Mr. EULER:

I am saying that absolutely in good faith. Instructions were given by the commissioner-and by the way, I will say that I had nothing to do with the rate at which the increase was made, 40 per cent. That is not too high if goods are being sold we will say at 50 per cent of their cost, as sometimes is the case when people in the United States have stocks on hand which they cannot sell in that country and which they attempt to dump into this country.

Hear, hear.

Mr. EULER:

Yes, I mean exactly what I say. My hon. friends are just as much opposed to that as I am. If goods, for example came

into this country at 50 per cent of their cost in the United States, an increase of 40 per cent on that 50 per cent would only amount to 20 per cent, which would make a valuation of 70 per cent, still 30 per cent lower than their actual cost, so that the amount of 40 per cent sounds a great deal higher than it may be in actual fact.

Mr. BENNETT:

It exactly means forty cents on the dollar.

Mr. EULER:

It depends on what you have as your basis. If goods come in at 70 per cent of their cost, 40 per cent of that is only 28 per cent.

Mr. BENNETT:

Quite so; but these two things stand together, and let there be no misunderstanding. What happened was this: furniture came into this country under a 30 per cent duty. The commissioner of customs and the minister says he does not know anything about this 40 per cent-

Mr. EULER:

I do not want to be misunderstood; I knew that a higher valuation was being asked for but I did not know it would be 40 per cent.

Mr. BENNETT:

The law says he is the man who should know.

Mr. EULER:

My hon. friend knows very well that the minister is empowered to do a great many things which are done by his deputy.

Mr. BENNETT:

The minister must take the responsibility for that action. If he does not know about its being taken he does not know his business.

Mr. EULER:

I will do that; I will take the responsibility.

Mr. BENNETT:

If he does not know what is done he does not know his business. Knowing it means that he approves of it. Who is Mr. Breadner, the Commissioner of Customs? He has no place in our institutions; he is not responsible to parliament. The minister is responsible; the minister is the man who under the statute is responsible, and he increased the duty by 40 per cent. Therefore the duty becomes 42 per cent.

Mr. DUNNING:

Pending adjustment.

Mr. BENNETT:

Pending adjustment, as the minister says, but you delay the adjustment and maintain a duty of 42 per cent.

Mr. EULER:

Forty per cent.

Mr. BENNETT:

No forty-two per cent; forty per cent of 30 per cent is 12 per cent,

Ways and Means-Supply Bill

and 12 per cent added to the present 30 per cent makes a duty of 42 per cent which is now imposed. There should be no misunderstanding about that. Now we come to the other item about which he says he has had applications. If the application is acceded to, the proposal will be to change the rate of discount. Why could not the same power be exercised in the one instance as in the other?- because in the one instance they ship over goods at wholesale prices and then put in a traders' or dealers' discount, the discount they allow to large dealers in their own country, or large wholesale buyers. This discount varies with various factories. The suggestion has been made that this should not be allowed. The effect, of course, would be the same as the effect which has been attained by the use of the regulation referred to.

My submission is this, thait if anything of this sort was contemplated, instead of doing it by an indirect method by which the public would not be advised that tariffs were being increased, the government should have faced it like men and increased the tariffs and put them on the statute books of the country rather than do it by that indirect method. I am making that point in all sincerity, because the people of this country have the right to know about these things. Now, in the closing hours of this parliament they see in newspapers coming from the border cities and scattered all over Canada that this method is to be taken to effectuate the same purpose as was attained with respect to furniture. Why was not the tariff on furniture dealt with boldly and bravely and squarely and fairly and honestly in this house, instead of utilizing the Commissioner of Customs for the purpose of increasing by 40 per cent the value for duty on that commodity? That is the question I am putting to the hon. gentleman.

Mr. EULER:

I am afraid my hon. friend

is waxing indignant about something that does not exist. As far as furniture is concerned, that happened to be a matter of emergency because there were great stocks of furniture which the manufacturers in the United States were attempting to dump into this country. The very same action would follow, so far as the customs department is concerned, if the the same conditions obtained in any other line of manufacture.

Mr. BENNETT:

Quite so.

Mr. EULER:

I am sure my hon. friend

does not question the propriety of the department doing that.

Mr. BENNETT:

It is the way in which

it was done.