[Stage Direction]
Mr. ECCLES J. GOTT (South Essex): Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. The Ottawa Journal of this morning under the caption of "Joint Debates," contains an editorial, the first two or three lines of which are as follows:
Mr. Gott. Liberal member for South Essex, and Mr. Hepburn, Conservative member for West Elgin, are going to meet in joint debate at St. Thomas a week from Saturday.
I do not propose to read the remainder of the editorial, but I do want to say that under present conditions there can be no Liberal representative to the House of Commons from the good old riding of South Essex. The hon. member for Vest Elgin has been unduly complimented.
Mr. SPEAKER:: Order.


Mr. GOTT:: The Journal has referred to
me on another occasion as a Liberal member. I resent the imputation, despite the fact that hundreds of Liberal farmers are to-day supporting our policy of protection for the farmers.



PRIVILEGE-MR. HEPBURN

Mr. M. F. HEPBURN (West Elgin):: On
the question of privilege, the hon. member for South Essex (Mr. Gott) appears to have been signally honoured. If press reports are authentic, he was on Friday last granted by the Speaker a special extension of time for his speech after a similar request had been denied to another member. This in my opinion violated not only the rules of the house but the neutrality of the Speaker. This latter honour, however, of being named as a Liberal member is the greatest of all. With regard to my name appearing as a Conservative member, I want to deny the allegation most emphatically.


Hewitt Bostock: I suppose the house will
accept the word of both gentlemen.



REPORT OF COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
Eighth report of the select standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. -Mr. Cahill.

Mr. A. F. TOTZKE (Humboldt) moved:: That Bill No. 83 respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway Company be placed upon the order paper of the house for consideration this day in committee of the whole house and for third reading.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 85 for the relief of Effie Margaret Hill.-Mr. Clark.
Bill No. 86 for the relief of Frederick Ruth-erfoord Zoppi.-Mr. Kay.
Bill No. 87 for the relief of Lera Ethel Val-lance.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 88 for the relief of Minerva Elliott.-Mr. Young (Toronto Northeast).
Bill No. 89 for the relief of Naomi Pauline Wilson.-Mr. Lawson.
Bill No. 90 for the relief of Harry Babing-ton Millward.

Mr. Lennox.
Bill No. 91 for the relief of Frances Gwendolyn Snow Lott.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 92 for the relief of Edward George Croucher.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 93 for the relief of Elsie Alice Hervey.-Mr. Clark.
Bill No. 94 for the relief of Edyth May Shields.-Mr. Young (Toronto Northeast).
Bill No. 95 for the relief of Mary Melvina Guerin.-Mr. Young (Toronto Northeast).
Bill No. 96 for the relief of Calvert Mitchell Carruthers.-Mr. Sanderson.
Private Bilh
[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 97 for the relief of Hunter Wilbert Faulkner.-Mr. Clark.
Bill No. 98 for the relief of Marion Ruth Laidman.-Mr. Young (Toronto Northeast).
Bill No. 99 for the relief of William Henry Blackwell.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 100 for the relief of Mabel Lorene DeClute.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 101 for the relief of Isabell Leach. -Mr. Lawson.
Bill No. 102 for the relief ot Emily Munn-ings.-Mr. Hubbs.
Bill No. 103 for the relief of Constance Mary Kearns-Mr. Anderson (Toronto-High Park).
Bill No. 104 for the relief of Alfred Rescorl. -Mr. Lawson.
Bill No. 105 for the relief of Clarence Percy Shields.-Mr. Hepburn.
Bill No. 106 for the relief of Isabella Ein-boden.-Mr. Lawson.
Bill No. 107 for the relief of John William Telfer.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 108 for the relief of Thomas South-wood.-Mr. Howard.
Bill No. 109 for the relief of James Ross Curry.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 110 for the relief of Edna Louise Brown.-Mr. Anderson (Toronto-High Park).
Bill No. Ill for the relief of Frederick Davenport.-Mr. Geary.
Bill No. 112 for the relief of William Greig Green.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 113 for the relief of Antoine Joseph Bourdon.-Mr. Clark.
Bill No. 114 for the relief of Arnold Whitchurch Little.-Mr. Boys.
Bill No. 115 for the relief of Arthur James Taylor.-Mr. Stewart (Leeds).
Bill No. 116 for the relief of Alla Chretter. -Mr. Lennox.
Bill No. 117 for the relief of Wallace Evered Gillespie.-Mr.	Anderson (Toronto-High
Park).
Bill No. 118 for the relief of Marjorie Grace Coleman.-Mr. Geary.
Bill No. 119 for the relief of Bessie Ruth Glass.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 120 for the relief of Janet Gee. -Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 121 for the relief of Sylvester Wilfred Kerr.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 122 for the relief of Florence May Forbes.-Mr. Bell (Hamilton West).
Bill No. 123 for the relief of Florence Velma Strachan.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 124 for the relief of William Ernest Foulkes.-Mr. Cahan.
Bill No. 125 for the relief of Edith Marie McFarlane.-Mr. Jacobs.

Bill No. 126-for the relief of William Henry Laverty.-Mr. Bothwell.
Bill No. 127 for the relief of Sophia Love. -Mr. Young (Toronto Northeast).
Bill No. 128 for the relief of Cleoniki Paleologou Drakoulas.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 129 for the relief of Ernest Carl Bouck.-Mr. Casselman.
Agreed to on division.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. B. ADSHEAD (East Calgary):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. In the local papers last night and this morning there is an account of the Liberal caucus, in which to my mind the honour of the house and o; the Speaker is brought into question at least the Speaker is severely criticized for certain restrictions he has placed on the activities of the messengers and for other reasons. This tends to hold His Honour up to the country as a man who needs discipline by a party caucus. As a member of this house I protest most emphatically against any caucus, whether Liberal, Tory or U.F.A., attempting to discipline His Honour the Speaker, and so holding him up to contumely. The reports to which I have alluded in both local papers appear under the heading, "Members kicked against the Speaker's ruling and the Speaker's action." Such accounts tend to undermine the prestige of His Honour the Speaker and to create an impression that he may 'be subject to influence in regard to his decisions, the value of which as a consequence may be very seriously impaired. I want to say, sir, that you were elected Speaker by all the members of the house, and that you are the servant, not of the Liberal party but of the whole house. One of the matters brought into question was the fact that you, sir, had given orders to the messengers of this house that they should not supply liquor to members of the house.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: That, I understand, was one of the orders. I wish to say, sir, if that is true, that I support such action on your part. But I have full confidence in the impartiality of Mr. Speaker, and I resent the impression that has been created.


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: May I ask where the question of privilege comes in? An unconfirmed report in the press is cited by the
hon. gentleman, and I fail to see the question of privilege. A few days ago a very serious accusation appeared in the press against some

House of Commons-Regulations
hon. members of this house and the matter was not allowed to be discussed. I fail to see where the hon. member who is protesting has been injured in any way.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: May I say to my hon.
friend that I was present at the caucus to which he has just referred, and the one comment of caucus was upon the publicity that had been given to certain instructions issued by Mr. Speaker, which caucus felt had created a wrong impression abroad with respect to certain matters alleged to be transpiring in these houses of parliament. As a matter of fact there was not criticism of Mr. Speaker's instructions; there was no reflection upon Mr. Speaker. The one criticism that was made-and it was made with respect to this House of Commons and this parliament-was that the public would get an entirely wrong impression as to what is transpiring in these buildings, from the publicity that had been given certain instructions upon which the newspapers have put their own interpretation. The thought of caucus was that the committee on internal economy might very well take up that matter with Mr. Speaker, but I find that that committee has no authority whatever in this respect. I would take advantage of the present discussion to suggest that Mr. Speaker might meet with a committee of this house to discuss certain matters that relate to the House of Commons-not to the government but to this house which manages its own affairs. May I say this with respect to any report that has appeared in the press. Caucuses, as every hon. member knows, are private and secret meetings, and there was a most implicit understanding at this caucus, as there has been at every caucus, that members of caucus were to give no statement whatever to the press as to what might transpire there. Anything, therefore, that appears in the press with respect to yesterday's caucus is without any authority, and what I have read of its proceedings in the press cannot be said to be a correct account.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: The fact that the Liberal party itself in the Liberal caucus reprimanded the Speaker for his regulations-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):: With many of the observations made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) every member of this House of Commons must be in accord. But I think it is also apparent that a matter of this kind should be discussed behind closed doors; and if it is agreeable to you, Mr. Speaker, I think 78594-96
that before we open the doors to the public at the next sitting we might discuss the subject that has now been brought to the attention of the house. That would be the more proper course to follow in dealing with the situation that has arisen.
Mr. FRANK S. CAHILL (Pontiac): I was not present at the caucus, but I entirely disagree with the suggestion of the Leader- of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett).	There is
nothing transpiring in this house or in the building, of which any of us are aware, that would necessitate secret discussion.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is the practice of the house.


Mr. CAHILL:: If there is to be discussion let us have it in open house. My only experience of a secret meeting of the House of Commons was some years ago when we held such a session to learn of certain things that were taking place in the war.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We have twice had such a meeting in the last few years.


Frank S. Cahill: The questions discussed on that occasion were published in the morning papers before this secret meeting took place, and the subject matter of any secret meeting we might hold here would be public property not many minutes after the opening of the house. I do not think, from my short experience in this house, that anything transpires here which cannot be dealt with openly by the members of the house, with Hansard and the galleries present. I entirely object to the suggestion of the leader of the opposition. I repeat, if we have anything to say, let us say it in public.	*


Mr. C. G. POWER (Quebec South):: I am inclined to agree to a great extent with my hon. friend from Pontiac (Mr. Cahill). Anything that has transpired within the walls of parliament has been broadcast to the four corners of this country. The orders given by His Honour the Speaker, and the manner in which they were executed, are familiar to all who pay any attention whatsoever to the political situation in this Dominion.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: What were the orders?


Charles Gavan Power: The orders were published in the newspapers, to the effect that certain messengers should not do certain work, and that certain policemen should patrol corridors on such and such floors of this building. I believe therefore that the suggestion made by the hon. member for Pontiac is quite sound, that no good purpose can be served by having a secret session. On the contrary, too much

1510	COMMONS
House of Commons-Regulations
importance will be attached to what after all are mere incidents, if we take the extraordinary view that a secret session is necessary. Secret sessions are held, as a rule, only when matters of great importance to the nation are to be discussed, and I submit-


Richard Bedford Bennett: May I correct the hon. gentleman in order that he may not misunderstand me. We are speaking merely of the internal economy of the House of Commons, and the secret session proposed is just such a session as those that have been held twice during the past two years in connection with the approaches to this building. It is not well that matters of internal economy should engage the attention of the public; such matters should be discussed by us before the doors are opened.


Charles Gavan Power: I accept my hon. friend's correction and I will go further and say that, if the matter is not important enough to warrant a special session behind closed doors, the house to-day should select from amongst its members a committee to wait upon Mr. Speaker to discuss the whole question with him and to report its findings to the House of Commons as soon as possible. In my humble opinion, the matter can be settled in fifteen or twenty minutes by means of a free, frank and open discussion with His Honour, and the report having been made to the house publicly we ^halt no longer have such a situation as has arisen, of reports in the press giving rise to rumours which are utterly unfounded and which seriously reflect upon the honour of all members of this house.


Mr. IRVINE:: May I ask t'he hon. gentleman, before he takes his seat, what there is to be settled? I am not clear as to what the question is about.


Charles Gavan Power: I will briefly explain it,
although it must be quite clear to everyone. Undoubtedly the hon. member must have heard about the matter from conversation with other members. The question has reference to certain orders which have been issued, and to the publicity which has been given to those orders, and I think that question can be settled by discussion with the Speaker.


Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (South Wellington) :: After a fairly long experience in this
house, I believe that in every instance I can recall where a matter of internal economy has been mentioned it has always been mentioned behind closed doors before the opening of the house. The very first day I sat in the House of Commons the late Sir Charles Hib-bert Tupper mentioned the question of the allocation of rooms as between the two parties

in the House of Commons. Mr. Speaker Brodeur immediately said the point should be discussed behind closed doors on the following day. On at least half a dozen occasions during the last thirty years a similar course has been followed, and I think that is the course which should be pursued now. That is parliamentary practice, and I see no reason for departing from it.


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: I desire to say that I agree with
the leader of the opposition and the hon. member for South Wellington as to that having been the usual practice in matters of this kind, and after all I think it is a good practice. A few years ago, Mr. Speaker, I heard you say with regard to a certain matter that this House of Commons was a gentlemen's club, the best club in the land.


Miss MACPHAIL:: A gentlemen's club?


Ernest Lapointe: I beg my hon. friend's
pardon; I suppose that will have to be modified now. However, that is an additional reason why this should be discussed in the usual way by the members of parliament themselves.


Hewitt Bostock: If it is the pleasure of
the house that this matter be discussed at a later sitting behind closed doors, I am the servant of the house.


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: I do not think, that is altogether
the opinion of the house, and I should like to protest against this closed door policy. Certain charges, whether founded or unfounded, have been broadcast by the press. These charges are not made against particular individuals but are made in a vague sort of way which leaves any member of the bouse liable to suspicion. I do not think that is fair to hon. members. Further, the very appointment of a committee such as has been suggested, under these circumstances would be more or less of a reflection upon the decision of the Speaker, and some of us do not want to see anything of that kind take place. Whatever the opinions of the members of the house may be with regard to certain practices, I submit that no one member can act along the lines which have been followed in the past without involving the standing of all the members in this house, against this any member has a right to protest.
I suggest that perhaps we might find a way out of the difficulty by appointing a sort of house committee such as exists in a good many clubs, not to deal with this particular matter at this time but rather as a support

House of Commons-Regulations
to the Speaker. I quite understand that there are certain difficulties which have made it very hard for the Speaker to act and take the entire responsibility for his actions without at least consulting some of the members in order to obtain their views as to what is proper in the circumstances. I do not think such a committee would discipline the Speaker at all. It would be a means by which various members of the house could make their complaints known to the Speaker in order to obtain that free discussion which is necessary.
With regard to the particular matter now under consideration I would protest against it being decided behind closed doors. If liquor has been carried by messengers, as I understand to be the case, I for one would like to see that practice cease; I do not think that is the work of a messenger of this house.


Charles Gavan Power: In view of the knowledge
which I have just gained that the rules do not provide for such a committee as I have suggested, I beg to withdraw my suggestion.
Mr. COOTE.:	It is with a good deal of
hesitation that I rise to take part in this discussion, because it seems to me entirely out of order. However, I am not going to miss this opportunity of pressing for the appointment of what I would call a house committee. For years I have thought such a committee should be appointed.


An hon. MEMBER:: There is a standing
committee.


Mr. COOTE:: Then if we have a house
committee I would like to know what it is doing. I want a house committee representative of all parties and groups in this house, similar to the other parliamentary committees which now exist. That committee should have duties with respect to the house similar to the duties of the restaurant committee with respect to the restaurant. It does not matter very much to me whether this matter is dealt with in camera or at a public session of this house, but I do want to press for the appointment of a house committee which will include representatives of all groups in the house.


Mr. POULIOT:: I am just told that you,
Mr. Speaker, would be ready to clear the galleries and' have the matter discussed now if it is the wish of the house.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think hon.
members of the house will feel that Your Honour is the presiding officer of the house and that we should be quite prepared, after what has been said, to leave it to your own judgment, Mr. Speaker, to decide what fur-78594- 96J
ther step it may be advisable to take. I think we might proceed now with the business of the house.


Hewitt Bostock: I have no objection to
discussing this matter right now, but in deference to the opinions which have been expressed I shall wait, not until Monday, because, Monday morning I must attend the funeral service of a dear friend of mine in Montreal, but until Tuesday next when, behind closed doors, I will be ready to explain these two orders which were given ir good faith for the protection of the dignitj and the privileges of the house.


Hon. CHARLES MARCIL (Bonaventure):: I do not want to prolong the debate, but I would like to remind hon. members that it always has been the custom of this house that before the doors are opened any member may bring up any question concerning the internal economy of the house before the ordinary business is taken up. That has been the custom for many years; I could cite many instances where that has been done before the doors were declared open.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Before this question is
left perhaps you, Mr. Speaker, might ask the clerk of the house to give the names of the members of the Internal Economy Commission already appointed, for the benefit of those hon. members who apparently are of the opinion that such a committee does not exist.


Hewitt Bostock: Early in the session
a message was read to the house from His Excellency the Governor General appointing four ministers of the crown as members of the Internal Economy Commission, but that commission deals only with the financial matters of this department. It must be remembered that this is a department, and I want the house to understand that as Speaker of the house I am head of a department which employes about 500 people. Under the Civil Service Act the Speaker is, just as much as any minister of the crown, the head of his department. Therefore, when the Speaker gives orders, they must be obeyed. On Tuesday next I will ask hon. members to stand by their Speaker if his instructions are in conformity with the privileges, the honour and the dignity of the house.



SPEECH OF MR. W. H. MOORE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Bedford Bennett: I would like to direct the
Speech oj W. H. Moore

attention of the government to a press report of a meeting held last night, which was addressed by Mr. W. H. Moore, chairman of the tariff board. In that speech Mr. Moore uses language which I regard as strictly political and which would result in any civil servant being dismissed under the provisions of the order in council which was approved by Sir Wilfrid Laurier and adopted during the regime of Sir Robert Borden. Mr. Moore said:
"We, as the tariff board, should not be left with this tariff problem, nor should those on parliament hill be asked to saddle the whole burden," Mr. Moore observed. "One thing the tariff board has done and that is that it has brought out from day to day the different situations which you people have to face on election day for whatever interpretation you place on them, that is your responsibility."
"There is a conflict of tariff opinion in the United States," Mr. Moore said. "We have a clearer vision of what is going on in the states to-day than we have perhaps of what is taking place at home. But American standards of living cannot be increased by making food dearer. The farmers there have come out boldly with their demand, 'We want dearer food/ but in no case was the demand stated more boldly nor baldly than by the sugar beet farmers, who are asking $6 for sugar, when it is now $4.70."
In reference to the dairy industry, he said:
We hear a lot that our imports of New Zealand butter are increasing and our exports of butter are decreasing. That does not necessarily mean, however, that our dairy is dying; only that it is taking another form in the export of milk and milk products.
I ask the government what is to be done with a civil servant, a servant of the Department of Finance, as the minister said last night, who goes out and carries on political propaganda within sight of the walls of parliament.


Mr. ROBB:: At what gathering was this?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The heading of the article
reads:
W. H. Moore, of Tariff Board, gives entertaining address to Men's Association of Glebe United Church.
This article appears in the Ottawa Citizen of Friday, April 12.


James Alexander Robb: Some days ago the chairman
of the tariff board told me that he had received an invitation from some church to give an address at their annual men's meeting. He wanted to know if there was any objection to his giving this address, and I told him I could see none. He is a citizen of this country and has the same rights as any other citizen. I read this report very carefully, but I am bound to say that I cannot place t'he same construction upon it as does the hon. leader 
of the opposition (Mr. Bennett). They had asked Mr. Moore to explain the workings of the tariff board, and he was making that explanation as interesting as he could.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is purely a political
speech.


James Alexander Robb: If that is a political speech,
then the Deputy Minister of the Ontario Department of Agriculture made the same type of speech in London not very long ago, as did Mr. Ruddick, the dairy and cold storage commissioner. These men who are conversant with what is going on in the country should be allowed to present a statement of facts to the people.


Mr. STEVENS:: It was not a statement of facts, but absolutely the contrary.


James Alexander Robb: Surely Mr. Moore, the chairman of the tariff board, has equal rights with an employee of the government of Ontario.


An hon. MEMBER:: What have we to
do with the Ontario government?


Richard Bedford Bennett: WTe are talking about
the parliament of Canada.


James Alexander Robb: This gentleman has the same
rights as an employee of the Ontario government speaking in the province of Ontario. I am bound to say that I cannot find a statement made by Mr. Moore which is not a statement of facts.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is not a statement of facts.



OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JEAN -FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata):	Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a word
of praise for the reporters of Hansard. They deserve a lot of credit because when I was speaking last night there was considerable noise from the opposite benches, but to my great astonishment I found my speech complete in Hansard, with the possible exception of one or two phrases. I think a great deal of praise should be given to these reporters.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Write them a letter.



WAYS AND MEANS


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Customs tariff-215. Stearic acid, n.o.p.; British preferential tariff, 12J per cent; intermediate tariff, 174 per cent; general tariff, 20 per cent.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
Customs tariff-215a. Stearic acid, when imported by manufacturers of candles or crayons for use only in their own factories in the manufacture of candles or crayons: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
Richard Bedford Bennett: When we rose last night the minister (Mr. Robb) was reading from a document which had been prepared by one of the officials of his department. He had not completed reading that document, and I would like to know by whom it was signed.


James Alexander Robb: I thought I read it all.


Richard Bedford Bennett: You said you would
make it available to us.


James Alexander Robb: I gave it to Hansard and I
am not sure whether they have returned it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister was also to produce the typewritten evidence taken at the hearings of these applications.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: May I ask what item
we are discussing?


The CHAIRMAN:: Item 215.


James Alexander Robb: I was reading from a memorandum which had been given to me by an officer of the department; it is not signed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Was it prepared by Mr. Moore?


James Alexander Robb: It was prepared by Mr. Mc-
Kinnon.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He is the secretary of the tariff board?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


Hugh Guthrie: The minister intimated
last night that he would let us have the typewritten copy of the evidence which was taken at the hearings of these applications; has the minister obtained that evidence?


James Alexander Robb: I have two copies and I will
send them over to my hon. friend.


Mr. McGIBBON:: I would like to ask the minister if it will be possible to obtain any information before we pass these items.


James Alexander Robb: I will give the hon. member
all the information I can.


Peter McGibbon: We have not been able to get very much as yet. Last night we had one of the strangest spectacles I have ever seen in this house. We received information that the tariff board had been holding secret conferences with the manufacturers, coming to secret agreements, and holding secret conferences with the ministers, and yet none of that information was available to this house.
We are being asked to make changes in the tariff which may be of far-reaching importance, and I think this whole matter of the relation of the tariff board to the government should be cleared up. That board is costing this country about $120,000 a year and, so far as we can ascertain, its usefulness is practically nil. More than that, we have the spectacle to-day of the chairman going out and making political speeches containing statements contrary to facts. I think it is time that this parliament should object to the servants of this government carrying on political propaganda in favour of one party. It is time we got rid of them and I think we should get rid of them now.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have in my hand the
report of the second hearing of this item. This evidence shows that the application was opposed, although last night the minister was of the opinion that it had not been opposed. At page 2 of the evidence in connection with the hearing of reference No. 96, this is what is said:


John Frederick Johnston: Who appears on reference No. 96, application by the Canada Crayon Co., Ltd., for upward revision of the tariff on chalks and crayons?
Mr. Wilson: I do.


