Dunning: No change.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-66a. Biscuits, sweetened or unsweetened, valued at not less than 20 cents per pound wholesale, f.o.b. any port in the United Kingdom, said value to be based on the net weight and to include the value of the usual retail package: rate of duty, free.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-ex 82. (d)Rose bushes, n.o.p., rate of duty, 1J cents each.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-ex 90. Vegetables, prepared *or preserved: (b) pickled or preserved in salt, brine, oil, or in any other manner, n.o.p.: rate of duty, 15 per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-105d. Jellies, jams, marmalades, preserves, fruit butters and condensed mince meats; rate of duty, 2 cents per pound.
Richard Bedford Bennett: It is not suggested that the consumer will get any advantage from this?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What?


Charles Avery Dunning: The ad valorem incidence of duties paid on imports from the United Kingdom in 1936 was approximately 23 per cent after the usual deduction for direct shipment. The request of the United Kingdom was for free entry under this item in so far as it concerns high class marmalades and preserves. The Canadian government felt that apart altogether from the possible anomaly of providing a reduced duty on a luxury type of preserves, there might be considerable difficulty in determining what constituted, high-class products. In view of the fact that the ad valorem incidence of duty last year was in the neighbourhood of 23 per cent, it was felt that the rate on United Kingdom products under the entire item might be reduced to 2 cents a pound, which is a reduction of more than one-third in the amount of duty to be paid. I have every reason to believe that the consumer price will be affected.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Is there a substantial import to-day?


Charles Avery Dunning: The total imports from the United Kingdom last year were 506,000 pounds out of a total importation of 590,000 pounds, the value of the imports being $53,000.


Mark Cecil Senn: Are there imports from
Australia or other parts of the empire?


Charles Avery Dunning: There are none on record. The only other country given is the United States, with S 1,003 pounds, which practically makes up the total.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There are imports from New Zealand.


Charles Avery Dunning: A very small quantity.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The imports total 507,000 pounds from all countries, with a value of $53,000. So that if the hon. gentleman suggests that that little pot of high-class marmalade is going to cost the consumer less because the duty on a pound is reduced three-quarters of a cent, I think he is asking us to go too far. In view of where the imports came from and the character, it is quite clear that we are not going to buy it any cheaper.


Charles Avery Dunning: I shall be glad to communicate that to those who are making representations.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They have had it communicated to them quite frequently.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
1798	COMMONS
Canada-United Kingdom Trade Agreement
Customs tariff- 105e. Fruits and peels,, crystallized, glace, candied or drained; cherried and other fruits of creme de menthe, maraschino or other flavour: rate of duty, 20 per cent.
Robert John Deachman: Are these products produced in Canada or are they imported?


Charles Avery Dunning: The last figure I have on Canadian production is for 1934. In that year we produced $231,000 worth of fruits and peels, candied, and $335,000 worth of fruits, glace. Our imports last year under the whole item were $46,000 of which $31,800 came from the United Kingdom.


Robert John Deachman: I should like to make
a suggestion in regard to these items which I think would facilitate examination. My hon. friend has the figures of exports and imports, also whether they are produced in Canada or are entirely imported; that is whether it is a revenue item or a protective item. I would suggest that information should be provided to the committee as a whole in printed form; that is, we should know in regard to each of these items whether it is a revenue item, that is one not produced in Canada but imported, the tariff on it therefore being a revenue tax, or whether it is made in Canada and therefore subject to protection. I should like to know the imports with countries of origin, the exports with countries of destination, the production of each of these items and also the wages paid, together with the percentage relationship which the wages and ralaries bear to the value of the product. The minister will see clearly what I am coming at. If an industry carries a wage cost of 25 per cent, and we should happen to discover by examination that it carries a duty rate of 50 per cent, I think it would be admitted that that industry is on relief; that is, the amount of protection we are giving it is more than the wages paid. That information in the hands of all hon. members, and in the hands of the people of the country, would certainly be a distinct help to understanding the nature of the tariff and its impact upon the trade of the dominion. I submit that in these matters you cannot go too far in telling the truth as to what the tariff means. Rather even than have a reduction in tariff I would have the truth in regard to it known from one end of Canada to the other.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear. The only difficulty is it cannot be done.


Charles Avery Dunning: I was about to say that I can give where it is on record in the bureau of statistics, the amount and value of Canadian production in connection with every item 
which comes before the committee; but I cannot, and I am sure no one can, get the in' formation which my hon. friend requests with respect to the wages paid in relation to each item, the reason being that the classification of the tariff is not by employment, but by commodities. For instance, candied fruits and peels which we are now discussing, are probably produced in plants which are also producing several other commodities, and it would be utterly impossible to determine the amount of wages in any particular plant properly assignable to an individual tariff item. In connection with the major classifications which approximate at all closely to the statistical form of employment records it is possible-to get the information asked, but I think my hon. friend will understand how utterly impossible it is with respect to the great volume of tariff items. We have different rates of duty upon many commodities produced in one plant, because conditions surrounding world trade in those commodities differ very widely. I agree that the more information we can get the better, but I think the committee will see at once how impossible it is to-comply with the request of the hon. member with respect to the great bulk of tariff items,


Robert John Deachman: As far as that is concerned I was not suggesting that the minister should go outside the field of possibility. I recognize that he can do it only within the limits of possibility, but no man could come closer to the limits of possibility than the minister. All I would ask is that these facts be given in so far as possible, so that wTe may have a closer understanding of the impact of the tariff upon the consumer and the wage earner.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am prepared to go, as my hon. friend indicates, as far as possible, but that " as far as possible " must be with accuracy. If it is not accurate it is without value, and with respect to the great bulk of tariff items it is impossible to segregate the wages bearing on a particular item. I think we can take groups. I think you could take the cotton textile group, for instance, and work out the wage bearing on the cotton textile industry, and then I suppose you could make a calculation of the tariff bearing on the industry as a whole, although that would be attended by some difficulty. But with respect to the great bulk of the tariff items I could not produce information which I could guarantee to be of sufficient accuracy with relation to the particular item to be of any service to the committee, and I do not think anyone could.

Canada-United Kingdom Trade Agreement


Ralph Maybank: I understand that the last remark of the minister as to the impossibility of getting certain information, relates only to the wage cost. Am I right?


Charles Avery Dunning: Not altogether; it goes beyond that.


Ralph Maybank: I thought there was special emphasis being laid upon that. My impression was that substantially the minister's answer was: I can give you in regard to practically all these items just about what you want except when it comes to giving the wage content of each item, and that I cannot very well do. I was going to suggest that what we should have, and it would be better to have it in printed form as soon as possible, not handed out item by item here in committee, is as much of that information as possible upon each item. When a member asks a question here in committee as to the amount imported, the place from which the imports came, volume, value and so on, the information is given quickly; it goes down on Hansard and it can be read there afterwards, but it cannot be analyzed unless there is a constant holdup all the time. It cannot be fully appreciated as we go along. Now knowing the sort of information that is really wanted, would it not be possible in effect to answer a great many of these questions in advance?


Charles Avery Dunning: In practice I have never [DOT] found that that helps.


