[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk).
farmers' creditors arrangement act-

Mr. McCULLOCH:: 1.	How many applications were made in Nova Scotia under the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act?
2.	What was the total amount of the liabilities involved in said applications?
3.	How many applications were made for loans in Nova Scotia from the Canadian Farm Loan Board?
4.	How many of these applications were granted?
5.	What was the total amount of moneys advanced on these applications?


Mr. DUNNING:: 1.	84 to March 1, 1936.
2.	$279,858.88.
3.	1,315, from inception of business to February 29, 1936.
4.	373.
5.	Loans disbursed to date, $488,865.
996
St. Lawrence Waterway


ST. LAWRENCE WATERWAY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):: Before the orders of the day are proceeded with, Mr. Speaker, I desire to direct the attention of the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) to an address made in Detroit last evening by Senator Pittman, in which he quoted a letter addressed to him by the president of the United States with regard to the St. Lawrence waterway. I desire to know whether or not any modifications of the existing agreement signed by the United States and Canada are contemplated or have been under discussion. If it should be difficult to answer the question without reference to documents I should like the right hon. gentleman to accept this as notice of the question.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: My right hon. friend spoke of a letter addressed to him; he meant a letter addressed by the president of the United States to Senator Pittman?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I shall answer my right hon. friend at once. We have been advised, as was intimated in the president's letter, that the United States government are seeking a new approach to some of the problems involved in the projects for the development of the great lakes-St. Lawrence system, but thus far we have not been advised of the details with respect thereto. When they are received they will be examined.


GERMAN CONSCRIPTION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I
asked the government a question with reference to a statement which had been made by the German consul general. Since that time, according to the press, he has supplemented his statement by an explanation in which he says that possibly one hundred persons will be affected by the decision of the Reich to conscript all German citizens living in Canada and Newfoundland for "possible service in the German army." He gives a quotation from the regulations, as follows:
-in 1936 all male German nationals in Canada and Newfoundland-
That is, those 'bom in the three years he referred to.
-are being called up for active military service, the class of 1916 first for the Reich labour service.

The consul's statement continues; he says the three classes mentioned-
-have to report immediately, until March 31 at the latest, to the competent German consular authorities.
Further than that, when asked whether men would be compelled to go, he said, "Well, I think they will go anyway. Yes, I guess they will be compelled to go." Further he says that failure to report is punishable. I think we might well ask how punishment is to be meted out in this country by a German consul. The statement continues:
Those desiring to volunteer for service, belonging to the classes of 1911-1915, can apply for enlistment as from October 1, 1936, and the classes of 1912-1919 as from October 1, 1937. Such volunteers may apply to the above consular authorities for further particulars.
This is a most extraordinary statement, and I think we ought to have a very full explanation from the government as to what it is proposed to do under the circumstances.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to my hon. friend that after he addressed his question to the government yesterday I had word sent to the German consul general in Montreal stating that I should like to have an exact statement of what he did say. I have received from the consul general, Mr. Kempff, a telegram saying that he has sent the government the exact statement he made. That statement however had not been received up to the time I came into the house this afternoon. I shall therefore have to ask my hon. friend to let his question of yesterday, and also what he has read to-day, stand over for reply until to-morrow.


James Shaver Woodsworth: That may be technically the correct procedure, but this statement of the consul general, following my question of yesterday, has gone throughout the length and breadth of Canada. It is published in quotations by a reputable newspaper, the Montreal Gazette, and I think we should know the action of the government on a statement such as I have read.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I hope my statement will go throughout the length and breadth of Canada as well.


CUBAN TARIFF
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. J. KINLEY (Queens-Lunenburg):: Before the orders of the day are called I desire to inquire of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler) with regard to a press report appearing in both the Halifax Chronicle and the Halifax Herald of March 7

Cuban Tariff
to the effect that Cuba would apply the maximum tariff to Canadian imports because of Canada's failure to purchase in Cuba even twenty-five per cent of the value of that island's purchases in Canada. Under the tariff system prevailing there another nation must buy fifty per cent or more to get the advantage of the lower tariff. This announcement was made by Mr. T. E. Palma, Cuban consul in Halifax. Does the minister accept the imputation that we do not purchase in Cuba twenty-five per cent of the value of that island's purchases in Canada? Would other countries be affected? Does the prohibition include codfish? Is a solution being sought for the difficulty, which is of serious moment to the business interests of my constituency, as regards both present conditions and future prospects?


Hon. W. D. EULER (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member was kind enough to send me notice of the questions which he has just submitted.
It is rumoured in the press that Cuba has applied or is about to apply the maximum tariff to Canadian exports to that country. On March 10, two days ago, we received a cable from the Canadian trade commissioner at Havana, as follows:
Cuban government decree 3rd March published 10th March imposes maximum tariff Canadian goods shipped after latter date.
I may say that the maximum tariff of Cuba is double the minimum tariff which Canada has enjoyed for some time past. Last year Cuba passed a law which gave the president power to grant the minimum tariff where purchases from Cuba were at least fifty per cent of the sales made to Cuba. Further, if the purchases by Canada, for example, from Cuba were only between twenty-five per cent and forty-nine per cent of their purchases from us, a surtax of another twenty-five per cent would be added to the minimum tariff. If the purchases by Canada from Cuba are less than twenty-five per cent of the purchases by Cuba from Canada, then we were supposed to go under the maximum tariff. Apparently that is what has been done. We have enjoyed the privilege of the minimum tariff for some years.
I might add also, in reply to my hon. friend, that trade statistics as between the two countries are very greatly at variance, and if we accept the Cuban trade statistics we certainly fall below the twenty-five per cent limit. That discrepancy arises to some extent at least from the fact that a good many Canadian purchases from Cuba are made through agents or merchants in the United States. This applies more particularly
to pineapples and tomatoes. However, we have instructed our trade commissioner to make representations to the Cuban authorities in an effort to establish that our purchases from Cuba are a great deal larger than they are represented to be.
With regard to the item of codfish, we have not been able to ascertain whether or not that item is included and whether or not in future it will come under the maximum tariff. Among other rights the president has been given authority to exempt certain articles of which they stand in greater need than of other importations. That was the case in the past, but the privilege of exporting codfish under that tariff may expire as from April 2 of this year. We are trying to ascertain now-we have not yet been able to get the information -whether a similar exemption is to be made in regard to codfish. I may add in conclusion that the government are watching the matter; we shall certainly exert every effort to reestablish the minimum tariff as far as Canadian exports to Cuba are concerned.


John James Kinley: It includes other countries as well, but not Newfoundland, I understand.


William Daum Euler: It does not include the United States. The United States have a special trade agreement with Cuba which is not extended to any other country. Their rates fall in many respects below the minimum tariff.


John James Kinley: But Newfoundland?


William Daum Euler: I cannot answer at the moment.



PRIVILEGE-MR. JACOBS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. W. JACOBS (Cartier):: Mr. Speaker, [DOT]on a question of privilege. A Montreal journal in its issue of yesterday carries a dispatch from its correspondent in Ottawa which states that I was not present and did not vote on the Canada-United States pact. The records of the house will show that I was present and did vote, so that the person who was absent was no doubt the correspondent who sent the dispatch. It may be, however, that he was in the gallery but that his low visibility prevented him from recognizing the members of the house who were present.



CANADIAN FARM LOAN BOARD

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: Some
three weeks ago I placed a question on the order paper in reference to the Canadian Farm Loan Board. I wonder when I may expect a return.

Canada-U.S. Trade Agreement
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance) :	I assume it was a question
which was made an order for return?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Yes.


Mr. DUNNING:: I do not know what the present position is, but I shall be glad to check up on it.



WAYS AND MEANS


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
Customs tariff-54a. Indian corn, not including Indian corn for purposes of distillation, when imported or taken out of warehouse by manufacturers of starch or of cereal products for human consumption, for use exclusively in the manufacture of starch or such cereal products, in their own factories, under regulations prescribed by the minister: free.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I understand there is
no change in this item; it merely makes it bound?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, merely binding free entry.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-55. Indian corn, n.o.p., per bushel, 20 cents.
Charles Avery Dunning: This is binding the intermediate.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-57. Oatmeal and rolled oats, per one hundred pounds, 50 cents.
Charles Avery Dunning: The effect of this item
of course is to bind the intermediate rate of fifty cents per one hundred pounds during the life of the agreement.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I should like to know
what is the rate of duty on oatmeal and rolled oats entering the United States under the existing Hawley-Smoot tariff, and what it was under the Fordney-McCumber tariff.


Charles Avery Dunning: Under the existing tariff, which is the only one I have before me, it is SO cents per one hundred pounds.


Richard Bedford Bennett: 
Charles Avery Dunning: I am sorry the information is not here, but I will send for it and see that it is available.


Mr. ROWE (Dufferin):: What was our duty against oatmeal before, 80 cents?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes-free, 50 and 80.


Percy John Rowe: It is reduced from 80 to 30?


Charles Avery Dunning: This is binding the intermediate, which is 50 cents.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-71a.	Timothy seed, per
pound, one cent.
Richard Bedford Bennett: This, I understand, is a reduction by fifty per cent on timothy seed coming from the United States?


Charles Avery Dunning: A reduction from two cents to one cent a pound.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What was the United States tariff rate on that in 1929 and 1935?


Charles Avery Dunning: As I have said, I cannot answer with respect to 1929. But the United States tariff was two cents and under this agreement it has been reduced to one cent, so that with respect to timothy seed the tariff is now the same going either way, from Canada and from the United States.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
'Customs tariff-ex 73. Broom corn seed, when in packages weighing more than one pound each, free.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-ex 74. Parsley seed, nongerminating, when in packages weighing more than one pound each, imported for use exclusively in manufacturing or blending operations, 10 per cent.
Richard Bedford Bennett: 
Charles Avery Dunning: I hope to have the 1929 tariff figures.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What about the present tariff?


Charles Avery Dunning: Not having used the list to which my right hon. friend refers, I have not the comparable figures.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member will recall what I referred to only the other evening. All hon. members were given the 1929 figures. That year was prior to the passing of the Hawley-Smoot tariff. My point is that what we have received is not even what we had before the passing of the Fordney-McCumber tariff. That is the reason we desire to have a record of these figures. The main point is that we desire to make clear just to what extent reciprocal concessions have been made. Thus far only one item, timothy seed is on the reciprocal list.


Charles Avery Dunning: My right hon. friend will appreciate that schedule II has more to do with this question than has schedule I.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, no.


Charles Avery Dunning: However, I shall get the information.


The CHAIRMAN:: Shall the item carry?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Subject to that proviso, Mr. Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-75. Lettuce seed, nongerminating, when in packages weighing more than one pound each, imported for use exclusively in manufacturing or blending operations: 10 per cent.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Is that a rate of 10 per cent? Item 75 in our tariff refers to seeds, namely cabbage, radish and so on, with rates of ten cents per pound. I notice this item refers to 10 per cent.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is a reduction to 10 per cent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Whether or not it is a reduction would depend entirely upon the value. The former tariff on item 75 is ten cents under the intermediate rate, ten cents under the general rate and free under the British preferential. It is now being made 10 per cent ad valorem.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, 10 per cent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is no evidence as to whether it is more or less.


Charles Avery Dunning: The old duty ran pretty close to 100 per cent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what I wanted to know.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-82 (e).	Nut trees, being
seedling stock for grafting, and buds and scions for grafting such trees: free.
Richard Bedford Bennett: What are the changes?


Charles Avery Dunning: These commodities have been dutiable up to the present time at the rates of 124 per cent, 174 Per cent and 30 per cent. They are not produced commercially in Canada at all.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-83(c).	Sweet potatoes in
their natural state, per 100 pounds: free.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I suppose that is a reduction of 100 per cent?


Mr. SPENCE:: What does the term "natural state" mean?


Charles Avery Dunning: I do not follow my right hon. friend in the matter of percentages; I prefer to speak in actual terms. Up to the present the duty has been free under the British preferential rate, 10 per cent under the intermediate rate and 15 per cent under the general rate.


Mr. STEVENS:: It should be ten cents per hundredweight.


Charles Avery Dunning: There may be a typographical error in my notes in that regard. I believe the hon. member is correct. Last year the imports, which were practically all from the United States, amounted to 52,700 hundredweight, valued at $110,000. They are not produced in Canada commercially.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Did we not receive potatoes of this kind from the West Indies?


Charles Avery Dunning: Only a few hundred dollars' worth, a trifling amount.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I thought the business was just starting.


James Houston Spence: What are sweet potatoes in their natural state? None that are any good come in from the United States in their natural state. They are what are known as kiln dried, and in order to have them keep they must be kiln dried. Will the 10 per cent be charged on the kiln dried?


Charles Avery Dunning: If the hon. member will look at item 83 (a) he will find that the term "natural state" is in contrast with "dried, desiccated or otherwise processed."

Canada-UJ5. Trade Agreement


James Houston Spence: I understand that.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is a common term in our tariff items.


Henry Herbert Stevens: One of the expert valuators or appraisers of the Department of Customs upon finding that potatoes were kiln dried would say they were not in their natural state, and the first thing we know we would have a ruling by customs authorities that these are not admissible because they are not in their natural state, although the intention under the item is clear.


James Houston Spence: That is the type of legislation which keeps business people worried and makes them fight with customs officials. The difficulty is that if they are kiln dried a different ruling might be given in Toronto, at which point many come in, and appraisers would have difficulty in deciding whether or not to charge a duty.


Charles Avery Dunning: There is no change in the wording. It has been administered by customs authorities in precisely these words for a number of years, and the difficulty my hon. friend envisages is entirely new.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It has been overlooked.


Charles Avery Dunning: Apparently the difficulty has never arisen.


James Houston Spence: Just get into business some time and see what you have to do with the customs office; then you will understand.


Mr. WALSH:: I assume that last year a revenue was derived from customs duties on this and other items.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


William Allen Walsh: The assumption is that the government will require the same revenue this year as in other years, and that revenue will have to be raised by some other means. I do not know whether I am as a voice crying in the wilderness when I speak about raising revenue through a protective tariff, but I must say that I feel keenly in the matter. Here is one article, in particular, in which the poor man has little interest. He is satisfied if he can have ordinary potatoes, and when we remove the duty we are removing just that amount of revenue. I feel that the revenue feature of the protective tariff in this instance should prevail. I should not like to have the Minister of Finance worried all day and late into the night trying to find ways and means of raising revenue to make up for what is lost under this item. I would urge upon him to give consideration to the emphasis which formerly was placed on a protective tariff as a means of raising

revenue, and particularly revenue on commodities which are consumed by people well able to pay customs duties.


Mr. BRADETTE:: What about soya beans?


Charles Avery Dunning: Naturally I have no desire to enter into an academic debate, and I do not wish to delay the passage of a schedule which I am trying to pass through the committee stage. The consideration mentioned by the hon. member of course can never be absent from the mind of a minister of finance.
I have before me information with respect to estimated loss of revenue involved in connection with each of these items. In the present instance the loss of revenue is estimated at 87,750, judging by last year's importations. Of course in this instance the loss of revenue would be absolute, because the item is made free. In many instances it is quite impossible to estimate accurately the loss of revenue, because there is always the presumption that if the article is not made completely free the larger volume of importation might adjust the balance of revenue in connection with the item.


Mr. HEAPS:: It appears to me from the few words spoken by the minister that he himself is not quite sure as to the correct interpretation of the wording of this item. Personally I always feel that there should be an interpretation which should not permit of the department ruling in a sense different from that intended by parliament. I feel sure that if a shipment of potatoes came into this country under this item, the Department of National Revenue would be entirely justified, if the potatoes were not in their natural raw state, in charging the duty. They would not come in free under this clause. If the minister is not satisfied in his own mind that the item carries out the intent of the agreement, the wording should be made clear and definite so that it would not admit of two interpretations.


Charles Avery Dunning: 
Abraham Albert Heaps: Is a dried potato interpreted by the department as being a potato in its natural state?


Charles Avery Dunning: If it is not dried, desiccated or dehydrated, it is in its natural state.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Does not dehydrating
mean drying? Therefore would not a dried potato come under the dehydrated item?


Charles Avery Dunning: It is included in the same classification. In item 83 of the tariff potatoes in their natural state, and dried, desiccated or dehydrated potatoes, are all grouped together.


James Houston Spence: May I suggest to the minister that he eliminate the words "natural state" and just say sweet potatoes in any state?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was just going to point out the difference. There is no provision for dried, desiccated or dehydrated sweet potatoes except under item 83 (d). It does appear to me that the suggestion of the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Spence) is a very sound one. Take item 83 (c), sweet potatoes in their natural state; the intermediate tariff is 10 cents per 100 pounds. That is the present rate, but we are going to make them free under the intermediate tariff. Then item 83 (d) says "sweet potatoes, n.o.p.," that is, sweet potatoes not in their natural state. That would mean dried potatoes, and the rate on them is 1J cents per pound under the intermediate tariff, as against 10 cents per 100 pounds on ordinary sweet potatoes in their natural state. The natural state sweet potatoes carry a duty of 10 cents per 100 pounds, whereas the dried potatoes carry a duty of 1| cents per pound.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is as it was.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what I am talking about. We are now putting sweet potatoes in their natural state on the free list, but we are not putting sweet potatoes n.o.p. in item 83 (d) on the free list. It seems to me it should be abundantly clear that a sweet potato in its natural state is not a dried or
desiccated sweet potato. I had not thought the difficulty was real until I heard what the hon. member for Parkdale said.


Charles Avery Dunning: I wish I could see it as a difficulty.


Mr. TAYLOR (Nanaimo):: Sweet potatoes could not come into Canada unless they were kiln dried. I think that was the point of the hon. member for Parkdale, that they had to be kiln dried before they could be imported. They would rot if they were not kiln dried.


James Houston Spence: I did not mean anything
of the kind. Many thousands of barrels and hampers of sweet potatoes come in that are not kiln dried, but the kiln dried get the preference because they are much better.


Charles Avery Dunning: I think my hon. friend
from Parkdale has answered the question for me better than I could answer it myself.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-84. Onions, in their natural state, including onions grown with tops, shallots, and onion sets: 30 per cent.
Provided that in no case shall any value for duty established under the authority of section 43 of the Customs Act exceed the invoice value by more than 80 per centum of the lowest advance imposed on such goods under the authority of said section during the calendar years 1933 to 1935, inclusive.
Mr. STIRLING:: Can the minister tell
us what duty there is against Canadian onions going into the United States?


Charles Avery Dunning: The duty is 2i cents
per pound.


Grote Stirling: What quantity has gone into the United States from Canada in the ten months?


Charles Avery Dunning: I have the figures for
last year, 1935.


Grote Stirling: What were the Canadian shipments to the United States?


Charles Avery Dunning: They were 28,000 bushels, valued at $37,000.


Grote Stirling: I notice that the tariff
item remains the same except that it is no longer possible to describe the duty as one not less than three-quarters of a cent per pound. That goes by the board, so that the reduction, roughly speaking, is from 75 cents to 30 cents on a dollar crate of 100 pounds.


Charles Avery Dunning: I do not think my hon.
friend can state that as a fact. The computation would depend on the value in any particular year.

Canada-U Jd. Trade Agreement


Grote Stirling: I am speaking of the
average valuation of a 100 pound crate. This is the first item to which is attached the proviso with reference to a special duty. I wonder if the minister has any statement to make with regard to the use which the government proposes to make of this special duty.


Charles Avery Dunning: No, Mr. Chairman. I
think I must adhere to the decision made by the government some time ago not to anticipate the budget in connection with any of the items under discussion. Under the agreement there is attached to the item an undertaking that any value for duty established under section 43 of the Customs Act on imports of onions from the United States shall not exceed the invoice value by more than 80 per cent of the lowest advance imposed on such goods during the period from 1933 to 1935. I should not care to state now any more than that provision does exist.


Mr. GRAYDON:: May I ask the minister if he has information as to what was the lowest advance during that three year period in connection with the onion item?


Charles Avery Dunning: The lowest advance has been three-quarters of one cent, applicable the year round.


Grote Stirling: I do not understand what connection there is between the application of this power that the government takes under the treaty and the bringing down of the budget.


Charles Avery Dunning: I misapprehended my hon. friend's question in that regard and corrected my answer later.


Grote Stirling: The minister does not feel he is in a position to make a statement with regard to what use the government may make of this provision under section 43?


Charles Avery Dunning: I think my hon. friend realizes that it is impossible to make any such statement in the month of March. The former government had such powers and I assume they exercised them in their own discretion from time to time according to the circumstances which existed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That applied the year round on onions.


Charles Avery Dunning: It was exercised the year round, but of course the government need not have exercised it the year round. I assume it was exercised the year round because in the opinion of the then administration the conditions prevailing warranted

such a course being taken. This government will have to consider, after consultation with the Department of Agriculture and the Department of National Revenue, what shall be done in the administration of items such as this.


Mr. LENNARD:: Why is a duty of 30 per cent being placed on onions when the rate of duty applying to almost every other vegetable has been reduced to 15 per cent? I should like to be assured by the minister that this is not being done in order to pacify a certain famous onion grower in southwestern Ontario.


Charles Avery Dunning: Does my hon. friend mean Mr. Gott, the former member?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


James Houston Spence: He does not grow them; he just talks about them.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not think the minister has quite apprehended the point raised by the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Stirling). One fact has been established by what the minister has said. We know that the increase in the invoice value of onions during 1933, 1934 and 1935 was three-quarters of a cent per pound. This agreement provides that the increase in the invoice value shall not be beyond 80 per cent of three-quarters of a cent per pound, which is three-fifths of a cent per pound. Therefore onions will enter this country subject to a 30 per cent duty, which may be increased to a maximum amount of three-fifths of a cent per pound. The hon. member for Yale asked when that surcharge was to be put into operation, as the surcharge which was in operation during the last year is now no longer in force.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is.


Richard Bedford Bennett: How can it be ?


Charles Avery Dunning: It is in force.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am referring to the three-quarters of a cent per pound.


