1923-04-26

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 136, to amend the Immigration Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the few amendments we are proposing to the act are merely to make it conform to changed conditions. Some sections with respect to alien enemies are being amended, and in the case of section 41 we are reverting to the old Section in substitution of

the amended section of two years ago. We are also increasing the fines from $10 to $20 where shipmasters are negligent in reporting desertion.
Mr. JACOBS:: What is the change in section 41?


Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil):: We revert to old section 4 of two years ago.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. THOMPSON:: 1.	Is the Montreal Cold Storage a national institution?
2.	To what extent is it financed by the government and at what rate of interest?
3.	What are the net results (profit or loss) on the operating expenses of this storage for its first year's operations?
4.	How will deficits be met, and in event of loss will harbour dues be increased to meet same?
5.	Are the rates charged by the Montreal commission lower than other public cold storages charged previous to opening the Montreal commission's plant?
6.	Is it the intention of the government to subsidize cold storages to be operated by co-operative associations in various parts of the country with the idea of having a chain of storages in the country to supply the Montreal Cold Storage and thus have all under government control?
7.	Would there be any discrimination against private individuals or corporations who might desire a subsidy for a cold storage plant, or is it intended to assist only rural communities that are organized?
8.	Has any provision been made for the continuance of a subsidized cold storage in case of disorganization of the co-operative societies?
9.	In the event of public cold storages being closed as a result of competition is there likely to be any increase in the rates charged by the Montreal commission ?


Hon. Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	The Harbour Commissioners of Montreal have at that port a cold storage plant in addition to other cold storage plants at Montreal.
2.	The building of this plant was financed to the extent of $2,765,000 out of money loaned by the government under statutory authority and secured by debentures bearing interest at 5 per cent.
3.	Operation and maintenance, 7 months, $113,789.62; interest on cost of construction, 7 months, $80,665.60; total reoeipts for 7 months, $55,416.45.
4.	It is confidently expected that the plant will in future be self-sustaining, but any deficit that may occur will be met from general harbour revenues without increasing harbour dues.

Questions
5.	The rates charged by the harbour commissioners' cold storage plant are the same as those charged by the other cold storage plants in Montreal, with the exception that in the case of the former no charge is made for insurance.
6.	No.
7.	The Cold Storage Act, as approved by the Committee on Agriculture and Colonization, provides that subsidies be paid only on account of municipal and co-operative cold storages.
8.	No provision has been made for the continuance of a subsidized cold storage in case of disorganization of the co-operative societies, but the act will provide that the government shall hold a lien on the cold storage for the full amount of the subsidy.
9.	There is no likelihood whatever of the rates in the harbour commissioners cold storage plant being increased if the other cold storages become closed as a result of competition, the intention of the harbour commission being to make the charges for this service as low as they possibly can, having regard to revenue requirements.


CANADIAN VICKERS
Mr. WOODSWORTH:: 1.	What investment, if any, has the government in the plant of Canadian Vickers?
2.	What moneys, if any, are being paid Canadian Vickers, and for what services?


Hon. Mr. COPP:: 1.	Not any.
2.	An annual subsidy of $105,000 is paid by agreement under authority of the Dry Dock Subsidies Act, 9-10 Edward VII, chapter 17 (1910), amended by 2 George V., chapter 20 (1912).


FEDERAL OFFICES, HAWKESBURY
Mr. BINETTE:: 1.	What is the revenue of the Custom House, at
Hawkesbury, Ontario?	*
2.	What amount is paid in salaries to the Dominion government employees, at Hawkesbury?
3.	What are the names, salaries and date of appointment of each government employee at Hawkesbury?
4.	Why was Dr. R. P. Pattee superannuated?


Hon. Mr. COPP:: Department of . Customs and Excise

1.	Revenue for the fiscal year 1922-23, $54,380.10.
2.	Salaries as of 1st April, 1923, $3,180.00 per year.
3.	Alex. Aiken, salary $1,080; employed January 22, 1917; permanently appointed October 1, 1917. W. T. Emonds, salary $1,140; employed February 18, 1913; permanently
appointed July 10, 1914. H. M. Mooney, salary $960; employed January 17, 1921.
4.	Retired order in council of May 18, 1921, under the provisions of the Public Service Retirement Act on the recommendation of the chairman of the sub-committee of council on reorganization and efficiency approving of a report and recommendation of the chairman of the Civil Service Commission.
Post Office Department-
1.	No information.
2.	No information.
3.	James G. Higginson, postmaster, salary $2,836.66, out of which the postmaster pays his assistants; appointed 1st June, 1869.
4.	No information.


PROTECTION OF TIMBER
Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: Referring to part K Auditor General's report for the year ending March 31st, 1921, at page 102, the item Interior-Protection of timber, $2,623.08:
1.	How was this sum expended?
2.	To whom was it paid?
3.	What service or material was received for same?
4.	Was same paid through any Yukon official?
5.	If so, through whom?
6.	If not, through what official of the government was same paid?


Hon. Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil):: 1. This money was paid from Protection of Timber Appropriation and sent to F. G. Ber-ton, Mining Recorder, Whitehorse, Yukon Territory, as follows, in payment of accounts rendered for fire-fighting:
August	17,	Cheque No.	203 for $ 210 45	November	12,	1J ))	1027 "	2,344 03December	17,	13 ))	1604 "	3 601921 January	31,	)) J>	1895 "	5 00March	9,	* })	2136 "	60 002. F. G.	Berton, Mining	$2,623 08 Recorder, White-	
horse.
3.	-
Travel-
Sept. 12, 1920, F. G. Berton, one-half expenses, Fire Inspection
trip	$	11 50
Fire fighters, etc.-
June pay list	$ 210 45
July pay list	 198 65
August pay list	 1,339 35
Services, 1 man, 1 day.. 5 00 W.P. & Y.R. Transport. 16 45

Questions

Auto Hire-
July 30, 1920, F. E. Harbottle	 30 00
July 29, 1920, R. H. Palmer	 74 00
Hardware-
July 30, 1920, John Sewell	 55 05
July 30, 1920, W. A.
Puckett	 100 95
Provisions, etc.-
From July 30 to August 20, 1920, Arctic Trading Co	
514	53From July 30 to August 20, 1920, White Pass & Yukon Rte. Freight. 7 15 Services, 75 hours, Aug- ' ust 1920, James Miller Services	
60	00


$ 104 00 I 156 00 S 581 68 82,623 08
[Stage Direction]
4.	Yes.
5.	F. G. Berton, Mining Recorder, Whitehorse.
6.	Answered by No. 5.
2.	What was the address and occupation of each member of the commission previous to his appointment?
3.	When were they appointed, and for how long?
4.	What is the salary of each commissioner?
5.	Are these salaries fixed by statute or are they voted annually?
Hon. Mr. ROBB:: 1.	Leslie H. Boyd, Fort William, Ont.; Matthew Snow, Fort William, Ont. and Winnipeg, Man.; James Robertson, Fort William, Ont.
2.	Leslie H. Boyd, K.C., Montreal, Que.; Matthew Snow, Secretary Northwest Grain Dealers' Association, Winnipeg; James Robinson, Vice-President Saskatchewan Co-operative Association, Regina, Sask.
3.	Leslie H. Boyd, March 27, 1917, period of ten years; Matthew Snow, April 19, 1922, period of ten years; James Robinson, September 1, 1922, period of ten years.
Leslie H. Boyd, Chief Commissioner, $6,500 per annum; Matthew Snow, Commissioner, $6,000 per annum; James Robinson, Commissioner, $6,000 per annum.
5.	Fixed by statute-Canada Grain Act.


INCOME TAX-PRAIRIE PROVINCES
Mr. SPENCER:: 


YUKON TELEGRAPH SYSTEM
Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: 1.	What was the revenue during the fiscal year ending March 31, 1922, from the Yukon Telegraph
System ?
2.	What was the revenue during the same period on the said system from messages sent and delivered within British Columbia?
3.	What was the revenue during the same period on said system from messages: (a) Sent and delivered within Yukon Territory; (b) Sent within Yukon Territory and delivered elsewhere; (c) Sent from points outside Yukon Territory and delivered within Yukon Territory ?


Hon. Mr. KING (Kootenay):: With respect to this question, we are waiting for information, which will be ready in a few days.
BOARD OP GRAIN COMMISSIONERS Mr. COOTE:
1.	What are the names and addresses of the members of the Board of Grain Commissioners?
1.	What has been the gross amount of revenue per year, collected by the Dominion government, from income taxes in the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba (separately), each year since the coming into effect of the said income tax?
2.	What has been the total cost of collecting thia tax each year?
3.	What has been the net revenue obtained from same?


Hon. Mr. FIELDING:: In accordance with section 4 of the Income War Tax Act payments made under the Business Profits War Tax Act are deducted from the amount of taxes that would otherwise be payable under the Income War Tax Act; also as the administration of both acts is conducted by the same staff the answers hereinafter given relate to the collections and expenses in these provinces under the two acts combined.
1	1919	1920	1921	1922	1923Manitoba	
$3,552,115	21	$4,627,585	75	$6,079,860	12	$7,439,409	42	$5,164,930	23Saskatchewan .. ..	457,433 88	1,261,685	48	1,519,890	82	2,665,235	37	1,738,248	78Alberta	
699,874	98	2,213,708	03	2,232,193	75	2,707,262	26	2,120,915	97
2.
Manitoba	
8	25,166 82 $ 117,270 60 $	93,484 45 $ 118,317 46 $ 112,313 36Saskatchewan	25,583	45	194,311	86	161,073	09	181,955	62	166,669	87Alberta	
25,209	37	101,425	87	79,093	65	95,163	87	100,025	72
3.
Manitoba	
$3,526,948	39	$4,510,315	15	$5,986,375	67	$7,321,091	96	$5,052,616	87Saskatchewan	431,850	43	1,067,373	62	1,358,817	73	2,483,279	75	1,571,578	91Alberta ..	....	674,665 61	2,112,282 16	2,153,100 10	2,612,098 39	2,020,890 25

Questions


SOLDIER SETTLEMENT LOANS
Mr. ARTHURS:: Referring to Hansard, page 2029, the Minister of Immigration stated, first column, that the total amount loaned under the Soldier Settlement Act was $94,993,421.38. At the foot of the second column he made the statement that the amount of money expended on loans was:-
Year	Loans
1918- 1919	$ 1,383,391 82
1919-	1920	
42,715,374	341920-	1921	
22,833,186	291921-	1922	
11,501,160	09

What is the explanation for the difference in the amounts ?


Charles A. Stewart: The loan disbursements for Fiscal Year 1920-1921 should read $32,833,186.29 and not $22,833,186.29; also the total loan disbursements quoted in the previous column ($94,933,421.38) are up to January 31, 1923. Therefore, it the amount disbursed from April 1, 1922, to January 31, 1923, ($6,560,308.84) is added, the statement printed in column 1, Page 2,106 will be found to be correct, viz:
Year	Loans
1918- 1919	$ 1,383,391 82
1919- 1920	 42,715,374 34
1920- 1921	:. 32,833,186 29
1921- 1922	 11,501,160 09
1922 to January 31,1923 6,560,308 84


$94,993,421 38 QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN GRAIN COMMISSIONERS-EMPLOYEES, ETC.
Mr. COOTE:: 1.	What was the total number of employees of the Board of Grain Commissioners at Fort William in the year 1922, and what was the total of the salaries paid during the year?
2.	What number of persons were employed in the Weighing department in each month, and what was the amount of wages paid to them in each month?
3.	What was the amount of grain weighed by this department in each month?
4.	What number of persons were employed in the Inspection department in each month, and what was the amount of wages paid to them in each month?
5.	What was the amount of grain inspected by this department in each month?


THETFORD MINES STRIKE
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Samuel William Jacobs: Is the government able to give us any information in regard to the strike at Thetford Mines?


Hon. JAMES MURDOCK (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the first information received by the government in regard to this
strike was this morning in a letter from the correspondent of the department at Thetford Mines. The strike appears to have started on Monday morning, some four hundred men being concerned. The company has closed the mines, and the employees so far have refused to consider returning to work unless and until the manager is removed. The provincial government is looking into the situation, That is all the information we have at the present time. My department has an officer on the spot making further inquiries to see if we can assist in settling the trouble.


SHIRE HORSES
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. ELLIOTT (South Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I notice in to-day's Citizen a-news item to the effect that the horses donated to Canada by the Shire Breeders of Great Britain have arrived at the Experimental Farm and will be kept there for a few days, their ultimate destination being Lacombe, Alberta. I should like to ask the minister (Mr. Motherwell)-unfortunately he is not in his seat at the moment-if it is the intention of his department to send all of these horses out to the West, or will any of them be retained in Ontario for the improvement of the breed in this province?


John Warwick King: I am sorry that the hon. Minister of Agriculture is not in his seat at the moment, but I shall have pleasure in directing his attention to the question which my hon. friend has asked.


VANCOUVER FISHERY PATROL
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Samuel William Jacobs: Can the government give us any information with respect to the killing of two American citizens by the crew of a Canadian patrol boat off Vancouver Island yesterday?


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Marine and Fisheries):: A preliminary report has been prepared in connection with this incident. Here is what has been supplied to me:
The fishery protection steamer Malaspina, Captain Newcombe in command, sighted the United States schooner Siloam, of Seattle, engaged in fishing within one mile of Solander island. Upon sighting the schooner, the captain blew three whistles, the usual signal for the schooner to stop. No attention having been paid this signal, the Malaspina fired three blank shots across the bow of the schooner. The latter continuing, two solid shots were fired across the

French Treaty

bow, but still no attention from the schooner. The captain of the Malaspina at this point hailed the captain of the schooner again, requesting him to stop, but he declined to do so. Two solid shots were then fired but missed, after which the Malaspina demanded that the schooner stop, warning the captain that if these instructions were not obeyed the vessel would be sunk. The schooner persisted in paying no attention to this warning, consequently no alternative was left to the captain of the Malaspina but to fire a rifle volley at the pilot house.
Unfortunately a man was wounded, but the schooner stopped and the schooner's boat brought the wounded man to the Malaspina and then headed for the shore. The report continues.
The Malaspina lowered a boat at once and a line was put on board the schooner, when it was discovered that the crew had scuttled her before leaving. The Malaspina then endeavoured to tow her, although full of water, and obtain medical aid for the wounded man. The Mounted Police and other authorities were notified and tried to arrest the four other men of the schooner's crew who had escaped.
It is the opinion of the officers of the department that these men are not American citizens, though they were on an American schooner; they are probably foreigners. We will have a final and more complete report in a short time.


INQUIRY FOR RETURN
Mr. ANDERSON:: I placed two questions on the order paper on 5th March. These questions were passed as orders for returns and appear in the votes and proceedings of 7th March. I should like to know when I may expect to receive an answer to these questions?


William Stevens Fielding: The questions were in a form which seemed to us to be incomplete. If the hon. member had in proper course moved his motion I would have asked an amendment which would have covered all the ground he wished to cover, and something more. The matter, of course, can only be brought up in its proper order. If the hon. member attaches importance to it, I would arrange with him as to what the amendment should be and we can bring down the return even yet.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: If I caught the minister's remarks, he does not propose, without an amendment, to bring down a return which has been ordered by the House?


William Stevens Fielding: My right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) is wrong; the return has not been ordered by the House?


Arthur Meighen: That was the statement of the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Anderson).


William Stevens Fielding: No, I do not think he meant that. The motion was put on the order paper and the hon. member was not here when it was called; at all events it was not moved in its proper order. My recollection is that it is still on the order paper as a notice of motion.


Robert King Anderson: They are in the Votes and Proceedings, and one has been passed as an order for return. The statement in the Votes and Proceedings of March 7th is that an order of the House had been issued to the proper officers to prepare the information asked for in the notice of motion.


William Stevens Fielding: Possibly I have the
wrong impression in mind; I will look into the matter. Certainly, the order I had in mind stood as a notice of motion. In view of the hon member's statement, however, i will make inquiries.


Robert King Anderson: There w'as also a question in my name which stood as notice of motion for an order for return. Then there was also an order of the House which was the result of a notice of motion.


William Stevens Fielding: Perhaps I have been referring to the wrong one. If so, my remarks have been out of place.


ILLICIT LIQUOR TRAFFIC
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. WOODSWORTH:: A number of papers in the United States and Canada are calling attention to the conditions which exist with regard to the rum running traffic. It is claimed that Canada is being used as a base for this illicit traffic from this country to the United States, and further that the new regulations are not at all effective in preventing this evil. I should like to ask whether the government is bringing in any measures with a view to dealing effectively with this matter?


John Warwick King: The government is exercising every care to see that the existing regulations are carried out. Thus far it has not been possible to devise more effective means than those we already have. It is probable that some of these reports are not well founded. However, I shall have pleasure in directing the attention of the minister to the matter and having it looked into further.


