[Stage Direction]
Second report of the joint committee of both houses on the printing of parliament.- Mr. Marcil.
Fifth report of the select standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.-Mr. Glen.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. L. S. RENE MORIN (St. Hyacinthe-Rouville) presented the second report of the select standing committee on standing orders.
Mr. MORIN moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

Hon. FERNAND RINFRET (Secretary of State):: I desire to lay on the table reference No. 96 in reply to Mr. Black (Yukon) concerning treaty, agreement or arrangement between Japan and Canada as regards Japanese immigration. This is the return alluded to by my hon. friend yesterday.



PETITION

Mr. W. F. GARLAND (Carleton) moved:: That the petition of Marjorie Mary Gwendolyn Dempsey Davis, of Montreal, Quebec, praying for a bill of divorce from Maurice Edward Davis, which was presented to the house on the 13th instant, together with the report of the clerk of petitions thereon, be referred to the select standing committee on standing orders for the purpose of considering the suspension oi standing order 92 in relation thereto.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 202, for the relief of Mary Ada St. George.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 203, for the relief of Sam Finkel-stein.-Mr. Heaps.
Bill No. 204, for the relief of Martha Barker. -Mr. Gray.
Bill No. 205, for the relief of Janet Ella Pettigrew Thomson.-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine)
Bill No. 206, for the relief of Margaret Jean McClelland Dewar.-Mr. Hay.
Bill No. 207, for the relief of Ada Margaret Ruddick.-Mr. McPhee.
Bill No. 208, for the relief of Wilhelmina Emily Rudolph.-Mr. Bell (St, Antoine).
Bill No. 209, for the relief of Mabel Orion Baldwin.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill	No.	210,	for	the	relief	of	Antoine
George Massabky.-Mr. Sanderson.
Bill	No.	211,	for	the	relief	of	Dorothy
Agnes Dowling.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 212, for the relief of Arthur Leslie Catton.-Mr. Maybee.
Bill No. 213, for the relief of Ruth Lyford Smith.-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).
Bill No. 214, for the relief of Rhona Elizabeth Shaw Richardson.-Mr. Black (Yukon).
Bill	No.	215,	for	the	relief	of	Richard
Trawny Parsons.-Mr. Harris.
Bill No. 216, for the relief of Armand Du-four.-Mr. Geary.
Bill No. 217, for the relief of Jessie Lillian Gwen Richmond-Parry.-Mr. Sanderson.
Bill No. 218, for the relief of Christina Dale Kingsbury.-Mr. Maybee.
Bill No. 219, for the relief of Gladys Hol-lings.-Mr. Spence.
Bill No. 220, for the relief of Nellie Louise Hughes.-Mr. Anderson (Toronto-High Park).
Bill No. 22:1, for the relief of Minnie Roberts.-Mr. Black (Yukon).
Bill No. 222, for the relief of Isabella Glennie Lefever.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 223, for the relief of Aileen Somerville Thomas.-Mr. Gray.
Bill No. 224, for the relief of Harris Charlton, Eckmiere.-Mr. Lawson.
Bill No. 225, for the relief of Rhea Blanche Wilson.-Mr. Harris.
Bill No. 226, for the relief of Edna Wall.- Mr. Lawson.
Bill No. 227, for the relief of Thomas Edwin Warburton.-Mr. Lawson.
Bill No. 228, for the relief of Thomas Garfield McCormick.-Mr. White (London).
Bill No. 229, for the relief of Thomas Richardson.-Mr. Lawson.
Bill No. 230, for the relief of Leslie Gregory. -Mr. Black (Yukon).
Bill No. 231, for the relief of Muriel Laburnum Christie.-Mr. Lawson.
Bill No. 232, for the relief of Edith Matilda Epplett.-Mr. Lawson.
Bill No. 233, for the relief of Ruth Victoria Spooner.-Mr. Black (Yukon).
Bill No. 234, for the relief of John Henry Coulter.-Mr. Lawson.
Bill No. 235, for the relief of Gertrude Anne Williams.-Mr. Casselman.
Inquiry for Return
[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 236, for the relief of Leonard George Edward Bond.-Mr. Lawson.
Bill No. 237, for the relief of Grant Johnston.-Mr. Baldwin.
Bill No. 238, for the relief of Burton Orland Boomhover.-Mr. Peek.
Bill No. 239, for the relief of Augusto Tranzzi.-Mr. Lawson.
Bill No. 240, for the relief of Claire Yale Lacourse.-Mr. McPhee.
Bill No. 241, for the relief of Marion Francis Blewett.-Mr. Peck.
Bill No. 242, for the relief of Hartley Franklin Upper.-Mr. Rennie.
Bill No. 243, for the relief of Florence Edna Curliss.-Mr. Young (Toronto Northeast).
Bill No. 244, respecting a certain patent of The R. M. Hollingshead Company.-Mr. Black (Yukon).

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 201 to incorporate the Portage la Prairie . Mutual Insurance Company.-Mr. McPherson.


Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Minister of National Defence):: Some time ago my hon. friend
from Kingston (Mr. Ross) asked me a question in regard to a return concerning the Royal Military College coal supply. I have had the papers in my desk for some time, but the hon. member has not been in the house. On inquiry I find that the papers to which he refers have to do with the fulfilling of the contract. I understand the order asked for papers with regard to the tenders, and I wish to inform the hon. gentleman that the papers for which he has asked are way bills. There are about fifteen hundred of them and they are lodged with the Auditor General. If an order of the house were issued we could have delivery of anything the hon. gentleman wished, but I would ask him if it will serve his purpose if I arrange for him to have access to the original documents which are in the hands of the Auditor General.


Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: I think my return asked for communications connected with tenders.


James Layton Ralston: I am instructed that the return was in regard to tenders and communications.


Arthur Edward Ross: I shall have to ask the hon. gentleman to allow me to look over my order again.


James Layton Ralston: All right.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Vancouver Centre):: I would like to bring a certain matter to the attention of the government. Recently there has been reported the absorption of the Famous Players Canadian Corporation by the Paramount Famous Lasky Corporation of America, and I find that there has been a great deal of discussion about it. I have in my hand the Canadian Moving Picture Digest which contains very extensive editorials and comments of one kind and another in regard to this absorption. I shall read one or two extracts. One of them refers to the Canadian company as being the dominant theatre chain in the Dominion; it states that the Famous Players Canadian Corporation is distinctly a Canadian concern and financed by Canadian shareholders. In part, the editorial is as follows:
The Famous Players Canadian Corporation if sold to an American company, gives that company a film monopoly in Canada which is worth at least $100,000,000.
I wish to make another observation which represents my right to ask the question. In view of the prospectus issued to the public in March of 1929 wherein it was stated that voting trust certificates were listed on the Toronto and Montreal stock exchanges, and wherein Canadian control of the company was assured to Canadian shareholders, I wish to ask if the government has been apprised of the circumstances connected with the sale of the Famous Players Canadian Corporation to the Paramount Famous Lasky Corporation and if any action has been taken in connection therewith, or whether any action has been proposed.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I cannot answer on behalf of the government as a whole. If my hon. friend will allow the matter to stand as a notice, I will give the necessary answer at a later time.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Very well.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. LADNER (Vancouver South):: I would like to inquire from the Postmaster General (Mr. Veniot) if arrangements have

Civil Service-Beatty Commission
been completed for an air mail service to Vancouver, and when it is likely that such service will be installed.


Hon. P. J. VENIOT (Postmaster General):: Over the mountains?


Leon Johnson Ladner: Yes.


Peter John Veniot: The survey is about completed and we contemplate starting service this summer.


Leon Johnson Ladner: At what time?


Peter John Veniot: Daily service.


Leon Johnson Ladner: ' When?


Peter John Veniot: I am awaiting the passage of the estimates through the house so that the matter may be put in motion.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) based on an editorial which appeared in this morning's Citizen.
Fascist films were shown in Ottawa last Sunday. It is quite within the law to carry on Fascist propaganda, but some residents of Ottawa, of Italian origin, are rather disturbed about it. They have become Canadian citizens. They dislike the carrying on of a recruiting campaign which has the appearance of preparation for another war.
Apparently this sort of thing has been going on for some time in the United States, and the method used in that country was outlined in a widely discussed article which appeared in Harpers Magazine of November last. I should like to ask the Minister of Justice whether it is legally possible to hold recruiting campaigns in this open fashion, and if so whether steps will be taken to make representations to the Italian government in regard to the matter.


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: I shall look into the question as Hansard records it, and if I can give the information required by the hon. gentleman I shall be pleased to do so.



CIVIL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I seek as much as possible
to avoid raising questions of privilege. However, at least once in every parliament it 2419-137
seems neeessary to make a statement about some article which appears in the Ottawa Journal. This morning the following appears on the editorial page:	It is entitled "A
Promise, and a Performance":
On September 13, 1926, Mr. Mackenzie King stood in the Ottawa auditorium and addressing an audience composed largely of Ottawa civil servants, made this statement:
Then follows the statement in quotations:
"Last year, I recall we passed an order in council referring to the Civil Service Commission, the whole question of the revision of civil servants' salaries. We referred it to that body because, under a law which was passed prior to our coming into office, the Civil Service Commission was the body which had to do with the regulating of the salaries of civil servants. We made certain requests in the order in council as to the basis on -which a revision should be made. When we got the report of the commission it was not satisfactory, either to the government or the civil service. Having had representations from the service in regard to it we referred it back again to the commission."
The quotation continues with the following sentence in italics:
"Now I wish to say that if we are returned to power I intend to use what influence I can to see that the salaries are revised in accordance with the instructions given in the order in council."
The editorial continues:
That was three days before the last general election; Ottawa civil servants took Mr. King to mean what he said, helped return him to power.
On Wednesday, exactly four years after the foregoing pledge. Mr. King arose in the House of Commons and said this:
"So far as the government is concerned I may say we are giving very careful attention to the whole question of what is to be done *with regard to the salaries of members of the public service."
The comment of the newspaper on that statement follow's in the editorial and is as follows:
No need exists to comment upon what is revealed by these two statements made four years apart. They can be left to the intelligence of Ottawa civil servants themselves.
Mr. Speaker, any person reading that article would be led to believe that I had made a promise on the eve of an election with respect to the salaries of civil servants, that in the interval nothing had been done, and that four years later in speaking again of the salaries of civil servants I had been making reference to the same matter. As a matter of fact, when parliament met after the general election at the very first session this government asked parliament for an increase for civil servants to implement the promise made at that time, and to carry out exactly what was stated i*

2162	COMMONS
Civil Service-Beatty Commission
my remarks at the Auditorium as quoted. If hon. members wish the record they will find it in Hansard of April 14, 1927. At the very first session which was the earliest opportunity, the government in the estimates as tabled placed an amount of $2,700,000 "to provide for flat increases to the civil service, both inside and outside." The hon. the Secretary of State was dealing with this estimate on the 14th of April and made a statement with reference to this flat increase. I shall not read all that he said, but to make clear exactly how the increase related to the service I might quote from Hansard his words in part. They will be found at page 2506:
When this item was called last night I proceeded to give an explanation of the proposed salary revision but I acceded to the request of one hon. member opposite that I defer until to-day any statement that I wished to make, in order that it might be presented to a full house.
Then the Secretary of State went on to say:
The proposal now' before the committee is based on the principle of a flat increase to the different classes of the service in receipt of salaries up to $5,100.
Then a little further on:
The proposal is of a dual nature. First it raises the minimum and maximum in every class of the service by the sum of $120 except in the case of the lowest minimum, that is, the entrant class. That has not been touched. Our reason for not increasing the lowest minimum was that entrants to the service are not affected and we thought we should not touch that minimum. This increase is not only for the present year but it is a permanent addition; so that every civil servant not only receives immediate consideration but has an increased maximum at which he may hope to arrive in the future. I might add there have been other increases as well.
_ Now, Mr. Speaker, those are the facts, and in the light of them if there is any inference to be drawn from my remarks of Wednesday last I submit that it is that when this government makes a promise to the civil servants or to any other body in this country, they may rely on that promise being carried out.
I went on to say on Wednesday that we were considering further the question of salaries of civil servants, and that we were considering the advisability of having the Beatty commission, which investigated the salaries of professional and technical members of the service, consider the service generally in accordance with a recommendation made by the commission in its report to the government. To-day we have asked His Excellency to give his assent, and it has been given to an order in council which will enable that step to be taken. The powers of the commission will be extended to include an examination
fMr Mackenzie King.]
into the question of the salaries of civil servants generally in accordance with the recommendation to which I have referred. We have also thought it desirable to have referred to that commission for consideration and report the advisability of fixing a minimum salary for employees of the civil service. I have in my hand the order in council which contains these two directions to the commission and I shall table it forthwith.


Mr. HEAPS:: Before the Prime Minister sits down may I ask whether on this commission he will have a representative of labour?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We will have the same commission which already has gone so largely into the question of the salaries of the civil servants and which is familiar with so many phases of that question. We have thought it would be to the advantage of all concerned to give authority to that body.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I should like to point out,
if I may, that there was no representative of labour at all on that commission and that the chairman is a large employer of labour. I think it would be only fair to labour if they had a representative of labour on that commission.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think my
hon. friend will agree that the commission performed its work very thoroughly and in a manner which appears to have been fairly satisfactory to the part of the service whose positions and salaries were inquired into. The chairman is not the only member of the commission, though he is a member whose name is very much respected in this country, and whose judgment in these matters would be regarded as being generous as well as sound.
Mr. WOODSWORTI-I:	Is it not the professed policy of this government that labour shall be represented on all boards and commissions? Mr. Beatty is a large employer of labour, but the Canadian Pacific does not always pay very high wages to its employees


William Lyon Mackenzie King: All the organizations of the civil service will have an opportunity to appear before the commission.


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: Might I suggest
that this order in council be printed in full in Hansard as though it had been read by the Prime Minister?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I must thank
my hon. friend for the suggestion. I was regretting that I had not asked permission of the house to have it printed in Hansard, and I should like to have it added to my remarks. It is as follows:

C.N.R.-Interim Supply



P.C. 1053

[Stage Direction]
Certified to be a true copy of a minute of a meeting of the committee of the Privy Council, approved by His Excellency the Governor General on the 16th May, 1930.
The committee of the Privy Council have had before them a report, dated 15th May, 1930, from the Secretary of State, submitting:
1.	That by order in council P.C. 664, dated 15th April, 1929, a Royal commission composed of: Edward W. Beatty, Esq., president of the Canadian Pacific Railway; Sir George Garneau, Quebec, and Dr. Walter C. Murray, LL.D., Saskatoon. was appointed to inquire into rates of salaries, pensions, etc., of technical and professional officials of the Civil Service of Canada.
2.	That by order in council P.C. 1195, dated 2nd July, 1929, the said royal commission was authorized to include within the scope of its enquiry the salaries of civil service commissioners, board of pension commissioners, railway commissioners and all officers having the rank of deputy ministers and also all such employees of the government whether subject to the Civil Service Act or not.
3.	That the said royal commissioners have submitted their report containing certain recommendations and suggestions among which is the following:
"27. Suggested further investigation of the civil service generally.
During the course of our inquiry, we were impressed with the fact that those engaged in technical, scientific and professional work for the government, though they formed a very important branch of the civil service, were still in numbers only a moderate proportion of the total engaged in government service. The cost of government, measured by salaries or wages alone, is substantial, and the number of employees very great. Having in mind the obvious desire of the government, as indicated by the reference to us, to improve the status of its technical officers with a view to increasing the efficiency of that branch of the service, it has occurred to us that an investigation of the civil service generally, i.e., as to numbers, nature of work and rates of pay, might conceivably result in some economy and greater efficiency. We are sensible of the fact that such a work is of considerable magnitude and would involve careful scrutiny of the personnel in each department, and that it would take a considerable time, but we believe the results would more than justify the expense of such an investigation. We appreciate, of course, that this is not a subject which has been referred to us. and that our observations are not strictly pertinent under the terms of the order in council, but the information adduced during the course of the inquiry has pointed so strongly to the possibility of an effective and valuable work being done in this way, in a further effort to improve the personnel and increase the efficiency in government service, that we felt we might, without impro-riety. suggest for the consideration of the government that at the appropriate time it might profitably be undertaken."
The minister further submits that in his opinion it is advisable that such investigation should be undertaken without delay: also that the advisability of fixing a minimum salary, for employees in the civil service should be considered.
2419-137i
The committee, therefore, on the recommendation of the Secretary of State, advise that a supplementary commission be issued to the said commissioners extending the scope of the inquiry to include such investigation, and also the advisability of fixing a minimum salary for employees in the civil service.
E. J. Lemaire,
Clerk of the Privy Council.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G L. DIONNE (Matane): Before the orders of the day are called I should like to direct the attention of the Prime Minister to the fact that on the 14th instant a very serious fire occurred in a small village in my constituency named Ste. Florence, which destroyed some fifteen or twenty dwellings and their contents at an estimated loss of about $100,000. I should like to have this case thoroughly investigated and every possible assistance given to the parties concerned.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: The request my hon. friend has made is very similar to one which was made from the other side of the house a few days ago and in this case we will follow the same procedure.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS AND STEAMSHIPS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee of supply to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resol-ed. that a sum not exceeding $6,638,030.23. being the amount to be voted by Vote No. 321 for loans to the Canadian National Railway Company and Vote No. 322 for amounts required under the Maritime Freight Rates Act, as set forth in further supplementary estimates for the fiscal year ending 31st March. 1930, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, be granted to His Majesty for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1930.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Mr. DUNNING:: Mr. Chairman, the object of going into supply is to deal with the report of the special committee which had to do with Canadian National railways and shipping. It was thought that the business of the house would be facilitated by dealing with this matter now.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Chairman, I notice
that the chairman of the special committee is in his seat. I am not sure whether the report has been presented.
2104	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Interim Supply Bill


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, it was presented yesterday.


Sir EUGENE FISET:: The second report was presented yesterday, but the final report has not been presented as yet.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I do not rise to present any objection to this resolution. It was pointed out to the special committee by the management of the national railways that it was desirable to pass at least a portion of these estimates as soon as possible in order that work which can be carried on only in the summer months may be proceeded with, and it has been the practice of the house and of members on this side to assist the Canadian National Railways in every way possible in this particular. It was thought, however, that if the committee had completed its work the whole of the estimates might just as well have been passed. As a matter of fact the final report should have been presented and accepted by the house before these estimates were considered. I am not going to raise any particular objection but I wish to put that point on record as a matter of procedure, and to suggest that the report might be tabled at a later stage in the sitting and dealt with to-day, so that at least we should have the acceptance of the report by the house on the same day that we are passing these estimates.


Eugène Fiset: I should like to remind my hon. friend that the second report of the committee contains the two bills which were considered by it as well as the estimates, and that report was presented to the house yesterday. The final report has not been presented as yet, because we could not get a quorum this morning.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Quite so. I am not
desirous of obstructing the passage of this bill, but the final report was completed yesterday and I understood the committee had completed its work. The committee has completed its work and its report should have been at hand before we proceeded with the voting of supply. However, we are not going to object to the passing of these estimates, but I think the procedure I have suggested should be followed in the future.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Charles Avery Dunning: That a sum not exceeding $61,070,000. being the amount to be voted by Vote No. 323 for loans to the Canadian National Railway Company; Vote No. 324 for a loan to the Canadian Government Merchant Marine, Limited; Vote No. 325 for a loan to the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships, Limited; and Votes Nos. 326 and 327 for amounts required under

the Maritime Freight Rates Act, as set forth in supplementary estimates for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1931, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, be granted to His Majesty for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1931.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolutions reported, read the first and second times and concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Lion. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee of ways and means.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Charles Avery Dunning: That towards making good the supply granted to His Majesty on account of the public service for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1931. the sum of $61,070,900 be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Charles Avery Dunning: That towards making good the supply granted to His Majesty on account of the public service for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1930, the sum of $6,638,030.23 be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolutions reported, read the first and second times and concurred in. Mr. Dunning thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 140, for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial years ending respectively the 31st March, 1930, and the 31st March, 1931.
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second times and the house went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Mr. CAHAN:: Has this bill been distributed?


Charles Avery Dunning: This bill is in the same position as any other supply bill. The resolution has just been passed and the bill could not be distributed prior to that. There would be no objection to having the bill stand over pending distribution, but it is being treated in the same manner as supply bills usually are.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2, 3 and 4 agreed to.
Schedules A and B agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
The CHAIRMAN:: When the committee rose last evening it was considering resolution No. 3, but resolution No. 2 had been allowed to stand. No. 2 reads as follows:
2. Resolved, that the customs tariff, being chapter forty-four of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1927, be amended by repealing subsection two of section six thereof and by substituting the following therefor:-
(2) Excise duties or excise taxes shall be disregarded in estimating the market value of goods for the purpose of special duty when the goods are entitled to entry under the British preferential tariff, intermediate tariff or any more favourable tariff.
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance): That resolution was amended.


John Frederick Johnston: This resolution was
amended by adding thereto the following as section 2a:
2a. Customs duties of the United Kingdom shall be disregarded in estimating the market value of goods for the purposes of special duty when the goods are entitled to entry under the intermediate tariff or any more favourable tariff and are bottled in bond in the United Kingdom and imported direct therefrom.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: Yesterday evening, when
we were discussing this item, I asked the Minister of Finance to let the matter stand until I was able to get some papers, because I did not expect that the matter would come up before Monday. I have not yet all the information that I desire to get, but I have been to the department where I have taken the trouble to go through the customs returns and I should like to lay before the minister this aspect of the matter. Taking two months from the time that he speaks of, the 15th August-


Charles Avery Dunning: The 1st August.


James Dew Chaplin: Well, the 1st August, and taking September which will not be affected entirely by the change, I find the importations of this gummed silk, woven, which we manufacture in Canada, are, in round figures, as follows:
Month	Yards	ValueSeptember	
508,000	$258,000October	
389.000	196,000November	
410,000	231,000December	
412.000	225,000January	
640,000	350,000
Now let us take the same months in the following year and see what has happened.


Charles Avery Dunning: This is for 1929 now?