Charles Avery Dunning: The three-fifths of a cent per pound is in force.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member for Yale was trying to ascertain when the government put into force the three-fifths of a cent per pound surcharge on the 30 per cent tariff on onions.


Charles Avery Dunning: It just remained in force but was reduced to that point. I understood the hon. member was stating a general principle.


Grote Stirling: I was.

Canada-TJS. Trade Agreement


Mr. STEWART:: Has a new order in council been passed giving effect to the three-fifths of a cent per pound?


Charles Avery Dunning: No new order.


Percy John Rowe: Then the old order in council still stands.


Charles Avery Dunning: As authority, yes, but
reduced by this treaty to three-fifths of a cent per pound.


Grote Stirling: Does the minister mean that the order in council still stands and yet its conditions have been varied?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what it means.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend will
remember that the order in council was merely an enabling order under which the minister could act.


Mr. ILSLEY:: I am under the impression
that I have not made any change. As the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) stated, the order in council does not change; it is merely an authorization for the Minister of National Revenue.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That was for threequarters of a cent per pound.


James Lorimer Ilsley: In connection with most
vegetables, the practice in the past has been for the Department of Agriculture to keep in very close touch with the Department of National Revenue. These valuations have been put on and taken off by the Department of National Revenue pretty much according to the wishes of the Minister of Agriculture. In connection with the valuation on onions, I think the situation is that no cancellation has been made. I speak subject to correction, but that is my understanding of the situation.


Charles Avery Dunning: The three-fifths of a cent per pound is now applying.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I withdraw my last statement; the three-fifths of a cent per pound is applying at the present time.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Under what authority
is this being done?


Charles Avery Dunning: The original enabling
authority still exists and the agreement undertakes a certain modification of the use of that authority. That modification is now automatically in effect. Instead of its being three-quarters of a cent, as it was on December 31, it became three-fifths of a cent per pound on and after January 1.


Mr. CLARK (Essex):: It might interest
hon. friends opposite to know that the real competition for the onion growers of the
part of the country which I have the honour to represent comes from an agreement made by them with New Zealand and Australia.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: What are the imports
from the sources just referred to by the hon. member?


Charles Avery Dunning: In 1935 the total imports into Canada were 12,235,000 pounds, valued at $181,000. From Australia came
3.600.000	pounds; from New Zealand, 3,000,000 pounds; from the United States 1,960,000 pounds; from Spain 1,775,000 pounds; from Bermuda 767,000 pounds, and from Egypt
675.000	pounds.


Grote Stirling: Under what rate will
Spanish onions now come in?


Charles Avery Dunning: Under the intermediate tariff; there is no change in connection with onions from Spain.


Percy John Rowe: Will the same
principle of valuation apply to all vegetable items?


Charles Avery Dunning: I have the information
before me with respect to the other vegetable items, which I can give as we come to them.


Percy John Rowe: The same principle will apply?


Charles Avery Dunning: It is applying.


Percy John Rowe: The three-fifths
of a cent per pound?


Charles Avery Dunning: The valuations may be
different, but the same principle applies.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-85. Mushrooms, fresh, 15 per cent.
Provided that in no case shall any value for duty established under the authority of section 43 of the Customs Act exceed the invoice value by more than 80 per centum of the lowest advance imposed on such goods under the authority of said section during the calendar years 1933 to 1935, inclusive.
Richard Bedford Bennett: This is an industry in which our people were developing a very substantial trade. Mushrooms grow up in the night, I think we are told in scripture; we know it also in other ways. That being so, we have now changed the duty by reducing it 12i per cent on mushrooms coming from the United States. Mushrooms were carried at a 27i per cent rate on intermediate and 30 per cent under the general tariff; United States mushrooms paid 30 per cent. They will now be reduced to 15 per cent, which is a reduction of 50 per cent, and there is the further provision that if there is an increase under section 43 of the Customs Act over the invoice price,

Canada-UJS. Trade Agreement
it shall not be more than 80 per cent of the lowest advance imposed during the years 1933, 1934 and 1935. Would the minister tell us what the importations were last year, the sources from which they came, and the extent to which the price is increased under section 43 of the Customs Act?


Charles Avery Dunning: Imports of fresh mushrooms are not separately classified at present, but they are part of a total of 810,393 representing imports of mushrooms and truffles, fresh or dried. Of this total, S5,804, or more than half, came from Hongkong and 31,300 from the United States. Mushrooms and truffles in cans-that is a different item from the one we are now discussing-value 343,800, came almost entirely from the United States.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Some came from France.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, a small amount from France. With reference to the last part of the question, the value for duty under section 43 on fresh mushrooms has been five cents per pound, effective the year round. The maximum under the treaty will be four cents per pound, which is at present in effect.


James Houston Spence: I think it is very unfortunate that this item should be reduced, because a number of people in this country have put a lot of money into mushroom beds. There are miles of mushroom houses in this country which did not exist ten years ago. These people have developed a perfectly safe mushroom, packed in many cases in pound boxes with transparent paper so that anybody can see the contents and nobody need be afraid to use them. I think you are killing a promising industry if you reduce the duty from 27J to 15 per cent. You should raise it 15 per cent instead of lowering it 12J per cent.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: What is the rate of duty on fresh mushrooms going into the United States?


Charles Avery Dunning: Ten cents per pound and 45 per cent ad valorem.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: And that remains?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Percy John Rowe: Can the minister tell us what principle governs the tariff range with reference to mushrooms relative to the item that has been already passed, sweet-potatoes? We find a reduction in sweet potatoes to free, a reduction in mushrooms of 50 per cent, and still the duty is maintained on onions, a much cheaper food product. If we are concerned with the consumer and interested in revenue, I suggest that the sweet potato and the mushroom are more or less
[Mr. Bennett 1
delicacies so far as many people are concerned. Onions are a staple and a cheaper foodstuff, and yet we find the duty on onions maintained at its full 30 per cent. I have no objection; I admit I am very glad that it is maintained, but as was pointed out by the hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Lennard) it is the only item in the vegetable list on which the duty is maintained where it has been. It will certainly meet the approval of some prominent onion growers in western Ontario. I know that the minister has a deep concern for producers.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Consumers.


Percy John Rowe: But so far as foodstuffs are concerned, onions are more or less of a necessity; sweet potatoes and mushrooms are luxuries, yet the tariff on the latter is substantially reduced while that on onions is maintained. I know that onion producers have made great progress in certain parts of western Ontario, also in parts of my own riding. With reference to the production of soya beans involving 10,000 acres, some hon. members said that that was only a small district in Canada, and probably even our onion producers have a very limited area. I think the largest in western Ontario is in the district of the Minister of Finance's friend, the premier of Ontario. I should like to know why a reduction has been made on practically every other item of from 30 to 15 per cent, while the cheap and necessary onion is maintained at its full 30 per cent.


Charles Avery Dunning: One important factor
which must always be borne in mind in considering what was done by way of rates is that we always had to give attention during the negotiations to what our treaty arrangements were under the British preference. In the case of onions we had to keep in mind particularly the West Indies and New Zealand.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They are free.


Charles Avery Dunning: I would point out further with respect to mushrooms and truffles that the total imports last year were only 310,000; half of these came from Hongkong under the intermediate tariff, and Hongkong remains on the intermediate tariff. So far as the comparative values of crops are concerned the onion crop is an important one, as indicated in the figures which I gave. True, its commercial production is confined to a relatively small area in Canada, not nearly so small as the soya bean area mentioned by my hon. friend, but I hardly think it is practical to compare commodities so widely apart, from the standpoint of the producer as soya beans, mushrooms and onions.

Canada-US. Trade Agreement


Percy John Rowe: Well then, is this more or less protection for the producer rather than concern for the consumer?


Charles Avery Dunning: We are trying to keep both in mind.


Mr. WILTON:: If I am in order I should like to ask whether the present tariff arrangements provide for a duty on meal of the soya bean.


Charles Avery Dunning: I can give my hon. friend the information, although the item has been passed.


Herbert Earl Wilton: I know it has been passed.


Charles Avery Dunning: The item dealt with under the treaty refers only to the soya bean.


Herbert Earl Wilton: It does not refer to the meal?


Charles Avery Dunning: No.


Herbert Earl Wilton: I have just had a long distance telephone call from a company in Hamilton which is arranging to erect an establishment in the town of Dundas for the handling of soya beans. They are vitally interested in this matter, and request that a tariff of some kind be put against the meal at least, as a protection to the Canadian grower of soya beans.


Charles Avery Dunning: I have had several wires this morning commending the government for allowing the bean in free. It depends entirely upon the business in which the sender of a wire is engaged as to whether he advocates free meal or a duty on meal. I have had a number of such communications today, so that I can confirm what my hon. friend says as far as representations are concerned. It is the old question as to where we shall start. Every industry is anxious to get free raw material and as high a tariff as possible on its own finished product. Unfortunately in many instances the finished product of one industry becomes the raw material of the next. That is one of the problems of tariff making.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-87. Vegetables, fresh, in their natural state:
(a) Asparagus, 15 per cent.
Charles Avery Dunning: I think it would facilitate the discussion a very great deal, Mr. Chairman,, if we took each of these vegetable items and passed it separately. If no one objects I think that will be very much better.


Grote Stirling: Would the minister be
good enough to tell us the duty against our
asparagus going into the United States, and what quantity we have exported?


Charles Avery Dunning: Under the United States tariff this is in their n.o.p. item; it is not specifically provided for, and therefore would carry a tariff of fifty per cent ad valorem going into the United States.


Grote Stirling: Against our 15 per cent?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, under the treaty,
subject of course to a valuation.


Mr. ROWE (Dufferin-Simcoe):: Is there
a quota on that also?


Charles Avery Dunning: No.


Grote Stirling: I think we imported
$61,000 worth in 1935, did we not?


Charles Avery Dunning: We imported 1,128,000
pounds valued at $61,000, all from the United States.


Grote Stirling: And did we succeed in
shipping any to that country?


Charles Avery Dunning: It is not separately
classified going into the United States, so I cannot give that information.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: As I understand it the
power is still retained on the part of the government to fix a value for duty purposes?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes. The existing situation in that regard with respect to asparagus is that the advance on invoice value existing at the time the treaty came into force was cents. The maximum therefore provided by the treaty is 4f cents, being not more than 80 per cent of the former advance.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Does not that perpetuate a principle in this tariff which was very roundly condemned by hon. gentlemen opposite, the power to fix values for duty purposes? Are not the government retaining that element of uncertainty in our tariff which they were pledged to remove and entirely get away from?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I want to point out to
the Minister of National Revenue, who administers this section of the act, as well as to the Minister of Finance, that these impositions now of three-fifths of a cent, 4 cents and 41 cents must be wholly illegal and improper. If the ministers will do me the honour of directing their attention to the language of the proviso they will find this:
Provided that when imported under the general tariff rate, from April 15 to May 31, inclusive, the duty shall be not less than 3 cents per pound.
All these items confer power upon the minister to fix the value under section 43,


Charles Avery Dunning: If I had section 43 before me I would have no difficulty in answering my right hon. friend, for the reason that the power there given authorizes the government to enable the minister to set values for duty purposes. It is a general enabling authority under a well understood section of the tariff. No one has raised that question in an administrative sense since the end of the year, but if there should be any question about it there would be no difficulty in taking such steps as might be necessary. Here we have section 43:
If at any time it appears to the satisfaction of the governor in council on a report from the minister that goods of any kind are being imported into Canada, either on sale or on consignment, under such conditions as prejudicially or injuriously to affect the interests of Canadian producers or manufacturers, the governor in council may authorize the minister to fix the value for duty of any class or kind of such goods, and notwithstanding any other provision of this act, the value so fixed shall be deemed to be the fair market value of such goods.
That has relation not to the general tariff or the intermediate tariff, but to goods coming in under any tariff excepting the British preferential or any lower tariff.
Every order of the governor in council authorizing the minister to fix the value for duty of any class or kind of such goods, and the value thereof so fixed by the minister by virtue of such authority, shall be published in the next following issue of the Canada Gazette.
There has been no change and no necessity for a change with respect to that enabling authority.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But the mere reading of section 43 conclusively proves what I have said. It does not require any further discussion. I think the Minister of National

Canada-US. Trade Agreement
Revenue (Mr. Ilsley), as a lawyer, realizes that it is completely proven. Here is an order in council outstanding that fixes the rate, and that rate has not been varied. The authority for the minister is the order in council.


Charles Avery Dunning: Fixes a value, not a rate.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, the rate is based upon the value. In order that there may be no misunderstanding, I am talking about the increase added to the invoice. Section 43 authorizes that to be accomplished in one way and one way only, and that is by order in council. You cannot get away from that.


Charles Avery Dunning: A ministerial order.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Read what it says.


Charles Avery Dunning: "The governor in council on a report from the minister"-may do what? May authorize the minister to fix the value for duty. And that authority exists.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Exactly, but the rate is fixed by order in council.


Charles Avery Dunning: No, no.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But the rate was in these cases. I do not know about them all, but I know the minister was authorized to fix a rate not exceeding or not less than a certain figure. Some were fixed absolutely. One of the difficulties we had-the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Spence) will recall it-was that the order in council empowered the minister to fix a valuation and define the valuation, and the minister fixed it in accordance with that authority which he received from council. Having done that it was of course found that it was too late, or in one case it was too early. That is the reason you find these orders in council for the entire year. My hon. friend I suppose has been told by the officers of the department the reason that was done was that it was found necessary to make it applicable to the whole year in order that no difficulty might arise in connection with, for instance onions-that is one item I remember; I do not recall others. But the position is that the government at the moment is utilizing an order in council which it roundly abused when it was passed. That order in council does confer upon the minister certain powers, but those orders in council in some cases are very restrictive, and define the rate which he must fix. That is the [DOT] point I was trying to make. In such cases it is clear there is no power in the minister to change it. I gather from what the Minister of National Revenue says that what has happened is that the collectors of customs have automatically applied it to eighty per cent of the lowest figure.


James Lorimer Ilsley: As I understand the application of section 43 it is this: the governor in council first authorizes the Minister of National Revenue to fix the valuation for duty purposes on a certain class or kind of goods.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In certain conditions
where Canadian interests are prejudicially affected.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes, but it is not contemplated, nor is it necessary, that the governor in council should go further and fix the rate itself.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But it was done in some cases.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not know whether the governor in council did that or not, but it was not contemplated by the section. It was contemplated that the minister should have discretion to fix the rate after being so authorized by the governor in council. Pursuant to that authority ministers have from time to time fixed rates on certain kinds of fruit and vegetables.


Grote Stirling: Fixed a value.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Fixed a valuation for duty purposes on certain kinds of fruit and vegetables. Under our agreement with the United States, by these items in this schedule it is agreed that hereafter the minister, acting I assume under the same orders in council, shall not fix a valuation more than eighty per cent of the lowest valuations that have existed at any time in the last three years. I am at a loss to see where there is any impropriety in acting under the existing orders in council. There is no particular reason why action should be taken under existing orders in council if it is improper or illegal to do so, but it is not apparent to me that it is either improper or illegal.
I was not, I am afraid, able to understand the argument based on the provisos of page 28 of the customs tariff. That appears to be another branch of my right hon. friend's argument which I was not able to follow.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The point is, that no
longer applies.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I think that is correct.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Therefore we have reliance on a new departure, which must be authorized by order in council.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.

Canada-U-S. Trade Agreement


Hugh Alexander Stewart: This is a very interesting statement from the Minister of National Revenue, because the procedure that was adopted of fixing the value for duty purposes was condemned as unsound, autocratic and taking the control away from parliament and placing it in the hands of the governor in council. Now the minister goes further. Notwithstanding that under the procedure that was adopted the hon. gentleman admits that the minister reported to council and an order in council was then passed fixing the rate of duty, or limiting it to a certain amount-


James Lorimer Ilsley: No, not rate, valuation.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The minister used the
word rate, but we are all wrong in using it; it is the valuation. The minister now says that he himself has the power, that he does not even need to consult the governor in council. Surely that is autocracy. Surely that is going the limit; surely that is taking the fixing of the value for duty out of the hands of parliament and even out of the hands of the governor in council and placing it in the hands of the minister. If that procedure has been adopted I submit it is the essence of autocracy. It is all wrong; it is contrary to the principle of the act and contrary to the practice that has been followed.


Charles Avery Dunning: No.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Yes. I think I know
what took place.


Charles Avery Dunning: But the same order in council exists at this moment with respect to this item.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That is just what I am coming to. I say that order in council cannot have any effect-


James Lorimer Ilsley: Why not?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: -that there should be a new order in council, and I am going to ask the minister to bring down the existing orders in council that have been made with respect to these items.


Charles Avery Dunning: There is no new order in council.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Let us have the old ones, and we will see just how they were made.


William Daum Euler: If they have not been repealed why are they not in force?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Because I submit the provision here made makes those orders in council inapplicable.


William Daum Euler: When my hon. friend states that this is a new departure by this government or this party he is entirely wrong. When the former Liberal government was in power

section 43 was already on the statute book with regard to fruits and vegetables, and that is what we are discussing right now.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: But in the discussions I am very sure the hon. gentleman did not point out that use had been made of it. He was criticizing and condemning the former government for the use of this provision before the amendment of the statute to permit it, and if any pledge was given it was that it would be abolished. Now it is being perpetuated.


William Daum Euler: My hon. friend is wrong if he refers to me as having condemned the application of section 43 to fruit and vegetables. I will admit that I condemned applying that in the extreme way in which it was applied to other commodities. But section 43, so far as fruits and vegetables are concerned, as the leader of the opposition knows, was on the statute book, and having been placed there by a former Liberal Minister of Finance, the Hon. Mr. Fielding.


Grote Stirling: Item 37(a) as it was then?


William Daum Euler: Yes, applying only to fruits and vegetables.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Natural products.


William Daum Euler: But used largely for fruits and vegetables, as everybody knows. And I did condemn the extremes at which valuations were fixed on other commodities, because I did not regard it as necessary. On fruits and vegetables there was a real reason for doing it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Does the hon. member recall a delegation in the railway committee room? Does he recall his Prime Minister standing up and repudiating him and the Minister of National Revenue who attempted to exercise his discretion to impose duties upon importers of this country? Is his memory so lost that he cannot recall the circumstances under which a great delegation came here, and when he said he was in favour of duties upon natural products, or valuations on natural products? Does he recall in this house the circumstances before the dissolution of 1930? Does he remember how all over this country it was said it was never intended that one man by the exercise of his discretion should impose new duties upon the importers of this country? Does he remember that?


William Daum Euler: It was never done.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Because the government would not permit it to be done on the ground that it was taking away the liberty of the subject and the rights of parliament.

Canada-US. Trade Agreement


William Daum Euler: It was never done, except by orders in council passed by the government itself.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, that is what I am coming at. The hon. member's memory is very short this afternoon; for those of us who sat on this side of the house then, as we now sit, can never forget the circumstances of that great gathering downstairs, and then in the afternoon hearing in measured tones the condemnation of a parliament that would part with the right to impose tariffs, and what terrible conditions would result if by any chance it was given to any one man to determine what the value for duty purposes should be upon any product, be it natural or otherwise. Who could forget that warning to beware lest principles which were established in centuries gone by might be lost by this action? Does the hon. member forget it?


William Daum Euler: It is perfectly clear.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I thought it would be. It was clear to all of us that when the government which succeeded came into office it passed an order in council under the provisions of section 43. It applied only to natural products. It was put into operation, and had reference to exactions with respect to vegetables and many kinds of fruits. In some cases discretion was left with the minister; in other cases it was embodied in the orders in council themselves. So the whole responsibility for executive action was accepted by council as being preferable to leaving it to the discretion of a single man to impose a duty. We know amout the promises in the press which indicated that these fixed values under section 43 were to disappear, and I remember reading not long since that orders in council had been passed abolishing them. Why was not the public told that instead of abolishing them what they are doing is taking them and saying that they are authorized to maintain them to the extent of 80 per cent of the lowest level. I am perfectly satisfied from what took place this afternoon that when the Minister of National Revenue said he spoke subject to his memory being correct he did not know it was being done. He took the view that it was not being done.


James Lorimer Ilsley: My memory was incorrect. I agreed to the order myself on December 27, with respect to certain classes of fruits and vegetables. In order to provide a 20 per cent reduction in the fixed value under the United States trade agreement a new bulletin, No. 4461, was issued by my order on December 27, 1935, amending the previous bulletin, to provide for fixed valuation of three-fifths of a cent per pound.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And that is for the whole period of twelve months?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Just for the time being, I think. They are subject to cancellation at any time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But was there any period expressed?-because there is a suggestion in some of the orders in council authorizing the minister to make the order for a twelve months period. Then that order to which the minister has referred is a ministerial order for any length of time.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Again I speak subject to correction-


Richard Bedford Bennett: I thank the minister for his full statement about it, because it is exactly what I thought would happen. It is presumably the exercise of a new discretion for the purpose of giving authority to what I conceive to be an incorrect exercise of power.


Grote Stirling: There is no date.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I will get the information,
but I do not think so.


Grote Stirling: Does it apply only to
onions, or to other articles?


James Lorimer Ilsley: It was applied in regard to all fruit and vegetable valuations in effect on December 31, 1935.


Grote Stirling: It qualifies them to the extent of eighty per cent?


James Lorimer Ilsley: On all fruits and vegetables on which values were in effect on December 31, 1935.


Charles Avery Dunning: I have been saying that.


