1930-03-25

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. FINLAY MacDONALD (Cape Breton South):: I should like to ask the right hon. Prime Minister if he is in a position to-day to give us any further information with regard to the I'm Alone incident.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I am sorry >to say that I am not in a position to do so.


Finlay MacDonald: When may we expect this information?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not know what information I could give my hon. friend beyond the fact that the matter is sub judice at the present time. I cannot say when the various counsel will get through discussing the matter.

Export Act-Mr. Bennett



TECHNICAL AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. J. GARLAND (Bow River):: Possibly the Prime Minister now can answer the question which I put to the government the other day and to which his attention was to be drawn by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning). The question was whether the government intend to implement the report of the Beatty commission on technical salaries this session and, if so, by what procedure.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, the report of the Beatty commission is for the guidance of the government in the matter of fixing the salaries of technical and professional civil servants. Just what the government may do with respect to these salaries will be made apparent when further estimates are presented to parliament dealing with that matter. I cannot tell my hon. friend in advance what will be done because, as a matter of fact, there has not been an opportunity to consider the report to the degree to which the administration would like to consider it before taking action.


Edward Joseph Garland: Of course the Prime Minister realizes that any estimates brought down will, to that extent, curtail effective opposition.



EXPORT ACT AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, March 24, consideration in committee of Bill No. 15, to amend the Export Act-Mr. Mackenzie King-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
The CHAIRMAN:: This bill was before
the committee last evening; each section and subsection was considered; amendments were adopted, and the section as amended was adopted as well.


Mr. GARDINER:: Have these bills been distributed?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.
On the title.


Mr. BENNETT:: Has the government
given further consideration to the phraseology of the bill and is it satisfied that the questions raised yesterday have been adequately answered by the language employed?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The government has given further consideration to this
matter and is confirmed in the view which was expressed yesterday.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. MACKENZIE KING moved the third reading of the bill. .
Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I am sure
that the house has been amused if not edified by the spectacle presented since this bill was first moved. We have a very amazing condition of affairs with respect to a matter that is regarded as of very serious importance to the Canadian people. The principle of the bill was approved of upon the second reading and the bill now stands for third reading, but the hon. gentleman (Mr. Euler) who was so intense in his statements of a year ago, has been so silent during the discussion of this bill that, in the language of the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), that silence is impressive. We venture to direct attention to the fact that the government had taken rather a strange view in this matter. A year ago the government, speaking through its Minister of National Revenue, declared that the measure which has now been adopted by this house was impossible of realization. He made his declaration in language so vigorous and so strong that I think it would be unfair to the Canadian people to allow this measure to pass without directing attention to a few of the words he used on that occasion. On May 21, 1929, the hon. Minister of National Revenue, speaking on a motion which had been made in this house with respect to this very matter, namely, the export of liquor to the United States of America, used these words, as reported at page 2704 of Hansard of that year:
One of the arguments offered against our prohibiting the issuance of clearances is that the problem which the United States is now experiencing is one of their own making and that we are not primarily responsible. Another is-using the words of the man on the street- "let the United States enforce their own law." In the light of the statements which I made this afternoon, in connection with the lack of effort on the part of the United States to enforce their own law, I think that attitude is a very human and fairly reasonable one and that we might at least go slowly until we have some assurance and some evidence that they are trying to do for themselves what they are now asking us to do for them.
There has not been a tittle of evidence produced to show any change in the conditions prevailing in the United Staltes from May 21, 1929, until to-day. Those remarks were made after the conference had taken place in the city of Ottawa, at which conference the right hon. gentleman's own ministers
Export Act-Mr. Bennett

attended for the purpose of indicating their views with respect to the matter. The magazines of that country have discussed the positions now prevailing, a noteworthy article having appeared in Plain Talk dealing with present day conditions in Michigan. Let us look at another observation made by the hon. minister, as follows:
If clearances would no longer be granted, the result would be that shipments of liquor to the United States would not go from recognized customs ports of the Canadian border and the traffic would be forced under ground to the corruption of Canadian people where perhaps it has not extended to Canada as it has to the United States.
When the right hon. gentleman proposed this measure to the house in the terms in which he did, I asked him if this meant the corruption of the Canadian people last year why it does not mean their corruption now. That is the question. This difference of opinion between the Prime Minister and his colleague, as I said on the second reading of this bill, means the destruction of the foundation upon which responsible institutions rest; the solidarity of the cabinet is the basis of our government. The minister continued:
It seems to me that in that case, if the liquor cannot go out through a recognized customs port in Canada, it will go out through perhaps every little landing place that may exist along our boundaries lined with lakes and rivers.
Our lakes and rivers have not changed. The building of the Beauharnois canal may have been commenced, but the lakes and rivers are still there. Has the hon. gentleman changed the geography of Canada? Did he mean what he said on that occasion? Does he now agree to what the right, hon. the Prime Minister says? An hon. member having interjected the remark "and worse liquor" and the minister continued:
Perhaps worse liquor, and the difficulty from our point of view will be that it will then be illegally exported.
Where is the moral issue? In one case it is illegally exported and in another it is legally exported; which is right? The minister continued :
As the matter stands now, the export of liquor from Canada is absolutely legal.
Let the Prime Minister stand up and condemn his own government or let him rise in his place in this House of Commons and accept the words of a member of his own administration. When the Minister of National Revenue spoke, he spoke for the government-he said distinctly that he was speaking for the government, and he was speaking in the presence of the Prime Minister. Listen to these words:

If we pass a law prohibiting clearance, the liquor will then go out in any case, but it will go out illegally and secretly instead of openly, aboveboard and subject to a certain amount of observation, because we have limited the number of places from which exportation can be made.
Only ten months ago it was legal for the officials of the government to enagage in this business and although the right hon. the Prime Minister says that he does not desire the officials to be engaged in this enterprise, four years passed without a word of condemnation being uttered. The right hon. the Prime Minister permitted his colleague to rise in his place and make the observations to which I have just referred, both in his presence and with his approval. We have listened to deductions as to the high moral attributes of the government in passing this measure, and we have listened to what the right hon. gentleman had to say with respect to the conditions on the international boundary. But the minister continued:
I mentioned this afternoon that when the excise was paid on liquor manufactured in Canada. the liquor became free goods and could be exported the same as any other commodity. I repeat that because I want to add this further observation: that being the case, we cannot stop the exportation of that liquor from any customs port in the Dominion. We have limited the number of docks, but that has not resulted in stopping the exportation of liquor through those ports. We can limit the number of docks within any one port as we did, for example, at Windsor; but we cannot, under the present law, stop the export through any open port in the Dominion. There are those who say-and I have in mind now a prominent Toronto newspaper-that if we passed a law prohibiting the granting of clearances we would at least have washed our national hands of an offence against a friendly neighbour and that, having done that, we would be under no obligation to spend money or time to uphold the laws of the United States. I cannot agree with that, view.
Yet that is the view put to this house by the right hon. the Prime Minister as one of the reasons why we should support this bill. They are not the reasons that I have given which governed our customs committee in 1926, but the reasons now given by the Prime Minister were denounced by his minister ten months ago in these words:
I cannot agree with that view. I cannot escape the conclusion that we then assume a responsibility which now rests upon the United States.
Yesterday, when we were pressing this matter upon the attention of the house, where was the voice of the Minister of National Revenue? Where was he when we were pointing out that the language of this measure meant that Canada assumed a responsibility for the search of ships? He says: "I cannot

Export Act-Mr. Bennett
agree with the view put forward last year by the Toronto newspapers. It means that we must assume a responsibility which now rests upon the United States." He proceeded:
As the matter stands, if there is any violation of law it is a violation of United States law. As it would be under the new law, it would be a violation of Canadian customs law. The law is the law, and we cannot shirk responsibility as readily as that suggestion would make it appear. If a Canadian customs law is violated, surely it becomes the duty of Canadian customs officers to see that that violation is punished. I am not trying to exaggerate; I do not think I am drawing a fanciful picture at all, but I say that if we are under an obligation in the Department of National Revenue to see that violations of the law are punished, surely we shall need to establish a preventive force a good deal larger than the one we have now, which, I may say, is giving me enough trouble as it is. I am sure the most ardent prohibitionist will not say that this country should be under any obligation to spend large sums of money in employing many mtn to see that that law prohibiting the exportation of liquor is not violated. Nations have not yet become quite so altruistic as that.
This is the government speaking.
Besides that, we would not succeed;-
The government then said:

we could not stop the exportation of liquor, although it might be lessened to some extent. After we had passed a law of that kind and liquor still continued to flow into the United States, I feel sure that our neighbours would yet be much inclined to criticise and we would continue to get the blame.
Compare that with the language of yesterday, the language of last week. Compare the language of the government; ten months ago and now. It is Doctor Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. The minister goes further and says:
But I will also say very frankly that I am more concerned with stopping smuggling into Canada than stopping smuggling into the United States.
How much has been done by the hon. gentleman since then to give effect to his then conviction? Ten months ago he was concerned over smuggling into Canada and yet the diplomatic correspondence brought down shows that in ten months not a single word has been written to deal with it. Nothing was done till Saturday last when, after we on this side of the house had pointed out that the government was dealing with the question by a jug-handled piece of legislation instead of a reciprocal treat3r, the Prime Minister suddenly became interested and started to negotiate a treaty.


Mr. DONNELLY:: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It would be very desirable for ithe hon. gentleman to look after his land. The hon. member will understand what I mean.


James J. Donnelly: Probably the hon. gentleman will change his mind with regard to the sockeye salmon treaty.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman has asked his question. Having asked bis question, he is entitled to an answer. The government of the United States withdrew the sockeye salmon treaty in the Senate. Perhaps the hon. gentleman is not aware of that.
I have yet to learn that my influence in the Senate of the United States is very great. It may have been that this has been done at the instance of the hon. gentleman's friends.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What about my hon. friend's friends?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It may have been done at the instance of some of my friends' friends, but the right hon. gentleman has more information on that (point than I have and I have usually observed that he knows a great deal more about other people's business than he does about the business of this country. It would be very desirable if, instead of thinking about other hon. gentlemen's friends' friends, he were thinking about a treaty that might have been negotiated with the United States at any time during the past four years, instead of waiting until the matter was brought up in parliament by the opposition. And then with that sudden conversion that ofbtimes characterizes bis high moral, perfervid convictions making a rush to negotiate another treaty with the United States.
This is the third reading of the measure and on a previous occasion I pointed out to the house what the attitude of the administration has been. Two long years the United States government waited for a reply to their communication offering this country a reciprocal treaty with respect to customs matters and extradition of those who offended against the customs legislation of either country. From 1925 to 1927 they waited. Then there followed a further period of two years until at last a conference was held and now in 1930 the government introduces legislation to do what? To provide against clearances being granted to liquor-laden ships going to the United States, but which legislation the Minister of National Revenue, who still occupies his place in the administration-if he were a self-respecting minister he would have long since resigned -ten months ago said was not capable of success. I say this and I am well within the mark when I refer to the history of Great Britain: when one of the ministers of the British cabinet made known to the public, before the prime minister bad seen it, a letter which was addressed to a government department, the prime minister asked for and was tendered the resignation of his minister.
Export Act-Mr. Bennett