James Dew Chaplin: Yes. I am not going through the entire year; I am taking the same five months of the following year when the arrangement was fully understood; as compared with those of 1928:
Yards
Month	1928	1929September.	.	.	.	508,000	287,000October	
389.000	311,000November.	.	.	.	410.000	148.000December.	.	.	.	412,000	245.000January (1929). .	640,000	(1930) 305'000
The minister gives us the figures for a full year. I am showing how the manufacturer, who is making his living in this industry, views the matter. The decreases in the importations are as follows:
Month
September	
October	
November	
December	
January	
Yards
220,000
75,000
262,000
167.000
335.000


Mr. DONNELLY:: Can the hem. member compare the importations of 1927 and 1928?


James Dew Chaplin: No. I have the other
figures on a memorandum which I have at home. I have the matter worked out for several years and I have further information, but I went back to the source from which I got this information and got only the figures for these months so as to show the minister what I had in view.


James J. Donnelly: I only wanted to compare the two cases, one where the excise was on and the other where it was off.


James Dew Chaplin: I have the information
and it tells quite a story. This is a very important matter; this whole resolution is not going to get through to-day, and I think the minister can very well afford to let it stand over until Monday when we can get the whole story.


Charles Avery Dunning: The matter is one of important principle in a broad, general way, not merely as relating to silk. The question really is this:	Shall goods which are subject
to excise duty in the country of origin, become automatically liable to dumping duty on entering Canada, no matter what the goods are? No other nation treats the goods of another nation in the manner that for one year we treated goods of that character. The question is not one of an ordinary duty. From the point of view of international trade a very important question of principle is involved.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Have the minister and
his officers considered this phase of the matter? In Canada we are building up an industry
2166	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
of this character. I am referring now particularly to silk. This is a situation that we certainly ought to bear in mind. In Canada by provincial laws minimum wages are imposed, whereas in countries such as Japan, Germany, the central European countries and so forth, wages are not at all comparable with Canadian standards of wages. Inasmuch as by statute we impose upon Canadian manufacturers the obligation of paying a minimum wage which is far in excess of that paid in these other countries, has the minister considered the effect upon Canadian industry of the removal of the present measure, bearing in mind just that one phase of the question, the difference in wages? Unless the minister can show that no handicap is placed upon the Canadian manufacturer by virtue of the minimum wage statutes of the provinces, I think we are entitled to have this remain as it is or, as a compensation for it, an increase in the duty.


James Dew Chaplin: Last night the minister
presented practically the same argument. My contention is that when Japan imposes an excise duty upon an article, that adds so much to the market value of it; that is the price and the fair market value in that country after that duty is imposed. I may be repeating some of the arguments I advanced last night, but this is the situation:	Japan is to-day
supplying 85 per cent of the world's raw silk product and our manufacturers pay the government of Japan that 10 per cent excise duty. Does the minister realize that? We are doing the paying. That 10 per cent is in the value of the goods. Our manufacturers in Canada are paying that duty. Why should we not add it to the fair market value of the goods?


Charles Avery Dunning: I think my hon. friend
is wrongly informed.


James Dew Chaplin: I am not. How else could it be done? If that tax is imposed in the way of a consumption tax in Japan, who pays it?


Charles Avery Dunning: The people of Japan
pay it. It is not charged with respect to a commodity when it is exported.


James J. Donnelly: What protection have
silk and artificial silk?


Charles Avery Dunning: The duties are as follows:
Intermediate General Commodity	tariff	tariffSilk	
22i per cent	30 per centArtificial silk. . .. 30 per cent	35 per cent


James J. Donnelly: I think the duties
should be lowered.


James Dew Chaplin: The minister has answered the question there. Is that not the case? Does Japan not come under the French treaty?


Charles Avery Dunning: My figure was right.
The rate of duty applicable to Japan is 22^ per cent.


James Dew Chaplin: Is there any deduction for that under the special terms of the French treaty?


Charles Avery Dunning: Not that I am aware
of, but I will have that checked.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I would ask the minister
if he has laid on the table to-day the correspondence from the producers of these silks in Canada? I am interested particularly in the province of Quebec. I would like to have access to those documents before this discussion is concluded.


Charles Avery Dunning: I have no written representations from the silk manufacturers opposed to this measure. I saw them at the request of my hon. friend from Lincoln, and their representations were made orally. There were no written representations.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I understood that some representations were made in writing, either to the department of the minister or to the Department of National Revenue.


Charles Avery Dunning: I have none.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Would the representations,
if made in writing, come to the Department of Finance?


Charles Avery Dunning: Unquestionably, I would say.


James Dew Chaplin: In respect to the minister's answer given to me in regard to the French treaty, I notice that in schedule D French products are receiving fixed rates of duty, and that silk fabrics over 26 inches in width are rated at 20 per cent.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend asked me a question regarding Japan, as I understood it, and I gave the rates under the intermediate tariff.


James Dew Chaplin: I asked the question, does not Japan come under the French treaty? Most decidedly it does. I think, Mr. Chairman, it is not unreasonable to ask that this resolution stand because I have some other information that I want to put before the minister.


Charles Avery Dunning: 
George Halsey Perley: Will the minister give us some information as to the number of articles that will be affected by this change, and the countries they come from? Last night it was arranged that this resolution be left over until Monday in order that my hon. friend from Lincoln might get his papers. It is true that he is here to-day, but he has not got his papers; they are in St. Catharines. I think the minister should inform us as to the amount of goods that will come in under this clause, what they will consist of, and from what countries they will come in. If he is going to make a change in the tariff as regards the excise duty levied upon silk in Japan, he might have said so; but last night, as I understood it, he himself did not understand how far he was going or how many articles or countries would be affected. This is a broad and important item in the tariff which will require careful consideration, and if there is any information that we have on this side of the house which might be useful to the minister, I think the resolution might be left over until Monday, so that we may present our information and see just what this item means.


James J. Donnelly: I understand that most of the silk goods come from Japan, that it is Japan that is in the market against us. What is the excise tax in Japan? Then we can figure out what difference it makes.


Charles Avery Dunning: The excise tax in Japan is 10 per cent. In reply to my hon. friend from Argenteuil, I have heard from the gentlemen who were introduced by the hon. member for Lincoln most of the information, I think, which the hon. member for Lincoln desires to present. I do not want to press unduly to get items through, but at the same time I do want to get along a little if possible. With regard to information, my hdn. friend from Argenteuil will understand how utterly impossible it is to get the precise bearing of a matter of principle of this kind. As I said a moment ago, it is a question of whether or not the imposition of an excise duty by any country on any class of goods shall automatically render those goods subject to dumping duty when entering this country. That is the whole point. To make any calculation as to what would be involved in that is an impossibility. I can give some information regarding the taxes in other countries.


George Halsey Perley: Might I say to the minister that it is a theoretical idea which he has put forward, whether the excise duty should be included for duty valuation purposes. But what about the practical side of the thing?


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend misunderstands me. I did not say that it was a question whether or not the excise tax Should be included in calculating for duty purposes. I said, should it be regarded as automatically rendering the goods subject to dumping duty? That is a very different thing. The only change that is made is to get away from the situation which has existed since August 1, 1928, by which such goods, in addition to paying the duty, are automatically subject to dumping duty by reason of the existence of an excise tax in the country in which they are manufactured. In France, for instance, there is a sales or turn-over tax of 2 per cent; in Belgium, 1 per cent. In Belgium there is also a 6 per cent luxury tax which is limited in its application to certain articles. In Japan, 10 per cent on fixed values is the excise tax on silk. In Italy, there is a sales or turn-over tax of one-quarter of one per cent on raw materials and one-half of one per cent on manufactured products. Czechoslovakia has a 2 per cent sales or turnover tax and a 12 per cent luxury tax, limited in the range of articles to which it applies. In Spain there is a stamp tax on wines, the precise incidence of which has not been. worked out since August, 1928, when the change that we are now attempting to rectify came into effect. In Portugal the situation is very difficult on account of the sales or turnover tax being combined with the business profits tax. It is a matter of great difficulty to our customs people to know whether or not the dumping duty should apply to goods from Portugal because of the nature of their sales or turnover tax. Those are a few of the instances that I have been able to gather this morning, showing the complexity of the situation. There is no difficulty in connection with the levying of a straight duty. The difficulty is only in connection with adopting the principle that automatically goods are dumped because in the country of origin there is an excise tax.


George Halsey Perley: I understand the minister's point now. He says he does not think it is fair that this excise tax should be considered when the dumping duty is applied. But the question in my mind is, what is the practical effect of this new clause so far as our own industries are concerned? As far as wines from Portugal are concerned, that is simple enough, because nobody in this country suffers, although the revenue may
2168	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
suffer a little; but with regard to silk, and artificial silk particularly, that ought to be made in Canada entirely so long as our manufacturers who make it do not exploit the public. We can make it as well as any country in the world, and as I understand this change, it is going to make it easier to import that article into this country. Is that so or is it not?


Charles Avery Dunning: I pointed out last night that the regulation I am now seeking to have enforced was brought into effect in 1919 and was operative until August, 1928. Canadian industries continued during that time, and there was apparently no complaint of it. Certainly, I can find no evidence of any complaint.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Were not complaints made to the minister? Does he mean to say that?


Charles Avery Dunning: I am speaking of the period when the condition was just what we are now seeking to make it.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It never was before in the
history of the trade in t'he same condition as it is now.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend is misunderstanding me again.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I fully appreciate how the
hon. minister is splitting hairs over it.


Charles Avery Dunning: I leave it to the committee as to who is splitting hairs. What I am discussing, Mr. Chairman, is the position which obtained in Canada with respect to this matter of excise tax in the country of origin being counted for the imposition of the dumping duty, in reply to my hon. friend from Argen-teuil (Sir George Perley), who asked me what will be the likely effect on the industry. In [DOT] order to answer the question I am pointing out that from 1919 to 1928 the industry of Canada was under precisely the regulation that I am now proposing. My hon. friend says I am splitting hairs.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Yes, because that has no
reference to the present condition, as I am perfectly prepared to show the hon. gentleman.


James J. Donnelly: As I see this, Mr. Chairman, it means that if we take off the excise duty in considering the value of the article in the country of origin, the dumping clause goes into effect sooner than it did before.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is miles off.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Mr. Chairman, the hon.
Minister of Finance says that this is a matter of principle, and he seeks to deal with it as a matter of principle. The fact is that during the

past two years the Canadian factories producing this class of silk fabric have had a certain protective duty in their favour, partly made up of the ordinary duties and partly by an increase under this dumping clause. The passing of this resolution takes away at once one tenth of the protection under the Customs Act which these factories have had. We took away about one tenth of the protection accorded to certain classes of cotton goods in 1928. The two and a half per cent reduction then made meant a loss in one year of over a quarter of a million dollars to one of several companies, and I think I could count upon my fingers losses of at least a million dollars a year by that reduction of their net revenues. Now the practical effect which I understand the hon. member for Argenteuil seeks to acertain is this. If you pass this item reducing the customs duty, by way of wiping out the dumpage, these producer's will have to face about one tenth reduction in their present protection.. That one tenth reduction means the difference between disaster and success. Even the duties as levied now will not compensate for the low wages paid in Japan as compared with the rate of wages necessarily paid in the province of Quebec under provincial statute.


James Dew Chaplin: And in Ontario too.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: My hon. friend from Lincoln says, "In Ontario too." Now, that is a fair consideration to induce the Minister of Finance to retain this particular rate of duty. If the wiping of it out means disaster to these industries, as I believe it does, that is not a matter of principle. What faces the hon. Minister of Finance is a practical question. These duties have been in force during the past two years, nearly. Under these duties these factories have been able to cariy on their operations. Now, it is a question of practical policy as to whether you should wipe out these safeguards and put these industries in danger. Will the hon. minister tell us-he must have the information there-what are the number of factories in Canada producing this class of fabric at the present time?


Charles Avery Dunning: They themselves inform us there are three factories that will be affected by this change.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Only three?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, only three.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: And which are those factories?


Charles Avery Dunning: One is at St. Catharines- referred to by my hon. friend from Lincoln -and there is one in the province of Quebec. We are not certain of its exact location.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Are there not at least two in the province of Quebec?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That is what I understand. Therefore it bears particularly harshly on employment and the investment of capital in the province of Quebec. I am not interested in the excise duty on some petty articles, but this manufacture has developed under present conditions, and, during the past two years, while there has been depression throughout the world in the manufacture of silk fabrics, this duty has been a protection to Canadian industry. It is not a question of principle. It is a question as to whether you will now put in force this reduction without notice, reducing the protection about two and a half per cent, and wipe out these silk industries, just as you have done under the 1928 tariff schedule with regard to cotton, as a result of which we have to-day on the streets something like two thousand employees in the province of Quebec who have been put out of employment on that account. Owing to this foreign fabric being brought in at depressed prices and slaughtered on our markets, Canadian companies who have been carrying on the textile industry for years have been placed on the verge of bankruptcy. And when I say that I am selecting my words in order to assert the absolute truth.
Mr. MoMILLAN: Mr. Chairman, I think it is time that the members of this house were considering the interests of the people of this country.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is what we are doing.


Mr. McMILLAN:: I have listened since this discussion began last night, and never once have the interests of the consumer been considered by hon. gentlemen on the front benches opposite. I thought this was a protectionist budget. During the whole course of the budget debate we heard nothing else from the opposition benches but that this government had stolen the clothes of the Conservative party; and yet, sir, since we have been dealing with these budget resolutions the whole argument is that the duty is being reduced on these goods which will mean a reduction in price to the consumers of this country. I think it is time the consumers were considered.


George Halsey Perley: I suppose the hon. gentleman does not mind a lot of Canadian workmen being put out of work, does he?


Thomas McMillan: The 'history of protection throughout the world will prove, if the
hon. gentleman will only study it, that it has never been the means either of paying higher wages or giving greater employment, but rather the reverse.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Mr. Chairman, I tried last
night in the brief statement I then made to put the case of the consumer before the house. If the hon. gentleman understood the course at the present time of the trade in fabrics of this class, and of cotton and wool, he would know that the consumer in Canada does not receive one cent advantage from these large importations from the United States, Italy, Czechoslovakia, Belgium, France and other countries. The course of the trade, as I understand it, is that certain jobbers in this country buy large quantities w'hich are sold abroad at slaughter prices, simply to relieve the local and domestic trade in those foreign countries. They bring them in under a rate of duty levied upon the invoiced value. Sometimes these jobbers manufacture clothing and sell it in job lots throughout this country. However, the price at which they sell is a price fixed by the cost of production in this country. The result is that we are making wealthy a large number of jobbers in this country by the sale of those job lots at high prices, and the consumer has not received the advantage of even 1 per cent in the reduction of duty.


Thomas McMillan: You do not think a
higher percentage of duty means an increase of cost to the consumer?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Taking the question of production of fabrics of this class, such as silks, and importations, which we have been making and are now making of cottons from the southern states, woollens from Italy, Czechoslovakia and even from England, do not reduce the cost to the consumer in this country one iota. Hon. members have to make a choice, that is all. Representing the consumers, my hon. friend must make a choice between allowing those kinds of goods to be produced in this country and giving employment here, or allowing the .profit which would come to the consumer under the theoretical course of trade, to be made by the jobbers, who do not give employment to Canadian labour, with the exception of a few clerks and some others who are engaged in distribution.


An hon. MEMBER:: Would the hon.
gentleman say that if these reductions were made it would not lower the price of these articles in this country?
2170	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: To the consumer it would
be less than 1 per cent. This is . a tariff reduction of over 2 per cent which is now being proposed.


Charles Avery Dunning: The silk manufacturers
claim that it means from 5 to 7 cents a yard.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: This 5 to 7 cents a yard
represents a fortune if a sufficient number of yards are sold. However, I am not going into more detail. I have followed the arguments of my western friends as to the protection of the consumer, and I wish to say, with regard to these cheaply produced fabrics, such as cotton, wool and silk produced in foreign countries, brought in here and sold by jobbers in competition with our domestic production, that the consumer does not benefit thereby. The difference is made by way of profit by the large jobbers.


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: The hon. gentleman
from St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) has introduced a new point. He stated that the jobbers were in the habit of purchasing large quantities of goods in other countries at small prices, bringing them here, selling them and displacing Canadian goods. I admit at once that I know very little about the particular department of business under discussion. I must say however that the question of purchasing at slaughter prices is not affected by this question of 10 per cent excise duty. If purchases were made at slaughter prices, which are not fair prices, the dumping duty would be applied, apart from this question of 10 per cent excise. Purchases in the country of origin might be made upon a proper and fair market value and still might not be subject to 10 per cent excise. There is a great distinction between purchasing a mass of goods at slaughter prices which could of itself bring in the dumping act and attempting, or continuing, to use a 10 per cent excise duty in the other country as part of the cost of the product. I think the contention of the minister is perfectly correct, although I agree with the member for St. Lawrence-St. George that if goods were actually purchased at slaughter prices such a condition might well be looked after. I do not think however that a practice which to my mind is wrong and unsound should be continued. I support the contention of the minister that an excise duty in any country placed upon goods should not be considered as part of the price of production in that country.


Mr. EVANS:: I would like to ask if when valuation is made for customs purposes trade discount is taken into account.
[Mr Cahan.]


Charles Avery Dunning: I am afraid my hon.
friend may have to address that question to the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Euler); it is the Department of National Revenue which administers the law in connection with these matters. I do not wish to speak with any degree of certainty, but my impression is that trade discounts are taken into account. I would ask my hon. friend however to get that information from the Department of National Revenue.
Mr. EVANS': Is the status of the importer taken into account?


Charles Avery Dunning: I am afraid I cannot
answer that question.


George Halsey Perley: I would like to
say to the minister-


Charles Avery Dunning: If my hon. friend wishes this matter to stand I shall again meet him halfway.


George Halsey Perley: I might explain
to the minister that neither the hon. member for Lincoln nor the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George has his papers. Hon. gentlemen of this side of the house consider this an important matter, and the question is as to how many articles it applies. We have been discussing silk and artificial silk, but I understand the minister is not sure as to how many other articles might be affected.


Charles Avery Dunning: I mentioned wine.


George Halsey Perley: That would not be of much consequence. We are particularly interested in how it affects the industry of this country.


James Dew Chaplin: Will the minister lay the
matter over?


Charles Avery Dunning: I shall, if my hon. friend desires it. May I ask however to have a little reciprocity in these matters as we go along?


James Dew Chaplin: I am sure the minister will not find us as antagonistic as he thinks. To my mind the matter before us is a very important one. At the commencement of this discussion last night I explained that I was short some papers. I have the information from figures which I have found in the papers of the department and which cannot be denied. The manufacturers know what is taking place as to importations; it is their business to know. I may state for the information of the minister that this company was not established in 1919.


Charles Avery Dunning: But it was established before 1928.


James Dew Chaplin: True enough.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Charles Avery Dunning: It would be under the
condition which we are seeking to create.


James Dew Chaplin: I know that they have
been fighting for years to have that provision put into effect. At last they succeeded in convincing the Minister of National Revenue and it has been in effect for two years.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: And now it is being wiped
out without a day's notice.


James Dew Chaplin: I have heard some hon.
gentlemen say that it is only a matter of small importance. The government is taking 5 cents a yard from these manufacturers, and the profit is so small that that 5 cents makes all the difference in the world to them. The Japanese get So per cent of the word's silk trade; what they are trying to do is to get both the manufactured and unmanufactured trade in their hands. In this country we pay four times the amount that Japan pays for labour. I have in mind an English concern which has come into my community within the last two or three years, and I may say to my hon. friend that they are paying twice the amount for labour that they would have to pay in England, and four times the amount which is paid in Japan.


Charles Avery Dunning: To close the discussion
may I say to my hon. friend that they must have known what the Canadian tariff was when they established their factory at St. Catharines. They knew perfectly well at the time they established their business that what has since happened in respect to the application of the dumping duty was not then in operation. It was merely a legal quirk, a legal twist, which brought it into operation. This parliament made no change.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The government did, by
order in council.


Charles Avery Dunning: Legally it was discovered that the dump did apply and that the imposition of excise duties in any country automatically rendered the goods exported to this country liable to the dump. This was not an action by this parliament, and I wish to draw a clear distinction there. If hon. gentlemen opposite are right when they say the tariff on silk is not high enough, then the proper way to proceed to deal -with it is not by this roundabout method of having a dump automatically apply, because there is an excise duty in the country of origin. They should go before the tariff board and have a hearing; let the public come in and see what are the facts. I have every respect for my two hon. friends opposite, but I would prefer
to have both sides presented in a manner which would enable the people of Canada to judge between them, and then this parliament would be in a position to decide as to whether the rates of duty should be increased or lowered. I do not think it is the desire of parliament to continue the operation of something of this kind which is unquestionably wrong in principle. I am prepared to accede to the request of my hon. friend from Lincoln to allow the matter to stand over until Monday.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Just one word in reply to
the minister. The Minister of Finance says that the rate of duty should be a matter considered by the tariff board, and that if the present rate of duty upon silk fabrics is not sufficient it should be raised in order to compensate for the difference between the wage rate in Japan and that in Canada. Why should not my bon. friend proceed now to place this question before the tariff board before wiping out the protection whieh-these companies now enjoy? Let the whole question be placed before the tariff board as to whether this dumping provision should apply, and at the same time the board could consider whether or not the ordinary rate of duty should be raised. When we have several large factories in one province maintaining a certain standard of business and giving employment to hundreds of men and women, why change one provision which gives them protection for the time being without giving them at the same time an opportunity to be heard by the tariff board as to whether or not the regular rate of duty is sufficient to protect them against lower rates of wages in other countries, which in Japan are one-fourth the wages in Quebec, and which in Great Britain are about one-half the Quebec rate.


James Dew Chaplin: I just want to direct the
attention of the minister to another aspect of the case. These firms started business only a few years ago, and the minister wants to know how it is they continue to do business from 1919 on. I will tell him. When these people started business the prices of Japanese doth were very different from the prices of to-day. As time went on those prices gradually became lower, until these people were forced to come to the department for redress. That is the situation. However, I do not want to continue the argument; I am quite satisfied to have the matter laid over, and I am obliged to the minister for doing so.
2172	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Mr. KELLNER:: Can the minister tell us
whether any imports of tobacco are affected by this provision?


Charles Avery Dunning: No, we know of none.
Such tobacco as comes from England is exempt under the existing law.


John Frederick Johnston: Resolution No. 2
stands.
Resolution stands.
5. Animals, living n.o.p. British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 22| per cent; general tariff, 25 per cent. Provided that, if any country imposes upon such animals produced in, and imported from, Canada rates of duty higher than are enumerated in this item, equivalent rates of duty shall be imposed on such animals entering Canada from such country.


