1926-03-19

COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY


Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance):: I desire to move seconded by Mr. Motherwell:
That this House will on Monday, March 22nd instant, resolve itself into a committee to consider of -a supply to be granted to His Majesty.


Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition):: I take the ground that
the motion is not in order. The committee of Supply having risen, by virtue of a motion that "the chairman do now leave the chair," it is of course extinguished. It passes from the order paper and, I submit, is subject to be revived only upon the submission of a proclamation from His Excellency, or by bringing down a new Speech from the Throne-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: General election.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: That would be even better.


Arthur Meighen: -or by the submission of further estimates to this House. I refer Your Honour to May, 13th edition, on pages 538-539:
When all the supplies for the service of the year have been granted, the sittings of the committee of Supply are discontinued. Care must be taken not to close the committee until all the necessary grants have been obtained. If the committee of Supply be designedly closed, it cannot be reopened save by the demand from the crown for further supplies made by a second Speech from the Throne, or a royal message, or by the communication of additional estimates.
Those words are most distinct. They are not qualified by anything in any other authority that I have been able to see, in fact they are supported distinctly by Bourinot at page 400 There is a case defined by Bourinot, distinct
[Mr. Speaker. 1
from the case we are on now, where subsequent to a motion that progress be reported a motion immediately follows for the chairman to leave the chair. There the committee may be revived upon motion, but even Bourinot is distinct that where there is nothing but the motion that the chairman leave the ch*ir it cannot be revived upon motion save only upon the conditions stated in May. I read them again:


An hon. MEMBER :: Louder please.


Arthur Meighen: I read them again:
When all the supplies for the service of the year have been granted, the sittings of the committee of Supply are discontinued. Care must be taken not to close the committee until all the necessary grants have been obtained. If the committee of Supply be designedly closed it cannot be reopened save by the demand from the crown for further supplies made by a second Speech from the Throne, or a royal message, or by the communication of additional estimates.
Instances are given in the footnote of each of these methods being adopted. That the committee was designedly closed goes without saying. It does not need to be closed at the instance of the government. A committee of the House is not under the charge of the government at all.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Louder.


Arthur Meighen: It was closed by a member of the committee making the motion to close it.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: What were the first words of the statement my right hon. friend read?


Arthur Meighen: The first sentence is not
relevant at all.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Arthur Meighen: I referred some time ago to this method of interrupting; I hope I do not need to remind hon. members of it. I will read the paragraph again:
When all the supplies for the service of the year have been granted the sittings of the committee of Supply are discontinued.
Certainly, they are, that is the regular proceeding. Now:
Care must be taken not to close it until all the necessary grants have been obtained.
The reason being that when it is closed this result follows:
If the committee of Supply be designedly closed, it cannot be reopened save by demand from the crown for further supply made by a second Speech from the Throne, or a royal message.
There is nothing in the world to qualify the sentence upon which I rely, "that if the committee is designedly closed" and that it

Supply-Point
was designedly closed there can be no doubt.
It was not designed by the government, I quite admit that, but the committee is not in charge of the government. The committee is wholly independent. The committee granting supplies to the crown designedly was closed by the motion, and therefore the steps which I have indicated must be taken to revive it.


James Alexander Robb: Mr. Speaker, I am not going
to enter into a controversy with my right hon. friend on the points he has just raised more than to say this, that the procedure followed to-day is in my recollection identically the same procedure that was followed at one period when my right hon. friend was either the Prime Minister or a very important and active member of the government of the day.


Arthur Meighen: When?


James Alexander Robb: I will come to that in a
moment. My right hon. friend knows as well as I do that it is not always easy for a government to know when a vote is going to be sprung on them by the opposition. My right hon. friend will redall, if not I think the chief opposition whip will, that during the period in question, 1920-1921, the government of the day had difficulty in keeping their forces in the House and an opposition is always anxious to make trouble. That was the situation at that time. The chief government whip of that day came to me and told me of his difficulties, and one night some of our boys, anxious to play such a trick as was played upon us yesterday, counted the House out, and consequently the House had to adopt exactly the same procedure respecting estimates as has been adopted today. Upon the . instructions of the then leader of the opposition, who is the Prime Minister to-day, I as chief whip, arranged with the government whip of the day that we would not impede the despatch of public business by counting the House out if the government had difficulty in keeping the members here. That was the position we took in opposition. All we ask is that the same courtesy be extended to us.


Arthur Meighen: It was a case of counting the House out because there were not enough members in. That is not the case here at all.


James Alexander Robb: The result is the same.


Arthur Meighen: No. That certainly
could be restored by revival, or could be revived by motion. Very frequently there are cases of such revival, and though the opposition of that time may have been credited
oj Order
with much philanthropy, philanthropy of which I cannot recall any instance in their history, we did not depend upon it. We had our rights without asking for it or receiving it. All I ask is that the government proceed in the regular way, and that this is the regular way there is no doubt, and I do not think it is very difficult. It is not that we are trying to put obstacles in the way. We are asking only for regularity and there is no need of any delay- at all. The government cannot go on until Tuesday.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask, just by way
of enlightenment, what object is to be gained in having the government ask His Excellency for a message to present estimates to the House, beyond that of delaying the business of the committee? It can be done easily, but delay seems to be the whole object of it.


Arthur Meighen: I will answer the right
hon. member frankly. First of all, there will be no delay. The government cannot go on until Tuesday anyway. They are not suggesting that they should go on to-day. There is no difficulty in the world in presenting estimates Tuesday. The object to be served is merely to keep the proceedings of the House regular and not to be making new precedents when there is nothing to be gained by it.
Mr: SPEAKER:	Does any other member
desire to speak?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not know
that it is necessary to supplement what mv right hon. leader has said. As I moved the motion, perhaps I ought to say that the motion was designed. We designedly closed the proceedings of that committee. Our view was that it was absolutely improper-I could use a much stronger word-for the government to ask that committee to further consider the estimates of my hon. friend the Minister of Customs when his department was under review, under the circumstances that it is now under review. We meant what we said. We closed the committee designedly on an issue which was an active issue between [DOT]the parties, and I certainly admit that we are. entitled to whatever benefits flow from what happened on that occasion. On this point of order I think it is perfectly proper to point out that during this session we are establishing new precedent., but perhaps we will have to establish another precedent. This government has been defeated by the people
Supply-Point of Order

and has been defeated in this House, and perhaps we will have to establish some new precedent to ascertain whether it can be dislodged only by dynamite or trinitrotoluol.


Mr. SPEAKER:: A motion is made by the lion. Minister of Finance to revive the committee of Supply in the following words:
That this House will on Monday March 22nd, resolve itself into a committee to consider of a supply to be granted His Majesty.
The point taken by the right hon. leader of the opposition is that the power of the committee is exhausted by the decision which was rendered yesterday; that is to say that the committee should rise. Now, what is the effect of a similar motion when it is carried in committee of the whole? May I refer the House to No. 191 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms which reads:
If the motion "that the chairman do now leave the chair" is carried, then the business of the committee is superseded, but the original order of reference remains and it is competent for the House to resolve itself again into committee on the same subject, for the committee itself has no power to extinguish a question.
This is taken from Bourinot at page 400. The right hon. gentleman has quoted from May at page 538. Before coming to the point which be makes, I wish to call his attention to May's 13th edition, page 455.
It is the practice for members who desire to close the sitting of a committee, to move that the "chairman do report progress, and ask leave to sit again," in order to put an end to the proceedings of the committee on that day, this mot-ion in committee, being analogous to that frequently made at other times for adjourning the debate. A motion "That the chairman do now leave the chair" when carried, supersedes the order of the day for a committee, and converts it into a dropped order; as in this case, when the Speaker resumes the chair, no report whatever is made from the committee. The same result is obtained if, when the chairman reports progress in the matter referred to in the committee, he refrains, upon a direction given by the member who had obtained the appointment of the committee, from asking leave to sit again.
Now how can you revive a committee which has been so converted into a dropped order? May, at page 256, says:
To replace a dropped order of the day upon the notice paper, a motion is made before the commencement or after the close, of public business, to appoin. the order for a subsequent day. These motions, which are made without notice, are usually treated as purely formal motions.
Is a notice of motion necessary? Let me refer to Redlich, volume 2, page 219, where I find the following:
Certain motions of a formal or uncontentious natur* do not require notice; such are motions:
(a)	For the first reading of a bill from the House of Lords;
fSir Henry Drayton.]
(b)	For the consideration of Lords' amendments forthwith or on a future day;
(c)	For the postponement, discharge, or revival of an order of the day;
(d)	For the appointment of a committee of the whole House on a future day.
Therefore no notice is required in the present instance. I would also quote rule 76 cf our own rules and I also refer to May, page 237, where I find the following:
Certain formal motions which are necessary for the due transaction of business are also -made without notice, before the commencement, or after the close of public business, such as motions for the first reading of -bills received from the House of Lords for the consideration of Lords' amendments forthwith or upon a future day for the postponement, the discharge, or the revival of an order of the day.
I	now come to the very serious argument based on the citation made by the right hon. gentleman at page 538 of May. Let me read it again:
When all the supplies for the service of the year have been granted, the sittings of the committee of Supply are discontinued. Care must be taken not to close the committee until all the necessary grants ha/e been obtained. If the committee of Supply be designedly closed, it cannot be reopened save by the demand from the crown for further supplies made by a second Speech from the Throne, or a royal message, or by the communication of additional estimates.
My knowledge of the English language is far from perfect, but reading carefully this paragraph and using my common sense, it means that once all the supplies have been passed by the committee of Supply, then designedly the committee is closed, and if the government have further supplies to present to the House they must present them by either a second Speech from the Throne or a royal message. That is what happens every session in this House. When the bulk of the supplies have been passed, a message comes from His Excellency for further supplementary estimates and the Speaker reads the message to the House. Again, I am of the opinion, with my poor knowledge of the English language that "designedly" means that when certainly and finally the House has closed the committee all the supplies having been passed. Now, if further supplies are presented the government cannot refer them to the committee of Supply without a new message from His Excellency. That is how I read this passage of May at page 538.
The right hon. gentleman referred to the foot-notes on page 538 of May. I may say that I have taken great pains to look over the foot-notes and references and they apply simply to cases where all the main supplies have been passed and the government in England wanted to submit some further sup-

Customs and Excise
plies. I think that covers the points which were raised in the discussion, and under the circumstances I believe I am justified in ruling and I rule, that the motion is in order.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. GEORGE H. BOIVIN (Minister of Customs and Excise) moved:
That resolution No. 349 of the estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1927, be again referred to the committee of Supply-
Henry Lumley Drayton: Might I ask for an explanation from the mover?


Mr. BOIVIN:: The resolution referred to
in this motion was under consideration by the committee of Supply yesterday when my hon. friend moved that "the chairman leave the chair." By the adoption of this motion the committee of Supply went out of existence and it was necessary for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) to make the motion just adopted reconstituting this committee for Monday next. Some doubt has been expressed but it will be cleared up by this motion if it is adopted, as to whether or not the particular resolution under consideration at the time that the committee rose without report, was automatically superseded and whether or not it could be again considered by the committee without being again referred to the committee by the House. Now that hon. members are all in attendance and the Liberal members are not attending the sitting of the Customs committee nor on their way home for their evening meal, I introduce this motion so that the House may decide that the matter which was taken out of its hands yesterday shall be restored and considered. I believe it is the desire of the House that the estimates as submitted by His Excellency the Governor General should receive consideration and be voted upon.
The government has no objection to allow all of the estimates to be carefully considered by the committee of Supply and the committee may decide against any one of the estimates submitted by His Excellency; but we do not propose to be condemned by snap verdicts nor to have the estimates wiped off the order paper by a division such as that *which was taken in the House last night. For that reason, the motion is presented and I trust it will be unanimously carried.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am glad to
note that generous chord in the hearts of my hon. friends over there. They recognize right even though they want to crush it. The minister was perfectly right from his standpoint in making this motion; in making it he confessed the fact that the item is killed. We have had one motion in the first instance for the purpose of resurrecting the committee, and this may be done if we read the English language in a certain way. But besides resurrecting the committee we have to revivify an item which has been defeated and that is why my hon. friend makes this motion. If he did not know that the item which was in question was defeated he never would make this motion. It would really have been better if this motion had come before the other because this motion shows the extent of the effect which has or rather which ought to be given to the motion of yesterday But now we have the admission as to what the motion amounted to. The government itself admits that the item is killed, and there is no doubt about it. Now I am not saying anything about the appetites of my hon. friends' supporters; I am not saying anything about when they go to dinner or anything of that kind; nor am I, on the other hand, complaining about Conservative members having to attend that committee. The Conservatives attend the committee just as much as the Liberal members do. I am not making any references, either, to the wires, the wild wires, sent out for assistance by the government to its supporters last night. We have not done that.


An hon. MEMBER:: Nothing of the kind.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Does some hon. gentleman say that this was not done? Hon. gentlemen opposite know that it is true. The point I want to make now is simply this, that the item being killed, as undoubtedly it is, according to the government's own admission and as evidenced by the very fact that we have now a motion to resurrect it, it must be reintroduced by a further message from His Excellency. In this I am absolutely on safe ground. Never mind in what language the rule is written. Here we have an admission that the item is dead, an admission from the government itself, and the only way in which it can be reintroduced is to have it submitted as a new item.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The House heard the remarks of the Minister of Customs (Mr. Boivin), and there is no doubt as to what the purpose of his motion was. He did not admit
.	COMMONS
Customs and Excise
that the item had been killed; he did say that, as hon. gentlemen opposite might entertain that view, and in order to relieve their minds of any anxiety, he would have the House as a whole express its opinion on the subject. I would ask my hon. friend (Sir Henry Drayton) a simple question: was his motion intended to kill the item? Was that the object he had in mind?


Henry Lumley Drayton: The purpose of the motion was to do just what the motion does.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Hon. members
laugh,, but I repeat that the object of the motion is self-evident. The motion was intended to kill the committee, and it did. The item was, in the opinion of members on this side of the House, one that was improper and that should not have been pressed. It was pressed against the protest of this side and without treating the House as the House had a right to be treated by the government in connection with a matter that was and is sub judice. I want to tell the Prime Minister that so far as I am concerned, indeed, so far as all hon. members on this side are concerned, we are determined to see the people get a square deal. We are determined to see that the only check which an opposition can exercise, namely, the check on votes, is maintained.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Notwithstanding my hon. friend's eloquence he has not answered the question. He tells us that his motion had a wider range of slaughter in view than the killing of the item itself; he admits that the intention was to kill the committee. I ask him again, however, the simple question I put to him before: was it his intention to kill the item? Now, I may say, I was in the House at the time my hon. friend was speaking, and he was requesting the Minister of Customs not to press the item at that particular moment.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Certainly.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: But the hon. member did not say anything about killing the item; he merely asked that it be held over. The item was to provide money for the preventive service. That being understood, was it his desire to kill it?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I cannot make myself much clearer to the Prime Minister. Our position was that the item should not be pressed, and we did the only thing we could do under the circumstances. What else 
was there to be done? I have an idea that the whole thing will have to be gone over again, if we are to have anything like a proper administration of affairs in this country, when the report of the committee comes in. I expect that when the report is submitted something will be done to try to stop what has been going on in this country, as apparently it is admitted. I am not against a proper item for the protection of the customs and of the commerce of this country, but I am opposed to any scheme of putting through votes that have a bearing upon the matter now under investigation by the Customs committee before the report of that committee has been submitted to the House.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think it is
important that there should be no misunderstanding of the exact significance of what transpired yesterday. As hon. members know' very well, when the House is in committee hon. gentlemen frequently attend to other matters than the questions immediately under consideration in this chamber, especially when they have reason to expect that a debate will go on without a division. It so happened that yesterday afternoon there was an important meeting of the committee which is investigating the smuggling charges and a large number of hon. members from this side of the House, as well as some hon. gentlemen opposite, attended that meeting. The fact that the total vote in committee in this chamber was 105 shows that one-half of the members were not in the House at the time that the vote was taken. I came into the chamber about a quarter to six, having previously been in conference in my own room with some hon. members, and at about ten minutes to six I heard my hon. friend the member for West York suggesting to the Minister of Customs that the item be not pressed at that particular moment. The Minister of Customs was replying to the effect that there were strong reasons why the item should not be held over, and I believe what he had in mind was that it was desirable to proceed with the business of the House as expeditiously as possible. The hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton), while the Minister of Customs was speaking, kept his eye steadily on the clock, and when it was nearly six o'clock-about five minutes to six-instead of making any motion of any kind respecting the item, either to strike it out or to reduce it, he moved to have the committee rise at once in order, so he said, to show his good faith in the whole matter. The Minister of

Customs and Excise
Customs, according to Hansard at page 1751, thereupon asked my hon. friend this question :
I hope my hoo. friend will at least allow me to ask a question. Does he desire by this motion to secure the withdrawal for the present of these two other items ?
What answer did my hon. friend make?
Sir Henry Drayton: I want the ordinary rules of the House to be applied. I have made a motion. I want to prevent these two items from being considered, as I do not think they should be considered.
In other words, my hon. friend expressed the view that he did not wish to have the item considered. Why did he not want to have it considered at that moment? He did not wish to have it considered at that particular moment because most hon. gentlemen opposite were at that time in the lobby waiting for orders to come in here and get a snap vote. That is the whole explanation. I am ready to admit that the hon. gentleman did turn a clever little trick, but if my hon. friends opposite regard it as a great victory I fancy they are the only ones who will be of that opinion.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Will the Prime Minister allow a question? If he is right in his contention that I did not want to have the item considered, why was it that I pressed the vote immediately?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If the hon.
member had not pressed the vote immediately it would have been six o'clock and he could not have obtained a snap verdict.


Hon. R. J. MANION (Fort William):: The whole discussion is out of order, but as apparently it is being allowed I wish to say a few words on the question. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) and other hon. gentlemen opposite have been speaking of this vote as a snap verdict. Well, is it any more a snap vote than the snap votes which the government has pulled off at various times when some of our members on this side have gone away not expecting a vote?


An hon. MEMBER:: When?


Robert James Manion: My hon. friends know
very well when, without having me tell them.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Robert James Manion: Hon. gentlemen opposite,
when they cannot reply with an argument, frequently interrupt with laughter, as they have interrupted my right hon. leader (Mr. Meighen), or with howls. It reminds me of a strange custom I noted some years ago when travelling in Europe. In the Italian theatres
there is maintained what is known as a claque for the purpose of cheering when it is called upon to cheer, or laughing, as the case may be. My hon. friends on the other side of the House, Mr. Speaker, very often remind me of that claque.
I listened yesterday to the very able discussion carried on by various members on both sides of the House, and I want to say that it was not simply a snap vote, it was the right kind of vote. It was the sort of vote that this government should be getting in this House on all occasions, and it would be so dealt with if it were not for the fact that having made so many promises to all sections in this House it has been able to secure support from hon. members who apparently are more ready to accept promises than action.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Customs when he pointed out that the government was going to allow the House to discuss these estimates spoke as if it was doing something generous, but that is the duty of every government. The House has the right to discuss all the estimates; that is why we are here.
I should like to point out that for lesser defeats of this kind governments in Great Britain, much more strongly entrenched than this government is, have resigned.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Robert James Manion: Yes; and if I wished to take the time of the House I could give many instances of governments in the British House with clear majorities over all other parties, majorities running from 30 to 40, which for lesser reverses than this government has had realized their duty to the country and resigned.
The Minister of Finance has stated that the opposition simply wished to cause trouble. Well, the trouble in the country at the present time is caused by this defunct government insisting on carrying on when it should be out of business. I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that this was not a snap vote nor a prepared vote. It simply happened because our party was on the job and the government's party was not.


James Alexander Robb: Mr. Speaker, I hope my hon. friend has misunderstood me. I do not think I said anything of the kind that he objects to.


Robert James Manion: I wrote down the words at the time. Maybe my hon. friend did not mean them in the way he said them.


James Alexander Robb: I simply rise, Mr. Speaker, to say that I am a little alarmed by a statement made by my hon. friend from West York
Customs and Excise

(Sir Henry Drayton). This is March 19, and in a few days members will be urging us to name the date when they can separate for the Easter holidays. Every member is interested in carrying on the public service, particularly the preventive service to check smuggling and ensure the maximum collection of revenue; and no person is more interested in these measures than the Minister of Finance of the day. My hon. friend knows that from his past experience. I have for the moment the responsibility of providing moneys to carry on the public service, including moneys required for the preventive service. In view of my hon. friend's statement, if this motion is killed does he mean to say that the doors are going to be opened wide to every smuggler to carry on his illicit traffic? I appeal to the fommon sense of my hon. friend. If he wished, he might say, " We will give you a reasonable vote to carry on, we will only give you a percentage of this on April 1." But surely he does not take the stand that we are going to paralyze the whole public service and especially have no means of paying our preventive officers? I appeal to my hon. friend from his past experience as Minister of Finance whether upon reflection he does not think he has gone a little bit too far.


Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenac):: How did
you use all the vote last year for the same purpose?


James Alexander Robb: Does that mean we do not
want it at all?


John Wesley Edwards: That is a very pertinent question. How much of the moneys did you use of the vote last year for the same purpose?


Ernest Lapointe: Let us go into committee of Supply, and you will get the information.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, when the question was asked as to the meaning of this motion it did not necessarily involve a long discussion on the merits or demerits of the government's defeat yesterday. That discussion was precipitated by the Minister of Customs (Mr. Boivin) who felt that something had to be done to revive the waning spirits of the gentlemen around him.
I have been listening for some reasons as to why the motion before the House can be said to be in order. The minister states he has some doubt whether this estimate is killed or whether it is not killed. Well, if it is not killed, of course no motion is necessary. That seems to follow very reasonably. If the estimate is killed, then the motion is

futile, because undoubtedly an estimate which is killed can be revived only by representation. There does not seem to be much room for argument about that. The Prime Minister says, "We do not admit it is killed." Then why the motion? The motion cannot help the estimate; if it is killed it is a futile effort to revive it. There is a method of reviving it, and that method the government apparently does not want to resort to. That method is merely to bring down another estimate to this House.
So far I have spoken on the merits of the point of order raised by my hon. friend to my left (Sir Henry Drayton). Discussion has taken place as to whether the government ought to suffer the ignominy of yesterday's vote, or whether it can escape by a certain amount of additional boasting to-day and by the imputation of motives, schemes, plans and all the rest of it. I happen to know it was the desire of my hon. friend to move his motion earlier than he did, but many members on this side of the House who did not know of this desire continued discussing the point of the motion that was before the committee, and therefoie he delayed until close around ten minutes to six. Consequently what my right hon. friend says is entirely untrue. It is true that the hon. member for West York intended to make the motion, and he would have moved it at half past five but for the discussion which was then proceeding. But the fact is this, governments depend upon the result of motions as to the quality and dependability-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will my right hon. friend excuse my interrupting him? He says that the motion was to have been moved at half past five. Does he mean it was prearranged?


Arthur Meighen: Some time shortly after half past five. I know this because I was by his side at the time, but hon. members who knew nothing about his intention continued the discussion. Do hon. gentlemen opposite contend that in cases in Great Britain where governments have been defeated it has been because their own supporters went and voted against them? They have been defeated many a time, and taken the consequences, because their supporters had no more interest in their proceedings nor in the government they were supposed to follow and did not bother attending in the House. When a government finds itself in such a position in England it usually realizes that it is about time to retire. But there is one virtue this government has never yet attained, and I do not believe it ever will

Customs and Excise
until some super quality of political dynamite is invented, and that is the virtue of resignation.
We are not urging this discussion now. All I want to say is that the judgment of yesterday was no more a snap judgment than many a judgment in Great Britain, and I think one or two in Canada, upon which governments have acted; no more a snap majority than the majority obtained by this administration time and time again on votes designed by themselves. They may call it whatever they like in the press, but the people know that this government is in a precarious position, and they know as well that if hon. members voted on the government's record and their own opinion of it, and on the results of the late contest, this government would have been out of office two months ago. They know they were permitted-and quickly availed themselves of the opportunity-to present to this House a new programme consisting of a series of new promises especially addressed to hon. gentlemen who were not elected to support them, in order to bring to their side that support. Because they were so permitted and entirely without precedent in the parliamentary history of this country or of any other British country, they sit in office today.
I submit again that the government cannot revive an item killed in the estimates by the mere process of a motion. It does not matter to us as a party what the position is, but surely it is of some consequence to parliament that if we have regulations and rules we should be bound by them, and this government cannot escape from those rules merely because they do not propose to study them.


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Meighen) following the example of the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion), appealed to the precedents established in England, and said that in England any government suffering what this government suffered yesterday would have immediately resigned. I intend to read a very recent statement-


Arthur Meighen: I did not say that at all, as a matter of fact.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend is still
misquoted, but his words will appear in Hansard.


Arthur Meighen: Will the hon. gentleman
permit-
No.


Arthur Meighen: I thought he would not.


Ernest Lapointe: I am glad my hon.
friend knew I would not. My hon. friend has a queer custom of interrupting members of this House all the time. I never interrupt my hon. friend, and I do not think it is a good practice to be followed in parliament, if my hon. friend will permit me to say so. The former Prime Minister of Great
4 p.m. Britain, Mr. J. Ramsay MacDonald, when he assumed office on February 12, 1924, made a speech, which is reported in the British Hansard at page 749 of the Debates of that year. His very first words were as follows:
No Prime Minister has ever met the House of Commons in circumstances similar to those in which I meet it. For the time being no party in this House has a majority. The party opposite is the largest of the three, but on account of the circumstances of the election, it is impossible for this House to ask them to remain in power. As the second party, the Labour party has accepted the responsibility of office. I think that that will necessitate some alteration in our House of Commons habits. I think that we will have less to say about party and less to think about party than we have had hitherto, and that we shall lay more and more emphasis upon the responsibility of individual members of this House of voting as responsible members of the House and not merely as party politicians. That is all to the good, as far as this House is concerned. It puts me in this position, however. I have a lively recollection of all sorts of ingenuities practised by oppositions in order to spring a snap division upon a government, so that it might turn it out upon a defeat. I have known bathrooms downstairs utilized, not for their legitimate purpose, but for the illegitimate purpose of packing as many members surreptitiously inside their doors as their physical limitations would allow. I have known an adjoining building, where there happens to be a convenient division bell, used for similar purposes. I have seen the House, practically empty when the bells began to ring, suddenly transformed into a very riotous sort of market-place by the inrush of members, doing their best for their nation, for the House of Commons and for their party, to find a government napping, and to turn it out upon a stupid issue.
I am going out on no such issue. I am sure that no one would enjoy the engineering of those snap divisions more than my hon. friend opposite.
One might almost think the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) was facing Mi-. MacDonald at the time.
He could do it. On this occasion he will not bag his prey. The Labour government will go out if it be defeated upon substantial issues, issues of principle, issues that really matter. It will go out if the responsible leaders of either party or any party move a direct vote of no confidence, and carry that vote. But I propose to introduce my business, knowing that I am in a minority, accepting the responsibilities of a minority, and claiming the privileges that attach to those responsibilities. If the House on matters nonessential, matters of mere opinion, matters that do not strike at the root of the proposals that we make, and do not destroy fundamentally the general intentions of the government in introducing legislation-if the House wished to vary our proposition, the House must take the responsibility for that variation-then a division on such amendments and questions as those will not be regarded as a vote of no confidence.


Ernest Lapointe: Customs and Excise

I think, Mr, Speaker, that this principle as enunciated there is certainly a sound one, certainly when a House is composed as the present House of Commons is. Every member of the House knows how easy it is to spring a snap vote, even when the government has a large majority. It would have been' easy in the last parliament, as well as in former parliaments. No one can expect every member of the House to be in his seat during every sitting of the House. Members of parliament have their correspondence to look after; they have visitors to receive; they have departmental business to attend to, and as far as the members of the government are concerned, we have to work even during sessions of the House. It very often happens, Mr. Speaker, that I am asked by hon. gentlemen opposite to go to my room and meet them on some particular business, and my colleagues have had the same experience. We have even been asked by my hon. friends opposite to meet their constituents on business. Am I to expect that when I am there, at the request of my hon. friends opposite, their associates in the House will take advantage of my absence and take a snap vote? I do not think that would be fair.
I may also say that I think this incident of yesterday may induce hon. gentlemen to consider the inconvenience of having committees sitting while the House is in session, because these committees attract not only the members who compose them, but when interesting matters are being brought up, other members of the House, who naturally go and are interested in the business. I do not think my hon. friends opposite may commend themselves upon this little experience of yesterday. If they want to defeat the government they will have to defeat it on serious matters, in a serious way, and not by reducing parliament to a game of hide and seek.
Hon. J. W. EDWARDS (Frontenac-Ad-dington) Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) has referred to Mr. Ramsay MacDonald in connection with this matter. I would remind the hon. gentleman of what happened to Ramsay MacDonald when the people had an opportunity of getting after him. I hope my hon. friend will take that to heart, and realize in good time just exactly what will happen to him and to his party when the people have a chance to get at them. The Prime Minister offered the excuse for the vote yesterday that hon. gentlemen opposite were home at supper which of course means that those hon. gentlemen thought more of their supper than they did of the government. We know that they

are hungry-not merely physically hungry for that occurs to all of us-but hungry for office. They have shown that very clearly to the country. The facts simply reduce themselves to this, that parliamentary precedents cut no figure whatever with this government. When they find themselves at war with the constitutional precedents and the rules of the House they propose to make new rules and establish new precedents to get them out of any difficulty in which they may become involved. That is the situation before us at the present time. The motion made yesterday by my hon. friend (Sir Henry Drayton) was warranted in every particular. It had reference to a department which at the present time is attracting the attention of every person in this Dominion, and I say it was our right under the circumstances, when the government was asking for a vote for this very important matter of the preventive service, to move the motion which was adopted yesterday and the motion was moved. With all due respect to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the rules are established as to the correct procedure for reinstating the committee, and I do not think that the action of the Minister of Customs in making the motion he is making at the present time is in harmony with those rules


Georges Henri Boivin: I have something to say
if no one else desires to speak.


Mr. ROBERT FORKE (Brandon):: I do
not know that I can add very much to what has already been said by hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House. However, I want to give expression to what I would call a common sense view of the situation. I do not claim to be a politician. I have been now four years in this parliament, and I know something more than I did when I first came to this House; but I am perfectly certain that were it possible for the people of this country to be seated in the galleries and watch the proceedings that have happened this afternoon the dignity of parliament would suffer considerably.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Robert Forke: I have no fault to find1 with the opposition for having moved the resolution which they moved yesterday, and I am not blaming them for feeling rather good because the resolution was adopted. At the same time I think a great deal more importance is being attached to the fact than is warranted under the circumstances. We all know what those circumstances were. , Of course, if it is going to do hon. gentlemen to

Customs and Excise
my right any good I am quite willing to let them enjoy the incident to the fullest extent. At the same time I might mention what happened in my own case when the vote was taken. The Honourable the Speaker of the Senate and Mrs. Bostock were holding a little reception, and I sauntered down the lobby to spend a few minutes there, and I think I remarked to the Liberal whip whom I met at the reception, "What will happen if there is a vote taken in the House just now? We know what will happen.'' "Oh," he said, "there is no danger." That is exactly what happened so far as I am concerned personally, but I cannot understand how hon. gentlemen could attach so very much importance to a vote of that kind. However, it is up to the government to keep members in -their places and look out for situations such as that.
I cannot understand why taunts are always being directed at those hon. members to the left of the opposition, and why that should be a part of the proceedings every time a debate takes place. The right hon. leader of the opposition knows very well that if he were in the government to-day he could not carry a majority in this House without the help of some of the other parties. Why then in the face of such a situation should the taunt always be thrown out that the government is being carried on by the aid of a third party? It is the only possible way for the government of the country to be carried on in view of the present situation. The right hon. leader of the opposition knows very well that it would be pretty difficult, in view of the situation that has existed during the past few years in parliament, for him to command a majority.of members in this part of the House. I am not speaking for all of us, I do not know what they would do under certain circumstances, but why the constant repetition of the taunt to which I have alluded as if there was something disreputable or dishonourable in some of us supporting the government at the present time. We are supporting the government upon its legislative programme, and we are prepared to support them upon that programme. Is there anything dishonourable in that? I would ask hon. members to my right if there is anything wrong with the programme the government is bringing before the House or with the item that was before the House yesterday afternoon. Why not defeat the government upon that item?
An hon. MKMBER: We did.


H011-109
An hon. MEMBER:: You are not here
to vote for them.


Robert Forke: Well, now Mr. Speaker, hon. members to my right keep repeating the statement that "they did." They know very well they did not do any such thing. It really is surprising that grown up people should play upon words to the extent that they do in connection with what happened yesterday afternoon. I am a little diffident sometimes about talking in this strain because after I had spoken on one occasion the right hon. leader of the opposition characterized my speech as "sanctimonious complacency." Well, I am not so frightened of that term now as I was on the occasion referred to. I was a new member then and my right hon. friend did not have very much mercy on me because I ventured to offer a little criticism with respect to some of the proceedings in the House. But I know how business is carried on now, and I want to tell hon. members on both sides that I am not afraid of anyone here. I hope that we can get down to business, and if the government is going to be defeated upon its legislative programme let it be defeated. That is the way I feel about the matter. I have often made the statement, and I think it is a proper one, that a government should not be defeated except upon a motion of want of confidence. That is when an administration should be really defeated and upon no other vote except one of that character.


An hon. MEMBER:: We have not had a
chance yet.


Robert Forke: Some hon. members seem
to be anxious to get a general election. Well, I am not a mind reader but I have an idea that there are a great many members to my right who are not very anxious for a general election at the present time.


Mr. HOCKEN:: Give us a chance.


Robert Forke: Wait a little, gentlemen.
There are more people in Canada than are assembled within the precincts of this House, and I do not think the people of this country are anxious for a general election at the present time. I want you to wait a little bit, wait until the public mind gets a little time to assimilate what has taken place and perhaps after a year or two, or even less, it may be possible, and perhaps the right thing to do, to have a general election. Notwithstanding the taunts about our being afraid of our indemnity in my opinion the country does

Customs and Excise

not want an election. The duty of parliament is in the meantime to carry on, and when the time comes the people will give some definite indication as to exactly what they want done.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: They did.


Robert Forke: Hon. members keep repeating, "they did." We all know the circumstances. Then why the necessity for this repetition? The Conservative party did not get a majority of the votes of the people of this country, and why, therefore, keep repeating that statement all the time?


An hon. MEMBER:: They got more than the others.


Robert Forke: They did get more than
the others but they did not get a majority.


Mr. SPENCE:: Get over there where you
belong.


Robert Forke: The proceedings must be
carried on by a majority of the votes in this parliament. Whenever a government fails to get a majority upon a question of prime importance it will be defeated. I have ventured to make these few remarks because I think I am in a better position to take an unprejudiced view than are some other members of the House.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Robert Forke: Very well.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


Robert Forke: All right, gentlemen, you
may have your little joke, it does not do me any harm. I will repeat the statement. 1 am in a better position to take an unprejudiced view than either Liberals or Conservatives at the present time. I have no hesitation in saying so, and I am quite prepared to look everyone in the face and repeat the statement.


Robert James Manion: Why not vote that way
some time?


Robert Forke: I want to call attention to
the fact that in the last parliament on four of the most important divisions I voted three times against the government.


Mr. RYCKMAN:: You knew they were
going to be sustained.


Robert Forke: I am not a mind reader like my hon. friend from East Toronto. It seems to me that when hon. members to my right are in such a joyous state of mind they might

have a little courtesy for a member who is making a speech, but apparently they do not like to listen to anything that is not pleasant for them to hear.


Mr. A. L. BEAUBIEN (Provencher):: I
think the statement of my hon. leader that we should get down to business should have some effect on the hon. members of this House. I feel, in common with my leader, that these suggestions that we should go over to the other side and show our true colours could have been applied with very much more justification in the last parliament to the party to my right than it could be applied to us to-day. If hon. members to my right will take a few moments in their spare time to look up Hansard and Votes and Proceedings they will find that in the last session of the last parliament they voted twice as often with the government as we did, and I resent this idea that the Progressives should always be accused of falling into the hands of the Liberal party, because I am falling into the hands of no party. I have been elected on certain principles and I intend to follow the party which advocates these principles.


Mr. MALCOLM McLEAN (Melfort):: Referring to the way in which business is conducted in this House, I should like very much to endorse the statement made a few moments ago by the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke). A few days ago the daily papers of Canada carried a report that an effort had been made to broadcast the debates of the Imperial House of Commons in London, the mother of parliaments. Objection was taken to the broadcasting of those debates on the ground that if they were broadcast the people of the country would lose a great deal of the small amount of respect that they still retained for the dignity of the mother of parliaments. With the Imperial parliament standing in that position-and we know that it has been in that position at various times in the past-it is time for the House of Commons to pay a little attention to its own position and to the opinion which the people of Canada are forming regarding it. There was a time not so very long ago when a very great deal of the respect for parliament in Canada was lost. Much of the lost ground has been recovered, but it would be very easy for parliament to again lose ground if it were not careful. In my humble opinion the respect which the people of our country have for institutions such as the House of Commons is the greater part of the legacy that has been left to us by the Anglo-Saxon portion of our forebears, and if we lose that respect we will

Customs and Excise
have lost something that cannot be replaced in the life of Canada. The people of Canada elected members to the House of Commons in order that they might assemble in a common meeting place, discuss the problems of the country, differ as they saw fit in a reasonable way, according to the views of the people who elected them, and that they should get down to business as speedily and reasonably as possible. The people of Canada are entirely responsible for the election of members. There is no blame attached to them. They are entirely responsible for the constitution of the House, and as I look over the division lists in Hansard I do not see the name of a single political party in any of the lists. I see the names of hon. members and the names of the constituencies, where two or three members of the same name happen to be in the House, and that is the only distinction that is noted in this House. It is the only division the constitution intends, and the only division the people of Canada in my opinion are willing to support. Wasting the time of the House and acting like boys at play is not in the best interests of the House or of the country and will not tend to increase the respect due to this House by the people. We have been elected to carry on business, and to continually throw sneers at any particular section of the House is not playing the game. The hon. members diagonally opposite me differ from some of us here, but they do not differ from us so much as they differ from hon. gentlemen to the 'left of the Speaker. But the people of Canada knew what they were doing and the responsibility is theirs. It is only right that their action on October 29 should be treated with all respect. Now that the members of the House have had their fun-I was going to say that they have on various occasions attempted to turn the House into a bear garden-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Malcolm McLean: -I appeal to them to get down to business.


Hewitt Bostock: Order. I think the hon. gentleman should withdraw that expression. It is not parliamentary.


Malcolm McLean: I did not hear your ruling. Mr. Speaker.


Hewitt Bostock: I said that the expression "turn the House into a bear garden" was not parliamentary.


Malcolm McLean: I said, if I can remember correctly for this short space of time-
14011-10%


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Withdraw, withdraw.


Malcolm McLean: -that I would not use the expression "bear garden," but I will say that they are turning it into a kind of a kindergarten.


Hewitt Bostock: I think the hon. gentleman should withdraw the statement that hon. members are turning the House into a bear garden. I hope he did not intend to use the
expression "bear garden."


Malcolm McLean: I am afraid my hearing is somewhat defective. I had no intention of saying that this is a bear garden. I simply said I would not use the term "bear garden."