John Frederick Johnston: Who is appearing in opposition?
Mr. Darby: We shall certainly oppose the application. . . There are good reasons for opposing this particular application.
Then the chairman proceeds to ask what it is about, and the brief, consisting of a letter written to the minister in December of last year-part of which the hon. gentleman read last evening-was presented. Then there was a question as to the capital involved in the enterprise and the hon. gentleman cannot be expected to remember all the facts. This is the record as it appears at page 5 of the report:


John Frederick Johnston: Is the applicant company connected in the States?-A. Indirectly.
Q.	Has it a factory there?-A. No, the applicant company has not.
Q. What company is it connected with or related to?-A. It is related in this way; the stock in this applicant company is partially owned by Canadian people, partially owned by British people, and partially owned by American people, but the bulk of the stock is owned by British or Canadian capital.
Q. When yau say American people, does that mean people in the crayon industry?-A. Yes, the American Crayon Company.
Q. Have you a wage comparison between the wages paid by them in the states and by you in Canada?-A. If you are talking of hourly wages we could give you that.
I do not think the minister last evening had that clearly in mind. Then Mr. Wilson related the facts and Mr. Gravestock made
1514	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
some observations, he being the managing director of the company. At the end the chairman said:
How can we make further progress when you submit a seven page statement, which is apparently somewhat technical, it contains several figures, how can you have an examination without notice?
Mr. Wilson: I did not expect that. I figured that when we sent this information here a few days ago Mr. Deachman and Mr. Darby would have opportunity to look it over.
Well, we are quite willing to adjourn.


John Frederick Johnston: All right: it stands adjourned.
That apparently was on May 16, 1928. The question I should like to ask the minister is this: There appear to be no recommendations made by this political tribunal to which he has referred the matter; there appear to be no findings of fact, the work which, he stated last year, this body was created to do, and there is nothing to indicate upon what principle the minister now proceeds to place upon the free list a material used in the production of crayons while not dealing with the application at all. That is the question we want to have some light upon. It is idle to say that we should have two or three gentlemen meet together in secret session with the Minister of Finance and then, instead of meeting the application as agreed and dealing with it on its'merits, the minister to say: We will not do what they ask, but we will put some raw material on the free list. The house is entitled to some definite information in a matter of this kind which appears in the report of the hearing before the tariff commission, more especially in view of the fact that this appears to be an enterprise owned by Canadians which is giving employment to Canadians in a Canadian town or city and which had recited the circumstances under which it sought to avail itself of a tariff to enable it, not to exploit an industry but to place it on an equal basis with competition from across the border, asking no favours, but merely to be placed on even terms of competition. I remind the minister that his political chairman of his political board, in the blister copper inquiry where it appeared ;hat raw copper left Canada, went to the United States to be refined and then had to be bought by Canadians at an excess over the price at which United States could buy the same copper for, was good enough to say that Canadians should be placed on terms of equality with respect to competition under such conditions. Mr. Gravestock in his memorandum asks only that his company should be placed on terms of equality with respect to competition: that they should be given an even chance in competition. The minister

says: Look what I am doing for you: I am putting stearic acid on the free list. This is not mentioned in the hearing. Is this the method of compromise to be adopted? The amount involved is small, but the method is one of far-reaching consequence. It represents the difference between the Liberal party and the party with which I am associated. In one instance the government are willing to make a compromise for power, for the purpose of retaining their seats on the treasury benches, without regard to the welfare of Canadian industry. The minister thinks he is going to serve the public by sitting down secretly without Mr. Gravestock, without Mr. Wilson, without any representative of this industry being present, and saying: I will put stearic acid on the free list and not place the manufacturers of crayon upon such terms as, it is claimed in the brief that was submitted to the minister, will enable it to compete successfully with the United States industry. In other words, Canadian industry is to be destroyed in order that more employment may be given to people of the United States and Canadians may be put out of a job. That is the policy the minister has enunciated in his budget if it means anything, and if it does not mean that, it means nothing.


Hugh Guthrie: I see from the other
brief which the minister has submitted, reference No. 96-and I fancy this is the first application-the application was for an increase in the duty. There is in the brief one rather significant statement which seems to have been accepted as a statement of fact as it existed: that is, that in the United States the selling price of a certain line of crayons was $7.20, while the selling price of the same article in Canada made by the same United States firms was $6.50. It was asked that a dumping duty be applied and it is stated by Mr. Darby that the dumping duty on that particular lot of crayons would be 16 cents, making the Canadian price $6.66, duty added, while at the same time the price maintained by these United States manufacturers in their own market was $7.20. This clearly indicates the effort, and the successful effort, on the part of United States manufacturers to dump their products in Canada and to destroy competition on the part of any industry in this country. The cost of production in Canada for the same article is pointed out in this brief to be $6.20, allowing them only 46 cents as a margin for selling over the cost of production if they meet the United States price. It strikes me that there is a condition of facts which Should call for some action upon the part of the government.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
If a. 16 cent dumping duty is not sufficient to enable the Canadian manufacturer to have at least fair terms, then impose a dumping duty that is sufficient, because it is clear that in this instance the United States manufacturer is using Canada as a dumping ground. He will not cut the price in his own country, though there is evidently competition there, because there are ninety-five concerns engaged in this line of manufacture; but he will cut the price in the Dominion of Canada where it is sought to establish another independent industry. It is to the interest of the United States manufacturer to say: No, we will dump our goods and cut the price to such a point that you cannot manufacture, but the moment you cease manufacturing in Canada, then you will pay the higher price. Surely that is a situation that calls for some action. Has t'he minister had any report upon that phase of the case? Did the official of his department, in the memorandum he has submitted, draw that to the minister's attention? Because it is very clearly set out in his brief. Moreover, these statements seem to be accepted as facts by the board, as well as by Mr. Deachman, Mr. Darby and the applicants, so I assume they are thoroughly substantiated.


Mr. EVANS:: While this incident may
seem trivial in itself, it becomes very important because of the policy of the government which is here displayed. Here is a company that is given a concession by the government, and neither the tariff board nor the minister himself has yet shown that the company needs any concession. Not a single thing has been placed before the house to show the need of any concession or to show that this industry needs protection. There is another thing, and that is that the government, by this proposal, is impairing the revenues without in any way aiding the industry from the point of view of the workman, or from any other point of view. I cannot help looking at this incident from no other standpoint than this, that the tariff on this item is used as a bargaining point between the politicians and the manufacturer; it absolutely comes down to that. This company enjoys a monopoly, and nothing has been presented to show that the industry needs help, and so I say it comes down simply to a bargaining point for some reason or other. This is what I protest against, and it is what this budget in particular shows all the way through. It puts the burden on the shoulders of the people, and the government for that very reason is willing to impair the revenues of the country so long as the
whole burden goes on the consumer. I protest against this whole thing.


Henry Herbert Stevens: We are able to get a
little light from time to time by getting these typewritten reports. Last night the minister in reading a memorandum, rather needlessly I think, emphasized one portion of it which read as follows:
At the second hearing of the application, Mr. R.	P. Sparks, representing the Garment Manufacturers' Association of Canada, objected to any increase in tariff that might involve chalks used in the clothing industry.
I have here the evidence that was taken before the 'board, and so far as Mr. Sparks is concerned, it is as follows-


Mr. CHAPLIN:: Who is he?


Henry Herbert Stevens: He was representing the
Garment Manufacturers' Association of Canada.


James Dew Chaplin: Has he ever been heard
of before?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Sparks in his evidence before the board said:
We have no opinion to express on the merits of this particular case because it does not touch chalks in which the clothing industry is interested.
Mr. Darby: Would you not like it to affect the chalks in which you are interested?
Mr. Sparks: No, in view of the fact that they tell me the quantities used in Canada would not be large enough to justify them or anyone else manufacturing them.
Why does the memorandum of Mr, Moore single out Mr. Sparks and say that he appeared on behalf of the Garment Manufacturers' Association objecting to this application? Mr. Sparks himself clearly says:
We have no opinion to express on the merits of this particular case because it does not touch chalks in which the clothing industry is interested.


James Alexander Robb: Mr. Sparks appeared before
that. I would ask my hon. friend to bear in mind that the application originally was for an increase of 40 per cent, and Mr. Sparks decidedly objected to that increase until he was told that it did not affect chalks, and then he withdrew his objection.


Henry Herbert Stevens: So far as I can see from
glancing hurriedly over the report, there is no reference to Mr. Sparks at any point preceding the evidence I have just quoted, he appears before the board at that point only. Of course I may have overlooked his name, but I have not noticed it in the evidence prior to the quotation I made. In justice to Mr. Sparks it should be stated that he was not there opposing this application. I think it is only fair to say that when a man's name
1516	COMMONS
____Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
is brought into a discussion on the floor of this house and he is unable to be present. The application in its original form was for an increase in the tariff on the finished article. My hon. friend from Rosetown, of course, is very emphatic in his objection to an increase in the tariff. I would invite his attention briefly to the facts in connection with this case. He very properly said: There is a principle involved.	That is true; there is
a principle involved.	It is one of the main
principles that we in the Conservative party contend for in our attitude towards the tariff.
Let me say, first, that our attitude towards the tariff, is that it is an instrument in the hands of parliament that may and should be so used as to build up and assist in the establishment and upbuilding of Canadian industry. It may be said that this is a small industry, but the industrial life of a nation is made up of its aggregate industries, small and large. There is a considerable quantity of crayons and such like used in Canada. There are some twenty or thirty or more establishments in the United States manufacturing them. I will read a couple of paragraphs from page 17 of this tariff advisory board report, and then I want to direct the attention of hon. gentlemen and of the minister to one or two observations that I wish to make in regard to it. It is headed, "Retention of the Present Selling Price," and reads:
In view of the fact that school crayons, which are the largest line of production, have to be sold retail at 10 cents per package for high grade crayons and 5 cents per package for low grade crayons, in order to allow the retailer and wholesaler the necessary margin of profit, prices cannot ibe raised except to such an extent that the packages would have to be retailed for 10 cents and 15 cents respectively. This raise would then put the Canadian prices considerably above the American prices even with an adequate protection.
He goes on to say:
The company is prepared to undertake that selling prices will not be advanced under a higher rate _ of protection. If an adequate tariff rate is applied to these products, we would suggest a reinvestigation of such selling prices by the advisory tariff board in tiwo years time to prove that this tariff has not affected prices to the consumer. The beneficial result of such a tariff would harm no one and result in the establishment of a new Canadian industry which most certainly needs assistance.
The point is this: There are 'Certain articles, and this is a typical one, where a package must be sold for a Tound figure like five or ten cents. No doubt many hon. members will remember doing as I have often done at Christmas and other times, buying a little 
package of crayons in a carton for five or ten cents. If there was an increase in the tariff this company would have a larger share of the Canadian market. It would extend its operations, increase its output and lower its cost of production. It would thus secure a larger share of the Canadian trade without raising the price to the consumer one iota. My hon. friend from Rosetown shakes his head. Undoubtedly he is under the impression that the manufacturer would increase his price because of the advance in the tariff. That is not necessarily the case at all. We have contended, and I would urge on the minister now that the suggestion 'contained in the paragraph which I have just read is a good one, namely, that the tariff advisory board not only should consider these cases and make findings, but should observe the effect of any changes that are made, and if an industry is found to be abusing any added protection that is given to it, then the remedy is in the hands of parliament and of the government This concern undoubtedly 'asked for an increase of protection to give it a larger share of the Canadian market. The minister replies by giving them a reduction on one article, stearic acid, which is only a small portion of the raw materials that enter into the manufacture; for instance, there are also colours, pigments, refined paraffin wax, paper cartons, chalk, and so on. I understand they- say that this reduction will make a difference of only $40 a year. Indeed it is so small that it does not amount to anything. On the other hand, if the minister and the tariff board had responded favourably to the application for an increased tariff on the finished article, and safeguarded themselves by this pledge, they might have given some stimulus to a Canadian industry and at the same time there would have been no increase in price to the consumer.
Now the minister has returned to me this marked brief. It is in connection with the point of controversy regarding Mr. Sparks appearing before the board. It will be remembered that last night the minister read a memorandum in which it was indicated that Mr. Sparks was opposing the application. Really it is a small matter, but I do not think it is fair continually to single out Mr. Sparks for attack in this house in the way it has been done. Mr. Wilson is giving evidence before the board, and Mr. Sparks says:
Before the board adjourns, may I suggest that after hearing the application it appears that the applicants do not ask for protection on all classes of chalk. I am further informed by Mr. Wilson that certain classes of chalk used

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
in the clothing trade are not made by them, are not made in Canada, and that they have no immediate intention of making them. In the tariff item which you suggested to them, and they may suggest to you, we would ask that these classes of goods which they are not interested in should be left as they-are. We have no opinion to express on the merits of this particular case, because it does not touch chalks in which the clothing industry is interested.
Mr. Darby: Would it not affect the chalks in which you are interested?
Mr. Sparks: No, in view of the fact that they tell me the quantities used in Canada would not be large enough to justify them or anyone else manufacturing them.
Mr. Darby proceeds:
Surely it would be assisting an infant industry.
Apparently he is a bit sarcastic.
Mr. Sparks: They say not.
Mr. Darby: It would be a very small infant then.
Mr. Sparks: I do not want to enter into any general argument on the question now. I was here at one time and was willing to enter into a general argument.
Mr. Darby: I am not making any general argument at all. I am referring to these specific articles.
Mr. Sparks: All I suggest is this: that in any change that the board might contemplate they might provide that tailors' chalks should be in a separate item. I think that is in agreement with the views of the applicant.
Mr. Racine: That no changes be made if they are not producing tailors' chalks and have no intention of doing so in the immediate future?
Mr. Sparks: That is my understanding.
I think that is all there is to say about it.
Now I come back, Mr. Chairman, to what I said a moment ago. I invite the minister to give us his opinion on the concluding paragraph which I have read and in which it appears that this industry is asking for an increase in order that it might get a larger share of the Canadian market, and giving an undertaking that the consumer will not be called upon to pay any higher price for the product.


James Alexander Robb: I hope, Mr. Chairman, my
hon. friend will agree that there was no thought of doing any injustice to Mr. Sparks. His name appeared on the memorandum that came up. The evidence clearly goes to show that Mr. Sparks, who has been urging increased protection in other lines, went before the tariff board to make sure there was no increased protection on material which the clothing trade required.


James Dew Chaplin: And which material could not economically be made in Canada. That is the answer.


James Alexander Robb: We will admit that.


James Dew Chaplin: Very well.


James Alexander Robb: As soon as Mr. Sparks discovered that their application for an increase of the duty to 40 per cent did not cover these chalks, very naturally he withdrew. Now, this particular industry was established in Peterborough in 1927. Its promoters knew at the time that the duty on their finished product was 17J per cent. Before they had been going one year they applied to the Minister of Finance for an increase of the tariff to 40 per cent, and their application was referred to the tariff board. The tariff board instituted an inquiry. That inquiry is involved in some other inquiries which have not yet been concluded. But we did give them this concession on stearic acid. They say they cannot carry on, and they hold out the threat that they are going to pack up their machinery and leave Canada. Yet on their own statement, after operating only one year they had 40 per cent of the business. They came to Canada knowing their protection was 17| per cent. They have had a fair hearing before the tariff board, and I may say that there are other people interested. There were two ways of helping this concern:	Either to increase the duty or to
give them relief in their raw materials. We are attempting here to give them relief on certain of their raw materials. As to the balance, the inquiry has not yet been completed by the tariff board.


Peter McGibbon: How much will this
relief amount to?


James Alexander Robb: They say it will not be
sufficient.


Mr. ARTHURS:: Is it not true that the
basis upon which they asked for an increased tariff was the alleged fact that Americans were dumping their product into the Canadian market at a lower price than they were charging for it in the United States?


James Alexander Robb: There is nothing original in
that allegation; we have heard it for many years.


Mr. KENNEDY:: Is 215a a new item?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I notice in the Trade
of Canada at page 437 two items: acids, stearic, n.o.p.-which appears to be 215- and acids, stearic, when employed by manufacturers of candles for use in their own factories, free. Under what authority was this stearic acid, amounting in value to $19,000, allowed to enter free in 1927?


James Alexander Robb: Under item 777. I gave that, information to my hon. friend last night.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
Customs tariff-246a. Zirconium oxide: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 5 per cent; general tariff, 7J per cent.
Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I desire to repeat to the Minister of Finance the suggestion that I made to him last session. At the time he said he would be glad to pass it on to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I suggest that we put the numbers of the tariff items opposite the imports in this Trade of Canada. We have the description of the classes, but I think we ought to have also the numbers of the tariff items, so that if anyone wants to study these figures he will be able to find the relation between the imports and the tariff items. Otherwise this Trade of Canada has practically no meaning at all.


Milton Neil Campbell: How does this compare with the previous duty, and what is this acid used for?


James Alexander Robb: Zirconium oxide is an opaquing agent in the enamelling and ceramic industries, being a substitute in certain 'concerns for tin oxide, a much more expensive ingredient which enters free. According to the evidence presented to the tariff board, it is not made in Canada, and it enters under item 246 at 15, 20 and 22i, the imports not being separately classified. The application for free entry was made by the Amherst Foundry Company of Amherst, Nova Scotia, and was unopposed. The representative of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association appeared in support of the application. No other users were present.


Hugh Guthrie: Where is it imported
from?


James Alexander Robb: From the United States.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is it made from?


James Alexander Robb: Zirconium ore.


Mr. GARDINER:: And the Canadian Manufacturers' Association supported the applications?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.	[DOT]


George Gibson Coote: This is only a step anticipating a reduction in the duty on emanel ware, which will follow at the next session?


James Alexander Robb: I will not make any promise.


George Gibson Coote: The minister will not make any promise in that regard?


James Alexander Robb: No.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Customs tariff-363. Platinum wire and platinum bars, strips, sheets or plates; platinum, palladium, iridium, osmium, ruthenium apd rhodium, in lumps, ingots, powder, sponge or scrap: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
Henry Herbert Stevens: What is the object in
changing the old item, which was pretty clear
platinum wire, .platinldm in bars, strips, sheets or plates?


James Alexander Robb: The classification is for administrative purposes.


James Dew Chaplin: Do any goods in this line
come under other items?


James Alexander Robb: Under the existing tariff
platinum wire, bars, sheets and so forth enter Canada duty free, whereas crude platinum metals, from which these are made, are dutiable. When the present item, 363, was framed, various platinum metals were unknown to commerce and therefore these articles entered in the unenumerated class. An application was made by Goldsmith Brothers Smelting & Refining Company of Toronto, who, according to their representative, employ about thirty persons. The metals which comprise platinum crude are platinum, palladium, iridium and rhodium. Crude platinum contains from 70 to 90 per cent of metal, and the product is an alloy of platinum and one or more allied metals containing impurities.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Has consideration been given to the1 fact that platinum is produced in Canada in larger quantities than in former years and, I believe, in a rapidly increasing ratio in British Columbia and also in the International Nickel mines of northern Ontario? Has the minister considered the question in relation to the admission free of manufactures of platinum like platinum bars, strips, wire and so forth? I may point out that most of these commodities enter into a fairly luxurious line of goods where perhaps the tariff would be justified more than in any other branch of industry. Has consideration been given to that fact with a view to encouraging manufacture in Canada?


James Alexander Robb: Platinum wire and bars, strips, sheets or plates enter free now. It is the' raw material we are dealing with.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I did not make myself clear. Ever since November 30, 1906, platinum wire, bars, strips, sheets and so forth have been _ admitted free, largely for the reason that in those days and for years subsequently very little platinum was produced in Canada. But in recent years-I will limit myself to the last four or five years-there has been a quite marked increase in the production

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
of platinum in Canada-that is, the production of the raw material itself. Would it not therefore 'be reasonable to expect that when this item was being considered the possibility of establishing new industries thereunder might have influenced the board in their report and the government in their decision with respect to the matter?


James Alexander Robb: The hearing was advertised and there was no opposition to the application.


James Dew Chaplin: But why should an article like platinum, which is used by people who can well afford to pay for it, be allowed in free? Why should not the government obtain some revenue from an article of this kind which is used in the manufacture of a luxury? Where is your revenue tariff?


James Alexander Robb: Is the hon. member asking for an increase on the finished product?


James Dew Chaplin: That does not make any difference to me. This article is used in connection with the manufacture of a luxury and by people who can well afford to pay for it. The government therefore should obtain some revenue from it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Will the minister tell me under what item in this report this particular matter can be found?


James Alexander Robb: It is not here.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is not here; nor is the evidence published.


James Alexander Robb: I do not think it is published, but I will send the hon. member a copy of the typewritten, evidence.


Henry Herbert Stevens: This touches a matter of principle. Here we have a raw material which is being produced in Canada, and I think we ought to take some pride in the fact that Canada is so rapidly increasing its production of this, one of the most valuable of minerals, which is used very largely in the manufacture of jewelry and very expensive dental work.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Watches and jewelry.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, watches, jeiwelry and so forth; yet we have no tariff on it at all. Here is a government that declares itself in favour of a tariff for revenue, and if ever there was a case, so far as I can judge, where the tariff ought to be applied for revenue purposes it is in connection with this item. Nor would it necessarily conflict with the interests of Messrs. Goldsmith Brothers, of Toronto, who were the applicants in the case before the board, because if the tariff were imposed on both the raw material and the
finished product they would not be injured a particle. But we are pointing out that here there is an opportunity for us to develop in Canada an industry in the manufacturing of platinum products, based upon the splendid production of Canadian raw material. I should think the minister ought to be in a position to tell us what are the importations of platinum manufactures and platinum raw material, and to say whether or not the government have considered this phase of the subject, namely, the opportunity to establish and to stimulate a new industry in Canada based upon this raw material.