James Houston Spence: Before the item of asparagus passes let me say that I think we have here made another great mistake, because a big industry has been built up in Canada by Canadian people at great cost. Their season lasts only a month or six weeks, and great care of the ground has to be taken. The whole question is as to what is done with the California asparagus coming into this market, and we must decide whether we are willing to put a dumping duty on it and stop the importation before our own is ready for the market. As a rule asparagus comes in and destroys the sale of our own product. No date can be set for valuation, because its growth depends entirely upon the soil and the heat of the sun. The variation is sometimes as great as three or four weeks. We know that in some seasons it comes in three or four weeks earlier than it does in others. Let me tell you, Mr. Chairman, that in the business world we wish to God that the minister's wings were clipped so far as



Canada-UJS. Trade Agreement
fixing values for duty purposes is concerned, because it is impossible for a man doing business to know when the stuff will come in. I am not particularly condemning the minister, because he wordd be advised by some understudy who does not know what he is advising and would not know the best sources from which to get information. I hope the minister will take steps towards a solution of the difficulty.
I do not know why the Minister of Finance did not have a discussion of all these commodities at one time, because had he done that we could have passed them all. The proposed action is against the interests of the people of Canada, because on account of their more favourable climatic conditions it is impossible for us to compete with the United States in growing articles of this kind. In some states they can grow two or three crops a year, whereas in Canada we grow only one, and that with a great deal of difficulty. How is it possible for us to compete with them? If the government wish to protect the primary producer, about whom they do so much talking, let them begin right here. They say they wish to protect the wheat grower, but they have forgotten all about the fellow in Ontario who digs in the soil from sunrise to sunset and who works harder than any man in the west ever worked.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


James Houston Spence: You know nothing about
work. Go and watch the truck farmers between Toronto and Niagara Falls work from sunrise to sunset-and they work during the whole of a working day; they are not sitting on a machine, as does the man who is ploughing a field. Very few hon. members do any hay pitching; they have machines to do everything.


Charles Avery Dunning: Before this Donnybrook goes any farther may I suggest that we are talking about asparagus. I know what will happen in a very few minutes.


James Houston Spence: I did not intend to talk about other things, but hon. members injected some remarks which caused me to reply. I protest against the cut from 30 per cent. What is the necessity for it? There is no demand for it. Thirty per cent means nothing; it simply means a percentage on the net cost in Texas, or Tennessee, or where-ever it comes from. This year we have thousands of boxes of good red carrots-


Frederick George Sanderson: Order. The hon. mem-mer must confine his remarks to the subject under discussion.


James Houston Spence: Why did we not discuss all of them? They are in the same category.
I suggest that the committee is losing time. However, I shall obey your ruling, Mr. Chairman, and will not mention carrots. It will all depend entirely on what the government does, whether they intend to impose a dumping duty on asparagus before our own comes in, and do it at the proper time, upon advice from proper authorities. May I ask the minister whether he intends to impose a dumping duty to save our asparagus growers?


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend is, I know, an expert. Does he think such a valuation should be imposed now?


James Houston Spence: No, but we should know what the minister's intention is.


Charles Avery Dunning: What would be your intention?


James Houston Spence: My intention would be that you should tell us right now what you are going to do, so that the people in the industry would know what to do and how to speculate. But to-day everything is so uncertain from the point of view of the government interfering and tinkering with tariffs that nobody knows what to do, and you are putting people out of business by the hundreds by the system you are following.


Charles Avery Dunning: I was asking advice, Mr. Chairman, from an acknowledged expert as to what date he thinks a value for duty purposes should be imposed with respect to asparagus. I am asking for that advice from him now.


James Houston Spence: I could not tell you the date, and no man is wise enough to know it, unless you can tell me what the good Lord is going to do in the matter of weather. Asparagus will sometimes shoot up as long as that pencil on some hot nights and has to be cut immediately. If you leave it to me, I can give you definite information within two days, but you won't ask me, and1 nobody else in the house can give it to you except myself.


Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: I do not want to start any controversy between one part of this country and another, but now that we are on these items it might be well for the committee to remember that there is a large section between the great lakes and British Columbia which grows very few vegetables, asparagus or any other vegetables or fruits. If this house wants to impose a high value for duty purposes or a high tariff on these commodities, the people of Canada do not want them imposed for the purpose of exploit-

Caruida-UJS. Trade Agreement
ing the people of the west. If you want to protect these commodities for the sake of your own growers I am entirely in agreement with that, but I am not in agreement with people in one part of Canada using the protection that is given them to exploit a large area of this dominion. These duties that are being imposed and these valuations that are being established are placing that large section of western Canada in such a position that they are unable to purchase these things at all to-day, and the consequence is that the people in this part of the country cannot sell them, nor can the growers in British Columbia sell them to a large extent because of the excess prices that are forced by tariffs and duty valuations. Not long ago, during the last administration I believe, whether it was done by the government or by the Minister of National Revenue I do not know, the system of applying tariffs was changed to a system of regional tariffs on certain fruit and vegetables. So far as I am concerned, as a western member, I would say let us have more of that. Take the three prairie provinces and make them one region in which no tariffs shall be imposed on fruits or vegetables, and let the rest of Canada have their tariffs if they want them.


James Houston Spence: A lovely spirit, to kill your brother.


John Gordon Ross: To keep your brother from being exploited.


James Houston Spence: You want to kill the fruit and vegetable man.


Mr. McGREGOR:: I do not see any reason why they cannot grow asparagus in the west; then they would not have to import it.


Charles Avery Dunning: They can and do glow it.


Robert Henry McGregor: Then what is the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Ross) talking about? If they grow it, they do not need to import it. It has been very amusing to hear some hon. gentlemen discuss this question. With all due respect for my hon. friend from Parkdale (Mr. Spence) I would point out that he is talking from the point of view of a commission man.


Charles Avery Dunning: You mean a dealer's point of view?


Robert Henry McGregor: Call it a broker, then. I have been in' business as a grower of vegetables all my life, and it is amusing to hear some of the arguments put up in this house. Surely the minister knows how many people are interested in the vegetable growing 12739-6-li
business in this country. He must know that no one in this country works harder than the vegetable grower, that he, his wife and children do not even get a chance to get a decent education, that they have to work from daylight to dark producing vegetables. Then when I pick up this schedule and see that the duty on vegetables coming into this country has been decreased fifty per cent, I just wonder what this government is going to do. Surely they do not intend to put these people out of business. There are thousands of market gardeners in my constituency who are on relief, even with the protection the industry has had during the last five years, so what can they expect in the next five years? Let us forget about politics. I hope the minister will give this matter serious consideration, and that when the time comes the duty will be imposed as it has been in the past.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend from East York (Mr. McGregor) is a vegetable grower, and I understand also represents a large number of them. With respect to his fears, I have before me a quotation from an address by Mr. L. F. Burrows, the secretary-treasurer of the Canadian Horticultural Council, which I believe speaks to some extent at any rate for a large body of fruit and vegetable growers. He says:
I am satisfied that from the standpoint of the producer of fruit and vegetables in Canada the provisions of this agreement offer with few exceptions ample protection to our industries, provided the values for duty are fixed as contemplated and are effective early enough to protect the market prior to our products becoming available.
I think one can take that as an average expression of view.


Mr. BAKER:: What was the date of that speech? Was it before this agreement?


Charles Avery Dunning: It was an address made at the recent annual meeting of the Ontario Fruit Growers' Association in Toronto. I have not the date.


Robert Henry McGregor: I should think the first thing we had better do is to inquire just who this man Burrows is and who pays him, and how many different salaries he is getting throughout this country. I understand he is paid by this government to start with; he is also paid by certain commission houses in Toronto, and I do not know how many other salaries he is getting. When this gentleman gets up and ventures an opinion he certainly is not speaking for the fruit growers of this country. He is backing up the opinions that the government wants him to back up.

Canada-UJS. Trade Agreement


Charles Avery Dunning: I certainly repudiate, Mr. Chairman, any suggestion that any member of the government conspired to get this utterance from Mr. Burrows. I am assuming that the Ontario Fruit Growers' Association consists of growers of fruit.


Robert Henry McGregor: Mr. Burrows is not speaking for the fruit growers, and furthermore-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Frederick George Sanderson: Order. The hon. member is out of order. The Minister of Finance has the floor.


Charles Avery Dunning: I know of nothing either to the detriment of Mr. Burrows or to his credit, but a man who is secretary-treasurer of the Canadian Horticultural Council presumably must have the confidence of the growers. At least I remember, back in the days when I formerly occupied this position, the growers very frequently waited upon me headed by Mr. Burrows. If Mr. Burrows does not have the confidence of the growers, I am quite sure they are capable of dealing with him. I do not think we should make personal attacks upon individuals who have an official standing with associations of the industries concerned.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman has
not been in the house the last five years to hear the opposition talk about Mr. Burrows.


Robert Henry McGregor: How much does the
government pay Mr. Burrows?


Charles Avery Dunning: I do not know; I do
not pay him anything.


Robert Henry McGregor: I am asking how much the government pays.


Charles Avery Dunning: The hon. gentleman has
a copy of the estimates in his desk and if he will refer to it he will find that a grant is given to the Canadian Horticultural Council, of which Mr. Burrows is secretary. This grant is the same as has been paid for years.


Frank Exton Lennard: With all due respect to Mr. Burrows, I cannot see how a man can serve the commission men and the growers of this country at the same time.


Grote Stirling: This gentleman is not
here and I think it is only fair to give one or two facts with regard to the Canadian Horticultural Council. The minister will remember that this council was brought into being, during the regime of the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Motherwell) when he was Minister of Agriculture, in order that the government of the day should have available

information which would be collected from all parts of Canada in connection with the matters in which the council was interested. It was intended also to provide a channel through which information could pass from the government to these industries. The name of the secretary-treasurer has been mentioned this afternoon. He is employed by the council, not by the government. For excellent reasons, in years past as in this year, the government has contributed to the funds of this council. The council obtains other revenue from different associations throughout Canada. In the statement of Mr. Burrows which the minister has just read, I am of the opinion that he is voicing the considered opinion of those interests which combined together made up the horticultural council. I think I can confirm the statement which has been read, that if the government proposes to continue to use the dumping clause, the producers of Canada will know they have a measure of protection under which they can attempt to carry on. The future will prove whether or not the tariff is sufficient for the purpose.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is a very fair
statement.


William George Clark: I want to endorse
the remarks of the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Stirling). I think the whole situation depends upon the application of these dumping duties. There has been some controversy over the secretary-treasurer of the horticultural council, but as far as I know he is handling his job in the best way it can be handled under the circumstances.


Percy John Rowe: Are we to understand that there will be an application of the dumping duty?


James Houston Spence: They will not tell you
anything.


Charles Avery Dunning: You can be assured of
the exercise of the best judgment of the government from time to time.


Percy John Rowe: We know that,
although we may be doubtful of it at times. The hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Spence) has almost pleaded with the minister to tell him at what time he will apply the seasonal tariffs. Another hon. member has said that it all depends upon the time that these tariffs are applied. I recall how vigorously hon. gentlemen on the government side opposed, when they were in opposition, the principles now being applied, and they W'ent around the country promising their abolition.


William Daum Euler: Not on natural products.

Canada-UJS. Trade Agreement


Percy John Rowe: Promises of the abolition of seasonal tariffs were made in this house and throughout the country. Promises were made of the abolition of the dumping duties and the fixed valuations. Read the Prime Minister's speech at Woodstock. If hon. members of the government have a mandate to negotiate a reciprocal trade agreement with the United States that does not give reciprocal advantages to Canada, then I submit they have an equal mandate to abolish the dumping duties, the seasonal tariffs and the fixed valuations. That was part of their preelection pledges.


An hon. MEMBER:: Do you want that done?


Percy John Rowe: I certainly do not. I am only pointing out that it might be considered as one of the first recantations of the government. That argument certainly was used on every platform in Ontario. I have received letters from vegetable growers in my district who are growing asparagus and other vegetables. Eight or ten thousand acres of marsh land have been reclaimed at very great expense and they are wondering what the government is going to do. These men want to know what the government's policy will be in that regard.


Frederick George Sanderson: The hon. gentleman is out of order. He must confine his remarks to the item before the committee, that dealing with asparagus.


Percy John Rowe: Surely asparagus is either a fruit or a vegetable.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am not sure which it is.


Percy John Rowe: The minister says he is not sure which it is, and I am not surprised at his saying that.


Charles Avery Dunning: Are you sure yourself?


Percy John Rowe: I think I know as much about it as the minister.


Charles Avery Dunning: Which is it?


Grote Stirling: A vegetable.


Percy John Rowe: The government is maintaining the principles which it condemned so vigorously before the elections. If this is being done for the protection of the fruit and vegetable growers, I commend the government.


Frederick George Sanderson: The hon. member must confine his remarks to asparagus.


Percy John Rowe: The minister has told us already that these fixed valuations will apply to vegetables such as asparagus.


Charles Avery Dunning: Is it a vegetable?


Percy John Rowe: Certainly it is.


Charles Avery Dunning: Is it?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is so classified.


Charles Avery Dunning: Are you sure?


Percy John Rowe: The fruit and vegetable growers in the district to which I have referred are having their livelihood threatened, so much so that they are considering whether it is worth while to sow a crop this year. If we are to be assured that the government is going to do the opposite to what it said it would do before the elections, then the fruit and vegetable growers can have some assurance.


Charles Avery Dunning: If my hon. friend wants an assurance that the government will do the opposite to what it professed it would do, I can tell him that he will get no such assurance. Section 43 was placed upon the statute books by a great Liberal Minister of Finance, the Right. Hon. W. S. Fielding. The attitude of the Liberal party with respect to natural products is as it has been always. We recognize the special circumstances and difficulties which surround the production of these commodities. We recognize the need of special machinery which may not be required in the production of other commodities. The machinery is there and the government intends to use it for the purposes for which it was placed on the statute book.


James Houston Spence: Now you are committed to something.


Charles Avery Dunning: That provides an excellent illustration of the impossibility of giving positive assurances with respect to this from year to year, and my hon. friend from Park-dale tells me he does not know at what date action should be taken.


James Houston Spence: I was not asking for the
date.


Charles Avery Dunning: I think he said also
that be was the only expert in the house.


James Houston Spence: I did not intend to say
that.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend takes
it in good part. I acknowledge at once he has special and peculiar knowledge with respect to this matter, and his statement was helpful in that it indicates the very difficulties which do surround the administration of section 43 with respect to natural products. I can assure him, and I am sure the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ilsley) can also assure him of the best and closest attention of the government to the matter as time progresses.

Canada-UJS. Trade Agreement


James Lorimer Ilsley: I should like to endorse
what my colleague the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) has said. I should like also to give the committee a few figures, which perhaps may be of interest, on this matter of protection of fruits and vegetables.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Stick to asparagus.


James Houston Spence: You are getting away
from asparagus. You would not let me get away from it, Mr. Chairman.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I will give the figures with
regard to asparagus only, if the committee thinks fit. On an assumed invoice value of six cents for asparagus, the ad valorem equivalent of the duty imposed prior to December 31, 1935, was 149 per cent, that is when we take the general tariff rate plus the dumping duties. 'Under this arrangement with the United States we have agreed, as I said before, that the advance on the invoice value shall not be greater than eighty per cent of the advance which previously existed, the lowest advance in the last three years. Taking into account the new tariff rate of 15 per cent ad valorem and the dumping duty, if imposed up to that maximum, the protection at the present time is still ninety-nine per cent ad'valorem.


John Gordon Ross: We are going
to be ruined 1


James Lorimer Ilsley: And that is not an isolated instance. I may say that I have no sympathy with the contention that the rates as provided for in the United States trade agreement are insufficient. I have a list of them before me, and certainly they would supply ammunition to those of my friends from the west who contend that the rates are too high, rather than to those of my friends opposite who contend that the vegetable growers and the fruit growers have been sacrificed by this agreement. For instance, if we apply in the future eighty per cent of the advance applied in the past, and the new rates of duty provided for in the agreement, the following are the ad valorem equivalents on fair invoice values which will apply:
Per cent
Apples	 76
Apricots	 61
Canteloupes	 203
Cherries	 80
Cranberries	 20
Grapes	 76
Peaches	 95
Pears	 61
Plums and prunes	 107
Raspberries	 61
Strawberries	 45
Asparagus	 99

Beans	 91
Beets	 148
Cabbage	 195
Carrots	 152
Cauliflower	 169
Celery	 61
Cucumbers	 145
Lettuce	 76
Mushrooms	 33
Onions, n.o.p	 108
Green onions	 149
Peas	 61
Peppers	 84
Rhubarb	 134
Spinach	 61
You will understand, Mr. Chairman, that these are the maximum rates which the government is permitted by this agreement to impose. The point I am trying to make is that when my hon. friends contend that the fruit and vegetable growers have been sacrificed by the agreement, that certainly is not borne out by these rates. If the committee is interested, I can give the rates that have-


James Houston Spence: What has that to do with the item we are now discussing?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I can give the ad valorem equivalents of the rates that have heretofore existed for the same list, and I ask the committee to note the size of these:
Per cent
Apples	 106
Apricots	 so
Canteloupes	 283
Cherries	 105
Cranberries	 25
Grapes	 loo
Peaches	 150
Pears	 80
Plums and prunes	 160
Raspberries	 100
Strawberries	 83
Asparagus	 149
Beans	 138
Beets	 208
Cabbage	 280
Carrots	 213
Cauliflower	 250
Celery.. .. [DOT]	 150
Cucumbers	 204
Lettuce	 166
Mushrooms	 60
Onions, n.o.p	 150
Green onions	 171
Peas	 95
Peppers	 128
Rhubarb	 186
Spinach	 95
Average	 135


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: It should be enough.


James Lorimer Ilsley: These do not all bear on the item before the committee, but they are illuminating, I think, when we are considering the question whether by this agreement

Caruida-UJi. Trade Agreement
there has been a sacrifice of the interests of the fruit and vegetable growers in Canada. There has been nothing of the kind. The margins are so great that there is room for the exercise of governmental discretion within the maximum, but certainly if the maximum were imposed the protection would be adequate.


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: Before this item carries I should like to thank the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) for urging the government to reduce these dumping duties or to abolish them entirely at the present time, when the item of asparagus is before the committee. I wish also to thank the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ilsley) for giving us these figures, showing the tremendous burden that is being borne by those who have to buy and consume these goods.


James Houston Spence: You do not need asparagus on the prairies. You can grow it there and it will cost you nothing.


Malcolm McLean: Surely. We can do a lot of things there, but why should we waste a dollar's worth of time in producing twenty-five cents worth, when we can use the same time to produce a dollar and a half's worth of wealth? Would it not be foolish for parliament to compel us to squander our efforts in doing a thing like that? The point I am making is that I wish to assure my hon. friends that the people of this country are intelligent enough, if they are left free, to use their time and energy to the best advantage.
Mr* MacNICOL: Talk about asparagus.


Frederick George Sanderson: I would point out to the hon. member who has the floor that he must confine his remarks to asparagus.


Malcolm McLean: I was dealing with asparagus and pointing out that under the old regulations there were imposed on invoices, duty and taxes of 302-3 per cent which has now been reduced, including duty and taxes on invoices, to 202 per cent.
It would be folly to compel the people of western Canada, as my hon. friend from Parkdale (Mr. Spence) suggested, to grow asparagus when they ought to be using their time and energy and the resources of the climate they have at their disposition. My hon. friend told us that his vegetable growers, who are protected by a duty and tax running up to 320 per cent, are now on relief. I am glad he is willing to help us abolish that condition by enabling us to buy those vegetables and sell them to consumers in
other parts of Canada at a much smaller price. In connection with the sale of asparagus I find many resolutions like this:
That the climatic and geographical situation of the prairie provinces creates a sufficient natural protection for Canadian producers of fruits and vegetables-
Including asparagus.

and any further protection constitutes an unwarranted burden on our consumers.
It further recommends:
That the prairie provinces be constituted a zone where dump and seasonable tariff duties in fruits and vegetables should not apply.
I want at this moment to support the plea by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Ross) that there should be a separation of tariff zones or a differential between tariff zones in Canada, and that that area in which sufficient protection is afforded by climatic, freight and other conditions to the fruit growers, should be left free, should not be included.
I find that last year fixed valuations and dumping duties were applied on asparagus from April 25 to July 9. At that time supplies of asparagus from British Columbia were not available, and I do not think they were going out from Ontario. Why, then, should the people of that section of the west be penalized between April 25 and July 9? Last year asparagus was available in British Columbia from May 2 to June 10, or for just more than one month, so the dumping duty was applied to that section of the country for a period of thirty-six days during which no adequate supplies were available, and anyone who wanted to buy asparagus at that time had to pay that protection and tax amounting to 320 per cent, which has been reduced now to 202 per cent including the dumping duties, the taxes and the other charges. I ask you, Mr. Chairman, and through you this committee if it is reasonable to say to the people of a large section of Canada that they either must do without the vegetables, asparagus if you like-I am keeping to the one item-or that they must pay a protection of 320 per cent to the people who are producing or trying to produce it and who, as my hon. friend has said, are almost on relief.


Gordon Graydon: I should like to say just a word in reply to the hon. member for Melfort and the hon. member for Moose Jaw. I believe they are presupposing-and I think they are trying to be fair-that because there is a considerable tariff protection for fruits and vegetables, particularly asparagus, at certain seasons of the year, the price they must
Canada-UjS. Trade Agreement

pay in those sections of western Canada is increased accordingly. The information I have, from a constituency in which there are many fruit and vegetable growers, including asparagus growers, is that the internal competition afforded by the growers of these commodities within Canada is sufficient to assure to purchasers in other parts of Canada a reasonable price. I think if my hon. friends will look up the information they will find that purchasers of these commodities are not being penalized in the way that perhaps might be taken from their remarks. I would not like to think that any considerable part of the purchasing public in Canada was being unfairly penalized by virtue of a protection given to a particular section of our growers. I am sure that is not the idea even of the growers themselves. I have a good deal of sympathy with the remarks made by the hon. member for East York (Mr. McGregor), who said that the fruit and vegetable growers were having a very difficult time even with the protection they have been given. I am hopeful that the Minister of Finance will see to it that proper protection is given so that the growers will not be penalized in any way by virtue of the change.