But we have here the picture of a minister who, representing the government of this country, last year made a statement in which he condemned in unmeasured terms the attitude which the same government now takes. He now bows the neck to the Prime Minister and says: You are right; I am always wrong but I wili remain; the people were misled by me a year ago, but they are now being led by my leader. A self-respecting minister would resign and ministers have resigned for less. Take the ease of Mr. Tarte; take the case of other ministers I might mention, who have resigned because of differences o>f opinion on issues not as great as this. The position is quite clear. If the minister was leading the Canadian people along right lines ten months ago, he is wrong now, because there is not on the records of this parliament a single word to justify a change of heart on the part of anyone.
But an election is in sight; a great moral issue was to divert the people's minds from the real issue before the country, and the right hon. gentleman thought with the aid of the editors of the Toronto Star, the Toronto Globe and the Manitoba Free Press, those great pundits, he could divert the people's minds from our critical national condition and on a great moral issue they could retain a little larger place and power.
The people are getting a little weary of that sort of clap-trap. They are beginning to wonder why if, ten months ago, the government decided not to make a reciprocal treaty with the United States now, only ten months later, the Prime Minister should stand up and condemn in unmeasured terms every word uttered by his Minister of National Revenue. How can you have responsible government under conditions like that? How long in Great Britain would a minister of the crown permit himself to be thus publicly insulted' by his prime minister and held up as a joke to the public? What are people hereafter to believe when the Minister of National Revenue rises in his place and says: This is the correct course to pursue. They will say: Let us wait ten months and see what the Prime Minister says; he will repudiate it.
In addition to that we have the statement made yesterday by the Prime Minister of this country that we are now to negotiate a reciprocal treaty with the United States of America. We are to negotiate a treaty that the United States offered to us nearly five years ago, that they asked us to confer about five years ago, and we declined for two years even to answer their despatches. Two years later, as I say, we had a conference and now, instead of introducing legislation after TMr. Bennett.l
a treaty, we are, by force of public opinion passing legislation which will operate against ourselves, according to the Minister of National Revenue, and we are proposing later to negotiate a treaty. We give to the press reports from Washington and our own country that despatches went forward on Saturday last asking for the negotiation of a treaty. Name me any treaty that this government has negotiated that has not been a fiasco. In 1924 they negotiated a treaty with the United States in regard to liquor and smuggling, in which treaty they asked His Majesty the King to say that he was desirous of suppressing smuggling; and the Prime Minister stands in his place in this house and reads the regulations that were adopted by the government to assist in sending intoxicating liquors to the United States, ensuring that such liquor was, in the words of the Minister of National Revenue, being legally shipped to the United States. As the minister said in 1929, it was legal then to do it, although in 1924 we signed a treaty in which the name of His Majesty was used to express a desire to suppress smuggling. Oh, what a spectacle! And now in 1930, on the 24th day of March, the Prime Minister tells us that we are to negotiate a treaty with the United States of America. The old Australian treaty over again, I suppose, when the minister went down there to negotiate and came back with proposals that would have been acceptable to the Canadian people, but abandoned them and was compelled to place a dumping duty on Australian goods for the purpose of doing indirectly that which he could not directly do. The treaty operates just as we indicated it would. The same with New Zealand; France the same, shutting out Canadian wheat while France enjoys all the benefits conferred under the treaty; Italy and other countries the same; and now this government is to negotiate a treaty with the United States for the reciprocal prohibition of imports that are prohibited entrance into the two countries, after we have passed a statute giving the United States what they want. Oh, what a spectacle! Is it any wonder that the people of Canada ask themselves what it all means? Who is sincere, the Minister of National Revenue or the Prime Minister?


An hon. MEMBER:: Neither.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Nor the leader of the opposition.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am glad that the Minister of Justice has had a vision. We have not heard from him in this case. I am glad that the Minister of Justice has had a vision because he negotiated the treaty of 1924. His

Export Act-Mr. Lapointe
signature appears on it, and that is the treaty that said: If you have a suspicion that the liquor is going to Mexico in a rowboat, refuse clearance; but if you know that it is going to the United States in a ship grant a clearance. Is it any wonder that, applying the principles of international comity, the United States said: If you admit that you should not clear for the United States indirectly, we ask you in good morals and good faith to say that you will not do it directly. Now we are passing this legislation, instead of a treaty, and we are thereby dispossessing ourselves of the one single weapon we would have in negotiating the treaty namely, to be in a position to say that we will not make a treaty with the United States unless we get a reciprocal arrangement covering all articles smuggled into Canada from the United States. But we are not going to do that. We pass the law first, and make the treaty afterwards.
These, sir, seem to me to be considerations that should weigh mightily in the minds of the members of this house, not in connection with the passage of this legislation, but in asking ourselves why the government has been so derelict in its duty, so changeable in its opinions, so long delayed in taking the action it has. These are questions that we have the right to ask the government. We asked them on the second reading of this bill. We ask them now on the third reading of this bill, now that the amendments have been made which the government thinks are ample for the purpose of guaranteeing this country against the dangers which the Minister of National Revenue foresaw. We on this side can only say, the principle of this bill having, without division, been approved, the amendments having been approved, without division, and the bill now standing for third reading and about to pass, that this country has a right to know whether the Minister of National Revenue meant what he said a year ago and for conditions unchanged-there is no evidence of a change-was he right then or is he right now? We have also a right to ask whether the Prime Minister and his friends around him, who are so ready to accuse us of moral turpitude if we neglect to take steps to pass this legislation-and we have no power to do so- have overlooked the fact that since 1924 he has been as silent as the tomb with respect to this matter that he now considers to be of such pressing and urgent importance. We vote for the third reading, and leave it to the people of this country and the history of Canada to determine whether conduct such as that, so lacking in sincerity, so lacking in conviction upon a great issue, shall long deceive or befog the judgment of the Canadian people.


Ernest Lapointe: I cannot resist the
pressing invitation of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett), and may I be permitted, Mr. Speaker, also to offer a word of comment.
My hon. friend has spoken of the amazing spectacle that he is contemplating at the present time. Let me refer to the still more amazing spectacle that we on this side of the house are witnessing at the present time and have been witnessing since this bill was introduced. We are witnessing the spectacle of hon. gentlemen opposite, under the distinguished leadership of my hon. friend (Mr. Bennett), talking one way and voting the other way. My hon. friend speaks of the solidarity that must exist between members of the government. Surely there must be another solidarity, a solidarity between the vote of a member and his speech.
My hon. friend speaks of Doctor Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. What about the Jekyll who speaks and the Hyde who votes?
My hon. friend also speaks of hypocrisy. He did so the other dlay. I do not want to use such a word, but if my hon. friend is so ardent, so keen, about refusing to grant clearances to liquor vessels, how is it that he did not say a word about it last year? How is it that he did not say a word about it the year before?
My hon. friend the leader of the opposition speaks of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Euler) having spoken last year against this policy, but if I remember well, the refusal to prohibit these clearances was the only-policy which was received with commendation at that time by hon. gentlemen opposite and by their press throughout the country. Even up to the very day this bill was introduced, the whole Conservative press of Canada, at least, the one I read, rvas unanimously-opposed to this policy, and I know well enough the connection of my hon. friend with his press to know that if he had been wilting to go in another direction, his press would have followed him in that direction.
Mr. BF/NNETT: I aim sorry you are mistaken.


Ernest Lapointe: Even now some of the
press supporting my hon. friend are assailing this bill openly. Other papers of my hon. friend's press, do like my hon. friend and his friends in this Chamber; they do all that is within their power to try to make this legislation repugnant t'o the country. If that is sincerity, my hon. friend is welcome to it.
I say, Mr. Speaker, that perhaps the greatest testimony to the statesmanship and to the
Export Act-Mr. Bourassa

public leadership of the Prime Minister of Canada is the spectacle that we have been witnessing in this chamber for the last few days, of hon. gentlemen opposite not daring to oppose this bill, but being afraid to support it fairly and squarely.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Euler, Euler.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order.


Mr. HENRI BOURASSA (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker-


An hon. MEMBER:: Euler, the Minister of National Revenue.


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Euler, Euler.


Mr. VALLANCE:: You will get him by
and by. Just hold your horses.


An hon. MEMBER:: We want Euler.


Hewitt Bostock: Order, I have seen the
hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa).


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Mr. Speaker, you have
seen me, but some of my hon. friends have not seen me because, having entered the chamber just a minute ago, I am not yet up to the temperature which seems to prevail here.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: It won't take you long
to reach it.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Being of cool blood-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Being of cool blood I
like a gradation in things.
I came rather late, Mr. Speaker, but with the intention of adding a few remarks to those I made yesterday, because of the extremely important declaration made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) last evening. Not being concerned with the press of any party, with the press devoted to the liquor interests and to Toryism, or to Toryism and the liquor interests, or to both equally, useless to say that I view this thing from a point of view entirely disconnected from party interests.
May I suggest, Mr. Speaker, with due respect to all, that had the Prime Minister announced beforehand that this matter would be the object of negotiations between the Canadian government and the American government, a good deal of the objections expressed in what remains of the honest journals of Canada, and perhaps some of the objections raised in this house on both sides, might not have been necessary. However, I think I can say that the views expressed by the member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) and by my humble self are the views of many members on this side of the house.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why don't they
speak?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Well, some people
either by temperament or by circumstances are in the happy situation of being able to say what they think, others are not.
I wish to attach myself purely and simply to that very important declaration made by the Prime Minister. I will not quarrel with him because perhaps-I do not know-perhaps he might have preceded the introduction of this bill with the declaration he made last night. But taking the declaration as it is, and I so take it, and apprehending that the government is at present negotiating with the United States and will shortly come before this parliament with the draft of a treaty to be ratified, may I in my humble capacity as a member of this house make a couple of friendly suggestions to the government with regard to the conditions that ought to be attached to that treaty, or if you prefer, with regard to the ground that should be covered by it.
I understood the Prime Minister to say- and in this respect he practically agreed with the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett), and with my friend from St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Caban)-that the treaty should not only cover the liquor issue but a much broader ground. I welcome this announcement from various points of view; but there are two that I wish especially to bring to the attention of the government and the house this afternoon. The object of this legislation-and, I repeat, I take it to be sincere-is to make for easier cooperation between this country and the United States as regards the violation of the customs laws on both sides. It goes further. We undertake to pass legislation to help the United States in having their own laws observed. I have heard it expressed in this house and outside that it was a shame for the government of Canada to derive profits from a traffic which means the violation of the laws of another country. With that view I aim inclined to agree, but I respectfully submit, Mr. Speaker, that if we want to impress upon the minds of the people of this country that, as an aot of proper neighbourliness, it is proper to force our people to respect the law of another country, we should invite the government of that country to impress the minds of their own people with the duty to respect their own law.


Mr. CAHAN:: Hear, hear.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: This ought properly to
be one of the objects of these negotiations.

Export Act-Mr. Bourassa
Yesterday, I mentioned casually what had remained in my memory from a hasty reading of a despatch published in the Mail and Empire. I have read it more carefully since, and it is worse than I expected, or rather it reveals a state of things worse than what I described yesterday. The amount of money involved is not as large as what I indicated. The government of the United States is suing a certain person, an American citizen, not for income tax accruing from profits derived from the violation of the laws of the United States, but for a surplus tax. In other words, the government of the United States was already apprised of the fact that that party had been violating the laws of his country for years; the government of the United States had already received hundreds of thousands of dollars in income tax upon profits derived from the importation of liquor against the basic law of the country; the government of the United States was an accomplice and a profiteer in that violation of its own laws, and is now seeking before an American tribunal to make good its claim for a further share of profits derived from that violation.
Therefore I suggest that if we are to have the morality-much has been said about morality in the course of this debate-if we are to have the clear conscience of the people of Canada at the back of this legislation, we should say politely, as language should always be expressed between governments as between gentlemen, to the United States government, that if it wishes the people of Canada to observe the spirit of a law passed in Canada to help the government of the United States in making good its own laws, the American government should do something along the same lines. If it is wrong-and it is wrong- for Canadian citizens to derive profits from the export of liquor to the United States, what do you think of the morality of a government which receives annually millions of dollars in income tax collected from profits derived from violation of the Volstead Act? That condition exists within the knowledge of every public man and public official of the great republic to the south.
A couple of years ago I was talking about this matter with one of our own officials, one of the heads of the income tax branch of the Department of National Revenue. He is a highly informed gentleman. He had been in the United States, and while there, had obtained knowledge of the working of their income tax department; and he told me that it was a matter of course that millions and millions of dollars of the income tax in the United States came from profits derived or 2419-*o
accrued through violation of the Volstead Act. He said that the government of the United States had pledged itself, by the whole force of its law, never to reveal the sources of those profits, provided the bootleggers concerned gave proper returns showing their incomes, and paid their income taxes to the treasury of the American government. The piece of news which appeared in yesterday's Mail and Empire is confirmation of this statement. The suit is taken by the American government for violation of the income tax; it is not for violation of the Volstead Act; but it asks from the millionaire mentioned in the article the surplus tax which he failed to pay because of the profits made in the violation of the Volstead Act, and from which the American government and nation derive a large source of their revenue.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, since we are going to work in conjunction with that government in setting up a new standard of morality, we should suggest to them to do their share in the raising of that standard, and especially in putting it into force in their own country.
My second point is this. I learn that in these negotiations the government is going to speak of other "commodities." I think they were called "other goods," by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett); you may give it whatever name you like. They are going to deal with other goods that are the object of smuggling between the two nations. The Prime Minister said yesterday, if I am not mistaken, that there were very few of them at the present time forbidden by our law. There is one, however, which I think is forbidden by our law and which ought to be forbidden by the law of any-shall I say Christian country? It is very difficult to say what countries are Christian these days-a "commodity" the importation of which should be forbidden in any decent country, and that is, obscene literature. Time and again in the house and in private intercourse with the various gentlemen who have occupied the position of Minister of National Revenue I have called attention to the fact that every day, by every train travelling from the United States to Canada, tons of printed paper are brought into this and other cities of the Dominion, scattered throughout our book shops and sold at every book stall and street corner. Thus the worst and most obscene type of literature is laid before our boys and girls coming out of school. If you have observed things in Canada during the last ten years you will have witnessed the frightful increase in juvenile delinquency and criminality. The importation of this type of reading matter is one of the main causes of that degradation.
**VISED EDITION
Export Act-Mr. Eider

