[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. A. GLEN (Marquette) presented the seventh report of the select standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.
Mr. GLEN moved:: That the recommendation contained in the seventh report of the select standing committee on miscellaneous private bills, respecting a refund of the fee and charges, less the cost of printing and translation, in connection with Bill No. 34. an Act to incorporate the Canadian Bible Society Auxiliary to the British and Foreign Bible Society, be concurred in.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I regret to say that this motion is not in order. The moment that fees are paid to the Clerk of Petitions of the House of Commons for the introduction of a bill or of any other measure, that money goes to the Receiver General, and a special vote in the estimates is required in order to return such fees or charges. The ruling was made last year after being considered by the Department of Finance that any money deposited in the House of Commons cannot be returned even though a bill is either withdrawn or passed. I declare this motion to be out of order.



PRINTING OP PARLIAMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES MARCIL (Bonaventure) moved that the second report of the joint committee of both houses on the printing of parliament, presented to the house on May 16, be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 266, for the relief of Schuyler James Alton.-Mr. Ross (Kingston).
Bill No. 267, for the relief of Mary Eva May Gourley.-Mr. Spence.
Bill No. 268, for the relief of John William James.-Mr. Spence.
Bill No. 269, for the relief of Elsie Aileen Clarke.-Mr. Spence.
Bill No. 270, for the relief of Orwell Bishop Walton.-Mr. Spence.
Bill No. 271, for the relief of Rosie Resnick.-Mr. Spence. v
Bill No. 272, for the relief of Jessie Grant. -Mr. Young (Toronto Northeast).
Bill No. 273, for the relief of Ruby Helen Gordon.-Mr. Young (Toronto Northeast).
Bill No. 274, for the relief of Mary Isabelle Batstone.-Mr. Spence.
Bill No. 275, for the relief of Hanorah Margaret Phililemonia Atkinson.-Mr. Spence.
Bill No. 276, for (he relief of Margaret Ann Fyfe.-Mr. Young (Toronto Northeast).
Bill No. 277, for the relief of Frederick John Wolfe.-Mr. Geary.
Bill No. 278, for the relief of Elsie Roselen Maguire.-Mr. Lennox.
Bill No. 279, for the relief of Alice Reta Leadbeatter.-Mr. Lawson.
Bill No. 280, for the relief of Gladys Evelyn Sandford.-Mr. Lawson.
Bill No. 281, for the relief of Ethel May Henderson.-Mr. Pettit.
Bill No. 282, for the relief of Fred Townsley. -Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 283, for the relief of Arthur Worrell Perkins.-Mr. Stinson.
Bill No. 284, for the relief of Arthur Cameron.-Mr. Young (Toronto Northeast).
Bill No. 285, for the relief of Walter Anderson Wood.-Mr. Ross (Kingston).
Bill No. 286, for the relief of Gertrude Margaret Gilgour.

Mr. Hay.
Bill No. 287, for the relief of Clara Delilah Latchford.-Mr. Hepburn.
Bill No. 288, for the relief of Vera Irene Collins.-Mr. Hocken.
Bill No. 289, for the relief of Cora Beatrice Silk.-Mr. Geary.
Bill No. 290, for the relief of Joseph Alphonse Lajoie.-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).
Bill No. 291, for the relief of Gertrude Alice Dorothy Lorimer.-Mr. Lawson.
Bill No. 292, for the relief of Margaret Bradley.-Mr. Church.
Bill No. 293, for the relief of Marion Ramsay..-Mr. Young (Toronto Northeast).
Bill No. 294, for the relief of Nettie Maud Dixon.-Mr. Boys.
Questions
[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 295, for the relief of Hazel Victoria Watt-Hewson.

Mr. Harris.
Bill No. 296, for the relief of Hubert Allan Frise.-Mr. Lawson.
Bill No. 297, for the relief of Lena Hogarth. -Mr. Boys.
Bill No. 298, for the relief of Gladys Elizabeth Kirby.-Mr. Ladner.
Bill No. 299, for the relief of Henry Maynard Smillie.-Mr. Hepburn.

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

Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	Has a contract recently been let to a private dredging company for the dredging of Coal harbour, Vancouver, British Columbia?
2.	If so, to whom was the contract let?
3.	Were tenders called for this contract, and, if so, how many bids were received?
4.	Did the said call for tenders and the said contract (if any) include provision for the disposal of the material so dredged?
5.	Has the government or any Department of the government made arrangements with the Parks Board for the dumping of the said material at any point within Vancouver harbour, if so, where?
6.	Has the government, harbour commissioners, Parks Board or any other public body undertaken to pay for the dumping of the said material?
7.	In a previous contract, did the harbour board pay the sum of 24 cents per cubic yard for the dumping of waste material dredged at the First Narrows and deposited at the new pier site at Hastings mill?


Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	(a) Yes. (b) two.
4.	Form of tender calls for dumping of material within two miles from site of dredging.
5.	and 6. Material dredged is proposed to be dumped in Vancouver harbour in deep hole, as harbour commissioners and Parks Board consider material unsuitable for filling purposes and do not wish to make use of it.
7.	Yes, which price included the dredging of 85,680 cubic yards of mud from the pier site before the fill was deposited.


FIRST NARROWS, VANCOUVER, DREDGING
Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	Having reference to the dredging of the First Narrows, Vancouver harbour, during the past few years, was this work done by contract ?
2.	Was the government dredge Mastodon in operation elsewhere during the period this work was carried on?
3.	Why was not the Mastodon used for this work ?
[Mr. Marril.j
4.	What was the name of the dredging company that got the contract?
5.	Was the work of this dredging company as contracted satisfactory?
6.	What was the contract price per cubic yard for the said contract?
7.	How many cubic yards were actually removed ?
8.	VThat is the total amount paid by the
government, or the harbour board, to the said dredging company from the letting of the contract to date for:	(a) dredging in the First
Narrows; and (b) the sale or disposal of material?
9.	What government engineers acted as: (a) inspectors of work; or (b) special inspection?


Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	By contract and also by government dredge.
2.	No.
3.	Dredge Mastodon was used for the work except the last year when it was considered it could be done cheaper by contract.
4.	Northwestern Dredging Co., Ltd.
5.	Yes.
6.	18-7 cents per cubic yard, place measurement.
7.	736,426.
8.	(a) 8123,940.51 (b) The Vancouver Harbour Commission paid $183,290.64 to North Western Dredging Company for dredging 85,680 cubic yards of mud from the site of the new pier at Hastings Mill and depositing thereon 763,711 cubic yards of material dredged at the First Narrows, Vancouver harbour.
9.	(a) and (b) Work was supervised by district engineer of Public Works department and the dredging of pier site and depositing of fill was performed under the direction of the Vancouver harbour commission's engineer.


HALIFAX OCEAN TERMINALS SHED NO. 25
Mr. QUINN:: 1.	What was the cost of remodelling shed number 25, Halifax Ocean Terminals?
2.	Was the work done by contract or day's labour?
3.	Who was the foreman on the job?
4.	What wages were paid him?
5.	Who supplied the material for the work?


Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	$67,600.36.
2.	By day's labour, except contract for mastic flooring.
3.	The work was done under the supervision of construction superintendent, William B. Ross.
4.	$200 per month.
5.	Cement-T. A. S. DeWolf & Son, of Halifax. Rock fill-A. S. MacMillan, of Halifax. Reinforcing steel-Donald F. Mclsaac, of Halifax. Crushed stone-Nova Scotia Stone Company Ltd. Fill-Standard Construction

Questions
Company Ltd. Sand-Halifax Dredging Company Ltd. Mastic flooring-Vulcan Asphalt & Supply Company Ltd., of Toronto. Angles, bolts and forging for doors, door bottoms and fitting same-Purdy Bros. Ltd., of Halifax. Lumber- John Maclnnes & Son Ltd., Building Supplies & Milling Company. Sundry hardware-William Robertson & Son. Sundry pipe and fittings -Austen Bros., Limited, of Halifax. Sundry electrical supplies-Canadian General Electric Company Ltd.


VANCOUVER HARBOUR WORKS
Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	Has the government approved of plans for the construction of a cold storage plant and fish wharf at Vancouver by the Vancouver harbour commissioners?
2.	If so, by whom were the plans prepared
and when will tenders be called for the construction of the said plant?	_
3.	What is the estimated cost of the said work?
4.	Has the government approved of plans for the extension to No. 1 elevator, Vancouver, British Columbia?
5.	What is the estimated cost of the said work?
6.	What is the additional capacity that will result from the said extension?
7.	Have tenders been called for?
8.	Have any plans been submitted to the government for approval for the deep sea pier to be erected by the harbour board on the Hastings mill site?
9.	If so, -what is the estimated cost of the said pier?
10.	When will tenders be called for?
11.	What amount remained unexpended on March 31, 1930, from the various appropriation acts of parliament for expenditure for Vancouver harbour by the Vancouver harbour commissioners ?


Mr. CARDIN:: I,	2 and 3. The Marine department has authorized the Vancouver harbour commissioners to have plans prepared, but neither the plans nor an estimate of the cost have as yet been submitted for approval.
4.	Yes.
5.	8500,000.
6.	2,000,000 bushels.
7.	No.
8.	No.
9.	Answered by No. 8.
10.	Answered by No. 8.
II.	S10,963,965.91.


PETITIONS FOR PATENTS
Mr. TUMMON:: 1.	How many petitions were made to the Commissioner of Patents under section 40 of the Patent Act during the years 1928, 1929, and 1930, respectively, and what was the disposition of the same?
2.	How many petitions were made to the Commissioner of Patents under section 41 of the Patent Act during the years 1928, 1929, and 1930, respectively, and what was the disposition of the same?


Mr. RINFRET:: 1928-	Section 40
1.	(No. 352)- Mansons Limited-Petition withdrawn February 14, 1930.
(No. 370)-Smith & Stone, Ltd-Refused by commissioner August 26, 1929.
1929-	Section 40
(No. 387)-Wm. S. Smith-Adjourned sine die by reason of illness of petitioner.
(No. 3S9)-The H. M. Kipp Co., Ltd.-Pending.
(No. 394)-Electrolier Mfg., Co., Ltd.- Pending-awaiting judgment in action for infringement.
1930-	Section 40
(No. 396)-Harry Hayley-Pending.
(No. 397)-A. j. Monk & E. F. Smith- Pending.
1928-	Section 41
2.	(No. 350)-E. T. Wright, Ltd.-Held pending judgment in action affecting validity of patents. (Later abandoned.)
1929-	Section 41
(No. 394)-Electrolier Mfg. Co. Ltd.-* Pending-awaiting judgment in action for infringement.
1930-	Section 41
(None.)


ST. LAWRENCE SHIP CHANNEL DREDGES
Mr. STINSON:: 1.	How many dredges, if any, constructed for deep water dredging on the St. Lawrence ship channel have been purchased by the government or any department thereof since 1900?
2.	What is the name of each dredge purchased and the amount paid for the same?
3.	Are any of the dredges so purchased still owned by the government?
4.	What was the name of each dredge sold, the date of sale, the person or persons or corporation to whom sold, and the price received for each dredge so sold?
5.	Were the said dredges, or any of them, stored previous to sale, and where?


Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	One.
2.	Hydraulic hopper dredge Galveston No. 9; $146,000.
3.	No.
4.	Hydraulic hopper dredge Galveston No. 9 was sold 17th September, 1918, to W. H. Hutchison, H. Dussault and C. A. Chauveau, of Quebec, P.Q., for $206,000.
5.	Hydraulic hopper dredge Galveston No. 9 was stored at Sorel previous to sale.
Questions


VETCBAFT SHOPS MANAGEMENT
Mr. MILNE:: 1.	What department of the government administers the veteraft shops?
2.	Who are the officials responsible for their administration in Ottawa?
3.	What is the cost to the government in maintaining these shops?
4.	How many men in all are employed in these shops?
5.	What are their rates of pay?
6.	How many shops are there in Canada and where are they located?
7.	What do they make and sell?
8.	What is the total sum received on account of manufactured articles?
9.	What selling agencies are employed in the sale of such articles?
10.	What commission, if any, is paid?
11.	Have these shops the exclusive right to manufacture the poppies sold in Canada during Armistice Week, and, if not, why?
12.	What was the gross sum represented by the sale of these poppies in 1929, and what was the net sum received?


Mr. KING (Kootenay):: 1.	Department of Pensions and National Health.
2.	Director of Orthopaedic and Veteraft- Major J. L. Melville.
3.	Net expenditure, fiscal year 1929-30, $127,465.78. (This includes expenditures on capital account for rentals, equipment, etc., also wages to operatives, etc.)
4.301 veteraft employees; 16 foremen; 25 staff, which includes superintendents, salesmen, accountants, storekeepers, etc-total, 342.
5.	The prevailing rate of pay for veteraft employees is 33 cents per hour, irrespective of pension. In a few cases of special efficiency, slightly higher rates are paid. Beginners may be started at slightly lower rates.
6.	(a) 7; (b) Halifax, Montreal, Toronto, Hamilton, Winnipeg, Vancouver, Victoria (operated by the Canadian Ked Cross under agreement with the department).
7.	Juvenile furniture and toys, playslides, sand boxes, porcelain and basswood top tables, ironing and bake boards, poppies and wreaths, etc., etc.
8.	Total sales, 1929:
Veteraft articles and special
jobs	$ 309,225 58
Poppies and wreaths.. ..	69,400 50


S 378,626 08
[Stage Direction]
9.	One sales manager; two salesmen on salary and bonus; four salesmen on commission only.
Mr. Rinfret.]	J if" ~
10.	The only commission paid is to the four salesmen on commission basis, who receive 7i per cent on accepted sales.
11.	(a) No; (b) There is no legislation, federal or provincial, which prohibits the manufacture or importation of poppies. Notwithstanding this, very few poppies, other than those manufactured in the veteraft shops, are offered for sale during Armistice Week.
12.	(a) No information on gross value of sales of poppies and wreaths, these being distributed by the Canadian Legion B.EjS.L., throughout the Dominion; (b) $69,400.50 for 1929 campaign.

Mr. COOTE:: 1.	What was the amount of revenue received from radio licences issued in the province of Alberta for the fiscal year 1929-30?
2.	What radio inspectors or other' officers were employed in the said province by this branch, during the said year?
3.	What was the total expenditure of this branch in Alberta for the said fiscal year ?


Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	Net revenue, $19,724.25.
2.	Calgary (full year):	1 radio inspector;
1 stenographer; 1 part time inspector.
Edmonton (6 months): 1 radio inspector; 1 stenographer.
Lethbridge (full year): 1 part time inspector.
Medicine Hat (2 months):	1 part time inspector.
3.	$8,724.86.


POST OFFICE DEPAETMENT-EOBEBT HILL
Mr. CAMPBELL:: 1.	What is the nature of the position filled by Robert Hill in the post office?
2.	What salary is he paid for this and any other governmental position, if any held?
3.	What is the amount paid to him for travelling expenses since January 1, 1929?
4.	What other amounts, if any, have been paid to him for the above period, and for what purpose?
5.	Is it proposed to pay him any further amounts, and if so, for what purposes?


Mr. VENIOT:: 1.	Retained temporarily in consulting capacity on railway and post office terminal arrangements.
2.	$3,420.
3.	$913.59.
4.	Nil.
5.	None other than provided in parliamentary estimates.

Anonymous Pamphlet


FEDERAL DISTRICT COMMISSION
Mr. PLUNKETT:: 1.	What is the total amount of money which has been paid by the federal government into the Federal District Commission of Ottawa during the past ten years?
2.	What specific amount of this total has been paid for each calendar year dating from 1920 to 1929, inclusive?


Mr. DUNNING:: 1.	$4,357,460.20.
2.
Fiscal year	Amount paid
1920-21			$ 150,000 00
1921-22			 150,000 00
1922-23			 150,000 00
1923-24			 150,000 00
1924-25			 150,000 00
1925-26			 150,000 00
1926-27			 250,000 00
1927-28			 225,000 00
1928-29			 2,402,460 00
1929-30			 580,000 00



UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. POULIOT:: For a copy of all correspondence, reports, petitions and other documents, concerning the application for a pension for Ludger Carrier, formerly an employee of the Canadian National Railways at Riviere du Loup.



MABOTI HARBOUR DREDGING

Mr. MACDOUGALL:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, petitions or other correspondence relating to dredging at Mabou harbour, Inverness county, Nova Scotia, during the years 1927, 1928, 1929, and 1930.



UNEM PLOYMENT

Mr. MACDONALD (Richmond West-Cape Breton):: For a copy of all letters, telegrams or other correspondence between the federal government and that of province of Quebec regarding unemployment.



AMERICAN FURNITURE COMPANY

Mr. M. N. CAMPBELL (Mackenzie) moved:: For a copy of all reports, correspondence, and other documents in connection with the recent inspection of the books of the American Furniture Company, by officers of the Department of National Revenue, in connection with the increase in valuation of furniture imports from the United States.


Hon. W. D. EULER (Minister of National Revenue):: I understand that the report with regard to this firm has not yet been received
by the department, but I would say that in any case it is quite contrary to the practice of the department to disclose the business of any individual firm.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Shall I say "Carried"?


William Daum Euler: No; I would object to the passing of the order.
Motion negatived.



GRAND TRUNK RAILWAY COMPANY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. S. WHITE (Mount Royal):: I desire to ask the Minister of Railways whether he has yet had time to consider the petition of the preference shareholders of the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada for compensation for the taking over of their property by the Dominion government?


Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Minister of Railways and Canals):: No further consideration has been given to the matter than had previously been given.



ANONYMOUS PAMPHLET

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JEAN-FRANQOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): May I direct the attention of the Postmaster General (Mr. Veniot) to anonymous correspondence which the members have received to-day? I shall send him the envelope in which mine came. It came from Toronto and was mailed May 20, 1930. In that envelope I found a pamphlet entitled "Beckles Willson and Mackenzie King-The Modern Damon and Pythias." I will read a short extract:
In a cable dispatch from Paris, dated March 24, 1930, Mr. William H. Ingram reports an interview that he had with Willson in the French capital and he mentions casually that-
"A chance remark gave one to understand that Colonel Beckles Willson had been in friendly correspondence with the Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King."
Note the word "friendly." That makes it clear that nothing had occurred to disturb the relations between Mackenzie King and Beckles Willson up to March 24, 1930. That was nearly two weeks after the "frame-up" in parliament.
That quotation has been falsified. I have under my hand the article by Mr. Ingram that was published in the Ottawa Journal on April 5. It reads:
A chance remark gave one to understand that Colonel Beckles Willson had been in friendly correspondence, not only-
Russian Anthracite Coal
[Stage Direction]
The words "not only" are omitted in the quotation in the pamphlet.
-with the Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, but also with the Hon. R. B. Bennett.
I should like to know whetther this correspondence with Mr. Bennett had something to do with the dedication of the book to the Prime Minister.
Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):: I believe the rules of the house permit hon. gentlemen to ask questions of other members. If my hon. friend will put his question on the order paper, I assure him he will receive an answer.



RUSSIAN ANTHRACITE COAL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. J. GARLAND (Bow River):: May I direct the attention of the government to information I have received to the effect that Russian anthracite coal has now penetrated into the cities of western Ontario and is there displacing United States coal? I would ask the government whether they have any information regarding the matter and whether they are prepared to make a report in connection with an investigation which they have stated they have undertaken or are about to undertake?


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior):: We have an official investigating the whole question of importation of Russian anthracite coal, but it will be some days before we will have a complete report. As soon as that is in our hands, we shall make it public.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We would like to have it before parliament prorogues.


Charles A. Stewart: I doubt whether that is possible. Inquiries are being made.



OWNERSHIP OF LANDS BY ORIENTALS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. G. McQUARRIE (New Westminster) :: On the 19th instant, as reported on
page 2216 of Hansard, I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) a question in regard to a resolution standing in my name respecting orientals. In reply to the last part of my question he said that the Minister of Justice would take the matter into consideration. Would the Minister of Justice say whether he has reached any decision?


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: The matter referred to in the resolution of my hon. friend was also submitted to the department by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) some time ago. The trouble is the resolution seems to ask that certain questions which are of rather an academic character should be referred for decision to the Supreme Court of Canada, and our experience is that the court usually declines to answer such questions. There is no doubt that matters which for all purposes relate to aliens come under the exclusive jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada. The difficulty is that with respect to certain questions it is not always easy to ascertain whether the essence of the question comes within the meaning of the word " alien " under the British North America Act. If my hon. friend has in mind any special statute or regulation the validity of which he would like to be submitted to the supreme court, I shall be very pleased to have the Department of Justice look into the matter; but again, I repeat, questions of a general character I would not like to submit to the supreme court.



UNEMPLOYMENT IN ALBERTA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. B. ADSHEAD (East Calgary):: According to press reports, the mayor of Calgary, with the mayors of other cities in Alberta, has approached the premier and provincial government in connection with a severe unemployment situation existing in Alberta. I would like to know if this government has received any communication from that conference; and secondly, is the government prepared to assume responsibility for the immigrants who are now being kept, and have been for some time, awaiting deportation.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Miinster):: I am afraid I cannot
answer my hon. friend's question until I have had an opportunity of conferring with the other members of the government, but I will try to give him an answer fo-morrow.



WAYS AND MEANS


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance):	My hon. friend from Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin) last night raised a question relating to item 94 and item 105, which were left standing. I intimated that in the

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
meantime I would look into the question he raised. I now desire to suggest, in order that there may be no doubt either as to definitions or otherwise, that item 105 be amended by inserting the words "crushed or" immediately before the word "frozen." The item would then read:	Fruit pulp, with sugar or not,
n.o.p., and fruits crushed or frozen, per pound. That leaves no doubt as to the inclusion of crushed fruits in that item. Is that satisfactory to my hon. friend?
Mr. CHAPLIN:: The change as far as I am concerned is satisfactory, but I want to say this to the minister. When you have an article like grapes bearing only a two cents a pound duty, and you put the other item of crushed grapes in at three cents a pound, you are giving more protection than the growers ask for. It makes the thing look more or less ridiculous. That is one feature of it. A duty of three cents a pound on fruit pulp may be reasonable, but on crushed grapes it is not reasonable. That is the difference.


Mr. DUNNING:: I have no desire to include it in an item which carries a higher rate of duty, but there has been consulation, from the point of view of administration, with the customs department, and they say that it ought to be administered under this fruit pulp item. I shall not enter into a debate on the matter. I prefer very much to have it in the other item, but for administration purposes they say that this is the place.


James Dew Chaplin: I shall have to abide by
the advice of the administrators, but it seems to me that the minister himself is responsible, and not the officials who are administering the tariff. The most that the growers of this article ask for is two cents a pound. They do not want any more. To give a higher duty makes it look ridiculous. It is not needed However, if the minister has made up his mind, I am prepared to let the matter go. I want, however, to discuss the matter of grape juice, which is far more important to me, because aa I pointed out yesterday the duty on the crushed grapes is two cents a pound. On that same basis there should be a higher duty on grape juice; otherwise, you might as well cut out the other duty. This morning I received a dozen telegrams from growers in different parts of my county. I will read one. It is from the Niagara Packers, Limited:
Respecting tariff amendments, we respectfully beg to request that a duty of twenty-five cents a gallon be placed on the importation of grape juice tested not over ten degrees Baume test, and a further two and one-half cents a gallon on each additional degree.
That is for the concentrated grape juice. In my remarks yesterday with respect to this matter, I pointed out to the minister that the tariff board had considered this article, and the minister was rather annoyed and said that the matter had not been discussed by the tariff board. Now, on page 33 of the fruits and vegetables report the tariff board set out a schedule. They do not promise any change of duties, they simply publish last year's duties. But here is the schedule, which confirms my contention:
Proposed item:
(a)	Grapes in their natural state or crushed when imported from a country which imposes a customs duty on fruit produced in Canada, weight of package to be included in weight for duty, per pound: British preferential tariff. 1J cents; intermediate tariff, If cents; general tariff, 2 cents.
(b)	Grapes in their natural state or crushed,
per pound:	British preferential tariff, free;
intermediate tariff, If cents; general tariff, 2 cents.
(c)	Grape juice, per gallon wine measure, 25 cents.
The matter was thoroughly discussed by the fruit growers. I admit that afterwards it was learned that concentrated grape juice could be brought in, and they proposed that that should be taken care of in the way I have mentioned. If grape juice comes in concentrated, and if, for instance, five gallons can be concentrated into one, then that one gallon of concentrated juice should carry the same duty as the original five gallons would have carried. I have half a dozen telegrams from the grape growers of my constituency. Here is one from Vineland which is in the western part:
The members of our association representing a very large percentage of the grape growing industry are very much disturbed by reported omission of grape juice and grape juice concentrates. The lack of protection on. this item for even the year nineteen thirty would by reason of the nature of this product prove disastrous to the grape growing industry.
That is signed by C. W. Bauer, president. Here is another from one of the largest wineries in Canada. They make fifty-five per cent of all the wine made in Ontario. This telegram comes from the adjoining riding:
The agent for the California Grape Growers Association here Monday soliciting orders for concentrated grape juice. Advised they expect to ship one million gallons concentrate to Canada this year which would produce more wine than made from Canadian grapes in one year. California surplus grapes in former years produced an over supply of raisins and Sherman Act did not allow fruit being destroyed so this year the California grape growers assisted by the federal farm board are making plans to take care of surplus grapes by using them for concentrated juice which will be sold for any-

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
thing to get rid of it. The federal farm board have already advanced thirty million dollars to the Cooperative Grape Growers Association to save the grape growing industry in the United States. Surely the Canadian growers will receive some protection against this.
These people know what the importation of this concentrated grape juice would mean. The grape growers, those who produce the grapes, represent the primary industry. I do not care a snap of the fingers for the wineries themselves. I want to look after the people who produce the grapes; I am interested in them. Some of these wineries wanted less duty imposed. They are friends of mine, but I had nerve enough to tell them that they were wrong, that they should not ask such a thing, that they would be killing an industry of the country, something that is rooted in the soil.