John Gordon Ross: In connection
with the remarks of my hon. friend from Peel (Mr. Graydon), I think he is taking a fair view of the matter. As I said a moment ago when I began my remarks in connection with asparagus, I do not think our people should be exploited. These people who are endeavouring to get protection for the asparagus growers of the different parts of Canada should realize that the very fact that they have put on that protection has lost them a large market in our part of the country among people who are unable to buy these commodities, and that the tariff that exists to-day is of very little value to them as far as our section is concerned. That is why I ask that we zone this thing and take our part of the country out.
One hon. member says, "Kill your brother." You have killed almost all your brothers in the west as far as asparagus goes. It is impossible for our people to buy it. My hon. friend says he does not want to see prices raised on that account, but they are raised on that account, in our part of the dominion at any rate. The result is that to-day we cannot purchase many of these articles we purchased formerly; prices are so high now that we are not able to pay them. By putting our part of the country into a zone to which the tariff will not apply you will be helping us and you will not be hurting yourselves, because

you have not a market there to-day in any case and you never will have a market there if you keep prices so high that our people cannot buy these commodities.


Robert Henry McGregor: I do not suppose our western and eastern brothers will ever get together on the prices of vegetables, so we shall have to leave it to the minister to do the best he can. I feel satisfied that the minister is going to look after this tariff question satisfactorily in this connection.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is the Minister of National Revenue who administers this.


Robert Henry McGregor: I just want to say that the time when these tariffs should be applied is a matter of great importance. If they are not applied on the exact day they should be, the market will be flooded with American goods, so when the first Canadian goods come on to the market they will not bring any fair return, and it is only on the first products on the market that the growers make any money. We are talking about asparagus. Probably many hon. members do not know that it takes four years to produce asparagus beds. Let us not forget that.


John Gordon Ross: Depending on where you are.


Robert Henry McGregor: It does not make any difference where you are. My hon. friend probably knows something about growing wheat but he does not know anything about growing asparagus. I say that it takes four years to produce asparagus beds, and I hope the minister will bear that in mind.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I should like to clear up the matter with the Minister of National Revenue. An order in council was passed or orders in council were passed authorizing the minister to fix the value for duty purposes on asparagus. I am not sure whether there was a limit in that order in council. I want to ask the minister whether the government are operating under that order in council at the present time or whether any instructions or rulings have been given in any way modifying or changing it. From what the minister said I gathered that some departmental instruction or ruling had been given, not about asparagus because the time for that has not come yet, but about other commodities. Are these orders in council fixing these values all standing as they were or have instructions been issued varying or reducing them?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The orders in council are still1 outstanding; they have not been changed or repealed or rescinded in any way. With

Canada-US. Trade Agreement
regard to the valuations made under those orders in council, we made the changes necessary to bring the valutions in accord with the trade arrangement with the United States. We did that in the latter part of December. That is the explanation of the reduction in the advance on invoices in relation to onions, for example. With regard to certain fruits and vegetables upon which the valuation for duty purposes exists for part of the year only, some of those orders have been cancelled. I cannot give my hon. friend the particular ones that have been cancelled, but in any case they are all seasonal and they have been cancelled for that reason.
In the past the procedure has been for the Minister of Agriculture to write to the Minister of National Revenue stating that the season has ended or the season is beginning, as the case may be, and unless the Minister of National Revenue has some reason for not following the advice of his colleague, that advice is followed. That has been the practice of the two departments in the past. I wonder if I have answered what my hon. friend has in mind.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I want to thank the minister for his statement. He has said that action has been taken to bring the orders in council in line with the provisions of this agreement.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The valuations.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Very well; to bring the valuations in line with the provisions of this agreement. Was that done by order in council?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No; it was done by
ministerial order.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Then I should like to have a copy of that order, if there is one.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I will furnish my hon. friend with copies. They are very short, consisting of only two or three lines.


Mr. COLDWELL:: I should like to ask the minister how these valuations for duty purposes are arrived at. For example, what relation has the valuation to prices either in the United States or in Canada? We in western Canada are very much interested in that point, because we have a very short season for these commodities and we are paying very high prices for imported vegetables. Just how is this valuation for duty purposes arrived at?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I have not fixed any, and when it is necessary for me to do so I suppose I shall have to formulate principles on which
to proceed. The only changes I have made are such as to bring the valuations into accord with the agreement we have entered into with the United States. That is to say, the advances on invoiced values of certain fruits and vegetables have been reduced to eighty per cent of what they were before the agreement. What principles will be followed in fixing any new values is a matter of ministerial or government policy to which consideration will have to be given. I am not in a position to formulate those principles at this time.


Major James William Coldwell: I hope that when the time comes the minister will bear in mind that we frequently see an abundance of cheap vegetables across the line just to the south of us, while very high prices prevail in western Canada and we are unable to buy them. Cauliflower, brussels sprouts, asparagus and all such commodities are away up in price as compared with those across the line.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If the electors of this country could have heard the speeches made by hon. gentlemen opposite this afternoon I think they would have found it a little difficult to understand the position the Liberal party is now taking. They have confessed this afternoon that with respect to asparagus we are eighty per cent right. They have confessed that the principle is one hundred per cent right.


John Gordon Ross: What principle?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The principle of valuation for duty. They have admitted that, yet on every platform in western Canada where they could gather together they pointed out that the effect with respect to asparagus was to increase the price to a great extent, and that this valuation for duty purposes should be wiped out, and they told the electors it would be wiped out.


John Gordon Ross: No; they did not.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The impertinence of the hon. gentleman does not add anything to the value of his observations.


John Gordon Ross: Mr. Chairman, I would ask the right hon. gentleman to withdraw that remark.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, he is not going to.


Frederick George Sanderson: Order. I think the right hon. leader of the opposition should withdraw his remark.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am sorry to say, Mr. Chairman, I cannot. "Impertinent" is a proper word meaning "not pertinent," and the
Canada-UJS. Trade Agreement

observation the hon. member made was not pertinent. I have had that up before, and I know what I am talking about. I am sorry I cannot do what is requested.


John Gordon Ross: I contend, Mr. Chairman, that the language of the right hon. gentleman was unparliamentary and it should be withdrawn.


Frederick George Sanderson: With all due respect to the leader of the opposition and his long parliamentary experience, I think he should withdraw the remark.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, as an old member of this house I owe a duty to the Chair, and I accept the ruling of the Chair. That is all I say. I am bound to do that, but if you, Mr. Chairman, will be good enough to look up the rules I think you will modify the statement you have made. A flat contradiction, such as was made by the hon. gentleman as a basis of any observation, is out of order; let us have no misunderstanding about that.
I was pointing out that the statement was made that the Liberal party when in office would remove these valuations. I have the speeches that were made in parliament from time to time, and time and again that was stated by the Liberal party in opposition.


Malcolm McLean: On asparagus?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, and on other
kinds of vegetables. It will be found in the record of the last five years. The point was made with respect to asparagus, that it was a vegetable which matured early in the United States, the surplus could be shipped here and the people could utilize it, and that the fixing of a valuation made the price so high that the people did not get asparagus as early as they otherwise would have. That was the contention. Against that was the large investment in glass and in asparagus beds. The hon. member for East York (Mr. McGregor) has pointed out that it takes four years to develop asparagus beds. Be that as it may; I do not know, but I do know that in western Canada I have seen very fine asparagus beds, some of the very finest beds I know of, developed over the last few years, and this takes several years.
But this point is clear:	If in this country you are to permit the climatic conditions of the United States to destroy those who are engaged in the production of asparagus, all you have to do is to pursue the course which in opposition the Liberal party said that it proposed to do. Now we are told

this afternoon that the minister himself has made an order, and under the rules of the house, he must, being a minister of the crown and quoting from a document, table that document. I am curious to see how he made his computations. They must have been based upon the value. What was the value? If the valuation was too high or too low the computation would be affected accordingly. Those computations with respect to asparagus and all these other matters must, under our rules, be laid on the table.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Six cents a pound

I said
that.
Mr. BE'NNETT: That is the price on the invoice.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the price. I
happen to know something of it because one session a very vigorous attack was made with respect to these matters, and on the platform the same thing took place. Here is asparagus at six cents; that is the price offered at the end of the season in the United States. Mark you, to-day is the twelfth of March, and asparagus has been on the market in Ottawa for at least this last week or more. I do not know at what price per pound it came in, but I do know that it has come in from the United States and has been offered on our market. The price gradually diminishes because it is a seasonal crop, and there comes a time when you can no longer cut the asparagus from the bed. But up to the time that they can no longer cut it from the bed it is shipped to this country from the United States at steadily decreasing prices until, at last, the final cut taken from the bed is shipped to Canada at a very low price, and that is the reason we have a seasonal tariff. That is the reason this country has imposed a tariff upon asparagus cut from those beds, with our beds not yet or just about coming into production,, and our asparagus growers would not be able to meet that foreign competition unless provision were made in our tariff. Provision was made in our tariff originally by Mr. Fielding. It is true that it was not utilized by him. The present Prime Minister repudiated the action of one of his colleagues with respect to it and said:	The
very thought that a man should be charged with the power and discretion to deal with tariffs in this way was offensive to the very idea of parliamentary institutions. That was said time and time again; it will be found in Hansard prior to 1930. Some hon. members will remember the great delegation that met

Canada-UJ5. Trade Agreement
in the railway committee room and the discussions that took place on that occasion.
Asparagus is sent to this country early in March. It is now being sold in Canada. Our beds will not be able to be cut until April, and our tariff said that from April 15 to May 31 inclusive the duty should not be less than three cents a pound. It contemplated that at least until this period elapsed, from April 15 to May 31 inclusive, the period in which asparagus would be cut, the duty should not be less than three cents a pound. When do we come into production? If the season is late we come into production in the early part of May or the end of April. If the season is early we come into production in the early part of April. But if during the six weeks preceding that our markets are swamped with asparagus from other countries there is no possibility of selling our own product that enters our markets in the middle of April or the first of May.
That is the reason this legislation is on the statute books. That is the reason asparagus is dealt with in this way. That is the reason asparagus and other vegetables have been dealt with as I have indicated. If six cents a pound is the invoice price as the asparagus is shipped from, we will say, the Carolinas at the present time, then the very minute the supply becomes greater the price becomes, I repeat, lower, until there comes a time when asparagus is sent to Canada at any price the grower can get for the last cut off his beds in the Carolinas. The climate is the determining factor.
When the late Mr. Fielding had enacted the provision to which I have referred he made certain observations which are to be found in his speech. It is not, as has been said, a dumping duty. The minister used the term "dumping duty," but I do not think he intended to use that term.


James Lorimer Ilsley: They call it a special or dumping duty.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But there is a dumping duty which is entirely different from that. I wish to make it clear that that is not what was intended; it was this special duty under section 43. Mr. Fielding did not yield to that easily. A Liberal government accepted it, because it had to choose between two things, namely, between the extinction of the asparagus business in Canada or the maintenance of it by the only method through which it could be maintained. That is what the Liberal party had to do, and they chose this method of doing it. But they did not put it into force; the late government put
it into force. We put it into force. I know of no case in which a Liberal government put it into force, except that one case where it was about to be put into force, and then the gathering took place and steps were taken which resulted in its not being put into effect.
The issue is a simple one. It is a choice between the maintenance of the asparagus industry or wiping it out altogether. The government say that protection offered is adequate. They say that the protection offered by the late administration was excessive to the extent that the special duty imposed was too high by twenty per cent-


James Lorimer Ilsley: But the rate was higher, too.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I shall come to that-and that the rate which was formerly higher should be now reduced to fifteen per cent Time will tell what the effect will be. I cannot do more than point out that during the years which have passed no one will say that asparagus growers in Canada have waxed rich under the tariff. I have yet to find any man in that business who has made more than an ordinary, commonplace living, and hardly that in most cases. I can say further that the evidence of the work they put upon their beds and the hours of their labours indicate that they have not received a decent wage for the services they have rendered, if they had been employed on a wage basis.
If as a result of the reduction consumers are to get asparagus at a lower price and there is to be no injury to the producer, as the minister has indicated, then there will be an advantage for consumers of asparagus in Canada. But if on the other hand ths government jeopardizes the economic existence of producers, realizing that asparagus coming in during the early months of this or any year is to some extent a luxury, then I say that it has done a serious injury to the producers, and one against which the late Mr. Fielding directed his legislation.
Section 43 as it now reads is in broader terms than when it was passed by him. As hon. members may recall, it was limited to natural products, and there were certain other limitations to which I need not now refer. So far as this item is concerned I am content to leave it on the statement that has been made as to what the government believe will be, as they say, a sufficient protection. Mark you, I am glad to hear them accept that view of protection. So long as they say that the grower will be adequately protected, then that is all we have ever contended for. From season to season during the last five years
Canada-UJS. Trade Agreement

there have been variations depending entirely upon the supply offered for importation into Canada. If the supply from abroad-and only one country, namely the United States, furnished it-was a very large quantity, then obviously the price in Canada was reduced accordingly. But if the supply was scant and the season late the necessity for the utilization of section 43 to the extent we utilized it was not so great. That is and has been the position.
It is only fair, however, to point out that we now find the government of Canada, which during months and weeks abused the late administration for the utilization of the section in the manner in which they utilized it, now availing themselves of it and saying, as one of the ministers said, that automatically the provisions have been continued. The Minister of National Revenue issued a ministerial order. One man issued a ministerial order that placed asparagus where it was subject to a special duty of-


Charles Avery Dunning: Reduced it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: -four and a half cents; that is what that order did.


Charles Avery Dunning: It reduced it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes; it was subjected
to a special duty of four and a half cents a pound. The principle has not changed. The principle is that one man did this. We have heard these walls resounding against the exercise of that power-but it has been exercised. What I say is that such hypocrisy at least should be disclosed to the people.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is no "order" to
the use of the word "hypocrisy." Take your dictionaries and look it up. If you find out about it you will find an exemplification of it in your own party.
We have tried to point this out with respect to asparagus. In the last five years we have endured attacks by men who have gone to their constituencies and made them ring with the idea that one man had been setting up special duties with respect to asparagus and other commodities, but to asparagus, in particular. Now we are confronted with what? We are confronted with a situation wherein they themselves are doing that which they condemned, and are glorifying the provisions made by the government of the past, because they are employing the order in council passed by the late government as the basis for their action. It is not a new order in council; it is an order passed by the late government and it is now exercised in the discretion

of one man. We must condemn such double duplicity as that.
They say that the principle is right. They say: Mr. Fielding introduced it, but we never practised it. Now they say that not only is the principle right but the practice is right. The whole thing resolves itself into this, that in the exercise of ministerial discretion under the provisions of orders in council passed by the late administration, and reductions in duties under the provisions of the agreement, the grower is subject to a form of competition to which he was not previously subjected. What the hon. member for East York has said is quite true.
Has anyone ever realized what the competition is among dealers themselves? Go to the markets and watch the efforts of dealers to sell asparagus, as soon as our season opens. Watch the competition between our growers, cutthroat competition, in some cases, because they are trying to sell in a market in which the demand has been substantially satisfied by importations prior to the time our beds were in a condition to be cut. That is the reason we regard this matter as important, because it involves the acceptance of a principle which we believe is the only one that will save the industry of this country from destruction by unfair and unjust competition.


Charles Avery Dunning: It should be pointed out, quite dispassionately that the present section 43, in so far as it relates to natural products, was placed there by a Liberal finance minister, Hon. W. S. Fielding, in special recognition of the facts of which we have heard this afternoon. I suppose the same statement has been repeated in every session of this parliament during the last fifteen years, that there are such tremendous climatic variations which must be dealt with. It is incorrect to say that the Liberal party in office did not give effect to section 43. It did, and the machinery of operation was the same then as it is to-day.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Name the cases. It never operated.


Charles Avery Dunning: The Department of Agriculture was consulted by the Minister of National Revenue with respect to conditions prevailing in the particular industry, asparagus in this case, and with respect to the times and the current values of imports, and on the basis of such consultation the Minister of National Revenue, having been previously authorized so to do, sets the value for duty, and did set it during the period of office of the former government.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Name a case.


Charles Avery Dunning: I cannot offhand.

Canada-UJS. Trade Agreement


Richard Bedford Bennett: No; I guess you can not.


Charles Avery Dunning: But there were many such.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There was not any.


An hon. MEMBER:: A flat contradiction.


Charles Avery Dunning: Section 43 is still on the statute books. The Liberal party does not condemn the fair and equitable use of section 43 of the Customs Act with respect to natural products.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is what it was put there for, its fair and equitable use with respect to natural products. But we do condemn and have condemned and will continue to condemn what we regard as the unfair and arbitrary use of section 43. We have abolished many artificial valuations.


Richard Bedford Bennett: How many?


Charles Avery Dunning: I cannot name the exact number.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Were there ten?


Charles Avery Dunning: Far more than ten.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Name them.


Charles Avery Dunning: Well, I have not such an encyclopaedic mind as has my hon. friend, but I assure him seriously that very many valuations under section 43 were abolished.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I asked for a report from the department and I received it before I left office. It did not contain any such number.


Charles Avery Dunning: In the document now before my hon. friend is a list which greatly exceeds ten in number. I am a little anxious to get asparagus passed, and I am trying not to be provocative myself. I think the record of this afternoon's discussion with respect to section 43 in its application to asparagus will probably be satisfactory to all parties to the controversy. Can we now get along to green beans, Mr. Chairman?


Grote Stirling: With regard to asparagus I do not think anybody will disagree with the statement of the minister that it was a Liberal administration that inserted the dumping clause in the Customs Act, or that it was a Liberal administration that inserted clause 37a, now 43. But I must differ with the minister when he says that Liberal administration of the past ever operated under either of them. I think the correct statement of fact is that not until the Conservative government came into office for a few months in 1926 were orders in council passed under which valuations for duty were set up. The
Liberal government carried those orders on until they cancelled them all in 1928, and did not renew them. I shall be interested indeed if the minister can dispel our doubts on the subject by bringing down copies of any orders in council passed during that regime under section 43, or 37a as it was before, relating to fruits and vegetables.
Sub-item (a) agreed to.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, with respect to the question of order, I am certainly desirous of conforming to the views expressed by the chair. In this parliament words have been used from time to time of a very general character without anybody taking exception to them, including the words "impertinence" and "hypocrites." That is not desirable. In the British parliament the words would be out of order; in this parliament I think at times such words have been held to be out of order and at other times not. In deference to your ruling I withdraw the statement, although the provocation for using it was very great. I desire to make it quite clear that at all times I will as far as it is reasonably possible conform to the rulings of the chair. When I was speaking an interruption was made of a character which I think was wholly unwarranted, and I used the words I did under those circumstances, which words I now withdraw.
Customs tariff-87. Vegetables, fresh, in their natural state:
(b)	Beans, green, 15 per cent.


James Houston Spence: I think if the Minister of Finance had accepted my suggestion and taken all these items together the discussion over the whole lot would have been finished long ago. However, in connection with beans, I said a few minutes ago that in many states they grow two or three crops a year. Two years ago in Florida, where green beans were coming from at that time, they had a bad frost which froze all the beans, and in six weeks they had a new crop. Can that be done in Canada? It is impossible for this country with its climatic conditions to compete with that situation.


Grote Stirling: Would the minister be good enough to give the duties on our beans going into the United States?


Charles Avery Dunning: "Beans not specially provided for, and black-eye cowpeas, green or unripe, 31 cents a pound."


Grote Stirling: Has the minister yet received the 1929 figure?

Canada-U.S'. Trade Agreement


Charles Avery Dunning: One-half cent a pound in 1929.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Did we export any beans last year to the United States?


Charles Avery Dunning: There is no record of green beans. I do not want to reintroduce soya beans, but it happens that these green beans are in the same statistical class as soya beans.


Robert Henry McGregor: What were the imports of beans?


Charles Avery Dunning: No record of imports separately.


Frank Exton Lennard: I would not be doing my duty to the people I represent if I did not protest against any reduction of duty on any of the early vegetables. In that respect, and dealing with green beans in particular, I have received many protests from people in my constituency during the past several weeks, and a large number of those protests have come from followers of the present government. I might draw to the minister's attention the fact that all the vegetable growers in Wentworth county do not belong to any one particular party.
Sub-item (b) agreed to.
Customs tariff-87.	Vegetables, fresh, in
their natural state:
(c)	Brussels sprouts, 15 per cent.


Percy John Rowe: Would the minister give the rate going into the United States?


Charles Avery Dunning: They are not specially provided for in the United States tariff; therefore they would come under "all other vegetables." at fifty per cent ad valorem.


Richard Langton Baker: What is the money value per annum of brussels sprouts brought into Canada?


Charles Avery Dunning: There is no record of that separately. It was twenty-five per cent in 1929 prior to the imposition of the Hawley-Smoot tariff.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the last one?


Charles Avery Dunning: Twenty-five per cent under the Fordney-McCumber tariff.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We want it prior to the Fordney-McCumber tariff.


Charles Avery Dunning: That was applied in 1922 and was in effect until 1930.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Hawley-Smoot was put into effect in 1930, pardon me.


Charles Avery Dunning: You want the figure for 1930, after the increase?


Grote Stirling: Twenty-five per cent before and fifty per cent after.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We want the present tariff rates for the entry of our goods into the United States, and the rates in effect prior to the Hawley-Smoot tariff. Brussels sprouts are not subject to the special duty.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is right.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It does not look very much like reciprocity when you give the United States a fifteen per cent tariff while they have a fifty per cent tariff against our goods. I understand that this country has been producing increasing quantities of brussels sprouts.


Charles Avery Dunning: I dislike to get into a controversy with my right hon. friend, but I would point out that no valuation for duty purposes was imposed last year on brussels sprouts.
p Air. BENNETT: What is the average invoice price per pound for brussels sprouts?
_ Mr- DUNNING: It is difficult to get that information. Perhaps some hon. member could tell us. It is under the general item of other vegetables and I cannot answer my right hon. friend.
Sub-item (c) agreed to.
Customs tariff 87. Vegetables, fresh, in their natural state:
(d)	Cabbage, 15 per cent.


Percy John Rowe: I think it would expedite the procedure if the minister would give us the United States tariff rates without our having to ask for them.


Charles Avery Dunning: The present rate on cabbage going into the United States is two cents per pound; it was formerly twenty-five per cent ad valorem.


Grote Stirling: Our protection is -15 cents per pound while the American duty is two cents per pound.


Charles Avery Dunning: I cannot confirm my hon. friend's percentage figures. I would point out that this item is qualified by the valuation feature, which may amount to two cents per pound.