la this I am not only expressing the views of the clergy of various religious denominations, but I express the opinions of magistrates in our large cities who preside over juvenile courts. They have told in public and in private that the increase of depravity among the youth of our land is tremendous, and that one of the main causes of it is the enormous amount of obscene literature imported from the United States.
It may be that our chief concern is to prevent the Americans from drinking Canadian whisky, and to force them to drink moonshine whisky made in their own country; but I am more concerned with the moral, mental and physical health of the boys and girls in Canada than I am with the state of souls and bodies of people on the other side of the line. As the father of a family in Canada I respectfully appeal to the leaders of the three parties in this house. I have a family of four boys and three girls whom I am endeavouring to develop into good Canadians and Christians. With that in mind I ask this government to take some means to obtain from the United States a similar measure to the one we have in hand, so that they may do something to keep on their own side of the line the obscene stuff which is imported to this country with the leave of American authorities and, too often, with the complacency of Canadian officials. The late Mr. Boivin, the predecessor of the hon. gentleman who occupies the position of Minister of National Revenue, took some means to put a stop to this importation. The hon. minister wrho occupies that position to-day has also taken action in that direction; but so long as the Americans do not render us the same service of good neighbourliness which we are now undertaking to render to them, all the efforts of my hon. friend will be useless. Just as we are handicapped in the prevention of whisky smuggling, if the American officials are not in earnest in accomplishing their part of the work, likewise, we cannot preserve the morality of the youth of our country unless the Americans will help us. This is the other point I had in mind. I hope that in these negotiations the representatives of Canada will be just as much concerned with the morality of our youth as they are with the soberness, real or affected, of our neighbours.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, in listening to the remarks of the leader of the opposition, I gathered-


Mr. GUTHRIE:: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. As I understand it, my right hon. friend moved the third reading of the bill.
[Mr Bourassa.]


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Surely I have a right to speak on the third reading; I have not spoken at all on the third reading as yet.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend does not have to speak; he made the motion.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Surely I have the right to reply.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: We want Euler.


Hon. W. D. EULER (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Daum Euler: Perhaps I should first express surprise that upon rising to speak I should receive almost as much applause from hon. friends of the opposition as I received last year when I spoke with regard to this matter. My hon. friend the leader of the opposition has referred to my silence up to this point, but perhaps I might say to him and to the house that after all I am not quite so silent as he was last year after I spoke on this question.
I have no intention of speaking at any great length, sir, and at the outset of my few remarks I may say that I have no apologies to make for anything I said last year with regard to this question of liquor clearances. The views I held then were held honestly; I hold them to-day. But I should like to direct attention to a few remarks which I made at that time, which apparently have been entirely forgotten, and which are not inconsistent with what I said a few moments ago. At the conclusion of my remarks last year I said that the door was not closed-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Daum Euler: I invited a full discussion by all members of the house and by members of all parties on this subject, in order to enable the government to arrive at new conclusions or to be confirmed in the position that so far had been taken. I am not going to take refuge behind those remarks; as I said before I have no apologies whatever to offer for what I said last year. The views I then held I hold now.
Then there is one other point. While I still believe there will be great difficulties in the carrying out of the terms of this bill, I will say frankly that if there are other considerations-and I am not saying that I express any adherence to those considerations- if there are other considerations of national importance which outweigh the objections which I raised last year, then surely I am justified, as a member of the government of Canada, and especially when backed up by the unanimous opinion of the members of this house, in yielding to the

Export Act-Speaker's Ruling
will of parliament. I said last year that the question was in the hands of parliament; I can say that to-day, and what more unholy or unusual spectacle could anyone observe than to see men opposite who thumped their desks last year at my remarks, to-day remaining silent when the question is up for consideration again. Are they not just as much opposed to it now as they were last year?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Are you?


William Daum Euler: Perhaps I am not so familiar with constitutional government as my hon. friend the leader of the opposition may be, but surely a minister of the crown or a member of this house cannot go very far wrong when he does not array himself against the opinions of every member of the house, except one, in regard to this question. I think the people of Canada understand all the circumstances, and they understand the reasons why hon. gentlemen opposite, who are really opposed to this bill, are not opposing it here. I am perfectly willing to leave myself, as a member of this government, and my actions to the censure of the people of my constituency or to the criticism of the people of this country.
I have nothing further to say. This bill is receiving the unanimous approval of this house, and I cannot understand why the leader of the opposition, together with one or two other members of the opposition, speaks against the bill but fails to vote against it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker,
I rise for information, if I may do so. 1 understand the leader of the opposition contends that I have not the right to speak on the third reading of this bill. I would point out that when the third reading of the bill was called my hon. friend rose to his feet immediately and addressed the house, evidently knowing that by so doing I would be precluded from saying anything on the third reading of the bill. I assume that if I had wished to do so, when I made the motion, I could have spoken on the third reading of the bill. If my hon. friend had not risen when he did certainly I should have told this house that hon. members would have the privilege of voting on this question; and at that time I would have had my say. I hope hon. members will remain in the house to vote on the third reading of the bill.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Surely my hon. friend has
the right of reply.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is what I am asking; have I the right of reply? If I have not the right of reply I say my hon. friend opposite, through a technicality, is trying to deprive the leader of the govern-2419-591
ment of the right to make a statement in connection with this matter.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Mr. Speaker, I submit that the mover of the third reading of a bill has the right of reply.


Richard Bedford Bennett: With respect to the point of order, I was under the same impression as the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) and the right hon. Prime Minister appear to have been.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: But not when you rose to speak.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Certainly not, because I assumed that when the Prime Minister moved the third reading of the bill he would have made any statement he desired to make. He did not do so; the motion was put to the house and was being declared carried when I rose to my feet. The right hon. gentleman must know that to be the case. This sort of thing does not help parliament, when we get statements like that. Here is the rule in Beauchesne, paragraph 336:
By a substantive motion is meant a motion not incidental to a proceeding before the house.
The rule with respect to reply is that the person moving a substantive motion has the right of reply, but rule 336 says that the moving of the second or third reading of the bill is not a substantive motion. As far as I am concerned, the rules are there and I would not interpose my will as against the rules of the house, if the right hon. gentleman desires to speak. When I rose Your Honour was saying "carried" to the motion for third reading.


Hewitt Bostock: The question is whether this is a substantive motion or whether it is an ancillary motion. Campion, the latest authority, says:
Motions other than substantive
These may be divided into three classes:-
(1) Ancillary motions are motions. .	.	.
which are recognized by the practice of the . house as the regular way of proceeding with the various kinds of business-as e.g., the various stages of bills.
This is a stage of a bill; therefore this is an ancillary motion and not a substantive motion, and according to our rules, reply is not granted to the mover of that motion, unless by leave of the house, of course.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Certainly I shall not interpose any objection if it is the desire of the house that the Prime Minister shall speak.


Hewitt Bostock: Is it the pleasure of the house that the right hon. gentleman shall have leave to speak?
Export Act-Division


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Hewitt Bostock: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Mr. MacNUTT:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. POULIOT:: I was paired with the hon. member for North York (Mr. Lennox). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. MERCIER (Laurier-Outremont):: I was paired with the hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Geary). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. BOWMAN:: I was paired with the
hon. member for East Middlesex (Mr. Hod-gins) . Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. YOUNG (Saskatoon):: I was paired
with the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. McGibbon). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. BOTHWELL:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. Embury). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.

Militia Pension Act


Mr. GOULET:: I was paired with the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Garland). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. BLANCHARD:: I was paired with the hon. member for St. John-AJIbert (Mr. Bell). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. MAROIL:: I was paired with the hon. member for Argenteuil (Sir George Perley). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. DUSSAULT:: I was,paired with the hon. member for North Renfrew (Mr. Cotnam). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. DESCIOTBAUX (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. member for East Simcoe (Mr. Thompson). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. RAYMOND (Translation):: I was
paired with the hon. member for St. Antoine (Mr. Bell). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. RHEAUME:: I was paired with the hon. member for Toronto Northwest (Mr. Church). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.
Mr. MoPHEE: I was paired with the hon. member for Kings (Mr. Macdonald). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. WILSON (Vaudreuil-Soulanges):: I was paired with the hon. member for Mount Royal (Mr. White). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: Mr. Speaker,
would it be in order to direct attention to the fact that certain hon. gentlemen who are behind the curtains have not voted?


Hewitt Bostock: The precincts of the house is that portion visible to hon. members and would not include such space as may be behind the curtains.
Bill read the third time and passed. MILITIA PENSION ACT AMENDMENT
The house resumed from Monday, March 24, consideration in committee of the motion of Mr. Malcolm:
That it is expedient to amend the Militia Pension Act to provide that pension may he granted to the widow of any officer who, at the time of his death being on full pay, dies after a period at which a pension might be granted to him, or who was at the time of his death in receipt of a pension.


Hon. JAMES MALCOLM (Minister of Trade and Commence):: When we were discussing this resolution last evening, the hon.
member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Clark) asked a question as to the meaning of the last line in the resolution.


Mr. HEAPS:: Mr. Chairman, it is impossible to hear what the hon. minister is saying.


John Frederick Johnston: Order please.


James Malcolm: The hon. member asked the meaning of the last line of the resolution, but I was unable to give him an explanation at that time, but upon inquiry I find that the law clerk of the house drafted the resolution from the amended section. The resolution would be clear if the words "or who was at the time of bis death in receipt of a pension" were stricken out. I believe the resolution would be more understandable with the deletion of those words.


Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: How many will be affected by this proposed amendment? Does it affect only certain ones at present in the permanent force, and if so, how many? Does it affect only one class of person?


James Malcolm: I think my hon. friend realizes it would be hard to estimate how *many there might be who would die after ten years' service and who should be in receipt of a pension by virtue of the fact that they had served for ten years. This is a provision for rather than a correction of anything that has taken place.


Arthur Edward Ross: Has the department or the minister been induced to bring down this amendment by the fact that somebody has been adversely affected?


James Malcolm: It is not retroactive and therefore it cannot apply to any case in the past. It is a provision for the future, to correct an anomaly in the act. I am sorry I have not the information as to whether there were cases of hardship under this section, but I will endeavour to get it.


Arthur Edward Ross: Does the minister imply that certain ones have been affected adversely by this in the past?


James Malcolm: I do not imply it because I do not know.


Arthur Edward Ross: Will the minister
bring down that information when the bill is before the house?


James Malcolm: I shall be glad to do so. I was not able to get it.


Arthur Edward Ross: I will give notice to the minister that I am going to move a certain amendment to the Pension Act. I take it that the Pension Act is open for amendment

Australian Treaty-Mr. Gardiner
and that we should no longer he legislating say, for a few or for one special person; that we should now attempt to correct injustices that we know are in existence at the present time. I give notice that I propose to move that section 4 he amended by adding thereto the following subsection:
4 (a) An officer who retires voluntarily-


James Malcolm: May I point out to my hon. friend that there is at present no bill before the house?