John Frederick Johnston: This item was before the committee last evening.


George Halsey Perley: As this is the first item which provides for countervailing duties I would like the minister to give us a little explanation as to how he thinks this will work out in practice. For instance, supposing someone in Canada wished to import into this country an animal from Czechoslovakia or Poland or some other country where the dtuies are higher than they are in Canada, would that person be able to get that information from the department immediately without any difficulty, before purchasing the animal and ordering it sent here?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


George Halsey Perley: They have all that information?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


George Halsey Perley: In all the various customs offices throughout the country?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, the foreign tariff division has that information.


George Halsey Perley: A man in Calgary, for instance, who wished to import an animal could get information there as to the duty he would have to pay?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


James Dew Chaplin: What would you do in the case of the French tariff, which changes over night?


George Halsey Perley: The same condition applies to the United States; their duties are liable to be changed very quickly.
I am not quite sure how long it takes to change their tariff at the present time.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Sometimes a presidential
decree can be put through in forty-eight hours.


George Halsey Perley: The president can change the tariff after consulting the commission. That would mean that our duties would change from week to week, exactly as their duties change?


Charles Avery Dunning: Against identical goods coming from that country.


George Halsey Perley: That is, if an importer in this country wished to bring in an animal from the United States first he would have to find out the duty on the same animal going into the United States before he would know what he would have to pay here?


Charles Avery Dunning: The tariff changes are not so frequent as to cause difficulty in that connection.


George Halsey Perley: Quite so, but we have known times when they have occurred quite frequently. At any rate, an importer bringing animals into this country would have to inquire as to the duty on animals of the same kind going into the United States before he would know what he would have to pay in order to bring those animals into Canada ?


Charles Avery Dunning: He could get that information at any Canadian customs port.


Leon Johnson Ladner: What were the imports under this item from the United Kingdom in 1929?


Charles Avery Dunning: Nearly $37,000.


Leon Johnson Ladner: According to the trade returns there were no imports. There were importations of animals to improve stock, but not otherwise.


Mr. ROWE:: In what way does the minister hope to make an improvement either in British or Canadian trade by removing the 15 per cent duty on live animals?


Charles Avery Dunning: I have just pointed out that our imports of all animals from the United Kingdom amounted to nearly $37,000 during the last fiscal year.


George Halsey Perley: Under this item?


Charles Avery Dunning: Under this item, and
from the United States during the same period they amounted to $281,000. In considering the matter it seemed to me that it was rather absurd to have a tariff of 15 per cent against Great Britain on live animals, judging from the relative smallness of the trade. Of course, there are some special types of animals, not

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
particularly farm animals, which reasonably might come from that country, but many of those come in under the other heading for the improvement of stock, and enter at a very low rate.


James Dew Chaplin: Do those figures include animals brought in for the improvement of stock?


Charles Avery Dunning: No.


James Dew Chaplin: The figures you gave are the figures for dutiable imports?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


James Dew Chaplin: The minister gave us the figures for imports from the United States. Would he let me know how much of that total represents the importation of horses?


Charles Avery Dunning: 


James Dew Chaplin: Horses were the largest single item?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


James Dew Chaplin: And what was the value of those horses?


Charles Avery Dunning: 


James Dew Chaplin: And I believe that represented some three thousand horses. In other words, these horses were worth $70 each. What were they used for? As I understand the minister's object in changing that duty, it is to change the trade from the United States to Great Britain.


Charles Avery Dunning: I did not say that at all.


James Dew Chaplin: Then what is the object of making this change and putting this item on the free list? Is it to allow more English horses to come in to compete with the American horses? The only English horses which are dutiable are those valued at around $500 each, and those are not used for the improvement of stock. They are used as hunters or as sporting horses. The purchasers of such horses are able to pay the duty into the revenue of this country, and now it is proposed to allow such animals to come in free.


Charles Avery Dunning: In one breath my hon. friend talks about imports from the United Kingdom, and in the next of imports from the United States.


James Dew Chaplin: I can breathe twice, and there is no harm in talking about both classes of imports.


Charles Avery Dunning: I must object to my hon. friend mixing them up.


James Dew Chaplin: I am far from being
mixed.


Charles Avery Dunning: Last year $219,000 worth
of horses came in from the United States.


James Dew Chaplin: And I told you there were three thousand.


Charles Avery Dunning: And then my hon. friend went on to state that it was the wealthy man's horse which was imported from the United States.


James Dew Chaplin: I never said anything of the kind. I said that the horses coming from England were hunters and valued at about $500 each, and it was now proposed to allow that class of animal to come in free. I say that that is not right, either from a business or an economic point of view. The people who bring in that class of horse should pay a duty.


Charles Avery Dunning: Thirty-six thousand dollars worth of horses came in from England last year.


An hon. MEMBER:: Sixty-nine horses.


Charles Avery Dunning: Sixty-nine horses. We
farmers are very much worried about that.


James Dew Chaplin: We farmers?


William Earl Rowe: When the hon. minister mentions " we farmers," I think he must realize that many of us are trying to breed that type of horse. In what way does it assist Canadian trade to take from the treasury approximately $4,000 on that single item? The price is reduced by $75 on high-jumpers, Irish hunters, and animals of that class which the minister or the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) would wish to ride. Such a reduction is in direct competition with those of us who are endeavouring to produce that type of horse. I cannot see any reason for this change unless it is to camouflage the exact meaning of British preference. This reduction from 15 per cent to the free list on this item offers competition to the Canadian farmer. Horses brought in for breeding purposes are allowed in free of duty, and last year about seventy-five horses of that class were brought in, valued at $1,000 each.


Charles Avery Dunning: Breeding stock.


William Earl Rowe: Yes, breeding stock.


Charles Avery Dunning: And they were allowed in free.


William Earl Rowe: Yes.


Charles Avery Dunning: And they are allowed i"
free at the present time.
2174	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


William Earl Rowe: Yes. This is all unpedigreed stock. The same applies to the sheep and cattle, and all down the line. The pedigreed sheep brought in numbered about 210, valued at about S94 each. The unpedigreed stock imported numbered about 15 sheep valued at $12 each. A reduction of 15 per cent is being made to help British sales. The same thing applies to cattle. The importations amounted to 388 head of pedigreed stock worth about $400 each, allowed in free for the purpose of improving stock in this country.


James Dew Chaplin: They were allowed in
free before.


William Earl Rowe: Yes, that is quite true. In
order to show a great preference to British trade, it is proposed to reduce the duty from 15 per cent to the free list on four head of cattle worth $125 each, which does not equal the price we would be receiving for our dairy cows if we had reasonable protection. The same situation applies to the items all down the line; in some cases the duty is reduced by 15 to 20 per cent. This seems to me to be evidence of the effort to camouflage the real meaning of British preference, in putting on the free list items which would not account for very much trade.
The reduction on the duty on horses will amount to about $75 per head, and, as the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin) has said, it gives a benefit to a certain class of purchaser. Those horses are brought in to show how high they can jump at the Royal Winter fair and the Canadian National exhibition, because I venture to say that out of the 56 horses of unpedigreed stock worth about $500 each, every one would be found to possess some qualification in jumping or hunting. An unpedigreed horse worth $500 must possess other qualifications'. That is the sporting type of horse, the show horse, the high-jumper or the race horse, and it is proposed to give a reduction of $75 per animal to the purchasers of that type of horse. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) knows that the farmers of Canada are making an effort to breed this type of horse. His department has made grants to special committees to help in the development of the high class type of hunter. Rapid advancement has been made in the breeding of this type of horse, and I believe the Minister of Agriculture realizes that this preference will offer direct competition to those whom his department is endeavouring to assist.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: For the purposes of this
discussion, would the Minister of Finance state succinctly just what countries are covered by the British preferential tariff?


Charles Avery Dunning: They are as follows:
The United Kingdom;
The British colony of Bermuda;
The British colonies commonly called the British West Indies, including the following,-
The Bahamas;
Jamaica;
Turks and Caicos islands;
The Leeward islands (Antigua, St. Christ-opher-Nevis, Dominica, Montserrat, and the Virgin islands);
The Windward islands (Grenada, St. Vincent and St. Lucia);
Barbados;
Trinidad and Tobago;
British Guiana;
British India;
Ceylon;
Straits Settlements;
New Zealand;
Union of South Africa;
Southern Rhodesia;
any other British colony or possession admitted to the benefits of the British preferential tariff in Canada, in the manner hereinafter provided;
By an order in council passed since that time the benefits of the British preferential tariff have been extended to the following countries:
Swaziland;
Basutoland;
Bechuanaland protectorate;
Northern Rhodesia;
Nyasaland protectorate;
Uganda protectorate;
East Africa protectorate;
Protectorate of Northern Nigeria;
Colony and protectorate of Southern Nigeria;
Gold Coast;
Sierra Leone;
Gambia;
Somaliland protectorate;
Federated Malay States;
British North Borneo;
Sarawak;
Brunei;
Mauritius and dependencies thereof;
Seychelles;
St. Helena;
Ascension;
Friendly or Tonga islands;
Fiji;
Falkland islands;
British Honduras.
Later on the preference was extended to the Irish Free State, the territory of Western Samoa and to Newfoundland.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Does not the minister think that in dealing with so many different and diverse countries it is rather absurd to insert the following provision:
Provided that, if any country imposes upon such animals-

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
As it is in this case, or commodities, we will say.
-produced in, and imported from, Canada rates of duty higher than are enumerated in this item, equivalent rates of duty shall be imposed on such animals (or commodities) entering Canada from such country.
Is that not an entirely wrong policy? I am for the moment leaving out of consideration the fact that is alleged that this enables some other country by its own arbitrary action to determine what shall be the customs duties on importations into Canada from that country, but does not such a provsion introduce into the Canadian tariff such complexities as shall be for all time a source of widely extended and increasing embarrassment? I submit to the Prime Minister that the policy in a country such as Canada, as agreed upon by the representative opinions of both parties, in certain cases at least is that the tariff of Canada should be enacted in view of the special conditions which prevail in this country and not in view of the special conditions which prevail in any other country.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is what we are doing.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I have looked through various tariff discussions which have occurred and that pronouncement or one to that effect has been frequently made by leaders of the Liberal party.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is sound. That is what we are doing in this budget.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I knew the Prime Minister
would regard that as sound. I have not any quotations at hand, but I could produce from some of my right hon. friend's own addresses quotations along that line. Conditions prevailing in Canada are different from those prevailing in New Zealand or Australia or South Africa or the African states, and very different from those prevailing in the tropics, such as the Windward islands, the Leeward islands and all the rest of them of which I have a clear vision, because I have visited them more times than I can now remember. Therefore it seems to me that the essential principle should be to determine what rate of duty on any particular commodity is reasonably necessary to meet the conditions surrounding the production of that commodity in our own land. We may advocate protection or free trade in the extreme, but as practical policies they do not now exist in this country. The governments of the past have adopted as a practical policy that those productive activities of this country which afford remunerative employment to our people
and which tend to develop our natural resources and to utilize them in the processes of refining and manufacture, are entitled to favourable consideration, especially if they have been long established. I think I remember one address delivered by the Prime Minister in my native province of Nova Scotia some years ago, where he laid down the policy that industries that had been long established in Canada should receive favourable consideration from the government. He did not say exclusively by customs tariff, for he did suggest that even outside of the customs tariff there were many ways whereby such productive activities could be encouraged in this country. What the Minister of Finance is doing now is this: he is neglecting to give any consideration to the special conditions which prevail in Canada.


Charles Avery Dunning: No.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: He is neglecting, overlooking and turning his blind eye to all the industrial activities which properly' and justifiably, in the opinion of both sides of the house, may be carried on in this Dominion.


Charles Avery Dunning: No.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: He is saying that the tariff
will not be determined by' the necessities of domestic production.


Charles Avery Dunning: No.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Yes, he is saying that. He
is saying at least that such shall not be the primary and potent consideration in the mind of the government and parliament in imposing these duties. He is saying that some foolish and feeble attempt will be made to retaliate by countervailing duties against another country if it imposes on its imports of certain commodities from Canada a higher duty than we in Canada impose upon such commodities coming from that other country. I do not want to use an extreme word, but that seems to me to be a foolish and feeble foundation for any' economic or fiscal policy which should be adopted in a country such as this. I can picture many' countries between here and Patagonia, if y'ou will, many of those countries of Central and South America, and I am simply' indulging in an idea that I may not live to see carried out but that I believe another generation will, namely, that extensive markets for the products of Canada will some time be found south of the Rio Grande in Central America and in the South American republics. Another generation will appreciate that fact. This generation does
2176	COMMONS
Ways and. Means

Customs Tariff
not. Why, then, should we impose upon Brazil in regard to any special commodity a higher rate of duty than is essential for the proper development of that industry in Canada, simply because Brazil, in dealing with the wide world, finds that to protect-I shall use the word in its proper sense-its own industrial activities, it has to impose a higher dutjr than we do against the world. It seems to me that we are proceeding on a wrong basis; that the primary aim and object should be, by common censent of both parties, to impose a customs tariff solely with a view to its beneficial effects upon the productive activities of our own country, without special regard to those different conditions which may prevail in other countries in Europe and the Americas. With that in view I should like to say that with regard to all the provisions in the list similar to those I have just quoted, they seem to me to be futile, ineffective, and I would almost use a stronger word if it were parliamentary.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am quite sure my hon. friend would. Let us look at this item from a practical point of view and see what it really does. It says to nations of the British commonwealth that Canada is willing to trade with them in live animals on a reciprocally free basis. To the countries under treaty we say with respect to animals: The tariff that we consider fair is 22J per cent. We will welcome reciprocity with you on the basis of 22J per cent. We say to the United States and to all those countries under the general tariff: Our tariff is 25 per cent, and we do not go below that except under the special provisions of section 11 of our customs tariff, which have been there for a number of years so far as the United States is concerned. We say to them: We are satisfied with a 25 per cent tariff, and we would like to meet you reciprocally on that basis. If you come down to 25 per cent, our tariff comes down to 25 per cent in connection with animals. That is what we say. My hon. friend regards that as impracticable and foolish. I am inclined to think that it is a common sense policy which will appeal to our people.


William Earl Rowe: I wish to ask a question for information with respect to that 25 per cent duty. Has any arrangement been made to change the valuation? For instance, the United States have always had a higher valuation on our animals going in there than our valuation on their animals coming in here. Last year several carloads of cheap horses came into this country from Montana and

some were sold in the city of Toronto at a valuation of $30 apiece, while our horses enter the United States valued at approximately $100 apiece.


Charles Avery Dunning: That would be a matter of customs administration as to the value.


William Earl Rowe: But would the countervailing duty principle enable our customs officers to raise their valuation?


Charles Avery Dunning: It would make no difference whatever to the powers of the customs officers in that regard.


William Earl Rowe: The minimum valuation on our horses going into the United States is $100, while our valuation is much lower. That makes quite a difference so far as the cheaper class of horses is concerned.


Charles Avery Dunning: There is at present in our tariff an item with respect to horses. There is at present a specific rate of duty, which is not touched by this revision, on horses valued at $50 or less per head. The rates are $10 $12.50 and $12.50 per head.


James Dew Chaplin: That depends on the age of the animal?


Charles Avery Dunning: No, on horses valued at $50 or less per head. That item has been in the tariff for many years, presumably to deal with that class of horses.


William Earl Rowe: A duty of $10 or $12.50 per head would mean that the United States could send in here carloads of horses from Montana and elsewhere, a cheap type of horse. We have had too many of them during the past few years coming in here from different parts of the United States.


Charles Avery Dunning: Does my hon. friend know how large the importation really was under that item, how many horses came in?


William Earl Rowe: I cannot say how many.


Charles Avery Dunning: Only $6,000 worth during the whole year.


William Earl Rowe: With a higher valuation
against our horses by the United States, it would mean that the duty would not countervail at all.


Charles Avery Dunning: There is no countervailing duty on horses under $50 per head. We are discussing living animals, which includes all horses save those valued at less than $50 per head.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


William Earl Rowe: I have seen many come in here at a valuation of $30 a head, and our horses of the same type would be valued when they went into the United States at $100 or $150 a head.


Mr. KENNEDY:: This is an interesting item, but I do not know that it means a very great deal. It applies to animals living, n.o.p.
I have no special objection to the provision, but I do not think it means a very great deal. I have here the Trade of Canada for the calendar year 1929, and I find that cattle from Great Britain, n.o.p., were imported in 1928 to the number of four head, valued at $525; in 1929, five head, valued at $1,351. Our imports of hogs n.o.p. were nothing in 1928 and nothing in 1929.


Charles Avery Dunning: Hogs are not included
in the item under discussion. They are a separate item.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: There is a little confusion in the items. Item No. 5 is animals, living, n.o.p., and item No. 6 deals with live hogs. In the Trade of Canada I find an item, hogs, under animals for improvement of stock, and then another item of hogs, n.o.p., under animals living. We have hogs, n.o.p. Apparently the other hogs were free, hogs for improvement of stock and exhibition purposes. I am dealing with the n.o.p. article. In the Trade of Canada, for the calendar year 1929, I find that we imported of horses, n.o.p., 71 head in
1928,	valued at $38,013, and 44 head in 1929, valued at $24,439; sheep, n.o.p., 19 head, valued at $226, in 1928, and 7 head valued at $105, in 1929. There is an item further down on page 42, all other animals, living, n.o.p. under which our imports from the United Kingdom amounted to $12,754 in 1928, and 811,073 in
1929.	So that as far as the British preference is concerned, it may be possible to develop some business as a result of this change in the tariff, but I do not think it means a great deal.
When we come to the other side, to the exports and imports between the United States and Canada, I find that the total value of all living animals brought into Canada in the year 1928, which includes all animals for exhibition purposes and improvement of live stock, was $3,165,941; from Great Britain, $303,010, and from the United States, $2,852,531. I am not going to weary the house by giving the 1929 figures, but they are in about the same proportion. When we come to our exports, we exported total animals, living, to the value of $17,492,491 in 1928; to the United Kingdom, $90,985, and to the United States, $16,648,945. In 1929, we 2419-138
exported total animals, living, to the value of $16,453,235; to the United Kingdom, $61,966, and to the United States, $15,163,226.
My point is this. A countervailing tariff, or brick for brick tariff, if you like to call it that, does not amount to very. much when we exported to the United States 16 million dollars in 1928 and $15,000,000 in 1929, and imported from the United States about $2,800,000. I am afraid that a small amount of duty on that little surplus being exported from the United States to Canada does not mean a great deal to the Canadian farmer. So that a brick for brick policy or countervailing tariff on a certain specified item does not necessarily mean a great deal. It all depends on which way the goods flow.


Charles Avery Dunning: If it should possibly have the effect of attracting consideration in the United States to the height of their duties against our cattle, for instance, which is a very important consideration so far as the western farmer is concerned, would that not have some real value?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: It might.


Mr. COOTE:: How are you going to
determine which value is higher when our tariff on certain items is on an ad valorem basis and the United States tariff is a specific rate of so much per pound?


Charles Avery Dunning: Just whichever is greater on the particular consignment in question; that is all.


George Gibson Coote: It seems to me that there might be in one consignment some animals on which 25 per cent would be higher and others where two and a half or two cents a pound might lbe higher. Apparently it is going to necessitate the customs officers looking over the consignment and figuring the duty both ways and applying whichever one is higher.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, it may involve that difficulty in some cases.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I should like to make a suggestion to the minister. Would it be possible to have printed and filed a statement in connection with each of these items showing the imports from and exports to the various countries? I think such information would save a lot of questioning.


Charles Avery Dunning: I should like to help, but I can tell my hon. friend the information is very voluminous. This year I have gone further than ever has been done previously in providing exact comparative information for members with respect to the various items.

2178	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
I had not previously had any demand for what might be called the wholesale printing of information. My own information comprises five books like the one before me. The information he suggests would be voluminous, and even then one cannot guarantee just the precise information which some individual member may require. I do not think it would be practicable, although for a future occasion I shall be glad to bear in mind the possibility of incorporating something further than has been done this year.


Mr. FRASER:: Might I direct the attention of the minister to the punctuation in the second line. I am under the impression that the last comma there is in the wrong place. The proviso reads:
Provided that, if any country imposes upon such animals produced in, and imported from, Canada rates of duty higher than are enumerated in this item,-
Now, that goes through every item in the schedules. I think it should be changed.


James Dew Chaplin: The comma should come after " Canada."


Charles Avery Dunning: I think we can save argument if I promise my hon. friend that I will bring it to the attention of the legal draftsmen who are responsible for putting commas in the proper places. It strikes me on the face of it that my hon. friend's criticism is sound, but I will not venture to dispute with the legal draftsmen on the point.


John Anderson Fraser: Is there anyone in the
minister's department who will argue that that comma is in the right place?


Charles Avery Dunning: I will not take sides in the dispute.


Mr. SENN:: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me it would not be asking too much of the minister to show in respect of each of the sixteen or eighteen articles on which countervailing duties are to be levied just what the present duty is so far as these goods coming in from the United States are concerned, as well as the volume.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, I gave figures a
little while ago as to the values of the imports. As to the duties relating to the United States, I have here the present duties and those which, so far as we know, are proposed in the new United States legislation. When I say "so far as we know," my hon. friend will appreciate the difficulty, as those rates are being moved backwards and forwards, at least in prospect, sometimes from day to day. So I cannot vouch for the detailed accuracy of the proposed rates. On cattle entering the United

States from Canada, the present rates are one and a half and two cents a pound based on weight; the proposed rates are two and a half and three cents a pound. On sheep the present rate is $2 per head; the proposed rate is $3 per head. On horses valued at $150 or less, the present duty is $30 per head and the proposed duty is the same; on horses valued over $150 the present duty is 20 per cent and the proposed duty is the same.


William Earl Rowe: Does the wording of this item mean that if, for instance, an animal or any product produced in Canada is not exported to the United States no countervailing protection will apply?


Charles Avery Dunning: This is not a question of protection. It is a question of determining the rate of duty, which can only be determined when the commodity is exported to the other country. The intention is plain, and was conveyed to the legal draftsmen, that if another country imposes upon such animal produced in and imported from Canada a rate which is higher than the rate here set out, then that rate shall apply on their goods coming this way.