Percy John Rowe: That would be about 100 per cent tariff.


Charles Avery Dunning: I prefer to deal with actualities, not percentages.


Abraham Albert Heaps: What is cabbage worth a pound?


Charles Avery Dunning: I do not know.

Canada-US. Trade Agreement


Grote Stirling: One cent per pound.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I am told it is worth one cent a pound. In that case a two cent duty would be 200 per cent.


Robert Henry McGregor: I understand that cabbage is selling at the present time for six and seven cents per pound.


James Houston Spence: Ontario had a very poor crop of winter cabbage and numerous shipments were brought in by truck from Montreal to Toronto. Unfortunately many of the growers around Toronto had large numbers of cabbages in their pits on January 1 when the fifteen per cent duty came into effect, and tons of cabbage were dumped because the people preferred new cabbage. My contention has always been that an embargo should be placed against these fruits and vegetables for certain periods. So long as the people can buy new stuff, they will do so no matter how high the duty may be. The government *would be better advised to take the advice of men who have been in this industry for forty or forty-five years. They contend that an embargo would be of more benefit to the grower than would seasonal tariffs or anything else. While I was in Toronto the other day I saw loads of cabbage being taken to the incinerator to be burned. The new cabbage is coming in from Texas where the grower is receiving a price even lower than that received in Canada. The freight is not too high and the people are ready to pay ten cents a pound for new cabbage rather than two cents a pound for the old, which has the same food value. People do not like to buy old potatoes or old cabbage when the new stuff is available. They will buy strawberries at Christmas time if they are in the stores.
Sub-item (d) agreed to.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
Customs tariff-87.	Vegetables, fresh, in
their natural state:
(e)	Carrots, 15 per cent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Would the minister state the duty in the United States for this item, and what the duty was before 1930?


Charles Avery Dunning: Fifty per cent at the present time, and twenty-five per cent before 1930.
Sub-item (e) agreed to.
Customs tariff-87. Vegetables, fresh, in their natural state:
Beets, n.o.p., 15 per cent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is the position with respect to this?


Charles Avery Dunning: Seventeen per cent. The same under both United States tariffs prior to 1930 and at the present time.


Grote Stirling: What about the shipments?


Charles Avery Dunning: The imports?


Grote Stirling: Yes.


Charles Avery Dunning: Imports of beets, n.o.p. from the United States, 1,732,000 pounds, valued at S38,891, in 1931.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Exports?


Charles Avery Dunning: No exports.


Grote Stirling: Did we export any?


Charles Avery Dunning: They are included generally with fresh vegetables exclusive of onions, potatoes and turnips, the total exports of which were $33,000.
Sub-item agreed to.
Customs tariff-87.	Vegetables, fresh, in
their natural state:
(f)	Cauliflower, 15 per cent.


Charles Avery Dunning: Fifty per cent going into the United States at the present time, twenty-five per cent prior to 1930.


Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: In referring to cauliflower, I should just like to say that the people of the western provinces, especially Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan, find that, due to present tariff conditions, not only is there protection to British Columbia, but there exists what amounts almost to an embargo preventing the prairie provinces from getting these vegetables. I have taken this item and worked it out so that it will be seen that the protection afforded is not merely protection but is in fact an embargo so far as those provinces are concerned. Supposing we take the weight as being 42 pounds-this is a specific case worked out-the invoice price of that would be eighty-five cents. Then there is the fixed value added to that for invoice purposes, which amounts to four-fifths of a cent per pound.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend is wrong, I think, when he says four-fifths of a cent. Under the old arrangement prior to the agreement it is not four-fifths of a cent, but four cents.
Canada-US. Trade Agreement


Charles Edward Johnston: That
makes a value for fixing duty of $2.10 for that particular item. Then there is the duty of fifteen per cent, which would amount to thirty-three cents. Then there is the dump duty, a duty not to exceed fifty per cent value for duty purposes; that would amount to T095. Now, the per cent duty of the invoice would be 176-4. That duty is exceptionally high, but when you consider that there is a freight differential coming by British Columbia into the prairie provinces, your freight coming from California, for instance, would be -78 on that. Then you have the freight per case coming in from British Columbia, which would be -18. That would make a differential, a freight excess if you like to call it, of -60. When you take into consideration that your freight differential is practically a protective duty, that gives a protection on that particular article of 247 per cent. If it were just the regular duty of fifteen per cent, along with the differential of freight, that would be ample, but when you consider the dumping duty as well, which that really amounts to, it practically puts us in the western provinces into a position in which we cannot buy that stuff at all.
As the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Ross) said a little while ago, if some arrangement could be made whereby regional duties were imposed, that would be overcome. I have no objection whatever to British Columbia being protected. If she thinks she should be protected, then I say, by all means give her that protection, but I do not think we in the prairie provinces should be penalized because of British Columbia. It must also be remembered that British Columbia cannot raise any more than sufficient for her own local markets. When we want those vegetables in Alberta or Saskatchewan or Manitoba they cannot be brought in from the coast in sufficiently large quantities to take care of our market; only a few cases, in any car of produce, are allowed to come in. I think the tariff is out of all proportion when one considers that tremendous differential in freight, which alone should be sufficient protection.
In the matter of cauliflower British Columbia is over-protected. If the benefits were restricted to Canadian producers the situation would not be quite so bad, but cauliflower is raised in British Columbia mainly by orientals. If you do not count the freight, the protection would be somewhere around 174 per cent, which amounts practically to an embargo, and the protection goes almost entirely to orientals. I contend

that it would be much better to have something like a regional duty, as suggested by the hon. member for Moose Jaw, and allow British Columbia protection if she wishes for it, but I do not think it is right to ask that the three prairie provinces be put practically on the embargo list in respect of that item.


Mr. McDONALD (Souris):: In the discussion that has taken place this afternoon two factors have, I think, been lost sight of- the high price of the land, and the high suburban taxes that are paid by those men who are engaged in growing vegetables and small fruits. I am told that in Ontario land is as high as $2,500 per acre and that taxes are as high as $100 per acre. It is not fair that growers of vegetables and fruits should try to unload that heavy overhead on the Canadian consumers. We in the west thought we could grow wheat on $50 per acre land, but we found that this could not be done. Now that we have good roads and rapid transportation my advice is that market gardeners and small fruit growers should move further out in the country and get cheaper land. Let them not try to make the Canadian consumers pay that impossible overhead. In any case I do not think these high prices do very many people much good.
Mr. MoGREGOR:	I should like to ask
the hon. gentleman what the men growing fruit and vegetables at the present time will do if they are unable to sell what they produce.


Charles Avery Dunning: We are talking about
cauliflowers, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. BEAUBIER:: I should like to direct
attention to the fact that Manitoba grows plenty of cauliflowers to supply the west, and the only protection necessary would be seasonal protection.


Charles Edward Johnston: Most of
our cauliflower in Alberta comes from British Columbia. It is strange that we never get it from Manitoba if my hon. friend's statement is correct.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Would the minister indicate the imports of cauliflower?


Charles Avery Dunning: Statistically they are
included under vegetables, n.o.p., and not separately recorded.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is the added value under section 43 at the present time?


Charles Avery Dunning: The maximum will be
3i cents per pound.

Cunada-UJS. Trade Agreement


Richard Bedford Bennett: What was the rate?


Charles Avery Dunning: The maximum value
was four cents.
Sub-item (f) agreed to.
Customs tariff-87. Vegetables, fresh, in their natural state:
Eggplant, free.


Robert Henry McGregor: I should like to ask
the minister just why eggplants come in free.


Charles Avery Dunning: I have no particulars of
production in Canada; it is so small as to be not of record.


Robert Henry McGregor: I will admit that until the last few years very few eggplants were produced in this country, for the simple reason that the growers did not think the season was long enough to produce them. In the past two years, however, they have been very successfully produced even in my own riding, which is in the vicinity of Toronto, and there are other places in the country much better fitted for the growth of these vegetables. They have been produced very successfully, but certainly they will not be produced, because of the short season we have in Ontario, if the duty is taken off entirely.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is the rate of
duty on eggplant entering the United States?


Charles Avery Dunning: It is 14 cents per pound at the present time. Before 1930 it was twenty-five per cent ad valorem.
Sub-item agreed to.
Customs tariff-87.	Vegetables, fresh, in
their natural state:
(g)	Celery, 15 per cent.


Richard Langton Baker: What was the value of celery imported from the United States last year?


Charles Avery Dunning: In 1935 we imported 12,-
014.000	pounds valued at $357,000. The rate of duty going into the United States is two cents per pound; before 1930 it was twenty-five per cent ad valorem.


Richard Langton Baker: There is one point that has impressed me in listening to this discussion, but we are speaking about celery now, so I will confine my remarks to that subject. The government are lowering the duties on many vegetables. We have not been given all the figures, but no doubt they would total millions of dollars. The celery we import is consumed largely in the cities and large towns of Canada; generally speaking the farmers do not buy much celery. In these cities and large towns where the celery is consumed we have hundreds of thousands of unemployed, able-bodied men. Adjacent 12739-65
to these cities and towns we have thousands of acres of land practically idle. To me it appears very inconsistent-and I submit this idea to the government and the Minister of Labour-to go on in this way. Would it not be better to increase the duties on celery and these other items and, instead of importing these vegetables to the extent of millions of dollars, put these men to work growing vegetables? I submit that this is a reasonable suggestion, and I offer it to the Minister of Labour.


Charles Edward Johnston: In connection with celery also, I should like to point out that this is a matter in which the west is vitally concerned. It is true that some of our celery comes from the east, but experience has shown that even though the celery is sent to the west in refrigerator cars it will not stand the transportation, and as a result we in the west are penalized. In British Columbia the same condition exists in connection with celery that exists in connection with the other article of which I spoke; here again there is such excessive protection that we are practically prohibited from having celery. It is true that we raise a certain amount of celery ourselves, but the production is very much limited and is not nearly sufficient to take care of the demand. Some celery may be grown in Manitoba, but there is not sufficient to supply our markets at the time we demand it. Celery is not a luxury any more; it has become almost a necessity, and I do not think we should be penalized in this regard. Some is grown in the Okanagan valley of British Columbia, but that supply lasts for only a short period, and when we in the west are urgently in need of that vegetable it cannot be secured in sufficient quantities to supply our market; in fact, when the merchants send for it they can secure only three or four boxes out of a carload shipment, and that is not sufficient to maintain our markets. I should like to point out how utterly impossible it is for us to carry on under these conditions. This is how it works out: Taking the weight as fifty-five pounds, at the same rate the invoice would be $1.25. I may be a little wrong in my figures, but this serves just as an illustration.


Charles Avery Dunning: Prior to the agreement the advance in invoice value on celery was one cent per pound maximum, applied last year from July 10 to November.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minimum, not the
maximum?

Canadct-UJS. Trade Agreement


Charles Avery Dunning: Under the agreement the maximum would be four-fifths of a cent per pound.


Charles Edward Johnston: If it is less than one cent it would aggravate the case still more, but taking it at four-fifths of a cent there is a duty value of $1.69. Then there is the regular duty of fifteen per cent, which would amount to twenty-five cents. Then there is a dump not to exceed fifty per cent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is no dump where there is a special duty.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is quite correct. In his previous illustration my hon. friend was in error when he used the dump.


Charles Edward Johnston: It amounts almost to that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No; there is no dump duty where there is a special duty.


Charles Edward Johnston: If it were carried out it would be forty-four cents. Then you have the excise duty of three per cent, which is six cents; total tax, seventy-five cents. Then there is the present duty on the invoice along with that, which would be sixty cents. Then there is the freight. One of the greatest difficulties, which has been overlooked in estimating the protection for British Columbia, is the freight. The freight from California would be $1.02 and the freight from British Columbia twenty-three cents, a difference of seventy-nine cents, in addition to the other protection. That gives them a protection of 123-2 per cent, a tremendous protection. It is not a protection but an embargo on that article as well as on the other of which articles we spoke. If we assume it to be true that there is no dump duty, this would lower the percentage a little, but even at that it is entirely out of reason. It makes it so that we in the western provinces are practically prohibited from using this article. There is another sound reason why we should have a regional protection. If British Columbia wants protection I have no objection, but I say that we in the prairie provinces, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, should not be penalized to that extent.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I cannot accept the statement of the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Baker) that celery and similar vegetables are eaten only in cities and towns. He does not know his own province. Does he not realize that the settlers and miners of northern Ontario eat celery?


Richard Langton Baker: Consumed mostly in cities and large towns.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: In northern Ontario we have such towns as Timmins with over 20,000 people; we do not produce celery in that northern section and we are being penalized. Settlers in northern Ontario and northern Quebec are paying through the nose under seasonal tariffs. We do not want our own farmers to be hurt, but our settlers, the working men, the miners, must also be considered. Apparently there is a class of people in this house who will be satisfied with only one situation; they do not look at these things nationally. They mentioned soya beans yesterday.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: The leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) covered the whole field
before recess.


Frederick George Sanderson: I must ask the hon. member to confine his remarks to the item under discussion, which is celery.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Well, I will keep to celery, which includes all vegetables. I say again that as far as the farmers in every section of northern Canada are concerned, in most cases under the seasonal tariff they have to pay higher prices than they should, and not for their own protection, for they have no protection whatever. In this matter we should take a national point of view, and not see it only from the point of view of those sections in which vegetables and fruit are produced.


Mr. POULIOT:: After dinner celery is better than pork and beans.


Richard Langton Baker: I stand by what I said.
Sub-item (g) agreed to.
Customs tariff-87. Vegetables, fresh, in their natural state:
(h)	Cucumbers, 15 per cent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What are the rates?


Charles Avery Dunning: Three cents a pound under the present United States tariff; twenty-five per cent ad valorem under the tariff prior to 1930.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And the extra duty value at present is how much?


Charles Avery Dunning: Prior to the agreement, 3i cents; under the agreement, 2| cents.


Richard Bedford Bennett: For what period of time?' The whole year?

Canada-UJS. Trade Agreement


Charles Avery Dunning: Last year under my right hon. friend's administration it was from May 6 to October 12.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Could the minister give the imports?


Charles Avery Dunning: Imports of cucumbers
from the United States were 770,000 pounds valued at $45,100.


Mr. PERLEY (Qu'Appelle):: They could
all have been grown in Canada.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Yes, and bananas too.
Sub-item (h) agreed to.
Customs tariff-87. Vegetables, fresh, in their natural state:
(i)	Lettuce, 15 per cent.


Charles Avery Dunning: Rates of duty on lettuce entering the United States: two cents a pound at present; prior to 1930, twenty-five per cent ad valorem.


Abraham Albert Heaps: In computing the value for duty are the boxes and the ice still taken into consideration?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I am advised that the ice is not taken into account in reckoning the duty, in this particular case.


Abraham Albert Heaps: That is, the duty on the boxes and ice is now being removed?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No; the practice is not to reckon the duty on the value of the ice. Is that the question?


Abraham Albert Heaps: No. A shipment of lettuce coming from the United States contains a large amount of ice, and if I understand the matter correctly, at the present time in computing the weight for duty the whole box is weighed, lumber, ice and everything, and the duty charged on that. I want to know whether in the fifteen per cent to be charged under this item the crate and the ice are to be taken into consideration.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is covered by the item in the tariff, No. 87: Vegetables, fresh, in their natural state, weight of package to be included in weight for duty. Of course, where it is ad valorem it is on the value of the goods, not on the packing.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: 
Charles Avery Dunning: It depends on the value from time to time whether an ad valorem or a specific duty would be higher, but I think it fair to say that the change in the United States tariff in 1930 with respect to these items tended to increase the duty.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is no doubt about that.


Grote Stirling: In the case of lettuce, before 1930 it was, roughly speaking, one-half cent and now it is two cents.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is going into the United States.
Sub-item (i) agreed to.
Customs tariff

87.	Vegetables, fresh, in
their natural state:
(j)	Parsley, 15 per cent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Why is there no valuation? Why is there to be no increase in value with respect to parsley whereas there is with respect to others? Because it has not been done heretofore? Because there is a substantial reduction? The duty is cut in two at the present time. It was thirty per cent, and it is now fifteen per cent. What was the duty on entering the United States?


Charles Avery Dunning: It is now fifty per cent entering the United States.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Ad valorem?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, and prior to 1930 it was twenty-five per cent.


Robert Henry McGregor: How much parsley
came in.


Charles Avery Dunning: We have no separate record of parsley imports.


Robert Henry McGregor: I think the committee will find that all the parsley that has been shipped into Canada has come in during the winter time. No parsley is shipped in during the summer. The amount of duty would make no difference, because parsley is very light and if a duty were placed on it according to weight it would not amount to anything. If it were put on according to percentage it would not mean anything because the parsley comes in to compete against parsley grown in greenhouses in Canada in the winter time.
While I am on my feet I would say that one of the reasons we'have a big holler about the cut flower arrangement is that the people who are growing parsley, watercress, lettuce

Canada-UjS. Trade Agreement
and radishes in their greenhouses must grow flowers to-day because they cannot sell the vegetables. Therefore they are all growing flowers. If any dirty could be put on, this would help a great deal.
Sub-item (j) agreed to.
Customs tariff-87.	Vegetables, fresh, in
their natural state:
(k)	Peas, green, 15 per cent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I should like to have the three questions answered.


Charles Avery Dunning: I was looking up the information, and shall attempt to give it. The Hawley-Smoot tariff provided for three cents but by presidential proclamation it was increased to 3-9 cents, and under the agreement it is reduced as against Canada to two cents during the months of July, August and September. It is one of the items on which concessions are obtained for the entry of Canadian products into the United States market.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is per pound?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What was the rate prior to 1930?


Charles Avery Dunning: Under the Fordney-
McCumber tariff prior to the coming into effect of the Hawley-Smoot tariff, it was one .cent.


Grote Stirling: Nearly four times as much.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What are our imports of green peas from the United States?


Charles Avery Dunning: I have no separate
figures for them. They are included in fresh vegetables, which total S33.000.
Sub-item (k) agreed to.
Customs tariff-87. Vegetables, fresh, in their natural state:
(l)	Rhubarb, 15 per cent.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is fifty per cent going into the United States at present, and prior to 1930 it was twenty-five per cent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Has the minister the importations, or are they given separately?


Charles Avery Dunning: We have not the separate importations.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is the special duty value?


Charles Avery Dunning: Formerly it was two
cents; now it is one and three-fifth cents.
Sub-item (1) agreed to.

Customs tariff-87.	Vegetables, fresh, in
their natural state:
(m)	Spinach, 15 per cent.


Charles Avery Dunning: 
Grote Stirling: Did we ship any?


Charles Avery Dunning: There is no separate
record of it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is the value?


Charles Avery Dunning: Formerly one and onequarter cents and presently one cent per pound.
Sub-item (m) agreed to.
Customs tariff-87. Vegetables, fresh, in their natural state:
(n)	Tomatoes, 15 per cent.
Provided that the duty under any tariff less favourable than the British preferential tariff shall at no time be less than two cents per pound, the weight of the packages to be included in the weight for duty.


Charles Avery Dunning: I shall give the usual
information, after which the discussion may proceed. At present the rate is three cents per pound on tomatoes going into the United States, and prior to 1930 it was one-half cent per pound.


Charles Edward Johnston: 
Charles Avery Dunning: I do not wish to interrupt the hon. member, but from his previous use of figures I must say that I am afraid he has made an error in calculation. Possibly he used a particular item of duty twice over, and of course for the purposes of this discussion it is quite impossible to consider the cost of railway freight in connection with the tariff on the item. From my hon. friend's point of view, speaking for the consumer, of course freight enters into the picture, but with respect to the percentage of duty applicable freight certainly cannot fairly be calculated.

Canada-U.S. Trade Agreement


Charles Edward Johnston: I think
that substantiates my point that in setting the duty the differential in freight should be considered, because that in itself is a protection.


Charles Avery Dunning: But it will vary throughout Canada.


Charles Edward Johnston: This is
just for the prairie provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, and I am speaking particularly for Alberta. I think the point is clear that if the other provinces wish that protection and the freight does not enter into the matter, all well and good. However, we in Alberta certainly have to consider the freight, and when we find that the protection which would in this way be afforded comes up to between 100 per cent and 200 per cent, surely we should have special consideration. Possibly I should go further and say that the three provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta should have it. A regional duty should be put on in that case. Let British Columbia and the eastern provinces do as they wish; if they do not want regional protection, that is their own funeral. However, I do not see why we out in the west should be made to suffer because British Columbia does not wish to consider the difference in freight.
I shall give the figures I have before me, and if they are wrong I should like to be corrected. The invoiced price is seventy-five cents on a crate weighing thirty-five pounds. The quotation is given as of June 30, 1934. The minimum seasonal duty of thirty per cent would be all right, but if thirty per cent of the invoice value was less than the amount realized from two cents per pound, the weight of the package included, the latter would apply. This would make a total of seventy cents. There we have a duty of seventy cents on a case originally costing seventy-five cents, or almost 100 per cent. The value for duty invoiced was seventy-five cents. Then, there is in addition three cents a pound on thirty-five pounds, or $1.05. That makes a total of $1.80. I am coming to what my hon. friend referred to as the dumping duty. The set valuation, according to that, would be SI.80, which would exceed the invoice by SI .05; that is, if you subtmct the one from the other you get $1.05. That is fifty per cent more on the value for duty, or fifty per cent of $1.80, which would be ninety cents. That would be the dumping duty on tomatoes. If this is not correct I should like to be informed. I say that there is ninety cents of a dumping duty, and there is an excise tax of three per cent.


Charles Avery Dunning: I may tell my hon, friend that, worked out actually and on a fair average over a period of years, the duty prior to January 1 per crate of tomatoes *would be approximately 81.65, whereas tha duty on the first day of January under the-agreement, on the same crate of tomatoes,, would approximate sixty-eight cents.


Charles Edward Johnston: Not taking into consideration the question of freight.


Charles Avery Dunning: We are talking about
duties, not about freights.


Charles Edward Johnston: I understand that. But does the minister not realize also that, missing that point, he is penat izing us in the prairie provinces?