Horatio Clarence Hocken: (Toronto West Centre): I am sure members of the House, some of whom have been here ten or twenty years, will appreciate very highly the lecture my hon. friend from Melfort (Mr. McLean) has given the House. He undertakes apparently to instruct men who have been here for a score of years as to how they should conduct the debates and at least we can appreciate his kindly interest in trying to teach us how to behave ourselves. But I think his most serious indictment is that which he prefers against the government he supports. The government is the party that should have controlled this House. Evidently the government has not control of the House, and a government that cannot control the House should not be in power. If my hon. friend objects to the course of this debate I do not follow him in his objection. Why should he take any part in it at all and why should he undertake to call this House a bear garden and to charge members with misbehaving themselves? I venture to say, Mr. Speaker, that there are men on this side of the House who have had much longer experience than he has had in parliamentary life and who are quite as capable of knowing how to conduct the debate as he is or ever will be. This criticism is not against the House as a whole; it is against the government because the government is unable to control the House and the sooner a government that cannot control parliament resigns, the better. The hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke) said that this party did not get a majority of the votes. I venture to say he will not contend that the policy of the government was supported in the last election. The policy of the government was defeated, and we are entirely within our rights in carrying on this debate in order to show that the government cannot control the House.
Customs and Excise


Georges Henri Boivin: Mr. Speaker-


Hewitt Bostock: The reply of the minister will close the debate.
Mr. A. de WITT FOSTER (Hants-Kings): Mr. Speaker, at this stage of the proceedings I rise merely to extend my congratulations to the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke) upon the progress he has made in the direction of independence since the day when the House first met. It will be interesting to you, Sir, I am sure, to remember that during the first days of the session, when the Speech from the Throne was more or less hazy in the minds of hon. gentlemen, there was not the same spirit of courage that we find manifested to-day on the part of that hon. member. He has progressed by easy stages along this line until to-day, after various explanations of the Speech from the Throne and subsequent legislation have brought pleasing news to him and some, if not all of his friends, he is able to announce to the House that he is in a position where he cares for no one on either side, for neither party. That is the nearest approach we have had to a definite statement that "I am in control of the House and I fear neither party." Therefore I congratulate the hon. gentlemen, being always pleased to observe a courageous attitude on the part of a courageous man.
I am sure the country is following the proceedings of this House with a degree of interest which has not in many years been manifested, and particularly the debate we had yesterday on the estimates and the results growing out of that discussion. No one suggests that there was any impropriety on the part of the opposition in discussing the items that were before the House as presented by the Minister of Customs and Excise (Mr. Boivin). This is the first opportunity I have had of saying that I feel like congratulating the Minister of Customs and Excise upon certain [DOT]characteristics which he has manifested in this House. They deal more or less with his personal relations to the situation and the presentation of his estimates, the courteous manner which he has in the main assumed.
But we came in the discussion of these estimates to a sharp difference of opinion. The opinion expressed by himself and his supporters indicated their desire to have the items in question called at once. A difference of opinion arose. Knowing that the government had nearly a year ago obtained a vote of 8350,000 and that they had that amount of money in their hands for nine or ten months, we on this side have some idea to-day as to the manner in which they have attempted to utilize that
fMr. Hocken.]
vote in the administration of the affairs of the department. The minister himself tells us that he is not satisfied with the manner in which they performed under those circumstances or with the results which they obtained. We come to this point-and I wish to make this clear if I can-that this vote of 8350,000 which the minister is endeavouring to re-establish before the House, ought not to pass and discussion on it should cease until we have some further report from the committee which is now sitting upon the various items of investigation into the Customs department. That was the situation leading up to the motion which was made yesterday by the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) when he moved "that the Chairman leave the chair", because that was the only weapon we had in our possession. It has been clearly pointed out by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) and those associated with him that the motion of the minister does not reinstate this item before the House. With that question I do not propose to deal, but I submit that the argument that we have made in this House is a sound one and I believe that the country will stand by the position we have taken. As regards characterizing the vote as a snap vote, I do not think that is serious enough to merit the attention of the House for any length of time. In connection with the remarks of the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. McLean), I do not believe that on reflection he will feel like repeating the criticism that he made of hon. members.


Georges Henri Boivin: I have only a word or two
to say in reply to the remarks that have been rpade by hon. members on both sides of the House in connection with this motion. I do not propose for a moment to refer to the manner in which the vote was brought about, nor to enter into a further discussion as to the reasons why the majority was large or small. I want, however, to point out that the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) stated quite clearly and I think he desired to convey not only to the House but to the public the idea that his motion "that the Chairman leave the chair " was for the purpose of preventing the adoption or further consideration of the two preventive service items in the estimates of the Department of Customs and Excise. Why was my hon. friend obliged to make that motion when those two items had not yet been placed before the committee, when they had not even been read by the Chairman and when they were not legally under discussion at all. The leader of the opposition gave the secret away; he let

Customs and Excise
the cat out of the bag. He said: "At half past five I came into the House; I sat beside the hon. member for West York and he was then desirous of making this motion that the Chairman leave the chair." I repeat that at that time, I had not suggested nor requested that the two preventive service items be passed nor even that they be considered by the committee.


Arthur Meighen: Two or three minutes
afterwards.


Georges Henri Boivin: Hansard will bear me out.
If hon. members will look at Hansard at page 1684 they will see that for the first time in the course of my remarks, not more than three or four minutes before the motion was made I said:
I hope my hon. friends will allow the preventive
service items to go through at once.
The discussion-


Henry Lumley Drayton: We had been
discussing them for hours.


Georges Henri Boivin: Discussion had taken place during the entire afternoon concerning the preventive service as linked up with the previous item that had first been considered on Tuesday._ In order that there may be no misunderstanding let me say that when we went into supply on Tuesday last, the first item called was: "Salaries and contingent expenses of the several ports in the Dominion." That will be found at page 1597 of Hansard. The proposal was made that the different items be discussed separately. At page 1598 the Chairman asked the question:
Is it the pleasure of the House that the resolution be considered item by item?
The hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) was the first to agree. That method was adopted. Yesterday when the
committee met the Chairman proceeded to again read the item:
To provide for expenses of maintenance of revenue cruisers and for preventive service, $376,510.
That is an item that has been in the estimates for many years. The two special preventive service votes were never read by the chairman nor regularly before the committee, and being misled-I will admit that I was misled by the smiling countenance of my hon. friend as well as by the apparent abandon, courtesy and interest with which the questions were being asked and answered and by the spirit of forbearance which apparently existed at the time-I jokingly requested-


An hon. MEMBER:: Jokingly]


Georges Henri Boivin: Yes, I said "jokingly"-
I jokingly asked my hon. friends if they would allow the preventive service items to go through. I knew that they had not been read by the chairman and I was aware that even if the hon. member for West York consented, they would have to be called by Mr. Chairman before they could be passed. Still I asked him if he would allow the items to go through, inasmuch as according to his own admission, they had been discussed throughout the entire afternoon. At page 1685 the hon. member for West York in putting his motion "that the chairman leave the chair" made the statement that he did so to prevent these items from being considered.
In view of that statement, I ask the hon. member why he did not take that step before. It is evident that the motion was made for the purpose of securing a snap division and embarrassing the government. We have been asked by some hon. members on the other side of the House to resign, and to admit that we have not a majority in this House. I say that the government is supported by a majority of the people of Canada, and while it may sometimes be defeated on snap divisions, it will not surrender to the Conservative party.


Arthur Meighen: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We have been discussing this matter as though it were The motion.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Arthur Meighen: What I debated when on my feet was the point that the motion of the minister cannot revive an item which has been killed in the estimates and consequently is out of order.


Hewitt Bostock: Mr. Boivin moves,
seconded by Mr. Cardin:
That resolution No. 349 of the estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1927, be again referred to the committee of Supply.
To this motion, the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) takes exception, contending that resolution 349 having been killed by the motion carried yesterday, that the chairman leave the chair, it cannot therefore be revived. I take it for granted that the point of order raised by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) is that the motion now before the chair should have been preceded by notice.


Arthur Meighen: No, Mr. Speaker. May I explain?


Hewitt Bostock: Rather, I should say, it
should have been reintroduced with a new message.
Customs and Excise

Mr. MEIGHEfN:	That is right.


Hewitt Bostock: The point is that a new
message should have been read to the House from His Excellency. The right hon. gentleman also mentioned something about a notice.


Arthur Meighen: No, Mr. Speaker, I did not.


Hewitt Bostock: Then I am under a
misapprehension. At all events, the position of the hon. member for West York is that resolution 349 having been killed by the committee rising, it cannot be revived by the said motion. I was under the impression that I had inferential^ decided that point in the preceding ruling which I gave a moment ago, but I have no objection to deal with the matter again. Redlich, at page 202, volume 2 says:
There is also another motion which may be brought forward in committee at any time, and which also has the effect of bringing its sitting to an end, namely, "that the Chairman do now leave the chair." The carrying of such a motion has a more far-reaching effect; it causes the order of the day-for the discussion of such and such a subject in committee of the Whole House-to drop entirely; a renewed order for the constitution of the committee must be made by the House before the discussion can be resumed.
The motion made by the Minister of Customs (Mr. Boivin) is intended to revive the item under discussion when the committee rose without reporting. As regards the subject matter under discussion at the time the vote was taken, as a result of which the item dropped, let me again quote Bourinot at page 400:
If the motion "that the Chairman do now leave the chair" is earned, then the business of the committee is superseded, but the original order of reference remains and it is competent for the House to resolve itself again into committee on the same subject for the committee itself has no power to extinguish a question.
In yesterday's proceeding of the committee of Supply no report of .progress was made, nor was the leave of the House asked that the committee should be allowed to sit again. The whole matter was consequently left in the air. The committee will, however, be revived by the motion of the Minister of Finance passed a moment ago, and the question now is, shall that committee have the right to discuss a particular matter which it had under consideration on a previous occasion, when it lapsed, namely, resolution No. 349? The point, as Bourinot indicates, is perfectly clear: though the business of the committee be superseded the original order of reference remains.
	1
Now, what is the order of reference in the present instance? It consists of the estimates which were submitted to the House by the government for reference to the committee of Supply. I had my doubts as to the necessity of again referring the resolution in question to the committee, but it seems to me that all misapprehension in the matter will be obviated if this motion is carried. It is true that the authorities on parliamentary procedure, Bourinot amongst them, regard the reference of the whole of the estimates to the committee as one reference. But Bourinot says also that each item becomes a resolution by itself. Therefore the resolution of yesterday, having been left, so to speak, in the air by the fact that the committee rose without making any report, I am perfectly satisfied that it would remove any doubts as regards the reconsideration of resolution No. 349 should there foe any, if this motion is carried.
It is my ruling that this motion is in order.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
PRIVILEGE-Mr. BOURASSA
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. HENRI BOURASSA (Labelle):: Mr
Speaker, before the orders of the day are called I suppose I may use another five minutes of this lost time on a question of privilege. On coming back to Ottawa this morning I noticed that my good neighbour the member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) yesterday thought it necessary to put himself right before the loyalists of this country by explaining why he had been sitting during some singing performances.
Some hon. MEMBERS. Order.


Ernest Lapointe: The hon. member is
perfectly in order.


Mr. BOYS:: Do you call singing the national anthem a musical performance?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: The hon. member may
keep his seat, sullenly or joyously as he likes, while I explain my position. Like the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, I am not a singer, and from the experience I have had in listening to singing in this House, I am happy that I am not one of the in-flicters of the so-called "singing" upon those members of the House or those in attendance in the galleries who by education or by inheritance at least have some degree of musical taste. I might explain that I never caught

Privilege-Mr. Bourassa
the difference by the tune as between the drinking and other songs by which the House of Commons in its dignity expressed its feelings and the national anthem.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I must say I did not
notice the difference. But I want to add, Sir, if it will please the pillars of the empire and the upholders of the dignity of tihe crown, that if I had caught in the noise made by the party opposite of mewing or barking that there was any intention of coupling the name of the king with the performance, I would still have sat in protest against that kind of thing. I do not frequently boast of my loyalty to the king-


An hon. MEMBER:: Naturally not.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Quite so. I do not make it my stock in trade.


An hon. MEMBER:: Naturally not.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Quite so. I have learned my attachment to the British crown by my Study of British history and by my contact with British institutions and in the British parliament, where such performances would not be tolerated. I remember one instance at a late hour of the night-
Mr. MEIGHEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I do not dispute the hon. gentlemans right to refer to any incident in the House and make a statement regarding it; but I do dispute his right to enter into a controversial argument about the merits of that incident.


Hewitt Bostock: I think the right hon.
gentleman is perfectly right. The hon. member should confine himself to the question of privilege at issue.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Very well, Mr. Speaker. My point on the question of privilege is that in about a dozen or so newspaper-I have not read them or counted them, but I was so informed by my friends in Toronto-and I have somei excellent friends there-


An hon. MEMBER:: They don't know you.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Oh yes, they have known me for twenty-five years. It is precisely because they know me that I keep such a good remembrance of them and they keep an equally good remembrance of me. I was told that all through the Tory Orange press of Ontario this incident was given out-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: -was given out in about the same terms as employed by one of those papers mentioned by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre yesterday-I do not recollect its name. I want to say this, Sir, that I have no objection to members of this House expressing their joy or their sorrow either before or after a vote in any way they choose; but I have always considered that as a matter of dignity this was not the place or the time to mix up the national anthem with various other songs. Always when I was in the House many years ago I refused to stand up when the national anthem was sung in that manner. I propose continuing to do so. Every time the national anthem is sung properly, with dignity and propriety, I pay to it the homage which is due to the king, to his name and to his authority. But I do not take my lessons of loyalty from any political party, nor do I propose to-


Hewitt Bostock: Order. The hon. member has, I think, stated his case perfectly well, and the House understands that he protests against the unseemly remarks which have been made against him by certain newspapers. A question of privilege will be brought at this stage of the proceedings, but it must be presented so as to consume as little time as possible to permit him putting himself right before the House.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Quite right, Mr. Speaker. I bow to your ruling, both from the point of view of rule and of common sense. I suppose it was the atmosphere created this afternoon which caused me to go a little beyond the usual length. I merely add this, Sir, that I have learnt also from my knowledge of procedure in the British House of Commons, that if there is a place in the United Kingdom where the national anthem ought not to be sung it is in the House, where the name of the king should never be mentioned. I propose to stand by the traditions, the rules and the customs of the House of Commons in England in this respect.


LAKE ERIE FATALITY
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. E. J. GOTT (South Essex):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask if the lake Erie fatality of March 1 has ever been drawn to the attention of any department of the government? This fatality having occurred in the constituency which I have the honour to represent in this House, I feel in duty bound to bring it to the attention of the government. Let me quote from the Border Cities Star of March 18 in which, under the heading, "Lake
Chicago Drainage Canal

search is abandoned: fate of five to remain mystery," the following despatch appears:
Search for the bodies of the Phipps family, held beneath the ice of lake Erie, was definitely abandoned Wednesday. No further effective measures for their discovery can be taken until the lake is clear of ice.
This news was brought back by the party under Harry Ford, which returned to Leamington about 4 p.m. Wednesday after sipending all day at the lake. Mr. Ford declared the ice is now too treacherous to be ventured on. The party cut some channels, clearing about 10 square yards, near the spot where the auto is believed to have disappeared. Over this area, a boat was used, and dragging was carried out, but unsuccessfully.
Mr. Ford has decided not to communicate with the Ontario Hydro Commission with regard to the use of electrical devices. He believes electricity would not be effective through the ice.
Charles Neale, noted exponent of the "divining rod," left last night for Cottam, and he expected to be back home in West Lome to-day.
Mr. Ford now plans to wait until the ice has all disappeared. Then, when a calm day comes, a search will be made in boats for oily patches on the surface of the water. There is just a faint hope of such being discovered, but Mr. Ford believes there is a possibility of oil indicating the position of the sunken car.
With the permission of the Prime Minister I would like to submit a portion of a letter which I received from one of my constituents.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.
Mr. GOTT I said: "With the permission of the Prime Minister." This bears directly and entirely upon this fatality. Have I the privilege?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, certainly.


Eccles James Gott: Thank you. This letter is from Leamington, Ontario, under date of March 6, although it was not received by me until Monday of this week. It is as follows:
Since the accident here last Monday, in the casualty list were included a man by the name of James Phipps, his wife, and three children between three and ten years of age, who took a plunge through the ice somewhere between Pelee island and Leamington in a closed Ford sedan. The present situation is a crime against the people of the mainland and the island. Something surely must be done. The island has been cut off from the mainland this winter and isolated on account of a broken cable, and there has been no communication whatsoever with the mainland. This service between two sections of Canada lying within fourteen miles of each other is so deplorable as to be pathetic. The ill-fated party and car lay on the bottom of lake Erie from Monday afternoon until Thursday before the fatality was discovered. Both terminals were unconscious of what had transpired, the island supposing the party had landed safely, and the mainland content to think they had remained on the island, whereas they were resting beneath the ice and waters of lake Erie.
It is worth while for the government to think it over. Five human lives were lost in one dive, which is too many to go on record. The island is in dire need of assistance, and I should like to ask the government if, in
[Mr. Gott.J
the cause of humanity, they would be moved to immediate action by way of monetary assistance in locating the bodies.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I fail to see the necessity of putting in that letter or the newspaper clipping to have the government take any action in a matter affecting human life. I am sure if my hon. friend had called upon the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Cardin) this morning, he would have been able to satisfy his own mind as to what the government would be prepared to do, and what the government is in a position to do The Minister of Marine and Fisheries is not in the House at the moment, but 5 p.m. I will see that the remarks of my hon. friend are brought immediately to his attention, and I can assure my hon. friend that if this government can deal with the matter-and if it has not already been dealt with-to the extent of our authority it will be taken up.


CHICAGO DRAINAGE CANAL
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. J. R. O'NEILL (North Timiskaming): Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question which I intended to put to the hon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart, Edmonton), but which, as he is not in the House, I shall put to the Prime Minister. A great deal of publicity has been given a suggestion or scheme to meet the present situation resulting from the Chicago water steal, and this has greatly disturbed the people in the north country. As you understand this suggestion predicates an absolute disregard for the natural resources of the north country. The plan appears to be to divert the waters flowing northward and to establish an. immense lake in the north. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether those back of this plan are spokesmen of the government, or if they are harbingers of the proposals of the government in this respect. In the absence of the Minister of the Interior, however, we might have a more decisive reply from the Prime Minister if I were to put the question in another way. Would the Prime Minister make an ex cathedra pronouncement to the effect that all surplus waters of navigable streams belong to the province in which the streams happen to lie?
William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend began with one question and ended with another. I think the last question is really a constitu-

Canada-West Indies Agreement
tional one, and will call for an answer from the Department of Justice. If my hon. friend would like an answer from the Department of Justice, I have no doubt he can get one in due course.
Mr. O'NEILL: Would it be in order to
expect an answer from the hon. Minister of Justice under the present circumstances?


Ernest Lapointe: Not upon the orders of the day.


CANADA-WEST INDIES TRADE AGREEMENT, 1925
[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, That it is expedient to introduce a measure to approve of the agreement dated the sixth day of July, 1925, between the government of the Dominion of Canada and the governments of certain of His Majesty's colonies in the West Indies, which agreement is termed "Canada-British West Indies-Bermuda-British Guiana-British Honduras Trade Agreement, 1925," and to provide:
1.	That after the said agreement is brought into force, and so long as it remains in force, goods mentioned in the said agreement, the produce or manufacture of any of the colonies parties to the said agreement, which are conveyed without transshipment, except transshipment at a port of any of the said colonies, by ship direct into a sea or river port of Canada, shall be admitted to Canada at the rates of duties provided in the said agreement.
2.	That the tariff concessions covered by the said agreement to be extended to goods the produce or manufacture of any of the said colonies shall be so extended with respect to any one or more of the said colonies which may have ratified the said agreement on and after a day to be fixed by proclamation of the Governor in Council, which proclamation shall be published in the Canada Gazette.
3.	That subject to the provisions of the Customs Tariff, 1907, the Governor in Council may, by order in council, extend the said advantages to goods the produce or manufacture of any British country.
4.	That the operation of all laws inconsistent with the giving to the provisions of the said agreement and of any act that may be founded on thi3 resolution their full effect shall from time to time be suspended to the extent of such inconsistencies.
5.	That subject to the ratification of the said agreement by the various colonies which are parties thereto, and to the fulfilment of their undertaking to make the contributions on their behalf as specified therein, the Governor in Council be empowered to make such arrangements as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of the said agreement relating to the establishment of steamship services between Canada and the colonies concerned, and any expenses incurred in carrying out the said agreement shall be defrayed out of moneys provided by parliament for that purpose.
He said: Before you leave the chair, Mr. Speaker, I should like to place on the record some of the provisions of the agreement, and to give a brief history of the negotiations carried on from year to year between Canada and the islands of the West Indies. The West Indies islands represented in this agreement
have a population of roughly 2,200,000 persons, as compared with a population of 1,218,913 in New Zealand and 5,435,734 in Australia, according to the last census.
Arthur Meighen: How is that divided?


