UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF

Mr. GORDON:: I desire to lay on the table of the house certain orders in council passed pursuant to the relief measures.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. BROWN:: 1.	Who was given the last contract for the supplying of coal for the public building and experimental farm at Morden, Manitoba?
2.	At what price was the contract let?
3.	Were tenders called for? If so, what were the names of those tendering?
4.	Was the contract let to the lowest tenderer ?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1.	Monarch Lumber Co., Morden, Man.
2.	Public Building, $5.30 per ton; Experimental Farm, $9.20 per ton.
3.	(a) Yes, by public advertisement; (b) Corona Lumber Yards, Ltd., Winnipeg and Morden; Jarvis Jickling, Morden, Monarch Lumber Co., Morden; J. P. Suderman, Morden; Deep Seam Coal Sales, Ltd., Winnipeg;

Questions

Deloraine Coal Mines, Ltd., Deloraine; McCabe Bros., Grain Co., Ltd., Winnipeg; Canadian Dinant Coal Co., Ltd., Dinant, Alta.; Coal Sellers Co., Ltd., Calgary, Alta.; Midland Coal Mining Co., Ltd., Midlandvale, Alta.; Superheat Coal Co., Ltd., Ardley, Alta.; United Coal Co., Drumheller, Alta.
4.	Yes, to the lowest local tenderer for total requirements, suitability and calorific value considered.


EASTERN PASSAGE, N.S., AIR STATION
Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	(a) Are any seaplanes stationed at Eastern Passage, Halifax county, Nova Scotia, under the authority of the government or any department; (b) if so, how many; (c) if not, were any seaplanes stationed there since January 1, 1931, and how many, and for what period?
2.	How many men are employed at Eastern Passage in connection with such planes, or with the station at which they are stationed, including pilots, observers, mechanics and watchmen?
3.	Under the authority of what department or branch of the government's service do such men act?
4.	What was the original cost of the planes which have been since January 1, 1931, or are now, stationed there?
5.	What has been the cost of the maintenance of such station at Eastern Passage since the arrival of any planes there?
6.	What has been the cost of transportation of planes, men and supplies to such station?
7.	(a) How many government-owned motor cars are attached to such station; (b) how much did they cost, and what has been the cost of their maintenance and operation since their arrival there?
8.	How many persons engaged in smuggling or rum running have been apprehended as a result of the presence at such station of such planes?
9.	Has any property, smuggled or attempted to be smuggled, been seized as the result of the presence there of such planes? If so, what is its value?


Mr. BENNETT:: The hon. gentleman, I see, is not in his place. This question touches on the administration of law and if the information sought were given, the effect would be to render to a very considerable extent nugatory the efforts that are being made in that connection. I would ask the hon. gentleman to reconsider his question, and as regards any information he may require, the files of the department might be made available for his personal perusal. There are certain questions which, if asked, would have the direct effect of lessening the possibility of enforcing the law, for the enforcement of which these steps have been taken. The expenditures of course, will all be covered in due course by the Auditor General's report.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Stands.


PREVENTIVE SERVICE BOATS
Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	What preventive service boats which were in the service in 1931, were disposed of in 1932?
2.	What was the age of each of such boats, and the reason for disposing of them respectively ?
3.	What disposition was made of each of the boats so disposed of, and in the case of those sold, wh-at was the sale price?
4.	What are (.he names of the boats acquired by the preventive service in 1932, and what is the age of each boat so acquired?
5.	As to the boats so acquired, were they purchased, leased or how otherwise acquired, and in the ease of those purchased, what were the purchase prices respectively ?
6.	Have any of the boats acquired this year been conditioned or repaired since being so acquired, and if so, what has been the cost of such conditioning or repairs of each?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The same answer to a
lesser degree may apply to this question which, in any event, would have to be an order for return.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Stands.


MOUNT-MURRAY, QUE, POST OFFICE
Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	Has any change been effected with respect to the location of the post office and the postmaster at Mount-Murray, in the county of Charlevoix?
2.	Were any complaints made against the conduct of the postmaster?
3.	If so, what was the nature of these complaints?
4.	Who made these complaints?
5.	Who was appointed postmaster at Mount-Murray recently?
6.	By whom was appointee recommended?


Mr. SAUYE:: 1.	Yes.
2, 3 and 4. General complaints were received from Messrs. Philippe Bergeron, Gon-zague Tremblay, Alfred Brisson, Cyrias Dufour, Raoul Lappointe, but departmental action was based on inspections made in February and September, 1932, which led to the discovery of serious irregularities.
5.	Cyrias Dufour.
6.	Antoine Cimon, of La Malbaie.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. COOTE:: For a copy of the return made by the chartered banks of Canada to the minister as required under subsection 2, section 91 of the Bank Act as on the last day of June, 1932.


DISMISSALS OF GASPE EMPLOYEES
Mr. GOBEIL:: For a return showing a list of the names of all employees of the federal government who

Winnipeg Coke Supply
were dismissed in the county of Gaspe between October the 1st, 1926, and October the 1st, 1927, the said list to show: (a) the names of such employees; (b) the nature of employment; (c) the name of the person who recommended their dismissal; (d) .the reason for their dismissal.


MOUNT-MURRAY, QUE., POSTMASTER
Mr. CASGRAIN:: For a copy of all letters, requests, correspondence, petitions, and other documents, exchanged between the Post Office Department at Ottawa and the Post Office Department at Quebec, with respect to the dismissal of the postmaster of Mount-Murray in the county of Charlevoix. Also a copy of all sworn or other statements dealing with the resignation of said postmaster, in the possession of the Post Office Department.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Stand.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Before we leave this
motion, I might make this observation:	It
has not been customary, so far as I have been able to ascertain, to provide for submission to the house of interdepartmental correspondence that results in executive action being taken. After the action is taken the minister must assume the responsibility and correspondence between him and various officials of his department resulting in his taking such action has not heretofore been regarded as a proper subject for a motion to lay before parliament. The minister must assume the responsibility. Those members of the house who are practising lawyers will realize that that distinction has been very clearly drawn by the court of last resort in Great Britain in dealing with the question of the production of documents.
Motion stands.


BRIGHT FAN INQUIRY
Mr. McINTOSH:: For a copy of all correspondence including letters, telegrams, radiograms and other documents exchanged between the Minister of Marine, and any of his officials or any other department of the government and any of its officials, and any other person, body, corporation or association, including the members of the Mellish Commission instituted to investigate the sinking of the British freighter Bright Fan in Hudson strait; also copy of the evidence adduced at said investigation as well as any letters, telegrams, radiograms and other documents made use of during the investigation but not included in the evidence.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This motion offends perhaps more than the previous one, because it asks for the production of letters, telegrams and radiograms that were exchanged between a minister and his officials in 'connection with a pending matter. This makes it quite clear that ilf it were in a court of law it would 53719-801
be a privileged communication. So far as the evidence is concerned it will be brought down in due course with the exhibits that were attached to it. With these exceptions the motions are in order, but as they now read, they transgress the general rules that have been adopted by this house in connection with the transaction of public business.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: May I ask the Prime
Minister if the evidence will be forthcoming?


Richard Bedford Bennett: When it is concluded, it can be laid on the table.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Will the hon. member
allow the motion to stand for amendment?


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Yes.
Motion stands.



WINNIPEG COKE SUPPLY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['Yes, he did, and I am\nglad my hon. friend mentioned that. He said they lost their business during the war because they turned their factory over for the production of war materials. During that period they were agents for a Swedish cream separator company, and in their foreign business they acted for that company. While I am not certain who was the chief exporter to Canada of the cream separators recorded as from Sweden, I am reasonably sure that it was from this particular firm. Having got back into business again, they are now prepared from their British factory to supply this market in quantity.\nProgress reported.\nOn motion of Mr. Rhodes the house adjourned at 6 p.m.\nFriday, November 18, 1932']
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: I have a communication from a coal company in the city of Winnipeg with regard to the question of coke as manufactured by the Algoma Steel Corporation of Sault Ste. Marie. The communication, in part, is as follows:
The coke previously sold in this market was an American product and there was a wide spread between the laid-down cost and the retail price. At the instance of a combine in western Canada, the Canadian Pacific is compelling us to make further shipments of Canadian coke through American ports and over American railroads in bond. A further fact is that the docks at Fort William have been refused to us, as set out in our attachments, with a view to preventing competition of coke with western coal.
I should like to ask the government if it will make inquiries with regard to this'situation. It seems extraordinary that we cannot secure in Winnipeg the Algoma product.
Hon. IV. A. GORDON (Minister of Labour) :	The question of finding markets for
Canadian fuels has, as the hon. member well knows, been given considerable attention and has been the subject of investigation'by both the late and the present governments. In a large measure the efforts have resulted in displacing foreign fuels in the competitive areas of Manitoba and generally in that province. Therefore, today I think I am fair in stating that probably 90 per cent of the fuel burned in that province-of course the percentage is subject to review; I may be overstating or understating it slightly-is supplied by coal from the western provinces.
Old Age Pensions

With respect to . the immediate subject matter of the interrogation by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, I shall have the officers of the department inquire into it and see what is the true situation. If there is on anyone a hardship that can be remedied bv governmental action, such action will be taken.
VANCOUVER HARBOUR On the orders of the day:


Hon. IAN MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: May I ask either the Minister of
Trade and Commerce or the Acting Minister of Marine a question in regard to a press dispatch in this morning's paper respecting the nature of harbour improvements in Vancouver? What is the exact nature of those improvements to be?


Hon. MAURICE DUPRE (Acting Minister of Marine):: An order in council has
been passed for expenditures in connection with the extension of Long Point pier and also an extension to the cold storage yard.
OLD AGE PENSIONS On the orders of the day:


Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (Wetaskiwin):: I should like to ask the Minister of Labour if it is his intention at this session of parliament to amend the Old Age Pensions Act so that a person who is seventy years of age and in all respects eligible for a pension, should not be deprived of it merely because it becomes necessary for him to move from one province into another?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: With respect to the effect of the old
age pension legislation, my view is that perhaps this legislation should be subject to further review from a number of angles.
Dealing directly with the interrogation of the hon. member, I may say that the government has not given any consideration so far with a view to bringing in any legislation at the present session of parliament.
TRADE RELATIONS WITH CHINA On the orders of the day:


Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that Chinese officials have refused to meet the Hon. Mr. Marler and that some of the authorities in China have requested that a check-up be made of all industries in this country to ascertain if any Japanese are employed on products exportable ho China, I would ask if the Prime [Mr. Gordon.)
Minister will now consider the advisability of appointing a special representative from Canada to China so as to facilitate trade relations between the two countries?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is not usual, Mr. Speaker, to ask without notice on the orders of the day a question of the character indicated, involving as it does international relations. Provision has been made within the last twelve months for special representatives of the Department of Trade and Commerce to take up location in China, and they have undertaken their duties there. I think the practice, Mr. Speaker, is not one that should be established in this house of asking questions prefaced by a statement alleged to be a statement of fact, because so far as one reading it in a journal is concerned it may have the effect of doing the very opposite of what the hon. gentleman desires.
I think the house should take cognizance of the fact that a telegram was read a few moments ago in which a statement was made as a statement of fact. It was a very serious statement. It may or may not be accurate. The rules indicate that such telegrams should not be read in this house at this stage.
The statement just made by the hon. gentleman if correct would involve a rather serious question. I suggest that we should be a bit careful in dealing with our international relations especially in times when great consequences often follow from very small beginnings in matters of this kind. I shall, however, look into the matter and advise the hon. gentleman, and if he has any desire to inform himself and will apply at the office I assure him that at all times I shall be glad to try to satisfy his very commendable curiosity.


Thomas Reid: For the benefit of the Prime Minister I might say that the information I received was contained in an address delivered by Mr. Leon Ladner of Vancouver, who told an audience that the interests of Canada suffered because she had not a representative in China.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The report of the statement in the Vancouver Sun adds nothing to the hon. gentleman's former statement.


Thomas Reid: In the Province.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. CAMERON R. MelNTOSII (North Battleford):	Mr. Speaker, I have a telegram in my hand dated Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, November 12.

Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
Mr. ERNST:: It took a long time to get
here.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: The telegram is from
the second vice-president of the Fraternal Protective Association of Unemployed Citizens and Taxpayers of Saskatoon, and is addressed to the Prime Minister. The telegram draws attention to a certain document which the Saskatchewan Relief Commission requires applicants for relief to sign. The document requires those desiring relief to mortgage their homes, their chattels, all moneys not statutory exempt and-*


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Order. Has the hon.
gentleman a question to ask? He knows quite well that it is out of order to precede questions with a lengthy statement on the orders of the day.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I have two questions to
ask, Mr. Speaker. My first question is this, whether the government in granting relief to the citizens and taxpayers of Saskatoon, Saskatchewan cities and other centres throughout the dominion demand directly or indirectly of the provincial governments such security as that mentioned and which necessitates the violation of the sanctity of the homes of those seeking unemployment relief? Further, did the government of Canada either directly or indirect^ give the Saskatchewan Relief Commission authority to demand any such security before supplying relief?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, nothing could better
illustrate the soundness of the rule which does not permit of the reading of such telegrams on the orders of the day. May I say that the province of Saskatchewan is charged under the British North America Act with responsibility, and we have made contributions because of the national character of the emergency to assist them in carrying out their work. The telegram to which the hon. gentleman referred, and which took five days to reach here, has substantially been in the hands of a great many members of the house, and some of these telegrams came from sources which at once made their authenticity questionable, but I presume the hon. gentleman has served the purpose he had in mind.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Then the Dominion government says it is powerless to prevent such a state of affairs-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Order.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: All right, give us order.


TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CANADA AND THE UNITED KINGDOM
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, November 16, consideration in committee of Bill No. 8, respecting a certain trade agreement between His Majesty's government in Canada and His Majesty's government in the-United Kingdom-Mr. Bennett-Mr. LaVergne, in the chair.
Mr.   CHAIRMAN@: We were on item 386.


Mr. RHODES:: Last night the hon. member for North Bruce (Mr. Malcolm) put a question to me with respect to the provision found in section 386 of the customs tariff, which reads as follows:
Sheets, plates, hoop, band or strip, of iron or steel, as hereunder defined, under regulations prescribed by the minister.
He asked me what regulations were outstanding and what regulations had been issued. I answered that inasmuch as it concerned the Department of National Revenue I could not give him the information at the moment. I made inquiry this morning and I find that no regulations have been issued under this provision although it has remained on the statute for many years, and therefore no regulations are outstanding.


Mr. YOUNG:: Can the minister give us the information as to the actual applied rate of duty on goods coming in from the old
country ?


Mr. RYCKMAN:: Mr. Chairman, I have in my hand, and with the leave of the committee I shall put on Hansard, a proper comparison and a full answer to the hon. member's question, which will be found at page 1235 of Hansard. When I read this I think the members of the committee will well understand why one was unwilling to do the mental arithmetic on the instant as requested by the hon. member. I should like to emphasize, as I tried to do before, a point which has received no consideration whatever from hon. members, but one which I think should receive their attention. It is an important factor which affects every transaction. I hold in my hand a statement showing a comparison of duties on household hollowware of aluminum imported from the United Kingdom before the pound sterling went off the gold standard, with the prices as they obtain at the present time.


Edward James Young: "At the present time" means with the treaty rates in effect?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Yes. In compiling this
table the assumed market value has been
1262	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
taken as two shillings. The British preferential rate under tariff item 354a is given at 20 per cent less 10 per cent. The sales and special excise tax are nine per cent, computed on the duty paid value. The following table will give . the comparison to which I have referred. ,
Prior to September, 1931
Cents
Value for duty	 48.67
Duty .(20.per cent less 10 per cent) 8.67 Sales and excise taxes	 5.16
Duty ; and tax paid value	 62.5
Present Time
Cents
Purchase price at exchange say,
3.71	 37.1
Value for duty,	 48.67
Duty (20 per cent less 10 per cent) 8.67
Sales and excise	taxes	 5.16
Dumping duty (difference pound at 4.40 and 3;71)	 6.9
Duty and tax paid value	 57.83
So, with 57-83 cents one may buy an article with a formerly laid down value of 62-5 cents. ' [DOT]


Edward James Young: If I followed the minister's
figures correctly the duty now will be practically 20 cents on an investment of 37 cents in Canadian money, which is considerably more than 50 per cent. I will admit my estimate made last night was wrong, because I estimated only 47 per cent. But according to the minister the duty will be beyond 50 per cent. Under the circumstances I believe we should have similar statements in connection with every item from now on throughout the schedule, so that we may know exactly what the preferential rate will be.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: In reply I merely state
that my answer is as it appears on Hansard. From the statement placed thereon the hon. member, by doing some arithmetic, will find it very easy to make calculations by which the Department of National Revenue will agree to be bound. I think in fairness to myself and others the hon. member should do his own sums.


Edward James Young: I am quite willing to do
my own arithmetic, but before these items are passed I should like to figure out what the actual applied rates will be. I do not wish to wait until Hansard comes out tomorrow to have the figures. If I heard the minister correctly the total duty on the article .at the present time will be 19-9 cents, or
JMr. Ryckman.]
approximately 20 cents, while the price of the article is only 37 cents. One need do only a simple problem in arithmetic to learn that the duty is considerably over 50 per cent. I can see that without figuring.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-ex 387. Steel grooved (or girder) rails for electric tramway use, weighing not less than 75 pounds per lineal yard, punched, drilled, or not, of shapes and lengths not made in Canada, per ton: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, $7; general tariff, $7.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-388. Iron or steel angles, beams, channels, columns, girders, joists, piling, tees, zees, and other shapes or sections, not punched, drilled, or further manufactured than hot rolled, weighing not less than 35 pounds per lineal yard, n.o.p., per ton: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, $3; general tariff, $3.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What
are the particulars in connection with this item?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: 
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The value of the imports
under this heading for the last year was $797,000, of which $24,000 came from the United Kingdom, $640,000 from the United States and $115,000 from Belgium.


Edward James Young: I suppose the figure of $24,000 that came from the United Kingdom is taken from the trade returns, and is one of the exaggerated figures we were discussing the other day. The actual imports from the United Kingdom will be considerably less than that. If the British manufacturer of these articles could not get into the market before to any greater extent than that, will he be able to do it better with this reduction? Apparently the market is dominated by manufacturers outside the empire, and the duty on goods outside has not been reduced.

United Kingdom
We know the difficulty under which railroads are now operating; we know they are experiencing financial difficulties and that they will be approaching this government for help. Here we are charging them 12J per cent on their equipment. To my mind it is poor business to make them pay the extra price for their equipment and then have them come to the government asking money from the treasury.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My hon. friend made precisely the same argument yesterday.


Edward James Young: It will stand repeating.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I do not know that any
good purpose would be served by loading up Hansard with the reply I made before. I think perhaps the hon. member will not judge me discourteous if I simply say ditto to what I said last night.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-ex 388. Iron or steel side or centre sill sections, of all sizes not manufactured in Canada, weighing not less than 35 pounds per lineal yard, not punched, drilled or further manufactured, when imported by manufacturers of railway cars, for use in their own factories, per ton: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, $3; general tariff, $3.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Are any of these articles made in Canada at all?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am informed that practically none of this is made in Canada. I may point out that this is an entirely new item.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-392. Forgings of iron or steel, in any degree of manufacture, hollow, not less than twelve inches in internal diameter: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 30 per cent; general tariff, 30 per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-393. Tires, of steel, in the rough, not drilled or machined in any manner, for railway vehicles, including locomotives and tenders: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 10 per cent; general tariff, 10 per cent.
Edward James Young: Will the minister tell us what the applied rate will be against Great Britain in this case?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I will first give the figures. The imports last year under this item were $444,000, of which $147,000 came from the United Kingdom and $297,000 from the United States. I take it the hon. member for Wey-burn (Mr. Young) is submitting the same question with respect to this item as he has with respect to a number of others. In this
case also I shall have to submit the same answer.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-394. Axles and axle bars, n.o.p., and axle blanks, and parts thereof, of iron or steel:
(a) for railway vehicles, including locomotives and tenders: British preferential tariff, 10 per cent; intermediate tariff, 27J per cent; general tariff, 30 per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-401. Wire, of iron or steel:
(a)	barbed fencing, coated or not: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 10 per cent; general tariff, 10 per cent.
(b)	twisted, braided or stranded, including wire rape or cable, coated or not, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, 15 per cent; intermediate tariff, 25 per cent; general tariff, 25 per cent.
(c)	drawn flat or cold rolled flat after drawing. coated or not, n.o.p., not more than -25 inch in width and less than -1875 inch in thickness; British preferential tariff, 7J per cent; intermediate tariff, 20 per cent; general tariff, 20 per cent.
(d)	coated with zinc, or spelter, curved or not. in coils. '144, -104 or -092 inch in diameter, with tolerance not to exceed -004 inch, and not for use in telegraph or telephone lines: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 10 per cent; general tariff, 10 per cent.
(e)	coated with zinc or spelter, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, 10 per cent; intermediate tariff, 20 per cent; general tariff, 20 per cent.
(f)	single or several, covered with any material, including cable so covered, coated, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, 15 per cent; intermediate tariff, 30 per cent; general tariff, 30 per cent.
(g)	n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, 15 per cent; intermediate tariff, 20 per cent; general tariff, 20 per cent.
Mr. SPENCER:: Will the minister give us particulars?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The imports last year, under the first item, barbed wire, amounted to $125,000 in value, of which $10,000 came from the United Kingdom, $39,000 from the United States, $34,000 from the Netherlands and $28,000 from Belgium.


Edward James Young: Canadian production?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Canadian production, $535,000. Of wire rope, the imports last year were $215,000, of which $152,000 came from the United Kingdom, $28,000 from the United States, and $30,000 from Sweden. Flat wire; the imports last year amounted to $4,000, of which $2,000 came from the United Kingdom and $2,000 from other countries. Galvanized wire for fencing purposes; the imports last year amounted to $39,000, of which $2,000 came from the United Kingdom, $10,000 from the United States, and $24,000 Rom Germany. Galvanized wire, n.o.p.; the imports amounted
1264	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
to $26,000, of which $5,000 came from the United Kingdom, $15,000 from the United States, and $6,000 from other countries. Covered wire, item 410 (f); imports last year, $18,000, of which $3,000 came from the United Kingdom and $15,000 from the United States. Item 401 (g), n.o.p.: imports last year were $139,000, of which $14,000 came from the United Kingdom, $118,000 from the United States and $7,000 from other countries.


Mr. POULIOT:: May I ask the hon. gentleman if it is in this item that the government has succeeded where others have failed? I should like to have a concrete case in order that I may know when it has happened.


Mr. BROWN:: The particular article under this heading that is of interest to us is the first part, fencing, coated or not. This is an article that has been admitted into Canada free of duty since the very early days of Sir Wilfrid Laurier. On the coming in of that tariff I myself was able to buy barbed wire I think at the cheapest price it was ever sold in Canada.


Richard Bedford Bennett: How much per hundred pounds?


Albert Joseph Brown: It was $2.75 a hundred. I had to fence a half section at that time, and at my local point it cost $2.75 a hundredweight. Barbed wire is one of the most essential things on a western farm, if we are to keep live stock at all. We have not the facilities for making such elaborate fences as the old snake or cedar pole fences that we see all over Ontario. We must have barbed wire; if stock is to be kept to any considerable extent it is one of our most essential requirements. In these days when farming is being carried on, not at a very small profit but at an absolute loss, why the government should see fit to impose this extra burden upon the purchaser of barbed wire I cannot understand. Of course we know -that the indicated purpose behind these treaties is to divert trade to Great Britain-


Mr. CANTLEY:: Are you opposed to that?


Albert Joseph Brown: Take the figures that have been read to us by the finance minister. Only a trivial amount was imported from the United Kingdom, I think about $10,000-[DOT]


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: That is right.


Albert Joseph Brown: Take that in comparison with the figures from the Netherlands, Belgium and the United States, which if my memory serves me right ran in each case about $40,000-
lMr. Rhodes.]


Richard Bedford Bennett: No; $28,000 from Belgium, $34,000 from Germany and the Netherlands and $39,000 from the United States.