FRENCH TREATY
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, April 19, the debate on the motion of Hon. Mr. APRIL 26, 1923
French Treaty
Fielding for the second reading of Bill No. 23, respecting a certain Convention of Commerce between His Majesty and the French Republic.
Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, I desire to continue, though I fear my remarks will have to be brief, the discussion of the second reading of the French Treaty Bill. At the last sitting I called attention to the valuable concessions this country had given, concessions that aggregated a loss in revenue unquestionably amounting to between half a million and a million dollars-revenue that was derived from the users of undoubted luxuries and now must be made up by taking more or declining to take less from the pockets of the users of undoubted necessities. The price we pay does not end there. The price we pay involves as well disabilities upon primary producers of this country, producers of wines, producers, or contemplated and quite practical producers, of silks and many commodities in respect of which we now have remaining little more than a nominal duty against the importation. Every single item that appears in the schedules of the treaty affecting goods coming to Canada is a real item; every one is an item of some importance; many of them are items of major importance. The French negotiators did not consider that printer's ink was of particular value in a treaty; they wanted concessions that were concessions, and they got them. They did not think of the wisdom of going back to their parliament with a long list of articles which eve'n their parliament would know nothing about, such as was the course pursued by our representatives.
I want now to dwell on what we obtain which is alleged to be of value in the treaty; and I will not need to be detailed at all. The hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin) has placed upon Hansard figures taken from our export and import returns that bear directly on the value of this treaty on both sides, on the value of every concession or of everything that is supposed to be a concession to us. All that has been said about the treaty, assuming everything the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) has uttered to be correct, does not shatter in the least degree the case made by the* hon. member for Lincoln. The Minister of Finance says, "Oh, we get concessions here in respect of certain goods asked to be reduced by the Canadian Manufacturers' Association," and he read a list of those goods, undoubtedly articles in respect of which he has already had the duty reduced down to the
American level, in some cases down to the minimum tariff, but in all cases to the American level, and he says: Look at that for a triumph! Is not that something worth while? Those articles, he says, are not to be treated with scorn as the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin) treated them. Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Lincoln treated no article that the minister mentioned with scorn, not at all. He admitted they were concessions. But are they of much value? Surely ministers do not come here and say they sat for three, four or five months in Paris trying to get a few spare parts of implements down to the American level of duty.
Take the minister's speech and read the articles to which he attributes so much importance-certain portions of agricultural implements, canvass for binders, magnetos for another implement that we sell to France, that is for automobiles, and other articles of similar kind. Read the list from beginning to end and I venture to say that there is not one article that the French people would not readily have reduced to the American level in their own interests for reasons that are so obvious that we would not need to send anybody to France. These articles are binder canvasses, canvass straps, magnetos, ordinary cast iron spares, straight solid steel shafts, tubular bored straight shafts, spark plugs and certain articles of a similar character in iron and steel. The French people are using the completed products of these goods. They have our binders, our mowers, our automobiles, and they found they could not get these spare parts except over a prohibitive duty. Why, the French people, one would think, would be at the door of their government to have these articles reduced. But it is worth something to Canada. No one disputes that it is of some value to the manufacturers of these goods, and they would ask for it, but it is no triumph for the Canadian negotiators and no real concession on the part of France. Grant the reduced duties on these articles, and everything the Minister of Finance has mentioned, and in sight of that meagre array just let us bring to our minds what the Minister of Finance has given.
I will refer in a moment to the contention of the minister that he could not do any better, that he did the best he could. But it is surely worth while for us to compare the conditions under this treaty with the conditions that existed before. If it is not, then the Minister of Finance simply raises the white flag and he says: We have got to do what ("very high tariff country in this world tells us; we have to do it; we have to bow-down and submit to the exactions which any
French Treaty

country wishes to impose. If the treaty we have with them is not good enough for them and they want something more to their advantage, all they have to do is to say so. That on the plea that he could do no better is the position of the Minister of Finance.
No, Mr. Speaker, we must compare the conditions under this treaty with the conditions that existed before, and I say that we would be infinitely better off without this treaty and have the conditions that existed before; and if France wants to get rid of the conditions that existed before, surely we are not going to proclaim that we are absolutely without weapons while France has all the weapons in her hands.	[DOT]
The minister has his schedule A in respect of which he has the French minimum tariff. Well, the French minimum tariff may be of value on certain goods, and may be of no value at all on other goods, and I venture to say that the Minister of Finance has not secured one single reduction in respect of schedule A, his best schedule, that is of any substantial value to the Dominion of Canada. But it is his best schedule. Most of our exports are under that schedule, the body of our exports that go to France to-day are under the general tariff, the general tariff being as regards them the same as the minimum tariff. Surely the minister was not afraid that there would be a penalty duty imposed against Canada. Our wheat, our grain and all these things that we export in tremendous quantities do not go very much into France, it is true, because the duty is so high, but they are our chief exports. The French general tariff is the same on them as their minimum tariff, and on the first page of Schedule A which embraces 65 per cent of the exports of Canada, the minister has secured reductions on five articles not one dollar of which we ever send to France, and the exports of Canada in relation to all of them and the possibilities of exports, well, they are almost negligible. They amount to nothing at all. Relative to the trade of the nation they are merely chicken feed, and the same applies to page 2 and page 3 of schedule A. The minister has nothing for this country on these pages. Go over , them one after the other. I think the total number of articles that come after page 1 of schedule A on which the minister has secured reductions is 19, and you can go over them one after another and you will rind in nearly all cases, and in all cases of consequence, that we are buyers of the same' goods from France or from the world, and in many cases from France herself, buyers in large amounts, and not exporters at all. Where we are exporters it is in trifling sums, (Mr. Meishen.]
and very little or nothing to France. Now what value is such a schedule to this country? Is it worth while paying an annual sum of from five hundred thousand to a million dollars for? Is it so worth while when we must throw down our bars on luxuries to Japan, to Italy, to Switzerland and all of some eleven favoured nations?


Mr. McMASTER:: Does the right hon.
leader of the Opposition mean to* infer that it is an expense to the Canadian people to get goods at a lower cost?


Arthur Meighen: Yes I do, when we have to pay extra on goods that we need far more. I wonder if the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) was in the Liberal convention in which they solemnly resolved to tax luxuries? He was there. Now he is going to support a bill which reduces the tax on luxuries and consequently imposes a heavier tax on necessaries. That is what I am against.
Now leaving schedule A, which is the best schedule, we have nothing at all that compares with the concessions granted-nothing at all. I venture to say, Mr. Speaker, that in respect to schedule B there are at least twenty-five penalties imposed on us the injury to Canada as regards any one of which is greater than all that we get in the whole of schedule A. In schedule B there are thirty articles, our large exports many of them, exports of which we send a substantial quantity to France, in respect of which the minister has gone over and yielded to the demand of France for a far higher duty than existed before. I say again, you can take not all of them upon which the tariff against us is raised by this treaty-there are about three not of very great consequence, but not more than three-there are twenty-five at any rate that are of outstanding consequence, and all of them or nearly all are of consequence to the agricultural producers of Canada. Is this the way to get wider markets? How are hon. gentlemen who are down here on a crusade for wider markets going to go h^me to their constituencies and say: The first vote I had on any treaty for wider markets I cast to curtail and contract the markets for the agricultural products of our country, but I did it because the Minister of Finance told me that when another country had a higher tariff than we had, we simply had to do it and that if we. pursued a low tariff doctrine, the same thing is what we would have to do every time. Such is the answer they will hat e to make, to their constituents as to why they voted for this contraction of the agricultural products markets of this country. The hon.

French Treaty
member for Brome shakes his head. Does he not see in this treaty agricultural products and manufactures of agricultural products one by one to at least twenty with the French duty raised against them, and he cannot point to one agricultural product with the duty lowered? Now he shakes his head; let him speak.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I point out a well-known economic fact-that if you allow goods to come into your country at a low rate of duty you help the exports from your country to the country from which the exports come.


Arthur Meighen: I see. So by reducing our duty on brandy we help our exports of meat.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: I see.


Andrew Ross McMaster: That is a well-known economic law. Of course, I would not say that brandy was a wise example.


Arthur Meighen: I would not think so -nor is silk, nor anything else that we reduce.


Andrew Ross McMaster: But it is correct economics.


Arthur Meighen: Would the hon. member also explain how, by lowering the duties on embroideries and silks, of which we import millions of dollars worth, we are going to help the farmer to sell his cattle?


Andrew Ross McMaster: Exactly.


Arthur Meighen: We will? With the tariff raised against us on cattle?


Andrew Ross McMaster: Exactly.


Arthur Meighen: We cannot help but bow in admiration before the optimism of the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster). Yes, in every respect the farmers, through this treaty, have barriers put up against, them. They have had to submit to the erection of higher barriers against the sale of the agricultural products of this country; against poultry, against meats, against potatoes, against vegetables, against condensed milk, against stock, against the main agricultural exports of Canada save grain alone. In respect of grain they have the general tariff of France and nothing more. In respect of live animals we have not yet succeeded in selling any to France.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Any what?


Arthur Meighen: Any live animals. As regards those we have a higher tariff even than we had before. The possibility of widening our markets for stock in France is Stopped.
If we could not sell any in the face of a tariff of 20 francs, we are not likely to sell any in the face of a tariff of 21i francs. In other cases we have to face a duty of 100 per cent more than we previously had; and a duty of 50 per cent more is frequently found in this new French tariff. And this is what we are asked to submit to. We are asked to take this because-in the words of the Finance Minister-after five months' work he could not for the life of him get anything better. Now, I want hon. gentlemen to reflect upon our position in that regard. The Canadian ministers had, in order to maintain that this is a low tariff country, in order to save the face of the Minister of Finance-who has been preaching low tariff in opposition and binding himself to general reductions every time he got on his feet-they had to curtail and contract the export market for the agricultural products of Canada. What a fine confession to make to the agricultural producers of this country. I can imagine the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries sitting beside the statesmen of France negotiating this treaty as one by one these articles were produced. Condensed milk was laid before the Minister of Finance and he was told, " You will have to submit to 50 per cent more duty, half as much again, on this; you will have to submit to a higher duty on live stock; you will have to submit to a duty of half as much again, or more, on meats and vegetables of which we export large amounts representing a value of millions ". The minister, I fancy, protested, and kept on protesting-for five months, but the French negotiators sat there with the Liberal platform in their pockets. They had the Liberal convention report, they had the resolution moved by the minister himself iu this House, and they said to him, " What do you propose to do if we increase these duties?"; -and the minister could not say that he would raise the tariff against French luxuries imported into this country. If he did they would laugh at him. He could not even protest against higher duties on articles going into France. The French negotiators would say to him, "You have been arguing in your parliament for years that the putting up of duties by us only hurts ourselves" and so he could not complain; he did not have a word to say for himself. All the French negotiators needed to have was simply the record of the speeches of the Minister of Finance in this parliament, the record of his resolutions, and they would be still better armed with a copy of that precious document the report of the Liberal convention of 1919. Faced with these things the minister was helpless, and that is
French Treaty

why he is back to this House with this treaty. But is his quandary any reason why we should accept the treaty? Is it any-reason why this House should accept this humiliating surrender which the Minister of Finance proposes to us? This is a capitulation-in every line of the treaty it is a capitulation to France. In many respects it is a bigger capitulation to Japan from whom we get nothing at all than it is to France; a bigger capitulation to Switzerland, in many respects, than it is to France. All this we are asked to take from the Minister of Finance on the mere plea that he could not do any better, when we know the reason he could not do any better was his own insincere conduct in opposition. For his conduct this country is now paying the penalty in the form of this treaty.
Will the minister suggest to me anything, save those things that he gets under Schedule A, that is of value to this country? I do not know of anything that he gets that is of value anyway to the agriculturists of Canada. He does get something that is better in respect to certain manufactured products which I have named; but even in getting them he does not secure any concession from France which could not have been secured with far less trouble and infinitely less sacrifice on the part of the government of Canada.
I want again to inquire why the Minister of Finance comes to this parliament with an illusion, a grotesque pact-a poor, helpless treaty, surrounded and buried in pure padding? "Oh," he says, "We may make some of these things some day." Is that a real excuse for having these articles in the treaty? I turn the minister's attention to a page and a half containing over one hundred articles, page 21 and half of 22, and I take the chance of saying to the minister now that he cannot tell me what one of those articles is. I will go further. I venture to suggest that there is not a member of the government that has the faintest idea what one out of those one hundred articles is at all. I admit that I do not, and I do not know where to find out.


Andrew Ross McMaster: How could anybody
else expect to know if the minister does not?


Arthur Meighen: Maybe the member for Brome would and for the purpose of this inquiry, although not for any other purpose, I will include him as a member of the government-will he give the information to this House? All this was done simply to cover the surrender of our interests that the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries made in their negotiations; it was done simply to cover up the surrender of our real interests under this copious pact

of page after page of articles the nature of which none of us know and the names of which we cannot even pronounce. I invite any member of this House to take some of these products with names of thirty or forty letters and practise for half a day the pronouncing of them. I conjecture the result would be that nobody could tell what he was saying. This is a feature of the treaty we have entered into.


Andrew Ross McMaster: The value of a pharmacopoeia does not depend upon its pronun-ciability.


Arthur Meighen: Will the hon. member tell me the value of even one of these one hundred articles. On the authority of the best chemist we can find-


Andrew Ross McMaster: Dr. Sheard?


Arthur Meighen: -we are assured that none of them was ever made in this country. In a letter that was read to the House at the last session the best chemist in the country stated that although these products are made in some other land none of them was ever produced in Canada save one and that the ingredients for this one exception all had to be imported. Yet this is supposed to be a treaty. But the matter is serious. In respect of real exports from Canada it is very serious. We are going to suffer a handicap from the day this treaty goes into effect onward because of the surrender of the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries; and all we have to weigh is, whether the reasons for the surrender were such that we should now accept this treaty as part of the inevitable. That is all we have to weigh. Nobody disputes that we are injured by this treaty. The Minister of Finance himself in his speech says that the French people were not willing to compete with us as favourably as they were back in 1907 when he made his previous treaty.
There was a temporary extension of the 1907 treaty with some alterations in 1921-a very good extension under all the circumstances. This was in effect when the Minister of Finance went over, and he said France was not ready to treat on so favourable a basis as in that, which is another way of admitting that he has brought back worse conditions than he took over. There is no use labouring the matter further, but I venture to say any hon. member of this House who will examine the schedules and our exports will place a far greater value upon what this country loses by the treaty than did the Minister of Finance.

French Treaty
But he says we have secured on some articles the schedules already accorded the United States. Now I do not dispute-and the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin) did not dispute-that this was worth something, but is it something for which we should make large-very large-concessions to France? Why, let me ask, should we be penalized by France as between ourselves and the United States of America? I should like hon. members to reflect on that and try to answer. Does any hon. member know why the United States should enjoy, for no concession whatever, for no pretence of a concession, in the face of a policy that definitely denies a concession, something that Canada can only secure by granting heavy concessions? Would it be much of a triumph if the Minister of Finance had come back with equal conditions as between this country and the United States in the tariff of France? I do not think it would. But that he has not obtained-not by a very long way. The United States are not letting silks, embroideries, satins, brandies and champagnes, and all these other products into their country, the way we are doing in Canada. They are not imposing taxes on necessaries in order that they may relieve the consumers of luxuries. They are not doing such things in order to get, as they do get, everything we are getting by this treaty.
I wish to refer to another phase. When we grant to France the right to send her silks to Canada at a certain rate of duty, we grant the same thing to eleven favoured nations, with the result that in case after case we are making far more concessions to the other countries than we are making to France herself.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Does that hurt France?


Arthur Meighen: Undoubtedly it does- and it hurts us. It merely puts more taxes on the users of necessaries in our country. If it does not hurt Canada, if it helps Canada, why leave any tariff on? That is where the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) is, but not where the Minister of Finance stands. Who is going t-o argue that it is a benefit to us to maintain our taxes on necessaries and reduce our taxes on luxuries? The supporter of this treaty is bound so to maintain, or to admit, that we make very serious concessions for worse than nothing.


Mr. GOOD:: Why could we not collect some of our taxes in some other way than by transferring the duties from luxuries to necessaries?


Arthur Meighen: I think the Minister of
Finance will have to do just that. But the
hon. member for Brant (Mr. Good) must remember that last year the way he increased taxes was chiefly by a 50 per cent increase in the sales tax, which came on everybody. Does the member for Brant hope to reduce the sales tax by relieving the users of luxuries of their taxes? Indeed he does not. He shakes his head honestly in the negative. If we do not get an increased sales tax this year, to make up what we are losing under this, or if we do not get a reduction when we should otherwise get it, it is because of the blunders of the concessions of this treaty, and he who votes for the treaty votes to shut the door on the reduction of our sales tax, and he votes to shut the door against relief on the necessaries of life. Of course the Minister of Finance knows that just to the extent this treaty operates that is what he is doing.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Not necessarily.


Arthur Meighen: What is the plan proposed by the hon. member for Brome?


Andrew Ross McMaster: I think, perhaps, the
leader of the Opposition might realize that even in silks the reduction of duty might mean increased imports, and might mean greater revenue raised.


Arthur Meighen: It might, but the Minister of Finance himself estimates that it will be $S50,000 less. In any event I am not quite able to understand just how this country is going to get richer or pay debts faster by buying more silks and champagnes or buying more of anything that is embraced in the schedules of the treaty where we make concessions to France.
I want to impress upon the House instances that go to show what we are actually doing when we sign this treaty. I call attention to the main exports of our country to France. Take them one by one from the largest until you get through, fifteen to twenty, and on each one you will find higher duties put up against us by France. Then take the imports of this country which compete with our own productions in some instances, and which in almost every instance are luxuries. Where we take the tariff off for the sake of France on goods she sells us of $100 value we sometimes take the tariff off Switzerland on goods she sells us of $300, $400, and even $1,000. That is a splendid way to make a concession to France, is it not? I have before me a list of the goods so affected, and I would like the House to bear with me while I call attention to some of them. I commence with braids and cords. We are lowering the duty to France, though she only sends us $46,000 worth odd, but we
French Treaty

are taking it off similarly to Switzerland, which country sends us $112,407, and Switzerland gives us nothing. It is true she does not pay us by raising the duty against us. I suppose from that point of view really Switzerland is better entitled to it than France. In respect of France, for doing this, we have the duty raised against us on our main imports to that country. In respect to Switzerland we do it for nothing at all. But let us pass on. In the matter of brushes, where France sells us $42,000 worth, Switzerland sells us $114,000 worth or about two and a half or three times as much, and we are making concessions on that article to Switzerland for nothing whatsoever. Going from that to buttons, where -we buy $11,000 worth from France we buy from Japan $107,000 worth, or nearly ten times as much, so that where we are making a concession of $1 to the French exporter to Canada, we are making a concession of $10 to the Japanese exporter to Canada. Will any hon. member tell me why we should do that? If we are bound to be making concessions on these lines of goods, we should have done two things first. We should have had a comparable tariff on them or, at least, a tariff from which we could have come down, and secondly we should have got rid of the necessity of making concessions to countries which give us nothing at all.


Mr. FORKE:: The hon. member's premises are wrong.


Arthur Meighen: How?


Robert Forke: What about the barrier we put up against the Mother Country?


Arthur Meighen: What has that to do with the case?


Robert Forke: It has a good deal to do with it. The hon. member is talking about barriers being put up against us. We are putting up barriers and there is no complaint.


Arthur Meighen: I know we do, and I do not see any of them reduced here. I would like the hon. member to compare the reductions elsewhere.


Robert Forke: We are not lamenting the reductions.


