[Stage Direction]
Seventh report of the select standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.-Mr. Parent.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. S. W. JACOBS (Cartier) presented the third report of the select standing committee on public accounts, requesting that the committee be given leave to sit while the house is in session.
He said:	With the unanimous consent of
the house, Mr. Speaker, I move that the report just presented be concurred in.
Mr. SPEAKER:: By leave of the house. Motion agreed to.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 177, for the relief of Claude Frederick Burgin.-Mr. Geary (for Mr. Lennox) .
Bill No. 181, for the relief of Mary Addie Linton.-Mr. Geary (for Mr. Lennox).
Bill No. 188, for the relief of Marie Rose Beffre Baer.-Mr. Arthurs.
Bill No. 195, for the relief of Jeanie Mathieson Howell.-Mr. Hepburn (for Mr. Ediwards, Ottawa).
Bill No. 199, for the relief of Gordon Asher True.-Mr. Hepburn (for Mr. Edwards, Ottawa).
Bill No. 201, for the relief of Ethel Evelyn Farrow.-Mr. Geary (for Mr. Lennox).
Bill No. 210, for the relief of John Alfred Neary.-Mr. Geaiy (for Mr. Lennox).
Bill No. 211, for the relief of Charles Storey. -Mr. Geary (for Mr. Lennox).
PEACE RIVER RAILWAY OUTLET On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. KENNEDY (Peace River):: I should like to ask the Minister of Railways if in the near future he can table the report of the engineers who made various surveys last year of the passes between the Peace River country and the Pacific coast; also the correspondence between the government and the Canadian National Railways in connection with the Edmonton, Dunvegan and 
British Columbia railway; also the correspondence in connection with the Pacific Great Eastern railway, for which an order passed the house some time ago.
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways): Mr. Speaker, I will have these various returns checked up. In connection with one of them, about which my hon. friend spoke to me the other day, that is, the correspondence with respect to the acquisition of the Northern Alberta Railway by the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National, I am advised that the delay arises through certain correspondence between the presidents of the two railways having been marked " personal " and the necessary permission required to produce it. I do not think there will be any difficulty; it will be merely a matter of delay. In connection with the others, I will have the necessary inquiries made.



CANADA'S GOLD RESERVE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister of Finance in a position to throw any light upon the state of our gold reserve?


Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance):: No, I have not had any report from the department yet. I can assure my hon. friend that we are quite safe.
Mr. MoLEAN (Melfort): I presume there will be enough to provide for the indemnity of the hon. gentleman who has inquired so often recently in regard to our gold reserve.



WAR MEMORIALS BUILDING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Sir GEORGE PERLEY (Argenteuil):: May I ask the Prime Minister if anything has been done in the way of providing a building for the housing and caring of our war memorials? The matter was up last session. As I explained at the time, Canada has a wonderful collection of war memorials, in fact I think a collection larger and more important than that possessed by any other country. The Prime Minister then said:
Up to the present time we have felt that there were other demands more imperative than the demand for a building for the purpose of housing these works of art. I think, however, we must not lose sight of the fact that the collection is a national possession, a very valuable possession, and one which as speedily as possible should be properly housed.

International Peace-Optional Clause
I must say, Mr. Speaker, that I have been much disappointed to find no provision in the estimates for a building for this purpose. The government seems to be able to spend a lot of money for other buildings in Ottawa. It strikes me that a building to house our war memorials is more necessary than some other buildings for which provision is being made. I wish the Prime Minister would be good enough to tell us when he will be able to do something towards providing a suitable building.	x


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend has just said, our collection of national war memorial paintings is without doubt one of the finest that any country possesses, and certainly, I assume, the best collection anywhere of paintings in relation to the recent war. After my hon. friend brought the matter up last session the government did carefully look into the question of the housing of the paintings. We found, as has been represented by my hon. friend, that they were stored, in considerable part, in what is now the basement of the National Museum and Art Gallery. We also discovered that it was not a suitable place for storage, and that it was necessary, if the paintings were to be properly preserved, that they should be stored in a dry atmosphere and in a better environment generally. The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Elliott) and his officers went carefully into the available accommodation in the city and were fortunate in being able to obtain some space in a part of the large Auditorium building. This part the government has leased for storing the paintings. The building is suited admirably for the purpose. It is fireproof, it has a southern exposure, is quite dry, and an even temperature can be readily maintained. From what the director of the art gallery says, I believe it will serve to keep the pictures in perfect condition. So much for the storage.	_ _
As for the exhibition of the paintings, that is another matter. Up to the present time the government has not felt it would be justified in asking parliament to appropriate money for an art gallery. There are many public buildings urgently needed. One of them was referred to by the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) only a day or two ago-a building for the Supreme Court of Canada. There are other buildings necessary for departmental purposes, and we feel
we should consider meeting these requirements before undertaking a building for the exhibition of paintings. However, personally, I am not without hope that some public-spirited citizen will be found who one of these days will present the country with a national art gallery.



INTERNATIONAL PEACE


[Stage Direction]
Miss AGNES C. MACPHAIL (Southeast Grey):	Mr. Speaker, in this morning's
Citizen the Prime Minister is reported as saying that Canada will not sign the optional clause until the mother country and the other dominions are ready to do so. I should like to know if he is correctly reported?
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I saw the report, Mr. Speaker, to which my hon. friend has just referred. I am afraid I have to say it is inaccurate. I remember being asked yesterday if I had anything further to add to the statement I made in the house a day or two ago as to Canada's position with respect to the optional cause, and I replied that the statement I had made in the house was all I had to say on the matter. The statement, I think, will bear out that all I said was that Canada was prepared to sign the optional clause, but did not intend doing so without conference with other parts of the British Empire, as had been promised at the time of the last Imperial conference; I made no statement to the effect that we would not sign the optional clause unless all parts of the empire agreed. Our view is that there should be a conference in the first place. After the conference it will be for us to say whether we shall sign alone, or whether it will be possible for all parts of the empire to sign at the same time.


Mr. H. B. ADSHEAD (East Calgary):: I understood the right hon. Prime Minister to say that the statement in the House of Lords was correct, that Canada was willing to sign the optional clause immediately.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, I said so far as we are concerned we are quite prepared to sign the optional danse. However, we gave an undertaking at the last Imperial conference that we would not take that step until there had been an opportunity for all parts of the empire to confer together. That

Montreal Railway Terminal
opportunity will come, I assume, at the next Imperial conference. It may come before, but until it does come I should not like to say that Canadh will take any action on its own.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Is it not true that t'he Prime Minister definitely stated in the House of Commons that we would not wait until the next Imperial conference before action would be taken.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is quite possible that the matter may be arranged by correspondence. I desire to be on the safe side and make a statement that I can be sure will be implemented.



BANK STATEMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) whether there has been any alteration in the method of preparing bank statements in the last three years?


James Alexander Robb: Not that I am aware of-no material alteration. I shall inquire from the inspector of banks, and if there has been any material alteration I shall let my hon. friend know.



MONTREAY RAILWAL TERMINAL FACILITIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. G. BELL (St. Antoine):: May I ask the Minister of Railways (Mt. Dunning) a question in regard to the proposed terminal facilities at Montreal? The Palmer report has been submitted to the various public bodies of Montreal. Has the minister any statement for the house as to their views in regard to the report?
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways): No, I have nothing to say along that line. I have no evidence as to their views. I have a number of individual representations of one kind or another, but I do not recollect any specific expressions of views by any public body. Shortly there will be before the house a proposal with respect to authorizing the Canadian National Railways to undertake certain expenditure in the city of Montreal, and at that time, I presume, the matter will be considered in all its bearings by the railway committee, on which occasion public bodies and individuals will have an opportunity to appear and make any representations they may desire.



WAYS AND MEANS


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Customs tariff-4.38b. Automobiles for conveying passengers only, n.o.p., valued at retail at place of production, when new, with standard equipment complete, at not more than twelve hundred dollars each; motor cars or motor trucks (not for railways or tramways) for carrying goods only; motorcycles or side cars therefor; chassis for motor vehicles specified in this item: British preferential tariff, 12J per cent; intermediate tariff, 17i per cent; general tariff, 20 per cent.
James Alexander Robb: The committee will observe that the only change in this item is the addition of the words "or side cars therefor." It is asked for by the Wheelmen's Association and the matter was considered before the tariff board, where there was no opposition.


Mr. COOTE:: When this item was last
before the committee on April 12, the question of the removal of the excise tax on automobiles was brought to the attention of the minister and he promised to investigate the whole matter. Has he any further information to offer now?


James Alexander Robb: I have a number of letters in reply from the automobile dealers and have instructed the tariff board to go into the whole matter carefully, with a view to determining not only the percentage manufactured in Canada but whether the requirements of the act are being complied with. Until the tariff board goes into the question thoroughly I do not care to make any further Statement. I can assure the committee that the board have instructions to make a thorough inquiry and it is possible they will have an auditor go into the whole matter. Later on we may have public hearings if necessary.


George Gibson Coote: Will the minister make it
clear whether the board have been instructed to report to him as to whether the manufacturers of automobiles are or are not taking advantage of the situation-whether they are living uip to their agreement made with the minister some years ago. Is it clear that the board are to report to the minister?


James Alexander Robb: That is the absolute understanding. I have not before me the letter to the board, but those are their instructions; they have been asked to go into the matter

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
most carefully. I may say to my hon. friend that from the correspondence I am satisfied that most of the manufacturers are living up to the agreement, although there are some who have not been doing so.


George Gibson Coote: If the board should report
to the minister that some of the manufacturers are not living up to the agreement will the minister promise us that he will take off the excise tax from all cars?


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend must not ask
me to commit myself in relation to what we may do in that regard in the next budget. Such a statement can be made properly only after approval on the part of the Governor General. However, my hon. friend may safely leave the matter in our hands. We have a pretty clear mind as to what should be done and it is just possible that the question may be considered in relation to the tariff inquiry now going on in connection, with steel and materials required in the manufacture of cars.


George Gibson Coote: I wish we could feel better
satisfied to leave the matter in the minister's bands. We have done so for the last three years and some of us feel that for two years at any rate 'the manufacturers have been taking advantage of the elimination of the tax. The minister has been asleep at the switch and has allowed them to get away with it, to use a common expression. I do not think, therefore, that we should leave it to the minister until next session. Personally I should like to see the matter dealt with before this session is over. I wonder whether the minister would make the reference to the board wide enough so that they may report to him next year as to whether the customs tariff should not be further reduced on all motor trucks, which are coming into such general use to-day. As a matter of fact, to many farmers at any rate, the motor truck to-day takes the place which the wagon held some years ago. I would ask the minister to instruct the board to take up that question at the same time; the two matters could be considered together.


Mr. McGIBBON:: When this resolution
was last before the committee I asked the minister for a statement as to how the Canadian content was estimated. Supposing in the cheaper cars the Canadian content comprised 70 or 80 per cent: would that excess be applied to the higher priced cars with a Canadian content of say, 40 per cent?


James Alexander Robb: That is a matter that belongs to the Department of National Revenue, but I have given instructions to the tariff board to look carefully into it also.


Peter McGibbon: What has been the
practice in the past?


James Alexander Robb: As I say, that matter is administered by the Department of National Revenue; they check up on the percentage of Canadian material going into the manufacture of cars.


Peter McGibbon: But that does not afford me any information.


James Alexander Robb: No. I have sent for my colleague the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Euler).


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: I am not
disposed to leave the minister in the position of evasion in which he has placed' himself. Consciously or unconsciously he has been guilty of a breach of faith with the members in this corner of .the house. When he appealed to us, in that memorable year, to permit him to relieve the automobile manufacturers in Canada to the extent of the removal of the excise duty he promised us absolutely, definitely and unquestionably that he would undertake to see that the manufacturers lived up to their agreement, which was to pass back to the consumers the saving which would result from the exclusion of the excise tax. The minister has now clearly shown in his answers to questions asked him that he has not checked up the manufacturers, but has relied .on casual letters which he has received from them, and that even at this moment he is not in a position to state whether in his opinion they have or have not lived up to their promise. Let me repeat the promise made 'by the Minister of Finance in 1926. He said:
We have, however, the right to reduce taxation, and if they do not live up fairly to this agreement we have the right to reduce the excise tax to all the trade of the world.
The hon. member for Rosetown (Mr. Evans) then asked:
Will that be inserted in the bill?
Mr. Robb:	It is not necessary.
It was not necessary, according to the minister, to insert it in the bill. The minister left the impression that he was prepared to remove the excise duty on imported cars if the manufacturers in Canada did not live up to their promise, and in the three years that have elapsed he has made no investigation whatever; he has undertaken no check whatever of the situation. He has relied solely upon opinions expressed in letters, and
^	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
now he attempts to evade his responsibility by stating to the hon. member for Maoleod that he cannot give any promise as to what may be done, that the decision will have to be made in some future budget. The minister knows very well that this question of the excise duty can be dealt with by order in council, according to my information, if he desires to treat it in that way.
I do not think the Minister of Finance should leave himself or the house in that position. Certainly he never has given me the impression that he was a man who would deliberately break faith, but consciously or unconsciously he has broken faith in this case and I ask him now to reinstate himself in our confidence and in the confidence of the people who have trusted him up to this time.


James Alexander Robb: I do not recall the date when we had this matter under consideration previously, but I think it must have been about April 14.


George Gibson Coote: April 12.


James Alexander Robb: On April 15 I signed the
following letter, addressed to Mr. Moore of the tariff board:
My Dear Mr. Moore:
It lias been stated in parliament that certain Canadian manufacturers of automobiles have been and are now taking full price advantage of an exemption of excise taxes provided under the budget legislation of 1926. Attached is copy of correspondence with Canadian automobile manufacturers relative to this matter.
I desire also to direct your attention to the debate when in committee, June 7,	1926,
Hansard pages 4124-4137; March 30, 1928, Hansard pages 1858-1859 and April 12, 1929, Hansard pages 1601-1613, and would request that you at once start an inquiry into the relative prices in Canada and the United States, as well as an inquiry into the percentage of content Canadian material and labour used in each of the several models upon which exemption from excise tax is now claimed. The Department of National Revenue may have available helpful information. I specially desire inquiry into charges that certain companies have not given their customers the reduction promised.
I would draw to your attention that various companies in their replies to me last year offered to open their books for the inspection of anyone whom I would care to name. This will be your authority to have an inspection made in accordance with their offer.
It is important that this inquiry be conducted without delay and be as comprehensive as possible.
Yours faithfully,
(Sgd.) James A. Robb.
I cannot do more.


Edward Joseph Garland: No, but
/he minister could have done more if he nad wished to keep faith; he could have started this inquiry at the outset, as he should 
have done and as it was his duty to do. During that session the situation as far as the administration was concerned was particularly strained, and to relieve the administration from a mighty ticklish position, to help the Minister of Finance, who is now pleased to smile about it, in one of the most critical moments in his career, and to meet his earnest request hon. members in this corner consented to modify their principles in this matter. Surely there devolved upon him then not only the duty but the positive obligation of undertaking and continuing an investigation in order to see that his promises were lived up to.


Mr. JACOBS:: Does the hon. gentleman
suggest that there was a barter between hon. members in that corner and the Minister of Finance?
Mr, IRVINE: I hope the hon. member for Bow River and all hon. members in this comer of the house will leam a much needed lesson in political economy and in .political matters generally from the question now before the house. It is generally understood that an Irishman is a pretty good man when dealing with pigs; he does not usually buy a pig in a poke, but this time he did so. The next time he makes a bargain I hope he will know exactly what he is getting, and see to it that he gets exactly what he should. Meanwhile we can only congratulate the Minister of Finance upon being a little more clever than some of the hon. members in this corner.


Mr. BENNETT:: I wonder if the minister realizes that a moment ago he said that this was a matter for the Minister of National Revenue, in spite of the fact that it was the Minister of Finance who sent a letter to the tariff board requesting them ,to deal with this matter, although it has to do with the collection of revenue. Why is it that our questions must go unanswered because the Minister of National Revenue is not here, while at the same time the Minister of Finance says, "Look what I have done; I have written to the chairman of the tariff board, who is a prospective Liberal candidate in a constituency which contains the largest automobile manufacturing industry in Canada, asking him to ascertain some of these .things for us." That is what the minister wants this house to believe, and this gentleman to whom the letter was written is the gentleman who, in his annual report as chairman of that board, states that he has established intimate relations with the manufacturers of this country. I may tell the minister that I propose to ask, before he gets through his resolutions, the names of the establishments

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
visited by that gentleman during the last twelve months, as mentioned in his report. We are going to ask for that information because we have a right to obtain it, and then we may find out exactly what are these intimate relations which have been established in this particular constituency 'between the largest manufacturers of automobiles in Canada and the chairman of the tariff board, a prospective Liberal candidate.
Does the minister think for a moment that the people of Canada will tolerate that sort of thing? Does he think that they will be deceived by it and that they will be made sport of in this way? A perfectly legitimate and proper question was asked in an endeavour to secure certain information, but the only reply we received was that the minister was referring the question to "dear Mr. Moore." The minister said to him, "You seek to represent a constituency in which is situated the largest automobile manufacturing business in Canada. Please go out and see how their prices compare with the prices paid in the United States, and! if you cannot do that, take a look at their books. Here is your authority to do so," but a moment ago it was the Minister of National Revenue who had to deal with this matter, rather than the Minister of Finance. To use the classical language which was indulged in by one of the members of the government the other day, you cannot play both ends against the middle in that way very long, so let us get down to brass tacks in connection with this matter. Did the minister say to Mr. Moore that last year Canada imported about $102,000,000 worth of automobiles and automobile parts? Did he observe that of that amount $55,000,000 represented automobile parts and the balance automobiles imported largely from the United States? Did he observe that our exports were sent to countries enjoying a preference under different treaties? Surely the minister must have observed these things; the questions asked are quite reasonable and I desire to associate myself with those who desire to have these questions answered. I do not like this bunkum of saying, "I passed it on to Mr. Moore," who wants to represent the constituency containing the largest automobile industry in Canada. It may get him some votes if he makes the right kind of a report.


Mr. GOTT:: Not many.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We will leave it at that.


William Irvine: Louder.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister and I were simply carrying on a little private conversation across the floor; he said I was getting information from another quarter, and I said I did not think so. At any rate, that is the question we would like answered; it is not unreasonable. On the question of content, surely the minister who came back from Keith's theatre with his courage still undaunted, but who yielded exactly one week later, the minister who .put on this excise tax and then took it off, and who continues to play with it in the manner of the old shell game-now you see it and now you don't- surely he can do better than that. Now an hon. gentleman wants to know what is meant by it and I associate myself with his question.


James Alexander Robb: There seems to be a misapprehension as to the question asked by the hon. member for Muskoka (Mr. MeGibbon). He inquired as to the method of determining the content, whether an average was taken for the whole shop or whether each machine was dealt with separately. I am not in a position to give him that information; I do not adu minister that regulation, but I instructed the tariff board to inquire fully into that question and report, and I may say frankly that I have in mind that before this matter is concluded the automobile manufacturers will have to come into the open and have a public hearing in connection with this question.


Mr. FANSHER (Lambton):: Then I would like to ask if this hearing will have to take its turn and, if so, about what time we may expect it to be held.


James Alexander Robb: They are at work on it now.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Will that 'be a private
or public hearing?


Edward Joseph Garland: Three years after a definite pledge is given to the house by the minister he says, "I will take the matter up with the tariff board and have an investigation made." It was the duty of the minister to have one of his own investigators make an investigation and not wait for the tariff board to inquire into this matter. The minister has the power to put a qualified man on the job to-day if he wants to do it. It is his duty to do that and not wait for the tariff board. It was his duty to have done that two years ago; it was his duty to have seen that this saving was passed on to the consumers as he promised it would be passed on, and the only way he could be sure thait that was done was by having a man from his department on the job from the day the
2304	COMMONS
TVays and Means-Customs Tariff
promise was made. In failing to do that he has broken faith with us and with the country. He has failed in his duty when he is unable to answer- the very simple question: Have they passed the saving back to the consumer? He was not able to answer that question and cannot answer it because he has no authoritative information. It was his duty as Minister of Finance, as an hon. member of the government and as one of the responsible ministers of the crown not only to keep the promise he made but to secure accurate information that the promise has been kept.


James Alexander Robb: The hon. member forgets that it has not been established that they did not carry out their agreement. It is true that certain price lists were quoted from magazines showing a difference in price in Canada and in the United States. The hon. member will recall that when this was up last year I stated that I bad written to all the automobile manufacturers reminding them of the promise. Replies came in from most of them claiming that they were passing along this excise tax to their customers. I think there were two companies from which I did not receive replies. It happened that an official of one of those companies was either the president or secretary of the Automotive Association, and when I directed his attention to this fact he brought down my original letter acknowledging his reply. He had replied but the letter had been mislaid in the department, and it has not been found yet. He brought down a copy of the letter which he had sent and in that letter made the statement that he was passing this saving on.


Mr. RYCKMAN:: And he also stated that the books were open to inspection at any time.


James Alexander Robb: Yes. The Ford Motor Company had not replied at that time but their business was very much disturbed, as everyone knows. They have since claimed that eighty per cent, or nearly eighty per cent of the contents of their car is Canadian and they also claimed that they are passing the saving on. There are the statements which they make to be put up against the statements which have been made that they are not passing it on. In justice to the public I have instructed the tariff board to go into this matter carefully, to put auditors into the companies where they consider it necessary, and I told the chairman only the other day that in the public interest it would be better to have a public hearing. I am not disposed to condemn these men before they have been properly heard.