James Alexander Robb: I did not want to detain the house by reading the whole memorandum. Now my hon. friend is talking of only one particular ore, and I repeat tba/t the finished product comes in free and has been coming in free for many years. The memorandum goes on to say that platinum ore is obtainable in considerable quantities in the Ural mountains of Russia and in the rivers of Colombia, South America. Doctor Wilson of the Department of Mines reported that there are probably not more than five firms in the world recovering the metal from this rich ore. Pure platinum, to which my hon. friend is probably referring now, is usually too soft for commercial use, so iridium, palladium or the other metals of the group are added in suitable proportions and then melted and rolled into plate or drawn into wire, in which latter forms they are used by the jewellery trade and by the dental and chemical professions. The items we are reducing are the raw material of what now comes in free.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I gather from what the
minister has said, and from a very brief and cursory glance at this evidence, that Goldsmith Brothers, being a smelting and refining company, desire to have these other ores such as palladium, iridium, osmium and rhodium to mix with the native soft platinum in order to produce a harder metal product. That would lead to the conclusion, I think, that you might admit these ores or the metal from these ores free, but platinum itself could be taxed and the finished article could be be taxed, first in the interests of establishing the industry, and secondly in the interests of revenue; or you could reverse it if you wished, first in the interests of the revenues of the country and at the same time giving protection to this industry. I particularly direct the attention of hon. gentlemen to my left to the fact that if ever there was an opportunity of establishing some sound basis for our revenue you have it here, leaving aside the question of protection for the industry.
1520	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
We feel that this is an opportunity of building up an industry, even though it may be small. We were considering the matter of crayons previously, another small industry, but when you take the entire schedule, with over 1,100 items, almost each of which affects a great variety of industries, we see that out of these industries we must build our Canadian industrial life. If we let these small things pass one after the other without carefully analysing and scrutinizing them there is not much hope for the establishment of industry in Canada. I think this is an item which warrants a tariff for revenue and a tariff for protection as well.


Hugh Guthrie: Will the minister give
us any reason why this particular item should not pay something to the revenue of Canada? In order to obtain revenue we are continuing the sales tax on clothing and boots and shoes, so why should not this valuable product, which is used by the jewellers and sold to the rich people of Canada, pay a tax as well? Upon wbait principle does the minister propose to make this item free and maintain the tax on the clothing and boots and shoes used by the people?


James Dew Chaplin: The minister says this always has been free.


James Alexander Robb: No. We desire to enable this industry in Canada- to bring in ores which they may use together with certain Canadian ores in order to -bring them up to a standard at which they can be sold-. The h-on. member for South Wellington asked under what principle we were keeping this item on the free list. It is the same principle that he and I supported in the Liberal party in 1908, the principle which he supported in the Union government and afterwards in the Conservative government. This article has been free since 1906.


Hugh Guthrie: If it is wrongly on the
free list why retain it there? The mere fact that the minister and I supported it twenty-five years ago does not improve the situation to-day; if we were wrong then for goodness' sake let us get right now. I ask him again if there is any principle under which he can say that this product, which goes only to the rich people of Canada, should be exempt from duty while he deliberately taxes the clothing and the boots and shoes of the poor people of Canada. There is no principle except a wrong one, so why not make it right now?


Mr. YOUNG (Weybum):: If I understand the situation, certain ores are mined in Canada and other ores must be imported to blend with the Canadian ores in order to make a salable product.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They already mine- those ores in Canada, in smaller quantities.


Edward James Young: Hon. gentlemen opposite propose to put a duty on imported ores which we require to blend with our own. If we do that what assurance have we that this action will not make it impossible to continue to mine our Canadian ores?


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is not what we propose at all. We said there was a growing production of platinum, which is a soft metal requiring certain other ingredients such as palladium and so on to harden it in order to make it commercially workable. We say that if these other ores are not produced in Canada and it is thought desirable to bring them in free, we are not particularly quarrelling with that, but we have a large production of platinum which is increasing year by year, and this gives us an opportunity to build up a Canadian industry. Therefore we believe it to be the duty of the government and of parliament to consider seriously whether or not, by our action, we cannot stimulate the establishment of such an industry. Then, having in mind what horn gentlemen to my left and what my hon. friend himself is always advocating, namely, that the tariff should be exclusively for revenue if it is applied at all, we say that this is an article upon which a tariff for revenue properly should be imposed, because of the general class of consumer affected. There is no question in my mind, either from our standpoint or from that of my hon. friend, that this is an item which should not be placed on the free list. I am referring particularly to the old item of platinum wire and platinum in bars, strips, sheets and- plates; and as my hon. friend from South Wellington pointed out, what occurred twenty-five years ago does not apply to-day for two reasons. The whole industrial life of the country has changed so that the use of platinum to-day is much wider than was the case then, and the production of platinum in Canada has increased enormously.
I cannot give the figures from memory, but I venture to say that the production of platinum in Canada during the last four or five years as compared with the production twenty years ago has increased at least 1,000 per cent. At any rate the increase is enormous, and I point out to the ministry as a whole that I am informed by those well posted in the mining business that there is a likelihood that Canada will becme one of the greatest producers of platinum in the world. Estimates of the quantity of platinum in use in the world have been widely divergent, varying from 4,000,000 to 8,000,000 ounces troy;

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
at all events there is a large quantity of platinum used in the world. In former years platinum was so valuable that it was only used in the most expensive trades, such as the jewellery trade; now it is used in the electrical business, for contact points and so on.	With the increased production of
platinum there will come an increase in its use, and Canada has an opportunity of becoming the producer of a large part of the world supply of platinum and of building up industries based upon the ownership and control of that valuable resource. We are asking the government to consider that phase of it, and not these few additional alloys which are mixed with the platinum.


James Alexander Robb: You must have them first.


Henry Herbert Stevens: We are not quarrelling so much with that. It may be desirable to bring in palladium, iridium and these other metals to mix with the platinum.


Mr. FRASER:: Do I understand the minister to say that these metals are imported into Canada to mix with the platinum ores?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what he said.


John Anderson Fraser: My understanding of the matter is that these ores are derivatives of platinum. The report of the mines branch for last year has the following to say in regard to these metals:
The metals of the platinum group produced from Canadian ores in 1928 were valued at $1,309,923 and consisted of:-platinum, 10,452 ounces valued at $704,360, and palladium, rh>
dium, etc., 13,087 ounces valued at $605,503.
The exports in 1928 were:-platinum contained in concentrates 1,212 ounces valued at $77,908, and platinum, old and scrap, 421 ounces valued at $27,463. These figures do not include the precious metals contained in the copper-nickel matte exported.
I would ask the minister to pay attention to the portion of this report which deals with imports. This reads as follows:
The imports in 1928 were valued at $150,616 and consisted of platinum retorts, crucibles, wire, etc.
The same thing is happening all over the Dominion of Canada; we are exporting our raw material and importing the highly fabricated material. There is some further information in this report with regard to the localities from which these metals are derived, as follows:
With the exception of a very few ounces of platinum obtained from the black sands of British Columbia, all the Canadian platinum and allied metals are obtained from the treatment of the Sudbury nickel-copper matte. The precious metal residues are allowed to accumulate over irregular periods before being treated, so that recoveries do not bear any definite relation to the quantity of matte treated in any particular year.
The minister wild notice that the platinum group of metals is produced principally from the mines in the Sudbury district. As we have an ever-increasing production in that area it is only fair to conclude that we will always have an ever-increasing quantity of these metals produced. Some measure of protection should be given to the manufacturers of these metals in the Dominion of Canada, If we continue to export our raw material and import the manufactured article without any duty or restriction, we will never build up any manufacturing of these metals. The same principle would apply to a great many other metals as well as the metals in the platinum group.


James Alexander Robb: Doctor Wilson, of the Department of Mines appeared before the board and reported that there were probably not more than five firms in the world which were recovering this metal from the original ore.


John Anderson Fraser: Why could not we have
one of the five?


James Alexander Robb: Perhaps we will when we
can give them the same basis of treatment as they receive in other countries.


Henry Herbert Stevens: They are not producing the ore.


James Alexander Robb: That is their statement and
they probably know something about this business.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Who arq "(they"?


James Alexander Robb: Goldsmith Brothers Smelting & Refining 'Company, Limited, 21 Wilton square, Toronto. The following letter, dated March 7, 1927, is addressed to the Minister of Finance:
Permit me to call your attention to tariff item number 363, which lists platinum wire, sheets, bars, etc., as free. It has also been ruled that iridium platinum is free.
Iridium powder and platinum sponge are used in the manufacture of a free article. Iridium power and platinum sponge are the forms in which these metals are usually traded in between European and American refiners. These metals, in the form of powder or sponge, or precipitates, enter the United States of American and all other countries duty free. A Canadian refiner is at a distinct disadvantage. One who wishes to cater to Canadian manufacturers of platinum articles is in a better position to handle this business if located in the United States rather than in Canada. The United States refiner imports, free, from Europe iridium powder and platinum sponge, and then puts them in the form of bars and sheets, which enter Canada duty free. As these metals, as precipitates, are unenumerated, they are ruled 171 Per cent. I would request application be considered that they be ruled free of duty, either without restriction, or for the manufacture of platinum sheets, bars, wire, etc.
1522	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
If no changes in tariff are contemplated by parliament this year, I would request that change be made under provision permitted by number 286 of Customs Act. If an order in council is passed, I request that same be effective from February 1, 1927.
There are other metals in the platinum group, all of which are used as alloys, as follows: palladium, rhodium, ruthenium, osmium. These metals, in the form of precipitates or powders, when used for the manufacture of platinum (a free item) should enter duty free.
If I can furnish you any further information, please command me.
Probably when these' people get going and are making this material in Canada they will come along and ask the government for protection.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They will never get
going unless they get some encouragement.


James Alexander Robb: They are proposing to make
it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They ship this stuff out in the raw form and bring it back as a manufactured article.


James Alexander Robb: They say they require these other metals.


Mr BENNETT:: The copper situation
would probably explain that as clearly as it could be explained. We are shipping blister copper and copper matte out of this country, and when our people want to buy copper rods they are forced to purchase from the Copper Export Company of the United States which sets a rate of a quarter-cent per pound higher to foreigners than to their own people. The rseult is that the Canadian people have to buy refined copper made from their own blister copper at a quarter-cent per pound increase in domestic price. This means they have to pay $5 per ton more than their competitors in the United States. The government is encouraging the shipment of blister copper out of this country and the importing of the fabricated article. The same thing applies to asbestos. I wonder if the minister realizes that there are 250,000 men, women and children employed in the fabrication of raw asbestos in the United States exported from Canada. We sell our raw material at between $50 and $70 per ton and purchase the fabricated material at between $900 and $1,000 per ton. As the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) has pointed out, there is an increasing and improving mineral production, and it is the duty of the government to encourage and not to discourage that condition. The people are complaining that they are being deprived of employment in this country. We are simply digging in the rock and getting out these minerals, putting 
them in a smelter and getting the blister and matte, and then shipping it out in carload lots, and the people are forced to follow the raw material in order to obtain employment.
If I am permitted to anticipate the next item, I would ask the minister to teM us what is going to happen when we develop our aircraft industry and then have no chronometers and compasses made in this country.


Edward James Young: You will never learn to make them by increasing the production cost.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We will learn to make
them the same as they learned to make them in Germany. There was once a day in Germany and the United States when they imported all these things from England and the same specious argument the hon. gentleman now makes was made when industries were established in these countries. We will never encourage industry by increasing the cost of production. The cost of steel rails in the United States was at one time higher than in England, Germany or Belgium; but the United States and Germany said:	We are
going to promote industry at home to give employment to our own people. They did so, and the result was that thousands of men, who were formerly denied employment, were employed in fabricating thousands of articles, and encouragement was given to their own industry. We do not ask protection; we ask equality of opportunity: we want an equal chance. I cannot understand Canadians; I cannot understand the hon. member for Weyburn; I cannot understand those who appear before the board and take the attitude they do, and I cannot understand the minister when he permits himself to become a party to a transaction which denies to Canadians the right to fabricate their own raw material into the finished article and to give employment to our own people. Are we to be economic slaves or not?-that is the question. If my hon. friend has his way, we will continue to be economic slaves, because every day that passes under present conditions makes us so more and more. We are importing $1,000,000 a day in iron and steel products; we are the greatest customer of the United States Steel Corporation to-day, and this country with a little intelligence, a little determination and a little less fear on the part of those occupying the treasury benches, of the hon. member for Weyburn and those he represents, would be able to stop this at once. What is happening is that we are shipping out our raw material in continually increasing quantities just as

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
we are doing now in regard to this item of platinum. Then we are buying back the fabricated, highly refined article the manufacture of which gives employment to thousands of people, and we use it and think we are prosperous. That is what is going on in Canada and the hon. gentleman knows it. Will he read the economic history of Germany or the United States or any other country? What about the industrial life of England to-day?


Edward James Young: A country that
under free trade was able to finance the greater part of the war.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Surely the hon. gentleman knows what it is costing the poor English taxpayer to-day to pay interest on the money which England borrowed from the United States. Surely he knows the burden on them is so great they are staggering under it; that their industrial life has been threatened at every point, and that the only hope they have is by safeguarding it. I crossed over there only a few years ago and there were no customs men such as we see now at Dover. They are there now gathering up the Swiss watches, automobiles, chronometres, everything else for duty purposes, to endeavour to safeguard industry for one purpose and one only, namely, that the English workman shall have an equal chance with the continental workman to live. When we ask that Canadians shall have a chance to live, .we want them to live in Canada and not in the United States. We want them to live here, eat our wheat, our vegetables, pay taxes in Canada and become part of the life of this country. That is what we are trying to do, and the hon. gentleman knows it. If we continue to do as we are doing, we shall be merely hewers of wood and drawers of water, shipping out the raw material, matte, blister copper, raw material, whether it be pulpwood or cordwood or whatever it may be, and bringing back the highly finished product. Look at the importations of paper. Look at the future. Before this budget ends, the minister will find before him a record of material we are buying which should be made at home and because we are doing this we have lost 600,000 Canadians in the last five years. That is the condition with which we are confronted, and that is the reason for it. This is the principle once more, and the minister has the hardihood to put into tariff items the words " not made in Canada." Is it always to be " not made in Canada"? Is that condition always to continue? That is the problem which confronts the country. It requires courage; it requires more than that;
it requires an appreciation of a problem that is not to be dealt with by temporizing expedients to maintain power. The government must be prepared, if need be, to sacrifice power for Canada and Canadians, and as long as they talk platitudes about the cost of production and free trade, we know quite well what will happen-the same temporizing tariff measures, the same effort to do what has been done in days gone by. Not made in Canada! Of course they were not; there were no steel rails made in Canada once. There were no steel rails made in the United States once. In Lincoln's time every steel rail in the United States came from some other country. But they encouraged their workmen so as to put the development of their country on an equality with that of Germany, and now' they can meet the world in producing steel rails. The same is true in regard to other matters.
The position is this: Shall we continue as we are doing? That is the real issue before the Canadian people. The minister is here continuing to aid and persistently abet the export of raw material, and then he slips over it by adding the words "not made in Canada." Does he remember that there were times in Canada when we did not grind flour except between two stones in the little grist mills? We had no roller patents, but we got them. Are we to continue in the old way? When the hon. member for Cariboo put before us the conditions with respect to the black sand in British Columbia, with respect to nickel in the Sudbury district, with respect to development now going on in Quebec, he harks back to a time when none of this development had taken place, the time when twenty-one years ago the hon. member for South Wellington and he supported the same policies, and he says: Let us continue. That is conservatism gone mad; that is Toryism. But the conservatism, the Toryism you find on this side is reflected in that single verse of Tennyson:
That man's a true conservative
That lops the mouldered branch away.
The mouldered branch is this played-out idea that when this country reaches a certain stage of development, we shall cling to old conditions and not encourage new production, new manufactures. That is the situation to which we are directing the attention of the minister this afternoon, not because this particular item is important, but because the principle makes for the very economic life of Canada.


Edward James Young: It seems to me that the mouldered branch is protection. If
1524	_	COMMONS
Ways and, Means-Customs Tariff
we lop that away, we shall overcome our difficulties. The trouble with my hon. friend is that he fixes his eye on a single point and lie watches it so intently that he fails to see what is going on around him. He is like the man who stands on the river 'bank and judges the force of the stream, not by the sweep of the current, but by the eddies along the shore.


James Dew Chaplin: In regard to the particular item we are discussing, I do not ask for any protection, but I have asked the minister two or three times: Why does he not put into force in regard to this particular item his own principle, the principle he is always talking about, namely, tariff for revenue? Is there in the whole tariff schedule any other item that can better afford to pay a revenue into the public treasury? Is there in the whole category of the tariff schedule another article that is being used' by the richest people in the country and that can stand a tariff better than this one?


James Alexander Robb: Of course my hon. friend
knows that the protection on platinum runs up to 35 per cent on the finished jewellery.


James Dew Chaplin: Yes, but not on platinum wire or any part made of platinum. Thaf is free.


James Alexander Robb: The leader of the opposition
and I are not so very far apart. All he is arguing for, he says, is equality of opportunity. That is what we are proposing to do: we are proposing to place these refiners in a position where they can make this product in Canada. That is what they ask in their application.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We are shipping out raw material.


James Alexander Robb: Not at all. May I repeat
that Doctor Wilson, of the Department of Mines, who should know something about this, reported that there are probably not more than five firms in the world which are recovering the metal from the original ore, and we want to get Canada in the position of being one of them. As I pointed out once before, some of these products are not produced in Canada, and we are proposing that these metals, palladium, iridium, ruthenium and rhodium come in free, because they are required to mix with the Canadian product. Before we start increasing the duty we must at least put these people in the position where they can manufacture these goods in Canada. Surely my hon. friends can see that.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The minister has two or three times stated that Doctor Wilson, of the Mines department, says that there are only 
five firms in the world which are recovering these metals. It may interest the house to know that according to the evidence upon which this finding of the tariff board is based, two of these firms are Canadian firms. Their names are not given, but I judge that they are International Nickel and Consolidated Mining and Smelting Corporation. I will read a sentence or two of the evidence, which is rather interesting, and which 'bears out exactly what I and my associates have been contending. There is a long story here, and I shall read only a part of it:
Offhand I cannot give the exact amount, hut at one time they were producing over a thousand ounces of mixed precious metals per month.
That is, platinum, palladium and these other metals:
Of that, roughly thirty-five per cent was platinum and sixty-five per cent were metals of the platinum groups.
Those are the other metals we were speaking of:
The names have been given you, and it is not necessary to repeat them.
I venture the guess that it is International Nickel and Consolidated1 Mining and Smelting Corporation. I happen to know something about it, and I think that is correct. He goes on:
One of these firms, which produces about one-quarter of the total output, exports the raw material to Great Britain and it is refined in Wales (at Clydach). The metals of the group are separated there and that' is the sponge which goes on the market, most of it being sold in London. The output from the other plant is treated in the United States.
That is, Consolidated Mining and Smelting Corporation ship their products to Wales for refining and separating purposes. International Nickel have been shipping theirs to the United States. The evidence continues:
I am not aware whether any of it goes to the European market or not. You would have to go into detail to trace that out. However, that second firm has already installed one electrolytic refinery at Port Colborne and is planning within the next four or five years to install another refinery for the production of copper and nickel near Sudbury.
Which metals contain the precious metals of platinum and palladium.
I pause here to direct the attention of the government to the fact that the recent marvellous developments in the International Nickel Corporation and its amalgamation with the Mond interests indicate a development in the smelting and refining industry in Canada which undoubtedly is world-wide in its importance. Consolidated Mining and Smelting Corporation in its recent amalga-

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
mation with the Lindsley interests in the Manitoba field purposes to establish another smelter in the neighbourhood of Winnipeg and a refinery in Ontario to take care of the mineral development in northern Manitoba, and to establish another smelter on the coast. This company, after a period of about five years of steady development and blocking out of areas through the coast copper country and the Portland canal district and other parts of British Columbia has created a reserve of ores that will enable them to establish and keep operating a big smelter on tlhe Pacific coast. These three new huge smelters, together with a couple of refineries, will be the medium of producing a tremendously increasing quantity of these precious metals.


James Alexander Robb: I understand that there is another one to go in near Quebec.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is another one, the Noranda outfit. It also has platinum, I presume. A large development is going to take place through the enterprise of these big corporations and the investment of public moneys in the production of the ores in question. It would seem, Mr. Chairman, that these facts, which are well known to the minister, ought to have focused the attention of the government on this great principle of building up Canadian industry. I wish to quote a little further from the evidence, and then I want to point out another matter to the minister. Doctor Wilson, of the Mines Department, goes on to say in his evidence:
They will collect these metals as sludge or residues. These residues may be refined in Canada or shipped to the United States; that will be a question of the tariff at the time, and also a question of markets.
_ What I have been urging on the minister is that these tariff schedules should be so framed that Goldsmith Brothers who axe secondary, not primary, handlers of these metals, should be placed in a position where they will not have to compete, as they say they have to now, against an unfair advantage which the United States Tefineries have over them.


James Alexander Robb: That is what we are trying to prevent.	,


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, the minister is putting the cart before the horse, or rather he is putting the horse behind the cart. There are some of these minerals perhaps that are not produced in Canada. My hon. friend from Cariboo who has a very intimate knowledge, much greater than I have, of these matters, says that most, if not all of these metals are produced in Canada. Certainly platinum and palladium are produced hers 78594-97
in 'large quantities, and those are the two main items. What we are arguing is that instead of reducing the tariff still further, the whole schedules dealing with these metals should foe so revised as to encourage the establishment in Canada of manufacturing industries based on these metals.


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend himself just said that there were four or five new industries starting in Canada.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No. The minister is taking an unfair advantage of my frankness. Here is the situation. These smelters that I spoke of are not being established on platinum at all, but on the discovery of copper, nickel, lead, zinc and silver; but in the process of developing the base metals they have found these precious metals. According to the evidence on which the minister bases his new item, Consolidated Mining and Smelting Corporation, shipped from their Trail smelter -which by the way is recognized as one of the finest, and best in the world-lead, silver and zinc to the refineries in Wales, where the precious metals are extracted. What I am contending is that these metals, precious and base, dhould be smelted and refined, and rerefined so as to take the precious metals out, here in Canada. Canada, being the producer, as this evidence shows, of something like one-quarter or more of the platinum of the world, ought to develop the finer arts, because they are not an industry so much as an art, of making jewelry and fine electrical equipment. By electrical equipment I do not mean the larger pieces of electrical machinery, but the very fine electrical instruments in Which a certain quantity of platinum is used. Canada ought to be in a position superior to that of any other country in the world in the production of these metals from the very fact that she possesses such a great proportion of them.
I find also in this evidence reference is made to the Marking Act. There is no question that Canada is behind the times in her Marking Act dealing with precious metals. As to platinum-again I am speaking without opportunity of careful research and subject to correction-I understand that under the platinum group Canada is not properly equipped in regard to markings so as to safeguard the public interest in the purchase of this metal. I am advised that the United States government is considering the revision of its Precious Metals Marking Act, and has already established some standards for platinum similar to those established for gold. As is well known, gold at 24 carats is considered pure, and there are various gradations down to 14, 12 or 10, as the case may be, for

152G	COMMONS
Ways and. Means-Customs Tariff
different uses. So with platinum. But we have no similar protection of the interests and the rights of the purchasers of articles into which this metal enters. This is a serious matter, it is fundamental. I believe, as my leader intimated a moment ago, that we owe it to Canada as a parliament to study these things and to face them. I have some respect for the sincerity of my hon. friend from Wey-burn (Mr. Young). I was going to say that I had more respect for his sincerity seven or eight years ago than I have to-day.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I say that quite frankly.


