1930-03-26

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES

[Stage Direction]
First report of the select standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.- Mr Young (Saskatoon) for Mr. Cahill.
Second report of the select standing committee on banking and commerce.-Mr. Hay.
[Stage Direction]


Divorce Court for Ontario


[Stage Direction]
On the order for motions:
Hon. H. H. STEVENS (VancouverCentre):: Mr. Speaker, just before the house closed last night, I made a brief explanation as to an error in the recording of the vote, and I have found since that it will be necessary for me to make a motion in order to correct the record.
Mr. McliNTOSH: A complicated situation.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Very complicated. I desire to move:
That the Clerk of the House be instructed to strike out the name of Mr. Chaplin and that of Mr. Stevens from the "yeas" in the vote taken on the 25th March, instant, as recorded in the votes and proceedings, on the motion of Mr. McMillan in amendment to the second reading of Bill No. 20, an act to provide in the province of Ontario for the dissolution and annulment of marriage.
I do not suppose any further word of explanation is required. This occurred through a lack of proper attention to the vote being taken.


Mr. SPEAKER:: We have no standing
order covering this particular situation. But the following appears in Bourinot at page 382: If a member who has heard the question put in the Commons should vote inadvertently, contrary to his intention, he cannot be allowed to correct the mistake, but his vote must remain as first recorded.
By our standing order 1 the rales of the British House of Commons are followed when there is no special standing order of this house to govern a particular case. The British parliament has allowed the correction of a vote, and this point is covered by Campion, the latest authority, at page 156, who says:
It also occasionally happens that a member in the course of a division finds himself voting in the wrong lobby. If he defers raising the matter until after the division, the inference from the precedents is that his request for the correction of his error will be refused. If, on the other hand, he proceeds to vote in the other lobby as well, there are precedents in favour of the rectification of the division list at his request, made at a later opportunity on the same day or even on a subsequent day.
Therefore, the motion would appear to be in order. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

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

Mr. SHORT:: 1.	How many horses were owned by the Dominion government at the Sorel shipyards in the calendar years 1926, 1927, 1928 and 1929?
2.	How many horses were actually owned by the Dominion government at the Sorel shipyards on the first of February, 1930?
3.	How many tons of bay and how many bushels of oats were bought yearly for the government shipyards at Sorel. in the calendar years 1926, 1927, 1928 and 1929?
4.	What is the total amount paid for hay and oats by the government, for the Sorel shipyards, during the calendar years 1926, 1927, 1928 and 1929?


Mr. LAPOINTE (for Mr. Cardin):: 1.	1926, five owned and five hired; 1927, five owned and five hired; 1928, four owned and five hired; 1929, three owned and five hired.
2.	Three.
	Hay	Oats
	tons lbs.	bushels
1926.. ..	.. 42 1358	1349-14/361927.. ..	.. 32 605	596-13/361928.. ..	.. 99 98	1936-29/361929.. ..	.. 46 320	1381-16/36Hay	Oats1926.. ..	.. ..$ 568 97	$ 858 131927..* ..	.... 407 70	409 131928.. ..	.... 1,322 74	1.604 361929.. ..	.. .. 630 17	1,054 35$2,929 58	$3,925 97


FOREIGN COAL-PIER 9, HALIFAX
Mr. CANTLEY:: From what country in Europe and from what port in said country was the foreign coal shipped which was stored on pier 9, Halifax, during calendar year 1929?


Mr. LAPOINTE (for Mr. Cardin):: I regret that the fourth part of the answer given to the hon. gentleman's question on page 544 of unrevised Hansard is not correct. I am now informed by the Halifax hahbour commissioners that the countries of origin of the coal should be "Canada and United States", and that the coal which came from the United States was shipped from Norfolk, Virginia.


VICTORIA MARINE AGENCY-NIGHT WATCHMAN
Mr. NEILL:: 1.	Is there a night watchman employed at the marine agency in Victoria, B.C?
2.	If so, what is his name, date of employment, and salary?
3.	How many hours a day does he w;ork in the twenty-four?
4.	How many nights a week does he work?
5.	Is he on duty on Sunday night of each week? If so, what is the necessity therefor?

Questions


Mr. LAPOINTE (for Mr. Cardin):: 1.	Yes (wharf patrolman).
2.	Joseph Hayward, July 1, 1929, S900 per annum.
3.	Twelve.
4.	Seven.
5.	Yes. To attend to furnaoe, etc., and keep watch against fire and trespassers.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. MANION:: 1.	Who represented Canada on the labour delegations sent to Geneva in the years 1925 to 1929, inclusive?
2.	What were the expenses paid to each delegate or representative for each of these separate trips?


WAR PENSIONS AND VETERANS' ALLOWANCES
Mr. GEARY:: 1.	How many cases were dealt with by the Board of Pension Commissioners during the last six months of the fiscal year ending March 31, 1929?
2.	How many cases were found favourable to the applicant?
3.	How many appeals were filed with the federal appeal board during the above mentioned period?
4.	How many of these appeals were dealt with by the appeal board?
5.	In how many cases were decisions given?
6.	How many of these decisions, if any, were found favourable to the applicant?
7.	How many were found unfavourable to the applicant?
8.	How many applications are still pending?
9.	How many soldiers' advisers are functioning at the present time in Canada?
10.	Were the Board of Pension Commissioners consulted, either collectively or individually, with regard to the drafting of the veterans' allowance bill, which was recently brought clown in the house by the Honourable .Minister of Pensions and National Health?



CIVIL SERVICE-RESIDENCE PROVISION

Mr. BOULANGER:: What are the names, occupations and salaries of persons employed in the different departments of the government, including the House of Commons, the Senate, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and the Canadian legations abroad, since the coming into force of the Civil Service Act, who, at the time they entered the civil service, had not a previous residence of three years in Canada, and for what reasons, m each case, was an exception made to the provisions of the Civil Service Act respecting previous residence in Canada of applicants for positions in the civil service?
CUSTOMS DUTY REDUCTIONS, 1921-29 Mr. PREVOST:
1.	On what articles was there a decrease in customs duties from 1921 to 1929, inclusively?
2.	On what articles was there an increase in customs duties from 1921 to 1929, inclusively?



UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: For a copy of all correspondence, memoranda, reports, recommendations and other writings in the Department of National Revenue, or the Civil Service Commission, relating to an appointment to a vacancy in the position of collector of national revenue at Winnipeg, Manitoba.



QUEBEC BRIDGE TARIFF TOLLS

Mr. POULIOT:: For a copy of all correspondence, petitions, and resolutions, addressed to the government, relating to the tariff tolls to be charged for crossing over the Quebec bridge.



BITUMINOUS COAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. G. COOTE (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) if he is yet in position to make an announcement as to the application made by the bituminous coal operators for a subvention of freight rates on coal moving from eastern British Columbia and Alberta points to Manitoba.
Hon. CHARLES A. STEWART (Minister of the Interior):	Mr. Speaker, I am not in a
position to give a statement regarding this request for subsidies, but I expect shortly to have it before the government for their consideration.



SUPPLY-AUSTRALIAN TREATY AMENDMENTS TO MOTION OF MINISTER OF FINANCE FOR COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, March 25, consideration of the motion of Mr. Dunning for committee of supply, the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Gardiner, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Stevens.
["I have the honour to\ninform the house that a message has been received from the Senate informing this house that the Senate does not deem it opportune to appoint a special committee to act jointly with a similar special committee of the House of Commons to consider matters referred to that committee by the House of Commons relating to pensions and returned soldiers' problems, for the reason that they could not participate in the final decisions of that committee which must report to the House of Commons.\nThat the Senate recognizes the necessity of avoiding, as far as possible, the duplication of work on that committee and with that end in view the Senate has agreed upon the names of the senators who will later be asked to form the special committee to whom will be referred whatever legislation in this connection may reach this chamber. They are:-\nThe Honourable Senators Belcourt, Black, Beland, Blondin, Buchanan, Gillis, Graham, Griesbach, Hatfield, Laird, Lewis, Macdonnell, MacArthur, Rankin, Taylor and White (Pembroke).\nThe above named senators will, when notified, be pleased to attend the sittings of the special committee of the House of Commons."]
Mr. A. D. McRAE (Vancouver North):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak to the subamendment before the house, I think I might shorten up the time which, owing to the importance of the industries affected on the Pacific coast, I otherwise feel I should take up, by referring to the very able presentation made of the subamendment by my colleague the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens). In endorsing his presentation in the house last evening I believe my remarks can be confined more particularly to those industries which I know best.
The observations which I should like to make to-day will be confined to treaties in general

Australian Treaty-Mr. McRae
and to the Australian treaty in particular. As regards treaties in general, I presume we should consider them from a national viewpoint and in that connection we on the Pacific coast, separated as we are by the Rocky mountains from the other parts of the Dominion. sometimes feel that our interests have not always been well considered.
I have in mind the revision of the French treaty which, I think, was termed the convention of 1922. To the amazement of those interested in the production of salmon on our Pacific coast they found that when the schedules became public knowledge, the preference they received in the new convention was but one-half of that previously enjoyed on their shipments to France. So seriously did this affect their exports that it was with difficulty they were able to compete with United States shippers of canned salmon to France. If one reads the convention, it would appear that some mistake was made in putting canned salmon into the intermediate column instead of into the column providing for the minimum tariff. This apparently did not occur in regard to any other article at least in the fishery line. It was a disappointment to the fishing industry on the Pacific coast that under the new convention they should be deprived of one-half of their preference without having been consulted in the matter. It might well be a principle in the negotiation of our treaties in future that those interests which are going to be vitally affected should be consulted so that a proper presentation might be made with a view of at least maintaining the preference previously enjoyed. We have a large Dominion; there are many diversified interests; changes develop from time to time; important omissions are no doubt made in certain instances, and a revision of our treaties may frequently be in order. In any event we are not experienced in making treaties; we have many interests to harmonize, and certainly revisions need not be unexpected.
Referring to the Australian treaty, I was rather surprised when I came to look the matter up to find that notwithstanding all the discussions there have been with respect to that treaty, at the present time Canadian exports to Australia are but two and one-half per cent of the imports into that dominion. This clearly shows that in a revision there is hope for an extension of the business we are now doing with that sister dominion, and I trust later to be able to point out to the house some outstanding instances which, in the light of results, do not appear to have received sufficient consideration in the making of the previous treaty. I agree entirely with the principle

enunciated by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre that treaties should apply to exchange of indigenous products.


Mr. DUNNING:: What is that?