Arthur Meighen: I do not want to treat the hon. member discourteously but I do not see his point. By making these concessions on luxuries and making ten times the concessions to Japan-


Robert Forke: Buttons are not luxuries, they are necessities.


Arthur Meighen: -but I venture to say the necessities in the way of buttons are manufactured here. I do not think we are getting many from Japan. I think my hon. friend will find that he has not worn very often, nor have I, the kind of buttons we import from those countries.


Mr. EULER:: I should like to correct the right hon. gentleman as regards that. The situation is exactly the reverse. The kind of buttons imported from Japan are the kind we wear on our vests.


Arthur Meighen: It would be a great deal better for us if we made them in Kitchener-


William Daum Euler: I would grant you that.


Arthur Meighen: -or some other town. If this does not hit one way, it hits the other. It injures us every time. Buttons are about the only things that are not luxuries under the schedules.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Brushes.


Arthur Meighen: We make brushes in this country. I venture to say we do not get anything but fancy brushes from so far away as that. Does my hon. friend know about that?


Andrew Ross McMaster: My interest in brushes is not as great as that of the leader of the Opposition.


Arthur Meighen: I will pass on, for I do not want to dwell too long on the infirmities of the hon. member. The next article is clocks and watches. Of these we import $3,829 worth from France, but from Switzerland we import $75,586 worth. For the sake of making a concession to France at our expense, we make virtually twenty-five times that concession to Switzerland.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Think of the saving of time.


Arthur Meighen: We did not save much
time in making this treaty. We lost about five months, and we also lost a great deal to this country. The next item is electrical apparatus, telephones and the like. Of these, whereas we bought from France $1,231 worth, we bought from Japan $18,000 odd worth, making about sixteen times the concession to Japan that we make to France, and all at the expense of this country.
The next item is embroideries. We buy $17,700 worth from France, and from Switzerland $100,598 worth. Of handkerchiefs we bought from France $5,000 odd worth, from Japan $77,000 odd worth, and from Switzerland

French Treaty
$225,000 odd worth; or hon. members will see that we bought some forty times as much from Switzerland as from France. We open our doors to all these countries with no concessions from them at all, and we also open them to France for the privilege of having the duties on our staple exports raised against us.
I could pass from one article to another, silk ribbons, toys, silk fabrics, various other things, some of them somewhat hard to pronounce, and in respect of every one of them we make many times the concession to favoured-nation countries that we 'have made to France.
Besides all this, we fix specific duties on our goods, duties that we cannot vary. This applies to quite a part of the treaty in relation to the duties of Canada. France does [DOT] not do so. We bind ourselves besides to maintain the same parity between our minimum tariff, and our general tariff as we have to-day. France makes no such covenant with us at all. Moreover, France has reserved the right-and there is no corresponding reservation for this country-to give to all neighbouring, as well as former enemy countries, all concessions that she gives to us. If she exercises that right, do hon. members know of anything that we can get in there under this treaty that will be of any value at all to Canadian exporters? Let her exercise that right in favour of all those neighbouring states, and she has cancelled or all but cancelled the meagre concessions that we already have. The ministers came back and they did not know the effect of that concession. When the matter was put to them in this House on the reading of the resolution, I think it was the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) who stated that this clause applied, as in previous treaties, just to a certain border zone, bordering on France. It is true that in previous treaties it applied only to such narrow border zone; but in this treaty there is no restriction at all. It applies to all the territory of all nations adjacent to France.
The hon. member for Chambly and Vercheres (Mr. Archambault) has argued-and I admire the ingenuity of the argument; I think he was driven to it-that he does not consider this treaty solely on an economic basis, and as a matter of dollars and cents. He says: "France suffered terriffic losses in the late war; she lost her million or two million men; she lost another two or three or more millions in disabilities. She lost as well tremendous amounts in property destruction. She sacrificed, of the very manhood and wealth of her nation, relatively more than any other nation that went through the war." In all that
I concur; but I do not think the hon. member for Chambly and Vercheres will say that I have at any time in my life shown anything but sympathy for and a real desire to help France in her struggle. I think I anticipate the character of campaign it is proposed to wage against those who question the desirability of this treaty. It seems to be disclosed in the speech of the hon. member; but they will have to direct it at all events against some hon. members who have in the crucial past done everything in their power and at considerable risk to render practical and needed assistance to France. I do not, however, believe in mixing up trade treaties with international obligations. It will be argued that we are under obligations to France greater than are the obligations of France to us. I do not admit that. This country sacrificed a great deal, and though we made the sacrifice for ourselves, we must remember that the direct peril to France was far greater than the direct peril to us. I do not admit there is a balance in favour of the other nation. I think we did our duty. We did not do any more; we would and should have done more if we could. That is quite true; but if there is an obligation, then I say: Let us in all honesty discharge it; but do not let us, in discharging it, pay a far greater sum to other countries to whom we are under no obligation whatever. If we seek that method of discharging a debt of honour, a debt of devotion to France, we are taking the most uneconomical, the most disastrous method to the interests of Canada and the 4 p.m. least beneficial to the interests of France. Far better, if there is an obligation, to discharge it in a direct way, in a way that we shall know just what we are doing, and not in a way that piles on the back of this country burdens far greater than the amount of the concession passing to France. France benefits by this treaty far more than we benefit; but other nations, benefit too, and while we are helping France we	are helping other nations,
nations to whom no one would argue that this country is under any obligation whatever. I do not yield even to the hon, member for Chambly and Vercheres in my admiration of the French character and the French nation, nor in my desire to assist in the rehabilitation of that country, stricken as it is, in the anguish of after-war collapse. But I do not believe that trade treaties are the right method, and I do not believe, if trade treaties are, that this is the character of treaty that we should make. I do not want to have included among our beneficiaries a number of countries to whom
French Treaty

we are under no obligation at all, Consequently I think we would be better to reject this treaty.
We are not without resources in this country. Surely hon. members will not argue that we have to sit down and take just what we get from countries that have a higher tariff level from our own. Surely hon. members will not argue that we must continue to do this ad infinitum and that we are utterly without resources to protect ourselves? But they must so argue if they ask us to support this treaty.
There are other courses we can take. France has something to lose by the rejection of this treaty; she stands to lose on exports that for the last fiscal year, of 1922, were far greater than her imports from us. Reject the treaty, adopt the resources that any self-respecting country would adopt and stand up in this battle with other nations. If we do not, we are only going to add to the distresses of our own. Every morning even now our newspapers are full of calamitous tales of our working men emigrating to the United States. As I came in I picked up the Liberal organ of the city of Montreal owned, or at least presided over, by a Liberal member of the Upper House, and I read the heading:
Montreal workmen going in thousands to United States-Present situation threatens serious labour shortage here-
Of course, solving the problem of unemployment triumphantly for the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock).
Hundreds every day now storm offices of United States Immigration eager to cross the border-Recent immigrants join in.
And then proceeds the heartrending tale of what is going on. Is there anything in this treaty that is likely to deter one man from emigrating to the United States? Does not this treaty contain the germs that ultimately will result in more men going to the United States? I make this appeal particularly to the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler). Many phases of the concession mean that result, and that result alone.
Therefore I say this is not the course to pursue. Let us stand up and behave as a nation in our commercial as we would in all other negotiations, and not proclaim to the world that we must submit meekly and helplessly to the tariff exactions of any country.


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, a very
distinguished British statesman once said that to oppose is the business of an official opposition. No doubt this is so, but I cannot see why this treaty should have been singled out

for such a violent onslaught on the part of my hon. friends opposite. As to the desirability of having friendly relations with France, commercially and otherwise, I hope everybody is in agreement, and consequently it is a matter of regret that an. instrument which has been made to meet the wishes of both nations for friendlier relations should have met such a hostile reception from my hon. friends opposite. There are between France and Canada bonds created by tradition, by history, even by heredity, which makes that friendship desirable and permanent, and I repeat that I am sorry this instrument should be met with what I think I am justified in describing as unfair criticism on the part of those hon. gentlemen. Perhaps it will have a good effect somewhere. In France this criticism will produce a mixed effect and many there will regret that suggestions of unfairness on her part should have been made; on the other hand, it will help the French government to secure the ratification of the treaty by the Chamber of Deputies.


Arthur Meighen: They will ratify it all right.


Ernest Lapointe: Because there, I can assure my hon. friends opposite, the concessions given to Canada by France are far from being considered as trivial and useless. I am confident that in this country the treaty will be accepted by the people as a fair one.
My hon. friends opposite have scrutinized schedules A and B, and my hon. friend for Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin) was selected to launch an attack against those unfortunate schedules. In reading over the debate of 1908, when the treaty that had then been negotiated was under discussion in this House, I see that a similar line of attack was chosen; someone read a list of articles of little importance to this country and made merry of them. Well, the same course is being pursued to-day. My hon. friends are like the Bourbons-they have not learned anything and they have not forgotten anything.
There is this paramount fact to be borne in mind, that every article in which Canada is interested as far as her export trade is concerned is included in this treaty. Now, to use the words of my hon. friend for Lincoln, does it hurt him or anyone else that there are added to the treaty articles in which we have little or no trade at the present time? Twenty-five years ago commodities which to-day are very important to our exporters were not manufactured in this country. Have we reached the limit of our industrial ability? The industries of Canada have progressed byleaps and bounds in the last twenty-five years

French Treaty
I ask again, have we reached the limit of our industrial ability? Is that the confidence of my hon. friends opposite in the ability of our manufacturers? Is that the Conservative confidence in the future of this country?
Take chemical products, for instance; these have been specially selected for gibes and jokes in the course of this debate. Why 1 am told by men who know that there is a tremendous field for expansion in the manufacture of chemical products. We have the natural resources, the raw	material, we	have the	scientific
ability, and in this particular field Canada i3 bound to accomplish success in the future. This treaty is not made for the past, it is made for the future-#- It is made for the trade of coming years, not for the industrial development of twenty-five years ago. We are not asking this House to legislate for our ancestors, but for our children and for ourselves.
Now, is it quite certain that we are not. exporting the very articles which my hon. friends have criticised us for including in this treaty? Well, I see my hon. friend for Lincoln is still feeling the effects of that bronze powder in which he became involved the other day aid from which his leader unsuccessfully tried to extricate him. He said that he had used that article for fourteen years and did not know it was manufactured in this country.


Arthur Meighen: Is the hon. minister at the bronze powder again?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes. and my right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) said: Well, it is excusable because the reports of the Trade and Commerce department did not include bronze powder.,


Arthur Meighen: As an export.


Ernest Lapointe: Is that an excuse?


Mr. CHAPLIN:: It is an excuse for my not knowing it was exported.


Arthur Meighen: Probably that is the
reason the French government reduced the duty; they looked at our trade reports and found that we did not export bronze powder.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend says
it is still an excuse. Well, if it is an excuse for my hon. friend not to have bought bronze powder because it was not listed in the report of the Department of Trade and Commerce, I may tell him that in the Canadian Trade Index issue of 1920-21, compiled and published by the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, Toronto, Canada, there is an alphabetical list of articles manufactured in Canada with
the names of all firms manufacturing them. This is prepared for the use of Canadian manufacturers, and my hon. friend has certainly received a copy of it. Page 274, article No. 896, bronze powder-and here are the names of the firms manufacturing it: Canadian Bronze Powder Works, Limited, Montreal, Quebec; and there is an advertisement of that company on page 84. But more than that, there is a firm in the very province of my hon. friend which is making bronze powder. Its name is Cosmos Chemical Company, Port Hope, Ontario. I hope my hon. friend, will purchase his powder there next time, otherwise the " Made in Canada " campaign could hardly apply in the case of those who purchased the articles of the hon.. gentleman.
My hon. friend referred to fresh butter. He said that the duty on fresh butter had been reduced from 30 to 22-1 per cent, and he asked what was the necessity for that, in view of the fact that Canada was not exporting fresh butter.


Arthur Meighen: He said we were not exporting it to France, but that we were exporting salt butter, on which the duty had been raised.


Ernest Lapointe: I beg my right hon. friend's pardon. He said Canada does not export fresh butter, but Canada exports salt butter.


Arthur Meighen: To France.


Ernest Lapointe: I do not think he qualified it. But even if he did, there is no reason why we should not try to export to France if we export to other countries. At present the demand in the European markets is for fresh butter, not for salt butter. The representative of the province of Quebec in Belgium, Mr. Langlois, told my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) that a representative of the Department of Agriculture of Quebec had entered into a contract in Beigium for the export of large quantities of fresh butter. After my hon. friend's reference to it in his speech I communicated with the Minister of Agriculture of Quebec and he tells me that the province of Quebec is at present exporting fresh butter to Belgium; that they have contracted for 20,000 boxes of 60 pounds each. My friend himself can figure out how many hundreds of thousands of dollars the export of fresh butter means to this country.


Arthur Meighen: But is not the Belgian duty only a fraction of what the duty to France still is under this treaty?

French Treaty


Ernest Lapointe: Exactly; that is the very reason why we brought about a reduction of the French duty.


Arthur Meighen: It is many times the Belgian duty still. Is there any substantial chance of sending any fresh butter to France, even over the reduced duty? And the chance of sending salted butter is nil.


Ernest Lapointe: We hope there is a chance.


Arthur Meighen: It is merely fancy.


Ernest Lapointe: But is the objection of my hon. friend a good one? If with a duty of 30 per cent it was impossible to trade with France in fresh butter, is there not a better chance to do so when the duty is reduced to 22} per cent? Again I say that my hon. friend was speaking of the past when he referred to the export of butter. We have not negotiated a treaty for the Pilgrim Fathers * or for the farmers who came with Jacques Cartier and Champlain; we have negotiated it for our farmers of the present.
My hon. friend referred also to item 404, tissues of pure cotton. Well, I wish my hon. friend would consult with his friends the manufacturers of agricultural implements. They will tell him that reapers and binders are exported to France and that the cotton that is used for the wings goes there in a knocked-down state and is adjusted in France. That cotton has had to pay a heavy duty, 1,240 francs per 100 kilograms; under the present arrangement that cotton will pay the same duty as cotton from the United States, 400 francs per 100 kilograms. The manufacturers themselves have asked for that reduction.
My hon. friend referred to bottles. He said we had reduced the duty on bottles but that we were not sending any to France. Let me tell him that we are sending to France articles contained in bottles, and without the reduction these bottles or containers are subject to a duty which is almost prohibitive. But there is this fundamental fact, Mr. Speaker: the manufacturers and producers in this country have frequently complained that they were at a disadvantage compared with their United States competitors on account of the discrimination in the treaty as it was. As the Minister of Finance said the other day, when they came here last year in a strong delegation the gentlemen who presented the case for the necessity ^of a treaty with France was a gentleman from my own constituency, Mr. Picard, general manager of the Rock City Tobacco Company, a very distinguished citizen of Quebec. The manufacturers there 
asked the government to have that discrimination removed. They pointed out especially that in respect of the fourteen articles which under the modus vivendi of 1921 were excluded from the operations of the minimum tariff granted by the treaty of 1907, they were at a disadvantage as compared with the United States manufacturers, and they urged that it was the duty of the government to see that that discrimination was done away with. Well, to-day we have no such discrimination. That was the objective of Canada in negotiating the treaty, and we have the guarantee that we shall always have the benefit of at least the same conditions that are granted by France to the United States. I will say more than that: on many articles we have the advantage of our American competitors.
When my hon. friend says that we would be better without a treaty, surely he does not speak for the manufacturers, who have been so pressing in their demands for' a new treaty, a new agreement, a new convention. My hon. friend, the former Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton), when he spoke in the House a couple of days after the hon. member for Lincoln delivered his speech, admitted that a treaty would be beneficial to the manufacturers. He even eulogized the hon. member for Lincoln as a martyr to unselfishness and devotion, because, notwithstanding the many disadvantages that this treaty was giving to the manufacturers, he was protesting against it on the ground that it was not to the advantage of the farmers. Well, Mr. Speaker, I am almost sure that the farmers of Canada will not trust their interests either to the former Minister of Finance or to the hon. member for Lincoln. I will say this also: that on agricultural articles of production as well as manufactured articles our farmers have the same advantages as, in some instances more advantages than, the United States farmers-and they are their competitors in the markets of the world.
My hon. friends are building upon wrong premises when they compare the duties which will be imposed under this treaty with the conditions that existed under the former treaty and say that we have not the same advantages, and that we would be better off without the treaty. As a matter of fapt the treaty of 1908 no longer exists. It has been denounced. France, since the war, has denounced all her commercial agreements on account of the conditions resulting from the war. In our case, it has been replaced by a modus vivendi, the first article of which states:
Pending the conclusion of a new commercial convention with a view to which negotiations will begin

French Treaty
immediately, the French and Canadian governments have agreed to the following provisions.
Everybody knew and everybody knows that we could not expect to go on much further, or any further indeed with that modus vivendi of 1921. France would not have agreed to grant to Canada what is the modus vivendi of 1921 any longer because we were obligated to begin negotiations at once after the signing of that agreement of 1921. So, when my hon. friends are making comparisons with the stipulations of that agreement, they are comparing this treaty with something that did not exist or was on the point of disappearance, and they well know that we would have been placed under the general tariff of France, and it is with the general tariff of France that comparison should be made.


Mr. BELAND:: That is the point.


Ernest Lapointe: The policy of France at the present time is not to grant the minimum tariff to any nation. As I said a few moments ago, she denounced all her treaties after the war. I will say one thing, and I think I can challenge contradiction in this regard. Of all the treaties which have been made and entered into by France since the denunciation of her agreements with all nations, no other nation ever was granted as good conditions as Canada has been under this treaty.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: For information
I	should like to find out, if possible, what other nations France has entered into agreements with.


Ernest Lapointe: I will mention two, and there are four or five. I mention Spain and Czecho-Slovakia.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I thought you
were going to mention the United States perhaps. What about the United States?