Ralph Maybank: It might. I do not know what the minister means by saying that it does not help. He may mean that it does not help him get this particular legislation through with speed, and there should be no complaint simply because the minister desires to get this through the house as quickly as possible. After all, this is an agreement we have made; whatever it means, we have made it. But if, on the other hand, he means that it does not help those who desire this information, or in this particular case that it would not help the country at large, I think he is mistaken. I think all the questions that can be asked and all the information that can be given is distinctly to the advantage of every member of this house and equally to the advantage of every person in the country. I would recall to the minister a word he spoke within the last five or ten minutes, practically agreeing with that position. Of course, I know it may not help to get anything through very quickly, because one question answered very often leads to another, but nevertheless if that sort of information could be given in printed [DOT]form now, it might save a great deal of the
time of the house later on. Certainly it would be much more informative than answering questions one after another here in committee.


Richard Bedford Bennett: With respect to this particular item, I found some difficulty in understanding why we should have purchased practically none of the various articles mentioned from other than the United Kingdom and the United States last year.


Charles Avery Dunning: A little from France.


Richard Bedford Bennett: A little; I was coming to that. At one time we purchased large quantities from France. It will be observed that this item also includes cherries, and I believe it will be found that the development of the British Columbia industry has had a very great deal to do with this result. I was amazed to find the extent to which the cherry has been developed in British Columbia and given the maraschino or creme de menthe flavour, so that it has become a very well known article of commerce in Canada. It must be that something has taken the place of the crystallized fruits and peels, because it is obvious that we buy practically nothing of that kind from England that is produced in England, though our importation from England amounted to 247.000 pounds, with a total value of some $40,000. There are two factors which must be considered, because I observe that at one time we purchased over
300,000	pounds from France. The fact is that the result, for some reason, has been the development of the industry in Canada and the apparent lessening of the quantity that is imported for any purpose at all. I do not know whether or not people have abandoned the idea of using candied or crystallized fruit, but at any rate the imports have fallen off and the business has become lessened.
With the best will in the world on the part of the minister to supply the information, as was suggested a moment ago, I do not see that the information) would advance us any with respect to this item, for instance. In the past my difficulty has been, as I fancy the minister's is, that we do not break up these items in connection with importations or exports. We do not keep the records with regard to exports in such a way as to answer a question such as I put to the minister now: How much, if any, did we export? The only possible answer the minister can give is that the exports were so small that there is no record of them at all. That would be what he would have to say.
With respect to imports, all the various classifications within that item are bulked in a broad way for importation purposes, and
1800	COMMONS
Canada-United. Kingdom Trade Agreement
they cannot be divided except by guesswork. I remember asking the authorities to endeavour to do it for me on many occasions, and I was told that the cost of tabulating and keeping separate reports would be prohibitive. For instance, in connection with one of these items we find the total amount involved only $53. It would cost $53 to obtain and tabulate all this information that is suggested. There are, however, other large items, such as those dealing with steel and woollens and cottons, in connection, with which I should think fairly accurate information could be supplied., but except through the inquiry carried on by the tariff board you cannot get information as to the cost of production and the wages paid outside this country. The briefs filed by the textile interests gave us some knowledge along that line, but certainly other than that I do not know where that information could be obained.


Charles Avery Dunning: I do not want to pass by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Maybank). I did think, andi my staff also thought, that this time I was insisting on rather more information being placed in printed form at the disposal of the members of the house than ever before in connection with an agreement, and if hon. members will look at the votes and proceedings for February 25 and then at the statistical data pamphlet and the agreement itself, I think they will agree. In order to point out the almost physical impossibility of complying with my hon. friend's request, let me say that with respect to each of these items I have at least one loose leaf page in this book before me, and if the item is important I may have three or four pages. Following the statistical data here given for my information, in case the committee desires it, is a lengthy note explaining the bearing of that statistical information, and from my knowledge and experience in dealing with tariff items in this house I can say positively that the presentation of the mere figures which was suggested! by my hon. friend as being the maximum that could be expected in the way of statistical data would not convey to members of the house the information which the hon. gentleman desires they should have, unless the notes that I have with respect to each item were printed also. The notes give the figures meaning. My hon. friend no doubt is going to suggest that I might print the notes also.


Ralph Maybank: No, I was going to ask if there would be any chance of renting the book.


Charles Avery Dunning: Perhaps my hon. friend will let me finish. Will he believe me when I tell him that for the purpose of putting through this agreement I have six books like this. Just imagine the physical labour that has been involved in the preparation of these books for my use in order that I may give the information to the committee! Then try to imagine putting that into printed form, to be supplied to every member of the house.
There is another point, and I say this with no personal egotism, because every man who has occupied this position has had the same experience:	Of necessity it is very often
presumed that I have knowledge beyond the actual notes, because of the fact that I have been engaged in the negotiations that brought about the result. I am pointing that out, not that it is my desire to deprive hon. members of information which would help them to come to a decision, but merely to emphasize the complexity of the whole matter. One cannot say that any general rule with respect to the information here given runs steadily through the whole item unless one has the whole history back of it, the various circumstances surrounding the production of this particular item in this country and the world at large; sometimes its movement; sometimes the exchange situation; sometimes volume and quantitative restrictions and so forth. All these things may have a bearing on the various items and, as I say, in order to get that information in sufficiently condensed form for me to handle in this house there are six books like the one I now have, and I may say that this one is fairly voluminous.
Now I should like to say a word with respect to the point made by the right hon. leader of the opposition. I know he will agree with me as to the difficulty of getting our Canadian statistics in any uniformity for the different purposes for which they are used. The preparation of the tariff is only one purpose served by the compilation of statistics. That I know has been his difficulty, and it has been mine. It is quite impossible to have the bureau of statistics set up to gather information on a tariff item basis. They must use broad groupings of exports and imports in order to get the volume of statistics which they reduce from time to time into a compass sufficiently comprehensive to be of use to the people using the information.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And to have any international value.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, and to have any international value. Gradually our various bureaus of statistics, under the aegis of the League of Nations, are attaining a degree of

Canada-United Kingdom Trade Agreement
uniformity in presentation, something which for many years past has been badly needed. In fact there is room for very considerable further development along that line, in order that international statistics may be truly comparable with each other. They are not today.
Tor instance, you will find if you look at the records of Swiss imports that Switzerland imports Canadian wheat; but if you look at the records of Canadian exports you would be led to believe that we do not export wheat to Switzerland. I use that as an example, but there are scores of others. When an export leaves the country it is recorded as going to the place of destination allocated to it when it leaves the country, but before reaching that destination it may be diverted to another one. Then, upon landing at its destination it may stay in bond, and subsequently be transhipped to another country. That has the effect of confusing international statistics. I mention that as one of the difficulties of arriving at a sufficient understanding of all that is involved in order to be able to place it before hon. members.


Ralph Maybank: I appreciate the difficulties the minister sets forth when he waves the book before the house. It does seems to be a voluminous book. I know just about how many words would be in it, and I think when printed it would not be any more bulky than the sort of books to which hon. members have already been subjected, namely those books such as the tariff law and the report of the Department of Trade and Commerce. True, those books may not be so easy to understand, but members are given an opportunity to confuse themselves through reading them.
I feel that so far as printing the information is concerned, even with the very confusing notes at the bottom it would be an advantage. At any rate, to tell you the truth about it, I would rather have an opportunity of confusing myself with one of those books than to have to sit here listening to the minister confusing me by quickly answering a great many questions. He might answer so quickly that I should not grasp the significance of his answers, and would not have time later to read them. So I do not believe we should be so tender towards each other, as the minister has indicated he is towards us. There is a great deal of information regarding many of these items which I should like to get. As I cannot get it in printed form, the only way of getting it is to sit and ask, and ask, and ask-


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, that is what I am here for.