James Dew Chaplin: He should have been
educated in the meantime.


Henry Herbert Stevens: He has been. Since a
member of this house he has received information that his intelligence indicates to him should cause him to change from the position that he persists in taking. It is not a theoretical argument between the old Adam Smith free trade theory and the theory of protection. These things will never be faced and will never be worked out on that basis. Here we have a certain set of facts. Surely as intelligent men we can face those facts and discuss them on their merits.


Edward James Young: And follow them all the way through to their conclusions.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have tried to do that,
but my hon. friend got up and quoted an observation, hoary with age, about standing on the bank of a stream and1 instead of judging the course of events by the general current looking at the eddies at one's feet. Why does not he contribute something of interest and value to the solution of this problem? We are offering this solution.	Parliament-I
am not going to tie it to this ministry-parliament should face the fact that Canada by nature is blessed with large quantities of this rare and precious metal-limiting ourselves to this item for the moment-to the extent that we believe in a very few years will put us in possession of the major portion of the world's production, we at the present time having two of the three concerns producing it. That is fact No. I. That puts us in a unique .position in the world-not on this continent, but in the world.
What does it mean? It means that we have the major portion of the platinum used chiefly in expensive instruments and luxurious articles like jewellery; platinum which will be required in all the countries of the world, the refining and manufacture of which would
fMr. Stevens.]
not affect the living of people elsewhere, and would offer to us a chance of applying to the industry the skill and the artistry of Canadians. But if we ship that platinum to Wales to be refined there, it passes out of our control, and we cannot get it back into our control again for the purpose of developing this industry. Who is hurt by encouraging the refining of it here? Let me turn to the illustration used by my hon. leader a moment ago in connection with asbestos. It is perhaps a little less complicated, but exactly the same principle is involved. Canada possesses 85 per cent of the asbestos resources of the world. Why should not Canada as a part of her duty to this great estate be giving to the world manufactured asbestos?


Edward James Young: What do you
propose, an export duty?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I do not wish to digress
too far, but I will not hesitate to answer my hon. friend. Yes, certainly, I would put export duties on the raw material.


John Evans: Why should it be needed?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Let me give a personal
experience for the benefit of my hon. friends. While in New York I was discussing various matters with a gentleman, an intimate associate of the late President Roosevelt and closely identified with the operations of some of the big financial concerns over there. He made a strong argument to me as a basis for bringing Canada and the United States closer together. He proposed that Canada should adopt the policy of exporting her raw materials and purchasing the finished products from the United States, and he used this expression. He said, " Mr. Stevens, if we would join with you-speaking of Canada-with your raw materials and with our great industrial establishments, we could beat the world." I said, " Hold on a minute, Mr. So-and-so." Then I expounded to him the views which I have tried to place before the house this afternoon and on other occasions regarding the destiny of Canada. My argument to him, and my argument to my hon. friends from Weyburn and Rosetown, is that instead of Canada simply sending her asbestos, 82 per cent of her copper, and her platinum to the United States and to Wales-and this applies also to other of our raw materials-instead of continuing to do that I argued with him that Canada should build up industrial and manufacturing concerns based upon these raw resources, and I carried my argument through as well as I could to its conclusion. When I ended, that gentleman said to me, " If I were a Canadian I would take exactly the

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
same position. But I want to tell you that the chief concern of the American financial interests to-day is to secure a larger and still larger control of Canadian raw resources to replace the exhaustion of our own resources." That was his attitude, and that is why our asbestos is going to the United States. The Americans come up and seize control- legally of course-of that great raw resource, and it is being sent down to the United States. As I intimated to-day, 250,000 people, if I am not mistaken, directly and indirectly are being sustained out of raw material for which we get the comparatively paltry sum of seven million dollars a year.
The same principle precisely applies to this platinum. We have the material, we have the opportunity of developing the manufacture of the class of articles in which this is used, and we are not taking advantage of that opportunity. The minister knows, as well as he knows he is in his seat, that I am enunciating sound economics for Canada, but he does not turn a hand or move a finger to give effect to such a policy in this regard. I plead with him to-day. If he eschews the word " protection," if he does not want to taint his political vocabulary with that term, then use " tariff for revenue " for the purpose, let him employ any terminology he likes, so long as he accomplishes something in that regard.


James Alexander Robb: Or " safeguarding industry."


Henry Herbert Stevens: Exactly. I give him
liberty to use any pseudonym, as the Prime Minister referred to our own, that he likes. He may invite the member for Weyburn to collaborate with him and call it free trade. But in heaven's name let us have some appreciation of our heritage and make use of the raw materials that a kind and benevolent Providence has given to us.


John Evans: I have been trying to follow this discussion and to deduce some line of policy both from the opposition and from the government; but neither the opposition nor the government can outline any policy of protection which would build up industry in this country. I know that a great deal of eloquence has been directed from this side to the Minister of Finance this afternoon, and he is probably laughing up his sleeve at us, thinking that we have been impressed by the argument on this side. That is far from being true.


James Alexander Robb: I am thinking of the vote of
yesterday.


Henry Herbert Stevens: He means the vote of
the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Young).


John Evans: The hon. member (Mr. Stevens) says that we must build up industries here even if we go so far as to put an export embargo on our raw material. But what is wrong is that we cannot build up industry in Canada when, as the Minister of Finance says, we are given an equal chance with the rest of the world? What further advantage do the manufacturers want when they have their raw material right here? Surely it must be cheaper at the mine than anywhere else in the world since Canada controls the output. Let me say this. Protection in this country has passed on from being a method of establishing industry to the stage where it has become a class advantage, used entirely by one class for one purpose only. If a proper policy were followed for the building up of industry in Canada both the opposition and the government would be anxious to keep down the cost of production here so that Canadian industry might compete with others and fall into line with world prices the world over. Last year when these schedules were under consideration even the opposition did not want protection in regard to several articles. The hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) himself asked for free trade in certain articles. I would refer the committee to page 1666 of Hansard of last year. The hon. member quarrels with the Minister of Finance for altering the schedule without proper consideration, and he says:
I think this is done just by the whim and fancy of the minister or his assistants. The whole schedule is got up without any principle.
Well, there is no principle in protection anyway; it is the most unprincipled thing ever devised as a matter of trade. He goes on;
It is purely haphazard guesswork. Any communication that has come to me on the subject from manufacturers-and I have quite a large hat factory in my riding-has been merely to leave these matters as they were, free, free, free, from all countries.
And the Minister of Finance had evidently to make a bid for the support of the same manufacturer, so he acceded to the request of the hon. member for South Wellington and placed the articles on the free list. It is indeed pathetic, in this Hansard, to see the gratitude with which the hon. member for South Wellington accepted the concession. He said:
I must thank the minister for his consideration in regard to this item. If he will do the same thing in regard to worsted yarns, I will not have very much to complain of.
Then the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Stewart) spoke; he was just as grateful as tho
1528	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
hon. member for South Wellington. But what does it all go to show? It shows an utter want of policy and a callous disregard of the consumers of this nation, to put the price-fixing power in the hands of certain classes to fleece the consumers all the time. There is no other purpose in the tariff today. They care not for industry any more than anyone else. The fact is that free trade is the only logical way of building up industry, because it puts all on the same plane, and it will enable Canada to come down in the cost of production and so be in line with world's prices. No; I cannot but classify this whole discussion and the whole policy of protection as two-faced. Protection is a two-faced policy in which there is no sincerity in relation to the building-up of industry; because if you put a tariff on an item you increase its cost. There is no other purpose in protection than to give the pricefixing power to those engaged in certain industries.


John Anderson Fraser: I am interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Rosetown. There is no one who does not admire the persistence with which he advocates his free trade principles. But we are confronted with a condition and not a theory. I referred a moment ago to a million dollars' worth of exports of ore of the platinum group, shipped out off Canada to be conditioned and refined in foreign countries. We are exporting at the present time at the rate of $50,000,000 worth of minerals-


James Alexander Robb: Will my hon. friend give the
source of that quotation in regard to the million dollars.


John Anderson Fraser: I take it from the report
of the Minister of Mines for the calendar year 1928.


James Alexander Robb: I have the report here; let
us correct the statement now.


John Anderson Fraser: No; that is not at all the report from which I quoted. The report from which I quote the figure is for the calendar year just ended, issued by the Deputy Minister of Mines a few days ago.
Mr. KENNEDY; In British Columbia or Ottawa?


John Anderson Fraser: In Ottawa. I am speaking of the annual report. It has not yet been printed but, I understand, it was distributed in typewritten form. Now, I have quoted the amount of platinum ore exported.


James Alexander Robb: The export records show




John Anderson Fraser: Export of platinum ores?


James Alexander Robb: I am looking at the item in
the report of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, giving the total exports of platinum contained in concentrates or other forms, and the amount is some $84,000.


James Dew Chaplin: What is the date?


Henry Herbert Stevens: There would be platinum contained in other metals, unrefined, such as lead, zinc, silver and so forth.


James Alexander Robb: Maybe.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It takes a special process
to separate it from the other metals.


James Alexander Robb: Perhaps.


John Anderson Fraser: If I am wrong in the figure I gave I shall be glad to be corrected. But I am not wrong-because I have made the calculation from the last report issued by the Minister Of Mines-when I say that we are exporting at the present time $50,000,000 worth of minerals in the raw form, of which 75 or 80 per cent is not processed but is raw ore as it is extracted from the mines. That is all I have to say in that connection.
Let me refer for a moment to something the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) said in regard to the copper situation, which he discussed a moment ago. In my opinion he did not show the worst side of that situation. He showed how the copper was exported from Canada and was under the control of the copper export people of the United States, so that our manufacturers had to buy back the manufactured1 or partly manufactured article-wire and rods, or the material to make into wire and rods. They have to apply to the export company for their raw material. This Canadian manufacturing company actually makes an application to the American exporting company for 1,000 tons of copper, and for that copper the Canadian company must pay $5 per ton more than is paid by an American company. That is not the worst feature of it, however; they go further than that. When the Canadian company makes application for 1,000 tons of raw copper the American export company says, " We cannot give you 1,000 tons to-day; we can only give you 250 tons and you will have to come back in two weeks, when we will tell you what we can do about the balance." The Canadian company goes back in two weeks and the American company says, "We can give you another 250 tons but we will have to charge you an additional $5 per ton." That is what happens every time the Canadian company goes back for the balance of their order, and I submit

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
that it is about time we found some solution for a condition of this kind. We produce the raw material and send it to the United States to be refined, but when we want to buy it back we are dictated to with regard to the price. How long are we to continue to be treated in this way not only by the United States but by a-ny foreign country? This does not seem to me a reasonable business basis, and I think it is about time the government woke up and applied some remedy to a condition of this kind.


Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: Ever since I came to this house I have been pleading with the present Minister of Finance and with other ministers to take some interest in the ore industry and the mineral production of Canada. I pointed out what Canada was deriving from her one smelter, located at Trail, even though that smelter was operated on a small scale and only taking care of the one mine, and I drew attention to the fact that under present conditions we were losing millions of dollars a year in this way. In the case of nickel in northern Ontario we were simply producing the ore and sending it to the United States; in the case of the other ores, they were sent to Deloro where concentrates were formed, which concentrates were shipped to the United States for further refining and smelting. The minister says there are only small quantities of platinum or other metals shipped out of Canada, but we have no idea what is in these concentrates. However, now we know that we are obtaining platinum and several of these other minerals right in Ontario and t'he northern part of Quebec, and if we do not institute a policy of completing the refining of our metals in our own country we will continue to lose millions of dollars annually.
After all, platinum is only a small matter; for seven years I have pleaded with the minister to consider the question of the treatment of feldspar, which is obtained in Ontario in its finest form. To-day we ship practically all the ore to the United States to be ground, after which it is returned to Canada free of duty, while great quantities are retained in the United States for the development of their great industries, T?he minister has thrown out a gesture to-day, and I ana hoping that it is a promise that he is preparing for the further manufacture of platinum in this country. I hope it is a a promise, because to-day feldspar is being ground by two concerns in Canada, .and we have the whole production in our own hands if we wish to make use of it. These two industries, one in Toronto, and one in Kingston, are now prepared to grind our own feldspar in sufficient quantities to supply the manufacturers of Canada, but the minister has turned them down repeatedly when they have asked for a little protection. I believe he has done so innocently, however, without having been given the information. These firms have assured him that if he will grant them some small protection in order to give them the Canadian market, they are willing to employ twice the number of people they are employing at present. In other words, if he will see that United States manufacturers do not have an opportunity of sending this product to Canada under conditions equal to those Which must be met by the Canadian companies, they will carry on the manufacture of feldspar in our own country and will not increase the price of any article into the production of which it enters. I hope the gesture of the minister indicates a determination that he will deal with the further manufacture of these ores in Canada and that next year he will take cognizance'of the question of feldspar in order that the manufacture of this product may be carried on in Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-369. Chronometers and compasses, and parts thereof, including cards therefor, of a class or kind not made in Canada, for ships or aircraft:	British preferential
tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
James Dew Chaplin: What was the duty on
these articles previously?


James Alexander Robb: They were free, but the parts came in under item 453, with a duty of 15 per cent, 25 per cent and 27J per cent; under item 657, with a duty of 17i per cent, 22i per cent and 25 per cent and item 590a, with a duty of 15 per cent, 25 per cent and 27i per cent. There is no change in the rate on compasses and chronometers except those for aircraft, which at present enter under item 590a with a duty of 15 per cent, 25 per cent and 27i per cent. This item is intended to cover parts for chronometers and compasses for ships 'and aircraft; the typical part is the compass card, which cannot enter under either item 369 or item 470. Such cards consist of a steel magnet and metal float for the liquid compass or a pivot for the dry compass, and a papeT card showing the points of the compass. These are not manufactured in Canada, as they require to be manufactured by the actual compass makers. The amended item is to obviate this difficulty. The item is further amended to provide for compasses and parts. These are not made in Canada and enter now under item number 590a.
1530	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


James Dew Chaplin: What would be the loss
in revenue?


James Alexander Robb: The imports are not ascertainable.


Henry Herbert Stevens: At the present time this
item is limited to chronometers and compasses for ships?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The item will now include chronometers and compasses, and parts thereof, including cards therefor. Do I understand that the minister is limiting that item to ships or aircraft?


James Alexander Robb: Yes, and 'the item specifies
" of a class or kind not made in Canada."


John Anderson Fraser: Is that an amendment?


James Alexander Robb: No, that is the same as it
was before.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-437. Safes, doors for safes and vaults; scales, balances, weighing beams, and strength testing machines of ail kinds, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, 20 per cent; intermediate tariff, 27J per cent; general tariff, 30 per cent.
James Alexander Robb: We are just adding the words "n.o.p." which are made necessary by an amendment in item number 448.


Henry Herbert Stevens: There is practically no
change.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: How is it we have luxuries and articles entering into the manufacture of luxuries on the free list, while articles of this kind carry 20 per cent, 27| per cent and 30 per cent?


James Dew Chaplin: You must have a safe
to keep the platinum in.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Will the minister tell us
at whose request this change was made? Was there a tariff board hearing; is there any report, and is it printed?


James Alexander Robb: I have already explained that the "n.o.p." is added because it comes under another item.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-438b. Automobiles for conveying passengers only, n.o.p., valued at retail at place of production, when new, with standard equipment complete, at not more than twelve hundred dollars each; motor oars or motor trucks (not for railways or tramways) for carrying goods only; motor cycles or sidecars therefor; chassis for motor vehicles specified in this item: British preferential tariff, 12jj per cent; intermediate tariff, 17£ per cent; general tariff, 20 per cent.
Henry Herbert Stevens: What is the basis for
that change?


James Alexander Robb: We are adding the words " or sidecars therefor."


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is a new item.


James Alexander Robb: Here is the explanation:
The Canadian Wheelmen's Association, in presenting to the board an application for reduction of duty on motorcycles, stressed the fact that under the existing tariff, sidecars for such motorcycles pay rates of 22R 30 and 35 per cent under item 359, whereas motorcycles themselves enter at 12J, 17| and 20 per cent under item 438b. On giving evidence on behalf of the Wheelmen's Association, Mr. W. M. Gladish of the Ottawa Journal stated that the high duty on sidecars was an obvious anomaly and caused considerable objection among distributors as well as among users of motorcycles who regarded sidecars as an essential part of motorcycle equipment. It is proposed, therefore, to amend item 438b by the insertion of the words "or sidecars therefor" which will permit entry of both under the one item. Motorcycles are not made in Canada. Imports of sidecars are not separately classified, whereas imports of motorcycles in the fiscal year 1927-28 were valued at $257,000.
Two public hearings were held of the application, that portion of it relating to motorcycles being withdrawn by the applicant at the opening of the second hearing.


George Gibson Coote: In 1926 this government removed the 5 per cent excise tax from motor cars valued at less than $1,200, and at that time some of the members of the Conservative party pointed out to the minister that this was really giving another 5 per cent protection. I would like to quote from Hansard of 1926, page 4133, as follows;
Mr. Robb:	It does not make any difference
where they pay it. My hon. friend from West Calgary and my hon. friend from West York have forgotten that I hold in my hand a letter from the automobile manufacturers of Canada guaranteeing that they will pass this on to the Canadian people, and that the purchaser of a Canadian car will have all this reduction in the excise tax.
The minister continued:
I repeat that we have the promise of the assoeiiated automobile manufacturers of Canada, of all the manufacturers of automobiles in Canada-it will be found on Hansard to-morrow morning-that they will pass this excise reduction on to the Canadian purchaser, and 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.
The minister made a very positive statement that he would see that the automobile manufacturers would live up to these terms. Last year I brought to the attention of the minister what seemed to be very good proof that some of these automobile manufacturers

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
were not living up to the promise which they had made. In Hansard of March 30, 1928, at page 1820, I pointed out to the minister that at that time a Ford coupe was advertised in Canada at a price of 29.1 per cent over the United States price; that a Whippet coach, which was made, I think, by the Overland people, sold at 29.9 per cent higher in Canada than in the United States, and that a Chrysler coupe was 29.8 per cent higher in Canada than in the United States. The firms manufacturing these cars all signed a letter which the Minister of Finance referred to in his statement of 1926. The percentages which I quoted a year ago were the prices as advertised in Canada at the factory and, of course, without any sales or excise tax being included. When this was brought to the attention of the minister last year, he said in reply to me:
Mr. Robb:	I have no information other
than what my hon. friend has said, nor have I any complaints that the reduction has not been passed on to the purchasers. But after the session, when I have more time, I will look more carefully into the matter. My hon. friend will agree with me that, just on a bare statement, we cannot adopt legislation affecting all the different firms throughout Canada.
And a little further on he says:
I shall this afternoon direct the attention of the Department of National Revenue to the observations of my hon. friend and ask them to check the matter up. It may take some time to do so.
I am taking advantage of the fact that the Minister of National Revenue is in the house as well as the Minister of Finance, and I should like to ask either of these ministers what investigation has taken place into this matter and whether the government can now inform us whether the automobile manufacturers are living up to the promise which was contained in that letter, that is, that they would pass this reduction on to the consumer. I understood the minister at that time to assure us that they would not take advantage of the elimination of the excise tax.
May I, before I sit down, point out to the house that the tariff on automobiles valued at less than $1,200 is only 20 per cent. I have not been able to get prices for comparison this year, but according to figures I gave last year based on prices published by these different automobile concerns, the prices were in nearly every case more than 29 per cent higher in Canada than in the United States. It seems evident on the face of it that these firms are taking advantage of the remission of the excise tax. Again I should like to ask either of these ministers what the result of that investigation was.


James Alexander Robb: Carrying out my promise to
my hon. friend, I have had letters written to the manufacturers, directing their attention to his observations. I do not recall at the moment, because I have not the correspondence before me, whether I said who had made the complaint; in any case I asked them for an explanation. My recollection is that I had satisfactory replies from some of the firms, but I will admit frankly that the replies of one or two of them were not very satisfactory. I recall some time ago having looked over this correspondence, and my recollection is that I wrote them again. I Shall have the matter checked up and find1 out whether I got a reply, and I shall be able to give my hon. friend some information about it after eight o'clock or let him know about it confidentially.
I do not object to his bringing the matter up now. It affords an opportunity of directing the attention of the automobile people to the promise then made.


Robert Gardiner: Might I suggest that
this item stand until the information is brought down?


James Alexander Robb: That is not necesary, beoause
it does not affect this at all.


Robert Gardiner: This is the only opportunity we have of discussing it.


James Alexander Robb: I will not object to my hon.
friend discussing it on any other item.


Mr. FANSHER (Lambton):: Is my hon. friend sure that the benefit of the excise tax elimination was passed on to the consumer at the time the tax was taken off?


James Alexander Robb: I have the assurance of some
of the automobile people.


William Russell Fansher: It is my
firm conviction that, in reality, it was not passed on at that time. I know this would call for a 15 per cent reduction, because the duty was lowered from 35 to 20 per cent. Not long before that time I had been selling cars of a certain make, and I know one firm made a reduction of 10 per cent, leaving 5 per cent of the reduction yet to be made. In the meantime application was made to the Minister of Finance that the excise tax be removed, with the promise that if it were removed, the benefit would be passed on to the purchaser. The excise tax was removed, and shortly afterwards another 5 per cent reduction in the price was made, but to my mind this was virtually the remaining 5 per cent of the 15 per cent reduction, and the benefit of the
1532	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
excise tax has never been passed on to the consumer, at least by some firms. I am of the firm conviction that is what was done at the time.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I think the minister's
statement with regard to the matter leaves on the committee the impression that he ,was not very enthusiastic about it.


James Alexander Robb: Enthusiastic about what?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: About carrying out the
promise that was made in 1926.


James Alexander Robb: We might as well settle the
matter now. Perhaps my hon. friend will check up with the hon. member (Mr. Coote) who sits in front of him when I show him the correspondence.


George Gibson Coote: It is true that the minister-


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Just a minute. This is
a question that was very important in the session of 1926, and on which, I may say, the government ran its election in parts of this country. Yet the minister, after two years and after the matter was called to his attention a year ago, can only say:	"My recollection is that certain things happened and certain representations were made to me." Surely the matter is one of great importance. I remember something of the lobby that was carried on in this building by the manufacturers and the definite promise that was made .to the house. But in a matter that has been so prominently before the house and that has -meant so -much to the government and to the manufacturers themselves, the members have not a clear explanation to-day as to what was done between the government and the manufacturers, or as to whether the minister's department really carried the thing through to a conclusion or not. This simply illustrates how easily the government has been making promises in regard to the tariff and everything else, and how it has failed to carry them out in any effective degree. It is just another instance of the same thing.