Albert Joseph Brown: Well, no matter what those figures are, the amount imported from the United Kingdom is trifling compared with what we receive from other sources, taken along with our Canadian production. I cannot think it possible that this increase in duty of 10 per cent will divert any considerable amount of that trade to Great Britain. It seems to me it can have no other effect than to increase the price of the wire we receive from other countries, as well as increase the price that we have to pay to our own manufacturers. This is one matter on which I am sure we should have the unanimous support of all hon. members from the west if they were free to speak their minds, as we certainly will have the unanimous support of the voters of the west in our opposition to it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Who
asked for this change in the tariff in regard to barbed wire? WTas it asked for by the Canadian manufacturers or by the British delegates?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: There was no specific
request for this item. It was not included among those on which the British government laid particular stress, but it was one of those which they included as being beneficial to them.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I should like to give the house some figures to prove that this preference will not be of the slightest use to any British manufacturer of barbed wire. I wish to quote prices which were given me by a reliable authority, and which the government can check up. These are actual prices for barbed wire, translated into Canadian funds, per 2,240 pounds:
Continental British
October, 1930	
$46	90	$63	20October, 1931	
48	40	69	40November, 1932	
48	80	72	50
The ten per cent preference here will be absolutely useless to Great Britain. This is nothing but straight protection to the Canadian manufacturers of barbed wire and an additional burden on the farmers of western Canada.


Mr. WILSON:: It is not often that I take
up the time of the committee, but the remarks of the hon. member for Lisgar have brought me to my feet, since it happens that I was brought up in the hardware business. The hon. member says that $2.75 is

United Kingdom
the lowest price at which barbed wire was ever sold. I want to inform him that I sold barbed wire at $2 per hundred pounds, when it was made in Canada and carried a duty of three-quarters of a cent per pound. When the Liberal government made it free they put the Canadian manufacturer out of business, and now we are paying more for barbed wire.


Albert Joseph Brown: May I ask the hon. member for Wentworth if he sold that wire at Pilot Mound, Manitoba?


Cairine Reay Wilson: That is not the point at
all.


Albert Joseph Brown: That was where I bought
it.


Cairine Reay Wilson: That may be so, but I am saying that when there was a duty of three-quarters of a cent per pound on barbed wire it was made in Canada by Canadian manufacturers, gave work to Canadian workmen, and sold for less money.


Albert Joseph Brown: Will the hon. member contend that the removal of that duty made barbed wire higher in price?


Mr. SPEARMAN:: I should like to ask
if these duties are now in effect.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes; they have been in
effect since October 13.


Alfred Speakman: That is what I understood, and this brings up not a potential situation or a matter of imagination or prophecy, but an actual fact. During the last week, no doubt in common with other hon. members, I have been in receipt of a number of telegrams and communications from consumers of barbed wire in western Canada, complaining of a recent and substantial increase in the retail cost of that commodity, which increase has come about within the last ten days. When the matter was brought up in the house a short time ago, I think by the hon. member for Battle River, I believe it was intimated that some action had been taken to stop the dumping of barbed wire into this country at unfair prices, but that the actual fair market price had not been altered in any way. There is no doubt in my mind that any increase in the price of barbed wire at the present time is serious. I think that will be admitted on every side. It is a fact that farming is being carried on at a loss, and the slightest increase in our cost of production is a matter of very grave consideration. In addition, every tendency today whether on the part of governments, of individuals or of organizations, is towards mixed farming, if possible getting away from that great overproduction of wheat and turning to other lines of agriculture. As a matter of fact, to a very large extent the agreement itself, so far as it concerns farm products, is based upon that increase in mixed farming. As the hon. member for Lisgar has said, and as everyone acquainted with western Canada knows, mixed farming there is practically dependent upon the increased use of barbed wire fencing. It cannot be otherwise. Barbed wire forms a very substantial and an inescapable portion of the cost of farming, particularly if you go into cattle raising or other forms of mixed farming. I think the house is as one in deploring anything that may increase the cost of this commodity, but whether it is a result of the treaty or a most unfortunate coincidence, the fact remains that the price has gone up, and that from every side we are receiving complaints. This increase may be due to the fact that dumping has been stopped; v'e do not know. The farmer does know, however, that the price has increased and that he is paying more for his barbed ware.


Mr. STEVENS:: Has my hon. friend any
information as to the extent of the increase complained of?


Alfred Speakman: I think I can get that information, though most of the wires simply complain without giving very definite statistics. I did not bring those telegrams with me because I did not know this item was coming up today, but I think one or two of them contain actual figures. Certainly definite statements have been made, and in some cases they are backed up by exact figures as to prices paid.
It does seem to me, Mr. Chairman, that it is an almost inescapable inference at least, with these tariffs having been in effect for the past three or four weeks, that the increase in price is a direct result. Rightly or wrongly that is the inference drawn, whether it is a necessary increase or whether the retailers are taking advantage of the situation. I do not know what are the facts, and the farmers do not know, but they do know that the price has gone up. If that is the inevitable result of this agreement then I think this is one point that certainly must be discussed and if possible corrected, because the whole argument in favour of the British preference is that it will result in the diversion of trade -which I for one should be very glad to see- but that this diversion of trade will be made without increasing the cost to the consumer
1266	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
or placing an additional burden upon those who may use the articles imported. There is the whole difficulty. If the treaty has this result it will not be the foreigner who will pay the cost of the agreement; it will be paid by the consumer here. If that is to be the result the whole basis is wrong.
I will not go further, but I am asking the minister to institute as soon as possible the most careful inquiry into the matter. I am not asking him to take my statement; I am not even asking him to accept any telegrams that may be sent, because at times they are wholly unreliable. In view of the statement that prices have increased, and the widespread complaints that have been made, together with the fact that it is of such great importance to have these prices as low as possible without inflicting injury upon anyone, I ask the minister to look into the matter. We want barbed wire to be sold at the lowest possible legitimate price, and in view of these facts I ask the government to make the fullest inquiry. If they find that someone has been attempting to exploit the consumer as a result of this tariff, or that under this tariff we cannot get barbed wire as cheaply as we formerly could, I ask the government to use the powers contained in the treaty and remedy that injustice, if any has been brought about.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am going to intervene
in this debate, Mr. Chairman, merely to make a very few observations. The hon. member for Red Deer used the words "as low as it can be purchased legitimately." I suppose he is aware of the fact that during the past several months in this country barbed wire has been dumped on the Canadian market from the Netherlands. As a matter of fact, the wire was brought from Germany unbarbed into the Netherlands and then barbed and shipped here by water to Vancouver. The price at which it has been sold was admittedly a dump price. It is only necessary to point out to the committee that the entire requirements of Canadians for barbed wire have been met practically by Canadians.


Alfred Speakman: Quite.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member for
Red Deer is fair enough to admit that that is correct, and I commend that to the hon. member for Lisgar. Now, the total importation, when barbed wire was free across the board, was not $85,000.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It was
as high as $125,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was coming to that. It did reach a maximum of $125,000 but the average was something like $85,000. But Canadians have supplied their own requirements in barbed wire and have had keen competition with the whole world. Recently however barbed wire has been dumped upon the Canadian market by foreigners to destroy Canadian industry, just cold-bloodedly-admittedly in cold blood. I will give the committee an illustration. Not long since orders were taken for Canadian barbed wire. The Dutch interests have in this country a representative in the person of Mr. Leith Murray. They went so far as to say, "We will undersell you, whatever your price may be. Substantially that will be the effect. There will be no dumping duty on it and we will sell this Dutch wire in this country regardless." Now, the price at which the Canadian is selling barbed wire at the present moment is $2.32 per hundred pounds, while the price in the United States is $2.60. The competition formerly was between the United States and Canada, and the Canadian interests were able to purchase barbed wire delivered at the head of the lakes, in competition with Pittsburgh wire delivered at the head of the lakes, when the item was on the free list, and undersell them. I well recall-I was not actively interested in politics at the time and was not in the house-that Mr. Walton, manager of the largest wholesale firm in Canada, Marshall, Wells & Company, explained to me the extent to which we Canadians were producing our own requirements, and he pointed out barbed wire as an illustration. Being free across the board, it was being produced by Canadians cheaper than it could be delivered by the American producers in the United States.
There has arisen however a situation which is entirely different from that. A foreign interest has resolved to destroy the Canadian market-


Edward James Young: Maliciously?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not say that. The hon. gentleman can hardly conceive anything not being done that way. I did say however that they have resolved to do it, and having resolved to do it they set out by reducing prices to accomplish that end.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Could not that be met by means of ordinary dumping duties?


Richard Bedford Bennett: One of the difficulties is to determine how you can apply the dumping duty to certain commodities. In the Netherlands there is no market for barbed wire, and

United Kingdom
to find a fair market price for barbed wire where there is no sale for the commodity is an exceedingly difficult thing, and section 36 of the Customs Act, to which the hon. gentleman refers, contemplates the sale being made cheaper than the sale that is made to the people of the country in which the commodity is produced. Owing to the fact that the wire itself comes from Germany and is barbed in the Netherlands, and that there is no market at all in the Netherlands for barbed wire, you cannot apply that section, which contemplates the ascertaining of the domestic price for the commodity and then comparing that with the price for which the commodity is being offered in the country to which it is exported.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Why was this tariff change not postponed until the regular budget came down, instead of putting it here under the guise of a British preference, which, as I see it, is absolutely useless.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Presently I shall deal with that phase of the situation. Perhaps I might do so now. Great Britain sold only $10,000 in our market in a given period. Larger quantities were sold by Germany, the Netherlands and Belgium. Those are the four countries from which our importations came, the United States being $34,000, larger, as a matter of fact, than any of the other three. Now, the position is this. If Great Britain could supply it we should prefer to buy it from Great Britain. We have never made any bones about that, to use a colloquial expression. There has been no raising of the price by the Canadian producer, none at all. His price is $2.32 and the American price at the moment is $2.60. It is difficult to ascertain the market price for barbed wire in a country where barbed wire has no sale. It has in Germany, and the domestic price there bears a close relation to our own. As most hon. members know, barbed wire is not used in Great Britain commercially as it is here, and in the Netherlands there is no market at all.
When this matter was presented for our consideration we said, "We will make it free, but we must at least see that the British producer has an even chance as compared with those who are dumping their product on this market." I had occasion to point this out the other day. A few years ago the entire agricultural production in Canada, including fruit and vegetables and every form of agricultural activity, embracing live stock as well, amounted, roughly, to $1,600,000,000, of which only $300,000,000 worth was exported. The other $1,300,000,000 were consumed by 10,000,000 people, indicating of course that the
domestic market is still by all odds the great market for Canadian producers-the very greatest market there is.


Edward James Young: Have you made allowance for duplications?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I merely take the figures as the statistical department have prepared them, and I have every reason to believe that under Doctor Coats' direction every possible likelihood of erroneous figures being produced has been eliminated. I can only give them as they are. I have the figures for the last three years, but I take the round figures for one year, and as I have said, of $1,600,000,000, roughly, we exported $299,000,000, or, to use round figures, $300,000,000, leaving $1,300,000,000 of agricultural products consumed by 10,000,000 people

that is, before England went off the gold standard. The very essence of the maintenance of some form of industrial life in this country is to maintain that domestic market, and to do that we must give a fair chance to industry, just as the agriculturist has asked for an even chance with New Zealand butter or Australian products, or in relation to any form of agricultural activity whatever it may be. The Canadian producer says, "All I want is a fair chance in my own market." Now, when you find Canadian barbed wire being sold to Canadians at 28 cents per hundred pounds less than in the United States, and when you find, so far as you can ascertain, that the price at which barbed wire is being offered in the Netherlands is lower than the cost of production, on any fair basis of production costs, are you not bound to take steps to give the Canadian a fair chance, and to give the Englishman that chance as well? We have said to the Englishman, "We will make it free and give you a fair chance, that is, even competition with the Canadian," and if he has an even chance in this market with the Canadian, why should we be so solicitous about those who are making no contribution to our welfare?


Edward James Young: What about the farmers?
It is the farmers of whom we are solicitous.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The farmers, if the situation is left to work out its logical conclusion, will eventually pay any price the foreigner may demand.


An hon. MEMBER:: They can't live that
long.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Someone says they cannot live that long, but I have seen Canadian industry destroyed and the foreigner fix prices. My hon. friend from Red Deer used the word
126S	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
legitimately and used it properly, and I can see that he meant that if there were not an even chance afforded either to his own country or to Great Britain with respect to this commodity it was not legitimate nor fair. It is to overcome the dumping practice in this market in connection with barbed wire that this step is being taken, and the only method by which that could be accomplished is this. You may think you have devised other methods, but this is the only really effective method that will do it; and if, as the hon. member for Red Deer has found, a hardship is worked in any particular class, the agreement is provided to meet that situation, just as it has done with respect to one or two other matters, since the agreements were signed, both in Australia and elsewhere. I think I could give more striking illustrations of what has happened recently in connection with orders that were given to Canadian producers of barbed wire, the base price being $2.32. Those who have given the orders have been asked by the Dutch agents in this country to cancel them and to substitute Dutch wire, made first in Germany, barbed in the Netherlands, and shipped to Canada by water, to supplant the Canadian product made by Canadian people who consume a part of that $1,300,000,000 which constitutes the largest market the Canadian farmer has for his product-the home market.