Arthur Edward Ross: I am giving notice unless my hon. friend wishes that I should wait until the bill comes up and give notice tnen.


James Malcolm: Yes.


Arthur Edward Ross: I shall do that.


Mr. CLARK:: What class is entitled to pension after ten yeans' service?


James Malcolm: I did not have that information, but I have just been informed by the hon. member for Rimouski (Sir Eugene Fiset) who was formerly Deputy Minister of Militia, that it includes only men who served in the late war.


John Arthur Clark: Does the minister know haw many officers there are in the service who will be entitled to pension after ten years' service?


James Malcolm: I have not that information, but I will get it for my hon. friend.
Resolution reported, .read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Malcolm thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 43, to amend the Militia Pension Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



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

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, March 18, consideration of the motion of Mr. Dunning for committee of supply.
['The hour for public bills has elapsed; and the house will revert to government orders.']
Robert Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, when this motion was before the house a week ago, I intimated that I wished to discuss the important question of the Australian treaty and I further intimated that before I resumed my seat, I would move an amendment. Time did not permit my finishing my address on that occasion and consequently I will take it up where I left off. I gave a resume of the negotiations that were carried on before the treaty was entered into, and therefore it is not my purpose this afternoon to traverse the same field again. If members

are desirous of securing information as to the real items contained in the treaty, they can do so by referring to Hansard of June 23, 1925, at page 4785, on which page there is a full report of the various items. It is not my purpose to read them all, but I will merely call attention to three important items of three different schedules. The first schedule is the tariff that was in existence at that time and that contains the British preference and also the general tariff. The next schedule contains the first understanding of the agreement which was undertaken by Mr. Robb. When you compare that with the present Australian treaty, you will find there is quite a difference between the two schedules. The change is remarkable.
When I spoke on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, I dealt for a short time with this treaty, and I placed on Hansard a memorandum which I had prepared, showing clearly the items involved which finally resolved themselves into the treaty. I am not going to read that memorandum again to-day because it appears on page 53 of Hansard of this year, and members can find it by turning up Hansard. The memorandum sets forth the different items. I merely wish to remind the house of the amount of reduction in the duties on agricultural products made by this treaty. So far as Australia is concerned, they gave very substantial reductions in the duties on various items of manufactured goods.
Some criticism has been made of the attitude of the United Farmers of Alberta in passing a certain resolution at their last convention. I spoke of this resolution on a former occasion in this house, but in view of the criticism that has been levelled against the United Farmers of Alberta for passing this resolution. I am going to analyse it clause by clause. The first clause reads:
Whereas, the Australian treaty of 1925 was designed to confer trade advantages upon certain industries which in virtue of their highly privileged position under the customs tariff have been built up at the expense of other classes of Canadians, while industries in a less favoured position were totally disregarded both in the negotiation of the treaty and in the terms of its enactment;
That clause calls to the attention of members of this house and of Canada this important fact, that when this treaty was negotiated by Canada it was primarily for the purpose of securing a market in Australia for the manufactured goods of this country. But we had to give Australia a quid pro quo, and the former Minister of Finance, who was finally responsible for the negotiation of this treaty, has on several occasions stated in this house that he was a believer in adequate pro-

Australian Treaty-Mr. Gardiner
teetion. He was indeed so enthusiastic a protectionist that in order to secure the Australian market for our manufactured goods, he reduced the agricultural schedules in the tariff of this country. I am not going to stand up in this house and say that higher duties may bring about higher prices for agricultural products. I have never taken that attitude;
I have, indeed, always taken the opposite attitude. I am not going to go back on the platform on which I have always been elected. But we do object, as a farmer organization, to any minister of the crown thinking that he can use any particular industry in this country for the purpose of securing markets for other Canadian industries which at the present time are very highly protected. That is the main purpose of the first clause of our resolution. The next clause reads:
Whereas, this special consideration shown to certain industries exemplifies one of the worst evils of the protectionist system, which is rooted in the distribution of new privileges to the already highly privileged;
Can any member take objection to that? Can my hon. friend from Lisgar (Mr. Brown) or my hon. friend from Weyburn (Mr. Young) object to that clause? I do not think they will. Neither do I. I support that clause because it has been the experience 'of this country that very highly privileged industries have derived great profits through the action of certain governments in the past in granting them tremendous protectionist duties. When a minister of the crown sacrifices one industry for the purpose of securing still higher benefits for other industries that are already highly protected, we say that we have a right to protest against that manner of doing the country's business. Here is the next clause;
Whereas, the policy upon which the treaty was based is one of discrimination especially against important branches of the industry of agriculture;
The discrimination is not so much in the amount of the duty; it is in the fact that any minister of the crown should think that he can use any particular industry in this country for the purpose of securing markets for other industries. That is the meaning of that clause. The next clause reads:
Whereas, the enactment of the treaty was opposed by the U.F.A. group in the House of Commons in 1925, as a discriminatory and economically unsound measure;
It is quite true that so far as the United Farmers of Alberta are concerned, the members of that organization who were members of this house in 1925 took greater exception to the duty on currants and raisins than we did probably as to the method by which this
treaty was brought into existence, but as time has gone on and we realize what has taken place, I think we have a right to protest against our industry being used in the manner in which it was. The resolution concludes;
Therefore be it resolved, that this convention, while reaffirming its adherence to the principle of freedom of trade, and its determination to use its influence with a view to the progressive reduction of the Canadian tariff, protests against the operation of the prevailing system in a partisan and discriminatory manner;
I think that is fairly clear and that every member understands what it means. Consequently, it is not necessary for me to explain it. The last paragraph reads as follows;
And further, that this convention, in virtue of the reasons enumerated above, call upon the Dominion government to denounce this treaty.
As I stated before, I have two reasons primarily for moving the amendment which I shall later move-first of all, the incidence of the treaty, and secondly the manner in which it was brought into existence; also the question of the duty on raisins.
I turn to Hansard of 1925. The quotation I am about to give will show that the minister who negotiated this treaty expected to meet with some opposition when he brought it before this house. What I am going to read is presumably a statement by the Australian Minister of Trade and Commerce when he was introducing the treaty in the Australian parliament. I am quoting from the speech of Mr. Sutherland, then a member of this house, and this statement gives some indication of the opposition which the minister expected this treaty would receive when it came before parliament. The Australian Minister of Trade and Commerce is presumed to have spoken as follows, as will be seen at page 4794 of our Hansard for June 23, 1925;
Taking a general view of the position, we find that the commonwealth is chiefly concerned with the opening up of wider markets for her primary products.
In the present stage of our secondary industries, concessions by Canada to our manufactured goods, on however generous a scale, possess no attraction. On the other hand, Canada is looking for a more extensive market for her secondary products, as her trade with Australia consists almost wholly of manufactured goods. We can readily imagine that the concessions proposed by Canada on primary products, of which she is a large producer, will lead to criticism by representatives of Canadian primary producers on the ground that their interests are being sacrificed to Canada's need for markets for manufactured goods.
That is the statement of the Minister of Tradte and Commerce in the government of
936	COMMONS
Australian Treaty-Mr. Gardiner
the Commonwealth of Australia. From this it is quite evident that those who are responsible for negotiating the treaty on behalf of Canada had pointed out to the Australian Minister of Trade and Commerce the possibilities of severe opposition to this particular scheme. A few days ago we discussed the question of the Australian treaty as it applied to New Zealand. It is not my intention of course to go over that ground again, but in view of the attitude that the Conservative party has taken towards the Australian treaty as applied to New Zealand, I want to call the attention of the house to a very peculiar situation. When- the Australian treaty was brought into existence 'butter from that country was permitted to come into Canada on the basis of a duty of one cent a pound. Now, my friends to my immediate right criticized the Australian treaty as applied to New Zealand. Why? Because they claimed that butter was coming here from New Zealand in large quantities, and consequently was depressing the price obtained by the Canadian faimer. I do not hold any brief in that regard at all; I do not think that that is correct. But what I want to call t'he attention of the house to is this: If it had not been for a certain occurrence in Australia, namely, what is termed the Patterson scheme, which provides for a bonus on butter exported from Australia, I wonder what position our friends of the Conservative party would be in to-day? Probably they are very' much in favour of the Australian treaty as it works out at the present time. But what would their opinion be, so far as agriculture is concerned, if, for instance, Australia were to discontinue the bonus and its butter was allowed to come in here on the basis of a one cent per pound duty? Australian butter is not imported at the present time simply because of the fact that, being bonused, we have invoked the dumping duty. But what would happen to our friends' views on the Australian treaty if this bonus were discontinued and consequently there ^ oould be no excuse for applying the dumping duty against Australian butter?
Mr. "iOUNG (Weyburn):	Does my hon.
friend approve of the dumping duty?


Robert Gardiner: Well, generally speaking, I have not much use for the dumping duty at all.


Mr. YOUNG (Weyburn):: In this case?


Robert Gardiner: Well, in view of the
fact that Australian export butter is still bonused, I have no objection to tbp application of the dumping duty under the cir-

cumstamces. When a country starts to bonus its exports, it places itself in a different position altogether from a country which does not bonus its exports.


Edward James Young: Is that bonus
paid out of the revenues of the country?


Robert Gardiner: No, it is paid by the
people who produce the butter. Nevertheless it is probable that the consumers in Australia pay a little more because of the bonus. However, that is not an important question at the present time.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to detain the house for any length of time, but certain criticisms have been levelled against the action taken by the United Farmers of Alberta at their last annual convention, and it is my purpose to deal with those criticisms. The first criticism came from my hon. friend the member for Weyburn (Mr. Young). When the Australian treaty as applied to New Zealand was under discussion in this house he made certain remarks with regard to my position on that treaty. I am not going to read all that he said on the occasion, and anything that I do quote from Hansard, Mr. Speaker, will be on a point of privilege, because I submit the statement then made is not correct. He said he was very much disappointed in the attitude of the members in this corner of the house, particularly myself.


Edward James Young: That is correct.


Robert Gardiner: He goes on to talk
about the principles which we have stood for for so long, and he says:
They have here advocated protection for the farmer and asked for the abrogation of this treaty in so far as it applied to New Zealand.
I never made such a statement, Mr. Speaker. It is incorrect. The only reference I made to the Australian treaty in the course of my address early in the session as it applied to New Zealand was, in part, as follows:
and finally concluded a treaty with the Australian government, which treaty was finally extended to New Zealand.
That is the only reference I made to New Zealand at all. I did not discuss the Australian treaty in any shape or form as it was applied to New Zealand. I discussed the Australian treaty primarily on the grounds that I am discussing it this afternoon. My hon. friend evidently is disappointed with members in this comer of the house because of the fact that in annual convention the United Farmers of Alberta passed a certain resolution, and because we had given voice to the wishes of the organization of which we are members. But my hon. friend had better look

Australian Treaty-Mr. Gardiner
to his own methods of procedure first before he criticizes any one else. I have noticed him on many occasions vote against the very principle which he had been criticizing us for not bringing before this house. For instance, last session he had an opportunity of voting for an amendment to the budget which we in this corner of the house moved, extending the principle of the British preference, but he voted against it. That is only one example of my hon. friend's attitude in this house, and certainly he is not in a position to criticize hon. members in this corner as he did when he spoke on the Australian treaty as it applied to New Zealand.


John Vallance: Might I suggest that
that is what the amendment was moved for.