Ralph Maybank: And that is a very tiresome procedure; one which serves neither the questioner nor the person questioned. Personally I feel that in the future if we cannot have the information given orally, it would be best to supply the most voluminous information possible in regard to all these tariff changes. There should be a history of all the tariff items concerned, so that it would not have to be obtained by cross-examination. Then, where the wage content can be supplied, it ought to be. I am glad to learn that in connection with some of the present items we will be able to find out whether some industries are indeed on relief on a magnificent scale, or whether we are only paying their wage earners. I cannot help repeating that the more information we get in printed form, with which we may be permitted to confuse ourselves, the better.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-ex 12(1. Herring (not including kippered herring in sealed containers) packed in oil or otherwise, in sealed containers: rate of duty, 20 per cent.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Here is one of the best illustrations of what has been said with respect to the difficulties of obtaining information. The item refers to sardines, anchovies, sprats, pilchard and herring, except herring packed in tin boxes weighing eight ounces or less. Last year we bought 5.400,000 of these boxes of which 4,800,000 came from Norway. The total value was 8335,000. Only 102,000 cases came from Great Britain. There is no attempt to separate herrings from others, because it cannot be done. The item is now separated, and obviously all the minister can say is that the British people desire that this item should be separated and given better treatment than the other part, because they might be able to supply herring, but they could not supply the others. The minister has done it, and that is all there is to it.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is it exactly.


Mr. KINLEY:: How does the 20 per cent compare with the 1-j cents originally charged?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think it is a reduction.


Charles Avery Dunning: 
Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, and we have very little from Great Britain.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes. We are now taking herring out and giving it a separate classification. I will be able to tell more about herring a year from now than I can to-day, because in future we will have statistics based upon the new item.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It might be suggested that the hon. member had in mind a red herring.


John James Kinley: It will apply to sardines mostly, will it not?


Charles Avery Dunning: No, it must be herring. The Minister of National Revenue and his officials have very strong views as to what is a sardine and what is a herring, and I would not presume, being a fisherman only by adoption-


Richard Bedford Bennett: And a temporary one at that.


Charles Avery Dunning: No, I am not prepared to admit that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh no.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am finding the fish-eaters very good company.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They find their adopted citizen very desirable.


Charles Avery Dunning: It has to do with herring
only.


John James Kinley: There is a herring called a sardine, although not officially so.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-123. Salmon and all other fish, prepared or preserved, including oysters, n.o.p.: rate of duty, 17£ per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-141. Sugar candy and confectionery, n.o.p., including sweetened gums, candied pop-corn, candied nuts, flavouring powders, custard powders, jelly powders, sweetmeats, sweetened breads, cakes, pies, puddings and all other confections containing sugar, the weight of the wrappings and cartons to be included in the weight for duty: rate of duty, 15 per cent, and % cent per pound.
John Gordon Ross: I should like to ask the minister a question, which would relate to other items as well. Is there any real necessity for having both a specific and an ad valorem rate? We are confused all the time by having not only one tariff which in many cases nobody can understand, buit two tariffs, so that it i^ more difficult to know what exactly is being done in connection with a particular item. Surely we can simplify our tariff schedules by having the duties either specific or ad valorem, and not a combination of both.


Charles Avery Dunning: Personally I would like to adopt either a specific or an ad valorem rate, but there are situations where the classification of the article is very wide as to value. That is to say, the same item may cover an article of a low value and an article of twenty times the value, and a combination of rates seems to be the only way to bring about an equalized condition. This is particularly so where one of the major components of the class of articles is another dutiable or excisable item. It is meant to bring about an equitable bearing in cases of that sort. My hon. friend will note that in recommending tariff changes to the house my endeavour is to get away from the combination rates wherever possible.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think there is a great deal to be said about this item. Last year we bought a total of 4,600,000 pounds of confectionery, valued at $491,000. We bought
3.775.000	pounds from Great Britain, valued at $446,000. The only other country from which we bought any substantial quantity was the United States, which supplied us with
177.000	pounds, worth $34,000. These are the figures supplied by the statistical department. We do a substantial confectionery business in Canada, and it cannot be said to have been so highly profitable that they can resist any form of competition. For instance, in the city of Halifax-I notice one hon. member for Halifax present (Mr. Isnor)-one great firm was forced into liquidation for reorganization. The profits obtained by these confectionery houses have not been large during the last few years. Perhaps it is not desirable to mention particular firms and the extent of their profits, but I think we should note that they are being subjected to additional competition. The specific duty, to which the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Ross) referred, is still being left at one-half cent per pound, but the ad valorem duty has been reduced from 22J per cent to 15 per cent. In other words, we have reduced it by one-third. Can our Canadian industry successfully meet that form of competition? Three great firms have established branches in Canada, and when I was in one of the other dominions I noticed that a combination of three British houses had been formed.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is being formed here also.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I heard they were coming here.


Charles Avery Dunning: McIntosh is one of them- perhaps I should not mention the name.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That was not the one to which I had reference.

Canada-United, Kingdom Trade Agreement


Charles Avery Dunning: That is one of the three.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so. I notice that the measure of protection afforded to confectionery houses in other countries is somewhat higher than what is provided under this new arrangement. I suppose it is not unfair to say to the committee that the confectionery business utilizes substantial quantities of Canadian products. For instance, a large quantity of sugar, which is produced in Canadian factories, is used, but more than that is the benefit to the farmers through the use of eggs and other farm products. We have practically prohibited the importation of eggs from other countries, notably from China. I dare say hon. members will recall the discussion which took place in connection with that. In addition, large quantities of cream and whole milk are used. This industry does not strike t'he average observer as being one that touches the agricultural life of the country, and yet it not only touches its agricultural life but its horticultural life. Large quantities of fruit are used, but I shall not go into that in detail. The dairyman and the poultryman are both greatly concerned in what quantities of their products are utilized in the production of confectionery. This is especially true with regard to chocolates. Those who read the newspapers know how fond I am supposed to be of chocolates, so therefore I may be said to speak with some degree of authority.


Charles Avery Dunning: Chocolates would not come under this item.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I just mentioned them.


Charles Avery Dunning: This is sugar candy.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was amazed to find the type of confectionery produced and sold as a domestic product in the other dominions, and to learn of the restrictions which had been placed by statute against importations from other countries. I was just asking whether the minister had satisfied himself that the effect of the reduction of the ad valorem duty by one-third, while still maintaining the specific duty of one-half cent per pound, would not be detrimental to the business in this country. Presumably he has so satisfied himself. I know exactly the representations which have been made with respect to it. I say to the hon. member for Huron North (Mr. Deach-man), while it may be entirely wrong, there has been established in this country as the result of our clinging to a certain definite fiscal policy the branches of three British houses. I did not know they had yet come here, but I knew they were going to come.
These three houses are operating as one enterprise. According to what they say, this move was attributable to the fact that we had offered a measure of protection to the industry. They are spending many hundreds of thousands of dollars in erecting their factories here and will give employment to a large number of people.