Mr. RYCKMAN:: Mr. Chairman, I also
have received a number of telegrams with regard to this matter. If the minister had said, " I am in possession of all this information, I have decided upon a definite course, and that course I am going to take;" I would have had nothing further to say, because it would be futile. But this is an important industry and we should encourage it. Heretofore growing grapes has not been a very-I emphasize the " very '-large industry in our country. Now there is an opportunity for it to develop and every class in the community should encourage it. I think some of these people have a real grievance. 1 cannot guarantee that they have because I do not know enough about the case, but I have learned sufficient to make me desire to know more about it. I think it would be in the interests of the country generally if the minister would take a few moments to consult with his experts. Then he could tell us, " I have said'all I intend to Say on this matter;" or, " I do realize that the case of the grape growing industry should be further considered." I have received the following telegram from Beamsville:
Our association who have been urging for months past that full necessary protection be given their product against grapes and grape juice plain and concentrated imported from United States or elsewhere are shocked to learn that there is grave danger of the item covering grape juice being left out of the budget. The effect of this upon our industry will be calamitous even if we are without protection for this year alone. We would again emphasize our request that provision be made in present budget for duty on grape juice effective for coming season's crop.
As I understand the situation, the California grape growers cannot gelt rid of their fruit and are rendering it down-shall I call it?-and

shipping it over here just to get rid of it at any price. It cannot be the minister's idea, and I am sure it is not the opinion of this house, that a staple industry should be subject to any such competition. Neither free trade, high protection nor low protection enters into it. So I ask pleadingly that the minister should consider this matter. Then, if he says, "I have nothing further to say about it;" I shall accept his answer. I do think further consideration ought to be given to this important industry.


Charles Avery Dunning: Mr. Chairman, as I indicated yesterday, there appeared, so far as the evidence before the tariff advisory board went, to be a new problem last year land the year before, represented by the crushed grapes to which my hon. friend from Lincoln refers. The crushed grapes are provided for in the item of fruit pulp which I proposed, and certainly they are definitely provided for by the amendment which I have to-day proposed for the purpose of clarification. Concentrated grape juice has not yet come into Canada, and it only arose as a possible factor a short time ago since the matter was inquired into. I have received, even from those interested, varying kinds of advice as to how the situation should be dealt with. Undoubtedly as the tariff now stands, concentrated grape juice is on an ad valorem basis, that is, it would bear a duty of 22i per cent. The first request of the grape growers, before they knew of the existence of concentrated grape juice, was for a duty of 26 cents per gallon specific on grape juice instead of 22J per cent ad valorem. Of course, since they have learned of the posibility of concentrated grape juice coming in, they realize that their request of 26 cents per gallon would be only 6 cents per gallon on the concentrated article, and they would be worse off with regard to concentrated grape juice than they were under the ad valorem tariff of 22J per cent. My reason, quite frankly, for not proposing something of a definite character with respect to concentrated grape juice is that we have not yet got all the facts upon which we can base intelligent action. I will say to my hon. friend from East Toronto (Mr. Ryckman), who spoke very reasonably a moment ago in connection with the matter, that grape juice is not included in the present tariff proposals. It would not affect either of the items which have been left standing, in any case. I shall endeavour to stimulate all the inquiry I can between now and the time these tariff resolutions are disposed of with a view, if possible, to proposing something which will deal with

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
a matter which up to now has been an hypothetical situation with respect to grape juice. I do not make any definite promise, however, as to accomplishing very much.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What would concentrates pay if they came in now?


Charles Avery Dunning: They would pay 22i per cent ad valorem. If we leave things alone altogether they will continue to pay that amount. We have no information at all as to values. It is suggested that we might adjust the matter by using the Baume gravity test and other technical means of that nature. It is .very easy to make a mistake in jumping at a matter of this sort.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We have already learned that.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is a matter which is very technical in character and it only arose a very few weeks ago. I am not in a position to say more at the moment.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Item as amended agreed to.
Customs tariff-94. Grapes, fresh, in their natural state, the weight of the packages to be included iu the weight for duty, per pound: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, H cents; general tariff, 2 cents.
Charles Avery Dunning: That is standing, and is carried by reason of this amendment.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-109. Nuts of all kinds, n.o.p., including shelled peanuts, n.o.p., per pound: British preferential tariff, 1 cent; intermediate tariff, 2 cents; general tariff, 2 cents.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Is item 106 passed?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes. There is no change in item 109.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-109(a). Peanuts, green, in tlie shell or not further processed than shelled: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 1 cent; general tariff, 1 cent.
Mr. FRASER:: How much of our peanut importation is affected by the change which has been made?


Charles Avery Dunning: I will give the reason for the reduction in duty. It will be noticed that whereas formerly all nuts came in under item 109 at 1 cent, 2 cents and 2 cents respectively, it is now proposed to add an item for green peanuts in the shell or not further processed than shelled. The rates applying to this section are, under the British preferential tariff, free; under the intermediate tariff, 1 cent; and under the general tariff, 1 cent.
The reason is that the people concerned have appeared before the tariff board on several occasions. This year the duty on raw shelled peanuts amounts to over 50 per cent ad valorem on the cost of freight value at Vancouver. That is the way the duty works out at the present time on shelled peanuts. In answer to the question of my hon. friend I say the net result is a reduction of all duties on green peanuts in the shell and raw shelled peanuts. The imports in 1929 were valued at $481,000, of which sum $309,000 worth came from China. The imports of raw shelled peanuts are included in the gross total of shelled peanuts which entered the country to a value of $1,174,000 of which $738,000 worth came from the United States.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They will now come in at 100 per cent less duty from the United States.


William Daum Euler: No, 100 per cent less duty would wipe it out altogether.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I meant to say that they would come in at half the duty.


Charles Avery Dunning: The peanuts which are being allowed in cheaper are peanuts which are used generally in the manufacture of foods of various kinds and which are mixed with foods and cakes and things of that nature. In that connection it was represented to the tariff board that 50 per cent duty on goods of that kind which were being used largely for food purposes was entirely too high.


John Anderson Fraser: What proportion of our
imports is affected? What proportion will come in free, or what amount?


Richard Bedford Bennett: There would seem to be very little. The figures given would indicate that practically nothing would come in from the British Empire.


Charles Avery Dunning: We have nothing of any consequence from the British Empire at the present time; it is a Chinese and United States product.


John Anderson Fraser: I understood that.


Charles Avery Dunning: It runs in my mind that there was some discussion about an African treaty, but I am not certain about it. Peanuts may be one of the commodities which are not produced within the British Empire; I would not like to speak with any degree of certainty in connection with that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think they are produced.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


John Anderson Fraser: I learn from what the minister has stated that the amount of duty paid on the importation of peanuts would not be materially affected. May I take that meaning?


Charles Avery Dunning: I would not say that.


John Anderson Fraser: I gathered that peanuts
would come in at the present time practically the same as they had come in before, and the fact of putting them on the free list would not affect the duty which would have to be paid on the peanuts.


Charles Avery Dunning: No. My hon. friend forgets that green peanuts in the shell or not further processed than shelled, which are the classes of peanuts used in the food industries throughout Canada, will be reduced under the general tariff from 2 cents to 1 cent per pound.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This is really a peanut
policy.


Charles Avery Dunning: They have been applying for it for years.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-135 (a). Invert sugar and all solutions of sugar or invert sugar and water which cannot be completely tested by the polari-scope, not including syrups in receptacles not greater than 60 pounds in gross weight:
When exceeding 56 per centum but not exceeding 65 per centum total sugars, per 100 pounds: British preferential tariff, 68 cents; intermediate tariff, $1.23; general tariff, $1.23.
When exceeding 65 per centum but not exceeding 70 per centum total sugars, per 100 pounds: British preferential tariff, 74 cents; intermediate tariff, $1.33; general tariff, $1.33.
When exceeding 70 per centum total sugars, per 100 pounds: British preferential tariff, 83 cents; intermediate tariff, $1.50; general tariff, $1.50.
Charles Avery Dunning: In connection 'with this
item two points were raised during the budget debate. There was a feeling that this involved an increase in the duty on sugar and that it involved an increase in the duty on table syrup. I wish to say to members of the committee that it does neither. It is merely a means of overcoming what is now recognized to be an evasion of the duties on sugar. The proposal here is merely to make sure that this invert sugar, which is really sugar in liquid form, will be taxable at the same rate as sugar. The item will not affect table syrups, nor will it affect sugar; it has nothing to do with either of those items. The government chemists made some suggestions with regard to the technical terms and I propose that we should amend the item, so far as the lMr. Bennett.]
technical terms are concerned, in accordance with the draft which you have before you. It is merely a matter of including terms which are nominally correct for analytical purposes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: How will it read?


Charles Avery Dunning: The amendment will be as follows:
Invert sugar and syrups, a product of the sugar cane or beet, and all imitations thereof or substitutes therefor, not including molasses and not including syrups in receptacles of such size that the gross weight of receptacle and contents does not exceed 60 pounds:
When the total of reducing sugars after inversion is equivalent to more than 56 per cent, but not more than 65 per cent of invert sugars, per 100 pounds: British preferential tariff, 68 cents; intermediate tariff, $1.23; general tariff, $1.23.
When the total of reducing sugars after in-^rsion is equivalent to more than 65 per cent but not more than 70 per cent of invert sugar, per 100 pounds: British preferential tariff, 74 cents; intermediate tariff, $1.33; general tariff, $1.33.
When the total of reducing sugars after inversion is equivalent to more than 70 per cent of invert sugar, per 100 pounds: British preferential tariff, 83 cents; intermediate tariff, $1.50; general tariff, $1.50.
My hon. friend will see that it is just a matter of technical terms.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Except you have added
"not including molasses."


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, to make sure that
nothing of that character is included.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: What is the duty on raw sugar at the present time?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It depends on certain
[DOT]technical tests.


Charles Avery Dunning: It corresponds to these,, technically. The present sugar duties take up-two pages of the customs tariff, and they are based upon the degrees of polarization, per hundred pounds. My hon. friend does not want me to read two whole pages, I am sure, but he can find them on pages 27 and 28 of schedule A of the customs tariff.


Mr. MANION:: What industries use this
invert sugar?


Charles Avery Dunning: Canning, to some extent; confectionery, to some extent; jam making, to some extent; any industry which can use liquid sugar. It is rather technical, because there are some industries which require the sugar in actual syrup form, to whom invert sugar properly so described would not be of use.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Mr. HEAPS:: Has the minister the amount of this invert sugar which was imported into this country last year?


Charles Avery Dunning: The import of it in this form, as distinct from the syrups which of course come in legitimately at a low duty, started not more than a couple of years ago. Last year the evidence before the tariff board indicated that some three hundred railway tank cars, came in.


Mr. COOTE:: Will the minister say if
there is any difficulty in distinguishing between syrup and invert sugar?


Charles Avery Dunning: None at all, by the
technical test which is here imposed It has been submitted to the chemist for that purpose.


Robert James Manion: Is there anything in this
item which will be of assistance to plants making starch and corn syrup? Is there anything in this item which will assist them in any way?


Charles Avery Dunning: That is difficult to say;
the two things really are not interchangeable. In order to make absolutely sure that there would be no difference in the syrup aspect of this, we made clear that not only we excepted molasses but that we did not include syrup of any kind in receptacles of less than sixty pounds in weight.


Robert James Manion: The reason I am asking
is that there are a number of plants, or one at least, in Canada which are idle but which did make starch and corn syrup. I was wondering if this would assist them in opening; I was hoping it would.


Charles Avery Dunning: There is a possibility that by conversion to a limited degree the making of invert sugar might be carried on in such plants which are established on the basis of corn syrup production. My hon. friend can understand how highly technical the whole matter is, and I do not want to be too positive. I can say, however, that under the investigation by the tariff board it was well recognized by everyone that so far as the invert sugar was concerned, the new method of dealing with it by importing it in tank cars represented an evasion of the statutes with respect to the duties on sugar.


Mr. KAISER:: The old duty on this was
50 cents; now it is raised to $1.23 and the minister says that makes no difference.


Charles Avery Dunning: No, not in syrup. My
hon. friend will understand that by inverting the sugar, by liquefying the sugar, it qualified under the old syrup item instead of coming in
as sugar. That is why the figures shown opposite the tariff item are the syrup figures. It evaded the sugar duty and came in under the lower rate.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And you are now putting it on the sugar basis?


Charles Avery Dunning: We are now putting it on the sugar basis.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: Then the 50 cent basis does not apply to invert sugar?


Charles Avery Dunning: No.


James Dew Chaplin: There is nothing in this item which would increase the trade with the British Empire?


Charles Avery Dunning: Well, there is a possibility, of course, to the extent that our own refiners get their sugar from the West Indies, principally. This invert sugar comes in of course from the United States, as my hon. friend understands, and in that case it is principally Cuban or Porto Rican sugar, which displaces Canadian sugar.


George Gibson Coote: Could the minister tell us whether there was any invert sugar made in Canada last year?


Charles Avery Dunning: In consequence of this importation last year it was made experimentally for the first time. It is likely to be made commercially in the not distant future to deal with this class of trade which really needs liquid sugar as such.


George Gibson Coote: On the face of it this looks like an increase in protection afforded to anyone who wants to make invert sugar. Of course, I understand the minister's statement to be exactly to the contrary, but that is how it looks by reading the tariff item. If the minister will positively assure the house that there is no difference in the amount of duty to be charged, based on whatever test he is using here, there could be no objection to it.


Charles Avery Dunning: I can illustrate it very simply to my hon. friend by telling him that these importations last year went as high as 70 per cent of solid sugar, and yet they were coming in as table syrup. He will understand that is manifestly a complete subversion of the use of our tariff. If we have a duty on sugar we must apply the duty to sugar, but by the process of inversion it was possible to get by technically as syrup, which really it is not at all.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: It is really a thick syrup?

Ways ana Means-Customs Tariff


Charles Avery Dunning: It was really sugar held in solution; that would be a more accurate description.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, sugar held in suspension, and it settled and the sugar was available as such.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, that is correct.


George Gibson Coote: It would help us to understand the item if the minister could tell us what the percentage of sugar may be in a heavy sugar syrup. I have not the faintest idea what it may be, but it is possible that it might be 50 per cent.


Charles Avery Dunning: I cannot answer that offhand, but my hon. friend will notice that I have protected it in the item-at least I have not protected it-I have carefully avoided the possibility of genuine syrup being affected by including in the item the provision that it shall not include molasses or syrups in receptacles of such size that the gross weight of the receptacle and the contents does not exceed 60 pounds. That is to say, if they want to bring in invert sugar as syrup in receptacles of less than 60 pounds, even yet they can get away with that, but as a matter of fact it is known that it would be uneconomical to handle it in that fashion. It is a tank car proposition.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Should not they be able to bring in syrup in tank cars, glass lined?


Charles Avery Dunning: We are advised that there is no demand anywhere for that method of transporting syrup. My hon. friend will understand that invert sugars are easier to handle than syrup.


George Gibson Coote: We did not have the minister's amendment before us; we only heard it read, and it was rather lengthy and we could not grasp everything that was in it.


Charles Avery Dunning: If it is desired I will gladly read it again, but I can assure my hon. friend that it is a chemist's description of the test to be applied and is exactly the same in its practical effect as the original wording. There is no difference otherwise at all, and I am sure the technical terms used would mean no more to my hon. friend than they do to me, in actual fact.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Item as amended agreed to.
Customs tariff-141. Sugar candy and confectionery, n.o.p., including sweetened gums, candied pop-corn, candied nuts, flavouring powders, custard powders, jelly powders, sweetmeats, sweetened breads, cakes, pies, puddings and all other confections containing sugar, the weight of the wrappings and cartons to be included in

the weight for duty, per pound: British preferential tariff, one-half cent and 22i per cent; intermediate tariff, one-half cent and 35 per cent; general tariff, one-half cent and 35 per cent.
George Gibson Coote: The minister might tell us if there is any difference, and why this is put in here. There is no change in the rates, apparently.


Charles Avery Dunning: I have an amendment to item 139 of the existing tariff, which item is not included in the list before hon. members. This is rendered necessary by the item we have just discussed, the invert sugar item. Because we have mentioned syrups in the invert sugar item it is necessary to add the letters "n.o.p." to item 139 of the existing tariff, which is as follows:
Glucose or grape sugar, glucose syrup and corn syrup, or any syrups containing an admixture thereof	
We are adding the term "n.o.p." because for the first time syrups are mentioned in another item.


James Dew Chaplin: That item does not appear on this sheet.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is just the addition of the words "n.o.p." to an existing item.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
George Gibson Coote: Has the minister considered
giving Great Britain some preference on these items?


Charles Avery Dunning: This item appears in the amending schedule because candied peel has been taken out of the item and put in its proper place along with fruit. There has been no attempt to interfere with the item.
Item as amended agreed to.
Customs tariff-148. Cider, not clarified or refined, per gallon: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 5 cents; general tariff, 5 cents.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The apple growers of
British Columbia and of Nova Scotia have been endeavouring to produce a cider of a quality comparable to British cider. The little protection which they had permitted a foundation to be laid for this industry, but that small measure of protection is being removed. The hon. gentleman knows that a great effort has been made in recent years to extend the sale in Canada of British cider and since prohibition has been in force, this drink has had a very considerable vogue.


Charles Avery Dunning: All cider would not
qualify for prohibition uses; I am thinking of the old Somerset cider.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was thinking of the
cider sold by Bulmer's and other manufacturers. I was informed last year that a very considerable sum of money had been expended in taking care of the industry in British Columbia, where considerable quantities of apples have decayed because there was no market for them. The same situation exists in Ontario. The effect of this item will be to deprive this industry of the little protection it had in the past. Cider from Great Britain will be on the free list, whereas previously it paid a duty of 10 cents per gallon for the clarified, and 5 cents a gallon for the unrefined. I think this matter is worthy of serious consideration. The loss of apples due to conditions which have been referred to already is tremendous, and it is very essential that this industry should be stimulated. I had no idea of the magnitude of this industry in England until I had occasion to investigate it because of an endeavour being made by some friends to establish themselves in British Columbia, Nova Scotia and Ontario. The dining cars now sell a brand of cider known as Evangeline, which is made from Nova Scotia apples. This is a cider mixed with soda, and considerable trade has been developed. Tremendous efforts have been made to extend the cider business of Great Britain into the overseas countries, and I feel quite certain that the passage of this item will be very injurious to the endeavours being made to establish such an industry in Canada.


Charles Avery Dunning: I appreciate the manner in which my hon. friend has approached this question. In investigating this particular commodity, I was somewhat surprised to find that there were no imports from Great Britain of both items, and the total imports from other countries of the first item were valued at only $7, and of the second item, at $240, of which $118 worth came from Switzerland. I cannot comprehend why there were imports from Switzerland.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think I can help the
minister out on that; I believe those importations were for the purpose of experimentation in connection with the establishment of the industry. I happen to know what has been going on in that direction, and there are some gentlemen who are very earnestly endeavouring to establish this business in British Columbia. The fact is that the existing duty has been prohibitive so far as cider is concerned- perhaps not prohibitive, but it has been sufficient.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend is quite
right, it was prohibitive.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend probably knows of the advertisements which appear quite frequently in Punch with respect to a very well known brand of British cider, known practically the world over. Up to the present time, that cider has not entered the Canadian market, but I think the elimination of the protection at present in force will destroy any possibility of our developing the industry in this country''.


Mr. SHORT:: In view of the fact that the importation of cider has been almost nil, why has the tariff been changed? Does the minister want to kill the industry we have built up in this country? A considerable business has been built up in my constituency, particularly in the Evangeline cider referred to by my hon. leader. Now the minister is going to open it up, and make cider free from all countries.


Charles Avery Dunning: No.


Harry Bernard Short: If there have been no importations, why has this item been touched? Is it just to increase the list of free items from British countries?


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend has made two incorrect statements. He said that it is proposed to make cider free from all countries; that is the first error. My hon. friend stated that this item has been included merely to increase the list with regard to-


Harry Bernard Short: I meant from all British countries.


Charles Avery Dunning: My observation has been that cider is not a drink commonly in use in Canada.


Harry Bernard Short: There is a great deal of it used.


Charles Avery Dunning: I believe the production of cider is confined at the present time to the Evangeline plant. My information is that the degree of protection has nothing to do with this commodity, the situation is rather one of economy in production and up to the present time Canada has not been able to develop that economy. I thought that if a reasonable opportunity were given to Canadian people to drink British cider-


Richard Bedford Bennett: What about allowing
them to drink Canadian cider?


Charles Avery Dunning: -that would not injure the Canadian cider industry. From the information I have received, I do not think that cider can be produced in Canada from Canadian apples as cheaply as it can be produced in Somersetshire or any of the other apple growing counties in England. This industry
2336	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
has been carried on in the old country for hundreds of years, it is part of their daily farm life. In spite of the degree of protection afforded this industry, it has never attained any considerable proportions in Canada. I can conceive of the Canadian cider industry being helped by the cultivation of an appetite for cider on the part of the Canadian people. The Canadian industry has not succeeded in bringing that about, but it is conceivable that the British cider people could do it with their wider advertising facilities. I am quite sure that the Canadian cider industry will not suffer as a result of this amendment, and it is quite possible that Canadians may become a little more partial to cider as a result of being able to obtain that article from Great Britain.


Harry Bernard Short: That is a very lame excuse.


James Dew Chaplin: Especially if it is hard cider.


Harry Bernard Short: British cider is to be allowed to come in free in order to help the Canadian industry; that is about the argument the minister is making. I wonder, if he used that argument in regard to all the other articles, where we would arrive. The apple industry in our district during the last few years has been labouring under a great depression. It has been difficult to find a market for other than No. 1 grade and a great deal of the other grades has gone into cider. The minister, by allowing British cider to come in free, is now trying to kill that little industry which we have been spending years in endeavouring to work up. We did have a protection of five to ten cents a gallon against British cider. The argument the minister advances is, to my mind, a very lame one and I wonder whether he would use it in regard to other articles as well.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: What is the value of imports of cider from the United States?


Charles Avery Dunning: Last year we imported
$3 worth from the United States.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: How much was exported from Canada?


Charles Avery Dunning: There is no export business from Canada.


George Gibson Coote: Does the minister know how much cider is produced in Canada?


Charles Avery Dunning: I have not the production figures. I might say for the information of my hon. friend, who, I am sure, wants to be fair-


Harry Bernard Short: Certainly.


Charles Avery Dunning: -that cider which contains more than 2i per cent of proof spirits would come in at duty of $2.50 per gallon from the old country.


Harry Bernard Short: That is not new cider.


Charles Avery Dunning: Many people think it is
better than the ordinary variety.


Harry Bernard Short: They keep that for home consumption.


James Dew Chaplin: The minister said that we had no exportations of cider.


Charles Avery Dunning: None, so far as I have
any record.


James Dew Chaplin: I should like to correct
that. My record shows that in 1929 we exported 6,327 gallons and in other years as much as 100,000 gallons.


Charles Avery Dunning: I thank my hon. friend
for the information.


Mr. BENOIT:: Whereto?


James Dew Chaplin: If my hon. friend will take the trouble to look up the records, he can find that out.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-149. Cider, clarified or refined, per gallon: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 10 cents; general tariff, 10 cents.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-167. Malt, whole, crushed or ground, and malt flour, n.o.p., upon entry for warehouse subject to excise regulations, per pound: British preferential tariff, $ cent; intermediate tariff, j cent; general tariff, f cent.
George Gibson Coote: Would the minister say
whether there is any real change in this item? Are the rates approximately the same, of what change is there?


Charles Avery Dunning: There is an increase. A considerable amount of evidence regarding this matter was placed before the tariff board. It linked itself up with the production of barley in Canada for malting purposes, the production of malt from that barley, the importation of malting barley from the United States for malting purposes and, finally, the importation of malt as such from the United States. I was astonished to find, for instance, that in 1929, in spite of the ability of this country to produce barley, we imported 41,000,000 pounds of malt from the United States.