Robert Gardiner: The amendment was moved for the purpose of giving every member in this house who believed in the extension of the British preference an opportunity to vote for it. If my hon. friend did not discern that, I am sorry both for him and his constituents.
Now, sir, I come to my hon. friend from Lisgar (Mr. Brown). The hon. member a few days ago startled the house by stating that he was going to discuss what he called the " great apostasy." In order to make sure just exactly what the word means I referred to the dictionary. I found " apostasy " defined as meaning " change in principle." Now, I do not think my hon. friend can ever logically charge us with changing our principles. He devoted a good deal of time to this matter. I am not going to read all that he said, in fact I am not going to read anything of it, because his remarks were not to the point, and had practically no bearing at all on the attitude that we have always taken and the altitude we propose to take on these important matters. But there are one or two points which I must deal with. He called the attention of the house and the country to the fact that the United-Farmers-of-Alberta members were elected on the platform of the Canadian Council of Agriculture; which is quite true so far as the election of 1921 is concerned. At that time we were elected on that platform because the United Farmers of Alberta in their annual convention the previous year had adopted it. But when the Canadian Council of Agriculture decided to take no further political action, naturally we contended that its platform had to all intents and purposes disappeared. 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 Farmers of Alberta. Our organization is responsible for our platform, and consequently we no longer give allegiance to the platforms of the old Canadian Council of Agriculture. Of course we follow, in its main items, the same line. My hon. friend from Lisgar (Mr. Brown), however, seems to think that the platform of the Canadian Council of Agriculture is something that is going to endure forever. When any member makes such a statement or intimates that it is possible to endure forever it reminds members of this house that under those circumstances we can never expect the hon. member for Lisgar to progress one iota, because of the fact that conditions change. Conditions are always changing, and when we have new conditions we must have new methods of meeting them. The United Farmers of Alberta are alive to this situation, and that is why we to-day adhere to our own platform as enunciated by the annual convention from time to time. Of course, the hon. member's argument would have been much stronger if he himself had adhered to the platform. There have been many occasions in this house when my hon. friend has forgotten the platform of the Canadian Council of Agriculture in order to take care of what might be termed political expediency. We have only to look at the vote taken recently to convince ourselves of that fact, and I might address this question to both my hon. friend from Lisgar and my hon. friend from Weyburn (Mr. Young).
As I stated here, we discussed the Australian treaty 'a few days ago as it applied to New Zealand. An amendment was moved by our Conservative friends, and a suibamendment was moved by a Liberal member of this house. The subamendment had for its purpose the negotiation of a new treaty with New Zealand. I think it is a fair question, in view of the fact that these two hon. members voted for this subamendment, to ask them why they did so. What do they expect to get from a new treaty with New Zealand!? Do they expect, to get more protection and a greater market for the manufacturing interests of this country, or are they hoping that there will be more duties taken off agricultural products?


Mr. BROWN:: Is it fair to ask the hon.
member why he did not vote?? ?


Robert Gardiner: I am not in a position
to say what the attitude of my hon. friends might be, but it is a fair question to ask why

Australian Treaty-Mr. Evans
they voted for the negotiation of a new treaty if according to their own statements, t'he present treaty is doing no harm to this country.


John Livingstone Brown: May I ask the hon. members why they did not vote at all?


Robert Gardiner: Yes. We did not vote because we are going to vote for the amendment which I shall move a little later. I do not think I shall take the time of the house any longer. We merely desire to bring the matter before the house fairly and squarely, because we are not as satisfied as we should be with the manner in which this treaty was negotiated. As a consequence, it is our wish to have it brought before the house and a vote taken upon it. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by Mr. Evans (Roseitown), the following amendment:
That all the words after the word "that" be struck out and the following words substituted therefor, "in the opinion of this house the present Australian treaty should be abrogated."


Mr. STEVENS:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. EVANS:: Mr. Speaker-


Hewitt Bostock: Mr. Evans is the seconder, and I believe he should have the floor.


John Evans: Notwithstanding the discussion that has taken place on the Australian treaty, I feel there are certain truths left unsaid which ought to be brought out.
This treaty, like all others, is designed to give advantage to one class at the expense of another. Trade treaties are as much a part of the plan of privilege as the tariff schedule itself. They are a product of countries in which the chief feature of industry is tariff protection and whose legislation* and commerce are based on legislated privileges. The result of the Australian treaty has been to put a burden on all except those who are in a regular way the beneficiaries of tariff protection. Such treaties have no meaning in a protected country unless the interests of some parties are sacrificed for the benefit of others. There may be exceptions to this, of course. Let us suppose that Australia had something which Canada had not, or vice versa. For instance, if Canada and Australia exchanged nickel for raisins, in a free way, it would be beneficial to both, but treaties are not made that way in a protected country. To call particular attention to that fact I want this house to witness the raisin manipulation of the Australian treaty. Our government and the government of Australia knew that Australia was unable to supply Canada with 
raisins. Why the government increased the duty on raisins from all countries except Australia is known only to themselves; we are just left here to guess. It is certainly a part of the Australian treaty which cannot be defended on any business principle, and can only be described as a callous act of injustice perpetrated on the consuming public of Canada It shows an utter disregard for the rights of the workers, including the farmers. I repeat, we can only guess at the reason, because trade treaties are not made on the plan of the one with Australia except so far as a bargain is possible between the politician and the prospective beneficiaries. I was very much amused to hear the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) Lecture the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Irvine) in the supposition that the hon*. member for Wetaskiwin was advocating protection on eggs. Well, there the hon. member for Lisgar stands, defending his party which trades off the right of one class for the benefit of another. I say that the Australian* treaty should be abrogated, if for no other reason than the manipulation of the tariff -on raisins. Surely it is indefensible from every point of view to add a million and a half dollars to the cost of living of the workers of this country. I want to say, and I say it deliberately, that the Australian treaty was created on an uneconomic foundation. It is not only uneconomic, Mr. Speaker,
I say it is immoral.
A good many times during the last few months the question has been asked why the farmers are opposed to this treaty, and why they have turned to -protection. The farmers are not protectionists; if they had protection it would be futile to expect any benefit therefrom because it is all passed on in enhanced prices until it comes down to the man on the land, who has no means of making the other fellow pay. His products are always sold at world's prices. The duty on butter before the Australian treaty came into operation gave the farmer no advantage, even though most of the butter at that time was made by the farmers. The duty never gave the farmer a price-fixing power, which is the purpose of the tariff on all other commodities. When the time came to make a treaty with Australia and New Zealand, the farmers were absolutely forgotten.
The Australian treaty was extended to New Zealand by order in council. New Zealand is a country which had nothing to export but the very things for which the farmers of Canada were trying to find a profitable market. The government put through the deal by order in council; as far as the people of Canada

Australian Treaty-Mr. Evans
were concerned this extension to the treaty was carried out in a secret manner, but I want to strip from this discussion with regard to the Australian treaty the smoke screen from behind which both parties have been trying to snipe at the farmers and get them to ask for protection. I am not blaming the Australian treaty altogether for the condition in which the agriculturists of this country find themselves to-day; that it has been unjust to agriculture goes without saying, but I blame the Liberal party for its callousness in raising the cost of living and increasing the cost of production to our farmers. At the same time I blame the Conservative party for capitalizing the present state of agriculture and seizing on the New Zealand part of the Australian treaty to confuse our farmers, while neither the Conservatives nor the Liberals care one whit for agriculture. They have taken this action to confuse our people into asking for a protective measure which will be to their disadvantage.
I hold in my hand a letter from a friend of mine whom I have never seen, which I desire to read in order to clarify the situation. He says:
I duly received your letter of March 1st, and I am glad I did not answer it before as I now send you a clipping from yesterday's Toronto Star which will go to show you the big business that would profit by a 4 cents duty on New Zealand butter. If, as I read recently, the Canadian market is the highest priced market for butter in the world, with such a price that butter shipped from New Zealand to England can be profitably reshipped to Canada and, at added steamship and rail transportation charges be profitably sold in Ontario towns, it does not look as if the dairy interests of Canada were suffering. It is the big interests, such as this proposed merger or its intended component parts, that would principally profit by the 4 cent import duty, and the consumer would pay that and more for his butter and would be more firmly in the grasp of the hand of the producing monopoly.
I am not and never was a farmer, but have always contended the farmer was the worst paid man on the job. Let me ask you to get the Atlantic Monthly for March and read "A Dirt Farmer Speaks His Mind." I feel the same way as the dirt farmer.
That is signed by George E. Davis, of Broekville.
This is really the first time in the history of Canadian agriculture that the political parties in this house have advocated protection on an agricultural product, and which apparently would give the farmer a price fixing power, but we should tear off the mask of hypocrisy which covers this whole question. Let the farmers see the grinning monster which is behind this demand for protection on butter at the present time. Let it be understood that the Canadian farmer is not the one who is asking for this protection; it is being asked for by some of the same gentlemen who profited on the anguish of this nation during the war. They are again directing the raid on the rights of the consumers, and in all probability are getting ready for the next war. Let me read a clipping from the Toronto Star of March 17 of this year:
A chain of dairies having one control and stretching across Canada was brought one step nearer completion when the Dairy Corporation of Canada, by a $S50,000 deal bought control of two dairy product companies in Regina and Winnipeg. It is expected that one or more of the Ontario dairies will also be absorbed by the corporation.
Then I should like to read another clipping from the same paper under date of March 10, of this year:
A creamery merger in Ontario of plants worth approximately $2,500,000, engineered by English capital, is expected to be announced by cable to-day	The largest creamery concerned is to be Flavelle's Limited at Lindsay. Some fifty of the two hundred plants in Ontario are concerned in the move which aims at cheaper operation and greater production, with more centralized control. The plants extend from Carleton Place in the east to Petrolea in the west.
It is learned to-day on good authority that five large English financial houses are to be partners in the merger. One of the shareholders already has a large stake in the dairy business of Lovell and Christmas, at Montreal, one of the best known houses in Canada. Another of the English firms behind the Ontario creamery merger is the Maypole firm, which runs one of the largest chain store businesses in the world.
Here is the cream of the whole thing: Consequent to the creamery merger will in all probability be a movement for raising the duty on New' Zealand butter, now one cent a pound.
The sum total of these things is the demand for a duty to be placed on butter. The Liberal party consummated the Australian treaty about the same time as the Liberal partv in Saskatchewan was manipulating the cooperative creamery concerns in that province in such a way as to bring them under private control. The thing is growing and will grow until there is to be one great merger stretching across the country which will be a manufacturing business with the high protection given to everything else. I hope the people of Saskatchewan soon will see through this creamery muddle, that they will not be caught in the round-up which is being engineered by the protectionists of this Dominion who are trying to bring together the several lines of agriculture and have them demand protection. The farmer is not asking for protection.

Australian Treaty-Mr. Evans
Both parties know that Canada is an agricultural country and it would be a terrible thing for the privileged clients of both parties if it were not. They both speak of the value of the home market and have carried on that joke for thirty years, but I do not think the farmers believe it. For thirty years both parties have carried on a vigorous immigration policy while every possible burden has been placed on the agriculturist. They do not care how many will be forced off the land, so long as they can fill our places with immigrants from central Europe who are willing to accept a lower standard of living. The farmer is being asked to bear the expense of bringing out these immigrants who will take his place upon the land. The farmer is being driven out of business by the rising cost of production and-


James J. Donnelly: Does the hon. member suggest that we deport all immigrants?


John Evans: You can do with them as you will. This Australian treaty intensifies these conditions. The country must decide which of two policies it will pursue. The settlement of the land will not be permanent without complete freedom of exchange.


Edward James Young: Is that the
reason the hon. member desires to raise the tariff?


John Evans: The hon. member has put the cart before the horse.


Mr. IRVINE:: You mean the cart before the mule.


John Evans: We demand complete freedom of exchange. This government is bartering away the rights of the farmers in order to give the tariff-fed manufacturers freer entry for their goods into the Australian market. That country has been corrupted by the same system of trade penalties and the rights of one class are being sacrificed for the advantage of another. That is why the treaty was consummated so easily, for that country has been burdened with the same system of privilege as has Canada. Since the last election the Conservative party has been endeavouring to round up those engaged in the different branches of agriculture.


Edward James Young: Including yourself.	j j * j


John Evans: From what has appeared in
the newspapers of both parties as well as from what has been said in different speeches delivered throughout the country, it seems that they are trying to confuse the farmer into asking for protection, the cattle raisers, the onion growers, the sugar beet growers, the bean growers, and the egg and poultry producers 
are being invited by the protectionist press to ask for protection. Is it any wonder that many farmers have been misled. Let me tell my protectionist friends, and particularly those of the Tory party that it is a mistake for them to pose as the friend of the farmer. They have asked this government to lop off the New Zealand appendage to the Australian treaty but defends the treaty in its original form in order to cum' favour with the manufacturers of automobiles pulp and paper, agricultural implements and other articles. Those manufacturers would be protected by the preservation of the treaty, but let it be understood that we do not want protection. If Canada desires to encourage the flow of population towards the farm, it must abandon this un-economic and unmoral practice of subsidizing the manufacturers at the expense of the farmers. This Australian treaty is a violation of business principles and business ethics. It is part of a scheme to enslave our farmers. Both parties are asking the farmers to vote for a measure which will work to their detriment.
The unemployment situation and the -marketing of wheat are subjects which hinge uipon the uneconomic practice of tying agriculturists to a class which is yearly taking away that freedom which they must have in order to carry on. The -farmers of this country will not long wear the shackles which restrict freedom of exchange, they will not l-ong consent to their rights being bartered away for the benefit of the industrial and capitalistic classes. The Australian treaty will have to go because there is not one reason which can be offered for its retention as a national trade measure. Even th; Minister of Finance could find the other day no stronger defence than the old wornout maxim: We must trade within the empire.