Mr. REID:: If the hon. gentleman's
reasoning is correct, why was it that last year we in British Columbia paid more for * British Columbia tomatoes than he did- in Alberta?


Charles Edward Johnston: That will be something for you to work out internally.


Thomas Reid: The hon. gentleman undertakes to give us the answer; let him answer that question.


Charles Edward Johnston: The
growers in British Columbia are protected; we in Alberta pay through the nose all the way round.


Thomas Reid: I am giving the hon. gentleman facts; let him also give us facts.


Charles Edward Johnston: There is
a seasonal duty of seventy cents on that article; the dumping duty is ninety cents; excise tax, four cents, and there is also the freight differential of 51 cents, which makes a total protection of $2.15 on an article which originally cost seventy-five cents. If you call that fair dealing with the western provinces then I want to be shown,


William George Clark: Coming from the earliest producing district in Canada I should like to give some figures. The average selling price of an eleven-quart basket of tomatoes in 1935 was 41-5 cents. That was through the largest cooperative in that early producing district.


Richard Bedford Bennett: How many pounds?


William George Clark: Fifteen. The hon. member for Bow River is mistaken in one respect. The duty on natural products is not added' on to the Canadian product. We still sell in a supply and demand market, as is shown by the price we receive for our products.
Canada-U-S. Trade Agreement

In. connection with semi-manufactured articles possibly the tariff is added on; but natural products still sell in Canada in a supply and demand market, so that this is protection and not a bonus.


Charles Edward Johnston: Why is it then that most of the tomatoes we get from British Columbia are field tomatoes, though they raise but a small quantity of tomatoes in that province? Theirs are hothouse tomatoes raised by orientals, and there again we find protection for orientals in British Columbia. Field tomatoes are shipped by way of British Columbia and we get them in Alberta and are soaked again.


Grote Stirling: I do not know where the hon. gentleman gets his figures, and they are extremely difficult to follow; but I do know with regard to tomatoes that prior to 1930 there was against our tomatoes going into the United States a duty of a half a cent a pound. There is a duty of three cents a pound now. The duty is reduced from thirty per cent to fifteen per cent, and I notice that there will be no added duty in the future. Is that a statement of fact?


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend forgets the two cents specific duty in connection with this item by reason of the imperial agreement commitments.


Grote Stirling: It is to be not less than two cents a pound.


Charles Avery Dunning: Two cents a pound.


Grote Stirling: What is the actual meaning of this phraseology: "Provided that the duty under any tariff less favourable than the British preferential shall at no time be less than two cents "?


Charles Avery Dunning: That means what it says; it includes the rate applicable to the United States, and it shall not be less than two cents. That preserves the agreement made with the crown colonies under schedule F of the empire tr de agreements.


Grote Stirling: And in that they are free.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes. In order to preserve that preference the two cents per pound minimum had to be imposed in this case.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The tariff for tomatoes is item (n) under vegetables, provided that when imported under the intermediate or general tariff the rate of duty shall be at no time less than two cants per pound. What has happened here is merely a continuance of that.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But there is no longer any special duty to be added under any circumstances.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I notice in this item that the boxes in which tomatoes are crated are valued for duty purposes. I do not mind paying a duty on tomatoes as they come into the country, but why should the consumer be compelled to pay a duty on the containers? Can the minister give any good reason why there should be a duty on the containers?


Charles Avery Dunning: The Minister of National Revenue will answer that question.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I am not sure that I heard all that the hon. gentleman said, but packages have been included in the past. If he will look at the customs tariff he will see that in reckoning the weight for duty purposes the packages are included, and this simply continues that practice.


Abraham Albert Heaps: That is what I am complaining of; I see no reason why the containers should be valued for duty purposes. I do not think we should pay duty on them and I am wondering whether there is any good reason for the practice.


James Lorimer Ilsley: In this case we cannot help ourselves, because we agreed to preserve this margin in the empire agreements and it would be impairing the margin to make the difference which the hon. gentleman suggests.


Abraham Albert Heaps: How many tomatoes did we import last year from England?


Charles Avery Dunning: It is not a matter of importations from England; it is with respect to the crown colonies that the preference was created.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Were the West Indies agreements a part of the agreements of 1932?


Charles Avery Dunning: Schedule F of the imperial trade agreement.


Abraham Albert Heaps: What tomatoes were imported from the different parts of the empire in the last fiscal year?


Charles Avery Dunning: From Bermuda, 68,697
pounds.


Abraham Albert Heaps: How many from the United
States?


Charles Avery Dunning: From the United States,
11,290,000	pounds.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Prior to 1930 we had to pay one-half cent per pound if we desired to send tomatoes into the United States, and we have to pay three cents per pound at the present time. We have cut the duty from

Canada-UjS. Trade Agreement
thirty per cent to fifteen per cent on imports from the United States. There is no provision for added value under section 43, but the rate must be a minimum of two cents per pound if that exceeds fifteen per cent.


Charles Avery Dunning: The two cents per pound is the minimum.
Sub-item (n) agreed to.
Customs tariff-87.	Vegetables, fresh, in
their natural state:
(o)	Watercress and whitloof or endive, 15 per cent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What are the figures
for this item?


Charles Avery Dunning: Fifty per cent to enter
the United States at the present time, twenty-five per cent prior to 1930.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Our present reduction is
fifty per cent. Is there any provision for added value for duty purposes?


Charles Avery Dunning: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But there is with respect to peppers.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is correct.
Sub-item (o) agreed to.
Customs tariff-87.	Vegetables, fresh, in
their natural state:
Peppers, green, 15 per cent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What are the figures as
to peppers?


Charles Avery Dunning: Two and one-half cents
per pound entering the United States at the present time; before 1930, twenty-five per cent ad valorem.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is the present
added value for duty purposes under section 43?


Charles Avery Dunning: There was a value of
three cents per pound, but it was not applied in 1935.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is there any value to
be applied now?


Charles Avery Dunning: No. Of course my right hon. friend understands that it could be two and two-fifth cents under the agreement, but none is being applied and none was applied in 1935.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It can be applied if the
minister so desires.
Sub-item agreed to.
Customs tariff-87. Vegetables, fresh, in their natural state:
Radishes, 15 per cent.


Charles Avery Dunning: Radishes entering the United States at the present time pay fifty per cent; they paid twenty-five per cent prior to 1930.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What were the imports?


Charles Avery Dunning: No separate classification; they are in that $33,000 item to which I have referred several times.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Any increased value for
duty purposes?


Charles Avery Dunning: No.
Sub-item agreed to.
Customs tariff-87. Vegetables, fresh, in their natural state:
Artichokes, free.


Charles Avery Dunning: Fifty per cent to enter the United States at the present time; prior to 1930, twenty-five per cent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What was our duty?


Charles Avery Dunning: Twenty-seven and a half per cent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the intermediate, the general is thirty per cent. We have cut the rate fifty per cent.


Percy John Rowe: One hundred per cent.


James Houston Spence: Do they come in free the year round?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


James Houston Spence: Does the minister think that is fair to our growers in Canada?


Percy John Rowe: In other words, we are paying 100 per cent more to enter the United States than we paid prior to 1930, and we take 100 per cent less.


James Houston Spence: It is ridiculous.


Gordon Graydon: What quantity of artichokes were produced in Canada last year?


Charles Avery Dunning: There was no commercial production. I am advised that there are no figures.
Sub-item agreed to.
Customs tariff-87.	Vegetables, fresh, in
their natural state:
Horseradish, free.


Robert Henry McGregor: Surely there is no reason why horseradish should come in free. This is grown all over the country and has been for years, and the same can be said for artichokes.

Canada-UJS. Trade Agreement


Richard Bedford Bennett: What are the rates going in to the United States?


Charles Avery Dunning: Three cents per pound at the present time and twenty-five per cent ad valorem prior to 1930.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is there any increased value for duty purposes?


Charles Avery Dunning: No. The imports are negligible and are not shown separately. They are included in the one item which is not very large when they are all put together, only $33,000 for all other vegetables.


Percy John Rowe: What was the previous duty on horseradish?


Charles Avery Dunning: It was 27J per cent and thirty per cent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We reduced from thirty per cent to free.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is right.
Sub-item agreed to.
Customs tariff-87.	Vegetables, fresh, in
their natural state:
Okra, free.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is the present duty on okra?


Charles Avery Dunning: Free, 27^ per cent and thirty per cent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That comes under the n.o.p. item?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We have reduced it from thirty per cent to free. What are the United
States charges?


Charles Avery Dunning: At present fifty per cent ad valorem; prior to 1930, twenty-five per cent ad valorem. They grow it, of course.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, and so do we. Sub-item agreed to.
Customs tariff-87. Vegetables, fresh, in their natural state:
(p)	N.o.p., 15 per cent.
Provided that in respect of the goods dutiable under tariff item 87 no value for duty shall be established under the authority of section 43 of the Customs Act except in the case of the sub-items indicated thus (*); and in no ease shall any value so established exceed the invoice value by more than 80 per centum of the lowest advance imposed on like goods under the authority of said section during the calendar years 1933 to 1935, inclusive.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This item is reduced from thirty per cent to fifteen per cent.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.
J Mr. McGregor. ]


Richard Bedford Bennett: This would include all vegetables that are not specified in the details with which we have been dealing?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Grote Stirling: The rates going into the United States were fifty per cent and twenty-five per cent?


Charles Avery Dunning: Of course the n.o.p. items of the two countries are not comparable.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The n.o.p. items with respect to vegetables are comparable because many of the items with which we have been dealing are in the United States n.o.p. items. The item at the present time is fifty per cent ad valorem, and prior to 1930 it was twenty-five per cent.
Sub-item agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-89. Vegetables, prepared, in air-tight cans or other air-tight containers, the weight of the containers to be included in the weight for duty:
(a)	Beans, baked or otherwise prepared, 2 cents per pound.
Charles Avery Dunning: The effect of item 89
is to bind the intermediate tariff.


Percy John Rowe: What is our duty
on those articles going into the United
States?


Charles Avery Dunning: Beans are three cents
per pound on entire contents of container entering the United States. Prior to 1930, thirty-five per cent ad valorem.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Could the minister give
the imports of beans? These are under a different classification. I suppose he would have statistics as to imports from the United States.


Charles Avery Dunning: Forty-two thousand
pounds valued at $2,700. From Italy, 8,000 pounds, $550; and from Belgium, 6,300 pounds, valued at $488.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The minister is speaking of beans only?


Charles Avery Dunning: Beans, yes.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: And that was in what
year?


Charles Avery Dunning: 1935.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: According to some information I have, imports in the years 1928 and 1929 from the Untied States were about $2,000,000.

Canada-U.S. Trade Agreement


Charles Avery Dunning: I will see what we have in our suitcases to confirm that or otherwise. It sounds big to me.


Richard Bedford Bennett: As a result of the tariff
of 1930 the importations were less of Campbell's soups and Heinz's beans.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I was giving the figures
of canned fruits and vegetables. I do not know whether the minister has them separately or not, but they seem to have been a very considerable item in 1929.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is no reduction
in the United States on three cents a pound?


Charles Avery Dunning: No.


Grote Stirling: Will European countries to which the minister referred just now enjoy the two cents a pound?


Charles Avery Dunning: They always have, if
they come in under the intermediate tariff.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Italy had the most
favoured nation treaty.


Charles Avery Dunning: The statistics we have
available go back only to 1931. In that year $38,000 worth of canned beans were imported from the United States.


Percy John Rowe: The duty on
canned beans has been reduced 33} per cent?


Charles Avery Dunning: We have reduced it from three cents to two cents, incidental to the granting of the intermediate tariff.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is 33i per cent, is
it not?


Charles Avery Dunning: I prefer to state it in
actual terms.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is not that "actual
terms"? The minister has very strange views about this. He uses percentages very frequently. A reduction from three cents to two cents is a reduction of 33} per cent.


Charles Avery Dunning: Will my right lion, friend let me tell him a little story to lighten the tedium of the committee's work, and to explain my objection?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The chair would have to be consulted about that.


Charles Avery Dunning: The point being percentages, which is of course akin to this item of beans. Perhaps I had better not, Mr. Chairman.


Grote Stirling: Instead, would the minister tell us what the exports were to the United States?


Charles Avery Dunning: I gave the import figure of 58,600 pounds. We exported 4,000,000 pounds.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Thanks to the British preference.


William Allen Walsh: As regards this item, during the course of the debate preceding these items,
I voiced an objection in connection with specific and ad valorem duties. I want to express my opinion that the specific duties are not fair and reasonable. To-day, a specific duty of two cents a pound might represent a protection of twenty-five per cent. Next year, one cent a pound might represent a protection of fifty per cent. The percentage Varies. I would rather have something more stable.
Another point I would like to make is that I consider this is one item at least on which we could put on a very heavy, in fact a prohibitive duty, because surely we can grow a sufficient quantity of beans in this country to provide work for our own people in growing them and in canning them. Moreover, this would stimulate a certain amount of business in the manufacture of cans and other incidentals in connection with the canning industry. I urge upon the attention of the Minister of Finance whether it is not possible to introduce into our tariff system a prohibitive duty that would not in any way increase the cost of the commodity to the consumer, but at the same time would force production in Canada sufficient to meet our own needs, and stimulate industries that are indirectly interested in this particular feature of our tariff.


Charles Avery Dunning: In Canada last year we produced 34,000,000 pounds of baked beans, which are dealt with in this item. Our imports from the United States were 42,000 pounds. We exported to the United Kingdom last year 4,000,000 pounds. Our bean producers and packers are evidently able to deal with the situation pretty effectively.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The British preference gives them the market. They did not have it before.


Percy John Rowe: The minister has said that we exported about 4,000,000 pounds and we imported only 42,000 pounds.


Charles Avery Dunning: Canned beans, yes.


Percy John Rowe: Why does the minister think that is a sound reciprocal agreement, to reduce the duty 33} per cent, when we have plants at Collingwood, Leamington.
Canada-UJS. Trade Agreement

Aylmer and other points in this country, when we are already on an exportable basis, and yet still have to pay the same duty on 4,000,000 pounds to the United States?


Charles Avery Dunning: No; the United Kingdom, principally.


Percy John Rowe: But I mean that in this agreement we still pay three cents a pound.


Charles Avery Dunning: We do not export any to the United States.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Exactly; the tariff prohibits us.


Percy John Rowe: The more reason why, when we are exporting 4,000,000 pounds and importing 42,000 pounds, the industry should have the same advantages as has the industry in the United States.


Charles Avery Dunning: Well, of course we do not agree. That is really the answer to that. I cannot make any other.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think we shall agree on this. The reduction of this duty between us and the United States is either for the purpose of enabling the United States to send beans into this country, or just a fake proposal. And inasmuch as it does make the reduction in question, and the United States retain their duty of three cents a pound, while we have reduced ours 33} per cent, it is difficult to understand that there is much reciprocity about that. The minister says that all this does is to give the intermediate tariff and bind it, which is true. But the effect upon our business either is at once to invite further imports into this country, thereby lessening the sale of our goods, or else has no value at all.


Mr DUNNING:: I shall answer only the expression "fake proposal." This was in no sense a fake proposal; it was entirely incidental to the offer to the United States of the Canadian intermediate tariff.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not an accurate statement, if I may be pardoned for saying so, for this binds that item whereas all other intermediate items may be raised by this parliament. This may not.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is right.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what I meant to say, and what I do say yet. Either it tends to increase the imports of beans into this country from the United States by re-
ducing the tariff between us by 33} per cent, leaving still a tariff of three cents a pound against us, or it has no value at all. I admit that the word "fake" is not a nice word to use; we will say "window-dressing" instead.
Sub-item (a) agreed to.
Customs tariff-89. Vegetables, prepared, in air-tight cans or other air-tight containers, the weight of the containers to be included in the weight for duty:
(b)	Corn and tomatoes, per pound, 2 cents.


Charles Avery Dunning: The same remarks apply to this.


Percy John Rowe: What are the
duties?


Charles Avery Dunning: On canned corn entering the United States the duty at present is thirty-five per cent ad valorem and it was thirty-five per cent ad valorem prior to 1930. On tomatoes the duty is fifty per cent ad valorem at the present time and it was fifteen per cent ad valorem prior to 1930.


Mr. TUSTIN:: I should like to ask the minister how many cases or pounds of these articles were exported to the United States during 1935.


Charles Avery Dunning: Our exports of canned tomatoes wrere chiefly to the United Kingdom; I have been trying to find the United States figures. Our exports of corn were 5,100,000 pounds in 1935, chiefly to the United Kingdom, and of tomatoes-pulp and puree is the item-8,240,000 pounds, also chiefly to the United Kingdom. Our exports to the United States were quite small, 82,500 worth of com and 81,200 worth of tomatoes.


George James Tustin: What were the imports from the United States in 1935?


Charles Avery Dunning: We imported 35,000
pounds of corn, valued at $2,500 and 7,400 pounds of tomatoes, valued at $1,200. Exports to and imports from the United States were both negligible in connection with those two items.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What were our total imports?


Charles Avery Dunning: Our total imports of
tomatoes were 872,000 pounds valued at $70,000, of which 850,000 pounds came from Italy.


Richard Bedford Bennett: 
Charles Avery Dunning: I cannot answer that question positively at the moment, but I will get the answer. The term "puree" is used in the export returns for Canada, but it is not clear whether "puree" means juice.


Grote Stirling: The minister told the committee just now that Canada had made these cuts in duty in order to give the intermediate tariff to the United States. Can he point out any instance in these items in which Canada has received the fifty pe.r cent cut in the United States tariff which the president was empowered to give?


Charles Avery Dunning: On vegetables? No, I cannot.


James Houston Spence: A moment ago the minister said that there were certain imports of tomatoes from Italy. In what state do they come from Italy? Are they canned? I have never seen a can of Italian tomatoes in my life.


Charles Avery Dunning: This comes in mostly in the form of tomato pulp and puree. We imported 850.000 pounds of it.


Percy John Rowe: That is included under the n.o.p. item?


Charles Avery Dunning: No; under this item.
Sub-item (b) agreed to.
Customs tariff-89. Vegetables, prepared, in air-tight cans or other air-tight containers, the weight of the containers to be included in the weight for duty:
(e) Peas, per pound, 2 cents.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Could we have the same information with regard to this item?


Charles Avery Dunning: In the United States the tariff is exactly the same, two cents per pound, and it was two cents prior to 1930.


Gordon Graydon: May I ask the minister what the general tariff was on these three items, beans, peas, corn and tomatoes, prior to the revision of 1930 or 1931, when I understand the duty was raised to the three cent mark.


Charles Avery Dunning: Does my hon. friend mean under the tariff of May, 1930?


Gordon Graydon: I assume that would be it, though if my information is correct I think the year was 1931.


Charles Avery Dunning: Under the tariff which
came into effect in May, 1930, beans were free under the British preference, l{ cents under the intermediate and 1$ cents under the general tariff. Corn and tomatoes were free under the British preference, If cents under the intermediate, and two cents under the general tariff. Peas were one cent under the British preference, If cents under the intermediate and two cents under the general. The n.o.p. item was free under the British preference, 27J per cent ad valorem under the intermediate and thirty per cent ad valorem under the general tariff. No change was made in those items in September, 1930; in June, 1931, they were changed to the rates prevailing prior to this agreement coming into force. All three items were free under the British preference, two cents under the intermediate and three cents under the general tariff of that year. The n.o.p. item in that year remained the same, no change.


George James Tustin: May I ask the exports and
imports of canned peas to and from the United States?


Charles Avery Dunning: We imported from the
United States $340 worth last year and we exported $330 worth. A pretty near thing that!
Sub-item (c) agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-89. Vegetables, prepared', in air-tight cans or other air-tight containers, the weight of the containers to be included in the weight for duty:
(d) N.o.p., 27f per cent.
Charles Avery Dunning: Binding the intermediate.
Sub-item (d) agreed to.
Customs tariff-92. Fruits, fresh, in their natural state:
(a) Apricots, 15 per cent.


Charles Avery Dunning: Duty entering the
United States, one-half cent a pound at the present time, and one-half cent a pound prior to 1930. Imports include two items, (a) and (i) together, that is apricots, quinces and nectarines grouped; 278,954 pounds from the United States valued at $13,179.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is the increase for special duty at the present time?


Charles Avery Dunning: Prior to January 1 the
advance in invoice value was two cents. It can now go as high as If cents a pound.
Sub-item (a) agreed to.

Canada-UJS. Trade Agreement
Customs tariff-92. Fruits, fresh, in their natural state:
(b) Cherries, 15 per cent.


James Houston Spence: One thing I object to
taking any more of is cherries. In fact I am opposed to every cut that has been made in the whole list of fruits and vegetables. Away back in the twenties when my hon. friends were in power before, they put through a French treaty which hit cherries in this country badly. At one time we used to sell hundreds of thousands of baskets on the Toronto and Montreal markets to the canning and extract people. Since the French treaty became effective they were able to buy, from France and Italy, cherries in barrels, cured ready for use, which killed the cherry market in Canada, and scores, yes thousands of trees were pulled out between Toronto and Niagara Falls; they had to throw them away, and from then on the cherry market has never recovered. Now you are hitting them another punch and driving them into a hole. It is only five per cent, but why insist on all these changes so that no one in the business world knows what he is doing.


Charles Avery Dunning: It may comfort my hon. friend to know-


James Houston Spence: There is always some
excuse for everything, I never saw such a place.


Charles Avery Dunning: I want to help my hon.
friend if I can. There is a concession in the United States tariff with respect to cherries from two cents to one cent a pound. The Fordney-McCumber tariff was two cents.


James Houston Spence: We do not get much chance 1o ship many to the United States.


Percy John Rowe: I think the minister should be complimented upon this; it is the first item in the whole list on which we have had a fifty per cent reduction.


Charles Avery Dunning: You are forgetting peas.


Percy John Rowe: No; they stayed at two cents.


Charles Avery Dunning: No; fresh peas were reduced from two cents to one cent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: For a limited period of time.


Grote Stirling: What are the exports of cherries?


Charles Avery Dunning: They are not separately recorded.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What are the imports?