Alfred Speakman: The very fact that the great percentage of our market is supplied by Canadian industry would indicate that any increased cost of importation, supposing it were brought about, should have no effect upon the price. That is, if the price were being raised in Canada, I mean apart from any temporary and unfair dumping of which I am not speaking at the moment, this would show that the industry or part of the industry or the retailers under the industry were taking unnecessary advantage of the tariff, because it is not the imported article that sets the price. I am merely asking that under the circumstances the government ascertain whether in any districts there has been an unnecessary increase in the legitimate price and that, if so, they take the necessary steps.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I assure the hon. gentleman that this is a matter in which I had considerable interest. My information at the moment is that there has been no increase in price by Canadians, but the foreigner, taking advantage of the situation, has been endeavouring to get a higher price on the theory that he now has a monopoly of the market, having cancelled the orders of the Canadian

producers and driven them out. If that is what the committee wants to have done, all they have to do is to make it clear. They will not get it so far as this government is concerned.


Albert Joseph Brown: The Prime Minister directed a remark to me commending the attitude of the hon. member for Red Deer when he admitted the larger proportion of our requirements was provided from the Canadian market. I did not need to admit that definitely when I pointed out that we had a very small proportion-


Richard Bedford Bennett: From Great Britain.
Mr. BROWN -from Great Britain, another small proportion of our requirements from foreign countries and some $550,000 worth from Canada, which in itself is an indication that we are getting most of our requirements from our own producers. Therefore I do not think the Prime Minister need emphasize the point that my attitude should be the same as that of the hon. member for Red Deer. The Prime Minister has made another very interesting admission, namely that Canadian manufacturers of barbed wire have been providing for Canadian requirements in competition with the United States, and they have been doing that for thirty-five years without a duty.


Thomas Cantley: No.


Albert Joseph Brown: I know whereof I speak. Barbed wire was put on the free list by the first Fielding tariff in 1897. I had occasion, as I well remember when I was fencing my farm about which I spoke, to come into contact with a very strong protectionist who was complaining that the Fielding tariff had not reduced duties at all. I immediately pointed to what I had done in fencing my own farm at the price I have already indicated, because of the reduction that was brought about in the price of barbed wire by the Fielding tariff. He said: "Oh, that was the worst thing that was done for Canada." I said: "You cannot have it both ways." He was arguing about the Fielding tariff having reduced no duties, and he was also complaining that it bad. This is characteristic of the arguments we are hearing these days from the other side of the house. I have been contending all these years that Canadian manufacturers could compete with other manufacturers without these large protective duties, and the Prime Minister has at least admitted the fact that for thirty-five years the Canadian manufacturer of barbed wire has been supplying the major portion of our requirements and yet barbed wire has been on the free list. When we are

United Kingdom
discussing this matter of prices, it should be borne in mind that I am speaking of retail prices I had to pay in my town, and probably the prices quoted by the Prime Minister are wholesale prices. We must not get confused over these matters.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But the retail price is
not a matter over which the federal government has any control.


Albert Joseph Brown: I admit that. When the
hon. member for Wentworth challenged the price I gave, he should remember he was giving the price in Ontario, very near to where the wire was made, and I was quoting the price away out on the prairie where it had to carry a large freight rate.


Mr. GOTT:: That shows that factories
are needed out there.


Albert Joseph Brown: That is about as wise as
any other remarks made by the hon. gentleman. I was quoting a price that carried a very high freight rate, so that the statement of the hon. member for Wentworth is not necessarily a contradiction of mine.
Granting that the statements of the Prime Minister in regard to the situation that prevails in Holland are correct, why should this material be brought in under the guise of diverting trade to Great Britain? Why should it have been made a part of this imperial agreement? If the situation which he describes needed to be met, it was quite possible to meet it in some other way and not to include this item in an agreement to which we are bound for a period of five years. That is one point to which we object.


Henry Herbert Stevens: May I answer a point
raised by the hon. member for Red Deer? Since he spoke I have received definite information that neither by the manufacturer nor by one of the large distributors throughout western Canada has there been any increase in the cost of barbed wire in the period mentioned.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Is any safeguard being
provided against increases?


Alfred Speakman: It is possible that the
communications which I and others have received refer only to the stopping of temporary dumping. I am not making any assertion as to that. I am simply stating the facts as to the prices paid. May I, while I am on my feet, express my agreement with one point raised by the hon. member for Lisgar? If these tariffs had for their purpose not so much the diversion of trade as the protection of Canadian industry from unfair dumping, I
certainly think it would have been far better, with that end in view, to introduce the item definitely as part of the Canadian tariff which may be altered at our discretion at any time, instead of making it part of the agreement.


Edward James Young: I am sorry the Prime Minister has left his seat. While he was speaking I took down some of the figures he quoted. He spoke of $1,300,000,000 worth of Canadian farm products being consumed by 10,000,000 people in a year. I asked him if he had made any allowance for duplications, and he said the figures he gave were accurate. This would mean $130 worth consumed annually by every man, woman and child in Canada, or $650 worth for a family, in addition to tea, coffee, tropical fruits and such other foodstuffs as we bring in from abroad. It does not require any close scrutiny of the figures to realize there is something wrong with them. If the Prime Minister's information as to what is going on in Holland in connection with barbed wire is no more accurate than his information in connection with the consumption by the Canadian people of foodstuffs grown on Canadian farms, then I think he is acting without sufficient information in raising these tariffs. The imports of barbed wire were $125,000 from all sources, of which $10,000 came from the United Kingdom, leaving $115,000 coming in from abroad. The Canadian production, the minister tells us, was $535,000. The total consumption in Canada must therefore be $660,000 worth, of which $115,000 comes in from abroad. In order to divert that $115,000 worth which comes in from abroad, and only $33,000 of it comes in from Holland, either to the United Kingdom or Canadian factories, we, the people of Canada, are going to pay an extra 10 per cent on the whole $660,000 worth, or $66,000.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Edward James Young: It is going to cost us $66,000 to divert $115,000 worth of business.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Edward James Young: The Prime Minister tells
us that there is no market in Holland for barbed wire, and that is why he cannot fix a price. But there is a market in Holland for Canadian wheat, and as was stated in the house by several hon. members the other evening, the ministers in Holland have said that they would not buy Canadian wheat because our government is doing its level best to stifle all Holland's trade with Canada. I want to know something about this Canadian
1270	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
industry which is going to get this extra $66,000. How many men does it employ and what wages are they paid?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: In the first place I must
take exception to the deduction of my hon. friend that there is going to be an increased cost of $66,000. We do not admit that for one minute. I do not propose to traverse the ground I have covered on previous occasions but I do not by any means admit my hon. friend's contention that there will be an increase in price.


Edward James Young: There has been already.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: No, there has been none;
we have that officially and that statement stands. The argument of my hon. friend and of others who have opposed the placing of a duty of 10 per cent in the intermediate and general tariffs is predicated entirely upon the assumption that there will be a corresponding increase in price. If there is no increase in price their argument falls to the ground. I presume if there were no increase in price they would agree to the proposition that it is far better to purchase from Great Britain than from foreign countries any given commodity. Perhaps they will not subscribe to that, but at all events that is our view on this side of the house. My hon. friend asks how many are employed and what wages they are paid. I am surprised at his modesty. I wonder that he did not ask their ages, their weight and the colour of their hair. It is absolutely impossible to give my hon. friend the information he desires because this is only one branch of an industry with many ramifications. We have no data and nothing to indicate how many men in the industry as a whole are engaged in the manufacture of barbed wire. In fact, I doubt very much if the industry itself would be able to make that computation with any degree of accuracy because of the wide ramifications of its manufactures. But the main thing upon which we should centre our attention is whether this provision will or will not increase the price to the consumer. If it does not increase the price, then nothing but benefit can result.


Edward James Young: The minister says that he has no data as to the number of men employed or the wages paid in the manufacture of barbed wire. If he has not, then I want to know what arguments were presented to the government in favour of this legislation by those who asked for a higher duty on barbed wire. The one reason they must have had for doing this was that the industry was I Mr. Young.]
going to employ Canadian labour, and surely the government must have asked the extent of the labour employed and the wages paid in order to get some idea of what this additional cost to the farmer was going to yield to labour in this country. If not, the government were guilty of giving the manufacturers everything they asked for without looking into their case.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My hon. friend has again,
as he so frequently does, made a statement on his own ipse dixit and then predicated an argument on it as if it were gospel truth.


Edward James Young: Then shatter my argument.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I will to this extent. The
manufacturers had nothing to do with this item. They may or may not have been consulted, but my hon. friend fails to grasp the fact that in a conference which produces an agreement, it must be a matter of agreement all around. Since these agreements were reached I have discussed with manufacturers their effect upon their industries, and many of them had not the remotest idea that the tariff as affecting their particular industry was to be touched at all.


Edward James Young: Was it a grab bag you had?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I will not admit to my
hon. friend that it was a grab bag or anything else. This agreement was evolved as a result of the conference in precisely the same way that any other agreement would be evolved under similar circumstances. My hon. friend must rid his mind of that all-pervading suspicion of his that because this agreement has resulted in a certain change of tariffs, therefore the changes were made because of the machinations of some manufacturers.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: There is one point I should like to bring out in regard to the relation of the tariff to a possible increase in price. There may be at the moment a difference of view as to whether or not there has been an increase, but I think hon. gentlemen opposite will admit that there may be an increase between now and the end of the next five years. Assuming that this increase of tariff had been made in the usual way, not as an agreement with Britain dealing with the British preference, but as part of a budget regularly brought down by the Minister of Finance, the government would have told us that should the price be increased they would have it in their power to reduce or remove the duty. That, they have been telling us all along, is the method open to them if the Canadian manufacturer, not the British manu-

United Kingdom
facturer, tries to increase his price. But take the position of the Canadian manufacturer who in a trade agreement with Britain gets this advantage. In this agreement we are obligating ourselves not to alter that tariff for five years. We are taking away the one remedy which in the past, according to the government's own admission, the consumers had against high tariffs. But by this agreement we are giving to the Canadian manufacturer a monopoly for the next five years, so far as it can be created by the tariff, and during that period of time we cannot change the tariff. The situation is altogether different. This barbed wire item only serves to illustrate what is true of a very large number of items in this tariff agreement. Previously the Canadian manufacturers were to a certain extent controlled in respect to their prices, because the government had always the power to lower or to remove the duty, but now they are in an entirely different position, in an especially favoured position by virtue of which they can say to the government: You have no power to change this tariff because parliament has obligated itself-this is the government's point of view-in order to maintain the preferential margin that is given to Great Britain, to retain this tariff as it stands for a period of five years. That is the serious aspect of the whole matter.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I think it should be understood in connection with any undertaking in regard to an increase in price that it does not necessarily mean that that commodity shall remain forever at a given price. So far as I am concerned, and I am speaking only for myself, I should like to see the price of barbed wire double, and the price of wheat double and treble. I would like to see commodity prices increased throughout the country and throughout the world, because I believe that that is one of the fundamental conditions that must precede a return to prosperity. Bearing that in mind, may I say that the undertaking with respect to an increase in price has reference in all instances to an increase which arises out of action which has been taken with respect to the tariff. I point out to my right hon. friend the statement which was made by the Prime Minister a few minutes ago when he said that if as a result of this action there was an increase we had our remedy under certain provisions of this agreement, which we have.


Mr. RALSTON:: Under this agreement?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: There is provision for consultation.


James Layton Ralston: Oh, pshaw!


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I may tell my hon. friend that since this agreement has been signed, sealed and delivered, we have had occasion to communicate with the mother country and have had a satisfactory response to representations we have made to them.


James Layton Ralston: I have been trying to find out what it means.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My hon. friend will find
out before the committee rises because I purpose to move certain amendments. I have no doubt in the world that an improved condition will follow, because this government will not be a party to the continuation of legislation which would have a subversive effect on the industry of the farmer.