Charles Avery Dunning: Sugar had something to do with it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I know sugar had something to do with it, but it had not everything to do with it by a long shot. In Tasmania, the question of dairy products is the main factor in the manufacture of chocolates. There is also the fact that large quantities of eggs are available at reasonable prices. Although it may be adhering to false principles of political economy, the fact is that that has been the result. The factors can be seen by anyone who desires to see them.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-143a. Cigarettes, the weight of the paper covering to be included in the weight for duty: rate of duty, $3.50 per pound.
Mr. MALLEiTTE:	The rate here is S3 50
per pound, but I do not think that will be very clear to the general public which buys its cigarettes in packages of ten, twenty and twenty-five, and tins of fifty and one hundred. This rate of duty of $3.50 per pound will not tell them what it amounts to per package; so could we know what the duty will mean for, say, one hundred cigarettes?
Charles Avery Dunning: I have here information with respect to the amount per thousand which will clarify the matter in the hon. member's mind.
The bulk of Canadian production is made up of cigarettes weighing not more than three pounds per thousand. Apart altogether, therefore, from the fact that customs duties against United Kingdom products represented in 1936 a rate of one hundred per cent, it will be shown from the following calculations that, even with the ad valorem duty removed, the Canadian industry in so far as concerns the vast proportion of its products will still have what I think is quite sufficient in the way of a tariff. If we base the calculation upon domestic cigarettes blended of sixty per cent imported leaf and forty per cent Canadian leaf, and allow a weight of two and a half pounds, of tobacco per thousand cigarettes, as an average, the relative imposts of duty are about as follow:
First, on cigarettes weighing not more than three pounds per thousand, the imported variety would pay a customs duty of $8.75
1804	COMMONS
Canada-United. Kingdom Trade Agreement

per thousand and the domestic would pay an excise of $4, plus approximately ninety cents duty on the leaf, or a total of $4.90. I hope my hon. friend is following this; if he cannot, he will get it in Hansard in the morning.
Second, on cigarettes weighing not more than four pounds per thousand, the imported variety would pay customs duty of $14 per thousand, and the domestic would) pay total imposts, including the leaf impost and the excise, of about S12.40 per thousand.
Third, on cigarettes weighing not more than five pounds per thousand-that comprises the very large variety-the imported variety would pay customs duty of $17.50 per thousand, and the total imposts of excise and duty on the leaf on the domestic production would be $12.80 per thousand.
I think that answers the question.


Mr. MALLETTE:: I confess I did not intend to cause the minister so much trouble. I thought it would be easier to answer on the basis of so much per hundred.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is quite complicated.


Joseph Léon Vital Mallette: This information is
much more to the point, and I am much obliged. Is this rate lower than under the old Ottawa agreements of 1932?


Charles Avery Dunning: Oh, yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Lower, I suppose, by over $1.50 a pound.


Charles Avery Dunning: The specific duty was reduced in 1932 from $4.10 to $3.50 per pound. There was a GO per cent reduction under the former agreement from what had obtained up to that time, and the reduction here, as will be seen, is-[DOT]


Richard Bedford Bennett: Twenty-five per cent ad valorem.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is the removal of the 25 per cent ad valorem. I was trying to see if I had the information as to the bearing of that in terms of specific, but I have not.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I see that the value of the imports from the United Kingdom last year was $29,976, and the importations amounted to 6,177 pounds, which would be a little less than five dollars a pound of value; twenty-five per cent of that is $1.50; so what has been eliminated-roughly^-is the $1.50 ad valorem per pound.


Charles Avery Dunning: Roughly.


John Gordon Ross: You still have about a 300 per cent tariff.


Charles Avery Dunning: Oh, no. It was only 100 per cent before.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The difference between
the Canadian excise and the duty certainly is not 300 per cent. You have overlooked the excise.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-144. Cut tobacco: rate of duty, 80 cents per pound.
Richard Bedford Bennett: No change.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff

145. Manufactured tobacco, n.o.p.. and snuff: rate of duty, 75 cents per pound.
Charles Avery Dunning: No change.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-147. Ale, beer, porter and stout, when imported in bottles: rate of duty, 15 cents per gallon. Provided, that six quart bottles or twelve pint bottles shall be held to contain one gallon.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Here is an item presenting a little difficulty.


Charles Avery Dunning: There is a change as regards ale and beer. The ale and beer duty is reduced to the same level as the duty accorded last year to the Irish Free State, from 30 cents to 15 cents per gallon.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Irish Free State got that concession with respect to stout-Guinness' stout.


Charles Avery Dunning: The whole item.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I mean that was the
principal purpose of it, and this puts them on the same level.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-152. Lime juice, fruit syrups and fruit juices, n.o.p.: rate of duty, 15 per cent.
Charles Avery Dunning: No change.


[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 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 and liqueurs of all kinds, n.o.p.; mescal, pulque, rum shrub, schiedam and other schnapps; tafia, angostura and similar alcoholic bitters or beverages; and wines, n.o.p., containing more than forty per cent of proof spirit: rate of duty, $5 per gallon of the strength of proof.

Canada-United Kingdom Trade Agreement
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.
Charles Avery Dunning: No change.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-159.	Spirits and strong
waters of any kind, mixed with any ingredient or ingredients, as being or known or designated as essences, extracts, or ethereal and spirituous fruit essences, n.o.p.: rate of duty, $5 per gallon and 30 per cent.
Charles Avery Dunning: No change.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-160. Alcoholic perfumes and perfumed spirits, bay rum, cologne and lavender waters, lotions, hair, tooth and skin washes, and other toilet preparations containing spirits of any kind:
(a)	when in bottles or flasks containing not more than four ounces each: rate of duty, 30 per cent;
(b)	when in bottles, flasks or other packages, containing more than four ounces each: rate of duty, $5 per gallon.
Charles Avery Dunning: No change. That is the item to which my right hon. friend referred, I believe, in his remarks on the budget, where he spoke of eyewash being reduced from sixty to thirty per cent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Skin washes.


Charles Avery Dunning: I should like to tell him in this regard that it was he who, by his arrangement with the French republic, effected the reduction in question. I am now only putting the tariff rates in conformity with what the actual condition is; so that any credit for reducing the duty on eyewash must be reluctantly disclaimed by me and attributed to my right hon. friend.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps my hon. friend has slightly misunderstood the point. I said that there was a great desire on the part of the government to make it apparent that there had been fifty per cent reductions promised in 1919 and in 1935 in the House of Commons, as well as in 1933, and in order that the promise might be adequately kept we had resorted to this item, which was for tooth and skin washes, but actually it amounted to eyewash.


Charles Avery Dunning: It includes eyewash.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, it is doubtful
whether it included eyewash, but it certainly does now.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-168. Malt flour containing less than 50 per centum in -weight of malt; malt syrup or malt syrup powder; extracts of malt, fluid or not: grain molasses-all articles in this item upon valuation without British or foreign excise duties, under regulations prescribed by the minister: rate of duty, 25 per cent.
Charles Avery Dunning: No change.


[Stage Direction]
Item 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: rate of duty, free.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-171. Books, printed, periodicals and pamphlets, or parts thereof, n.o.p., not to include blank account books, copy books, or books to be written or drawn upon: rate of duty, free.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-178, 178c. Advertising and printed matter, viz: advertising pamphlets, advertising show cards, illustrated advertising periodicals; price books, catalogues and price lists; advertising almanacs and calendars; patent medicine or other advertising circulars, fly sheets or pamphlets; advertising chromos, chromotypes, oleographs or like work produced by any process other than hand painting or drawing, and having any advertisement or advertising matter printed, lithographed or stamped thereon, or attached thereto, including advertising bills, folders and posters, or other similar artistic work, lithographed, printed or stamped on paper or cardboard for business or advertisement purposes, n.o.p.:
(i)	when produced in countries entitled to the British preferential tariff and relating exclusively to products of such British countries, but not relating to Canadian products: rate of duty, free.
(ii)	n.o.p.: rate of duty, 5 cents per pound.
Richard Bedford Bennett: What is the effect of this item as it stands?