James Alexander Robb: I could not tell my hon. friend; I have not the details. The government of Canada, or rather the people of Canada, have recognized for many years the importance of trade relations with the West Indies. This agreement which will be submitted to parliament is one of a series of agreements which have been made from year to year. Thirty-five years ago, in 1890, the government of the day sent to the West India islands Sir George Foster, then Minister of Finance, in an attempt to arrange commercial reciprocity between Canada and the British West Indies. No results crowned his efforts, for at that time the West India governments were negotiating with the United States for a favourable treatment under the McKinley Tariff Act, and they thought that if they granted a reciprocal preference to Canada, the United States would penalize West Indian sugar, one of the great products of the West India islands, and the main product of the colonies at that time. In 1897, seven years later, a royal commission investigated conditions in the West Indies, and reported that the views of the West Indies estate proprietors remained unchanged. In 1896 there was a change of government in Canada. In 1898 Mr. Fielding extended to the British West Indies the Canadian preferential tariff, and in the course of his budget statement pointed out the large opportunities that existed for the development of trade between Canada and those islands. Accepting Canada's imperial responsibilities Mr. Fielding then extended the preference without asking for any concessions in return. In 1900 the preferential reduction on British imports into Canada was increased from 25 per cent to 33i per cent, but our trade with the West India islands still remained at a low level. The same year however, Trinidad sent delegates to Ottawa, and as a result the Canadian government made a proposal to the Trinidad government for a reciprocal trade arrangement. This failed to materialize into legislation. Apparently the people of Trinidad were not prepared to grant to Canada the preferences which we desired.
In 1903 the Brussels convention, brought the West Indian sugar question again to the fore. This convention, which aimed at the abolition of the bounties on the production of sugar brought in its train the disappearance of
172b

Canada-West Indies Agreement
the American countervailing duties on bounty-fed sugar, and made the American market less attractive to the West Indian growers. In the same year Canada imposed a surtax on German importation into our country.
By 1903 the Spanish-American war had ended, and the effect of Porto Rico becoming a part of the United Sia'es was felt, because sugar from that country was imported into the United States free of duty, and a similar treatment was extended t*o importations from the Philippines and r reduction of 20 per cent to those of Cuba. This practically ended, for the moment, the export of sugar from the British West Indies to the United States. These three circumstances influenced the desire to commence fresh negotiations between Canada and the West Indies which later on brought about a measure of trade agreement with the West India islands. Negotiations were opened between Canada and the West Indies and British Guiana, including proposals for a reduction of 10 per cent on importations from Canada and the United Kingdom. Likewise in 1904 Trinidad revived the proposals of 1900. The proposals which Trinidad had rejected in 1900 they were prepared, apparently, in 1904 to accept.
I said a moment ago that all Canadian governments had been anxious to effect commercial relations with the British West Indies. In so doing these governments were only representing the views of the people, because we find that in 1907 the boards of trade of Toronto, Montreal, St. John, and Halifax sent a commission to the West Indies to study trade conditions. In that year the groundwork was laid for the holding of a conference at Barbados in 1908 to consider the steps which might be taken to encourage closer trade relations with Canada. This conference was held in January, 1908. Canada was represented by two delegates, and practically all the colonies were represented. The representatives, however, had no power to bind their governments, and only a general exchange of views was possible. The Canadian government, realizing the difficulties involved in the conclusion of separate reciprocal agreements with each of the colonies, proposed that a conference organized by imperial authority should take place. Accordingly in 1909 a commission was appointed by Great Britain, headed by Lord Balfour of Burleigh, who was chairman of that commission. The commission, I am told, consisted of five members. The Canadian representatives on that royal commission were tne Hon. W. S. Fielding, then Minister of Finance, and the Hon. William Paterson, then Minister of Customs. This commission visited the principal cities

of eastern Canada. Later all the members excepting Mr. Fielding visited the West India islands. During the same year the commission met in London, England, and drafted a report which was presented to the King's Most Excellent Majesty". A suggested form of agreement was presented with this report. The visit of the royal commission was not without results, because we find that in 1912 the first West India conference was held in Ottawa. In that year representatives from most of the islands and British Guiana visited Canada, and an agreement was entered into, the terms of which were practically the same as those of the suggested agreement of the West India commission of 1909.
The conference which took place in 1912 at Ottawa granted special tariff reductions on a few selected West Indian products, including sugar, and in addition a preferential rate of four-fifths of the general tariff on some other goods. The Canadian statute ratifying the new pact left the British West Indies in enjoy'ment of the regular British preferential schedule in any cases where it should happen to be more favourable to them than the new treaty preference. The agreement secured for Canada a corresponding preference of one-fifth of the ordinary duty in Trinidad, British Guiana, Barbados, Grenada, St. Lucia, St. Vincent, Antigua, St. Kitts, Nevis, Dominica, and Montserrat on various food products, animals, boots and shoes, machinery, vehicles, soap, cement, calcium, carbide, furniture, lumber-in all, articles specified under forty-seven tariff headings. On Hour the preference was to be not less than 12 cents per hundred pounds.
In 1920 another conference was held and at this conference Jamaica, the Bahamas, British Honduras and Bermuda joined in the discussion. These four colonies had not been members of the 1912 conference, and all with the exception of Bermuda later on ratified the agreement. The act of parliament bringing the latter agreement into effect was assented to on May 3. 1921. I imagine my right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) was then the Prime Minister of Canada. The act provided that the agreement should come into force on a day fixed by proclamation by the Governor in Council, which was made on the 18th June, 1921. It was provided that the agreement should remain in force for ten years from the date of the proclamation and thereafter until terminated by twelve months' notice given either by the government of Canada or by the government of any of the colonies. This agreement is still in force.
The 1920 agreement was more general than the agreement of 1912.

Canada-West Indies Agreement


Arthur Meighen: Can the minister say at what time the agreement was ratified by the last of the West India colonies?


James Alexander Robb: The agreement of 1920?


Arthur Meighen: Yes. When did it finally go into effect?


James Alexander Robb: I will try to get that information for my right hon. friend. I do not think I have it at my hand now.


Arthur Meighen: It would be in the fall of
the year.


James Alexander Robb: On a few articles such as flour from Canada and sugar from the West Indies, special treatment was given. As I have stated a moment ago, under the agreement of 1912, the preference given to Canada on flour was 12 cents per hundred pounds. Under the agreement effected in 1921-better known as the 1920 agreement, it came into force in 1921-Canada granted a preference of not less than 50 per cent and the West Indian colonies reciprocated with a preference varying from 50 per cent to 25 per cent. This arrangement was ratified by Canada and by the colonies, the Bahamas and British Honduras granting larger preferences than the agreement called for.


Mr. ARMSTRONG (Lambton):: The minister was about to make a statement in regard to the increased preference in respect to flour.


James Alexander Robb: I was. My recollection is in respect to flour under that agreement that we obtained a one shilling preference.
In June, 1925, a further conference was held in Ottawa to meet changing conditions and the agreement then made is now before the House.
The British West Indies lie considerably to the south of Canada. Their products are those of a tropical climate and do not enter into competition with our agricultural products. Canadian agriculture, the fishing and lumbering industries and dairying especially, together with certain branches of manufacturing, stand to gain materially from the new pact, whilst such West Indian products as bananas, sugar, molasses, coffee, cocoa and citrus fruits will either enter Canada duty free or be admitted under a lower rate than similar products from foreign countries.
The preferences granted Canada are divided into two classes, special and general. The special preferences apply to a selected list of products in which Canada is especially interested, and are greater than the general preferences. The latter apply to all goods not receiving special preferences. For example, Trinidad, Barbados and British Guiana agree under the general preference to charge practically all imports from Canada only half, British Honduras, Leeward and Windward islands two-thirds and Jamaica three-quarters of the duty levied on goods from foreign countries.
As regards special preferences, the western group of colonies consisting of Jamaica, the Bahamas, and British Honduras impose a duty on Canadian flour of two shillings a barrel less than on foreign flour and duties of not more than half those charged foreign countries on butter, cheese, lard, condensed milk, fish, apples and potatoes. In the eastern group of colonies, British Guiana, Trinidad, Barbados and other West Indian colonies also give Canada a preference of two shillings a barrel on flour and a preference of not less than 66j per cent on apples, pork, beef, lard, butter, cheese, fish, condensed milk, boards, planks, scantlings, shingles and lath, cement, prepared cocoa, confectionery, boots and shoes and cordage. It is also provided that on these items the preference shall not be less than a fixed amount.
Turning for a moment to navigation, it is admitted that the key to a successful trade with the West Indies lies in satisfactory steamship service between the colonies and Canada.
Previous to 1900, a subsidized steamship service between Canada and the West Indies was being performed by Messrs. Pickford and Black of Halifax. This subsidy was for $63,000 annually. The service was continued under a year to year arrangement until 1900, when the British government undertook to pay half the cost of the steamship service and a new contract was made with Messrs. Pickford and Black whereby they received $65,700 from Canada and a like amount from the British government. They were to maintain a fortnightly service, the vessels starting alternately from St. John and Halifax. This agreement was for five years. Towards the end of the period of the contract, the British government signified that it was not altogether satisfied with the service, the desire being to have a fast through service to Barbados, Trinidad and British Guiana, which would be supplemented by a service of slow cargo boats. Negotiations were opened with other companies but the Pickford and Black company received the contract for a twelve-day service. This was carried on until 1911, when the British government declared that it could not see its way to continue paying its portion of a subsidy based on the old ar-langement.


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: Is the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company still carrying on the service?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


Mr. HANSON:: And at the same subsidy?


James Alexander Robb: 
Ernest Frederick Armstrong: As regards the government merchant marine vessels, might I ask the minister as to the number of vessels, and the tonnage, if he can give it?


James Alexander Robb: My recollection is that there
are four. I have not the tonnage, but I may be able to get it for my hon. friend in committee.
In 1921 Canada called for tenders for the service but received only one tender which was from the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company. They did not specify any particular amount of subsidy but merely asked for a guaranteed return of seven per cent on the cost of the new vessels which it would be necessary to build for the service. This tender was not acceptable to the Canadian government, and the company's old contract has been renewed from time to time, expiring, I repeat, on the 31st March of this year. On March 14, 1923, tenders were again called for this service, but in view of the fact that it had been demonstrated beyond doubt that there was not traffic on this route to support a weekly service with large vessels, the call for tenders specified merely a fortnightly service.

Canada-West Indies Agreement
The only tender received on this occasion was from the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company who offered a service in accordance with the trade agreement of 1920-and hon. members must bear in mind it was to meet that agreement of 1920 that we were asking for this additional service-for an annual subsidy of 8585,000. That offer was not accepted. The company made a special offer in 1924 reducing their previous figure by about 850,000 a year, but by this time it had been decided to call another conference with representatives of the various West India colonies, and the service has therefore been continued as I have already stated.
In addition to this subsidized service provided by the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company, and so as to fulfil our obligations with the British West Indies to put on additional boats, freight vessels of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine are plying beween Canadian ports and the West Indies. The former steamship service is admitted by all to have been inadequate. The new agreement provides for a first-rate service with weekly sailings the year round. From Maritime province ports a 12-knot freight, passenger and mail service using vessels of 5,00U to 6,000 gross tons and with accommodation for 230 passengers each, will be provided fortnightly to Demerara and intermediate ports. Supplementing these sailings there will be alternate fortnightly freight sailings from ocean ports in winter and river ports in summer. using slightly smaller vessels with a speed of 10 knots. To the cost of these services which are to be supplied by Canada. the eastern group of colonies will contribute about $142,000 a year.


Mr. MacLAREN:: What is the tonnage of the steamers that are at present in service?


James Alexander Robb: I stated in reply to the hon. member for East Lambton a moment ago that I have not the figures before me, but I may be able to give them to my hon. friend in committee. I think the tonnage was that provided under the agreement. May I say in passing that this agreement as regards sailings between Canada and the British West Indies does not differ materially from the agreement of 1921.
To the colonies of the western group, with Kingston, Jamaica, as the terminal port, similar passenger, freight and mail services are to be supplied. Refrigeration for 70,000 stems of bananas on the large steamers and for 50,000 on the small ones, and for Canadian perishable products, is to be provided. The
colonies served will contribute about $87,600 per year toward the service.
A few moments ago I gave to the House the population of the British West India Islands as approximately 2,200,000. Hon. gentlemen will be interested to know what are really the trade possibilities with those islands, and I have under my hand a brief review of the trade possibilities which I would like to place upon Hansard. In the year 1924, the last year for which the total trade for each of the West India islands is available, Canada's exports to the West India colonies amounted to about $18,000,000. The total imports of these colonies were over $90,000,000. From this it will be seen that Canada enjoys approximately one-fifth of the trade of the West Indies. By the present agreement it is hoped to widen this market.


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: Could
the minister give some idea whether the $18,000,000 worth of imports into the West Indies were of similar nature to the $90,000,000 worth as a total, or in what proportion?


James Alexander Robb: I have not that, but this fact stands out, that in some items which I have already enumerated and which I may come to again, we have a preference that will give us an absolute monopoly of that market. Under no conditions has any other country a greater preference than Canada; we have as great a preference as is given to any other country.
The trade with Canada for the first and last fiscal years under the first agreement, and the trade for the last fiscal year under the second agreement, are as follows:
Imports into Canada from West Indies Fiscal year
1913	 % 9,864,017
1921	 24,130,552
1925	 25,016,182
The chief imports were raw sugar, of which in 1925 over $17,000,000 worth was imported, and molasses to the value of $2,600,000. The exports from Canada to the West Indies in the fiscal year 1913 amounted to $4,967,312; in 1921 they totalled $18,187,118 and in 1925 $15,432,455. The greater portion of these goods exported from Canada comprised manufactured products. The chief item was flour. In 1925 the percentage of manufactured products exported by Canada to the West Indies was a trifle over 87 per cent of the total.
I propose now to put on record a statement showing the immense field for trade which the agreement opens up in agricultural commodities. The following figures will show
Canada-West Indies Agreement

the value of these products imported by the colonies in 1924 from all sources and the proportion supplied by Canada:
			Exports
		Total Imports	of Canada
		of B.W.I.	to B.W.I.
Flour.. ..	$8,512,278	*5,678,909Meats.. ..	2,949,992	253,313Lard and	substitutes..	808,620	255,003Butter.. ..	1,655,291	487,002Cheese.. .	370,811	168,803Condensed	milk	1,295,231	775,258
The Canadian manufacturers also benefit from the agreement in addition to the general preference ranging from 25 to 50 per cent. There are certain articles such as boots and shoes, confectionery, cordage, prepared cocoa and cement, which enjoy larger special preferences, and the field for expansion of trade in these lines is shown by the following figures-


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: Before leaving the last item can the minister give us the total amount of raw sugar imported into Canada from these islands?


James Alexander Robb: I gave that a few moments ago; it will be found on Hansard. The following is a table of certain imports into the British West Indies showing the proportion supplied by Canada:
		Exports
	Total Imports	of Canada
	of B.W.I.	to B.W.I.
Boots and shoes.. ..	, .. $1,894,374	$217,454Cement	. .. 772,466	35,291Apparel	. .. 2,463,383	22,815Hardware	.. 1,697,849	98,990Iron and steel.. ..	.. 2,337,974	99 560Soap	. .. 1,331.443	37,301
The development of this trade should be helped materially by the improved steamship service. Regular weekly sailings have been agitated for at each investigation and conference that has been held. The great objection has always been that it would not be self-supporting, but in coming to an arrangement as to the tariff preference under the present agreement, due consideration was given to the development of trade in some commodities which hitherto have not been brought into Canada by direct shipment. Let me repeat here that under the agreement it is necessary, in order that the preferences should be secured, that the goods shall enter Canada through or be exported from an ocean or river port of the Dominion.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The same as the agreement of 1919.


James Alexander Robb: 
Ernest Frederick Armstrong: Can the minister tell us what increased subsidies are being paid?


Hewitt Bostock: May I suggest that the
hon. member might ask his questions in committee?


James Alexander Robb: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, other
hon. members may want to ask questions.


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: I merely
want some information in regard to the increased subsidies in order to ascertain what the additional cost to the people of Canada will be as a result of this agreement as compared with the treaty of 1920. In addition to that could the minister place on record or give me some idea of the increased preference to be granted, for instance, on raw sugar coming from that country over what was granted under the treaty of 1920?


James Alexander Robb: Yes. My hon. friend will recall that just a moment ago, with the consent of the House, I placed on Hansard a comparison of the preferences between the trade agreements of 1912, 1920 and 1925.


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: And those comparisons will appear?

Canada-West Indies Agreement


James Alexander Robb: Yes. With regard to the subsidy, there has been no increase; we are simply following the agreement of 1920-21. The Royal Mail Steam Packet Company, at the earnest request of the previous government and this government, are continuing the service, but they say they will not carry it on after the tenders are opened, when we shall know who are the lowest tenderers and negotiate with them. It was to meet part of the conditions of the British West Indies agreement of 1920 that we put the vessels of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine on that service.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Will the minister tell us what the estimated cost of the service will be as contemplated by this agreement-if carried out? Because I understand we have never carried out our previous agreements.


James Alexander Robb: No, we have not.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What is the estimated cost of this service, if the agreement is carried out?


James Alexander Robb: I shall be able to tell my hon. friend early in April when we receive the tenders.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Had the government no
idea of what the service would cost When it put its name to a solemn treaty? Or did it do so blindly?


James Alexander Robb: I do not want to insinuate
anything, but my hon. friend knows that I cannot make any announcement now. I am looking after the interests of Canada.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, one necessarily approaches any treaty made by this administration with considerable apprehension. They have had the treaty-making mania ever since they came into office, and never seem satisfied if three months are allowed to go by without a new excursion to the Orient or to Australia-always by the longest route-with some kind of treaty brought back as return cargo. Those so far presented in their four years of office have been a succession of unredeemed disasters. The treaty with France, the treaty with Belgium, the treaty with Australia-and fall emphatically into that category. Our trade with each of those countries has been sensibly injured, and in at least two cases very seriously so.
The present is an attempt to negotiate a treaty with the West India Islands. Had one confidence in the judgment and care and in the grasp of Canadian trade conditions of the government of the day, he would naturally welcome the negotiating of a treaty with any of our British dominions, and he would be more disposed to welcome the negotiating of

a treaty with those dominions whose trade is complementary to our own, rather than competitive therewith; and of all portions of this empire which could correctly be so described, perhaps the most conspicuous would be the West India Islands. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) is entirely right when he says these islands are producing goods which this country requires but which, on account of climatic and soil conditions, it cannot very well produce. The converse applies:	our
products the West India people require, and we have a surplus with which to supply them. This no doubt accounts for the fact that over a considerable period of years and throughout a succession of governments efforts have been made to improve trade relations with those islands,-efforts which have continued in progressive degree and, I think it may be said, always with increasing success.
There are other reasons which have induced governments of the past to make these attempts; they are of what one would call an imperial character-if that adjective has not become wholly offensive to some hon. gentlemen of this House. The British West Indies are fellow-citizens of this empire with ourselves; they have been so over a long period of years; they are well thought of within the circle of the empire by all its people; and because of their position, because of their possessions and because of their history, they are entitled to the best of consideration at the hands of the rest of us; and they are able to give us something in return for the consideration we give them. Besides, they occupy a position analogous to no other portion of the empire save ourselves with relation to the United States of America. Their trade necessarily is very much influenced by the neighbourhood erf the great republic and by the trade policy of that republic. In a measure, though no part of the United States, they are subservient to America's trade policy. In corresponding measure we are the same. We, it seems to me, have a peculiar obligation with relation to those islands, and it is certainly the part of Canada to do anything within reason to enhance the interest of the people of those islands in the people of the rest of the empire, and particularly in ourselves, to add to the interest they have in our trade, to bring them, as it were, more and more within the circuit of Canadian and imperial trade rather than of American. That a like feeling prevails in the West Indies, there is no question whatever. Indeed, they view the tendency of recent times and the trade ambitions of the United States with very serious apprehensions. Their desire is to become more and more