George Gibson Coote: I have no fault to find with the minister for asking the advisory tariff board to examine very thoroughly into this matter. My criticism is that when this matter was brought to his attention he satisfied himself by writing letters to these automobile manufacturers. On April 12, 1928, the minister was asked by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Gardiner):
Is that all the minister has done?
Mr. Robb:	That is all.
Mr. Gardiner:	That is nothing.
It seems to me that nothing has been done in this case. I am very glad to hear the minister state that this matter will be made the subject of a public hearing and I presume the evidence will come before the members of the house. I am forced to express my regret that the minister has not seen fit to state to the house that if the case is proven that some of the automobile manufacturers have been taking advantage of this tax and have not passed the reduction on to the consumer, the government would remove the excise tax from all cars. I do not see in what other light the statements m'ade to the house in 1926 can be viewed. In answer to a question by the hon. member for Rosetown (Mr. Evans) the minister said:
We have, however, the right to reduce taxation, and if they do not live up fairly to this agreement we have the right to reduce the excise tax to all the trade of the world.
Mr. Evans:	Will that be inserted in the
bill?
Mr. Robb:	It is not necessary.
I do not know what other interpretation can be put upon the words of the minister. If he can give the house any other explanation of the remarks he made at that time I am sure we will be pleased to hear it.
If the minister will not remove by order in council the tax upon these cars which are being imported, when the case should be proved, I can only suppose that next year he intends to introduce another of those popular Robb budgets and is saving this change to make his budget popular. The budget which was described in the election campaign of 1926 as the popular Robb budget contained a reduction in the tariff on automobiles, and I am quite Satisfied that that was preeminently the one change which made that budget so popular. If that is the case, so far as the popularity of that budget is concerned, the success should not be ascribed to the Minister of Finance, it should be credited to -the members in this corner of the house who persisted' in keeping that matter before parliament and' finally persuaded the minister, perhaps against his own inclinations, to reduce the tariff on cars.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
I suggest to the minister that the inquiry by the tariff board should foe a very thorough one and should go carefully into the whole question of the prices which are being charged the consumers of automobiles in Canada. I have before me a price list of the Ford Motor Company as issued to their agents from their St. John, N.B. agency. I will give the particulars of one model only because it is typical of all the rest. The price on one model is
as follows:
Ford phaeton	
$510	00Spare tire	
15	00Bumper and bumperettes	
20	00Tax	
12	27Freight	
84	00Delivery charges	
10	00
Price delivered at Glace Bay, N.S. 651 27
I draw the attention of the minister to this fact, the list factory price which is quoted by the Ford Motor Company does not include spare tires, bumper or bumperettes, and the price of $510 is the price which I used on April 12 last in making a comparison of the prices of the Ford car in Canada and the United States. Some hon. members of the house have said that there is more equipment on the Canadian car than on the American car, but I would like to know where it is because this price list shows very clearly that the spare tire, bumper and bumperettes are not included. I would like to draw the attention of the minister to this further fact; they are charging the consumers of automobiles in the maritime provinces-I am satisfied they are doing the same thing in other parts of Canada-with a freight rate which is more than twice what the Ford Company or their agents pay on these cars, and in addition they include a delivery charge of $10. I have in my hand a couple of invoices for Ford cars which were sent to an agent at Glace Bay. The agent informed me that in every case the freight was less than $40 per car and yet the consumers in the maritime provinces are being charged $84 for freight and in addition to that they are being charged $10 for delivery charges. It may be argued that they are not contravening any statute of Canada when they do that, but if they are penalizing the consumer in the distant portions of Canada, for instance in the maritimes and the western provinces, with a freight charge which is more than twice what they are actually paying, it is time we carefully considered the question whether we should further protect this company from competition from other countries or not. To say the least, the practice is a most questionable one. When this question was debated on the floor of the house on April 12, one hon. member at least, seemed quite concerned for fear
the minister might remove this excise tax from imported cars, and subject Canadian manufacturers to a little more competition. He mentioned the fact that the Ford Company sustained a loss last year. In a letter which I have under my hand from an agent of the Ford Company, he says:
The company, as would be expected, did not pay a dividend last year, but, a few years back they were generous in the extreme. In addition to a 100 per cent cash dividend in 1911, they also paid 500 per cent in stock and followed this with a 600 per cent stock dividend in 1916. In 1924, when net earnings amounted to $53.13 a share, they paid 10 per cent, 20 per cent in 1925, 10 per cent in 1926, 15 per cent in 1927 and nothing in 1928 as would be expected.
He makes that statement because he knew they were reorganizing their factory at that time. He goes on:
However, if you will refer to ad., of the Canadian General Securities Corporation, appearing in all the daily papers in Canada on April 1 or 2, you will note that_ Mr. W. R. Campbell, president and treasurer, is quoted as stating that for January and February of this year, operations, "show net profits, after depreciation, in excess of $1,500,000-net profits for the month of March will be equally satisfactory-further it is estimated that the net profits after depreciation for the year 1929 will be in excess of any previous year."
That is the quotation which he gives. He suggests that it will be $10,000,000 at least. I do not think there is any occasion for the house or the minister to worry about 'the financial position of these companies. As a matter of fact, I think it is really important that 'the Minister of Finance should take some means of assuring the house that he will make good the promise which he made in 1926. I do not want to be unreasonable at all. If the minister thinks the case is not proven, I am quite willing that the matter should be investigated by the advisory tariff board. If we are to have an advisory tariff board in this country, perhaps it is the proper body to investigate this question. But I hope the minister will make a positive statement as to what he will do if the case is proven that these manufacturers have taken advantage of the remission of the excise tax and that he will assure the house that the tariff advisory board will be instructed to have brought out fully just what is the practice of these automobile corporations in setting the price which they charge to consumers in distant parts of Canada as related to their advertised list price at the factory, the price on which the excise tax and sales tax which they pay is based.


Mr. ICAISER:: Mr. Chairman-
2306	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Edward Joseph Garland: Let us have an answer from the minister.


James Alexander Robb: An answer to what?


Edward Joseph Garland: To the
question asked by the hon. member for Macleod whether the minister would keep his promise in the event of the companies not giving the saving to the consumer.


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friends are making
a great deal of their statement that I broke faith with them in 1925 or 1926. That is sufficient reason for me to make no promises until I have all the facts before me.


Edward Joseph Garland: Are we to
understand then that these words are now dead and to be forgotten? The minister, when speaking in the house in 1926, used these words:
I serve notice on them now, in the presence of my friends, that if they do not live up _ to that agreement we will find means of placing them in a position where they will have to do so, or meet competition of the world.
Has the minister forgotten that promise?


James Alexander Robb: No.


Edward Joseph Garland: Is the minister going to live up to that promise?


Mr. MANION:: May I ask my hon. friend
a question? He has a very acute mind. Does he remember any promise which this government has ever kept?


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: I am not going to endeavour to get the Minister of Finance out of any trouble-


James Alexander Robb: I am not in any trouble.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: -but I should like my hon. friends to my left to explain to me how they know whether the manufacturers passed the excise reduction on to the consumer or not. I am going to submit a few outstanding facts in regard to the automobile business. My claim is that the government made a blunder as regards Canada when they undertook to tamper with the tariff on automobiles in 1926. This was detrimental to the industry as a whole and to the consumers of Canada as well.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: All right. Take the price of any automobile in 1926 when the government undertook to do something in regard to the tariff on automobiles; then go back three years and take the price of a similar automobile during that period and observe the drift of things. See what was going on in [Mr. Kaiser. 1
this country. Canadian manufacturers were grappling with a great industry and in those three years they reduced the prices of automobiles to Canadian consumers by nearly 40 per cent. How? By virtue of their own genius, by virtue of mass production and by virtue of internal economic administration they were endeavouring to give Canada a cheap automobile and they reduced the price by from 33^ to 40 per cent in those three years. If the automobile business had been left alone, what would have happened? Economics were being studied; genius was being developed; mass production was increasing, and the manufacturers were endeavouring to run their factories as many months in the year as possible. Immediately after this change the number of months of operation in the automobile business yearly was reduced and in our city for three or four months at a time when men were absolutely out of employment; whereas, if they had been at work all the year round they could, by thus reducing the yearly overhead costs, have produced automobiles at a more rapid pace and at a more reasonable price. In 1926, the government of Canada disturbed this wonderful industry. It listened to the croakers who were saying: Give us automobiles as cheap as they have them in the United States; reduce the price to the consumer. And my hon. friends think they have accomplished something. What have they done? The same type of automobile, the price of which was reduced between 30 and 40 per cent in those three years previous to 1926 has been manufactured and sold by the same people in Canada and the reduction in price has been less than 9 per cent in the last three years. If the government had left this industry alone, I have not the slightest doubt that the reduction in price would have been 20 or 25 per cent instead of 9. Because of the number of months in the year these people would have been employed, and because of the increase in mass production, the manufacturers could have reduced the price of their automobiles more rapidly than they have been able to do under present circumstances.
I see smiles on the faces of some hon. gentlemen. Evidently they think I am saying something that is absurd. I say to you gentlemen who are smiling that you desire to drive these industries out of Canada, but you will have another thought coming, and probably you will gat it inside of a week's time. The consumers of farm products in this country mean more to the farmers of Canada than do the consumers of any other country in the world. What has happened, for instance, in

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
the matter of automobile importations? Do hon. gentlemen smile ajt the fact that since the Minister of Finance made the change affecting automobiles in 1926 there has been an increase in the importation of the finished article amounting to over 260 per cent? Automobiles have been coming into this country in ever-increasing numbers, while the manufacturers in our own land could have manufactured right here at home every automobile that is used in Canada to-day, and in addition, they could have reduced the price by 20 per cent if they had been given a fair chance and were not continually assailed by people who think that our automobile manufacturers and manufacturers of every other article used ini Canada should be exposed to the competition of the whole world. I believe that we can make in Canada, and that we should make in Canada, everything that the people of Canada need, and if our industrial centres were left alone we would produce most of these goods just as cheaply as they are produced in the United States or anywhere else, but we cannot do it if our manufacturers are to be eternally disturbed by these absurd theorists. Our manufacturers cannot go on and develop industries in Canada if they are always to be assailed by people who believe that these goods should not be made in this country, but in some foreign land. Why should there have been this increase of 260 per cent in the importation of automobiles when our own manufacturers could make every automobile that is used in Canada. If this 260 per cent increase in automobile importations were not coming into this country, our factories would be able to run for one month longer in the year than they do at present. The theory that these articles should be manufactured in foreign countries instead of at home will not hold up against the facts; it will not even hold up against the consumers' idea of cheapness, because if we had been manufacturing all these automobiles in Canada we could have produced them almost as cheaply as in the United States or anywhere else in the world. How can we ever develop into a great country wthen such absurd trade theories are put into effect as those expounded by certain hon. gentlemen in this house?


George Gibson Coote: I shall not attempt to deal
with the rash statements which have just been made by the hon. member for Ontario, but he did ask for information. He asked what led us to believe that the manufacturers of automobiles were taking advantage of the excise tax.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: How do you know that the manufacturers are not passing this 5 per cent on to the consumer?


George Gibson Coote: If the hon. member wouk only keep his seat warm, I would try anc tell him.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: How do you know they do not pass it on?


George Gibson Coote: I just got up to tell my hon. friend how I knew. If he would take the trouble to read the statement I placed on Hansard on April 12 last, he would see that the retail factory price of a Ford car in Canada is 29.1 per cent higher in the case of a coupe, 29.3 per cent higher in the case of a tudor sedan, and 29.8 per cent higher in the case of a fordor sedan.


Eccles James Gott: Higher than what?


George Gibson Coote: Higher than the price of the same car in the United States.


Eccles James Gott: There is no comparison between the two cars. The Canadian car is a much better car than the United States car.


George Gibson Coote: The customs tariff which
these men enjoy is 20 per cent. Now if the tariff is 20 per cent and the price in Canada is 29.1 per cent higher than in the United States, it seems to me that we have furnished enough proof to the Minister of Finance for at least an investigation to be made to determine whether or not these manufacturers have taken advantage of the excise tax.


Eccles James Gott: There is no possible way of comparing the American Ford car with the Canadian, because the Canadian Ford car is so much better than the other.


An hon. MEMBER:: In what w'ay?


Eccles James Gott: It is better built and better in every way.


George Gibson Coote: The tariff board could make a very thorough inquiry into this question. They could get the advice of mechanical engineers and ascertain just how much more expensive the Canadian Ford is than the American. May I point out to the hon. member from Oshawa (Mr. Kaiser) that in my statement in regard to this matter a year ago I said that apparently General Motors had lived up to this agreement. I had no proof to the contrary, and so I exempted them. I would say to the Finance minister that I cannot see why he is so anxious to continue to protect the automobile manufacturers, particularly at what might seem to be his own expense, because in every case when election time comes around these manufacturers cer-
2308	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
tainly do not vote for the party of which my hon. friend is so prominent a member. The hon. member for Ontario should thank the Minister of Finance for what he did for the automobile manufacturers, instead of belabouring him so hard, because as a matter of fact, after the Minister of Finance reduced the tariff in 1926, General Motors greatly increased their plant at Oshawa. I am perfectly unable to understand the attitude of the hon. member for Ohtario. I think he should thank the Minister of Finance for his attitude if he is really sincere.


Mr. EVANS:: I feel that this matter should not rest where it is. When this bargain was made, a definite and absolute promise was given to us here that the Minister of Finance at any time could exact the duty on these cars if he found that the reduction was not being passed on to the consumer. I feel that this action on the part of the automobile manufacturers is connived at by the government, and it is absolutely dishonest in the face of the whole country. The government is to-day conniving at the way in which these companies are putting if over the consumer. There is absolutely no necessity for any duty at all on cars entering Canada, because our Canadian manufacturers can compete with any part of the world. I listened a few days ago to a man from India who told us that the Canadian car was veiy much favoured there because of its cheapness, and it was. generally underselling the American car. Why is this? Is the Canadian consumer paying the Canadian manufacturer a duty so that he can dump his cars in other parts of the world? Is all the export trade of Canada to be everlastingly carried on at the expense of the Canadian consumer? Manufacturing to-day is being done cheaper in Canada in many cases than in the United States. I know of agricultural implements that are made in the city of Hamilton and sold in North Dakota, and our farmers can go across the boundary from Saskatchewan and buy a Hamilton drill in North Dakota, bring it back across the line, pay the duty, and save $30 by so doing.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


John Evans: I know that my hon. friend disputed this statement last year, but he has only to write to the research department of the United Farmers of Canada to get the facts. Drills made in Hamilton, Canada, are sold cheaper in the United States than they are in this country, and our farmers in Saskatchewan can go across there, buy one of these drills, bring it back across the line, pay the duty, and save about $30 on the machine.

I say again that it is the Canadian consumer who is paying; he has to stand the burden of the whole export business of Canada. Our Finance minister put this over us three years ago when we from this corner demanded that the benefit of that excise tax be passed on to the consumer.
Now, why is it that this has got to be left so indefinite again for another two or three years, when there is absolutely no excuse at all for imposing a duty on the Canadian consumer ? Have the politics of our country come down to this state, that anything can be done that they can get away with? Is there no moral side to these questions at all? In my city, if there is one crime to-day more prevalent than another it is that young people are stealing cars for the sake of getting joy rides around the country. Afterwards they abandon the cars in a damaged condition. These young people show a spirit of utter irresponsibility. I want to ask the house today, where does that irresponsibility start? It starts right here on the treasury benches of this house; that is where it begins. It i3 not easy to say these things, but when a trick like that is put over us here, I cannot help saying that such a state of affairs should come to an end, and we should have something definite, particularly with regard to this matter. I do not intend to let these things go along as they have in the past.


Peter McGibbon: Mr. Chairman, it was
not my intention to say anything in this debate, but I think statements such as the hon. member has just made should not be uttered in this house unless some proof is offered in support. Such statements do this country a lot of harm. Statements such as the hon. member made in a letter to the Montreal Gazette a week or two ago were a reflection on this whole house. Now I for one, want to protest against these allegations. Too often statements are made in this house that are absolutely ridiculous, and not a word of proof is given for them. The statements which the hon. member has just made are not new. I hold no brief for any manufacturer or any other person, but similar statements have been made from time to time for the last twenty years. What proofs have ever beep submitted in support? The only proof that I know of was supplied to this house, and it is on Hansard to-day. It was supplied by a former Finance minister, Sir Thomas White, who in answer to charges of this kind sent an officer of his department twice across this continent, once through the United States and then back through Canada, to get the market prices of agricultural im-

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
plements at different points in the two countries. He did so, and after making due allowance for difference in freight charges-
I am speaking from memory, it was a good many years ago-it was found there was very little difference between the prices in the United States and in Canada. Those figures are a matter of record of this house. And they are authoritative, because they were made by a responsible officer of the government. That report) is no doubt in the Finance department. In addition to that, we have statements by the manufacturers themselves, for instance, by the late general manager of the Massey-Harris company, absolutely contradicting the allegation and stating that never had they on any occasion sold their goods cheaper outside this country than inside. In face of that declaration we have men like the member for Rosetown (Mr. Evans) getting up and making absurd, wild statements that, I submit, should not be made in any legislature in the world without proof. I say it is time that all this reckless talk upon any subject was stopped unless proof be submitted in support.


Mr. WARD:: Hear, hear. I think the hon. member might take a little of that to himself.


Peter McGibbon: I suppose we have the
last word now from the hon. member. But let me say that I can substantiate every statement I ever made in this house, which is more than members sitting opposite my hon. friend can do. I hold no brief for the manufacturers or for any other class in this country, but I do have some respect for the honesty of our manufacturers and of our people generally. I repeat, Mr. Chairman, this wild talk should cease unless some proof is forthcoming.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-448. Spraying machines, fruit or vegetable grading machines, apparatus specially designed for sterilizing bulbs, pressure testing apparatus for determining maturity of fruit, incubators for hatching eggs, brooders for rearing young fowl, pruning hooks, pruning shears, hay loaders, potato diggers, fodder or feed cutters, grain crushers, fanning mills, hay tedders, farm or field rollers, post hole diggers, snaths, milking machines, milking machine attachments; centrifugal machines for testing butter fat, milk or cream; pasteurizers for dairying purposes; equipment for generating electric power for farm purposes only, viz: engine, generator, storage battery and switchboard; stumping machines, and other agricultural implements, n.o.p.; and complete parts of articles specified in this tariff item: British preferential tariff, 5 per cent; intermediate tariff, 10 per cent; general tariff, 10 per cent.
7S594-146
Edward Joseph Garland: The house understood the Minister of Finance was going to propose some alteration in the wording to make provision for certain agricultural machinery.


James Alexander Robb: That will be later on. I have a suggestion after these items are disposed of. That is for the "combination"?
Mr. GARLAND (Bow River); Yes. A special item?


James Alexander Robb: Yes, I provide for that in a
special item.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-453c.	Ore crushers, rock
crushers, stamp mills, rock drills, percussion coal cutters, coal augers, rotary coal drills, n.o.p., and complete parts of all articles mentioned in this item, when for use exclusively in mining or quarrying operations:	British
preferential tariff, 10 per cent; intermediate tariff, 15 per cent; general tariff, 20 per cent.
Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: Is that a reduction?


James Alexander Robb: The only change in the item
is the addition of the letters "n.o.p." and of the words "nr quarrying." It extends the item to quarrying operations.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-453e. Engines and complete parts thereof, to be used exclusively in the propulsion of boats or in hoisting nets and lines used in such boats bona fide owned by individual fishermen for their own use in the fisheries, under regulations prescribed by the Minister of National Revenue: British preferential tariff. 10 per cent; intermediate tariff, 121 par cent; general tariff, 15 per cent.
James Alexander Robb: The only change in this is
the addition of the words "or in hoisting nets and lines used in such boats." It appears the department ruled that if the engine was used for hoisting nets they had to come in under the higher rates. This is to clarify the matter.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: Are these industries in
Canada now manufacturing these articles?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-453g. Machinery, n.o.p., for the concentration of ores, metals or minerals, viz.: flotation machines, flotation cells, pumps, vibrating and impact screens, jigs, magnetic separators and filters, when for use in the concentration or separation of ores, metals or minerals, and integral parts of all articles mentioned in this item:	British preferential
tariff, 10 per cent; intermediate tariff, 15 per cent; general tariff, 20 per cent.
James Alexander Robb: The only change is the addition of the words "flotation cells" as requested by the Ontario Mining Association. Item agreed to.

2310	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
Customs tariff-453j. Ozone generators or airifiers of a class or kind not made in Canada, for use in ventilating garages or automotive work shops: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 5 per cent; general tariff, 10 per cent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: How much of that is
new?


James Alexander Robb: This is a new item covering
safety appliances for removing carbon monoxide gas. Application for it was made by the Calgary board of trade and the automobile dealers of Calgary. There is no separate classification of imports. The reduction of taxation will not be very large.


Mr. CANTLEY:: What does the apparatus cost per unit?


James Alexander Robb: I do not know.


Thomas Cantley: No information?


James Alexander Robb: Mr. Dixon, who appeared for the applicants, represented that under the laws of Alberta operators of garages were compelled to provide suitable equipment to remove or destroy carbon monoxide gas. He further stated that the most satisfactory machine for the purpose was obtained outside of Canada. So far as he could learn from inquiries made of the Canadian General Electric Company, the Ottawa Electric Company and officials of the Customs department, machines for the purpose were not manufactured in this country.


Mr. GARDINER:: Under what item did these machines come in before?


James Alexander Robb: Under 453.


Robert Gardiner: There is a reduction?


James Alexander Robb: Yes. The previous rates were 15, 25 and 274; the proposed rates are free,
5 per cent and 10 per cent.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-460.	Sundry articles of
metal as follows, when for use exclusively in mining or metallurgical operations, viz.: diamond drills, not including the motive power; electrically operated rotary coal drills of a class or kind not made in Canada; coal cutting machines, n.o.p.; coal heading machines; core drills; electric or magnetic machines for separating or concentrating iron ores; furnaces for smelting of copper, zinc and nickel ores; converting apparatus for metallurgical processes in metals; copper plates, plated or not; machinery for extraction of precious metals by the chlorination or cyanide processes; amalgam safes; automatic ore samplers; automatic feeders; retorts; mercury pumps; pyrometers; bullion furnaces; amalgam cleaners; blast furnace blowing engines; and integral parts of all machinery mentioned in this item: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
James Alexander Robb: The only change is the addition of the words: "electrically operated rotary coal drills of a class or kind not made in Canada; coal cutting machines, n.o.p." These items were formerly free and they remain so.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: There are some articles excluded from this item. Do these remain in the free list or are they dutiable? If dutiable, under what heading do they come?


