May 3, 1910

CON

David Henderson

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. HENDERSON.

contained in 711. Where an item is rated in our tariff under the general term, I see no reason why the government should change the rate in order to bring it under this item. To make my case clear, I refer to the article of lime which is named in a paper which the government has laid before us, stating the value of the articles entered under the tariff item 711: ' All

goods enumerated in the tariff schedule in the general tariff, entered for consumption in Canada during the year ending 31st March, 1909.' Amongst those articles is mentioned the article of quick lime, hydrated lime, lime practically of any kind produced in this country. Now in our tariff we have an item ' manufacturers of stone, n.o.p.' I do not think it requires much thought to arrive at the conclusion that lime is a manufacture of stone. To my mind it is clearly such, as it is produced by heat being applied to the lime stone; it is the result of an industrial process brought about by the application of heat to convert the stone into lime. It is clearly a manufacture of stone, and therefore should not be placed among those items in article 711 of our tariff, or amongst the unenumerated items. The difference is this: Under the unenumerated articles

the duty henceforth will only be 17J per cent; treated as a manufacture of stone, as it ought to be treated, and where parliament declared it should be treated, it would be 30 per cent, because parliament passed a law placing manufacturers of stone not otherwise provided for, under a rate of 30 per cent duty. That is clearly to my mind where lime ought to be classified; it is a manufacture of stone, and does not require to be put in the unenumerated list. You can only classify in this unenumerated list an article which is not covered in any other way by the tariff. Clearly lime is covered by our tariff specifically, under the item of manufacturers of stone, n.o.p. What I ask the government to do is to change the classification of this article, and put it where it ought to be, under the item of manufacturers of stone, and not keep it as an article unenumerated in the tariff at all. Now this is an industry in which considerable capital is invested, it is an important industry all over the country. I know whereof I speak in western Ontario, and .something of it in the great west. A considerable amount of money is invested in the production of this article, it employs a considerable amount of labour. It consumes a large amount of fuel which probably would not be required for almost any other purpose, furnace wood, which is usually wood of an inferior quality. In the burning of lime a large amount of coal is used. That coal is imported from the United States. Those who are engaged in the industry Mr. HENDERSON.

have to pay 53 cents a ton duty on their coal, and I think it hardly fair, on an article where such a high duty has to be paid on the raw material, or what is necessary to produce this article, that we should now reduce the duty from where it has beqj| for a great many years. I cannot conceive what argument could be advanced for putting this article under item 711. I want to impress upon the committee that lime is simply a manufacture of stone, and manufacturers of stone are n.o.p., 30 per cent under the tariff, and there lime ought to be classified.

If it is classified in that way, as it ought to be, it would not be subjected to a reduction such as is going to be made under this new American treaty. I do not think it would interfere with the government's arrangement with the United States. All that the government is bound to give are the articles enumerated in item 711, but the United States cannot claim the right to send into this country at the 17J per cent rate any item that is enumerated in our tariff schedules under any other heading. I think that is quite clear. The Minister of Finance would have no difficulty in relieving himself of any obligation to the American government with regard to this matter if he would simply change the classification. The only argument that I have heard advanced to justify this article being put on the unenumerated list is that lime is a chemical. You may call it a chemical, or an acid, or anything you like, but you cannot get away from the fact that it is a manufacture of stone, and manufactures of stone not otherwise provided for are on the 30 per cent list and not in item 711 at all. I care not whether those who have the interpretation of our tariff call it a chemical or not; if it is a chemical it is still a manufacture of stone, and would be properly rated in that way. You might as well call iron and steel chemicals because they are produced by means of heat from ore, but notwithstanding that fact no one hesitates to place such articles in our tariff schedules. Lime ought to be properly enumerated, but as it is not definitely enumerated under a name, we must fall back upon the general name under which it is enumerated as a manufacture of stone. I appeal to the government to see that those who are engaged in this industry do not suffer by means of this new tariff. Ordinary quick lime may adapt itself to the requirements of the tariff more readily, although this change might handicap the industry a great deal coming on the producer suddenly. But there is a class of lime known as hydrated lime, or hard wall plaster, which is more expensive in its production and is being called for very extensively. Recently in the city of Guelph a plant has been put in at a cost of $8,000 for the manufac-