Charles Avery Dunning: It has the effect of rewriting the two existing items and putting them into one, with two divisions in the one. It is really an item intended to facilitate customs administration, although it does bring about a reduction in rate. The import figures show 8161,000 worth imported from the United Kingdom, actually representing last year the dutiable advertising matter which fell under item 178 and that which obtained free entry under items 178b and 178c. In 1936 some $92,000 worth of printed and advertising matter qualified for free entry, the greater part of it, no doubt, under 178c, which means that the residue, some $78,000, paid duty under the British preferential tariff on item 178. In so far as concerns that printed and advertising matter which did not
1806	COMMONS
Canada-United Kingdom Trade Agreement
qualify for free entry under 178b and 178c ad valorem, the effect of the specific duty on last year's imports from the United Kingdom was about 12 per cent, and of course the matter arose during negotiations, as I am sure hon. members will understand, that the United Kingdom was anxious to get some concessions, which we could not meet. This does have the effect of clarifying the situation, inasmuch as it combines former tariff item 178, which was dutiable,, and former tariff item 178, which was free, to afford free entry under the new wording for advertising matter of the kinds enumerated when produced in countries entitled to the British preferential tariff and relating exclusively to products of such British countries, but not relating to Canadian products.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The n.o.p. might have no application at all, but it covers possible cases.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-180. Photographs, chromos, chromotypes, artotypes, oleographs, paintings, drawings, pictures, decalcomania transfers of all kinds, n.o.p., engravings or prints or proofs therefrom, and similar works of art, n.o.p.; blue prints, building plans, maps, and charts, n.o.p.: rate of duty, 12£ per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-180c.	Decalcomania transfers, when imported exclusively for use in the manufacture of vitreous enamelled products or of tableware of china, porcelain or semi-porcelain: rate of duty, free.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-181a. Pictorial post-cards, greeting cards and similar artistic cards or folders; rate of duty, 20 per cent.
Charles Avery Dunning: The reduction is from 221 to 20 per cent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Under this item we have been endeavouring to build up this industry in Canada, and we have had a very substantial amount of success. I have been amazed at the character of the work being produced in Canada in connection with greeting cards and similar artistic cards and I daresay the minister, like myself, has read with some sense of pride the "Made in Canada" mark upon so many of them as compared with what it used to be. I was wondering whether we had in any sense imperilled the continuance of the industry by the reduction of 21 per cent. It is a very trifling reduction in one sense and yet it might be sufficient to bring about the termination of the industry.


Charles Avery Dunning: As my right hon. friend knows, the principal country from which we import this class of goods is the United States.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It has been except for Raphael Tuck & Sons, Limited, who have been supplying increasing quantities.


Charles Avery Dunning: The imports last year
from the United Kingdom amounted to $53,000. Our own production for the last year on record was over $1,000,000, and the class of production which comes and will come from Britain, the imports of which are facilitated here, comprises the more expensive variety which they are better equipped to produce than we are.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then the minister believes that it will have no injurious effect on the industry?


Charles Avery Dunning: I think the industry in Canada can compete in its field.


John Gordon Ross: I think the leader of the opposition asked a sensible question in regard to the item, when he inquired as to the possible effect of the tariff. Would it be possible for the minister in connection with such items to place on Hansard the imports in the last year?


Charles Avery Dunning: I did so just now.


John Gordon Ross: He should also
give the quantity made in Canada so that we may know a year or two from now whether the effect has been injurious or not.


Charles Avery Dunning: The Canadian production in the last year of record was $1,001,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is that for the calendar
year 1936?


Charles Avery Dunning: The last year of production figures with which the bureau can supply us on any item is 1934. The total imports were $382,000 from all sources, and the figure I quoted of $53,000 from the United Kingdom bears upon the item now before the committee.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-187. Albumenized and other papers and films chemically prepared for photographers' use, n.o.p.: rate of duty, free.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I believe our production has been very limited in Canada.


Charles Avery Dunning: We have a tremendous
export business; our production is large.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am wrong then.


Charles Avery Dunning: Under this item we imported last year $766,000 worth, of which $660,000 came from the United States, $60,000
MARCH IS, 1937	1807
CanadarUnited Kingdom Trade Agreement
from Belgium, $44,000 from the United Kingdom and $150 from Germany. Our exports total $3,768,000. That is to say, we exported more than five times the amount that we imported; and we exported to the United Kingdom $1,869,000 worth, or more than twice as much as we imported from all sources. We exported to the United States $1,415,000, more than twice as much as we imported from that country. I could go on and give the figures for Australia, Hong Kong, the Irish Free State and so on. This is one of those items, that illustrate the peculiarities of trade, which is one of the reasons why one cannot dogmatize or produce standardized information with respect to it. It is an item under which in a measure the trade flows both ways. We are ourselves great producers and great exporters. We export even to countries from which we take a considerable volume.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The total imports are
only $30,000.


Charles Avery Dunning: They are $766,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is that so?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes. I think my right
hon. friend has the wrong item. This is item 187.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am looking at the item in conneotion with albumenized and other papers chemically prepared for photographers' use, n.o.p.


Charles Avery Dunning: The figure is $766,000.


Mr. STIRLING:: Is it for the same year?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The total imports, as
given for 1936, are: albumenized and other papers chemically prepared for photographers' use, n.o.p.-


Charles Avery Dunning: If my hon. friend will
look at the figures he is quoting from he will see that the word films is omitted from his description.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The value is given here as $117,000 odd, and the duty is $31,000. That is albumenized and other papers chemically prepared. Films are not in the item from which I am reading.


Charles Avery Dunning: Is the right hon. gentleman referring to the trade statistics?


Richard Bedford Bennett: This does not cover films, so that the item to which the minister refers must be the film item.


Charles Avery Dunning: The film item is the big item by all odds.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The film item is not 187.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is a combination of two items.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The item as it is in the tariff is albumenized and other papers chemically prepared for photographers' use, n.o.p.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes; there must be added to that item $648,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Which item in the tariff is that?


Charles Avery Dunning: It is all one item. They are two trade items in the trade statistics but they fall within the same item of the tariff. Statistically they are separate in the quarterly report of the Trade of Canada though the tariff item is a combined item.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In the figures prepared by the department the item is given at page 522, and it reads: "albumenized and other papers chemically prepared for photographers' use, n.o.p." Then follow the countries from which we imported-the United Kingdom, Belgium, France, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands and the United States. The value of total imports in 1936 is given as $117,524, and the duty is $31,525.20. Under the general rates there came in $60,000 worth, with duty of $18,000, and under the preferential, $8,670 worth, paying $1,300. Under the treaty rates, that is from the United States, we took $48,630 worth, on which duty amounting to $12,157.50 was paid. Those are the figures I have. That does not include films.


Charles Avery Dunning: The tariff item does include films. When classified as trade paper it comes in under "paper and manufactures thereof."


Richard Bedford Bennett: Under wood products.


Charles Avery Dunning: Under the general classification of wood products. Then on page 427 of Trade of Canada, of imports into Canada, "other drugs, dyes and chemicals n.o.p." that is the general classification used by the bureau -my friend will find "films chemically prepared for photographers' use." Perhaps my right hon. friend has not the same volume. It is under miscellaneous commodities, $648,000, which if added to the $170,000 odd which my right hon. friend gave a moment ago, brings us to the $766,000 which I quoted, which of course combines the two import classifications.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What duty did films carry before?


