June 2, 1921

L LIB
PRO

Michael Clark

Progressive

Mr. CLARK (Red Deer):

They are certainly postponing the getting of it to the Ides of March. Do the Government expect to get these credits back? Was that part of their policy carried out simply as a straight steal from the consumers of Canada to give to their' friends the manufacturers? If they do expect those credits hack from Roumania,. the only way they can get them back is by importing goods from Roumania, and they are preventing those goods from coming in by means of what amounts to a prohibitive tariff.

There is only one other point I want to emphasize, and that is the point that was raised by my hon. friend from Neepawa (Mr. Davis). Do they suppose they will put Germany out of business by this little act in this country. All that we do by these silly retaliatory, hateful, and in the long run, immoral acts is to drive the trade of Germany elsewhere. We cut off our nose to spite our face, and we build up the trade of other countries; that is what we do. Those who have looked carefully into this thing, and who have been engaged in the importing trade in this country, think it likely that quite an amount of these goods will come to us through the United States. If these goods do not come to us, certainly the United States will increase her tr'ade enormously, or at least to the extent of the trade which we absolutely cut off with these countries. Now, we have certain friendships with the United States, but we have also certain rivalries, and I should have thought this Government, of all governments, would have asked before it embarked upon such a policy: Is it worth while undertaking a policy which will have for one of its direct effects the building up of our commercial rival's trade with other countries in Europe? That is an aspect of the case which perhaps has not occurred to them. If it has not, I would like to know what the Government think about it when we take this up, I should be inclined to think, at a future sitting of the House.

I have pointed out these things as the practical results of their policy. I do not think there is any doubt about them. I have already admitted that I do not think their effects spell national disaster', because our trade with all these countries was comparatively small. I think the previous

TMr. M. Clark.]

clause is more serious for this country, because it affects our trade with the United States, or will, if taken advantage of to any great extent, but to the extent that this clause is operative at all, it will' lead to the results I have stated, and the proof of the pudding is in the eating. We are doing the best we can along these lines, I repeat, to diminish our' trade, to produce unemployment, to raise the cost of living to those who are unemployed, and to bring about national' commercial trouble and disaster.

Topic:   REVISED EDITION. COMMONS
Permalink
L LIB

Andrew Ross McMaster

Laurier Liberal

Mr. McMASTER:

By this legislation we are making it difficult for the Central Empires to recover. The Central Empires, or rather Republics, are a market for the goods of this country, agricultural, mining, and other. They can become a purchasing market again only by being able to sell their goods, and unless they can regain their purchasing power, we shall be seriously affected. Recently, legislation has been passed in the United States which will affect the entrance of our natural products into that market, so that we shall have to depend on the European and British markets to a greater extent than before. Any policy, therefore, which retards or prejudicially affects the purchasing power of Europe and Great Britain is bound to reflect adversely in the sales of our natural products, and this section of the Bill hurts farmers, lumbermen, miners and fishermen of this country. It goes still further. By reducing the selling power of the great natural producers, you affect their buying capacity, and therefore affect the market for our manufactures; so that in the long run, you will prejudicially affect precisely those classes of the community which this law is attempting to benefit. This is a mistake founded on a misconception of the fundamental economic laws underlying all trade and commerce. Many members on the other side seem to regard trade as a bad thing; at least, they regard buying as bad, although they think that selling is a good thing. They are making a mistake. This section of the Bill will hurt this country, and all classes in it, in the long run. I wish to register the most emphatic protest against it, and warn the Government against the error it is perpetrating in this regard.

Topic:   REVISED EDITION. COMMONS
Permalink
L LIB

Isaac Ellis Pedlow

Laurier Liberal

Mr. PEDLOW:

I do not think the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) overstated the case in regard to the question of the enhanced value of importations for customs purposes. In the

Weekly Bulletin for May 9, last, issued by the Department of Trade and Commerce, the value of the mark, as at May 4, is given at 1.7, and you would require seven times the present value of the mark to equal that 50 per cent, or, in other words, seven times the duty. So that if you import woollen goods, instead of a duty of 35 per cent, you would really pay seven times that or 245 per cent of a duty on merchandise, which is absurd. This law is based on a wrong presumption. I have here a copy of an extract from the Dry Goods Economist, one of the best trade publications in the world. It is dated Saturday, April 30, 1921, and I shall read extracts from an article headed "Foreign Currency Inflation and Commodity Prices." This article says:

The presumption on which this provision rests, presumably, is that prices of merchandise in other countries, as measured in American currency, have declined in proportion to the depreciation in the currency of those countries. In other words, it is argued that while an American exporter can buy a German mark for 1.6'0' cents

Such a presumption is based on entire ignorance both of economic laws and of the actual facts in the case.