James Alexander Robb: Under 460e.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to. *
Customs tariff-460e. Miners' acetylene lamps and parts thereof; miners' safety lamps and parts thereof; accessories for cleaning, filling, charging, opening and testing miners' safety lamps, battery renewal preparations for miners' electric safety lamps; all to be used exclusively in mines: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
Edward Joseph Garland: What is the change?


James Alexander Robb: The proposed new item covers all miners' lamps including miners' acetylene lamps, formerly dutiable under 435 at 20, 27Jf and 30. There was no separate classification of imports, so that we cannot tell the difference.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-460f. Face loading machines, shaker trough or belt trough conveyors, air engines, flame proof enclosed driving motors for air engines, and integral parts of all motive power or machinery mentioned in this item, to be used exclusively in mining operations: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 10 per cent; general tariff, 12J per cent.
James Alexander Robb: I wish to amend this item to read:
Coal face loading machines, shaker trough or belt trough conveyors.
And so forth. The word " coal " is added.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: These were not machines of a class or kind made in Canada?


James Alexander Robb: The item did not apply to coal face loading machines.


Mr. McPHERSON:: Would not the effect of the item as amended be to restrict it to coal mining machinery?


James Alexander Robb: No; the intention is to enlarge the item.


Ewen Alexander McPherson: But under the language now proposed it does not cover all machinery.


James Alexander Robb: It is intended to extend the
item to include machinery used in coal mining.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Edward Joseph Garland: This item
460f is new.


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


Edward Joseph Garland: As it reads in the original resolution, it calls for a duty of 10 per cent under the intermediate and 12| per cent under the general tariff, being free under the British preferential, and it applies to all face loading machines, shaker trough or belt trough conveyors, air engines and so forth. As I read that item in the original it struck me as an excellent form of encouragement to the mining industry and I thought the minister was making a real attempt to promote the development of mining particularly in the areas that have been recently opened up.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: The coal areas?


Edward Joseph Garland: No, all
mining areas. Now I find, according to the amendment the minister is proposing that the provision will be restricted to face loading machines for coal. What was the duty on face loading maohines generally prior to the submission of this new item?


James Alexander Robb: The rates were 15, 25 and 27i
per cent.


Edward Joseph Garland: And those
rates will stand so far as machinery generally is concerned; they will apply to all the machinery mentioned in this item except when used in coal mining.


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


Edward Joseph Garland: In other
words, the amendment is a serious restriction of the original resolution. Is that right?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


Edward Joseph Garland: I am sorry to see that. The minister has already seriously hampered mining development iby the tax imposed upon companies issuing stocks of small value and now he proposes this further impediment, continuing a very high rate of duty on machinery used in the development of mines. I am not a miner, and I do not know to what extent face loading machines and such other implements as are mentioned here are used in the development of nickel, silver, gold, copper and other mines. If we could have some information as to the value to these mines of the reductions which were proposed in the original item we should be in a position further to criticise the minister or otherwise.


James Alexander Robb: We shall discuss the mining
tax when we come to it. So far as this change is concerned, I am advised that it was arrived at after a conference with representatives of the mining association and of the coal industry. It was the coal industry who asked for this.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Asked for which-the
original resolution or the amendment?


James Alexander Robb: The new item. I may say
that it is satisfactory to the mining association: I fancy they would prefer to have the item a little wider. However, I propose to let the matter stand until after dinner.


Edward Joseph Garland: Before we
pass from this item I want to congratulate the minister sincerely on his original resolution, which I regarded as a splendid attempt on his part. I like to congratulate him when I find a rare opportunity for doing so. The new resolution will be of immeasurable benefit to the coal industry but I should like to have an explanation as to why it is being restricted as now proposed.


James Alexander Robb: Let it stand.


Thomas Cantley: There is no doubt the
resolution refers entirely to coal loading machinery to be used in connection with long wall mines; it describes practically the whole type of loading machinery used in those mines. The minister has made the item free under the British preferential, with 10 per cent and 12J per cent under the intermediate and general tariffs respectively. I am led to wonder why he bothered with the matter at all. Why not bring it all under the free list? There is none of that material coming from the old country. This is made almost entirely in the United States or in our own country.


James Alexander Robb: I was just looking up the
notes, and the representations I have before me as made by the Mining Association of Nova Scotia state that this machinery is not manufactured in Canada. That is why I am asking that the item stand; I want to look into it.


Thomas Cantley: Some of the component
parts of this machinery have been made in Canada, but I do not know of any of this material coming in from the old country today. I do not think this change will have any effect at all; it seems more of a gesture than a reality.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Did I understand the
minister to amend this clause not only by adding the word "ooal" before the word "conveyors," but also by adding the words "of a class or kind not made in Canada"?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: That still further restricts the advantage of any reduction; formerly all kinds of this machinery came in free but now free entry is restricted to coal conveyors of a kind not made in Canada.
Item stands.
Customs tariff-468a. Machinery of a class or kind not manufactured in Canada for use in the manufacture of nets or netting for the fisheries, when imported by manufacturers for use^ in the making of such nets or netting in their own factories, but not for use in making nets or netting commonly used for sportsmen's purposes:	British preferential tariff, free;
intermediate tariff, 5 per cent; general tariff, 10 per cent.


John Evans: I have a further word to
say with regard to machinery. A few moments igo I made the statement that machinery :ouId be made in Canada just as cheaply as n the United States, and for the benefit of my hon. gentleman who did not believe that jtatement I would like to read the following leposition:
^This is to certify that I, Joseph Hill, of North Portal, farmer and reeve of municipality (rural) No. 4, did accompany George F. Edwards when securing information in connection with the price of farm machinery on the Canadian side of the international boundary at North Portal and on the American side at Portal, and that we visited farms on the Canadian side and also on the American side of the line where the owners of the farms had bought twenty-eight run double disc International Harvester Company seed drills, made in Hamilton, Ontario; the drills having "Made in Canada" stamped on at least thirty places, so that there was no doubt that the drills both on the Canadian and American side were made in Canada.
All of the drills, above mentioned, were purchased from the same implement dealer, whose place of business is in Portal, North Dakota. The price paid for the drills by the Canadian farmers, who bought in Portal, North Dakota, was $325, including the duty, while the price on tbe Canadian side of the line at Estevan, the nearest point at which these drills are sold in Canada is $355, the difference in favour of Portal and other adjacent points, with the duty paid of $30 for the same machines made in the same factory at Hamilton, Ontario.
The price quoted by dealers on other farm machinery showed the same discrepancy, and I, personally, bought a binder in Portal, North Dakota last fall, the price of the binder being $250, which w-ith duty at 6 per cent cost me $265, while the same make of binder was selling on the Canadian side at $283 a difference of $18.
We were informed by the dealer who does business on both the American and Canadian sides of the line, that it is contrary to the law of the United States, for the implement companies to fix a price at which binders must be sold by their agents, but that the agents are allowed freedom of action in regard to the profit they take for themselves and the price at which they sell their binders, while the price of the machines manufactured in Canada, and sold through the agents is fixed by the head office of the various companies and there is no discretion allowed as to the price that will be charged.
This statement is signed by Joseph Hill, reeve of rural municipality No. 4 and witnessed by G. S. Richardson. Mr. Hill accompanied George Edwards of the research department of the United Farmers of Canada on his trip to North Dakota.


Edward Joseph Garland: There is
just one question I would like to ask the minister in connection with this item. Why is he restricting the reduction, because I presume it is a reduction, to machinery of a class or kind not manufactured in Canada?


James Alexander Robb: That is part of the policy. If an article is manufactured in Canada in commercial quantities I imagine another rate might prevail.


Edward Joseph Garland: Is very much of this machinery manufactured in Canada?


James Alexander Robb: No, I do not think so. There is no separate classification of imports, and the estimated reduction in taxation is not very large. This proposed new item is designed to assist in the development in Canada of the manufacture of fish-net making machinery. At present these machines are imported from Great Britain and France, particularly the latter, and are of a class or kind not made in Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-478a. Iron or steel bands, strips or sheets, number fourteen gauge or thinner, coated, polished or not, and rolled iron or steel sections, not being ordinary square, flat or round bars, whether forged and punched or not, unfinished, when imported by the manufacturers of saddlery hardware and hames for use exclusively in the manufacture of such articles in their own factories: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
Edward Joseph Garland: Just what particular part of the hame or of the harness or the saddlery will this constitute?


James Alexander Robb: As my hon. friend knows, a hame may be strapped with brass or something looking like brass, or with iron. The

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
explanation is that the making of hames in Canada is now almost entirely in the hands of one company, which for many years has been able to import its hame straps from the United States free of duty. The chief source of supply was the United States Steel Company, but they have now discontinued the manufacture of hame straps. The only remaining possible source of supply on the continent is the United States Hame Company of Buffalo, which not only rolls the straps but does the punching and so on in one continuous operation. The only change is the addition of the words " whether forged and punched or not, unfinished."


Mr. GEARY:: Who made the application for the change?


James Alexander Robb: I imagine it was the manufacturers of this article. I am not sure whether or not it was B. F. Ackerman and Son, of Peterborough.


George Reginald Geary: Did they first apply for an increase in duty on their finished product?


James Alexander Robb: I am not sure of that.


Thomas Cantley: This is clearly a case of greed. Formerly this class of material, hames for all sorts of team and farm work, was made in several places in Canada; McFarlane's of Fredericton made a very large quantity but they were finally forced out of business by the concern to which the minister refers. Formerly" iron and steel backings for reinforcing the wooden part of the hame were made in Canada; they were made in New Glasgow and elsewhere, but now there is practically only one firm in this business. In all fairness I do not see why these people, who now virtually have a monopoly of this business in Canada, should be allowed to bring in their materials free and at the same time have ample protection on their finished article. If we are to have protection, in which I believe, it should be fairly divided among all the people who make the component parts of an article of this kind. I protest against this item being put on the free list for the benefit of one particular concern.


James Alexander Robb: They have always been allowed to come in free, but we are now allowing them to come in free after they are punched.


Thomas Cantley: They have not always been free; I know that because I have rolled hundreds of tons of hame strap steel.


James Alexander Robb: The memorandum I have is that hame straps come in free under item 478a, but if punched they come under item 454 at 20, 27i and 30.


Thomas Cantley: That may be so now but it was not always the case and it should not be the case to-day.


Edward Joseph Garland: This is
really a concession to the manufacturer of hames?


James Alexander Robb: Yes, I should think so.


Edward Joseph Garland: The straps now come in free, ready for him to attach to the wood.


Thomas Cantley: All he does is to rivet the straps on.


Edward Joseph Garland: I doubt
very much whether it will have any effect on the price to the consumer; the amount is small but at the same time it is a step in the right direction.


James Alexander Robb: Before the item passes I would like to say that I am following the excellent example of Sir Thomas White in 1914. He placed these hame straps on the free list but did not provide for their entry when they were punched.


William Russell Fansher: Does this item take into consideration the all steel hames? A lot of manufacturers put out hames which are entirely steel, but this item apparently applies only to hames which are manufactured of steel and wood.


James Alexander Robb: The hame straps.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-523g. Woven fabrics of cotton, or of cotton and wool, whether coated or not coated with rubber, when imported by manufacturers of card clothing for textile machinery, for use exclusively in the manufacture of such card clothing in their own factories:	British preferential tariff, free;
intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
Mr. CAMPBELL:: I would like to ask the minister about a promise he made to the house last year but which he has not carried out. The minister proposed a regulation in his budget of last year and announced at the time that it would foster inter-imperial trade, but it was pointed out later that it would have the very opposite effect. The Minister of Railways, speaking with the authority of the Minister of Finance, made some very definite commitments at that time. I would
2314	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
like to ask the minister if he proposes to modify or amend that regulation in any way in order to make it more workable than it is at the present time.


James Alexander Robb: I will answer the last question first. It is the 50 per cent clause the hon. member is referring to?


Milton Neil Campbell: Yes.


James Alexander Robb: The 50 per cent requirement of British labour and material. We have discussed this matter with the British board of trade and I think they are quite satisfied with the arrangement. There is a member of the Canadian customs staff in England at the present time and if they desire to have this 50 per cent clause checked up he is available to do that work and we would consider the matter on his report. So far nothing has been brought before us to indicate that any companies are having trouble coming within this regulation. The 'broad general statement has been made that some of them could not come under it, but as yet there has been nothing submitted to us. With reference to the item I would state that it is to correct one of my own mistakes of last year. These commodities were removed from the free list in the revision of 1928.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is card clothing?


James Alexander Robb: It is used in woollen mills;
this itgm will restore these articles to the free list.


George Reginald Geary: Are these fabrics for the
textile machinery or clothing for the textile machinery?


James Alexander Robb: It is clothing for equipping
the textile machinery.


George Reginald Geary: Has it not been put in the wrong place in drafting the item?


James Alexander Robb: The item was submitted by
the customs department.


Edward Joseph Garland: Is this not just a further concession to the manufacturers of cotton clothing in Canada?


James Alexander Robb: These items had been removed :rom the free list and we are restoring them.


Edward Joseph Garland: It is simply mother concession in addition to the innumerable concessions already made.


James Alexander Robb: It is pretty hard to convince
them of that.


Edward Joseph Garland: I will be
satisfied if the minister will do his best to see that cotton goods in Canada are made

a little cheaper. They are certainly too expensive now compared with the prices either in England or in the United States. . The unfortunate oonsumer is certainly being taxed more than he ought to be asked to bear in connection with the cotton industry of this country.


James Alexander Robb: This item applies more to
woollen mills.


Milton Neil Campbell: If I understood the
minister correctly, he said that the British authorities were satisfied with the 50 per cent regulation?


James Alexander Robb: We have heard no complaints.


Milton Neil Campbell: Probably they have not complained because they found it would be useless. They have been complaining for a long time, in fact ever since this regulation was incorporated in the budget of last year. I have in my hand sessional paper No. 172, and I would like to read some of the correspondence to show the attitude of the British High Commissioner and of the British federation of industry. The first letter I would like to read is dated at London, December 6, 1928, and addressed to the Minister of Customs, Ottawa, and reads as follows:
I write to confirm a cablegram which I sent to you on the 3rd inst. and in the following terms:-*
"Reference recent alteration tariff basis to 50 per cent; very anxious know if list raw material exceptions is being issued; please cable reply."
I should like to thank you very much indeed for a cable you have been kind enough to send in reply, which reads as follows: "No list raw material exceptions from amended regulations."
Your reply informs me that there is no list of raw materials in existence at the moment. This federation would be grateful if in reply to this letter you would be good enough to advise it as to whether any list of this nature is in contemplation. This federation is very sensible of the value of the reason given by the governmSnt of the Dominion of Canada -for the alteration in the basis of the tariff of from 25 to 50 per cent. At the same time it trusts that the Dominion authorities -will appreciate that there are many raw materials used in manufacture totally unprocurable in the United Kingdom, and that if no exceptions be contemplated, many cases are bound to arise where the alteration of from 25 to 50 per cent, so far from benefiting the British manufacturer in question, may have exactly the reverse effect.
This federation has no doubt that this question's one which must have received or is now receiving your careful consideration, and as stated it will very much appreciate such information as you may be good enough to pass to it on this matter.
Yours faithfully,
(Sgd.) J. Moir Mackenzie,
Head.
Overseas Organization.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
I would like to read a cablegram dated London, January 18, 1929, and addressed to Hon. James Robb, Minister of Finance, Ottawa, as follows:
In view continued uncertainty here position on entry into Canada under British preferential rate or otherwise of certain British manufacturers inevitably composed of raw or semimanufactured raw material not procurable commercially in British countries. Federation British Industries respectfully urges postponement of application of new customs tariff basis ruling from first February to first May to allow that full consideration of general principle and specific cases which federation has suggested by letter Stop if order comes into force February first serious dislocation trade many lines will result.	,
Mackenzie.
This is another letter from the same gentleman :
London, January 2, 1929.
The Hon. J. A. Robb,
Minister of Finance,
Ottawa.
Dear Mr. Robb,-
I think I can do no better than attach to this letter as I do copy of one which I addressed on the 6th December to the Minister of Customs. I have just received a reply from the Commissioner of Customs, in which he states that he is not in a position to add anything to the reply sent to the cablegram referred to in the attached letter, except to suggest that it might be as well to communicate direct with yourself on the matter, as it is one which falls within your purview.
My letter to the Minister of Customs covers a question which, important as it was early in December, is becoming increasingly so now.
I shall be grateful of on behalf of this federation you would advise me whether you have any such list in contemplation as that referred to in my letter to the Minister of Customs. In addition to the manufacturers referred to in that letter as using raw material totally unprocurable in this country, there are also some manufacturers who use as material raav to themselves products upon which a certain amount of initial w-ork has been expended at the source overseas from which such materials are procured. Users of certain materials of this nature are becoming nervous, because they fear that they may not be able to certify that of the completed article exported to Canada, more than 50 per cent can be attributed directly to British material and British labour.
Very similar questions have arisen in the past with the dominions of New Zealand and Australia, both of which, as you are aware, give, as does Canada, a preference to goods of British manufacture. Various discussions have taken place over a period of time. As the result of these in the cases of both of those dominions, lists such as I refer to have been issued by them. I mentioned this fact because if, as we trust, this question of the issue of a list by yourselves in receiving or will receive favourable consideration by you, the results of those discussions to which I refer are available either through the board of trade here in London or otherwise.
The question is regarded as one of very great importance amongst manufacturing interests in this country, w'hich is my reason for troubling you at such length.
The federation will look forward with the greatest interest to the reply you may be good enough to send to this letter.
(Signed) J. Moir Mackenzie.
I will read a cablegram from the same gentleman, dated January 18, 1929, to the Hon. James Robb, Minister of Finance, Ottawa, as follows:
In view continued uncertainty here position of entry into Canada under British preferential rate or otherwise of certain British manufacturers inevitably composed of raw or semimanufactured raw material not procurable commercially in British countries, Federation British Industries respectfully urges postponement of application of new customs tariff basis ruling from first February to first May to allow that full consideration of general principle and specific cases which federation has suggested by letter. If order comes into force February first serious dislocation trade many lines will result.
(Signed) Mackenzie.


An hon. MEMBER:: Is there any reply to that?


Milton Neil Campbell: There is the usual reply that one might expect. There is another letter from the same gentleman addressed from London under date of February 25, 1929, to the Hon. J. A. Robb, Minister of Finance, Ottawa. In part, this letter reads:
In common with all other trade associations, members of this federation, the Association of British Chemical Manufacturers, 166 Piccadilly, London, W.L, was informed of the recent alteration in basis in the British preferential tariff.
Then the writer refers to an interview he had with a representative of chemical manufacturers, and he says:
I explained to my caller that as far as we were aware, the government of Canada w'as not prepared to issue a list of this description. He then raised specifically the question of mercury and its compounds. He pointed out that mercury is unprocurable from empire sources and that as a constituent it enters into innumerable compounds of a chemical nature, being either the predominant factor as regards value or at any rate being a very considerable factor.
I informed my caller that as far as information available in this country at the present time went, I thought that what was in the minds of the authorities in Ottawa was that each such compound wrould have to be considered on its own merits and a decision given covering such a compound.
A further conversation took place betw-een Mr. Pratt and myself, when he pointed out that the number of such compounds containing mercury was a very large one indeed and was being continually added to as new specifics are produced.
I asked him if he would write to me on the matter, and this he has now done. On behalf,

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
therefore, of the Association of British Chemical Manufacturers, I would ask you to be kind enough to give consideration to the case as put by him in his own words, as follows: -
_ "I should like to have a ruling on the following point of principle in connection with the submission of special cases on behalf of this association.
If we take the case of mercury compounds as an example, we find that the raw material, namely mercury, is not obtainable commercially within the empire. In most mercury compounds, the cost of the metal itself will constitute more than 50 per cent of the cost of the final product."
There is a tong brief dealing with the matter. I wilt now read a memorandum handed to the minister by the British High Commissioner in this city. This is dated from the High Commissioner's office, Ottawa, January 28, 1929, and it reads:
After a careful examination of the new Canadian regulations governing the grant of imperial preference to goods entering Canada from Great Britain. His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom are of the opinion that the application of these regulations on first February would result in an unfortunate dislocation of trade.
Conscious of the motives of the Canadian government in framing and announcing the new regulations for the benefit of inter-imperial trade His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom desire to suggest that the regulations m question should not be brought into operation until first April or first May-, thereby enabling traders to adjust themselves to the new conditions and at the same time to fulfil forward contracts the raw material for which will have been ordered some time before the new regulations were announced.
His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom have further ascertained that the following goods, amongst others, which are manufactured wholly m the United Kingdom, will be unable to qualify for imperial preference because the raw materials, which are unobtainable in the United Kingdom in commercial quantities, exceed 50 per. cent of the total value of the manufactured article:-
Manufactures of copper and its alloys, cotton yarns up to 40 counts, grey cotton piece goods, certain types of silk goods, paper manufactures and electric cables. Detailed particulars to support the statement that the goods for which exemption is asked are wholly manufactured in the United Kingdom and that the raw materials are not obtainable in the United Kingdom in commercial quantities are being prepared in London for the information of His Majesty's government in Canada; but pending their receipt the High Commissioner in Canada for His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom nas been instructed to put forward very earnest request for exemption of the goods mentioned above from the new Canadian regulations, or the modification of the latter in such a manner as will enable goods wholly manufactured in the United Kingdom from the above raw materials to continue to benefit by- Canada's traditional policy of preference for British empire manufactures.