George Gibson Coote: I think the best way for the minister to convince the house of the efforts he has made to see that this promise is carried out would be to give us very frankly all the correspondence which he has had with the automobile manufacturers since the passage of this legislation, and particularly since I brought this matter to his attention a year ago. I first made a statement in regard to the matter when I spoke on the budget last-year, on the 6th of March, and I thought that I had made a good case, that I had 
established at least what the lawyers call a prima facie case. I thought it was then the duty of the minister or of his department, a member of parliament having claimed that the automobile manufacturers had not lived up to the agreement, to look into the matter; but when the budget resolution was being discussed on March 30, over three weeks later, the minister did not seem aware at all that I had made my complaint in that connection, and was not able at the time to give me any reply. He had no information as to whether or not the automobile manufacturers had really been taking advantage of the reduction. He did not know whether the prices I had quoted were correct, and if they were, he did not know if that was proof that the manufacturers had not been living up to the agreement. Now a whole year has passed, and when the correspondence is brought down I think it will be found that the minister has not made any serious effort to find out whether or not the automobile manufacturers were taking any advantage of the elimination of the excise tax. It will be found that the Fort Motor Company, for instance, just to mention one of the companies concerned- and it is the largest manufacturer in Canada of automobiles affected- by this change, valued at less than $1,200-has not even replied to the department; there is on file in the department no reply from that company in regard to this matter.
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
[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 39, respecting the Essex Terminal Railway Company.-Mr. Odette.
Bill No. 61, respecting the Lacombe and Northwestern Railway Company.-Mr. Blatch-ford.
Bill No. 83, respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.-Mr. Vallance.


[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 438b, automobiles for conveying passengers only.

Ways and Means-Customs Tarijj


James Alexander Robb: Mr. Chairman, this afternoon
hon. gentlemen opposite asked for certain correspondence between the Minister of Finance and the Automobile Association. I now lay the correspondence on the table.


George Gibson Coote: I think, Mr. Chairman, it
would facilitate the work of the committee if the minister would tell us what is in that correspondence.


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend can look at
my copy.


George Gibson Coote: I am only anxious that the
committee should be made aware of what is in the correspondence. I do not think the item under consideration should be disposed of until the committee are advised by the minister just what action has been taken, and until the committee know whether or not he is aware if the Automobile Association has taken advantage of the reduction of the excise tax or not.


James Alexander Robb: I have their statement. If
my hon. friend will send me back the correspondence I will read it into Hansard.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Does the correspondence
demonstrate whether they did or did not take advantage?


James Alexander Robb: Last session, Mr. Chairman,
as correctly stated by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote), he brought to the attention of the house the question of the reduction of the excise tax on automobiles. On April 10, 1928, I wrote to T. A. Russell, president of the Automotive Industries of Canada, the following letter:
My Dear Russell:
I am not sure whether you are president this year of the Automotive Industries of Canada, but as you signed the letter which was given to me on June 5, 1926, and read into Hansard on June 7, on behalf of the industry I am writing you to-day with the request that you bring it to the attention of the proper officers of the association.
With this letter I am enclosing a copy of the Hansard of March 30, and would in particular draw your attention to the debate which started on page 1948 in connection with the Special War Revenue Act.
You will notice that Mr. Gardiner, Mr. Coote and Mr. Fansher took exception to the prices of automobiles in Canada and expressed the opinion that the consumers did not receive the full benefit of the tariff reduction of 1926,
I promised to have the matter looked into, therefore this letter is written.
Yours faithfully,
(Signed) James A. Robb.
T. A. Russell,
President,
Automotive Industries of Canada,
Toronto, Ontario.
On the 12th the following letter was received:
Willys-Overland Limited,
Toronto, April 12th, 1928.
Hon. James A. Robb,
Minister of Finance,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Dear Mr. Robb:
. I have your letter of 10th regarding automobile prices. It came during my absence from the city, hence the delay in_ acknowledging.
I am taking up the question as you*suggest with the officers of Automotive Manufacturers and Exporters Association. Neither our company nor the Ford Motor Company are members, but it is the only organization representative in any way of the manufacturers, and 1 have asked their secretary to bring the question before their committee. You will also hear from me further with regard to it.
Yours faithfully,
(Signed) T. A. Russell,
President.
On the 14th, in reply to that letter I wrote: Ottawa, April 14th, 1928.
My dear Russell,
I have your letter of the 12th instant and note that you are referring my letter to the officers of the Automotive Manufacturers and Exporters Association. I also note that your company is no longeT a member of that association, but as you signed the original letter sent to me in 1926 and as you can undoubtedly speak for your company, I would appreciate if you would let me know, not later than Saturday the 21st of April, what your reply is to the statement made in the House on the 30th of March.
I need not point out to you that it is important that I have this information immediately.
Yours faithfully,
(Signed) James A. Robb.
Mr. T. A. Russell,
President.
Willys-Overland Limited,
Toronto 9, Ontario.
On April 18, this letter was written from. Walkerville:
The Studebaker Corporation of Canada, Limited,
Walkerville, Ont., April 18th, 1928. Hon. James A. Robb,
Minister of Finance,
Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir:
We have noted your letter to Mr. T. A. Russell with reference to the discussion in the House of Commons regarding the prices of automobiles in Canada.
We would call your attention to the tact that the comparison of Canadian and American prices on the Erskine car as written in Hansard March 6th is erroneous. The American price list of the Erskine six is $795.00. The increase of Canadian list over American list is approximately 25 per cent instead of 35 per cent as shown in the record.
We have not qualified for the omission of excise tax on the Erskine car in Canada and
1534	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
we therefore collect from our dealers the amount of excise tax which we pay to the government.
Yours very truly,
The Studebaker Corporation of Canada, Ltd.
(Signed) D. R. Grossman,
Sales Manager.
On April 21, my secretary acknowledged that letter. '	[DOT]
Ottawa, April 21st, 1928. Dear Mr. Grossman,
I am directed by Mr. Robb to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 18th instant regarding the prices of automobiles in Canada. Yours faithfully,
(Signed) Watson Sellar,
Private Secretary.
Mr. D. R. Grossman,
Sales Manager,
The Studebaker Corporation of Canada, Ltd,,
Walkerville, Ontario.
On April 24, the Chrysler Corporation of Canada Limited wrote:
Chrysler Corporation of Canada, Limited Windsor, Ontario,
April 24, 1928.
Hon. James A. Robb,
Minister of Finance,
Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir:
We have before us copy of your letter of April 10th to Mr. T. A. Russell.
In this connection will say when the government discontinued excise tax on cars built in Canada, under $1,200, June 8, 1926, we immediately discontinued collecting from dealers excise tax on such cars in our line as qualified, in accordance with this government regulation, and have not, since that time, collected excise tax on such cars.
It is the policy of our corporation to base our sale price on the cost of production, plus a reasonable percentage of profit, and it will be our policy to continue to do this in the future.
I assure you our records are open for the inspection of your department any time you might wish to cheek the manner in which we are handling our business; the returns we are getting on capital invested, etc. We would welcome going over these matters in detail at any time with anyone from your department whom you might wish to delegate.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) Jno. D. Mansfield,
President-General Manager.
On April 27, I acknowledged that letter.
Ottawa, April 27, 1928.
My Dear Mr. Mansfield:
I have your letter of the 24th instant in connection with the price of automobiles in Canada.
Yours faithfully,
(Sgd.) James A. Robb. Mr. Jno. D. Mansfield,
President,
Chrysler Corporation of Canada, Windsor, Ontario.
On April 24, I received the following letter: General Motors of Canada Limited Oshawa, Ont.
April 24, 1928.
Honourable J. A. Robb,
Minister of Finance,
Ottawa, Ont.
Honourable Sir:
We have been requested by the Canadian Automobile Manufacturers and Exporters Association to give you a statement relative to the accusation recently made on the floor of the house, to the effect that the automobile manufacturers in Canada were not acting in accordance with Mr. T. A. Russell's letter to you of June 5, 1926.
I wish to positively state that General Motors of Canada, Limited has not only lived up to this agreement, but has gone further than was agreed, and the records of our company which are open for inspection, will substantiate this statement.
Taking the Chevrolet line for example, I would point out to you that prior to June 8. 1926, our mark-up over the United States was as follows:
Roadster	 1.30
Coupe	 1.30
Landau sedan	 1.31
Commercial chassis	 1.30
Utility express	chassis	 1.39
Touring	 1.30
Coach	 1.30
Sedan	 1.29
making an average of 1.31 with the excise tax added with the exception of the commercial and utility express chassis.
Immediately after June 8th, the excise tax was removed and the Canadian mark-up over the United States list remained the same.
AtJ.vt^eii:prefe,Ilt **me>
I would point out to you that the following mark-up over the United *Hates list is in effect.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What do they mean bv
"mark-up"?


James Alexander Robb: I imagine it is 1 per cent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It cannot be; it must be the scale.


James Alexander Robb: 
George Gibson Coote: It will be noticed from this corespondence which has been read by the minister that no reply has been received from the company of which Mr. Russell was president. Apparently Mr. Russell was the prime mover in this matter in 1926. As the leader of the opposition said at that time, he was very importunate and he finally persuaded the minister to put through this elimination of excise tax for the benefit of the Canadian Automobile Manufacturers' Association. To say the least, I think Mr. Russell's company certainly showed ingratitude towards the minister in not replying to his letter.
With reference to the statement of the Studebaker people I wish to state that the price of an Erskine coach, which was quoted by me in 1928, was an error, and later on in the session on a question of privilege I corrected that statement. I was quoting in good faith from a motor magazine published in the United States, but evidently it was a misprint. With reference to the General Motors Corporation, last year I am reported in Hansard of March 6, as saying:
I think the prices which I have quoted are ample proof that our automobile manufacturers, with the exception of the Chevrolet people-
That is the General Motors Corporation. -are taking advantage of this removal of the excise tax.
In that sentence I intended to exempt General Motors from any charge of taking advantage of this removal. I point out to the minister and to the committee that no reply has been received from the Ford Company of Canada as to this charge. Last year I showed that the price of the Canadian car was 29 per cent in excess of the price of the American car on every model placed on the market by the Ford Company of Canada. There is a reply from the Chrysler people, and certainly anyone who heard the letter read would see that it contains no proof that they are not taking advantage of this remission of the excise tax. They did not give the price of any car they are making, and if they had done so it would have re-
1536	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
quired quite an explanation to stow why their car in Canada should be 29.8 per cent higher in price than the car in t'he United States.
I have already said that no reply was received from the company of which Mr. Russell is _ president. Last year I showed that the price of a Whippet coach manufactured by his company was 29.9 per cent higher in Canada than in the United States. As far as this correspondence is concerned I think w-e may take it that in the cases of the Ford Company of Canada, the Willys-Dverland Company and the Chrysler people mo proof has been offered that they are not taking advantage of this remission of the excise tax, and it seems to me only fair to ask the minister that he make good the statement which he made in 1926, as follows:
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.
My suggestion to the minister is that 'he take off the excise tax on cars valued at $1,200 or less, no matter where they are made. That is the only way of assuring the people of Canada that these companies will live up to the promise they made in 1926.


Peter McGibbon: Did my hon. friend see the statement by Mr. Campbell of the Ford company a few months ago, in which he said his company lost over S60 on every car they turned out last year?


George Gibson Coote: I did not see that statement, but here I have a statement made to the house by the minister three years ago, when he said these people would have to live up to this promise or he would place them in a position where they would have to meet the competition of the world. I charge that they have not lived up to that promise, and I ask the minister now to tell the house whether he is not convinced that he should remove this excise tax from American-made cars in order to keep the promise he made the house in 1926.


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend forgets that
according to the statement the majority of these people have lived up to that promise. There is also a question of revenue involved, which has to be looked into carefully. These other companies which he alleged are not living up to the promise are in competition with the companies which have lived up to it, and I am sure the people will not buy these cars if prices are too high.


George Gibson Coote: The minister should not attempt to get out of his promise in that way. [Mr. Coote.l
He did not say that if certain of the manufacturers lived up to the agreement it would be all right, even though other manufacturers did not do so; he said if they did not all live up to it he would do a certain thing, and I think the house took it for granted that that was what he was going to do.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is out of date; that was last year.


George Gibson Coote: No, that was three years
ago. Perhaps the Minister of Finance is like some people who, when they get on in years, find their memory of what happened long ago better than their recollection of what happened in the immediate past. I am trying to find in Hansard a statement made by the minister in 1926, when it was suggested to him that if he were going to put this into force he should place in the act a stipulation that if the companies did not live up to the agreement the government would reintroduce the excise tax on Canadian-made cars. At page 4136 of Hansard for 1926 I find that the hon. member for Rosetown asked the following question:
If we are going to pass this amendment to-night I would like to know if it contains a provision that if at any time it is proved to the satisfaction of the government that this rebate of excise tax is not passed on to the consumer, the tax will at once again be imposed.
The minister's reply was as follows:
To do that it would be necessary to give the governor in council the right to increase taxation, and that is not good legislation.
It seems to me now that it would have been good legislation.
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 am rather convinced from the answer given a moment ago by the minister that it really was necessary, and perhaps the house was derelict in its duty in not insisting that that be done. I have a high personal regard for the minister, as I had at that time, and from the statement he made that night I believed him to be in earnest in this regard; I thought if these men did not live up to the agreement, as soon as the matter was brought to his attention he would remove the excise tax on imported cars as well. Is not that the impression which anyone would gather from reading the remarks which I have quoted from Hansard? I do not wish unduly to delay the committee on this matter but I think the minister owes it to the committee to state that unless these automobile companies can

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
absolutely prove, by a comparison of the prices of the different models of their cars in Canada with the prices in the United States, that they are not taking advantage of this excise tax, collecting that tax in actual practice and putting it in their 'own pockets, the minister should at once remove the excise tax on all cars. The minister stated:
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.
I asked the minister to take this tax off and have the reduction applied to all cars.


James Alexander Robb: I can answer that quickly
by saying, no. Cars coming from countries with whom we have no preferential trade agreement pay the excise tax when they are valued under $1,200.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is that tax five per cent?


James Alexander Robb: Five per cent where the value is under $1,200 and ten per cent where the value is over $1,200. Any person who buys a high-priced car, one costing five or six thousand dollars, is able to pay the government a little revenue. If the hon. member were to argue that we should consider raising the limit next year, I might consider that, but it is too late to do anything this year. My hon. friend says that a few companies have not lived up to this agreement, and I will tell him that to-morrow morning I am going to send them a letter enclosing a copy of Hansard and demanding an answer. But why should we lose revenue when the great bulk of the trade is living up to the agreement?


Robert Gardiner: How do you know they
are doing that?


James Alexander Robb: They say so, and it has not
been contradicted to-night. I am not here in the interests of the countries who do not give Canada any trade concessions; this legislation is very fair and the government of Canada is obtaining a certain revenue from the high-priced cars, and it all goes towards the liquidation of the national debt.


George Gibson Coote: All I am asking the minister to do is to take the excise tax off all cars under $1,200 regardless of whether or not they are made in Canada. My reason for asking that is the statement made by the minister in 1926, when he persuaded the house to pass this amendment which removed the excise tax on cars valued at less than $1,200, and the realization that certain manufacturers have not lived up to that agreement.


James Alexander Robb: A very limited number.


George Gibson Coote: If the cars valued at $1,200
or under which are produced in Canada are not being sold under the proper terms and at the proper price, I would like the minister to explain to the house just what he meant when he said in 1926:
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.
The house did not consider it was necessary after the Finance minister made that statement. They took it for granted that if the companies mentioned in that letter, and who had given their word to Mr. Russell, authorizing him to write the letter, did not live up to the agreement the minister would place all automobiles valued at less than $1,200 on the same basis. That is the impression which he gave the house. Now he says that as some of the automobile manufacturers have lived up to this agreement, and as he needs this revenue, he is not going to do anything. I suggest that he put them all on the same basis, or that he reinstate the excise tax on Canadian-made as well as on imported cars. If he will not take the tax off all cars valued at less than $1,200, then I suggest that he do that. I now ask the minister if he is willing to put this tax on all cars,, whether or not they are made in Canada? That would be an attempt to make good his word given in 1926.


James Alexander Robb: The hon. member is asking
me to break faith with that part of the automobile industry which is living up to this agreement.


Robert Gardiner: What proof have you
of that?


James Alexander Robb: No one has contradicted that statement.


Robert Gardiner: You have not given any proof of it.


James Alexander Robb: The hon. member must remember that we require revenue.


Robert Gardiner: Never mind the question of revenue; let us take up the other matter.


James Alexander Robb: When a company is manufacturing, in Oshawa, Ford City, Windsor, Toronto or Regina, oars which come within this regulation, we Obtain a certain revenue from the excise tax. If we removed that excise tax we would be placing the manu-
1538	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
facturer in the foreign country who might not be giving us any concession on our products, on the same basis as those in countries which were. We would be losing that revenue, and we need the revenue.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. minister is
becoming more and more Conservative.


James Dew Chaplin: I think it has been demonstrated that there has been a certain amount of discourtesy shown to the minister by certain automobile -people who did not reply to his letter.


James Alexander Robb: I agree with that.


James Dew Chaplin: I do not want to appear as a defender of any automobile manufacturer, but I would like to put a certain phase of this question before the house. Last year or the year before -the Ford company put out a new car. It took them a long time to get this car on the -market and they introduced it without knowing just what the car was going to cost them. The Ford company in the United States put a price on the car without knowing what it was going to cost them, and they lost $100,000,000 before they could get into production. For the same reason, the Canadian company lost $5,000,000. Is it any wonder that they did not reply to the letter of the minister? If I had been in their place I would have replied by telling the .minister that w-e had lost money on our product and we were only beginning to make money. They are just getting into production, and it seems to me that that is a valid reason why the Ford company did not reply.


Mr. SINCLAIR (Wellington):: I would like to know the price of a Ford coupe in the United States and in Canada. I believe in protecting the Canadian manufacturer, but when I pay $740 for a Ford coupe in Canada and I can go across to a town in the United States, which is three times as far from Detroit as -my home town is from Ford, Ontario, and find that the same car is sold for $200 lees, I begin to wonder what the tariff board are doing. If I were on the tariff board I would want to see that the Canadian purchaser was able to buy that car just as cheaply as the American purchaser. This talk about extra freight is a thing of the past as far as Canada is concerned. We have the right kind of buyers in Canada, because they pay for the articles they purchase. I have worked for different companies long enough to know that they do not lose much money in that way. I would like to know how it is we have to pay $200 more for a Ford car in Canada. What are the tariff

board doing about it? If it is not there for the purpose of giving direct information to the Minister of Finance, I think it is an unnecessary expense. The Minister of Finance of this country is to my mind, bigger than any manufacturing institution either in Canada or the United States, and he is here to protect the Canadian purchaser. I -am a Canadian purchaser, and I know I have been paying $200 more for a Ford coupe in Canada than the same car could have been purchased for in the United States. What is the reason?


Robert Gardiner: As regards the information the Minister of Finance is giving to the committee to-night, it would appear from correspondence I have befo-re me that only two of the automobile firms manufacturing cars in Canada have demonstrated that they have lived up to the understanding of 1926. I am very much surprised at the statement of the minister to-night. Let me say frankly, that prior to to-night I had a very high respect for the word of the minister; but after hearing his explanation respecting this matter, I am coming to doubt whether I was justified in having that high regard for him. Would the Minister of Finance, for instance, wish those of us who met him first when this particular question was brought to the committee who were cooperating with the government at that time, to give to the house all the information that was brought out at that meeting and all the promises he then made to see to it that, if this were granted, the companies would live up to their agreement? So far as I am concerned the statement which the minister has made to-night is actually rubbish in comparison with the statement he then made that he would see that those companies did live up to their agreements. At that time we knew, of course, the government needed support, and we were willing to support them on a policy agreed upon between ourselves. A good deal has been said in different parts of the country as to that agreement between the government and ourselves, but I am free to say that with the exception of this one proposition, the government have lived up to each and every item we agreed to. But the minister to-night has not given the committee one iota of information that would give us even the suggestion of an idea that he had tried to see to it that these companies lived up to their agreement as outlined in a letter by Russell. Is this all the minister has done in the matter-merely write to Russell: when he receives a reply, let it go at that, and, when the committee asks for information, blandly say: "The government needs revenue"? The minister's word is of

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
more importance to the house than the revenue is to the country. I do not want to see this item pass until we get some definite promise from the minister that he will keep his word, will keep the promise he gave and which we honestly believed he would live up to when he first brought that proposal before the committee which was working with the government in that cooperative arrangement.


James Alexander Robb: I can only repeat to my hon.
friend that the evidence goes to show that I have kept my word. I have written to them all.


Robert Gardiner: Is that all the minister has done?


James Alexander Robb: That is all.


Robert Gardiner: That is nothing.


James Alexander Robb: The hon. member for North
Wellington has made a statement. I have heard it many times around the country, and* perhaps there is something in it.


Hugh Guthrie: Does the minister not
think he- ought to find out?


James Alexander Robb: Well, we have a statement
of a man who knows something about the business. He has not indicated that the charges are wrong. I repeat, that generally speaking, it goes to show that the prices have been fair; that the manufacturers have not been taking advantage of the 5 per cent.


George Gibson Coote: I think the evidence is almost beyond dispute. I have not been able to get the prices of Ford cars this year. I have not seen the Canadian price of a Ford car at the factory in any advertisement this year. It almost seems as if the Ford Company were very careful now not to advertise the factory price of their car, that is, without the sales and excise taxes added. But these are the prices of a year ago, and they have not been disputed. I gave -them on March 6, 1928. The United States price which I shall quote, was taken from a motor magazine published in the United States, giving the factory price of every model of every make of car in the United States. There is no similar magazine in Canada that I have been able to find, and the Canadian prices were all taken from advertisements in Canadian publications. They are the prices without any taxes added in either case so that the prices in the two countries are comparable.
e
a


John Evans: I can well remember the
promise which the minister gave in reply to a question I asked him when this matter was under consideration three years ago. Tonight we are face to face with another instance such as I described yesterday where the manufacturer gets all the benefit of a tax reduction and the burden is put on the consumer. I do not know why public men at the head of affairs here should practically prostitute their reputations in making promises like this which are never meant to be kept. It is rather hard to say these things, but we are simply bringing the public life of this country down to a system of bargaining, and something worse, sometimes. It has been plainly shown that the manufacturers have not lived up to the promise given to the minister when this tax was taken off, and I think it is up to the minister himself and his colleagues either to replace the tax or see that the benefit is passed on to the consumer.
As to the statement made here to-night that certain companies are not making profits, I have in my hand the Financial Times for April 5 last, and I find that for the first quarter of 1929 up to March 3l, the Canadian Ford Company made profits amounting to $2,954,600, made up as follows:	January,
$810,000; February, $944,000; March $1,200,000. That undoubtedly goes to show that undue profits are being made by these companies. Surely now we can expect either that this excise tax will be replaced for the sake of getting more, revenue, and the necessaries of life relieved of some of the taxation placed on them, or that the government will see to it that these manufacturers live up to the promise they made.