George Gibson Coote: At what value?

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Charles Avery Dunning: $1,300,000. It will be noticed from what was done in committee yesterday that the rates of duty on barley were increased. This increase in the rate on malt follows that proportionately. I have no doubt that the production of malting barley in Canada will be stimulated by the change and that nobody will be hurt thereby.


Robert James Manion: What do the former rates, which are all forty-five cents, refer to?


Charles Avery Dunning: They are per 100 pounds. My hon. friend will notice that the change involves a reduction in rate under the British preference, a slight increase under the intermediate and it will be seventy-five cents per 100 pounds under the general as compared with forty-five cents previously. The rates have been carefully worked out and I believe they will prove beneficial to the industry generally.


Robert James Manion: I am sure of that.


James Dew Chaplin: Will that tend to increase British imports?


Charles Avery Dunning: With respect to malt crushed or ground, and malt flour, yes. With respect to malt generally, I do not expect it will.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-168. Malt flour containing less than 50 per centum in weight of malt; malt syrup or malt syrup powder; extracts of malt, fluid or not; grain molasses-all articles in this item upon valuation without British or foreign or excise duties, under regulations prescribed by the minister, per pound: British preferential tariff, 3 cents and 25 per cent; intermediate tariff, 3 cents and 30 per cent; general tariff, 3 cents and 35 per cent.
George Gibson Coote: I suppose this whole item of malt was investigated by the tariff advisory board?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-183. Newspapers, or supplemental editions or parts thereof, partly printed and intended to be completed and published in Canada: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 22J per cent; general tariff, 25 per cent.
Richard Bedford Bennett: No change in that except the British preference?


Charles Avery Dunning: That is all.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-200.	Pulp of wood, of
straw or of any other vegetable fibre: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 22^ per cent; general tariff, 25 per cent.
George Gibson Coote: Are there any imports from Great Britain under this item?


Charles Avery Dunning: Of course not.


Robert James Manion: I understand this item was discussed before the Tariff Advisory Board. Was any objection made before that board by the pulp and paper people in regard to this item being made free from the British empire?
I believe the other duties are the same. As regards the British preferential tariff which might involve the bringing in of pulp of the sugar cane, was any objection made by the pulp and paper people?


Charles Avery Dunning: Not as relating to this item. This is purely a rewording for administrative purposes. For instance, pulp is made of other materials than those named in the former item. The materials formerly named were only wood and straw. The item is widened to include, for instance, pulp made from rags which is used in the manufacture of certain fine grades of paper. This is merely a widening of definition to ensure that all forms of pulp are covered. There is no objection so far as I know from any quarter in regard to the point raised by my hon. friend.


Robert James Manion: I was informed unofficially that there was objection because of the possibilities of pulp of straw, for example, interfering with some of the by-products of the pulp and paper industry of this country. I cannot say whether that is the case or not, but if it were it would be regrettable, because one of our great industries, perhaps the third greatest is the pulp and paper business.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: What was the former
duty on pulp made of rags?


Charles Avery Dunning: That came under the
general provision for unclassified materials.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: How much was it?


Charles Avery Dunning: It would vary from 17J to 25 per cent.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Is it increased under
this item?


Charles Avery Dunning: I would not say so. It simply does not come in. We want to make provision for it.


John Anderson Fraser: Would pulp of sugar cane be admitted free to this country? It is an article used in making an insulating material.

2338	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Charles Avery Dunning: Of course, if it came
under this item, it would carry a duty of 25 per cent under the general tariff and per cent under the intermediate tariff. It is rather difficult for me to say whether that refuse material the hon. member for Fort William spoke of and referred to again by my hon. friend, is correctly described as pulp. I am not sure whether it is pulp. It was not considered as coming under this item which was merely redrafted to ensure the inclusion of all pulp. There is always the matter of definition which the board of customs has to deal with. I cannot personally undertake to differentiate between what may be pulp, and what may be refuse pulp but not technically of a pulp character.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Pulp has to be converted by grinding or by chemical process.


Charles Avery Dunning: That sounds a reasonable explanation.


John Anderson Fraser: My question was directed to the minister for this purpose. We have an insulating material made in this country out of refuse straw and wood pulp. The pulp material coming into this country carries a low rate of duty. On the American side they make this insulating material out of the refuse of the sugar cane, and what I was interested in was whether it would not be possible to have a duty on the finished article and still allow the manufacturers of insulating material in Canada to get their pulp in under this item.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is a matter of customs ruling, but I would point out to my hon. friend that even if the material he refers to were pulp it would still have to pay 25 per cent to come into this country.


Mr. YOUNG (Weyburn):: If it was not
the intention to include the pulp of sugar cane in this item, could not the the difficulty be cleared up by adding the words " of a class or kind produced in Canada."


Robert James Manion: The very fact that the
minister is rather hazy on the question and admits it, and the rest of the house being just about as hazy, only emphasizes the danger of inserting an item as to which we do not know the whole facts. My hon. friend from Cariboo spoke of insulating material being made in Canada. There are in Canada at least one or two plants, and perhaps more, making insulating material. One of them that I know makes insulite. It is not made from wood pulp, but from the refuse, the bark, I take it, and other refuse from pulpwood. It is a very fine line of manufacture and is a
[Mr. Fraser.l
by-product of the pulp and paper industry. By a coincidence, I happened to receive a letter this morning from a very good friend of mine who is to-day in Finland. He is an American engineer who has been sent over there by one of the big American pulp and paper manufacturing companies to build an insulite plant. The pulp and paper production is quite important in Finland, and for market reasons or otherwise they desire to have a plant built for the manufacture of insulite out of the by-products of the pulp and paper industry. I happen to know that this same company is seriously considering building one of these plants in Canada. I just mention that in passing. I do not know positively whether this item would interfere with the establishment of such a plant in this country, but it is just possible it might have that effect because the by-products of the sugar cane, the sugar cane itself being brought in as pulp, might be used in the manufacture of insulating material.


Charles Avery Dunning: If it came in under this
item, it would bear 25 per cent duty.


Robert James Manion: Not if it came from the
British West Indies.


Charles Avery Dunning: Oh, I see.


Robert James Manion: It might come in from,
the southern states, but would be more likely to come in from the British West Indies. I just mention that in passing as illustrative of the difficulty of settling these items intelligently in the house.


Charles Avery Dunning: In view of the discussion and of the fact that I simply wished to clarify the item for administrative purposes not relating to the matter now under discussion at all, the wiser plan would be to drop the item, and then we would not be interfering with any existing situation.


Mr. KING (Kootenay):: I move that this
item be dropped.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Item dropped.
Customs tariff-202. Boot and shoe patterns manufactured of paper:	British preferential
tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 12J per cent; general tariff, 15 per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-207. Blood albumen: British preferential tariff, 5 per cent; intermediate tariff, per cent; general tariff, 10 per cent.
Charles Avery Dunning: No one can tell me what blood albumen is, but the officials request that it be left in the tariff. There is no change. Formerly this item was in under eggs. We have put eggs where they belong.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Richard Bedford Bennett: You are making two items out of this instead of one?


Charles Avery Dunning: It is really making five items out of four.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-208g. Calcium molybdate when imported by manufacturers of steel for use exclusively in the manufacture of steel, in their own factories, under regulations prescribed by the minister: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, 5 per cent.
George Gibson Coote: How much do we import in a year under this item, and where do the imports come from?


Charles Avery Dunning: The present importations are untraceable at present. It is one of the unenumerated items of the tariff. The rates at present on calcium molybdate, under item 711, are 15, 174 and 174 per cent. It is one of the materials used in the making of steel. It has been represented to the tariff board that calcium molybdate, being a ferro-alloy substitute, should bear the same rate as feirro-molybdenum, and to this end this new item is worded. It brings it into line with other ferro-alloys.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-232a. Gelatin capsules, empty, when imported for use exclusively in the manufacture of medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 5 per cent; general tariff, 74 per cent.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Does the wording make it clear that the druggist who is imparting will get the benefit of this reduction?


Charles Avery Dunning: There is a point there as to the extent to which the druggist is using gelatin capsules in the manufacture of pharmaceutical preparations. The whole point in connection with it is this: Under the old rates the duty on the unfilled capsules was higher than on the completed article, and it was felt desirable to give this relief.


John Anderson Fraser: What are the importations?


Charles Avery Dunning: It is an untraceable item. It came in under the general item of "not otherwise provided for."


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member for St. Boniface, who is a medical man, will be able to say whether or not the item as it now reads is wide enough to cover the druggist who uses these capsules in his business, and who might not be said to be in the manufacture of pharmaceutical preparations. As the item reads, it applies only to the manufacturer. The druggist is in a sense a manu-2419-1481
facturer when he fills the capsules on the prescription of the doctor, but in the other sense he is not a manufacturer. Whether this item as it is worded would enable the druggist to take advantage of it I cannot say.


Mr. HOWDEN:: The druggist imports all these capsules empty. He manufactures none at all.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what I say, and I am afraid that the item as it is worded would not enable him to benefit because he is not a manufacturer; he is a user.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is intended to apply to all who use these capsules by filling them.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But one is a manufacturer, like a large firm, and the other is the country druggist.


Charles Avery Dunning: I suppose the process would be the same with the manufacturer and with the country druggist. The manufacture would consist of filling the capsules with some material.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is done by machinery in the one case, in a factory, and in the other case by the druggist on a doctor's prescription.


John Power Howden: The druggist fills the capsules on the prescription of a doctor.


George Gibson Coote: If this is intended to be of any advantage to the druggist, it is not well worded, because the druggist will often fill the capsules with something that has already been manufactured. He is simply filling the capsules, not manufacturing. The way the item is worded has the effect of making a donation to the man who is putting up a proprietary medicine.


Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: Are these manufactured in Canada?


Charles Avery Dunning: No.


Arthur Edward Ross: Is the minister
sure?


Charles Avery Dunning: The evidence before tin-tariff board was to that effect. I can orily rely on that.


Arthur Edward Ross: That is one of the little things so very difficult to the business man. He has to give a certificate that these capsules are being used solely in the manufacture of medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations. This causes him the same trouble as I mentioned in regard to another article
2340	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
the other day. Every time the business man is required to get a certificate he is put to extra trouble. This is the complaint of every business man.


Richard Bedford Bennett: "Exclusively" is the difficult word.


Robert James Manion: Yes, the wording is that
these gelatine capsules are for use "exclusively in the manufacture of medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations." As my hon. friend from St. Boniface (Mr. Howden) says, drugs are put up in these capsules. No doubt thousands of these capsules are used in Canada every day. They are very simple little containers. I do not know if the minister is familiar with them.


Charles Avery Dunning: I have had to swallow
some.


Robert James Manion: They are so simple that it ought to be the easiest thing in the world to manufacture them here. I should hate to see something done that would prevent their manufacture in Canada.


Charles Avery Dunning: The evidence given by
the gelatin manufacturers was that none of them were making these capsules.


James Dew Chaplin: I understood one person
representing a gelatin works stated they had been figuring on making these capsules.


Charles Avery Dunning: And afterwards he wrote and said he was not interested. With regard to the important point raised first, I think, by the leader of the opposition, probably there might be some merit in inserting a word which at least would make it clear that the ordinary druggist who is filling these capsules would have the same right in connection with the matter as a large manufacturer.


John Power Howden: Insert the words "or compounding."


Charles Avery Dunning: "In the manufacture or
compounding" would cover everything, would it not?


Robert James Manion: Yes.


Charles Avery Dunning: The Minister of National Health (Mr. King) moves that the words "or compounding" be inserted after the word "manufacture." The item will then read:
Gelatin capsules, empty, when imported for use exclusively in the manufacture or compounding of medicinal or pharmaceutical preparation.


George Gibson Coote: Why not strike out all those words and say "gelatin capsules?" Are they used for any other purpose?


Charles Avery Dunning: At the present time, no; but in these days of advancing science the matter may develop. We had instances of this in invert sugar and crushed grapes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This budget is another.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend will be
better satisfied with it by and by. We desire to do this with respect to the particular use to which gelatin capsules are put. Let us stick to that use instead of going into the unknown.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Item as amended agreed to.
Customs tariff-235. Liquorice paste, not sweetened:	British preferential tariff, free;
intermediate tariff, 15 per cent; general tariff, I7i per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-235a. Liquorice in rolls and sticks, not sweetened: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 20 per cent; general tariff, 22i per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-236a. Paper refills for sputum cups; paper pocket sputum cups: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 17J per cent; general tariff, 20 per cent.
James Dew Chaplin: Why is this put on the
free list? Have we not enough paper manufacturers to make this article?


Charles Avery Dunning: We are doing so.


James Dew Chaplin: You are making it free
because we are manufacturing the article?


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend is just
baiting me. There were $4,490 imports from the United States only; none came in from Great Britain. It is obviously one of those items in which a tariff against Great Britain is an absurdity. The item is put on the free list to remove that absurdity.


James Dew Chaplin: Why not increase the duty against the American item?


Richard Bedford Bennett: He does not expect business from Great Britain.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-237. Celluloid moulded for handles or knives and forkes, not bored or otherwise manufactured; moulded celluloid balls and cylinders, coated with tin foil or not, but not finished or further manufactured, and celluloid blanks for lamp shades and for combs: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 7i per cent; general tariff, 10 per cent.
John Anderson Fraser: Is that a similar item?

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Charles Avery Dunning: No. The principal imports came from the United Kingdom. They are semi-finished forms for processing in Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-238a. Manufactures of celluloid, viz: hair pins, braid pins, barettes, barette blanks, shoe horns, knitting needles, crochet sets, golf tees; lamp shades, stencilled or painted: British preferential tariff, 15 per cent; intermediate tariff, 32J per cent; general tariff, 35 per cent.
James Dew Chaplin: There is an item on which the duty has been raised 100 per cent against the United States.


Charles Avery Dunning: No. My hon. friend had better read all the articles embraced in this item before passing judgment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The general tariff rate
of 174 Per cent has been raised to 35 per cent.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is the general item of the tariff in which all items which cannot be placed anywhere else are placed. Very little came in under that one item.


James Dew Chaplin: What are the importations from the United States?


Charles Avery Dunning: They amounted to $856,-
000.


James Dew Chaplin: What were the importations from the United Kingdom?


Charles Avery Dunning: Nothing substantial.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Some golf tees came in.


John Anderson Fraser: Are there any manufactures of it in Canada?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, they are all made
in Canada.


John Anderson Fraser: And you said that we imported $856,000 worth?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the reason for
giving the additional protection to Canadian industry. We use $856,000 worth of these articles secured from other countries, and our manufacturers are given by way of additional protection a minimum of 5 and a maximum of 174 Per cent. The rate is doubled in one case. The British Empire tariff is taken off altogether.


Charles Avery Dunning: No, it is 15 per cent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


Mr. LUCAS:: Are there any importations
from the United Kingdom at the present time?


Charles Avery Dunning: No.


William Thomas Lucas: What is the principle underlying these items in regard to the British preferential tariff? Take item 237, free, and item 238 (a), 15 per cent. Why are those two treated so differently?


Charles Avery Dunning: I cannot follow my
hon. friend's numbers. He is not quoting the item under discussion.


William Thomas Lucas: We are discussing 238a at
the present time, and we have just passed 237.


Mr. BOIVIN:: I have two manufacturers in my constituency manufacturing these goods. Some of the articles were not classified at all in any of the schedules. We want to separate this classification from the other items. These items are mostly luxuries which suffer competition from the United States. We are getting over $800,000 worth from the United States and we are trying to produce the goods in Canada.
Mr. BENNETT And we are getting additional protection.


Pierre-Ernest Boivin: These several items are
luxuries and articles affected by questions of style. I want to draw the attention of the minister to the fact that there has been a request made as to the size of sliding buckles to be added to the item. They are at the present time specified in celluloid, generally, and I may say to hon. members that $22,000 worth of this material came from Great Britain last year. There will be a materially widened preference to Great Britain against the large importation of this material from the United States.


George Gibson Coote: We are not very clear in regard to these two items. I do not know whether or not the minister knows the amount that came in from Great Britain under item 238(a).


Charles Avery Dunning: About $22,000 worth.


George Gibson Coote: It seems to me that there is too much protection in this case. The manufacturer is getting his moulds free, and then he has 15 per cent on the finished article.


Charles Avery Dunning: The previous item does not relate to this item at all. My hon. friend is comparing two items which are not related.


George Gibson Coote: It seems to me they are
very closely related.


Charles Avery Dunning: Blanks for lampshades
and combs might apply.
2342	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


James Dew Chaplin: The minister has told us that something like $1,000,000 worth came in under this item in 1929 from the United States.


Charles Avery Dunning: The amount that came in was $856,000 worth.


James Dew Chaplin: That is for the year 1929. On this item the amount that is shown in the trade statistics for Canada is $788,000. However, those two figures are too close to worry about. What was the duty collected on that item?


Charles Avery Dunning: I find-


James Dew Chaplin: What was the percentage of duty?


Charles Avery Dunning: It varies; some came in at 17i per cent as unenumerated; some came in at 30 per cent; there was some at 30 per cent under another item, and under another item at 17i per cent, and another item at 17J per cent. The point is that we wish to put similar articles together which carry a uniform rate of duty. We wish to have articles which are reasonably uniform in character placed together.


James Dew Chaplin: The record I have before me shows that the amount imported was valued at $788,000, and the amount of duty collected thereon was $138,000, in connection with this particular item.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is the United States importation.


James Dew Chaplin: Yes, the United States
item; that would seem to be equal to about 15 per cent.


Charles Avery Dunning: Your information must be wrong, because the rates of duty in every case are above that.


James Dew Chaplin: I am taking my figures from governmental records, and I have the records before me. I have quoted the figures given under the manufactures of celluloid. Importations are given from the United Kingdom and from a list of other countries. The total amount recorded under the general tariff is $788,000 worth, and the duty collected thereon was $138,000.


Pierre-Ernest Boivin: What tariff item is that?


James Dew Chaplin: It is the item of manufactures of celluloid.


Pierre-Ernest Boivin: But there are several items under that heading.


James Dew Chaplin: I know there are. I refer to the manufactures of celluloid. Some of the item? to which you referred are free. The
IMr. Dunning.]
ones to which I refer are dutiable items not otherwise provided for. The fact of the case is that the duty from the United States on the large items amounts to around 15 or 16 per cent, as far as I can figure out.


Charles Avery Dunning: It could not possibly be less than 17^- per cent, because there is not an item included in this list which carries less than that percentage.


James Dew Chaplin: How do you figure that the importations from Great Britain will increase if the tariff item remains the same as it was, so far as Great Britain is concerned.


Charles Avery Dunning: But it does not remain the same as it was.


James Dew Chaplin: It is shown here at 15 per cent.


Charles Avery Dunning: The three items which are grouped under this heading came in from Great Britain at 20 per cent. The items are: Nos. 624, 419 and 435. They came in at 20 per cent.


James Dew Chaplin: They must be very small, because the big item is here.


Charles Avery Dunning: Probably so.


James Dew Chaplin: They must be very small. From this item do you expect that the manufactures from the old country will increase?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, I expect an increase.


James Dew Chaplin: Based upon a reduction of about 2J per cent.


Charles Avery Dunning: Partly upon that, and partly upon the increased spread as between British preference and the United States tariff. I may assure my hon. friend that I did not make a definite estimate, but nevertheless I do expect that there will be a development of business.


James Dew Chaplin: Is that the basis upon which you have raised the general tariff to 35 per cent?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.
Mr. CHAx l,iN : Why did you not do it in the other cases? I am not finding fault with this; I think it is a proper thing to do, but I am surprised that the minister did not adopt a similar course in -.^her lines if he wished to increase business.


George Gibson Coote: We would like to Crvi out upon what principle the reduction is made.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
In item 237 the tariff against Great Britain is reduced from 5 per cent to free. Under item 238 (a) there is no reduction at all; the rate is just the same.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, there is a reduction.
It is quite apparent that my hon. friend is not reading all the items which are now grouped under 238 (a). If he makes a careful study he will find that there are three items in the present tariff which carried the 20 per cent duty under the British preference, and under the new item they will come in at 15 per cent along with the other items which come in at 15 per cent.


George Gibson Coote: There is a reduction in some, but not in the others.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, and there is no increase in any.


George Gibson Coote: Has the minister any information in regard to item 237 wihereby celluloid moulded for handles of knives and forks comes in free? What rate of duty would be paid on those handles?


Charles Avery Dunning: Handles for knives and forks would bear the same rate as cutlery.


George Gibson Coote: If that is done we would have a rate of protection against all manufactures. If manufactures are going to be protected 20 per cent or 30 per cent, it is hard to understand why moulded handles should come in free.


Charles Avery Dunning: If my hon. friend will keep this item before him we will deal with it when we reach the item of cutlery, and the matter will then be cleared up.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: Did this item come before the tariff board?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-262. Olive oil, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 20 per cent; general tariff, 20 per cent.
Mr. GEARY:: Do goods imported from
Palestine come in under the British preference?


Charles Avery Dunning: No, not yet.


George Reginald Geary: Nothing of this nature is imported from Great Britain.


Charles Avery Dunning: Last year under the
British preferential tariff there were imports to the value of $2,155.


John Power Howden: What is the ratio of the importations of olive oil from the British Empire as compared with importations from places outside the British Empire? The
reason I ask is that olive oil has a very great food and medicinal value. It is a very valuable commodity, and it is one which should be at the disposal of citizens in this country.
It is my opinion that the duty on olive oil should be as low as possible.


George Gibson Coote: It should be as low as the duty on tea.


John Power Howden: Yes, as low as the duty
on tea.


Charles Avery Dunning: At present the situation
is that imports under the British preference amounted to $2,155, while total imports were $615,000, of which $384,000 came from Italy. In making it free under the British preference we had in mind the fact that at present olives are not largely cultivated, so far as I know, in any part of the British Empire. Palestine is not yet under our British preference, but there is a hope in that direction.


John Power Howden: That is why the duty is
retained?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-263. Compounds of tetraethyl lead, in which tetraethyl lead is the preponderant constituent by weight: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 5 per cent; general tariff, 10 per cent.
John Anderson Fraser: What is the idea of reducing the tariff all around on this item?


Charles Avery Dunning: This enters to an untraceable extent, under item 711, which is the basket item of the whole tariff. The common name for this article is ethyl fluid, and it is a preparation the method of manufacture and the use of which in gasoline is covered by patents the world over. Up to the present the Canadian supply has come entirely from the United States, and has been imported by oil refiners in Canada who added the fluid to their gasoline products to produce a gasoline of low knock quality, the grade of which is continent wide and definitely set. Ethyl fluid can be added to any gasoline but ordinarily it is applied to the better refined gasolines. It has not been enumerated up to the present time in the tariff; that is, there has been no place for it at all, and it has been ruled dutiable under item 711. Application was made to the tariff board for specific inclusion in the schedules, and for a reduction in rates. In this application the Canadian refiners joined, but did not ask that the low rate item be restricted to use by refiners. At the date of the hearing ethyl fluid was quoted at $19.23

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
per wine gallon, f.o.b. Wilmington, Delaware, and one applicant company had imported it in the previous year to the value of $290,000. This value represented only one carload. It will be seen that it is a product of very high value, $290,000 for one carload.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Making it free from
Great Britain, of course, is but an idle gesture, because they are only permitted to use it by buying the patents, and they cannot export it since their patent rights are confined to the British Isles in the same way that the use in Canada is confined to this country.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am not sure as to the use of the patent right. I know' it is patented all over the world. There may be arrangements made whereby rights covering groups of countries may be issued. I am not aware of that; possibly my hon. friend knows.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, I do not know.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-264a. Menthol, natural or synthetic: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 5 per cent; general tariff 10 per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-264b. Cam/phor, natural or synthetic, whether refined or not: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 5 per cent; general tariff, 10 per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff 276b. Cotton seed and crude cotton seed oil, when imported by manufacturers of cotton seed meal and refined cotton seed oil, for use exclusively in the manufacture of such commodities, in their own factories: a	r Preferential tariff, free; intermediate
tariff, free; general tariff, free.
James Dew Chaplin: What was the reason for putting in this item? It stands exactly as it did before.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend is overlooking the importation under former item 7la at 5 per cent, 10 per cent and 10 per cent. The cotton seed and cotton seed meal are added to the old item, which brings cotton seed and cotton seed meal in free in future.


Mr. HARRIS:: What do these words mean, "in the manufacture of such commodities"?


Charles Avery Dunning: Cotton seed meal and
refined cotton seed oil.


Joseph Henry Harris: Could the minister give us some details as to the by-products of the manufacture of cotton seed meal and cotton seed oil, as to what effect this will have on those by-products?