William Earl Rowe: Even though we have none to export?


Charles Avery Dunning: That does not make any difference.


William Earl Rowe: Suppose we bring in from the United States live animals, finish them here, and then export them to the United States?


Charles Avery Dunning: Do we do that?


William Earl Rowe: Yes, both in Quebec and Ontario we do it with horses.


Charles Avery Dunning: The term "produced in"
has general application in connection with customs administration. There would not be any difficulty.


William Earl Rowe: They would not necessarily
have to be produced in Canada?


Charles Avery Dunning: No.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-6. Live hogs: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 1J cents per pound; general tariff, ljj cents per pound.
Provided that, if any country imposes upon live hogs produced in, and imported from, Canada rates of duty higher than are enumerated in this item, equivalent rates of duty shall be imposed on such hogs entering Canada from such country.
George Halsey Perley: What were the
importations from Great Britain last year?

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Charles Avery Dunning: There were no traceable
imports from Great Britain. From the United States altogether $23,000 worth came in. My information is that so far as live hogs are concerned, early this spring they did enter to a large degree than ever before at Toronto and some other markets. The figures of last year's imports do not reveal that condition.


James Dew Chaplin: From where?


Charles Avery Dunning: From the United States.


Mr. GEARY:: I would not advise the Minister of Finance to rely on lawyers too much as to where to place commas; I think it would be better for him to consult a grammarian. But it seems to me that this section contains a graver fault than the mere error in punctuation. It provides that:

if any country imposes upon live hogs produced in. and imported from, Canada rates of duty higher than are enumerated in this item, equivalent rates of duty shall be imposed on such hogs-
Which means hogs raised in Canada.
*-entering Canada from such country.


George Halsey Perley: Putting this item on the free list under the British preferential tariff will not produce any trade within the empire ?


Charles Avery Dunning: No. This is one of the
items, about fifty in number, in connection with which, as I stated in the budget address, it seemed to me absurd to maintain a duty against the other countries of' the British empire.


James Dew Chaplin: You do not expect to
get a revenue from the item, anyway.


Charles Avery Dunning: In connection with live
hogs?


James Dew Chaplin: If you had had a duty
you would not have had' a revenue.


Charles Avery Dunning: No.


James Dew Chaplin: You could not have any
importation.


Charles Avery Dunning: If we may judge from
past experience we are unlikely to have any importation of live hogs.


George Gibson Coote: What is the rate imposed
in the case of live hogs?


Charles Avery Dunning: The present rate is i
cent a pound and the proposed rate is 2 cents a pound.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
2419-138}
Customs tariff-7. Meats, fresh, n.o.p., per pound:	British preferential tariff, 2 cents;
intermediate tariff, 2J cents; general tariff, 3J cents.
Provided that, if any country imposes upon such goods produced in, and imported from, Canada rates of duty higher than are enumerated in this item, equivalent rates of duty shall be imposed on such goods entering Canada from such country.
James Dew Chaplin: What were the imports
from Great Britain under this item?


Charles Avery Dunning: The imports in 1929 were valued at $998,000, of which $667,000 came from Australia and New Zealand, and $316,000 from the United States. We are not proposing any change in the specific rates. The present United States rate on beef and veal is 3 cents, and, as proposed by the Senate tariff bill, 6 cents. On mutton the present rate is 2i cents and the proposed rate 5 cents. On lamb the present rate is 4 cents and the proposed rate 7 cents. On pork the present rate is i of a cent and the proposed rate 2i cents. On all other meats the present United States rates are 20 per cent, with a specific rate of 6 cents a pound.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: In a previous debate
the minister said something about negotiating a new treaty with New Zealand. His statement is referred to in the budget. The matter I have in mind possibly should be discussed under the agriculture estimates, but I think it has sufficient bearing on the present item to have a place in this discussion. We are importing large quantities of lamb and mutton from New Zealand and Australia, but we have no statistics to show the respective amounts of mutton and lamb which are imported. As far as I can find out what is happening is that the Department of Agriculture is spending a large sum of money to encourage Canadian farmers to raise lamb. The wholesale price of lamb in Toronto during the year 1929, showed an average of 24.97 cents per pound. In 1929, we imported some of these meats from the United States at an average price of 34.3 cents. We are importing large quantities of mutton from New Zealand and Australia, and in 1929 the average price for Australian mutton was 11.75 cents and for the New Zealand mutton 14.53 cents. From these figures I am sure that New Zealand and Australian mutton are being sold as lamb over Canadian counters. To my mind there is great need for a rigid grading system, to eliminate unfair competition. I am quite satisfied that there have been importations of Australian and New Zealand muton into Ottawa. I do not believe we have been got-
21S0	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
ting Canadian, United States, Australian or New Zealand lamb during the last few months. When the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Agriculture are negotiating a treaty I would like them to bear these facts in mind.


Charles Avery Dunning: Thank you.


George Reginald Geary: The question is: When does mutton cease to be lamb?


John Evans: A countervailing duty is undoubtedly a dealer's measure. It protects only the dealer, and it operates every time at the expense of the consumer. We will say, for instance, that when there is a glut on the American market they will at once raise their duty on foodstuffs. That might apply to meats. In conformity with the terms of the countervailing duty Canada's tariff rate must go up in order to meet that of the United States. That does not prevent the passage of meats across the border from one country to another because prices to the consumer go up in each country. However, it does give the dealer in each country a chance to fleece the consumer, and to my mind that is the effect that the countervailing duty will have upon the Canadian consumer.


Charles Avery Dunning: Speaking of this specific item, I cannot agree with my hon. friend when he describes the effect it will have upon the consumer in this country. Canada produces vast quantities of meats, and she exports those meats in competition with the world. As we develop-as I hope and believe we will-a greater cooperative effort for the disposal of those meats, the countervailing duties in connection with fresh meats certainly will not have the effect of raising the price to the consumer.


John Evans: There has been practically no relationship between the price paid to the farmer and the price the consumer has had to pay the retail stores. That is very largely due to the control of prices by the packers of this country, and this measure will give them greater opportunity to fix their own prices. A countervailing duty cannot be effective in the interests of any country or the interests of the general public unless it comes down to freer trade. It is entirely a dealer's measure, and advantage will be taken by those controlling the supply. We have not taken advantage of countervailing duties when we have been offered free trade. For many years the United States has been offering us free trade in coal. We have never taken advantage of the offer but have chosen to put a duty on our coal, which the consumer has had to pay. Countervailing duties on meats,

eggs and any other commodities will always operate against the interests of the consumer. I wish to say that my hon. friend from South Huron (Mr. McMillan) was quite right, despite his party blindness; it would seem that at times he talks in the interests of the general public. There is no doubt that these countervailing duties will raise the cost of living in this country, especially in view of the fact that the packers will have control of prices. Duties will go up in both countries when" the supply is in the hands of those packers. Where the local market can be controlled by local supplies the prices may be more regular, but once the supply becomes greater than the local market can handle the price will go up because it is controlled by the packers.


George Gibson Coote: I would like to say a word
regarding the remarks of my hon. friend from Peace River (Mr. Kennedy), as to the importation of Australian mutton and lamb. During the past two weeks I have had the unfortunate experience of buying what was supposed to be lamb. I am sure however that it must have been part of an old ewe. That kind of thing is hurting the market for good lamb, and I am inclined to believe that the mutton, or so-called lamb, came from Australia. I would like some information from the minister as to the imports of beef from Australia for the last calendar year, or for the first three months of this year if the figures are available, and while he is giving me those figures he might give me the tariffs on beef and mutton in New Zealand and Australia.


Charles Avery Dunning: 
George Gibson Coote: Have you the quantity in
pounds as well as the value?


Charles Avery Dunning: Apparently there was no beef imported from Australia in 1929, during which period we imported from New Zealand about $140,000 worth of beef. From Australia we imported mutton and lamb, fresh, chilled or frozen, to the extent of $377,000 and from New Zealand to the extent of $50,000. From New Zealand we imported 487,000 pounds of mutton and lamb and from Australia 2,900,000 pounds.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Mr. LUCAS:: Would the minister tell the
committee if there were any importations of meat from the Argentine?


Charles Avery Dunning: We imported no fresh
meat at all from the Argentine.


William Thomas Lucas: It comes in under the head
of canned meats, I presume?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, and we will come to that item presently.


Mr. BRADY:: Under this item I should
like to direct the attention of the minister to what I consider to be a grave omission from the list of items under the countervailing duties. I refer to fish, which I think should be included under this heading. If any hon. member questions me I can quote from the Bible, from Murray's classical dictionary and from Webster's new international dictionary to prove that fish is meat, and consequently should be included under this item. The fishing industry on the Pacific coast is very important, and I am quite sure that if a few facts are laid before the government they will realize the importanace of including fish under the countervailing tariff.
Here is the situation. At the present moment on the Pacific coast over 315 American vessels are engaged in the halibut trade, and they use Canadian ports without paying any dues at all. There are no harbour dues; they have the full freedom of those ports and they pay only 81 for a fishing licence. They have the full benefit of our railways in order to send their products to the American market, and they are able to get for their fresh fish 2 cents per pound more than the Canadian fisherman gets.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Why?


James Charles Brady: There is a duty of 2 cents per pound imposed on Canadian fish entering the United States. The result is that the Canadian fisherman is penalized to the extent of 2 cents a pound on his fish. If, on a stormy day, a Canadian fisherman should be unable to reach the' port of Prince Rupert and should turn into the port of Ketchikan, which is seventy miles north in United States territory, he has to pay poft dues, entrance and clearing charges, and' other things which cost a considerable sum, varying in respect of the size of the vessel. The point I should like to bring strongly to the attention of the minister is this: Why should not the Canadian fishermen be protected in accordance with the principle laid down by the countervailing duty which the government is applying to other commodities? Is he not entitled at least to have that protection which has been afforded
other industries such as agriculture? I have under my hand correspondence from many quarters; from the senator representing Alaska; from the report of the United States tariff commission; from the Seattle Fishermen's Association and from the Canadian Halibut Union, and all are agreed that a reasonable solution is possible. Until now we could not get the government to believe that when we advocated something for the relief of the Canadian Pacific fishermen we were not urging retaliation against the United States. That myth is dead; there is no more heard of it now, only I trust that the government will see to it that this very important industry is given relief. It is only what is coming to it and is in accord with the principle which has been laid down under the item now under discussion. Without saying anything further, I hope this matter will receive the immediate attention of the Minister of Finance and that he will add this one item to the present list.


Charles Avery Dunning: Of course I shall be very glad to consider anything advanced by my hon. friend, but I would respectfully refer him to the wholesale condemnation of the countervailing idea as expressed by his colleague from St. Lawrence-St. George.


James Charles Brady: But could you not do something in the way of some landing tax which would give relief to our Canadian fishermen?


Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: When these ships come in loaded with their fish is it not an advantage to your ports? Do they not buy the packages in which the fish are shipped, and the ice which is put up by your own workmen? Do not the Canadian railroads carry those fish from your ports to the United States? Do not your ports get vast advantages out of that situation?


James Charles Brady: That is conceded; they buy their ice there, and no doubt the railways receive substantial profits from that traffic. We desire to have them receive those profits, and we welcome the American fishermen to our port. But the American fisherman who enters our ports is not permitted by his government to have any repairs done, nor can he except in a limited degree purchase any supplies at that port; he must do that in United States territory. In other words, he sells his fish on the exchange in competition with Canadian fishermen at a price 2 cents per pound above that received by the Canadian fisherman, and gets the full benefits of the port. I think it will be agreed that some right lies on the side of Canadian fishermen,

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
because he is asking only for a fair and equitable agreement.
Prince Rupert is the only harbour on the Pacific coast which meets the requirements of the large American fishing fleet. Ketchikan has no railway connection to the United States market. Last year there were landed in Prince Rupert 30,500,000 pounds of halibut, of which the Canadians sold about 3,750,000 pounds to the United States. If the American fishermen were not permitted to enter Prince Rupert harbour, they would be forced to travel often nearly 1,200 miles to Seattle, and that would be a difficult and dangerous voyage in bad weather even for the larger boats. The Canadian fisherman asks that the provision which is to be applied to other industries should be applied to the third greatest industry in Canada; he asks that this industry be given a fair chance.


John Gordon Ross: The explanation given by the hon. member might apply to certain conditions prevailing in British Columbia, but I would like to hear from some of the hon. members from Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island.


James Charles Brady: What are the Americans doing on the Atlantic seaboard? A Canadian fishing vessel on the Atlantic seaboard cannot enter an American port in order to sell its fish; it must return to a Canadian port and transfer the fish into carriers for disposal in United States markets. What is being done in Prince Rupert? American vessels to the number of over 300 enter the port without paying anything, the fish is sold on the exchange in competition with Canadian fish, put into bond and given quick transit into the United States. This question has never been brought by the government before the United States in the right manner, and I do honestly believe that the United States government will assist in a correct settlement of this problem, one which would give to the Canadian halibut fisherman that which he is entitled to. The port of Prince Rupert and the Canadian fishermen should be treated on an equitable basis, especially when one considers that the United States is considering the raising of the duty on frozen halibut to 5 cents per pound.
We have been hearing of Japan in connection with silk, but let us consider that country from a fishing standpoint. Last year the Japanese landed in the city of Seattle 400,000 pounds of very excellent frozen halibut, which was sold at 9 cents per pound, which price included the 2 cents per pound duty. Let us 
suppose that the rate suggested by the United States tariff board goes into effect-what might happen? Japan -would immediately turn her attention to Canada and it would not be very long before a serious situation might exist here. The Japanese can catch the fish, bring them across the Pacific to Seattle, and sell them for 9 cents per pound. Would the Canadian fisherman, operating a five-man boat, be able to compete with the Japanese?


Charles Avery Dunning: Will the hon. member
explain why Japanese fish are not brought to Canada instead of to the United States? My information is that no Japanese halibut comes to Canada, even though we have a lower rate of duty than has the United States.


James Charles Brady: They have larger markets
in Seattle.


Mr. YOUNG (Weyburn):: What is the
Japanese rate of duty on halibut?


James Charles Brady: I do not know, but I know that the American rate is 2 cents per pound. Last year the United States was able to send
1,125,000	pounds of halibut into Canada on a payment of one cent per pound duty.


Edward James Young: You cannot shut out Japanese halibut by a countervailing duty.


James Charles Brady: Do not try to misinterpret my meaning. My hon. friend will not get me to say something which I do not mean.
I made that illustration to show that the Canadian fisherman is entitled to consideration because of the present duty of 2 cents and the threat made by the United States to raise the rate on frozen halibut to 5 cents per pound. It is the little things which swing the pivot or change the flow of commerce.
I think I have placed squarely before the finance minister and the government the desire of the Canadian fishermen, namely, to get justice in their fair demands.


James Dew Chaplin: Will the minister tell the committee the situation in Nova Scotia?


John Gordon Ross: Perhaps the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis (Mr. Short) could tell us.


Mr. SHORT:: The hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Ross) has said that he would like to hear from someone from the Atlantic coast.
I want to say that I am quite in accord with the statements made by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Brady) with reference to a countervailing duty on fish. The Americans are threatening to increase the duty on frozen halibut, and I think we should have a countervailing duty instead of the present rate of one cent per pound.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friends have been condemning those countervailing duties; they said that that would be a made-in AVashington policy.


James Charles Brady: Put a straight duty on then, or a port tax.


Harry Bernard Short: That is the only thing you
offer us, so how can we go after you for anything else? The hon. member for Skeena is quite right in the position he takes. The fishing industry in this country would be in a much better position had we a department of fisheries capable of handling the affairs of the industry. If laws were enacted governing the landing of fish in British Columbia, we would soon find the American fishermen offering us some concessions on the Atlantic. The American fishing vessels are allowed to use our ports without any restrictions; they can enter the port, land their cargoes and transport to the United States, but our vessels cannot enter an American port, even upon the payment of the duty of 2 cents per pound. If we want to send fish to the United States they must be landed at a Canadian port and transhipped into a regular carrier.


James Dew Chaplin: Do American boats call at Nova Scotia ports?


Harry Bernard Short: They do, but under certain restrictions.


James Dew Chaplin: Those restrictions do not exist on the Pacific coast?


Harry Bernard Short: They do not exist on the
Pacific coast at all.


James Dew Chaplin: That is what I wanted to find out from the minister.


Harry Bernard Short: A United States boat cannot come into one of our Atlantic ports and purchase bait and other supplies, but United States vessels can do this on the Pacific coast. That is where we have a lever. If we had a business administration handling the affairs of the Fisheries department, they would have looked into the matter long ago and used that lever with the United States. Then the United States would have been willing to give us concessions in regard to our markets for Atlantic fish. That is the answer to that. I am quite in accord with what the hon. member for Skeena has said with reference to the fishing industry on the Pacific coast. If we would look after our own interests on the Pacific coast, we would have our United States friends offering us entirely different terms with reference to our Atlantic fish.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The question which has
been brought forward by the hon. member for Skeena is really worthy of every consideration. I do not want to rebuke the minister, but I think he treated in a rather light manner what was a very fair and courteous presentation, and I notice that some of his supporters rather laughed at the proposal. Let us look at the matter frankly for a moment and let me supplement what the hon. member for Skeena has most ably and courteously put forward. In the Pacific ocean there is a great fishing area inside and outside of territorial waters. The United States fishermen come north from Seattle and fish outside the territorial waters in international waters. They have in the United States no place where they can properly handle that fish. AAre extend to them without any interference whatever all the courtesies that are extended to a Canadian fishing boat. They bring their fish into Prince Rupert and by virtue of that privilege, a strictly Canadian privilege, which is extended to them, they are enabled to ship about 27,000,000 pounds of halibut a year, chiefly to the New England market, as against 3,000,000 pounds that Canadian fishermen are able to fish into that market. AVhy cannot the Canadian fishermen ship as much as the United States fishermen? For the very simple reason that the United States impose a duty of two cents a pound on the fish which they handle and can handle only through Canadian facilities. That has been going on year after year. The point is this: the hon. member for Moose Jaw a moment ago asked a question -and I have no criticism to make of the form of it-did not Prince Rupert, a Canadian city, benefit from United States vessels coming in there? Certainly it did to a meagre extent; Prince Rupert under necessity endures that condition, but it would very much rather have Canadian fleets coming in and have the full supplying of those vessels. The United States vessels do not buy their supplies in Prince Rupert. They may buy ice; they may buy some supplies that are absolutely necessary, but they slip along the coast to Ketchikan, which has developed into quite a city through supplying these very boats. But Ketchikan is so situated geographically that it cannot serve in other ways the fishermen whom it supplies. Therefore Prince Rupert is left, to use a slang phrase, holding the sack. In other words, out of this vast fishing industry-and it is vast, because 30,000,000 pounds of one class of fish, namely, halibut, is a considerable quantity-Prince Rupert is taking perhaps one-fifth of what it ought to be getting, or less than that.


James Charles Brady: A tenth,
2184	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Henry Herbert Stevens: Certainly a very meagre portion of what it is entitled to. For years our United States friends have imposed this rather onerous duty, because two cents a pound on large quantities of fresh fish is, as my hon. friends will realize, a somewhat stiff tariff. I agree with the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis that our United States friends would be very much perturbed if they thought we were going to deny them these privileges which we have so freely extended to them. What we are doing is this, and I will just illustrate the point: the government . puts live hogs under the countervailing duty. This does not amount to anything. We get and can get no live hogs from Great Britain. Therefore this does not help Great Britain and it does not amount to much. But fish is a commodity that might be treated in this manner with some advantage to Canada, and that is what my hon. friend is suggesting. He, like the rest of us, would prefer that we talk very plainly to the people of the United States in this regard and put a straight duty on fish. I am not saying that that alone would correct the situation. We should do that and also notify them that we are not going to give them the facilities at one of our ports if they are going to treat the very product handled through that facility in a manner that keeps our people out of the market. I think the proposition was very fairly and well advanced by the hon. member for Skeena and it is a subject that merits the closest scrutiny by parliament and the government.


Mr. BOTHWELL:: What is the reason for the difference between the treatment of United States vesels on the west coast and that on the east coast?
_ Mr- STEVENS: The history of the matter is long and intricate and I am not in a position offhand to answer the question, but from memory I would say this: for many years there has been a modus vivendi on the Atlantic coast. This has been in existence for thirty, forty years, and adjusted from time to time. But the situation on the Pacific coast has grown up more or less gradually. I brought the matter to the attention of parliament some years ago, and if I recall rightly,
I think it was before my hon. friend lived in Skeena but it was a good many years ago, anyway, when we took some steps to curtail this practice in British Columbia. For instance, before Prince Rupert was established, these United States vessels, which were quite large, used to bring their halibut down to Vancouver and ship it from that point. fMr. Brady.]


Charles Avery Dunning: Why would they go to Vancouver rather than to Seattle, the cities being not far apart?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The question is a little, shall I say, stale in my memory.


James Dew Chaplin: They are quite a number of miles apart.


Charles Avery Dunning: I asked the question just for information; it is not important.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Seattle is of course about 150 or 160 miles further.


Charles Avery Dunning: A night's run.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, but they preferred to bring the fish to Vancouver, and I think at that time, which was twenty or twenty-five years ago, they had probably better railway connection over the Canadian Pacific for transportation to the Atlantic coast. I was going to answer my hon. friend (Mr. Both-well) by saying that on the Atlantic there has been a long standing agreement, quite an old historic arrangement, between the two countries, but on the Pacific coast conditions are different; they are not identical and we have never come to a suitable understanding with the United States. The question of bait and various other matters pertaining to this subject have from time to time been discussed and adjusted, but the matter brought up by the hon. member for Skeena is undoubtedly worthy of consideration.


Mr. BROWN:: I understand, however, hon. members opposite do not contend that a duty, either countervailing or otherwise, would in iteslf remedy the disabilities under which the Canadian fishermen suffer.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Before I answer that question, let me say this: we are trying to discuss this matter without referring to differences of opinion in regard to duties or otherwise. We do not purchase so much fish from the United States that a countervailing duty or a two cent duty would correct the situation to which we have referred, but we do say this: that there should be a duty, and a notification to the United States that these extraordinary privileges which we now accord them will be moderated or changed unless they give us some consideration in their market.


George Gibson Coote: I would like to come back to the question of beef, n.o.p. I asked the minister before what quantities of beef were imported from Australia, and I understood him to say that there was none imported last year.