Charles Avery Dunning: Fifteen per cent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Was that the same as the other item?

1S08	COMMONS
Canada-United Kingdom Trade Agreement


Charles Avery Dunning: All one item, and we are now taking the 15 per cent duty off.


Joseph Henry Harris: The minister just mentioned that the exports from this country to Great Britain are of some magnitude. At the same time it might be observed that the gelatin, the raw material for the photographic film, is all produced in Great Britain, shipped to this country and then shipped back to Great Britain, at which time they get the drawback to the extent of how much a year. No photographic gelatin is manufactured in Canada at all. The same remark applies to the United States.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-187a.	Hypersensitive or
supersensitive panchromatic films and infrared films, unexposed, for aerial photography: rate of duty, free.
Charles Avery Dunning: No change.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff- ex 192. Electrical insulating pressbroad, not less than *040 inch in thickness: rate of duty, free.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Do we make any insulating pressboard now in Canada?


Charles Avery Dunning: No, we have no available data on the production of electrical insulating board. It is described as not manufactured in Canada, or not in a commercial way.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It certainly was not made in Canada. An effort was being made to produce it in Canada. I have not followed this in detail; I do not know how far it has gone, but I think one of the large concerns, either the one at Peterborough or at Hamilton, was experimenting in its production. If the minister says it is not made in commercial quantities, that is satisfactory from my standpoint.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-192b. Sandpaper, glass or flint paper, and emery paper or emery cloth: cate of duty, 12J per cent.
Charles Avery Dunning: A reduction in rate. Imports, $110,300, of which $79,000 came from the United States and $23,000 from the United Kingdom. The rate is reduced from 15 to 12J per cent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am afraid that the consumer will not get much of that 3J per cent.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-192e. Roofing and shingles of saturated felt: rate of duty, free.
Charles Avery Dunning: There is no change.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
(Mr. Bennett.J
Customs tariff-193. Paper sacks or bags of all kinds, printed or not: rate of duty, 15 per cent.
Charles Avery Dunning: A reduction in rate.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps the minister will remember that when paper bags began to be used for cement and heavy products we were compelled to import them. I speak from a very indistinct memory but I thought we were beginning to produce these articles.


Charles Avery Dunning: We are manufacturing them practically altogether.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The heavy bags of
commerce?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What were the importations last year?


Charles Avery Dunning: Our imports of all paper bags and sacks coming under this item were $110,000 worth, of which $55,000 came from the United States and $54,000 from the United Kingdom. Our exports totalled $134,000, of which $29,000 went to the United Kingdom, $19,000 to the Straits Settlements, $17,600 to Trinidad, $16,000 to Newfoundland, $11,000 to Jamaica, and then a number of smaller amounts to British countries, and $2,500 to the United States. Our production in 1934 was $3,000,000 worth.
I can tell my right hon. friend from my personal knowledge that bags for cement, known as the Bates valve bag, to which he is referring, have been for some years now a Canadian product. But, of course, the use of those bags declined with the construction industry, and I would expect a considerable advance in the production of that type of bag as a result of the gradual increase in the construction industry.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is exactly why I asked the question, and the difficulty in my mind was whether or not a 5 per cent reduction might have an injurious effect on the industry as it developed in this country. Increase of production should compensate for the reduction of duty.


Charles Avery Dunning: It will, particularly in view of the point at which the reduction takes place. It is a reduction from 20 per cent to 15 per cent, and that brings it in the intermediate stage, so that the actual reduction effected is 3 per cent, not 5 per cent.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-194. Playing cards, in packs or in sheet form, n.o.p.; cards and sheets partly lithographed or printed, for use in the manufacture of such playing cards: rate of duty, 15 per cent.
Charles Avery Dunning: There is a reduction there-

Canada-United Kingdom Trade Agreement


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the difference between 5 cents a package and 15 per cent?


Charles Avery Dunning: Ad valorem; that is right.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We have in addition an excise tax, have we not?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Which is not touched?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: So that the effect really is negligible.


Charles Avery Dunning: The 10 cents applies to both imported and domestic cards.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-195. Paper hanging or wall papers, including borders or bordering: rate of duty, 17i per cent.
Charles Avery Dunning: A reduction in rate.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Five per cent. That is an industry which we were endeavouring to develop in this country. There is a factory in the province of Quebec and one in Ontario.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is in my opinion a very highly capitalized industry. Our exports are larger than our imports, of the class of goods represented, and I thought a considerable reduction there would not do any harm and might do the poor consumer some good.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Five per cent will hardly
be passed on.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff

ex 197 and ex 199. Hand made papers, not to include mould-made deckle-edge papers, valued at not less than 40 cents per pound wholesale: rate of duty, 10 per cent.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Limited use for the purpose of high grade note paper.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-197b. Wrapping paper of all kinds, not pasted, coated or embossed: rate of duty, 174 per cent.
Charles Avery Dunning: Reduction in rate. If
anyone wants the figures I have them. I do not want my hon. friend from Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Maybank) to feel that he is being slighted. Exports are very much bigger than imports.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-198. Ruled and border and coated papers, boxed papers, pads not printed, papier mache ware, n.o.p.: rate of duty, 20 per cent.
Charles Avery Dunning: Reduction in rate, 2i
per cent,


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
31111-114f
Customs tariff-199.	Papeteries, envelopes,
and all manufacturers of paper, n.o.p.: rate of duty, 20 per cent.
Charles Avery Dunning: This item shows the same reduction.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-199c. Waxed stencil paper for use on duplicating machines: rate of duty, 10 per cent.
Charles Avery Dunning: No change.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-200a. Regenerated cellulose and cellulose acetate, transparent, in sheets, not printed, and manufactures of regenerated cellulose or of cellulose acetate, n.o.p.: rate of duty, 20 per cent.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Is this our so-called cellophane?


Charles Avery Dunning: That is it, and there is no change in the rate. The present rate is bound as a maximum.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is it necessary to maintain a rate as high as 20 per cent on cellophane when we are the greatest producers of the raw material?


Charles Avery Dunning: I am prepared to consider that. Of course, there is nothing in the British agreement that would prevent us from reducing the rate in future.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-2'03a. Chemical compounds composed of two or more acids or salts soluble m water, adapted for dyeing or tanning: rate of duty, free.
Richard Bedford Bennett: All the rest of the items on this page are free and were heretofore free.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes. This is binding free entry.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-203b, Aniline and coal tar dyes, adapted for dyeing, in bulk, or in packages of not less than one pound: rate of duty, free.
Item, agreed to.
Customs tariff-206a.	Biological products,
animal or vegetable, _ n.o.p., for parenteral administration in the diagnosis or treatment of diseases of man, when manufactured under licence of the Department of Pensions and National Health under regulations prescribed by the Food and Drugs Act; and biological products, animal or vegetable, n.o.p., for parenteral administration in the diagnosis or treatment of diseases of animals or poultry, when imported under permit of the veterinary director general: rate of duty, free.
Item agreed to.
1810	COMMONS
Canada-United Kingdom Trade Agreement
Customs tariff-ex 208a. Chloride of lime and hypochlorite of lime: 1. When in packages of not less than 25 pounds weight each: rate of duty, free.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-208e. Cresylic acid and compounds of cresylic acid, used in the process of concentrating ores, metals or minerals, n.o.p.: rate of duty, free.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-208j.	Sal ammoniac and
nitrate of ammonia: rate of duty, free.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-2081. Bichloride of tin and tin crystals: rate of duty, free.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-208m. Sulphate of copper (blue vitriol): rate of duty, free.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-208n.	Sulphate of iron
(copperas): rate of duty, free.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-208o. Cream of tartar in crystals and tartaric acid crystals: rate of duty, free.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-208r. Oxide of tin or of copper: rate of duty, free.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-208s. Sulphate of zinc and chloride of zinc: rate of duty, free.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-208t.	All chemicals and
drugs, when of a kind not produced in Canada, which were on August 20, 1932, dutiable at rates of 15, 25 and 25 per cent under tariff item 711: rate of duty, free.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-209c. Bichromate of potash, crude; red and yellow prussiate of potash: rate of duty, free.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-210. Peroxide of soda: silicate of soda in crystals or in solution; bichromate of soda; nitrate of soda or cubic nitre, n.o.p.; sulphide of sodium; nitrate of soda; arseniate, biarseniate, chlorate, bisulphite and stannate of soda; prussiate of soda and sulphite of soda: rate of duty, free.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-210d. Sodium, sulphate of, crude, or salt cake: rate of duty per pound, one-fifth cent.
Richard Bedford Bennett: With respect to this item, is this the same rate that has hitherto prevailed, and that has 'been regarded as
IMr. Dunning.]
ample for the development of the sodium deposits in Saskatchewan, to which reference was made previously? The other day I saw that one of these large deposits had changed hands, and I take it that this rate of one-fifth cent per pound which is continued must be regarded as ample to ensure the development of these deposits.