Mr. SPENCER:: Mr. Chairman, we have
an extraordinary situation here. In 1926 certain taxes were remitted or cancelled with regard to automobiles. Some members of this house were afraid at the time that the manufacturers would take advantage of that remission and not give the consumer the

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
benefit. The Minister of Finance promised this house that if they did not give the consumer the benefit, he would see that they were put up against the competition of the world. A year afterwards the matter was again brought up in this house, and an hon. member drew the attention of the Minister of Finance to his promise. The result was that the minister got into communication with the automobile manufacturers and asked them if they had failed to carry out their promise to him. Some of the manufacturers have replied, but in most cases they have given no proof that they have not charged the consumer to the hilt, or that they have passed on to the consumer the benefit of the reduction. Some manufacturers have not even had the decency to reply. The Finance minister to-night says that most of them have replied, but some have not, he admits. The Minister of Finance is the last person in this country who ought to be ignored in the matter of correspondence, and I cannot understand why he and the officials of his department did not go after representatives of these companies who had neglected to reply. It seems extraordinary to me. Again, the Finance minister says: "Oh, well, some of these companies, according to their own statements, have come across and given the consumer the benefit, but I admit that a percentage have not." He might just as well say:	Ninety per cent of the people
of this country are perfectly honest and not ten per cent are rogues, but let them go anyway because ninety per cent are all right. I cannot understand the attitude of the Minister of Finance.


Peter McGibbon: If I understand the position correctly, all export trade is exempt from this tax, is it not?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


Peter McGibbon: Also exports from
countries with which we have trade agreements?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


Peter McGibbon: Then how can the
minister arrive at the Canadian content of a
car?


James Alexander Robb: That is administered through
the Department of National Revenue. Their auditors go to the companies and audit their books and accounts. That system is required to establish not only the basis of the Canadian content, but also for export purposes.


Peter McGibbon: How does the minister
arrive at the content of the domestic car in Canada, when the export and the domestic trade must be considered as one?


James Alexander Robb: It is done through the Department of National Revenue, who have officers making an audit from time to time. Let me say to my hon. friend that some of these companies are not qualifying for export business, because they do not come up to the requirements. Most countries now require that there should be a certain percentage of content of the country of origin in all imported cars.


Peter McGibbon: The minister does not
answer my question. I do not want to know the channel through which the work is done, I want to know what those officers of the Department of National Revenue do.


James Alexander Robb: I cannot tell my hon. friend
that. I will have to ask my colleague, the Minister of National Revenue, when he is in his seat.


Peter McGibbon: Will the minister be good enough to give us that information before the item is passed?


James Alexander Robb: What has that to do with the passing of this item?


Peter McGibbon: I think it has a lot to
do with it. How do you strike the average of the different cars? For instance, take General Motors; they have a number of low-priced cars under $1,200. Does the surplus Canadian content of one type of car go to reduce what I might call the lack of surplus Canadian content in the other?


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend will have to
get that information from the Minister of National Revenue, who administers the act.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I cannot agree with the
hon. minister. He has told the house that this is a matter of revenue. I have listened with great attention to what he has been saying this evening, and while he has been treated with great disrespect and discourtesy by the failure of some of the motor companies to answer his letters, when he was making that statement I could not but recall the dramatic stand he took, how he "stood by his guns" down in the theatre before those thousands of Oshawa working men who descended on Ottawa and told them what he was not going to do. Now the hon. member for Macleod has exploded the whole affair by showing that the protection is really 25 per cent. My hon. friends to my left rather belittled us
REVIoFD EDITION

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
when we endeavoured to make that clear at the time, but I felt perfectly certain that in the end they would realize that what we had said was sound.
But there is another matter of importance The minister said that these machines were not subject to excise tax if valued at less than 81,200, and imported from Britain or from other countries and containing fifty per cent of the labour of those countries. My hon. friend from Muskoka asked how that content was arrived at. I think we should know. I am satisfied that if the Minister of Finance will look up his portfolio he will find the information, briefed as he is by the officers of his department, having in fact sitting by him the most distinguished and the most experienced tariff officer in the government service, and so essential to the life of the ministry itself that it cannot get along without him. I am sure if the minister will ask that officer he will tell him whether the content is computed on each car, on an average, or how. We want to know in order to determine how the revenues of this country are arrived at.


James Alexander Robb: That is a reasonable request,
but the information must come from my colleague who administers the act, the Minister of National Revenue.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Why?


James Alexander Robb: I will let the item stand until he is in his seat to give the information. Incidentally I may point out that we have received on cars that have come in under this provision excise taxes amounting to $862,241.90.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is the drawback?
That would interest me greatly.


John Frederick Johnston: Item 438b stands.


George Gibson Coote: May I ask the minister when this item is likely to come up again, and if in the meantime he will get some real proof for the house that the manufacturers have not been taking advantage of this reduction? If he cannot do that I think it would be only fair to suggest to him that we expect him to take the tax off these cars.


James Alexander Robb: I submit to my hon. friend
that it is up to him to prove the manufacturers have been taking advantage of the reduction.


Robert Gardiner: No. The minister is
the person who made the suggestion to this house, and it is up to him to prove that the manufacturers are carrying out their agreement. There is no question about that.


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend made the same speech last session or the sesion before, I do not recall which, when he paid me a similar compliment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I would not call them
''compliments" to-night.


James Alexander Robb: We both come from the
same part of the country and I do not suppose these little brushes will hurt us. I am prepared to do my part. As I said a few moments ago, I shall write these companies to-morrow, with copies of Hansard.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Telegraph them to-night.


James Alexander Robb: But I submit my hon. friends have not submitted proof that the companies are not living up to their agreement.


George Gibson Coote: Then I should like to know what kind of proof the minister would like me to bring forward. If I bring proof that cars are sold in Canada at a price 29 per cent higher than similar cars are sold for in the United States, what more proof does he want?


James Alexander Robb: I will have that submitted to the officers to check up, because last session my hon. friend gave figures which he had to correct some weeks afterwards.


George Gibson Coote: On one car only, and as
soon as I found that figure was incorrect,' on a question of privilege I promptly put the matter right. But the minister has admitted that two of these companies have not even had the courtesy to reply to his letter, and the other companies, outside of General Motors- and they were not accused of breaking the agreement-have not offered any proof at all.


James Dew Chaplin: I think Studebaker does.


George Gibson Coote: Here is a letter from the
Chrysler Corporation of Canada. A year ago I showed that the Chrysler two-door sedan sold at 31.3 per cent higher in Canada than in the States, and the Chrysler coupe at 29.8 per cent higher. When the Hansard containing that statement was sent to the Chrysler Corporation they replied:
In this connection will say when the government discontinued excise tax on cars built in Canada under $1,200 June 8, 1926, we immediately discontinued collecting from dealers the excise tax on such cars in our line as qualified, in accordance with this government regulation, and have not since that time collected excise tax on such cars.
Of course, we do not suppose they would collect that tax.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


George Gibson Coote: No one accuses them of doing it.
It is the policy of our corporation to base our sale price on the cost of production, plus a reasonable percentage of profit, and it will be our policy to continue to do this in future.
There is no proof there that they have lived up to the agreement.
I assure you our records are open for the inspection of your department any time you might wish to check the manner in which we are handling our business; the returns we are getting on capital invested, etc. We would welcome going over these matters in detail at any time with anyone from your department whom you might wish to delegate.
The minister got this letter on April 24, 1928, almost a year ago. The question which naturally arises in my mind is, when did he go to this company and discuss these matters with them, or did he send someone up there to look into the records? The company suggest it in this letter. The minister says it is up to us to bring proof that the companies are not living up to this agreement. Will he delegate to those of us, who are complaining about this, authority to go into the books of the motor corporations and receive proof that they are living up to this agreement that they made three years ago? The minister is surely going too far when he suggests that it is up to us to bring proof that the companies are not living up to the agreement. The suggestion is made in the letter of the corporation that some of the officers of his department should go there and prove it, and if that is not done the representatives of this company should be compelled to come to Ottawa and submit proof to the minister that they are not taking advantage of the removal of this tax; in other words, that they are living up to the agreement which the minister himself assured the house they would be compelled to observe. I suggest that before the minister comes back and asks us to pass this item, under which it seems we have the only chance to discuss the matter, he should offer us more proof than has been produced to-night.


James Alexander Robb: Let the item stand.
Item stands.
Customs tariff-442. Printing presses, lithographic presses, and type making accessories therefor, also machines specially designed for ruling, folding, binding, embossing, creasing or cutting paper or cardboard, sheet feeding machines, extension deliveries, when for use exclusively by printers, by bookbinders and by manufacturers of articles made from paper or cardboard-including parts thereof composed wholly or in part of iron, steel, brass or wood; machinery and complete parts thereof for printing by photographic methods on plates for use 78594-98J
on lithographic and offset presses; stereotypers' and typesetters' blankets or blanketing and press blankets or blanketing used on printing presses, of a class or kind not made in Canada: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 5 per cent; general tariff, 10 per cent.
Mr. ROBB; In the budget of 1928 a reduction in duty was made on stereotypes, type casting blankets and press blankets used on rotary printing presses, not made in Canada. It has been pointed out by the Canadian Daily Newspaper Association that the reduction thus afforded is not applicable to those publishers who continue to use the so-called flat bed press. The proposed amendment will make the reduction of last year apply to press blankets used on any printing press; and it goes further, in that it permits the importation of such press blanketing in roll or pieces. The imports for six months, 192829, amount to $32,000. Extension sets being an essential part of the press, they have beer included in the item.
Mr. ERASER; I have picked up the information that this change has already gone into effect through a departmental ruling. Is that the practice of the department, and is this only to confirm such ruling?


James Alexander Robb: I suppose it might have been
done the day after the budget was delivered.


John Anderson Fraser: I am not talking about
the day after the budget was delivered, but before. Is this a departmental ruling that has been in force for some time and which it is. now being sought to make statutory?


James Alexander Robb: I had not heard of that. This: was really the intention last year when the amendments were made, but I understand that it was ruled that under the act it would not be quite right, and this amendment was asked for.


Hugh Guthrie: Has the department been levying duty on the item in the meantime?


James Alexander Robb: I could not tell you.


Hugh Guthrie: Cannot the minister find out?


James Alexander Robb: The information given by my hon. friend from Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) is new to me.


Hugh Guthrie: We all know. Is there
any way of finding out? The hon. member for Cariboo says that he is informed that there was a departmental ruling allowing these items to come in free. It was not of statutory right; nor, I assume, was there any right to make the departmental ruling.
1544	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Richard Bedford Bennett: Was there not an order
in council reducing the taxation?


James Alexander Robb: No. The commissioner tells
me that the customs advise that they have been charging duty, and the Canadian Daily Newspaper Association have asked for this, alleging that they were being charged.


[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.
William Russell Fansher: In the latter part of this item reference is made to "other agricultural implements, n.o.p.; and complete parts of articles specified in this tariff item." W'hat agricultural implements come under this particular head?


James Alexander Robb: I suppose, any others not mentioned; there may be a number. The memorandum I have on this item indicates that it is proposed to amend the present schedule to cover apparatus for sterilizing bulbs, and apparatus for determining the maturity of fruit, in accordance with applications made by the Canadian Horticultural Council. The sterilizing of bulbs consists in the removal of fungus diseases from bulbs and this apparatus is used by bulb growers on the Pacific coast. It is not made in Canada, being imported chiefly from the United Kingdom. The imports are not ascertainable. Fruit pressure testing apparatus is a device used by fruit inspectors. It is imported from the United States and, according to the evidence given at the public hearing, it is not manufactured in Canada. It enters under item 437. The imports are not ascertainable. The inclusion of fruit pressure testing apparatus in 448 necessitates the addition of an n.o.p. clause in the item under which it has been entering, namely, 437. This latter item is otherwise unchanged.


James Dew Chaplin: Is this the machine the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) is going to use to spray his motor with?


William Russell Fansher: The
minister has not answered my question. I want to know what agricultural implements come in under the latter provision of this item, "and other agricultural implements, n.o.p.; and complete parts of articles specified in this tariff item." The machine which is called the harvester and which is now known as the combine is being extensively used in western Canada, and comes in at 10 per cent. That is my information from the department.


James Alexander Robb: This n.o.p. provision is the only item it can come under. My hon. friend has discussed the matter with me and, frankly, I am in sympathy with his point of view. But in the first discussion he did not give me to understand that he also included the motor. But the motor being included, as well as the thresher and the reaper, the matter becomes rather complicated. I have therefore asked the tariff board to investigate my hon. friend's inquiry.
Mr. BENNETT; That is a good way to put it off.


William Russell Fansher: Probably I have received a little more information since the interview I had with the minister. I would ask him to turn to item 445, which relates to mowing machines and harvesters, self-binding or without binders. It is not necessary to read the item at length. It is free under the British preferential tariff, while under the intermediate and the general it is 6 per cent. This whole item was changed in 1924 to cover all harvesting machinery used in Canada. Going into the records with the Commissioner of Customs, I find that this word "harvester" was introduced back in 1897, when some American farmers who were operating in the southern part of the prairies near the Montana border brought over a harvester which was manufactured in California and which at that time was called the harvester. These are not new machines. They have been operating for forty-two years in some sections of the United States, and recently we have found that we can operate them successfully in western Canada. The designation "harvester, without binder" no doubt means the harvester without binding attachment. When this change was made in 1897 it referred to what we now nickname the "combine." There is no doubt that this machine has been wrongly classified; it should come in under item 445. There should be no difficulty in classifying it under that item just because some new implement company calls it a reaper-thresher in order to have something a little different from other companies;

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
that is no reason why this machine should be penalized 4 per cent as compared with other harvesting machinery. Item 447b relates to threshing machines, and the ordinary threshing separator has no motor attached to it. In western Canada to-day we can buy a motor which will operate any threshing machine with a cylinder up to 36 inches for less than $1,200, and that motor enters duty free. Here is the motor in a tractor coming in duty free, while a motor of the same horse-power attached to this particular machine pays a duty of 10 per cent. Right now, while this is before the committee, I think the minister should take steps to have any misconception cleared up with regard to the interpretation of this section It is true that representations have been made that this machine should enter under the 10 per cent rate because it is partly a thresher, but if I took the necessary time I could show that part of the threshing machine is a fanning mill, some of the wheels belong to some other machine, and so on. This classification is not in keeping with the revision of the tariff in 1924, and I hope the minister will take this into consideration.
I might quote a few figures to show what this will mean to us in the west. As farmers in western Canada we must keep 100 per cent efficient or. we cannot make a profit, and this is one of the machines we are compelled to use for economic, reasons. In recent years our help has not been up to the standard of previous years; to-day we cannot get a threshing crew as competent as the crews we had ten years ago; they are also more expensive, so we are compelled to use this machine. Last year the use of these machines increased 611 per cent as compared with 1927; 3,657 of them entered Canada, some of them costing as much as $4,000. If we calculate from the increase in these machines in the last two years, a duty of 4 per cent means a tax of about $1,000,000 on the farmers of the prairie provinces for 1929, and possibly that will amount to $1,500,000. Of course that adds to the revenue of the country but it comes out of the pockets of the producers, who can least afford to pay it. I would like the minister to tell us to-night that from now on this machine, which is not, specificall}'' classified as a combine, will be classified as a harvester, which fully describes it.


James Alexander Robb: Mv hon. friend has pointed
out the difficulty that it is also classified as a thresher. I asked the Department of National Revenue why this higher rate of duty was imposed, and they referred me to the Customs Act which says that when two rates of duty are applicable the higher rate must prevail. I can only repeat that I have already referred this matter to the tariff board for inquiry and I think they understand that I want to be able to make representations to the government in time to have the matter considered next session. My hon. friend knows that we cannot make these changes rapidly, and he has also said that the motor comes in free already.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No; it pays 10 per cent.


William Russell Fansher: The
motor pays 10 per cent, but that is not the point. The thresher-separator, which comes in under a duty of 10 per cent under section 60 of the Customs Act, is a unit by itself, with no motor attached. The motor which operates that separator, which motor may be in a tractor, comes in free. If we took the motor out of the tractor and attached it to the harvester it would pay a duty of 10 per cent, and that is a wide discrepancy. When the word "harvester" was put in the act in 1897 it covered this particular machine, although of course it has been improved since that time. In the olden days the machine derived its power from a ground wheel, or what we call a bull wheel; there was no motor attached to the machine. However, the machine has been improved; a motor has been attached to it and that motor enters under a duty of 10 per cent, although when the same motor is built into a tractor it comes in duty free.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am glad the Minister
of National Revenue is in his seat. My friend the Minister of Finance is always asserting to hon. gentlemen to my left his desire to reduce the tariff. Rightly or wrongly a Conservative administration took off the duty on tractors and in 1924, as has been pointed out, the government reduced the duty on farm implements. This particular machine now known as a combine is more accurately described as a harvester; that describes it better than any other word in the English language, because it is a harvester in the true sense of the word. Not only does it cut the grain; it threshes the grain and finishes the job. With this machine you cut the stalks, thresh the heads and as a result of that operation you have the kernels of wheat clean and finished. I first saw one of these machines in Oregon some thirty-one years ago this fall; it was then being pulled by twelve horses, I think.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Was it not twenty horses?


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend thinks
it was twenty horses, but my memory is that it was pulled by about twelve. Great improvements have been made since that time. I asked what the machine was and I was told
1546	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
that it was a harvester which cut the heads, leaving quite a stand of straw, threshed them, bagged the grain and finished the operation completely.
So I put it to the minister if this is not what he is trying to do: He is trying to get protection by a classification which is at variance with the English language; he is trying to protect his friends by not classifying this machine as a harvester. He is simply using a classification which avoids a word he knows would give offence to his friends behind him-"protection". He says, "We are going to charge 10 per cent on this harvester because it is a combination of many machines, which makes it in every sense a harvester."


Mr. EULER:: I am sorry I was not here at, the commencement of this discussion, but I would like to know what the Minister of National Revenue is being accused of.


Richard Bedford Bennett: According to his colleague, the Minister of Finance, this machine is not classified as a harvester, because as a harvester it would come in under a 6 per cent duty under item 445. In order to afford protection they classify it under another item because there is a motor and something else connected with it. It has to pay 10 per cent because they say it is a threshing machine.


William Daum Euler: Exactly.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is it a threshing machine?


William Daum Euler: It is a part of a threshing machine.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is it a reaper? It is a combination of both, and therefore a complete harvester. In order to afford protection to their friends, and not having the courage to do it by means of a statute, they apply this classification, and do this violence to the English language. I see the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) smiling.


Ernest Lapointe: Let us do away with all that protection.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Let us all go to Geneva; here are no threshing machines there.
M.r. ROBB: Does the hon. leader of the jpposition recommend a -lower rate?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I expected that question, but you are a little late. Why does not the hon. minister say, "Will you reduce it or increase it?" It is the old story; neither the Minister of Finance nor his government has the courage to face the situation, and they dodge behind every available excuse in order to make these gentlemen -believe it is not a harvester because it has a motor in it. They

say it has a threshing machine in it, and -also a reaper in it. Of course, it is the combination of all those things which -makes it a harvester. If the Minister of Finance looked at one how would he describe it? He would say, "That is a harvester." Would he say it is a thresher? He would not. Would he say it is a reaper? He would not. Would he say it is a -motor car? He would n-ot. He would say, "It is a harvester," and so would -the Minister of National Revenue.


William Daum Euler: I would say nothing of the kind.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Because he had ruled the other way, but if he let his intelligence guide him, he would say, "It is a harvester." If he looked at a printing press in his office, which folded the paper, where an older press did not fold the paper, would he call it a printing press or a folder? Of course he would not call it a folder, nor would he call it a dynamo if it were run by electrictiy. I cannot imagine more violence being done to one's sense of what you -might call consistency in the use of the English language. Suppose you go downstairs and look at the dynamo there; you would see there is a belt, brushes and various other things on it. But you would not describe it as a brush, as a turbine or as a belt; you would describe it as a dynamo. My hon. friends get up here and say, "This is not a harvester; this has a motor in it." If the Minister of Justice were not involved in this matter as a colleague of the minister I would leave it to -him to say whether a combination of a thresher, a reaper and a motor would not make a complete harvester.


Ernest Lapointe: I think I will find that -out.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think he would find
with me.


James Alexander Robb: For the first time this week
the House of Commons appears to be unanimous. Practically ever since the budget was brought down I have been urged by my friends around me to have this item reclassified so that these new machines could -come in under th-e lower rate of duty. I have been urged by the hon. gentlemen opposite to do the same thing. We have taken it up with the Department -of National Revenue, and although that department was willing to meet the wishes of all concerned, they were confronted by a section which has -been in the act since 1907. Section 59 of the act reads as follows:
If any non-enumerated article equally resembles two or more enumerated articles on

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
which different rates of duty are chargeable, tlie duty on such non-enumerated article shall be the same as that on the enumerated article which it resembles, paying the highest duty.
They claimed that under that section they were compelled to charge the highest duty.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is enumerated under
445.


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friends are all in
favour of having the duty reduced, so I will ask that the item stand and I will give the officers instructions to amend this act. It cannot be done just by putting in the word "combine"; we must take it out of the classification it is in.


William Russell Fansher: Is there any machine coming in under item 445 which is designated as a harvester, or is there any machine which more clearly fills the bill than that which has the nickname of "combine"?


James Alexander Robb: I will have to direct that question to the Department of National Revenue, and they probably will be in a position to answer it to-morrow.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps this hybrid machine was mixed up with the hybrid ticket.


William Daum Euler: I regret that I was not present during the discussion, but I heard enough from the hon. leader of the opposition to be rather surprised at the language he used in attributing certain things to me, and even presuming to read my thoughts.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Impossible.


William Daum Euler: I will agree with him there.
I do not pretend to be an expert in interpreting the word "harvester". During the course of the investigation into the Customs department, held some time ago, the minister was criticized for taking upon himself the powers which should be exercised by the heads of the departments. This matter came up through the representations of the hon. member for Last Mountain (Mr. Fansher). I am in sympathy with what he would like to have done, and I do not see any reason why a combine should be treated any differently from any other piece of agricultural machinery. The matter was presented to the Commissioner of Customs, who pointed out that it was not a harvester in the strict sense of the interpretation of that word, because it was a combination of two different machines. In that case, as the Minister of Finance has pointed out, you must take the higher rate as applying.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Will the minister tell
us what is meant in item 445 by these words: Mowing machines, harvesters, self-binding or without binders, binding attachments, reapers, and complete parts thereof.
What is meant by the word "harvesters"?
It certainly is not a self-binding reaper.