An extreme illustration is the story of the Moscow cabman, who wanted to charge an American traveller the equivalent of $50 in roubles for driving him less than a mile from the railway station to a hotel, but who finally compromised by accepting a package of cigarettes instead of the money.

In the course of his statement the Appraiser pointed out that linens from Germany, for example, have increased in value in marks, over 1914 prices, approximately 2500 to 3!000 per cent, or 58 per cent in United States gold over pre-war prices in United States gold ; that German chinaware selling before the war at 4 marks is now sold in the home market at 60 marks, and that the price of German cutlery has increased about 2500 per cent in marks, or 50 per cent in United IStates gold as compared with pre-war prices in United States gold.

The German mark is now worth approximately one-fifteenth of its pre-war value, the members of the Association are paying for goods which they import from Germany from fifteen to eighteen times the pre-war prices of the same goods. Invoices of cotton hose and ladies' gloves imported from Germany in 1914 and in 19'21 by Marshall Field & Co. show even greater price increases-in German marks as well as in American dollars. Cotton hose have increased 2000 to 3000 and more per cent in German marks and 50 to 100 per cent and more in American dollars; increases in women's gloves run as high as 4000 per cent in German marks and 100 to 300 per cent in American dollars. .

In the face of these facts it is proposed in the anti-dumping section of the Emergency Tariff Bill to value the German mark for customs purposes at five times its present actual value.

On the basis of such a valuation the duty assessed on imported articles would in many instances amount to much more than their total price.

The practical effect of such a measure would be, of course, to stop altogether the importation of goods from those countries. If this is its purpose, if it is really intended as an embargo, it would be better to say so frankly, so that its nature would be clear to the eyes of the country. It is not likely that the country would stand for a commercial boycott against nations whose economic rehabilitation is essential both to our own prosperity and to the prosperity of the world at large.

It is to be hoped that this clause will be dropped from the Bill, for it is in the highest degree stupid and objectionable.

I might just add that this clause has been dropped entirely from the American Bill, owing to the protest which it aroused from both the consumers and the commercial interests of the United States and I would make an appeal to the Government to give the matter more mature consideration before deciding to enforce such a clause. When the provisions of the Bill become effective they will practically prohibit importations * from foreign countries altogether. The member for Brome (Mr. Mc-Master) raised a point, I think a very opportune one, in this connection, and that was as to how these countries in Central Europe are going to obtain the opportunity of rehabilitating themselves. If outside countries cease to do business with those countries, then the position of affairs in Central Europe will be hopeless-I do not think there will be much chance for them to re-establish themselves unless they receive assistance from the outside.

Some time ago the Minister of Finance quoted many authorities in support of his policy as embodied in this Bill. He endeavoured to show that the policy of Germany was to sell all she could. Let me say to the minister that even that be true such a policy is not a crime. I think the Canadian manufacturers would do well to follow the example of Germany and sell all the goods they can both at home and abroad. In fact it would appear to be the policy of the Minister of Trade and Commerce to encourage that idea in the mind of the Canadian manufacturer, and not only that but to assist him in extending his trade in all parts of the world. The Minister of Finance referred to the fact-and it is true [DOT]-that the Germans were able in some respects to undersell the British manufacturer and manufacturers elsewhere. The item of hooks and eyes was cited and it was mentioned that whereas the German manufacturer could produce hooks and eyes for

4!d. per pound, the wire alone in England cost 6d. a pound. There must be something wrong with the British manufacturer or with British workmen when such a thing is possible. From my knowledge of the subject, and from my reading, I have come to the conclusion that the British workman is not living up to the record which he had in past years-I refer to his pre-war record. I think that in a measure he is lying down on the job, and that accounts to a great extent-much more so than the reason assigned by the Minister of Finance -for the great disparity in the cost of production in the two countries. If it is a fact that Germany is selling merchandise the world over for Jess than that merchandise costs, it reminds me of the old woman who kept a stall in the market place in the city of Dublin. This old woman made a specialty of selling socks, and she always maintained that she sold those socks for less than they cost her, which accounted for the large business she did in socks and for her success as a business woman. I transmit that as an idea to the Minister of Finance when he says that Germany is making a success the world over by selling goods at less than the cost of production. In this connection I am reminded of one experience that Germany had on the sugar question many years ago. The Germans decided to pay a bounty on the sugar that was exported from Germany to foreign countries. Of course the effect was to drive the manufacturers of sugar in England out of business. But what happened? The sugar manufacturers in England turned round and bought the German made bounty-fed sugar, manufactured it into candy and sold it in Germany at a lower figure than the Germany manufacturers could produce the same article for. That is the way the thing works out. I will not follow thfe Minister of Finance in the remarks he has made with reference to the cost of living in Germany as compared with the cost of living in Great Britain and other countries. I still insist it would be a wiser method to discard all camouflage and prohibit importations altogether, because that will practically be the ultimate result of this enactment.