Private Bills


Charles Avery Dunning: I read from the trade
summary for the fiscal year 1928-29, but my attention has since been called to the fact that some small quantities below a certain amount in poundage are not there quoted. So there might have been a little imported.


George Gibson Coote: Since I asked the question,
I have secured a copy of the Trade of Canada for the calendar year 1929, and the figures are so large that I want to put them on Hansard so that there will not be any misunderstanding. At page 53 I find that for the calendar year 1928 there was imported beef, fresh, chilled or frozen, 282,909 pounds from Australia, valued at $25,298; in 1929, 1,840,675 pounds, valued at $159,250. So far as New Zealand is concerned, we imported 1,756,948 pounds, valued at $125,592 in 1928, and 2,273,118 pounds, valued at $178,883, in 1929.


Charles Avery Dunning: Is my friend sure that he is quoting the product dealt with in the item under discussion, fresh beef?


George Gibson Coote: Yes, the item is beef, fresh,
chilled or frozen.


James Dew Chaplin: The minister will find the figures for the year 1929 at page 53 of the Trade of Canada, quarterly report, covering October, November and December, 1929, and nine months ending December, 1928 and 1929. Our imports from Australia in 1929 were 964,250 pounds, valued at $86,653, and from New Zealand, 1,985,735 pounds, valued at $152,974. That is beef, fresh, chilled or frozen.


Charles Avery Dunning: I have the Trade of
Canada in my hand. This is for the fiscal year, and at page 51, I find no imports from Australia of meats, fresh, chilled or frozen. The New Zealand figure, as I pointed out before, is 1,875,000 pounds, but none is shown as coming from Australia. We will have to trace that up between now and eight o'clock.
Progress reported.


REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
[Stage Direction]
Third and final report of the select standing committee on railways and shipping-Sir Eugene Fiset.
Seventh report of the select standing committee on banking and commerce-Mr. Geary (for Mr. Hay).
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 61, for the relief of Herbert Chick. -Mr. Black (Yukon).
Bill No. 62, for the relief of Albert Edward Saunders.-Mr. Young (Toronto Northeast).
Bill No. 63, for the relief of Marjorie Gladys Picken.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 65, for the relief of Raymond Gar-butt Little.

Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 67, for the relief of Florence Isabel Naughton.-Mr. Stinson.
Bill No. 68, for the relief of Lucy Beryl Marshall.-Mr. Black (Yukon).
Bill No. 76, for the relief of Kathleen Mary Davies.-Mr. Thorson.
Bill No. 78, for the relief of Louis Battaino. -Mr. Lang.
Bill No. 79, for the relief of Edith May Smith.-Mr. Lennox.
Bill No. 94, for the relief of Eva Verona McColeman.-Mr. Gray.
Bill No. 98, for the relief of Henry Cutler. -Mr. Gray.


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
John Frederick Johnston: When the house rose
at six o'clock we weie considering item No. 7:
Meats, fresh, n.o.p.. per pound: British preferential tariff, 2 cents; intermediate tariff, cents; general tariff, 3J cents.
Mr. COOTEt When the committee rose at six o'clock I was about to place on Hansard figures showing the importations from Australia of beef, fresh, chilled or frozen, in the calender years 1028 and 1929. In 1928 there were 282,000 pounds of beef imported from Australia at a value of $25,000; in 1929 the importations grew to 1,840,000 pounds valued at $159,000. In the year 1928 there were imported from New Zealand 1,756,000 pounds valued at $125,000; in 1929 the importation increased to 2,273,000 pounds at a valuation of $178,000. I would like to point out that the value of the beef imported from Australia in 1929 averaged less than 9 cents a pound. I cannot imagine how Australia can sell beef
2186	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
at that price; it makes one wonder whether beef is being dumped in Canada or whether it is of a very low quality. If it is a low quality product and if it is not properly stamped so that the consumer will know what he is buying, the result will certainly be to hurt the beef trade in Canada, and diminish the demand for beef of any kind. The beef imported from New Zealand in 1929 came in at an average price of less than 8 cents a pound. It would seem that the packers in Australia and New Zealand must have got the animals for nothing to be able to produce dressed beef at that price. This matter should be very carefully investigated by either the Department of Finance or the Department of National Revenue to see that a proper valuation is being placed upon this imported beef. The Department of Agriculture should also investigate to see whether a very low quality of beef is being brought into Canada and offered for sale in our stores. It may be that in the yea>rs to come there will be just as much feeling against the importation of this beef from Australia and New Zealand as there has been in the past year over the question of butter. I wish to draw these matters to the attention of" the Minister of Finance.


Mr. JELLIFF:: I would like to make a
further statement in connection with the subject dealt with by my hon. friend from Macleod (Mr. Coote). At this time I shall quote some figures from a bulletin recently issued by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. It shows that on the 1st of February, 1930, we had in storage 7,100,107 pounds of frozen mutton and lamb. On the same date we had in storage 594,525 pounds of mutton and lamb, -not frozen. The frozen mutton and lamb in storage as of February 1 was 7,100,107 pounds as compared with a five year average of 4,827,251 pounds, showing an increase in the storage stock of 47.08 per cent. The mutton and lamb in storage, not frozen, was 594,525 pounds on February 1, 1930 as compared with a five-year average of 280,003 pounds, showing an increase of 112.33 per cent. In both frozen and fresh meats there was an increase shown of 50.66 per cent. Some hon. members may say that 7.000,000 pounids of frozen and fresh mutton would make very little difference to the price of lamb and mutton received by the Canadian producer, and that it would represent only one pound per capita. My contention, however, and the contention of the sheep raisers in the portion of the country which I represent, is that this tremendous quantity of 
frozen and fresh mutton in storage effects a constant decrease in the price of mutton and lamb which the Canadian producer places upon the market. Let me illustrate by giving the figures relating to a shipment which came to Halifax in one boat on March 6 last. I am informed by the live stock branch of the Department of Agriculture that in that boat there were 31,650 carcasses of Iamb weighing
1.266.000	pounds. In addition there were
4.000	carcasses of beef from Australia weighing 2,400,000 pounds, and on that same ship there were 270 bales of wool weighing 81,000 pounds. This indicates very clearly the competition which the sheep growers of western Canada have to face from Australia and New Zealand. I am very glad indeed that my hon. friend the Minister of Finance has seen fit to apply these countervailing duties; while they do not have very much effect with regard to frozen meat coming from New Zealand and Australia, they will affect importations from the United States. During the past few weeks I have had scores of telegrams from the sheep growers of souith&m Alberta complaining that sheep and lambs were about to be exported from the states of Washington, Oregon, and even California into the Vancouver market.


Charles Avery Dunning: Live animals?


Lincoln Henry Jelliff: Yes, live animals. I laid
this matter fully before the Minister of Finance before the Easter recess, and I think that these countervailing duties, as they apply to live animals, are in part the result of my representations. I am sure this action will be greatly appreciated by the sheep men of western Canada.


Arthur Edward Ross: That is protection,
is it not?


Lincoln Henry Jelliff: I am willing to accept it.
We have been a great many years building up that sheep industry which, as my hon. friend knows, is of immense value to agriculture throughout the west.


Mr. SPENCE:: I am glad to see my hon.
friend becoming converted.


Lincoln Henry Jelliff: I noticed that some members of the opposition who voted against the budget last night were crying for the countervailing duties. However, there is another matter in this connection which was brought forward this afternoon by the hon. member for Peace River. I am sorry the Minister of Agriculture is not in his seat. I had this matter of the competition of frozen mutton from Australia and New Zealand with our fresh mutton before the minister on several

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
occasions last year, urging that if nothing further could be done, at least changes might be made in the Live Stock Products Act compelling the inspection, grading and marking of frozen mutton coming into this country. Two purposes would be served by this change; we would restrict the amount of these importations and we would also assure our people that they would get a good quality of mutton. The Minister of Agriculture intimated that he would introduce an amendment to the Live Stock Products Act during this session to carry that idea into effect, and I am very sure that such an amendment has been prepared by his live stock products branch. In the absence of the minister I want to urge upon the government to-night that they prevail upon him to introduce and carry through that amendment this session, as I believe this house would fully approve of that action and I know it will meet in part the situation in the west.


Mr. ADSHEAD:: It must be quite evident
that there is a difference of opinion in this corner of the house in regard to this matter. The Minister of Finance has graciously listened to the importunities of my hon. friend from Lethbridge with regard to the sheep growers. 1 should like him to take into consideration also those who have to buy this mutton and lamb. My working people like a little bit of mutton occasionally, and at the present time they have to pay about 35 cents a pound for lamb chops. I want to know if the minister desires to make them pay any more by putting a further duty on the importation of mutton and lamb so that the sheep growers in Canada may get a little richer at the expense of those who consume the mutton.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: When your friends order lamb, would you like them to get frozen Australian mutton instead of what they ordered?
Mr. ADlSHEAD : I have never asked that particular question; I do not know whether or not they get Australian mutton, but they get good lamb chops. I do not suppose they would have any objection to buying Canadian mutton, but they would object to paying a higher price for it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-8. Canned meats, poultry or game; extracts of meat and fluid beef, not medicated: British preferential tariff, 15 per cent: intermediate tariff, 25 per cent; general tariff, 271 per cent.
Mr. CHAPLIN- I should like to inquire from the minister why he decided to take off
2V per cent? What was his reason for reducing this item from 17^ per cent to 15 per cent?
Charles Avery Dunning: The facts in regard to this item for the year 1929 are as follows: The total importations amounted to $S02,000, of which $564,000 came from the Argentine and $99,000 from the United Kingdom. Imports of extracts of meat and .fluid beef, not medicated, amounted to $144,000, of which $103,000 came from the United Kingdom.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Was that produced in the United Kingdom or did it come to us from the Argentine via the United Kingdom?


Charles Avery Dunning: It qualified for the British preference, in any event.


William Thomas Lucas: Could the minister give the Argentine rate of duty on these products?


Charles Avery Dunning: No, I could not, but there is no countervailing duty proposed on this item.


James Dew Chaplin: Our duty against the Argentine now is 27i per cent, and the minister has reduced the British preference to 15 per cent. I should like to know the object in taking off only 2i per cent. Does the minister think the reduction of 2i per cent will increase our imports from Great Britain? Did the minister hear what was said with regard to beef from New Zealand and Australia, that it was being entered through the customs at 8 and 9 cents a pound? I heard a gentleman say just now that mutton was being sold at 35 cents a pound, and I would like to know what that beef sold for that was brought in at 8 and 9 cents a pound. I never heard anything of it; I never heard of anyone buying beef at any such figure as 8 and 9 cents a pound plus an ordinary profit. What has become of it? Who makes the profit on it? Where does it go? That beats any manufacturing business of which I ever heard. I think it would be a good thing for the minister to try to find out where this beef goes. Certainly none of our people get it, unless it has been canned or embalmed. I know none of the workers in my district ever get any of it at those prices.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-10. Meats, n.o.p., per pound: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff. It cents; general tariff, 2 cents.
Provided that the weight of a barrel of pork for duty purposes shall not be less than 200 pounds;' provided, also, that if any country imposes upon such goods produced in, and imported from, Canada rates of higher duty than are enumerated in this item, equivalent rates of duty shall be imposed on such goods entering Canada from such country.
2188	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


James Dew Chaplin: Wait a minute. Apparently some hon. gentlemen do not know anything about these items and do not want to know anything about them.


An hon. MEMBER:: We know more than you do.


James Dew Chaplin: There was no trade with Great Britain in pork or smoke meats; there was 64 pounds of sausage imported from Great Britain.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hot dogs.


James Dew Chaplin: Does the minister expect any imports under this item from Great Britain? I am interested in knowing what business the minister expects to receive from Great Britain under these various items.


Charles Avery Dunning: I shall be glad to give
that information on every item, even though it is not asked for. It is utterly absurd to have a tariff against Great Britain on many of these items, and our trade information regarding this particular item emphasizes that fact.


James Dew Chaplin: That is the minister's
opinion, but I do not agree with it.


Charles Avery Dunning: If my hon. friend will
only wait I will give him the reasons for my opinion; will he kindly possess his soul in patience? He asks me for information and before I can give it he jumps down my throat.


James Dew Chaplin: You are wasting a lot
of time now.


An hon. MEMBER:: What about you?


Charles Avery Dunning: The imports of this item for the fiscal year 1929 were valued at $1,965,000, of which $1,960,000 came from the United States in the form of cured bacon, barrelled pork and barrelled beef and sausages. In the same year we exported goods to the value of $9,615,000 of which over $7,000,000 went to the United Kingdom and $1,961,000 to the United States. It is rather absurd to have a duty of li cents per pound on importations from Great Britain on an article like this which we do not import at all but which we export to the extent of $7,000,000 per year.


James Dew Chaplin: You do not expect to
have any imports of this item?


Charles Avery Dunning: We do not expect to
import any considerable quantity of these articles from Great Britain. It will be noticed that there is a considerable two-way trade as between the United States and this
[Mr. Chaplin.
Our imports from the United States were $1,960,000 and our exports amounted to $1,961,000. In this particular case it is proposed to apply the countervailing duty. Our proposal is that the rates shall be If cents per pound under the intermediate, and 2 cents per pound under the general tariff. The present United States duty on cured bacon is 2 cents per pound, and by the bill at present before the senate it is proposed to raise that to 3J cents per pound. The present duty on pork in brine is 2 cents per pound, and the senate bill proposes to raise that to 3i cents per pound. The present duty on salted pork is 2 cents per pound, and it is proposed to raise that to 3-J cents per pound. The present duty on salted meats is 20 per cent ad valorem, and a specific duty of 6 cents per pound is proposed. Beef, dried and smoked meats and sausages bear a 20 per cent ad valorem rate, and the proposal is to increase that to a specific rate of 6 cents per pound.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-14. Tallow: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 17J per cent; general tariff, 20 per cent.
George Halsey Perley: What were the
importations from Great Britain of this item?


Charles Avery Dunning: The total importations
from all countries amounted to only $1,528.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Why should we allow tallow from Australia and New Zealand to come in free in competition with our local producers?


Charles Avery Dunning: Australia is not receiving the benefits of the British preference.


James Dew Chaplin: Other countries are.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: What are the importations from the countries which come under the British preference?


Charles Avery Dunning: We imported only about $1,500 worth from all the world.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The previous rate was 15 per cent and it is now proposed to make it free?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Sufficient tallow for domestic demands is produced in this country; why should not our farmers be encouraged to produce cattle with all the incidentals? I cannot understand why this reduction is being made.


James Dew Chaplin: The minister states that we imported only 81,500 worth, while the figures show that 100,000 pounds came in from the United States during the year 1929.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend is into the next year.

Trays and Means-Customs Tariff


James Dew Chaplin: I am speaking of the fiscal year 1929.


George Reginald Geary: I think it is $20,000.


Charles Avery Dunning: I do not know the price of tallow, but the value of the imports was $1,528; I do not know whether or not that would purchase 100,000 pounds, but I rather doubt it.


George Reginald Geary: I have the figure of $20,000.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Has the minister the figures for 1928 and 1929?


Charles Avery Dunning: In 1928 our imports from the United States were valued at $11,000, or
145,000	pounds. During the fiscal year 1929 we imported 19,000 pounds valued at 81,528.


Mr. MALONEY:: The government has
killed the coat of the sheep; why not give the inside a chance and let us save the tallow at least?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-15. Beeswax: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 7i per cent; general tariff, 10 per cent.
George Halsey Perley: What are the imports from British countries on this item?


Charles Avery Dunning: The total imports for the fiscal year 1929 were valued at $80,000, of which $50,000 came from France. There were only small importations under the British preference, amounting to $683. There is a possible chance of enlarging the British trade on this item.


George Halsey Perley: What duty applied to importations from France?


Charles Avery Dunning: The intermediate rate is 7-J per cent.


George Halsey Perley: There is no special rate under the French treaty?


Charles Avery Dunning: No, no special rate.


James Dew Chaplin: The previous rate on importations from Great Britain was 5 per cent.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


James Dew Chaplin: And on importations from France the rate was 7i per cent?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


James Dew Chaplin: And from outside, 10 per cent.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


James Dew Chaplin: There was a differential, then, and France sent us thousands of pounds and Britain sent us practically nothing.


Charles Avery Dunning: Very little.


James Dew Chaplin: The minister had better
give a bonus to Britain to get it from there, or else raise the other tariff, or the situation will not be changed.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: What is the purpose of these changes? Who is asking for them? Have they been discussed before the tariff board or any other board? Did the minister suggest them out of some wild flight of imagination? Or is the object to make it appear that we are giving Great Britain a preference when we are really not doing so; as we are giving a preference in respect of comodities in which she does not trade with us?


Charles Avery Dunning: I will try to answer that again. I stated in the budget that out of the hundreds of items being dealt with, there were some fifty which were non-effective so far as imports from Great Britain were concerned ; that in many such cases it was patently absurd to impose a tariff against Great Britain. I stated also that some of those fifty items, by reason of their being made free, represented trade possibilities with Great Britain. This I regard as one of the changes which may result in a growth of trade. It is only a minor item; it does not amount to a great deal, but trade is made up of small things, and with the advantage in favour of Great Britain by making the item free and without imposing any heavier burden upon those in Canada who have to buy beeswax, it is quite conceivable and even probable this trade with Great Britain will grow to a certain extent. We brought in a small amount last year.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: We produce in Quebec
enough beeswax to supply the local demand. Why, then, should we encourage importations from any other country in the world? In Canada we can raise bees and produce honey of a quality and quantity sufficient for all our needs.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: You will have a lot of monopolies if you do not have freedom of trade.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I should like to give the producers in this country the very best position possible in their own market.


Charles Avery Dunning: Does my hon. friend know of beeswax being produced commercially in Canada?


James Dew Chaplin: I can answer that question. Yes.


Mr. YOUNG (Saskatoon):: Where?


James Dew Chaplin: In Ontario we use beeswax in our business.
2190	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Alexander MacGillivray Young: Where does it grow?


James Dew Chaplin: Poor fellow! And a man representing a farming district! All through the Niagara district one can buy beeswax; almost every farmer there will sell it. If the hon. member goes to Beeton, which is named because of the very fact that bees are raised in that locality, he can get all the beeswax he wants. My hon. friend needs some.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Is anybody objecting to these changes?


Charles Avery Dunning: No.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-16. Eggs in the shell, per dozen:	British preferential tariff, 2 cents;
intermediate tariff, 2J cents; general tariff, 3 cents.
Provided that, if any country imposes upon eggs in the shell, produced in, and imported from, Canada rates of duty higher than are enumerated in this item, equivalent rates of duty shall be imposed upon such commodities entering Canada from such country.
James Dew Chaplin: I should like to get an
explanation from the minister about this item. This is just a counterpart of the last tariff. Let me call the attention of the committee to this:	there are three items on eggs. The
first one, the minister has not changed. They have had enough eggs from Great Britain, so they do not change it. Britain last year sold us $3,000 worth of eggs. On the other two items: " eggs, whole, egg-yolks or egg albumen, frozen, and so forth, the items that we buy largely from China and of which Britain in 1929 sold us 722,000 pounds at a value of $120,000, they raised the duty 100 per cent. That shows how scared they are of eggs. They raise that tariff 100 per cent on the item in which Britain has largely dealt with us, but in respect to the two items in which Britain has not dealt very much with us, in the one case they leave the duty as it is at present, and in the other they lower it. In other words, in order to encourage business with Great Britain they increase the duty 100 per cent on the item that Britain has largely dealt in with us and they lower the duty on the item in which she deals with us only to a very small extent.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend does
not intend to be fair.


James Dew Chaplin: I do not think the minister should say that. I am making a statement of the facts.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend is not discussing the item under consideration. He is lumping together three items and is mak-

ing certain statements about them. All I ask is that we discuss the item now before the committee. I will attempt to give information in connection with it in the proper order, and when we come to the next item I will endeavour to do the best I can with respect to it. I think I can satisfy the members of the committee by proceeding in an orderly manner without making a political speech which I could just as easily make as my hon. friend. My hon. friend thinks it is the proper thing to make a political speech on every item. I am trying to be patient and to give the information required, but I do not want him to think because he is making a political speech on every item, that another hon. member could not do the same thing.


Martin James Maloney: About three months ago the farmers in this section of Canada were getting about fifty cents a dozen for eggs. Overnight the price dropped to twenty-two cents. Why? Because of the fact that the United States dumped millions of dozens of eggs into this country and they are doing the same thing to-day. Our countervailing duties will not prevent their doing the same thing again because, as we all know, in the United States they have a tariff commission which can raise or lower the duty at will. What is to prevent the egg producers in the United States from going to their tariff commission and saying:	Here, drop your duty.
Automatically ours goes down and then millions and millions of dozens of eggs will flow into this country as they have done before. There is in this budget a great defect which I feel the farmers should take cognizance of, because after all the poultry industry is really one that is of great value to Canada.


Mr. MILNE:: I have been consistently
opposing any increase in the tariff on eggs. I do this for various reasons. The first is that I do not believe a tariff on eggs will be of any benefit to the men who are producing eggs. During the past few years eggs have been bringing a fairly good price, and as a result of that Canada has now reached a point where she is producing practically as many eggs as she consumes. According to the figures given in the hearing before the tariff board, our exports of eggs for 1929 amounted to about 1,147,000 dozens and our imports amounted to about 713,000 dozens. Those figures show conclusively that we are reaching the point where we produce practically as many eggs as we consume. I am going to make a statement which I believe, and I think most of us believe is correct, namely, that when any product is on an export basis the tariff will not materially affect the price

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
to the producer. Tariffs increase the price of manufactured goods because the production of manufactured products can be controlled and the production of farm products cannot be controlled. Therefore tariffs do not generally increase prices to the producer. I am not going to labour that point because it has been made clear in the house several times already.


George Gibson Coote: Does the hon. member mean agricultural products?