Alexander Duncan McRae: AVe produce in this country
certain commodities which we want to sell; Australia produces certain commodities which she wishes to sell, and the bargain is to effect an exchange of commodities which will be beneficial to both countries.
It happens that I was for some years interested in the principal lines of production on the Pacific coast. I refer to the products of the forest and the sea. Having divested myself, after entering the house, of any interests directly or indirectly in those industries, I think I am in a position to speak with a knowledge which may be interesting to the house. In the presentation I propose to make with regard to the products of the sea and the forests of British Columbia, and the possibilities of extension of trade in those great industries, there can be no charge of personal interest. There are in the schedule many items which will no doubt be discussed, but for my part I prefer to confine my remarks to the two industries which I understand.
AVe have heard a great deal about newsprint as connected with the Australian treaty, and I wish to state that the figures I shall quote are for the calendar year as furnished by the export associations and they will no doubt differ somewhat from the figures for the government fiscal year. The export of newsprint to Australia reached a rather low ebb, during 1908 it amounted to only 52,767 tons out of a total of, in round figures, 160,000 tons, imported by that dominion. I was under the impression, as I know most hon. members are, that the newsprint item in the treaty was largely for the benefit of the Pacific coast. On looking the matter up however I find that the Pacific coast is shipping only 40 per cent of the exports from Canada to Australia and that ti e remaining 60 per cent comes from eastern Canadian mills. It is interesting to note that at the present time we divide the Australian market with Great Britain, Canada furnishing about one-third and Great Britain the other two-thirds of Australia's requirements.
I would not like to agree with the hon. members to my left in the sentiments which they expressed yesterday showing their lack of interest in our exports to Australia. I am sure that the farmers of my province and also the farmers of the province of Quebec, who benefit directly from the paper mills, will not agree with those sentiments. One company alone in the province of Quebec last year purchased $450,000 of farm products direct

Australian Treaty-Mr. McRae
from the farmers of that province, and if you add to these purchases, semi-manufactured farm products, canned goods and such like, the purchases of farm products of that one paper mill company alone were in excess of $1,000,000 last year. I mention that to illustrate to hon. members who have shown so little interest in our industrial development just how important these industries are.
Further, the paper industry, as is well known, pays to labour in this country in excess of 40 per cent of the returns they receive for their finished product. That is an important factor at the present time; it is always an important consideration. How far can our newsprint business with Australia be increased? That is a fair question. It is a question that should be considered when this treaty is being revised. Under the present treaty the British preference gives us free entry, an advantage of three pounds per ton, and we are supplying about one-third of Australia's requirements. It is not too much to expect that at the present rate of increase we will eventually supply one-half of Australia's requirements, thus dividing the Australian market equally with Great Britain. Let me express in figures just what that means. It means that our newsprint business with Australia is capable of development to the extent of at least $2,000,000 a year, bringing our present exports to Australia, which last year aggregated $4,220,250, up to approximately $6,000,000 annually.
It is interesting to note the extent to which the mills of my province profit by the Australian treaty at the present time. I have it from the association that the value of our paper exported from British Columbia to Australia last year was $1,150,000, which again is but 40 per cent of the exports from Canada. So much for newsprint.
I come to the question of lumber. The lumbering industry is undoubtedly one of the outstanding industries of the Pacific coast. As yet it has received no advantage whatever from any treaty that has been negotiated with Australia. There is as hon. gentlemen probably know a present import duty into Australia on what is known as Oregon pine, being what we call in Canada Douglas fir. This import duty is 8 shillings per thousand feet and applies to hemlock as well as fir, whether it comes from the United States or from Canada. It is interesting to note where the Canadian lumberman is getting off in this competition. In 1922, Australia imported 159,000,000 feet of fir. I will ask hon. members to include in that, hemlock; probably few of them will know the difference.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Alexander Duncan McRae: What I meant by saying that few would know the difference was this: It is technical. Those in the trade will understand how difficult it is to distinguish between the two woods. I can say this: After being in the business for many years, for nearly a generation, I am not always able to distinguish the difference myself. In Australian imports it all goes in as Oregon pine.
In 1922, Canada had 36 per cent of the fir timber shipments to Australia. We find that Australia in 1923 imported 237.000,000 feet, and our share of that trade fell off to 33 per cent. Every other foot came from the United States. In 1928, Australia imported 212,000,000 feet, and our share had fallen down to 13 per cent. In 1929, the year just closed, Australia imported 266.000.000 feet, of which Canada supplied only 57,240,000 feet. This is a decrease as compared with the amount we supplied in 1923 of nearly 25 per cent.
Where does all this lumber come from? Of the 266,000,000 feet imported by Australia last year, roughly 210,000,000 feet came from the United States. That seems peculiar, but it is a fact nevertheless. It is partially due to the excessive mail subsidies which the United States is now granting to steamships in an effort to foster its export trade with all parts of the world. That we must have some concession in preference, or in lieu of preference, steamship subsidies to foster our lumber business with Australia, is apparent The government has already made a small beginning by subsidizing a line of steamships to Australia. That is only a beginning. We have to go a very considerable step further, because if we get our share of the Australian lumber market it means that instead of shipping 57,000,000 feet, as we did last year, we should ship 157.000,000 feet. There is no reason why, with a proper treaty with Australia, we should not get practically the entire Douglas fir requirements in that market
What support has the British Columbia lumbermen got to have to get that business? That is an important question, because the business runs into very large figures indeed. If the Canadian mills can get the share of Australia's imports of Douglas fir which we should have, it would alone mean at least a trade of at least $3,000,000 a year with Australia. The assistance to shipping given by the United States, and which has given the United States a dominant place in the Australian market to-day, would probably represent as much as five shillings per thousand feet, based on lumber shipments. But my information, Mr. Speaker, is that with a dollar preference we would have the major portion of the Australian market. There is

Australian Treaty-Mr. McRae
a precedent for this; for twenty years and longer we have had a preference of approximately 50 cents per thousand feet in the South African market with the result that the mills of British Columbia have first call on the business in South Africa; and I want to suggest to the government that in the negotiations with Australia this lumber business should be given special consideration. There are $3,000,000 at stake. Sixty per cen't or more of that money goes to labour, and if we take into account supplies and equipment, 90 per cent of the proceeds from lumber find its way into channels of trade in our own country. I submit that a dollar preference in the Australian market for Canadian lumber as against United States lumber will result in $3,000,000 coming into our pockets, instead of going into the pockets of the Americans.
Now, there is one item that I want particularly to call to the government's attention, because I must say that in this instance, in my humble judgment there has been a very serious neglect of the interests of our country. I refer to the cedar lumber of the Pacific coast. Hon. members will see by referring to the Australian schedule that the redwood lumber of California get the British preferential tariff in the Australian market. That means a concession of fifty cents per thousand feet. I say to the house, and I say it advisedly, that our cedar lumber is superior to California redwood. Redwood is produced in one part of the world only-in northern California. It is an excellent wood, but its durability is not superior to our cedar, and when it comes to tensile strength there is no comparison between the two. In short, the cedar of British Columbia is vastly superior to the redwood of California, and being light in weight it is suitable for identically the same requirements. What I want to point out to the government is that they should see to it that we are not discriminated against in any sister dominion in favour of the United States, especially upon a commodity such as this which is superior to the redwood of that country.


Mr. MILLAR:: May I ask the hon. member a question? In making the suggestion that the lumber of British Columbia be given an advantage of one dollar a thousand, on what Canadian products does he think the Australians should be given a preference to offset the account?


Alexander Duncan McRae: If the hon. member will hear me through he will find that I am going to touch on the one vital point in the Australian treaty. I say now as I have said before, sir, that I do not believe that we should attempt
'Mr McRae.]
to exchange any commodity which interferes with the basic products of either county'. Now, as I was saying, the importations of redwood lumber into Australia last year were
50,000,000 feet-$1,000,000 more business, whirn without any special concession on the part of the Commonwealth of Australia might be diverted to Canada.
I now come to another industry to which I previously referred, and which has profited very materially by the Australian treaty. It is the fishing business on the coast, and particularly the canned salmon. Its importance is worthy of notice. In 1926 the United States shipped to Australia 132,000 cases, while we shipped 192.000; in 1929 the United States shipments had fallen to 92,000, while ours had increased to 217,000. It is rather interesting to note in that connection that we are as yet supplying but a small part of the entire importation of fish products into the Australian market. True, we have now about 694 per cent of the business in canned salmon in that market.
Summing uip the three commodities, paper, lumber, fish-


An hon. MEMBER:: Pulp.


Alexander Duncan McRae: There is a small amount of pulp shipped. I am not enthusiastic about the shipping of pulp out of this country; I rather feel that we should manufacture it at home. However, taking these three commodities, paper is capable of a further increase of 50 per cent, lumber of 300 per cent, and fish a small percentage-a growing percentage because in that market brands form a very important factor and it takes years to win away your purchasers from established brands. That accounts for the continuance of fish exports from the United States to Australia.
I said, Mr. Speaker, that I was not going to deal with the other items in the Australian schedule. They apply very largely to eastern Canada, and show that this is a treaty for the entire country, and not, as has been generally supposed, a treaty made especially for the benefit of the industries of my own province. The discussions which have taken place in connection with this treaty have attracted a great deal of attention in my province. I think the Canadian people as a whole are agreed that in this and similar treaties we must not interfere with any basic production in our country. I see my hon. friend from Weyfourn (Mr. Young) in his seat. He asked a question the other day as to how the people in the big cities felt about increasing the cost of butter. Well, I have here a wire from a

Australian Treaty-Mr. Bird
past president of the Vancouver Board of Trade in which he says:
Manufacturers interested here favourable to dairymen's request for increase m butter duty.


John Millar: Would the hon. member
kindly answer my question?


Alexander Duncan McRae: The hon. gentleman's question is a proper question for the commission that next negotiates a treaty with Australia.


Mr. T. W. BIRD (Nelson):: Mr. Speaker,
I want to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Gardiner), and in order to justify my action I purpose, in as brief a manner as possible, to prove that the amendment is capable of rational explanation. That remark causes a titter of incredulity, but the difficulty is not on the side of proving it; it is probably rather on the receiving end.
As a matter of principle I am opposed to treaties of this character. A treaty of this kind is the fruit of the protective principle. Given protection as a fiscal policy, you must follow it up by treaties such as this, because if you give privileges in the home market you thereby in various ways create penalties in the export market. By creating privilege at home you increase the cost of production. It may be that I am indulging in platitudes, but these things have to be driven home continually, because they are just as continually forgotten. When you protect the manufacturer at home you increase the cost of production and put the manufacturer at a disadvantage in the foreign market. It then becomes necessary to have some device to enable the manufacturer who labours under this difficulty to export his goods. Not only that; there is a psychological side to the question. We protect our manufacturers at home and thereby throw out a challenge to the manufacturers abroad; tariff wall is raised against tariff wall. Not only so, but the natural channels of trade are thereby obstructed.
We ha,d a very convincing argument as to the undesirability of that last night from an unexpected quarter. My friend from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) pointed out the undesirability of deflecting the direct courses of trade. The more direct the line of approach between exporting and importing countries, the more benefit may be derived from both parties concerned. With protective tariffs those lines are bent, and instead of direct trade there has to be three-cornered trade. Worse than that, trade has to wander all over the face of the globe before it finds its object. It is admitted these days, especially in the League of Nations, that tariffs are not
conducive to international good will, but that they create ill will. So by artificial means which basically are unjust we raise up obstacle after obstacle, and crown every one of them with the barbed wire entanglement of international ill will. Then, having created a mischief, we seek to remedy the situation by further privilege. That is to say, this protectionist doctrine is like the vice of taking drugs: the habit has to be continued by additional doses. The protected manufacturer who, by reason of his protection, is placed at a disadvantage in the foreign market, has to be subsidized in order that he may surmount the obstacles which his protectionist principles have placed in the way, and you have once more to penalize other activities in the community in order to allow him to sell his protected goods in foreign markets. That, in brief, is my case against this class of trade treaty.
But may I say further that you are not through when you have given the second privilege; because as in the case of lumber you have still another subsidy. The people of Canada are called upon to assist once more in order to subsidize steamships to get lumber over these artificial obstacles that are put up.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Lumber is on the free list.