Alfred Speakman: I wish to direct my remarks to a statement made by the minister a moment ago, the accuracy of which I shall not challenge. I think he spoke in absolute sincerity, but may have created a misapprehension or misunderstanding. He has said that the government has satisfied itself that the price has not been increased. I think the facts are that at least in certain districts-and I am placing my statement at an absolute minimum-some farmers are obliged to pay more than they were paying. In that way the price has been increased to them. I accept the minister's word when he states that the industry in Canada, the regular wholesale and perhaps retail price, has not been interfered with. I point out however that the statement to the effect that the price has not been increased may be misapprehended by those who read his remarks. As I have said I believe the minister meant that the regular wholesale and retail price of Canadian goods has not been increased, but as the result of the stoppage of dumping some farmers may be paying more today than they were paying a little while ago.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My statement was based
upon the assurance which we have received from the largest producer and largest distributor in Canada. I have had inquiries made in the city of Ottawa, and I find the hardware dealers in this city are not charging one cent more than they did a week or a month ago. I am advised further that the T. Eaton Company throughout Canada are charging no more. I say to my hon. friend that I cannot conceive of a situation where a retailer could increase his price by reason of the fact that the dump was applied to foreign barbed wire, because he is able to get barbed wire from Canadian distributors for the same price as
1272	COMMONS
Imperial Conjerence-Trade Agreements
he has been paying for the past three months. We will pursue the inquiry further, as far as we can. As hon. members know however we cannot constitutionally take action in connection with the retail sale of a commodity in a given community, but we will keep close watch upon the situation.


Alfred Speakman: I was merely differentiating between the price in Canada and the increase in price certain farmers have to pay, due to local conditions.


Mr. BELL (Hamilton):: Mr. Chairman,
this is one of those rare occasions when I feel I should like to take up two or three minutes of the time of the committee. I have listened very carefully to the temperate and reasonable argument of the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Speakman); I have listened to the much less temperate argument of my dear old friend from Lisgar (Mr. Brown); I have listened to the very eccentric argument by the hon. member for Weybura (Mr. Young)-very true to form-and I have failed to find in any one of those arguments a criticism of the essential facts set forth in the schedule which provides that, after all, there shall be afforded to the British manufacturer in the Canadian market that opportunity which we as Canadians seek for our own. I have failed to find in any one of the arguments advanced a suggestion as to why we should desert or operate against the British manufacturer in favour of the manufacturer from some point outside the empire. I do not wish to labour the matter, but desire merely to lay before the committee an obvious fact upon which I should like to hear discussion, and concerning which I should like to hear the remarks of any hon. member who desires to dispute it. The point is this: Why should if. be said that the Canadian manufacturer and British manufacturer should not have full opportunity, and that this tariff as laid down in the terms set out in item 401, providing for tariffs of free, 10 per cent and 10 per cent, should be used to help people outside the British Empire? If any hon. member will tell the reason why that should be done, I for one should bn happy to listen to him.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No one desires to help people outside the empire; it is our desire to help the consumers and farmers in Canada.


Leslie Gordon Bell: That answer will not do.


Mr RALSTON:: In answer to the hon. member I would say that we find difficulty in discovering why both the British and Canadian manufacturer should be entitled to charge

the Canadian consumer 10 per cent more than they charged before.


An hon. MEMBER:: They are not doing it.


James Layton Ralston: That is the point my hon. friend has missed altogether.


Leslie Gordon Bell: No.


James Layton Ralston: I just wish to say a word or two about what would appear to be something in the nature of a fatherless child. Apparently the British manufacturer did not want this item; the Canadian manufacturers did not want it, and I take it that the farmers did not want it. I do not believe the government really understands how it happened that this item was put in the agreement. The fact remains however that it is here.


Mr. MORAND:: It is there for the workmen, who are also consumers.


James Layton Ralston: The Minister of Finance is not sure that the Canadian manufacturers had anything to do with it at all. I should have thought they would have been interested. The Prime Minister has given what I take to be the real reason for the government putting this duty into effect. He has said the reason they are imposing the 10 per cent duty is because they are unable to impose a dumping duty. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre quite properly asked (he Prime Minister why, if Canadian interests were being injured the dumping duty provisions were not invoked. As I understood him the Prime Minister replied that the reason was that they were unable to determine domestic prices in countries like Holland or Germany, and that therefore it was impossible to use these provisions. I remind the committee and the Prime Minister that the provisions for dumping duty include not only basing duty on the domestic price in the country of origin, but there is a further provision in section 37 of the Customs Act for fixing a fair market price, another provision in section 41, and another in section 43. Section 43 makes no mention of domestic price at all. That section gives the Minister of National Revenue power, under authority of the governor in council, to fix any price he likes as a fair market value of goods, regardless of what domestic prices may be or what costs of production may be.
I should like to put on record section 43 (1) which was passed immediately after this government came into power. It is as follows:
43. (1) If at any time it appears to the satisfaction of the governor in council on a report from the minister that goods of any kind are being imported into Canada, either on sale or on consignment, under such conditions as prejudicially or injuriously to affect the interests of Canadian producers or manufacturers-

United Kingdom
Which is what the Prime Minister said was being done.
-the governor in council may authorize the minister to fix the value for duty of any class or kind of such goods, and notwithstanding any other provision of this act, the value so fixed shall be deemed to be the fair market value of such goods.
I submit my right hon. friend and his government have had ample opportunity to deal with any injurious situation which may have arisen. I believe the Prime Minister's reason for imposing the 10 per cent duty falls to the ground. One is driven to look for the real reason, and to try to find out why a straight 10 per cent duty was imposed, notwithstanding the fact that the government had the right to fix a dumping duty. There is, I submit, only one reason left, that is the reason which has been given and reiterated in this committee, the reason that by putting on this duty and agreeing to maintain the margin of preference for five years a fixed duty of ten per cent has been imposed against the Canadian consumer in favour of the Canadian manufacturer. There can be no other reason. There is ample opportunity to deal with any special situation, but evidently that is not deemed to be enough. I ask my hon. friends, do they think ten per cent would ever meet the situation? Of course not. We have now a static and frozen duty of ten per cent for five years. My hon. friend from Hamilton (Mr. Bell) suggests that we ought to give the British manufacturer the same position as the Canadian. He has been in that position for the last thirty-five years. These goods have been coming in from the British manufacturer, and the Canadian manufacturer had no duty to protect him. Exactly the same position exists at the present time. The one thing that is done is to add this irritating dumping provision, put on by my hon. friends, and to fix a definite duty of ten per cent which has got to be maintained for five years.


Leslie Gordon Bell: Against the
foreigner.


James Layton Ralston: But in favour of the
Canadian manufacturer and against the Canadian consumer. I pointed out last night that the Canadian manufacturer and the British manufacturer can each ride immediately under that ten per cent tariff and adjust their prices accordingly, and I have failed to get from my hon. friends any suggestion that they would invoke the provisions of section 19 and strike out the duty in case they found it was being taken advantage of. That is one of our great objections to this treaty, not 53719-81
only to this item but to 138 other items in this tariff where free entry from Great Britain is provided but also a fixed duty against the rest of the world, in order that the Canadian manufacturer may have the benefit of it.


Leslie Gordon Bell: May I ask my
hon. friend if the effect of what he has just advanced would not be, if carried to the length which he suggests, to provide free trade entirely along all lines in this country, and the absolute destruction of the British preference?


James Layton Ralston: Not at all. My hon.
friend forgets that, as the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) has pointed out, for thirty-five years we have had free trade in barbed wire, and the manufacturers are still getting along. It is remarkable that at the time of the imperial conference, when the British manufacturers did not want it, and according to the Minister of Finance the Canadian manufacturers did not want it, advantage is taken of this occasion to put on a straight tariff item of ten per cent-


Leslie Gordon Bell: Against the
foreigner.


James Layton Ralston: We have had the benefit of free trade in barbed wire for the last thirty-five years, yet it has been produced and sold by Canadian manufacturers in very large amounts, and we are still awaiting the information as to how many employees there are in the industry.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I cannot allow my hon.
friend to place in the mouth of my colleague, the Minister of Finance, words which he never used. My hon. friend says that according to the Minister of Finance the Canadian manufacturer did not want it, the British manufacturer did not want it. The Minister of Finance never made any such statement.


James Layton Ralston: What I understood him
to say was that they were not consulted in any way, and he knew of no representations of any kind from the Canadian manufacturers.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The Minister of Finance
was very clear and very reasoned in his statement. What he said was this, that there was no specific demand from manufacturers, either British or Canadian. He said it arose, as nearly all the other items in this agreement arose, out of conversations and conferences leading up to what we might say is the consummation of the whole, namely the agreement. My hon. friend, is a very able lawyer, and when speaking in the house is not restrained by the ordinary rules of court procedure and is therefore able to put state-

1274	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
ments in very clever and skilled manner, getting on the record arguments which have not been advanced at all-


James Layton Ralston: You are too flattering.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is too bad. I might
say something more but probably I had better refrain. Another point; we cannot allow to go unchallenged the reiterated statement of hon. gentlemen opposite that because an item is placed in the tariff it immediately follows as a matter of course that Canadian manufacturers take advantage of that tariff. We challenge that statement, we claim that it cannot be sustained. In the present instance my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Speakman) said he had heard that prices had increased. We instituted at once official inquiries and I gave a moment ago the answer, namely, that the chief manufacturing concern in Canada producing these goods had positively not increased its price in any sense. I have also official information that the T. Eaton Company, one of the biggest distributors in western Canada, have not increased their price one iota. I also have official information from the trade in the city of Ottawa that no increase has been made here. We have not had time to make inquiry further, but that ought to be accepted at its face value for the time being.
My hon. friend referred to section 43, he said: Why did not the Minister of National Revenue invoke section 43? I invite the hon. member for Lisgar, the hon. member for Weyburn, and a number of others to witness this, that the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth, amidst some considerable deskthumping from other members around him, endorsed absolutely the doctrine of applying section 43.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Henry Herbert Stevens: And challenged, in fact
berated, the Minister of National Revenue-


James Layton Ralston: That is not even clever.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It must be clever, because it is what my hon. friend did. Moreover it is true. He berated the Minister of National Revenue; he said, he has section 37, he has section 41 and section 43, why doesn't he use section 43? That is precisely what my hon. friend said, if that is not an invitation to invoke section 43 I do not understand the English language. Of course when you put the hon. gentleman " on the spot " as it were, he naturally wants to get out of that dilemma. The hon. gentleman is very skilful about invoking some excuse to entangle his opponents or the government.
{Mr. Stevens.]


Edward James Young: They are entangled in
barbed wire nowl


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend has never got disentangled mentally or any other way, that is the trouble. The Prime Minister made a very complete statement of the situation and I am not going to repeat it. In regard to this question of barbed wire there is no doubt that during the past year or more Canada has been subjected to unfair practices in trade. That applies not only to barbed wire but to other commodities. It is an unfortunate condition that exists in the world, it is not peculiar to Canada. It arises out of a quite well-known economic condition; merchants all over the world find themselves in possession of large stocks of goods, or in possession of plants that they desire to keep going. I presume Canadian producers would do the same thing. If they can dump their excess products on some other market and thus maintain at least a salvage price for that portion, so as to cut down the percentage of overhead on the whole, they do so. It has been a practice, a bad practice, a very embarrassing practice, and one which the whole world is now studying with a view to getting rid of. We were faced with this condition. My hon. friend from Red Deer was fair enough in his observations to say that he did not advocate that Canadian consumers should take advantage of a condition of that kind, he was satisfied if the ordinary principles of fair trade were observed. Now the Prime Minister indicated this problem, and my hon. friend from Shelburne-Yarmouth laughed at him. The Prime Minister properly said that it was very difficult to secure under section 6 of the Customs Act, the dumping clause, the evidence upon which that clause might be applied. That is for the very simple reason that barbed wire has no local sale in Belgium that would enable this government to fix the sale price in that country. "But," the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth says, "that does not matter; why did you not invoke section 43?" That is a different section altogether, and in this case we did not desire or choose to invoke section 43. Here we have this arrangement by which we give an advantage to the British manufacturer in this market. The Canadian consumer is ensured fair treatment for two reasons: First, he has had fair treatment in the past from the Canadian manufacturer and there is no indication that this will be changed; in the second place he has the competition of the British producer as a check upon the Canadian manufacturer. I think I can say with some degree of assurance, based upon the experience we have had in the past, that the consumer of barbed wire need have

United Kingdom
no apprehension with regard to increased prices due to this tariff. I agree with my colleague the Minister of Finance when he says that whether they be products of the farm, of the mine or of the forest, or the general products of industry in this country, I sincerely hope all commodities experience a substantial increase in value within the next year or two. I think there is not a country in the world, or any government, or any leader of agriculture or industry, but will join in the fervent expectation and desire that commodity prices will increase, so I would not for a moment say thait the prices of barbed wire will not increase in the next two or three years. I hope barbed wire will increase in price, as my colleague has said, just as I hope wheat, butter, lumber, copper, iron, fish and all other products will increase in price.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: Before the minister sits down I should like to ask him just one question on that point of prices. Would the minister give the committee the average wholesale price of barbed wire at Fort William for each of the last four years?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have not that information under my hand.