Robert Milne: Yes, agricultural products or any products over the production of which you have no control. The United States endeavoured to increase the price of eggs, I suppose, in that country by raising the duty. I have here a clipping, one of several, showing the price of eggs in various markets. Tt is dated March 10, 1930, and shows that the price of extras in Toronto was 29 to 30 cents a dozen; Montreal, extras, 34 cents a dozen; New York, extras, 28 to 28^ cents a dozen. I think this shows conclusively that the high tariff of the United States is not having the effect of keeping the price of their eggs above the world's market price.
I have another reason for believing that a tariff on eggs is not in the best interests of the farmer. Unlike some other members of the house, I have a little sympathy for the consumer. We have been getting a fairly satisfactory price for our eggs as a general rule, and what the farmers are more interested in than a tariff on eggs is to get more commodities in exchange for the eggs they have to dispose of. I listened with a great deal of interest this afternoon to my hon. friend from Lincoln, with others, pleading that a 35 per cent tariff against the material that enters into the manufacture of artificial silk products was not sufficient to keep that industry alive in Canada. He apparently had received many communications from the manufacturers-


James Dew Chaplin: If my hon. friend will
allow me to interrupt him, I never spoke of artificial silk either last night or to-day-not one word.


Robert Milne: Apparently the hon. member is not accountable for all he says. I gathered from the discussion this afternoon that the duty on artificial silk was 35 per cent, and my hon. friends were complaining that the changes under discussion were going to mean less profit for the manufacturers. I would like to know how many requests the hon. member for Lincoln has had from the employees in these factories who are wearing artificial silk, artificial silk stockings and other
such goods. What the farmer is interested in to-day is to get more for his dozen eggs when he trades them for other commodities than he has been getting in the past. We trade eggs for commodities largely, and what we want is more boots, more clothing or other products for the eggs we have to sell. I maintain that the tariff will not help the farmer. That is my stand.
This question was discussed before the tariff board, and I have read very carefully the evidence presented there. I am convinced that there was no case made out to warrant an increase in the tariff on eggs. I wish to quote a short extract from a letter written by the gentleman who presented this case before the tariff board. It is dated May 9, 1929, and says:
The poultry producers of western Canada are not requesting protection for the purpose of inflating the price of eggs to the consumer.
That sounds familiar.
They desire protection because they believe that the best interests of the producer and the consumer can only be protected by a stabilized market.
That sounds familiar too.
They wish to protect the distributors who purchase large quantities during the period of over-production, and who place them in store in order to protect the consumer from overinflation during the period of low production.
I have not a great deal of sympathy for the man who is gambling in eggs, who stores them up at one season of the year and unloads them at another. It is such concerns, apparently, that the writer of this letter refers to and is tlying to protect. The consumer in the city is paying from 55 to 60 cents a dozen for the eggs for which the producer in the country receives 30 to 40 cents a dozen, and I know of cases where the consumer is paying almost double what the producer within a hundred miles of the city receives.


James Houston Spence: At the same time of the year?


Robert Milne: Yes, on the very same day. I maintain that that is one of the big difficulties so far as the producer is concerned. We are endeavouring to rectify that as fast as we can. Without detaining the house any further, or labouring the question, I am firmly convinced that that is where the great trouble lies, and I do not believe that increasing the tariff is going to be of any value to the producer of eggs in western Canada.


George Reginald Geary: Would the hon. gentleman mind giving me his view, for my own in-
2192	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
formation, as to whether we should have such institutions as storage plants for carrying eggs over from the season of high production to the season of low production?


Robert Milne: Most certainly.


George Reginald Geary: It costs money to do that, of course.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: I do not like to be
making the same objection to every item, but I am extremely glad to find that there is somebody in this house who is raising his voice on behalf of the ultimate consumer.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: We are all consumers.


James Houston Spence: We all eat, don't we?


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Eggs were selling last
year in Calgary at from 60 to 65 cents a dozen. Surely that is high enough without raising the price higher by means of a protective tariff, if that is the object. Certainly that is hoped to be the result of every tariff increase. My hon. friend from Winnipeg South Centre in his address on the budget said that the United States had gone tariff mad. It seems to me that we are following in their footsteps, and if they have gone tariff mad, we too seem to be going tariff mad. I should like to ask the minister if, under this item, when the price of eggs comes down in the United States, the countervailing duty will come down also; because I can name a few articles on which our tariff is higher than that of the United States. If you believe in countervailing duties, why not make the two equal in all respects, and, where their tariff is lower than ours, reduce ours to the same level? I raise these objections as to the cost of living for the benefit of consumers generally.


Charles Avery Dunning: There was, as members of the committee know, a hearing of the Tariff Advisory Board with respect to this matter, and I think I should say that the application for an increase came from the Saskatchewan Cooperative Poultry Producers, otherwise known as the egg and poultry pool, and also from the Canadian Poultry Pool, Limited. In their reference they state that the organization comprises within its membership provincial poultry organizations of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, and through them represents a membership of approximately 40,000 producers.


Edward James Young: Would the minister read what Mr. Landreth said as to the number of dealers represented?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes. He said:
I would like to add here that through the
2,000	merchant members we serve in the neighbourhood of another 200,000 poultry producers in the prairie provinces, that is regarding the merchants, large and small, as having 100 customers each, because under our merchants' contracts the merchants who belong to the pool agree to deliver all their eggs to the association. In that way we serve the producers of that area, although not contracted directly to the pool.
I was not discussing the nature of the constitution of the pool, I am not familiar with that detail. I was simply indicating that evidently a substantial number of those engaged in the poultry business were behind this application coming from the province of my hon. friend who has just spoken, Manitoba. I just wanted to give that information by way of showing that this matter was not handled in the dark at all, but that all the arguments were published; and while I know there is a difference of opinion between groups of farmers with respect to the matter, nevertheless these organizations are largely farmers' marketing organizations. I think no one can dispute that fact. They may have arrangements with the merchants that may modify their position as pool farmers, so to speak, but I know no reason to believe that they do not represent accurately the desires of their producer-members. I have had many representations from the producers' organizations, in fact they have come to see me upon the matter.


Mr. IRVINE:: Did the minister get any representations from the Canadian Council of Agriculture or from the body of consumers?


Charles Avery Dunning: I had no representations personally from the Canadian Council of Agriculture that I can recollect; but in this record of the tariff board hearings on the matter appears the opposition of the Canadian Council of Agriculture; that is, apparently they are opposed to the request of the egg pools of the various provinces. It is all on record in connection with the hearing.


Mr. GLEN:: Will the minister give us information as to the quantity of eggs imported in comparison with the number produced in Canada?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes. There is a great variation in the imports in the various years. I will give the figures for the last five years:
Year	Value
1925		 $ 945,000
1926		 977,000
1927		 1,317.000
1928		 476,000
1929		 395,000
These are our imports, chiefly from the United States, of eggs in the shell.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


James Allison Glen: With regard to the application made before the tariff board, while it is perfectly true that it came from the organization of which the minister speaks, yet as a matter of fact the applicant was a Mr. Landreth, the general manager of one of these associations. I think I speak the absolute truth when I say that that man made the application without the consent and concurrence of the majority of the members of his organization, and I have had it repeated to me by those who attended the meetings when this matter was discussed and Mr. Landreth, in spite of what had been done, made the application. It came before the tariff board, and objection was then taken to it by the Consumers' League. The case was adjourned, and at the next hearing he did not appear; it was again adjourned, and he did not appear when it was called a third time, and again it was adjourned. I think on the fourth occasion he appeared, but there was no opportunity for the representative of the Canadian Council of Agriculture to appear because he was sick in bed. I am prepared to say that that application does not represent the opinion of the producers of eggs in western Canada. I am prepared also to say that it represents the opinions only of a very small minority, chiefly officials.
I do not think, as has already been pointed out by the member for Neepawa (Mr. Milne), that this tariff on eggs is likely to be of any benefit to the producers of eggs in western Canada. It is rather remarkable to find from the figures given by the minister that there has been a tremendous reduction in the importation of eggs during the past couple of years compared with what we imported in 1925. As a matter of fact, if my figures are correct as I got them from the minister, last year our importations were about a third of those of 1925.
Yesterday I said I would protest against the tariff on butter, eggs, fruit and vegetables, because I am absolutely convinced that the imposition of a tariff on these commodities is of no benefit to us in western Canada as producers, and certainly it will militate against any future activity of our farmer organizations to relieve themselves of the burdens that they have to bear by reason of the tariff. Therefore I am protesting against the imposition of this tariff on eggs.


Martin James Maloney: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask if the minister is aware of the fact that during the months of February and March there came into the city of Montreal from the United States one carload of eggs each week. Is he aware that during the early 2419-139
part of February when our farmers were getting 50 cents a dozen for their eggs, these importations over night caused the price to be cut in two? We in this country must realize that agriculture comes before all things.


James Allison Glen: Hear, hear.


Martin James Maloney: We must realize that the farmer is the backbone of our country.


Edward James Young: Why do you want to put such a heavy load on him?


Martin James Maloney: Because we want to carry him on. We are anxious to put the farmer in the same position as some of our other producers have been in for many years. Let me tell you that the poultry raiser in Canada is entirely opposed to anything that will militate against the products of his poultry.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Has the minister the export
figures for the same years?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes. Canada exported whole eggs to a value of 1319,000 of which $264,000 went to the United Kingdom and $45,000 to Newfoundland.


Abraham Albert Heaps: What year was that?


Charles Avery Dunning: For the fiscal year 1929.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Has the minister the figures for the two or three previous years?


Charles Avery Dunning: Not at the moment, but I can find them.


Mr. NEILL:: I think the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Glen) takes a somewhat limited view of the expression "western Canada." Surely he will confine that term to his own province or to that and the one immediately beside it. I think I am entitled to have some say on the statement that the whole of western Canada has no desire for legislation of this character.


James Allison Glen: I will exclude British Columbia.


Alan Webster Neill: But he oanmot do that; we are in Canada, although we are too often neglected when the interests of the west are concerned. Some people seem to think that the west begins in Winnipeg and ends in the Rocky mountains, but geographically and politically that is not so. It has been suggested that Mr. Landreth, appearing before the tariff board on behalf of the Canadian egg pool, exceeded his authority. But the egg pool is the biggest organization of egg producers in the Dominion, and it would surely be a very anomalous position to find the recently appointed head of it arrogating to himself

2194	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
authority to decide what sort of fiscal policy his constituents want against their wishes. I would point out that the application was before the tariff board for a year or more, as the hon. gentleman behind me said, so there was ample time for the egg producers to express themselves if they were not in agreement with the application. Further than that, this application did not originate with Mr. Land-reth, but originated with an organization in Ontario. It was later on concentrated in the application by the egg pool. In British Columbia at any rate I know that I can safely say every egg producer is solidly behind this legislation. Not only are they behind it individually, but I am familiar with the local organizations in my district; I have had telegrams from the president of the local cooperative pool in British Columbia and from a great many other officials not only recently but for years, asking that this same legislation be passed. The hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Dickie) is well aware of that fact.


Abraham Albert Heaps: What is the purpose of asking for an increase in the tariff on eggs?


Alan Webster Neill: Primarily to keep out at certain periods a flood of American eggs. The legislation would not necessarily raise the price of eggs, but to use the well known expression, it would stabilize the market.


Abraham Albert Heaps: In what way?


Alan Webster Neill: To prevent egg producers
being put out of business by a sudden influx of American eggs at the glut period of the year. It has been suggested that the Canadian Council of Agriculture are opposed to this measure and it has been said that they should have been consulted. They had the opportunity to express themselves, and if they did not-


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: They did express themselves.


John Livingstone Brown: Be fair on that point.


Alan Webster Neill: Did they put their views forward?


John Livingstone Brown: Yes, they did.
Mr. NEIiLL: Well, that was unknown to me. However, supposing they did; we have Mr. Landreth, the newly elected president of the Dominion egg pool on the one hand and we have the Canadian Council of Agriculture on the opposite side of the fence. It seems to me I have heard some of my hon. friends to my left, unless I am again mixing things up,

object to the amount which we give to the Canadian council, saying that it is more or less a personal and autocratic body, and that they have grown aloof-


Thomas McMillan: No, not the Canadian
Council of Agriculture.


Alan Webster Neill: Is it not the Council of
Agriculture?


Thomas McMillan: No, the Canadian
Council of Agriculture maintains itself; it does not get a grant.


Alan Webster Neill: Did I not hear the hon.
member for Weyiburn (Mr. Young) abject last year?


Edward James Young: No; the Canadian Horticultural Council does.


Alan Webster Neill: I will take back that feature of it; there is another aspect of the matter with which I wish to deal. The question was asked as to what the importation of eggs had been from the United States. In reply the minister cited the importations for a series of years, and it seemed that they were becoming .less rather than greater; the statement of the minister was no doubt correct. The point is that these eggs do not come in in a year; they come in in a month. In the months of January, February and March, when spring eggs are on the market, they not only come in in such large quantities that they ruin the market, but it is the possibility of bringing them in that shakes the market. It does not matter whether there are twelve or fifty carloads brought in in February, the point is that they are there in unlimited quantities, and the mere fact that they exist and are accessible breaks the price. Consequently the price of our eggs is appreciably lowered. Dealers know that the American price is quoted at say 25 cents, and we know that we -cannot produce eggs at that price. If one carload does not break the price they will bring in fifty or one hundred carloads. There is no doubt a necessity to put some kind of check on the importation to reduce the seasonal glut. The purpose might have been achieved by instituting a seasonal tariff such as was suggested at one time, but it appears that it cannot be done. I must protest at the suggestion that there is not a widespread demand for this legislation, and I make the statement that if business along these lines is continued, and if cheap eggs are imported, the poultry people of British Columbia will be put out of the egg business. We are harrassed with the enormous price we have to pay for wheat. Some years ago

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
hon. members from the prairies with the support of some of the members from British Columbia had the Crowsnest rates readjusted so that they would get a good rate on their wheat.


Edward James Young: We are not
asking for duty on wheat.


Alan Webster Neill: Did they reciprocate and help us to get a lighter freight rate on the feed for our chickens? No. They got what they wanted and we were put into the discard. The result is that to-day we pay more freight on No. 6 wheat, the inferior rubbish that we have to feed our chickens, to bring it from the prairies to Vancouver than they in the prairies pay on No. 1 wheat, worth three times as much.


Edward Joseph Garland: I must say that the hon. gentleman, contrary to his custom, is quite unfair to-night. The United Farmers of Alberta in convention assembled by unanimous vote supported the application of the British Columbia farmers for reduced rates on wheat shipped to the coast.


Alan Webster Neill: Yes, a few months ago. Did they come to the assistance of British Columbia when that province wanted to make it part of the Crowsnest deal a few years ago? In my opinion that was the time to support it. It is all very well to come along now and express an academic sympathy; I must say we are grateful, but what we wanted was action at that time. There is a Scotch saying that "giff gaff makes guid freends." That is, when you get a favour, give a little in return. We are asking for a return, and we will continue to use their inferior wheat at high prices if we are only allowed a living chance to make something. The farmers in my district are not making fortunes; few of them buy cars; none of them are coming to parliament; they coidd not put up the $200 deposit. I will say that I am only demanding a fair deal for the egg producers of the west.


Edward James Young: I wish to correct a wrong impression created by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill)-


Edward Joseph Garland: Only one?


Edward James Young: -in regard to
the Canadian Council of Agriculture not appearing before the tariff board to present the case against the application of the poultry pool. As has been stated, the application was made by Mr. Landreth. A date was set for the hearing, and although Mr. Darby of the Canadian Council of Agriculture appeared, Mr. Landreth did not. A second date was set, and on that occasion Mr. Darby again ap-2419-139i
peared, and Mr. Landreth did not but sent a request for a further adjournment. On the third occasion Mr. Darby travelled all the way from Winnipeg to attend the meeting and again Mr. Landreth did not appear on the scene, but again sent a message asking for a further adjournment. When a date for the hearing was finally set Mr. Darby could not be present. As for the representative of the Consumers' League of Canada, I must say that I happened to be with him on the morning of the hearing. He did not know anything about it until the hearing was about to start, at which time he received a message intimating that his presence was requested.


John Evans: I wish to correct a statement made by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni. There was no application from the province of British Columbia when the Crowsnest pass agreement was passed in this house in 1923. For that matter I do not remember that the hon. gentleman himself was very active in the matter. I wish to say that these countervailing duties constitute a vicious feature which has been introduced into the tariff at this time. Bad as the tariff system is, these countervailing duties make it much worse, and they never were asked for by the consumer. The profit derived from them is confined to the dealer exclusively and he is the only person who can possibly benefit. Such a measure is bound to increase the cost of living. I have maintained for a long time that by one stroke of the pen the government can lower the cost of living and improve production both on the farms and in the industries of the country. The policy of the government as shown by these countervailing duties is to make bargains with the dealers and manufacturers, and the cost of living is. going up year by year. It is a mistake to expect that any consumer can benefit by a countervailing duty; it only gives the dealers a chance to charge the home consumer a price that will give him a profit and which will enable him, when the markets are glutted, to ship his goods to any country in the world, at the same time keeping up the price at home high enough to give him a profit for his entire output. I particularly protest against these countervailing duties.
A great many of these items come on foodstuffs alone. Surely if the efficiency of a nation can be measured by anything it is by the extent to which the cost of living is kept down in line with world prices. During the last two or three years our government has done nothing but increase the cost of living to the worker. This does not even help the manufacturer, for the simple reason that
2196	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
wages must go up; but wages never go up as a countervailing measure against the high cost of the articles on which our manufacturers get a price fixing power. Wages are always behind; they are never high enough to meet the high cost of living in this protective country. Countervailing duties are bound to raise our cost of living another notch this year, and surely it has been high enough in all reason during the years gone by.
I should like to know from the Minister of Finance who asked for these countervailing duties in general. Did the Consumers' League, who has backed him up all these years, ask for them? Only the dealers asked for them, I believe, and it seems to me that only those with whom this government can make a bargain get the advantage in the tariff schedules.


Charles Avery Dunning: With relation to the last remark of my hon. friend I may say that to my certain knowledge neither the dealers nor anyone else of that class asked for countervailing duties, and I repudiate entirely the insinuation contained in his last remarks.


Mr. POULIOT:: I am one of those who asked for that duty, on behalf of the farmers of my constituency.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I have been trying to find out the purpose of this increase in the tariff, but as yet I have not succeeded. The first reason the hon. member for Comox-Alberni gave was that he hoped the increase in tariff would keep out-


Alan Webster Neill: I never used the words
"increase in tariff."


Abraham Albert Heaps: Well, the countervailing
duties, then; it is practically the same thing. If the duties were lowered I am sure the hon. member for Comox-Alberni would not want that. He was trying to protect the egg industry of his own province. I tried to find out why he wanted this increased duty and he said it was for the purpose of stabilizing the industry. No tariff as yet has been able to stabilize an industry either in this or in any other country with a high tariff. On the other hand the hon. member expressed the opinion that the tariff would keep out eggs from other countries.


Alan Webster Neill: Would tend to keep them out.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Well, I will say that even an increase in duty will not tend to keep out eggs from other countries. That has not been the effect of other increases in past years, in this country or in other countries. I think as a rule these increases have the
| Mr. Evans.]
opposite effect and only bring about further difficulties. If this duty was increased for the purpose of preventing the market from being glutted during a certain period of the year, as the hon. member for Comox-Alberni suggested, it should only be a seasonal tariff and not one that is in effect all year. As I understand it, this tariff will be in effect twelve months in the year and not during a certain period only, as I understood the hon. member to say he desired. Consequently I do not see that this duty will have any effect; if it does not increase the tariff it is not going to benefit the egg producers in Canada. On the other hand, if the increased tariff is not going to have the effect of keeping out eggs from other countries I do not see what advantage it will be. Personally I would prefer to see the duty remain as it was previously.


Alan Webster Neill: If in your opinion it is not
going to do any good at least it will not do any harm, so why not try it out? It will make us happy and will not hurt you.


Charles Avery Dunning: I do not think my hon.
friend from North Winnipeg need worry about the possibility of eggs costing more, because the Canadian hen apparently is a very industrious individual. During the last year for which I have a complete record it produced 272,000,000 dozen eggs, and our total imports during the same iperiod were only 1,000,000 dozen. I am not going to argue the general merits of this proposal, but I do believe that it will be effective in connection with the point which the hon. member for Comox-Allbemi made some time ago with reference to the spring production of eggs in Canada. As a farmer who principally grows wheat I have only an incidental interest in eggs, and a great many hon. members here are in the same position. However, I do not think we should entirely forget that there are farmers, just as much entitled to consideration as such, whose principal source of income is eggs or poultry, and there is no doubt in my mind that the Saskatchewan poultry producers, whose application is here on record, would have repudiated their official publicly if he had been acting in opposition to their wishes in the matter. As a matter of fact the Saskatchewan poultry pool, so-called, made representations to me in this connection, and they do believe rightly or wrongly that during that particular period of the year when everyone is striving for winter egg production a measure such as this will be beneficial to them in preventing their prices from being knocked

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
down to summer levels while they are still on a winter cost basis of production. That really is their argument, and I paid some attention bo it from that point of view.


Abraham Albert Heaps: If the Canadian hen is such
a wonderful producer why does she need any protection against other hens?


Charles Avery Dunning: The Canadian hen
operates according to the course of nature; she does mot lay as freely in the cold weather as she does in the warmth of sjpring. Nature has something to do with all these operations. In the winter she requires more assistance from her owner; she requires more shelter, more careful feeding and a great many other things. If my hon. friend would just go into the poultry business he would learn a lot about it in a very short time.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: The point raised by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni with respect to the freight rate on wheat seems to me deserving of some little consideration. When I hear hon. members for British Columbia ask for an increase in the duty on eggs I wonder if what they really want is not a reduction in the freight rate on the wheat which they feed their hens. As a matter of fact to-day the export rate on wheat to Vancouver is only-half the domestic rate. You take a given point in the prairies, with two cars of wheat on the siding. Both these cars are set out at Vancouver; one is used domestically and the wheat is sold to the poultry producers of British Columbia. They pay a rate of 45 cents per 100 pounds, while another car, handled from the same point in the same train, billed for export and sale to Chinamen-probably producing eggs to ship into Canada-bears a rate of 22J cents per 100 pounds, exactly one half. That seems to me to be a very important point. I do not raise any more objection to the duty on eggs than other goods, as I think they are just as much entitled to protection as anything else. However, I do insist that the producer of British Columbia is hampered by the freight rates which he is forced to pay. The Chinaman is able to buy our prairie wheat to feed to his hens, which is delivered at a lower rate, thus putting him in a preferred position to ship his eggs back to Canada. As to opposition being offered by the farmers of the prairie, I can assure my hon. friend that there never was or never will be any opposition to any adjustment of freight rates; he is entirely wrong in that statement.