Charles Avery Dunning: We have only the figures for the production in 1933, and in that year we produced 3,995,000 pounds.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Does the minister know where that was produced?


Charles Avery Dunning: There are a number of salt lakes, so-called, in Saskatchewan. One, I remember, is south of Moose Jaw, at Dunkirk; another, which has been just sold to the International Nickel people, I believe, is near Crane Valley, further to the south and east. Then there is another lake near Humboldt, though I am not sure whether that is being worked at the present time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is the Canadian production entirely from Saskatchewan?


Charles Avery Dunning: I am not aware of any production elsewhere. There is a certain synthetic production, however, of which my right hon. friend probably is aware, which has a bearing on the utilization of the natural product beyond a certain freight rate range. Really the freight rate is of more importance in connection with the utilization of our native product than the duty.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-212. Sulphate of alumina or alum cake; and alum in bulk, ground or unground, but not calcined: rate of duty, free.
Charles Avery Dunning: This is free entry, bound.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-215.	Stearic acid, n.o.p.:
rate of duty, free.
Joseph Henry Harris: What were the imports of stearic acid?


Charles Avery Dunning: Total imports were
1,976.000 pounds, valued at $143,000. Of that total 1,589,000 pounds came from the United Kingdom and 320,000 pounds from the Netherlands. There is no record of any production in Canada, and I am informed that there is no production.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-216. Acids, n.o.p., of a kind not produced in Canada: rate of duty, free.
Charles Avery Dunning: This is free entry bound.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think all these were
made free in 1933, were they not?

Canada-United, Kingdom Trade Agreement


Charles Avery Dunning: 1932.


Richard Bedford Bennett: A number of acids and things like that were added to the original agreement.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, there may have been as many as five added in subsequent budgets.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-218.	Acid phosphate, not
medicinal: rate of duty, free.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-219.	(i) Solution of peroxides of hydrogen, n.o.p.: rate of duty, 12J per cent, (ii) Solutions of hydrogen peroxide containing 25 per centum or more by weight of hydrogen peroxide: rate of duty, free.
Richard Bedford Bennett: There is a reduction of 2| per cent in the one case?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, and in the second case the' existing free entry is bound.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-219c. Non-alcoholic preparations or chemicals, such as are used for disinfecting, dipping or spraying, when in packages not exceeding 3 pounds each, in weight, the weight of such packages to be included in the weight for duty: rate of duty, 5 per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-219d.	Sulphuric ether;
chloroform, n.o.p.; preparations of vinyl ether for anaesthetic purposes: rate of duty, free.
Charles Avery Dunning: Free entry bound; no change.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-220. All medicinal, chemical and pharmaceutical preparations, compounded of more than one substance, including patent and proprietary preparations, tinctures, pills, powders, troches, lozenges, syrups, cordials, bitters, anodynes, tonics, plasters, liniments, salves, ointments, pastes, drops, waters, essences and oils, n.o.p.:
(a)	When dry: rate of duty, 17J per cent.
(b)	Liquid, when containing not more than two and one-half per centum of proof spirit: rate of duty, 20 per cent.
Richard Bedford Bennett: This is a 2J per cent reduction?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, on a wide range of
pharmaceutical products.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This involves many preparations, such as those made by Smith Brothers. I am curious as to what will be the reduction in price to the consumer. They make a very fine quality peppermint lozenge, and things of that kind, and I am quite curious
to see 'how much the consumer will benefit by this reduction. Being a consumer I am naturally rather curious.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-228. Soap powders, powdered soap, mineral soap, and soap, n.o.p.: rate of duty, 20 per cent.
Charles Avery Dunning: There is a reduction in the rate on soap powders and soap. This is a pretty important item.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am rather curious here, too, as to just how much less the cake of soap is going to cost, or the soap powder.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is a substantial portion of the duty in this case.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman hardly means that. Two and a half per cent from 22J per cent means only ten per cent of a reduction, or thereabouts.


Charles Avery Dunning: A little more.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Ten times two and a half is twenty-five; therefore it is not ten per cent. There is also a discount of ten per cent, presumably in both cases. One is rather curious as to just how much soap powder, mineral soap and soap not otherwise mentioned is going to cost the unfortunate consumer by reason of this arrangement, which reduces the duty from 22^ per cent less 10 per cent, to 20 per cent less 10 per cent.


John Gordon Ross: I must say to the minister that I agree entirely with the right hon. leader of the opposition. The minister has not taken off nearly enough.


Robert John Deachman: I would suggest that if these reductions are made in the duty, so far as the business man is concerned they constitute reductions in the cost of the products he buys. If his other charges remain the same as before, there will be a reduction to the consumer. But let us reverse this and put it the other way. Supposing that on a number of these items we raised the duty 2-J per cent. I wonder if my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition thinks there would not be an increase in price. Certainly it would follow. While I agree with him in his contention that in many of these items the reduction in duty has not been as great as it ought to have been-


Charles Avery Dunning: He did not say that.


John Gordon Ross: He has been
arguing that all day.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He did not say that.


Robert John Deachman: -we are at least gaining ground mentally if we are not financially.
1812	COMMONS
Canada-United, Kingdom Trade Agreement


John Gordon Ross: We are gaining a recruit.


Robert John Deachman: If year after year the Minister of Finance will1 continue this process now that he has made a beginning, and if he will remove the1 duty to the extent of 2) per cent each year we will get ridi of some of our troubles, and in the course of time will not be forced to carry them forward to the next generation.


John Ritchie MacNicol: If the Minister of Finance follows the advice of the hon. member for Huron. North (Mr. Deachman) he will lose his job as secretary of the consumers' league, because the poor workman for whom he thinks he is fighting will not have anything to buy with. Out he would go.


Robert John Deachman: Do you see any tears falling?