ture of hard wall plaster that can be shipped all over the country after it has gone through that process, and kept for six or ten months without deteriorating, in this respect being unlike ordinary quick lime, which would spoil in warm weather in four or five days or a week. Plasterers in the large cities during the winter season demand it, because it is easier for them to work it than the ordinary quick lime in the cold weather. A very considerable quantity of this is being imported into this country at the present time. The manufacture of hydrated lime is a comparatively hew thing in this country, and, therefore, I think it is well that we should guard the industry as much as we possibly can. I notice that up to December 31, 1910, there were imported into Montreal of this product, 10,856 barrels of a value of $4,488, on which there was duty paid of $885.65. There were imported into Toronto, 14,686 barrels, at a cost of $8,060, paying a duty of $1,612. This, as I have said, is a comparatively new thing, it is a growing import, and I do not doubt that next year you will find the import of this article very much increased to the detriment of a new industry which has been established at a very considerable expense and which is yet simply in its initial stage.

I appeal to the government, more especially on the article of hydrated lime, to see that it is properly classified as a manufacture of stone,' and not put in the enumerated list in order that the duty will not be reduced from 30 per cent to 174 Per cent. It may be said that the import of lime is not verv great. The importation of lime into Canada last year was 191,572 barrels, of a value of $116,946. So we see that the importation is very considerable, and it is growing year by year. Now, I make this appeal, i leave it to the members of the government to see that there is a new classification of this article before the matter is finally ratified, and that it is put into its proper place as a manufacture of stone and not left on the unenumerated list. There are many counties throughout the province of Ontario particularly that are interested in this question, for instance, the counties of Wellington, South Oxford, South Perth, represented by the chairman of this committee, Mr. McIntyre, and Renfrew; while the county that I represent perhaps produces more of that article than any other county in the province. Consequently, I feel somewhat keenly on the subject. I hope the interests of these people may not be jeopardized. I hope their interests may be guarded as well as they have been before, and that the government will not allow American lime to invade the country to a larger extent and at a lower rate of duty. I trust that the government will take a fair view of this matter and do what is necessary to comply with my request.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-TRADE RELATIONS WITH THE UNITED STATES.
Permalink
LIB

William Stevens Fielding (Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Liberal

Mr. FIELDING.

The point raised by my hon. friend from Halton (Mr. Henderson) has no particular reference to this Bill, although it affords him an opportunity of calling attention to what he deems to be an error. It is a question of the interpretation of an item of the tariff. Whether or not that interpretation is correct is a fair matter for consideration. The Board of Customs is the body authorized to rule as to the meaning of the tariff, and it has in the past held that lime ought to come within the list of unenumerated items. If that is a mistake, I am sure that I will be very glad to have my hon. friend call attention to it. I cannot offer any opinion as to what is the proper classification of this article. The Board of Customs, I am quite sure, will be glad to have any observations that my hon. friend may submit to it.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-TRADE RELATIONS WITH THE UNITED STATES.
Permalink
CON

David Henderson

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. HENDERSON.

I thought this was a very proper time to bring this matter to the attention of the government.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-TRADE RELATIONS WITH THE UNITED STATES.
Permalink
LIB

William Stevens Fielding (Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Liberal

Mr. FIELDING.

I am not objecting. My hon. friend's point would still seem to be quite in order.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-TRADE RELATIONS WITH THE UNITED STATES.
Permalink
CON

David Henderson

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. HENDERSON.

I took this opportunity, as I did not know that I would have any other. I repeat again that parliament has declared that stone not otherwise provided for is dutiable at 30 per cent under our tariff, and bv what course of reasoning can any body of men occupying the official position that has been designated- the Board of Customs-take that article, which is a manufacture of stone, and place it in another item and say that it is not enumerated? I think that the government is responsible for this. It has been so classified for forty years. Possibly the Board of Customs is simply following what is the old practice.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-TRADE RELATIONS WITH THE UNITED STATES.
Permalink
LIB

William Stevens Fielding (Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Liberal

Mr. FIELDING.