Topic:   REVISED EDITION. COMMONS
Permalink

Section agreed to. [DOT] On section 10-customs house brokers may be licensed at any port by collector, subject to approval by minister:


UNI L

Frederick Forsyth Pardee

Unionist (Liberal)

Mr. PARDEE:

Will it be necessary for any custom house broker now carrying on business to obtain a license?

Topic:   REVISED EDITION. COMMONS
Permalink
CON

Rupert Wilson Wigmore (Minister of Customs and Inland Revenue)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. WIGMORE:

Yes, it will be necessary for him to obtain a license.

Topic:   REVISED EDITION. COMMONS
Permalink
UNI L

Frederick Forsyth Pardee

Unionist (Liberal)

Mr. PARDEE:

Would a man now carrying on business have a right to obtain such a license?

Topic:   REVISED EDITION. COMMONS
Permalink
CON

Rupert Wilson Wigmore (Minister of Customs and Inland Revenue)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. WIGMORE:

If he has been carrying on a broker's business without any complaint at all, and there is nothing against him, of course a license will be given him.

Topic:   REVISED EDITION. COMMONS
Permalink
UNI L

William Stevens Fielding

Unionist (Liberal)

Mr. FIELDING:

What is the object of obtaining a license now?

Topic:   REVISED EDITION. COMMONS
Permalink
CON

Rupert Wilson Wigmore (Minister of Customs and Inland Revenue)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. WIGMORE:

We have had very

many complaints from a number of sections of the Dominion with regard to men who have been carrying on a broker's business. This legislation is with the idea of remedying that condition. When such complaints are made the license will be cancelled in the event of the complaints turning out to be well founded.

Topic:   REVISED EDITION. COMMONS
Permalink
UNI L
CON

Rupert Wilson Wigmore (Minister of Customs and Inland Revenue)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. WIGMORE:

Irregularities in connection with entries. A case occurred not long ago in Toronto where a customs brokerage house made default, a person in their employ having committed the theft of some $4,000 intended for the payment of different brokerage fees. We have had complaints from several quarters.

Topic:   REVISED EDITION. COMMONS
Permalink
L LIB

James Alexander Robb

Laurier Liberal

Mr. ROBB:

There would be nothing in

the regulations to prevent an importing house passing any entry for their own purpose?

Topic:   REVISED EDITION. COMMONS
Permalink
CON

Rupert Wilson Wigmore (Minister of Customs and Inland Revenue)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. WIGMORE:

That is provided for

in the Act.

Topic:   REVISED EDITION. COMMONS
Permalink
UNI L

Frederick Forsyth Pardee

Unionist (Liberal)

Mr. PARDEE:

Has the minister any

idea to give the committee as to the number of licenses to be issued in towns and cities according to their size?

Topic:   REVISED EDITION. COMMONS
Permalink
CON

Rupert Wilson Wigmore (Minister of Customs and Inland Revenue)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. WIGMORE:

We are not limiting

the number.

Topic:   REVISED EDITION. COMMONS
Permalink
UNI L

Frederick Forsyth Pardee

Unionist (Liberal)

Mr. PARDEE:

Is it the (minister's

idea that there should be no limit on the number of brokers in any one place?

Topic:   REVISED EDITION. COMMONS
Permalink
CON

Rupert Wilson Wigmore (Minister of Customs and Inland Revenue)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. WIGMORE:

I do not think there

should be any limit. Any respectable citizen able to carry on should not be denied a license.

Topic:   REVISED EDITION. COMMONS
Permalink
UNI L

William Stevens Fielding

Unionist (Liberal)

Mr. FIELDING:

The minister is to

have power to fix the fee. Has he any idea what the fee should be?

Topic:   REVISED EDITION. COMMONS
Permalink

June 2, 1921