There are further complaints in the correspondence, and it is not surprising that no recent complaints have been made, because the minister has not dealt with those that have already been forwarded-


James Alexander Robb: What justification has my hon. friend for saying that the minister has not dealt with the complaints?


Milton Neil Campbell: There is nothing on the file to show, and the minister has not said that he has dealt with them. Will he tell us now whether the matter has been dealt with and whether such a list has been published?


James Alexander Robb: I informed the house a few moments ago that the Department of National Revenue had a man in England who was looking into all these cases as they came before us, but since then we have had no complaints from the overseas boards. I understand that the officer is now on the way home. I imagine when he returns, we shall have the report, but I repeat that while my hon. friend has read from a long list of statements which have come from overseas, he has not made out any case that British importations have been stopped. My hon. friend has read some statements wherein it is claimed that certain goods were not obtainable in the United Kingdom. The British High Commissioner made the same statement to us, but we told him frankly that the United Kingdom did not comprise the whole British Empire, and that certain goods, if they were not obtainable in the United Kingdom, as we knew they were not, were obtainable in Canada and in South Africa. I will admit at once, as I admitted before, that there may be cases where we will have to make modifications, but we are not going any further than some of the other British dominions. Australia requires 75 per cent, New Zealand 50 per cent and the mother country herself requires 75 per cent on certain optical goods going in there from here. I am not sure just what South Africa requires. Surely it is not unreasonable on behalf of the British workingman to see to it that so far as possible British workingmen are employed within the United Kingdom if the reduced tariff is to be taken advantage of. When I brought this measure in before, I told my hon. friend that our attention had been directed to the fact that the British preference was getting into disrepute even among the British workingmen. Why? Because the goods were brought in from non-preference countries, indeed from

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
countries with which Canada had not a favoured trade agreement. They would do a little work on them, repack the goods on the wharves, perhaps at Liverpool or some other shipping point, and then ship them to Canada as British goods. I am sure that my hon. friend desires, as we all do, that if we are to give a British preference it should be as far as possible a preference for British goods, and it is not unreasonable to ask that there be 50 per cent of British labour and material, the labour in the United Kingdom and the material from anywhere within the empire. There may be cases where it is not obtainable, but these cases will be adjusted when the report of the officials of the department investigating the matter comes before us. That report has not yet been presented.


Milton Neil Campbell: I have no complaint to make of the regulations in so far as they stimulate inter-imperial trade. Our complaint has been on the ground that this regulation impedes inter-imperial trade. The Minister of Finance refers to South Africa, New Zealand and some of the other dominions, but those dominions have exempted a list of goods which are not commercially procurable within the British Empire. That is the whole argument. Take velvet, for instance. In the raw it is procurable in Japan. It is brought to England and manufactured there, but the raw material is more than 50 per cent, and under this regulation it could not come in under the British preference.


James Alexander Robb: The British government has not brought that to my attention so far as my recollection goes.


Milton Neil Campbell: No douibt there are a great many other commodities that have not been brought to the minister's attention. It seems to me that at the very time when the United States are proposing to increase their tariff against our natural products, it would be good business for us to make it as easy as possible for the British people to buy our products, instead of putting into effect a regulation that certainly will have the effect of impeding inter-imperial trade. Until such a list is published and until certain of these goods are exempted from its application, this regulation must certainly interfere with trade from the mother country, and will prevent many British goods from coming in and getting the advantage of the British preference.
Item agreed to
Customs tariff-541c. Woven fabrics of vegetable fibres, coated or impregnated, imported for use exclusively as "brattice cloth" in underground mining operations: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 10 per cent; general tariff, 12J per cent.


Thomas Cantley: May I ask the minister if there is any brattice cloth made in Canada?


James Alexander Robb: This item covers a woven jute fabric used for the diversion of air currents in mines. It is not of a class or kind made in Canada, and is essential to deep workings. At present it comes in under item 546 at 12i, 25 and 30 per cent. This has been requested by the Ontario Mining Association and the Mining Association of British Columbia. The imports are not ascertainable. The estimated reduction in taxation will be about $80,000.


Thomas Cantley: The minister's information is quite correct so'far as it goes. I have never known of any brattice cloth made in this country. It is just a jute fabric usually impregnated with pine tar.
Item agTeed to.
Customs tariff-569e. Miners' safety helmets, of a class or kind not made in Canada, for use exclusively in mining operations: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.


James Alexander Robb: The present >rates are 22|, 30 and 35 per cent. There is no separate classification of imports. The change suggested in this item is to cover the hard hat or safety helmet used by miners as a protection against injury. This has been requested by the Ontario Mining Association.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: In a case of this kind,
where human life is concerned, I would think it would be better not to restrict the application of the item by using the words "of a class or kind not made in Canada." The very best helmets obtainable for this purpose should be allowed to come in free, because the safety and the very lives of the miners are at stake.


James Alexander Robb: The mining association represented that this would satisfy them.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Did they ask for the
inclusion of those words, "of a class or kind not made in Canada"?


James Alexander Robb: The officer of the department
tells me that it was their suggestion.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Of the miners themselves?
2318	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


James Alexander Robb: Of the Ontario Mining Association.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: That is not an association of the miners who dig the coal.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-618a. Gaskets of rubber for use in the permanent sealing of cans for food products: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 7i per cent; general tariff, 10 per cent.
The CHAIRMAN:: It is proposed to amend this item by inserting before the word "rubber" the word "unvulcanized", and before the word "cans" the word "metal."


Richard Bedford Bennett: Why is it only for metal cans?


James Alexander Robb: This was asked for by the
customs, in administering the act.


Edward Joseph Garland: The item
reads:	>
Gaskets of rubber for use in the permanent sealing of cans for food products.
The rates proposed are free, 7i and 10 per cent. What were the old rates?


James Alexander Robb: Fifteen, 25 and 27i per cent.


Edward Joseph Garland: I would
understand the item as meaning rubber gaskets for use in glass sealers, fruit jars, and so on, but the- minister now proposes to restrict its application to metal cans. Would the resolution as it stood prior to the amendment apply to glass sealers used for preserved fruit?


James Alexander Robb: No. These particular sealers
are rubber rings, not unlike elastic bands, which are used in the permanent sealing of cans in sardine canneries. Those used in Canada, according to the evidence presented to the tariff board, are obtained almost entirely from Norway. They come in at 20 per cent under the French treaty. Those my hon. friend refers to are made in Canada.


Edward Joseph Garland: I do not
understand this thing yet. Will the minister tell the committee why the amendment is necessary?


James Alexander Robb: The customs department asks that the change be made for administration purposes.


Edward Joseph Garland: I cannot
understand how it affects administration.


James Alexander Robb: I may tell my hon. friend
that I do not either. It is asked for by the customs.


Edward Joseph Garland: Then as
neither the committee nor the minister understands the reason for the change, why make it? As I read it at the moment it means this, that the manufacturer of canned good3 will get his rubber bands at the reduced rate, but the unfortunate housewife who is canning her fruit in the fall will be paying for her rubber bands at the high rate. That is wholly unfair and absolutely out of keeping With the alleged policy of the Liberal party I protest against this. It is a small thing and I do not see why the minister should make the change; but if in principle it is sound to give the canneries this reduction, surely it is sound to give the housewife on the farm the same advantage.


James Alexander Robb: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the amendment. I will take a chance on it as it is. If there is any trouble we will have to straighten it out later.


John Frederick Johnston: Shall the minister have leave to withdraw the amendment?


Ewen Alexander McPherson: Might I suggest that
the minister strike out the word " permanent " and so obviate any argument as to what this means?


James Alexander Robb: No.


Ewen Alexander McPherson: The article, it is true, is small, but my experience is that the customs board in determining under what classification an article may enter can give a more weird exhibition as verbal acrobats than any other body I know of. I expect on the first attempt to pass this article through the customs the importer would be told:	"That
cannot possibly be for the permanent sealing of cans for food products. What can it be for? Only for temporary purposes. Therefore you are not entitled to any reduction of duty."


Richard Bedford Bennett: I cannot think anything
could be permanent under this.


Ewen Alexander McPherson: No, I think they
would immediately rule it was not permanent. I suggest that the word " permanent " be struck out.


James Alexander Robb: Mr. Chairman, I move that
the word " permanent " in the second line be struck out.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Item as amended agreed to.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
Customs tariff-632b.	Specially designed
needles of a class or kind not made in Canada, for use only in repairing fish nets, when such nets are used exclusively for the fisheries, but not for use in repairing nets for sportsmen: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
John Frederick Johnston: Item 632c as it is here in print has been changed to 632b.
Mr. BENNETT; What is involved in this?


James Alexander Robb: Would my hon. friend like
to know?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I would not have asked
if I did not wish to know.


James Alexander Robb: This application was received
from Doctor O. B. Price-Doctor Price M.P. -on January 8, 1929. He desired that this be dropped from 15 and 17^ to the free list.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Have the government
met his wish?


James Alexander Robb: I was delighted to.


Mr. SHORT:: How many of these needles
were imported last year ?


James Alexander Robb: Needles of vulcanite fibre, used for making fishing nets, not made in Canada, imports not traceable.


Robert James Manion: That is why they gave in.


Edward Joseph Garland: Mr. Chairman, here is another amusing piece of phraseology that demands explanation. Will the minister tell the committee just how he is going to make this clause operative? The last part of it reads "but not for use in repairing nets for sportsmen." Why put in a clause of that kind? It is absolutely impossible for the department or for the minister or for anybody else to undertake that sportsmen will -not buy these needles in some way or other for the repair of their nets. And what harm would it do if they did'? I wonder if the minister ever saw a sportsman's fishing net? It constitutes a receptacle a foot or a foot and a half across and involves less than a yard of net.


Harry Bernard Short: I do not suppose there was
ever a needle imported for that purpose. I think the only reason it is inserted there is that the minister is trying to show to the country that he is doing something for the fishing industry. I do not know any other reason for the inclusion of that phrase. In the customs department they cannot find that any of these needles have ever been imported1 for this purpose.


Mr. BLACK (Halifax):: Does the minister know that the few needles which do come in are donated by the manufacturers of nets?
It is just on the same principle as applies to your cigar-lighter: the cigar store does not charge you for refilling it.


Mr. STEVENS:: Perhaps the minister thinks the sportsmen will be sports enough to pay the duty on the needles when they buy them.


Edward Joseph Garland: The sportsmen will say: we are sportsmen, and therefore anxious to pay a duty to the Liberal government.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-682c. Metal swivels, of a class or kind not made in Canada, when used exclusively for the fisheries, not to include swivels for sportsmen's use: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
John Frederick Johnston: Item 682b has been
changed to 682c, metal swivels, and so on.


Richard Bedford Bennett: How many of these were imported?


James Alexander Robb: There is no separate classification of imports. The imports are not ascertainable.


Harry Bernard Short: What is the idea of putting this on the free list? Who made application for it?


James Alexander Robb: I understand that the representatives of the fishing industry asked for it.


Harry Bernard Short: Perhaps Mr. Deachman made application.


James Alexander Robb: No.


Edward Joseph Garland: I have no objection whatever to the item carrying, but I presume the minister has secured satisfactory evidence from the Tariff Advisory Board m connection with both these items. He insists that no reductions take place until he has had an investigation by the board.


James Alexander Robb: Do not press me too closely
on that.


Edward Joseph Garland: Were the
two items, the one for needles and the other for swivels, submitted to the tariff board before the reductions were allowed?


James Alexander Robb: Not for inquiry. It was submitted to them when we sat around the table.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Edward Joseph Garland: I presume the Minister of Finance sat around the table with the tariff board and decided on the reduction in duty on other commodities as well?


James Alexander Robb: The government of the day
are responsible for the tariff.


Edward Joseph Garland: In other
words, a tariff inquiry before the tariff board is not absolutely necessary prior to the introduction of a reduction. Do I understand that to be the ease, Mr. Chairman?


James Alexander Robb: Why should my bon. friend
attempt to cross-examine me on that when he himself has advocated a tariff reduction this afternoon and I have consented) to it.


Edward Joseph Garland: Just so we may get, this clearly, the minister states frankly that he has power-and very properly so-to make any necessary reduction in the tariff that in the public interest appears to him to be necessary without an advisory board examination.


James Alexander Robb: Contingent upon the approval of parliament.


Mr. FORKE:: If nobody checks him up it is all right.


Edward Joseph Garland: In other
words, all this tariff talk we heard from the minister and others associated with him on the other side was so much "bunk."


Richard Bedford Bennett: Eyewash.


Edward Joseph Garland: Absolute
eyewash. They have sheltered themselves behind the board in order to escape the inevitable logic of their own pledges. They have refused to carry out their promises to the people of Canada and they come to this house and say, "This matter has not been fully investigated by the tariff board", or, "If you want a reduction apply to the tariff board and so forth. The minister now frankly admits, what we have always held to be true, that if the Liberal government sincerely wished to carry out their pledges to the people they could have introduced the necesary reductions from year to year.


Harry Bernard Short: Is there any record of imports under this item?


James Alexander Robb: Not ascertainable.


Harry Bernard Short: It is such items as this that the expensive tariff board is investigating?- the tariff board which this country is paying so much to keep up. Is that board having 
round table talks over such items, which do not amount to anything so far as the fisheries of the country are concerned? Why, I do not think we import a single article under this item.


Thomas Cantley: Yes, there were three last year.


James Alexander Robb: Does my hon. friend object
to this item?


Harry Bernard Short: I am not objecting to it
because there is nothing to abject to. I am saying that it is a waste of time for the tariff board, which is costing the country tremendous sums of money, to investigate items like this.


William Anderson Black: There is a distinction between these swivels when used by fishermen, in which case they are free, and when used by sportsmen, in which case they are dutiable. A swivel is a little thing about the size of the end of your finger. What provision is there for deciding when a swivel is to be used by a sportsman and when it is for the use of fishermen?


James Alexander Robb: The customs administer that.


Mr. VALLANCE:: We have listened to a lengthy criticism from the bon. member for Bow River in regard to this item and he has referred to the tariff board in connection with the matter. Some hon. gentlemen from NoVa Scotia, basing their statements on answers to questions put to the minister, point out that there are no imports under this item, and the hon. member for Bow River states that many of us who are supporting the government have on various occasions contended in the country that it was impossible to propose reductions inasmuch as the matter had not been before the commission. It seems ridiculous on the face of it for an individual with the intelligence of the hon. member for Bow River to attempt to prove something against the government while hon. members from Nova Scotia condemn the government, using an argument that disproves what the hon. gentleman says. One says that we are attempting to hide behind something, and the others say that although we are doing something, in the final analysis we are doing nothing.


Harry Bernard Short: Does not the final analysis
show that this tariff board have done nothing?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
Customs tariff-689b. Equipment, of a class or kind not made in Canada, and integral parts thereof, for distributing stone dust in mines: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 5 per cent; general tariff, 10 per cent.
Thomas Cantley: What information has the minister in regard to this?


James Alexander Robb: Stone dust is used in coal mines to limit the possibilities of coal dust explosions. It was represented to the tariff board by the Mining Society of Nova Scotia and the Mining Association of British Columbia that the equipment essential to the distribution of stone dust throughout the workings could not be procured in Canada, and it was being assessed for duty at 15 per cent, 25 per cent, and 27i per cent, under item 453. It was stated by the Mining Society of Nova Scotia that the use of stone dust was being made compulsory in that province, and request was made for free entry of the distributing equipment. It has been thought wise, howTever, to retain a measure of protection, as this would seem to be an apparatus which might be made in this country; for which reason also the item is restricted to cover equipment of a class or kind not made in Canada.


Edward Joseph Garland: The only objection I have to the item is that it is not free. Item 569e, already carried, provides for the free entry of miners' safety helmets, of a class or kind not made in Canada, for use exclusively in mining operations. I cannot understand why this equipment is discriminated against.


James Alexander Robb: It is free under the British preference.


Mr GARLAND (Bow River):: Yes, but 5 and 10 per cent respectively under the intermediate and the general. It would be just as well to make it free under all tariffs. This is something intended for the prevention of loss of life and the minister will only make it more difficult for mining operators to prevent explosions in mines, while at the same time he is rendering it safer for the miner to the extent of admitting helmets free. I do not know just how to describe an inconsistency of this sort. Miners' helmets are free but this equipment is taxed.


James Alexander Robb: There is the same spread as before.


Edward Joseph Garland: Would the
minister consider amending the item by striking out the 5 and 10 per cent and making it free?


James Alexander Robb: I prefer to maintain the British preference.


Edward Joseph Garland: Well, why did not the minister do so in connection with miners' helmets?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Especially in view of the fact that they make safety helmets in England.


Edward Joseph Garland: The minister is not consistent.


Mr. YOUNG (Weyburn):: Wherever these words, "of a class or kind not made in Canada," occur in the tariff, what is the practice of the customs authorities? Do they throw upon the importer the burden of proving that the article in question is not made in Canada or do they assume that responsibility?


Henry Herbert Stevens: They ask Mr. Deachman.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend from Bow River (Mr. Garland) has no doubt observed the statement made by the minister that in this matter it has been thought wise to retain a measure of protection. From this statement the hon. member for Weyburn will realize the policy of the administration.


George Gibson Coote: Item 689a provides for the free entry of miners' rescue appliances, designed for emergency use in mines where artificial breathing is necessary in the presence of poisonous gases, and automatic resuscitation apparatus for artificial breathing, to aid in the saving of human life. If there is reason for making these appliances free under all tariffs, why should not this rescue apparatus be made free also? Stone dust is used to prevent explosions; the other apparatus is used to resuscitate persons after the explosion has occurred. Surely it would be better to prevent the explosion. There is an old saying that an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure. It is difficult to understand why this item, 689b, should not be free under all headings.


Edward Joseph Garland: I am sure the minister would find no objection in the house to his placing on the free list this particular machinery designed to prevent loss of life. I have not heard a single voice raised in opposition to the proposal which has come from I think two corners of this house.


James Alexander Robb: Quite true, but the mining associations which asked for this change are quite satisfied with the item as it stands.


George Gibson Coote: Is that what they asked for?

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Thomas Cantley: What authority has the minister for making that statement?


James Alexander Robb: Does my hon. friend say they are not satisfied?


Thomas Cantley: I am asking the minister for his authority for that statement.


James Alexander Robb: I have had no complaint from them; I understand they are satisfied.


Thomas Cantley: I doubt it.


Mr. MacNUTT:: Would the minister tell the committee the importations under this item last year?


James Alexander Robb: There is no separate classification; we are unable to trace it.


Edward Joseph Garland: Before we pass on, could the minister tell the committee the volume and the value of the importations of this machinery from Great Britain and from other countries under the intermediate and general tariff?


James Alexander Robb: I have just told my hon. friend there is no separate classification, so that I am unable to give the committee that information.


Edward Joseph Garland: That being the case, does not the minister think it will be much safer to put the whole business on the free list? Then he can be satisfied that he has done his duty not only to the mine workers of Canada but also to his own principles.


James Alexander Robb: I think we had better let it go as it is.


Thomas Cantley: I would like the minister to say if it is not a fact that to-day there is no finality in machinery designed for coal dusting. Coal dusting is a comparatively new method of combating the explosive dust which lodges everywhere in a coal mine, and I believe that to-day no machinery has been really perfected as a distributing agency for coal dust. Various people are experimenting with machines designed for this purpose, and until some particular method of distribution is decided upon as being the best would it not be well to allow machinery of this type made anywhere in the world to enter Canada free?


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend is going on record as favouring certain principles, but I would say that this is a very substantial reduction, and as far as I know the mining associations are quite satisfied with this

change. At any rate, parliament will meet again in another year, when this matter can be considered again, so I would suggest that it go through now as it is.


Edward Joseph Garland: What was the original item?


James Alexander Robb: The old rates were 15 per cent, 25 per cent and 27J per cent, and now they are free, 5 per cent and 10 per cent.


Edward Joseph Garland: What was the number of the old item?


James Alexander Robb: This machinery came in under item 453.


Edward Joseph Garland: (Bow River): Item 453 provides for telephone and telegraph instruments, electric and galvanic batteries and so on.


James Alexander Robb: That must be a n.o.p. item.


Edward Joseph Garland: Is the minister quite sure of the number?


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend has not read the whole item. Further down he will find the following:
.... and all machinery composed wholly or in part of iron or steel, n.o.p.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-695b. Drawings or sketches of garments, but not including patterns, when imported in single copies by manufacturers of garments:	British preferential tariff, free;
intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
John Frederick Johnston: This item has been
amended to read as follows:
695b. Drawings or sketches of garments, or of boots and shoes, but not including patterns, when imported in single copies of each such drawing or sketch by manufacturers of garments or of boots and shoes or of boot and shoe patterns: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.


Edward Joseph Garland: Here is
another of these petty little discriminations against the consumers in Canada, perpetrated by an alleged Liberal administration. Drawings of sketches of garments, or patterns, as the housewives call them, for dresses or boots and shoes, when imported for the use of manufacturers enter free of duty, but if a housewife sees an excellent design she would like to have for her own use, she must pay duty on it. Really the minister cannot be consistent in his policy if he resists a protest against this discrimination. Will he tell the committee why the housewives in Canada should not be given the same advantages in securing these patterns as are enjoyed by the manufacturers?

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


James Alexander Robb: This does not cover patterns; it includes drawings or sketches from which the patterns are made. This is proposed to cover rough freehand sketches by designers, which are usually made in foreign style centres either direct from the model or from photographs, and in consideration of a fee paid by the Canadian designer who desires to copy the style sketches, either by himself or by his representative. They have no artistic, commercial or intrinsic value to anyone except the man who makes them, and they cannot be used as patterns. At present they enter under a duty of 22i per cent.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Does the minister not
think he should add the usual phrase "of a class or kind not made in Canada"?


William Russell Fansher: Who requested this reduction?


James Alexander Robb: The clothing and boot and
shoe men of Canada.


