Mr. EULER:

Mr. Chairman, when I stated to my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) that he must be mistaken, I based that statement on the knowledge that I have. I could not understand for a moment the consistency of a firm asking for a decrease in the tariff at one time, and then for an increase at another. Such a contradictory attitude is not reasonable. But I do happen to know that in both instances they did ask for an increase in the tariff, because members of the firm in question came to my office and spoke to me with regard to the necessity of an increase in the tariff if their business was to be saved.

Mr. STEVENS:

On the finished product?

Mr. EULER:

Certainly. If in the report which has been read by my hon. friend they

1506 COMMONS

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff

are shown as asking for a decrease, I am very certain there must 'be an error. If they asked for a decrease, most assuredly it must be on the raw material which it is now proposed to make free.

I must say that I fail entirely to understand the position of my hon. friends opposite or that of my hon. friends in the corner to the right. The difference between them, as I take it, is to be found in the history of the two parties-one party being in favour of protection, the other being opposed to protection as a low-tariff or free trade part}'.

Mr. McGIBBON:

The minister combines them both.

Mr. EULER:

Just two days ago the representatives of this company came to my office and stated their difficulty. At the time I suppose they had no knowledge of the reduction in the tariff on their raw material.

Mr. ROBB:

Yes, it was in the budget.

Mr. EULER:

Well, they stated to me at that time that unless they received an increase in the tariff on the finished product they could not survive. I do not know whether that is true or not, but that is the situation as they represented it to me.

Mr. GUTHRIE:

Should not the tariff board have found that out at the investigation?

Mr. EULER:

I am just stating what is within my knowledge because of what my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre said a few minutes ago. I may go a little further. Speaking for myself alone-and I think what I am going to say will meet with the approval of everybody, my hon. friends directly opposite as well as my hon. friends to the right-I submit that if the government can assist any industry-and after all a rnanufiaeturer is a citizen of this country and deserving of consideration as well as any other citizen, and the mere fact that he is a manufacturer should not prejudice him-if the government can help any manufacturer without injuring the consumer, I think my hon. friends to the right will have no objection to such action. That, it seems to me, is exactly what was being done in this case. By giving a reduction on the raw material the manufacturer will be enabled to produce his product a little more cheaply, and, whether he does or not, he ought to pass on to the consumer some of the advantage,-

That is the problem.

Mr. EULER:

-if he can stand it.

Oh, oh.

Mr. EULER:

That is a perfectly fair argument. If he has been able at all to survive with the duty on his raw material in the past, assuredly he should not increase the price to the consumer now that he is able to buy his raw material a little cheaper. Therefore by this act of legislation the consumer is not going to be injured, but the manufacturer may legitimately receive a little assistance. That seems to me to be the position.

For the life of me I cannot see why my hon. friends on the other side should object if the manufacturer is assisted, unless they accuse us of inconsistency in so assisting the manufacturer; but I see no inconsistency at all in our attitude. The consumer himself is not injured because the manufacturer can produce more cheaply than he did before, and at the very worst he should not charge any higher price to the consumer, and perhaps he will charge a lower price by reason of the fact that he can manufacture more cheaply.

Mr. ROBB:

Mr. Chairman, I have just found my portfolio, and before the house adjourns I should like to put the following on Hansard:

Examination of the records in the possession of the tariff board indicates:

1. This company was established in Peterborough only in 1927, in the knowledge that the general tariff on wax crayons was 17i per cent.

2. That in that same year (December 6, 1927) it applied to the Minister of Finance to have the general tariff on crayons elevated to 49 per cent and the British preferential to 30 per cent.

3. That the first hearing of the application was held on May 16, 1928, and the second hearing on November 30, 1928.

4. That in its first year of activity, namely, 1928, this company's sales were stated to be about $12,000 or, roughly, 40 per cent of the total Canadian market for the commodity.

5. That the chief competing country of which the company complains is the United States.

Evidence at the hearing brought out the fact that the stock in the applicant company is owned in part by the American Crayon Company of the United States and the complaint that the Canadian concern was at a disadvantage with its larger American competitors in *respect of purchases of raw material and labour and distribution of costs. Evidence showed that there were in the United States nearly one hundred crayon companies and, therefore, the industry in that country was highly competitive. It was shown by the applicant company, that three of its major raw materials were paraffin wax, colours and stearic acid. It is proposed under the present budget that stearic acid for the manufacture of crayons be admitted free of duty; the duty on colours and pigments is still und'er review in connection with the reference re paints; there is before the board an application for the reduction of duty on paraffin wax. It is the case, therefore, that the application of the Canada Crayon Company Limited cannot be said to have been fully dealt with until the applications involving colours and paraffin wax have been disposed of.

Private Bills

That is part of the raw material.

So far as the board is concerned, there has been no delay in the investigation of this case; indeed, a measure of relief is proposed in the present budget, although two major factors of the cost of production of crayons are still under review.

At the second hearing of the application, Hr. R. P. Sparks,-

We have heard of him before.

And you will hear

from him again too.

Mr. ROBB:

Probably.

[DOT]-representing the Garment Manufacturers Association of Canada, objected to any increase in tariff that might involve chalks used in the clothing industry; these chalks, the applicants state, were not included in their application.

There are two ways to help the industry:

1. Reduction of duty on raw materials;

2. Increase of duty on crayons.

It has been decided to recommend some change of the duty on the raw materials.

Mr. BENNETT:

Who is that from?

Mr. ROBB:

An officer in the department.

Progress reported.