Very likely.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-TRADE RELATIONS WITH THE UNITED STATES.
Permalink
CON

David Henderson

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. HENDERSON.

If the minister will go back for fifty or sixty years, I can show him that lime was on the enumerated list up to 1859. You will find lime on the enumerated list before confederation.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-TRADE RELATIONS WITH THE UNITED STATES.
Permalink
LIB

William Stevens Fielding (Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Liberal

Mr. FIELDING.

Where?

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-TRADE RELATIONS WITH THE UNITED STATES.
Permalink
CON

David Henderson

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. HENDERSON.

In the Customs Act.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-TRADE RELATIONS WITH THE UNITED STATES.
Permalink
LIB

William Stevens Fielding (Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Liberal

Mr. FIELDING.

There was none before confederation.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-TRADE RELATIONS WITH THE UNITED STATES.
Permalink
CON

David Henderson

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. HENDERSON.

There was between the provinces of British North America.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-TRADE RELATIONS WITH THE UNITED STATES.
Permalink
LIB

William Stevens Fielding (Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Liberal

Mr. FIELDING.

They had their different tariffs.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-TRADE RELATIONS WITH THE UNITED STATES.
Permalink
CON

David Henderson

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. HENDERSON.

I am speaking of the tariff of UppeT and Lower Canada. That tariff had the item lime which was then in the unenumerated list. Now, why should it be changed? If it was a proper thing then it should be a proper thing now.

The whole matter was possibly brought about as a result of an accident. Possibly it had been left out of the tariff and because it was not found in the tariff it was treated as an unenumerated article and continued in that wray. I submit to the minister that it is a proper matter to bring before the Governor in Council in order to have what I consider to be an error rectified and in order to do justice to an industry which is of a very considerable importance in this country.

Resolution reported, read the second time and agreed to.

Mr. FIELDING moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 233) to amend the Customs Tariff, 1907.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-TRADE RELATIONS WITH THE UNITED STATES.
Permalink

Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time


DRY-DOCK SUBSIDIES.


Bill (No. 229) to encourage the construction of dry-docks-Mr. Fielding-read the second time, and House went into committee thereon. On section 4,


CON

Edward Arthur Lancaster

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. LANCASTER.

I would like to ask the minister what those statutes are that are referred to in this section? It refers to the works and property of any existing dry-dock company whose dock has been constructed under the provision of certain statutes. What are these statutes?

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-TRADE RELATIONS WITH THE UNITED STATES.
Subtopic:   DRY-DOCK SUBSIDIES.
Permalink
LIB

William Stevens Fielding (Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Liberal

Mr. FIELDING.

We have had for many years Acts on the statute-book of a general character authorizing the construction of dry-docks and providing certain subsidies for them. These have been changed from time to time to meet the changed conditions of the country. The law as it stands tc-day authorizes the government to grant a subsidy of 3 per cent per annum for 20 years for the construction of a dry-dock with a maximum cost of one and a half million dollars and this would mean that any dock constructed under the terms of these Acts might be enlarged under the provisions of the new law. "

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-TRADE RELATIONS WITH THE UNITED STATES.
Subtopic:   DRY-DOCK SUBSIDIES.
Permalink
CON

Edward Arthur Lancaster

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. LANCASTER.

Do the latter statutes amend the former?

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-TRADE RELATIONS WITH THE UNITED STATES.
Subtopic:   DRY-DOCK SUBSIDIES.
Permalink
LIB

William Stevens Fielding (Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Liberal

Mr. IIELDING.

I think in each case the former Act was repealed and the new Act substituted.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-TRADE RELATIONS WITH THE UNITED STATES.
Subtopic:   DRY-DOCK SUBSIDIES.
Permalink

May 3, 1910