William Russell Fansher: Does the minister mean to say that the boot and shoe men and the clothing men, who enjoy a very high protection on their finished article, are asking that these sketches come in free?


James Alexander Robb: I just noticed that I have before me the record of a public hearing before the tariff board in connection with this matter, held on January 23. Those present were:
Mr. R. P. Sparks, Canadian Garment Manufacturers' Association.
Mr. L. Phillips, Canadian Garment Manufacturers' Association.	.
Mr. C. F. Sherwood, Canadian Garment Manufacturers' Association.
R E. Oaks, Manufacturers' Credit Bureau. II. W. Maedonnell, Canadian Manufacturers Association.	.
A. E, Darby, Canadian Council of Agriculture.
R. J. Deachman, Consumers' League of Canada.	,	.
Mr. Sherwood, secretary of the association, read the brief, stating that the Canadian garment manufacturers made it a practice to go to New York and to pay for the privilege of looking over models produced by New York manufacturers. The Canadian manufacturer would make rough sketches of such models as appeared to him to be suitable for Canadian use. On bringing these into the country they were subject to a duty rate of 15 per cent under the preferential and 22J per cent under the general	
Considerable discussion took place over the wording of the proposed section, Mr. Sparks holding that the word "pattern" should not be used, as "patterns" were generally finished products which had a saleable commercial value, and its adoption might be objected to by patternmakers.


Edward Joseph Garland: I take it
that this is the same Mr. Sparks who was so active in connection with the customs
inquiry. This is a noble generosity on the part of the Liberal administration in extending to him a privilege which certainly his animosity would hardly deserve. Now may I ask why, in conceding to the manufacturers this undoubted privilege, the government have not included the patterns used by the housewives of Canada? What is the duty imposed on patterns used in making dresses and so on?


James Alexander Robb: Exactly the same duty as will be paid by these people if they bring in such patterns, but this item does not cover patterns; it is designed to include the sketches from which the patterns are made.


Edward Joseph Garland: But why
not give the housewife a chance by letting the manufacturer still pay for the patterns and allowing the housewives to get them free? That would be a reversal of the policy of the government which would be exceedingly acceptable to the consumers.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-696. Philosophical and scientific apparatus, utensils, instruments, and preparations, including boxes and bottles containing the same; maps, photographic reproductions, casts as models, etchings, lithographic prints or charts; mechanical equipment of a class or kind not made in Canada. All articles in this item, when specially imported in good faith for the use and by order of any society or institution incorporated or established solely for religious,, philosophical, educational, scientific or literary purposes, or for the encouragement of the fine arts, or for the use and by order of any college, academy, school, or seminary of learning in Canada, and not for sale, under regulations prescribed by the minister: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
James Alexander Robb: The only change in this item
is the inclusion of the words, "mechanical equipment of a class or kind not made in Canada."


Edward James Young: What is philosophical apparatus?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I should think the tariff
board would be one.


Peter McGibbon: As the Minister of National Revenue constantly keeps out of the bouse I wonder if the Minister of Finance would procure an answer to the question I asked earlier in the day?


James Alexander Robb: What was that?


Peter McGibbon: With reference to automobiles.
2324	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


James Alexander Robb: I will ask my colleague about that. He will be in before we finish with the business of the committee.


Mr. TUMMON:: Before we leave these
items I wonder if the minister would refer to item 460f, face loading machines, shaker trough or belt trough conveyors, air engines, and so on.


James Alexander Robb: That item is being held over; it will come up again.


William Ernest Tummon: Would the minister answer a question with reference to that part of the item which reads, "integral parts of all motive power or machinery mentioned in this item," and state whether that would apply to only machines now in use in Canada or would it apply to parts imported to go along with other parts made in Canada in order to complete the unit or machine?


James Alexander Robb: I will refer that question to
my colleague the Minister of National Revenue who administers the department. I am bound to say that I am not in position to answer for the gentleman who administers the department.


Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: Will the minister
say just what items are being held over?


James Alexander Robb: There were some items in the early part of the list.


John Frederick Johnston: The first two.


William Ernest Tummon: Mr. Chairman, it seems
to me that the point I have raised is a rather important point and one which should be decided. If it is necessary that the Minister of National Revenue should be in his place to answer these questions I think he should be present, because we are entitled to the information before the item is finally passed. Will the Minister of Finance give the house his assurance that the Minister of National Revenue will be here to give what information is required or to answer any questions we might ask?


James Alexander Robb: I would rather not undertake that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We are entitled to have the answers.


James Alexander Robb: I will try to communicate with my colleague and ask him to be here.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He was here this afternoon.


Robert James Manion: Get the Sergeant-aUArms to bring him in.


Peter McGibbon: He has been conveniently gotten away.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member for
Piotou (Mr. Cantley) has pointed out that this item might lead to a very great unfairness. Take, for instance, a hospital which is conducted as a public institution and a hospital conducted by a religious organization; in the one instance it could get this apparatus free and in the other it could not.


James Alexander Robb: I think the intention was to
make it broad enough.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But that is not the case.


James Alexander Robb: The hon. member knows that there are cases Where imports coming to hospitals or religious organizations are permitted by the treasury board to come in.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I recall an instance where a statue was brought in and passed and also another instance where a ring for ecclesisastical purposes which could not be made in Canada was allowed to come in.


Mr. MacLAREN:: If the minister would include the words "scientific institutions" or something of that kind it might clarify things.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The word "scientific"
has not been construed to mean a hospital, that is the trouble.


Murray MacLaren: I was suggesting that
the words "scientific institutions" be added.


James Alexander Robb: Item 466a covers glassware
and other scientific apparatus for laboratory work in public hospitals and also apparatus for sterilizing purposes, not including washing or laundry machines when imported for the use and by order of any public hospital; free.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But that is limited to
three things as compared to this one; how about X-ray apparatus?


James Alexander Robb: I am advised that this change was asked for by the customs department for administrative purposes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the minister must see the difficulty. This item is limited in its operations to specifically named institutions. Why could not the word "hospitals" be added, or the words "any society, hospital or institution"? The minister might let this item stand and ask the officials of the department about it.


James Alexander Robb: I think perhaps we had better
reconsider that item.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If the words "or hospitals" or "seminaries of learning" were added it would cover it.
Item stands.

Private Bills
Customs tariff-779a.	Copper rods when
imported by manufacturers for use in their own factories in the manufacture of electrical conductors, the individual units of such electrical conductors not to exceed the area of No. 7/0 gauge conductor, per pound: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, i cent; general tariff, J cent.


Edward James Young: I made reference to this item when I was speaking on the budget and I endeavoured to explain the situation in regard to copper rods. I will go over this again in order to refresh the minds of the hon. members. Copper bars are the finished product of the smelter and the raw material of the rolling mill which rolls them into copper rods. Copper rods in their turn a.re the raw material of the copper manufacturers. The situation is something like this:	A small ring of men in the United
States control 95 per cent of the copper output of the world. They do not mine it but they control the output and they export copper bars to other countries at a higher price than they sell to their own people in the United States. The purpose in doing that is this: they want to fix the price of copper the world over. If they fixed it in the United States, they would run foul of their antitrust law. Therefore they fix the price for export, and then each one goes back to his own office and quotes for home consumption in the United States a price $8 a ton less than the price he quotes people in other countries.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Five dollars a ton.


Edward James Young: Well, that makes my argument that much stronger. There is located in Brockville one concern which rolls copper bars into copper rods. It employs some thirty-one men in that work. It receives 60 per cent of its raw material from the smelter at Trail in British Columbia.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is it not fair to say
that they did, but they do not now? I think the record shows that.


Edward James Young: Why not now?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Because they have discontinued manufacturing that raw material at Trail.


Edward James Young: Does my hon.
friend mean to say that copper is no longer smelted at Trail?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is smelted, but not refined to the extent that would make it available as raw material for that particular plant. I think that was the evidence of the Mr. Phillips people.


Edward James Young: That was not
the understanding I had of it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am just asking the hon. gentleman if that is not the fact.


Edward James Young: My understanding was that they get 60 per cent from Trail and that they have to purchase the other 40 per cent in the United States; that the smelter at Trail is not under the control of this copper ring, and therefore does not charge this excess price. But this concern in Canada has to pay an excess price of $5 a ton on its copper bars and then when it comes to sell its rods it is met by the competition of concerns in the United States who get their raw material at a lower price but who do not pay any duty on the rods coming into Canada. The proposal now is to charge on copper rods a duty of half a cent a pound, or $10 a ton. This is the raw material of no less than five factories which are using copper rods in Canada. The concern at Brockville employing thirty-one men is handicapped to the extent of $5 a ton and the proposal is to offset this handicap by putting double that rate, or an additional $10 a ton, on the raw material of five different factories in Canada. The concern in Brockville is handicapped on only 40 per cent of its raw material. These other concerns, if this duty is added, will be handicapped on 100 per cent of their raw material. This would be equal to multiplying the handicap by five and placing it on another branch of the same industry. I do not think this is economically sound, and I would suggest that the minister let the item stand over.


James Alexander Robb: Will my hon. friend tell us
who, of these five companies he has just mentioned, objects to this?


Edward James Young: I am not saying that any of them objects, but looking at the matter with a purely philosophical mind-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Ah, but that apparatus
is free.


Edward James Young: There is no
head tax.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock. PRIVATE BILLS


CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READING
[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 124, for the relief of William Ernest Foulkes-Mr. Cahan.
[Stage Direction]
Private Bills

[Stage Direction]
Mr. S. W. JACOBS (Cartier) moved the second reading of Bill No. 159, for the relief of Elias Abraham, otherwise known as Elie Abraham Allen.
James Shaver Woodsworth: I should like to ask a question with regard to this long list of bills sponsored by the hon. member for Cartier. Are these Ontario or Quebec cases?


Samuel William Jacobs: Does my hon. friend pretend that my jurisdiction extends only to the province of Quebec?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Not at all. I am asking for information, as to whether these cases come from the province of Ontario or from the province of Quebec.


Samuel William Jacobs: Is that merely to satisfy
curiosity?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Not altogether. We have been informed in this house that nearly all these divorce cases come from Ontario, that that province alone gives us nearly all this trouble. I should like to know as a matter of fact whether that is correct. We know that some cases come from the province of Quebec. What is the state of affairs with regard to this long list of bills sponsored by the hon. member for Cartier?


Samuel William Jacobs: I think they are all from the province of Ontario, perhaps with one exception. Apparently my reputation as a divorce getter has extended to Ontario, for I get all this business from there.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and bill read the second time on division.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 119, for the relief of Bessie Ruth Glass.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 125, for the relief of Edith Marie McFarlane.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 128, for the relief of Cleoniki Paleo-logou Drakoulas.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 140, for the relief of Nanette Coffey.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 141, for the relief of James Graham McCreadie.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 142, for the relief of Stephen Dy-mon.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 179, for the relief of Madelaine Virginia Lumsden.-Mr. Bothwell.
Bill No. 180, for the relief of Edgar Charles Buchanan.-Mr. Stewart (Leeds).
Bill No. 184, for the relief of Edna Maud James.-Mr. Spence (Parkdale).

Bill No. 185, for the relief of Helen Jane Sim Pittendreich.-Mr. Spence (Parkdale).
Bill No. 187, for the relief of Alfred Roy Edwards.-Mr. Spence (Parkdale).
Bill	No.	189,	for	the relief	of Molly
Vaughan.-Mr. Ryckman.
Bill	No.	190,	for	the relief	of Lillian
Augusta Dunn.-Mr. Tummon.
Bill No. 191, for the relief of Myrtle Mary Jane McLean.-Mr. Ryckman.
Bill No. 193, for the relief of Mary Bertha Dupuis Ranger.-Mr. Millar.
Bill No. 206, for the relief of Walter Henry Lyne Dixson.-Mr. Tummon.
Bill No. 207, for the relief of Ida Rosenberg.-Mr. Spence (Parkdale).
Bill	No.	208,	for	the	relief	of Marjory
Lavinia Bradford.

Mr. Anderson (Toronto-High Park).
Motions for second readings agreed to on division.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from May 3, consideration in committee of Bill No. 75, respecting the domicile of married women in proceedings for divorce-Mr. Ward

Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Mr. CAHAN:: Mr. Chairman, I presume
on the-


William John Ward: Mr. Chairman, may I interpose? The bill has been amended slightly, and perhaps it would facilitate discussion if I gave to the house the amended form. When it was up for consideration on May 3 members of the committee offered certain objections and proposed certain amendments. I have endeavoured to embody those proposals in the bill in its amended form, because I consider them practical and' they do not destroy the principle of the bill.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I object. If the hon. member has amendments to propose they should be put on the notice paper for examination.


William John Ward: I have a number of copies
here for any hon. members who wish to see them.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I still object. The bill is
so important that these amendments should be printed.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: I was going to offer
the same objection. In view of the very

Divorce Proceedings-Domicile
great importance of the bill and the importance of the change which the hon. member is suggesting, the amendments should be printed.


William John Ward: Certainly I should like to
defer to the opinions of the Minister of Justice and of the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George, but the principle of the bill has not been changed one iota. We have merely changed the wording; we have deleted subsection 3 and embodied 2 and 3 in one section. The principle is, however, exactly the same as when first the bill was introduced.


John Frederick Johnston: I understand the hon.
member is moving an amendment to section 2 of the bill.


William John Ward: Yes.


John Frederick Johnston: The committee is now
considering section 1 and this section will have to be disposed of before an amendment can be considered to a subsequent section. So far as printing the amendments is concerned, under the rules notice is not necessary unless the committee so decides. As this is a public bill it will, however, first be necessary to adopt section 1 before any amendments may be considered in relation to section 2. Shall section 1 carry?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: On the title we are at
liberty to discuss, are we not, the general principle and purport of the bill?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


John Frederick Johnston: Section 1 is the short
title; shall section 1 carry?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: This, as has already been
stated, is a bill to provide for a divorce jurisdiction in the case of women who are judicially or otherwise separated from and living separate and apart from their husbands; and the general provision is that if a woman has been deserted by and has lived separate and apart from her husband for a period of two years, and is still living apart from him, she may secure domicile and be entitled to divorce in any court having jurisdiction to grant divorce a vinculo matrimonii. This bill will enable any woman to desert her husband and to obtain, so far as the jurisdiction of this parliament extends, the right to proceed to the United States, to Reno, and to acquire domicile there. And if in the state of Nevada divorce under the law is granted for minor disagreements between husband and wife

and divorce is granted there for incompatibility of temperament-


William John Ward: Will the hon. gentleman pardon an interruption? The amendment as proposed to the bill does not permit women to get divorce outside the Dominion. If the hon. gentleman will read the amendment he will see that the argument he is making is not applicable to the bill as amended.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I was discussing the bill
for the purpose of directing the attention of the committee to its very expansive character. As it now stands it gives legislative confirmation to any divorce hereafter obtained in any part of the world, from here to Patagonia and on the coasts of the seven seas, if the woman-


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: May I ask
the hon. member by what authority the federal government of Canada could give a married woman, or anyone else for that matter, the right to take legal action in another country?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: At the present time, if
either husband or wife deserts the other and proceeds to the United States to obtain a temporary domicile there, and secures a divorce in any state of the United States, that person is not as a general rule permitted to come back to Canada and marry again in this country. But this bill, if it is passed in its present terms, provides that either husband or wife may desert the other matrimonial partner and proceed to any country in the world and obtain a divorce for causes which we in Canada do not recognize but which are recognized in the foreign domicile so acquired, and should such person come back to Canada, this parliament is declaring that, so far as its legislative jurisdiction extends-and1 it extends to such individual upon return to Canada-that foreign divorce shall be valid within the various provinces of the Dominion. I -consider the bill so extreme and broad in its terms that it certainly should not receive the approval of the house. However, I am prepared to listen with consideration to the amendments proposed1; but I think they should be printed so that we may have an opportunity to study their precise terms and especially their legal purport.


Mr. LADNER:: I suggest that the committee should have the amendments before it for consideration, because after all in discussing this bill we are considering something of an extraordinary nature. I have before me the amendment which the hon. member (Mr. Ward) proposes and it is so entirely different from the -bill as originally submitted that it seems quite reasonable that we should

Divorce Proceedings-Domicile
have it before us for consideration. The principle is the same; but the amendment states:
A wife deserted by, and living separate and apart from her husband shall be deemed to retain the domicile of her husband at the time she was so deserted until she has acquired a domicile of her own choice in Canada and may acquire such domicile for herself in Canada as though she were a femme sole, when such desertion has continued for a period of two years, and on acquiring such domicile in Canada may commence an action for divorce where so domiciled praying that her marriage may be dissolved on any grounds that entitle her to such divorce in any court having jurisdiction to grant a divorce a vinculo matrimonii.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That is an entirely new
bill.


Leon Johnson Ladner: My suggestion is that we
allow the hon. member to submit his amendments so that we may intelligently consider the 'bill as it will be actually before us.


George Black: Are we not now
considering section 1?


John Frederick Johnston: Section 1 has not been adopted.


George Black: Section 1 is the
short title, with which this discussion has nothing to do. What possible objection can there be to it? Let us first dispose of section


Ernest Lapointe: If one is opposed to the bill, one is also opposed to that section. We are discussing a bill which is different from the bill as originally proposed, with this same section 1.


George Black: Nevertheless I contend that the only question before the committee at the present time is section 1.


Ernest Lapointe: Section 1 means nothing unless it is followed by something else; it has a meaning because there is a second section. And it is the second section to which we are objecting.


John Frederick Johnston: Shall section 1 carry? Section agreed to.
On section 2-Married woman separate from husband.


William John Ward: I desire to move an amendment which will replace sections 2 and 3 and which will practically'comprise the entire bill:
A wife deserted by, and living separate and apart trom her husband shall be deemed to retain the domicile of her husband at the time she was so deserted until she has acquired a domicile of her own choice in Canada and may acquire such domicile for herself in Canada as though she were a femme sole, when such deser-
tion has continued for a period of two years, and on acquiring such domicile in Canada may commence an action for divorce where so domiciled praying that her marriage may be dissolved on any grounds that entitle her to such divorce in any court having jurisdiction to grant a divorce a vincula matrimonii.


Henry Herbert Stevens: May I ask my hon. friend if he is moving this as an amendment?


William John Ward: Yes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend has not moved the amendment yet.


William John Ward: I move that the bill be amended by inserting this paragraph in lieu of sections 2 and 3 of the present bill.


Leon Johnson Ladner: May I suggest to my hon. friend that in his amendment the words "and upwards' be inserted after the words "two years"; that is the usual phraseology in these proceedings.


William John Ward: I have no objection, so long as the principle of this bill is embodied in legislation. That is my only reason for introducing the bill.


Miss MACPHAIL:: I cannot think any hon. member of this house will appose the' bill as amended, because it involves human rights. Although anxious that it should be in good legal form, I am not so much interested in the legal aspects of the matter as I am in the human rights of the case, A woman has just as much right as a man to be able to establish a legal domicile of ^her own where she can take action, and it is only because we still have a hang-over from the dark ages that this action must be taken to-day. AVhile I am not really particularly interested in the involved legal argument of the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George I want to see the bill passed in such form that it will enable a woman to establish a legal domicile of her own, and until she can do that she is indeed not a " person," as the supreme court decided some time ago. I feel that everyone will agree with the principle of the bill and will be anxious that women may be afforded the same privileges which men have enjoyed for a long time. There is no reason why men should have a corner on all the good things in life.


Ernest Lapointe: Does my hon. friend claim that there should be two domiciles in a marriage union, one for the husband and one for the wife?


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Certainly; are there not two people?

Divorce Proceedings-Domicile


Ernest Lapointe: That does not sound like the dark ages; it sounds like the period before the dark ages. It is against the natural law.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: That natural law stuff covers a lot of special privileges. Will the Minister of Justice, who gets so righteously indignant about two domiciles, say that if we should have only one it should be the domicile of the wife?


Ernest Lapointe: I would have no objection. If the hon. member had been here the other day she would have heard me say that I care not whether it is the domicile of the husband or of the wife, but so long as there is a marital bond there must ;be only one domicile. That is the principle of British and international law.


Mr. BROWN:: Following out that argument, then, I think it might be well contended that the woman should have equal rights with her husband in the one domicile.


Ernest Lapointe: I think my hon. friend should abolish matrimony altogether; let us all be equal and free.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Even that would not be as bad as some of the things we have now.


Ernest Lapointe: Free love and free everything.


Leon Johnson Ladner: On the argument presented by the Minister of Justice I would like to ask whether, in the case of a man who has been iniquitous in every sense of the word as far as his marital relations have been concerned and who moves off to unknown parts, he thinks the domicile should walk with the man and leave the poor woman stranded without any rights in regard to her future life or with
regard to her children?
*


Ernest Lapointe: I am informed that in such cases the court always goes a long way to decide that the last domicile persists. If a man goes all around the world surely he would not benefit or profit by such vagrancy.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then the domicile of
origin commences.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, and I am told that this is usually accepted by the courts.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: If that is true why is it that the legal profession has passed legal resolutions on this subject, asking that these changes be made?


Ernest Lapointe: The "legal profession" is a very wide expression; I do not think all the members of the legal profession have endorsed such resolutions.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I may tell the Minister of Justice that in the courts of British Columbia, and I presume also in the other provinces where divorce courts exist, it is well-established law that you must establish domicile before you come under the jurisdiction of the court. If you do not know where the man is how can you establish domicile?


Mr. MERCIER (St. Henri):: It will be the last domicile.


Leon Johnson Ladner: No. I have had cases
where the man has been gone for six or eight years, and the court will ask where that man is at the time of the trial, because he may have acquired domicile in Ontario or in Alberta, and in many of these cases the wife or the dependents do know where the husband is. He may have established a domicile in the United States, and once that fact comes to the attention of the court it is without jurisdiction to grant relief, so the argument of the Minister of Justice falls to the ground.