Thomas William Bird: I understand manufactured
lumber is not on the free list.


Henry Herbert Stevens: All this lumber we are
talking about is on the free list, and has no protection whatever. That being the case, my hon. friend's argument falls to the ground.


Thomas William Bird: My argument does not fall
anywhere near the ground, because in the first place I was not contradicting my hon. friend. I am not very well acquainted with the subject, but my hon. friend from Rosetown (Mr. Evans) hands me a copy of the customs tariff amendments. I find that items 503 and 504 cover rough lumber, and I believe that to mean lumber which has just been taken out of the bush.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No; read the items correctly. Read the two items.


Thomas William Bird: Item No. 505 is as follows:
Sawn boards, planks and deals planed or dressed on one or both sides, when the edges thereof are jointed or tongued and grooved.
The British preference on that item is 17^ per cent; the intermediate tariff is 22i per cent, and the general tariff 25 per cent.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend is not
reading the item he referred to. Items 503 and 504 are free, and the hon. member is not reading them.

Australian Treaty-Mr. Bird


Thomas William Bird: I contend, Mr. Speaker, that I am reading correctly. I say that I have read item 505, to which I was referring, and it specifies "sawn boards, planks and deals."


Henry Herbert Stevens: And that is highly manufactured flooring.


Thomas William Bird: My hon. friend was not too
particular in making those discriminations when he lodged his argument.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I do not intend to allow my hon, friend to refer to one item and then switch to another in order to make a false argument.


Thomas William Bird: My hon. friend is just as
capable of switching tactics as anybody in this house. The very fact that he accuses me of it is proof as to his capability. I read the number of the item before I read the text of it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Read items 503 and 504.


Thomas William Bird: I have read 505.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Hansard will show what
you said, anyway.


Thomas William Bird: Anyway, I was not attempting to make a point out of my reference. My allusion to the item was merely incidental.
Now we will come to .the question of who pays for this privilege. We cannot put blood into a system of trade that has been made anaemic by a false policy without taking it out of the veins of something else; you cannot subsidize one class without robbing another. Where did the price of this treaty come from; who paid for it? Who paid to help our automobile manufacturers supply the Antipodeans with Ford cars? Who paid for it? In this case the white man's burden fell upon the poor raisin user.
My hon. friend from Vancouver Centre said last night that it was a petty kind of argument to bring in the 'case of the raisin consumer to offset great questions of national policy. Well, I am not afraid of being accused of using petty arguments, if that is one, because my hon. friend's remark proves what anyone who has watched the proceedings of this house will have seen long ago, that the right of the humble individual Canadian consumer always is forgotten in these generous gestures of national policy, these attempts on the part of this or that party to aggrandize Canada, to build up a nation, to make Canada look big in the eyes of the world, to increase our exports, our imports, our bank clearings, our car loadings and all those indications of material prosperity which make a nation seem big in the eyes of people who have no other

understanding of bigness. This quantitive theory of progress loomed so large in the eyes of my hon. friend that he said, in effect: "Bleed the poor raisin user and the poor consumer in order that Canada might be big." I protest against any such doctrine. We have had too much of that on both sides of the house. Unfortunately our newspapers are behind both governments and oppositions in holding up such an ideal of material prosperity, while the homes of Canada are just about where they were thirty or forty years ago.
V hy are the raisin consumers made to carry this load? Well, there is no raisin consumers' association, but there is a manufacturers' association, and when I have said that I have explained a lot. I am not blaming the government for taking the line of least resistance; all governments do that. The fact that manufacturers are concentrated, well organized and politically powerful, tells a tale, and the fact that consumers are scattered, not organized and without a press tells a tale also.


Mr. YOUNG (Weyburn):: Why not join our organization?


Thomas William Bird: I am coming to the consumers' league.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: You had forgotten Mr. Deachman.


Thomas William Bird: I had forgotten him, and I want to apologize for having done so, but it is easy to forget the consumers' league, which has not yet stamped itself so indelibly upon the consciousness of the Canadian people that it has become easy to remember it on all occasions. My hon. friend has mentioned the consumers' association. Where is the consumers' association to-day? My hon. friend from Lisgar (Mr. Brown) was its spokesman yesterday on this very question, but did he denounce the policy of taxing the consumer to help the manufacturer? No; he tried by a logical effort to prove that the consumer was not hurt at all.


Mr. BROWN:: I simply tried to prove in one case that our fears in that particular had not been fully justified.


Thomas William Bird: I do not wish to enter into any personal give and take with my hon. friend, since he is too good a friend of mine for that, but he built his whole argument upon an assumption. He was too fair-minded to do his cause any good whatever; in fact he was so fair-minded that he proved entirely the opposite to what he desired to prove, which was that the consumers of Canada had not been penalized.

Australian Treaty-Mr. Bird
This is a symbolic thing. I do not think we are going to ruin Canada by putting a tax on raisins; a million a year will not bring actual distress into the homes of the people, but I am trying to establish the principle. It is one thing after the other that prevents the Canadian home from developing into what it should be. During this session we have heard a great deal of talk about the Canadian home. This is the sort of thing that is disintegrating the Canadian home, this piling on of expenses little by little until you drive Canadians out of their homes into conditions which we can hardly honestly describe as homelike. We have only to refer to our every-day knowledge of what is going on in Canada to know that while our natural resources are being exploited and our exports and imports growing by leaps and bounds, the home is practically disappearing as an economic unit. Why is that the case? Because every privileged class is sapping the vitality of the home, which basically is an economic matter.
Instead of conceding the point of view of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, I would elevate the raisin into a position where it will become symbolic for the consumer in Canada. I would direct the attention of the home maker to the fact that this is what goes on all the time, that this process of erosion is a constant menace to the stability of the home. Think for a moment of the old English plum pudding-and we all know that plum pudding is the old English name for raisin pudding. On the table at Christmas time, and in fact at nearly all family festivals, the raisin figures very largely. Somehow or other this little object has become symbolic in the home, and at Christmas time when the plum pudding appears it is the symbol of good will. Under this treaty, however, the plum pudding becomes the symbol of a very insidious form of oppression; sitting at the table is the unwelcome guest, the silent participator in the meal, the preferred classes daily partaking of the hard-earned fare of the cottager.


James Dew Chaplin: It is good will to the
Australian farmer.


Thomas William Bird: Yes, and it is very good will to the Canadian manufacturer, but very bad will to the Canadian consumer. An hon. member of the house seems to have a great enthusiasm for a Canadian flag, as appears from his notice of motion, but I do not think, so long as we have raisin pies in Canada,, that we need a national flag. A raisin pie would be sufficient for a national symbol
because you find it in every home in Canada. This product of common consumption has been attacked in order to benefit the pampered manufacturers of Canada, to help them gain a small benefit through the sale of cars and newsprint to Australia.


Edward James Young: Where does the tax go?


Thomas William Bird: The tax goes to the government in part, but the unseen tax goes to the manufacturers who benefit from it.


Charles Avery Dunning: The tax on the raisins?


Thomas William Bird: Yes, on the raisins.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The synthetic raisins.


Thomas William Bird: My hon. friends across the
house should be well acquainted with their own style of argument; they should be acquainted with the Young plan. The tariff tax may be paid to the government but who pays the great unseen tax, the tax which raises the price of the home made article far above the competitive price-the consumer pays that.


Edward James Young: Where are the home made raisins?


Thomas William Bird: My hon. friend may eat that kind of raisin, but I prefer the imported variety. I will come to what I consider the difficult part of my argument, that which concerns the butter. In dealing with this matter we are on very delicate ground-


An hon. MEMBER:: More slippery ground.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Raisins are on the free list under the British preference.


Thomas William Bird: The main source of supply is taxed.


Henry Herbert Stevens: They are on the free list just the same.


Thomas William Bird: I will take up this matter of butter-


Mr. NEILL:: Before the hon. member leaves the question of raisins, I would like to ask him a question; have I his consent?


Thomas William Bird: Yes.


Alan Webster Neill: Before this system of erosion of which he spoke, commenced and before this duty was put on raisins, did he not support a bounty on copper rods which amounted to practical protection?


Thomas William Bird: Yes, but I would not do it again. I have not been in this house for nine years without learning something. Perhaps my hon. friend will wait until I finish

Australian Treaty-Mr. Bird
this part of my argument, as I believe he is interested in butter. We in this corner of the house are in a difficult position, we are between the devil and the deep sea.


Alan Webster Neill: Name them.


Thomas William Bird: It is immaterial to my argument on which side of the house I place the responsibility, but for argument's sake we will call the protectionists the devil and the Consumers' League the deep sea, because it is far too deep for me. We have the Consumers' League whispering in the one ear and the protectionists whispering in the other, so we are in a difficult position. What does the Consumers' League say; what are the wild sea waves saying? The answer comes swift and sure. Our hon. friends opposite argue that the dairy council does not represent the farmers, that it is only composed of disguised Tories.


James Dew Chaplin: That is propaganda.


Thomas William Bird: Whatever the Consumers'
League may be, I do not believe it is wise for them to hide their heads ostrich-like underneath the sand, because anyone who has watched the movement for the last few years among the farmers will know that protection has lifted its head. It is no use running away from a fact because it is ugly, and it is no use closing your eyes to it. That is one point upon which I differ with my hon. friend from Lisgar (Mr. Brown). He claims that that evil does not exist, that it is only manufactured, but I say it does exist and has existed for years. In 1922 the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) moved for the restoration of the prohibition on oleo-margerine, and nearly all the farmers from Ontario voted against that measure. However, they went home during the recess and consulted with their constituents, many of whom were dairy people, and when they came back the following year they nearly all voted for a similar motion moved by another hon. member. During the recess the Ontario farmer members had heard the wind whispering in the top of the mulberry trees; they realized that the public opinion of Ontario was in favour of the prohibition of oleomargerine. I know that they claimed they were just protecting the women and children, but we were not misled by that. I barely escaped a beating in the corridors here for daring to say that the farmers were getting their feet into the protectionist trough. That was some time ago. but we have the same thing manifesting itself again.