Edward Joseph Garland: It is rather important.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I will endeavour to secure that information, but I could not give it to my hon. friend offhand. I presume it can be secured from some of the trade journals, and I will endeavour to have that done.


Edward Joseph Garland: I thought the experts would have that.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am sorry I do not have it before me.


Edward Joseph Garland: Could the minister give the price last year?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No.


Edward Joseph Garland: The Prime Minister was able to give a figure.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The Prime Minister mentioned the figure of $2.32 as the price in Canada.


Edward Joseph Garland: I want the comparative figures for the last four years.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I will say this: Bearing in mind the fall in the prices of the basic commodities that enter into the manufacture of barbed wire, such as pig iron, steel billets, rods, bars and so forth, I would say there has been a considerable diminution in the 53719-81i
price as compared with 1930, 1929 and 1928. I would hazard that guess.


Edward Joseph Garland: Undoubtedly there should have been a drop, but we do not know whether or not there has been.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: There has
been a great fall in the price of the raw products.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, and I imagine there
has been a drop in the price of the finished article. I will hazard my recollection, not based upon anything definite before me; it is that the price of barbed wire three years ago was something like $3. I think that is a fairly accurate statement.


James Layton Ralston: I should like to say just
one word in reply to my hon. friend. The tortuous argument into which he has been driven and in which he has become entangled shows to what extremities hon. gentlemen opposite must go in order to becloud what is the real issue in connection with this item. My hon. friend, who is usually pretty logical, I think went pretty far afield in his endeavour to get some comfort from the fact that I had pointed out to the Prime Minister that section 43 was there to be used if the condition which he considered existed made that action necessary in his opinion. I just want to remind the committee again that I was endeavouring, if I could, to find the justification for the ten per cent duty. The right hon. Prime Minister had said that the ten per cent duty was necessary in order to protect the Canadian manufacturer and the Canadian workman. I was pointing out to him that section 43 provided specifically that the governor in council might, if they found the interest of Canadian manufacturers in their opinion prejudicially affected, put on a special value for duty purposes.
I want to say to my hon. friend that when he reads Hansard I do not think he will find that I made any suggestion or conveyed any idea such as he suggests, that I approved of section 43. If the minister will look at the record of the debates at that time he will find that I opposed as strenuously as I could just the sort of thing contained in that section. I pointed out that it was placing in the hands of the government a power which they were not entitled to exercise, the power of parliament to impose taxes and duties. I say to my hon. friend as positively and seriously as I can that I do not approve of section 43 and never have approved of it. I simply said to his leader, "If you were in the straits you have suggested, do not tell
1276	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
us you had to put on a ten per cent duty. Two years ago you took power to impose a special dumping duty by fixing a market value for duty purposes."
I just want to make this further point; I believe that already my hon. friend and the government to which he belongs are coming to realize-and it arises out of this imperial conference-that the provisions of section 43, and similar provisions, are not good for the trade of the dominion. We find in this agreement a provision whereby the surcharges on British goods are to be removed just as soon as possible, and this is one of the surcharges. So let my hon. friend take no comfort whatever from the fact that I referred his leader to section 43. I was only showing that he had ample power to accomplish the purpose he said he desired to accomplish, without putting on a 10 per cent duty. My hon. friend has not answered the contention made from this side of the house, that there was no reason under the sun for putting a 10 per cent duty on barbed wire at this time, and making it binding on us for five years, except one. That one was that he felt that putting 10 per cent on when the budget is brought down would be only fixing it from year to year, and that therefore t'he Canadian manufacturer would noi have the benefit of a fixed agreement such as we have in the pact now before us.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend has said
that he opposed the adoption of section 43. May I remind him that he was a member of the government that first put section 43 on the statute books, which at that time was limited in its application to natural products. All we did was to enlarge it and apply it to other products. My hon. friend was in the government that originated the legislation and approved of the principle. We only extended the application of that principle.


James Layton Ralston: I want to tell my hon. friend that I was not a member of the government which took that action; that was done before my day. As he says very fairly, the section only applied to a limited list of agricultural products, and at that time it was bitterly opposed by the then leader of the opposition.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: The section was general in its application to natural products.


George Gibson Coote: I should like to bring to the attention of the committee and of the minister one point that as yet has not been mentioned in connection with this question of barbed wire. My point is that the price the farmer receives for his cattle is the only money with which he can buy barbed wire.

The Prime Minister stressed the fact that we had a big advantage in connection with barbed wire in that it was sold here at $2.32 per hundredweight as compared with S2.60 in the United States. I find that yesterday the top price for cattle in the Toronto stockyards was $4.50, and that at Chicago it was $8.50, or almost double the Canadian price. The United States farmer, we see, has more money with which to buy barbed wire, though I imagine he gets that wire as cheaply as the Canadian farmer buys it.
There is another point which I think has been overlooked; it is that in connection with many of these articles the farmer must pay the retail price, whatever that may be. Very often the farmer cooperatives find that they cannot fill their requirements from Canadian manufacturers or jobbers. In some cases they have refused to sell cooperative associations and the cooperatives have had to get their supplies from outside. I do not know whether that condition has ever obtained in connection with barbed wire, but it has in many other commodities; and once this duty is placed on barbed wire, any Canadian cooperative concern which wishes to secure barbed wire for its customers, may have to go outside for its requirements and pay this duty. It seems to me that wherever a tariff is put on for the benefit of the manufacturers there should be provision that they shall sell freely to cooperative organizations on the same terms as to jobbers and regular wholesalers. This I think is a very important point. It is owing to the tariff that certain wholesalers, jobbers and manufacturers in Canada persistently refuse to sell to cooperative organizations. I would suggest to the government that they insert in the customs tariff the provision that wherever there is a refusal to sell to cooperative organizations the tariff will be taken off.


Mr. MULLINS:: The hon. member for
Lisgar declares that we are merely sitting in our places over here and are afraid to speak. May I say for his information that in Marquette we are buying barbed wire cheaper today than ever before; it has not advanced one iota. Another thing I want to tell him is that we are not so keen on the use of barbed wire; we prefer Page wire. Good farmers will fence their farms with Page wire. You can pick out every member on the other side who fences his farm with barbed wire and you will find that he has a coil of it in his stomach. I remember the hon. member for Lisgar rising in his place a short time ago and lamenting about hides. Does he know that the hides of cattle in Canada are ruined by barbed wire? I would advise every farmer

United Kingdom
in Canada to fence his farm with Page wire. If the farmers would do this it would raise the price of their hides, and there would be no need for us to go to South America to bring in hides, as we are forced to do, selling our own hides at a ridiculous figure. The hon. member for Macleod compares the prices of cattle in Canada and in the United States. A good herd of cattle will sell at 5 cents when poor ones are not worth half a cent. I do not know what he is comparing them with. I have become tired of listening to these arguments, because they are all wrong. Let the farmer fence his farm with as much Page wire as he can and get away from this barbed wire argument, which is not helping agriculture one bit. I will say this to the hon. member for Lisgar. If any duty is raised through action on this side he will hear me speak about it, because it will be taken away if I have anything to say about it, and propaganda such as he is putting forward for political purposes will not be worth anything when the time comes for him to go to the country.


Albert Joseph Brown: The hon. member for Marquette is always amusing if not convincing. He says they are buying barbed wire in Marquette cheaper today than ever before. I cannot accept that statement as being in accordance with the facts because I am quite certain that the price is no lower in Marquette than it is in Lisgar, and it is not as cheap in Lisgar today as it has been in the past. However, that is not important.


Henry Alfred Mullins: There is not nearly the demand for barbed wire in Marquette that there is in Lisgar.


Albert Joseph Brown: The hon. member says that we should fence with Page wire instead of barbed wire. I agree with him absolutely.


Edward James Young: What is the duty on Page wire?


Albert Joseph Brown: Does he think of the difference in the cost? The hon. member for West Hamilton can sit back in a comfortable chair, knowing nothing about the concerns of the farmer, and criticize me for not being as temperate as the hon. member for Red Deer. This is the second time my conduct has been compared with that of the hon. member. All I can say is that if hon. members opposite knew as well as I know, from practical experience extending over a great many years, the conditions that confront the farmers today, they would not be able to present the case as temperately and unconcernedly as some of them do. Will the hon. member for Marquette agree to support me-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Albert Joseph Brown: -in advocating a reduction in the duty on Page wire? He ought to know, as we all know, that to fence with Page wire involves a tremendously higher cost than the use of barbed wire. It costs almost a fortune to fence a farm today with Page wire. This is my personal business, but I may tell the hon. member that I put a sheep fence around a quarter section two years ago and it cost over $600, and if I had not had old posts of my own the cost would have been a great deal more. Hon. members must bear in mind that the posts for Page wire also cost a good deal more. Why does not the hon. member for Marquette come forward and advocate a reduction in the duty on Page wire? If he did so he would see how far he would get with hon. gentlemen opposite. So much for my hon. friend from Marquette. The Minister of Trade and Commerce, who is astute in diverting an argument from the strict point at issue, said that our objections were based upon the assumption-these may not have been his exact words-that immediately prices would be raised. Now, we know perfectly well and he knows that the business men, the manufacturers, are too astute to raise their prices immediately. But is it not to be expected, in the light of past experience, that the increase in duty will result in an increase in price? I am amazed-perhaps I should not say amazed, because nothing that happens on the other side amazes me now-rather, I might say that it is strange that farmer members opposite should accept the assurance of the government that prices will not be raised as a result of the increase in the duty, notwithstanding that they were firmly convinced that the increase in the duty on butter would result in an increase in price to the farmer. Why, the very purpose of putting on tariffs is to raise the price. That has been admitted again and again. While, therefore, we may not expect an immediate rise in the price of barbed wire, we must remember that this agreement extends over five years. Furthermore, while we have agreed in this treaty to maintain a margin of preference, that is to say, of 10 per cent as between free and 10, there is nothing in the agreement that will prevent the rasing of the duty on barbed wire from 10 to 20 per cent in the next five years. I do not fancy that will be forbidden under the terms of the agreement. Since the government has entered upon the course of protecting the manufacturer in Canada to the extent of 10 per cent, -we have no assurance that hon. gentlemen opposite will not continue in the path in which they have started.
1278	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements


Alfred Speakman: I am sorry that the minister could not give the hon. member for Bow River the information asked for in respect of prices for each of the last two or three years, because I have in mind that the price of iron and steel, the raw material, having dropped considerably in the last two or three years, wire should show some corresponding degree of diminution. As a matter of fact, without knowing the relative prices both of iron and steel and of wire during the last two or three years, we are not quite certain whether the dump price paid for Dutch wire or the price paid for Canadian wire is really a fair price when you consider the cost of the raw material itself.


Henry Alfred Mullins: May I ask the hon. member for Lisgar why he fenced that quarter section of land with Page wire.


Albert Joseph Brown: To hold the sheep in.


Henry Alfred Mullins: For the simple reason, if
he put the sheep in there with that barbed wire, he would see the wool hanging on the wire all over the place. He knew the barbed wire would strip the sheep and that is why he used the Page wire. Why did they stop using barbed wire in Belgium? Why did they ship it over here and dump it into this country? They did so because they knew they could not use it successfully on their farms, and any farmer that uses other than Page wire is making a mistake. It is better for him to fence his farm with Page wire even if it does cost a little more. We in Marquette are getting pretty well away from barbed wire, but I cannot speak so definitely about the district from which the hon. member comes. I know we prefer to fence our farms with Page wire rather than barbed wire. Barbed wire, however, is not costing any more today-and I am speaking of the present time-than it did previously; it is to my knowledge, as Cheap today as it ever was in Marquette.


Albert Joseph Brown: That has nothing to do
with the case.


Charles A. Stewart: I do not
think I would have risen had it not been for the fact that the hon. member for West Hamilton (Mr. Bell) would seem to wax somewhat eloquent in defence of this increase in duty, and that t)he minister assures us there will be no increase in price. It will be something new in the calendar of prices if there is no increase when a duty is imposed. Obviously, the object in imposing a duty is to keep competition out. I admit we are human and are always ready to get 
whatever we can under the provisions of this agreement.