Ernest Lapointe: That is a fine joke, but it has no bearing on the point. My right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition has criticized in his speech to-day and in his first speech when the resolution was before the House the exception contained in Article
II	of the treaty:
1. The grant of the Minimum tariff for the products enumerated in schedule A means the treatment of the Most Favoured Nation as respects such products, but does not entitle Canada to claim the benefit of any preferential advantage which France may grant to her Protectorates or the benefit of any tariff resulting from economic agreements which France may enter into with border states, or the benefits of any tariff which France may grant for products the importation of which is designed to facilitate financial settlements with those countries that were at war with France during the years 1914-1918.
Now, Mr. Speaker, France has placed the same exception in all her treaties since the war, and they do not intend, as they say, to take advantage of it, but they do not want to be deprived of the right to make special economic agreements with regard to certain industries. The reason is, first, because they would not impose any duties, for instance, on goods which would be given to France in payment of the reparations resulting from the war, and secondly, there are in France and Belgium certain industries of the same character which have suffered from the same causes, both during and since the war, and especially for the purpose of rebuilding the devastated areas it may be necessary for France and Belgium to have special agreements concerning those industries. As I said before, this exception is included in all the treaties that France has signed since the war. Spain herself, which would be a good deal more interested than we are, for she is a border state, has agreed to that stipulation, and every other country has agreed to it.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Spain gets the benefit of it.


Ernest Lapointe: She does not get the benefit of any special economic agreements France may enter into with Belgium.


Henry Lumley Drayton: This treaty reserves the right for France to give a preference to Spain. It is a border country.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, but for the reason which I have just given. France may enter into a special agreement with Belgium resulting from the war and its consequences, and Spain would not get the benefit of it, and Spain is more likely to be interested in it than than we are.


Arthur Meighen: If those were the reasons that actuated the minister in allowing this concession to France, why were we told on the introduction of the resolution that it only applied to a strip of country along the border, and not to the whole country?


Ernest Lapointe: Why should my hon. friend ask that question?


Arthur Meighen: I want to know.


Ernest Lapointe: I am giving the reasons as I know them to be, and my hon. friend is answering by asking why should another reason have been given. I am sure the Minister of Finance will be able to answer my hon. friend when he speaks again on this question.
Let me say, moreover, that our competitors will be placed in the same position as we are
French Treaty

in. We cannot suffer because those with whom we are competing in the French market cannot' get the benefit of that stipulation in any way whatever.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Does my hon. friend say that Belgium is not a competitor of Canada in manufactured articles?


Ernest Lapointe: Perhaps in some articles, but not in most articles which Canada exports.


Henry Lumley Drayton: She can get better treatment under this.


Ernest Lapointe: France really does not deserve the suggestion of unfairness which is being made against her in this House. What have we given, to use my hon. friend'3 own words?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not think any one has accused France of unfairness. I think we are charging our ministers with lack of acumen, not France with unfairness.


Ernest Lapointe: Thank you very much. We are in fine company because my hon. friend having said what he has just repeated, a very few moments after said that France will not get any benefit out of this treaty; Japan will benefit, Switzerland will benefit, but not France. So, the French negotiators were no good, according to my hon. friend. I will try to show in a few moments that my hon. friend need not be so proud, and contemptuous. Fie is liable to make some slight mistakes himself.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Very often.


Ernest Lapointe: Not very often but more often than my hon. friend thinks and supposes. Now, what have we given in return? To use the words of the opposition we have asked France to lower her barriers, and France has asked Canada to lower her barriers against the importation of the articles she makes and exports. Of course the barriers, in the case of Canada, are to be lowered with respect to articles which France makes, not with respect to articles she does not make. My hon. friend said-and he said it with a smile which I admire occasionally-that we should have first raised our tariff. The leader of the Opposition also said that the other day and he repeated it to-day.


Arthur Meighen: On luxuries.


Ernest Lapointe: I do not know whether we would have accomplished much by raising our tariff but I will admit that we have yet to start in the business of raising tariffs


Arthur Meighen: They knew that over in France.


Ernest Lapointe: Last year we did reduce the tariff in many instances and we were met by a motion on the part of my right hon. friend in which he declared that the House should not have any confidence in the government.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Hear, hear.


Ernest Lapointe: Not because we raised the tariff but because we did not sufficiently reduce it we were told that we were not true to our pledges.


Arthur Meighen: The resolution did not say that.


Ernest Lapointe: I know the purpose of the resolution very well; it is a sample of my right hon. friend's statesmanship.


Arthur Meighen: If my hon. friend would only adhere to the facts I would not interrupt him. The resolution condemned the government for abandoning specific pledges on which they had been returned to power.


Ernest Lapointe: What would have been the nature of the motion if we had raised the tariff?


Arthur Meighen: It would depend on the nature of the increase on the specific article, but in any event-


William Stevens Fielding: There would have been condemnation in either case.


Arthur Meighen: We would have condemned the government's breach of faith just the same.


Ernest Lapointe: Exactly.


Arthur Meighen: We would condemn the breach of faith notwithstanding the fact that the actual tariff brought down might be in accord with our principles. Does the hon. member not see any difference between acting in accord-


Some Hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Arthur Meighen: -between acting in accord with covenants and acting in violation of them even although going in the right direction?


Ernest Lapointe: So we are in this awful dilemma; if we raise the tariff we would be met by a motion on the part of my right hon. friend-


Arthur Meighen: Hear, hear.


Ernest Lapointe: -that we are ruining the country.

French Treaty


Arthur Meighen: No, I do not say that.


Ernest Lapointe: Does my hon. friend not agree to that?


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member is simply playing with words, and, what is more serious for him playing with the truth. If he raised the tariff he would be met with the motion that he and his colleagues were violating their pledges just as there was a motion of that kind before.


Ernest Lapointe: And if we had reduced the tariff?


Arthur Meighen: If hon. gentlemen opposite reduced the tariff it would depend upon the merits of the reduction. I think that is consistent but my hon. friend does not seem to understand.


Ernest Lapointe: I understand the purpose of my right hon. friend quite well. He is trying to extricate himself from the position in which he placed himself last year with that famous motion of his. In that motion my right hon. friend was not loyal to his principles; he was loyal to his bitterness and partisanship.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Oh, oh.


Ernest Lapointe: I am glad that the exMinister of Finance does not take matters so seriously as the leader of the Opposition.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I could not,


Ernest Lapointe: 
Arthur Meighen: When?


Ernest Lapointe: In 1922, that was last
year.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That was during the war and post-war period. Everybody knows it except my hon. friend.


Ernest Lapointe: Let us see. I admit that in 1918 we were still in a part of the war period. During that year we exported $201,053,676 worth of products to France and we imported from that country products to the amount of only $5,274,064. In 1919, we exported $96,303,142 worth to France, and we Imported only $3,632,900 worth. In 1920, when we were receding a little from the war, we exported $61,108,693 worth to France, and imported $10,630,865 worth. In 1921, a few years after the war, we exported $27,428,308 worth to France and imported $19,138,062 worth leaving a balance in our favour of $8,290,246.	-


Henry Lumley Drayton: Was not my hon. friend aware that France had been decimated and had run dry of material, and that she had to get a great man}' articles from outside after the war? Does he not know she had to get credits outside for that purpose? Does he not know that was an abnormal balance?
French Treaty


Ernest Lapointe: I know all that, and I will give my hon. friend something more to satisfy him.


Arthur Meighen: Will the minister give the relative exports and imports prior to the war, say, for the five years, and subsequent to the old French treaty? It would be very interesting.


Ernest Lapointe: I have already stated
that I am not living in the past.


Arthur Meighen: These later years are during abnormal conditions.


Ernest Lapointe: 
Henry Lumley Drayton: Does the minister not see how very much better we are getting on without that treaty?


Ernest Lapointe: We are getting on better since my hon. friends went out of power. I would not like to say that my hon. friends opposite were responsible for the condition, but it is a strange coincidence that during that very year, the only year during the last six years where there was a very large balance of trade against us, my right hon. friend was Prime Minister of Canada.


Arthur Meighen: Does my hon. friend not know that our increased exports this year are practically wholly wheat, which goes in under the general tariff and which is not in the least affected, whether we make a treaty or not?


Ernest Lapointe: I am sure my right hon. friend will at least agree that the making of this treaty, which will lower the barrier against our trade, will still increase the volume of trade instead of decreasing it.


Arthur Meighen: It increases the barrier.


Ernest Lapointe: The ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton), said that we must have a treaty with France. He agreed

that it was most desirable that there should be a commercial treaty with France. Afterwards he said that the treaty of 1908 was no good and that we lost money under that treaty and that we would have been better without the treaty of 1908. He said that the present treaty was no good either.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Hear, hear.


Ernest Lapointe: And that we would have been very much better without this treaty. Then, in the name of goodness, if a treaty with France is necessary, if the treaty of 1908 was no good, and if this treaty is no good, why did he not do something when he had the power to do it, and make a treaty himself? If the treaty of 1907 was no good why did my hon. friend vote in this House, as Minister of Finance, for a modus vivendi which had the effect of excluding from the treaty of 1908 many articles, and everybody knows that the agreement of 1921 was not so good as the treaty of 1908, and my hon. friend voted for it, though the treaty of 1907 was no good, and this treaty is no good either.
What was the object of the government of Canada in making this treaty? Its objective was to get on the markets of France the same treatment as the United States had. We never concealed that goal or that aim. Everybody knew that was what we had in view, and we got it. What was the objective of France? I do not want to disclose any secrets, but I have in my hand an article signed by Edouard Neron, the member for Haute-Loire, who is a general reporter of the customs board of the chamber of deputies and of commercial agreements. In this article Mr. Neron says that the objective of Canada was to get the same treatment as the United States got. And what was the objective of France, according to him? It was to get on the Canadian market as good treatment as Great Britain got, whom France considered their competitors on the market of Canada. And they did not get that treatment, because the British preference is a Canadian policy of our own. It is a policy of which we are proud which has been created in Canada by the Liberal party. By that policy we stand and by that policy we intend to stand. It has been stated that as to certain articles of the treaty the British preference is lower.


Arthur Meighen: It is gone.


Ernest Lapointe: If hon. members are
afraid of the fate of the British preference, let them not worry, the British preference is safer in the hands of its creator than it would

French Treaty
be in the hands of my right hon. friend. I am proud to have been associated with the Minister of Finance in his negotiation of this treaty. Let me tell the House and the country and let me tell my hon. friends opposite and particularly the ex-Minister of Finance who has been admiring France for her business ability, and so on, that I am sure, in spite of the criticism of my hon. friends opposite, the work of my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) will commend itself to the House and will receive the support of the people of Canada.


Mr. J. L. BROWN (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, in beginning the discussion of this question this afternoon I propose to read a few words from an editorial in the Montreal Witness which came into my hand to-day as illustrating how hopelessly the people of Canada, as well as the members of this House, are divided on questions of trade in the way in which we look at treaties and tariffs. The editorial reads:
What is the use of discussion in parliament between men living in different worlds, who cannot even see each other's point of view, and perhaps don't want to The French Treaty, the protectionists argue, is all give and no take. On a lot of articles, such as tools, etc., they say Canada is to pay 50 per cent duty when she sends them into France, but it is only to collect 20 to 25 per cent on importing them from France. How would this read if we should put it this way? The French people have to pay 50 per cent duty on what they import as well as on ten times more that they do not import, while Canadians have to pay only 20 to 25 per cent. The trouble is that those on one side of the controversy can only see the protected interests, while those on the other keep the interests of the people who need tools somewhat in view.
It seems to me unfortunate that these treaties between nations are generally made an occasion for a very acrimonious controversy and the position is very frequently taken by the opponents of the government in power, whatever government it may be-and it seems to be the same in every country- that a treaty secured was not as good as it ought to be, and there has been a disposition to object to the treaty for that reason.
I was in the United States three years ago when the controversy was going on there as regards its attitude towards the League of Nations. I was at a meeting in the town of Waterbury, which by the way is a very strong Republican centre, and one man actually made the statement: "Now, that we have shown President Wilson where he gets off at, we want the treaty." They wanted the treaty, but they wanted and took the opportunity that was offered to them to get a slam at President Wilson. I do not think that principle has been entirely wanting in this country when we look over the past few years and 142
consider the situation in relation to the attempt to get trading arrangements with various nations. I would not like to say that it is absent on the present occasion. It seems to me that the most important question today is not: Did we get the best treaty possible? We do not know. Possibly those who negotiated the treaty, might, in their inmost souls, think that if they had been a little more firm on certain points they could have secured better terms. You can never tell when you are negotiating with a party just how far you can press him until negotiations come right to the breaking point. The most important question, at least for this parliament, to decide seems to be to-day whether, under this treaty, we are going to be placed in a better position than we would be in without the treaty. Notwithstanding the fact that hon. gentlemen to our right have declared positively that we would be better off without the treaty than we would be under circumstances that would prevail if we had the treaty, they have not made it clear to me that such is the case. When this treaty was first brought before the House, I was disposed to attach to it much the same valuation as I thought the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) attached to it in his speech in introducing it to us. Perhaps I drew inferences that were not altogether warranted on that occasion; but still in looking over the treaty and in giving a cursory glance at the schedules, I fail to find anything that would cause us to wax very enthusiastic. Speaking from the standpoint of those who are engaged in agriculture, I feel that as regards our major products, there does not seem to be in the treaty a great deal over which we could become enthusiastic. If there is in it the poison that the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) would seem to say there is, I would not want it; but on the principle that half a loaf is better than no bread, I for my part would be prepared to accept the treaty for what it is worth.
I will not deal very largely with the schedules in particular, but I should like to make a few comments as regards certain arguments that have been advanced why this treaty should not be accepted. Speaking generally, I think I can say, speaking, not only for myself, but for those with whom I am associated, that we are in favour of any attempt that can be made to break 5 p.m down the barriers which nations have erected amongst themselves in matters of trade. I would hope, therefore, that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell), who is not in his place, was not correctly re-

French Treaty

ported, or that he was misrepresented when he was reported to have said during the Moose Jaw campaign, that there was no evidence that the Progressives were not still opposed to reciprocity. If there is one thing that we have made abundantly clear in this House since we have been here, it is that we were strongly in favour of that reciprocity agreement. Perhaps the prominence given to that question in the Moose Jaw campaign ought to convince the country that the question of better trade relations with the United States is not dead; that it is alive, and that it is going to be very much alive. It might be well for those who were responsible for the rejection of that treaty, and those who are the political successors of those who rejected that treaty, to take cognizance of that fact. I know some explanations are given as to why they are in the position in which they are today. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) made a speech a short time ago in Winnipeg-and I suppose he repeated the same speech in Ottawa, because I know he said some of the same things here-stating that their party had sacrificed themselves because of the war. He seems to think that that was the reason of their present humiliation. When I read that statement, I wondered whether the sacrifice which they made was in being compelled to sit along with the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion) and the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie). But seriously, speaking for the West and the prairie provinces only, I wish to say that it was not the war record or the post-war record of the hon. gentlemen that caused them to pass through the valley of humiliation. The people of the western prairies remembered 1911 and the kind of arguments that were foisted upon them at that time. When we remember the arguments that were put forward at that time, we are not disposed to attach too much value to the arguments that are advanced against this treaty to-day.
I said that T was not going to discuss in any great detail the schedules, but rather that I would make some comments upon arguments that have been advanced why we should reject the treaty. No doubt the arguments of hon. gentlemen are sound from their point of view, from the protectionist point of view, and if I belonged to that school, undoubtedly I would accept them as sound and consider it my duty to act in accordance with the sentiments they expressed. But since we have never accepted their point of view, and speak from an entirely different one, I cannot for one see how it is possible to respond to

the appeal that they have made. The hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin) advanced some arguments, and I have been somewhat amused at the way in which the shuttlecock has been batted backwards and forwards. I was disposed to think the weight of the argument lay with one side and then with the other; but I think at the present time the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Lapointe) has the advantage on his side.
The ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) laid a great deal of emphasis upon the question of the balance of trade. There seems to be some conflict in the figures that have been presented to us by the ex-Minister of Finance and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, and just at present I am not able to reconcile the two statements, although that may possibly be done. It seems to me, however, that many false conclusions have been based upon this question of an adverse balance of trade. It is by no means conclusive, by no means sure, as applied to trade as a whole, that an injury is necessarily done to a country because for the time being the balance would seem to be against it. But still less is it safe, when we come to consider relations between any two nations, to conclude that trade is necessarily detrimental to the one against which the balance would seem to be for the time being. International trade is not simply a two-sided question; it is not simply a case of A trading with B; it is a case of A trading with B, C, D and E, and B trading with all the rest of them. It is, therefore, absolutely impossible to establish conclusions as sound by considering simply the relations which for the time being exist between any two of those nations.
It has been urged that it would have been better if the government had raised the tariff before proceeding to enter into negotiations. That again is a principle of questionable soundness, even if we consider it in regard to our tariff as a whole, and still more questionable when we consider it in relation to this particular question. The right hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) has urged that the minister should have definitely increased the tariff against France on luxuries before entering into negotiations. I wonder how it would have been possible in that case for the ministers to have entered into negotiations at all. If it had been definitely stated in this House that in order to negotiate a trade bargain with France we would increase the tax upon luxuries, I can well imagine what response we would have had from the French people. The probability is our ministers would have come back without any treaty at

French Treaty
all. On the other hand, had it been definitely stated that luxuries would have to pay a higher tariff, I cannot see how it would have been possible to conclude such a treaty as this.
A great deal has been said about the most favoured nation clause. I again say that it cannot for a moment be contended that our ministers could have taken any other position in the negotiations. I maintain in regard to this treaty that negotiations should be entered upon in a spirit of good will and fairness towards other nations. It would seem to me impossible at this time to contend that we should continue to regard trade treaties in any other light than as arrangements of mutual advantage to the countries concerned. I cannot conceive, Mr. Speaker, that we should approach this question in any other spirit than that of a desire to make fair and equitable arrangements with those nations which are willing to trade with us.
A great deal of emphasis has been laid upon what is called the adverse balance of trade. It would seem to me to be absolutely unsound as between two nations that we should take a position based on this adverse balance of trade; at least it does not prove anything to my mind in this respect. Speaking generally, I would take the position that in all trade arrangements with other nations we must be willing to negotiate in a spirit of give and take; there must be no thought that we can retain all the advantage upon our own side. This treaty has been entered into with a nation that was our ally during the war, and it would ill become us to attempt to impose upon France obligations which, torn as she was by war, she might find it difficult to accept. Matters of trade should not, as in the past, be treated as, potentially, occasions of war, but rather as arrangements of mutual advantage to all concerned. We should always remember that trade is of paramount interest to all concerned, and that peace can only come in this world as we are willing to approach all nations in a spirit of good will.