Canada-West Indies Agreement
closely united with us and other citizens of the British Empire; and they look to us particularly, as the foremost of British dominions and the one closest to themselves, their great British neighbour on this continent, to extend to them the best trade facilities within our power.
All these considerations have had weight with administrations of the past, and they had very great weight in determining the course pursued by the late government in negotiating the treaty of 1920. That treaty has been reviewed by the Minister of Finance in his short address this afternoon. I was not one of the administration who had to do directly with the negotiation of the treaty, with its terms I am not so familiar as would be other hon. members of this House, but I have generally a fairly accurate knowledge of them. Under that treaty we secured trade preferences with the most important West India Islands of 25 to 50 per cent, that being the preference given us on their general tariff. We in turn gave them preferences equally great-indeed, greater still if I caught the words of the Minister of Finance aright when he stated that in our preferences to the West Indies the minimum was 50 per cent. We also agreed to extend to them certain steamship services, to the western group as well as to the eastern group, without which the preferences would be of little avail. This treaty has been in operation for some four years, or somewhat less than four years at the time the new treaty was made; I am not certain of the date at which it went into effect. The Minister of Finance is right in saying that as far as Canada is concerned it was ratified by this House in May, 1921, and I think the order in council supplementary to the ratification was passed, according to his words, in June. The minister is not able to say at what time it was ratified by the West Indies, but if my recollection is right the complete engagement did not take effect until some time later. Consequently the treaty was scarcely in operation at all under the late government. We were engaged in an election campaign for the last three or four months of the term of the government, and the attention which would otherwise have been given these matters of course could not be applied.
It seems that the terms of that treaty have not been wholly lived up to on the part of Canada. I was sorry indeed to learn that Canada had to make admission of having failed to live up to the terms of a solemn engagement. I do not know just what was done in the last few months of the late administration after the treaty went into effect, nor 14011-110
just how brief a period then elapsed, but I do know that no complaint was ever brought to my attention of any failure to live up to the terms of our contract. I am just informed by the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) that one of the principal islands, Jamaica, if not others, did not come into the treaty at all until some time after we went out of office. Certainly there was no conscious failure to live up to the treaty during the term*of office of the last administration. I do not know just what the difficulties have been; I would like to have heard them further explained. The minister said in his remarks that both governments did the best they could. 1 fancy the obligation chiefly or wholly fell upon our successors in office, but why it was they could not do what we had engaged to do, I do not know. Certainly it is no credit to this country that we have to stand now, four years later, and say- especially with relation to a treaty with our brothers of the West Indies-that we have failed to comply with the terms of an engagement made with them.
Though I his has to be admitted, certain good results have accrued. Undoubtedly our trade has expanded. I do not say it is not capable of further expansion, but I must be pardoned if I express the fear that we cannot look for quite so much as the Minister of Finance expressed as his hope this afternoon. I am inclined to think that we are a lot nearer the maximum of our exports of the various articles which he recites in chief as Canadian products going to the West Indies, than he imagines. I think indeed that in some of them we have nearly a monopoly of those products which the people of the islands really consume. There are, besides white people, many blacks in those islands, and in some of the lines covered by the treaty they do not purchase the character of goods which we have for export. However, there will be room for some expansion, and I earnestly hope the terms of the treaty will prove such that expansion may take place.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Arthur Meighen: The picture painted by
the Minister of Finance as to the enhancement of our exports to the West Indies was, I think, somewhat rosy. In respect of flour I doubt if there is very much room for further expansion. The qualities of flour used there in so far as they are of the nature of the article



Canada-West Indies Agreement
that we produce at all are practically wholly bought from this country now. The same applies to lumber and many other things embraced in the treaty.
Coming to the other side of the trade feature, the imports from the West Indies, I hope there is more room for the optimism of the minister in that direction. As respects the great product of the larger dominions, bananas, it is true that notwithstanding the fact that under the old treaty the reduced tariff was open only to goods entering our ports, the great bulk, in fact the almost overwhelming proportion, came through the United States. I am not so sure that this treaty is going to effect so great a change. There are a great many factors entering into that situation, factors that will not be removed by the treaty at all and which will still militate against direct shipment. However, if the treaty does anything in that respect it will do a service to this country.
I am apprehensive of the loss of revenue from reductions made, especially on sugar. The minister did not give us any idea of what he expected there. We are reducing our tariff on sugar, we are not increasing it as respects other countries, and I think the minister will find that he or probably his successor, will have to do without something approaching a million a year. That is a large sum of money. Similar remarks would apply to other features of our imports. However, I believ i i the principle of giving to our Dominion, and especially giving to them in return for consideration given us, a preference over every country in the world in respect of articles consumed in Canada. That is what we have to give, that is what we ought to give, that is what we can give without militating against Canadian production; and for my part I would be slow to criticize treaties because of any vulnerable feature from that standpoint. If, however, the treaty, went to the impairment of Canadian production then it would take certainly a multitude of virtues to cover a sin in that respect.
As to the service features, I referred to them only briefly before six o'clock. I cannot understand why the minister is not able to give the House a rough estimate of what the new service features are to cost this country. In reply to a very direct question he said he could not do so for some time. Surely the government has not entered into a contract involving very large commitments, commitments which doubtless will run into millions, and yet is unable to give the House at least an estimate of what the aggregate is to be. I know there are very grave fears expressed in some quarters, where the opinion

should be the most intelligent, that these commitments are serious. Indeed, the commitments we made in respect of service under the treaty of 1920 evidently proved so onerous that this government could not comply with them. I am still not wholly clear as to why the compliance did not take place, but I am inclined to think that the government found itself unable to make compliance save by an extension of the service of the Canadian merchant marine.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


Arthur Meighen: They have made such a tremendous bogy of the merchant marine before the electors-in which possibly they were joined by the Saskatchewan colony, I do not know-but they have so condemned it and ridiculed it from end to end of Canada that notwithstanding the recommendations made to them for its extension in the West India service they did not do it, but rather put themselves in the position where they have to come to parliament and admit they have failed to comply with a solemn contract made on behalf of Canada. I think there was difficulty in living up to our engagements at the service in the treaty of 1920. How is it going to be easier to live up to far greater engagements? In this treaty without a doubt they are more serious. The minister knows they are more serious-especially as to one of these groups they are far more serious- and as a result this government will have to pay out very large sums of money indeed in subsidies, or they will have to extend the merchant marine service. I know they are in a quandary as to which they will do. I know they find difficulties both ways, difficulties they created very largely for themselves by spurious political propaganda. But anyway, though these commitments may be serious too, I am disposed to sympathetically view the whole situation as to this treaty. I believe it has very important significance from an empire standpoint. Hon. gentlemen have often ridiculed this idea. I do not mean those very close to me, but hon. gentlemen at other angles of this House have often ridiculed the idea that trade has anything to do with nationality, that trade relations necessarily involve political relations. I want just to suggest this thought to hon. members of this House; it is just because trade has a lot to do with nationality, it is just because trade relations are bound up with political relations, that this treaty comes before this parliament at this time. It is because of the importance of this treaty to national and political relations with the West India islands that it appeals most strongly and will appeal most strongly to hon. members of this House.

Canada-West Indies Agreement
I believe, indeed, the government would do themselves credit to admit that this factor of the situation had very much to do with the whole matter of the negotiation of the treaty.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It did.


Arthur Meighen: I am glad to hear that
from the Prime Minister. It is creditable to the government that it had so to do with the negotiation of the treaty; but I want to know why it is that the trade relations of the West Indies with the United States are inseparably and inexplicably involved with their political relations with that country, and the trade relations of Canada with the United States have nothing whatever to do with the political relations of Canada with the United States. I am glad that the light has come in, even though it had to come from the far off West Indies to reach the mind of the government in this regard.
So I say, reserving certain criticism which would be more appropriately addressed to the government in committee, and reserving the right of course to make suggestions with relation to it-and I have in mind one especially as respects the sugar refining industry of British Columbia-I am disposed to welcome the advent to this parliament of any effort to tie more closely our brothers of the West Indies to ourselves in any trade treaty.


Mr. W. K. BALDWIN (Stanstead):: This
is a very interesting subject to me, and has been very interesting since the close of the Great war. From November 11, 1918, when the Armistice was signed, I conceived the idea that Canada should have some territona! rights in a tropical or semi-tropical country, to produce the things that we need, so as to assist in repaying us for the great expense to which thig country was subjected in our efforts to win the world war. Coming to this House shortly afterwards I found that the champion of the development of West Indian trade was F. H. Keefer; I forget what portfolio he held. He had been down to the West Indies on a trip, and I approached him in order to get some information. 1 found that the ideas which Canadians generally had on this subject were absolutely wrong. On Armistice day I was called upon to make a speech in my county and in mv remarks I stated that Canada should have territorial rights in some tropical country A very well-informed man whom I met at lunch that day said, "What do we want of 15,000,000 niggers?" On coming here I went to the library and found that the population 14011-110i
of the West Indies was about one-third English, one-third French and one-third Spanisa, the total less than 3,000.000. Mr. Keefer was very much interested, and was pleased to _ get even one person to raise his voi'e in this House in favour of commercial union. I am a political unionist.
Mr. O'NEILL: What is the name of the minister?
- Mr. BALDWIN:	Frank H. Keefer, a
member of this House under the ministry of the Borden government. I obtained information which I had never received before I got information from Harry Crow, who had a long and extended acquaintance with the British West Indies. He was a political unionist and favoured a commercial union between Great Britain, the Crown colonies and the dominions of the West Indies. When we speak of the West Indies we must remember that there are innumerable islands, the Leeward, the Windward and a multitude of other islands, and their possibilities of production are tremendous.
I have been watching the great American republic to the south of us for many years, and I have observed that through their diplomacy and their methods of conducting affairs they have acquired great territories that will produce tropical and semi-tropical products. Here we have a country in Canada covering one-half of the North American continent, without one inch capable of producing tropical or semi-tropical products. It appears to me very desirable that we should obtain a footing in the West Indies. Mr. Crow spent a great deal of time and a fortune in advancing ideas of political union.
Mr. Macaulay of the Sun Life had made many trips to the British West Indies in connection with his great company, and he maintains that commercial union is very much needed. Whether a continuous agreement or any agreement that would be never ending were made, would be immaterial; but let us see how much we need their produce and how much they need ours. We require in this country all the products which they produce. It is within the realm of possibility that they will learn to produce rubber in British Guiana and British Honduras, and that they will produce cotton and everything in that line that we will require. What a splendid chance fr Canada in this line. The people of the West Indies, in the development of these islands, require the manufactured goods we produce in Canada, and they need the natural products of this country. Mr. Keefer was sent down there by the Borden government, and Sir George Foster has made many trips to that

Canada-West Indies Agreement
country investigating conditions. I dislike to suggest what'I might possibly think-that the opposition were not able to conclude trade relations or to negotiate favoured nation agreements, and they are simply not pleased that this government has about consummated what they worked for years and years to accomplish and failed.


Richard Burpee Hanson: My hon. friend is wrong.


Willis Keith Baldwin: Why am I wrong?
Pray tell me.


Mr. BENNETT:: Did they not make some treaties with the West Indies?


Willis Keith Baldwin: Yes but those treaties
availed very -little indeed.
Our Maritime provinces are crying for Maritime rights. Now if we can get a market for the products of the east and the west of Canada by giving to the West Indies a market for their produce, will that not be beneficial to the Maritime provinces? In Halifax they have great storehouses where they -could store these products and a splendid trade could be built up.
I believe that Canada is going to make rapid progress; the population will in a few years be much greater than it is to-day. If we can get a market for our manufactured products, *our condensed milk and dairy products in the West Indies, it would be a great thing; our trade would grow and gro-w and it would make us independent of other countries. It would also furnish traffic for our railways and our steamships. There is nothing selfish about this. The provinces of British Columbia and Alberta will send their fruit out to the Pacific ocean and it will be shipped through the Panama canal to the West Indies. So that there is no part of Canada that will not be benefited; all the products of the different provinces will be shipped by rail and water. There is no reason therefore, why this agreement should not be consummated. As to the bugaboo that many features of this treaty are unfavourable to this country, when we think of those far distant lands of Australia and New Zealand away down on the rim of the world, why should we be afraid of their products that will take seven or eight -weeks to reach Canada, when the great markets of the world are much nearer to us than to them.
A great deal has been said about butter. A few weeks ago some members of the opposition, speaking in the House, were making it almost a point that the farmers of this country were going to be destroyed owing to importations of butter. Butter has been advancing in price, and I believe the poor people of this country must be eating their bread

dry at the present time because butter at the lowest price is costing forty-seven cents a pound and none can be procured for less. I do not think it would be a crime if the great, consuming public of Canada could get butter for a little while at a lower price, and surely our farmers are receiving a price with which they are quite satisfied.
Under this favoured-nation treaty that is being made with the British West Indies, our butter, cheese, condensed milk, flour and vast quantities of manufactured goods can be exported into those colonies under a preference that will give us almost a monopoly. Who for one moment could think that would not be a great advantage to Canada? On the contrary let me tell the House a few things that transpired during the late Conservative regime. We were importing $100,000,000 worth of fruits principally from the United Fruit Company, a great octopus company in the United States. At that particular time they were paying for the goods in the West Indies when the dollar was about equal to sixty cents, and they were re-selling them to Canada making from 12 to 20 per cent of a discount on the Canadian dollar In other words, for the $100,000,000 worth of fruit that was imported from the British West Indies this company was making a profit of over $50,000,000. If we look at the matter from any point of view it makes a Canadian look small.
I wish Canadians when going to a sunny clime would travel via Halifax and boat to the British West Indies although if they want to go by way of the United States, the trip will be a shorter one. But let them visit the British West Indies and learn of our brothers there. One important thing we can learn from them is that they speak better English than we do. I noticed last spring even as regards the coloured members of the delegation which came here from the British West Indies, their dialect was such that they spoke perfect English. There is no place on the American continent where they speak as good English as in the state of Virginia where the old colonial English are now kept intact and they send their sons and daughters back to England to be educated. It almost makes me ashamed to speak to those people. It would be a much shorter trip to visit the British West Indies than to go to California. We should learn from those people in the British West Indies and they could learn from us. We could consummate trade with them; we would have much better enjoyment for less money and we would come to a fuller realization of the greatness of the British Empire. Should political union come, which I am very much

Canada-West Indies Agreement
interested in, I do not know that they would send members to this House of Commons, but they might send members to the Senate. They could be represented in this parliament in some way, and I have no fear that a population of around three million could ever dominate this great country.
Notwithstanding all the drawbacks we may have had in the past few years, we are going to make great progress in Canada. The United States is being filled up; its lands are being held now at almost fabulous prices; they are dyking back the seas and making land costing over a thousand dollars an acre. They are constructing roads up the highest mountains and over the deserts, but they cannot continue in that way so that people will come to our great country, and develop our great resources in agriculture, forests, fisheries and perhaps the greatest wealth of all, our mines. The people of the British West Indies will be great consumers for our fisheries, and from every point of view there need be no parochial thought about this. As I have said the extreme western part of Canada produces beautiful apples, and I do not know but the time may come when they can raise figs, as I hope they will be able to do although at present they are importing them from California. But notwithstanding all that, in order to keep a healthy body we must eat green things; we need fruits that we cannot raise in Canada, but that can be produced by the cheap labour in the British West Indies and brought here by boat to nourish our bodies.
From every point of view there is not the least doubt that the consummation of this treaty will be of great benefit to Canada and of as great benefit to the people of the British West Indies. As it is dull to listen to a member talking extemporaneously on this matter after hearing the Minister of Finance-and after all others will follow me who will give exact figures-I will not make any further remarks with regard to this question which is very dear to my heart.


George Halsey Perley: Mr. Speaker, I find myself in accord with the principle of this resolution, and I should like to say a few words about it before it goes tc the committee. Everyone knows I stand first for Canadian interests, and I believe in giving as much work as we possibly can to our own people. I do not want any treaty that is going to reduce work in Canada. At the same time I am one of those who believe firmly that our British commonwealth of nations can be made self-sustaining. We know that we can produce within the commonwealth everything that we require either for
our comfort or for the safety of the empire. This was demonstrated beyond any question in the war when our supplies from foreign sources were cut off and we were obliged to produce more food and to make munitions and other necessary equipment for the safety of ourselves and of the British Isles. At that time the people of the British Empire enormously increased their production and proved to the world that they could produce everything that was required within the commonwealth. Why should we not take every step we can to make that condition permanent ''
The United States has attained its present great strength as a result of the pursuit of just such a policy: she trades within herself and her home market is the one that is of value to her. We in Canada have also a home market but we can at the same time create within the whole empire a home market on a larger scale, a British home market. I say therefore that it is the duty, as it would be to the advantage, of every part of this commonwealth of nations to adopt the principle of buying from sister nations what the people at home cannot produce for themselves. That, as I say, is the policy that has produced such excellent resuits in the United States and it is equally the policy that can make a success of the British commonwealth of nations. To bring this about we must trade with one another to as large an extent as possible and this treaty is to my mind a distinct step in that direction.
I was sorry indeed to hear the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Baldwin) bringing party issues into the discussion to-night, for one of the things in regard to this treaty that pleases me most is the continuity of policy which has characterized one government after another in Canada,. This has been so for years, and I am firmly of the opinion that in regard to all questions of foreign policy, including relations between different parts of the empire, there should be a continuity of policy. None of these questions should be discussed from the party point of view. In the case of this treaty hon. gentlemen opposite have followed in our steps, just as we endeavoured to follow in the steps of those who went before us, in order to bring about favourable relations with the British Islands and the West Indies.
Years ago I was much interested in this question, having ior a considerable period at various times administered the Department of Trade and Commerce. While in that position I learned a good deal about this

Canada-West Indies Agreement
interesting problem. The products raised in the West Indies are complementary to those that we produce in this country, and are in no way competitive with them. It is true we buy a lot of these things from the United States, and that is one practice I should like to see put an end to. I earnestly hope therefore that this steamship service which is about to be arranged for will have the effect of increasing our imports of these commodities from the British West Indies rather than from the United States. We in Canada need a good deal of the products of the tropics, and it is only natural that we should buy them from British countries. The British West Indies, embracing such islands as Bermuda, as well as British Guiana on the mainland and British Honduras, are all friendly to us, and while we require the things they produce they on the other hand need the products that we raise in this northern zone. Now those islands are all contiguous to the United States. At any rate they are nearer to the United States than to us, and I for one hope that we shall do everything we possibly can to keep them British. We should do our share in that direction, and I consider that this treaty has that tendency.
As the United States is a very strong magnet to these islands, we must, as the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) has said, develop inter-imperial trade if we are to preserve our British sentiment, as no doubt we all desire to do. Several prominent men in Canada have for years taken a great interest in this question. I have had conversations with many of them at various times in London when the matter has been fully discussed. I may say that they welcome the treaty as a fulfilment of some of their wishes. While I am on this subject I may observe that we were all very pleased to see the delegates from the islands and from Demerara. Personally I found them men of ability and ol broad views who could understand our Canadian conditions and problems, and they showed themselves in every way friendly to us and our ideas. I very much hope that we shall see them frequently.
I am not very familiar with the details of this resolution, but we naturally expect that this government will have made some mistakes in the matter. It would be very extraordinary if they did not. At the same time, however, we trust that they have not injured any of our Canadian industries in arranging the details of the agreement. The items of the treaty will of course be discussed in committee, but I just want to refer in passing to the matter of the" steamship service. The Min-

ister of Finance (Mr. Robb) does not feel disposed to tell us how much the service is likely to cost, and I take it that he does not wish to disclose that in advance of receiving tenders for the service, but I am very much afraid that it will be a costly piece of business. All we can hope is that the traffic between this country and the West Indies will be so developed that the expense we shall incur may be justified. At any rate I want to say at this juncture that I am in favour of the principle of the treaty, for the reason that it will help to develop trade between the various nations and sections of the British commonwealth, and thus be another step in the direction of making that commonwealth self-sustaining.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I had not intended taking part in the discussion but I feel that this is an occasion on which it should be made apparent to the country that happily, for once, both opposition and government seem to be in entire accord on a great principle which we ail have very much at heart, namely, the principle of developing as far as possible, by means of trade and in other ways, the relations that bind together the different parts of the British empire.
The leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) said he was pleased that the government appeared to have received more light in the matter of treaty relations within the empire' than it had previously had. I am afraid my right hon. friend has forgotten his own speeches in the Maritime provinces made so recently as a few months ago. This treaty was negotiated last summer by members of the government who at that time met delegates from the British West Indies. The conference was held in Ottawa, and as a result a treaty was signed which was subsequently printed and distributed to the press in all parts of the Dominion. The government felt that it had not only rendered a definite service to Canadian trade, but also the kind of service to which hon. gentlemen opposite have alluded to-night, namely that of helping to bind more closely together, through the agency of trade, different parts of the British empire. What was our amazement when we discovered that my right hon. friend in the course of his speeches in the Maritime provinces was declaring that so far as he was aware there was no such thing as a treaty even negotiated! He nevertheless condemned the treaty very strongly. He shakes his head now, but he has forgotten what he then said.

Canada-West Indies Agreement


Arthur Meighen: No, I have not forgotten a word. I know what I said at that time. I said no such thing.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will he tell us what he did say?


Arthur Meighen: Certainly. I said I had never seen a copy of the treaty, and that I would not take any position for or against it until I had seen it. Whatever criticism I might have of it, I would not give judgment upon it until I had seen the treaty.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: All I can say. Mr. Speaker, is that after the profession my right hon. friend has just made about desiring to further trade within the empire, it is extraordinary that he should now have to confess to the House that he went into a political campaign and criticized the administration on a treaty designed for the very purpose of closer trade relations within the empire, a treaty which he also said that he had never even seen! I was going to remind him of the fact that the statements he made throughout the Maritime provinces when he was campaigning there in the fall were first of all, as I understood, condemnatory of the treaty. However, I will take his word for it now that what he then said was not condemnatory, but was simply that he had not seen a copy of the treaty. I know he made that statement because I had him presented with a copy of the treaty myself. We happened both to be in the vicinity of Sussex, New Brunswick, the day after my right hon. friend asserted that he had not seen the treaty and that it was non-existent.