Ernest Lapointe: No, I was referring to the majority of cases. Such instances as my hon. friend has mentioned may arise, but I say that for the purpose of meeting difficulties which may exist in special cases we should not open wide the door to all sorts of applications such as I mentioned the other day. I do not want to repeat what I said then, but while I am on my feet I would like to direct the attention of the committee to the new bill-because by substituting a new section for sections 2 and 3 of the former bill my hon. friend has practically brought in a new bill. This bill would not limit the new domicile of the wife to the purpose of prosecuting an action for divorce; it establishes a domicile for all purposes.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It is beyond the jurisdiction of this parliament so to enact.


Ernest Lapointe: Parliament has no right
to deal with domicile. I know the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) will not like it but we are still in the same position as we were when we allowed the provinces to settle their own provincial matters, and domicile generally comes under provincial jurisdiction. The bill states:
A wife deserted b.v and living separate and apart from her husband shall be deemed to

Divorce Proceedings-Domicile
retain the domicile of her husband at the time she was so deserted until she has acquired a domicile of her own choice in Canada and may acquire such domicile for herself in Canada as though she were a femme sole.
When such desertion has continued for a period of two years, after acquiring such new domicile she may institute proceedings for divorce. I believe the bill is beyond the jurisdiction of the federal parliament.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Is the Minister of
Justice speaking as the head of the Justice department in interpreting the British North America Act?


Ernest Lapointe: I am speaking for myself just now. I think the request of the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George was a very reasonable one, that we should have an opportunity of having this new bill printed and be given the time to consider it. It is a very important matter with which we are dealing and my first impression is that we are going beyond our jurisdiction.


George Black: The bill, as at
present instituted, is an attempt to undo an unjustioe which the law at it stands undoubtedly does to women, and I submit that the Minister of Justice, instead of criticizing the bill, should lend his powers and his legal ability to making it workable and giving the relief which the bill intends to give.


Ernest Lapointe: I regret that I cannot
help my hon. friend, but I am opposed to spreading divorce in Canada. 1 am sorry the bon. member for Southeast Grey does not like that, but that is my principle.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: I was asked by a very
prominent lawyer in a city of Canada to give my support to this bill. He told me that he had had a case where a woman could not establish a domicile. Her husband had left her for many years and she did not know where he was. The learned judge on the bench told hgr that he was very sorry but under the existing laws of Canada he could not grant a divorce and give her the relief to which she was entitled.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I suggest with conviction
that this clause No. 2 is too wide in so far as it provides that for all purposes one may so acquire a domicile. It is possible that inasmuch as this parliament has jurisdiction to deal with divorce, it may incidentally have legislative jurisdiction to decide as to what shall constitute domicile for the purposes of divorce, but this bill is so wide that it comes in conflict with the provincial laws with regard to domicile os it affects property and civil 
rights. In so far as this bill affects property and civil rights, which are within the legislative jurisdiction of the provinces, this section would be ultra vires of this parliament; and, therefore, it seems to me that if the mover of this amendment desires that this bill shall have the effect which he intends, and only that effect, the paragraph should be drafted differently so as to make it clear that, in dealing with the acquisition of domicile, it is the acquisition of a domicile for the purposes of divorce only and not for the purposes of civil status and civil rights.


Mr. McPHEE:: Does not the first section
of the bill show that?


George Reginald Geary: What does it show?


George Washington McPhee: That "this act may be cited as the Divorce Jurisdiction Act."


George Reginald Geary: That is just a name.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I argued the case of Cook versus Cook before the Privy Council. The courts of Alberta had decided that a wife might, under the Matrimonial Clauses Act, obtain a divorce for herself. The Privy Council, following the decision, the House of Lords in the Jeffrey case, reaffirmed the old doctrine that the domicile of, the wife was that of the husband and that there could be no domicile for her other than that of the husband, wherever that domicile might be. During the progress of the argument it was observed by one of the law lords that the only way in which the matter could be dealt with would be by the parliament of Canada. As the Minister of Justice has said, there is undoubtedly such a thing as two domiciles. There is the law of domicile with respect to the distribution of property, but we are not dealing with that here. I suppose there is no harm in saying that I discussed this matter with the hon. gentleman who introduced the bill, and also with the law officers. I think the most important words have been struck oqt, and they are, "for the purposes of this act a married woman. . ." This is an act which deals with the domicile in divorce matters, and this parliament would have jurisdiction. I quite agree with the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George and the hon. Minister of Justice that we would be exercising powers entirely beyond our jurisdiction, so far as the British North America Act is concerned, unless we say that we are only legislating for the purposes of this act, that is, for divorce purposes.
The hon. Minister of Justice is opposed oh principle to divorce, and the other evening he placed his position before the house with

Divorce Proceedings-Domicile
respect to the general principles regarding domicile in a manner to which no exception could be taken. He stated what the highest court of the realm has pronounced to be the law, having regard to t'he provisions of the statute under which we in Alberta exercise jurisdiction in divorce matters, namely, the English Divorce Act of 1857. Under the act of 1857 it was declared that a woman who was separated from her husband-1 did not intend to participate in this debate and I have not the time to send out for the section- should have all the rights of a femme sole and she could contract or do as she pleased. Since that time the position of married women has greatly changed. Under the provisions of the law in the provinces of Alberta, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Ontario, and the maritime provinces-I cannot speak with authority with respect to Quebec-a woman has a separate existence under the Married Women's Property Act with respect to property, with respect to contract and with respect to all rights which make her, in the eyes of the law, an individual apart from her husband. Up to the present time the law of the Dominion as to domicile has been that the domicile of the wife is that of the husband, and in the divorces granted by this parliament the question of domicile has been established on the basis of the domicile of the husband. This parliament has declined to grant divorces in more cases than one because the husband was domiciled in the United States of America, and that, under British law, being the domicile of the wife it followed that the jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada had disappeared. This bill merely proposes to carry into divorce legislation the principle of which has been adopted in each province of confederation, namely, to confer upon the wife, when she has been abandoned and is living separate and apart from her husband as a femme sole, the right to acquire for herself a domicile.
Leaving that question for the moment, what is a domicile? I think many members of the house look upon, residence and domicile as being one and the same thing. There are two factors which determine domicile; one is actual residence in a .particular place and the other is the intention. Although there may be a residence for fifty years, if the second factor, namely, intention, is absent there is no domicile established. The leading case in that connection is that of an American who went from Philadelphia to the United Kingdom and lived there for thirty or forty years. When he died it was contended that he was domiciled in England. It was successfully set up that
he had never lost his United States domicile, because during his lifetime he had declared that he intended to return to the United States, and always spoke of that and no other as his country. Although there had been a residence of, I think, something over thirty years in the United Kingdom, there was no presence of the second factor that makes domicile, namely, the intention to remain there as his home. That is, the intention is the all-important matter.
Here is a case of a wife who is abandoned; she is living separate and apart from her husband. She may be judicially separated or she may not. She is living alone. This bill declares-and the words "for the purposes of this act" are all-important; without them the bill is I think, ultra vires of this parliament- that for t'he purposes of this act, namely, for the purpose of divorce, first, the British principle remains; that is, if the point at which she was abandoned by her husband was his domicile, that is her domicile. If she was abandoned in Alberta, her domicile is Alberta; if she was abandoned in Saskatchewan, her domicile is Saskatchewan; if she was abandoned in Manitoba, her domicile is Manitoba. Then we say what the Supreme court of the United States said, I think in 1868; what state courts in the United States have held for many years; what the Dominion of New Zealand1 said some years ago, since overruled by the decision in Cook versus Cook, namely, that this woman may now exercise the rights of a femme sole. In other words, she may exercise the same rights as though she had never been married. She may acquire a domicile of her own. How? First, by remaining in a particular community as her home; and then, with the intention of remaining there indefinitely.


Mr. THORSON:: May I ask the hon. member a question? Has he given any thought to this consequence that might follow if the wife acquired in Manitoba for example a domicile separate from that of her husband? This parliament would then be conferring upon the courts of Manitoba, the jurisdiction to grant a divorce in respect of a couple, one of whom was domiciled in Manitoba and the other domiciled outside of Manitoba. Under the present law the Manitoba courts have jurisdiction to pronounce divorce only when both parties are domiciled in Manitoba.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre has certainly indicated what the obvious result is; namely, that by this legislation the wife, being a femme sole, being abandoned by her husband, being no longer under his protection, her status being

Divorce Proceedings-Domicile
still that of a married- *woman, as the minister has well said, may change that to the extent of acquiring a domicile as though she were a single woman. That is all. Then we say that, she having acquired that domicile, the courts of that country have at once jurisdiction, as the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre says over her matrimonial state, that is, they have the right to divorce her from her husband. As I say, the supreme court of the United States, I said in 1868 but I think as a matter of fact it was 1870, declared that one of the incidents that resulted from the widening of 'the rights of married women was that, when abandoned, she could acquire a domicile of her own. Our courts have, as the minister 'has said, declared1 exactly the opposite, and this parliament has the power to deal with the matter. The question is, shall it exercise that jurisdiction? But it has not the right to exercise this power, as the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George says, unless such power is limited to divorce that is for the purposes of the act and the act only. To that extent it is an addition to the existing legislation which is British legislation of 1857. Therefore I am perfectly certain, unless we do this, the very injury which the Minister of Justice desires to avoid will continue, namely, we shall have people leaving Canada, going to the United States, setting up a fictitious domicile and securing a divorce with all the consequences incident thereto and all the uncertainties as to the legitimacy of the offspring. That is a very serious matter.


Ernest Lapointe: I would rather have the United States assume the responsibility than ourselves.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Minister of Justice and I differ in that regard, I would rather be a party to this legislation to give legality to the situation than become a party to the scandals that, we know, exist with reference to it. That is my reasoning in arriving at a conclusion in the matter. I admit the force of the hon. gentleman's reasoning and of the objection of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. On the other hand, I can give half a dozen cases that come to my mind. One is that of a woman living in Alberta who has been abandoned by her husband. She has no idea where he is. The courts hold that if he is a roving person and has no known domicile, the domicile of his origin is the domicile that attaches to him, because the law is that every man is born with a domicile and is never without it. So it was held in the Cook case that this roving husband who was at one time domiciled in 
Alberta, although he changed his mind and roved about, had the domicile of his origin, namely, Ontario, and therefore the Alberta court could not deal with the matter.
What we are doing is to decide whether or not we desire to have a condition continued with all the scandal that attaches to it, with men and women going to a foreign jurisdiction, setting up fictitious domiciles, obtaining divorces in those courts which divorces are valid in every part of the United States, by reason of its constitution, sometimes marrying in the United States and coming back to Canada, confronted with the uncertainty of their own position and that of their children. We have to choose between that and the enactment of a statute whereby we declare that a woman who, in her own province, is a separate person with respect to contracts, obligations, debts, sitting in parliament, holding any office which may be in the gift of the people-and under our statutes she is eligible for any office except that she may not as yet sit in the senate-shall be given this additional right, namely, that of acquiring for herself for the purposes of this act a domicile. So far as I am concerned, I am in favour of giving her that right to acquire a domicile in order that her status, which is that of a single person with respect to contracts, obligations, property and everything that concerns her existence as a citizen, may be the same for the purpose of a domicile for the purpose of securing a divorce. In that way let us prevent the scandals to which I have referred and say that a woman who is abandoned by her husband may acquire a domicile for the purposes of this act, namely, a divorce act, and for any purpose concerning property in any way, shape or form. I think proper words could be found to express that meaning and we could pass this bill at this session.
Progress reported.




[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
John Frederick Johnston: When the committee
rose at six o'clock we were considering item 779a, copper rods.
Customs tariff-779a. Copper rods when imported by manufacturers for use in their own factories in the manufacture of electrical conductors, the individual units of such electrical conductors not to exceed the area of No. 7/0 gauge conductor per pound: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, I cent; general tariff, i cent.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Mr. CLARK:: I should like to ask the
minister where and to what extent in Canada copper bars are manufactured.


James Alexander Robb: At Trail. That is the only place as yet, but they are preparing to manufacture them elsewhere.


John Arthur Clark: Do they not manufacture
sufficient copper bars for all the concerns that use them in Canada?


James Alexander Robb: No, the supply is not sufficient.


John Arthur Clark: Since when?


James Alexander Robb: I remember the manager at
Trail telling me that they supplied the Canadian trade with all that they had available, but that they did not have sufficient. They hoped, however, to have sufficient within a reasonable time.


John Arthur Clark: Have they not been granted a bounty?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


John Arthur Clark: And that bounty has been
paid to the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company for some years?


James Alexander Robb: I have not a list of firms that have received the bounty. That is administered by the Department of Trade and Commerce.


John Arthur Clark: But the bounty is still being paid?


James Alexander Robb: Yes, on a reducing scale; I
*think they are down to the minimum now. My recollection is that when the bounty provisions expired last year, they were renewed for another year, possibly two years.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They expired the year
before last, I think.


John Arthur Clark: There is a situation in connection with this matter that I would like to bring to the attention of the minister and the committee. I understand quite well that the only smelter in Canada that does produce copper bars is the Trail smelter of the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company. Their supply of copper has come until recently almost exclusively from the Granby Copper Company at Allen'by. Some two million dollars' worth of copper is produced there annually. I quite understand that the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company could not supply the demand of Canadian manufacturers for copper bars at the present time for the very good reason that all the
copper now produced by the Granby Copper Company is exported from Canada in its raw state to the Tacoma smelter. I desire to bring this matter as forcibly to the attention of the government as I can, for I believe that when we have in Canada smelters capable of refining our raw mineral wealth, those smelters should be utilized.
I quite realize, too, that there may be a dispute between these two companies as to the terms and conditions upon which this ore should be smelted, but I realize also that it is quite possible for this government to bring these two concerns together and to tell the Granby company that the exportation of copper in its raw state will not be tolerated, and to tell the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company that it must accept the ore of the Granby company and refine it on a fair basis. A fair basis could easily be arrived at by arbitration between the two companies. This is a situation which in my opinion merits the consideration of this government. If, for instance, we were smelting our raw copper at home, there would be no necessity for going down on our hands and knees to the United States for these copper bars. There would be no necessity for us to say to the United States:	So long as you
sell your copper bars to us at a price higher than you sell them in your home market we will put our tariff against your copper rods. This is what we are telling them. This is retaliation. We are going down on our hands and knees to the United States, whereas the root of the trouble lies in the fact that we do not insist on the refining of our raw copper at home.
I would draw further to the attention of this government that British Columbia at the present time is the greatest producer of copper in Canada. That may not long be the case, because Saskatchewan and Manitoba, through the medium of such properties as the Hudson Bay and Sherritt-Gordon will become gTeat copper producers. Ontario, through the medium of International Nickel, will also become a great copper producer. Canada bids fair to become one of the greatest copper-producing countries in the world, and British Columbia should be an example to this government in that connection. We are producing there to-day twelve million dollars' worth of copper per annum. A large proportion of this copper is going out of British Columbia in its raw state, unsmelted. We have across the harbour from Vancouver the Britannia Mining Company, producing about five million dollars' worth of copper per annum, all of which is going out of this

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
country in its natural state. That is quite a sufficient quantity of copper to justify the erection of a smelter, and I suggest to this government that it is its duty to advise the Howe Sound company that that condition will not be tolerated beyond a certain period. I do not think we need put any export duty on this raw material. All we have to do is to tell them that we will not have our raw mineral wealth going out of this country unrefined. Give them ample time in which to finance a smelter and the thing will be done, and Canada generally will benefit by such a policy. The reason it is necessary for us today to introduce a resolution such as that before the committee is because we have failed to take advantage of our natural wealth and failed to make provision for the refining of that wealth even to some extent here in our own country. The time has come when the Canadian people demand that such steps be taken. They want their raw materials fabricated at home. That is a natural desire, and one which the government should take notice of.
Mr. McGIBB'ON:	As the Minister of
National Revenue is in his place I would like to ask him for some information which I have tried unsuccessfully to get from the Minister of Finance a number of times, namely, as to the basis of arriving at the Canadian content of cars made in Canada.


Mr. EULER:: I am not sure that I understand exactly what the hon. gentleman desires, ibut I take it that he refers to the excise tax of 5 per cent, which is remitted in certain cases on cars manufactured in Canada. Am I right in that?


Peter McGibbon: Yes.


William Daum Euler: The excise tax of 5 per cent is remitted, or rather there is an exemption on cars of $1,200 and under only. I presume my hon. friend's question is as to how the 50 per cent Canadian content is made up to qualify for the exemption.


Peter McGibbon: Is there not a drawback on the raw material as well?


William Daum Euler: That is an entirely different matter from the excise tax exemption. They are two separate things. As to which does my hon. friend want information?


Peter McGibbon: On both.


William Daum Euler: I have given information as' to the first; that is, that the 5 per cent exemption is granted on cars selling for $1,200
or less.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If 50 per cent of the content is Canadian.


William Daum Euler: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend's question is as to how that Canadian content is arrived at, whether on the average of all the cars or on each individual car.


William Daum Euler: A number of cars selling for less than $1,200 are manufactured in the same factory. We take the factory output of. all cars of $1,200 and under, and they must qualify as to 50 per cent Canadian content before the exemption is granted. With regard bo the fifty per cent content which is demanded before the drawback is payable on raw materials entering into those cars, it works out in practice the same way. The drawback is not granted until the fifty per cent is checked up.


Peter McGibbon: The minister does not
understand me. For instance, take General Motors. The Chevrolet is one of their low priced cars, and more than fifty per cent of it is made in Canada; some of their other oars contain less than fifty per cent. Do you take the average over the shop or the individual car?


William Daum Euler: We very seriously considered what the basis should1 'be. Obviously it is impossible to take the individual oar and follow it from the outset right through to completion. It is impossible to check all the materials that enter into each car. Then we were faced with the question whether we should take each particular line of car-my hon. friend mentioned General Motors-such as the Chevrolet, the O'ldsmobile, the Oakland, the Pontiac, and others separately or whether it might be advisable for a number of reasons to interpret the law in such a way that we would take the total factory output, and then make all the output qualify on the fifty per cent basis before the company could get the drawback on their imported raw materials. After careful consideration-and I may say after consultation with some of my hon. friends opposite-as to the best thing to do, we adopted the factory output method. There has been a little criticism from one quarter alone. There has been no discrimina-don. At any rate, we have followed that plan.


Peter McGibbon: Does the minister think that is legal?


William Daum Euler: I do not think there is any
doubt about the legality of it at all. I do not see wherein the difference lies just because a certain make of car is called by a

certain name. General Motors might call their cars all by the name McLaughlin-Buick Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, instead of, we will say, Chevrolet, Pontiac, Gldsmobile, Oakland, McLaughlin-Buick, and all the rest of them. However, there may be some difference of opinion, and as a matter of fact we are going to review the whole situation.
I might perhaps briefly state our reasons for taking the course I have mentioned. A good many of these cars, for example, the Chevrolet, and some other cars made by other concerns, contain away above fifty per cent Canadian content; some of them, on the other hand, would prohafely fall below the fifty per cent. We will take a oar, for example, like the LaSalle.
Mr. MicGIBBON:	Or the Cadillac.


William Daum Euler: Yes, or the Cadillac. If
you did not allow them to average the factory content over the whole seven lines made by General Motors, the result would be, as we considered it-I think quite correctly-that the higher priced cars would not be made in Canada at all; there would be no work done on them here; they would be imported in the finished condition, with the result that just that much labour would be lost to this country. There is the added result that to bring the total factory output up to fifty per cent, some of the lines being below that figure, on the other lines they would have to go still higher in order to obtain the average. That was one of our reasons for adopting the factory output method, to ensure that some work on the higher priced cars would be performed in Canada.


Peter McGibbon: How much work is done on the higher priced cars?


William Daum Euler: I cannot give that information accurately. I know there is a good deal of it done.


Murray MacLaren: I hope the minister will reconsider the whole tariff situation regarding copper. No doubt in the not far distant future conditions in Canada will be very different from what they are to-day. There will be smelting, and we shall have copper produced in Canada in the form of ingots, bars, and so on. But that is not the condition at the present moment. Therefore one is forced to consider and in the meantime to guard the interests of our brass founders. They are dependent upon the United States for their copper. Why? Because Canada does not produce nearly sufficient raw material- copper ingots-for the brass founders. Previous to the war the raw material, in the form of
, Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
ingots, was imported free of duty. During the war a duty was imposed which is now something like one and a half cents a pound. That duty has continued up to the present time. Consequently our brass founders to-day are paying one and a half cents per pound on their copper-one and a half cents per pound for their raw material. There has been no increase in duty on the finished product. Therefore the brass founders have had a difficult course to pursue. I wish the minister would specially think of this; is it well to have a duty of one and one half cents per pound on copper, which is the raw material for the bras3 founders, the workers in copper and brass? I think not. I think there is much in the argument that so long as Canada fails to produce a sufficient amount of raw material in the form of ingots, the government might well do without the duty on copper in that form. Then there is this other advantage. The item before us is copper rods. Were the duty taken off ingots, it would be a strong incentive to our people to do their own refining and to produce their own rods and bars. It is an additional reason,
I think, why at the present time we should remove the duty on copper ingots. Certainly it would be for the advantage of the brass founders, but also it would stimulate the production of refined copper. At the present time our copper and brass workers are in great doubt whether it is of advantage to them to manufacture their own products or pay a duty and import them.


George Reginald Geary: The Minister of National
Revenue has told us very clearly how he arrived at the Canadian content of cars. I judge that he has such a staff that he is able to go into the cost of all cars and to ascertain what relation the cost of production bears to the price charged. If that is the case, I submit that in these matters we shall get much more satisfaction through this department than through the tariff board, in regard to whether or not the excise tax has been passed on to the public. The tariff board, I presume, would only avail themselves of the officials of the revenue department. Therefore I suggest to the government if they want to get at the bottom of whether this excise tax is being passed on to the public or retained by the companies they would be much better served by the revenue department. I should like to hear what the Minister of National Revenue has to say about it, but perhaps he is too modest to speak.