Charles Avery Dunning: Total cherries, n.o.p.., is given here: 50,000 pounds exports from Canada, practically all to the United States.


Grote Stirling: Does this mean that the government expects that we shall greatly increase our shipments of cherries?


Charles Avery Dunning: With the variety of
opinion among fruit growers I prefer not to express an opinion.


James Houston Spence: What is the amount of cherries, cured, coming from Italy and France at the present time.


Charles Avery Dunning: I will get it in a moment, though of course cured cherries is a different item.


James Houston Spence: The extract people are buying them now instead of buying our own. The importation may have dropped off recently, but it was very heavy at one time.


Charles Avery Dunning: Cherries in brine from Italy last year: 182,000 gallons, valued at 8133,000.


Abraham Albert Heaps: They are on the sanction list now, are they not?


Charles Avery Dunning: They are not coming now.


James Houston Spence: Could the minister give the amount from France?


Charles Avery Dunning: If the committee will wait a minute, or if my hon. friend is the only member interested perhaps he could get the information from me privately later. The hon. member need not worry about France; we imported 165 gallons last year.
Sub-item (b) agreed to.
Customs tariff-92. Fruits, fresh, in their natural state:
(c)	Cranberries, 15 per cent.
Provided that the duty under any tariff less favourable than the British preferential tariff shall at no time be less than two cents per pound, the weight of the packages to be included in the weight for duty.


James Houston Spence: Mr. Chairman-


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is our position in respect to this?


Charles Avery Dunning: One and a quarter cents per pound-when the hon. member for Park-dale and the leader of the opposition settle between themselves who is asking the questions.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Why should the minister make that observation? I was not asking anything. The hon. member for Parkdale rose and the chairman noticed him and said, "The

Canada-U JS. Trade Agreement
hon. member for Parkdale," and he sat down. The hon. member for Parkdale has just as good a right to ask questions as has anyone else. I said to him, "He is recognizing you." Do not drag me into the matter unnecessarily.


Charles Avery Dunning: Well, my right hon. friend will permit me to say that I shall have to insist that he speak loudly enough at all times for me to know whether or not he is asking a question. I had no intention of being discourteous, but when two people are trying to speak at the same time and I make a jocular reference, immediately my right hon. friend thinks I am insulting him.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not suggest that I had been insulted; I have no intention of doing so.


James Houston Spence: I do not see our maritime lighters rising to defend themselves. Both Nova Scotia and New Brunswick are developing big cranberry swamps and are competing very strongly with Cape Cod in the United States. Why are they not complaining about new industries in that country, where there is no seasonal tariff.


Frederick George Sanderson: Order.


James Houston Spence: Go on; both sides say
something; I want to hear the maritimes say something.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is the rate of duty on cranberries entering the United States under the present tariff?


Charles Avery Dunning: One and a quarter cents per pound.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And under the Fordney-McCumber tariff?


Charles Avery Dunning: One and a quarter cents per pound; no change.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What imports were there from the United States or from other countries last year?


Charles Avery Dunning: There were 1,659,000
pounds, valued at $155,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And we have reduced
the duty and are bound for the life of the agreement?


Charles Avery Dunning: The duty is not to be
less than two cents per pound.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was going to ask
whether that proviso applied only to cranberries, or does it apply to the three fruits? I was not quite sure.


Charles Avery Dunning: The specific applies to
cranberries only.
Sub-item (c) agreed to.
Customs tariff-92. Fruits, fresh, in their natural state:
(d)	Peaches, 15 per cent.


Charles Avery Dunning: The United States tariff
is one-half cent per pound at present, and was one-half cent per pound prior to 1930.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is the present
rate?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: What about imports of
peaches from the United States?


Charles Avery Dunning: Imports from the United States amounted to 4,821,000 pounds valued at $149,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And we have reduced
the duty by twenty-five per cent; that is the story, as I take it. There is no question about the two cents there.


Charles Avery Dunning: The advance on the
invoiced value of peaches was one and three-quarter cents per pound; the limit to which it can go now is one and two-fifth cents per pound.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is that in force to-day?


Mr. LOCKHART:: How far back has the
minister records of imports of peaches from the United States?


Charles Avery Dunning: For five years.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: May I have the imports of peaches for 1931, and succeeding years?


Charles Avery Dunning: Imports of peaches from the United States in 1931 amounted to
11,836,000	pounds; in 1932 they were 10,335,000 pounds; in 1933 they were 3,613,000 pounds; in 1934 they were 2,568,000 pounds, and the figure for 1935, which I gave a few moments ago, was 4,821,000 pounds.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Could the minister give the
production of peaches in Canada in the same period?


Charles Avery Dunning: I am afraid I cannot.
We cannot bring the whole department here. However, I believe I can give the production for last year. The estimated production in [DOT]Canada for 1935 was 715,000 bushels.


Grote Stirling: I believe there are fifty
pounds to the bushel.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: Were any peaches exported to the United States in those same years?


Charles Avery Dunning: There is no separate record of them.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: I am quite sure there were not.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is in the item of $150,000, but it is not recorded separately.
Canada-U\S. Trade Agreement


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Would the Minister of National Revenue be good enough to table to-morrow a copy of any ministerial orders or directions which may have been given since this government took office, with respect to valuations for duty purposes?


James Lorimer Ilsley: If I furnished them to my right hon. friend would that not be just as good? There is however no objection to tabling them.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the rules require that when a minister reads a document it should be tabled.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I shall see that the hon. member gets them in one way or another.
Sub-item (d) agreed to.
Customs tariff-92. Fruits, fresh, in their natural state:
(e)	Pears, 15 per cent.


Charles Avery Dunning: The United States duty is one-half cent per pound now and was one-half cent per pound prior to 1930.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Were there importations of pears from the United States?


Charles Avery Dunning: Importations of pears from the United States in 1935 amounted to
13,432,000	pounds, valued at $412,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And I suppose the exports were nil?


Charles Avery Dunning: They are not separately reported, but would be part of the large item of $150,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is the spread in the special duty rate?


Charles Avery Dunning: One and a quarter cents prior-


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, no; the special duty, not the tariff.


Charles Avery Dunning: It was one and a quarter cents prior to the coming into force of the agreement, and the maximum now will be one cent.
Sub-item (e) agreed to.
Customs tariff-92. Fruits, fresh, in their natural state:
(f)	Plums or prunes, 15 per cent.


Charles Avery Dunning: The duty entering the United States is one-half cent to-day and was one-half cent prior to 1930. Imports of plums or prunes from the United States in 1935 amounted to 4,783,000 pounds, valued at $156,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What was the special duty valuation?


Charles Avery Dunning: The same as in the previous item. One and a quarter cents could be added to the invoiced value prior to the coming into force of the agreement; now one cent is the maximum.


George James Tustin: Has the minister separate information as to what was exported to the United States?


Charles Avery Dunning: I have no separate record.
Sub-item (f) agreed to.
Customs tariff-92. Fruits, fresh, in their natural state:
(g)	Strawberries, 15 per cent.


Charles Avery Dunning: The United States duty was a cent and a quarter per pound, but a concession of three-quarters of a cent per pound on Canadian strawberries entering the United States is effected by the agreement. The rate was 1-J cents per pound under both the recent American tariffs, but it is reduced, as against Canadian strawberries, to three-quarters of one cent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What were our exports last
year?


Charles Avery Dunning: We exported 180,000
pounds, valued at $20,000, all to the United
States.	[DOT]


Grote Stirling: And what were the imports?


Charles Avery Dunning: Strawberries, raspberries, loganberries and edible berries, n.o.p. are all lumped together in the import statistics, and the total amount from the United States was
6,042,000	pounds, valued at $422,000; that is, of all these berries. With respect to the valuation, two cents was effective prior to the agreement; it will now be a maximum of one and three-fifth cents.


James Samuel Taylor: Can the minister tell me what protection will be given dried loganberries? The agreement now entered into appears to affect the price at which loganberries are valued for duty purposes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: All these items deal with fresh fruits.


James Samuel Taylor: But I am pointing out that the agreement affects the price for duty purposes of all fruits.


Charles Avery Dunning: Dried loganberries are not in this schedule to the agreement and hence are not really properly before the committee, but I can give the information. The present tariff on dried fruits, including the article to which my hon. friend refers, is free under the British preference, 22J per cent under the in-

Canada-UJS. Trade Agreement
termediate and twenty-five per cent under the general; therefore the duty from the United States will be 22$ per cent under the agreement.


James Samuel Taylor: But is there not a price fixed for duty purposes?


Charles Avery Dunning: No.


James Samuel Taylor: So I am informed.


Charles Avery Dunning: It was cancelled.


James Samuel Taylor: I have an extensively endorsed resolution passed by the Saanich Fruit Growers' Association, who want to protect a dehydrating plant established on Vancouver island. Can I have an assurance that it will be assisted?


Charles Avery Dunning: I am afraid I cannot give that assurance.


James Samuel Taylor: I should like to submit the resolution to the minister.


Charles Avery Dunning: With pleasure.
Sub-item (g) agreed to.
Customs tariff-92. Fruits, fresh, in their natural state:
(h)	Berries, edible, n.o.p., 15 per cent.


Charles Avery Dunning: The United States duty is cents, and previously it was 1{- cents; that is prior to 1930. There is no change.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is that the same for raspberries and loganberries?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


John James Kinley: Blueberries are marked thirty-five per cent ad valorem, former rate, and twenty-five per cent new rate; that is blueberries prepared or preserved or frozen but not in brine, and not dried, desiccated or evaporated. Does that include fresh blueberries going to the United States?


Charles Avery Dunning: Fresh blueberries are in the n.o.p. berry item now before the committee.


John James Kinley: I am referring to item
736.


Charles Avery Dunning: Is the hon. gentleman
referring to blueberries entering the United States?


John James Kinley: Yes.


Charles Avery Dunning: In schedule II of the
agreement, blueberries prepared or preserved or frozen but not in brine, and not dried, desiccated or evaporated, and not specially provided for, will be twenty-five per cent entering the United States; but that does not include fresh blueberries.


John James Kinley: I cannot find fresh blueberries.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Fresh blueberries are
covered by (h): Berries, edible, n.o.p.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is, coming this
way; but the hon. gentleman is interested in berries going the other way.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is covered by the
basket item.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is 1J cents per pound entering the United States.


John James Kinley: What are the exports?


Charles Avery Dunning: Last year there were
3,670,000	pounds, valued at $205,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is no change in
the duty entering the United States?


Charles Avery Dunning: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member for
Queens-Lunenburg seems to be under a misapprehension. There is no change in this agreement in the existing rates on blueberries, fresh, entering the United States.


Charles Avery Dunning: I said so.
Sub-item (h) agreed to.
Customs tariff-92. Fruits, fresh, in their natural state:
(i)	Quinces and nectarines, 15 per cent.
Provided that in respect of the goods dutiable under tariff item 92, no value for duty shall be established under the authority of section 43 of the Customs Act except in the case of the sub-items indicated thus (*); and in no case shall any value so established exceed the invoice value by more than 80 per centum of the lowest advance imposed on like goods under the authority of said section during the calendar years 1933 to 1935, inclusive.


Grote Stirling: Can the minister give
the figures?


Charles Avery Dunning: With reference to the
United States, the duty is thirty-five per cent ad valorem at present, and it was thirty-five per cent ad valorem prior to 1930.
Sub-item (i) agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-93. Apples, fresh, in their natural state, 15 per cent.
Provided that in no ease shall any value for duty established under the authority of section 43 of the Customs Act exceed the invoice value by more than 80 per centum of the lowest advance imposed on such goods under the authority of said section during the calendar years 1933 to 1935, inclusive.
Charles Avery Dunning: Entering the United
States, the rate prior to the treaty was twenty-five cents per bushel of fifty pounds. By this treaty that rate is reduced to fifteen cents per bushel of fifty pounds. Twenty-five cents was also the United States duty

Canada-U\S. Trade Agreement
under the Fordney-McCumber tariff. Added in this value under the former arrangement was a one cent maximum addition. Entering Canada under the treaty it will be four-fifths of one cent per pound.


Abraham Albert Heaps: What quantity of apples
do we import free under the British preference?


Charles Avery Dunning: Our total imports last
year from all countries were 22,137 barrels, of which 15,589 barrels came from New Zealand. That I think is the closest I can come without a considerable calculation, so far as quantities from British countries are concerned.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Those coming in from New Zealand would be exempt from duty?


Charles Avery Dunning: Free of duty.


Percy John Rowe: What were our
total exports?


Charles Avery Dunning: Exports to all countries were 2.060,000 barrels, valued at $8,220,000. The United Kingdom was our principal customer, taking 1,807,000 barrels. To Belgium we shipped 77,000 barrels; to Egypt, 33,500 barrels; to The Netherlands, 33,000; to Germany, 26,000 barrels; to Newfoundland, 18,000 barrels; to France, 17,000 barrels; to New Zealand, 7,000 barrels. We imported 15,000 barrels from New Zealand and exported 7,000 barrels.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is a seasonal demand?


Charles Avery Dunning: We exported to South Africa 7,000 barrels; to the Argentine, 5,500 barrels; to Sweden, 4,700 barrels, and to the United States, 4,500 barrels.


James Samuel Taylor: The minister
made no mention of India.


Charles Avery Dunning: I have no record of any exports to India.


James Samuel Taylor: There is a considerable consumption of apples in India and the Americans are taking all the business.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Proximity has something to do with that.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Could the minister give the imports from the United States?


Charles Avery Dunning: That again is a seasonal matter. We imported 6,548 barrels, mostly from the United States, and exported 4,500 barrels. In connection with India, I would say to my hon. friend that we have no preference in that country.


James Samuel Taylor: I think a little work on the part of the minister in charge of that particular department would ensure the consumption of Canadian apples. I have a little information which I should be glad to disclose to the minister.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-94. Grapes, fresh, in their natural state, the weight of the packages to be included in the weight for duty, li cents per pound.
Provided that in no case shall any value for duty established under the authority of section 43 of the Customs Act exceed the invoice value by more than 80 per centum of the lowest advance imposed on such goods under the authority of said section during the calendar years 1933 to 1935, inclusive.
Charles Avery Dunning: The United States duty at the present time is twenty-five cents per cubic foot, and it was twenty-five cents per cubic foot prior to 1930. Canadian imports were 18,400,000 pounds from the United States, valued at $738,000; 114,000 pounds from Spain and 55,000 pounds from the United Kingdom. There are no separate statistics available for exports. The estimated Canadian production for 1935 was 39,350,000 pounds.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: May I have the imports of grapes from the United States for the same five years as in the case of peaches?


Charles Avery Dunning: In 1929 we imported
32.366.000	pounds; in 1932, 17,636,000 pounds; in 1933, 16,959,000 pounds; in 1934, 15,636,000 pounds, and in 1935, 18,400,000 pounds.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: Has the minister the exports to the United States for the same five years?


Charles Avery Dunning: There are no separate statistics available for the export of grapes.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Did the minister give the estimated Canadian production?


Charles Avery Dunning: Last year it was 39,350,000 pounds.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Has the minister the
figures for the preceding years?


Charles Avery Dunning: The preceding year the production was 46,800,000 pounds.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And for 1931?


Charles Avery Dunning: I have not those figures.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is the present added value for duty purposes?


Charles Avery Dunning: Prior to the agreement the advance on invoice value was one cent and the maximum can now be four-fifths of one cent, It was never applied in 1935.

Canada-US. Trade Agreement


Richard Bedford Bennett: The general tariff, however, provided that it shall not be less than three-fifths of a cent per pound, so there has been no reduction.


Charles Avery Dunning: The general tariff was a specific duty.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The general tariff for grapes is two cents; intermediate, 14 cents and British preferential, free. I was referring to apples.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-95. Cantaloupes and musk-melons, 15 per cent.
Provided that in no case shall any value for duty established under the authority of section 43 of the Customs Act exceed the invoice value by more than 80 per centum of the lowest advance imposed on such goods under the authority of said section during the calendar years 1933 to 1935, inclusive.
Charles Avery Dunning: Thirty-five per cent ad valorem entering the United States to-day, and thirty-five per cent ad valorem prior to 1930.


Percy John Rowe: No reduction?


Charles Avery Dunning: No change in the United States duty.


James Houston Spence: Will there be any seasonal protection for our own growers?


Charles Avery Dunning: There is a provision in the item that the value for duty shall not exceed the invoice value by more than eighty per cent of the lowest advance imposed on such goods.


James Houston Spence: Does that really mean anything. What are you going to do about it?


Charles Avery Dunning: The fixed advance on the invoice value prior to the treaty was four cents maximum; the advance possible under the agreement is three and one-fifth cents per pound.


George James Tustin: What were the imports last year.


Charles Avery Dunning: The imports were 6,763,000 pounds, valued at $163,000.


George James Tustin: What were the exports to the United States?


Charles Avery Dunning: They are not recorded separately. There is no change in the United States duty prior to 1930 and at the present time; the duty is thirty-five per cent ad valorem.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-95a. Melons, n.o.p., 2} cents each.
Charles Avery Dunning: Entering the United States, thirty-five per cent ad valorem at the present 12739-66
time, and it was thirty-five per cent prior to 1930. Imports from the United States were
955,000	melons, valued at $139,000. In giving these figures I am leaving off the odd numbers and I hope no hon. member will want to hold me to strict accuracy in this regard.


James Houston Spence: Does that include watermelons and muskmelons?


Charles Avery Dunning: No; muskmelons would be included under the previous item. This item covers all other melons.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-96. Fruits, fresh, in their natural state, n.o.p., 15 per cent.
Charles Avery Dunning: The corresponding item in the United States is thirty-five per cent ad valorem at the present time, and it was thirty-five per cent prior to 1930. Total imports last year from the United States were valued at $7,631. The effect of this item is to bind the intermediate tariff.


Richard Bedford Bennett: By a reduction of twenty-five per cent on the general.


Charles Avery Dunning: By a reduction from 20
per cent to 15 per cent.


Percy John Rowe: The American
tariff remains the same?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-ex 96. Avocados or alligator pears, free.
'Mr. DUNNING: An extra item.
James Houston Spence: I do not know why you
need them at all. There is no real demand for alligator pears in this country, and I do not know why there is any necessity to cut the duty off them.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is a luxury used as
salad. What is the United States duty?


Charles Avery Dunning: Fifteen cents a pound.
It was formerly thirty-five cents ad valorem.


John Gordon Ross: We do not grow
them!


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-100a. Grapefruit, n.o.p., per pound, J cent.
Mr. MacNICOL:: I should like to ask the amount of grapefruit imported from empire countries in 1935 and the amount imported from the United States, and I should like to ask the same two questions with reference to item 101, if I may take the two together.


Charles Avery Dunning: I do not want to get
mixed up by taking both. Imports from the United States of grapefruit, 29,000,000 pounds, valued at $777,000, in 1935. From Honduras, which would be British Honduras, I presume,
1,460,000	pounds, valued at S31.000. That is an error. The Honduras I just mentioned is not British Honduras.


James Houston Spence: Spanish Honduras?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No; it is an independent state.


Charles Avery Dunning: Jamaica, 1,173,000 pounds at 5525,000. British Honduras, 815,000 pounds at $20,000. That is the total of the imports.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Did not some come from Palestine? I had some myself.


Charles Avery Dunning: Too small to be shown.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I understand that grapefruit coming in under the British preference was free of duty. Is there any reason why there should be a duty of half a cent a pound on grapefruit coming in from the United States? Could it not be put in the same category as the subsequent item, oranges?


Charles Avery Dunning: We are precluded entirely from considering that, because of the agreement to maintain the British preference.


Percy John Rowe: It is reduced fifty per cent now, is it not?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-ex 101. Oranges, during the months of January, February, March and April, free.
Charles Avery Dunning: The figures of imports
are given in cubic feet.


An hon. MEMBER:: Let us figure it down to boxes.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is in accordance
with the tariff item, cubic feet of measurement. From the United States in 1935, 3,744,000 cubic feet, valued at $4,900,000; from Japan,
225.000	cubic feet, $488,000; from South Africa,
222.000	cubic feet, $273,000; from Spain,
129.000	cubic feet, $98,000; from Jamaica, 90,700 cubic feet, $65,000; from Palestine,
82.000	cubic feet, $81,000.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Nothing from Australia?


Charles Avery Dunning: There were 14,000 cubic feet from Australia.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I supposed there were some from Australia, because I have a friend who sells fruit at his store, and I heard him say that the oranges came from Australia. I should like to make an observation or two with reference to those items. As I under-

stand the situation, importations from empire countries in connection with the two items I have mentioned, are larger as a result of our empire agreements. I heard the minister say that we are importing from such empire countries as South Africa, Australia, Jamaica, and Palestine.


Charles Avery Dunning: Palestine is not an empire country.


John Ritchie MacNicol: It would strike me that the result of these duties on these items will be to reduce importations from empire countries and transfer that trade to United Slates shippers. That opinion is borne out in a couple of editorials I have before me which I should like to read, contained in a book called Reciprocal Trade, Just published and sent out from New York, covering the whole forty-eight states as regards the benefits they expect to obtain from these trade agreements. In an editorial, the Enterprise, published at Riverside, Califomia, says this:
California is vitally concerned in the proposal for a reciprocal trade agreement, for the movement of fruits from this state into Canada has been hampered by the tariffs erected by Canada in connection with the Buy Empire movement ...
I particularly wish to stress that part of this article, the Buy Empire movement.
The California viewpoint will be on the side of elimination of as many tariffs as possible, for this state has little to lose and much to gain.
Another article, from the Bulletin, of Walla Walla, Washington, states:
Fruit and vegetable growers of this valley and adjoining early crops districts see considerable hope in provisions of the treaty between this country and Canada.... It will possibly require time for Canadian business to reestablish connections on this side of the line to the profit of all concerned. There is no belittling the fact that several years of nationalistic propaganda, "Buy British Empire products,", has had its effect north of the boundary.
Another editorial-


Charles Avery Dunning: I hope my hon. friend will stick to oranges. There was not much about oranges in the last quotation.