Mr. DUNNING:: Not worn out.


John Evans: Yes, worn out.


Charles Avery Dunning: I do not agree; I think it is an excellent maxim.


John Evans: It is all right, as I said before, if Canada has something to trade in a free way with another country, but the farmers will not longer stand for their interests being bartered away for the sake of some other class.


John Livingstone Brown: The hon. member, then, does not agree with the British preference?


John Evans: What have we to say as regards the paper industry for which the treaty itself seems to exist? We subsidized a line of boats -with the Canadian workers' earnings to find sale for the paper products of our forests, products our own. publishers are starv-

Australian Treaty-Mr. Evans
ing for at prices which are equitable. We are aiding the export to the orient of automobiles, things which cannot be made and sold in Canada unless the government gives the manufacturers the legal right to rob the home consumer of about one-third of the price. Is this reasonable? It seems that all industry depends upon agriculture in this country. I have heard from beginning to end of this session and every session I have been in the house until now. a wail from the protectionists. They cannot stand on their own feet. They have to charge the home consumer a price that gives them a profit over the whole of their output whether it is sold at home or abroad. This cannot continue any longer. I wonder how long the farmers of Canada will allow the government to provide our competitors with agricultural implements at prices cheaper than we can buy them for at home? Canadian-made implements are sold in foreign countries to our own competitors cheaper than the Canadian farmer can buy them.
Even some members of parliament are willing to laugh at the farmers and say that they are becoming protectionists. I should like to know whether the skyscrapers of Toronto and the tariff-built cities of eastern Canada are of more importance to this country than the whole agricultural industry of the Dominion. Why do we maintain on our statute books today an act that makes it possible to plunder the only industry that is worth while, the only one that can stand on its own feet, while our manufacturers fail to learn the simple lesson of economy and morality? I want for the Australian treaty some reason based on equity and justice for all classes. Is it for the good of Canada or not? Is it to be based on mere silly sentimental loyalty of trading *within the empire? If I want to judge the love of the government for other members of the empire, I can point to the restrictions which they have placed upon the British preference.
The hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) said the other day that we import
50,000,000 pounds of butter per annum. Why do we do that? It is strange, is it not? The reason is simply this: our farmers find it more profitable to do other work than to make butter or perhaps I should put it in another way and say: There is less loss in other things than in making butter. Let me ask the government to-day: if they want us to make butter, why penalize us by an import duty as high as nearly one-third of the value of everything we have to use? I repeat: We are the class that do not ask favours. If my Conservative friends want an explanation as
to why we should have free trade, let them ask their former leader, the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie), when as leader of their party he insisted on free trade in hatbands and hat-sweats.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That was because the heads of the government were growing so fast.


John Evans: Why did the hon. member
for South Wellington insist on this? Perhaps the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) will answer the question. Why all this concern about butter when, if a duty were placed on hatbands, we might have a flourishing industry in that line? There is only one answer: it is not profitable for our hatmakers to make their own hatbands and hat-sweats. If our farmers choose to do something other than to make butter, who should care? But the two-facedness of the whole matter is seen in that our protectionist friends on both sides maintain a duty on all our needs. If you want to help the farmer, give him his necessaries of life free; keep down his cost of production; let him have a chance to do his dairying without being penalized on everything he needs to buy. On churns he is penalized 30 per cent; on cans, moulds, rollers, butter workers, besides all the necessaries of life he is penalized around one-third of the value. Even the salt is charged at a high duty except for those few, such as packers and so on, with whom the politicians can make a bargain. Then, as if it were not enough to charge a duty on salt, the old bags and barrels in which it may be imported pay a duty of 25 per cent as well, although they are things which cannot enter into competition with any Canadian industry.
Two splendid speeches came from the other side of the house when this matter was under discussion on a previous occasion. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm) and the hon. member for West Elgin (Mr. Hepburn) were both carried away by their eloquence in making excuses for the Australian and New Zealand treaties, but not one reason was given by either of them to show why an added load should be placed on agriculture and labour for the sake of those who already have a licence to plunder these classes. If the country takes note of this whole discussion, it is bound to come to the conclusion that the Liberal and Conservative parties in the house are giving a wonderful exhibition of Canadian politics, the one side condemning the other and both of them fighting from behind their party stockades, afraid to come out into the open. Where is the Consumer's League? Where is the hon. member for South Huron?

Australian Treaty-Mr. Evans


Mr. McMILLAN:: The hon. member for
South Huron would like to know what the hon. member is talking about.


John Evans: Where are the Liberal-Progressives now?


John Livingstone Brown: Members of the consumers' league.


John Evans: Let me repeat: butter duties will not aid the farmers. The farmers are slipping in their hold of their own business year after year. What both parties, Liberals and Conservatives, are trying to do is to fill the whole agricultural horizon with the mirage of protection, so that the great butter-making merger may fleece both the cream producer and the butter consumer.
My friend over there used the words "the great apostacy" the other day when he was speaking. That was a phrase used by Edward Porritt some years ago in his writings, to describe the complete capitulation of the Liberal party to protection. The phrase was afterwards used by the former member for Lisgar, Mr. R. L. Richardson, to describe that same capitulation. To-day the same term is used by the present member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) to justify his joining the apostate party. He is using that very term to find some excuse for his renouncing the principles of the Canadian Council of Agriculture which he admits is the school in which he was brought up. He is over there to-day shielding himself behind the broad backs of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell), the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Crerar) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning), all of whom were brought up in the same school-the Canadian Council of Agriculture and the Grain Growers' Association.
What is wrong? I hold in my hand a clipping which is rather interesting in this connection. It is taken from the Farmers' Sun of March 6th last and reads:
Hon. Ernest Lapointe made a strong appeal in Quebec last Friday night for Canadian unity. There are signs that influences against national unity. are busy. Before the next general election it is possible that Canada will again be subject to an outbreak of sectionalism largely carried on by demagogues with special axes to grind.
Let Liberals and Conservatives differ as vigorously as ever upon the relative merits of public policy, but surely it should be possible to stand together for national unity.
Yet the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) belongs to a government that has set one class of the country upon the backs of another, and then he says that we want national unity. Let the question be answered once for all, who cares for unity as long as they can get 
measures across sacrificing the interests of one class for the benefit of another? Loyalty? Let me say in the language of a comic character in the paper these days, "Loyalty, bah!" Which member of the government cares? The disintegrating forces have been at work selling the consumers' interests in raisins alone at the rate of $1,500,000 a year under tire Australian treaty. It is only when politicians will have some regard for principle, and have laws enacted in equity to all classes that they will have a right to ask for Canadian unity. It is a sad feature of our public life and politics at this time when the party in power lands the farmers who can make good without help into a position which embarrasses them, and the other party capitalizes the situation and tries to induce the farmers to ask for trade restrictions.
In conclusion, we have in this Australian treaty an incident of national consequence. It is an illustration of the length to which organized greed and selfishness will go to further its own ends.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from March 18 consideration of the motion of Mr. Woodsworth for the second reading of Bill No. 20 to provide in the province of Ontario for the dissolution and the annulment of marriage, and the amendment thereto of Mr. McMillan.
Mr. E. A. PECK (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, as one of the members from the province of Ontario, which province is particularly affected by this measure, I wish to give the reasons why I have opposed the bill up to the present time, and why I purpose to continue to oppose it. Among the powers conferred on this parliament by the British North America Act, are those relating to divorce. I presume that everyone will agree with me that those powers should be exercised in such a wise and careful manner as to protect not merely the interests of the parties particularly concerned, but the sanctity and purity of the marital relations and the home.
In the exercise of those powers we have year by year granted to those applying for separation dissolution of the union, with the right to marry again if either sees fit during the lifetime of the other. This dissolution of marriage, I would point out, has always been

Divorce Court jor Ontario
granted by way of privilege and not as a matter of right. Now, however, we are asked by this bill to give to a court in Ontario these powers which parliament possesses. The effect of this bill, if enacted, would be to endow such a court with full powers of divorce. For the first time we are laying down a definite principle on which the proposed divorce court in Ontario would act. We have never before laid down the principle that any husband or wife can come to this parliament or to a court and ask for divorce as a matter of right;
I repeat, parliament has always granted divorce as a matter of privilege. I think we ought to proceed very cautiously before deciding definitely to adopt this principle, which would be applicable not merely to Ontario, but, in, effect, to the whole Dominion.
I know divorce has been a disagreeable matter to us, we in this house have all been "fed-up" with divorce bills, but I do not think we should consider this bill from the standpoint of getting rid of something that is disagreeable to us; rather we should consider it from the standpoint of whether we want to adopt the principle which I have pointed out.
I have no objection to divorce being dealt with through the medium of a court; it might in fact be desirable to do so, because such a court in Ontario could deal wiith other important matters related to divorce, such as the disposition of the children, the granting of alimony, the distribution of the estate and so on. Considered from that point of view it might be convenient to erect a divorce court for Ontario, but I do object to this parliament taking that step now without further consideration.
It is to be noted that if we pass this bill divorce, so far as Ontario is concerned, is practically settled for all time to come, for we can quite understand that if any member in the future should propose that this matter be reconsidered, he would be met with the objection:	We have had this matter up
before, we disposed of it then, and we decline to reconsider it now.
I take the position that it is not necessary to grant absolute divorce in any case. As I have said, we grant divorce now entirely as a matter of privilege. If we are to establish a divorce court in Ontario, why not limit its power to granting a decree of separation only, without the right to marry again, and see how far that will go in dealing with this divorce evil. It may be that many applicants for divorce will be satisfied with such a separation without the right of remarriage. I think we should try that experiment before adopting this bill.
The question naturally arises, are the people from Ontario asking for this measure? I question very much whether they want a divorce court established in their province, that is, a court with power to grant absolute relief from marital responsibilities. I think there should be some further investigation made to find out what the people of Ontario really want before this bill is enacted. For instance, what does the provincial government wish; has it expressed any opinion in regard to the establishment of a divorce court in the province? I think not. Then, has this government considered the matter carefully? It is an important matter and we should have from the government some expression of opinion as to the wisdom of passing this proposed Legislation.
For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I am not in favour of the bill at the present time, and I intend to oppose it as far as I am able.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: (Prime Minister):	Mr. Speaker, as I was
absent on the previous occasions on which this subject was discussed in the house, I feel I should like, before casting my vote this evening, to state my position in reference to this bill.
May I say that on the first occasion I was absent intentionally? Perhaps I am assuming too much to imagine that anything I might say would influence any hon. member, but at any rate I thought for many reasons it was advisable that the house should give a free expression of its views without being influenced one way or another by any word of mine. On the second occasion I had an engagement which unfortunately prevented me from being present in the house. However, this evening I am speaking-as is every other member-in my capacity as a private member on a bill which is not a government measure, but a measure which has been introduced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) as a private member of this house.
It will, I believe, assist us in seeing the whole question' in its proper .perspective if we keep in mind the circumstances under which this bill came to be introduced into this house. This is the same measure, or a measure in similar terms to one which on three previous occasions passed the other house and whioh on one occasion1 previous to this year was introduced in this house but was defeated on second reading. During the course' of the discussion on the bill in this house the discussion changed in large part from the consideration of the matter as one of procedure in reference to the business of
Divorce Court for Ontario