Mr. DICKIE:: Let us get back once more
to copper rods and let us hear from the government what their policy is with respect

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
to the processing of copper in our country At one time the Consolidated Smelters at Trail obtained copper from the Granby Company, the purchases running into millions each year, but owing to a slight dispute between these two concerns that copper ore is now going to the United States and Canada is suffering in consequence. Surely that dispute could be adjusted. I know of no argument in answer to the case put forward by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard. Let these companies be told, "We will give you two years to erect your smelters and treat copper ores in Canada; if not we shall take some means to see that you are penalized for not doing so". There is no reason why this should not be done; it would mean employment for many more people in Canada and would be a businesslike proceeding. I would do the same thing with the asbestos deposits in Quebec.
Here we also have an unsatisfactory state of affairs. The United States government have announced their intention to levy a 25 per cent ad valorem duty on shingles entering the United States and this means that our cedar logs will go there and be manufactured into shingles. What will this government do about that? What will they do in regard to the pulpwood situation, which has been brought to their attention time and time again on the floor of this house by myself and others? Is it not time that we looked forward to doing something to retain our people in Canada instead of allowing them to go across the line? Let us build up industries in Canada so that the sons of our farmers will have something to turn to when they graduate from the farms instead of having to leave this country in order to make a livelihood south of the line. It is time we received an answer to this argument, and so far I have heard not one from hon. gentlemen on the government side. What is the opinion of the Minister of Finance with respect to these vital questions? I consider them among the vital questions that confront us to-day in this Dominion.


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: I agree with the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard and with the hon. member who has just spoken as to what would be the real and permanent remedy in a case of this kind, namely, an export duty on copper. That would obviate the necessity of an application to the government, of any order in council, or of anything such as is proposed in this resolution.


Edward James Young: A duty on
copper ore?
[Mr. Dirkip.l


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Yes, in its raw
state. Have it refined and finished in Canada. Let us refine our raw material so as to give employment to our own people; let us reduce it as far as possible in this country.


Edward James Young: How far would you refine it before allowing it to be exported?


Mr. STEW  ART@Leeds: That is a matter of detail.


Edward James Young: A matter of
important detail.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: 
Edward James Young: Does my hon. friend propose to forbid them to sell cheaply and also to sell dearly?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I propose to forbid them to trim us both ways, first by dumping and then 'by charging an exorbitant price for what we cannot buy in Canada. My hon. friend from Weyburn seems quite willing to stand it both ways; he is willing to let them dump fruits and vegetables into Canada and injure that industry.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: When did they ever do it?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: They do it every year, because this government will not invoke the law in order to prevent that dumping. This is an effort to prevent them from charging more than they are receiving from their own people in the United States. I quite agree with other hon. members who have spoken that the more desirable way would be an export duty on our raw materials, but if the government cannot go that far I think they are quite justified in the action they are taking. For the benefit of the hon. member for Weybum I want to say that Mr. Deachman appeared before this tariff board and argued the case; the tariff board, which is probably sympathetic to him, ruled against him and now my hon. friend wants to override the decision of the tariff board. I submit that he cannot have it both ways, and that this measure of relief is only fair and reasonable. It does not go as far as I would like it to go; it is not as permanent in its character as I would like it to be, but I submit that it will commend itself


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: If you are in favour of it what is the idea of holding it up?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Is my hon. friend in favour of it?


Malcolm McLean: If my hon. friend favours this measure why does he hold it up?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I am not holding it up; I am endeavouring to support it, but this is a matter of great interest to my constituency, and I think my hon. friend will agree that I am entitled to speak on it.


Edward James Young: My hon. friend
says in this matter we are trying to overrule the finding of the tariff board, and I want to draw his attention to the fact that this is a case where the tariff board justifies its existence. That board found the facts, which are contained in the evidence; we have read the evidence and it is our duty now, as responsible members of parliament, to decide what we will do in the face of that evidence. Hon. gentlemen opposite are fond of talking about building up Canadian industry, and this is how they propose to assist the Canadian mining industry: First they say to the prospector, "We will tax you on all the took and equipment you require before you can go out and look for mines.."


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Talk about the issue.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Edward James Young: I am coming to it. Then, when the mine is found, they say to the company, "We will tax you an excessive rate on all the equipment and machinery you require for your mine." Then, after the mine has been developed through the expenditure of millions of dollars and after devoting years of work to it, they say to the company, "We will forbid you to sell your ores except to Canadian smelters." Then they say to those who would build a Canadian smelter, "We will tax you an additional sum on everything you require for the construction of the smelter." They say to the mining company, "You cannot sell your ore until the smelters are built," and they say to the smelting company, "You cannot -build a smelter; we will tax you on everything you use." This is the way they propose to assist the Canadian mining industry.


Robert James Manion: The Canadian mining industry is going ahead by leaps and bounds in spite of what my hon. friend says. My hon. friend would help every industry except those in Canada, and every country except his own.


Edward James Young: The Canadian
mining industry is going ahead, but if my hon. friend and his friends got into power with their policy, the industry .would come to a standstill.


Robert James Manion: Under the Conservative
government of Ontario the mining industry in this province is going ahead faster than that of any other province in Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
James Alexander Robb: When we were discussing these items the other evening it was brought to the attention of the committee that there were two classifications for a new machine used for reaping and threshing, and it is proposed to clear up that situation by bringing in a new resolution which will be No. 445.
I beg to move:
That resolution No. X of March 1, 1929, relating to amendments to schedule A of the Customs Tariff be amended by adding thereto the following provision.:
That tariff item 445 the enumerations of goods and the several rates of duties of customs set opposite said item, be struck out of said schedule A and that the following item, enumerations and rates of duty be inserted in said schedule A:
445. Mowing machines, harvesters either selfbinding or without binders, binding attachments, reapers, harvesters in combination with threshing machine separators including the .Mr. H. A. Stewart.]
motive power incorporated therein, and complete parts of articles specified in this tariff item. . . British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 6 per cent; general tariff, 6 per cent.
This brings into that schedule the machine referred to, so there will be no further misunderstanding; and it will qualify them to get the same remission on their raw materials.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Henry Herbert Stevens: Before we finally leave
this portion of the minister's task I should like to ask whether any report was received from the tariff board with regard to reference No. 47, which h-as to do with staves for the manufacture of wooden barrels. Canadian Western Cooperage, Limited, of Vancouver, who made the application, asked for some consideration in connection with that industry, and I have under my hand the reference. It deals with staves and headings made from Douglas fir for the production of containers for practically all kinds of liquids. Among the products for which these containers are used may be mentioned the following:	Pickled fish of all kinds, mild cured
salmon, pilchard oil, whale and sperm oil, fish oil, lubricating oil, acetic acid, and so on. Pressure tanks, beer fermenting vats, et cetera, are included among the containers affected. The hearing took -place and I should like to ask the minister whether a report has been -made, and if so, whether he has given consideration to it.


James Alexander Robb: I am speaking from memory
only, but I recall that there was a hearing but it has not been completed.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have the minutes of the hearing before me. It is true that it is called the first hearing, but it looks to me to be a very complete case. Different parties were heard and very careful questioning, crossexamination and argument took place. I notice the hearing winds up in the usual stereotyped form, -as follows:
Whereupon the first hearing of reference No. 47 was adjourned.
That has something of the significance of the declaration from the pulpit:	"Here
end-eth the first lesson." I have had considerable correspondence on this matter, and I believe the minister has too. I submit that the hearing is complete enough for some action. I suppose the minister cannot undertake at this stage of the case to declare any policy in the matter?


James Alexander Robb: No, I would rather not. Mr. Chairman, -before six o'clock we were discussing item No. 696. The hon. leader of

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
the opposition brought to the attention of the committee the fact that this was rather a wide item and he thought it should include public hospitals. I have been consulting with the officers of the department and although it is felt it would open up a rather wide field they feel that there is no reason why hospitals should be deprived, of the advantages we are giving to the colleges and schools. Therefore,
I beg to move:
That tariff item No. 696 be amended by inserting the words "public hospital" after the word "any" in the twelfth line.
That amendment will bring the hospitals under that classification.


Edward Joseph Garland: I would not like it to be confined to public hospitals unless that term includes private hospitals. What does the minister mean by the word "public"? Why not say "hospitals"?


James Alexander Robb: I think it is better to make
it public hospitals. These are maintained by the public and in that way the department will be better able to control matters. The hon. member knows that publicly maintained hospitals should be considered in the same light as schools, colleges and seminaries. If it is opened up to include private hospitals we would be entering a very wide field and we think we are doing the right thing in using the language which prevails in tariff item No. 466a.


Mr. YOUNG (Saskatoon):: What does the hon. minister mean by public hospitals?


James Alexander Robb: What is meant by public schools?


Alexander MacGillivray Young: They are different tilings entirely. A private hospital may be one which receives all kinds of patients and still be a private hospital; I would like to be sure.


James Alexander Robb: We are following the same language which is in other items of the tariff affecting hospitals.


Peter McGibbon: I would like to support the horn, member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) for once, as it is not very often I can agree with him. In many large areas in this country there are no hospitals execept the private ones. The rates are no higher than in public hospitals and they are giving very good service to the public; in fact if it were not for the private hospitals there would be no service at all in many communities.


Robert James Manion: I am going to agree with the Minister of Finance in this case, although I do not agree with him very often. There are some .private hospitals which probably should
oome under this item, but there are many which are simply money-making institutions and which do not get the support of the public. They do not admit anyone for charity but only admit those .patients who are able to pay for private rooms and for .private service.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: What is meant by public hospitals?


Robert James Manion: Perhaps the Minister of Finance could answer that better than I can.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: In my own city we have a hospital which is run by the sisters.
Mr, MANION: That would be a public hospital. In Ontario every hospital which admits charity patients receives from the province a donation of so much per head per day, and that would be a public hospital. Hospitals of that type come undter this ruling, but hospitals which admit only those who oan pay their way and' can afford the expense of private rooms, hospitals which are operated merely as money-making institutions, would not, I assume, come under this.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: If the hon. member is right in his interpretation I agree with him, but I wanted to be quite sure.


Robert James Manion: Let us find out what the Minister of Finance thinks about it.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: I tried to find out.


Edward Joseph Garland: Perhaps the minister would state whether a hospital maintained by religious denominations, such as the hospital maintained by the Salvation Army in Ottawa, would come under this heading.


James Alexander Robb: I think they are in as the item is now.


Peter McGibbon: I think the hon. member for Saskatoon and the member for Fort William will both agree that hospitals, whether public or private, are a good deal like medical men in that they look after all charitable cases. I db not think a private hospital would take the responsibility of turning anyone away from their door because they would lose public sentiment by so doing. I know of a private hospital which has never received a grant in fifteen years and yet has never refused a patient, regardless of whether or not they could pay for their treatment.


Robert James Manion: They should have obtained a grant.
2340	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Peter McGibbon: They could not qualify. Will the Minister of Finance tell us what this item 696 is substituted for, and what is the estimated loss in revenue?


James Alexander Robb: The only change is the insertion of the words:
Mechanical equipment of a class or kind not made in Canada.
Before that it was in item 453, dutiable at 15 per cent, 22i per cent, 25 per cent and 27i per cent, or in item 657, dutiable at 17^ per cent, 20f per cent, 22J per cent and 25 per cent. There are no separate classifications for imports.


George Reginald Geary: In regard to the new item 445, a typewritten copy of which I have glanced at, and which, I understand, follows the suggestion that the hon. member for Last Mountain made in the house within the last month or so, I should like to be told the reason of that change, and the amount of reduction it is estimated will occur in duty per annum. I thought the hon. member for Last Mountain made out a good case when he stated it in the house the other day, but this comes before us for the first time and it has not come from or been considered by the tariff advisory board. I do not suppose the manufacturer of a motive power has any knowledge of the introduction of the item, and I should be glad to be informed what it means.


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend is now referring to the combined harvester and reaper. That item has been passed. It is simply clearing up the matter. As the situation was before, a thresher came in at 10 per cent and a reaper at 6 per cent. This new machine, introduced within recent years, was being charged a higher duty because there is in the Customs Act a section which states that when a commodity is affected by two different rates, the higher rate shall prevail. There seemed to be unanimity that this machine should come in at the lower rate. We are now clarifying the situation and the combined machine will have the same advantages as regards rebates as the other machine has under the 6 per cent duty It is in no worse and no better position.


George Reginald Geary: There is no reference to the motive power?


James Alexander Robb: No.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I do not think the minister answered the question put to him a little while ago in reference to item 696 in connection with hospitals, whether or not hospitals controlled by institutions such as the Salvation Army would have the benefits of that item.


James Alexander Robb: We considered the item before six o'clock when it was suggested that we should also include public hospitals. The item then read:
All articles in this item, when specially imported in good faith for the use and by order of any society or institution incorporated or established solely for religious, philosophical, educational, scientific or literary purposes, or for the encouragement of the fine arts, or for the use and by order of any college, academy, school, or seminary of learning in Canada, and not for sale, under regulations prescribed by the minister.
These institutions qualified, but I think the objection raised before six o'clock was that public hospitals had not been provided for. That would be my understanding of the matter.


Edward Joseph Garland: If the minister's understanding of it is the same as that of those who are administering the act, I shall be satisfied; but if it is not so interpreted by those who are administering the act, then we are still at loggerheads in regard to this item. I wish the minister would more clearly define what he means by a public hospital.


Robert James Manion: Would it not be a proper
definition to say that a hospital would come under this item provided it were doing really charitalble work? I admit there may be some private hospitals doing charitable work, and if those hospitals have the equipment they should be put under the classification of public hospitals. But any hospital that could show to the minister administering the act that it was doing really charitable work, accepting and looking after patients practically free of charge, should come under this item.


William Daum Euler: Would the hon. member
say that if they were doing so only in part?


Robert James Manion: All public hospitals look
after a few private patients. For instance, the one general hospital in my city, a very fine hospital, is largely a public hospital inasmuch as it looks after patients at a lower cost than that which the hospital incurs in caring for them, and it receives grants from the province; but it has private wards where the patients pay their way. It should come under this arrangement. If it does not, I do not know what hospital would.


James Alexander Robb: I am guided by consultation
with the officers of the customs department who administer the act, and they were guided by an item which has been in the tariff for many years. It was amended in 1913 and it has been in the act ever since. This is the item:

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
Glassware and other scientific apparatus lor laboratory work in public hospitals, also apparatus for sterilizing purposes, not including washing or laundry machines; all articles in this item when imported in good faith for the use and by order of any public hospital.
There has been no complaint. Why should there be any complaint about this?


Robert James Manion: I was not complaining. I
was defending the minister, I am sorry to say.
I regret ever having to defend the minister.
I do not often have to do so.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Item as amended agreed to.
Customs tariff-460f. Face loading machines, shaker trough or belt trough conveyors, air engines, flame proof enclosed driving motors tor air engines, and integral parts of all motive power or machinery mentioned in this item, to be used exclusively in mining operations; British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 10 per cent; general tariff, 12J per cent.
James Alexander Robb: We had under consideration
also 460f and it was pointed out that the item, as originally presented, read: "face loading machines", and it was suggested it should be amended to read: "coal face loading machines". We propose to return to the item just as it is in the printed form presented in the budget; but there seems to be a duplication of language in the item, and in the third line we are striking out the words "for air engines", so that the item will read:
Face loading machines, shaker trough or belt trough conveyors, air engines, flame proof enclosed driving motors, and integral parts of all motive power or machinery mentioned in this item, to be used exclusively in mining operations.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Without regard to coal
mines?


James Alexander Robb: This broadens it out. I am
striking out the three words "for air engines".


William Ernest Tummon: What was the previous
rate?


James Alexander Robb: The previous rates were 15
per cent, 25 per cent and 27^ per cent, and a part of it came under another item at 20 per cent in the general tariff instead of 25 per cent. The new rates will be free, 10 per cent and 12J per cent.


Thomas Cantley: If the minister wants to
clarify the item, I think he ought to preface it with the word "coal" and make it read, "Coal face loading machines."


James Alexander Robb: That is what we are correcting. We are broadening it out. Objection was made earlier in the afternoon that it was limited to coal only, and it should be made a little wider.


Thomas Cantley: The item does not refer to anything except machines for loading coal at the face under long wall operations.


James Alexander Robb: Then nobody else will use it.


William Ernest Tummon: I notice the Minister of National Revenue in his seat. Would he answer the question I asked this afternoon? It was in regard to the parts, whether this item would apply to parts for a machine that was already in the country and was perhaps now in use, or to new parts imported into the country to form with other parts a new machine?


William Daum Euler: I would not care to make a definite reiply offhand, but my impression at the moment is that it would make no difference. Whatever tihe purpose for which the parts were imported, I think they would all be on the same basis. I am just giving that as an offhand opinion; I would not care to make any definite statement at the moment.


William Ernest Tummon: I am very glad to hear the minister make that statement. Let me explain why I asked the question. A branch factory of one of the largest mining machinery firms in the United States is located in Canada, and they have been adding to their output year after year many of the machines that the parent plant makes in the United States, building them here in their branch factory. Under this item as it is now amended they cannot build the complete machine in Canada as cheaply as they can import it from the parent plant- in the United States, but they want to build all they can in the Canadian factory, and in order to compete they will have to import some of the parts of the machine, building the others in the branch factory here. I am very glad that the minister interprets this change so as to allow construction of same parts in Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Item as amended agreed to.
Customs tariff-618a. Gaskets of rubber for use in the sealing of cans for food products: British preferential tariff, free.; intermediate tariff, 7i per cent; general tariff, 10 per cent.
Richard Bedford Bennett: The word "permanent" was struck out.


James Alexander Robb: Yes. I noiw beg to move to strike out the word "cans" and insert instead the word " containers."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Item as amended agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
2342	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
Customs tariff-112. Cocoanut, desiccated, n.o.p. per pound: British preferential tariff, 5 cents; intermediate tariff, 6 cents; general tariff, 6 cents.
Customs tariff-113. Cocoanut, desiccated, unsweetened, per pound: British preferential tariff, 2 cents; intermediate tariff, 3 cents; general tariff, 3 cents.
Arthur Edward Ross: Will the minister mow tell us where the request for these changes came from?


James Alexander Robb: I suppose we will consider the two items 'together. Under the present tariff, desiccated cocoanut, sweetened or not, enters under item 113 at 5, 6 and 6 cents, chiefly from the island of Ceylon. Application was made for reduction on the unsweetened, it being represented at the public sittings that, in the case of the unsweetened, the specific duty at present operative had an ad valorem effect of about 60 per cent. It is proposed by means of the two items, 112 and 113, to reduce the duty on unsweetened or less highly processed cocoanut, without changing in any way the sweetened. Imports of desiccated cocoanut, sweetened or unsweetened, in 1928, were valued at $193,000, of which $180,000 came from Ceylon. Application was made to the tariff board by Dodwell and Company of Vancouver, supported by the Consumers League. There was no opposition.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: When these items first
came up I made the statement to the Minister of Finance that these changes meant a clear gift to the Dodwell Company of $66,000 per annum. I asked the minister to let the item stand over for a while, and he kindly consented. I take issue with the minister on this item, on the ground! that this is a type of case which occurs so often in connection with the tariff, whereby we are led to believe that the tariff is being reduced when it is actually being raised to the ordinary consumer. In support of my statement I have before me the report of the Department of Trade and Commerce. Let me say, first of all, that the agent for the Consumers' League was unaware that an application had been made for a reduction simply on the raw product. The rates under item 113 as it stood before on cocoanut, whether sweetened or unsweetened, were 5, 6 and 6 cents. That is reduced to 2, 3 and 3 cents. We had no idea that that did not apply to the whole of item 113. But when the question comes before us in committee of the whole house we find that the two items have been split, and that the sweetened as before retains the higher tariff, and the unsweetened retains the low tariff, giving to the only manufacturer of this com-
modity that I know of in Canada this super bonus of S66,000. At page 7 of the report of the Department of Trade and Commerce for the year ending December 31, 1928, I find there were 2,210,041 pounds of cocoanut, desiccated, sweetened or not, imported into Canada at a value of $159,228. That works out to a price of 7J cents per pound. Now when the tariff is reduced to 2, 3 and 3 cents, the manufacturer is given a distinct advantage of 3 cents a pound, and as he is the only importer and the only manufacturer of this commodity in Canada, it means that he can take out of the pockets of the 'Canadian consumers a clear profit of $66,000. That figure is obtained by multiplying 2,210,041 pounds by 3 cents. That represents a clear gift of [DOT]$66,000 to the manufacturer for importing the cocoanut, sprinkling a little sugar on it, and then calling it a manufactured article. If you look a little further into the matter, and transform the specific duty into an ad valorem duty, you will find that it works out to an ad valorem duty of 82 per cent. There is no article that I know of in the tariff which merits a duty of 82 per cent. It is simply absurd in the extreme. It will be seen by this that the ultimate consumer is entirely left out of consideration. We hear a great deal about the low tariff policy of our friends of the Liberal party, but surely the consumer should be given some consideration in the matter. Both sweetened and unsweetened were equal before; they should be equal now. It is discrimination and it is ridiculous for a party that calls itself a low tariff party. This 82 per cent gives one company a monopoly of the business. I have brought this up because it clearly shows what is coming to one manufacturer and what is coming to the other. In respect to a great many of the articles where the tariff is reduced, it is reduced only on the article which the manufacturer himself uses, and the corresponding reduction of duty to the consumer is not granted; he does not reap that advantage because the manufactured article itself is not reduced by the same amount. Let me take an instance where one manufacturer gets-a 10 per cent reduction on his raw material. In such a case surely that reduction should be passed on the ultimate consumer. For example, if the tariff on the manufactured article was 35 per cent before the reduction, then the price to the ultimate consumer should be correspondingly reduced. I have taken this case because in every instance that I know of the manufacturer gets the advantage and the ultimate consumer does not. In this case the sole manufacturer

IFoj/s and Means-Customs Tariff
of the sweetened article, Dodwell and Company, is getting $66,000 out of the pockets of the ultimate consumers of Canada. I would ask the minister to cross out that item 112 and make the amount equal in both cases.