John Livingstone Brown: That is what I was saying about the United Farmers of Alberta.


Thomas William Bird: The hon. member might well have said it about the farmers of Manitoba because that province is as much a dairying province as is Alberta.


John Livingstone Brown: Not through their organization.


Thomas William Bird: My hon. friend is not acting
with his accustomed wisdom when he adapts that attitude. The dairy council of Manitoba ;s in this thing just as much as is the dairy council of Alberta. The officials of the Manitoba organization who attend the meeting of the dairy council of Canada are well known, and they have not been stampeded into this thing. The idea of protection is deeply rooted in the mind of the Manitoba farmer, as well as in the minds of the farmers in the rest of the Dominion, and they have to be dealt with. Why has the farmer taken this stand? It is because he has been disappointed with his politicians. For years past the farmer has been expecting the different governments to give him some relief, but they have been disappointed in that expectation. We may regret it, but we must face the fact that in recent years there has been a definite trend toward the idea of protection. The farmers to the south have been protectionists for years; the farmers of Dakota have been protectionists for years, so why not the farmer of Manitoba? The proper way to meet this evil is to face it, and the only way the Liberal party can meet it is to do it boldly. If that party desires to retain the support of the farmer there is only one way in which that can be done, and that is to prove to the farmer it is apprehensive of the conditions under which the farmer labours. I am not going to belabour mv Liberal-Progressive friends as some of my hon. friends have done; I do not think mutual interchange of that kind helps very much. The hon. member for Lisgar and his friends have a perfect right to be where they are; they represent their constituencies as much as I or any of my hon. friends in this corner do ours, but there is only one thing they must do, and that is show they are dealing with the evils from which the western farmer suffers. By their fruits they will be judged and not by any academic arguments of ours. I am content to leave the matter at that. I hope they can bring home the bacon. It is the bacon we want.


Charles Avery Dunning: I thought it was raisins


Alan Webster Neill: Ham and eggs.


Thomas William Bird: The vitamin content is very
much the same. They whisper and say to us:

Australian Treaty-Mr. Bird
Well, admit the farmer is nosing around after protection, but his protection will not help him. The Consumers' League says: Protection will not help the farmer. Then why should the Consumers' League worry about it? The danger is that it does help the farmer.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Thomas William Bird: It is an old saying that he
who postpones his laugh, laughs best, but this is the danger, the alluring feature about the matter: this is a commodity and practically the only staple commodity of which we have not enough by a long way for our domestic consumption. We are 25,000,000 pounds short Put a tariff of three cents, ten cents or maybe more on butter and see what happens. Of course this will benefit the farmer. That is the danger. That is the danger my hou. friends ought to be apprehensive of in the face of the attack from my right, but they do not seem to be aware of it. They seem to be sitting over there in a fool's paradise. Here is a bait that really is a bait, that really is attractive.


Edward James Young: We are not taking that bait.


Thomas William Bird: Of course my hon. friend's
digestion is out of order. There is no bait that would appeal to him. As regards our consuming friends, I think the reason they call themselves consumers is that they consume precious opportunities without achieving very much. They say to us: What about your principles? I suppose by "principles" they mean the 1921 platform of the Canadian Council of Agriculture.


Charles Avery Dunning: Before my hon. friend
leaves the question of butter, I wonder whether he would mind following that to its logical conclusion. He spoke of dangers. Just what is the danger in connection with placing a duty on butter? I know my hon. friend knows the danger.


Thomas William Bird: If my hon. friend will wait
awhile, if I have time that is a point. I am coming to in logical order. My hon. friends across the floor are so keen on logic that I must set an example of it in my speech, but I will come to that point. What about our principles? What about the platform of the Canadian Council of Agriculture? Our friends from Alberta say they have receded from that platform. I am not sure whether I can go all the way with them or not, but our consumer's friends over here say they have receded from it too.


Mr. GEARY:: The hon. member seems to
be becoming more lonely all the time.


Thomas William Bird: I am not saying that I am
standing on the platform; I may be receding somewhat too. I do not think it really lies in the mouth of either one party or the other to talk about standing true to principles. I do not think that is the point at all. The old Canadian Council of Agriculture platform had a very unfortunate career. Nine years ago it brought a large number of people to this house and achieved certain results, but at the expense of the group that was, to a large extent, instrumental in doing so. I do not think we need to weep over it, but the Canadian Council of Agriculture is a thing of the past. Our United Farmers of Alberta friends have gone from it on the command of their provincial organization, and our friends from Manitoba have gone from it in another direction.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: At whose
command?


Thomas William Bird: As I said before, they have as much right to be where they are as I have to be where I am. It is not a matter of principle in that sense at all. The attitude I take is this: I stand where I did on the matter of free trade in food products, in all products, but I do not want to victimize myself by assenting to any one-sided arrangement as this treaty is. I am out for an all-round reduction in protection on all articles. While I know that one is easily imposed upon, there comes a point where the easiest of us will take a stand, even if it be at the expense of being insulted on account of one's principles. After all, principles sometimes have to be related to a momentary situation such as the one created by this treaty in which a onesided arrangement was detrimental to the producer to the advantage of the manufacturer.	_
On the other hand, we have our friends to the right whispering in the other ear, making it difficult, almost intolerable for us, shattering our logic to a large extent. They say: Now is the chance of the farmer, now is the opportunity of the producer to get into the scramble. This is the door by which you can enter and share the spoils with the manufacturer. My answer to that is this: as long as I have been in the house I have never heard an hon. member of the opposition prove that we could protect the farmer in any effective way. The former leader of the opposition was a master dialectician; he often descanted upon this subject, but I call everybody present who was in parliament then to witness whether he at any time proved that you could protect

Australian Treaty-Mr. llsley
the farmer by a tariff. I will go further and say that the Right Hon. Mr. Meighen not only did not prove that but never attempted to prove it. He was too much of a logician to try to prove to an intelligent house that you could protect by a tariff an industry which sold the major part of its production in a foreign market.


Mr. J. L. ILSLEY (Hants-Kings):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few remarks on the subamendment and the amendment before the house. The hon. member for Nelson (Mr. Bird), who has just taken his seat, stated that he would attempt to show that there was some rational basis for the amendment proposed by the group representing the United Farmers of Alberta. I have too much respect for the hon. gentleman to say that he has not done so, but after listening attentively to what he said I am still of the opinion that I held when the amendment was first read to the house, namely that no amendment that has been proposed in this house during recent years should be voted down more emphatically than that proposed by the United Farmers of Alberta at this time. I shall have something to say a little later as to the subamendment moved by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens).
As to what the hon. member for Nelson (Mr. Bird) has stated, it seems to me that his argument has been directed not against the Australian treaty as such but against its extension to New Zealand, a matter which has already been dealt with by the house at con-sideiable length; but because there is some little confusion on that point-not in the house, but in the country-I want to make very clear the difference.
During the last two or three weeks there have been many references in this chamber to the -New Zealand treaty," notably by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) who on one occasion used the term a great many times m the course of a single speech. Strictly speaking there is no treaty with New Zealand, although there is a set of trade relationships between Canada and New Zealand based upon mutual concessions by the two countries which might somewhat inaccurately, but perhaps conveniently, be referred to as a treaty. In order to make that clear to the house, I want to read just one paragraph from a pamphlet entitled Empire Tariff Preferences on Canadian Goods, published by the Department of I rade and Commerce :
New Zealand since 1903 has been extending to Canada the benefit of all British preferential rates of duty brought into force under succes-^Veionjlff awf' , Canada, by order in council m 1904>
granted New Zealand the British 
preferential tariff of that time, while the Canaan Tariff Act of 1907 (still the basic tariff) declared that the British preferential schedule would apply to New Zealand among other countries. The Canadian tariff concessions to Australia in the agreement of 1925 were extended to New Zealand by order in council made under a (provision in the ratifying act. Thus reciprocal relationship in tariff matters between Canada and New Zealand is maintained in the absence of a formal trade agreement.
I shall say nothing more about our trade relationships with New Zealand except this, that both the larger parties in the house seem to be agreed that it is desirable that the somewhat vague set of trade relationships which exists at the present time between the two countries should be committed to the form of a treaty, or rather, that a treaty should be made clearly setting forth what the obligations of each country are to the other.
As to the Australian treaty proper, the group representing the United Farmers of Alberta say that the Australian trade agreement of 1925 should be abrogated. That to my mind is a very serious step, a step which I think would not meet with the assent or approval of the country at large. Most of us in the house are pretty well convinced in our own minds that the reason why the United Farmers of Alberta want this done is that they hope to have a four cent a pound duty on butter coming in from New Zealand, instead of the present one cent a pound duty, and they hope by this indirect method to get what they want without inviting too much criticism on the ground that they have departed from their free trade principles. I think, Mr. Speaker, that that is pretty well understood among the members of the house, and that condition of affairs explains the inconsistency of the arguments of the United Farmers of Alberta as presented in this house. In one breath we have them saying that a duty on farm products cannot possibly be of any benefit to the farmer, and in the next breath we have them saying that when the late Mr. Robb reduced the duty on farm products coming in from Australia he was giving away a right of the Canadian farmer and depriving the Canadian farmer of a benefit that he otherwise would have. We have one hon. member stating that a duty on butter is no good to the farmer at all, and another hon. member from the same corner of the house stating that if anyone in the country is to have protection, the farmer should have his share of it. Therefore it is, Mr. Speaker, that the arguments put forward on behalf of this amendment by hon. gentlemen in that part of the house are inconsistent; and there is a reason for that which to my mind is exceedingly interesting.

Australian Treaty-Mr. Ilsley
I have always been under the impression that the members of the two older parties are under a disadvantage as compared with hon. gentlemen comprising the independent groups, in that sometimes we have to subordinate our views and opinions to those of the party as a whole, for the purpose of accomplishing something which it is considered will be for the general good of the country, although it does not exactly commend itself to the views of certain individuals in the party. I had always envied the independence of hon. gentlemen representing the United Farmers of Alberta until I heard their leader last night stating that when the convention of the United Farmers in Alberta passes a resolution, the members representing that group in this house are obliged to advocate the conclusions set forth in that resolution, and are obliged to argue for them and to urge them upon the house regardless of what they may have stood for in times past. I do not want to misrepresent the hon. member for Acadia. Here are his words:
The United Farmers of Alberta took the matter into their own hands, and when that organization in convention passes a resolution on any particular subject which may be a matter of debate in this house, or a matter which we will have to vote for or against, then we are under the obligation of supporting the attitude of the convention of the United Fanners of Alberta.