Arthur Meighen: He did not say that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I sent him a copy of the treaty with my compliments. That evening he undertook to discuss the treaty at a meeting in Sussex, and he then condemned it. I have reports of his speech and the impression it created throughout the Maritime provinces was that the treaty was a mistake, that the government had done something that was wrong, and that this was one thing more for which fault should be found with the administration. Well, I am quite prepared to forgive my right hon. friend. I am glad he has seen the light; but I do not want him to come and tell this House and the country that the government has seen the light, when he himself was in such total darkness as not even to have had any knowledge of the treaty itself, if not also of its terms.
My hon. friend from Argenteuil (Sir George Perley) has referred to the importance of
linking together the different parts of the empire in matters of trade. May I say, Sir, that that is something which this government has had at heart not only with respect to this treaty, but also with respect to another treaty which some of his friends have condemned rather strongly, namely, the treaty with the great dominion of Australia. That treaty was also negotiated by this administration with the same belief that it was desirable to seek to bring about a closer bond of union between different parts of the empire.


George Halsey Perley: May I suggest to the right hon. gentleman that that is a very different matter, because that treaty in many cases takes away work from our own people.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not quite follow my hon. friend's point of view. As I understood, he wants to develop closer relations within the empire by trade. Australia is at one side of the globe and our Dominion is at the other. It is a vast range over which competition is taking place, and it is an extraordinary thing if this Dominion within its own boundaries cannot hold its own in competition with Australia. However, supposing it were true, which I do not admit, that the treaty did take away a certain amount of work from our people as my hon. friend suggests, I ask him: would he not feel that what might be gained by further strengthening the empire in many other respects would be fully equal to so small a sacrifice of a material character? If he is really sincere in bis talk of empire unity and. solidarity, he must, if need be, be prepared to make some little material sacrifice for it. If he is not, I may tell him that the present administration is so prepared to do, and we have so viewed these questions.
May I say, Mr. Speaker, I hope that what has been done in this treaty by way of furthering, as we trust, closer relations between the British West Indies and Canada may be extended to include possibly another British dominion in this western hemisphere. In addition to the West Indies there is the island colony of Newfoundland, which is a near neighbour of this country. I think something might be made of the fact that we have in this western hemisphere what may well be known as a British North America, composed of Canada, Newfoundland and the islands of the Atlantic generally classed as the British West Indies. It should be the aim and purpose of all of us who have at heart the interests of our own Dominion and the larger interests of the British Empire to seek to develop to the fullest possible extent that

Canada-West Indies Agreement
British North America in relations of trade, in relations of commerce and communication and in relations to friendship. I believe this treaty will go far towards developing trade with the West Indies. I believe it will do more than that. I believe the contacts it will lead to between the peoples of the West Indies and the people of our Dominion will be mutually helpful in directions that possibly very few of us at this moment can foresee. Certainly the meeting of the delegates here created the impression to which the hon. member for Argenteuil has alluded, namely that they cordially welcomed the closer relationships that were likely to grow out of this treaty.
In addition to trade, there is developing between the British West Indies and Canada an important tourist traffic. The two countries are the complements of each other; one is in the temperate zone, the other in the tropical; and it is the natural thing that at particular seasons the people of the British West Indies should look to Canada as the part of the empire to which they would be glad to come, and that we should look with equal desire upon the British West Indies as a part of the empire which our citizens will find it easy to visit and become acquainted with. This treaty as it has been drafted has had in mind not merely the purposes of trade but also of travel, and part of the money which has to go for subsidy purposes will be spent in increasing the facilities for travel between the British West Indies and this country.
Once again, .Sir, may I say what a pleasure and satisfaction it is to discover that at least on one measure both sides of this House appear to be united',-a measure which has bearings that are much larger than those of mere nationality, bearings that concern vitally the interests of the great empire of which we are a part.


Mr. STEVENS:: May I ask the Prime
Minister if the different items of this treaty will come under consideration in committee of the Whole? I have not been able to be in the House during all the discussion.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: I merely want to ask the Prime Minister a question. He referred to a number of other countries that were likely to be benefited by this treaty. Would he be good enough to give us the names of those different countries? I am sure the information would be appreciated by the House.
fMr. Mackenzie King.]
Mr. MACKENZIE KING. I think my hon. friend must have misunderstood my remarks. I said there were different countries that composed what I termed a British North America, including Newfoundland, the islands of the British West Indies and some other idands. and of course our Dominion. I was there referring to something that I hoped this treaty might lead to-a further development of trade in directions which are not included in it at the present moment, but which may come to be included later on.


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: I understood that the preferential clauses in this treaty would be extended to other countries outside of the British West Indies.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This is a treaty with the West Indies.


Mr. W. A. BLACK (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, in making a few remarks with regard to this treaty I do not wish it to be understood that I am strongly opposed to any treaties that will lead to the development of Canadian trade. The object of all Canadian governments should be to increase our trade as far as possible, always having in view the economic position of this country, the cost of such extension, and the operation of such treaties. This West India treaty I think has some defects. In the first place, it was negotiated by representatives of Canada who never had been closely identified with the West Indies, and who had very little knowledge of West India trade and West India conditions, and that was done notwithstanding the fact that representations were made to the Department of Trade and Commerce at the time suggesting that in the interests of Canada the committee that dealt with this matter should contain some representatives who had a knowledge of the West India trade. Not only that, but the department was asked to have a conference with merchants and others who had been brought up in that trade and had been familiar with it from boyhood, having carried it on and been in close touch with it in some cases for forty or fifty years. But even this suggestion was not accepted, and, as I said before, the gentlemen composing that committee were wholly without practical knowledge of the West India trade.
I think that the treaty is faulty in many respects. When this matter was first brought up in the House last year by the then member for Cumberland, he painted a very glowing picture of the trade possibilities with the West Indies, running into millions indeed, I believe, almost hundreds of millions, of dollars' worth

Canada-West Indies Agreement
of trade which he thought might be done between Canada and our West India neighbours. As a matter of fact Canada to-day is receiving from the West Indian islands about all of their products that they can supply to this country; I am speaking now altogether of the eastern group of the West Indies, or what is generally known as the Windward islands group. Those islands produce four articles in quantity:	sugar, molasses, lime juice and
cocoa.
An hon. MEMBER; What about rum?


William Anderson Black: They do not produce very much rum. There is some rum coming from Demerara, but I may tell you that it is of rather an inferior quality. The four articles I have mentioned are the chief articles produced in those islands.
Taking first, sugar, Canada is now receiving from the West Indies all the sugar she requires. If she required more, the present subsidized steamship service is quite capable of carrying more freight, because on an average voyage of the steamers of the Royal Mail Steamship Company the cargo carried averages only from 65 to 67 per cent of the total carrying capacity. So that if more sugar is required in Canada from the West Indies, the tonnage is there to carry it; but it is not required.
Molasses is in the same position as sugar. We get from the eastern group of the West Indies all the molasses that Canada needs, and no increased service is going to increase that trade.
So far as cocoa is concerned, a few years ago, when I was looking around to increase our trade with the West Indies and increase the freight cargoes for our boats, I remember interviewing Cowan's, a large cocoa concern in Toronto, and urging them to get more of the West India cocoa for use in theii manufactures, and the reply I got-and the same thing applies I believe to Moir's of Halifax, a very large chocolate manufacturing concern there-was that in order to obtain the best quality of chocolate they had to mix the cocoa beans they got from the West Indies with the products of other countries, otherwise they would not get the best results. So I doubt very much if there can be any increase in the importation of cocoa, and even though there was a possibility of that, the quantity used in this country is very small indeed compared with the capacity of the steamers that even now are running on that route.
I do not think it is worth while spending very much time over lime juice, for the consumption is very small in this country. It
is certainly small in Nova Scotia, even undei prohibition. So I do not look forward to any great increase in our imports from the West Indies.
With regard to exports, we are to-day supplying the West Indies with all the chief articles which they require. Of flour, for instance, the eastern group take
9 p.m. from Canada about 98 per cent of their total flour requirements. They also take from this country the greatest proportion of their imports of mill feeds, although they do not keep very many horses or any other animals down there, and therefore the sale of these articles is not very great; but what they do take of flour and mill feeds they get very largely from Canada. The lumber they require is supplied chiefly from our provinces, and there can be no increased business in that article. Furthermore, lumber is an article which is carried at a low rate of freight on sailing vessels; it is not and will not be transported by steamer. The few sample lots of Douglas fir that have been sent to the West Indies have been favourably received, but of course there is no possibility of shipping that article from Atlantic ports.
In connection with this treaty it must be borne in mind that Great Britain is in precisely the same position as Canada with regard to the preference, and the articles which Great Britain at the present time is sending to the West Indies will continue to go there, I take it, under the same conditions that they would go if shipped to Canada, and these articles are largely those imported by Canada herself from Great Britain. In view of what I said, and perhaps I have not gone as fully into the matter as I should have, I do not see the possibility of any very great increased trade-^nothing to warrant the expensive steamers and the frequent sailings it is proposed to put on.
Cold storage is provided for in the treaty. There is not very much involved in that provision. I think the only islands that would make use of cold storage would be the larger ones, Barbados and Trinidad, and then Georgetown, Demerara, on the mainland. These islands and the mainland are farming countries. They have what they call their "penns"-in other words, farms-and they produce a great many of the products that might go out in cold storage. But on the return trip, I do not know what would be placed in cold storage, because the Windward islands and the mainland-the mainland especially-produce nothing but sugar and molasses. The islands are not adapted for the growing of fruit, and therefore there would be no fruit to fill that cold storage capacity. Even if there were

Canada-West Indies Agreement
cetera. Our manufactured goods come very largely from the United Kingdom, and the only article, as it appears to me, that we could encourage in trade with Canada by an increased preference, is the item of salted meats, which could be turned over to Canada, and would probably go over quicker if you got an increased preference. That is as far as I can see as far as Barbados is concerned.
What he says applies not only to Barbados but to all the islands of the West Indies and to Bermuda.
I do not know that I desire to say anything more at the present time in regard to this matter. As I said when I rose, I am not opposing any treaty or trade arrangements with any country from which treaty we shall derive a benefit, but I am strongly opposed to coupling up our steamship services with trade treaties. We have had experience enough, as I said before, with regard to the operation of steamers by government, and if this contract is taken on by the Canadian Government Merchant Marine the cost to this country will be a very serious matter.


Air. JAMES MALCOLM (North Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I had intended making a few general observations but they have been already referred to by some lion, members who have spoken, and I am going to coniine my remarks to some of the criticisms of the treaty made by the senior member for Halifax (Mr. Black). As one of his associates in framing this treaty, first of all I should like to pay tribute to the excellent work of the hon. member for Cumberland in the Iasi parliament who inspired the negotiations that took place between Canada and the sister colonies in the south. We have just heard it said that we cannot develop a business in fruit with the West Indies. That was the very thing that inspired Mr. Logan when he saw Canada importing practically 2,500,000 bunches of bananas, with only 700,000 bunches coming directly from the West Indies, the balance all coming through the United States. Fruit was one of the items in which he was most interested when he made his trip to the West Indies.
I should like to pay a tribute to the delegation which came here. W e found on meeting those gentlemen that they knew a good deal more about Canada than the Canadian delegates knew about the West Indies. For that reason I appreciate the remarks of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) when he says it is to be hoped that a better steamship service will induce many of us to travel to the 'West Indies for the winter instead of to Florida or California, and leam a little more about our sister dominions or sister 
colonies. If the steamboat service is good enough to induce Canadians to know the West India islands, I think it has in that respect alone served a very useful purpose.
I am rather interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Halifax when he infers that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) and the government did not know anything about what this service was to cost. It is quite true that you would not expect the Minister of Finance who intends to ask for tenders for this service to reveal to the agent of the West India Steam Packet Company who has just spoken, what he expects to pay them. The hon. member for Halifax is in the shipping business; his company has had contracts with governments of the past for this service. He knows that when his company got S131 ,400 per annum by way of subsidy we were doing only a very limited business with the West Indies, a business of imports of about $801,000 and of exports of $1,500,000 whereas the trade has grown to $14,000,000 of imports and $10,000,000 of exports. Any one who has seen the trade with the West Indies develop knows that we have built up in the last few years in one item alone, that of condensed milk, a business amounting to three-quarters of a million dollars. We have also built up a business in cheese, butter, cement and flour, the latter probably being the largest, but the fact remains that in many commodities, even our own fruits which they do not grow, such as apples, we have built up a substantial trade. The hon. member for Halifax and some business men in that city are objecting very strenuously to the cost of the service. As an Ontario business man I am prepared to pay my share of the cost of this service as a contribution to imperial unity, and I cannot see why a Halifax merchant who is going to receive a great deal more benefit than probably any Ontario man, should object if the rest of Canada including members like the hon. member for Argenteuil (Sir George Perley), the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen), the Prime Minister of Canada and others speak of the necessity of imperial trade and the desire if possible to further that trade.
I remember reading in the Toronto Saturday Night, a journal which is not noted for complimenting this government, shortly after the treaty was published, an editorial which said that critics of the King government would have a very difficult time to find fault with the West India treaty which had just been negotiated. I was thinking of that article to-night when I observed the laboured efforts of hon. gentlemen opposite to bring forward

Canada-West Indies Agreement
something against the treaty. I believe that when we go into committee and the agreement is considered item by item it will be very difficult indeed for hon. members to find very many flaws in it.


Mr. RYERSON:: Can the hon. member
tell us the number of bunches of bananas imported into Canada from the West Indies?


James Malcolm: About 700,000 direct.


Robert Edwy Ryerson: That is not my question. Of the total number imported into Canada how many are grown in the West Indies?


James Malcolm: That is not the point I
was making. What I am pointing out is that we import a total Of 2,500,000 bunches of bananas from the United States and elsewhere and that a very large proportion of them could be bought direct from the West Indies. Indeed, the delegates from Jamaica declare that they are able to take care of the Canadian banana trade if they have the proper steamship service. Given that they are prepared to develop a fruit trade with Canada which would meet all our requirements.
I prefer to discuss the subject further when the agreement is under consideration in committee, but at the moment I may be allowed this observation: the government was actuated by a desire to promote imperial trade, and I believe that the people are prepared to make a substantial contribution to that end. In this regard I would refer to the criticism which 'has been levelled at the Australian treaty, which is a trade agreement of exactly the same nature as this. That criticism has been eminently unfair. Hon. gentlemen opposite say that the Australian treaty will make it possible for ten million or twelve million pounds of butter to be imported into Canada, but they forget their own argument that the treaty was designed to benefit certain manufacturers. My hon. friends opposite have always contended on the hustings that in building up industry in the country you create a greater consumption for the farm products of the Canadian agriculturist, but critics of the treaty never say a word to the effect that the improvement in Canadian industry might well take care of all the additional buttei that could come from Australia. I do not see how hon. gentlemen can possibly criticize the Australian treaty on that score. In a country that produces 275,000,000 pounds of butter, roughly speaking, and exports 30,000,000 pounds, the home market cannot possibly be greatly affected by an importation of five, six, seven or eight million pounds of butter, especially in view of the fact that its industry
is benefited to such an extent as to consume very largely the excess imports.
The business men throughout Canada do not view with any degree of credit the opposition adverse criticisms of trade treaties that make business for the manufacturers of the country. I would point out to my Conservative friends opposite that their friends in industry -were anxious to see the Australian treaty put into effect, as I was myself, and we all looked forward to having a greater market among the dominions for the manufactured products of Canada. We hope that we shall be able to supply Australia and the West Indies with practically all their manufactured imports, thus taking away that business from the United States. If the treaties with Australia and the British West Indies which have been entered into by this government do not develop a greater manufacturing connection between those countries and Canada, I shall be very much surprised, for all the indications to-day are that they will. This treaty with the West Indies was made in good faith but the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Black) thinks that those who are interested in its negotiation do not know very much about business in the West Indies. I suppose that in order to know anything about West Indian or international business for that matter, one must live in Halifax. Let me tell the hon. member, however, that the Canadian members of the conference with the records of the Department of Trade and Commerce before them, and the advice of the various delegates from -the West Indies, who surely know their own business, did carefully study the possibilities of trade so that they were able to submit for the consideration of parliament an agreement -based on a -thorough investigation and a complete inquiry into all the details. Our hope is that the agreement will lead to further trade relations with the islands of the West Indies, to the advantage not only of the contracting parties, but of the empire as a whole.
Mr. ROBERT K. SMITH (Cumberland): It is not my purpose to discuss this subject at any length; I shall -be very brief. I want to say however, at the very outset, that during the last election we of the Maritime provinces were told that we must look overseas for -our markets, and I believe I am correct in attributing that statement to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). The same thing was said by other Liberals in the Maritime provinces during the campaign. Now, if this treaty is brought forward as a means of solving the difficulties of the Maritime provinces I must say that we in that

Canada-West Indies Agreement
part of the country seriously object to it on that ground as the only remedy which the government intends to apply to the evils that have existed since confederation and are now so oppressive in those provinces. I hope it will be clearly understood by every member of this House that, whether this treaty is ratified or not, it is not intended as a means of solving our many problems 'by providing markets beyond the seas.
Another statement was made on the floor of this House to-night by the Prime Minister, a statement which was not only a gross exaggeration but a 'base misrepresentation of the attitude of the present leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) towards the treaty with the West Indies as stated by him during the last election campaign. I understood the Prime Minister to say that the leader of the opposition in the campaign in the Maritime provinces condemned the West Indies treaty. I wish to say, speaking from firsthand knowledge, that this was not the case.
-Mr. MACKENZIE KING: Will my hon. friend allow me to interrupt him? He says that I have misrepresented the leader of -the opposition in this regard. I have in my hand at the moment a despatch that appeared in the Montreal Gazette and which I think I may quote as being -fair to my right hon. friend. It reads:
Meighen Warns Maritimes On New Trade Pact After Cursory Perusal He Says It Will Cost Millions (By Canadian Press)
Sussex, N.B., September 22.-Having obtained a copy of the West Indies treaty from the Prime Minister's train which passed through here early this afternoon, Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, Conservative leader, subsequently warned the people of the Maritime provinces not to be too optimistic about the new trade pact. "I have just made a cursory perusal of the treaty," Mr. Meighen told a large audience in the rink here, "and all I have to say is 'don't get too optimistic about it.' The features of most prominence in it are the bills. It will cost millions."
That is the extent to which the right h-on. gentleman dwelt upon the advantages of the treaty from an imperial point of view.


Mr. SMITH:: It makes no difference what the Montreal Gazette or any other newspaper says, although I do not object to what the Prime Minister has just read in this connection inasmuch as there is nothing in the quotation to show that the leader of the opposition condemned the treaty. But I can give the Prime Minister some firsthand information on the matter. I was present at a meeting in the town of Amherst at which the leader of the opposition had spoken, and after he had taken his seat someone in the galleries asked; "What about the West Indies treaty?" He had finished his speech at

that time, but he got up and said in effect: I am not in a position to take any definite stand on the West Indies treaty until I have studied it from begining to end; I am not in a position to condemn it, nor will I condemn it now, but I have heard from various sources that it will be an expensive experiment. I think that is pretty nearly quoting exactly what the right hon. leader of the opposition said in this regard. If that is "condemning" the West. Indies treaty, then I do not understand my leader's language as does the right hon. Prime Minister.
Not only that, Mr. Speaker, but it was not published in the press of the Maritime provinces during the campaign that the leader of the opposition was condemning the treaty. The trade agreement was signed, I believe, in July; the election followed very closely in October, so that the people had not very much time to study and investigate it. I was up against the problem in my own county of Cumberland, where Mr. Logan my opponent, who had been largely instrumental in bringing about this agreement, brought it before the electors. And what was our answer? That we were not in a position to condemn the treaty; t-hat we had not bad an opportunity of studying it; that it would have to come before both houses of parliament for ratification; and that upon the floors of parliament it would be ascertained whether it was of virtue or not. That is the position we took in Cumberland county, and I believe a similar position was taken in every other county in the Maritime provinces.
As has been mentioned by other members who have preceded me in this connection, the main objection to the treaty has been the cost o-f the steamship service. We would fall short in our duty as Canadians and as partners in the imperial federation if we condemned a trade treaty with another portion oif the empire which was to -be of some benefit to us. We consider that this treaty will be of some benefit to us. But taking the benefits on the one hand and the expenditures on the other, it should be our duty to endeavour to find out whether they balance or not. That was our stand then, it is our stand now. We all desire imperial trade. There can be no difference of opinion on that ground, -and there will not be, providing the benefits and expenditures at least equalize each other; but there will be a very serious opposition if they do not. When we go into committee and discuss the details of this agreement clause by clause, I hope to become thoroughly conversant with it. On the principle of beneficial

Canada-West Indies Agreement
trade arrangements, as I said before, there is no difference of opinion. The only question is whether for the money expended we are going to secure anything like commensurate results.
In closing. Mr. Speaker, let me repeat what I stated in my opening remarks, tihat we in the Maritime provinces will not feel that by the passing of this treaty, if it does pass, our problems have been solved by any means.