parliament, which was how it was viewed at the outset, to a consideration of the best method of dealing with divorce. There has been considerable confusion in the minds of hon. members as a consequence of that change of emphasis, or possibly subject, if I imay so describe the situation which has arisen. To my mind, it is important that we should see very clearly that our concern in this particular measure is, if I may so express it, a dual one. It has to do, in part, with the procedure of business in this house, and in part with procedure in matters of divorce. There is no question of principle to be discussed, considered or debated in any way; the question of the principle involved in the dealing by this parliament or the courts with divorce was settled many years ago. That principle has been aocepted in this house, and therefore >in the present instance we are not concerned with that phase of the matter at all. What we are very much concerned with, however, is the procedure to be adapted as respecting the granting of divorces in its relation to the business of parliament.
May I say a word as to the procedure in its relation to the business of this parliament? In the first instance, the bill was introduced in the other house because hon. members of the Senate found that their duties as legislators were being materially impeded by the amount of time which it became necessary for them to give ito the various petitions for divorce laid before them for consideration. When the number of petitions was few, the question did not arise; but once the applications for divorce passed the one hundred mark, reached the two hundred mark and eventually the three hundred mark as is the -case to-day, it became a very important matter to hon. members of the other house, and to this house, as to how much of their time might properly be given to the consideration of private measures to the exclusion, in some part, of the time which they rightly felt they should be devoting to public measures.
There is a very important difference in the function of parliament as it deals with private legislation and public legislation. The primary concern of parliament is the consideration of public legislation; that is its business, and it is n-ot primarily concerned with legislation of a private nature. The rules of both houses of parliament make that abundantly clear. There is an entirely different method adopted in respect to private legislation. Those who wish to introduce bills have to proceed by petition in the first instance; those petitions have to be carefully examined, money has to be paid to insure the respective measures re-
ceiving consideration, and parliament in dealing with private legislation acts rather in its judicial than in its legislative capacity. Certainly in regard to this question of divorce parliament is acting primarily as a court, and it is as a court that hon. members consider the several applications for divorce and give to them their time and attention, So long is the judicial side of the duties of members of parliament does not interfere with the legislative side of their duties, I can see no reason- why petitions could not be received in a limited number and dealt with by parliament. It is perfectly clear, however, that if a stage is reached -where private legislation assumes such proportions that as a consequence public legislation has to be neglected or suffer, some other method must be found to deal with matters of private legislation, or they must be left altogether alone. That,
I take it, is how the measure came to this house from the Senate, after having been passed, as I have said, in that house on three previous occasions.
When the bill was introduced last year by my -hon. friend he drew attention very properly to the other factor which I have mentioned, namely, the resultant effects as far as divorce is concerned of the hasty procedure which becomes essential where a very large number rather than a few petitions have to be dealt with. He pointed out that where the other house was concerned with a few petitions members could meet to consider them with care. They could surround each case with the safeguards with which, as a judicial body, they would be expected to surround them! They -could in that way insure the carrying out of a judicial function in a judicial manner. But he pointed out further that where the number had reached, as it had, two or three hundred, it had become necessary for members of the other chamber to form themselves info several! committees in order to cope with the number of divorce cases to be considered. He said that what very frequently happened was that many members were absent from at least part of the proceedings. In some cases I believe it is true that members who had not heard any of the evidence were present at the time of giving a decision and cast their vote. My hon. friend pointed out that that sort of thing was not right, and I agree with him. I do not see how it can be defended. I do not see how one can defend a course of procedure which deals in a haphazard fashion with a great question that affects so vitally the interests not only of individuals but of the family and, to a verv considerable extent of the state

Divorce Court for Ontario
Take the position with regard to the consideration of divorce as it is carried on in this parliament at the present time. The members of the committee are not necessarily members of the legal profession; in fact, large numbers of them are laymen. They are however sitting as judges, and they are performing a judicial function. In the performance of this function it is reasonable to believe that they should follow to some extent and be familiar with the rules and laws of evidence. Gentlemen who are not familiar with those rules and laws cannot possibly be expected to give to that aspect of the situation the care which would be given to it by those who are trained in the law and who have knowledge of the rules governing court procedure. All these questions of divorce involve in large part- matters of law; important questions that have to be considered are legal questions. It might be said with truth that in acting on these questions of divorce this parliament is practically the only court in the world of any considerable importance which is not composed of persons who are trained in the law and which gives its decisions regardless altogether of the rules of evidence which in all other branches of litigation have been found so essential to the protection of society and the rights of individuals.
I think my hon. friend has made out a very strong case as to why some procedure should be adopted different from that which until a few years ago worked very well, but which certainly has not worked well during the last couple of years. I think he proved conclusively, and I think hon. members of both houses will agree, that the present procedure does not sufficiently safeguard the granting of divorces but that, if anything, it makes the obtaining of divorce much easier than it has been at any previous time. Everyone knows with respect to petitions for divorce that there is a great deal of lobbying; members are persuaded to be present at a hearing or to be absent; sometimes one group will be present to hear part of a case discussed and another group will be present to hear another part discussed. In a great number of cases, at least, all of the members have not heard all of the evidence, and as a result many petitions are granted which perhaps would not be granted were a strict judicial procedure followed.
In addition, as my hon. friend has pointed out, this parliament can give no consideration to questions of alimony and can make no direction with regard to children who may be affected by the decree. These are both factors which are all-important and which, it
seems to me, very properly come within the scope of provincial jurisdiction, the provinces being charged, among other things, with matters affecting civil rights. The point I wish to stress at the moment is that I believe the case has been made out very clearly and emphatically showing the need of a procedure different from that at present existing being adopted if the number of divorces granted is not to increase rather than decrease. It has been demonstrated that there is a need for something more in the way of proper safeguards, something in the way of procedure along judicial lines, whether that procedure is to be adopted by this parliament or by some other body. The other point, which I think has been equally strongly presented and made out, is the necessity, as far as this parliament is concerned, of our finding some other procedure in dealing with these numerous petitions in order to save the time of parliament for public business, rather than having so much of it consumed in a consideration of private legislation.
That, I think, broadly is a correct and accurate statement of the situation. I hope hon. members of the house, and people throughout the country generally, will appreciate that all we are discussing and considering in this matter at the present time is the question of procedure. That is a point which I think cannot be too strongly emphasized. We are considering a question of procedure, procedure which must be revised in the interests of the prevention of the increase of divorces, and equally in the interests of this parliament proceeding with its proper and legitimate business.
My hon. friend from South Huron (Mr. McMillan) has moved an amendment to the bill which is before the house. If my hon. friend's amendment carries, the bill will be defeated. That will mean that we will be back in ithe position we occupied at the end of last session and during the beginning of this session. We will not have solved the question of procedure one way or the other; we will still have to find some means of dealing with this question, and we will have to find it immediately unless more and more of our time during this session is to be devoted to the consideration of these divorce bills rather than to the great (public measures which are our real concern. I may say with regard to my hon. friend's amendment that it seems to me to express a very obvious and desirable object. I find it very hard, as I think every hon. member of the house will find it hard, to disagree with what my hon. friend says; in fact I think he has given expression to what

Divorce Court for Ontario


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has given a very admirable outline of the situation in which this house finds itself at the present time. Should this bill which is now before the house not pass, we would undoubtedly be in the same predicament in which we were last year, and some of us feel that it would then be essential to take further steps to impress upon this house the necessity of some action to relieve parliament of the present impossible situation.
The Prime Minister has not indicated any alternative method which could be worked out. A joint committee might be called to discuss this matter, but in the meantime we would have 300 cases on our hands which would have to be dealt with. It is not clear that a joint committee rvould evolve a better method than that which has been passed three times by the other house, and which has been under the consideration of this house up to the present time. There has been a very considerable change of sentiment, caused, I believe, by the members realizing the importance of this question and I do not think a stronger plea for the second reading of this bill could have been made than that presented just now by the Prime Minister. Unfortunately it seems to me that after the Prime Minister had made that plea, he took a position which if followed would effectively defeat the bill. The amendment which has been proposed by the hon. member for South
Divorce Court for Ontario

Huron (Mr. McMillan) is not in any sense an amendment to the bill. It may have been an amendment in a technical sense to the second reading. We have before us at the present time a definite piece of legislation. The so-called amendment does not propose to alter that piece of legislation and so is no real amendment. As somebody behind me suggests, it is a red herring. Undoubtedly it is a red herring, and I am surprised the Prime Minister, after having so carefully outlined' the situation, should attempt to have us follow that red herring. Certainly under the circumstances I would think any hon. member who is in favour of the bill would vote against the amendment. We can all agree, as the Prime Minister said, in a general way with the vague idealism of the amendment. We all want to preserve the sanctity of the home; we all want to see the number of divorces lessened and that kind of thing; we all agree with that, but I am not going to be led aside by the mere appearance, by "a pious platitude" as somebody suggests, well knowing that by voting in favour of it, I would definitely defeat the bill. I cannot understand how the Prime Minister can take the position he does if he is really in favour of legislation of this nature passing. He is simply throwing out one obstacle after another. Not content with the one red herring placed before us by the hon. member for South Huron, he proceeds to place a second one before us in case the first one should fail.
I would call upon all hon. members who are in favour of the passage of this bill to vote down the amendment. It is the only thing we can do and I think the country at large will quite understand our attitude. I am not a bit afraid of their accusing us of wanting to break up the home or anything of that kind. That is all nonsense.
The Prime Minister, moreover, would like to throw upon me the responsibility of saying that I will accept an amendment when the bill comes into the committee stage. I do not think that is quite fair. I am only a private member of the house. The Prime Minister himself can introduce this amendment just as well as I can. If he is in favour of it and thinks it will improve the bill, it seems to me it is his duty to introduce such an amendment. It is not for me to say whether I will accept it or not. It is a new question that is being thrown into the arena to-night. I should like to have further time for consideration of such a matter as this and so far as I am concerned I do not intend to give any undertaking in regard to it. When that amendment is introduced when the bill is in committee, it will be time for us to consider whether it is a wise

provision or not. I would call the attention of the house to a dispatch which I noticed in the Toronto Daily Star of Saturday, March 32, as follows:
Implied proposals that the Ontario divorce court bill may only become operative on resolution of the Ontario legislature have brought from Hon. Howard Ferguson the statement that the provincial authorities would refrain from making any representations to the federal parliament.
Reverend F. Summerhayes of Toronto wrote Premier Ferguson expressing the hope of the Anglican council that his government would see its way clear to signify to the Dominion government their approval of the establishment of this court. The following reply was received by Mr. Summerhayes from Mr. Ferguson:
"Under our system of government you are, of course, aware that the members of the federal house represent the people in the same sense that members of this legislature represent the public. They are in the same position to express the sentiment of the province as a whole as would be the members of this legislature. It has been the recognized policy that provincial legislatures as such should relrain from making representations to the Dominion parliament, and that course has rarely been departed from.
In the present instance I feel quite sure that the federal authorities and the members of the federal parliament would resent our entering a field which is exclusively within their sphere of action."
That is the position of Mr. Ferguson, and I think it is quite a correct one. Under the British North America Act, which is so frequently quoted by the Prime Minister, the question of marriage and divorce rests with this parliament and not with the provincial authorities. The Ontario members who are here, as Mr. Ferguson quite rightly says, represent the province of Ontario just as much as do the members of the provincial legislature, and when the question is one of marriage and divorce they have the right to represent the province of Ontario and the provincial authorities have not that right.
Frankly, I am rather disappointed at the attitude of the Prime Minister. He is making this a political question and so he wants to throw the responsibility on the Premier of Ontario. So far as I am concerned, I did not take the matter up from the standpoint of party politics. The reason I was asked to introduce the bill two years ago was simply because some of the eastern members were tied up by poltitioal considerations and I, coming from the west, was not so directly involved. I think that was the real reason why hon. members of the Senate asked me to sponsor the bill a year or two ago. As the bill has proceeded on its course I have found politics in the Senate and also in the house, altogether too much politics. It would seem to me, although the Prime Minister put up a very plausible argu-

Divorce Court for Ontario
ment, he himself is lending himself to party politics in regard to this bill. I am sorry that should be the case, because the matter should be decided on its merits. I will say simply this, that some of us will vote down the amendment as the only posi'ble way of reaching the bill and I think it is fair that members should have an opportunity of voting on a bill that has been so fully discussed as this one. There is only one way we can get a vote, so we intend to vote down the amendment, not because we are out of sympathy with the sentiments contained in it, but simply because it was brought forward to defeat the bill.
After that and when the vote on the second reading is carried, if there is an amendment such as the Prime Minister has suggested, I for one shall be prepared to give full consideration to it. We can vote on that after we decide the principle involved by the vote which we are about to take.