Arthur Edward Ross: When this matter was up before I pointed out that the minister was interfering perhaps in a way of which he was not aware, and I should like to bring the matter to his attention again to-night. I would say now that he is not acquainted with what this resolution means. It appears to-night as if the member who has just spoken considers the manufacturing end is the desiccated cocoanut.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Sweetened.


Arthur Edward Ross: No, I am going to point out another side. The minister has said that the cocoanut in the raw state is admitted free. There are certain companies in this country who take the raw cocoanut and shred it here, and by the proposed change you are taking the labour from the people of Canada and giving it to the cheap coloured labour in the southern islands; in a word you are putting the Canadian companies out of business. One is the Baker Company of Montreal. They are importing the cocoanut free and shredding it here. It is not a matter of sweetening the cocoanut; that is not the manufacturing condition. The shredding that the member has spoken about is done in the southern islands. It is the labour there that he is trying to protect. I am trying to protect the white labour in Canada against this proposed change. I repeat, the change now proposed by the minister will throw the shredding of the cocoanut back to the cheap coloured labour of the southern islands to the disadvantage of the white labour of Canada. When the member for East Calgary sees that point I hope he will change his attitude. The minister does not know what he is doing. I have a letter from the Baker people saying that they are thinking about closing up business because the preference on the shredded cocoanut is given to the cheap labour of the southern islands. The manufacturer, as I say, is shredding the raw cocoanut here. If this change goes through there will be no work for that class of labour in Canada. It is a small amount of labour, it is true, but it should be protected.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: May I point out to my
hon. friend that these two articles do not deal with raw cocoanut, but simply with 78594-1484
desiccated and sweetened. The particular manufacturer I have mentioned has a considerable bonus of $66,000.


Arthur Edward Ross: And by the reduction you are simply throwing the labour back to the southern islands. It is not a case of sweetening, although it looks like it. Of course the cocoanut is sweetened afterwards, but that is not the crux of the case.


James Alexander Robb: Mr. Chairman, it would1 appear now, after listening to my hon. friend from East Calgary and my hon. friend from Kingston, that the tariff board could not have been very far out in trying to strike the happy mean. There was a hearing, and the Consumers' League was represented.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is part of the
board.


James Alexander Robb: The memorandum that I have before me does not indicate that the Baker Company opposed the application.


Arthur Edward Ross: Why not hear their side?


James Alexander Robb: The memorandum before me
from the board does not say the Baker Company were opposed to the application. The Baker Company must know there is a Minister of Finance, but I have no recollection of their having written to me opposing the proposed change. After listening to both my friends I think I had better take the advice of the tariff board.


Arthur Edward Ross: The Baker Company did not ask me to bring up the matter. It is merely by accident that I have come across this case. The minister must see now that there is a side to it in connection with the manufacture of the raw cocoanut which he did not see before, and I do not think the tariff board saw it either.


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend from East
Calgary also brings out a side that I had not noticed.


Edward Joseph Garland: Can the
minister give the revenue received from this source last year?


James Alexander Robb: My memorandum does not
quite agree with the figures quoted. The total importations for 1928 were valued at $193,226. I imagine that is the value f.o.b. point of shipment. The loss in revenue will be about $39,657.


Edward Joseph Garland: Even if we accept the somewhat questionable figures of the minister as compared with those prepared by the Department of Trade and Commerce-
2344	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


James Alexander Robb: I beg your pardon?


Edward Joseph Garland: I say if we accept the somewhat questionable figures of the minister.


James Alexander Robb: Why does my hon. friend say "the somewhat questionable figures"?


Edward Joseph Garland: For this
reason. The Department of Trade and Commerce gave the importations last year as
2,210,000	pounds at 6 cents a pound.


James Alexander Robb: The importation was 2,643,865 pounds.


Edward Joseph Garland: If the duty is 6 cents on that total importation the revenue produced must have been around $132,000.


James Alexander Robb: How does my hon. friend
arrive at 6 cents? It came from Ceylon, which enjoys the British preference of 5 cents.


Edward Joseph Garland: How much
came from Ceylon?


James Alexander Robb: Under the British preference
there came in 2,589,065 pounds and under the general tariff 54,800 pounds. In other words, $188,613 came under the British preference- that is the value at point of shipment-and $4,613 under the general.


Edward Joseph Garland: Under the British preference it carried a duty of 5 cents; that is to say, 2,500,000 pounds came in at 5 cents.


James Alexander Robb: The exact figures are 2,589,-
065.


Edward Joseph Garland: And the
balance came in at 6 cents.


James Alexander Robb: That is, 54,800 pounds.


Edward Joseph Garland: In other
words, over $100,000 of revenue is recorded for last year's importations-roughly, $110,000, or perhaps a little more. Now, $110,000 of revenue is not to be sneezed at. The minister suggests that all of that wild be retained except $36,000 or thereabouts. Suppose we accept the minister's figures.


James Alexander Robb: There will be 10 per cent
off that if it comes in direct under the British preference.


Edward Joseph Garland: Well, suppose w'e accept that figure, of a loss of revenue amounting to some $36,000.


James Alexander Robb: $39,657.


Edward Joseph Garland: Very well.
The hon. member for Kingston raises the point that this may mean a doss of employment to some 'Canadian labour, whereas an hon. member in this corner points out that no benefit will accrue to the oonsumer; but the country has lost some $39,000. So that the only one who does get any advantage under the proposed change is this solitary manufacturer of sweetened desiccated cocoa-nut-Dodwell & Company. I suggest that in view of the representations made the minister might even the matter up, so as to give the people of Canada an opportunity to get some advantage from it, by levelling the duty down; instead of discriminating between the sweetened and the unsweetened article, let him include both items under the reduced rates. If he does this he wild be doing something worth while; but to leave the matter as it stands is to benefit no one except this particular company. It is no use for the minister to shake his head or to say that because there was no opposition on the part of the Consumers' League the item should therefore be carried1. As a matter of fact I am informed that the Consumers' League was *not aware that the reduction was to be granted on just one part of the original item; the league assumed that it would be granted to the whole item. It is now protesting, and I have had representatives of the Consumers' League in my room pointing out the discrimination in this particular item.


Arthur Edward Ross: I wish to read for the benefit of the committee and of some of the Montreal members the following:
So just now we are thinking of the probable necessity of having to close down this industry in Montreal. We find it almost impossible to compete with coloured labour which is used in the making of cocoanut in the southern islands as against our using white labour in Montreal, and. too, paying freight on whole eocoanuts. which is the raw product, as against the rate of freight on the finished product.
There is the situation. They are bringing in raw cocoanut and manufacturing it here, shredding and sweetening it, and now it is proposed to bring in manufactured cocoanut from the southern islands to compete against white labour in Montreal.


Edward James Young: Does this cocoa-nut come in whole?


Arthur Edward Ross: Yes.


Edward James Young: For this purpose?


Arthur Edward Ross: To these people.


Edward James Young: I did not understand so.

Ways arid Means-Customs Tariff


Arthur Edward Ross: Well, I am telling you.


Edward James Young: I understand it is already desiccated when it comes in.


Arthur Edward Ross: That is just where the labour comes in. The cocoanut comes in whole and is broken and shredded here.


Eccles James Gott: The hon. member doesn't
know his cocoanuts.


Arthur Edward Ross: The first night this question was under discussion it looked as if the whole process of manufacture in this case consisted in the sweetening of the cocoa-nut, but that is not the case. The raw product is coming into Canada and is being shredded here.


Edward James Young: How many
people do they employ in the shredding process?


Arthur Edward Ross: I do not carry
these figures around in my head; I am giving their statement. If the hon. member would like to go to Montreal with me we could find out. He is so much interested in the manufacturing end of the business in this country that I am willing to go with him. I have a little more interest in white labour in Montreal than in the cheaper labour down in some place I know nothing about.


Edward James Young: But you are not sufficiently interested to know how many men are engaged in the business.


Arthur Edward Ross: I cannot give you the number of men engaged.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Will the minister deny that Dodwell & Company, by means of the preference, are going to get an advantage of $66,000 which they would not otherwise enjoy? That is one question I want to ask him, and a second is this: Will the minister put both the sweetened and the unsweetened product on the same basis?


James Alexander Robb: The records show that the loss
of revenue will be $39,657, so that I cannot understand where the hon. gentleman gets tihat figure.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Out of 2,210,000 pounds imported.


James Alexander Robb: But they do not get the whole business.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Who?


James Alexander Robb: Dodwell & Company.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Who else does? They are the only persons that applied for this and
I assume that they are doing the whole sweetening business. At any rate, if someone else does share in the business it makes no difference in the net result.


Samuel William Jacobs: Does not the hon. gentleman see that as soon as they are placed in the advantageous position which it appears they will be in when the schedule goes through other people will come into competition with them and they will not retain the $66,000? It will induce competition in the business. With regard to the Montreal concern about which my hon. friend from Kingston is so solicitous,
I understand that this is an American company with its head office in Boston. This is the first time I have known the hon. gentleman to be so anxious about the welfare of people in Boston.


Henry Herbert Stevens: But the company is employing Canadian labour.


Samuel William Jacobs: How many does it employ?


Arthur Edward Ross: Suppose it employs ten or twenty persons, what difference does that make? I hope more American branches will come over.


Samuel William Jacobs: As a matter of fact, how much white labour is employed in Montreal in this business?


Arthur Edward Ross: As a member for Montreal you should know. You should be in your place fighting even for one little company.


Samuel William Jacobs: I have to look after my own little cocoanut in Montreal.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: I a.m not surprised that there are so many protectionists on the Liberal side. The hon. member argues that if the tariff were kept on there would be more competition, and that is one of the worst protectionist arguments I have ever heard.


Samuel William Jacobs: I am not ashamed of my
protectionist views.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: I know now why Sir
Wilfrid Laurier was defeated in 1911: there were so many men pretending to be free traders while they were protectionists, and who absolutely crucified Sir Wilfrid Laurier for his free trade principles.


Malcolm McLean: I am glad that my hon. friend has at last found one outspoken protectionist on the Liberal slide. For years he and his friends have been telling how the Liberal party is honeycombed with protectionists and now he has found one member
2346	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
of the Liberal party who will justify himself and his friends in making that statement for a long time to come.


Milton Neil Campbell: The rest of us have
known that to be the fact all along.


Malcolm McLean: The hon. member for Mackenzie has been saying a lot of things he has known, and now I am glad he has made this statement in the house because he has been making statements throughout the country which he has not made in the house.


Milton Neil Campbell: The hon. members from Saskatchewan had a good many things to say about the tariff which they have not said in this house.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Herbert Bealey Adshead: I have one more word to say. There are a number of items in this tariff which give to the manufacturers distinct advantages which virtually means raising the prices of these articles to the consumer. I hope that when this parliament meets next session there will be a different attitude shown towards the tariff policy, just as there has been a different attitude Shown toward the income tax policy. If there is not a change, as far as I am concerned I will have to vote against the government.


Edward Joseph Garland: I would like to know how my hon.. friend from East Calgary expects the government to bring forward a low tariff policy while he supports them in their high tariff policy.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: I do not suppose this is pertinent to the question, 'but I might say that I was all right when I voted against the government all the time last year, but because I see differently this year I am all wrong.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Resolutions reported, read the second time and concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 212, to amend the Customs Tariff.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the Special W7ar Revenue Act, chapter one hundred 
and seventy-nine of the revised statutes of Canada, 1927, as amended by chapter fifty of the statutes of 1928, and to provide:-
1.	That part III of the said act be amended by repealing the following sections and subsections: Paragraphs (b) and (c) of subsection one. and subsection two, of section thirteen; section fourteen; section fifteen; section seventeen; section eighteen; and section nineteen, thereby repealing the tax on the net premiums received by every company licensed or registered or otherwise authorized to transact in Canada or any province thereof, the business of insurance.
2.	That part IV of the said act, which imposes a tax on cable and telegraDhic messages, be repealed.
3.	That part V of the said act. which imposes a tax on railway and other tickets, be repealed.
4.	That part VII of the said act be amended by striking out section fifty-eight and substituting therefor the following:-
58. No person shall sell or transfer the stock or shares of any association, company or corporation. or any bond other than a bond of the Dominion of Canada or of any province of Canada by
(a)	agreement for sale;
(b)	entry on the books of the association, company or corporation;
(c)	delivery of share certificates or share warrants or bond endorsed in blank or payable to bearer; or
(d)	any other method whatsoever;
unless in respect of such sale or transfer there is affixed to or impressed upon the document evidencing the ownership of such stock or shares or bond, or a document showing the transfer or agreement for the transfer thereof, an adhesive stamp or a stamp impressed thereon by means of a die of the value of
(a)	three cents for every one hundred dollars or fraction thereof of the par value of the bond sold or transferred;
(b)	four cents for every share of stock sold or transferred at a price over one hundred dollars per share;
(c)	three cents for every share of stock sold or transferred at a price over twenty dollars per share, but not more than hundred dollars per share;
(d)	two cents for every share of stock sold or transferred at a price over three dollars per share, but not more than twenty dollars per share;
(e)	one cent for every share of stock sold or transferred at a price of three dollars or less per share.
5.	That section eighty-six of the said act be amended by providing that the rate of the consumption or sales tax be reduced to two per cent.
6.	That any enactment founded on paragraph one of this resolution shall be deemed to have come into force on the first day of March, 1929.
7.	That any enactment founded on paragraphs two, three and four of this resolution shall come into force on the first day of May, 1929.
8.	That any enactment founded on paragraph five of this resolution shall be deemed to have come into force on the second day of March, 1929, and to have applied to all goods imported or taken out of warehouse for consumption on and after that day, and to have applied to goods previously imported for which no entry for consumption was made before that date.

Special War Revenue Act
James Alexander Robb: These reductions have been
generally well received, with the exception of the proposed tax on the transfer of stock. It has been represented to us that the proposed tax on mining shares was somewhat drastic, so I desire to move an amendment, as follows:
That paragraph 4 be amended by striking out clause (e) and substituting therefor the following:
(e)	one cent for every share of stock sold or transferred at a price over one dollar per share, but not more than three dollars per share:
(f)	one-fourth of one cent for every share of stock sold or transferred at a price over fifty cents per share, but not more than one dollar per share;
(g)	one-tenth of one cent for every share of stock sold or transferred at a price of fifty cents or less per share.
I think that will be fair.


John Arthur Clark: I think the minister is still imposing too high a tax upon the cheaper shares. The effect of an unreasonable tax upon the lower priced shares will be to hinder the legitimate development of the mining industry and deprive the general public of an opportunity of sharing in the mining development which is now taking place in this country. The result will be that a monopoly will be placed in the hands of the larger interests. The fact that mining has developed to such an extent in British Columbia is due largely to the faith of the men with small savings, and if too high a tax is put upon these shares it will hinder legitimate mining development. The minister says that he is reducing the tax. He has reduced it very materially, but I should like to give a practical illustration of the effect of the tax as he had it compared with his present proposal. The Consolidated Mining & Smelting Company in British Columbia recently took over 74 per cent of the stock of the Caledonia mines on Vancouver island. They purchased outright 339,600 shares at 20 cents per share, a total value of $67,920. Under the minister's first proposal the tax would have been $3,396, or 5 per cent of the total price. On a purchase and sale the tax would have amounted to 10 per cent, or $6,792. A private investor could have purchased over $11,000,000 worth of securities of a par value of $100 and would have had to pay only the same amount of tax. The minister now proposes that the tax on shares worth 20 cents will be one-tenth of a cent. It is true that the tax is being reduced, but in my opinion it is still too high. Taking the illustration I have given, the tax would amount to $340 on a total purchase price of only $67,000, or over $700 on a purchase and sale of stock. I submit that that is too high; it is out of all proportion to the tax paid by the investor purchasing stocks on the
market. The legitimate mining development in British Columbia has been brought about by the smaller investors, the men with small savings guided by good engineers. In the case I have cited by way of illustration these men went out and prospected and they showed sufficient ore to interest the Consolidated Mining & Smelting Company. If the minister insists upon too high a tax upon the purchase and sale of these shares he will make them unmarketable and immediately kill tihe interest of the public in legitimate mining development. On shares sold or transferred at 50 cents the tax is to be one-quarter of one cent per share, or one-half cent per share on a purchase and sale. Let us consider the shares purchased by the Consolidated Mining & Smelting Company as being worth $1.01 per share. That would mean a purchase amounting to $342,996 worth of stock, and the minister proposes to put a tax of $3,396 upon that purchase. The same tax would permit of a purchase of over $11,000,000 worth of stock of a par value of $100, and I submit again that the proposed tax is out of all proportion and will discourage legitimate mining development in this country.


Mr. LAWSON:: I had intended offering
some remarks in connection with this proposed amendment to part VII of the Special War Revenue Act, and the proposed reduction in the tax suggested by the hon. Minister of Finance this evening does not in any way change my view of the principle of the taxation; it merely offers, as a sop, a reduction in the burden cast upon the lower priced shares. To my mind this is most inequity able taxation. On the basis of the original proposal one buying or selling the lower priced issues would be paying a varying percentage in tax to the government. On one-cent shares the tax would be 100 per cent; on two-cent shares it would be 50 per cent; on three-cent shares the tax would amount to 33J per cent; on four-cent shares it would be 25 per cent, and so on down the list. I endeavoured to make a rapid calculation upon the proposed amendment, and as I figure it the purchaser will be paying 10 per cent tax on a one-cent share; 5 per cent tax on a two-cent share; 3.33 per cent tax on a three-cent share; 2.5 per cent tax on a four-cent share, and so on. In the case of the higher priced issues valued at $100, the percentage the purchaser will have to pay in the way of tax will amount to only 3/100 of one per cent. Let us consider for a moment the results of a tax of this nature, first, from the public standpoint, second, from the standpoint of the development of the
234S
Special War Revenue Act

mines, and third from the point of view of other far-reaching effects. The average speculator in mining stocks must of necessity speculate in the lower priced issues; it is only those of means who can interest themselves in the high priced issues. As I pointed out a moment ago, if a man sells stock at $100 a share he would be paying to the government 3/100 of one per cent of tthe sale price by way of tax, but if he sells stock at $1 a share he would be paying 1 per cent. This, to my mind, is iniquitous. It will, in my opinion, have an adverse effect in connection with the financing of the mines. I am not unmindful of the fact that, under the act as it stands, the original issue of treasury shares is not taxable, nor will it be under the amendment; but we must bear in mind the basis on which new mining properties are developed and the development financed. In the first place, companies are incorporated in order to get money, and money can be raised only in one of two ways: either you must engage a corps of salesmen who call upon individuals to sell them shares of stock, a method which is exceedingly expensive and which lends itself to all the possibilities of misrepresentation and fraud, or you must- offer that stock through some mining exchange where the divergence and width of the market make possible some fixed price. In order to offer that stock through an exchange, it is customary to have the issue underwritten by a broker or by some individual or corporation interested in the development of mining property. Obviously, for a new stock there is no demand which will produce funds to develop the property unless there is a market for the stock, and there will not be a demand unless the trading in that stock is active upon the market. Activity is obtained by brokers circularizing clients, by publishing the details of the property and its development to date in circulars, magazines, et cetera. The vast bulk of this class of stock consists of low priced issues; the moment you impose upon low priced issues a tax equal in percentage to the amounts indicated, you curtail trading in the market, and the moment you curtail trading in the market, you thereby prevent the company from obtaining the amount of funds which it would otherwise obtain for the development of those mines.
Let me cite a couple of concrete examples. Let us take Crown Reserve Consolidated, one of our mining issues, selling to-day at five cents. Under the original proposal there would be a tax of 20 per cent imposed on every sale. Under the new proposal there would be a tax
[Mr. Lawson. [
imposed of two per cent. It is not possible for that company to re-finance its operations and continue development with a tax at that rate imposed upon all the sales of its stock.
Let me take a more striking illustration, a new property in the Red Lake district. Picard a year ago was selling at 70 cents a share. To-day it is selling at approximately 3 cents a share. This is caused by the company running out of funds, being unable to sell more stock and having a bailiff come in to execute a judgment. That company is supposed to have .reasonable possibilities. It desires to re-finance. What opportunity has it of doing so when by this legislation you prevent an active market for those shares?
May I call the attention of the Minister of Finance to the fact that many of the higher priced dividend paying stocks to-day, were a short time ago selling for 10 or 15 cents a share? A most striking example is Teck Hughes, which as late as 1921 was selling at 16 cents a share and which, I see by to-night's quotation, is listed at $9.60 a share. I took the record of the Standard Stock and Mining Exchange, because it is, I think, the largest mining exchange in Canada. If hon. members will look at the record they will find that there is a trading on that exchange now in 156 issues, of which 112, in other words, approximately 74 per cent, are stocks selling at under $3 a share. I endeavoured to make a computation of the difference the proposed tax would make on the basis of one day's trading. I admit I shall now have to revise it to some extent by reason of the amendment proposed to-night by the Minister of Finance, but I selected the tax paid in one day by eleven out of fifty brokers trading on the Standard' Stock and Mining Exchange. In one day broker No. 1 under the present basis of taxation would pay $190.29, and bear in mind that, in making that payment, he is merely the representative of the public who aa-e investing in stocks. Under the new rate of taxation he would pay, on stocks under $3, $5,901.50, and on stocks over $3, $78.75, or a total of $5,980.25 as against the $190.29 being paid to-day. Let me give you the totals of the computation of the eleven. In one day, on one exchange, eleven out of fifty brokers, who in turn would be charging to the customer the tax payable, would pay $21,037.89 in tax instead of $809.57.
Progress reported.


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

Questions
Wednesday, May 8, 1929