Charles Avery Dunning: I think I get my hon.
friend's point. One of the plants, at the hearing before the tariff board, stated that its output was divided as follows:	To dairying,
stock raising and milling and cereal companies, 70 per cent of the total; to soap factories, packing plants and so on, 15 per cent; to mattress and paper companies, 6 per cent; to fertilizer companies, 5 per cent and there was a 4 per cent waste. That is the disposition of the by-products of one refinery.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-283. Drain tiles, not glazed: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 174 per cent; general tariff, 20 per cent.
John Anderson Fraser: What were the importations under that item?


Charles Avery Dunning: They amounted to $1,452,


John Anderson Fraser: Nothing from Great Britain?


Charles Avery Dunning: No, all from the United States.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-287.	Tableware of china,
porcelain, white granite or iron-stone: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 271 per cent; general tariff, 30 per cent.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, I desire
to bring to the attention of the minister a matter to which I think the government will be well advised to give its most serious consideration. I had hoped the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Gershaw) would be in his place for the discussion of this item. With very great effort there has been established near that city an industry, an earthenware industry, employing at times 110 hands. It has assets to the value of something more than $500,000 and has sold $320,000 worth of 6| per cent, twenty year bonds to investors throughout the province of Alberta. I fancy some of those bonds have been sold also in Saskatchewan and Manitoba. In other words, an effort has been made by the utilization of the resources of the country to establish a local industry.
That local industry has manufactured earthenware goods in very considerable quantities. Amongst other articles it has manufactured stone bottles in which Gurd's ginger beer is sold; and it has shown some signs of prosperity and at least has made progress. I need hardly say that with the limited local population the sales have not been very large; the entire sales of the concern last year did not reach $200,000. The little protection that it received enabled it not only to meet local requirements for jugs and earthenware of that kind, but to go further afield. I fancy

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
there may be members of this house who have seen the products of this factory at western exhibitions, because the newspapers and public men and others throughout the west have been urging people to buy goods manufactured in Saskatchewan, manufactured in Alberta and manufactured in Manitoba, and while that campaign has been carried on the products of this plant have been shown at many of the small fairs and exhibitions throughout western Canada. Of course, to exist at all they have to do something more than merely local business, so they have pushed their trade east to meet the requirements of companies who use stone bottles, jugs and other similar articles. That has enabled them to maintain their plant, shall I say, to fair capacity and to give employment fairly regularly to about 110 people.
The competition of Glasgow manufacturers of just such commodities as are produced at this plant has been overcome by a duty of 15 per cent, which has just enabled them to keep the Canadian market along the lines I have indicated as against the competition from Great Britain. Now they are thoroughly alarmed. The gentlemen who placed the venture before the public are convinced that the result of this change will be ruinous to them. As far as they are concerned, while their loss will be insignificant, the injury to the small investor who has put up $500 or $1,000 in these 6j per cent, twenty-year bonds, will be very, very great.
The margin between success and failure is so small and the difficulties so enormous in the development of western industries that every help should be given to their development. Hon. gentlemen who remember the early days of commodities like Kitchener, will know of the struggle for existence which some industries had to experience before they reached a measure of strength which enabled them to compete with more powerful interests. In western Canada our struggles have been tremendous and the difficulties we have had to overcome have been very great. I have been in Calgary for thirty years, and I have seen the small manufacturing plants become important industries. Before this discussion ends, I intend to speak regarding another industry which employs 125 hands and which is placed in a very difficult position by one of the items in this tariff. The industry to which I am now referring is one which utilizes one of the natural resources of Canada-clay. They manufacture jugs, stone bottles and earthenware such as are mentioned here, and I still believe that it is better for 110 Canadians in Alberta to find employment in the manufacture of earthenware, than it is for 110 men in Great
Britain to find employment in the same industry. Such a condition is better for the British Empire, it is better for the Dominion of Canada, and certainly it is better for the province of Alberta. I urge the hon. minister as strongly as I can not to do anything which would jeopardize the interests of this little industry. Capital has been invested by men and women, in some cases from real desire to help their country. Those of you who have passed by Medicine Hat on the train have seen this little industry which is located I think both on the right and left side of the railway tracks. I have no personal interest in this matter, and so far as I can ascertain no immediate friends of mine are connected with it, but those who have made investments in these 6 j per cent twenty year bonds desire to see these clay beds utilized in the making of jugs and other products. When I attended a made-in-Alberta exhibition not long ago, I was surprised to see what they had been able to manufacture. I viewed with pardonable pride such a development in the industrial life of the west. It is true that at the present time it is only on a small scale, but they have been able to come down to Montreal and obtain business with the small protection they have at present. That protection enables them to compete successfully with the manufacturers in Scotland and Great Britain, but that protection is to be taken away.


Charles Avery Dunning: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am only taking the item as it appears; the British preferential tariff is now free, as against the previous rate of 15 per cent.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend is usually better informed, but perhaps he will permit me to explain.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am reading the item as I see it.


Charles Avery Dunning: I will deal with it when my hon. friend has finished.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I shall be delighted if
the hon. gentleman can assure me that the fears of those interested are unfounded. They have indicated to me that the slight protection of 15 per cent has enabled them to carry on. I would like to be assured that their apprehension is groundless.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am quite sure that that apprehension is without foundation with respect to the products of the organizations to which my hon. friend has referred. Item 286 of the custom tariff reads:
Earthenware and stoneware, viz.: demijohns, churns or crocks.
2346	COMMONS
TT'aj/s and Means-Customs Tariff
That item has not been interfered with, and it covers the products of the Medalta Potteries, to which my hon. friend has referred. Under that item the British preferential rate is 20 per cent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not touched by
these proposals?


Charles Avery Dunning: That is not touched by the item under discussion. Item 288 reads:
Earthenware and stoneware, brown or coloured and Roekinghamware; "C.C." or cream-coloured ware, decorated, printed or sponged; and all earthenware, n.o.p.
That item is not touched, and will still carry a British preferential rate of 20 per cent. The item we are dealing with covers tableware of china, porcelain, white granite or ironstone, and it is being made free under the British preferential tariff as against a former rate of 15 per cent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And drain tiles?


Charles Avery Dunning: Drain tiles are covered by another item.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The item just above that, 283?


Charles Avery Dunning: My information is that tableware and china, porcelain, white granite or ironstone is not made by this concern. I am advised that they have hopes of evolving the technique and the raw material which will enable them to manufacture the rougher forms of chinaware, but at the present time their operations are confined to earthenware. At the present time there is a clear distinction in the tariff between earthenware and tableware of china, porcelain, white granite or ironstone.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hollow tiles are made by this company.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, but no difficulty is anticipated in that regard. There is one possible source of competition, the extent to which a British china teapot might be said to come into competition wtih an Alberta earthenware teapot, but my hon. friend knows as a family man that the two articles are not at all comparable. Anyone who wants a china teapot is not going to accept an earthenware one, and I do not believe there is any ground for apprehension by these people because they are not making the commodities with which this tariff item deals.


An hon. MEMBER:: How about Teapot Dome?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps my hon. friend is better acquainted with Teapot Dome. Paragraph 4 of the statement I have received reads:
The development of artware, such as hand-painted teapots, jugs, vases, etcetera, has been undertaken during last year to retail at low prices in competition with Czechoslovakian and Japanese imports. The reception of this line has been extraordinarily good, although we are not making money on it, yet the reception so far given makes profit probable in the near future.
We secured orders for stone ginger beer bottles in eastern Canada of approximately 350,000 in competition with English production.


Charles Avery Dunning: None of these items is being affected by this amendment to the tariff.


Richard Bedford Bennett: As regards tableware, what they apprehended was this: they are now manufacturing some kind of tableware called by them "art ware." Their competitors were not only from Great Britain, but also from Czechoslovakia and Japan under the general tariff items. It will be observed that those items are now 274 per cent for the intermediate, the same as before, and increased to 30 per cent under the general tariff. But the general tariff has not affected the main competition, because these are treaty countries as I mentioned to the hon. gentleman some time ago. I am bound to say, on my first looking at the item, I thought it meant tableware of china, porcelain, white granite or ironstone, but tableware is an enormously broad classification and they felt that this last effort of theirs, which has not yet been productive of profitable business, might be and would be-


Charles Avery Dunning: If my hon. friend will pardon me just for a moment, art ware is specially dealt with, it seems to me, under the earthenware item which refers to cream-coloured ware, decorated, printed or sponged.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I heard the hon. gentleman read that.


Charles Avery Dunning: The point is that it is all earthenware as distinct from china.


Richard Bedford Bennett: One of the real difficulties that men starting small enterprises have to contend with is in regard to the customs classifications. The hon. gentleman has made it abundantly clear that in his opinion the matters to which I refer would not be covered by these classifications. For instance, recently an arbitrary change of classification was, I am advised, made by a government department in regard to radio cases in order to

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
effect a certain purpose. In connection with this item generally, if the hon. gentleman will be good enough to pick up ehinaware in almost any place, whether it be our hotel systems here or elsewhere or on the dining cars, and look at the bottoms of the cups, saucers, and plates, he will find, unfortunately, they are not made within the British Empire.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am trying to correct that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No; that is just what I am pointing out. The increased British preference makes free what was formerly sit a rate of 15 per cent. Other countries had a duty of 27i per cent to overcome in order to sell their goods in Canada, whereas the British had only a duty of 15 per cent to overcome. They had an advantage of 12-^ per cent and still all that business has gone to other countries.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend is not quite accurate in that statement. Our total imports last year amounted to $3,986,000, of which $2,368,000 came from the United Kingdom.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so; but I am talking about ehinaware.


Charles Avery Dunning: This is ehinaware.


Richard Bedford Bennett: For some reason I have never been able to understand why it is- perhaps the hon. gentleman can explain it- that when I enter the dining car of any train, whether it be the Canadian Pacific or the Canadian National, and look at the bottom of the cups, saucers and plates, as I have been in the habit of doing, I find they bear stamps showing that they are made m France and not in Great Britain. If the hon. gentleman when he goes down to the hotel to-night will do the same thing, he will find that what I have said is correct. I mention that because the British had a 12^ per cent advantage over their competitors and they were not able to get the business.


Charles Avery Dunning: They have got most of it, more than anybody else.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I looked them up some time ago, because in travelling through the country I have the same curiosity that I presume hon. gentlemen opposite have to find out where things are made, and I have been amazed to find the conditions that prevail. When I was in New York the other day I looked at the bottom of a cup I was using, in order to see where it was made and I found it was made in the United States. I just wondered why it is, if these articles are not made in Canada, that they could not be made within the British Empire. The assurance given me by the minister as to the construction to be placed on that item of the tariff will be very gratifying and I thank him for giving it. I first received a telegram, and on looking at the item from my own point of view, I did not think they needed to be so apprehensive. Then, when I received the letter from which I have just quoted, I found they were anxious that at least a statement should be placed on Hansard to which reference could be made, because the item had a rather unsettling effect upon some people who had put into the venture what little money they had. I am sure they will be deeply grateful for the assurance the minister gives that this item will not lessen the confidence they have in the ultimate development of that industry.


Charles Avery Dunning: There is no change in the wording of the various items. They have been administered since 1906 in one case and 1910 in the other, so that the matter of distinction must be established. I think it would be interesting to the committee for me to place on Hansard, in view of the remarks of the leader of the opposition regarding railways and hotels using foreign crockery-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not crockery; I was talking about tableware, ehinaware.


Charles Avery Dunning: When I use the term "crockery", I mean ehinaware.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I understand "crockery" refers to kitchenware.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But they have not this business about which I am talking. If they could not get it under those conditions, I do not think there is a sufficient incentive under this item to enable them to get it.


William Daum Euler: Fifteen per cent more.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The difference between them is 12i per cent.


Charles Avery Dunning: I will give the import figures, because they are interesting.


Charles Avery Dunning: The importations in 1929 were as follows:
Country United Kingdom.. .
Germany	
Japan	
France	
Czechoslovakia.. .. United States	
Value

On looking into this matter I was interested to find that United States importa-
2348	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
tions were almost entirely heavy hotel cups, saucers and dishes; that they were apparently making an effort to get into the heavy hotel-ware. Probably Great Britain will get that business in future.


George Reginald Geary: Out of a total of about $4,000,000 worth of importations, the United States did $91,000 worth of business. The only other non-treaty country was Germany. In this item, the minister has done what the hon. member for Lincoln advised him to do in regard to another item: with a view to diverting trade from the United States and other non-treaty countries like Germany, to Great Britain, to increase not only the British preference but the duty under the general tariff. That seems to me a sensible way of bringing about the desired result. The minister, however, has done that in very few instances. I do not recall another case in the list where in order to divert trade from the United States to Great Britain he has increased the general tariff against the United States as well as increasing the British preference.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend will find there are some.


James Dew Chaplin: There are very few.


George Reginald Geary: This is an example where the minister has done that in the case of an importation of $91,000 out of $4,000,000.


Charles Avery Dunning: There is $437,000 from Germany.


George Reginald Geary: It was north and south
business that my hon. friend was complaining about. I think the proposal has its merits in the way of diverting trade from the United States to Great Britain, but why not also increase the tariff against the United States?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: What troubles me is
where the heart of the minister really is. We have dealt with item after item under which the minister has frankly said that there is no business from the British Empire but that he hopes to encourage it. Even when there was a business of only $1,500 under one item, he hoped to develop a larger business with the British Empire. Yet he tells this house that he has had a communication from the Medalta Company, which was proposing or hoping to engage in a certain line of business in Canada. The minister gives this company no chance. He extends hope to the British manufacturer, but when a Canadian manufacturer asks for an opportunity to build up a business that might be of great advantage to Canada and
LMr. Dunning.]
a glory to the Canadian commercial world, the minister says:	No, I am going to work
the tariff the other way and give Great Britain the preference; the Canadian industry will have to tail on behind. I object to that.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is not the case.


George Reginald Geary: Is tableware produced in
this country at all?


Charles Avery Dunning: Articles of the class
coming under this item are not produced in Canada.


Joseph Henry Harris: That applies also to porcelain tableware?


Charles Avery Dunning: To the whole item under discussion, which includes tableware of china, porcelain, white granite or ironstone.


Joseph Henry Harris: Of a kind not produced in Canada?


Charles Avery Dunning: I say there are none
produced in Canada.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: Have we not industries
producing white granite tableware?


Charles Avery Dunning: No.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: It depends on what you
call tableware. Kitchenware is made in this country.


James Dew Chaplin: What was the rate of duty on the $91,000 worth of these goods that came in from the United States?


Charles Avery Dunning: They came in under the general tariff at 27i per cent.


James Dew Chaplin: And the present duty will be?


Charles Avery Dunning: Thirty per cent.


James Dew Chaplin: The duty on that $91,000 at 27i per cent amounted to $25,000. Why did you not increase the American duty a little bit more so as to make sure that trade would go to Great Britain?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-289. Baths, bathtubs, basins, closets, lavatories, urinals, sinks and laundry tubs of earthenware, stone, cement, clay or other material, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, 20 per cent; intermediate tariff, 30 per cent; general tariff, 35 per cent.
Mr. SPENCER:: There is no alteration in the duties as far as I can see.


Charles Avery Dunning: The explanation is simple. Bathtubs and so forth are dealt with under the iron and steel items which we shall come to later. However, it was necessary to provide an n.o.p. item to include the

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
earthenware variety, and in view of the fact that there had been no inquiry at all into the earthenware situation I did not propose to change the rate, but merely to include the item as it now stands, in order to differentiate it from the same article made with an iron or steel base.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Here are certain articles
that are very badly needed, particularly in the homes on the prairies.


Charles Avery Dunning: Made	of earthenware?


Henry Elvins Spencer: No,	bathtubs and so
forth.


Charles Avery Dunning: The articles under this
item are made wholly of earthenware. Later on we shall come to the item my hon. friend really has in mind.


James Dew Chaplin: The	importations are
largely from the United Kingdom, are they not?


Charles Avery Dunning: From the United Kingdom we received $416,000 and from the United States, $121,000.


James Dew Chaplin: And you leave both tariffs the same?


Charles Avery Dunning: I am not changing the
rates, for the reason I have given.


James Dew Chaplin: Why not raise the American tariff and throw more trade to Britain?


William Thomas Lucas: Are these goods (produced in Canada?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-293. Plaster of Paris, or gypsum, calcined, and prepared wall plaster, the weight of the packages to be included in the weight for duty, per one hundred pounds: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 11 cents; general tariff, 12J cents..
John Anderson Fraser: What are the importations?


Charles Avery Dunning: We imported $165,000
worth.


James Dew Chaplin: And all Britain sent was
$65 out of that $165,000.


Charles Avery Dunning: The article is made free
from Great Britain, but the spread has been widened. Under the old tariff there was a spread of only 44 cents between Great Britain and the United States, whereas the spread is now 124 cents.


John Anderson Fraser: I see another item dealing with plaster of paris, or gypsum, not calcined. What were the rates on that?


Charles Avery Dunning: I could not say. I have information only with respect to the items that I am dealing with. My hon. friend has it before him.


John Anderson Fraser: I have not the rates.


Charles Avery Dunning: I will find them for my
hon. friend.


John Anderson Fraser: My point is this. According to the Trade of Canada for the calendar year 1929, there were substantial imports from Great Britain under the item which is not touched, and under the item which is touched and in respect to which the rate is reduced there are no imports from Great Britain. Why not reduce the item under which there are substantial imports from Great Britain?


Charles Avery Dunning: I am, of course, going
outside the range of what I have before me, and my hon. friend will forgive me if I have not complete information on the point he brings up. The item to which he refers is plaster of paris, or gypsum, not calcined, and it carries duties of 10, 124 and 15 per cent. It is produced in Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-296.	Flint, ground flint
stone; feldspar, fluorspar; mica schist; cliff, chalk, china or Cornwall stone, ground or unground, refuse stone, not sawn, hammered or chiselled not fit for flagstone, building stone or paving: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
Arthur Edward Ross: There are one or
two articles under this item to which I think the minister should give particular consideration. I refer particularly to feldspar. There are only one or two places in the world where feldspar can be produced. One is in eastern Ontario, the other is in the United States; there may be a small quantity in Austria. The United States has a tariff against our ground feldspar, and yet we permit our unground feldspar in the ore to be taken over to the United States, ground there, and readmitted free to this country. This was all right until industries were started in Canada. There are now two factories in this country, one in Kingston and one in Toronto, and there is a proposal to build another at Brockville. I think the minister might well! take care of these two factories by imposing countervailing duties on feldspar, as he has done on other commodities.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend refers
entirely to feldspar?


Arthur Edward Ross: Entirely.


Charles Avery Dunning: There are several other
commodities included in the item.
2350	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Arthur Edward Ross: I want to deal with feldspar. The United States admits our unground feldspar free. They take mighty good care, however, not to admit any of our ground feldspar. There is no reason why this cannot be taken care of under the countervailing duty. Give us the same protection as the United States enjoys and we will be quite satisfied. Feldspar enters into a great many industries, but the quantity involved is small, and I can assure the minister that if he will give us the protection required we will double the output of our factories.


Charles Avery Dunning: As my hon. friend will notice, the first part of this item is entirely unchanged both as to wording and rates of duty. But it has become necessary to deal with magnesite, a recent production of some importance and some promise. I believe that I am correct in saying that the research council of Canada has had a great deal to do with developing tlhis new material, magnesite, the manufacture of which promises to be of some importance. That is the only reason for touching the item. I am not familiar with the feldspar situation. It probably would be wise to look into it. But at any rate my hon. friend will see that no change is being made with respect to it. That is, the situation after the budget is precisely the same as the situation was before, so far as it relates to feldspar. Perhaps he would be willing on the matter, because ground feldspar enters into many industries, and, as we often find in practice, one man's finished product is another man's raw material. Therefore at the moment I cannot say what will be the effect of putting a duty on ground feldspar.
I suggest to my hon. friend that if his case is as well founded, as I know he believes it is, it could be inquired into by the tariff board so that those who use this commodity would be able publicly to state what the effect would be of imposing a duty upon it.


Arthur Edward Ross: I think the tariff board already has all the facts in relation to this matter. I might also refer to mica. How do the United States treat our mica? They admit free all our mica as ilt is taken out of the ground, but the minute we begin to treat it up goes their tariff. Consequently mica mining to-day in eastern Ontario is practically extinat. In the case of feldspar the tariff board has the facts, there is no great quantity involved, and I can assure the minister that if he does not take care of the industry it will meet the same fate as mica mining. We produce the best feldspar, only a small quantity enters into the manufacture of our enamelware, and it does seem most unfair 
that when we begin to grind our crude feldspar it is shut out from the United States, although their ground feldspar is admitted here free of duty to compete with our own product.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am impressed somewhat by what my hon. friend says, and perhaps he would allow this item to stand in order that I may read through the records of the hearing to which he refers and see if there is sufficient material there, particularly from the point of view of those who use the article, to justify making some change in the tariff with respect to ground feldspar. I do not think we are really in a position to take action, but I should like to have an opportunity of looking into it further.


Robert James Manion: I have no objection to the item standing, but I notice that what in the last list was one item is now four; and everyone is free, as was the old item. That is one way, I suppose, of increasing the British preference, changing one item to four.


Charles Avery Dunning: Oh, no. My hon. friend is not serious.


Robert James Manion: I am in earnest. It seems to be one method of increasing the British preference.


Charles Avery Dunning: There are very many
examples the other way.


Robert James Manion: And there are very many
this way.


Charles Avery Dunning: I referred to one a little
while ago where four items have become one. The motive in this case was to deal with magnesite. We have basket items in the tariff, and we have to deal with them as the various items in the basket become important.


Arthur Edward Ross: I have dealt with
feldspar and mica. In this item is also included refuse stone. What is the idea of admitting it free?


Charles Avery Dunning: It has always been free.


Arthur Edward Ross: I know, but the
minister will realize that thousands of dollars' worth of this come in. Perhaps the west may not have any refuse stone, but certainly we have enough of it here.


Charles Avery Dunning: The item stands, Mr. Chairman.


James Dew Chaplin: I just want to complete
the record in reference to feldspar. Of course, the minister can get this information anyway. As a matter of fact we shipped to the United

States in 1929, 28.000 tons of feldspar, valued at $227,000. After they had manufactured it we took from them, free of duty, 64,000 hundredweight valued at over $54,000.


Charles Avery Dunning: What was the crude
valued at?


James Dew Chaplin: We exported 28,000 tons
valued at $227,000. They sent us back a part of it ground, to the value of $54,000. But, as the member for Kingston (Mr. Ross) says, they will not allow us to send them our manufactured product at all. It is a case of our sending out our raw material for nothing and taking-[DOT]


Charles Avery Dunning: I am quite sure we were
paid for that raw material.


James Dew Chaplin: They will take the crude
in free of duty; but they impose a duty on our ground feldspar although we admit theirs free of duty.


The CHAIRMAN:: Item 296 stands.


Charles Avery Dunning: The whole thing had
better stand, Mr. Chairman, because any remodelling which might be arranged-I do not say it can be-would probably include the subitems as well as the main.


John Frederick Johnston: Items 296, 296(a),
296(b) and 296(c) stand.
Customs tariff-302.	Lithographic stones,
not engraved: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 174 per cent; general tariff, 20 per cent.


Arthur Edward Ross: Where is this imported from?


Charles Avery Dunning: We imported $2,400
worth, all from the United States.


James Dew Chaplin: Do you expect to get
some business from Great Britain?


Charles Avery Dunning: Possibly, but not very
much.


James Dew Chaplin: Why not make it sure by
raising the tariff against the United States if you want to drive the business away?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-306. Marble, sawn or sand-rubbed, not polished; granite, sawn; paving blocks of stone; flagstone and building stone, other than marble or granite, sawn on not more than two sides: British preferential tariff, free: intermediate tariff, 20 per cent; general tariff, 30 per cent.
Charles Avery Dunning: There is an inconsistency created by this item which I wish to correct by item 306(a). At this time I move to add item 306(a), as follows:
Ways and Means-Oustorm. Tariff
Building stone, other than marble or granite, sawn on more than two sides but not sawn on more than four sides, per 100 pounds: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 20 cents; general tariff, 22i cents.
That is the complete item. The (a) part of it had been dropped.


Robert James Manion: What were the imports
last year of building stones of various kinds, including marble?


Charles Avery Dunning: The total imports under
the item were valued at $428,000, of which $398,000 worth came from the United States.


Robert James Manion: Does that apply to both
item 306 and item 306(a)?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Robert James Manion: Has the minister a list to show the nature of the stones which we imported? It would seem to me that we ought to be able to supply our own demand when we have about 2,000,000 square miles with considerable stone in it.


Charles Avery Dunning: A large quantity of building stone comes across the lake from the United States to the city of Toronto. It is very largely, I believe, Indiana limestone. Of course this item covers any kind of building stone.


Mr. KENNEDY:: I suppose it covers tombstones, too.


Charles Avery Dunning: No, it does not cover
tombstones.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Item as amended agreed to.
Customs tariff-311. Slate pencils and school writing slates: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 22i per cent; general tariff, 25 per cent.
Robert James Manion: What were the imports
under this item?