Mr. W. M. GERMAN (Welland):: in that part of the country, I will readily join the hon. member for Lincoln in a conference with the Minister of Finance with a view to securing such modifications of the conditions as will effect a remedy. But in any case I feel that I should support this bill and leave it to the intelligence and fair-mindedness of the Minister of Finance to right any wrong that might be occasioned, rather than vote against a measure which in other respects is, to my mind, of great advantage to the people of Canada.
The hon. member for Lincoln further staled that the treaty worked a great injustice to nursery men. He said:
I now wish to refer for a moment, but only in a general way, to some of the articles that France is allowed to sell Canada under this treaty. I would ask the Minister of Finance why shrubs, grape vines, gooseberry bushes, and trees of all kinds of which we have good growers in this country and of which we export considerable quantities are allowed to enter Canada at two cents apiece whereas similar provision has not been made for Canadian trees and shrubs on the part of France.
If my hon. friend will look at item 170 of the French tariff he will find that these articles go into France free of duty, so that the duty on nursery stock coming into Canada is to our advantage and not to the advantage of France.
The hon. member referred to a very large number of items, in connection with which he strove to show that the treaty was working a disadvantage. The right hon. leader of the Opposition also says that the existing treaty, which this convention does away with, is far better than the one we are now considering. He said also that the treaty of 1908 was still in force at the time this new convention was entered into and that it could have continued in force, and he read article 6 of the statute, as follows:
The present arrangement shall remain in force until the conclusion of a new commercial convention, but either of the high contracting parties may denounce it after four months' notice.
I think my right hon. friend was hardly fair in his criticism in regard to that matter, because he endeavoured to leave the impression on the members of this House and on the people throughout the country that the treaty of 1908 could have continued in force practically indefinitely. But the preamble, not of the act of 1920, but of the schedule to the act says:
Pending the conclusion of a new commercial convention, with a view to which negotiations will begin immediately, the French and Canadian governments have agreed to the following provisions.
So that whether intentionally or not, the right hon. gentleman was rather misleading

the House and the people when he suggested that the treaty could have remained in force for any considerable length of time.	.
Now, Sir, what do we find in regard to this present convention? In looking at schedule A, which has been the subject of considerable discussion, we find that there are 110 articles on which the duty is considerably less than the duty on similar articles going from the United States. First, on horses, from Canada, the duty is 150 francs; from the United States, 225 francs. On meats of certain kinds, from Canada, 40 francs; from the United States, 60 francs-the same difference on various grades of meat. On fish there is a difference in favour of Canada. On linen yams, from Canada, 80 francs; from the United States, 120 francs. On tools, articles mentioned by the hon. member for Lincoln-spades, scythes, sickles, files, vices, etc., the duty is 140 francs from Canada and 212 from the United States. In another case, 100 francs from Canada; 152 from the United States. And so on through the whole list there are very substantial reductions on behalf of Canada as against similar articles going from the United States-and these are articles made by the hon. member for Lincoln.
The hon. member spoke of buckles; there is a large percentage, as respects the duty, in favour of goods from Canada as against similar goods from the United States. Doors of hardwood or softwood, painted or carved- these are articles made in Canada in large quantities, and the French duty is considerably less on goods coming from Canada tha i it is on goods from the United States. Asbestos is an article which is bought, particularly in the province of Quebec, in very large quantities. On sheets the duty is 67 francs from Canada and 102 francs from the United States; shaped asbestos, 135 francs from Canada and 202 francs from the United States; asbestos threads, 198 francs from Canada and 297 francs from the United States; asbestos plates, 247 francs from Canada and 346 francs from the United States, and so on through the whole list. I find there are at least 110 articles where the duty in favour of Canada is a very large percentage indeed.
Then take schedule B, which hon. gentlemen say is of no use. The right hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen), and the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) alleged that the treaty of 1908 was far and away preferable to the present treaty, but what do we find in looking at the same articles in the treaty of 1908 and the treaty before us at the present time? We find that there are some 800 articles of commerce mentioned in

French Treaty
this treaty affected by the duty on Canadian goods, and on 450 of these the duty is far and away less on Canadian goods going into France by from ten to fifty per cent than it was under the old treaty and on 110 articles from Canada the duts^ is much lower than on the same articles going from the United States. So that it does appear to me that the argument is all in favour of this treaty as against the treaty which was in force for the last fifteen years.
Now it has been alleged and strongly urged by my hon. friend for Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin), also by the right hon. leader of the Opposition as well as the hon. member for West York, that not many of these articles were being exported from Canada to France. I want to tell hon. members of this House that there have been millions of dollars of United States money invested in Canada in manufacturing industries for the sole and only reason that they get the benefit of the Canadian tariff for their export business. I know that because it is happening in the county of Welland, and my hon. friend from Lincoln must know it because the same thing exists in his county. Hundreds of thousands of dollars have been invested in these two counties by United States manufacturing industries for the alleged reason, according to them, that they were getting the benefit of the Canadian tariff for their export business. What do we find under this treaty which this House is not asked to confirm? We find that on 110 articles, practically the necessaries of life, the duty is far and away lower on goods going from Canada than on goods going from the United States. Surely, therefore, we shall have a greater influx of United States money into Canada for the purpose of developing our manufacturing industries. That is what we desire in that section of Canada; that, is what we desire in the whole of Canada.
The first great commercial industry, to call it that, is the farming industry. That is the industry which should be protected, preserved and encouraged more than any other. Our natural resources should be developed and encouraged; our manufacturing industries should be developed and encouraged, and that can . only be done by a sane, sensible tariff policy which exists in my opinion, to the.extent to which it goes, in this very treaty that is now before the House. It is the desire of us all to see Canada prosper, to see our natural resources developed and our manufacturing industries progress, and that can only be done by applying to the industries of
Canada the intelligent, courageous and progressive principles of Liberalism.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: If there is no objection perhaps we might call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


William Stevens Fielding: Very well.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


Hugh Guthrie: I am going to move an amendment.


William Stevens Fielding: Oh, then you ought to give us time to consider it.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.
Bon.- HUGH GUTHRIE (South Wellington) : Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to the remarks of my hon. friend for Welland (Mr. German), who concluded his address just before the House took recess, and I think I may go so far as to say that the calm, clear, well-reasoned argument which he presented, upon what is really a practical question of trade was in style and tenor very suitable indeed to the occasion and to the question which he sought to argue. While I cannot agree with the conclusion reached by my hon. friend I must say that from his point of view he stated his case with great fairness and with great calmness. He objected, in one instance, to a statement made by my hon. friend for Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin) in regard to the question of the duties upon imported wines, and he seems to take issue upon that question with the attitude adopted by the hon. member for Lincoln some days ago. As both of these hon. members come from what we know as the grape-growing district in the province of Ontario, I think they will have to settle that question pretty much between themselves; at all events I can offer them no light upon the subject. I did gather from the remarks of the Finance Minister, when he originally introduced this matter to the House, that perhaps there was something in the contention of my hon. friend for Lincoln, but that the proper time to correct the error, if there was one, would be upon the presentation of the budget rather than in connection with the present measure.
Apart from that question, my hon. friend for Welland dwelt in his argument almost exclusively upon the fact that in schedule A of the present treaty, likewise in schedule B, certain goods which on export from Canada to
French Treaty

France were formerly at a disanvantage as compared with those of the United States, had now been put upon the same plane as exports from the last-named country; also that in regard to schedule B there will be a large number of reductions from former duties on exports of Canadian goods to France I may tell my hon. friend for Welland that his argument in that respect is not convincing. If the duties to be maintained by France in the future on exports from Canada are yet so high that those goods cannot be profitably exported from this country, the reduction is purely a matter of form and not a matter of substance; it is not a reduction of which we can take any advantage. I tell him also that if he will read over the various items of schedule B to which he referred, he will find instance after instance where the duties which prevail to-day under the treaty of 1908, have been actually increased by the present proposal. I am not persuaded that my hon. friend is right in his conclusion, I take issue with him upon that point; but I must say that he argued the matter very fairly from his point of view.
I think we all realize that the question now before the House is purely a matter of trade and commerce, is purely a business arrangement Whether it be good or whether it be bad for the people of Canada is a question upon which, this House will have to pass; but in my view of the matter nothing is gained by seeking to make it a political question, or treating it from the standpoint of party politics.
I think it is to be regretted that the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Lapointe) . this afternoon became so warm, became as he evidently did so excited, became so over-emphatic, if I may be allowed to use the term, in many of his statements. I think if he had contented himself with a defence of this proposal upon business and economic grounds, and not sought to arouse a storm of partisan enthusiasm from his own side of the House, he would have displayed greater dignity himself and treated the question with more respect. I think his whole statement, this afternoon lacked everything in the nature of sound business argument. I think he absolutely failed to advance sound reasons why this House should adopt this treaty. He referred, of course, to two or three of the minor items which are involved in the present trade proposal. He waxed eloquent upon the question of bronze powders. He waxed eloquent upon the question of fresh or unsalted butter, and had something to say about the statement of my hon. friend for Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin) in

regard to tissues of cotton. I am satisfied, from a re-reading of the speech of my hon. friend for Lincoln upon these three points, that the hon. member was quite correct in the statement which he made to the House. I have Hansard before me. I am not going to refer to it, but any hon. member who desires to verify this statement can find it in the speech of the hon. member for Lincoln a few days ago. But even suppose that on these three points, butter, web cotton and bronze powder, all that the hon. member for Lincoln said was wrong, and all that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Lapointe) said was right, I think that should weigh very very little with this House or any member of it in coming to a conclusion upon the broad question of this treaty. These are matters of but trifling importance. If we are going to arrive at a correct conclusion in regard to this treaty proposal I submit, Mr. Speaker, that it is not altogether out of place to refer very briefly to what one might call the history of the matter. I go back to the year 1894, which is the year during which the first commercial treaty with France was negotiated. Between 1894 and 1908 the trade of this country under the treaty of 1894 did not show any very material gain, either in exports from Canada or in imports into Canada, and I agree with the Finance Minister to-day, who was Finance Minister in 1908, that in the year 1908 the time had arrived for some new arrangement between France and Canada. I was in the House at that time, I supported the treaty, and I am going to give the House a little bit of information on that subject. My right hon. friend and leader (Mr. Meighen) was not in the House in 1908, but in the session of 1909 after he had been elected a member of this House, and when the Finance Minister came before parliament with supplementary legislation to bring into effect the French treaty of 1908, I find in the records of the House, at page 160 of the Votes and Proceedings for the session of 1909-10, the following:
The House then resumed the debate on the proposed motion of Mr. Fielding "That the Bill No. 12 an Act respecting a certain supplementary convention between His Majesty and the President of the French republic be now read a second time."
The question being put on the motion, the House divided, the names were called, they were recorded by the clerk and among those who supported the present Minister of Finance in his motion on that occasion was the right hon. leader of the Opposition. So far as I can remember, the names on the division list, he was the only member of the Opposition at that time who d'd support the Finance

French Treaty
Minister in regard to the French treaty. It is idle at this distance of time for any one to say that my right hon. friend and leader is opposed on principle to a trade arrangement with France. He proved his faith in the matter during the first session he sat in this House, and it is just as idle to say that any member sitting in the official opposition in this House to-day is opposed to any fair and reasonable trade arrangement between Canada and France. We, one and all of us, are in favour of an equitable arrangement for increased trade. What we condemn about the present proposal is that it is too one-sided, that it is not reciprocal, and that there is no mutuality about it, either in advantage or obligation. These are the criticisms we offer against the present proposal, but we are in favour of any reasonable reciprocal trade arrangement that can be made with France.
The treaty of 1908 negotiated by the present Minister of Finance has not finally expired. I know that my hon. friend the Minister of Finance just a few days ago said that that treaty was as dead as Julius Caesar, but I think he rather overstated the fact on that occasion. The treaty is still in existence, as varied by the act of this parliament in 1921, and to-day, on the importation of goods from France into this country, you are bound by the terms of the treaty of 1908, and on the export of goods from this country to France, you are still bound by the terms of that treaty, varied as it was in 1921 by legislation of this parliament. So that it is an existing tariff. arrangement to-day.
There is no doubt that in the month of September 1918, shortly before the end of the war, the government of France adopted a policy of giving notice and denouncing various commercial treaties which France enjoyed throughout the world. France had evidently come to the conclusion that she would make new financial arrangements with the various countries of the world. Notice was given to Canada along with other countries that our treaty would expire within 12 months, which was the time limit required by the treaty. France subsequently gave an intimation, I think by way of withdrawal of the first notice, because for a certain period of time the treaty was carried forward under no very definite arrangement; but in the year 1920, when we in Canada realized that France was reaping no benefit whatever under the treaty of 1908 and that other nations of the world were reaping very substantial benefit under the same treaty, on account of the most favoured nation clause Canada gave notice to France of the termination of the treaty. Then it was that matters were
brought to a head, and negotiations took place which resulted in the agreement known as the modus vivendi agreement, which was ratified in this House on the 15th May, 1921. It is well, though, to remember that in the meantime new arrangements had been consummated by France with the United States. Early in the year 1921 the United States made application to France for more favourable treatment in regard to tariff matters. What the arguments used !by the United States' authorities were we cannot tell. We know what the result was. The result of the representations of the negotiators on behalf of the United States was this: that a much lower tariff was granted by France for a much larger number of articles than the United States had ever enjoyed before, and in many instances these rates were considerably lower than the rates which Canada enjoyed under the French treaty of 1908. That was the situation, which, to say the least of it, was awkward, and I quite realize that as soon as the new government came into power negotiations were commenced, the Finance Minister says, by a visit from the French Consul General of Montreal. Negotiations were, at all events, opened shortly after the new government came into power, with ^ view of making a new trade arrangement to bind both Canada and France for a term of years to come. The new government had not been in power more than a few months when emissaries of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association likewise came to Ottawa and presented a memorial to the Finance Minister showing that, in respect of certain articles, the United States did then enjoy advantages over Canada, so far as Canadian trade with France was concerned. There were, therefore, two reasons to fix these matters in the mind of the Finance Minister. There was the visit from the French Consul General and there was the memorial from the Canadian Manufacturers' Association. Now, an hon. member of this House with the experience in national financing of the present Minister of Finance had distinct notice that, in the very near future treaty negotiations would again be taken up with France with a view to coming to a new trade arrangement. He knew well what the French treaty of 1908 was. He knew what the French present tariff was. He knew the difficulties which would inevitably face him when he went to France to negotiate for a new treaty. He was warned by the Consul General in Montreal and by the Manufacturers' Association, yet he brought down his budget in 1922 and made no preparation whatever in that budget to enable him to conduct successful negotiations with
French Treaty

the government of France. My hon. friend the Finance Minister has informed us that France has a different tariff system from that which we enjoy in Canada. Under the French system he has informed this House that France has adopted a general tariff usually very high, and also a minimum tariff which likewise is pretty high. But there is a large difference between the two tariffs. In many instances one is as much as four times as great as the other, and in some instances five or six times as great. The Finance Minister assured the House that France maintains that particular kind of tariff "as an instrument for commercial negotiation." I think these are his actual worcls. He was fully aware of this last spring before his budget; he knew it when he was called upon by the French Consul General, and it has been well said that to be fore-warned is to be forearmed. He should have armed himself in the 1922 budget, yet, so far as we can judge from the budget which he brought down, he did nothing whatever by way of preparation to meet the situation which he knew must face him in the ensuing months when in consultation with the government of France which possessed under its tariff system this peculiar "instrument for the negotiation of commercial treaties," while he had none. What under such circumstances one might expect to happen did actually happen and the result is the one-sided proposal now before the House.
Before I turn to that point, let me just refer to this other one. I think I am not going beyond the fact in saying that, in the opinion of most people in this country, the results obtained under the international trade treaty between France and Canada of 1908 have fallen far below our expectations. I think in 1908, we all expected that there would be a very substantial increase in the trade between France and Canada as a result of the treaty; but year after year the figures were disappointing. The trade was not being done, and even at the expense of repeating some of the -figures that have been given to the House in the course of this debate, I wish to include in my remarks the actual trade results that were obtained pi-ior to the war under the treaty of 1908. The figures are as follows:
Imports from Exports from
France	Canada
Fiscal year	into Canada into France
1909	
$ 8,197,000	$2,341,0001910	
10,109,000	2,601,0001911	
11,583,000	2,535,0001912	
11,744,000	2,048,0001913	
15,375.000	2,357,000
TMr. Guthrie.]
In 1913, the volume of imports from France into Canada was the greatest.
Imports ifrom Exports from France	Canada
1914	 $14,276,000	$3,632,000
Whether or not I should include 1914, is a question. The war broke out in the beginning of August, 1914, after only four months of our financial year had elapsed, so that it may be said that eight months of that year were war months. But taking the whole six years from 1909 to 1914, both inclusive, we find that we bought from France under the treaty of 1908, 871,264,000 worth of goods, and France purchased from us only $14,514,000 worth. Therefore, in those six years there was an adverse balance of trade of $57,000,000 against Canada. I am going to omit the war years in the statement that I submit to the House. I come from 1914 down to the year 1922, which is the last year for which I have been able to get complete trade reports. For 1922, I find that we bought from France $13,500,000 worth of goods, and France bought from us $8,208,000 worth. But we had a statement made in the House to-day of the trade returns for the first eleven months of the last complete year, or up to the first March of the present year, and as I recollect the figures given by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Lapointe) this afternoon, our exports to France had reached a total of about $12,000,000, while our imports from France during the same eleven months had come down to $11,000,000. I think that I have learned the reason for this. We know that there are monthly as well as yearly reports from the Trade and Commerce department. It so happens that last year we had a very heavy crop of wheat in this country, and, I regret to say there was a very low price for wheat. France, on the other hand, was in the market to buy wheat, and I have been informed that wheat comprises three million dollars of the increase in our exports to France during the last eleven months. During the previous year our exports of wheat to France amounted to about $1,250,000, while for 11 months of this year they have increased to $4,000,000 worth or thereabouts. The other notable increase in the present year has been in sugar. During the last eleven months there is an increase of just about $1,000,000 worth of sugar.
I mention these two matters particularly because the treaty does not affect either of them one way or the other. They are both under the French maximum or general tariff, and I suppose you might say also that they are both under the French minimum tariff, because the rate upon them is precisely the