Mr. IRVINE:: Does my hon. friend know
that those are the people whom we represent?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I am simply saying that it
is a cast-iron discipline which is just as real as any discipline imposed upon the members of the two older parties by their party organization. Moreover, that when hon. members, representing, as I think they should attempt to represent, the people of the Dominion of Canada as a whole, trying, as they should try, to look at matters from the nation-wide viewpoint, take their instructions, so to speak, from conventions in Alberta, which professedly are looking at national problems from the standpoint of one particular occupation and of one particular part of the Dominion, they are going further than we in the older parties are ever asked to go; because when we compromise upon a policy decided upon in party caucus, that policy is certainly based upon nation-wide considerations.
I now come to the subamendment to the resolution. The Australian treaty, which came into effect on October 1, 1925, met with a great deal of criticism during the first two or three years of its existence. Members of the official opposition in particular stood in their
places and denounced the Australian treaty itself, not its extention to New Zealand, in the most unmeasured terms-


Edward Joseph Garland: In the most measured terms, I should imagine.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Unmeasured terms is correct. In particular, the acting leader of the opposition at that time, the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) in the very able speech which he made on the budget a year ago, stated that the treaty should be abrogated at once. I want to refer to that utterance because the change of front on the part of the official opposition this session is very noticeable, and is a striking tribute to the treaty itself and to the success that it has met with in promoting an increase of trade between Australia and Canada. This is what the member for South Wellington said on the occasion to which I refer, when he was the authoritative spokesman of the apposition. I am reading from page 751 of Hansard ol March 7, 1929:
Perhaps the greatest gold-brick that was ever handed by a government to anyone was handed the agriculturists of this country when the Australian treaty was passed. I understand the treaty was negotiated by the Minister of Finance himself, and it has proved to be probably the greatest direct blow that agriculture has had in this country in many years. I cannot understand why the minister does not denounce or give notice to and put an end to that treaty at once.
I remember the dramatic way in which he made that declaration to the house and the loud applause that came from the hon. gentlemen who were sitting behind him drinking in his words on that occasion.


Charles Avery Dunning: And alongside him, too.


James Lorimer Ilsley: But there is a change of front this year. We have had from the opposition many tributes to the treaty, and similarly from the Conservative press of the country and its various organizations.
Some reference has been made to the National Dairy Council of Canada. I have been reading the reports of their meetings during the last few years, and if my recollection serves me correctly, the council went on record two or three years ago as being opposed to the Australian treaty and demanding its abrogation in unequivocal terms. This year, however, they have taken a different stand. They are favourable to a continuation of the treaty with some mild revisions, just as the hon. member for Vancouver Centre is. I refer to the report of the eleventh annual meeting of the council, held at the Royal York hotel, Toronto, on October 18 and 19, 1929. At page 51 of the

Australian Treaty-Mr. Ilsley
report the chairman, Mr. Robinson, who was also the president said:
There is some chance that the Australians might repudiate the agreement. I am convinced that that would be an unfortunate thing, especially in view of the attitude of the United States toward this matter.
On the next page I find he said:
It is probably well known that council members met at a certain conference on the Pacific coast last year with other interests that have a stake in the trade agreement. The other people were the pulp and paper people, and the fish people, but they were interested solely in the trade agreement because their business was largely increased, and they are enjoying such benefit that they do not wish to see the whole treaty scrapped. They are interested in seeing that we stop rocking the boat, but they are ready to pick up any suggestions we may make provided we can adjust the treaty so that it will go on. We can have the help of these people if we adjust it in that way. The lumber interests are in the same position as ourselves. They wanted some new provisions in the treaty, and they -were trying to get a freight subsidy for the lumber export to stock up against the American interest. They got a freight subsidy, but they haven't got as yet a preferential adjustment of the duty from the government of Australia, but there are some indications that they may get that in the near future.
The pulp and paper and the fish industries are perfectly agreeable to our proposals and have stated more than once that they see no objection to the treaty being amended.
We cannot afford to forego too many trade agreements with the people to the south. The present balance of trade with Australia is about six and one-half to one, and that ought to be favourable enough to satisfy the most fastidious.
Australia is perfectly willing to carry on the treaty on the basis of four to one, but they do think that six and one-half to one is too much.
The hon. member for Vancouver Centre in the very moderate speech he made last night started out by saying that the treaty as such discriminated against Canadian agriculture, and I waited during the remainder of his speech for some facts that would justify the assertion. I did not hear anything from him subsequently that would justify it, and I think I am safe in saying that nothing imported from Australia in a large and substantial way enters into competition with Canadian farmers, and that the objection which has been voiced to a considerable extent throughout the country is to our trade relationships with New Zealand, not with Australia. The hon. gentleman also said that there were certain lines of goods which we might purchase from Australia instead of from the United States.
I think one of the largest items was hides. Certainly I am not qualified to discuss the tanning business or the importation of hides, but I was under the impression from the debates I have heard in this house and from reading Hansard that we cannot talk about 
hides as if they were of uniform quality or kind, that we import certain kinds and qualities from the United States that we cannot very well import from any other country, and that the placing of a higher duty on hides from the United States with the idea of diverting the business to Australia would simply mean that the tanning interests of this country would continue to purchase from the United States but with an additional burden on their business and on the ultimate consumer.
The hon. member for Vancouver Centre also voiced this complaint, and it was his chief complaint against the Australian treaty: He said we did not import enough from Australia under the treaty, that our imports were too small in proportion to our exports; and yet almost immediately afterwards he attacked the French treaty on the ground that our imports from France were too high in proportion to our exports to that country. So it is very-difficult to make a treaty that would be at all satisfactory to our friends opposite. The [DOT]fault with the Australian treaty, according to them, is that the volume of exports from this country' to Australia is too high in proportion to the volume of imports from Australia to this country.


Mr. ADSHEAD:: A too favourable balance of trade.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes; and then he attacked
the French treaty on the ground that the balance of trade is not favourable enough.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: An adverse balance.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes; if it is adverse. It is
very difficult to know upon what basis we should attempt to conclude trade treaties with other countries. As a matter of fact the treaty with Australia has resulted in an enormous expansion of our trade, and I want to put on record some figures in support of this statement. That treaty came into effect on the first day of October, 1925. The year which ended September 30, 1925, was the last before the treaty became effective. These are the results flowing from the treaty:
Canada's Trade With Australia (Years ended September 30, 1925 to September 30, 1929.)
Years	Imports from $
1925		2,762,959
1926		4,285,351
1927		6.610.579
1928		4.928.080
1929		3,174,761
That is to say	-
Exports
(domestic)
to
12.578.531
17.213.321
18.558.471
14,670.738
19,623.593

Australian Treaty-Mr. Ilsley


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Is that the year ending
September 30, or the fiscal year?


James Lorimer Ilsley: 
Mr. MACDOUGALL:: What about the imports under the New Zealand order in council?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I dealt with the New Zealand order in council before the hon. member came in.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: Did you give the figures?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No. Let us consider some of the particular items of trade that appear in this treaty, because as the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. McRae) has stated, this treaty is not only of interest to British Columbia, it is not only of value to that province, but it is of considerable value to eastern Canada also. While the Conservative members from the maritime provinces have spoken frequently, I have yet to hear one of them say a kind word for this treaty as it affects conditions in the maritime provinces, and I have come to the conclusion that if anybody is to speak from that point of view it will have to be someone from this side.
To begin with, let us consider iron and steel products. I must say at the outset that many of these iron and steel products are not those of the maritime provinces. They are Canadian products, however, and are of
tremendous importance. In the fiscal year ending March 31, 1929, we sent to Australia $10,350,204 worth of iron and steel products. That represents nearly as much as our total exports to Australia before the treaty came into force. The exact figures are:
Pipe		. .. $ 362,165
Wire		. .. 59,592
Farm implements.. ..	.. . 1.487,313
Razors		. .. 375.513
Nails		. .. 17,971
Needles and pins		. .. 37,175
Machinery		. .. 78,124
Tools		. .. 5,093
Automobiles		. . . 7.204.967
Parts		. .. 714.581
Bicycles		. .. 7,710
These are the figures for iron and steel products to Australia, and at this point I would like to take the time to read some press notices which may be of interest to hon. members.


Mr. KELLNER:: Would the hon. member quote the rate paid on those steel products?


James Lorimer Ilsley: It would take too long to do that, but they are covered by the treaty.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: That is the trouble.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I am afraid it would take too long to read the rates, and I should not be able to finish in the forty minutes allotted to me. I wish to read the following press notice:
A Sydney man was reminded by experience the other day that if New Zealand ships butter into Canada the trade between the two dominions is not one-sided. Having bought and used a box of New Zealand butter, this citizen, with due regard for the virtue of thriftiness, set about chopping up the box for kindling. By chance he stopped between blows to look at a nail which his hatchet broke out from the wood -and, lo and behold, every nail used in the box was found to have come from the Sydney steel plant. He had known that Disco shipped some steel products to the Antipodes but here was the proof of the trade before his own eyes in his own cellar.
The hon. member for Vancouver North has mentioned the item of canned fish, and I must say the exports of that product have increased very materially during the years of the treaty. In the fiscal year 1925 we sent to Australia $1,126,000 worth; in the fiscal year 1929 we sent to that country $1,969,000 worth. Not much of that came from the maritime provinces, but the trade is beginning in that section of the Dominion.
I wish to read a letter sent by the president of Connors Bros. Limited, oanners and packers of St. John, New Brunswick, dated March 13, 1929:
We notice some of the members in parliament are criticizing the Australian treaty. We might say that Australian buyers placed orders