John Ritchie MacNicol: This may be regarded as referring to items that went before the item under discussion. What I am trying to point out is that a number of these items are going to interfere, in my opinion, with empire trade. Let us stick to the orange item. I for one would much sooner trade with empire countries than with other countries.

Canada-UJS. Trade Agreement


John Gordon Ross: If the remarks of the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Mac-Nicol) with regard to oranges entering this country from California were correct, I should think that when the trade agreement was made the whole year would have been covered, in all probability, by the free entry provision, instead of the four months specified in the agreement. As I understand the matter, the restriction to four months is for the purpose of keeping out competition from the United States with empire countries. The large crop of oranges in the United States is of the navel orange. The small crop of oranges in the United States is of the Valencia orange. These months of January, February, March and April are the months of the production of navel oranges in Florida and other states, including, to some extent, California. They would not compete, probably, with empire oranges; therefore those oranges come in at that time. But the Valencia orange, which is the same orange that is grown in Australia, in British Honduras and in Jamaica, comes in during the other months of the year, so I think it will be found that the agreement is made in this way in order to avoid competition as between United States and empire oranges. Personally I can see no reason why the people of Canada should be made to pay more for oranges, in any case. When my hon. friend speaks of Washington. of course no oranges come from that part of the country. I do know that no one produces oranges in Canada, and I see no reason why we should have any tariff against them at any time.


Abraham Albert Heaps: One of the countries from which we expected to receive very large shipments of oranges was Australia, but according to the statement of the minister it would appear that Australia has not been in a position to ship any large quantity of oranges to Canada; I think he said that only 14.000 cubic feet of oranges came from that country. Therefore I take it that Australia is not in a position to supply us with any large share of the vast quantity of oranges we consume in this country. During the same year the United States supplied us with over 3,000,000 cubic feet of oranges, while the quantity we received from empire countries was rather small and limited. Personally I am glad to see this item in the agreement; it gives the United States quite a large concession, and I hope we receive equal concessions from them in connection with other items. I should like the minister to tell the committee if he has
any information as to how many oranges were imported from the United States during the four similar months of last year. The minister gave us the annual shipments.


Charles Avery Dunning: During the four months which are of interest because of the nature of this item, from January to April, 1935, inclusive, imports from the United States totalled 1,410,000 cubic feet.


Abraham Albert Heaps: As against a total of what?


Charles Avery Dunning: As against a total of
3,744,000	cubic feet for the fiscal year.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is there any conflict between this agreement and the West India agreement? The question has been asked as to why we should buy empire oranges. It will be remembered that under an agreement negotiated with the West Indies by a former Liberal administration it was provided that there should be a preference of one cent under the general tariff on grapefruit, and I think there was also a preference with respect to oranges though I have been unable to find it.


Charles Avery Dunning: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: None at all?


Charles Avery Dunning: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then the effect of this arrangement w'ould be to subject Jamaica oranges to competition they previously did not have to meet.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes. Of course there is a greatly diminished' supply from the West Indies principally because of the disastrous effects of hurricanes and also because of the premium nature of the United Kingdom market for Jamaica oranges, which resulted in a very large diversion of the Jamaica crop to that country. This is perhaps of doubtful importance, but I should mention it: The introduction into the Canadian market of Palestine oranges under free entry granted by the legislation of 1933 might have had an effect, because importations from Palestine have steadily increased since that time, amounting to 82,000 cubic feet in 1935.


Abraham Albert Heaps: There is quite a difference between the oranges we get from the different parts of the empire. Jamaica oranges do not compete with Palestine oranges any more than they do with California oranges. All these oranges are of different grades, and people who like a good orange of the navel type probably would not care for the other types of oranges sometimes put on the market coming from other parts of the world.

Canada-US. Trade Agreement


Charles Avery Dunning: That is true.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Consequently, while they may come in at the same time of the year they are not necessarily in competition with each other, because they are completely different in character and quality.


Thomas Reid: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue in connection with this item. Do Japanese oranges come in under the name of tangerines while other oranges come in at the same time under the designation of oranges? I understand that Japanese oranges evade the duty because they are called tangerines.


James Lorimer Ilsley: They come in almost entirely
as mandarins and tangerines.


Thomas Reid: Is that a ruling of the department, that they are designated as tangerines?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No; it is entirely a question of fact.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Was not a special arrangement made in connection with importations last season? I think they come in about December, and I understand they come in free under the Japanese treaty.


Mr. MacINNIS:: My information is that a small orange coming from California is called the tangerine and that Japanese oranges come in as such.


Charles Avery Dunning: There is only one tariff item, in any case.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I think I should make a statement to the committee about oranges. In speaking on the resolution I used a figure which I took from what I believed was a reliable source, a financial paper which I think is quite friendly to the government or has been so in the past. I stated that the value of our imports of oranges, as taken from that periodical, was something in the neighbourhood of $21,000,000 a year. In bis reply the Prime Minister very properly pointed out that these figures were greatly exaggerated. Ever since that time I have been, busy counting the oranges, the lemons and the grapefruit in an attempt to find out just where I made the mistake. I think perhaps if I have a little time I shall be able to build up a figure not very different from the one I quoted, but it may not be composed entirely of oranges. I should have included oranges, lemons, grapefruit and all the other fruits necessary to make up the total of S21,000,000.


Charles Avery Dunning: We will allow you a few vegetables if you need them.
[Mr. Heaps. 1


James Houston Spence: I should like to make just
one comment. The minister will finds that importations for the four months of this year will not exceed those for the four months of last year although the duty on oranges has been cut down. Cutting down the duty simply stopped the sale of oranges, and in the last, three months we have not done the business in oranges that we did last year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-101a. Lemons, free.
Richard Bedford Bennett: How does that affect empire shipments of lemons? I think last year we did get some from the antipodes.


Charles Avery Dunning: The shipments were very small. We imported 200,000 boxes from the United States, valued at $680,000; from Italy we imported 172,000 boxes, valued at $418,000 and 3,100 boxes from the United Kingdom, valued at $11,000. Of course they obviously were not produced there; they may have come from almost any country.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Transshipped?


Charles Avery Dunning: Transshipped.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This is only to bind the
item, I take it.


Charles Avery Dunning: Just to bind the item.
This is important in reply to my hon. friend: 2,800 boxes from Australia.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-ex 105b. Olives, ripe, in brine, not bottled, 10 per cent.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Any change in that?


Charles Avery Dunning: Reduction in rates.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I see this item has been
put on the same basis as those coming from empire countries.


Charles Avery Dunning: They are not separately
recorded in the import statistics, but would form part of the item classified as olives, in brine, not bottled, of which 244,000 gallons came from Spain, valued at S173,000; from Greece, 29,700 gallons, valued at $15,500; and from the United States, 22,800 gallons, valued at $25,800.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Spain will also get the
new rate, I take it?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That makes the British
preferential rate and the rate under this agreement the same.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.

Canada-U.S. Trade Agreement


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The United States is
put on the same basis as the British preferential, including Australia?


Charles Avery Dunning: They are not a factor
in the trade at all.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Does it conflict with the
empire trade agreements?


Charles Avery Dunning: No, positively not.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-106.	Fruits, prepared, in
air-tight cans or other air-tight containers, the weight of the containers to be included in the weight for duty:
(a)	Apricots, peaches and pears, per pound,
4 cents.
Richard Bedford Bennett: This item reduces the
duty on canned fruits by twenty per cent. The most serious competition that Canadians have had to meet with respect to one of these items has been the competition from California; I think that is generally known. The West Indies production of pineapples marketed in this country, and the Singapore production, will also be affected. I cannot speak about the n.o.p., but the effect is merely to reduce the duty from the United States by twenty per cent and to bind the item at four cents, which is the present intermediate tariff. What I desired to know in the light of those facts was: What is the duty against our shipping canned fruits into the United States? We have already dealt with raw fruits.


Charles Avery Dunning: On apricots, peaches and pears, thirty-five per cent. It was thirty-five per cent prior to 1930. That is an ad valorem tariff purely.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And there is no change?


Charles Avery Dunning: No change.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I think this duty is somewhat unfair in its incidence; that is, the cheaper fruits, or fruits that might be lower priced, will be paying the same ad valorem duty as those of high price. Canned goods valued at twenty cents a pound will pay four cents duty, and the same article worth seven cents a pound will still pay four cents duty, that is four cents on seven cents worth as against four cents on twenty cents worth. The cheaper canned fruits, which are largely consumed, will have to pay a much higher rate of duty under this item. I think it would be much wiser if this duty were on a percentage basis. I would like to know why it should be as it is at present rather than on a percentage basis.


Charles Avery Dunning: There is no change in
the item. It has been administered in this way for a long time. I need not tell my hon. friend that it is very much easier to administer in this form in connection with this class of commodity. The question of value for duty of different grades of canned fruits is not an easy one. I think it had better remain in the present form, although there is a great deal in the argument of my hon. friend, which of course applies to specific duties wherever used.


Abraham Albert Heaps: This appears to be a specially bad one. A can will weigh about a pound on an average, possibly more. The value of the goods might be six or seven cents wholesale. I believe the duty on the lower priced fruits on this basis may be as high as 100 per cent. It may be true, as the minister has pointed out, that it has been in this form for a long time, but that does not excuse continuing something which is admittedly wrong.
I know this agreement is now in effect; it is the law of the land practically; the goods are coming in on this basis at the present time, but I hope that when the opportunity arises the house itself will see that the unfairness of a tax of this character is removed and it is put on a more equitable basis.


Jean-François Pouliot: The hon. member for
North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) attaches much importance to the weight of the can.


Abraham Albert Heaps: No, the fruit.


Jean-François Pouliot: Oh, I thought he was
about to ask if the weight of the can was any consideration, or if the value of the can was to be included in the valuation of the canned article. The syrup or the sweet water that is with the canned fruit weights more than the can. I wonder if the minister could tell the committee what is the weight of twenty-four empty cans as compared with the weight of the syrup contained in those cans.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am afraid that question is beyond me.


Jean-François Pouliot: Well, it is the same kind
of question.


George James Tustin: What were the imports of
this item during the past year?


Charles Avery Dunning: Peaches and apricots
together, from Australia, 2,275,000 pounds, valued at S143.000. They came in at the one cent duty under the British agreement, of course, which constitutes another reason why it would be impossible at this time to apply an ad valorem basis of valuation, because

the preference is based upon the specific duty. From the United States. 171,300 pounds of peaches and apricots, valued at $11,370, and from the United Kingdom, 29,360 pounds, valued at $2,476.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is domestic production too.


Charles Avery Dunning: In England?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, strange as it may
sound.


Charles Avery Dunning: In my part of the country there are some extremely fine peaches, but I did not think they exported them; they are too good.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have seen some.


Jean-François Pouliot: Is there any split hair in canned fruit?


Abraham Albert Heaps: There is in this house.


George James Tustin: Were there any exports
from this country last year?


Charles Avery Dunning: Exports of canned pears amounted to 10,650,000 pounds, valued at $675,000, and went chiefly to the United Kingdom. Exports of canned apples amounted to
7,471,000	pounds, valued at $330,000, and went chiefly to the United Kingdom. Other canned fruits amounting to 6,753,000 pounds, valued at $445,000, were shipped chiefly to the United Kingdom.
Sub-item (a) agreed to.
Customs tariff

106.	Fruits, prepared, in
air-tight cans or other air-tight containers, the weight of the containers to be included in the weight for duty:
(b)	Pineapples, per pound, 4 cents;
(c)	N.o.p.. per pound, 4 cents.
Sub-items (b) and (c) agreed to.
Customs tariff-ex 109. Nuts of all kinds, n.o.p., but not including shelled peanuts, n.o.p., one cent per pound.


Jean-François Pouliot: We are now discussing not the cans but the shells.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We do not produce any nuts, I take it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-ex 114. Nuts, shelled, n.o.p., but not including shelled almonds, peanuts or walnuts, 2 cents per pound.
John Ritchie MacNicol: Did we carry sub-items (b) and (c) of item 106?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes; the item was carried as a whole.


Jean-François Pouliot: Would item ex. 114 include salted peanuts?


Richard Bedford Bennett: In both these cases we reduced beyond the intermediate tariffs?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Jean-François Pouliot: Even for salted peanuts.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: In this instance I notice a striking reduction. Item ex. 114 refers to "nuts, shelled, n.o.p., but not including shelled almonds, peanuts or walnuts, per pound, two cents," and the British preferential rate is three cents. Under the tariff which existed before the agreement the general rate was four cents, and the intermediate rate, three and one-third cents. In this instance we take it far below the intermediate and the British preferential. What is the reason?


Charles Avery Dunning: The new rate automatically goes to Great Britain.


Abraham Albert Heaps: How many nuts were imported from British countries and from the United States in the past fiscal year?


Charles Avery Dunning: There is no record of any importations from British countries.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But there were some.


Charles Avery Dunning: We must remember that the item includes shelled nuts, with the exception of shelled almonds, peanuts and walnuts. The imports of all other shelled nuts from the United States amounted to 634,000 pounds, valued at $195,000; from Brazil they were
441,000	pounds, valued at $85,000, from Spain there were 353,000 pounds, valued at $53,000 and from Mexico 126,000 pounds, valued at $32,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-116. Halibut, fresh, pickled or salted, one cent per pound.
Mr. HANSON:: That is the same duty as obtained before, is it not?


Charles Avery Dunning: No; it is a reduction.


Olof Hanson: There was one cent on American halibut coming into Canada before, and two cents on Canadian halibut going into the United States. May I say that the greatest part of our halibut is shipped from the Pacific coast, and Canadian fishermen were operating under a handicap of two cents per pound, as compared with American fishermen. Since the agreement came into effect, Canadian fishermen have had the benefit of a rate of one cent per pound, and this means between $60,000 and $70,000 a year to them. Their catch is between 6,000,000 and 7,000,000 pounds. May I congratulate the government upon at least cutting the rate in half, and I hope that in time they may be able to wipe it out alto-

Canada-UJ>. Trade Agreement
gether. When the cut in the rate was announced I received communications from fishermen on the Pacific coast who told me to bring a message to the Liberal chieftain and the government stating that they were pleased to see the adjustment brought about for which they have been working for the past few years. I hope the government will make further efforts towards removing the duty altogether, and putting halibut on the free list.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What are the rates under the new arrangements with the United States for the importation of fresh halibut?


Charles Avery Dunning: One cent,


Richard Bedford Bennett: The same as our own?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is a reciprocal rate?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What was it previously?


Charles Avery Dunning: Two cents.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And before the Fordney-McCumber tariff, what was it?


Charles Avery Dunning: Two cents.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What are our exports? I believe all the halibut from this country went to the United States, and no halibut to speak of is shipped from the eastern coast. Practically all of it comes from the Pacific coast.


Charles Avery Dunning: Last year there were 26,205 hundredweight shipped to the United States, valued at $230,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Fresh?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, fresh halibut.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Are there any imports of halibut?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes; my figures are reduced to pounds. From the United States we imported 40,000 pounds, valued at $3,000, and from Newfoundland, 208,000 pounds, valued at $18,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Did Newfoundland get the benefit of this rate?


Charles Avery Dunning: The British preferential is free at the present time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But the minister will recall that there is some question about Newfoundland. Does Newfoundland get the benefit of the free rate or the cent rate? I should think it would be free.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am not sure about it.


Charles Avery Dunning: All products of the
fisheries of Newfoundland are free.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, but the minister will remember some question was raised about it. There is not a very firm foundation, but I assume it is on a free basis.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Mr. NEILL:: From which coast do importations come, the Pacific or the Atlantic?


Charles Avery Dunning: I have no way of identifying the ports at which the 40,000 pounds entered.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think it is admitted
that practically all the exports go from the Pacific coast.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: As I heard the hon. member I thought he said that the value of exports of halibut amounted to $230,000.


Charles Avery Dunning: I said $230,000 represented the value of exports to the United States only. To the United Kingdom we exported 22,516 hundredweight, valued at $208,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That would total what
amount?


Charles Avery Dunning: It is $447000 worth, or
nearly 50,000 hundredweight.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Nearly $450,000 worth?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, in total exports.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is not the hon. member for Skeena in error when he states that it means $70,000 to the fishermen? The total value is $450,000, and the reduction of duty is from two cents to one cent, or a fifty per cent reduction.


Olof Hanson: The total output of Canadian fishermen is between 6,000,000 and 7,000.000 pounds. Whether it is sold in Canada or the United States or elsewhere they have been under a handicap of two cents per pound, as compared with American fishermen. That amount of fish could not be consumed in Canada and consequently has to be exported. I am not saying what we shipped to the United States, but the fact is that we had to look to that market or to Great Britain.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then it costs the consumer a cent a pound more?


Olof Hanson: The fishermen will get one cent per pound more.

Canada-UJS. Trade Agreement


Percy John Rowe: And perhaps that will help the consumer?


Olof Hanson: At least it helps the producer.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-ex 123. Lobsters, prepared or preserved, free.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Lobsters now enter the
United States free.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, and they are bound on the free list under the agreement.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We are now reciprocating by giving them free entry into our market. That is the story.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes; that is the story, and the particulars are these. We imported last year from the United States 367 pounds of lobsters, valued at SI 16; we exported to the United States 8,523 hundredweight, valued at $453,000.


Jean-François Pouliot: Are the closed seasons the same in Canada and the United States?


Charles Avery Dunning: I am afraid I have not that information. I should add the figures respecting lobsters canned, because they are included in the item. Our production was 116,000 cases of 48 pounds, valued at $2,380,000


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is production. How much of that was exported?


Charles Avery Dunning: I gave the exports to the United States. To the United Kingdom we exported 27,521 hundredweight, valued at $1,232,000. We have a small export to quite a number of countries, the total export of canned lobsters being 52,912 hundredweight, valued at $2,500,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Practically half of that went to the United Kingdom?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, approximately half


Jean-François Pouliot: May I ask the Minister of Fisheries whether the closed seasons are the same in Canada and the United States, I mean as regards the time at which they begin to catch lobsters? That is very important if. the season is not the same in the United States as it is here in this country, the trade with the United. States will not interfere at all with our own.


Mr. BROOKS:: Is what is known as the spiny lobster included in this item?


Charles Avery Dunning: This is the only lobster item.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The spiny lobster has been ruled as a crayfish and is not included in the item.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-ex 123a. Shrimps, in sealed containers, 27J per cent.
Charles Avery Dunning: Imports and exports are not separately recorded.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It merely binds the present rate.


Charles Avery Dunning: No; it is a reduction in duty. It is dutiable under the present tariff at 174 per cent, forty per cent and forty per cent. The new rate is 274 Per cent.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-124.	Oysters, shelled, in
bulk, 5 cents per gallon.
Charles Avery Dunning: This is a reduction. The former rates were seven cents under the British preference, nine cents under the intermediate and ten cents per gallon under the general tariff. Under this item New Zealand has by virtue of her trade agreement a fixed rate of five cents per gallon, but with no guaranteed margins of preference.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is the United States duty against our shelled oysters?


Charles Avery Dunning: Free.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The whole year?


Charles Avery Dunning: They have agreed to
bind the free entry presently accorded to oysters.


Mr. ROBICHAUD:: What quantity of
oysters do we import from the United States?


Charles Avery Dunning: In bulk, shelled, 105,000
gallons, valued at $162,000 in 1935.


Louis-Prudent-Alexandre Robichaud: Personally I should
like to see an absolute embargo on the entry into Canada of the bluepoint so-called oyster, not because of competition-I am not afraid of competition-but because they are a misrepresentation and a fraud upon our famous Buctouche and Aldouane oysters. They are really not oysters at all. They do not taste *like oysters. They look more like quahaugs or clams, and when people eat them they say, "If those are oysters we won't buy any more." They are therefore injurious to our Buctouche and Al'diouane oysters.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

. Canada-U.S. Trade Agreement
Customs tariff-ex 133. Lobsters, fresb, free.
Charles Avery Dunning: This is a reduction. The present duties are fifteen per cent under the British, twenty per cent under the intermediate and twenty-five per cent under the general tariff.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Do we get free entry
for lobsters?


Charles Avery Dunning: We get free entry for Canadian lobsters.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What was the rate?


Charles Avery Dunning: They are free. We imported from the United States last year fifty pounds of fresh lobsters, valued at $15, and we exported to the United States 99,000 hundredweight, valued at $1,629,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is not this the issue?
Why should we have done this if we do not expect the Americans to do some more trading in lobsters in our market? There is no purpose at all.


Charles Avery Dunning: The purpose is to ensure the continuance of the free entry of our lobsters into the United States for three years.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Although they did most
of the buying last year. We bought only a trifling quantity from them.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: How long have we had
the right of free entry into the United States?


Charles Avery Dunning: I cannot answer that
offhand.


Jean-François Pouliot: This is most important,
because the United States could get deep sea lobsters from Bermuda and other places. They encourage our trade and they should be given consideration therefor.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Is it not a fact that very
few lobsters are caught in the United States?


Charles Avery Dunning: That is right.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The maritimes and Newfoundland are the main sources of supply. The United States want our lobsters.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes; and if they want
free entry, what is the matter?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: They have nothing to
enter.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-ex 133. Scallops, fresh but not frozen, free.
Charles Avery Dunning: This is a reduction.
Scallops are at present dutiable, fifteen per cent under the British preference, twenty per cent under the intermediate and twenty-five per cent under the general tariff. Under schedule II the United States guarantee the free entry of Canadian scallops, fresh but not frozen, the product of Canada. Our exports to the United States last year were 584,000 pounds, valued at $103,000.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: What were our imports
of scallops for the same period?


Charles Avery Dunning: The imports are not separately recorded; they are included in a bulk item.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: From what countries do we get them?


Charles Avery Dunning: We do not.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: No imports?


Charles Avery Dunning: Nothing to speak of.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Charles Avery Dunning: I think we have made fair progress and I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Will the minister be prepared to give us evidence of values and information of that kind in connection with the next item?


Charles Avery Dunning: I shall try to be as fully prepared as possible.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the house adjourned at 10.55 p.m.


END OF VOLUME I.