Leslie Gordon Bell: Oh, oh.


Charles A. Stewart: I am unalterably opposed to this agreement, but there is one industry in Canada and that is rubber, where they have not been taking full advantage of the duty which is provided.


Leslie Gordon Bell: That is very
human.


Charles A. Stewart: That is
human for a manufacturer. What I wanted to remark was this: like my colleague from the east I am surprised that the dumping duty was not invoked. I must congratulate the government on the fact that this is one item in connection with which they did not invoke the dumping duty when they had an opportunity to do so. That, in itself, however, makes me rather suspicious of the increase.
There are some very interesting things in connection with this increase. One of them is that there has been a reduction in connection with raw products entering into the manufacture of wire and it is rather remarkable that wire, unlike wheat, cattle and sheep with which the hon. member for Marquette has endeavoured to pull the wool over our eyes, has not dropped seriously in price. One would look for a greater reduction. My complaint is that the excessive tariff imposed by my hon. friends opposite has been the cause of this. When they were able to invoke tariffs, world prices prevailed, but the farmers are suffering a very severe reduction in the prices of their commodities. My hon. friends from West Hamilton and South Essex and some others must have known who were the users of upholstery. The farmers have .pot an opportunity of using it these days; they sit on wooden seats. As regards wire entering into the manufacture of upholstery the duty is just one-half that on barbed wire. It is remarkable how much information the Prime Minister, a bachelor, has about ladies' apparel. There is no increase in the duty on steel entering into the construction of stays. That is allowed to remain at five and a half per cent or one-half the amount charged against barbed wire. My hon. friend can sit and read his paper in comfort on springs, the duty on which is one-half that upon barbed wire.


Leslie Gordon Bell: They do not wear stays nowadays.


Charles A. Stewart: Where did my hon. friend get the information? I was

United, Kingdom
not aware of that; I thought they were still in use. The fact that they are not used any more of course explains why this government did not put a duty on them. It is remarkable that while hon. gentlemen are satisfied to admit free of duty articles which they in urban localities have to use and which they may require as a raw product in their manufactures, wherever the chance arises they give their unanimous approval to any proposal to soak the consumer a little bit more.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: As regards prices, I
should like to put on record some figures that have been sent to me in correspondence I have had from the west. My information is that a new price list was issued by the Canadian manufacturers of barbed wire on September 27, 1932. This was an increase of nineteen cents for a spool of barbed wire to wholesalers. My correspondent says that by the time this reaches the farmer it would probably mean an increase of from 30 to 35 cents per spool. This, of course, had nothing to do with the treaty; the treaty could not be blamed for fixing this price, but the application of tihe dumping jdiity against importations of barbed wire from Holland prior to that is blamed as being the cause of this. I do not know whether that is so or not. Possibly the minister could give us some further information with regard to these prices.
There is one thing to which I wish to draw the minister's attention. In a letter which I have from a western importer, he states that in November, 1932, the continental price of standard barbed wire was $48.80 for 2,240 pounds in Canadian funds. He quotes ithe same quality of barbed wire in Britain at $72.50 peT 2,240 pounds in Canadian funds. His whole argument is that ordinarily it is utterly impossible for barbed wire manufactured in Britain to come into Canada. Of course I am not altogether convinced that is true, because I find from the figures quoted in Trade of Canada we imported for the twelve months ending March, 1932, barbed wire to the following amounts:
From	V alue
Great Britain	 $10,382
United States	 39,076
Belgium	 28,330
Germany	 13,470
Netherlands	 33,752
It would appear fairly obvious that if there were the disparity in prices which these figures indicate, it would be impossible for this barbed wire to come in from Great Britain. The minister, however, might enlighten us upon this question because it is very important as to the relative prices on barbed wire manufactured on the continent and in Great Britain.
I may say that the same importer points put in his letter that a Hamilton manufacturer of barbed wire charges S2.474 per spool for standard barbed wire, four-point, delivered at Fort William, but the same manufacturer ships that down the St. Lawrence river, around the Panama canal, up the Pacific ocean to Vancouver and delivers it there for $2.35 a spool to meet competition. He is endeavouring to prove that the application of the dumping duty did give the local manufacturer an opportunity to act in restraint of trade, to take advantage of the local consumer in eastern Canada and on the prairies. Possibly the minister might give us some information on that point. I would ask him particularly if he has any information to confirm or challenge the figures given to me by this wholesaler as to the difference in price between British and continental barbed wire. I will send the papers over to the minister so that he can have a look at them.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am sure that my hon. friend will realize that one cannot, merely by looking at figures given by one wholesaler, confirm or contradict the figures. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre a few moments ago gave comparative figures as to the British and continental prices, showing the price in Great Britain higher than on the continent. I can neither confirm nor challenge the figures. But what I do wish to poinlt out to the committee, as I have already done, is this:	We
do not deny, in fact we know, that at the present time and for the last year or thereabouts there has been a definite dumping of this commodity from the continent of Europe, and we know pretty well how they evade the dumping section of the act. But as I intimated a moment ago, we do not consider we are justified in calling upon the Canadian industry or Canadian dealers to fix a definite and fair price based upon a deliberate dumping from a foreign country. This dumping is a class of business which unfortunately has been going on all over the world. Everybody deplores it, and I think there is a genuine desire on the part of all countries to get away from it. I think it is more or less useless to go into a long discussion of it. One thing is certain, that the price of barbed wire today is lower than it has been for several years. We do claim also that the Canadian industry has treated the Canadian consumer with absolute fairness, and I do not think anybody challenges that statement.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Does not the minister
think the price of barbed wire ought to be lower in view of the price of farm products?
1280	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have already admitted that. There is no doubt that there ought to be a lower price today than previously because of the drop in the price of raw materials. May I point out one thing in that regard? The hon. member for West Edmonton a few moments ago said that there had not been a corresponding drop in the retail price as compared with farm products. That is true. Why? Largely because wages have not fallen. I am not prepared at all to subscribe to the doctrine that there should be a wholesale drop in wages, but that is one of the fixed charges which have not come down in correspondence with the fall in commodity prices. What we are all hoping for is a restoration of fair commodity prices so that there may not be any need for a serious reduction in wages, which would add to the distress of the country still further.


Milton Neil Campbell: I quite appreciate what the minister says with regard to the domestic price of barbed wire. I went into this matter very fully and I find that in Canada in September, 1900, the price of galvanized barbed wire was $2.80 per spool, and that the price ran as high as $4.80 in 1920, after which there was a progressive drop to $2.60 in October, 1932. The price is lower today than it was in 1900.
But the principal point that I wished to make in the remarks I addressed to the minister was with respect to the alleged difference between the British and continental prices. It is possible that the prices quoted for continental barbed wire were distress prices, not the regular prices, but the figures quoted to me and which I gave to the committee a moment ago showed the British price to be fifty per cent higher than the continental price. If that be the case there is no possibility of barbed wire coming into Canada under this item at all. It would simply mean an increased price to the consumer. Further, the figures showing that there were importations from Britain last year nearly equal to the importations from different continental countries would seem to disprove that alleged difference in prices, because if there was that difference in prices certainly no barbed wire would have come in from Great Britain. These figures, however, have been broadcast throughout the country, and I think most hon. members have received the same telegrams and communications that I have, and if the minister has any prices available, I think they should be put on record to show whether the figures I have quoted are correct or not.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have had a very brief
opportunity of glancing over the paper my hon. friend has sent me. I notice that it is a statement computed by a Canadian firm on the Pacific coast representing a Holland exporter; that is, it is an importing firm on the Pacific coast representing Holland interests. I also notice that the figures quoted are the same as those given by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre. I think it would be most unfair to the British manufacturer to accept without careful checking prices given by the representative in this country of Britain's competitors. I do not know anything that could be more unfair than that. I do not say that this gentleman would deliberately mislead, but of course he is working in his own interests, and he wishes to preserve the continuance of what we know to be the dumping of continental barbed wire on to this continent. He represents those who are doing the dumping and consequently I would be very hesitant to accept his figures as fair. I would not say that they are not right because I have not had time to check them.


Milton Neil Campbell: Like the minister I
feel that the figures may not be correct in view of the fact that we did import a very considerable quantity of barbed wire from Great Britain last year, which would hardly have been possible if there had been such a difference in price.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: As I see it, this
tariff item effects three purposes. It gives the country an opportunity to understand what the government meant when they said they were going to make the tariff fight for the farmer. It affords protection to a manufacturer when the interests of that manufacturer conflict with that of the consumer. Apparently the manufacturers of barbed wire got along very nicely for nearly a third of a century with barbed wire on the free list, until we came to a time quite recently when barbed wire came into this country from Holland at a cheaper price. That was too good a break to let the farmers, the buyers of barbed wire, enjoy. That would never do. A break in favour of the farmers was something that- this government could not entertain. Therefore they came to the rescue of the manufacturer and put a ten per cent duty on barbed wire. Is that a fair way of putting it, Mr. Chairman? I think it is. Free barbed wire for many years operated satisfactorily, and stood up against competition. At this time, however, when farmers are in difficulties-I was going to make

United Kingdom
specific mention of the dairymen, but I shall speak generally-when all farmers are at the bottom of the ditch, and at a time when before long the whole country will be in the same ditch, drastic tariff changes upwards are made and pegged. This tariff change also permits the ministry to pad up still further the list of more or less fictitious preferential duties in favour of the motherland. When we come to the item concerning cream separators we will have a further very striking example of this fact.
These tariff changes serve another purpose, namely, that of gradually widening the gulf concerning tariff matters existing between the ministerial and opposition sides of the house. I am sorry for those who have to use barbed wire, because indigestible as it may be I am a consumer myself. I think the tariff issue between the two historic parties will be made more clear by this objectionable change of putting barbed wire off the free list so that when we go to bat next time we will know exactly where the government stands, and will have a clear conception of just how the government seeks to make the tariff fight for the farmers of Canada. I think hon. members will agree that this discussion will not effect any changes in the schedule now before us, but I felt I should voice my protest as strongly as possible. Possibly I shall have something further to say when we come to another item, cream separators, which in my view is equally outrageous.


Jean-François Pouliot: Is there a clause in the
agreement which prevents re-export from Great Britain?


The CHAIRMAN:: Order.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am in order.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: No.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: No doubt the hon. member is aware of the provision which calls for empire content of not less than 50 per cent. Possibly that is the provision he has in mind.


Jean-François Pouliot: Is the minister sure Great Britain will not import cream separators from the United States and send them back to Canada?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Order; we must confine ourselves to the item in question.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am doing so.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: That action cannot be
taken in regard to cream separators.


Eccles James Gott: I have listened to the debate on this item, and the only two objections I
have heard from hon. members opposite are, first, an objection to buying British goods and second, an objection to buying Canadian goods. Of the two evils the latter is the greater.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is very pretty.


Albert Joseph Brown: That is a distinct contribution to the debate.


Jean-François Pouliot: Change your wires.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The next item is-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We have not
yet agreed to item 401; I understand we have only covered the first part of it.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: No, I read it all.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Although there is not much more to be said in regard to the. barbed wire item, there are one or two general comments I should like to make. I draw the attention of the committee to the fact that subsections (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) and (g) of item 401 contain no changes in the British preferential rates. There have been four changes in the general tariff. In two cases the change is from free to 10 per cent, in another from 20 to 25 per cent, and in another from 30 to 35 per cent. In the intermediate tariff there are changes in all seven sections of the item. They are as follows: From free to 10 per cent; from 22$ to 25 per cent; from 15 to 20 per cent; from free to 10 per cent; from 17$ to 20 per cent; from 25 to 30 per cent and from 17i to 20 per cent. The purpose of the changes in the intermediate tariff is to bring the intermediate rates to the same level as those appearing in the general tariff. These changes make it difficult, if not impossible, to negotiate agreements with other countries wishing to trade with Canada. It may be all very well to consider the advantage of the British preference as it applies to a British industry, but when we look at the iron and steel schedules as a whole we find that it is a case of carving up the industry of the British Empire in the interests of manufacturers. Where changes have been made they have been made for one group of manufacturers to serve the interests of other manufacturers. That might be well enough if some advantage ultimately accrued to the consumer, but it cannot be supported when in the long run the added cost is passed on as extra taxation to the consumer. Giving an advantage through the British preference must not be considered from the point of view of one industry alone, but from that of the country as a whole. Our objection to the schedule in its entirety is that there has been consideration for only that which is of
1282	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
advantage to the manufacturers concerned in the iron and steel business in its different forms, and that it ignores altogether the injurious effect 'the changes will have on other interests in the country, particularly the great consuming public.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-406: Coil chain, coil chain links, including repair links, and chain shackles, of iron or steel:
(b) less than one and one-eighth inches in diameter:	British preferential tariff, 15 per
cent: intermediate tariff, 25 per cent; general tariff, 25 per cent.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The imports under this
item last year amounted to only $46,000. Of that amount $25,000 came from the United Kingdom, $10,000 from the United States and [DOT]$11,000 from other countries.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There again is the same objection. The British preference remains just where it was, but the general and intermediate tariffs have been shoved up five per cent. In each case the tariff was very high before, standing at 20 per cent, and it is now at 25 per cent. The object is not only to raise the tariff, but, as has been pointed out, to peg the price for the next five years so the Canadian manufacturer may be sheltered behind excessively high tariffs during that time.