Australian Treaty-Mr. Ilsley
with us last year for all the fish we could supply them with. This year we are already in receipt of a $50,000 order, and the same buyers have offered to tender us with orders for double this amount, just as soon as we are in a position to accept them.
If we can fill the orders, we expect our shipments to Australia and New Zealand this year to amount to between $150,000 and $200,000. A good portion of this money will be paid out among the fishermen and to those who labour in the industry. This export business would not be possible were it not for the Australian treaty.
We are to-day handing this information to the Associated Press, and thought we would pass same along to you.
The production of newsprint is now increasing very rapidly in the maritime provinces. During the calendar year 1928 the production in those eastern provinces amounted to 65 tons a day; in 1929 the capacity of the mills was increased to 130 tons, and in 1930 it will be much greater because of the opening of the large paper mills in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. There is no part of the Australian treaty which has been more beneficial to Canada than the item relating to newsprint paper. The value of that article exported to Australia in the fiscal year 1925 was $51,000; the value in 1929 was $3,627,000, representing a very rapid increase indeed in the value of newsprint paper sent to Australia. I was quite surprised to learn that a large part of the newsprint did not come from British Columbia, but from eastern Canada. In all, newsprint to the value of $896,432, was shipped to Australia in the fiscal year 1929 from maritime province ports.
Generally speaking, shipping from the ports of Halifax and St. John has benefited very greatly under the Australian treaty. I have been unable to obtain the figures for 1925, but I have obtained from the Department of Trade and Commerce a statement of the value of the principal commodities exported from Canada through maritime ports in the fiscal year 1929, and I find a total of $4,144,000. That represents the principal commodities only, and if we added other less important commodities the value would doubtless reach about $5,000,000, or nearly one quarter of the total exports of Canada to Australia. That trade is handled chiefly by the ports of Halifax and St. John. I tried to get the value of the produce of the maritime provinces, taken separately, that was annually shipped to Australia, but was unable to do so; I was told that no statistics were available.
I believe, however, that the facts and figures I have been able to give the house show conclusively that the Australian treaty has been a success from a commercial and industrial standpoint. It is possible that it might 
be improved upon in some respects. The hon. member who represents Vancouver North said that certain industries about which he has special knowledge would benefit if there were some preference on their products when they entered the Australian market. Doubtless that is the case; but the important point which he overlooked entirely and did not touch in his speech was: what shall we give Australia in return? Until that point is covered in some way by the opposition it seems to me that they have not made out a prima facie case for revision of this treaty. We are talking about an imperial economic conference which is soon to be held in London, and certainly there would be no objection on the part of any member of this house or any citizen of Canada to our taking up then the matter of the revision of this treaty. But certainly no steps should be taken which might have the effect of terminating the very satisfactory, profitable and successful treaty which we have with our sister dominion of Australia.
Mr. L. .7. LADNER (Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, the Australian trade treaty is a matter of great importance to Vancouver and British Columbia. The facts with regard to the exchange of trade have been well placed before the house, and this question of trade with the other dominions and with Great Britain is one which for many years has received consideration in this parliament. The question was first taken up in an aggressive way by Sir John A. Macdonald in 1884, when it was put into effect through the medium of preferential tariffs. That policy was also followed by Sir Wilfred Laurier, and subsequent legislation was evolved to further the exchange of commodities between the different dominions of the empire.
To-day we are confronted with some difficulties in connection with our trade treaties with our sister dominions owing to the fact, as I pointed out in some observations which I made in this house on March 7, that under the dictation of our free trade friends from the prairie provinces the government worked out a treaty on the basis of law tariffs and free trade, to the injury of the products of this country, instead of on a protective basis under which they could have established the preferences and at the same time protected Canadian industries.
Now we are considering a proposal by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Gardiner), the leader of the Progressive party, to abrogate the Australian trade treaty. By way of amendment my colleague the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) has moved:

Australian Treaty-Mr. Ladner
That all the words after the word "house" be struck out and the following substituted therefor:-
"the operation of the existing Australian treaty, indicates that the fullest development of trade between Canada and Australia has not been achieved by either country and the government should endeavour as soon as possible to secure a revision of the treaty, to the mutual benefit of both countries."
I submit that the purpose of the subamendment is to have the terms of the treaty reconsidered in order to bring about a further exchange of commodities which will be advantageous both to Australia and to Canada. The facts and figures which have been submitted by other hon. members would amply indicate the soundness of that contention, and Mr. Speaker, in considering this question it is my opinion that the Australian trade treaty has been of advantage to this country, but not perhaps not to the maximum advantage. This question involves something more than merely the Australian trade treaty; it involves the whole question of entering into arrangements with our sister dominions, with the crown colonies and with Great Britain; and just here we might consider some of the matters which are of concern to our friends in Great Britain to-day. Lord Beaverbrook started a movement in Great Britain looking to the economic union of the empire but based, in my judgment, upon the fallacy of a free trade theory and without due regard to the control of the self-governing dominions over their fiscal policies. That was the popular impression of Lord Beaverbrook's idea, but his actual words were:
The dominions control entirely their own fiscal systems, and it can only be in cooperation with us that a tariff wall can be built around the dominions and Great Britain.
Now I should like to direct attention to some of the enormous resources possessed by our sister dominions and the crown colonies, which would be made available to Canada through an exchange of commodities. First there is the American non-self-governing colonial empire. In the West Indies we have Trinidad, Jamaica, Bermuda, Barbados and British Honduras; in British Guiana we have products of the forest and aluminum, and in the semi-tropic islands we have sugar cane, cocoa and rice. Then we have the West African colonies; there is the Gold Coast, with a population of 2,500,000 which exports one-half of the world's requirements of cocoa. Then we have Nigeria, with a population of
19,000,000; there is Gambia and Sierra Leone and the Sudan, with its great wealth in cotton of a valuable type now being exported to the United States. Along the east coast of Africa there is Uganda, Nyasaland and Kenya. Then
we have northern Rhodesia, where in five or ten years the supply of copper ore will be sufficient to accommodate the needs of the whole empire twice over. In Asia there is Ceylon, which exports great quantities of tea to the United States; there are the Malay States, which supply half the rubber of the world and which contain tin in great quantities, and there is also the colony of British North Borneo.
It is significant that France has a fiscal union with its own colonial empire, and that is also the case in the United States. Great Britain alone remains without such a union. To-day we are faced with a higher tariff wall in the United States, which will exclude much of our goods, and apparently no really effective steps have been taken by the government to counteract that situation. It is also of interest to note that the United States sells 45 per cent of its total exports to Great Britain. With regard to wheat, we find that during September of 1929, as compared with September of 1928, ten times more Argentine wheat was imported into Great Britain; the same condition applied in October of 1929, as compared with October of the previous year, while during December of 1929, the importations of Argentine wheat were five times as great as those during December, 1928. Lord Beaverbrook has pointed out that East Prussia has subsidized wheat to the extent of thirteen shillings and sixpence per quarter, while France subsidizes the export of flour to Great Britain to the extent of twenty shillings per 280 pounds.
The point I wish to make, Mr. Speaker, is that the Australian trade treaty has established a basis for the exchange of commodities which can be greatly improved, and' the same principle could be put into operation with regard to the other dominions and colonies of the British Empire. I make that suggestion because of the fact that within the nations of the empire you have a spirit of cooperation which cannot and dtoes not exist with regard to foreign nations. In my judgment it would be a desirable course to extend preferential trade arrangements to the other self-governing dominions and the colonies of the British Empire in order to export our products to the maximum degree. The Australian trade treaty at present does not include lumber, and there are otheT items which could be included to the advantage of Canada and without injury to Australia. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that- the amendment moved by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre is one which is calculated to, and which will, if carried out properly, bring results favourable both to Australia and to Canada.

97S

Australian Treaty-Mr. Speakman


Mr. ALFRED SPEAKMAN (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think any apology is necessary for taking part in this debate. The subject itself is so tremendously important, so intricate and so difficult that it warrants very careful consideration and might warrant a somewhat prolonged discussion. It brings into review the whole question of international and world trade, of which inter-empire trade is a phase. It is obvious at this time that every civilized1 country in the world, and by civilized I mean every country which is now adopting or which has adopted modern commercial and industrial methods, is straining every effort towards one objective, the pursuit of markets in all parts of the world. To that end they are ransacking every nook and corner of the globe to find markets to dispose of their surplus production. They seek also another objective, that of selling in the markets of the world more than they are prepared to purchase.
This question of international trade has become much more difficult and much more intricate during past years. Not so many years ago the world was divided practically into two distinct types of countries. There were the old world countries, densely populated, highly industrialized, which were bending their whole effort toward manufactured production but which were dependent upon the newer countries for their foodstuffs and their raw materials. Then there were the newer countries which were sparsely populated and which had not made any considerable effort at that time toward industrialization, but which had for sale both at home and abroad large quantities of food and of raw materials. In those days world trade was a comparatively simple matter. The two classes of countries interchanged their goods to their own mutual advantage and1 very little domestic or internal irritation arose. But since that time and during the past few years a very great change has taken place. The newer countries have become industrialized, and of those newer countries Canada is a very outstanding example. Canada is no longer a mere purveyor of foodstuffs and raw materials to be manufactured by other countries, but she has developed her manufacturing industries to a very great degree and is now in the position not of affording a ready market for the manufactured products of other countries but of being forced to seek a market in which to dispose of her manufactured products.
There is another very significant change which has taken place in the world during the past few years, and that is the tremendous speeding up of production, both in manufacturing and agriculture. The adoption of newer and more up to date methods, the utilization

of machinery to a degree unheard of and undreamt of a few years ago, has placed production upon an entirely different basis. Overproduction is a constant possibility and as a matter of fact is a constant menace to the newer countries such as Canada.
To complicate the matter further, the tariff walls of the different nations have been raised again and again. These countries are faced by the menace of over-production and a constant effort is being made by means of tariffs to conserve their own home markets and to keep out the goods of other countries which might have surplus products to dispose of. I hardly need state the result to the house for it to realize the obvious absurdity and impossibility of such a situation. In order to meet this situation trade treaties have been negotiated, and, speaking for myself, I heartily approve of such treaties particularly as they may apply to those countries comprising the British Empire. I do not approve of the principle of protection as it is generally applied and I see in these trade treaties an obvious attempt to modify the effect of the protective policy as we know it. Each treaty seeks to lower the protective wall of some individual country against some particular article to favour the country making the treaty, and I think it is safe to say that each treaty is an attempt on the part of a country to modify the effect of the high tariffs which may prevail in other countries.
Believing as I do that unrestricted trade between all countries is beneficial to everyone concerned, I welcome the attempt being made, by treaty or otherwise, to eliminate, partially or wholly, some of the obstacles which this and other countries have raised. In making these treaties a very definite principle should be always observed, and that is that the benefits accruing therefrom should not only be mutual as regards the two countries entering into the arrangement, they should be reasonably advantageous to the country but they should not be hostile toward any part of the population of either of the two countries concerned. Upon consideration of this phase of the matter, I find myself in opposition to the present Australian treaty.
When I speak of that treaty I mean the treaty in its largest sense. It is useless to discuss the New Zealand situation as being apart from the working of the Australian treaty, for the benefits of that treaty are simply extended to the kindred dominion of New Zealand. When I speak of the treaty I speak of it as it applies to Australia and to New Zealand alike. While I am in sympathy with and in favour of the negotiation of these treaties when they may be beneficial to Canada as a whole, I recognize in