Charles Avery Dunning: The imports were valued at $82,000, of which $79,000 came from the United States. That was a surprise to me, because I could see no reason why Great Britain should not have that business. They produce those articles in volume and quality. I think this change will turn the business towards Great Britain.


James Dew Chaplin: Did you raise the United States tariff?


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend is never
satisfied unless the tariff has been raised.


James Dew Chaplin: No, that is not the fact.
The minister has stated on a dozen occasions that he wants to transfer business from the

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
United States to Great Britain. The best way to do it is to raise the American tariff, and in a few cases he has done so. Here is a case where he could do it and thereby divert the business to Great Britain.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend would
no doubt increase the general tariff on school slates which stands at the present time at 25 per cent, but I am not prepared to do so.


James Dew Chaplin: You do not expect to get it from the old country.


Charles Avery Dunning: Oh yes, I do.


James Dew Chaplin: It is free from the old country.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


James Dew Chaplin: Why not raise the United States tariff and make it sure?


Arthur Edward Ross: I would like to ask the minister if pencils are not made in Canada.


Charles Avery Dunning: Pencils?


Arthur Edward Ross: Are not slate pencils and school writing slates produced in Canada?


Charles Avery Dunning: There is no record of any production.


Joseph Henry Harris: Is there any continental production of slates and slate pencils?


Charles Avery Dunning: We apparently have not received any from the continent, but I presume they are produced there.


Joseph Henry Harris: There are no importations to Canada from the continent?


Charles Avery Dunning: If so, the importations must be very small. Of a total importation valued at $82,000, $70,000 worth came from the United States.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-313. Plumbago, not ground or otherwise manufactured: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 7£ per cent; general tariff, 10 per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-315a. Carbon electrodes exceeding 35 inches in circumference or outside measurement: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 20 per cent; general tariff, 20 per cent.
Charles Avery Dunning: The imports under this item were valued at 873,000, and came from the United States. These articles should come from Great Britain.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Customs tariff-345. Zinc dust and sheets; zinc plates for marine boilers; sal ammoniac skimmings and seamless drawn tubing of zinc: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
Charles Avery Dunning: The word "strip" has been omitted, and it should be inserted after the words "zinc dust," to read "zinc dust, strip and sheets."


Robert James Manion: What were the imports under this item?


Charles Avery Dunning: The value of the imports of zinc dust was $36,000, of which $35,000 worth came from the United States. Zinc in sheets and plates was valued at $731,000, of which $365,000 worth came from the United States and $360,000 worth came from Belgium.


James Dew Chaplin: Practically nothing came from Great Britain.


Charles Avery Dunning: No, nothing from the
United Kingdom.


Robert James Manion: Do we produce these items in Canada?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, but not all of them. We do not produce strip or sheets.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: What is the change in
duty? It seems to me there is no change at all.


Charles Avery Dunning: The change is in including zinc plates for marine boilers. The next item will explain it.
Item as amended agreed to.
_ Customs tariff-345a. Zinc spelter and zinc in blocks, pigs, bars or rods; zinc plates, n.o.p., per pound: British preferential tariff, f cent; intermediate tariff, 1 cent; general tariff, 1 cent.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-350. Wire of all metals and kinds, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, 15 per cent; intermediate tariff, 17J per cent; general tariff, 20 per cent.
Charles Avery Dunning: There is no change in this item. Iron and steel wire are separately dealt with, and this is to deal with wire that is left.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-351. Wire, single or several, covered with any material, including cable so covered, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, 20 per cent; intermediate tariff, 274 per cent; general tariff, 30 per cent.
Charles Avery Dunning: The same explanation
applies to this item.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Robert James Manion: There are four items in
regard to wire. Can the minister give us the information as to those items?


Charles Avery Dunning: I have the information
in my iron and steel book, and I shall be pleased to give the information when we reach the iron and steel wires. These are n.o.p. items.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
*Customs tariff-351a. Wire, twisted, braided [DOT]or stranded, including wire rope and wire cable, coated or not, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, 17i per cent; intermediate tariff, 22J per cent; .general tariff, 25 per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-351b. Wire cloth, or woven wire of brass or copper: British preferential tariff, 17J per cent; intermediate tariff, 22i per cent; general tariff, 25 per cent.
Robert James Manion: That refers to copper wire.


Charles Avery Dunning: It refers to wire made
of brass or copper.


James Dew Chaplin: There is no change in it?


Charles Avery Dunning: No.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-352b. Screws of brass, copper *or other metal, n.o.p.:
(a)	Wood screws: British preferential tariff, 22J per cent; intermediate tariff, 30 per cent; general tariff, 35 per cent.
(b)	Machine and other screws, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, 22i per cent; intermediate tariff, 30 per cent; general tariff, 35 per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-354a. Nickel and aluminum kitchen or household hollowware, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, 20 per cent; intermediate tariff, 27J per cent; general tariff, 30 per cent.
Charles Avery Dunning: The same explanation, applies in this case.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-365. Composition metal and plated metal, in bars, ingots or cores, for the manufacture of watch cases, jewellery, filled gold and silver seamless wire and for dental purposes: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 7J per cent; general tariff, 10 per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-366. Watch actions and movements. and parts thereof, finished or unfinished, including winding bars and sleeves:	British
preferential tariff, free: intermediate tariff, 12J per cent; general tariff, 12i per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs .tariff-373. Scrap of iron or steel:
(a)	Wrought, being waste or refuse, to be remelted in furnaces or cupolas: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
(b)	Cast, being waste or refuse,_ to be
resmelted in furnaces or cupolas: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.	,
(c)	Railway rails, which have been in actual use, to be 'remelted in furnaces or to be remanufactured in rolling mills into other products than iron or steel rails: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
Provided that articles of iron or steel, damaged in transit, if broken up under customs supervision, and rendered unsaleable except as scrap, may be entered for duty as scrap.
Robert James Manion: As we are beginning the items dealing with iron and steel I would suggest that we call it six o'clock.


Charles Avery Dunning: We have the item of scrap to begin with, and every minute is valuable; I do not like to waste any time.


Mr. WHITE (London):: There are several items under this heading; shall we deal with the first one only?


Robert James Manion: Whait are the imports of scrap iron?


Charles Avery Dunning: There is one item which is free at the present time. In connection with it there are imports valued at $1,405,000 of which $1,392,000 worth came from the United States. The imports under the two dutiable items which are being made free are for the old item No. 374, $61,000, and for the old item 375, $104,000. In 1929 Canada exported scrap to a value of $1,120,000, of Which $911,000 went to the United States.


Robert James Manion: What is the United States duty on scrap?


Charles Avery Dunning: I will have to look that up.


Robert James Manion: Would the minister just make a memo of that and tell us after eight o'clock if there is any duty in the United States?


Mr. SIMPSON:: The major free item was rails, was it not, used rails?


Charles Avery Dunning: Item 775, covers iron and steel scrap, including rails. That was free before, and that is the big scrap item. I will have to look up the other information, and if it is desired to discuss the item further we can proceed at eight o'clock.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.

2354	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


John Frederick Johnston: When the committee
rose at six o'clock we were considering item 373, scrap of iron or steel.


John Franklin White: I understand that section (a) was carried, but I wonder if the minister could give us any information as to the exports of scrap under these three headings.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am unable to separate
the items, but the total exports under the three items were valued at SI,120,000, of which $911,000 worth went to the United States.


John Franklin White: I was unable to
separate the items so far as exports were concerned, but the imports are clearly shown. I have no criticism to offer so far as item (a) is concerned, although I think the records will show that we cannot expect very much change in our trade. During the last five years we imported wrought scrap to the extent of 40,000 tons, and we exported 378,000 tons. In no year do the exports fall below the total imports of this particular item. Item (b), being cast scrap, is a product which competes directly with pig iron. In 1920 we imported 9,900 tons to the value of $104,000, and it strikes me that if the minister is going to benefit the primary producers of this country he would do well to consider whether this commodity should not bear a duty. Item
(c)	covers railways rails, which have been in actual use, to be remelted in furnaces or to be remanufactured in rolling mills into other products than iron or steel rails. The minister is raising the duty on steel billets by $2 per ton, but he is allowing this item to remain on the free list. There is one mill in Canada which make a specialty of the use of these scrap rails, and they would have an advantage of $2 per ton as compared with mills which are forced to import billets. This item also would compete with pig iron in the production of steel. If it is the idea of the government to assist the primary industry, then these railway rails should bear a duty. Perhaps that duty should not be as high as the one imposed on steel billets, because there is some waste in the working of them, but the rate should be as high as that imposed on pig iron. I would like to know from the hon. minister if he is not disposed to consider this matter.


Charles Avery Dunning: Looking at the matter
from the point of view of the whole of Canada, it was thought desirable to allow this
(Mr. Dunning.]
material to continue to come in free. In some parts of Canada the people who engage in this business have to rely upon scrap as a raw material, and the evidence given before the tariff board revealed the fact that the industry generally has no complaint to make about the item as it now stands.


John Franklin White: During 1929 we
imported 127,000 tons of this material. The minister raises the duty on billets by $2 per ton, and allows this item to remain on the free list. The change will noit help the primary producer, but will give one mill in Canada an advantage over the others.


Mr. CANTLEY:: These steel rails are
rolled down into smaller sections used largely for reinforcing material in concrete construction, and the result is a product which is very inferior. As the hon. member for London has pointed out, it comes into direct competition with billets and blooms, with the result that there is comparatively no protection in regard to the production of the classes of material to which I have referred.
Let us take the item of pig iron.	The
duty is $1.50 per ton, whereas the duty on ingots of iron and steel is the same, namely, $1.50 per ton. The fundamental principle in preparing a tariff of this character, if it is intended to be protective to the industry concerned, is that the amount of protection or duty should bear some relation, usually a direct one, to the amount of labour involved in conversion. It costs practically $4 a ton to convert pig iron into steel. Therefore steel ingots, blooms, slabs and billets should be subject to a higher rate of duty than the pig iron from which they are produced. That should have been done but is not in this case.
Let us take the item of alloy steels, on which the duty is brought down to 5 per cent. In my judgment, the greatest development in the iron and steel industry of this or any other country in the near future will be in the matter of alloy steels. An attempt has been made in various places throughout this tariff to deal with the question of these ferro-alloys, but the protection given on the item to which I have referred is certainly not conducive to the future production of steel of that class, the production of which is very important from many points of view.
Again item 377c reads:
Ingots, cogged ingots, blooms, slabs, billets, n.o.p., of iron or steel, of a class or kind not made in Canada, when imported by manufacturers of forgings for use exclusively in the manufacture of forgings, in their own factories.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
I am not just sure what the minister has in mind in regard to that item, and I should be glad, if he would be good enough to advise me.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend had
better wait until we reach the item. I do not want to confuse the discussion.


John Franklin White: I presume the
minister would rather deal with paragraph (b) first and get rid of it. In that case the former general tariff was $2.50 per ton. The new rate is free. Will the minister consider putting some duty on that, in view of the fact that it competes with pig iron?


Charles Avery Dunning: I will look up the figures as to imports.


John Franklin White: The imports
amounted to 9,900 tons in 1929.


Charles Avery Dunning: This whole matter was considered at a number of hearings before the Tariff Advisory Board. Representations of the entire industry were heard, and with the varied conditions prevailing throughout the country-the value of the scrap imported last year was $104,000-I am convinced that the industry as a whole is satisfied with the placing of all these scrap items on the free list as raw material, particularly as they relate to the industry in some parts of the country where it is found difficult to secure the ordinary form of raw materials used elsewhere in Canada. In a matter of this kind we have to consider the industry from coast to coast, and I am sure the item meets generally with the approval of the industry.


Thomas Cantley: How can it be necessaty to put this material on the free list, in view of the fact that a very large tonnage is exported? I am referring now to the item.
Scrap of iron or steel:
(a)	Wrought, being waste or refuse, to be remelted in furnaces or cupolas.
(b)	Cast, being waste or refuse, to be resmelted in furnaces or cupolas.
May I point out that that is a misstatement. You cannot resmelt anything.


Charles Avery Dunning: That should be "remelted." It is a mistake in the printing which is being corrected.


Thomas Cantley: It is not corrected in the
copy that I have.


Charles Avery Dunning: The resolutions in the
hands of the Chairman are corrected so far as typographical errors are concerned. I am glad my hon. friend drew attention to it.
2419- **


John Franklin White: In regard to paragraph (c), a few minutes ago I quoted the figures of the imports for the year ending March, 1929, namely, 127,000 tons. They came in at the rate of $11 a ton. The minister says that he has considered the matter from the standpoint of the whole of Canada. A few days ago he reconsidered his decisions in connection with other items, and it seems to me this should not be sealed up tight; it should be susceptible to reasoning. Here is material at a value of $11 a ton entering into competition with steel billets, which are listed to-day in Pittsburgh at S33 a ton with a duty of $4.50 a ton besides. Not many mills in Canada have to buy billets, but those that do will have to compete with the free entry of this old rail. It is neither just nor fair.


Thomas Cantley: The item is just as unfair to mills that produce their own slabs, blooms and billets as it is to the smaller mills that have to buy the material in the open market. It simply means that the labour and material involved in the manufacture of these receive no adequate protection. The item is faulty from the point of view of the basic construction of the whole iron and steel schedule. Of that there can be no possible doubt.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-374. Pig iron, n.o.p., per ton: British preferential tariff. $1.50; intermediate tariff, $2.50; general tariff, $2.50.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-375. Ferro-alloys: _
(a) Spiegeleisen, being an alloy of iron and manganese, containing not less than 15 per centum and not more than 30 per centum, by weight, of manganese:	British preferential
tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-375(b). Ferro-manganese and silico-manganese, being alloys of iron and manganese containing more than 30 per centum, by weight, of manganese: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-375(c). Ferro-silieon, being an alloy of iron and silicon, containing not less than 10 per centum and not more than 15 per centum, by weight, of silicon: British preferential tariff, free: intermediate tariff, 7J per cent; general tariff, per cent.
Item agreed to.
2356	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
Customs tariff-375(d). Ferro-silicon, being an alloy of iron and silicon, containing more than 15 per centum, by weight, of silicon: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 10 per cent; general tariff, 10 per cent.
John Franklin White: The duty under
the general tariff has been changed from $4.50 to 10 per cent. At to-day's quoted prices, that will raise the price of ferro-silicon, provided that the duty is taken advantage of, by $1 per ton. Here is another case where the manufacturer of billets is at a disadvantage so far as his material is concerned.


Charles Avery Dunning: My advice is that the
values of this material under paragraph (d) range from $25 to $100 a ton, and that the only fair way to levy a duty on a product varying so widely in price is to impose it on an ad valorem basis.


John Franklin White: It is worth about $56 a ton to-day, and runs about that figure regularly.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-375(e).	Ferro-phosphorous,
being an alloy of iron and phosphorous, containing more than 15 per centum, by weight, of phosphorous: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 5 per cent; general tariff, 5 per cent.
James Dew Chaplin: There are no importations?


Charles Avery Dunning: The imports cannot be separately traced.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-375(f). Ferro-alloys, crude, for remelting, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 5 per cent; general tariff, 5 per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-376. Sponge iron: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-377. Ingots, of iron or steel, n.o.p., per ton: British preferential tariff, $1.50; intermediate tariff, $2.50; general tariff, $3.
Thomas Cantley: I want to protest against the position in which this is left. There is no change from the old tariff.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes. The general tariff is 50 cents a ton higher.


Thomas Cantley: It is the same under the British preference.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend is worried about the British preferential rate.


Thomas Cantley: It means that it will come in from Great Britain.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-377a. Blooms, cogged ingots, slabs, billets, n.o.p., sheet bars, of iron or steel, by whatever process made, n.o.p., per ton: British preferential tariff, $2.50; intermediate tariff, $4; general tariff, $4.50.
Mr. WOODSWTORTH:: There are some matters connected with the very decided increase in the duty under this item, as well as under other items, to which I should like to call attention. It has been constantly urged that the protection of these industries 'would mean the protection of the workmen engaged in them, but there is nothing whatever to show that such is the case. Generally speaking, a great many of the industries that are the most highfy protected pay the poorest wages. Industries in Canada which for years have been receiving from this government the advantage of special privileges are yet paying their workmen very poor wages indeed. In some connections other than that of the tariffs we have adopted the principle that the granting of concessions and special privileges, shall be dependent upon the maintenance of certain standards by the companies receiving the benefit of them. During the last few years, in awarding contracts-even in the granting of the charters-for the building of bridges, for example, we have insisted upon the inclusion of certain fair wage clauses. The proposal I should like to make is, that we ought not to grant any increase in the tariff until there is an understanding with the companies that they shall treat their employees fairly. We should insist on fair treatment for the men as to hours of employment, wages, and general conditions of labour, and that should be a condition precedent to the granting of any favours. Surely that is a fair proposal. It cannot be claimed to be very radical in its nature, although I would not hesitate to make it if it were. I am following a precedent that was recently set in the Ontario legislature. On February 12 last an application was made for an increase in the bounty on iron ore mined and smelted in Ontario. Though the application was granted, a protest was made in the legislature by a Liberal member, Mr. S. C. Tweed, president of the Ontario Equitable Life and Accident Insurance Company, who called attention to the fact that at the Algoma Steel works, at the Soo conditions of labour almost approaching slavery existed. He

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
claimed that shifts of workingmen varied from eight to twelve hours for seven days in the week. Mr. Tweed's efforts were highly applauded by some of the leading papers in Ontario. I notice that the London Advertiser said:
The people of Ontario do not want an industry built on inordinate hours of labour. It would be too dear at such a price. Mr. Tweed performed a public service in directing attention to the conditions at the Soo. and any further grant of public money should be contingent upon safeguards for the workers. The assertion of the vice-president of the Algoma Steel Corporation that a change to the three-shift six-day system is being planned would be welcomed, and he will be held to his promise.
I would commend the statement in that editorial Let me repeat one phrase:
Any further grant of .public money should be contingent upon safeguards for the workers.
I should like to apply this principle to the matter before us, and insist that any further tariff concessions be made contingent upon safeguards for the workers. Commenting upon the Algoma situation, the Toronto Mail and Empire said:
These advances will cost the company an additional wage distribution of about $300,000 a year, but we believe that the change will be as profitable for the company in the long run as it should be beneficial to the employees so affected from the start. It is in harmony with the progressive spirit of the age.
It is difficult for the Algoma Steel Corporation at Sault Ste. Marie to bring about decent conditions of labour when its competitor at Sydney, the British Empire Steel Corporation, permits abominable conditions to exist. The minister speaks of implementing the report of the Duncan commission by granting extra aid to the steel industry. Let me say that there have been other commissions whose recommendations have not been implemented. I should like to refer to the commission appointed under order in council P.C. 1929, dated September 22, 1923, to inquire into conditions among the steel workers at Sydney, Nova Scotia. The report states:
To sum up: The fundamental causes of the recurring industrial unrest among the steel workers may be stated as follows:
(1)	The rate of wages.
(2)	The long hours of labour.
(3)	Refusal by the company to recognize the union.
(4)	Denial of collective bargaining.
(5)	Belief that there was discrimination against members of the union.
(6)	The absence of any recognized organized means, through which representatives of the men could confer with representatives of the management.
(7)	Irregular employment and the fear of unemployment.
(8)	The high cost of living.
(9)	Agitation stirring up hostile class feeling by speakers and writers who denounced those in positions of authority, including the judiciary; called capitalists and employers by such names as " slave drivers, "	" labour
exploiters," "common enemy," etc.; and urged workmen to seek redress for their grievances by hostile and violent action.
Labour agitators are condemned. But if after seven years there is very little or no improvement in conditions, can you very much wonder that some of the workers should lose faith in parliamentary action and begin to agitate for more direct measures? May I quote from the report where the hours of labour are being dealt with:
A great deal of testimony was received to the effect that the men considered the hours of labour too long. In the department's in which the continuous process practice obtains, such as the blast furnaces, open hearth furnaces and coke ovens, the work is carried on on the two-shift plan. That requires the day-shift men to work eleven hours and the night-shift men thirteen hours. Once a fortnight when the men change shifts they work for a twenty-four hour change-over period.
A good deal of the work in connection with the continuous processes in the steel industry is quite intermittent in character. But when anything goes wrong the case is different and the twelve-hour day becomes a physical strain. The twelve-hour day with the seven-day week and the twenty-four hour change-over once a fortnight make a very exhausting combination.
A twelve-hour day followed steadily by any group of men for a considerable number of years means a decrease of their efficiency and a reduction of their vigour. The question of hours of labour has to be considered from a social as well as a physical point of view. A twelve-hour day in the plant means about thirteen hours away from his home and family for all the working days. That leaves little if any time for family life, recreation, social enjoyments and leisure.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Are the hours of labour
still twelve?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: At the present time?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes. I will give
the evidence as to that in a moment. Let me quote further from the report:
We recommend that, in the interests alike of the company and the workmen, early and earnest attention be given to the elimination of the twenty-four hour change-over period and to the abolition of the seven-day week.
One more quotation, and I give this in a little greater detail because I do not think, as is indicated by the question of the hon. leader of the opposition and as has been expressed to me by various members of the house, that many of the citizens of this country
2358	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
are apprised of the real conditions that exist. This is the quotation:
The commissioners are of the opinion that the hours of labour have been excessively long in some departments of the plant under the two-shift system of operation.
The commissioners recommend that in the interests alike of the company and the workmen, early and earnest attention be given to the elimination of the twenty-four hour changeover period and to the abolition of the seven-day week.
The commissioners recommend that the question of adopting the three-shift plan (eight hours per shift) in the departments of continuous processes and a maximum of a ten-hour day for other workmen be given the most careful consideration. In our opinion the change would be advantageous to the company and beneficial to the men, and should be adopted.
The commissioners are of the opinion that the iron and steel industry of Sydney can be carried on successfully and amicably in such a way as to meet the reasonable desires and requirements of the workmen and the company.
Since the steel industry is one which has been characterized by intermittent periods of prosperity and depression, the commissioners recommend that in the interests alike of the shareholders and the employees the company should discuss with representatives of the employees the question of drawing to some extent upon the surplus accumulated during fat years to tide the workmen as well as the shareholders over lean years when changes in rates of wages are in contemplation and when the prospect of regular employment is not good.
As an alternative, the commissioners recommend that in the public interest some competent authority be directed to investigate and report upon the use which is made of such surplus funds of the company.
Now, that report of the royal commission was made on September 22, 1923. So far as I know not one of those recommendations has been carried out. The .men are still working the long hours; they are still working for pitiably low wages; they are still working under intolerable conditions. The history of the Besco Company is fairly well known. It has been a series of financial blunders. Notwithstanding all that, this company, together with the other steel companies in Canada, are asking for "additional protection," as they call it.
Now, the leader of the opposition asked if these conditions still prevail. Last year, I called attention to the facts in this case. A committee of the Sydney ministerial association published a report on what they termed the "intolerable conditions" prevailing in the steel plant. They say:
For the continuous operations, consisting of the coke ovens, blast furnaces and open hearth departments, involving approximately 1,000 men, the day term is eleven hours and the

night thirteen throughout a seven-day week. That is, the men in these departments work an average of eighty-four hours every week- sixty-six during the week on day duty and one hundred and two for the week on night duty.