William Daum Euler: For example, the old reaper
was called a harvester.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The word "reapers" is here.


William Daum Euler: I do not pretend to be an expert on the nomenclature of agricultural machinery, but there are machines which are used in the business of agriculture and known as harvesters, and that description does not necessarily apply to a machine which is a combination of two other machines.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What are they?


William Daum Euler: A binder is a harvester.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend is quibbling, absolutely. The word "reaper" is mentioned: the self-binder harvester is mentioned, but still the word " harvester " stands alone.


Edward James Young: It is a harvester without a selfJbinder.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What is a harvester without a self-binder?


Edward James Young: A reaper.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The reaper is mentioned.
The harvester is a machine that, to my knowledge, has been used in Oregon, Washington, California, for twenty-five years.


William Daum Euler: I think I have the floor.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, but I asked the
minister if he would interpret that word, and he cannot.


William Daum Euler: If there is a difference of
opinion in this committee id regard to agricultural machinery, we are not experts with the exception of my hon. friends across the floor to the right, and some on this side; but I will concede that the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, the leader of the opposition and myself are not experts in naming agricultural machinery. I admit I am not. When the question is one of the interpretation of a tariff item, I am quite willing to leave the interpretation pretty much to those who are particularly charged with that duty.
t	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Henry Herbert Stevens: And they say that it
comes under that item. My hon. friend is arguing about that and pleading with the minister.


William Daum Euler: I am referring to the officers of the department. They are tariff experts, and they make a pretty close examination of everything they propose to do. To make a long story short, I took the matter up with Mr. Breadner and he made exactly the same explanation as that given by the Minister of Finance. It is the combination of two machines, and in that case you have to take the higher rate of duty on threshing machines which is 10 per cent. I see no reason in the world why the tariff should not be altered so that that will come under the same rate of tariff as that on all other agricultural machin* ery. I do not wish to make any suggestion that might not meet with the approval of the Minister of Finance, as this is particularly witbm his province, but in order to prevent any danger of misinterpretation, any misunderstanding, if in the opinion of some of the non. members this is a harvester-and the Commissioner of Customs says it is not a harvester, that it is a combine, that there is a thresher included with it-I make this suggestion: why cannot we describe it as a combine and put it in that item?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Why not? [DOT]


William Daum Euler: The house seems to be
agreeable to doing that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I assure the hon. member that I had no desire to arouse the latent ire of the Minister of National Revenue. I merely suggested that the government was responsible for accepting this form of classification, and I would not have been so insistent upon that, had it not been for the explanations given by his colleague the Minister of Finance. If any injury has been done to the feelings of the Minister of National Revenue-


William Daum Euler: I did not take it very
seriously.


Richard Bedford Bennett: -I assure him that it is entirely attributable to what his colleague said in explanation, because if the government so classifies it, then obviously the tax is one imposed by the government on that classification and the authority for the tax is based upon that classification. I sent for Murray's dictionary to find out what was meant by the word "harvester" and he says that the word "harvester" means:
A reaping machine; especially one which also binds up the sheaves. Also, a machine for gathering in any particular crop, as a cane harvester. Harvester cutter, one of the section knives of a harvester.
And so on.


An hon. MEMBER:: Does the dictionary'
mention in any place that it is also a thresher?


John Anderson Fraser: Why was that not done
when the tariff was being arranged?
Mr. 10UNG (Weyiburn): These machines were not being imported then.


William Russell Fansher: If the minister is going on the assumption that it is part of two machines, I will tell him that it is part of more than two machines: it is part of four machines and one of the parts enters free.


William Daum Euler: That simply accentuates
what I have already said. It makes it all the more doubtful what this hybrid machine is, and it may be more properly described by an amendment to the tariff. If I may say this without offence, I resent suggestions made by the leader of the opposition that there is some ulterior motive. The question is merely one of the interpretation of these words by officers of the department, and the Minister of National Revenue did not dictate in any way nor have any ulterior motive in the matter. I think the hon. member is doing me an injustice when he says that it was purely a bit of politics.


Richard Bedford Bennett: A machine that gathers in the crop.


Edward James Young: Into the mill.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member for
Weyburn has the brilliant idea that the harvester is a wagon. That adds greatly to the gaiety of nations. I am sure the minister will say the Commissioner of Customs has not had any more experience in dealing with classifications of this kind than anyone else, and we all know that if there is any doubt, the revenue is to be favoured; that is, the higher rate of duty shall prevail. But in this case no one has yet answered the question if it is not a harvester, what is it?


William Daum Euler: It is a combine.


Richard Bedford Bennett: A combine of what?


Malcolm McLean: Many combines include swathers that leave the heads on the ground. Then the thresher comes along with a pick-up attachment, picks it up off the ground, puts it into the threshing machine and turns it out on the other side.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Edward Joseph Garland: I am afraid the hon. member is not correct. The combine in the proper sense of the word does not leave the heads scattered on the ground. The swather does it.


Malcolm McLean: That is exactly
what I said.


Edward Joseph Garland: But the
swather is not a part of the combine. A swather is a different development which I have seen running separately with a tractor. The swather used in the west in many parts runs altogether independently of the combine.


Malcolm McLean: Certainly.


Edward Joseph Garland: The combine comes along and picks the swathe up and threshes it.


Edward James Young: That is a pickup.


Edward Joseph Garland: I would
suggest, if there is any complaint about the name, it be called a combine-harvester, and you have the whole thing.


Edward James Young: I think the
machine is advertised as a combine-harvester and thresher.


William Russell Fansher: Many
different names have been used in the last four years. The word "harvester", when it was first put into the schedule in 1897, was to cover exactly the same machine that is now designated.


William Daum Euler: How does the hon. member know that?


William Russell Fansher: I got
that information in the department. We went back into the records to find out when this was designated and for what purpose. There was no such machine as this.


Malcolm McLean: Certainly there
was.


William Russell Fansher: When
this item is up again, will the hon. member be good enough to let us know the number of machines that are being imported or being designated under item 445 as harvesters? They are especially mentioned. I do not want to argue this again, but I want to draw the matter to his attention in order to clear it up. Mowing machines are specially mentioned and also harvesters, self-binding or without binders. It does not make any difference whether it has a binder attachment or not. Someone said it was a reaper. Reapers
and complete parts thereof are specified. The question I ask is this: Will the minister be good enough, when the item is brought up again, to tell us how many classes of machines were imported under this item in the last three years?


William Daum Euler: I have no objection, but I
think we are wasting time, because everybody is agreed that this machine should be brought in under the lower rate.


James Alexander Robb: I am just wondering whether
hon. gentlemen want this to come in at the lower rate or want a grievance.


John Ewen Sinclair: I am not
quite prepared to let the machine come in at the lower rate. Are any of these machines manufactured in Canada?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


John Ewen Sinclair: Where?


James Alexander Robb: I understand the Massey-
Harris people are making them.


John Ewen Sinclair: Where?


James Alexander Robb: I do not know, but I recall
that a couple of years ago Mr. Bradshaw of the Massey-Harris Company, told me that he was manufacturing these combines and was going to test them out in Kansas.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They were not made in
Kansas.


John Ewen Sinclair: We have
two of the largest firms in the world, with factories in Canada, manufacturing these machines. We have been told by the hon. member for Last Mountain that 3,600 of them valued at $4,000 came into Canada, or $14,000,000 worth. What is the tariff board doing? Do they know anything about this machine? They can be made in Toronto and Hamilton just as well as in the United States. Why does not the tariff board give the Finance minister some information? Why does not the minister get experts on the tariff board? This is not a political speech; I am interested in this business, because I have visited in the west during the last three of four years and I have seen the number of American machines shipped into Canada and sold to the western farmers, machines that could have been made just as well in Canadian factories. It is a shame and a disgrace to Canada, and we are paying a big price for it. I have sometimes seen whole trainloads of these American machines passing through the prairies.
I wish to bring this to the attention of the Finance minister. This is a very, simple machine; I leave that to any man from the west
1550	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
It is not more complicated than a seven-foot binder, and you can draw them with a tractor or with twelve horses if you wish. They can be made in Hamilton, Toronto and Brantford just as well as they can be made in Chicago and Batavia, and so I say to the minister, when his board of strategy or his tariff board gives him an interview on the question, just 1st him make them come across and have those machines made in Canada. Those American manufacturers would be delighted to come over here because they do not want to lose this trade, which is the best trade they have got.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Iron. Minister of
Finance has endeavoured to do the same thing ;n connection with this as he did last year in connection with Wabasso Cottons. He is not going to get away with it this time; he did then. Last year he endeavoured to blame me and those associated with me because he dropped the duty he was going to put on yarns for the Wabasso Cotton Company. He dropped it, he said, because hon. gentlemen want the duty reduced. The real fact is that between the time the house rose at six o'clock and when it met at eight, hon. gentlemen on his own side, headed by one who is not in his seat, saw to it that the minister was properly approached and told him that they would not stand for it, so the item was dropped. The president of the company came up to blame me and those associated with me for preventing his obtaining that duty. To-night the minister has sought to give the impression that we have favoured a reduction in the duty on combines, so-called. Did he hear anyone on this side say it? We said: We do object to an endeavour being made to afford protection to an industry by wrong classifications. If you are going to protect it, protect it honestly, fairly and frankly and make it clear that the industry requires protection, and it may. My hon. friend from North Wellington says that it does, and I am prepared to accept his view. All I know is this, that solid trainloads of agricultural implements from the United States pass through the Calgary yards-Calgary, mark you,-bound for points north and the outlying sections. I have passed solid trainloads on my way east, solid trainloads of agricultural implements from the United States, implements made in the factories owned by the Massey-Harris Company in the United States in some cases, and in other factories. Last year we bought 140,000,000 worth of these implements from the United States. A tariff would not have increased the price one cent, but it would have given work to thousands of Canadian workmen, and the internal competi-
tion would have been ample for the purpose of regulating the price, the same as it is in the United States. The greatest agricultural implements company in this country has two factories in the United States, one at Batavia, and then they bought the Case Company. They have one also in France, one in Germany, one in Canada, and one now in Australia, and that is in operation because of the Australian tariff. The Australians say: We are going to have labour at home for our own people and not give the labour to Canadians. But the minister is content to watch Australia, Germany and France build these factories and have Canada import $40,000,000 worth of these implements from the United States, as we did last year.


Edward James Young: And we are more prosperous than any of them.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is delightful, and I do congratulate the hon. member for Weyburn upon being so prosperous. I am glad that he is reaping the reward of his very hard labours, and that his income tax contribution will be so large-


Mr. CLARK:: His idea of prosperity is sending Canadians to the United States.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I want the minister to understand dearly that he is not going to do with this as he did last year with Wabasso Cottons, whose dividend has been passed and the price of whose shares has been cut in two on the stock exchanges. He is not going to get away this time by blaming the opposition for what it cannot do, for what can be done only by the government. None of us said to-night-nor do we propose to say, because that is not our business, without the opportunity to examine into the question -that this industry is or is not receiving the protection it is entitled to receive in order that it may be able to supply work to Canadians, rather than to workmen of the United States at Batavia and elsewhere. We have not said it, and we do not propose to say it. But if it is proposed to change that tariff item, it should not be done merely because of a discussion that takes place in this house as to the proper classification and designation of an article. That sort of thing should be played out. The minister has put that over this house before and he is trying to put it over the country. He tried it in Keith's theatre a few years ago, and then rushed up to the house and put on the record a letter that enabled him to give the automobile companies a larger protection. They said so themselves, with their tongue in their cheek. They said: We are getting a larger protection, but we will not say anything

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
about it, and the minister accepted the promise which they gave in regard to passing on the tax reduction and he cannot even get a reply to his queries. The minister tried this same thing with Wa,basso Cottons last year, and he is trying it again this year, but he cannot do it. If this industry requires protection, the Conservative party would give it protection. Do you know what a manufacturer told me the other day, one of the largest manufacturers in this country? he said, "You can state in the House of Commons if you so desire, but I do not want my name mentioned, that if they will give me a tariff that is ten per cent higher than the present tariff, so that I am sure we will have the trade, I will reduce my prices ten per cent."


William Daum Euler: May I ask a question? I gather from what the leader of the opposition said in the last few moments that he was not sure but what he did want higher protection for this machine, yet when I entered the chamber he was interpreting the word "harvester" to mean this very machine, and it would necessarily follow that it would get a lower rate of duty under his interpretation. Does he want t'he duty higher or lower?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was saying that the department, instead of facing the issue, whether it had protection or not said: It does not come within a specified classification. I say that it does come within the classification of " harvester," and therefore should be entitled to a lower rate of duty unless the minister with the knowledge he should have from his tariff board had the courage to put it where it belonged and dealt with it as a tariff item, not as a question of classification.


William Daum Euler: My hon. friend used the word " department." Does he mean the Department of National Revenue?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Both of them. They are so mixed up that I desire to ask the minister another question. He should have been here earlier in the evening.


William Daum Euler: Perhaps so. The hon. gentleman intimates that the Department of National Revenue in its interpretation of the tariff has an eye to whether they want to protect an industry or not. I want to say to him that the Department of National Revenue, whatever opinions the minister may have, deals with the tariff exactly as it stands and as it reads, whether it protects or does not protect. I should like my hon. friend to understand that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am very glad to hear
it. Perhaps I may ask him one question.
Under the tariff provision cars costing less than SI ,200 are free from excise tax when they come either from Britain or from other countries and contain 50 per cent content of the labour of those countries. Now, how is that content computed-on the average, or by the car, or by the price, or by what method? The Minister of Finance says, "I know nothing about it; ask the Minister of National Revenue." He was not in his seat then; he is now.


William Daum Euler: I am not sure that I know
exactly what information the hon. gentleman requires. Does he mean with regard to the drawback?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, we know about the
drawback.


William Daum Euler: I do not understand what
my hon. friend is driving at.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am asking as to the excise tax on motor cars. The value of the car must be under 81,200; that is point No. 1 Point No. 2: It must come from countries with which we have favoured tariff treaties, or from Great Britain, and must contain 50 per cent of the labour of the country of origin. Now, how is that content arrived at for the purpose of fixing the value? That is the question.


Eccles James Gott: Refer it to the tariff board.


Mr. LUCAS:: During the war, in order to
increase production, tractors up to a value of SI,400 were placed on the free list. I find that a number of municipalities desire to secure heavy tractors on which the duty is 27i per cent, these being used for grading and other road work, but this duty very materially increases their cost. Could not the Minister of Finance do something to reduce the duty on these heavy tractors?


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend spoke to me about the matter earlier in the session, and I have referred it to the tariff board for inquiry.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That settles it; he has
"passed the buck."


William Thomas Lucas: Might we not expect a reduction this year?


James Alexander Robb: I am afraid I would be
severely chastised if I attempted to make any tariff changes without having full information before me.
I understand, Mr. Chairman, that this item stands. As the Minister of Railways wants to proceed with some legislation, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
C.N.R.-Branch Lines


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Minister of National Revenue will, I hope, supply the information we require.


William Daum Euler: I will read Hansard.
Item stands.
Progress reported.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS BRANCH LINES
[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals):	Mr. Speaker, to
facilitate proceedings, would it not be possible to go into committee on all of these bills, all of which are Canadian National branch line bills? If we could do this instead of reporting each bill separately it would save time.
Hewitt Bostock: Mr. Dunning moves,
seconded by Mr. Veniot, that I do now leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of the whole on bills Nos. 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 4S, 49, 50. 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56. 57, 58 and 59. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The house in commitee on Bill No. 43, respecting the construction of a Canadian National line from a point on the Murray Harbour branch to a point on the Georgetown subdivision of the Canadian government railways in the province of Prince Edward Island -Hon. Mr. Dunning-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Richard Bedford Bennett: This bill, I understand, has been before the railway committee and approved. Has any effort been made to provide for the uniform gauge of all the lines in Prince Edward Island? To extend this line and leave a part of it so that the farmers have to unload their cars and reload the contents into other cars is practically prohibitive in connection with potatoes, as I learned when I was on the island last year. It impressed me that before anything more was done the uniform gauging of the lines on the island should be completed, otherwise great inconvenience and expense will result to the farmers.


Mr. DUNNING:: The Murray Harbour
branch is the last of the Prince Edward Island lines to be standardized, and this very pro-
posal is for the purpose of facilitating the standardization of the branch. This proposed new line will obviate the immediate necessity of building a somewhat expensive standard gauge heavy traffic bridge.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Over the Hillsborough
river?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes. The existing bridge will still remain in duty and will be
standardized, but for light traffic only. The use of the branch line proposed in this bill will enable the standardization of the whole of the remaining Prince Edward Island lines for heavy traffic.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then there will be no
narrow gauge left?


Charles Avery Dunning: Not when this work and terminal work at Charlottetown are completed.


John Frederick Johnston: Will it serve the purpose of the committee if I give the number and title of each bill?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.


Charles Avery Dunning: The bills are all identical, with the exception of the respective schedules, as hon. members will notice.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


Mr. MACDONALD (Kings):: Is it the intention of the department to build to Hillsborough bridge?


Charles Avery Dunning: I have just answered the leader of the opposition in that regard. I think I also communicated particulars to my hon. friend some time ago. At present the management does not propose to build the Hillsborough bridge, but to standardize the whole Murray Harbour branch, using the Hillsborough bridge for light traffic and the line provided for in this bill for heavy traffic.


John Anderson Fraser: Is it the intention of the Canadian National Railways to construct the proposed line from Swift Creek to Tete Jaune this year?


Charles Avery Dunning: We are not yet on that bill.


John Anderson Fraser: I thought the minister said we wTould consider all the bills together.


Charles Avery Dunning: Each one will be called.


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: One of the reasons for my asking a question in this connection is the fact that an article appeared a day or two ago on the subject in the Island Patriot, the organ of the Liberal party in

C.N.R.-Branch Lines
Prince Edward Island. The statement is made among others that it has been definitely decided to rebuild the Hillsborough bridge. The article reads:
Railway Improvements
There has been considerable discussion in the press with regard to standardization of the Murray Harbour railway and the building of the proposed railway link connecting the Murray Harbour subdivision with the Georgetown branch. It must be borne in mind that the proposed link if placed between Lake Verde and Pisquid, is with the intention not of serving any particular persons but with the sole object of getting freight out so that it will not tie up the traffic when the bridge is rebuilt.
We have taken the trouble to communicate with the authorities at Ottawa upon this particular work, and we are now in a position to state the facts.
The delay in standardizing this branch of the line is caused by the uncertainty of what was required to strengthen and reinforce Hillsborough bridge, and to make it safe for standard freight and passenger equipment.
The Engineers branch of the railways have been convinced for some time that the superstructure or steel portion of the bridge would have to be rebuilt, and investigations carried on during the past two seasons have revealed the fact that the piers would have to be extended to make them suitable to carry a standard truss bridge.
To carry on such extensive rebuilding operations would necessitate the closing of the bridge to traffic for several months and possibly for a whole season. This would shut off rail communication on that branch of the line for that period, which is something that neither the railway nor the people served by it could consider. This made it necessary to find some way of keeping the line open, and after careful investigation and survey by railway engineers, the present proposal to build a connecting line between Murray Harbour subdivision and the Georgetown branch w'as decided on.
The location of this proposed connecting link was very carefully gone into by the engineers, and reconnaissance was made for the different routes that were proposed or thought to be feasible, namely:-
1.	From a point at or slightly east of Mount Herbert to Burtt's Crossing.
2.	From Kinross to Montague.
3.	From Lake Verde to Pisquid.
4.	From Hermitage to at or near Peakes' Station.
After a careful consideration of the reconnaissance of these various routes, a location survey was made on the latter two, as well as a Short third line between them, and when the full result of the survey w'as considered by the railway management, they recommended that the line be built through Lake Verde to Pisquid.
Representations Tvere made by our representatives, Messrs. Sinclair and Jenkins and others as well, to the engineers and to the railway, suggesting other locations, all of which were thoroughly examined and reported on by the rail'way, and when all was considered, the minister decided to accept the recommendation made by the railway management, regarding
the location of the road, and a bill has been introduced into parliament authorizing the railway management to proceed with building the line.
It is the intention of the management to build this line during this coming summer and also to carry on all the preparatory work possible on the Murray Harbour branch, to prepare it for standardization.
It is not considered possible to complete the standardization of the road this season, but it is the aim of the management to complete it early in the season of 1930. This will include the standardization of the track across the Hillsborough bridge to Charlottetown.
A powerful Diesel electric car with a trailer will be operated daily to accommodate passengers, mails express and baggage from Charlottetown, over the Hillsborough bridge to Murray Harbour.
The freight service on the Murray Harbour line will be carried on by a special freight train connecting with the main line at Pisquid or Mt. Stewart. A "Y" will be built at the east side of the Hillsborough bridge, where the engines handling the freight traffic can be turned around.
This system will operate until the Hillsborough bridge is rebuilt.
I asked the minister the question in view of the positive statement here, in the official organ of the Liberal party in Prince Edward Island, that this bridge is to be rebuilt. There is a further statement made by the representative of Queens county at a meeting of the board of trade held in Charlottetown a few days ago. In large headlines the report of this meeting is thus introduced:
Will standardize southern railway and rebuild bridge. This announcement made at board of trade meeting on Thursday by Hon. J. E. Sinclair and Mr. R. H. Jenkins, M.P.
The report describes what took place at the meeting, and this statement appears.
It was announced among other things:
(1)	That Messrs. Sinclair and Jenkins would press hard to get an amount in the supplementary estimates for the hotel this year, if not. next year.
(2)	That the Hillsborough bridge is to be rebuilt.
This information, conveyed to us through the Patriot, purports to come from the authorities in Ottawa as well as from the representatives of Queens county and is at very considerable variance with the statement of' the minister. Not only does it vary from the minister's statement, but it is also at variance with the outline of plan as proposed in the railway committee. It is very important in connection with a large section of country in Prince Edward Island that this bridge should be rebuilt, and naturally the whole province is looking forward to the undertaking. I hope that the statements of the representatives of Queens county and in the Patriot are correct, that these hon.

C.N.R.-Branch Lines
gentlemen have been informed, after consultation with the authorities, that the bridge is to be rebuilt. I shall be glad to learn that the minister is mistaken in the matter


Charles Avery Dunning: I regret I cannot trace
the degree of divergence which my hon. friend appears to detect between my statement and the articles he has read. As to the use of the term rebuilding, of course the Hillsborough bridge will require a certain amount of reconstruction to accomplish the end I indicated in my first remarks, namely, the provision of such accommodation as will allow the use of standard gauge equipment over the bridge. I pointed out what the railway officials had indicated before the committee-that it is not at the present time contemplated so to fit the Hillsborough bridge as to enable it to carry heavy traffic. It is a matter of safety. A degree of rebuilding will be required to enable standard equipment to be used on the bridge, but it is not the present intention to rebuild the whole bridge. I am sorry I cannot go further than that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Without any necessity
for retranshipment.