French Treaty
same under both the general and the minimum tariffs. Under the general tariff the rate on wheat, is 7 francs per 100 kilograms and under the minimum tariff the rate is precisely the same. Under the general tariff the rate on sugar is 90 francs per 100 kilograms, and under the minimum tariff the rate is precisely the same. Therefore, importations or exportations of both these commodities are unaffected by either the present proposal or by the treaty of 1908, because the rate under the general and the minimum tariff is the same. Whether you have a treaty or not does not matter as regards exports of wheat and sugar to Prance, because the rates are the same to us and all the rest of the world, no advantage being given to any nation.
There are however certain aspects of the present treaty which call, I think, for more than passing comment, particularly when one seeks to make a comparison between the arrangement contained in the proposal now before the House and the arrangement which the Minister of Finance made in 1908, and which this parliament ratified. I point out in the first instance, that whenever you find a variation between the trade arrangement of 1908 and the present proposal, you find it is in the interest of France and to the disadvantage of Canada. It is significant that every variation that occurs is in the same direction-an enlargement of the liberty of action of France, a contraction or restriction of the rights of Canada. I cannot find a single variation in the terms of the two treaties which is not favourable to France and at the same time a limitation upon Canada. I take for example the goods referred to in schedule A of the present proposal. These are goods which under the proposal are entitled to entry into France at the minimum French tariff. I compare article 1 and article 2 of the present proposal with the same articles in the treaty of 1908, and I find this marked distinction. Under the treaty of 1908 we not only had the right to ship our products into France at minimum tariff rates but also into all the French colonies, protectorates and possessions. That has been altered. The present arrangement permits us to ship goods under schedule A to French colonies, possessions and protectorates "having the same customs tariff as France." These words were not in the former treaty. Consequently if a possession of France has a different tariff-and I assume for reasons that I will state in a moment that many of them have-we have no right to export to that possession or colony upon the same basis as we are entitled to deal with France herself.
In the next place, by article 2 of the present tariff France grants her minimum tariff to Canada as one of the most favoured nations. We are guaranteed most favoured nation treatment, according to article 2. That is not the way the former treaty was settled; the treaty of 1908 expressly provided that if France made a better arrangement with any "foreign country"-not the most favoured nation-Canada should have the benefit of such arrangement-. I am fully aware that there are eleven nations in the world at this time who, as respects Canada and France, are entitled to what is called most favoured nation treatment; but there are a good many more than eleven important trading nations in the world. Under the treaty of 1908 we were entitled to the ben-:-fiit of any tariff that France granted " to any foreign country "; under this proposal we come in only for the treatment accorded to the eleven most favoured nations.
Under the treaty of 1908 France likewise reserved a small zone for tariff administration purposes as between herself and border states. Article II of the old treaty reads:
The privileges which have been or may be granted to border states for facilitating frontier traffic within a limit not exceeding 15 kilometres on each side of the boundary.
That provision has been very much enlarged under the present proposal, which provides that France may make any tariff arrangement she sees fit with "border states," which means with Spain, with Italy, with Switzerland, with Belgium or with Germany, and Canada cannot claim the benefit of any such arrangement This is an express reservation by France in so many words, so plain that he who runs may read. And likewise France has insisted on another condition for her own benefit over and above anything she asked of Canada in 1908; that is, her right to make special trade treaties with states or countries with which she has been at war, which would of course include Germany, Austria, Turkey and Bulgaria.
Now, I think France has pretty well provided in this treaty that she is to be at liberty to make practically any trade arrangements she likes with pretty much any country in Europe without our being able to take advantage of it. This applies to schedule A.
Well, what is the proposal in regard to schedule B? This schedule represents those goods which, if this treaty be ratified, will be entitled to go into France from Canada at a percentage of reduction as between the general tariff and the minimum tariff of France. Perhaps an example is the best way of illustrating the operation of this provision. Supposing the general tariff in France is 200 francs
French Treaty

on an article and the minimum tariff is 100 francs, and the percentage of reduction in favour of Canada is 50 per cent; the difference between the general and the minimum tariff being 100 francs, 50 per cent of that would be 50 francs. Take 50 from the 200 francs, the general tariff, and the net tariff on Canadian goods would be 150 francs.
With such terms in a treaty is it not of vital importance to Canada that the proportion as between the general and the minimum tariff should always remain unchanged? But France has taken special pains to express clearly in this treaty that she is not to be bound by such a provision; on the contrary France has reserved expressly to herself the right to raise her maximum or her minimum tariff, or both, just as she may deem proper, but all Canada will get is the benefit of a percentage of reduction as between the general and minimum tariffs. Suppose in the case I have just put that the day after this treaty is ratified by this parliament France for her own purposes increases her general tariff to 400 francs, what is the result? The difference between this tariff and the minimum would then be 300 franck, and our percentage of reduction would be 50 per cent of the difference, or 150 francs. Deduct this from the 400 francs, which is the general tariff, and the rate on the goods of this country entering France would be 250 francs instead of the rate of 150 francs which I quoted a few minutes ago. And France reserves the right to make such increases as and when she may so desire.
France was quite justified in making the best bargain she could. Nobody can complain of that. In fact this afternoon I was rather surprised when the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Lapointe) hinted that somebody in this quarter of the House had suggested that the negotiators for France had acted in some respects unfairly in the negotiations. No such suggestion was made from this cfuarter. We are prepared to pay the negotiators for France in this matter every compliment. They are entitled to it. They certainly were wide-awake when they negotiated this treaty. I do not think they have missed much-indeed, I do not think they have missed anything. The treaty appears to be all in favour of France; every fresh limitation, every new condition has given an additional advantage to France and imposed a corresponding disadvantage upon Canada. The French diplomats have certainly made a splendid bargain for France.
In regard to goods in schedule B the position is simply this: France may alter the

rates of duty upon these goods to-morrow and most effectually exclude us from her markets. Does anyone think we are entitled to the" most favoured nation treatment with respect to goods mentioned in schedule B? Indeed we are not; France has reserved that point too. In the treaty of 1908 it is provided that we shall have the benefit of the lowest French tariff with any foreign nation; but when we come to schedule B of the present treaty it merely says that we shall get the benefit of the lowest rate accorded to the United States. Other nations may enjoy much lower rates; all we get in regard to goods on schedule B is the lowest rate which is given to the United States.
Then there is another provision just as favourable to France as schedules A and B. In respect of goods that are not in either schedule A or schedule B we simply get the United States rate, and if the agreement between France and the United States shall at any time be terminated, then we get a 25 per cent reduction and the difference between the general and the minimum French rates. But there is a curious provision in repect to the goods not included in schedules A or B, and that provision is contained in article V. It says:
If at any time France grants to the United States of America for any products other than those enumerated in schedules A and B to this convention more favourable treatment than is granted to Canada, Canada shall be entitled to claim the benefit of the same treatment for any identical or similar products originating in and coming from Canada, on condition that France shall be entitled to ask from Canada a reasonable and equivalent concession.
When France deals with our diplomats; when France deals with the two ministers of this government who went to Paris to negotiate this treaty, France expressly provides that if any concession is granted to Canada, Canada shall grant an identical concession to France. But when the negotiators for the United States went over in 1921 to . arrange their trade convention, for aught we know or are able to learn about the matter they gave no concession whatever to France and France gave them freely what they asked. But under the present treaty, even if in the future the United States gets a further concession of which we claim the benefit, we are bound under the treaty to give a'similar concession to France.
Now, my summary of the agreement as it is presented to parliament is that it is by no means as satisfactory a treaty as that which is still in force. Every change has been a disadvantage to this country. France has succeeded in securing for herself absolute freedom

French Treaty
223;
of action for the future; Canada, on the other hand, is bound under the hard and fast terms of express stipulations. Let me turn for a moment to the provisions in regard to Canada. Canada in respect to schedule D grants to France a fixed rate of duty; if the bill is passed bringing this treaty into force we absolutely fix the rates of duty on all the goods mentioned in schedule D coming from France to Canada and we cannot alter these rates unless we denounce the treaty. We have agreed to it; we have allowed ourselves no liberty of action; we cannot change a single rate under schedule D-that is the express language of the treaty. Then, in regard to schedule E which is a list of goods in respect of which Canada says to France, "We will give you the intermediate tariff of Canada and in addition we will give you a discount of 10 per cent." One would think that was a pretty reasonable offer to France and that as France herself had retained liberty of action in almost every respect she would have granted Canada some liberty of action; that some reciprocal arrangement would have been effected. But no, the negotiators for France say, "You must bind yourselves that you will always maintain the same proportion between the intermediate and the general tariff of Canada." We cannot alter this proportion. We can raise the general tariff, it is true, but if we do we must keep up the same proportion between our general and our intermediate tariffs so that a 10 per cent advantage to France will be sure to result. If there were anything like mutuality in this bargain, anything like reciprocal treatment, surely France would not have insisted on her right to raise her minimum or general tariff, one or the other or both, as she saw fit, and would not have so far bound the hands of the Canadian representatives as to schedule D to say, "These are the figures and you cannot alter them; you shall go no higher or no lower," and as to schedule E to say, "We will have your intermediate tariff with 10 per cent off, but you must bind yourselves to keep up the same proportion between your intermediate and your general tariff as at the present time." So again with schedule F, which deals with goods which France will be entitled to send into Canada at a discount of 15 per cent from the intermediate tariff. The same language is employed in schedule F as in schedule E; we cannot change the proportion of our general and our intermediate tariff in any way.
I have tried to state these things as clearly and as fairly as I can. I have tried to point out to the House the tremendous difference
which exists between these two treaties, that of 1908 and the one now offered by the Finance Minister for the ratification of this parliament. If our trade did not succeed very well under the treaty of 1908; if we were disappointed in the trade results under that treaty-and I think we all were-what will happen to us under a treaty so overbalanced in favour of France as the present proposal? Every restriction in favour of France, every variation, every liberty, we are bound to by the treaty, and France is perfectly free to alter it or to nullify it as she sees fit. That is one aspect of the matter which appeals to me. But there is another important phase of the matter and even at the risk of some repetition I am going to refer to it.
My hon. friend the Minister of Finance very candidly states that in his opinion this trade arrangement is of far more consequence to Canada than it is to France. I entirely differ from him in that opinion. He has pointed out the enormous difference between the French general and minimum tariffs and the comparatively small difference between our * intermediate and general tariffs. He says that in one case the general tariff of France may be four or five times the minimum tariff while in Canada the difference is not more than perhaps five or seven and a half per cent between our general and intermediate rates and that is true. But I judge of the matter from the actual trade returns. If France sold to Canada last year $13,500,000 worth of goods and Canada sold to France a little over $8,000,000 worth of goods might one not assume that the trade as between the two countries is substantially more valuable and important to France than it is to Canada? What do the trade figures disclose? I will take the figures submitted to-day by my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries for the eleven months of the present year-$12,000,000 of exports from Canada to France. I received to-day from the Department of Trade and Commerce a statement of the total exports of Canada for the last year and I find that the domestic merchandise exported ran to the enormous sum of $932,000,000 odd. Of that, $12,000,000 went to France, about one and one-quarter per [DOT] cent of our exports. Is the export to France, then, such a vital matter to Canada as my hon. friend the Minister of Finance seems to think? I do not regard it as such a vital matter at all; if we had no trade treaty between France and Canada to-day I do not believe it would prove such a calamity that we need fear. It would not even seriously injure us. I do believe it would be a commercial misfortune. I think what we
French Treaty

to pay when shipping their goods to France. These "are the items which especially appeal to me in the matter, and which especially affect the riding which I have the honour to represent in this House. I have tried as well as I can to balance in my own mind and according to my own judgment the advantages -because there are some-and the disadvantages, which in my judgment-


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend is asking again and again what answer he can make to his constituents when they find these advances. Now, in every case he is making a comparison with a dead arrangement, with an instrument which is dead or dying, and any comparison made between the present rates and the new tariff is absolutely unfair. The comparison should be between the rates of the treaty and the general tariff of France.


Hugh Guthrie: That may be a very fair remark, but I want to point out to my hon. friend that he has stated in a most emphatic way-and. emphasized his statement on two occasions-"My object in going to France was to get the Ameridan rates for Canadian goods." Now he has them, and I have given him the results in my riding, and if the manufacturers of my riding are satisfied with the result, I will certainly be very much surprised.


William Stevens Fielding: The hon. member is not doing me justice in this matter. It is true that I stated the object was to get on even terms with the United States, because they will be our chief competitors in the European market, but beyond that the great point is to get something better than we would get by coming under the general tariff of France.


Hugh Guthrie: My criticism of the hon.
minister's position is this: that what he has got is not such an arrangement as we in Canada are warranted in accepting.


William Stevens Fielding: That is another question.


Hugh Guthrie: That is what I am trying to argue and that is the point upon which I am submitting these various comparisons. I do not for a moment admit that the treaty which he has brought back is one which this . parliament should accept. My argument is entirely the other way. I do want a fair and reasonable commercial arrangement between Canada and France and every one on this side of the House wants it also. We desire any kind of a reciprocal arrangement with France which will confer something like equal benefits upon both countries, but the arrangement which is proposed by the government is so one-sided, so overbalanced, and so unequal in every respect, so far as I have been able

to examine it, that in my opinion this House would not be warranted in accepting it as a satisfactory trade agreement between the two countries.
It would be far better for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) to drop this proposal. It would be far better for him and his colleague to go back and try again. They know something of the game of treaty-making now. Let them take a little longer time, if necessary, and let them say to the negotiators of France: " In the bright light of an April daj this proposal does not suit the parliament of Canada. It insists upon a better bargain ". To whose interest is it most to make a treaty? As I said before, it is certainly to the interest of France, and I have no doubt, if this government should persist, it can procure a less objectionable treaty. The United States certainly secured a better one, and if our negotiators were as persistent, patient and diplomatic as those able statesmen whom France designated to conduct its side of the negotiations, I think we might have secured a much more satisfactory treaty than the one now before us.
I have tried to balance the advantages and disadvantages under this arrangement. I have tried to make some kind of an estimate of what we may reasonably expect in the way of increased trade, although that is very hard to estimate. I have mentioned several lines in which I think it may be possible to increase our exports to France; but after all, what will this amount to? Perhaps a million, two million, think you, three million a year in increased exports? Less than half of that, I feel sure. Suppose our exports should increase by two or three million dollars; last year the total amount was only eight million dollars odd all told, of agricultural products, manufactured products and everything else. Suppose the increase in exports is say thre ; million dollars per annum, are we not paying too much for such an increase in export trade? Are we not tying our hands so completely under this agreement that we will not be able in the future to take advantage of more favourable arrangements which may be offered other countries of the world? Are wre not going to pay too highly by loss to our treasury of $850,000 a year for the little bit of benefit which may possibly result? But apart from that altogether, are we not by this very treaty, granting favours, by reduction of taxation, to the people who least require such reductions? What satisfaction is it to the general public of Canada to know that a few of the people in the cities of this country are going to get their luxuries, their silks, their laces and their

French Treaty
wines under a duty of $27 a hundred instead of $30 as formerly? We may find it very hard to explain this aspect to the people if this treaty should go through. It will be of no benefit to the people in my constituency. It may be of some little benefit to the rich people of Montreal, Toronto or other large centres of population who purchase luxuries. But perhaps the worst feature of the question is that the loss of revenue must be made up, and as you cannot make up this loss by increased taxation on luxuries, because your treaty forbids it-consequently it must be made up by further taxation of the necessaries of life. These are the reasons why this treaty does not commend itself to me. It is for those reasons that I was prepared to move an amendment upon the second reading of this bill; but during the dinner recess, I may tell the House that I was in consultation with my leader, and he thinks it better that the bill should go into committee and be fully discussed there. I certainly intend, however, to reserve my right on the third reading of the bill to move the amendment which I had proposed to move to-night, but which I am dissuaded from doing by the request of my leader. Perhaps, on the whole, when the bill is discussed in committee, we may be able to demonstrate more clearly than we are able to do now, that the proposal is not to the advantage or benefit of the great mass of the people of this country.


Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, hon. members of this House who, in 1911, were members of the Canadian parliament, and who then listened to the eloquent and convincing speech of the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) in defending the proposals for reciprocity with the United States, must have admired his ability to turn corners quickly as they listened to his speech this evening condemning the present proposed arrangement with the republic of France.


Mr. DUFF:: We are used to him now.


Hugh Guthrie: Is it the hon. member for Welland (Mr. German) my hon. friend is referring to?


James Alexander Robb: Wellington.


Hugh Guthrie: I thought my hon. friend said the hon. member for Welland.


James Alexander Robb: The hon. member for Wellington and the hon. member for Welland were in this House on the same side defending the party against the attacks of my right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) who now leads the
opposition. Most of the argument presented in 1911 against the reciprocity pact with the United States was along the same lines as that of my hon. friend to-night; that is, that automatically the proposed arrangement of 1911 affected some twelve to fifteen states, and no one was more eloquent in advancing that idea than the then hon. member for St. Antoine, Sir Herbert Ames, and the present leader of the Opposition.


Arthur Meighen: Does the hon. member mean in the House?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: My hon. friend is drawing on his imagination. If he looks up Hansard, he will find that I never spoke at all.