Richard Bedford Bennett: How does that compare
with other steel plants in Canada? I ask for information.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The steel plant at Algoma is also working on the same basis as was shown by Mr. Tweed in the provincial legislature. I understand that the plants at Hamilton have adopted the eight hour day. I proceed with one other quotation from this report of the ministerial association.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend did not
give us the date of that report.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It was just about
a year ago. Confirmation of the facts contained in this report has been given recently before a social service organization in the city of Toronto by Rev. Doctor C. W. Gordon, who has been investigating conditions at Sydney. My colleague says that this report is nearly two years old. Now let me give this quotation:
We believe that the plight

And this is the plea that the ministers of Sydney make:
-it can scarcely be called other

of the some 1,900 men in the continuous operations is a scandal and a shame. To be on light duty, under the most favourable working conditions, from eleven to thirteen hours were trying enough, but when we know the necessarily almost intolerable conditions in which these men have to work, heavy manual labour in gas, smoke, heat, and in some eases, exposure to the elements summer and winter, the situation is nothing less than appalling, and their treatment utterly abhorrent to the dictates of humanity.
The only argument advanced by the management is the financial one. "We are not in a position to give a general increase in wages nor the eight-hour day."
This is what the ministerial association of Sydney recommend, and I believe they made similar recommendations before the tariff board:
We recommend:
(1)	That this ministerial association of Sydney wait upon the responsible heads of the D.I.S. Co. at the earliest opportunity and urge the just claims of the men for a shorter working day.
(2)	That representatives be sent immediately to the federal Department of Labour and to the Prime Minister of Canada urging that if and when the steel companies of Canada are allowed a protective tariff that provision be made for the men receiving the standard hours of labour adopted by the parliament of Canada, namely, the eight-hour day-.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am glad indeed
that there is an expression of approval of that statement of the ministerial association of Sydney. I think there are a good many members on the -Conservative side, where they are urging protection, who would like to see some protection for the working men.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I would appeal to
the government, which has some responsibility in the matter, that it do not let this opportunity pass without insisting at this juncture, when there is power in its hands, that no further tariff protection will be given until these standards are lived up to. I may say that the management apparently have no intention of improving the working conditions, even if they receive added tariff protection. Not very long ago I had a statement from some of the men there, and they pointed out that when they had approached Mr. Kelley with regard to this matter he had told them that although there was talk about the tariff, even if they received additional help it would be but a drop in the bucket. He referred as well to the bonus on coal used for the making of steel and this also he said had not materialized. The company were not in a position to give a general wage increase and had no intention whatever of doing so. If my correspondent rightly reports what has been said by his local manager it seems to me that we have a right at the present time to see that some pressure is brought to bear upon the company in this respect. As is shown by their statement, the company have been doing reasonably well; they have laid aside certain reserves. To go back to the statement of ministerial association, if it has been possible for them through good financing to lay aside certain reserves they ought to find it possible to make some provision for the men concerned. In the report two years ago of the ministerial association, the statement is made that #2,-000,000 had been retained for depreciation, or SI,000,000 per year, the balance presumably being available for interest charges on bonds and so on-
-while not a cent of this amount has been allowed for the better condition of the human element in the industry. It does cost money, doubtless a great deal, to replace the machinery of steel making. Unfortunately, it costs the industry little or nothing to replace men; there is nearly always a surplus of labour.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is what they
like.


James Shaver Woodsworth: There is the condition which we face. Of course from the standpoint of the employer it is a good thing to have a surplus of labour, but surely we have reached the stage of civilization when a group of men such as hon. gentlemen here assembled in parliament, representing the people of Canada, ought to be in a position to insist upon our working men being enabled to live up to higher standards. The treaty of Versailles insisted upon the eight hour day, but we are told again and again by the government that under our constitution it is impossible to enforce the eight hour day in the provinces. Yet here is an opportunity for this government to insist upon it, and there is no reason why they should not do so. If they would stipulate that the increase in the tariff should be contingent upon a provision on the part of the industries concerned for the eight hour day, changes would be made in a very short time. A few years ago we were told we could not get the eight hour day in Canada because it did not prevail in the United States, and that therefore our people could not compete with the people in the United States. In at least the larger steel plants of the United States they have adopted the eight hour shift, yet we have not had such a move in the larger steel plants of Canada.
As I thought of this question I recalled an editorial which appeared in the Ottawa Journal of May 3, 1929, under the heading: Too Much of Paternalism. It was criticising the report of the industrial and international relations committee of this house; the particular report referred to endorsed the principle of unemployment insurance. The editorial is as follows:
It is perhaps fortunate for the country that neither this committee nor parliament possesses authority to give effect to the principle that is so lightly endorsed.
Further on it states:
It is to be hoped that parliament and the government find a resting place for these recommendations in the most convenient wastebasket. And the reason is clear. It is that if Canada keeps heeding all the reports that are made by committees, and goes on doing all the things that a lot of well-intentioned but misinformed people want her to do, then this country will become so burdened with paternalism and bureaucracy that the taxpayer will be crushed into the earth.
After conceding that some sort of unemployment insurance may be necessary in Great Britain, the editorial goes on to say:
But in Canada.sparsely settled, lacking in population, and passing through an era of tremendous development, the proposition that it is necessary to insure our people against unemployment is absurd.
2360	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
The editorial concludes by deploring that we are " getting away from the old wholesome practice of individual effort." If the principles laid down by the Journal were applied to tariff privileges I wonder just what we would be doing. The steel companies and the protected industries in this country have been enjoying "paternalism" since confederation. We have been warned against the dole, but the industries have been receiving the dole with a vengeance, and in their case it has not been a small dole. If we are to insist upon individual effort on the part of workmen, why should we not insist upon the old wholesome practice of individual effort on the part of steel corporations? Why can these industries not stand on their own feet? The workers are expected to stand on their own feet, to work a twelve hour day and receive as wages mere miserable pittances. Some of the men working for these companies are receiving no more than 33 cents an hour. Yet the steel plants are permitting these very unwholesome conditions to continue. Of course it would be " paternalism " if we gave unemployment insurance; it would be "paternalism" if we prevented the men from working seven days in the week and from working eleven and thirteen hour shifts.
There is an opportunity for this government to do the just thing by a large body of workers. Within two months the elections will be at hand, and from the Atlantic to the Pacific the Liberals and Conservatives will be appealing to the factory workers to support them. The Liberals will take the ground that in some way or another this budget is protecting their interests. The Conservatives will say that if they are elected they will make it their business to protect the workman. Here is the chance for both parties. If the Conservatives are in earnest and insist upon it, I think they can force the government to give the workers the conditions they deserve. On the other hand, if the government is in earnest in its profession of a real desire to put the eight hour day in operation, and has been barred from doing so only by constitutional difficulties, this affords it an admirable opportunity for action. There are a certain number of hon. members on both sides of the house who wish well to their fellow men and it is for them to insist that this intolerable condition no longer obtains.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, I wish to congratulate my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) upon his very eloquent address. It is always a pleasure to me to listen to him and to-night he has ably championed the case of the working men

in the steel industry. This government, by the enactment of Bill No. 49, has shown its good will towards the workers. This bill has to do with the eight hour day and fair wages in government contracts or in work performed for the Dominion government. During this session I had the opportunity to point out that the provinces have full jurisdiction with regard to the eight hour day and fair wages, and I wonder that the provinces have not followed the example of British Columbia, which has adopted minimum wage laws for men and women.


Richard Bedford Bennett: So has Alberta.


Jean-François Pouliot: If my hon. friend will
permit, there is only one wage law in the province of Alberta respecting minimum wages. That relates to women, and it contains a provision also to the effect that the wages of men shall not be lower than the wages of women, but that does not mean much, as my hon. friend knows. The hon. gentleman is a most distinguished lawyer and is very well acquainted with the fact that in his own province there is no distinct law relating to minimum wages for men and it is exactly the same in Ontario. So I believe I am fair in saying that there is only one minimum wage law for men, and that is in British Columbia. In the other provinces what has been done for the men does not amount to so much, because if the men who work in the steel plants are not paid more than young girls who work in laundries, I do not believe it is fair. At all events, except on Dominion government contracts, the wages to be paid and hours to be worked is a matter for the provincial governments to deal with. Some of the governments have already taken steps with regard to the hours of labour and the wages paid on their own provincial works, but that is not sufficient. The federal government, outside of works under its own control, has no jurisdiction to enact legislation in respect to fair wages or the eight hour day or the forty-four hour week; so I do not understand why the provinces do not take steps to give the working men a chance, by passing laws to the effect that working men should not work more than forty-four hours a week and should receive a decent salary. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that this would be fair; and when I speak of the matter in this house it is because what is said here is recorded in Hansard and is read throughout the country. It is a matter of momentous importance to thousands upon thousands of people. I do not understand how a mother could bring up and look after a family on a wage of $2 or

TFai/s and Means-
-Customs Tariff
$2.50 a day, which she receives from her husband every two weeks. The industries which make a fair profit should share that profit with their co-workers, and we have examples of that being done. We have the example of Mr. Ford, who pays very high wages and who is one of the richest men in the United States. He is not stingy in dealing with his working men; he considers them rather as partners, and experience has shown that he has not suffered from that policy- far from it.	[DOT]
In summing up, I do not see how the federal government could try to hold up these concerns; if they did so the companies would say that they had no chance to pay fair wages. But I believe the provincial governments which are interested in the matter should make a study of the situation and be bold enough to take a step which will be a benefit to all concerned. Merchants, doctors and every one will benefit if the working men are paid better wages; they will have more money to spend; they will live more comfortably, and the governments will then have less to spend in the way of relief and for public health. I believe this matter is entirely under the jurisdiction of the provincial governments, and they should look after it at the earliest possible opportunity.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: Mr. Chairman, I
wish very strongly and emphatically to associate myself with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in the very excellent case which he has made for some consideration on the part of this government for the steel workers in Sydney. It is true that the budget offers something to the British Empiie Steel Corporation. I am not here to hold any brief for that corporation; I should like to see it get fair play, but I am particularly anxious that it should give fair play to those people out of whose sweat and blood the corporation's profits are made. No member of this house, if he is fair, whether he is a Liberal a Conservative, a Progressive or a Labour man, can argue that the British Empire Steel Corporation is doing what is right and fair when it compels its men ^ to work thirteen hours a day, as they are doing in some cases, and ten hours a day as they are doing in all cases. A great many of these men do not even get one day off a week; they are compelled to work on Sunday as well.
In this budget the government has offered certain financial concessions, both by bonus and by direct protection, to the British Empire Steel Corporation. For my part I consider that the British Empire Steel Corporation is well able to take care of itself,
but the men who are employed by that corporation are not able to take care of themselves, as has been shown by the unfortunate experiences these men have had in the years during which they have been employees of that corporation. Before these items pass and before these concessions are given to the British Empire Steel Corporation I believe all parties in this house, irrespective of political affiliations, should join together and say that for once in this country we are going to place human values ahead of any other values that may be considered later. For my part I would not want one single concession made to the British Empire Steel Corporation by this government unless the government first bargained with them to give their employees a fair deal in the matter of wages and working hours.
When those of U3 who are interested in a shorter working day and better wages for labour in this country speak in parliament, we are immediately confronted with the British North America Act. Hon. gentlemen say, "Oh, the constitution will not allow us to do this." Here is a case where a corporation is looking for your money, for the money of the taxpayers of Canada and for the money of .the steel workers of Sydney. Before that money is turned over to them this government has a golden opportunity to get away from the constitutional objection and say to that corporation-which I suppose, like other corporations, will do almost anything for money-"Give your workingmen the eight-hour day and we will give you the concessions promised in our budget." Unless the workingmen of Sydney get some benefit from these concessions, I am opposed to them; for any company which compels its workmen in this civilized and Christian age to work twelve hours a day and a great many of them to work seven days a week, should not be given any concessions by a civilized government. That is the stand I take, and I do not care who likes it or who does not like it. I think the Minister of Finance should hold up these portions of his budget, get in touch with the heads of that corporation and say, "We are willing to do this for you provided you are prepared to deal fairly with the men whom you employ." An opportunity is thus offered to get away from the constitutional objection, and all parities in the house can unite to do something for those men who have been so unfairly treated for many years.


Mr. MacDONALD (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Chairman, I have to agree with a great deal of what has been said by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woods-worth). I think I can say that I know more
2302	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
about the conditions under which these men labour at the steel plant in Sydney than does any other hon. member in the house. I know something about the hours of labour and about their living conditions, and I supported this budget because it contained a clause which might be of some help to those men. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has delivered this same type of speech for many years, but those speeches always have been futile because they never had any practical object in view. I have a practical object in view, and when the resolution comes before this house I am going to move that a provision be added that the money be not paid to the steel company unless it shall find its way into the wage envelopes of the men. That is a practical suggestion worth more to these men than all the speeches which the hon. member could deliver during the next ten years.
This thing has to be considered from a common sense point of view. If the steel company at Sydney can afford to pay higher wages and operate on an eight hour day, it should be compelled to do so. If, on the other hand, it cannot afford to operate under those conditions, then no law which we pass in this house is going to compel it to do .so. How are we going to find out the true state of affairs? There is a Labour department in this country whose duty it is to have found out these things long ago. If that department were properly organized and properly functioning it would have known of the financial condition of the Dominion Iron & Steel Company, and would have known whether that company was able to pay increased wages. The department has fair wage officers and experts who could have obtained this information. No assistance was given to me when I took the stand I did upon the budget. It cost me something to do that, but while I remain in this house I propose always to have some practical object in view whenever I speak either on behalf of the labouring man or upon any other subject. I do not propose to take up the time of the committee in making futile observations regarding the conditions which obtain down there. We have heard the reports of the ministerial association-we had Rev. Doctor C. W. Gordon down there last year-and everything they say is true. The conditions under which the men work are not satisfactory and are such as no honest Canadian citizen should have to put up with. If that concern can afford to pay higher wages we should see that it does so. There is only one way we can do that, and that is the course I propose to adopt. At that time we will find out just where these gentlemen stand.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Mr. Chairman, for several
sessions the house has been discussing the question of higher wages for employees of the government, and from all parts of the house we have had expressions of opinion in favour of granting to them a higher wage. That expression of opinion was not confined to any particular party, and I hope, now that this question has come up of providing better working conditions and higher pay for those employed by the steel companies, it will re-seive the same unanimous support.
For a number of years we have listened in this house to the pleas of hon. members from the maritime provinces regarding maritime rights. There is hardly a member from that part of the country who has not risen in his place and said that he was in some way or the other a maritime-rigbter. If ever there was a time when the members from the maritimes should be fighting for maritime rights, this is it. It is a fine thing to fight for protection for industry, it may be a fine thing to fight for protection for capital, which is really protection for industry, but it is much more important to fight for protection for the human beings who are employed in such industries. We are fighting to-night for protection for those human beings who create dividends for the share and bond holders of these various corporations, and I hope the Liberal members will not be more backward than some of the Conservative members have been. I am sure it would be a reflection upon the Liberal party if they permitted the Conservative party to stand alone in a fight for better living conditions for those who make millions of dollars for the shareholders of these corporations. We find that already the value of the shares of the steel companies has risen, no doubt as a result of the budget introduced by the hon. Minister of Finance.


Charles Avery Dunning: Will my hon. friend
please quote his authority for that statement?


Abraham Albert Heaps: I received that information
from a friend of mine in whom I have every confidence. He told me that to-day the shares of some of the steel companies had gone up several points.


Charles Avery Dunning: I wish my hon. friend
would produce proof of that.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I have not the proof with
me, but I accepted it as coming from a most reliable source. There is no doubt that concessions of this character are very valuable to the corporations which receive them, otherwise they would not be asking for them. It might be pointed out that this company came before the tariff board seeking the concession,

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
and they would not have asked for it unless they expected that it would be of considerable value.
The question arises whether or not theso concessions are necessary. There are some who think that this is not an opportune time to grant such concessions as these to the steel companies of Canada. I would like to quote a sentence or two from an article which appeared in the Monetary Times of March 15, 1929, written by F. A. Carman. The following is the concluding portion of the article:
Until further progress has been made in an exploration of the facts, would it not be unwise to rush into new tariff duties which, though they might benefit certain branches of iron and steel manufacture, could not fail to impose serious handicaps on others? Do not sane considerations of national policy call for thorough investigation as the foundation of government measures for the encouragement of this basic industry?
That opinion is shared by a great many people. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre quoted from the statement of the ministerial association, and I would like to quote further from that same statement. This may be of interest to the hon. leader of the opposition, who asked about the working hours of the men engaged in the steel industry, particularly in Nova Scotia. I quote as follows:
The ordinary working day at the Dominion Iron and Steel Company's plant is ten hours- from 7 a.m. to 5.30 p.m., with 30 minutes at noon for lunch. For night duty there is^ a twelve-hour term, with thirty minutes at midnight for lunch. For the continuous operations, consisting of the coke ovens, blast furnaces and open hearth departments, involving approximately 1,000 men. the day term is eleven hours and the night thirteen throughout a seven-day week. That is, the men in those departments work an average of eighty-four hours every week-sixty-six during the week on day duty and 102 for the week on night duty.
It would be a reflection on parliament if we attempted to give any form of protection to an industry that works so many of its men 102 hours per week. In 1926 we had the Duncan commission investigating conditions and I think we have been told by the Minister of Finance that the present increase in duties is carrying out the recommendations contained in the report of the Duncan commission.


Charles Avery Dunning: No.


Abraham Albert Heaps: In the report of the Duncan
commission, there were recommendations that the steel industry should be given increased protection.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend is quite
wrong. My reference was to a matter which
is not now before the committee and cannot be until the resolution is reached, with regard to a payment on coal used in the production of steel. That was the reference to the Duncan report.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Possibly the minister is going a little beyond the recommendation contained in the report of the Duncan commission. In 1926 the Duncan commission reported on conditions in certain of the industries forming part of the British Empire Steel Corporation, namely, the coal industry.


Mr. SMITH (Cumberland):: And the steel
industry as well. They asked for an investigation.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I will quote one or two paragraphs from the report of the Duncan commission, showing some of the conditions of the men employed by this corporation to which so much protection is proposed to be given at this time. The report refers to the housing and social conditions that prevail there, and if we are going to give to this company the concessions which they themselves have sought, I think they might do something on behalf of the men, particularly in regard to the social conditions which exist in Sydney and Glace Bay. I find the following at page 19 of the report:
Many of these houses are old-some of them having been erected by the General Mining Association more than fifty years ago. Others were built for the purpose of housing men engaged on the erection of portions of the operators' plant or in opening up new mines; the latter are little better than temporary shelters and are known and properly described as "shacks." Many families occupy houses that are much too small for their needs. The houses generally have no kitchen or cellar, and in certain districts, in default of waterworks, water is either delivered by the operators in carts or has to be carried from a distance. Where water is piped into the house, there is an almost total absence of bathrooms or water-closets, due, we were informed, to the lack of sewers. There is much complaint of the leaky condition of the roofs, of ill-fitting doors and windows, of doors that are rotted or badly worn, and of walls on which paper and plaster are in shreds and patches.


Finlay MacDonald: May I ask the hon. member whether he has not made a misstatement there? That is not the Duncan report to which we referred. The same gentleman was chairman of the commission, but it was a commission that made an inquiry two or three years previously.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I thank the hon. gentleman.
I thought I mentioned the fact that this was the first Duncan report and not the second one. In any case, it is the same company with which I am dealing.
2364	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Finlay MacDonald: The first commission dealt with the Dominion Coal Company; the second commission dealt with the Dominion Iron and Steel Company.


Abraham Albert Heaps: They are all part of the same corporation, the British Empire Steel Corporation, and if we are to benefit the steel industry by an increased tariff our action in that respect will reflect upon the increased profits of the coal industry which is part of the British Empire Steel Corporation.
Another paragraph in the same report reads:
Social Wellbeing and Environment
We do not feel that such improvements as the constituted authorities can effect are enough to create speedily the environment which these mining communities need and we very strongly recommend the constitution of a fund which can be administered for purposes connected with the social well-being, recreation, and conditions of living of the workers in or about the coal mines, and with mining education and research.
This fund should be constituted by contributions from all the operators of coal mines, to the extent of one cent per ton of coal raised, and by contributions from the province from the royalties which they receive in respect of ownership of the mines, to the extent also of one cent per ton of coal raised. If these contributions were continued for a period of five years, a fund would be constituted which would go a long way to improve very materially the surroundings in which the miners live and to afford the miners and their families reasonable opportunities for social, physical and intellectual development.
I am informed that nothing along these lines has yet been done so far as the operators or the province are concerned. In the latter part of 1928 I was through this portion of Nova Scotia; I was in the large town of Glace Bay, which has a population of 12,000, and I asked a gentleman, an old resident of Glace Bay, to show me through the miners' residential portion of the town and show me the conditions under which they lived. He took me around, and lo and behold! I saw on the front street-I do not remember the name of it-a number of houses which had recently been painted, while all the other houses away in the rear had not been touched. I said to this gentleman:	" How is it that
these few houses have been painted pale blue, green and other colours, while the others have not been touched?" His reply was:
" Since the Duncan commission reported, they have painted the front houses, so that visitors who fly past in automobiles will think something has been done to improve all the houses in Glace Bay." After visiting that town and seeing some of the miserable conditions under which the men, women and children have to TMr. Heaps.]
live, I could not help coming away with the feeling that any government, of whatever political conviction it might be, that did not do something to improve those conditions was not worthy of the confidence of the people of this country. What did I see? In the streets where the houses were built there were no sewers. Running down in front of the houses was a little trench where the sewage out of them came, and the young children there, barefooted and ill clad, were wallowing in the mire. Such are the conditions that exist in that portion of the Dominion of Canada and yet no government is prepared to lift a finger to remedy them.
Mr. R. L. Calder, a lawyer, who is probably well known to hon. members, speaking only recently on the question of conditions in Nova Scotia, made the statement that it was "like a suburb in hell" which the people were compelled to live in. Now we intend, by increases in the tariff amounting, I believe, to approximately 70 per cent, to give added profit or protection to an industry which I do not think deserves it. Only recently I received from the Council for Social Service of the Church of England in Canada a bulletin in which are described some of the conditions existing in the steel industry of Nova Scotia. Mr. J. J, Holmes, Junior, the gentleman who wrote the article, has this to say:
Industrial scientists in Great Britain have stated, after very exhaustive inquiry and experiment, that the maximum efficiency of the human machine is realized on a working week of forty hours.
What have we to say with respect to conditions such as prevail in the steel mills of Nova Scotia, where men are compelled to work one hundred hours per week continuously seven days a week without any rest in between?	After the pleadings which have
come to the minister from the Conservative side of the house, from hon. members representing	the maritime provinces,	the
minister would be well advised to allow this matter to stand over I do not think the minister can justify either to this house or to the people of Canada an increase in the tariff protection applicable to an industry which allows such miserable conditions to continue amongst the men employed in that industry. If protection is to be given at all to an industry, the first consideration of the house should be: What are the conditions under which the men employed in that industry are working? I do not think that as a result of any examination or inquiry it can truly be said by any hon. member that an industry such

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
as the Besco corporation is entitled to one whit more protection than it now enjoys until it is prepared to provide on behalf of the men whom it employs such conditions with respect to labour as should prevail in this twentieth century.


Mr CHURCH:: It is strange what a change has come over hon. gentlemen opposite in the last few years. One of the reasons for the unemployment that has existed in Canada during the last eight years since this government has been in power is the withering condition of the coal and iron and steel industries. In 1922, 1923 and 1924, before an hon. gentleman opposite seemed to take credit for the appointment of the Duncan commission, an hon. gentleman on this side of the house, the senior member for Halifax, had drawn attention to the conditions prevailing in the maritime provinces At that time the government was dependent on a few free trade votes in this house. It had a majority of only one or two, which might disappear over night. It was dependent upon free trade votes, and was not then thinking about protection.
When I came into this house in the session of 1922 I introduced a resolution, which I reintroduced in 1923 and in 1924, asking for bonuses and subventions and subsidies and protection along the line of Mr. Baldwin's policy in the old country for these three great industries. The coal industry, the steel industry, and the iron industry are key industries in Canada, and upon their success depends the success of agriculture and all the other industries in this country. In the session of 1922, and again in 1923 and 1924, long before the present Minister of Finance was in this house, when he was away up in Saskatchewan sitting as a member of a provincial cabinet, this government voted down the motion of a private member for a national coal supply. That motion was introduced for the purpose of seeing that every ton of coal used in this country was produced under the British flag -in England and Wales, in Alberta and the maritimes. I also asked for an embargo against the $56,000,000 which this country sends down annually to the Pennsylvania coal barons. That amount would have provided a very large sum for these key industries in the maritime provinces in the way of bonuses, subventions and subsidies. Where was the government of the day then? It was hanging on to office by a majority of one or two or three, and it voted down this resolution in 1922, 1923 and 1924.
So far as the Duncan commission is concerned, its appointment was forced upon the
government by the Conservative opposition in this house. Debates took place in the house from 1922 to 1926 exposing conditions in the maritime provinces, as a result of which the government was forced to appoint the Duncan commission. That commission heard evidence, and then simply adopted the policy of the Conservative opposition as it had been moved here in amendments to the address and on other occasions. So I do not think the country will be very well pleased with the attitude of hon. gentlemen opposite fh this connection, because if there is one agency that has contributed to unemployment in Canada, especially in the maritimes, more than anything else it has been the withering condition of the iron and coal and steel industries. The government did nothing during all the years it was in power to better the condition of those industries. The employees in those three industries were allowed to starve to death, and the industries themselves to wither. But now the government come along and climb on the protection band wagon.
I wonder if the Minister of Finance has any amendments to make to these tariff schedules. Is there an additional budget to be brought in regarding steel and coal and iron, as there was regarding fruits and vegetables? Are we to have a sort of second budget for these industries as we had for fruits and vegetables?
I say, Mr. Chairman, that if credit is due for forcing the government to adopt the protective system, and the safeguarding of our key industries, it is due to the Conservative opposition in this house. The government did not care anything at all about these industries so long as they could grab a few free trade votes and hang on to office. The industries were allowed to wither away and the employees and their families to starve to death for want of work. Now the government comes along with a lot of hurrahs and hallelujahs and says:	We are the people
who are responsible for the Duncan report. I have read some of the maritime papers, and in one Liberal paper I see that the present Minister of National Defence is given credit for the Duncan report. To read some of those papers you would think that there was only one man in the maritimes. But I say, Mr. Chairman, that if credit is due to anyone, it is due to the senior member for Halifax, the dean of the maritimes, or as I would call him, the father of the maritimes, because he forced the government to deal with these industries in the way they should have been dealt with years ago, in the way they were
2366	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
dealt with in England and in other countries after the war when these industries were found to be withering. I repeat, if there is any credit due for forcing the present government to bring down a policy of protection to these industries, the credit belongs to the maritime members and to the Conservative opposition in this house.