Charles Avery Dunning: There will be no necessity for that. A certain degree of rebuilding will be required to enable Diesel equipment to use the bridge.


Richard Bedford Bennett: To haul a carload of
potatoes for instance.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes. There is still some uncertainty in the minds of the engineers as to the ability of the sub-structure of the bridge ever to carry heavy traffic. I do not want to be too positive on that point and I hope my hon. friend will bear with me in that connection, because the engineers are not quite certain about it. However, the intention is to supply the people of Prince Edward Island served by that branch with standard gauge accommodation over the bridge so far as passenger traffic and other light traffic are concerned, having available at all times the branch proposed in this bill in order to enable heavy traffic to be moved in case anything happens which renders it undesirable to use the bridge.


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: I think the minister is confused about the situation. I understand what he means by standardizing the bridge. That was explained in the railway committee and we understand it; one of the Diesel equipped cans with a trailer will be enabled to cross the bridge after the rails are standardized. But that does not mean re-

building the bridge; it has nothing to do with rebuilding the bridge. All the engineers' reports with which I am familiar have stated that the bridge is not suitable for standard equipment, and at Charlottetown about a year and a half ago Sir Henry Thornton made the positive statement that standard equipment would never cross that bridge. I think that clears up the situation very well, but it does not account for the statement made by the Patriot and purporting to come from Hon. John E. Sinclair and Mr. Jenkins, M.P., that the bridge is to be rebuilt, followed by the statement made by the newspaper on its own authority that they took up the matter with the authorities at Ottawa and were assured that the bridge would be rebuilt. I want the minister to remember that rebuilding the bridge is quite different from standardizing it, and certainly there is a very wide divergence of opinion between the statements which I have read and the opinions held by -the Department of Railways, the railway engineers, Sir Henry Thornton and the minister himself.


John Ewen Sinclair: There is not much reason for prolonging this discussion, but if my hon. friend looks at the article from which he quoted he will find nothing in the text to support the headlines he has read. However, the manner in which newspapers may wish to headline articles is their own business, and I do not think any government or any individual can be held responsible. If my hon. friend will go carefully over that article he will not find anything to substantiate his statement.
The minister has explained the matter carefully; the main object of this branch is to complete the standardization of the Murray Harbour branch of the Prince Edward Island division of the Canadian National railways, in order to make it possible to give standard service to that part of the system. The present service is entirely inadequate for the needs of that part of the country, which is one of the most productive districts of Canada. During the last few years a great development has taken place along that line in the growing of potatoes, and in shipping those potatoes it has been necessary to transfer them from the narrow gauge cars at Charlottetown to cars of standard gauge. That has hampered the proper development of that kind of farming, as well as the production of other perishable goods, which were damaged and delayed because of this transfer. These facts have made it necessary that the railway undertake at once the standardization of this branch; the present line is proposed in order to carry

C.N.R.-Branch Lines
out that work in such a way that it will not interfere with traffic for a season or part of a season, and the heavy traffic can be carried on until this bridge is rebuilt. I do not want my statement to be taken as meaning that the bridge is not to be rebuilt, because that is a different thing. The standardization of the bridge is necessary in order to enable the railway to carry on the lighter traffic of mails, passengers, baggage and express by a Diesel electric service from Charlottetown to Murray Harbour; at the same time the heavy traffic, for which the engineers say the bridge is not safe, can be taken over the spur line which it is proposed to build to the main line, and thence to any part of Canada.
My hon. friend raised the question of rebuilding the bridge, and he asked about certain statements. We cannot say now what the future may hold in store, but we know that it is not the intention of the railway to begin the work by rebuilding the bridge, as many of us thought was the proper way. When it was found that it would be necessary to close the road in order to rebuild the lower part of the bridge so that it might be strengthened and extended, which at first was not thought necessary, it was recommended by the railway engineers that this connecting link be constructed in order that the immediate benefits of the broad gauge service could be extended to that part of the road. If that is done the third rail system now in operation at the terminal will be done away with, and the completion of the terminal can be carried on so that the general running repairs which it is necessary to make at Charlottetown can be looked after more efficiently than is the case at present because of both narrow gauge and broad gauge rolling stock coming into the terminal. The building of the terminals necessitates quite an expenditure for a new roundhouse and machine shops, and that work is partly in hand at present.
There is no doubt in my mind, Mr. Chairman, and I do not think there is any doubt in the minds of the railway management, that when this stage of the standardization program is completed we will have to face the question of rebuilding the bridge 60 that it will carry standard rolling stock both for the movement of freight and the movement of other commodities which it will be necessary to carry over it. The importation of coal to Prince Edward Island is increasing from year to year in a way that demands the very best service to all parts of the island and that, together with the increasing exportation of potatoes, makes it necessary that
standard gauge service be given to this portion of the line as soon as possible. I think the minister is well advised in meeting the recommendations of the railway management and making provision at this time to carry on that important work.


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: I quite
understand the statement of the hon. member for Queens; it is quite in order and quite correct, but it does not clear up this situation as we have it. I understand that the hon. member repudiates the big headlines appearing in his own newspaper in Charlottetown, which states:
Will Standardize Southern Railway and Rebuild Bridge. This Announcement Made at Board of Trade Meeting Thursday by Hon. John E. Sinclair and Mr. R. H. Jenkins, M.P.


John Ewen Sinclair: What newspaper is that?


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: That is the Patriot of March 30, 1929, and Mr. Sinclair and Mr. Jenkins were both in Charlottetown at that time. They did not repudiate this statement then, by which people all over the country were led to believe they had said that the Hillsborough bridge will be rebuilt. While of course I am prepared to accept his word that the report appearing in the Patriot may be garbled or may not represent his statements accurately, at the same time he left Prince Edward Island with that statement before the people and did not make any effort to clear it up. Then there is the further statement made by the Patriot on its own authority, as follows:
We have taken the trouble to communicate with the authorities at Ottawa upon this particular work, and we are now in a position to state the facts.
Then they say that one of the facts is that the Hillsborough bridge is to be rebuilt.


John Ewen Sinclair: Would my
hon. friend just read that portion of the editorial to which he refers?


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: I have already read the article; I do not want to read it again.


John Ewen Sinclair: I do not want my hon. friend to read the whole article, but he said it stated the bridge was to be rebuilt.


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: Yes. I will give my hon. friend the article. I do not want to read it again; it will appear in Hansard. The statement is there positively made that they have taken the matter up with the authorities at Ottawa and have been so advised.
C.N.R.-Branch Lines


Charles Avery Dunning: I do not recall having
had any communication with any newspaper on the subject.


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: One article
reports the statements made by the hon. members for Queens; the other is apparently prepared by the newspaper on the strength of information which they claim they received from Ottawa. I am prepared to accept the minister's statement that he never gave any authority for this article.


Charles Avery Dunning: I did not say that; I said that I did not recall having received any communication from any newspaper on the subject. I am neither repudiating nor endorsing the article, for I can find little fault with it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: One article says that the bridge is going to be rebuilt; is that the case?


Charles Avery Dunning: I did not understand the article to say that.


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: It states
that in specific terms.


Charles Avery Dunning: I have no doubt the
bridge will have to be rebuilt.


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: If it will
have to be rebuilt I do not see any reason why the minister should not say so. The report we had before the railway committee stated that the cost of this ten-mile branch would be 1370,000. The member for Queens has stated already that the proposed branch is to make a connection for the carrying of freight from one line to the other. But the article goes further, and says that this is to be an alternative for the rebuilding of the Hillsborough bridge.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is an alternative to
the present rebuilding of the Hillsborough bridge. The proposal deals only with the three-year program presented, and I think the hon. member will be fair enough to the railway authorities to admit that. But for anyone to say that we cannot at any time in the future abandon the Hillsborough bridge, on account of any structural defect which may develop, and carry the traffic by a roundabout route, which would be necessary if all the traffic followed the route which the new branch will follow, is I think going farther than the railway authorities are prepared to go at the present time. I merely wish to point out that the proposal before the railway committee covered the three-year period.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And which does not contemplate the rebuilding of the bridge within three years?


Charles Avery Dunning: It does not contemplate the rebuilding in the three-year program, but it does include the equipping of the bridge with sufficient strength to carry standard gauge light equipment.


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: It does not require any further equipping or strengthening to carry that equipment; it is merely a matter of spreading the rails to the standard width. The statement of the minister clears this up as well as we can get it cleared up at the present time, but it shows very clearly that an attempt has been made by the Patriot- I would not like to say, to fool the public, but it looks very much like it. Although I hesitate to blame my friends from Queens county when such positive statements are made in their own organ, I think they should give the public the truth with regard to the matter. Any person reading these articles would infer that it is a part of the program at the present time; those of us who are here and see what is going on know differently, yet the hon. members for Queens allow these statements to be broadcast all over the country. For what purpose? I do not know. The statement of the minister is quite satisfactory, and I brought this matter up only for the purpose of having the whole situation clarified so that the people of Prince Edward Island who are particularly interested in this branch line will know where they stand.
There are other points in connection with this matter which might be referred to. There are a great many people who are of the opinion that the present route of this line is a mistake. There are two other points between which a six-mile connection could be made, either of which would serve the public equally well, if not better. One of the lines suggested would run from Uigg to Montague. This line would be only six miles in length and would give the connection which the railway authorities require. There is another connection which could be made from Hermitage to Peake Station, which would give the same connection over a six-mile route. The construction difficulties are no greater than, if as great as would apply on the line proposed from Pisquid to Lake Verde, and this branch will entail a route ten miles long. The public is interested in knowing just why the longer route is proposed, especially as it will cost $150,000 more. I have been wondering whether the reason is not to keep the whole of the line within Queens county. If eithei of the other routes were taken at a saving ot $150,000 or more, part of the line would have to go through Kings county. Again I hesitate to impute any such motive to the hon. mem-

C.N.R.-Branch Lines
bers from Queens county, but there is a natural inference you cannot get away from in connection with these matters. I think it is up to the minister to let the public know why a longer route is being taken.


Charles Avery Dunning: In all matters bearing
upon the question whether a particular line shall or shall not be built, I do not rely upon my hon. friends' statements, or upon the statements of my hon. friends on this side ol the house; I rely upon the technical officers and the management of the Canadian National Railways. This bill came before the railway committee, and if the hon. member had had any suggestion to offer whereby the Canadian National Railways would save $150,000, that was the place, I submit, to make it. The management were present in the committee and they could have given the hon. member their reasons for proposing this line. I am sure the hon. member knows that the Canadian National Railways are not deliberately wasting $150,000, either to please me, my hon. friend, or the members on this side of the house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not know about
that.


Charles Avery Dunning: In fairness to the hon.
leader of the opposition I would suggest that any time he feels that that is being done in a particular case he have the railway committee examine into the circumstances. The officers of the company could be present and could give their reasons for any proposals they were making for the expenditure of money. It is only in that way, so far as parliament and the country are concerned, that we can ensure that the officers of the railway are doing as they should do. There will always be differences of opinion as to matters of engineering and railway economics, but I do not think we should adopt the view that there is any other than the best motives in the minds of those who are responsible, unless we are prepared to come forward and discuss the matter quite frankly with those who are placed in charge. I do not attempt to go behind the recommendations of the officers with respect to any ordinary piece of work such as the construction of a small branch line.


John Arthur Clark: What will be the cost of
this line?


Charles Avery Dunning: 


John Arthur Clark: Is that amount included in
the estimates which were tabled yesterday?


Charles Avery Dunning: No. We take a threeyear program, and the proportion proposed to be expended in any particular year is taken into the budget for that year.


John Arthur Clark: The cost of all the branch
lines which we were considering is not included in the $53,000,000 of estimates tabled yesterday?


Charles Avery Dunning: The proportion to be
expended within the period of the estimates would be included.


John Arthur Clark: The proportion to be spent within the next twelve months on this line is included in the $53,000,000?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


John Arthur Clark: Is the cost of the Montreal terminals included in the $53,000,000?


Charles Avery Dunning: No.


John Arthur Clark: Or this year's proportion?


Charles Avery Dunning: The hon. member should not ask me to anticipate the introduction of a bill which is not even on the order paper.


John Arthur Clark: I just wanted to get some idea of next year's expenditure by the Canadian National Railways, and I think we are entitled to know that when we are considering these bills. I should like to know the total amount. What are we facing next year in the way of capital expenditure?


Charles Avery Dunning: What the country is facing next year is included in the budget of the Canadian National Railways; they cannot go beyond the budget.


John Arthur Clark: That is the $53,000,000?


John Ewen Sinclair: Many of these details can be thoroughly brought out in committee in regard to surveys and location of the line, particularly the one under discussion.


Charles Avery Dunning: Perhaps my hon. friend will permit me: If there is to be further discussion on this bill, I wonder whether those who desire to engage in it wild allow me to report progress on this bill in order that we can report out a number of others in regard to which there will not likely be any discussion. to enable them to go over to the senate and be proceeded with there.


John Ewen Sinclair: There was a motive imputed to me in regard to a report which wa3 in the press, and I think I have a right to clear that up, although I have every regard.for the wishes of the Minister of Rail-


KEYISEC EDITION
[Stage Direction]
C.N.R.-Branch Lines
[Stage Direction]
ways. Just a moment ago the hon. member for Kings quoted a newspaper despatch and he came to the conclusion and so stated, that he did not know what the motives were for that report.
John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: It was not my conclusion. It was the conclusion of his own newspaper.


John Ewen Sinclair: I beg to differ. Hansard will show, and my hon. friend stated clearly that he did not know what the motives were for a statement like that. Does he deny that? If he does, the matter is cleared up.


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: The statement was by the newspaper purporting to report my hon. friend.


John Ewen Sinclair: My hon. friend said that he wondered what the motives were for such a statement. I want to tell him plainly in the house that, as regards reports in the press, we are not 'bound to accept them or to stand by them. If what he read was correct, it was not said to the board of trade by me, and I did not hear my colleague say it. What I said to the board of trade, I said in this house and I would say it in any other part of the country just the same. If it is a matter between my hon. friend and the Patriot, he can clear it up with that newspaper. He is quite at liberty to do that. But as regards imputing motives in connection with reports which in many cases have not been read by me before being printed, I want to say to him directly and plainly that my statement is as I made it here a few moments ago, and the same as I made to the board of trade. I think it is quite in keeping with the news item which he read. His preparatory statements to that item were not borne out by the lines he read as being the item in question.


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: They are fully borne out.


John Ewen Sinclair: I asked my hon. friend, when he was speaking, to read the paragraph in the news item stating that the bridge was to be rebuilt. He did not do that.


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: The hon. member can see it in Hansard.


Mr. JENKINS:: I would like to ask a question of the minister. When I was in Charlottetown a short time ago, it was currently reported that when the traffic was diverted by this new route, the bridge would be abandoned. Is there any truth in that report?


Charles Avery Dunning: There is no intention of abandoning the bridge.	.
cAfr. J. E. Sinclair.]


Robert Harold Jenkins: If there is no intention of abandoning the bridge, it certainly must be rebuilt, just at what particular time, of course, it is not now necessary to mention; it is self-evident.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Minister of Railways to-night made an observation which I regard as one of very great importance as affecting not only the railroad but all the branch lines of the Canadian National system. An impression is getting abroad in this country-and I encounter it from many sources, including correspondence addressed to myself as well as to other members of the house-that these railroads are political railroads. That is detrimental to the interest of the system. Not that I am charging the Minister of Railways with any offence, but supporters of the administration seem to be able to get branch lines in localities they desire in Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and other sections of Canada, and then they go to their electors and say: "Look what we have been able to do for you!" The very article read from the newspaper dealing with the observations made to the board of trade-and I notice the hon. member for Queens was very careful and modest in what he said, because he had to justify what he said to the board-that the bridge was to be rebuilt-


John Ewen Sinclair: I did not make that statement.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was his colleague to
whom I referred.


Robert Harold Jenkins: I said that it was selfevident.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What he said to the board of trade is quite evident too. He said to the board of trade that he had provided1 them with a new bridge over the Hillsborough river. The hon. member for Kings is endeavouring to point out that that is hardly what we expect in connection with a national system. Nothing could be more fatal to this system than that the impression should get abroad in the constituencies that log-rolling will secure branch lines or any other expenditures not warranted by economic conditions. It is all very well for the minister to say that he takes the word of officials; but he has had some experience in connection with the politics on that system, especially in the lower provinces, and he knows exactly what has been done in relation not only to that railway but to other portions of the system. We know the Postmaster General sent a telegram to a section foreman to have two section men dismissed, and they were dismissed1. It

C.N.R.-Branch Lines
is true they were later put back on their job. The Minister of Railways had nothing to do with their dismissal; he would be beyond that sort of thing; he would not be capable of doing it; but we all know that happened. There are other matters that we shall have to discuss in connection with the neighbouring province of Nova Scotia and political patronage in connection with the national system. As to the observation of the Minister of Railways in that regard, I have no doubt he made it in all good faith, but he must know there are other methods of accomplishing the end desired without having any reference to him at all. That is, while he is Minister of Railways, there are ministers for the province and the Prime Minister, I think, made it abundantly clear on one occasion that he took the recommendation of the minister for the province wtih respect to matters pertaining to that province. Probably any prime minister would do the same thing with respect to the appointment of judges and matters of that kind. Now we have the national system which we are dealing with in much the same way, and therefore great care must be exercised in connection with the administration of the road under present conditions.


Charles Avery Dunning: I presume the remarks
of my hon. friend relate almost entirely to that part of the country served by what was formerly known as the Intercolonial?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes. I would like to go a step further. In regard to the section terminating at Riviere du Loup I happen to know one of the members of this house issues instructions to the assistant superintendent and superintendent. I hesitate to mention his name as he is not present. I refer to the hon. member for Rimouski.


Charles Avery Dunning: When a piece of railway which for years was operated by the government, whichever party was in power, somewhat on a patronage basis-I am speaking now of the portion which was part of the former government railways-is transferred to the operation of the nationally-owned system-and I say that the management of the Canadian National is entirely free from political interference-it is bound to take some time to convince the people of the area concerned that conditions to-day are different from those which formerly obtained. My hon. friend's remarks would lead one to believe that such interference as he refers to comes wholly from members presently supporting the government but I can assure him from my personal experience that that is not 78594-994
the case, that there are men sitting on his own side of the house who do exactly the same thing. I am speaking now of the problem generally, something that is outside the range of ordinary political patronage as we understand it. There remains in the minds of the people of the maritime provinces the idea that they can go to their member, no matter on which side of the house he sits, with respect to ordinary matters of business and employment particularly on the Canadian National railways. I ask my hon. friend to accept my assurance that I have learned of at least as much of that sort of thing from that side of the house as from this. And that is intensified, of course, by the fact that at the time the Intercolonial railway was taken over as part of the national system a government other than the Liberal government had been in power following 1911 and administering that property, and that being the case, under the conditions which formerly prevailed, one can appreciate what the system was at that time.
I am not making any statements calculated to arouse the political ire of my hon. friends opposite. I am simply speaking of a condition, and I am appealing for the sympathy of the house for the Canadian National railway management in their endeavour to show the people of the maritime provinces that they are better off by Having this part of the system an integral part of the national system administered in the same manner as the rest of the government-owned property, with the same freedom from political interference that we are proud of in connection with the national system as a whole. I make that kind of answer to my hon. friend, not for the purpose of creating any political argument or to cause recriminations, but simply in the interest of this asset of Canada which is so important to all of us.


Mr. VENIOT:: I do not think I should let the reference to the Postmaster General in connection with the old Intercolonial railway pass without notice. My 'hon. friend says that I sent a telegram demanding the dismissal of two section men.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


Peter John Veniot: That was hardly correct. I did send a telegram in connection with two temporary employees.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Working on the section.


Peter John Veniot: They were not working
on the section; they were working over the whole line. My reason for that was this. Having been home one week-end, I was

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
called upon by the temporary foreman in question, who showed me a list of names and asked me if I had any objection to these men being employed. Among the names was that of his own son. I said no, I had none. He asked me if taking these men on the work on Monday would be all right. I looked over the list, and he went away assuring me that these men would be taken on. I left home on Sunday, and on the following Wednesday I received a telegram that two men on that list had not been taken on, but that two others had been put on in their places. These two who had been employed in place of two of the names the foreman showed me on that list had got the train at Caraquet and went to the hotel, each with a bottle of whiskey, and they held the whiskey up telling the people congregated around the hotel that this was the way Veniot paid them for going on the road, by sending them two bottles of whiskey from Ottawa. I received word of that from very reliable people, and I wired back asking them to confirm their information in another telegram. They did so, and I then wired the foreman asking for his reasons for taking on men who would act in that way, and asking him to dismiss them. Those are the circumstances. That is the truth of the whole situation, and I think it is about time the matter was explained.


John Arthur Clark: What did you have to do
with Canadian National Railway employment?


Peter John Veniot: Nothing more than you
and your friends in New Brunswick would have when your party was in power.


John Arthur Clark: I would not do what you
have done. I never had anything to do with employment on the railways.


Mr. MacDONALD (Cape Breton):: I am
glad this subject has been brought up, because there are cases of this sort of thing right in my own constituency. The Intercolonial touches at Point Tupper, and we have a boat called the Scotia which refits every year and goes to Prince Edward Island. That boat carries a large crew of men, and every man going on that boat for the last three years has had to have a document from the defeated Liberal candidate in that constituency before he can receive employment. Another heeler who has been on that boat for some years goes out and visits everyone seeking employment and sends him to Liberal headquarters, and he has to have his document before he can receive employment. Not a man gets on that boat unless he bears the stamp of Liberal.
(Mr. Veniot.]


Charles Avery Dunning: I really do not want
to follow this kind of discussion. I could bring statements of an exactly similar character relating to the Conservative party, but I deprecate following this discussion further for that very reason. What I plead for is the elimination of this kind of discussion all round, and so far as my influence goes it will be eliminated all round.


Finlay MacDonald: There
are a couple of other cases at Point Tupper, in fact, a dozen such cases, and if the minister intends to follow that line, I would say that it is immediately up to him to notify the captain and mate of the Scotia.


Charles Avery Dunning: No. My hon. friend is
just now expressing what I call the maritime point of view, which I am not complaining of, but which does exist. The minister cannot and should not communicate with the captain of that ship. The minister communicates with one man in the system, and one man only, and that is the president, except that certain officials are sometimes sent to the minister to give him technical information or to place before him plans of one kind or another.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Executive officers.


Charles Avery Dunning: Exactly.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Monday, April 15, 1929