Australian Treaty-Mr. Speakman
the present treaty an obvious disability which applies to one and a not unimportant section of this country. To that end I propose to address my remarks.
It has been stated with apparent truth that in taking the position we do we are acting in a manner inconsistent wtih former protestations made in the house and the policies which have always been believed in, always been advocated by the organization which nominated us and which was instrumental in sending us here. But I think that objection is founded upon two misapprehensions. The first is this as to the attitude of the farmer, the western farmer included, towards tariff and protection. I have heard in the house during the last few days a great deal of loose talk concerning the attitude of the farmer towards protection. I have heard it stated on the one side that he is unequivocally opposed to protection of any kind. I have heard it stated on the other that he is himself rapidly becoming a protectionist. I have heard it stated that no form of protection on any class of farm goods can at any time or under any circumstances be of advantage to him. If such were the case, naturally no objection could be taken to the discrimination displayed in this treaty.
To my mind we have to analyse the situation a good deal more closely than that. The farmers' organization to which I belong, the farmers throughout western Canada, so far as I know, have taken and do take ground, which I have taken and still hold, that as regards the system of protection as a whole the disadvantages accruing to agriculture very greatly overbalance any possible advantage that might be derived from that system. I also take the ground, which I think is borne out by the obvious facts, that a tariff placed against the entry of farm products, when farm products of a similar nature in this country are upon a definitely export basis, such as wheat, for example, can be of very little value to any Canadian farmer. But I have never heard it successfully argued that a tariff placed against the entry of farm goods the production of which in this country is not upon an export basis, but is wholly consumed in Canada, can have any other effect than that of advantage to the Canadian farmer. That is why I say that we must analyse the situation, take each particular phase of it by itself and consider it on its merits. In that way we are neither compromising nor departing from our belief that, taking the protective system as a whole, its disadvantages are greatly in excess of its advantages so far as the farmers of this country are concerned. We are not departing from our formerly expressed opinions when we state that no tariff placed
upon farm goods when farm goods of a similar nature in this country are on an export basis, can be of any value, but we state-and as I say I think it is borne out by the facts-that a protective tariff upon farm goods that are not upon an export basis, that are not produced in such sufficient quantities as to meet the full requirements of the home market, must of necessity be of advantage to the Canadian farmer. That is the position taken in regard to protection by the farmers of this country. I am not saying at this moment that because of that fact the farmers either should ask or are justified in asking for that protection. But we should analyse the situation and confine ourselves to actual facts when defining protection as it affects the farmer.	.
I have been a member of the farmers' organization in Alberta for well over twenty years, ever since its inception, and I presume I can speak as well as any other man for the principles of that organization and for the motives which led to its formation. I have one definite fact in mind, a fact which formed the basis of all our arguments when our organization was first constituted, a fact which is as dominant and true to-day as it was then, namely, that the great impelling motive which drew the farmers of the west together in this organization was that they found in the laws, the fiscal policy of this country, the farmers were not placed on a basis of equality as compared with those engaged in other industries. They resented that and they banded themselves together in order that they, together, could accomplish what they could not achieve singly, namely, place themselves on that basis of equality as regards fiscal policies, commercial business, finacial position and legislative influence. That was why they came together and for that purpose they were organized.
If we bear that in mind, in what position do we find ourselves to-day in relation to the Australian treaty? Can any hon. gentleman, no matter how he may support this treaty, no matter how beneficial he may find it in respect of Canada as a whole-and I admit at onlee I am glad to say it is beneficial to Canada as a whole-say that in its very basis, its very terms, its very nature, the treaty is not an application of unequal policies as regards farming and other industries in this country. In its very terms, its very basis, it violates the policy of equality for which we banded ourselves together and sets up the very policy of inequality which we were determined to eradicate. I can see no inconsistency in our position in that regard.
We find ourselves faced with a new set of conditions. Everyone in this country knows,
Australian Treaty-Mr. Speakman

and is sorry to know, that agriculture to-day as regards its marketing conditions is not in a sound and healthy position. We look at our great production of wheat, the mainstay, the staple of our export trade, the staple of the lives of tens of thousands of Canadian families, and how do we find it? Just as I indicated a few minutes ago when I stated that we are always on the verge of the menace of over-production, we find that we have reached that point in regard1 to wheat and that through all these new methods of production, through the bounty of nature throughout' the world, the market for wheat has crashed and the farmers of this country in common with those of others-tout in this I am speaking for the farmers of Canada and . particularly of western Canada-are facing a future that is devoid of a great deal of hope so far as their main crop is concerned. We assume, and I think we are safe in assuming, that for years the marketing of wheat will be on a somewhat uncertain and doubtful basis. Why do I say that? We find that four years ago there were, as there are to-diay, four chief countries engaged in the export of wheat, namely, the United States, Canada, Australia and the Argentine. In those four years from 1925 to 1929, the increase in wheat acreage in those four countries amounted to something like 20,000,000 acres, an amount equal to the total acreage of western Canada four years ago. We find that the warehouses of the world are full and that wheat is apparently unasked for, uncalled for, unconsumed, certainly not because it has lost its value as a food product, tout for two reasons: first, the amount of wheat in the world, and, second, the inability, the incapacity of the men, women and children in other countries who formerly consumed our wheat to purchase it to-day. Conditions of penury in many families in Europe have reached such a point that these people cannot maintain the standard of living to which they were accustomed and which was embodied in the consumption of our wheat. Not only do we find them bending every effort to raise in their own country sufficient, wheat to meet their own needs, but they are driven by the force of circumstances to mix that stuff down, to adopt cheaper substitutes, to use an inferior brand of flour. In every way we see the per capita consumption of wheat decreasing, while production has gone on unchecked. So I say that from a wheat point of view the future of the farmer of the west is not a very bright one. We find that he has been struggling against these adverse circumstances. We find that his income has been reduced, while his cost of living has remained where it was, and now he turns his eyes in every direction seeking relief.
[Mr. Speakman.1
Naturally, as has always been the case-it is not a matter of legislation, not a matter of oratory, but simply a matter of common sense and common knowledge-just as soon as the wheat market becomes uncertain, the farmers turn their attention more and more to mixed farming. We speak of the fluctuations in the price of butter as though that were something to be deprecated, but from my point of view the price of butter and the volume of production of that or any other dairy product is a direct barometer of the condition of the wheat market. When there is a profit to be made in wheat, when crops and prices are good, what farmer will enslave himself to the job of milking cows seven days a week and fifty-two weeks in the year? They will not do it, and the consequence is that the dairy business remains stationary or goes down, while the energies of the farmer are directed to a more profitable and easier means of making a living. But when the wheat market falls off, they go back to the old sure but slogging methods of mixed farming. That is why I say that there has been a lot of nonsense talked on all sides in this house about the fluctuations in butter prices and butter production. Butter production is a barometer to test the prosperity of the western farmer, and we find to-day that the barometer needle is swinging the other way and that the farmer is turning his thoughts to mixed farming.
Then what do we find? The farmer sees that the market in which he should have a prior claim is laid open to importations from other countries, with no adequate return to himself in the provisions of any treaty. I am not saying that were this treaty abrogated, and the tariff put back upon its former basis, it would bring to the farmer any lasting advantage. That I think will be the answer to the question raised by the hon. member for Nelson (Mr. Bird) when he foresaw danger to the farmer in the very accentar of his demand by this country. Why do I say that? There is no danger to him morally or economically in keeping the whole Canadian market to himself, thus gaining a better price for his products and a better living for himself and his family. I am not one of those who subscribe to the idea that protection and free trade are moral principles. I look upon them both as being economic policies to be applied in the fairest and most just manner for the benefit of all the people. They are not moral principles at all, and I say that there is no lack of morality in the farmer seeking through any legitimate means to increase his income and improve his standard of living so that he may give to his family some of the benefits to which he feels they

Australian Treaty-Mr. Speakman
are entitled. There is no moral question involved at all. There is, however, the question of actual results as tested by the great touchstone of common sense. We are receiving in this country to-day for our butter and other dairy products prices greater than the export price, and we have for some years been receiving that better price. Assuming that the Australian treaty were abrogated, and that the tariff went back to where it was, it would result I believe in a temporary advantage to our farmers, but if through that advantage, through the encouragement thus given, through the relation to the wheat market to which I have just referred, our production of dairy products were increased ten or fifteen or fifty per cent, and thereby exceeded by a wide margin the domestic consumption, the farmer would find himself back on an export basis so far as the price of his butter and other dairy products was concerned, and he might in the long run realize less money than he is receiving to-day. There is the danger I see, as suggested by the hon. member for Nelson, and not any danger to the moral standing of the farmer, no danger to his prospect of future salvation as might be suggested by some people.


Alan Webster Neill: Then why abrogate the treaty?


Alfred Speakman: For two reasons. I do not say abrogate the treaty because I am against treaties, I am perfectly willing to see a new treaty negotiated and our people get all the markets they can, so long as they do not climb over the tariff walls of other countries on the shoulders of our farmers. But I do not want to divert my thoughts from the point I have in mind at the moment, which is the treaty itself. Why do I say, abrogate the treaty? In the first place, because it would undoubtedly be an immediate advantage, which is so sorely needed. In the second place, I am not at all certain that the reestablishment of the old tariff would be any material factor in increasing butter prices. I am rather inclined to believe that in view of the condition of the wheat market, butter production will increase anyway, and butter prices improve, and the farmer might as well get that little bit of advantage out of it while he can.
There is another point of view. I have always fought everywhere as well as I could for fair and equal treatment of farmers with other people. I believe that, not in the question of free trade or protection, but in the far more vital question of equality, lies a real moral principle and a real moral obligation, and for that moral principle and that moral obligation I stand to-day. The very reverse
and contradiction of that is exemplified and typified in the treaty that I am to-day asking to have abrogated. There is my reason.
It has never been and it is not now my custom to impute motives in this house. I think I stand clear of that in the eyes of every hon. member. I have never criticized nor attacked any man in this house for the position he has taken on any matter, but when I am attacked, when a member points the finger at me and says that I am guilty of the great apostasy, that I am inconsistent in my principles, then, Mr. Speaker, I think I have a right to examine, indeed, I think that that member has invited some examination of his own position in this house. What do we find? A little earlier in this debate the question of apostasy was very fully discussed and the dictionary definition of that word was enunciated. I too looked in the dictionary and among other definitions given of apostasy I find this-the abandonment of party, the abandonment of old associates and colleagues in the house, of old fellow warriors and fellow fighters lined together in the same regiment fighting for a common cause. As I stand here and think back over the years that have gone, the years when I and others entered this house full of optimism, full of hope, full of courage, as I look along this line and think of the stalwart champions who have fought side by side with us here, and then look across the floor and see some of those stalwart champions facing us from the opposite side, fighting those things which together we advocated and supporting those things which together we denounced, can I do anything but deprecate and lament the change?
A statement was made yesterday by the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown)-and I know he appreciates that there is no personal ill will in my references; we have always been friends and I can only regret his present position-as a matter of fact two or three statements were made by him. One was that neither he nor his present associates had ever been heard to advocate the principle of protection for farmers. It is true, Mr. Speaker. But in that regard I think of a certain gentleman of old of whom it was said that what he did so thundered in the ears that it rendered inaudible iwbat he said. It is not what the hon. gentleman has said to which I might take exception. He has at all times to the best of his ability denounced with verbal thunder and verbal pyrotechnics the principle of protection and all those who uphold that principle. I repeat, it is not what the hon. gentleman has said to which I might take exception; but actions speak louder than words, and his actions have failed to second
Australian Treaty-Mr. Neill

those verbal thunders. Again, it was suggested that by our refusal to follow him and his associates across the floor we repudiate and refuse responsibility; and the hon. member for Lisgar suggested that he and his associates -for all of whom I have the utmost regard- were prepared to accept that responsibility. Well, are they prepared to accept responsibility for every action of the government, for all its policies?-which actions and policies differ not one tittle from the policies and actions which those same hon. gentlemen denounced when they sat with us on this side of the house. And yet if we follow the hon. member's argument to its logical conclusion what other interpretation can we pass upon his statement as to responsibility? Politics, he said, makes strange bedfellows. Well, when I see my friend in close communion with and sharing the responsibilities of those whose gods are not his gods, I think again of him when he spoke of the husks for which the farmers would wallow in the trough if they adopted protection. I think there is a good deal of truth in his remark. But, sir, when I think of him running free in the green pastures of independent thought and action on this side of the house, and look at him as he now sits opposite, cribbed, cabined and confined with those whose gods are not his gods, I think I detect a touch of regret, a touch of pathos as he realizes too late the fact that all he has received in exchange for those green pastures are but husks-husks neither nourishing nor palatable.