John James Kinley: The leader of the opposition has been stressing the point that some of these reductions are very small. I must remind him that in a competitive business it does not take much of a reduction to switch the trade and give it to somebody else. One per cent might destroy a man's business, because he might have just that much advantage. These reductions, though small, might mean that the whole business may go to the one who has the preference through duties.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, I would entirely agree with the hon. member if I were not certain o.f the facts; but I have had some little experience. No wonder the Minister of Finance laughs. The real truth of it is that under the old item, on an invoice of $100 a duty of $22.50 was paid. Under the new item he will pay $20.


John James Kinley: 
Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes; 22| per cent of
$100 is $22.50. But you have to be sure that he buys his goods from the producer in Great Britain at a price which in any sense reflects that position. My investigations to the moment indicate that they take advantage of the preference just as far as it is possible to do so, and instead of there being a reduction to the consumer the price would be regulated by the competitive duty. Instead of the consumer, or the purchaser here representing the consumer, getting the advantage in the laid down cost in the store, assuming that all other items were constant, he would find the goods on his shelves representing just what they did before. In other words, he sees that the traffic stands all it will bear.


Charles Avery Dunning: Who does?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The seller in Great
Britain.


John Gordon Ross: Presupposing that the man in this country is taking full advantage.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, not presupposing
the man here is doing anything, except buying and paying.


John Gordon Ross: No, but the man here would not reduce it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No; he buys his goods
from Great Britain, but so far as it is reasonably possible he is compelled to pay for them substantially what he would buy them for from his British competitor. The British salesman is taking advantage of this preference almost to the limit. In some cases my investigations indicate it is one per cent less, and sometimes less than that. In one case I am bound to say it was 99 and a fraction of the percentage.
The reason I looked into the matter was that it had been said that I made a hard bargain. I pass that by, because I think the minister's own experience has been that the man who represents Canada never makes a hard bargain, but rather has a hard job to maintain his position against the experience of, shall I say, very experienced traders. Of course, if you say we do not bargain-and of course that was said-I think I could give a fair reason why boots and shoes do not appear here, and if the Minister of Trade and Commerce were in his seat I think I could state why hides are not here.


Charles Avery Dunning: Boots and shoes are here.


Richard Bedford Bennett: To the extent of the
change in the tariff requested, of course, boots and shoes are here; we put them there. But I mention to the minister-


Charles Avery Dunning: There is a reduction on them.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, we will come to
that presently. If the minister will investigate this matter, as I was compelled to do, I think he will find that the complaint as to the lack of business is not wholly attributable-not wholly attributable; I use those words-to conditions to which reference was made, but rather because sellers have endeavoured to utilize the preference to the limit for the purpose of getting out of the trade everything it would stand. I could give days and dates in support of the statement, but there would be no purpose in giving the details. I could have brpught the papers down. I desire to make clear that we are not wholly to blame

Canada-United Kingdom Trade Agreement
with respect to it, and that this endeavour to take advantage of the preference is to no inconsiderable extent responsible for the lack of expansion of trade. Of course, as the hon. member beside me mentions, there is added to that the question of cartels, which cut both ways, and to which reference will be made before we finish the schedules.
However, I do mention this as important, and I always confront my friends with these facts when in England they say to me, "We do not get enough trade." " Well," I say, "you do not go after it."


Charles Avery Dunning: I said the same thing exactly.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, Mr. Chairman, that shows that there is still some hope in Israel, because I always knew that in his heart the minister would support protection to the end. He is making an excellent job of it, and I congratulate him.


Charles Avery Dunning: No, I must take the opportunity to correct that. My remark to the leader of the opposition was with respect to what we said to the British concerning trade with Canada. I may tell the right hon. gentleman that I said it to the Britishers even before I became a member of the federal government, and I believe my right hon. friend will do me the justice of admitting that fact. I was endeavouring to interest the British in a certain commodity which I hoped to see produced in larger volume in Saskatchewan, and that was one of the answers I had to make. I may tell my right hon. friend that I used then what I used this year as an illustration, namely, the farm implement industry in Canada, and the manner in which it had grown up, and the manner in which the British had lost what market they formerly had through failing to adapt their product to the necessities of a new country and a different system of agriculture. I do not think I was any less vigorous than my right hon. friend in pointing out to the British traders this summer at least some reasons why they do not enjoy more of the Canadian market. I would not accept in all cases the formula he lays down with respect to the British seller always taking advantage to the last degree of the amount of preference granted by our tariff. I admit that in all too many cases that has been true, but in going through the various items with which one had to deal I was surprised to find very many cases in which it was not true. I venture 'to predict that before the discussions on this schedule are over we will have pointed out to us by the hon. member for Davenport and others, who do not
quite see eye to eye with their leader on this matter-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Of course they do.


Charles Avery Dunning: -a position opposite to that stressed this evening by the leader of the opposition. I am quite sure the hon. member for Davenport is only waiting to point out instances where the British industrialist is a keen and destructive competitor of the Canadian industrialist. I am quite sure that will be his argument in connection with some of the major fe'atures of the agreement now before the house. We had only to listen to him this afternoon to notice that he was holding a strong rein upon himself until the proper item was reached to pour out the vials of his wrath upon the poor Minister of Finance, who is proposing something which it must be admitted benefits someone in Canada.
Generally speaking, the use of the term "bargaining" is somewhat of a misnomer when used in connection with the negotiation of an agreement of this kind. Obviously, it is ridiculous to say, "I will trade you a concession on boots and shoes if you will trade me a concession on textiles, on wheat or butter or something else," because you are not dealing with comparable articles. When we went horse trading in the old-fashioned sense, we traded one horse for another, or possibly a yoke of oxen or a mule for a horse, but there was always the suggestion of the common utilization of the objects being traded. In negotiating a trade agreement the approach is quite different. I cannot speak for my right hon. friend in this regard, but our approach was to find out what the other fellow wanted, having a very clear idea of what we wanted ourselves. The things were not related nor could the matter be approached in the spirit of horse trading. An effort is made to meet the other man's point of view, without injuring the interests of your own country, to a degree which will encourage him to go as far as possible in connection with what you want. It is a very complex kind of negotiation. So far as the remarks of my right hon. friend with regard to the approach aspect are concerned, let me say that the British are the shrewdest traders I know anything about, and are most dangerous when they are depreciating their own ability along that line.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I do not want the Minister of Finance to get away-


Richard Bedford Bennett: With murder.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I did not want to use an expression like that. I do not want him to get away with the idea that there is any
1814	COMMONS
Canada-United Kingdom Trade Agreement
conflict in the positions taken by the right hon. leader of the opposition and myself, because there is none. I do not think the minister is very much concerned about anything I may say on any of the items. I think I have been very quiet so far because, as I said before, the reductions are not large.


Charles Avery Dunning: I will apologize to my hon. friend if I have offended him. After getting a general jeremiad off his chest, he can now take up specific items.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I have too much regard for the Minister of Finance to let him get into a class with the hon. member for Huron North (Mr. Deachman).


Richard Bedford Bennett: No fear, he is a protectionist.


John Ritchie MacNicol: In many cases the reductions are small and they merely annoy people in business. What industry is alarmed over is whether the minister is going to go further on another occasion, and also as to what will happen next year in the United States. We do not know whether the government will follow the advice of the hon. member for Huron North who will not be satisfied as long as there is an industry left in the country. We want to know just where they are going to quit.


Charles Avery Dunning: The minister will endeavour from time to time to negotiate such arrangements with other countries as will increase the sale of Canadian goods, at the same time having some regard for the interests of the Canadian consumer.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Charles Avery Dunning: In moving that the committee rise and report progress I wish to express my .thanks to the committee for the progress we have made to-day.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Tuesday, March 16, 1937