Thomas Edward Simpson: Mr. Chairman, with respect to what my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre had to say with regard to the working conditions in the steel industry and the necessity for improving those conditions, I agree with him in part; but the references which he made to the conditions obtaining in Sault Ste Marie were entirely erroneous. The statement that the living conditions of the workmen engaged in the steel plant at the Soo bordered on slavery is absolutely foreign to the facts, and I think the men themselves would be the first to ask me to speak on their behalf in that regard.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The hon. gentleman will remember that I was quoting from a statement made by Mr. Tweed on the floor of the Ontario legislature.


Thomas Edward Simpson: The statement which Mr. Tweed made, and which my hon. friend repeated on the floor of this house, are entirely foreign to the facts. I have lived in the city of Sault Ste Marie for thirty years and am more or less familiar with the conditions under which the men who work in that steel industry live. Those conditions are not in every respect ideal. But one of the best evidences that they have not been as bad as my hon. friend's quotation would lead us to believe is the fact that the most friendly relations have prevailed between the men and the management of the company. There have been no labour troubles for the last twenty-five years in that steel industry at Sault Ste Marie. It is true that many of the men have to work from eleven to thirteen hours a day. That is too long, and I am in entire agreement with what my hon. friend had to say in that respect. I am in favour of the eight hour day. But here were the conditions. The steel industry was able to operate only during a portion of the year owing to the fact that the large steel industries of the United States were dumping their products over here at a price with which the local industry could not compete. Had this industry several years ago been given the protection that they should have had in order to afford them a fair chance in their own market, then I am satisfied the management of the steel company at the Soo would have given the men
[Mr. Church.)
the eight hour day long before this; and it would have been protection for the men as v/ell as for the industry. As a matter of fact I know that the management of the Algonna Steel Corporation have been working on the scheme of an eight hour day, and just as soon as they can afford to put it into operation they will do so. The provisions contained in the budget with respect to steel will help in that regard. Whether or not they go far enough to enable the steel companies to do that has yet to be proven. I hope they will, and that as a result the men will be placed on the eight hour shift in the very near future. But there is this feature to be remembered in connection with the eight hour day. The great majority of the men who are working the longer hours are working on a tonnage basis, and the longer they work the more they earn. Some of those men-I do not think this applies to all of them-have told me that when the mills were operating only a portion of the year they were anxious to work the longer hours and make more money while they had the opportunity. But the ideal condition is to enable the steel industry to have a fair show in their own market that they may supply the steel requirements of that market, and when they get that they will be able to deal more fairly with their men in regard to working hours and working conditions than they have been able to do in the past.


Mr SMITH (Cumberland):: 
Jean-François Pouliot: May I ask a question?


Robert Knowlton Smith: Yes.


Jean-François Pouliot: If there had been no
British North America Act, would there have been a Duncan report?


Robert Knowlton Smith: I do not know that that question requires any answer, Mr. Chairman. I am quite unable to understand what the British North America Act had to do with the Duncan report. The Duncan report was made by a royal commission after investigating certain conditions in the maritime provinces. The British North America Act is the Magna Charta of the Dominion, and I cannot see the relevancy of the hon. gentleman's question. The federal authority ought not always to hide behind the British North America Act when important social legislation comes before it. If it is to be the government's excuse with regard to the British Empire Steel Corporation or the other steel companies affected that it cannot interfere because the matter is of a provincial character, then I say something should be done without further delay so as to amend the British North America Act that when preferential tariff treatment is given by this government to certain industries the resultant benefits shall pass on to the worker. I am a strong believer in protection to industry, but I think that protection, unless it is passed along to the worker, is repugnant to every sense of fair play.
Now, Mr. Chairman, another matter was mentioned by the member for Toronto Northwest (Mr. Church). He stated that in 1922 and 1923 he had moved a resolution asking the government of the day to bring down a national fuel policy.


Mr. HEENAN:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Robert Knowlton Smith: Yes.


Peter Heenan: In view of the fact that the British Columbia government has passed an act providing for an eight-hour day in mines, and that the Ontario government has passed similar legislation, what is to prevent the government of Nova Scotia from taking the same course for industries?


Mr. QUINN:: Why didn't you ask the government of Nova Scotia yourself?


An hon. MEMBER:: They already have it.


Peter Heenan: Then what is the trouble?


Robert Knowlton Smith: The hon.
minister ought to acquaint himself with the facts before he asks such innocuous questions. The minister at the head of the Labour department surely ought to be better informed in regard to labour legislation. Since the hon. member for Toronto Northwest introduced some years ago his motion for a national fuel policy, nothing has been done by this government to protect that industry-one of the key industries of the Dominion. If at that time the government had acted on that resolution, I do not think that to-day we would have Russian coal being imported into Canada, brought here from almost the other end of the world. I am advised that Russian coal is selling on the Montreal market at $6 a ton. The wages paid to the Russian miners of that coal amount to 18 cents a day. I think this government has been negligent


Charles Avery Dunning: Mr. Chairman, I am precluded from correcting my hon. friend's statements since he is out of order in making them. We are'not discussing the coal item, but steel, and the debate which has taken place as to the conditions affecting the steel workers, is, I think, quite in order. But I am not aware that anthracite coal has anything to do with steel, alloy steel, blooms, or billets. There will, of course, be opportunity to discuss coal when we come to that item. For the moment, in the interests of orderly procedure, I would ask hon. members to keep to the point.


Robert Knowlton Smith: I am not
anxious to break the rules of the house, nor do I want to hold up the debate. I realize that what the hon. minister says is correct with respect to the item under consideration, but no objection was made to the previous speaker who referred to the introduction of the resolution for a national fuel policy, and I was merely referring to it and showing that this government had been lax in its duty to one of the key industries of the Dominion; and, coal is so interlocked with steel that it is almost impossible to separate the two, particularly in relation to the industries in the province of Nova Scotia.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Is it not true that the coal operations have had to carry the steel operations of Besco?


Robert Knowlton Smith: Yes, and as has been said by one hon. member, coal is helping to do that to-day.
In conclusion I wish to repeat that I am in hearty accord with protection to industry.
2368	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
I believe that it is essential in order to provide the worker with sufficient wages to enable him to live in a proper and fit state of civilization. Unfortunately such is not the case to-day in certain instances, as has beeh so well pointed out by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: While listening to the
debate I was reminded of a section in the Liberal platform of 1919 dealing with labour and industry.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: They have no platform now.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I would like to read a
section which I have before me at the present time from the official report of the National Liberal Convention held in Ottawa on August 5. 6 and 7, 1919. At page 204 I find:
First:	The guiding principle that labour
should not be regarded merely as a commodity *or article of commerce.
Second: The right of association for all lawful purposes by the employed as well as by the employers.
Third: The payment to the employed of a wage adequate to maintain a reasonable standard of life as this is understood in their time and country.
Fourth: The adoption of an eight-hour day or a forty-eight-hour week as the standard to be aimed at where it has not already been attained.
Fifth: The adoption of a weekly rest of at least 24 hours, which should include Sunday wherever practicable.
The position so often taken in this house by the government with regard to some of these matters is that they are provincial in character, and the government has said that the problem of adopting an eight hour day rests with the provinces. After all, what does a section such as this signify in a party platform if it does not mean that where there is a weapon in the hands of a federal government to de'al with the question, it will be dealt with? To my mind, unless the section can be so interpreted it is of no value. The steel companies have asked and received protection, but I am perfectly sure it would mean a great deal more for the Dominion of Canada if the working conditions and the wages of the employees in the steel industry were improved. Probably the taking of such a step would affect the profits of the shareholders of the British Empire Steel Corporation and other large steel industries but living conditions for workers ought to come before increased dividends because it would mean a betterment of the standard of living and the money paid to the men in wages would go back into general cir-

culation. I can see no justification for the government conceding this protection when a condition exists among the steel workers such as has been described by hon. members in this house to-night. W'e must remember that there has been no denial by any member of the government or by the Minister of Finance that such conditions exist. Apart from any political platform I think the Liberal government, or any government charged with the administration of Dominion affairs, should consider the welfare of all the people rather than increasing the dividends to those who are already in affluent circumstances.


Mr. EVANS:: I do not think that the duties on steel should have been raised at this time and I think most of us are very much disappointed in the action of the government. Any concessions to the steel companies should have been made with two features in view. First, any protection granted as part of a national policy to any industry should be guaranteed to the workers in that industry rather than to the employers, and steady employment for a certain number of men should be a condition upon which the privilege of protection is granted. In the second place, a greater consumption of agricultural products and the products of other industries should be kept in view when protection is granted. I take it that the present proposed increase in the steel duties is chiefly for the benefit of the concerns in Sydney. Those concerns, Mr. Chairman, have proved to be the sink-hole of privilege for the last forty years. When in 1911 the steel bounties legislation came into effect there was given from the federal treasury for the production of steel in Canada the sum of $17,500,000. Of this total $6,481,000 went to the Sydney companies. When so much has been spent with such meagre results, why should we again increase the cost of manufacturing and the prices of finished articles of steel which may be considered as the raw material used by the farmers? Steel has become one of the chief commodities used in agricultural production. Our farms have been increasing in acreage, and we are changing our methods of agriculture. During the next five years practically a new set of implements will be bought by every farmer throughout the three prairie provinces, and the prices of these articles are now increased because of the duties.


Charles Avery Dunning: I would ask my hon.
friend to point out one single instance in which that is true.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


John Evans: I do not see why the duty
is imposed if it is not for the sake of greater price-fixing power.


Charles Avery Dunning: I would ask my hon.
friend to point out one single instance where the cost of steel which enters into the production of agricultural implements has been increased by the tariff.


John Evans: Well, I take-


Charles Avery Dunning: Perhaps the hon. gentleman will point out wherein the price of the implement itself has on that account been increased. These are matters of fact, not of theory.


John Evans: I take it that the increased
duties are bound to increase the cost of manufacturing.


Charles Avery Dunning: Well, my hon. friend is
entirely wrong.


John Evans: What is the purpose of a
duty if it is not to regulate the price fixing power?


Charles Avery Dunning: Surely my hon. friend
knows that the manufacturers of agricultural implements, because of the low duties which obtain with respect to their products, receive a drawback on their raw materials or get them free or at low rates of duty.


John Evans: I can see that there is no
consideration in these items for the labouring man; there is no guarantee that his wages will be such as will meet the high cost of living. Conditions in our steel industries for some years have been a scandal to the whole nation and in fact a blot on the history of Canada. We have the instances to which we could point of force being used in the maritime provinces.
There is another thing I want to point out, and that is with regard to the products of steel and some other articles as well which are almost prohibited entry into this country. The duty named in the tariff schedules is hardly any indication of the amount of tariff that will be charged on any given article. I hold in my hand a statement from one who has been connected with the administration of the tariff act for many years; in fact, he has grown old in the civil service, and I find that according to his words there is a different rate of duty charged on different articles according to the status of the importer. All men do not pay the same duty on importations. For instance, the tremendous trade discounts which are allowed by manufacturers are taken into account when an appraisement is made for duty purposes. For a small dealer there is a discount of 50 per cent, plus 15 per cent, plus
5 per cent, so the value for duty becomes only $40.38 on an article worth $100. The large dealer gets a discount of 50 per cent plus 15 per cent, plus 10 per cent, and his value for duty would be $3825. A department store is treated even better; it gets a discount of 50 per cent, plus 15 per cent, plus 15 per cent.


Charles Avery Dunning: What is my hon. friend's
authority for that statement?


John Evans: I am quoting from a statement prepared by one who is in charge of the port of Saskatoon, where he has been employed for many years.


Charles Avery Dunning: What is his name?


John Evans: I do not know whether I
should give his name; I do not suppose he would care, but it can be given to the minister at any time. These are his words: He made out this statement for me himself. In the case of the departmental store the value for duty on $100 worth of goods is only $36.13. The jobber gets a discount of 50 per cent, plus 15 per cent, plus 20 per cent, and his value for duty is only $34.01. But now come to the consumer:	There is no discount allowed
to the consumer if he imports any article, so his value for duty would be $100. I submitted these figures to one who is in the customs department in Ottawa, and he worked it out this way:	The consumer or private importer
pays three times as mseh as the wholesale jobber, two and four-fifth times as much as the departmental store, two and eight-thirteenth times as much as the large dealer, and two and one-half times as much as the small dealer. So we see the discrimination every time against the consumer. It appears that section 36 of the act is interpreted so as to give power to the authorities to act in that way, because of the words "as sold in the ordinary course of trade." That is the only thing I know that would give power to interpret the act in that way. I am sorry to see that after all the years during which we have found it so futile to spend public money for the production of this steel in Sydney and other places in this Dominion, the Liberal government should at this time put that burden again on the consuming public.


Mr. STEVENS:: Before this item carries, I am a little surprised that the minister and his colleagues have paid no great attention to the observations of the hon. members who have spoken during the last hour.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend has no right to say that; as a matter of privilege, I resent it. I have been .paying attention right along.



Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend can resent it all he likes; I say it is an unusual thing for a ministry to sit in their places and listen to such indictments as have been made by hon. members of this house during the last hour.


Charles Avery Dunning: I rise to a question of privilege.


Henry Herbert Stevens: There is no question of privilege here.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend stated the ministers were paying no attention to what was being said. I say, as the minister in charge of the item under discussion, that I have paid careful attention to everything that was said.


Henry Herbert Stevens: There is no question of privilege here. It is about time the hon. Minister of Finance studied the rules of the house and learned what constitutes a question of privilege.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend reflected upon me by saying that as a minister I was not paying attention to what was being said.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I will repeat what I said in a moment.


The CHAIRMAN (Sir Eugene Fiset):: I am sorry, but I hardly think this is a matter of privilege.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Because an hon. member rises and makes an observation which does not suit his royal highness, the Minister of Finance rises to a question of privilege.


Charles Avery Dunning: This is reflecting on me personally.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Reflecting nonsense; my hon. friend is getting altogether too free with this getting up in the house and posing. He says it is reflecting on him, as though my hon. friend were the custodian of all the virtue in the house. I will now repeat what I said a moment ago. I said it was an amazing thing that a ministry could sit in their places on the treasury benches without uttering a word-


Charles Avery Dunning: That was not what you said.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Wait; I am not through. I said it was an amazing thing that they could sit and listen to the indictments that had been directed to them in various speeches made to-night during the last hour, and I repeat that it is an amazing thing.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is different, though.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I say it is an amazing thing, and furthermore I say that the statements made in this house by the member for Winnipeg North Centre, the hon. member for North Winnipeg, the hon. member for Inverness, the hon. member for Cumberland and two or three other hon. gentlemen regarding the .conditions of labour in the steel industry are sufficient to challenge the attention of all the people of Canada. I must make a confession here which I regret to make: I did not know that men in any numbers were working thirteen hours at night work, seven days a week, in any industry in this country. There may be an odd job or two involving not very hard work where this condition may prevail, but to think that in a large industry in the Dominon of Canada in the year 1930 men are working thirteen hours a day seven days a week is sufficient to challenge the attention of this house.
What has been the stock answer of this government every time a question of this kind is brought forward? The stock answer is this:	Under the constitution the provinces
control property and civil rights and such matters, and therefore parliament and the federal government are helpless. This parliament and this government are not helpless in a matter of this character, which is sufficiently serious to 'warrant their asserting their power and influence. It may be that parliament is not empowered constitutionally to fix an eight hour day; that point may be challenged, but parliament can deal with this particular question. I take second place to no one in the Dominion of Canada in advocating the protection of the industries of -this country, but when I take that stand I take it for granted that the industries are going to maintain a standard of living and pay wages commensurate with the protection they receive and the privileges they enjoy. My next argument is that there has not been devised any other way of dealing with this question except through the customs tariff; that is the method available to the minister. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Heenan) stood in his place just now and admitted that he did not know where in Canada the eight hour day is in force, and he sneered at my hon. friends for suggesting that something could be done in this way. That is the Minister of Labour of this country.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And then he runs around the country talking about it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: He goes around posing
as the champion of the rights and interests of the working man. I see that three ministers

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
are present in the house, which is an unusual number to be present while the budget is being discussed.


Edward James Young: There are five
present.


An hon. MEMBER:: And all awake.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I was referring to the
three sitting in the front row. Not a minister has offered an explanation, not a minister has offered any sympathy or shown any interest in this matter. I am not sufficiently an expert to say that items 377a, 377b and 377c cover the ambit of this particular industry, but I imagine that they would. In connection with these items we have an opportunity of saying to this industry: "Yes, the parliament of Canada is prepared to give you protection sufficient to enable you profitably to produce these anticles"-the minister could do that just as easily as sitting there lolling in his seat-"but before such tariff will apply you will satisfy the governor in council that the conditions of labour, the hours of labour and the wages paid are such as will afford a decent living". That is what the government could do; that is what parliament could do, and I say right now that that is what parliament should do before it goes a step further. I admit that possibly there are a number of other items in this schedule-a very long and complicated one-where a similar provision could apply, but I am dealing now with the basic steel industry. The time has come when Canada should give some attention to the basic steel industry. Ever since the first of May the government has been spreading propaganda throughout the country to the effect that it is looking after the basic steel industry. Where have the minister and the government been for the last eight years? The government pays no attention to this industry until just on the eve of an election, when a great conversion takes place. It is not good that a government should be so indifferent to the rights, the comforts and the welfare of the people engaged in this industry. So I say to the hon. minister, who was going to allow this to pass without making any comment, that the tame has come when this government should give some consideration to the proposals made this evening.


Charles Avery Dunning: Mr. Chairman, I shall
try to avoid making any reflections on my hon. friend, but I do not intend to allow to go unanswered his statement to the effect that I was paying no attention to what hon. members have been saying with regard to this matter. I have been in my seat all evening, and I think the hon. member for Winnipeg 2419-1501
North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) would be the first to say that I paid very close attention to his remarks and also to the statements of his colleagues. Occasionally I asked questions, which was an indication of my interest in the matter, and I do not intend to allow my hon. friend to misrepresent me before the people of Canada.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I was not misrepresenting you.


Charles Avery Dunning: The hon. member did
misrepresent me in his opening remarks. However that may be, there is this to say with regard to the item under discussion-377a, which covers blooms and billets, primary products of the steel industry: in so far as the Tariff Advisory Board and the government are concerned, the fact is that the employees themselves, through their representatives, joined in the representations then made that what is now proposed should be done. A representative selected by the men of one of the steel plants appeared before the tariff board on behalf of the workingmen of that company and asked for the very thing which is here granted, on the ground that if granted it would be very helpful to the men. Regarding the great steel plant down in the maritime provinces, the men made representations last year-I believe I am correct in saying they were made this year as well-supporting the representations made by the employers with respect to what is being granted in these resolutions. The suggestion is now made for the first time that there should be attached to the tariff a proviso designed to affect the hours of labour and the working conditions of the men employed in the industry. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) has put that suggestion in more concrete form than has any other hon. member. He stated that a proviso should be attached requiring that the conditions of labour in the industry should be satisfactory to the governor in council. I am quite sure that that suggestion does not satisfy my hon. friends who represent labour in this house. They want something much more definite than that. I am equally sure that it would not satisfy the men engaged in the industry itself. If that principle is to be applied to the steel industry, why should it not be applied to every single item in the tariff? If the principle is a sound one it should be universally applied, and in that universal application the working conditions which this parliament regards as being fair should be definitely set out so that it
2372	COMMONS
Ways and Moans-Customs Tariff
would not be open to any government to discriminate between one industry and another in that regard.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Those conditions are set out in the treaty of Versailles.


Charles Avery Dunning: I have some doubt
whether the treaty of Versailles covers what would be regarded as fair working conditions. It does cover the question of hours of labour, but my hon. friend is aware that many of the matters which have been mentioned to-night are not dealt with literally by that document. I have assured myself that the men engaged in the industry now under discussion desire this parliament to do what is now proposed to be done.


Thomas Edward Simpson: And more.


Charles Avery Dunning: The hon. member for
West Algoma (Mr. Simpson) says "more."


Richard Bedford Bennett: He said "and more"


Charles Avery Dunning: The representations
made by the employees supported the requests of the employing companies, and I have received no intimation from the men that it is their desire that conditions such as have been suggested to-night be made part of the present proposals. Apparently the men are confident of their ability, through their organizations, to see to it that benefit shall accrue to themselves from any increased prosperity on the part of the industry. In saying that, however, I am not opposing the general idea which is advanced. What concerns me is how it is possible practically and definitely to apply it, and that feature of the matter, of course, requires consideration. I rose merely to advise the committee that the men had associated themselves unconditionally with the employers in asking for what is here granted.


James Shaver Woodsworth: May I say just a
word with regard to this? The minister says that the men engaged in the industry desired the government to do what the budget proposes. He also speaks about the men being organized. Let me say that the men are not organized at the Algoma mills.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: Nor at Sydney.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Just a moment.
The men at the Algoma mills are not organized. I happened to be with the British parliamentatry delegation that visited this country two years ago. When we were passing through the Sault in connection with the trip eastward, a deputation waited upon Mr. Tom Johnston, Mr. Tom Shaw and other Labour members of that delegation. I might

say that the British delegates were absolutely appalled at the conditions revealed by the deputation that appeared. There was no organization whatever and the men were absolutely afraid to make independent representations. As regards Sydney, it is true there is a union, but it is a company's union, and the men there as well dare not express themselves freely. I know that some of them who visited us two years ago were brought here by the company, and, as they themselves confessed, were paid by the company to come here and endorse the company's project. I do not think the Minister of Finance, if he gives any thought to the matter, will contend that such representations are worth anything as really expressing the views of the men.
Further, the minister says that this is the first time that representations have been made that protection should be given only with conditions attached. I would remind him- and I think he will be able to verify this by consulting with the Tariff Advisory Board- that that proposal was made by gentlemen who appeared before that board. Such representations were then made. Apparently the case is considered to be made out so far as the company is concerned, but the case as stated by those who were interested on behalf of the men was entirely overlooked.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I confess that I have listened with amazement to the observations that have been made in the committee this evening. I was rather surprised that the Minister of Labour did not think it desirable to enter into the discussion.


Peter Heenan: There is plenty of time yet, is there not?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh, yes, there is plenty of time. That men should work eighty-four hours a week in Canada at any job at all is to me appalling.


Peter Heenan: Terrible.


Richard Bedford Bennett: When I remember the ranting observations made by the Minister of Labour in other parts of Canada-


Peter Heenan: I am agreeing with the hon. member.


Richard Bedford Bennett: -I think the time has come when he should say "terrible" with a more serious accent than the one he is now employing.


Peter Heenan: I am agreeing with the hon. member.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, "agree with thine adversary quickly" is a very good rule.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Mr. KEEN  AN@: I am wondering why the Nova Seotia government stands for this condition so long.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Nova Scotia government is not in any way responsible for the condition now existing, and it is not quite worthy of the minister to deal with the problem in that way.


Mr HEENAN:: Pass the buck!


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister is a past master at doing that, but in this instance he has been discovered.


Mr HEENAN:: I agree that conditions in the Nova Scotia steel industry are appalling and it is a dirty shame that the government of the province of Nova Scotia should stand for them as long as it has done.


Mr QUINN:: Why does the minister stand for them?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Inasmuch as it is the proud boast of Liberalism that it had a government in power in Nova Scotia longer than in any other part of the Dominion, this remark of the minister will be appreciated in that province.


Mr HEENAN:: I agree with that also.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, "Agree with thine adversary quickly" and the hon. gentleman is certainly an adept at that. Did Canada sign the treaty of peace?


Peter Heenan: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: 
Peter Heenan: I would ask the hon. leader of the opposition a question. There are a number of things to which the government of Canada gave adherence in the peace treaty. The freedom of association was one thing, the eight hour day another. They were to be aimed at as an objective. Does the hon. leader of the opposition now claim that no protection should be given to any industry that does not allow freedom of association and give the eight hour day to the men employed in its works?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am dealing with this specific case, but if the hon. gentleman mentions other cases I shall deal with them when the time arises. At the moment I am dealing with two specific items in this tariff, in which it has been established to the satisfaction of the house that men who find employment in the industries concerned toil eighty-four hours a week.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask my hon. friend if he sees any reason why the particular suggestion he now makes should apply only to these two items and not to the customs tariff generally?