Alan Webster Neill: Might I be allowed, Mr. Speaker, to move the adjournment of the debate?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Charles Avery Dunning: We could proceed with this debate to-morrow, but for the fact that of course on Thursday the Speaker leaves the chair automatically without question put. If the debate could be continued to-morrow with the same result as if a division had been reached to-day, it would be very helpful.


Mr. BENNETT:: I see no reason why that should not be done, speaking for those with whom 1 am associated. Of course, the hon. member who moved the amendment may have some other reason in the premises. There seems no good reason why the debate should not be proceeded with now for another fifteen minutes.


William Irvine: What is the discussion, Mr. Speaker? We cannot hear anything in this corner.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend's leader has indicated his willingness.


William Irvine: To do what?


Edward James Young: Your leader heard it.


Hewitt Bostock: The question is whether this house should continue to sit this afternoon or whether the hon. member for Comox-Alfoerni (Mr. Neill) should be allowed to move the adjournment of the debate. It has been suggested that the debate might be continued to-morrow, although it being Thursday the Speaker automatically leaves the chair without question put. As this affects a rule of the house, the suspension of the rule must be agreed to unanimously. Will it 'be agreeable to the house to proceed to-morrow as if it was not Thursday when the Speaker automatically leaves the chair without question put?


Alan Webster Neill: I would point out, sir, that
the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. McRae) was allowed last night at fifteen minutes before eleven o'clock to adjourn the debate.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, it was less than five minutes to eleven. I object to the house stopping at fifteen minutes before six o'clock. The other night we finished up a matter a few minutes after six, I think we should continue until six o'clock.


Alan Webster Neill: I suppose, Mr. Speaker, it is
possible for me to waste fifteen minutes-


An hon. MEMBER:: It usually is.


Alan Webster Neill: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Speaker. An hon. gentleman states that I often waste the time of the house. I ask for your ruling, sir. I submit that it is out of order for such a statement to be made, and I am willing to go at great length into the rules which so prescribe, as I think you will find, sir, if you will allow me time to look them up. I know I saw the other day that it is out of order to use the expression "stupid," and I know it has been ruled that the word "misrepresentation" is also out of order. Surely it is out of order to suggest than an hon. member on this side often wastes the time of the house. I would ask your ruling, sir, on that definite point:	Is any hon. member
justified in saying that another hon. member often wastes the time of the house?


Hewitt Bostock: No, it is not in order to say that an hon. gentleman wastes the time of the house. Therefore I would ask that the expression be withdrawn.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not think it is on
the records of the house.


George Reginald Geary: I believe, Mr. Speaker, I am referred to, but I did not make the remark.
9S3

Australian Treaty-Mr. Neill


Alan Webster Neill: Then, sir, I would categorically name every member opposite until I do find out.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh no.


George Reginald Geary: My hon. friend made the
remark himself. He said he could possibly waste the time of the house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what he said.


George Reginald Geary: The hon. member himself
made the statement.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Withdraw.


Hewitt Bostock: I hope the hon. member
will proceed now.


Alan Webster Neill: I said, sir, I supposed I could, but never for a moment would I think of doing so. I do suggest there must be something of a guilty conscience about the hon. gentleman who gets up and denies making the statement. Is there not a saying in French: Qui s'excuse s'accuse? Or, to render it into the vernacular: He is guilty who defends himself against no accusation.


William Irvine: Are you on the point of
order now?


Alan Webster Neill: The point of order is closed I understand. I have received the apology that one gentleman makes to another. I agree somewhat with one remark of my hon. friend from Red1 Deer (Mr. Speakman) when he said he saw no principle, in the real sense of the word, involved in a discussion of the tariff. Yesterday the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) dealt with that aspect of it. He referred repeatedly to principles connected with tariff matters, and he endeavoured to prove, possibly to his own satisfaction, that my hon. friends opposite in that corner of the house had, by their present or recent attitude, deviated in some way from tariff principles to which they had pledged adherence in years past. Then, we find my hon. friend from Nelson (Mr. Bird) saying this afternoon that a belief in tariff is not a principle, but a vice. So, you see, we have at least two points of view in the house. One is to the effect that belief in some particular form of tariff is a moral obligation not to be lightly disregarded, and not to be disregarded without incurring a moral obloquy; on the other hand we have the hon. member for Nelson boldy claiming his conviction that belief in any form of tariff is base, and to be deprecated as much as possible.
I agree to this extent with the hon. member for Nelson that I believe there is no principle involved in tariff matters. I would suggest that instead of invoking the word "principle" the tariff is to be regarded more as a matter of personal viewpoint or personal
policy, modified by three important factors. In the first place, it is modified by the man's occupation or business or the means by which he earns a livelihood, and by the opportunities which that occupation or business affords for personal aggrandisement by means of the introduction or operation of a tariff in some form. The second factor which, I would suggest, modifies the man's viewpoint is what might be called geographical location. One can imagine a farmer in British Columbia- and I know many of them-who are firm believers in tariff protection. If that same man lived on the prairies, as my hon. friends opposite do, and to some extent my hon. friends behind me, he would probably change his views. He would not change by any weakening of moral principle or obligation, or disregard of his duty to his God, his country or his fellow man, but merely by the pressure of economic conditions. He might in time become a free trader-like my friends opposite, if they will not be offended when I use that term. In view of their action in connection with this resolution, perhaps one should be a little careful.
The third factor which influences the point of view of a man in formulating his tariff belief is the exigencies of party politics. A man will adhere to tariff policies in connection with a political party; he will swallow policies that he does not believe in and which he does not like, sometimes with results prejudicial to himself, because they are policies adopted in the long forgotten past by the political party to which he owes allegiance. He will adhere to them, no matter what his personal convictions may be. It is for those reasons, sir, that we have found in the past and will no doubt find in the future that the Liberal party when in opposition professes a wide and extreme adherence to the policies of free trade. They pledge themselves to a great extent to carry out those policies should they come into office. Then when they do assume power they do not carry out the pledges they have made to the extent one would expect, judging from their utterances while in opposition.
In the same way we find the great Conservative party, when in opposition, continually harping on tariff, tariff, and more tariff, and holding it out as the one thing under heaven and above hell to cure every ill that the body politic could be heir to. When they assume power, however, what do we find? As in the case of the Liberals, they do not live up to the extremes of tariff policies they have been advocating, and I do not blame them in the least. Neither do I blame the Liberals, because the reason that applies is the same in both cases, and it is a twofold
Australian Treaty-Mr. Neill

reason. In the first place, it could not be done on economic grounds. As a general rule we find able men occupying the treasury benches, and they see that it would be impossible to carry out the extreme measures of protection, as a strict application of their policy would effect prohibition or embargo. On the other hand, in the case of the Liberals, absolute free trade would be unworkable.
The other reason that operates to prevent the carrying out of those principles is a very simple one. It is obvious that they could not do so, because in this Canada of ours, with its immense area and its divergent interests, it would be absolutely impossible for any party to get the support of enough members to carry out a policy consisting of either extreme free trade or total prohibition.
I was struck some time ago with some remarks made by the hon. member for Victoria, B.C. He was attacking some action of the government, and alleging that the Liberals had not lived up to the principles of free trade. In his argument he produced some figures to show that the amount of free trade reduction they had made during the years they had retained power was negligible. As a matter of fact, he reduced it to a fraction of one or two per cent, and the effect of his statement was that the Liberals had been recreant to the promises they had made while in opposition. I thought his remarks were a wonderful commentary on many of the speeches we hear in this house when we are told that the country is going to the-I do not know if I should say, the devil, although that word was used this afternoon-but at any rate the country is going to certain destruction because of the lack of a high tariff policy. Thus we find the hon. member from my own province frankly admitting that, after all, the Liberals have made very slight reduction in the tariff.
I propose, sir, not to take a partisan view of the questions involved in the subject under discussion. I propose, as I have done before, and not without censure, to deal with an open mind with the issues before me as they would affect the destiny of Canada and, in the second place, the province of British Columbia, to which I profess second allegiance. I propose also to deal with the benefits, or loss of benefits, which might accrue to the district which I directly represent if the amendments were adopted.
With these few preliminary observations I would respectfully suggest, sir, that it is practically six o'clock.
On motion of Mr. Neill the debate was adjourned.



Hewitt Bostock: I have the honour to
inform the house that a message has been received from the Senate informing this house that the Senate does not deem it opportune to appoint a special committee to act jointly with a similar special committee of the House of Commons to consider matters referred to that committee by the House of Commons relating to pensions and returned soldiers' problems, for the reason that they could not participate in the final decisions of that committee which must report to the House of Commons.
That the Senate recognizes the necessity of avoiding, as far as possible, the duplication of work on that committee and with that end in view the Senate has agreed upon the names of the senators who will later be asked to form the special committee to whom will be referred whatever legislation in this connection may reach this chamber. They are:-
The Honourable Senators Belcourt, Black, Beland, Blondin, Buchanan, Gillis, Graham, Griesbach, Hatfield, Laird, Lewis, Macdonnell, MacArthur, Rankin, Taylor and White (Pembroke).
The above named senators will, when notified, be pleased to attend the sittings of the special committee of the House of Commons.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I imagine
it is the desire of the house to continue to-moiTOw with this debate, and in that event a motion will be required. Therefore I desire to move:
That standing order 28 be suspended on Thursday, 27th March, instant, and motion be then made that the Speaker leave the chair for the house to go into committee of supply.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It being understood that the supply will be the Department of Public Works.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


Hewitt Bostock: By unanimous consent.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
At six o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.