Alan Webster Neill: Not opposition, but just a sort of lukewarmness.


Milton Neil Campbell: My hon. friend could not expect us to ask for something in his interest; I think the lukewarmness is entirely on the part of the egg producers of British Columbia.


Edward Joseph Garland: They have not started anything.


Milton Neil Campbell: If my hon. friend were just as energetic in trying to secure a reduction in the freight rates as he has been to secure an increase in the duty on eggs, I think we would get somewhere. Let him start something and I can assure him that we will all be behind him.


James Allison Glen: Did I understand the hon. member to say that he thought he was entitled to protection on his products?


Milton Neil Campbell: I was not raising that question, but I said that if there were any merit in protection-


James Allison Glen: Did the hon. member not say that he was entitled to it if anyone was?


Milton Neil Campbell: Yes.


James Allison Glen: I take it that he is in favour of protection on agricultural products.


Milton Neil Campbell: I am not arguing the point.


James Allison Glen: Are you or are you not?


Milton Neil Campbell: My hon. friend supported the budget so he must have been in favour of a duty on eggs.


James Allison Glen: No, he was not.


Milton Neil Campbell: He voted his judgment.


James Allison Glen: Are you in favour of protection on agricultural products?


James Dew Chaplin: Are you?


James Allison Glen: No.


Milton Neil Campbell: Judging by his vote,
my hon. friend seemed to be very much in favour of that.


James Allison Glen: Are you?


Milton Neil Campbell: Generally speaking, I am in favour of the elimination of all tariffs. If there is any merit in protection, the farmer is entitled to equal treatment.


James Allison Glen: Are you in favour?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
2198	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
Customs tariff-16a. Eggs, whole, egg yolks or egg albumen, frozen or otherwise prepared, n.o.p., whether or not sugar or other material be added: British preferential tariff, 10 per cent; intermediate tariff, 25 per cent; general tariff, 30 per cent.
William Earl Rowe: Why should the duty be
raised on this item? The British preferential has been reduced on items in which there is very little business, but as soon as we come to an item which involves $120,000 annually the rate is jumped up.


Charles Avery Dunning: Will my hon. friend
please demonstrate where the $120,000 comes in?


William Earl Rowe: There are hundreds of thousands of pounds-


Charles Avery Dunning: Under which item of the old tariff does that come in?


William Earl Rowe: The British preferential was 5 per cent and it is being raised to 10 per cent.


Charles Avery Dunning: Does my hon. friend claim that that value of importations came in under the old item 207?


William Earl Rowe: We have to inquire of the finance minister or one of his legal advisers, because the way it is printed here it is impossible to tell.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend misunderstands completely. This item 16a includes those commodities which formerly came in under two tariff items, one being 207 and the other 711. Mr. hon. friend is endeavouring to prove that we have increased the British preferential rates on a certain value of goods. If we have increased the British preference it can only be with reference to item 207, and I would like to know upon what he bases his information with reference to the value of imports.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That is item 207.


William Earl Rowe: Probably the hon. minister can give us that information.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friends rise and make statements and then ask for information. Item 207 covered blood albumen, egg albumen and egg yolks. It has been deemed desirable to put all egg products together, and the egg albumen and egg yolk have been taken out of item 207.


Martin James Maloney: What does the hon. minister mean by blood albumen?


Charles Avery Dunning: I do not know; I know it is not an egg product.


William Earl Rowe: We agree on that particular item.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend is endeavouring to demonstrate that we are increasing the British rates on these particular commodities. I ask him to be reasonable with me and tell me what value of eggs came in under the old low British preferential rate of 5 per cent, as covered by item 207.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: We have no way of ascertaining that; the distribution of the figures is not given in your report.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is so infinitesimal that it does not appear in any of the trade reports.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Why ask us for the information?
Mr. DUNNING': Because my hon. friend opposite, and the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin) speaking on the same matter a few moments ago, stated that the tariff against Great Britain has been increased by 100 per cent. I ask for the information because to make such a statement the hon. gentlemen presumably have information which I have been unable to secure. Tariff item 207 is mentioned, not because there is any volume of business under that item, but because it is an old item which is being eliminated on account of its inclusion with the new one. All egg commodities are being put in the one item. The great bulk of importations was made up of commodities under item 711, which imposed a duty of 15 per cent against Great Britain. That duty is being reduced to 10 per cent.


Mr. BARBER:: What were the quantities?


Charles Avery Dunning: The imports of frozen eggs, frozen yolks and albumen are not recorded separately, but the total is valued at $651,000. Those importations were chiefly from China, the United States and the United Kingdom.


Harry James Barber: The amounts are not given separately for China and Great Britain?


Charles Avery Dunning: The importations from China for the fiscal year 1929 were valued at $416,000, and the importations from the United Kingdom were valued at $120,000.


William Earl Rowe: I feel much more at home on the situation as the Minister of Finance apparently does not know the exact classification. He concludes by showing that my figure of $120,000 was correct for the importations from the United Kingdom.

Wo,ys and Means-Customs Tariff


Charles Avery Dunning: Those importations came in at 15 per cent, not at 5 per cent. We are not increasing the duty on the commodities included in that $120,000; we are reducing it from 15 per cent to 10 per cent.


William Earl Rowe: I submit that if you reduce that from 15 to 10 per cent and reclassify it with one of 5 per cent, you have practically struck a happy equilibrium and have not extended the British preference at all.. One was 5 and one was 15. The minister has reclassified them into one item and called it 10 per cent British preference.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


William Earl Rowe: In this item in which a trade of $120,000 was done in this country under the British preference there has been no change, and in other items along the whole line the thing is simply a camouflage, because in some items which have been reduced from 17-J per cent to nothing, the business done under the British preference has been practically nil. For instance, in the item passed just before I came into the chamber the imports in the last five years amounted to only 200 pounds. The minister has reduced the duty under that item by 17i per cent, whereas in an item where the trade under the British preference amounts to more than $100,000 we find a reclassification which makes practically no difference in the British preference.


Charles Avery Dunning: I do not intend to allow my hon. friend to get away with an utterly wrong statement. He is repeating and continuing to insist on what is entirely wrong. He must surely understand my statement. The $120,000 worth of business to which he refers came in last year at 15 per cent; it will enter in future at 10 per cent. As regards the business to which he refers as coming in at 5 per cent, there is nothing traceable at all. My hon. friend knows that; I have told him that three or four times. Yet he continues describing this as striking a happy medium and so forth. The happy medium is one of rate only. In fact, it is a reduction from 15 per cent to 10 per cent in the tariff against Great Britain on the effective item itself, the $120,000 worth of business to which my hon. friend refers. That is the truth of the matter.


John Livingstone Brown: This is an illustration of what I tried to point out last night, namely, the danger of thinking only of averages without taking into consideration the amount of trade brought in under any particular duty.


James Dew Chaplin: Can the minister tell us what the old duty was on eggs from China, under this item, frozen eggs.


Charles Avery Dunning: On blood albumen, egg albumen and egg yolk, it would be 10 per cent from China, and on eggs, n.o.p., which would include all the others about which my hon. friend is asking, it would be 17i per cent.


James Dew Chaplin: The minister has raised the duty on eggs from China from 10 to 30 per cent?


Charles Avery Dunning: No, the really effective increase is from 17i per cent to 30 per cent.


James Dew Chaplin: The increase is on these broken eggs from China, of which 1,700,000 pounds were imported?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


James Dew Chaplin: The duty on these has
been raised to 30 per cent?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Martin James Maloney: Where are these Chinese eggs consumed principally in this country?


Henry Herbert Stevens: In the restaurants.


Martin James Maloney: Are they really palatable?


Charles Avery Dunning: There is a difference of opinion in regard to that.


Martin James Maloney: According to the statement of the minister we have had about 50,000,000 of these eggs dumped in Canada within the last year.


Charles Avery Dunning: Fifty million dozen?


Martin James Maloney: No, 50,000,000 eggs. If
they were shut out, quite a few chickens would be kept busy in Canada. In order to give the poultry raiser in this country a chance, we should consider the cost to the farmer to produce eggs. We must remember that a chicken costs at least a shilling. To bring the chicken to maturity until she is able to lay will cost a few dollars. To build a house and home and feed that chicken for the two years during which she is most useful will cost another $4 or $5. Then you have to allow for the wear and tear of the hen, and I really think the minister should raise the duty on eggs entering Canada.


Leon Johnson Ladner: As regards the $416,000
worth of eggs coming from China, this does not mean from Hongkong, does it?


Charles Avery Dunning: No, Hongkong is separately stated. A small amount comes from Hongkong.


Leon Johnson Ladner: 
Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.
2200	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Leon Johnson Ladner: Under the budget proposals that will be raised to 30 per cent?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Leon Johnson Ladner: That consists practically
all of frozen and powdered eggs, does it not?


Charles Avery Dunning: Frozen and powdered.
It includes egg yolk and egg albumen.


Leon Johnson Ladner: How much came from
Hongkong last year?


Charles Avery Dunning: Thirteen dollars' worth.


John Anderson Fraser: Does the trade from Hongkong come in under the British preference?


Charles Avery Dunning: No. Hongkong does not have the British preference, and so far as I know it never has enjoyed it with Canada. It does not at the present time at any rate. Its whole business is as an entry port of China and it would be quite impractical to accord the British preference to Hongkong.


John Anderson Fraser: Hongkong enjoys the
British preference because it is a British colony.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend is wrong. I say again that Hongkong does not enjoy the British preference with Canada.


John Anderson Fraser: How is it eliminated from the British preference?


Charles Avery Dunning: It never was eliminated
because it never was included. This afternoon I read the statement. The original British preference was extended in 1907 to certain Briitsh countries and provision was made for its further extension by order in council. No order in council has ever been issued by any government according to Hongkong the British preference on goods entering this country from that port.


George Gibson Coote: If it would not take too
long, would the minister indicate the dominions?


Charles Avery Dunning: I placed it all on Hansard this afternoon.


George Gibson Coote: I happened to be out of
the chamber at the time.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I think it is obvious that
Hongkong is not a producing country; it is only a trading country. It does not raise sufficient poultry for its own use. It does not produce sufficient eggs to keep its own breakfast table going. Therefore I do not think there should be a British preference in favour of a country that produces nothing for export.
fMr. Dunning.]


Charles Avery Dunning: There is no British
preference extended to Hongkong on any commodity. As my hon. friend states, Hongkong is really a trading port for China. I think what my hon. friends from British Columbia were afraid of was that Chinese eggs would get into Canada via Hongkong under the British preference. I can assure them that the British preference will not help Chinese eggs to enter Canada from Hongkong.


John Anderson Fraser: Under what arrangement
would our countervailing tariffs countervail if our tariff schedule is on a percentage basis and that of another country is specific.


Charles Avery Dunning: The customs department would have to take the values at the time and compare them with the specific in connection with the particular entry.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-16b. Eggs, egg yolk or egg albumen, dried, evaporated, desiccated, or powdered, whether or not sugar or other material be added: British preferential tariff, 10 per cent; intermediate tariff, 25 per cent; general tariff, 30 per cent.
Leon Johnson Ladner: According to the trade
reports, we imported from the United Kingdom S3,939 worth of goods under this item. The duties under the intermediate and general tariffs fortunately have been increased, but the British preference has been decreased. I wanted to inquire what was the purpose of decreasing the British preference in view of the trade existing.


Charles Avery Dunning: In order to increase the trade.


Leon Johnson Ladner: What were the total imports under this item last year?


Charles Avery Dunning: From all countries? Of course, it is part of the old n.o.p. item, which includes some commodities which now fall within the item that we have just recently disposed of. The imports were $651,500; that includes somes commodities which are in this item and some which are in the previous item. From Japan, we imported $416,000. A little came from England. It is rather difficult to trade these various n.o.p. items which were put into the tariff many years ago, and under which trade has developed. We are separating them in the manner in which they are separated here in order that in the future we may be able to get the very information which my hon. friend is now asking for, so that when questions are asked in the future with respect

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
to the trade the information will be automatically available. It is very difficult to make a correct comparison when the item is in one of what I call the basket items.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Under 16b, there is now
classified the old item 231, baking powder. I do not know how that comes in under eggs.


Charles Avery Dunning: The item 16b does not
include all of the old baking powder item, but it does include preparations which had to do with eggs and were extracted from eggs -egg powders, Eggo, and that sort of thing, which the customs ruled previously were baking powder. Under the new classification these powders will come where they belong, under the egg powders, and not under the baking powders.


George Halsey Perley: I notice that the duties under 16a and 16b are identical in all three tariffs, but there is a countervailing duty for 16a items, and mot for 16b items. I suppose that is why they are kept separate. Why are there countervailing items for 16a, and not for 16b


Charles Avery Dunning: Countervailing duties can only be effective in the case of goods which are produced in Canada. We do not make any powdered eggs under 16b, so there is nothing on which to base countervailing duties.


George Halsey Perley: Do we make
any frozen eggs under 16a?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Do we not produce egg
yolk and egg albumen in Canada? They certainly do in the United States.


Charles Avery Dunning: Not eggs dried, evaporated, desicoated, or powdered, which is the classification in 16b.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Item 18 -greed to.
Customs tariff-28a.	Tea imported direct
from the country of growth and production, and tea purchased in the United Kingdom, when in wrappings, cartons or other packages of not less than five pounds weight each.
Provided that tea shall be entitled to entry under the British preferential tariff upon evidence satisfactory to the minister that such tea has been produced wholly in the British Dominions, colonies and possessions, and not otherwise:	British preferential tariff, free;
intermediate tariff, 9 cents per pound; general tariff, 10 cents per pound.
Charles Avery Dunning: There is a slight error
which I wish to correct before the tea discussion starts. I move that in line 4 the words
"not less" be struck out an the word "more" be substituted therefor. The point in connection with that is that the present language leaves an actual package of five pounds weight in two different tariff items, and it is necessary to make this change in order to make sure that it falls into either one or the other item. The item will then read:
Tea imported direct from the country of growth and production, and tea purchased in the United Kingdom, when in wrappings, cartons or other packages of more than five pounds weight,
And so on.


James Allison Glen: We cannot hear what is being said at this end of the chamber, Mr. Chairman. I understand that you have called item 18 carried, and I wanted to say something on that.


Charles Avery Dunning: In fairness to those who may be in the unfortunate position of not being able to hear what goes on, while I do not wish to reopen the discussion of items that we have passed, I have no objection to reverting to item 18.


Mr. STEEDSMAN:: The hon. gentleman
was on his feet, Mr. Chairman, when you called the item carried.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Charles Avery Dunning: I have no objection to
reverting to the item.
Customs tariff-18.	Butter, per pound:
British preferential tariff, 4 cents; intermediate tariff, 6 cents; general tariff, 7 cents.
Provided that, if any country imposes upon butter produced in, and imported from, Canada rates of duty higher than are enumerated in this item, equivalent rates of duty shall be imposed upon butter entering Canada from such country.


James Allison Glen: I would just like to repeat
what I said yesterday. There is a good deal of talk with regard to alleviating the troubles of the farmers. Every member of the house who has spoken has expressed the view that agriculture is the basic industry of the country and should be assisted as far as possible, but when we come to translating that sentiment into concrete action, I find that agriculture is left entirely alone, especially by hon. gentlemen opposite. They say that they wish to protect agriculture as far as possible. I am here, representing a farming constituency and with some knowledge of what I speak, to say that this particular item of butter is not going to help the farmers I have said before that it will not help them, that it will prove utterly detrimental to the best interests of the farmers in western Canada. I am not
2202	COMMONS
Ways md Means-Customs Tariff
including British Columbia now; I am speaking of the three prairie provinces of which I know something. I am sorry the minister has gone; nevertheless he will read what I have to say in Hansard.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: He will be
here in a moment.


James Allison Glen: I said yesterday, and I repeat, that the imposition of a tariff on butter will not affect the producer of butter in western Canada over a period. I showed yesterday that even with the tremendous importation of New Zealand and Australian butter in 1928, there was only one month of the year of 1929 when the importations were less than in 1928. Two months were the same, and the imports in the other months of 1929 were greater. If you take that in conjunction with the importation of 9,5,000 pounds of butter in 1925, the price of 1929 was greater than the price of 1925. I wish to point out to the house that in western Canada to-day there are tremendous troubles affecting all the farmers, and the result is that the farmers are likely to leave the land. I know of men to-day who have been in the country from twenty to thirty years, and who five or ten years ago were wealthy, with money in the bank and in investments, many of whom have had to take mortgages within the last three or four years on their original homesteads; and they were competent farmers, none better on the face of the earth. Yet conditions have placed them in that position.
I wish also to direct attention to this fact. In all the legislation that we are putting through to-day, there is nothing that directly benefits agriculture. We are not giving to agriculture the recognition that we should give and which the house expects. There is little room for doubt in my mind that we will have again the same agitation for farmers' rights unless this house is prepared to do something for them. I am quite sure that the low tariff sentiment wall be revived in the west in the absence of some remedial measures. That sentiment unfortunately has gone into abeyance for the time being and protection has entered into their viewpoint. They saw something more or less tangible immediately before their eyes, and taking the shortsighted view that men sometimes will take, they have grasped at that straw. I say that this tariff on butter is likely to prove most detrimental, for it will destroy absolutely the feeling of the men on the farm which hitherto has been their strength. I care not for the opinions of anyone to the contrary, protection cannot benefit the farmers of western Canada. While we are on

an export basis our prices are ruled by world markets, and we cannot possibly benefit by any system of protection. Yet despite that selfevident fact we see the thin edge of protection being imposed to destroy the efficiency and morale of the farmers. I protest most strenuously against the imposition of this tariff. I give my opinion to the government as sincerely as a man can give it that I think they are making a great mistake. It seems to me that the Minister of Finance should stare the reason why these tariffs are being imposed, and he should also state if it is the intention of the government to carry the policy further into effect.


Milton Neil Campbell: I do not propose to take the hon. gentleman seriously, Mr. Chairman. He is simply making campaign excuses for his opposition to the subamendment and his support of the budget.


Robert Milne: Mr. Chairman, this item is
on the same basis as the protection of eggs. The dairy industry of the prairie provinces has made substantial increase in the production of butter. Last year we increased our production something over 20 per cent, in spite of the fact that perhaps we had the driest year and the greatest scarcity of pasture that I ever remember. If we continue to develop at this rate, I presume we will soon be exporting large quantities of butter, which means that we will be compelled to take world prices for our product. Therefore I am still of the opinion that this item will not benefit the farmer. If we could get some relief in other lines that would reduce our cost of production it would be of real assistance to us. In this connection I desire to read a short paragraph from the report of the annual meeting of the National Dairy Council of Canada held in Toronto, October 18 and 19, 1929. The president Mr. J. A. Caulder said:
A year or two ago when Mr. Stephen and myself were struggling along trying to find some money to buy posters and literature, we went to the other side and we discovered that we could buy posters for about one-quarter to one-half what we could have them made for in this country.
It is a strange condition that we in this country, where we produce more paper and pulp than any other country in the world, cannot furnish posters for advertising purposes as cheaply as they are produced in the United States. I merely quote that as an instance- I might cite others-where a reduction would be appreciated by the farmers of the prairie provinces.


William Earl Rowe: Mr. Chairman, this is indeed a strange spectacle. Here we have hon. mem-

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
bers who probably have done more to urge the government to grant low tariffs and reduced rates on the very commodity to which they are referring than any of their colleagues and thus have helped to bring about such a critical situation in the dairy industry that the government itself has been compelled to turn a complete political somersault. Now we have the same members rising in their places to apologize to the indignant farmers who are dissatisfied, but in so doing they are only aggravating the situation. Never in any decade of our history have the agriculturists of this country received such scant recognition and such unfavourable treatment as we have received during the past ten years from this government. There is not a farmer from one end of Canada to the other but realizes that nothing has struck the basic industry of this country so hard as this government's treatment of the very item under discussion.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: Nonsense.


William Earl Rowe: I am not an authority on medicine, but 1 think I know as much about dairy farming as the hon. member for Saskatoon. All he has to do to realize the critical condition of our dairy industry is to look at our butter importations during the last couple of years. Every farmer in the province of Ontario who receives a cheque for his cream knows that four weeks ago it represented only 60 per cent of what he was getting in the corresponding period last year.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: A lot of Tory propaganda.


William Earl Rowe: Not at all; I am simply stating facts. The reason for this decline is simply the huge importations of New Zealand butter. We have ceased to be an exporting country so far as butter is concerned. When this government came into power we exported millions of pounds of butter to the United States and Great Britain. And what has happened to the cheese market? The Minister of Agriculture and his deputy have sent letters all over the Dominion asking our farmers for some solution of the present agricultural depression. Why? Because we have lost our cheese trade in England to a great extent; we are not exporting half the quantity that we were before the war. Our meat exports to Great Britain have felt the same pinch, having been more or less affected by the decline in the dairy industry. In fact where we used to export $78,000,000 worth to Great Britain, last year we exported only $7,500,000 worth. As to the butter situation, we have simply changed from an exporting country of twenty-five to thirty million pounds
to an importing country of over thirty-four million pounds. At the rate of our present importations we shall probably import fifty million pounds this year. Surely those who have experienced this disastrous condition of affairs should hesitate to-night to rise and condemn this small measure of protection, which, I submit, Mr. Chairman, is not half enough. The request of the dairy council is altogether too modest. A small percentage of our dairymen belong to that organization, simply because the dairy industry has become so demoralized that Ontario farmers who were milking ten, twelve and twenty cows a few years ago, to-day are milking only a sufficient number to provide for their own requirements.
I repeat, Mr. Chairman, the situation is critical to-day. Our farms in Ontario are not worth more than 60 per cent of the price they fetched when this government came into power. The people in New Zealand have taken advantage of the free trade doctrines of this government, and their farms have risen in value from $200 or $300 to $500 or $600 an acre.


Charles Avery Dunning: What country?


William Earl Rowe: New Zealand. I submit you ca^i go on down the line and you will find that because of the action of this government in the past it has had to-day to make a rightabout face. Those members who prompted the United States government to take the action they did take are rising tonight and offering the panacea of low tariff. Mr. Chairman, the greatest criticism which we could offer in connection with this item is that the tariff is not half high enough, because the industry is almost entirely ruined; it will take reestablishment and protection to bring it back to normal.