James Alexander Robb: My right hon. friend had then in mind his resolution for lowering the duties on agricultural implements. Perhaps I have in mind his speech on the hustings. The hon. member for South Wellington, however, has to-night tried to narrow down this proposition to butter and bronze powder, forgetting that in the schedule for the minimum tariff there are some 413 items. True, my hon. friend argues that some of these items are the same in the minimum tariff as in the general tariff; but there may be a day when the republic of France will change that tariff, and Canada will be in that list and will be entitled to all the benefits of whatever reduction may be made.
I recall that soon after this government acquired power last winter, we were approached by the representative of France, who intimated that the treaty that had been extended by the government that preceded us was narrowed down to France alone, and that Canada did not share in the trade between the colonies, protectorates, and possessions of France. When we looked up the records, we discovered that the balance of trade with the colonies, protectorates and possessions of France were very much in favour of Canada. Therefore, at once this government enlarged the scope of the treaty so that it covered those colonies and protectorates. Then I have in mind that a very large manufacturer of agricultural implements came to us and pointed out that under the arrangement with the United States of March, 1921, their well-established business in France was very much in danger, particularly as they were under a disadvantage as regards parts of agricultural implements. I have in mind too a very large industry in Hamilton which approached us through its representatives, and I have under

French Treaty

my hand their letter pointing out that the republic of France proposed a considerable electrical development where large quantities of . porcelain were required, and stating that if they were placed upon the same basis as the United States, they could secure that business. Therefore, I may remind my hon. friend that having succeeded in placing Canada upon the same basis as the United States, we have succeeded in securing a considerable advantage for the people of Canada, for producers of both agricultural and manufactured products?
I wish just for a moment to draw the attention of my hon. friend to one item in the tariff, and I am not going to pursue this tariff question long or go into details or figures. I think it has been fairly well presented to the House; but may I remind my hon. friend again what was pointed out to him just a minute ago by the Minister of Finance, that had we not secured this arrangement, we would have come under the general tariff of France? What would that mean? I will give my hon. friend just one example. Under the arrangement which is now before us the duty on boots and shoes is 390 francs; under the general tariff, which would be operative had we not been placed upon the same basis as the United States, the duty would be 4,040 francs.


Arthur Meighen: What is the difference
whether it is the one or the other? Does the hon. gentleman think we can put shoes into France against the present tariff?


James Alexander Robb: I would remind my hon. friend that the war has taught Canadians to have a little more confidence in themselves and that to-day we are going into the markets of the world with our products. Canadian manufacturers realize that, given equal terms, they can compete in the markets of the world. I am reminded that boots and shoes from the United States are sold in the French stores.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, and the manufacturers of the United States make enough boots and shoes in one day to supply the whole of Canada for nearly a year.


James Alexander Robb: Canada is commencing to export.


Arthur Meighen: Not boots and shoes to France.


James Alexander Robb: Canada will export boots and shoes to France. My hon. friend, for whom I have great admiration, came into this House the same year I did, in 1908, and by his
-
industry and ability rose to a leading place in parliament. He eventually became Prime Minister and in the campaign of 1921 he was the only real, true "defender of the faith" of high tariff and trading only with ourselves.


Arthur Meighen: The minister should not
say that, for his own Finance Minister has confessed to the House that all I was defending was a low tariff.


Ernest Lapointe: National-Liberal-Conservative.


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend was trying to
re-unite a great party along the lines that we can get rich by trading among ourselves -swapping jack-knives. Although the last speaker (Mr. Guthrie) has just admitted his party did not have the courage to move the amendment which was suggested prior to six o'clock, my hon. friend is advocating a policy of trading only with ourselves. I ask him if we can ever grow as a nation in that way?


Arthur Meighen: What does he base that
statement on?


James Alexander Robb: On the whole argument of my hon. friend.


Arthur Meighen: Pshaw, not at all.


James Alexander Robb: I think I can convince my hon. friend that it does not make any difference what treaty is presented to parliament or to the country, if it makes for enlarged trade it i sure to meet with opposition from him. I will prove this.


Arthur Meighen: What I am complaining
of in this treaty is that it contracts our market in the things we really sell.


James Alexander Robb: In 1911 the Liberal party presented to the country a treaty with the United States, and my hon. friend and his party complained that it gave all to the farmers and paid no regard to the manufacturers. That was the assertion then made.


Arthur Meighen: It was not mine.


James Alexander Robb: Well, my hon. friend supported that policy. To-day he argues that this treaty gives everything to the manufacturers and provides nothing for the farmers.


Arthur Meighen: It gives everything to
France.


James Alexander Robb: In 1911 the policy of my hon.
friend was:	No truck or trade with the
Yankees.


Arthur Meighen: No, not at all.

French Treaty


James Alexander Robb: To-day his policy is: No truck or trade with the French. That is the natural conclusion to be drawn from the argument we have had presented against this treaty. Remembering the attitude of my hon. friend in 1911, I am not sure how the farmers of western Canada will regard his solicitude for them in respect of this treaty, but I rather suspect they will have very grave doubts as to the sincerity, of his attitude.


Arthur Meighen: What will they think of the hon. minister's?


James Alexander Robb: I believe that in this arrangement Canada has obtained many concessions that will be of value in the future. I have made a study of some of the foreign trade of France and I observe that she has purchased large quantities of goods from the United States and the Argentine. Under the proposed arrangement Canada will be at least upon the same basis as the United States, and as there is no possibility of those two countries coming under the objections advanced by my hon. friend this afternoon with respect to border states, in that regard we start out on an equal footing with our great neighbour to the south and with the Argentine-


Arthur Meighen: No.


James Alexander Robb: -who supply large quantities of goods to France.


Arthur Meighen: What do those countries give France?


James Alexander Robb: I have the details, but I will not detain the House by reciting them. In addition, we provide for the future, for in article 3 it will be observed that whatever changes France makes as regards the tariffs of her colonies, possessions and protectorates, Canada will be entitled to similar percentages. To quote the article:
These percentages shall remain the same whatever increase or decrease of tariff duties, surtaxes or coefficients France may establish in the future.
Then I observe that article 5 provides:
If the United States of America should at any time cease to enjoy the benefit of the French decree of March 28th, 1921, products of Canada other than those enumerated in schedules A and B to this convention shall enjoy a reduction of twenty-five per cent on the difference between the French general tariff and minimum tariff, whatever the rates of these tariffs may be.
If at any time France grants to the United States of America for any products other than those enumerated in schedule A and B to this Convention more favourable treatment than is granted to Canada, Canada shall be entitled to claim the benefit of the same treatment for any identical or similar products originating in and coming from Canada.
143i
That is a concession which is worth something for the future.


James Dew Chaplin: Would the minister be kind enough to read the concluding words of the sentence?


James Alexander Robb: Do you mean:
On condition that France shall be entitled to ask from Canada a reasonable and equivalent concession.
Is that it?


James Dew Chaplin: Yes.


James Alexander Robb: Is there any objection to that? My hon. friend who has just preceded me- and I have it here in Hansard-laid down the policy in 1911 that any trade between countries must be on a fair basis, that you cannot obtain concessions without giving an equivalent in return. I submit that the hon. member for South Wellington was on sound ground then, but in the interval he has wandered far from good company. Now, article 7 is in these terms:
If under the preceding articles the French minimum tariff does not apply to foodstuffs originating in and coming from Canada these products shall nevertheless enjoy the benefit of the said tariff upon their importation into the French West Indies and French Guiana.
Then there are other provisions that are worth something but that have not yet been pointed out. Customs tariff is not the only imposition that is placed upon the products of a country in these days when all the nations are searching about for methods of raising revenue. We ouselves raise certain revenues through the excise; France has provided for that. In this treaty ample care is taken that no matter whether it is a province, a town or a city that imposes excise, Canada shall be protected. I quote article XVIII.:
Products of Canadian origin of any kind imported into France, the French colonies, possessions and pro tectorates shall not be subject to any other or higher duties of excise or town dues than those which are or may be charged upon like products of the most favoured nation. In like manner products of any kind originating in France, the French colonies, possessions or protectorates when imported into Canada shall not be subject to any other or higher duties of excise or town dues than those which are or may be charged upon like products of the most favoured nation.
So that upon that ground we are placed in exactly the same position as any favoured nation desiring to trade with France. I submit that while this arangement with France may not be all that we would desire to get -because any man who goes out to promote trade relations tries to get all he can for his country-France had something to say about the matter, and it is all that France has given to any other nation. What more can we ask from these 36,000,000 customers, industrious people who always pay for what they buy?
French Treaty

II my hon. friend believes that my advice is worth anything to him I suggest that he think it over again before coming to the conclusion that that amendment should be offered. I am satisfied that the people of Canada will not look kindly upon any attempt to stop the expansion of Canadian trade with any country that is able to buy Canadian products.


Mr. J. FRED JOHNSTON (Last Mountain) :: Mr. Speaker, in rising to make a few remarks on this subject it is not my hope that I shall be able to add very much to what has already been said as respects the details of the treaty now under consideration. But I have been struck with some of the remarks made by some of my hon. friends to my right. The hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) said that under this treaty the farmers of Canada would be no worse or no better off. Well, I submit that if we in this part of the House opposed the treaty on the ground that it did not contain much for the farmers, the hon. member for South Wellington would be one of the first to charge us with selfishness. I believe the manufacturers will derive some benefit from the terms of this treaty. We in this part of the House are glad of that. WTe think it is a good thing for Canada as a whole that our manufacturers should be prosperous; we are glad to have trade arrangements made with other countries that will give them a market for their products.
This trade arrangement, Mr. Speaker, as all others, should be considered wholly on its merits. I am convinced, though, that the opposition in this House would be hard to satisfy in this respect; as a matter of fact I do not think this government could negotiate a treaty that rvould be acceptable to the official opposition. Under the bi-party system an opposition, it would appear, is expected to oppose, and I am sure the present opposition are fulfilling that duty to the letter. We in this part of the House stand for something different: we stand for wider markets and freer trade. While this treaty is not all that we could desire, while it is ours to accept or reject, I think it is only natural that Canada should endeavour to secure better trade relations with the republic of France. France was our ally in the late war. It can be fairly stated that trade rivalry very often leads to misunderstanding and war and that friendly intercourse in the matter of trade as between countries lessens the chances of strained relations. It is also a fact that thirty per cent of the people of this country speak the French tongue. I do not believe in

mixing sentiment with business, but that is a fact that is worthy of consideration. Thousands of our people visit France annually. The Canadian people are to-day the titled owners of 250 acres of land in that great republic. So there are many things that bind Canada to France, and if we do not make some endeavour to continue our trade relations with that country under the best possible terms, I submit that instead of being drawn closer together we will drift further apart.
Both the right hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) and the hon. member for South Wellington made much of the point that other nations would derive the same benefit from this treaty as would France. But would it be possible to negotiate a treaty' with France and get away from that result? I do not see how it could be done. The right hon. leader of the Opposition stated in this connection some days ago that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) should have increased the duties on luxuries before going over to negotiate this treaty. Speaking today, he said the hands of the Minister of Finance were tied on account of his association with a party that stood for lower tariffs, and he also said that France had been well advised as to that position. Well, if the latter is the case, by what sort of reasoning does the right hon. gentleman think that France could have been led into a trade arrangement if the Minister of Finance had followed his advice and raised the duties on luxuries immediately preceding his visit to that country.	The negotiators of France
would certainly have been advised of that fact and the deal would have been off.
The right hon. gentleman also stated that Canada would lose some $500,000 in revenue from customs duties through the operation of this treaty if it goes into effect. I am forced to think that he based that statement on the old fallacy that high customs means greater revenue.


Arthur Meighen: On what does the hon. member think the Minister of Finance bases his estimate of $850,000?


John Frederick Johnston: Just at the moment I am dealing with what my right hon. friend said, and if he will let me pursue that I will prob-bably come to his question later. Now, he contends that we are going to lose $500,000 on this arrangement. I say I believe he is figuring on the old fallacy that the higher the customs duties the greater the revenue. If we look at the returns from customs duties for the last fiscal year we find that our revenue was increased by some tliirteer

French Treaty
million dollars. It is a fact that last year the Minister of Finance gave some slight reductions in the customs tariff. I am not here to say that the full amount of this increase in our revenue from customs Was due to those reductions: nevertheless, we have that result, our revenue did increase by some thirteen million dollars. Further, Mr. Speaker, I believe it is a delusion that the tariff is the bulwark of our revenue producing machinery in this country. Not more than thirty per cent of our revenue was raised from this source last year, and the United States, the greatest protectionist country in the world, did not raise ten per cent of her revenue from customs duties last year.
I would like to say here if I might be permitted to digress to that extent that we in this part of the House are strong for an increase in the British preference. We are particularly strong for it at this time because our imports from the United States greatly exceed our exports to that country, while our imports from Great Britain are infinitesimal as compared with our exports to that country. So I hope the Minister of Finance is giving very serious consideration to this matter besides making trade arrangements with France and other countries. Further, Mr. Speaker, we in this part of the House, are and I hope always shall be strong for wider markets and lower tariffs. We are behind this treaty because we want better trade relations with France as with other countries. I believe at this particular time wider markets are essential to our growth and national well being, and I am sorry that the right hon. gentleman who leads the opposition is not of that mind.


Arthur Meighen: I did not say I was not. 1 would like the hon. member to show how we are going to get wider markets by having duties put up higher on our staple exports to other countries.


John Frederick Johnston: I coupled with that
statement as you will have noticed, Mr. Speaker, higher tariffs and I had particular reference to that part of my statement. I hold in my hand a press despatch dated St. Catharines April 22nd, which states "Mr. Meighen preached strong protective tariff to improve conditions here." On exactly the same day according to a despatch from Halifax, Nova Scotia, which I have in my hand, the leader of the Conservative party in the legislature of that province moved a resolution asking for a referendum in Nova Scotia on the question of secession of that province from' the Canadian confederation.


Arthur Meighen: You are wrong again.


John Frederick Johnston: I am quoting from this
despatch.


Mr. BAXTER:: He is not the leader, whatever you are quoting from.


John Frederick Johnston: I would ask the hon. member for St. John to say in what respect my quotation is wrong.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Mr. Corning is not the
leader, that is all,


Mr. LOGAN:: Mr. Corning is the leader.


Mr. GRAHAM:: He is half of the party.


John Frederick Johnston: I submit that the hon. member of the Conservative party in the legislature of Nova Scotia,-be he leader of the Conservative party or not, did not move his resolution asking for a referendum on the question of secession from confederation because they have good conditions in that province. I think it is only fair to infer that it is not because he wants higher duties as proclaimed by the leader of the Conservative party in federal affairs at St. Catharines. If I know anything about conditions as I- learn them through the prfess and from members of this House it is that the people of the province of Nova Scotia find themselves in somewhat the same position that we in the western provinces are in. We are forced to buy in a protected market and to sell our products in open markets in competition with the whole world. I imagine that the farmers of Nova Scotia would like to be
10 p.m. able to buy fertilizer for their soil to produce crops at the same price that their neighbours across the boundary line in the United States are permitted to buy theirs. I think the farmers of Nova Scotia and producers generally in that province would like to buy their implements of production at the same price at which they are procurable in the United States. I think too they would like to have the United States market open to them as we had a chance of having it under the reciprocity pact in the year 1911. Had it not been for the action of my right hon. friend and his party and their friends in the country in that year we might have had a market to-day sufficient unto our needs in the United States, but with the leader of the official Opposition in this House preaching in the town of St. Catharines that what is needed is higher customs duties-


Arthur Meighen: I did not say that at all. Quote what I said.


John Frederick Johnston: "Strong protective tariff." If that does not mean higher duties-

French Treaty


Arthur Meighen: What I said was a strong definite statement of protective tariff.


John Frederick Johnston: I do not see why my hon. friend should ask for that. Surely it is definite enough already. It is in force in this country.


Arthur Meighen: It is in force all right, but there is a very great uncertainty of statement and conflict" of statement on the part of the government as the hon. member knows himself.


John Frederick Johnston: I cannot understand that because last year we had our neighbours to our right condemning the government because they had not lived up to their platform, and it has been charged in this House and out of it by our friends to my right that hon. gentlemen opposite have a platform to get in on, and then do not live up to it. If they are not living up to their platform they must be keeping pretty close to the platform of hon. gentlemen to my right.


Arthur Meighen: Hear, hear. ,


John Frederick Johnston: At any rate, I think when you have coming from the old province of Nova Scotia, and from a leading gentleman of the Conservative party, which party has always claimed to be the ultra-loyalist party of this country a resolution calling for a referendum on secession, it is time to take some notice of it. I remember that during the election campaign the hon. leader of the Opposition was reported to have stated in this same province of Nova Scotia that the Progressive party had grown up in western Canada during the last twelve years, and had in its trail all the theorists, and many other classes. Now if such a resolution as the one I have referred to had been moved in one of our western legislatures I am sure the people of this country would not have been so much surprised, remembering all we have been charged with, but coming from the staid old province of Nova Scotia it was a great surprise to me, and I am sure to the people of western Canada.
While I am directing my remarks to the right hon. leader of the Opposition I want to say to the government that there is thought and some talk of secession in other parts of Canada as well as Nova Scotia. It is not because the people of this country are tired of our Empire connections. Not at all. The reasons are wholly economic, and there never was a time in the history of this country when we needed wider markets as badly as we need them to-day. I submit further, Mr. Speaker,

that the more trade treaties we can negotiate and ratify the better, and if we cannot start by effecting such arrangements with our allies the chances in this direction would seem to me to be pretty poor.
Another thought is this: We should not reject this treaty-and I am sure my hon. friends to my right would hesitate in doing so-particularly at this time when relations between Great Britain and France are somewhat strained over the occupation of the Ruhr. The adoption of the treaty would, I should think, help to restore the relations which formerly existed between the two countries.
Let me say in conclusion that I support this treaty because, to some extent, it tends to meet one of the principles to which I firmly adhere, that is freedom of trade. For the reasons I have outlined, and for the further reason that so long as I have the honour of occupying a seat in this House I intend to stand by those principles and the platform upon which I was elected.


Mr. W. G. RAYMOND (Brantford):: Mr. Speaker, it was with a great deal of regret I heard the last speaker state that there was talk in various parts of Canada at the present time of annexation or secession from the British Empire. I am sure that is a matter we all should regret in this House. The hon. member in question expressed his regret for it and I am sure that every hon. gentleman on this side must feel regret that any such state of mind should exist in any part of Canada. In that connection I would like to remind the hon. gentleman, and in doing so bring the fact to the attention of the House, that such a movement was never commenced by the members of the Liberal party at any time in Canada's history, nor was it ever countenanced by the members of the Liberal party at any period in the history of the Dominion. You will find by examining the traditions of that party that they have always favoured legislation that has tended to more strongly cement the bonds beween Canada and Great Britain.


John Frederick Johnston: May I interrupt the hon. gentleman in order to set him right. I think he said that he had understood the last speaker to state that there was talk in other parts of Canada as to annexation and secession from the Empire. I am sorry to have to interrupt him but I did not say anything of the kind. .


William Gawtress Raymond: 
John Frederick Johnston: That was to secede
from the Canadian confederation.