Mr. A. E. MacLEAN (Prince):: Mr. Speaker, coming as I do from the Maritime provinces, where this is looked upon as a very important treaty, I crave the indulgence of the House while I make a few observations upon it. In the first place, as has been already said, the treaty provides for an exchange of products between the two countries. The province of Prince Edward Island is altogether agricultural, and our products have to find an outlet somewhere; that is our difficulty at the present time. Our friends opposite have said in the course of various debates in this House that it was a good thing for the Maritime provinces that the reciprocity pact was defeated. Well, I may say that they will have a great deal of difficulty in making a Maritime audience believe their statement, and they will have still greater difficulty in convincing a Prince Edward Island audience, because as we cannot find a market for our farm products in the other portions of the Dominion beyond what we are able to dispose of in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, we are forced to send our surplus into the United States against an almost prohibitive duty.
Now, I am glad to see our friends of the opposition approving of this treaty to a certain extent. As fair-minded men from all parts of Canada, I think we ought to view the treaty as broadly as possible, and carefully look into its provisions in committee to see that no mistakes are made; but let us endeavour, if possible, to secure the advantages which this treaty will undoubtedly give us, because, as my good friend from Cumberland (Mr. Smith) has said, we have Maritime rights to be considered, and our friends of the opposition have been advocating Maritime rights. I should like hon. members to know that here, I am confident, is one of the things that is going to help us overcome some of our Maritime difficulties. If there is a Maritime right to be brought up in the House this session that is more important than this treaty, I should like hon. gentlemen in whatever quarter of the House they may sit to tell us what it is.
Various views have been expressed regarding the cost of the boats that will have to be subsidized, and on other questions. I notice that
under this agreement we are for the first time to get a substantial subsidy from the West India islands to help the steamship service that the Canadian government has been subsidizing. That subsidy amounts to $142,000 per year, according to the treaty. Hitherto Bermuda has never contributed anything towards the cost of this steamship service, but they did contribute some $121,000 annually to American steamships to encourage them to trade with the British West Indies. This departure alone is a very important feature. Therefore, I repeat, we should consider this treaty in a broadminded way. I have in my hand a clipping from the Montreal Gazette in which reference is made to Mr. T. B. Macaulay, of Montreal, as one of the gentlemen who was largely instrumental in the treaty negotiations. The Gazette also contains cables from the British West Indies to that gentleman suggesting that if possible the treaty should be put through in its entirety. One of these cables from the Jamaica Imperial Association reads as follows:
We strongly urge Canada-West Indies Trade Treaty should pass in entirety as any (modification would amount to new proposal and would necessitate entirf agreement being reconsidered by colonial legislatures which means delay and uncertainty.
I have here a number of telegrams along the same line from the different legislatures, which I shall not take time to read. As I have said, I think we should take up this treaty item by item and endeavour to put it through as nearly as possible in the form that was agreed upon by the delegates from the West Indies when they were here.
What are some of the benefits that will accrue to the Maritime provinces from this treaty? In the little province of Prince Edward Island alone we raised last year over $7,000,000 worth of potatoes, the bulk of them for export. Our friends of the opposition have taken exception to a statement in the Speech from the Throne and have said that the government was endeavouring to take to itself the credit that belonged to Providence for the splendid crops we had throughout Canada last year. That is all right, but I would like to point out to them that in our little province alone we could triple in one year our production of potatoes with the help of a kind Providence, if only we could find an outlet for that increased production. Instead of growing only $7,000,000 worth of potatoes for export, within two or three years we could grow $25,000,000 worth, if we could only find an outlet for that production. We hope that this agreement will give us an outlet for some of our surplus products,

Ca?iada-West Indies Agreement
especially seed potatoes. This year, instead of the people of Prince Edward Island being encouraged to increase their acreage and produce more potatoes, they are being advised by our papers at the present time not to overproduce, because if they do it is said they will have no outlet for their products and the result will be a slump in price, and the growers will lose money, instead of making a small profit. That is the campaign that is being carried on by our papers at the present time, all because of our restricted market. Now that is a very serious state of affairs, and if this agreement will do anything to encourage even that one industry alone, I think it should receive the support of every member of this House.
Take dairy products, for instance. Last year we manufactured over SI,150,000 worth of butter, and cheese. In those two articles also we have a very large surplus for which we must find an outlet, and although we have a good trade with Great Britain, especially in cheese and butter, there is a possibility of obtaining a better price in the West India market for part of our product, and the same as to fish and other products.
Mr. Hodgson, of the firm of Hodgson Brothers, Montreal, is quoted as follows in the Montreal Star of July 9, 1925, regarding this trade agreement:
Local exporters, particularly of dairy products, are elated at the terms detailed in the text of the new trade agreement between Canada and the West Indies. In this connection. A. J. Hodgson, president of the Montreal Butter and Cheese Export Association, made the following statement: "The new agreement should prove a great benefit to the country at large, and should promote an increase in the dairy business everywhere in Canada."
It is contended by our friends of the opposition that the Australian treaty may injure our dairy industry in Canada, but when the treaty has been tested I do not think that contention will be borne out by the facts. Taking the treaties as a whole that have been negotiated by tlhis government, I think our dairy industry will not suffer, but rather that the situation will be greatly improved.
My good friend from Cumberland (Mr. Smith), who preceded me, has referred to the fact that Mr. Logan was largely interested in putting this treaty through. We all know the splendid efforts that Mr. Logan made on behalf of this trade agreement, and we can read in Hansard the very elaborate details that he gave in respect to every 10 p.m. line of trade that is dealt with in the agreement that is now before the House. He showed the tremendous possibilities of increased trade between the

two countries, especially in the products we raise in the Maritime provinces. I noticed a very strange thing in the last campaign in the Maritime provinces, and that was that this agreement was not praised at all by our friends opposing us, but rather they threw cold water upon it, and declared it was something about which we should be very, very careful and not be too optimistic over. I have a quotation here from The Ottawa Journal in which the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) is quoted as saying:
There is not one dollar in the West India Trade agreement for the people of the Maritime provinces.
I hope he has not been misquoted again, but if he has, it is only one more of numerous instances of which we have heard this year. One of the strange features of the last cam-paijpL in the Maritime provinces was that the three premiers of the Maritime provinces went to the town of my good friend from Cumberland, the town of Amherst, in order to defeat Mr. Hance Logan, the gentleman who was primarily instrumental in having this trade agreement -brought before parliament. Those three gentlemen combined their efforts to defeat Mr. Logan. I am not saying that this trade agreement was the only matter that was discussed, but I do say that our friends should be consistent; but what do we find? Immediately after the Dominion election the government of Prince Edward Island took upon itself to send a trade commissioner of their own to the British West Indies, clothed with all the power the local government could give him, to negotiate for trade with these islands. Our friends should be -consistent, and instead of endeavouring to defeat the gentleman who was * instrumental in bringing this agreement into its present form, they and the Maritime provinces would have done very well to give Mr. Logan the credit he deserves. I admit, of course, that the constituency of Cumberland is at present represented in this House by a very capable gentleman, who will no doubt do his very best for his constituency and the Maritime provinces generally, but I did wish to pay this tribute to Mr. Hance Logan, because he put more effort into this trade agreement than any other man in this chamber or any other man in the Maritime provinces during the four years we were here in the last parliament. I do not think it is necessary for me to say anything further in regard to the treaty, except that I believe it will be of immense benefit to us in the province of Prince Edward Island, because the British West Indies can use a certain amount of every product we have to export. We wish this treaty to be given a fair trial, and if that is done, and we

Canada-West Indies Agreement
endeavour to develop our trade with the West Indies, I believe this agreement will redound to the benefit not only of our province but of the Dominion as a whole.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Speaker-


Air. THOMAS CANTLEY (Pictou):: Mr. Speaker-


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. member for
York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) has the floor.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Had it not been for the
fact that I have been on my feet more than once and have had to give way to other hon. gentlemen, I would have been glad to give way to my hon. friend from Pictou, who is very much my senior both in point of years and business experience.
I desire to make a few brief observations in regard to this trade agreement. In the first place I was much interested in the remarks of the hon. member for North Bruce (Mr. Malcolm) who spoke just a few moments ago. I am sorry he is not now in his seat, because I wanted to congratulate him upon the statement he made which I take to be a prelude to his introduction to this House as a possible Minister of Trade and Commerce in this dying government. Personally I have a very high opinion of the ability of the hon. member for North Bruce. He is a charming gentleman of considerable intellectual powers, a thorough protectionist in principle and in practice. I should like to say this for the benefit of our friends from Saskatchewan, that they will find him, as we have found him, very sound on the principles of protection especially with reference to the furniture business.


An hon. MEMBER:: A future minister.


Richard Burpee Hanson: A would-be future minister.
Now, I want to approach this treaty, and the general principles underlying it, with the utmost consideration. That was the viewpoint of my right hon. leader (Mr. Meighen) from the very inception of the negotiations which resulted in this agreement in the month of July last. I remember very well when the delegates from the British West Indies assembled in this city in the month of June last. I remember very well a public statement made by my right hon. leader, in or near the city of Ottawa, in the presence of these delegates and I believe in the presence of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) himself, when he told them publicly that his attitude towards this treaty would be one of the utmost sympathy, not so much because he considered that any great material advantage would result to this country, but be-uon-m
cause of the fact that it would tend to foster so-called inter-imperial trade. For that reason I have endeavoured myself to view the negotiations, and the treaty itself, with the utmost sympathy.
Speaking particularly from the standpoint of the Maritime provinces-and naturally we drift more or less into local considerations,- I do not look for any very great increase of trade as a result of this treaty. It must be borne in mind that the treaty is with the British West Indies, and not with the West Indies alone. The big thing from the standpoint of the Alaritime provinces, if we could get it, would be a trade treaty with Cuba, which has a big purchasing power and contains a big consuming population. Just in that connection let me say that while this treaty was negotiated and the agreement signed in the month of July last, the treaty itself has never been brought before parliament until this stage of the present session. Nevertheless, on the part of members then supporting the government, from the Prime Minister himself down-not excluding my good friend Mr. Logan, an enthusiast in this matter, and to whom I believe a meed of praise is due for his energy in bringing this matter before the public mind of Canada and before parliament-there was the obvious desire to make political kudos out of this matter. Before the treaty had ever been submitted to parliament we were told down in the Alaritime provinces that we were dependent upon export trade. The Prime Minister told the people of Amherst, if I recollect aright, that our whole salvation depended upon export trade. Well, I believe in export trade for the Maritime provinces, but I question very much the ability of that portion of Canada to grow and prosper on export trade merely to the British West Indies, with a consuming public whose purchasing power, I suppose, is the lowest of almost any people on the civilized globe except that of the wilds of Africa or the west coast of that continent. Take butter alone. It is said that we would develop a large increase in the products of the dairy industry. Let my hon. friends read the report of the government's own trade commissioner, and they will note that outside of an exclusive and very limited circle the only butter which is in demand is cooking butter, and I doubt if any business house in Canada will make any very great efforts to follow up that class of business.
Speaking in connection with the potato growing industry, which has been referred to by the hon. member for Prince (Mr. MacLean), let me say that we supply the island



Canada-West Indies Agreement
of Bermuda with seed potatoes. There they grow their own potatoes, and they grow them not only for local consumption but for export. The earliest potatoes that appear on the New York market are Bermuda potatoes. Bermuda is exporting .them to that market to-day, and the only .potatoes imported into the island are seed potatoes. The people there do not grow seed potatoes themselves; they have to renew their seed every year, and the same is true of other West India islands. To-day we supply practically one hundred per cent of their demands. I should like to point out this though-that gentlemen supporting the government in the last campaign told the people in the Maritime provinces, the .people of New Brunswick-and I understood from an hon. member of this House that candidates representing the government told the people of Prince Edward Island-that as a result of this treaty Canada would have a preference in the Cuban market; they failed to lay emphasis on the fact that this was an agreement purely with a very limited population in the British West Indies as against the population of the whole of the West Indies, which has a very large buying power. As I said before, the big thing from the standpoint of the West Indies for the Maritime provinces would be a trade treaty with Cuba, but under present political conditions in that country that is impossible; that trade seems to have been coralled by our friends to the south.
But I do view with a very considerable degree of sympathy the making of a trade agreement such as this. I intend to vote for the .treaty unless it is made apparent that the cost in dollars and cents to the Canadian treasury is too great.	On that point we
have not been vouchsafed a tittle of information by the Minister of Finance to-night; he takes refuge behind the fact that he is now calling for tenders for the West India service. While that temporarily may be a good reason, I should like to say here that before the minister asks this House to ratify this treaty, before the imprimatur of our two houses of parliament is put upon this agreement, he should tell what we shall have to pay in dollars and cents. There is no question that the loss of revenue from sugar, and one or two other items, will represent a bill of a million dollars per annum. As was stated by my hon. friend from Halifax (Mr Black) I doubt very much whether the Canadian consumer of sugar will benefit to the extent of a farthing from that reduction in duty. Nevertheless it may be that we should be willing to assume the responsibility of 
that loss of revenue and the shifting of the burden of taxation to something else in order to foster trade treaties of this character.
There is a further objection to this treaty, and that is that it is linking up with what is purely a trade arrangement, a proposition for a steamship service. I do not want to enter into any detail.


James Alexander Robb: Is there not the same objection to the treaty that already exists? [DOT]


Richard Burpee Hanson: I quite agree that in the trade treaty that already exists there was an undertaking to carry on steamship communication. But the service that is now agreed upon, as compared with that which has previously been carried out, is so great and so extensive that I doubt very much whether the government will be able, without the expenditure of several million dollars per annum, to induce any steamship company to carry on these operations, and I very much fear that as a result of the commitment of the government in this connection we shall be in the steamship business, operating between Canada and the British West Indies, before this matter is concluded. I warn the government that they ought not to do that. If there has been no complaint on the part of the British West Indies-and we have heard of none; at least the Finance minister has not taken us into his confidence to that extent-as to the character of the sendee in the previous year, and if the cost of the new proposed service is as large as some of us anticipate, I think there ought to be a modification of this particular part of the agreement.
I should not like to see the government and the country too optimistic about the benefits that may accrue to us from the West Indies trade agreement, especially those of us in the Maritime provinces. There are about three things we can export from New Brunswick to the West Indies: lumber, certain agricultural products, and possibly certain dairy products. Lumber now goes along well established routes by sailing schooners, so that it is not affected, and the treaty will be of no benefit in that respect. The amount of lumber that will be shipped to the British West Indies as a result of the agreement will never have any appreciable effect upon the lumber trade.
With respect to potatoes, we have the trade now in the Maritime provinces, and this treaty will be of no particular benefit to us. I venture the assertion that it will not increase the production of potatoes by 1,000 bushels per annum.
I should like to reserve whatever other remarks I desire to make in respect to this

Canada-West Indies Agreement
matter until we get into committee, with this statement, that the government should not have attempted during the last election to take to itself the kudos for entering into a trade agreement which, from the statements of its very sponsors, was supposed to have been kept out of the sphere of party politics, and for that the government and the Prime Minister himself are to be condemned.


Willis Keith Baldwin: Does the hon. member not know that great quantities of fish are shipped from St. John, New Brunswick to the West Indies?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I understand that that business is carried on through New York. If the hon. gentleman will consult the records of the Department of Trade and Commerce he will see that the people who import fish in the British West Indies buy only the meanest kind of fish. They buy dried hake, a kind of fish that neither my hon. friend nor any other self-respecting man would eat.


Mr. J. E. ARMSTRONG (East Lambton):: I am just as anxious as any other member of this House to develop trade within the British Empire, but I certainly do not wish to see that trade develop at the expense of industries in our own Dominion. I call attention of hon. members to the fact that this treaty will vitally affect one very important industry in my riding. Farmers living in western Ontario have a sugar beet industry of tremendous importance. Tens of thousands of acres of sugar beets are grown in that part of the province, valued at millions of dollars, and the profits to a considerable extent go back into the pockets of the farmers. It is a basic industry in that part of the country. In two sugar refineries alone, in Wallaceburg and in Chatham, at least $5,000,000 have been invested. In the town of Petrolia, where I live, we made an attempt a few years ago to build a sugar refinery. We are in the heart of the sugar beet industry, and that industry was being developed to an enormous extent prior to the action taken by this government in 1923. You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that this government then reduced the duty on sugar one-half cent per pound. The very day after the duty was lowered the refineries in Walliaceburg and Chatham reduced the price of sugar beets to the farmers of that whole countryside fifty cents per ton. That might not have amounted to very much when sugar beets were selling at $8 or $10 a ton, but at the present prices of $5 or $6 a ton you can appreciate the fact that fifty 14011-1111
cents a ton is a very important consideration to the farmers of that country.
We had an organization of sugar beet growers in that district with over 4,000 members. Just about that time these men conceived the idea that the proper way for them to develop the industry was to build a sugar refinery in Petrolia. To that end they gathered together over $300,000, and they have already spent that amount on the sugar refinery, believing that they were going to receive fair consideration 'from this government. But the duty on refined sugar having been reduced by one-half cent per pound, what was the outcolme? Hon. gentlemen must recognize the fact that you cannot build a sugar refinery without spending nearly a million dollars. These men were carrying on a campaign for funds to develop the sugar refinery, but when the price of sugar beets was reduced it made it impossible for them to obtain capital and all their efforts went for nothing. The result is that buildings stand on those grounds to-day with the rafters up and without roofs-a monument to the folly of this government and the way they have conducted the affairs of this country.
(Mr. ROBB:	What is the use of my hon.
friend talking such nonsense, when we have before us applications from the sugar beet people of Alberta to let in more men for the additional labour required in that province for the sugar beet business?


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: We have heard all this wonderful story before. We heard from the Minister of the Interior something about the building of a sugar refinery in Alberta but that was only built within the last year.


Arthur Meighen: Just started.


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: Just
started. Those gentlemen do not realize what they are up against. People living in Ontario, with the finest sugar beet growing land in the world, are surely able to compete with our good friends in Alberta, The position in which the farmers of that whole countryside are placed is not only a humiliating, but a very difficult one owing to the price of raw sugar coming in from the West Indies being reduced. La3t year $17,000,000 worth came in from the West Indies and $26,000,000 worth from Australia. The government have reduced the duty on that article coming from Australia and now in the same way we are going to reduce the duty on these products coming from the West Indies. Yet we find bon. members to-night who will stand up and defend this treaty in all respects. We

Canada-West Indies Agreement
who live in the sugar beet area appreciate to the full that the time has come when our industry should receive some consideration at the hands of this government. It is an important industry in fact, a basic industry of this country, and although hon. gentlemen opposite in their platform boast of protecting the basic industries of Canada, this is one that surely the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) himself must see the wisdom of at least not undermining with all these different treaties.
I wonder whether the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) and those who assisted Iiim in framing this treaty took into consideration the fact that this enormous industry is in its infancy in western Ontario. We are producing to-day only about ten per cent of the raw sugar that is consumed in Canada but why not give this industry an opportunity to develop? Why undermine it and flood this country with raw sugar from all parts of the world to compete with our own product? We heard the hon. member for North Bruce (Mr. Malcolm) a few minutes ago say: that this treaty is going to be an excellent thing for the manufacturers of fhis countiy and we ought to be prepared to make some concessions. But I notice the concessions that these gentlemen make in connection with these treaties are largely undermining the basic industry of this country, agriculture, and I for one will certainly raise my voice in protest against that particular part of the treaty.
I have tried to-night to secure a copy of this treaty from the distribution office and 3 am informed that the only copies there are printed in French. I would think in an important matter of this Lind-


James Alexander Robb: Just a moment. I discovered from the officers of the department a few days ago that there were four hundred copies of this treaty printed in English and none ir. French, and I gave orders that the French edition should be printed immediately. They are now in the distribution office.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I sent twice to get copies and they were refused.