Mr. DUFF:: What was the value of these
goods manufactured in Canada last year?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It is impossible to give an accurate answer because they were not classified separately. The total production of which this would form a part was $1,000,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-407a. Chains, of iron or steel, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, 20 per cent; intermediate tariff, 30 per cent; general tariff, 35 per cent.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The imports last year were valued at $89,000, of which $12,000 came from the United Kingdom, $75,000 from the United States and S2,000 from other countries.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Chairman, could there be an example more palpable than this of endeavouring to increase the tariff under the pretext of giving Great Britain an increased preference? The British preferential rate remains at 20 per cent, the same as it was previously. If the government had wished to give a real preference to Great Britain they could have lowered the tariff to 15 per cent or 10 per cent. But instead of doing that they shove up a tariff standing at the high figure of 30 per cent, making it 35 per cent. Further, they changed the intermediate rate
LMr. Mackenzie King]
from 27i per cent to 30 per cent. This is an instance of simply increasing protection without in any way helping the Britisher.


Mr. NEILL:: This change in tariff will add to the cost of logging in British Columbia: my hon. friends from British Columbia reproached me the other day for not being wildly enthusiastic about the agreement, this item is an illustration of why I am not. No doubt it will increase very considerably the cost of operating in logging camps.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-408.	Malleable sprocket
chain and link belting chain, of iron or steel, including roller chain of all kinds for operating on steel sprockets or gears, when imported by manufacturers of agricultural implements for use exclusively in the manufacture of agricultural implements, in their own factories, under regulations prescribed by the minister: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 10 per cent; general tariff, 10 per cent.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The imports under this item last year amounted to $24,000, of which $6,000 came from the United Kingdom and $18,000 from the United States.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This, as the exMinister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) has said, is just another instance of tariffs being made to fight against the farmer. The item relates to articles which enter into agricultural implements. The policy of the late Liberal administration was to free agricultural implements from duty as far as possible, and this item was free all across. Hon. gentlemen have left it where it was under the British preference, but they have put the duty up to 10 per cent in the intermediate and 10 per cent in the general. The minister has just shown what a small proportion came from Great Britain compared with the amount imported from other countries. It is another instance of a tariff for manufacturers, made by manufacturers, and put on the statutes by a manufacturers' government.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-409. Cream separators and complete parts therefor, including steel bowls: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 25 per cent; general tariff, 25 per cent.
William Richard Motherwell: I understood from a remark made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce a few days ago, when someone mentioned cream separators, that he had good justification for making this change. We would like to hear his alibi right now.


Henry Herbert Stevens: And I trust it will end the matter. It has been alleged that there is no value in this item, as regards the extension of British empire trade, because we do not bring cream separators from Great Britain.

12S3
United Kingdom
Another allegation was that this will merely result in an increase in the price. I am going to deal briefly with both those points, but I hope as completely as necessary. First may I say that Canada will have access to other markets for cream separators. That should be borne in mind. Cream separators were introduced into this country, as far as Great Britain is concerned, about forty years ago, and it is rather interesting to know that the head of the firm which introduced the first cream separator into Canada at that time, was R. A. Lister of the R. A. Lister Company. I had a call the other day from the son of the gentleman who was and I assume still is the head of this firm, and had an opportunity of discussing the question with him from the standpoint of trade with Great Britain. This company sold very substantial quantities of
cream separators to Canada. The history of the business is divided into pre-war and post war periods. This old country firm manufactured cream separators very extensively up to the outbreak of the war, when they turned their plant over to the British government for the manufacture of munitions, and the exportation of cream separators to Canada virtually stopped. They have exported some few to this country since. Another point is that very substantial quantities of cream separators have been imported annually into Canada from other countries, notably the United States and Sweden. Sweden, as hon. gentlemen will recall, is among the best manufacturers of this article in the world, they are very efficient and their product is very good. I will give a statement which with the permission of the committee I will place on Hansard:
Canada's imports of cream separators, with amount of imports from the United Kingdom, the United States, Belgium and Sweden
Canada's	Imports from:
Years ended March 31st:	total imports	United Kingdom	United States	Belgium	Sweden1910 (a)	. No.	(b)	(b)	(b)	(b)	(b)$	585,148	87,035	487,261	4,0811911 (a)	. No.	(b)	(b)	(bl	(b)	(b)%	387.340	91,874	263.384	11.930	10,6691912 (a)	. No.	(b)	(b)	(b)	(b)	(b)$	361,896	97.097	236.311	13,938	7.2851913 (a)	. No.	(b)	(b)	(b)	(b)	(b)$	467,849	94.264	350,518	6,888	15,0091914 (a)	. No.	(b)	(b)	(b)	(b)	(b)$	401,399	43,200	303,439	24,407	25,9711915 (a)	. No.	(b)	(b)	(b)	(b)	(b)$	408,702	41,016	291,959	39.619	27.9271916 (a) 	No.	(b)	(b)	(b)	(b)	(b)$	304.403	14,456	258.276	31.0921917 (a)	. No.	(b)	(b)	(b)	(b)	(b)$	334,456	11,476	296.967	25.4431918 (a)	. No.	(b)	(b)	(b)	(b)	(b)$	477,880	468,680	9.2001919 (a)	. No.	(b)	(bj	(b)	(b)	(b)$	651,991	730	594,083	57,1781920	. No.	19,487	840	17,598	250	799$	749,022	27,878	687,086	16,271	18,4871921	. No.	24.383	1,821	18,323	1,124	3,114$	956,785	101,557	686,033	88,833	80.1061922	8,088	688	4,450	1,631	1,319$	314,202	25,699	189,737	62,241	36,5251923	. No.	5,530	4,662	402	447$	229,656	200,437	12,969	14.3141924	. No.	12,030	31L3	8,757	1,076	1,871$	509,973	10,973	420,867	30,473	43.7681925	. No.	10.998	130	5,581	1,339	3,575$	408,787	1.748	263.621	46,625	81,6521926	. No.	18.055	943	10,614	661	4,424$	742,794	25,984	545,111	19,800	97.8281927	. No.	23,658	235	13.892	1,552	6,208$	997,548	7,218	729.263	32.511	154.1661928	. No.	16.910	7.676	2,177	5.164$	611,245	357,270	79,157	106,8021929	. No.	19,451	521	10,112	2,494	4,527%	853,495	11,862	586,484	96,446	100,5321930	22,010	11,328	1,844	6,525$	955,182	681.530	63.502	129.9261931.. 	. No.	23,838	14,763	2,653	5,218$	1,089,904	859.311	85,953	106,7011932	. No.	10.530	5,920	3,937$	455,721	338,323	103,663(a)	including steel bowls for cream separators to 1920.(b)	entered at value only as far as 1920.1284	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
The importations from the United States, roughly speaking, averaged S350,000 a year during this period. Belgium in the first ten years exported practically none, but during the last ten years Belgium has exported a very considerable number. I have not all the figures for 1932, but I notice that Sweden also shipped a considerable quantity of cream separators to Canada during that period. Those importations were as follows:
1910		 $ 4,081
1911		 10,669
1912		 7,285
1913		 15,009
1914		 25,971
1915		 27,927
1916		 31,092
1917		 25,443
1918		 9,200
1919		 57,178
1920		 18,487
1921		 80,106
1922		 36,525
1923		 14,314
1924		 43,768
1925		 81,652
1926		 97,828
1927		 154,166
1928		 106,802
1929		 100,532
1930		 129,926
1931		 106,701
1932		 103,663
A review of these figures indicates that we have had very material quantities of cream separators imported into this country. Great Britain, one of the earliest producers of cream separators, and one of the countries that in the earlier days prior to the war shipped us considerable quantities, is capable of producing and marketing cream separators in Canada successfully. In addition, I am assured by the representative of the British firm to which I have referred that they have made contacts with Canadian concerns to distribute their cream separators in Canada in what they hope will be increasing quantities. In return, they have made arrangements for the distribution in Great Britain of such Canadian agricultural machinery as may be suitable to that market.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: Did this company in
England make these arrangements before or after the conference?


Henry Herbert Stevens: They were made after the conference, and as a result of it. Now I should like to say a word in regard to production. I should like to give the imports in numbers, not in dollars, for the sake of comparison, with the corresponding figure for production in Canada. Then the committee

will have in mind the extent to which the domestic production corresponds to the importation :
Canadian Imports production
1923	
5,530	14,2791924	
12,030	11,1551925	
10,998	11,8971926	
18,055	17,6491927	
23,658	16,6431928	
16,910	14,9211929	
19,451	13,4311930	
22,010	8,6161931	
23,838	7,218
A comparison of these figures would indicate an increase in importations during the last ten years much greater than the production. In that regard it clearly shows the nature of the business in Canada. I submit to the committee in the first place that the British manufacturers of cream separators are competent to effectively supply this market. For the moment I am not suggesting that there should be a total exclusion of foreign cream separators, but I do submit that there is a sound case here for giving the British manufacturers a chance in this market, when you bear in mind that for our Canadian producers of cream separators we are securing equivalent treatment in the markets of the other dominions. In other words, we will have an opportunity to sell our goods in the other dominions just as freely as Great Britain can sell her goods.


Charles A. Stewart: Have there been any exports from Canada?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, I have the figures
for the export of cream separators from Canada, which are as follows:
1923		 $176,190
1924		 82,185
1925		 108,698
1926		 101,685
1927	 100,092
1928		 77,197
1929		 51,991
1930		 37,339
1931		 30,792
1932		 5,660


Alan Webster Neill: Where did they go?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I understand that a very
considerable quantity went to the United States, though some went to New Zealand and some, I think, to South Africa and Australia. I think we exported a considerable quantity to empire countries, though I have not those figures before me. Then we also had a considerable re-export business; that is, we exported foreign cream separators from Canada as well as those of domestic production.

Questions as Orders for Returns


Charles A. Stewart: I suppose
the machines exported are United States machines.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Not all, but I presume
they were mainly United States machines; I think it would be safe to say that the great proportion of our re-export would be machines of American manufacture.
The point I am making is that in this business there is a capacity for expansion, both Canadian and British, without doing any injury to either the consumer or the producer in this country. As I have already indicated, we have received an added advantage in the markets of the other parts of the empire, and we are giving to Great Britain an advantage in this market so far as foreign competition is concerned. At the same time we have already developed in Canada a very healthy and substantial business in the production of cream separators. I questioned the gentleman with whom I spoke as to the price at which Great Britain could lay down those cream separators here; I must say that he spoke with reasonable reserve and I felt safe in putting confidence in what he said. He assured me that not only could they supply the market, but that the price would not be advanced over the price that had been paid for foreign separators as well as for their own. He told me there was no possibility or danger or likelihood of an increase in price because of this adjustment. I think they fully appreciate the value of this market for cream separators, and today are arranging for sales organizations throughout the country for the purpose of selling these machines.


Charles A. Stewart: Did he disclose to the minister the reason why the British manufacturer got out of the market?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, he did, and I am
glad my hon. friend mentioned that. He said they lost their business during the war because they turned their factory over for the production of war materials. During that period they were agents for a Swedish cream separator company, and in their foreign business they acted for that company. While I am not certain who was the chief exporter to Canada of the cream separators recorded as from Sweden, I am reasonably sure that it was from this particular firm. Having got back into business again, they are now prepared from their British factory to supply this market in quantity.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Rhodes the house adjourned at 6 p.m.
Friday, November 18, 1932