Mr. WARD:: Before the hon. gentleman
takes his seat I would like to ask him a question. Does he believe that the Canadian dairyman would receive more for his dairy products if he were on an export basis?


William Earl Rowe: When we were on an export basis we did receive more.


Charles Avery Dunning: No, that is absolutely wrong.


William Earl Rowe: I am right.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend is wrong; surely he knows better than that.


William Earl Rowe: If my hon. friend will consult the records as to the price of cream three or four weeks ago and compare that price with that which obtained in 1920 he will find that I am correct.
2204	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Charles Avery Dunning: The export price for
butter has been consistently below the Canadian price for butter.


William Earl Rowe: That may apply to recent times.


Charles Avery Dunning: When we have not butter to export the Canadian price is higher than the world price.


Mark Cecil Senn: Will the minister say that up to last year the price of butter in United States cities has been less than it has been in Canada?


Charles Avery Dunning: I am speaking of the
world market to which Canadian farmers have to ship their butter when they have any to sell.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Where is that market?


Charles Avery Dunning: In Europe.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Where in Europe is the
world market for butter? There is no such thing as a world market for butter, and there never was.


Charles Avery Dunning: I have sold some there, and I think I know as much about it as tije hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George.


John Evans: I wish to point out what would seem to be inconsistencies regarding butter and some other things. Before the Australian treaty went into effect the duty on butter never did the farmer any good. When the Australian treaty was consummated, however, the duty was practically taken off butter from Australia and placed on raisins from other countries. Now we have a duty on butter and the duty on raisins and the result is that the cost of living has been increased. In regard to tea, the duty has been taken off under the British preference, and that no doubt will be welcomed all over the country. If the tariff is a measure used for the purpose of getting revenue it should have been levied on tea and taken off raisins, and the result would have been somewhat easier on the farmer. The duty on butter is not going to benefit the farmer, it will benefit only the merger that is being formed. The farmers' shares in the cooperative company which has been formed throughout the country are being bought by the groups which are trying to form a merger for the distribution of dairy products and the control of the price of the farmer's cream. This will not benefit even the cream producer; it will be a hardship on the consumer, and the price of living will be raised all round.


Mr. MacLEAN (Prince):: The hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) seems to think that the government has done nothing for the farmer, but I must say he is not in line with the thought expressed in the Montreal Gazette of May 10, 1930. I wish to read an extract from that paper:
Perhaps the Fansher group will inform the house, and the people of the Dominion, what they mean by more effective consideration for agriculture. The prevailing impression has been that in cheapening the so-called instruments of production, in reducing rail rates, and in divers other -ways, the King government has shown far more consideration for agriculture and the agriculturist than for any other industry or any other class; and now there is to be a measure of protection for the farmer against foreign competition. There is something wrong with the Fansher reasoning.
I would remind my hon. friend that the excerpt I have read is from an editorial in the Montreal Gazette.


John Evans: Does the hon. gentleman
contend that the Montreal Gazette is an expert in agricultural matters?


Alfred Edgar MacLean: My hon. friend has condemned the government by saying that it has done nothing for agriculture. I have read from a Conservative newspaper and it clearly admits that the King government has done more for agriculture than it has done for any other industry.


James Dew Chaplin: They have done nothing for any other industry.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: Hon. members
on this side of the house can see that members of the opposition are pressing for increased protection for the manufacturing industries. The farmers of the country can see that, also. I thought it was wise however to put this editorial on record, because it is an admission by an outstanding Canadian paper that the King government has done more for agriculture than has any previous government.


Martin James Maloney: It is amusing to hear these old free traders trying to square themselves with their constituents, after voting for the budget. I am forced to suggest to the Minister of Finance that we should leave the budget and allow the people of Canada to decide its fate. Surely hon. gentlemen opposite are not going to endeavour to force this budget through the house and not give the people of Canada a chance to decide what they want.


Mr. McPHEE:: Speak for yourself.


Alfred Speakman: A statement was made to-night 'by the Minister of Finance and contradicted on this side of the bouse, as to the comparative prices of butter in this country

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
and in the markets of the world. When 1 speak of the world market I refer to the London market. For some years I have studied these prices, and as a matter of fact I have statistics on the subject. I have compiled figures for eight years past showing the comparative prices, week by week, in this country and in London. As a result I must say that in that instance I confirm in every respect the statement of the Minister of Finance that week by week, month by month and year by year for eight years the London price was consistently lower than the Canadian price.


Charles Avery Dunning: And it is to-day.


Mark Cecil Senn: We have witnessed a remarkable spectacle in this house to-night. The gentlemen on the other side who have just spoken have consistently opposed any increase in the tariff on butter. They spoke against the abrogation of the New Zealand agreement, and last night when, they voted on the budget they voted in favour of the abrogation of that agreement. They voted in favour of higher duties on butter and again to-night they are talking against schedules in the tariff which they supported last might. It seems to me that their constituents will wonder what position these hon. gentlemen are taking. I wonder what will happen if this government ks returned to power; I wonder what will happen to these schedules, in the light of what has been, said across the floor to-night. What are the people of the Dominion of Canada who believe that there should be a duty on butter to think of what we have witnessed this evening. Surely they are going to say that we cannot put any confidence in these men and that very likely, if they should be returned to power, these schedules will be interfered with again very quickly.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: Why did my
hon. friend vote against the budget?


Mark Cecil Senn: I will tell my hon. friend Why
I voted against it; there were several reasons. The first reason is because I have no confidence in this government or in any government supported by men who vote one way one day and talk the other way the next day. The next reason is because although the dairy council only asked for 4 .cents under the British preference I believe that if they thought they had any chance of getting more they would have asked for it. I believe as well that since channels of trade have been established between Canada and New Zealand it is going to take more than 4 cents a pound duty to keep that butter out of this country.
Now I want to say a word in regard to what the Minister of Finance said as to prices
in London and those in Canada. I think what the hon. member to my left said is very largely true, that prices in London have been lower, but we must remember that London is a free trade market. On the other hand, up to this year prices have been higher in United States cities for a great number of years past than they have been either in London or in Canada, and that is a protected market.
I think that is a sufficient answer to the arguments which have been advanced by the Minister of Finance and by the gentleman to my left.
Customs tariff-28a. Tea imported direct from the country of growth and production, and tea purchased in the United Kingdom, when in wrappings, cartons or other packages of not less than five pounds weight each, per pound.
Provided that tea shall be entitled to entry under the British preferential tariff upon evidence satisfactory to the minister that such tea has been produced wholly in- the British dominions, colonies and possessions, and not otherwise: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 9 cents; general tariff, 10 cents.


Mr. MacLAREN:: I would like to direct the attention of the Minister of Finance to the effect which the proposed tariff on tea will have on the tea dealers. However acceptable free tea may be to the general run of people it does seem unjust to penalize the tea dealers of Canada in order to bring about that condition. I should like to see the Minister of National Revenue here during the discussion of this item, because both the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Revenue are concerned in this question, and I would ask the Minister of Finance to take up this matter some other time with the Minister of National Revenue.
I believe a great injustice is threatened to the tea dealers of Canada. In 1918 a duty of 10 per cent was placed on tea under the war Revenue Act in order to meet the exceptional expenditures during and after the war. That was quite understandable, but an unusual and exceptional course was followed after the adoption of that tariff. Authority was given the excise department at the same time to follow the tea that already had been cleared through customs and stored in the tea warehouses and collect upon it that same duty of 10 per cent. I know of no other instance of an article being followed up in this way and an excise tax collected amounting to the duty on the article. It may be that this has occurred before, but I know of no similar instance.
In any event it was a very unusual and exceptional condition. Then on the 1st of May

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
of this year the Minister of Finance announced that he proposed to make tea free. What was the result? It left the tea dealers in the lurch. As usual, their warehouses were stored with tea on which duty had been paid, and if the minister pursues the course which he has indicated, but which I hope he will reconsider, the tea dealers again will be heavy losers. It does seem unjust that both coming and going the tea dealers should be so unfortunate as to receive this treatment from the government. The tea dealers say that not only was the tax that was placed on tea in 1918 followed up by excise to the warehouses, but that to-day they will lose the duty they have already paid on tea in their warehouses. They contend that it is only fair and just that now, when the minister proposed to abolish the tariff, they should be refunded the amount of duty on the tea which is stored in their warehouses. The government should not have that duty under all circumstances, when they are putting it on and again when they are taking it off.
I know it is said that when the duty is taken off an article it is the custom that the dealers who are affected must suffer the loss, but I desire to point out to the minister that the special War Revenue Act was a special measure, that the seeking out of the tea warehouses was an exceptional measure and that therefore it is only fair and reasonable that now the tea dealers should be treated in an exceptional way, if necessary. It is true that the war tax was an unusual measure, but surely that is not a reason for penalizing those who are concerned now. On the contrary, we should endeavour so to meet the situation that the tea dealers concerned should not suffer in this instance. I submit that in this case the tea dealers should not bear the consequences of the government's action; exceptional conditions warrant exceptional treatment.
If the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Revenue ask for a precedent, then I would say that in 1627 a precedent was established for this practice. The minister must not look doubtful, as I rather think he is.


Charles Avery Dunning: I will try to look more pleasant.


Murray MacLaren: I would rather you
tried to look as though you were following my argument a little more closely.


Charles Avery Dunning: I will try to look as
though I were convinced.


Murray MacLaren: As though you were
becoming convinced. In 1927 or 1928, a refund was made to the motor car dealers which 
applied to the cars which had been in stock the year before. I do not know whether this particular refund would be made by the Minister of National Revenue or the Minister of Finance-


Mr. ODETTE:: There was no rebate of the duty paid on motor cars; a rebate was made in 1926 of the excise tax. If the dealers had paid the duty they received no rebate.


Murray MacLaren: It was the refund made under the Special War Revenue Act of 1915.


Edmond George Odette: That is a refund of excise tax and had nothing to do with the duty.


Murray MacLaren: Action was taken in
July, 1927, whereby a refund was made of the excise tax. I am not at all concerned with how the refund is made, whether it comes under the Minister of National Revenue or the Minister of Finance, but I am concerned with the remedying of an injustice. The tea dealers are undergoing considerable hardship and I think it would have been better had the minister made this operative within a certain number of months.


Charles Avery Dunning: Does my hon. friend suggest that seriously?


Murray MacLaren: I am absolutely serious in making that suggestion; not only that but I am emphatically serious about it. I think my suggestion will be fortified by other opinions, and I trust it will appeal to the minister.
These dealers suffered considerably some years ago when this tax was introduced, and a refund should be made for the stock which they held on May 1. Failing that refund, the application of the rates should not become operative for a certain number of months. The minister may reply that that is not a usual course to take, but I think this case requires special treatment. The sales tax was reduced gradually from 3 per cent to 2 per cent to 1 per cent. The former Minister of Finance stated that that was done so as not to disturb business and so that it would not involve any considerable loss.


Charles Avery Dunning: That the loss would not
be too great for the businesses concerned to bear.


Murray MacLaren: Why could not that
course have been adopted in this instance; instead of making this commodity free, the duty could have been reduced gradually.


William Thomas Lucas: Would the hon. gentleman
permit a question?

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Murray MacLaren: No, not just now; I
want to finish and I want to keep my eye on the Minister of Finance.


Charles Avery Dunning: You are afraid I will
escape.	*


Murray MacLaren: The Minister of Finance heard his distinguished predecessor give that reason for the gradual reduction in the sales tax. As an alternative remedy, this rate of duty could be treated in the same manner. I would have liked very much had the Prime Minister been present because I think he would have appreciated the argument I am offering.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: He was here and he was
listening.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I was at the
back of the room and I heard most of the remarks of the hon. member.


Murray MacLaren: That is very satisfactory. Had the Minister of National Revenue been present as well, it would have made a very satisfactory trio. This matter is one which demands attention and which calls for amelioration. When the tariff was raised on this article the exceptional course was pursued of following the tea to the warehouses and although it had been cleared already by the customs 10 cents per pound was exacted. Now, without warning of any kind, this article is made free of duty and these dealers are undergoing a very serious loss. It is all very well to give the ordinary run of persons the benefit of free tea, but why penalize the tea dealers? The argument against the payment of a refund may be that it would be difficult to accomplish, but that is not sufficient reason for refusing to remedy an injustice. The alternative is to bring this change in tariff into force a certain number of months hence, or if the minister is what I would consider obdurate and is not prepared to be convinced, he could gradually reduce it and make the cut this year one-third or one-half.


William Thomas Lucas: The hon. gentleman has been stating that the tea dealers have suffered from the cut of seven cents a pound in the duty on tea. Will he explain why the tea dealers have voluntarily reduced the price of tea by fifteen cents a pound, when the cut in the duty has been only seven cents a pound?


Murray MacLaren: I am not in the tea
trade. I do not say this in a frivolous way, but that is their own business. If they consider that good business; if tljey consider they are going to appeal to their customers on that ground, that is their own affair. But I say
that beyond doubt the tea dealers of this country will suffer heavy loss unless action is taken in the matter.


John Frederick Johnston: Mr. Motherwell moves that the item be amended by striking out the words "not less' in the fourth line, and substituting the word "more".


Charles Avery Dunning: I explained the amendment some time ago. It is to make sure that the five-pound package falls into one item or the other. The item as amended will read:
Tea imported direct from the country of growth and production, and tea purchased in the United Kingdom, when in wrappings, cartons or other packages of more than five pounds weight.
The other tea item would correspond, so that the package which was exactly five pounds would be in one item or the other.
In reference to what the hon. member for St. John-Albert has had to say regarding the reduction in duty and consequent hardship upon tea dealers, it is always a difficulty in connection with reductions in tariffs that some people may have on hand stocks of the articles concerned which, as a result of the reduction, must be disposed of at lower prices than prevailed before the reduction took place. That is a well known difficulty, I think it is correct to say, in all British countries in relation to the budget. In all British countries the budget items become operative immediately upon the delivery of the budget and business becomes accustomed to that condition. With regard to the previous situation in 1918, when a duty was imposed upon tea by the parliament of that day, my hon. friend says that the dealers then suffered an injustice because the then government decided to impose that tax upon tea which was in stock at the time but which had been cleared from customs. I can hardly follow that argument for the reason that immediately the price of tea is raised, and I have no doubt the stocks of tea upon which that extra duty was paid by the wholesale tea dealers were passed along to the consumer just the same as all that subsequently was dealt with. I do not think they suffered any loss on that occasion and that should not be urged as a reason why special consideration should be extended now. They had every opportunity of passing on to the ultimate consumer whatever they themselves paid.
With reference to the present case, I may say that the government has had representations from tea dealers throughout the whole country regarding this question. On the matter of principle, of course my hon. friend is quite right when he states that it is not
2208	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
usual to make refunds with respect to tariff reductions and I contend the principle is sound. If we started the practice of recognizing appeals for refunds consequent upon tariff changes in the budget, I do not know where we would stop. The government is, however, gathering all the information it can about this particular case. I do not want to hold out any hope to my hon. friend that the usual procedure will be departed from, but we are gathering the information. May I point out to him one difficulty? He thinks in terms of the large dealer. He speaks of his warehouse. What about the little grocer that had tea on his shelves on the 1st of May, and every little grocer throughout the country had tea on his shelves at that time. Doubtless some of the wholesale dealers- perhaps all of them; I do not know-would take care of the little grocer and make the necessary adjustment with him. But if the principle of making adjustments is once recognized by the government, my hon. friend would be the first to agree-I know he is a fairminded man-that the adjustment should be made all along the line; that whoever suffered by reason of such a condition, should receive equal relief. I know he would say that.


Murray MacLaren: I would not say anything cf the kind. In order to save the minister the trouble of elaborating or meeting an arugment that I am not advancing, I said that this was an unusual condition. I said that it was unusual for the government to follow the tea into the warehouse after it had been released.


Charles Avery Dunning: I wish my hon. friend
would let me finish my statement. I listened patientlv to him for nearly half an hour.


Murray MacLaren: Then let him not put
forward an argument I am not making.


Charles Avery Dunning: When my hon. friend
interrupted me, I was not putting forward any argument at all as to the past. I was merely pointing out to him that on the 1st of May there was tea on the shelves of every grocery store from one end of Canada to the other, as well as in the warehouses of the wholesale dealers of whom my hon. friend was speaking, and I was saying that he would be the first man to recognize that any relief that was given should be given to all who were similarly situated, whether wholesalers or retailers. I was pointing out that would be one of the difficulties in operation in connection with any refunds which might be made. I am sure he will agree with that. What I intended to conclude by saying, if possible before eleven o'clock, was that while 
at the moment I do not hold out any great hope that any such arrangement can be made, the government, in consequence of repre-senations which have been made by tea dealers all across Canada, is now through the Minister of ISTational Revenue gathering the necessary information in order to be able to decide whether or not anything can or should be done with regard to the matter. I cannot, if I talk all evening, say anything more definite than that, but it is a certainty that we could not make an arrangement which would affect only the wholesale tea dealers, and the ramifications of an arrangement which would ensure that every grocery store was taken care of, offers difficulties which I am sure my hon. friend appreciates. In the meantime the information is being secured and the decision will be made by the government as soon as possible.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Will the minister be good enough to bring down certain information on this item? I should like to have information to this effect: the importations for each month, January, February, March and April; the amount released from bond in each of those months, and the amount in bond at the end of each month. I think that is easily available for the leading ports In Canada and for the whole of Canada.


Charles Avery Dunning: I have not the information in my department, but I think we can secure it from either the Department of National Revenue or the Department of Trade and Commerce, I am not sure which.


Henry Herbert Stevens: From the Department of National Revenue.


Charles Avery Dunning: Does my hon. friend
want the item to stand until that information has been furnished?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am not asking that the
item stand, but will the minister just say that the information will be brought down?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I think the item should stand, because there is a great deal of discussion throughout the country as to the release of tea from bond after this duty went into force.


Charles Avery Dunning: Discussion about what?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: There is a great deal of discussion throughout the country with respect to the quantity of tea in bond on the date of delivery of this budget when this item came into force, and the alleged larger quantities thereafter released for the market.


Charles Avery Dunning: Released after the budget?

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Yes, I think the hon. gentle-mam can see the point that I am suggesting. I think before we are precluded from discussing this tea item we should have that information.


Charles Avery Dunning: Perhaps my hon. friend would not leave me on a Friday night with an insinuation like that in the air.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am making no insinuation at all.


Charles Avery Dunning: My honour as Minister of Finance is at stake in anything like that. My hon. friend had better speak plainly.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The information should therefore be brought down.


Charles Avery Dunning: I would like my hon. friend to speak plainly.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am speaking plainly.


Charles Avery Dunning: I did not get for a
moment the full force of what my hon. friend was intimating.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am speaking plainly.


Charles Avery Dunning: What does my hon. friend mean?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I simply mean that there is a good deal of discussion going on with respect to the quantity of tea in bond prior to the date of the delivery of the budget speech and the quantity which was released from bond thereafter. I think we should have that information.


Charles Avery Dunning: Certainly my hon. friend will get the information. What he means to convey is the insinuation that by some means someone knew what was going to be done in the budget.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am making no insinuation whatever.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend is saying what he is saying quite publicly. He knows that it will go to the four comers of Canada, and that it reflects upon me if it reflects upon anyone. It is decidedly unfair. He knows that I could not have the information brought down to-night whatever it may be. I do not know what the information may reveal. He knows that the matter will have to stand over until Monday, and in the meantime that imputation will go abroad from one end of Canada to the other.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The hon. gentleman need not get excited at all. No imputation at all is made on his honour.


Charles Avery Dunning: I know.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am not in the habit of making imputations.


Charles Avery Dunning: You have made one successfully.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I have lived this life so long that I have courage to make any insinuations which I desire to make. If the minister does not know that there are discussions of that
kind going on in the market places, he ought to thank me for telling him. Such a discussion is going on. I have not the slightest doubt as to the minister's integrity. I have not the slightest suspicion that one word went out from him to the public. I am not making any imputation, but I say that that information should be before this house before this item passes and further discussion is precluded. I have just as much confidence in the integrity of the minister as I have in my own or in the integrity of the Prime Minister or of the leader of the opposition or any other hon. member of this house. I would be the last one to make an imputation of that kind against the minister. Certainly I believe in his honour. But that matter should be settled.


Charles Avery Dunning: I can assure my hon. friend that it will be settled. It is not a question of whether this item carries or not. So far as I am concerned, the information certainly will be secured. I have no knowledge whatever of what it may be.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I have not either.


Charles Avery Dunning: Many of the tea dealers in Canada have made representations as to the duties on tea to former finance ministers year after year, and I would ibe very much surprised indeed, if when a budget was coming along-any budget in any year, this year, last year, the year before, five years ago, any year-they did not seek to be in as safe a position as they could in relation to their own business by the time the budget came down. That applies not only with respect to dealers in tea but with respect to dealers in other commodities which might be considered as possibly to be affected by any budget changes. The same thing, of course, occurs, as my hon. friend knows, in England every year. Any business which might conceivably be affected by a budget to be brought down watches very closely its own position with regard to stocks and so forth before the budget comes down, and tries to remain in as safe and sound a position as possible. I can assure my hon. friend that the information will be brought down whether or not the item passes. It has nothing to do with the item. I was perhaps misled by the manner in which my hon. friend first expressed himself. I gather now that he was not intending any such reflection upon me, and I am very glad to have him make that statement.

Private Bills

Mr, CAHAN: I have no doubt about you in the world.


Charles Avery Dunning: This being my first budget I was most careful, so careful that I locked up every document every time I went out of the office. It is a very delicate matter. The information will be brought down. I understand my hon. friend wants the amount released from bond for each month, and so forth.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The importations, the
amount released, and the amount remaining in bond at the end of the month.


Charles Avery Dunning: I would be very much surprised if the whole trade or a large part of it did not remain in a careful position.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: We will see to what extent they guessed right.
Amendment (Mr; Motherwell) agreed to.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Has the minister any definite information as to the amount of tea stocks on hand in warehouse throughout Canada on which duty has been paid?


Charles Avery Dunning: I have not the slightest idea. I made no inquiries about that whatever. My hon. friend can imagine why I did not want to make any such inquiries.
Item stands.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the house adjourned at 10.58 p.m.
Monday, May 19, 1930