William Gawtress Raymond: From the Canadian confederation? I beg your pardon. My remarks ^however, would equally apply to such a proposition as that. It has never been any part of the tradition of the Liberal party in any province to separate from confederation. Anyone who has made a study of confederation must see that it was based and carried out almost entirely upon the principles of the Liberal party.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I wonder if my hon. friend has ever heard of the movement for the repeal of the union which was so widespread in Nova Scotia some years ago, and which carried a party into power-the Liberal party?


William Gawtress Raymond: I never heard of it being associated with the Liberal party.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Oh, yes it was.


William Gawtress Raymond: Perhaps by you but not by others.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Ask the Finance Minister.


William Gawtress Raymond: I do not know why the hon. gentleman should wish to think that such movements originate only in the province of Nova Scotia. I have a different opinion of that province. I look upon Nova Scotia as one of the most loyal, one of the most steadfast, one of the most stable of our provinces. I am sure that if there is any such movement in that province at the present time it does not originate with Nova Scotians who are members of the Liberal party. Furthermore if there is any such movement in any other province it does not derive its origin from those who owe adherence to the Liberal party or Liberal principles. I merely say this because I think it well, Sir, that the facts should be thoroughly understood. I am sure it is well within the knowledge of those who have read the history of Canada that when any such matters have' come up they have originated with the party that was opposed to the Liberal party. Any legislation tending to strengthen the ties between this country and Great Britain-such as Imperial penny postage and the British preference- was entirely originated and created by the Liberal party. I have made this statement because it presented itself to me while the previous speaker was talking. I thought the
motion of which he spoke not only referred to secession from Confederation but to annexation with the United States.
Now, with reference to the treaty I shall not take up the matter schedule by schedule, as the hon. member for South Wellington. (Mr. Guthrie) did, or enter into any enumera tion of the individual articles with which this treaty deals. The hon. member at the outset of his remarks spoke of this as a matter of practical commerce. I think we may all, perhaps, regard it in that way and each of us perhaps has some views as to how this treaty affects his individual constituency. At any rate, I think that is the way in which the country will regard it. I do not think the people will be drawn away by remarks made by hon. members in criticism of a treaty of this kind. Hon. gentlemen opposite have declared that they were in favour of the French treaty, that they would like to see a good treaty arranged with France. If so I have only this to say: The two ministers who went to France to make this treaty went with the full approbation, consent and confidence of the people of Canada. The Canadian people felt that they could send to France no two men who were better qualified for the task. They went to France, and they did their very best; they arranged a treaty and they have brought it back. That treaty has received the approbation generally of the country; not the approbation of hon. gentlemen opposite because nothing that could emanate from this side would ever receive their approbation, and the more an arrangement was in the interest of Canada and the more it redounded to the credit of the present government the more strenuous would be the opposition it would receive from my hon. friends across the floor.
I was just a little sorry when I heard the right hon. member for Grenville (Mr. Meighen) deliver the oration he did upon this treaty. It was a very fine oration but I was very sorry that he should find it necessary to go back to an election which took place in North Essex and drag that in for the purpose of making certain party and political allusions. I regret it, because I thought there was something else before the House. We do not need to discuss party politics all the time, and it was a matter of great regret to me that a man of his standing, and I would-say of his ability, would do such a thing. I say "ability" advisedly, Mr. Speaker, because we know he has ability. It may be that he has ability to burn, but we regret to see him always burning it on the altar of party politics. We would like to see him devote that
French Treaty

ability to the real interest of the country and to look at this treaty in a fair way, to try and consider it as though it were something that was going to benefit this country, instead of frying to make out that it is going to injure the country. I do not think in the long run that anything can be gained by misrepresentation, and I never did.
I must say that the whole basis of the argument that has been made by hon. members on the other side is nothing more or less than misrepresentation. The hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) stated that 5 per cent of his own constituents were clothed in purple and fine linen and fared sumptuously ever day. If there is a population in his riding of 30,000, that would mean that 1,500 people were clothed in purple and fine lined and fared sumptuously every day. He says those are the only ones who would benefit by this treaty. Why? Because braids, cords, embroidery, silks, satins and so forth, are imported with a little less duty from France under the treaty. That member is too well informed and has been too long in public life not to understand what is meant by these items in the tariff. They are not articles of clothing. They are not imported in the form of silks, satins and so forth that can be worn. The buttons that he introduces also come under the same category. He knows as well as I know, Mr. Speaker, that these articles come over here to what we call the costume makers. He knows there are people in this country whose business it is to make clothes in our cities, and that if they did not make them we should have to import them from foreign countries, the United States, Germany or France. The treaty will help these people in their business. These articles are practically their raw material. The silks, the satins, the embroidery, the cords and the buttons that are used in these articles are the raw material of the costume maker. That is an industry which few people take the trouble to look up, but it is one of the industries which have developed to a great extent in the larger cities such as Toronto and Montreal during the last few years. It is not fair to represent these articles as expensive finished silk or satin dresses, or anything of that kind. They come in as the'raw materials for garment making of the costume houses. For all we know some of the satin might be put in the sleeves of a farmer's coat. Would that form part of the clothing of which the hon. member speaks when he refers to his friends who are dressed in purple and fine linen? No, it would not. This is clearly a matter of relieving the duty on these things to which I refer, and not as fMr. Raycond.]
a benefit to the wealthy class, and it is not taking the duty off luxuries, as represented by many hon. members. I think each alternate speaker on the other side of the House took the ground that it was taking the duties off luxuries and benefiting only the wealthy class. That is not a fair statement. It is taking the duty off the raw material of a very important industry in this country. Lessening the duty on these articles gives an advantage to an industry which enables it to compete with industries of other countries, where otherwise it would have to pay a high rate of duty upon the material which goes into these garments.
There is another respect in which it appeared to me that the arguments of hon. members were not in accordance with what I considered to be the facts or" a fair logical consideration of the question. I think the hon. member for Grenville (Mr. Meighen) said there was a slight advantage in regard to agricultural implements, and that parts of agricultural implements would be exported to France at a slightly lower rate. He said the owners of agricultural implements would be anxious to get these parts, and after all it did not make very much difference where they got them. I think that is about the way he stated it-that it was not really an important thing.


Arthur Meighen: That was not the statement.


William Gawtress Raymond: Then what was the
statement?


Arthur Meighen: What I said was that inasmuch as the owners and users of these implements in France would require these things themselves, would be wanting them, and could not get them anywhere except here, they would naturally press their government to admit them under low duties, and though it was important to have these duties lowered it was no triumph under those conditions. .


William Gawtress Raymond: The right hon. gentleman says it was no triumph to get them under those conditions. I want to show the value of getting those articles at a less rate of duty. It is not the duty on the articles themselves, as I take it, that is the important point. There is another much (more important feature. There has been in the past very considerable trade in agricultural implements in France. Canadian agricultural implements have had a very great reputation in France. They stand high there, but they had a rival in the American agricultural implement. When a French farmer was about to buy an implement, if he was canvassed by an American salesman it was

French Treaty
always within the power of the American salesman to put the proposition up to him, "Now, if you buy an American implement you get your parts whenever they wear out and you get them at a lower rate of duty than you can if you buy a Canadian implement." That would always be an argument and would help to sell American implements in preference to Canadian implements. It is not the matter of the duty on the parts of these machines; that is a mere bagatelle, a trifle, not worthy of consideration, but the whole business depends upon being able to put an article on the market in such a way that it is to the advantage of the buyer or consumer to take it, and this treaty gives our salesmen a chance to go there and say-this was not the case formerly-"Now, you can import our implements at as low a rate of duty as you import the American implements, and you can get the parts as cheaply as you can get the parts of the American machines."


Mr. LEWIS:: If it is possible for the
Canadian manufacturer at the present time to put an implement into France as cheaply as the American manufacturer can place it there, what becomes of the hon. member's argument for a tariff against the United States? Why cannot the manufacturer do the same thing in Canada?


William Gawtress Raymond: Just at the present time I am thinking of the French treaty. The question of the hon. member, while it is quite a sensible question, opens up another vista which is a long way to leeward, and I am not thinking of it. I am thinking of the greater advantage that is given to our manufacturers and the greater their output in foreign countries, the cheaper and better they are able to make their implements for home consumption, and by this French treaty they will be enabled to sell implements in France. The difficulties in the way in regard to the tariff will be removed.
Now it was said no advantage is given to the agriculturist under this particular treaty. I do not know. We have had conditions in the years since the war that so displaced trade that I think it is impossible to judge as to what would be our chance of exporting agricultural goods to France. I think it is fairly difficult to judge what would be our chance of exporting any of our principal agricultural products to that country. We have to remember in that connection that the land of France is more evenly divided among the population than the land of any other countiy in Europe. We have to remember that there is more intensive cultivation in France than there is
in any other country in Europe. We have to remember that some of the very finest farmers in all branches of agriculture live in France. Therefore, it is not a country that is importing very much in the way of agricultural products, and I do not think our farmers in the West expect that France will ever be a large market for wheat, because I think they know that, while in some years the position of France as a wheat growing country will vary, in one year before the war commenced, France came to be the third producing country of wheat in the world. France at that time, a little before the war, excelled even Canada in its production of wheat. Therefore, when the French bought from the farmers of the West even that quantity of wheat that was quoted this afternoon of twelve million bushels, I think it was, that was exported to France in the face of a duty, we were told, of 7 francs per 100 kilograms, or something like 50 cents a hundred, or something less than half a cent a pound. They must have needed that wheat; they must have been short for that particular year; but it does not follow that we shall always have a trade in that direction, and, therefore, it is unfair to expect and I do not think sensible farmers would expect to send very much in the way of agricultural products to France, any more than they would expect to send a great deal to the Argentine republic, because by sending them to France, they would be sending them to one of the finest agricultural countries in the world. So it seems to me that there is no basis for the argument that no benefit is given to the agriculturists under this particular treaty.
I do not wish to weary the House, because I understand the desire is to draw this debate to a close and the ground has been fairly well gone over. I thought, however, it would be just as well to point out those few items that occurred to me from the remarks that were made by hon. gentlemen opposite, especially those with regard to the manufac-uiring interests. Those articles which are imported are, as we know, the raw material for certain of our manufactures, and I know from personal experience that the advantage that has been gained as regards our machinery has benefited my constituency. A year ago the largest implement factory in my constituency was shut up tight; but for months it has been going on with some 900 to 1,000 men employed there, working and taking home their pay envelopes, with the whistles going regularly as they went before. Those men are employed in manufacturing agricultural machinery that is going to France. That, it seems to me, is a benefit. We know it is
French Treaty

a benefit in my constituency; we know that we have those men employed that otherwise would not be employed, and I am sure that the recollection of that incident, while I sat and listened to the arguments of hon. gentlemen opposite, was more than a contradiction to them. While in South Wellington it may not be the case that there is any benefit under this treaty except to those who are clothed in purple and fine linen and who fare sumptuously every day, those men in my constituency, who are working men, are benefited. They are the men who carry the dinner-pail,
. who go to the factory and earn their living. For months before this House went into session, some time before the 1st November they were started on an order of agricultural implements from France, largely in prospect of the success of this French treaty that the Minister of Finance has been able to negotiate.
Before resuming my seat, which I intend to do immediately, I would deprecate, as I said at first, with the regret that I sincerely feel, that men of energy and ability in this House should devote their energies and abilities simply to waking up old party feuds, or working overtime on some political faction fighting that exists in their minds and that sometimes, I believe, exists in their minds alone. It seems to exist- in some men's minds all the time. I am sorry for them;
I think they ought to pluck it out and cast it from them as something that it would be well for them to get rid of. Then they would smile and the world would appear differently to them. I believe they would find then, when they looked out and viewed the world abroad, a pleasanter aspect. They say that if you want to have a friend, you must be one, and I would advise one who wants to see the world look good-natured, to try and be good-natured himself. If he has that party rancour that turns to gall and that turns the milk of human kindness sour, for heaven's sake, let him pluck it from him and cast it away. As long as I have the honour of being a member of this House and indeed, as long as I have the privilege of living in this country and can raise my voice, I always want to be able to feel a sympathetic chord vibrate in my heart when I see a good Canadian, moved by high motives of public duty, leave the comforts of his home and family, go over to another country, and stay there patiently for months working and negotiating to do something for his native land. I want always to be able to applaud that man. That is what the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) has done, and he should receive the thanks of this House and this country. Sitting in this House as we are, making a treaty with France, we can always make a bargain very easily until we 
meet, the other man with whom we have to deal. Hon. members have sat in this House and made a treaty with France without having any French representatives present. Hon. members have compared duties under the trade agreement which has been denounced, which duties, therefore, do not exist, with the duties which obtain under this treaty. That is manifestly unjust and unfair. I regret that men should depart from the plain path of honesty, rectitude and justice in order to belittle a great work that one of their fellow countrymen has succeeded in accomplishing.


Mr. HAROLD PUTNAM (Colchester):: down to 45 per cent: why didn't you get more? He said that in a tone of scorn as though the Minister of Finance was not the solemnly accredited representative of the Canadian people and responsible to them, but rather as though the minister were his own hired man. But, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance did not answer that poser, and I suppose it will stand until there shall be no more sea for Canadian delegates to cross in an endeavour to negotiate trade treaties with any foreign people, whether those delegates be as wise as gods, or whether they have all the simplicity which the hon. member for Lincoln and a few of his associates who have spoken in this debate would evidently relate to the present Canadian negotiators. I must congratulate the hon. member for Lincoln upon the vast amount of work which he undertook in giving item by item the schedules of this treaty. I cannot congratulate him upon the use he made of his very laboriously obtained facts.
Another hon. gentleman who spoke in this debate assumed an easier air, an attitude more offhand, more debonair, more cavalier even than any other debater on that side. I refer to the gay and hon. ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton). He was in- * sistent that these two hon. and distinguished negotiators on behalf of Canada had acted not only like schoolboys, but I think he classed their actions as being those only of idiots or lunatics. He asked, with an air of bravado: "Why did you not hire a good Yankee to negotiate this treaty for you?" Well, Mr. Speaker, he did not suggest any American name, but I was just wondering whether we could not again have hired the Griffenhagens. I will say this: If they were rewarded for their disservice toward Canada we should easily have found them out of a job and very glad to be hired again and to accept a few more hundred thousand dollars of Canadian money.
Then the hon. member reached the climax when he used the word "gullible" as applying to these two ministers.
Mr. Speaker, I have about concluded. It is so late that I shall not go further down the few notes I did take. But seriously I do not think this House is treated writh common courtesy when certain members on the opposition side would have it appear that the two distinguished, experienced, able and patriotic delegates who negotiated inis treaty were over in France, not to study what they could get, not to see how little France would take in the arrangement of a treaty that would be worth something to us. I think this House will regard it as an axiom that these two hon. TMr. Putnam.]
gentlemen had the motive of getting as good a bargain as they could for Canada: that having arrived there, their first step would be to make discreet investigation as to what tariff concessions France would make to Canada, and, in turn, what would be the minimum tariff concessions France might exact and expect from Canada. I have no doubt that they proceeded on that basis. I listened to the speeches of those two hon. ministers, and I saw not one symptom that they had Defrayed their trust, or that they had not done the best they could and the best that could be done. I was delighted to be confirmed in that elementary opinion by the hon. leader of the Progressives (Mr. Forke) who admitted that while the treaty was not anything like as long a step as he would desire in the right direction, it had merit; that it was good as far as it went, and he did give the hon. gentlemen who negotiated it the credit of having, on the very face of things, done the best they could. But when the question comes to a vote I want hon. members to weigh the utter absurdity of the attitude taken by some hon. members who stand up dnd either throw out the implication or make the direct statement that these two negotiators could easily have got more for the very asking. That sort of thing is simply a waste of words. They are words not budded into the order of any edifice; they are words, Mr. Speaker, which fall as far short of the goal of proof as though they had been left unsaid.


Mr. MacLAREN:: I was paired wih the hon. member for East Simcoe (Mr. Chew). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. LAVIGUEUR:: I was paired with the hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Sheard). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. MORIN:: I was paired with the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. KAY:: I was paired with the hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Wilson). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. PRESTON:: I was paired with the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Low). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.	*


Mr. CLIFFORD:: I was paired with the hon. member for East Elgin (Mr. Stansell). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Hance James Logan: I was paired with the hon. member for Centre Toronto (Mr. Bristol). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to,, and the House went into committee on the bill, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
William Stevens Fielding: I do not assume the House would like to continue further tonight. I beg to move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Progress reported.


DUKE AND DUCHESS OF YORK
[Stage Direction]
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King for the adjournment of the House.
John Babington Macaulay Baxter: May I take the liberty of suggesting that the Prime Minister should move and the leader of the Opposition second a resolution expressing the congratulations of this House to the Duke of York and his bride on the very happy event that has occurred today. It seems1 to me that it would be extremely fitting if that were done.


John Warwick King: to-day, and earlier in the day His Excellency was requested to convey such a message on behalf of the government and people of Canada. I think notwithstanding it would be wholly appropriate, and indeed it is a great pleasure, to act upon the suggestion of my hon. friend and -have a formal expression by this House of what, I am sure, we all sincerely wish, namely that the married life of the Duke and Duchess of York may be a long and happy one. I would therefore move:
Resolved, that this House extends its congratulations to Their Royal Highnesses the Duke and Duchess of York on the occasion of their marriage, and that the expression of the best wishes of the Canadian Commons be communicated to Their Rev ii Highnesses by TTis Honour th-.. Speaker.


Arthur Meighen: No words of mine are necessary on seconding the motion. This country not only entertains a feeling of profound devotion to the Empire, but has the highest regard personally, and in every way, for the Royal family. The happy event of to-day may well indeed be followed by a message of congratulation from the House.


Robert Forke: I would like to say a few words in support of this motion. I have had a rather long experience and am perhaps in a better position to express an opinion on the subject than the Prime Minister or the leader of the Opposition. I wish to congratulate His Royal Highness upon the fact that he has taken a Scotch lassie. Should there be any doubts about his happiness they can in view of that fact be dismissed at once. He will have a happy life, but I cannot prophesy as to the length of it. However, I join with my right hon. friends in wishing their Royal Highnesses long life and much happiness.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
John Warwick King: Might I add, Mr. Speaker, that the House will look to your Honour to convey its congratulations to their Royal Highnesses m appropriate terms.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the House adjourned at 11.15 p.m.
Friday, April 27, 1923