James Alexander Robb: They should be in the distribution office.


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: About
two hours ago I called for a page and the chap who came to me first was rather small in stature. I asked-


James Alexander Robb: I am just told by the Clerk that 250 copies have been distributed from the distribution office to members of the House.
I Mr. J. E. Armstrong.]
An. hon. MEMBER: When?


James Alexander Robb: I do not know.


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: An important treaty such as this should be in the hands of the members.


James Alexander Robb: Certainly.


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: I am surprised; I know the Minister of Finance, if he had thought of the matter, would have had them distributed.


James Alexander Robb: But he did think of it and he did have them distributed.


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: The fault is not mine, because I made an effort at least to obtain a copy.
I honestly hope that when we come to deal with the clauses of this treaty, every consideration will be given to the industry to which I have called attention to-night. I know my people feel that they have had that industry seriously interfered with in 1923, and now on top of that we are to have another treaty opening the door and letting in this raw material from other countries with cheap labour and cheap transportation. Surely the time has come when we as a people should appreciate the fact that the industries of our country and not the industries of other countries, even if they are part of the British Empire, are our first charge.


Thomas Cantley: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention at this time to deal at any length with the commercial phases of this question. That I think has been better dealt with by the senior member for Halifax (Mr. Black) and some others who are better acquainted with that phase of the situation, than I am. The minister has referred to the character of the steamer service supplied the West Indies by Canada under the recent treaty and' he has stated that that service has not been satisfactory. That statement is well within the mark. The service was certainly not satisfactory to the people of the West Indies nor to the people who took advantage of it and travelled by it. That service was operating at one time with four and later three discarded boats of the Royal Mail service boats, which had formerly been employed in the South American trade and were out of date, foul smelling and lacking in accommodation. The proposal now, as I understand it, is that we should embark upon three different services at a cost for new vessels of probably between five and six million dollars. The senior member for Halifax has referred to the loss that is likely to ensue from the operation of these vessels and his

Canada-West Indies Agreement
estimate in that connection, is, I think, pretty close to the mark.
I wish particularly to call the attention of the House to the proposal to put on freight vessels to compete with private enterprises in the Maritime provinces and elsewhere. We have had quite enough of that in the last few years without embarking on any more of that particular kind of business. It is not fair that the government of this country should compete with private enterprise in matters of that kind. We have to-day a number of merchant marine vessels tied up in the port of Halifax and elsewhere eating their heads off, and if they could' be sold at even the prices obtained for boats that have been disposed of during the past two years, it would be good business for us to get rid of them.
One phase of the question seems to have some possibilities of merit. I refer to boats which, if of the character I have in mind, would capture the winter tourist trade of this country now running into enormous figures, and which trade is benefiting our friends of the [DOT] United States, especially California and Florida. Thousands and tens of thousands of Canadians are every winter travelling to those two states and spending anywhere from $30,000,000 to $100,000,000 annually in a foreign country. If we want to aid our compatriots of British origin in the West Indies, we should turn that trade their way instead of to California and Florida. I believe we could' do it to the advantage not only of the West Indies but of Canada as well. I would suggest putting on a fast service of 12 or 14-knot boats making weekly trips from the ports of St. John and Halifax alternately to the West Indies. Also run from Winnipeg weekly a special West Indies winter tourist train. That train could leave Winnipeg on Friday, running through Toronto and Montreal, get into Halifax or St. John on Sunday, and connect with those boats. This fast tourist train could thus collect tourists from Winnipeg and all the way down east to Halifax, destined for various West India islands, to the mutual advantage of Canada and that portion of the empire, for it would be a means of consolidating at least these two sections of the British commonwealth. The people of the British West Indies are just as British as we are. and I know of no better method than that I have just suggested of promoting good relations and a wider common understanding between us.
That brings me to another consideration. I have on a previous occasion spoken of Maritime rights, and while I will not dwell upon the subject to-night, I want to drop
a hint. It is sometimes said that if thf Maritime provinces letft the confederation they could do nothing by themselves. Well, perhaps they could not, and perhaps they could. I would remind the House, that the population of the three Maritime provinces combined totals about a million, and in any quarrel that might arise as a result of any dislocation in conditions in that part of the country, as they have existed since the first days of confederation, the three provinces would act together. I would ask hon. members this question: how has Newfoundland got along? That island has not been a part of the Canadian confederation, but is it not prosperous? Are the people of Newfoundland bankrupt? Have they made no progress? I will never admit for a moment that the people of the Maritime provinces could not get along alone and without assistance, but in conjunction with the island of Newfoundland could not the Maritimes make a treaty with the West Indies or with the United States, if to their advantage? At least, we would get along as well as we have during the last twenty years. I am not a secessionist and I hope I shall never have reason to be one; but whether I am one or not will depend altogether on t'he nature of the treatment accorded my part of the country by the other members of the confederation in the immediate future.


Mr. THOMAS McMILLAN (South Huron):: We are certainly living in a wonderful age, an age of conversion. We hear gentlemen getting up and telling us that they are absolutely opposed to the government going into business in competition with private interests and more particularly in the steamship enterprise. Yet when they were in power themselves they were so anxious to get into that business that they expended $75,000,000 in steamships, paying as high as $190 per ton at a time when the British government was offering for sale its own vessels at a price in the neighbourhood of $45. Let hon. gentlemen consider what their friends did when they were in office, and let them offer some justification for that conduct.
Not only are we living in an age of conversion, we are living in an age of discovery. It may be surprising to you, Mr. Speaker, as it is no doubt interesting to the young members in this section of the House, to know that we have discovered in this parliament so many new-found champions of the interests of the farmers. One of those champions has just taken his seat in the person of the hon. member for East Lambton (Mr. Armstrong).

Canada-West Indies Agreement


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: I refute
that statement. I am no new-found champion of the farmers' interests. I represent a municipality in which there are a large number of farmers-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Thomas McMillan: I leave it to the judgment of the House whether the hon. member has not shown 'himself to-night a champion of the farmers' interests. Is he not championing the interests of the farmers of Ontario in favouring protection?
Mr. ARMSTRONG (Lambton). Yes, and I am prou4 of it.


Thomas McMillan: I am living in the centre of a sugar beet district where the people have been growing beets for years, and this is the first time I have ever heard the suggestion that the government of this country did wrong when they reduced the tariff on raw material of sugar as they did a few years ago. We farmers are neither narrow nor circumscribed in our opinions. Let me tell the House that the agricultural production of this country as a whole amounted in 1923 to $1,342,000,000, of which we exported over [DOT]'$543,000,000 worth. The farmers know that, ..and they also know that in order to dispose [DOT]of their products they must export a very Harge proportion of them. They know, further, that the price obtainable for that exportable surplus regulates the price obtained at home. In view of all these facts the most superficial observer ought to realize that a 100 per cent duty would not increase the price of a domestic product at home. We must look at these questions from a national and not from any sectional point of view. Surely everyone knows that when there is a large exportable surplus a high duty cannot possibly have the effect of increasing the home price of that product. The farmers have therefore, come to realize as a class that the arguments adduced by our friends on the opposite side, for the purpose of proving that a high tariff on agricultural products will benefit them, are simply a blind, and the plea for higher duties on vegetables and small fruits is merely a lure to commit the Canadian farmer to a policy of sky-high protection in order to benefit some other class. Arguments such as these are only sectional, and no government which is worthy of the name should consider any public question from such a point of view. The government must take into account the interests of the nation as a whole, and that is the standpoint from which the farmers of Canada do,

as a rule, view public questions. From that broad national point of view we realize that a system of high protection would be the worst policy which could be adopted in this Dominion.
Can hon. gentlemen opposite quote one manufacturer in this country who is a protectionist in the sense of wanting the government to impose high duties on the raw products which he requires for his own industry? Is there anyone in Canada who in that sense of the word is a protectionist? No. They all want to get everything they need for their own industries at the lowest possible prices obtainable, and quite reasonably so. But they are human, intensely human, when it comes to selling their goods. When they have anything to sell they are like the rest of us: they want the highest prices they can possibly get, even to the point of having the government jack up the tariff to such a degree as will keep out of this country foreign products similar to their own and in that way have the Canadian people at their mercy. That, Mr. Speaker, is the policy of hon. gentlemen opposite, that is high protection with a vengeance, Tory protection "as high as Haman's gallows." That is what we on this side of the House protest against.
And let me say this in conclusion, Sir. lit is for these reasons that I should like to see carved in bold, outstanding letters above the head of every prime minister in Canada a message that all comers for government favours could not possibly miss seeing and understanding, namely: Efficiency in business is attained by men who rely upon themselves and the ingenuity of their own resources rather than on government favours. We on this side of the House who represent a great section of the Dominion believe that our people have as good brains as the people of any other country. This being so, all we want in every line of endeavour is a fair field and no favour. Then we can meet the competition of the world.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Duff in the chair.


The CHAIRMAN:: Is it the pleasure of the committee that the resolution be considered clause by clause, or debated as a whole?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Chairman, an hour
or two ago I asked the Prime Minister if we might consider some of the clauses in the treaty when this resolution was in committee, and I understood him to say that that would be in order.

Canada-West Indies Agreement


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, that is
right.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Then I have one or two
questions to address to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) in connection with this matter. If he will turn to page 10, schedule A of the treaty itself, he will find at about the middle of the page this proviso to which I wish to draw his attention:
Provided that nothing herein contained shall prevent, the government of Canada from changing the rates of duty, provided the preferences granted herein are maintained.
I call his attention particularly to those last seven words, "provided the preferences granted herein are maintained." Now, one of the "preferences granted herein" is on sugar of one cent a pound. The effect of these words will be to render it impossible for parliament to reduce the duty on sugar below one cent a pound. I am not advocating for the moment that the duty should be so reduced, but I am pointing out that this form of preference, which is a specific preference rather than a percentage preference, ties the hands of parliament so that there can be no reduction below the amount fixed in this schedule; or to give effect to the treaty, Canada would be compelled to grant a bonus to the West Indies. Let me put it in a little different way. If Canada, for instance, reduced the general tariff to three-quarters of a cent a pound, we would be compelled then to pay to the West Indies a quarter of a cent a pound on all the sugar we bought from them in order to carry out the terms of the clause. That is the first point I wish to bring to the attention of the minister, and to suggest, if it is too late to do it in this treaty, that in future treaties we should deal with percentage preferences rather than specific amounts.
My next point is that the benefits of this treaty may accrue as far as sugar is concerned -which perhaps is the most important in it- to the refineries on the eastern coast; they do not apply to the refinery on the western coast, which is a very large institution and supplies a considerable section of the western part of Canada-I refer to the refinery in Vancouver, B.C.-for this reason, it is exceedingly difficult, if not almost wholly impracticable, to get cargoes of sugar from that portion of the West Indies affected by this treaty, we having no steamship lines established to the Pacific coast that will call and pick up these parcels of sugar. The minister has already received some considerable correspondence on this subject, I think. I wish to suggest, not merely with the desire of extending the application of
low duties-that is not for the moment what I am speaking on,-but in order to be equitable and fair that the refinery on the Pacific coast and the people buying sugar from that refinery ought to have the privilege of securing their raw materials just as cheaply as the refineries on the eastern coast. This could be done, I think, if sugars from the Fiji Islands were admitted on the same preferential basis as cane sugars from the West Indies under this treaty. I would ask the minister: What has been the result of his investigation and thought over this question during the last few months? He will recall that I communicated with him I think on January 16, and that he had some other communications prior to that date. If the minister could tell me what has been the result of his pondering over this problem for some months, I think it would be of some ad-van lEgc.


James Alexander Robb: Regarding the first point
brought up by my hon. friend, if the price of refined sugar dropped very low, there might be something in his contention, but it would have to come down very low. The preference provided under this agreement differs very materially from the preference which the government of the United Kingdom gives to the West Indies and to the British possessions producing sugar.
Regarding his second point as to the disadvantage, or rather, let us put it the other way, the advantage the eastern refiners have over the refiners on the Pacific coast, the government recognized that feature, and we are under commitment to extend to Australia, and this was done particularly to help out the sugar refiners on the Pacific coast, the advantages contained in the West India agreement when that agreement comes into force.
As regards the Fiji Islands, there is a considerable trade there. When I went to school we were taught to believe that the Fiji islanders were not very great producers, although it was said they did have a liking for the producer. There is a considerable trade developing in the islands, a trade of great importance. The capital of the Fiji Islands, Suva, is quite a good town and a growing town. They have a government house there that compares very favourably with the government houses of most of the provinces in Canada. If the colonial government of the Fiji Islands were prepared to make some additional concessions to Canada, I think we might very reasonably consider the observations made by my hon. friend to-night. But does he think with me that it is wise to see what kind of a trade we can make with the
1756	COMMONS
Canada-West Indies Agreement
Fiji Islands additional to the preference we now have?
We have had a pretty lengthy discussion, Mr. Chairman, of this resolution. Suppose we now let it have its first reading, or pass all the stages so that I may introduce the bill, which will give hon. gentlemen an opportunity of seeing it in detail. Then we can hold the bill over for a considerable time to give them an opportunity of studying it. I am just suggesting that, not pressing it at all. My hon. friend from Lambton had some difficulty in securing the information he desired, although I have been told that instructions were given this week to mail a copy of the agreement to every member of the House. It is just possible that among all the material that is sent to members, some may not have noted the agreement; but those were the instructions given.


Arthur Meighen: When were they given?


James Alexander Robb: I think copies were mailed to members on Wednesday.


Arthur Meighen: Members have not got them.


James Alexander Robb: Some of them have.


Robert James Manion: I just inquired now at the distribution office, and they told me that they had received only enough copies for the members, and some may have gone astray in the mail. I think a further supply should be brought downstairs.


James Alexander Robb: I will see that that is done, but what my hon. friend has said confirms exactly what I said. I tabled the agreement here purposely one day this week so that the copies of the agreement might be released and mailed. I repeat, I am prepared to stay here and answer all questions, but as it is now eleven o'clock I think we might pass the first reading.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I was going to say that we might very well stop now, but before doing so, it might avoid delay if we were to point out one or two things to the minister, so that he would be in a position to deal with them when this matter comes up again. In connection with sugar, which is, of course, a very important question, as my hon. friend knows very well, what is he defining now as the degree of polarization? I really forget the commercial degree of polarization-


James Alexander Robb: There are no changes whatever in that respect.


Henry Lumley Drayton: We have a long list of polarizations running all the way from very, very Iqw averages up to 100 per cent.
[Mr. Robb.)


James Alexander Robb: From 82, S3 to 97, 98.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is my own recollection. I want to point out this to my hon. friend: If in the ordinary conduct of commerce we are bringing in sugars for the purpose of refining them here, running to these degrees, there is a fairly substantial preference -I am not complaining about it at all-but the preference is substantial. When we get to 97, there is a preference w'hich is plus one cent. Then it works down to half a cent. At 96 we have exactly one cent a pound. I wonder if my hon. Mend will agree with me in this, that as the price to the
11 p.m. farmer of sugar beats in Canada is regulated having regard to the market for raws, and also having regard to sugar content, then on the ordinary basis of sugar beat production in western Canada a reduction in the duty, and therefore a reduction in the price of raws-I admit the reduction does not go to the producer, but to the refiner-automatically results in a reduction in exactly the same proportion to the beet grower. Does he agree with me, for example, that when his predecessor took his half cent a pound off raws, there was a reduction to the Ontario producer of sugar beets of 50 cents a ton? If he does not, I would like him to look into it, because it is certainly something which we ought to have no dispute about one way or the other. If I am right in this, and I think I am, the reduction in duty worked by this preference of a cent a pound will result in a reduction to the farmer on every load that he carries to the refinery of one dollar a ton. I think my hon. friend will find that is right. Mr. Chairman, I am not for one minute trying to press this unfairly or beyond where it should go. I know it affects only a comparatively small percentage of the raw sugars coming to this country; that we get most of our raw sugars from other sources, largely from Cuba. But has my hon. friend considered at all what effect that would have upon the price of sugar beets, and to what extent that will be common?
There is another thing to which I also wish to draw his attention, and that is in connection with the confectionery business. We get our cocoas very largely from British South Africa


James Alexander Robb: From the west coast.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes. Those
cocoas are comparatively cheap, much cheaper than the Trinidad cocoa. I understand that the cocoa question is a very live question for Trinidad, and that they have been asking for the specific concession which they have here. I have been advised by those in the manu-

Canada-West Indies Agreement
facturing business that they can use in their mix only a certain percentage of the Trinidad cocoa, and that no more Trinidad cocoa will be bought at all as a result of this preference, because this preference, although it is relatively good, would still leave the Trinidad cocoas considerably more expensive than the African cocoas, and the manufacturers would still have to have for the purpose of their mix the cheaper cocoas of Africa. That will mean additional taxation to the Canadian manufacturer on the raw material which he will still have to continue to import from Africa. I have no doubt the question has been brought to my hon. friend's attention. I am told that that will make a considerable difference; that it will make it impossible for manufacturers here to continue manufacturing the sweets which are sold in bars, the package sweets with a chocolate content; that they can be produced no longer for five cents, and that the effect will also be to raise the cost of manufacturing here. It is urged that some attention ought to be paid in the general tariff schedules to our production of confectionery of this kind. I just bring these points to the attention of my hon. friend. I do not ask him to deal with them to-night.


James Alexander Robb: I will have the points advanced by my hon. friend looked into. I admit with him at once the amount of preference that was given on the raw sugar, and I will confess to the House that we have sometimes wondered whether the government should not have given a little more attention to the urgent requests of the delegates from the British We^t Indies with regard to polarization in order to allow in some of their grades. Still I think we 'have used the sugar refiners of this country pretty well. They are doing fairly well, and-


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend does not get my point.


James Alexander Robb: I know well what my hon.
friend has in mind.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am speaking of the producer, not of the sugar refiner.


James Alexander Robb: Allusion was made a few
moments ago to the increased importations of raw sugar. It is quite true. The importations of raw sugar during the last two years were greatly in excess of previous years, but exportations were also far in excess of previous years. I tried to get the figures, but as I recall them the sugar refiners of Canada have had their best year and have done their largest export business.
As regards the other point of my hon. friend in relation to cocoa, it is true that
representations have been made to us. The conditions are these: When the delegates from the West Indies were here they said: "If we are to give the people of Canada a preference in our markets for their products, is it not reasonable that they should only give a preference to those countries that give them a preference?" They said that the west coast of Africa gave no preference to Canada, and they cannot do so for a certain period of years because of an agreement entered into with, I think, France. We thought that was fairly good reasoning; at least that was my opinion. Sometimes I agree with my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition and in considering that matter on the 2nd of June last-he will recall that we had this conference on that date-I heard the right hon. gentleman use these words:
I do not see any roason wliy wc suoulu conlniue to give preference to anybody unless we get preference in
return	My principle is, give advantage for
advantage, but do not give it without.
Well, that is the policy that we followed in taking away the concessions from the west coast of Africa, which does not give us any preference. We do give a preference to Trinidad, which buys our butter, our cheese, our condensed milk, our fish, and whatever products we have to sell.


William Duff: Shall the resolution
carry?


Arthur Meighen: The government does
not expect to get the resolution through tonight?


James Alexander Robb: I will not press that, but I should like to have introduced the bill.


Arthur Meighen: If the resolution goes
through the committee it is through; that is ail there is to it.


James Alexander Robb: I will table the bill. I will not press the matter if my right hon. friend objects.	-


Arthur Meighen: WTe do not want the resolution to go through in detail until we understand all about it.


James Alexander Robb: Very well, I will move that the committee rise and report progress.
Progress reported.



ADJOURNMENT-BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
Mr. MACKENZIE KING moved the adjournment of the House.
Arthur Meighen: Has the government any information as to what private business will be taken up on Monday?
175S
Privilege-Mr. Pouliot


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have been informed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) that he will be prepared to go on with his resolution.


Arthur Meighen: He has two.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The first one that appears under Notices of Motion.


Arthur Meighen: That is the very first
one?	.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, the very first one. I may also tell my right hon friend that the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote), who has a resolution for a reduction in the customs tariff on automobiles and motor trucks, will be ready to proceed. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Millar) is also ready to go on with his resolution relating to making protein tests in the research laboratory at Winnipeg. These are the only three resolutions, so far as I have learned, that are likely to be proceeded with.


Arthur Meighen: I assume the government feels then that all reason for postponing discussion on the subject matter of the first resolution referred to is now past?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, I think so.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 11.10 p.m.
Monday, March 22, 1926