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Richard Bedford Bennett: 
William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to my hon. friend that I agree entirely with him as to the eighty-four hours a week; but with respect to his reference in that connection to the treaty of Versailles, what is applicable in one instance should be applicable to all, and if anything is to be done it would be well to have the suggestion apply to the custom tariff generally.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I do not know clearly whether the Prime Minister is in favour of the suggestion of the hon. leader of the opposition.
If he is, I am prepared to make a start right now with this item.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am quite
prepared to deal with the whole tariff at one shot.


Abraham Albert Heaps: So much the better. I am quite prepared in that case. Perhaps the minister would be good enough to allow this item to stand over to consider the suggestion of the Prime Minister, that where any industry has received protection from parliament by way of duties, it should pay to its employees wages and provide conditions of labour in accordance with the treaty of Versailles.


Charles Avery Dunning: I will let the item stand.


Finlay MacDonald: In view of the Statement just made by the Prime Minister as to dealing with the whole tariff, and of the difficulties that might arise in that connection, I would point out that there would be no such difficulty in connection with the resolution in regard to the bonus. Will he consent to a provision in that case?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon.
friend need not try to get away from the issue as a whole. We will either pass the whole thing or nothing.


Finlay MacDonald: May I point out to the Prime Minister that the bonus resolution is separate altogether from the tariff and can be dealt with promptly if the right hon. gentleman is honest in his statement.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We have not
yet reached the bonus resolution. The leader of the opposition has been speaking of the
Versailles treaty. That treaty is applicable throughout the whole Dominion, and will be made applicable all along the line or not at all.


Finlay MacDonald: Undoubtedly, and on account of the generous promise made by the Prime Minister I thought I might bring the matter to his attention. Will you give us that promise now?


John Frederick Johnston: Item 377 stands.


Charles Avery Dunning: I presume that applies to all sections of it, Mr. Chairman,-377a, 3'77b and 377c.
Customs tariff-378. Bars and rods, of iron or steel; billets, of iron or steel, weighing less than 60 pounds per lineal yard:
(a)	Not further processed than hot rolled, per ton, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, $4.25; intermediate tariff, $6; general tariff, $7.
(b)	Not further processed than hammered or pressed, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, 15 per cent; intermediate tariff, 25 per cent; general tariff, 30 per cent.
(c)	Cold rolled, drawn, reeled, turned or ground, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, 15 per cent; intermediate tariff, 25 per cent; general tariff, 30 per cent.
(d)	Hot rolled, valued at not less than 4 cents per pound, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, 5 per cent; intermediate tariff, 12J per cent; general tariff, 15 per cent.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-379. Bars or rods, of iron or steel, including billets weighing less than 60 pounds per lineal yard, hot rolled, as hereunder defined, under regulations prescribed by the minister:
(a)	Rods, when imported by manufacturers of horseshoe nails, for use exclusively in the manufacture of horseshoe nails, in their own factories: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
(b)	Rods, in the coil, when imported by manufacturers of chain for use exclusively in the manufacture of chain in their own factories, per ton: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, $3.50; general tariff, $3.50.
(c)	Bars, when imported by manufacturers of shovels for use exclusively in the manufacture of shovels, in their own factories, per ton: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, $2.75; general tariff, $3.
(d)	Rods, in the coil, not over .375 inch in diameter, when imported by manufacturers of wire for use exclusively in the manufacture of wire, in their own factories, per ton: British preferential tariff. $2.25; intermediate tariff, $4.50; general tariff, $5.
Charles Avery Dunning: In 379 (d), Mr. Chairman, I wish to insert after the word "coil" the following:
or bars 1J inches in diameter and over, Amendment agreed to.
Item as amended agreed to.
2376	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
Customs tariff-380. Plates of iron or steel, hot or cold rolled:
(a)	Not more than 40 inches in width, n.o.p., per ton: British preferential tariff, $2; intermediate tariff, $4; general tariff, $6.
(b)	More than 40 inches in width, n.o.p., per ton: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, $3; general tariff, $5.
(c)	Flanged, dished, or curved, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, 10 per cent; intermediate tariff, 25 per cent; general tariff, 30 per cent.
Mr. WHITE (London); Is item (d) of 379 carried?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, but I do not object to my hon. friend reverting to it.


John Franklin White: This refers to
rods in the coil, not over $ of an inch in diameter. The British preference is $2.25 per ton. The British preference on billets is $2.50 per ton. Usually the items are graded according to the degree of manufacture. In this case we have iron rods, which are more highly processed than billets, at a lower rate than the latter.


James Dew Chaplin: In other words, this is a more highly processed bar, and the duty is less than on the billet itself out of which it is made. That is not reasonable, and cannot in any sense be justified.


Thomas Cantley: Mr. Chairman, the preceding items which we have just passed are even worse than these three items which are all free. For this there is no justification whatever. Those materials under 379 (a), (b) and (c) are and have been made in this country for thirty years. There is no reason why they should be supplied to makers of those finished products absolutely free of all duty, while at the same time you give those manufacturers the highest rate of protection on any product under this tariff. If the iron and steel tariff is to be built along those lines, I want to point out to the minister that it will prove to be an absolute failure. Tariffs must be constructed on scientific lines if they are to be effective for the purposes for which they are intended. The United States for more than forty years have devoted themselves to the construction of a scientific tariff, with the result that they have built np the greatest iron and steel industry in the world; and they did not do it by putting material of this class on the free list. It cannot be done in that way.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: If it means that the more highly processed goods are to bear the lowest duty, surely it is placing a premium on unemployment. What is the explanation? Will the minister state why goods in the rough should be preferred to goods processed?


Charles Avery Dunning: This was the result of a continuous discussion which lasted for a long time between the different classes of manufacturers. These items are all manufacturers' concessions-perpetuations in many cases of existing manufacturers' concessions. Secondary industries have been built up on the basis of the rates then existing. One of the problems, as everyone knows, in dealing with the iron and steel schedule is that you start with a primary product, and the finished product of that industry becomes the raw material of the next in line. Days and weeks of discussion, when these secondary and primary manufacturers met each other face to face and argued the matter out, resulted in these compromises -which they really must be when men face each other, each knowing that his advantage lies in one direction, whereas the other's lies in another. I must say that, as anyone who reads the record of the hearings will see, there was a manifested degree of cooperation and compromise, which was quite remarkable and a testimony to the Canadian industries concerned.


Thomas Cantley: That is sarcasm, pure and simple.


Charles Avery Dunning: I have not had a single complaint about them.


Thomas Cantley: You are getting them
now.
Mr. DUNNING I am from my hon. friend, but I have not had any from the industry, because these items were the result of men in the primary and secondary developments in the same industry sitting down together and frankly examining the other's position. That is the reason they are not complaining to-day about what is here.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
John Frederick Johnston: Item 381.


Thomas Cantley: You have not passed item 380?


John Frederick Johnston: Yes, I called it and it has been passed.


Thomas Cantley: I did not hear it called I want now to make an emphatic protest in regard to this item. Here are plates, not more than 40 inches in width, which it is proposed under the British preference we should allow in at $2 a ton. I make the assertion that there will be no plates of that kind sold by any mill in eastern Canada while this tariff is in force. Why do I say that? Because this material will come in from Great Britain. The fact is that the important iron and steel producing

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
districts of the old country are situated at Middlesbrough, at Glasgow, and in Wales-all on the seaboard. These plates can come out for one third the rate of freight to Montreal at which they can be brought up from Nova Scotia to that point. With a duty of $2 that market will be captured absolutely and entirely by the British people. It makes no difference to us in Nova Scotia whether we are forced to the wall by American plates or by English plates; the same result will follow. This tariff has not been framed on proper scientific lines, and I wish to assure the minister that it will fail absolutely to meet the requirements of the industry as it exists in Nova Scotia.
Customs tariff-381. Sheets of iron or steel, hot or cold rolled:
(a)	.080 inch or less in thickness, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, 74 per cent; intermediate tariff, 12J per cent; general tariff, 124 per cent.
(b)	More than .080 inch in thickness, n.o.p., per ton: British preferential tariff, $4.25; intermediate tariff, $6; general tariff, $7.


Thomas Cantley: This item is worse than
the previous one. In the province item plates over 40 inches in width are free. How is it possible for plates under items 380 and 381 to be produced in this country under conditions of absolute free trade?


Charles Avery Dunning: There is no mill in Canada to-day rolling them over 40 inches in width.


Thomas Cantley: A mill was built in Sydney a few years ago, at a cost of a million dollars, to provide plates up to 12 feet in width, and that mill exists to-day. It would be producing plates to-day if sufficient protection ware accorded to it.


Charles Avery Dunning: It has not produced
plates for years. It has had the opportunity of starting on narrow forms. The narrow forms to which my hon. friend refers have been imported to the extent of $1,630,000 worth, and of that total $1,580,000 worth came in from the United States. The duty is the same from Great Britain as it was under the old item, and my hon. friend now expresses the fear that Great Britain will swamp the Canadian market, although the rate is exactly the same.


Richard Bedford Bennett: From Great Britain?


Charles Avery Dunning: Under item 380 (a) at


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman was talking about item 380 (b).


Charles Avery Dunning: I am speaking of item
380 (a). The two items are related, in connection with what my hon. friend had to say. The plates under 40 inches in width now come in very largely from the United States. They can be and are being manufactured in Canada. The rate of duty against Great Britain is the same as it was before, but hon. gentlemen will notice that the rate against the United States is increased. With regard to section (b) of item 380, none of the wider plates are being rolled in Canada, and it is not expected that they will be rolled here in the near future.


Thomas Cantley: They certainly never will be under this tariff.


Robert James Manion: The minister has said that the duties are the same. Under the old schedule that item was divided into three items, 379a, 381 and 382. Item 382 carried a higher duty than is proposed now.


Charles Avery Dunning: The items which affected imports were two items of $3 each, old item 379a and old item 381.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Are you referring to
plates 40 inches in width?


Charles Avery Dunning: Under 40 inches.


Robert James Manion: Will the minister give us
the imports under that item?


Charles Avery Dunning: The effective items were
379a, under which $1,630,000 worth came in; 381, also a $3 general item, under which $3,335,000 worth came in, and 382, under which 82,120,000 worth came in.


Robert James Manion: The rates were higher
under the old item 382 than they are now.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am trying to give an
indication of what portion of that came in; It was only a small portion, I am advised. If I recite the old item it will no doubt clear the matter up. The old item 382 was:
Rolled iron or steel sheets or plates, sheared or unsheared, and skelp iron or steel, sheared or rolled in grooves, n.o.p.
Only the portion of that item which is under 40 inches in width comes in under the new item.


Robert James Manion: Item 380(b) in the new
schedule is divided in the same way, and 379(a) is the same. They are all free under the British preferential tariff. So that there has been a reduction.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-382. Hoop, band or strip, of iron or steel:
(a)	Hot rolled, .080 inch or less in thickness, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, 74 per cent; intermediate tariff, 124 per cent; general tariff, 124 per cent.
2378	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
(b)	Hot rolled, more than .080 inch in thickness, n.o.p., per ton: British preferential tariff, $4.25; intermediate tariff, $6; general tariff, $7.
(c)	Cold rolled, or cold drawn, .080 inch or less in thickness, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, 7J per cent; intermediate tariff, 12J per cent; general tariff, 15 per cent.
(d)	Cold rolled or cold drawn, more than .080 inch in thickness, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, 15 per cent; intermediate tariff, 274 per cent; general tariff, 30 per cent.
Robert James Manion: There is a reduction all
along the line.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-383.	Sheets, plates, hoop,
band or strip, of iron or steel:
(a)	Coated with tin, of a class or kind not made in Canada, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 5 per cent; general tariff, 5 per cent.
(b)	Coated with tin, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, 71 per cent; intermediate tariff, 12J per cent; general tariff, 15 per cent.
(c)	Coated with zinc, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, 7J per cent; intermediate tariff, 12J per cent: general tariff, 15 per cent.
(d) Coated with metal or metals, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, 7i per cent; intermediate tariff, 121 per cent; general tariff, 15 per cent.
(e)	Coated with paint, tar, asphaltum or
otherwise coated, n.o.p.:	British preferential
tariff, 7| per cent; intermediate tariff, 12J per cent; general tariff, 15 per cent.
(f) Coated with vitreous enamel, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, 15 per cent; intermediate tariff, 20 per cent; general tariff, 25 per cent.
(g)	Corrugated, coated or not: British preferential tariff, 15 per cent; intermediate tariff, 20 per cent; general tariff, 25 per cent.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Referring to section (a)
I notice the words "not made in Canada". Are those words new, or were they there before?


Charles Avery Dunning: They were there before.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Very well; I was not
quite sure.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-384. Skelp, if iron or steel, hot or cold rolled, when imported by manufacturers of pipes and tubes for use exclusively in the manufacture of pipes and tubes, in their own factories, under regulations prescribed by the minister:
(a)	Not more than 14 inches in width: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 5 per cent; general tariff, 5 per cent.
(b)	More than 14 inches in width: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 5 per cent; general tariff, 5 per cent.
The governor in council may by order in council direct that there be substituted for tariff item 384 in schedule A of the Customs Tariff, 1907, and the several rates of duties of customs set opposite said item in schedule A, the following:
Skelp, if iron or steel, hot or cold rolled, when imported by manufacturers of pipes and
[Mr. Manion.l
tubes for use exclusively in the manufacture of pipes and tubes, in their own factories, under regulations prescribed by the minister.
(a)	Not more than 14 inches in width: British preferential tariff, 5 per cent; intermediate tariff, 10 per cent; general tariff, 12J per cent.
(b)	More than 14 inches in width: British preferential tariff, 5 per cent; intermediate tariff, 10 per cent; general tariff, 12J per cent.
From and after the publication of such order in council in the Canada Gazette, tariff item 384 as it appears in said schedule at the time of the passing of this act shall be repealed and the provisions of the said tariff item as it appears in the last preceding subsection of this section shall be substituted therefor.
The governor in council shall not direct that such provisions be substituted as aforesaid unless and until the governor in council is satisfied that skelp of iron or steel, hot or cold rolled, is manufactured in substantial quantities in Canada from iron or steel made in Canada.
James Dew Chaplin: It is proposed here that
under certain conditions the governor in council may grant or allow a duty to go into effect when skelp is ready to be produced in the country. Does the minister know that in two or three mills in this country skelp could be produced within twenty days?


Edward James Young: Not economically.


James Dew Chaplin: I wonder how the hon.
gentleman knows. I am not asking him, I am asking the minister, or somebody who knows something about it. If the minister does not know, someone near him may give him the information.


Charles Avery Dunning: I have not any information to the effect that skelp can be produced in substantial quantities in Canada in such a short time as that mentioned by the hon. gentleman. The evidence before me does not show it.
Mr. CHAPLIN; I know of two steel mills in this country which could produce skelp within a month if a proper duty were imposed, but it never will be produced under the proposed order in council. It is just so much "eyewash"; nothing more, nothing less.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-385.	Sheets, plates, hoop,
band or strip, of iron or steel, hot rolled, valued at not less than five cents per pound: British preferential tariff, 5 per cent; intermediate tariff, 12J per cent; general tariff, 15 per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-386.	Sheets, plates, hoop,
band or strip, of iron or steel, as hereunder defined, under regulations prescribed by the minister:

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
(a)	Plates, when imported by manufacturers for use exclusively in the manufacture or repair of the pressure parts of boilers, pulp digesters, steam accumulators and vessels for the refining of oil, in their own factories: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
(b)	Sheets, plates, hoop, band or strip, cold
rolled, when imported by manufacturers for use exclusively in the manufacture of butts, hinges, typewriters or sewing machines, in their own factories: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, per cent; general tariff, 10 per cent.	_
(c)	Sheets, plates, hoop, band or strip, hot rolled, being mould boards, shares, plough plates, land sides or disc circles, when such rectangles, circles or sketches are cut to shape but not moulded, punched, polished or otherwise manufactured, when imported by manufacturers of agricultural implements for use exclusively in the manufacture of agricultural implements, in their own factories: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-3S6(d). Sheets, hoop, band or strip, coated, polished or not, when imported by manufacturers of saddlery hardware for use exclusively in the manufacture of saddlery hardware, in their own factories: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
Thomas Cantley: Before you go any further, Mr. Chairman, I want to protest against this whole list of free items. It is absolutely useless for the government to talk of protecting and building up an iron and steel industry in this country while they place a large proportion of the products of our mills and furnaces on the free list and at the same time unfairly grant the people who use this raw material, produced under conditions to which I have referred, the highest rate of protection granted under the Canadian tariff. There is nothing scientific, fair or reasonable about the tariff as reflected in the whole list of items contained on pages 16 and 17, and I protest against those items.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-386(e). Sheets, _ hoop, band or strip, hot or cold rolled, when imported by manufacturers of shovels for use exclusively in the manufacture of shovels, in their own factories, per ton: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, $2.75; general tariff, $3.
Customs tariff-386(f). Hoop, band or strip, drawn, coated or not. when imported by manufacturers of mats for use exclusively in the manufacture of mats, in their own factories: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 5 per cent; general tariff, 5 per cent.
Customs tariff-386(g). Sheets, plates, hoop, band or strip, not tempered or ground nor further manufactured than cut to shape, without indented edges, when imported by manufacturers of saws or straw cutters for use exclusively in the manufacture of saws or straw cutters, in their own factories: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 5 per cent; general tariff, per cent.
Customs tariff-386(h). Sheets, plates, hoop, band or strip, hardened, tempered or ground, not further manufactured than cut to shape, without indented edges, when imported by manufacturers of saws for use exclusively in the manufacture of saws, in their own factories: British preferential tariff, 5 per cent; intermediate tariff, 10 per cent; general tariff, 12J per cent.
Customs tariff-386 (i). Sheets, hoop, band or strip, when imported by manufacturers for use exclusively in the manufacture of buckle clasps, bedfasts, furniture casters, corset steels, clock springs, shoe shanks, phonograph motor springs or ball bearings, in their own factories: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, 5 per cent.
Customs tariff-386 (j). Hoop, band or strip, being tagging metal, coated or not, when imported by manufacturers of shoe and corset laces for use exclusively in the manufacture of shoe and corset laces, in their own factories: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, 5 per cent.
Items agreed to. .
Customs tariff-3S6(k). Sheets, hot or cold rolled, when imported by manufacturers of apparatus designed for cooking or for heating buildings, for use exclusively in the manufacture of vitreous enamelled sheets for apparatus designed for cooking or for heating buildings, in their own factories:	British preferential
tariff, free: intermediate tariff, 10 per cent; general tariff, 12J per cent.
Charles Avery Dunning: With respect to this item I propose a change in order to allow the manufacturers of apparatus designed for cooking to secure the same concession with respect to hollow ware as is here granted with respect to stoves and ranges. The amendment substitutes for the present item the following: Sheets, hot or cold rolled, when imported by manufacturers of hollowware coated with vitreous enamel or of apparatus designed for cooking or for heating buildings, for use exclusively in the manufacture of hollowware coated with vitreous enamel or of vitreous enamelled sheets for apparatus designed for cooking or for heating buildings, in their own factories.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Was this recommended
by the tariff board?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Why was it not put in the tariff originally?


Charles Avery Dunning: The point was not clear originally as to the wording for cooking, as to the distinction between cooking utensils and enamelled hollow-ware generally. As a matter of fact the item as originally worded partly covered commodities of enamelled hollow-ware, but not completely. It was an error.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.	[DOT]
Item as amended agreed to.
2380	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
Customs tariff-386(1). Sheets, cold rolled, blue polished, when imported by manufacturers of apparatus designed for cooking or for heating buildings, for use exclusively in the manufacture of apparatus designed for cooking or for heating buildings, in their own factories: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 10 per cent; general tariff, 12i per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-386 (m). Sheets, hoop, band or strip, hot rolled, when imported by manufacturers for use exclusively in the manufacture of sheets, hoop, band or strip, coated with tin, zinc, or other metal or metals, in their own factories: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free; on and after January 1, 1931: British preferential tariff, 5 per cent; intermediate tariff, 7J per cent; general tariff, 10 per cent.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Why is this after January 1, 1931? Does that apply to all the preceding paragraphs of this item, or only to paragraph (m) ?


Charles Avery Dunning: It* applies only to the
paragraph under discussion. This is to give notice that all dippers will be on the same basis on and after January 1, 1931.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-386 (n). Hoop, band or strip, hot rolled. .080 inch or less in thickness, when imported by manufacturers for use exclusively in the manufacture of cold rolled iron or steel, in their own factories: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 5 per cent; general tariff, 10 per cent.
Customs tariff-386 (o). Hoop, band or strip, hot rolled more than .080 inch in thickness, when imported by manufacturers for use exclusively in the manufacture of cold rolled iron or steel, in their own factories: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, 12J per cent; general tariff, 20 per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-387. Railway rails, of iron or steel, of any weight or for any purpose, punched, driled or not, per ton: British preferential tariff, $4.50; intermediate tariff, $6; general tariff, $7.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-387(a); Railway ties, fishplates, splice bars, rail joints, tie-plates, of iron or steel, per ton: British preferential tariff, $5; intermediate tariff, $7; general tariff, $8.
Richard Bedford Bennett: There are no changes in these items, I take it?


Charles Avery Dunning: The item dealing with
railway rails is changed by the insertion of the words " of any weight or for any purpose," for greater clarity.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No change in the rate? Mr. DUNNING: No.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Customs tariff-387b. Railway intersection layouts, intersections, switches, crossings, frogs, guard rails, of iron or steel: British preferential tariff, 15 per cent; intermediate tariff, 25 per cent; general tariff, 30 per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-388. Iron or steel angles, beams, channels, columns, girders, joists, piling, tees, zees, and other shapes or sections, not punched, drilled or further manufactured than hot rolled, weighing not less than 35 pounds per lineal yard, n.o.p., per ton: British preferential tariff, $1; intermediate tariff, $2.75; general tariff, $3.
The governor in council may, by order in council, direct that there be substituted for tariff item 388 in schedule A of the Customs Tariff, 1907, and the several rates of duties of customs set opposite said item in schedule A the following:
Iron or steel angles, beams, channels, columns, girders, joists, piling, tees, zees, and other shapes or sections, not punched, drilled or further manufactured than hot rolled, weighing not less than one hundred and twenty pounds per lineal yard, n.o.p., per ton: British preferential tariff, $2; intermediate tariff, $2; general tariff, $3.
From and after the publication of such order in council in the Canada Gazette, tariff item 388 as it appeal's in said schedule at the time of passing of this act, shall be repealed and the provisions of the said tariff item as it appears in the last preceding subsection of this section shall be substituted therefor.
The governor in council shall not direct that such provisions shall be substituted as aforesaid unless and until the Governor in Council is satisfied that iron or steel angles, beams, channels, columns, girders, joists, piling, tees, zees, and other shapes or sections weighing less than one hundred and twenty pounds per lineal yard are manufactured in substantial quantities in Canada from steel made in Canada.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-388a. Iron or steel shapes or sections, as hereunder defined, not punched, drilled or further manufactured than hot rolled, weighing not less than 35 pounds per lineal yard, viz: I-beams, up to and including 6 inches in depth, but not to include H sections; channels, up to and including 7 inches in depth; angles, up to and including 6 inches by 6 inches; zees, up to and including 6 inches in depth of web, per ton: British preferential tariff, $4; intermediate tariff, $5.56; general tariff, $6.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-388b. Iron or steel angles, beams, channels, columns, girders, joists, piling, tees, zees, and other shapes or sections, not punched, drilled or further manufactured than hot rolled, n.o.p., per ton: British preferential tariff, $4.25; intermediate tariff, $6; general tariff, $7.
Finlay MacDonald: I know there is no use in making any objection to these items, but I am advised that this change under item 388b will ruin some of the plants engaged in fabricating iron and steel. One plant in my own city advises me

that this means absolute ruin. I suppose it is of no avail to protest, but I feel it is my duty to direct the attention of the minister and of the government to this situation.


Thomas Cantley: I want to protest once more. We have item 388 with a duty of SI per ton, which is less than the duty on the pig iron from which these articles are produced. Is there anything more ridiculous in the tariff? The whole tariff is ridiculous and will be absolutely useless as far as protecting the iron and steel industry is concerned. I venture to say that twelve months from now the minister will be forced to agree with what I am saying.


Harry Bernard Short: He wifi not be here.


Thomas Cantley: I hope he will be in the house so that I may have the satisfaction of showing him how this has worked out in one year.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend may not be here himself.


Thomas Cantley: Perhaps not, but in that case I can write the minister a letter.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is a matter here to which I directed attention some time ago. Power is given to change the tariff by executive action, and notice is to be given in the Canada Gazette, but the new tariff is to be operative forthwith. As I have said on previous occasions in dealing with other matters, I think notice of fifteen or thirty days should be given, as the case may be. It is rather unfair to provide that a new tariff may be promulgated by executive action without affording at least some opportunity of knowledge to those who may be concerned.


Charles Avery Dunning: I should point out to my hon. friend that this item is exactly the same as it has stood in the tariff since 1914. However, I will bear in mind what he has said.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, May 22, 1930