Mr. J. C. BRADY (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, this is the first time in three years that I have spoken upon this very important question and to-night I do so because of the great importance of the bill which is before the house. .1 have given very careful consideration to the various arguments that have been presented to the house during the last two years, and I find that the question before us to-night is not one involving the principle of divorce. We are not dealing with divorce; we are dealing with only one aspect of the question, namely, whether it is to the benefit of the people of Ontario that the procedure under which divorce is granted shall be taken from the federal parliament and passed over to the legislature of Ontario and Quebec, as the case may be.
Looking over the record of divorce in Canada and particularly in reference to Ontario and Quebec, I find that in 1774, 1791 and 1848 the various parliaments assumed the right to grant divorce. This is exactly as it is laid down in the various parliaments preceding confederation. I find that in Ontario and Quebec to-day there is a moral right to divorce, provided adultery is shown on application to the parliament of Canada, but there is no legal tribunal to which an applicant domiciled in either of those provinces can apply.
Furthermore it is obvious that the number of divorce applications that are being made to parliament is becoming so great that it is impossible for any member of parliament, however conscientious he may be, to carry out his parliamentary duties and sit on each of these cases so as to give them consideration in a judicial and fair-minded manner. That is conceded to those who wish to take the right
of granting divorce from the federal parliament and give it to the legislature of Ontario. The Nickle bill of 1919 set the question forth in these words:
The interests of the country demand that something be done to facilitate divorce.
It is evident, therefore, that the purpose of handing over the right to pass upon divorce from the federal parliament to the legislature of Ontario, is to facilitate divorce.


An hon. MEMBER:: To the courts of Ontario.


James Charles Brady: To the courts of Ontario. I want to get this clear before the house tonight. In the Quebec conference of 1865, Solicitor General Langevin used these words:
We found this power existing in the constitution of the various provinces, and not being able to get rid of it, we wished to banish it from us as far as possible.
And he refers to the power granted under the English constitution. He found this power of divorce placed in the provinces.


William Irvine: I rise to a point of order. I would like to ask Your Honour whether any of those New Zealand eggs are left over, as we need them here to-night.


James Charles Brady: I believe that we are striking at the very foundations of family life and consequently of the state if we make divorces easy to obtain which I believe will be the case if a divorce court is set up in the province of Ontario. Perhaps there is in the house a different viewpoint from mine, but we are creating a menace to the well-being of Canada if we encourage facilities which will break up the homes of this country and I intend to vote against the bill.


Mr. PETTIT:: I was paired with the hoc. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Bouchard). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: I
was paired with the hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Geary). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. CANTLEY:: I was paired with the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Cardin). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. BELL (St. John-Albert):: I was paired with the hon. member for Restigouehe-Mada-waska (Mr. Blanchard). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Hewitt Bostock: I declare the amendment lost. The question now is on the main motion.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Nine o'clock.


Hewitt Bostock: Unless it is by unanimous consent I must declare that the time for public bills has elapsed. Is it the unanimous wish of the house to proceed with the main motion?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Hewitt Bostock: There is objection, and unless it is unanimous we cannot go on.


Mr. SPOTTON:: Mr. Speaker, I have
spoken on the amendment and I desire to speak on the main motion.


Hewitt Bostock: The hour for public bills has elapsed; and the house will revert to government orders.



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

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Dunning for committee of supply, and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Gardiner.
['Unfortunately the vote\nwas not close enough to make the decision so important. Besides there is a further difference, I was not paired.\nOn motion of Mr. Lapointe the house adjourned at 10.55 p.m.\nWednesday, March 26, 1930']
Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Speaker, there is before the house at this moment a resolution that you

Australian Treaty-Mr. Stevens
do now leave the chair, and that the house resolve itself into committee of supply. To that resolution the leader of'the Progressive party (Mr. Gardiner) has moved an amendment to the effect that the house do declare for the immediate repeal of the Australian treaty, and it is my intention before I resume my seat to move a subamendment to which I shall refer in a moment.
In discussing the amendment the leader of the Progressive party indicated that his chief objection to the Australian treaty was that it gave some advantages to highly protected industries, but did not give consideration to the products of the farm. I think that briefly states the argument of my hon. friend.
The hon. member for Rosetown (Mr. Evans) who seconded the amendment took a slightly different position. His stand might be summed up by saying that he was absolutely and unreservedly opposed to all forms of imposition of customs duties, and for that reason he was opposed to a treaty which in any sense was involved in the tariff. I would like to make one or two observations regarding the two speeches to which I have referred.
With regard to the speech of the mover of the amendment, I might say that he referred to the highly protected industries of Canada which are getting, according to his view, some advantage from the treaty. May I call to his attention the fact that the lumber industry is one that would get some advantage, and lumber is on the free list so far as Canada is concerned. I refer to the lumber industry of British Columbia and eastern Canada as they compete with the world in the lumber market. So that to the extent that his remarks in this respect would apply to lumber the facts are not in harmony with his argument. Then, in regard to paper, which is another Canadian industry, and has some preference in the Australian market, may I point out that that industry has a very small protection of 10, 12) and 15 per cent. That is not a protection which can in any sense be called a high one. I here are other items on the list upon which the duty does not in any sense amount to a high protection.
My hon. friend from Rosetown, in his rather doleful presentation of the case, said that the Conservative party had never shown itself in any sense anxious for the welfare of the farmers, and he referred particularly to this treaty. May I beg the hon. member to direct his attention to the words of the leader of the Conservative party at the time the treaty was first introduced into the house, and may I point out to him and to the government that from that day to this we have
consistently criticised this treaty on the very points to which I am about to refer. We have not criticised the treaty as a whole, and I shall deal very fully with that point in a moment. So far as our attitude as a party is concerned, however, it has been consistently in the interests of the farmers of Canada as they are affected by this treaty. The leader of the party at that time, the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, on June 23,	1925 called
attention to the fact that the treaty as introduced in the house was not the treaty that was originally negotiated by the Canadian government with the government of Australia, but that under pressure from certain members in the house modifications had been made and another schedule had been substituted for the original one.
The Right Hon. Arthur Meighen is quoted in Hansard at page 4784 as follows:
In the first treaty, as in this, agriculture was called upon to pay for those advantages. But agriculture got some compensation.
That is in the first draft of the treaty. Then he went on to point out that in the present treaty the agriculturists were deprived of the slight advantage given to them in the original draft, and he questions the government in this language:
Now, may I ask why did the government retreat from its pledge with Australia and go back and ask for a new treaty?
And further on he says:
It is wise, I say, to make a concession to get these things, but by this treaty the government just calls on the mixed farmer of Canada to he good enough to step up to the counter and pay the whole cost of the concessions that they have given Australia.


Mr. ADSHEAD:: From what is the hon.
gentleman quoting?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am quoting from the
speech of the [Right' Hon. Arthur (Meighen who was at that time the leader of and speaking for the Conservative party. He says:
Out of him-
The farmer.

and him alone comes the whole price, and in compensation they give him not one single concession.
He further says:
I would like to know upon vvhat principle of equity he makes the Canadian farmer pay the whole of this.
I shall not quote further, but I do submit that to my hon. friend from Rosetown, because I think it is only reasonable that he should do us the justice of admitting that from that day down to the present we have expressed our criticisms of this treaty on the

Australian Treaty-Mr. Stevens
basis that under it the Canadian farmer had not received a square deal. My hon. friend said that the farmers wanted no duty on their butter, but that he was willing that the treaty be repealed. May I point out to him that if the treaty is repealed, the butter which under the treaty, now comes in under a duty of one cent per pound will come in under a duty of four cents per pound. My hon. friend was speaking only of his view, which is really a somewhat isolated view, and I submit to him-


John Evans: Would the hon. gentleman
permit me to interrupt? I said that the duty which was in effect previous to the Australian treaty never did the farmer any good, and it never did.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Australian Treaty-Mr. Stevens
spondents in Australia for collection only a portion of such amounts may-as funds are available-be transferred to London while stringent finance continues. For telegraph transfer the cost is now over three per cent, which in the case of some oversea shippers has caused them to place collections made on their account on fixed deposits in Australian banks for twelve months.
Not only is there to be considered the question of arranging our trade relations with Australia and other countries so as not to injure Canadian industry, but there is also the question of monetary exchange. If we could increase our purchases from Australia without injuring Canadian business then the question of exchange would not be so difficult. I notice my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) is smiling at that.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend will
pardon me.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The very germ of a treaty should be to endeavour so to promote traffic between the two countries as to balance trade.


Charles Avery Dunning: I do not desire to interrupt my hon. friend because what he has stated is quite true, but I cannot help but think of the condemnation he has heaped upon the government because it has negotiated these trade treaties in order to buy goods from other countries. My hon. friend is proving to the hilt that we must buy in order to be able to sell.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am glad the hon. minister has drawn my attention to that, for that is the complaint we have to make to the government. In negotiating the French treaty, which is notorious in this respect, they ignored entirely, or at least did not appreciate, the effect of the trade they were making. In this instance the result has not been to increase our purchases from Australia to any great degree.


Charles Avery Dunning: We are always condemned for what we do.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Because you do it in the wrong way. We negotiated a treaty with France and allowed that country the privilege of raising or lowering her tariff any time she desires. We tied up ourselves to a fixed rate for French goods coming into the country and the result has been that we have purchased considerable French wines, silks, velvets, embroideries, laces and other goods which were brought into the country at a fixed rate of duty, while France, like a flash out of the blue, placed a duty of 72 cents per bushel against our wheat. The result was that our purchases from France increased and our sales to France decreased.

In connection with this treaty, I find this situation:	Take the dried fruit industry, for
example. It will not do to say that by putting a little duty on fruit we are going to make the working man of this country pay more for his living. That cheap talk may go very well on the hustings, but when it comes down to dealing with the affairs of a country it has mighty little weight and very little sense to it. The fact is that we purchased from the United States for the year ending March 31, 1929, which is the last year I have, $4,127,000 worth of dried fruits, and from Australia only |S80,000 worth. The point I put to the government is this: By an adjustment of our tariff, by raising our general tariff and then giving Australia a preference under that general tariff, we could divert a large part of this business from the United States to Australia. But what we actually did was this:	We left the general tariff where it was;
it was already very low, and we gave to Australia a preference beyond that.


John Livingstone Brown: Do the figures my horn friend has quoted for dried fruits include raisins and currants?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, I think so. I got these figures from the annual trade returns, from that big book.


Charles Avery Dunning: And the figures quoted
include raisins and currants?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes. Let us face this dried fruit business frankly. It is quite true that up to the last year or two, Australian dried fruits have not been put up in as tasty and attractive a form as has been achieved by the California dried fruit industry. That is not due to the fact that Australia cannot or will not do it; it is because the organization of the dried fruit industry in Australia has not advanced to the stage that it has reached in California. I recall very well that an envoy came from Australia in 1926 or 1927 to discuss this very point with us, and he admitted frankly that Australia had not achieved the high standard of packing that California had, but that it was bending every effort to do so; and in a matter of trade between one country and another it must be remembered that a year or two is not of any very great importance, so long as the effort is directed towards the desired goal. So I say that we might increase our purchases of dried fruits from Australia by a proper adjustment of our tariff that would not injure the Canadian consumer, but would divert some of this business from the United States to Australia. That I think should be the objective.

Australian Treaty-Mr. Stevens
Let us bear clearly and constantly in mind that our adverse balance of trade with the United States has been for fifty years on a basis of two to one, and for the last sixteen or twenty years it has averaged between $200,000,000 and S300,000,000 a year. If the United States is not sufficiently appreciative of our trade to give us an advantage in their market, I think it is time for us to say:	Very
good, we will divert some of the business we now do with you to where it will be appreciated.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Did I understand the hon. member to say that because of the adverse balance of trade as between Canada and Australia the rates of exchange were high? If so, would not the same argument apply to the exchange as between Canada and the United States?


Henry Herbert Stevens: You have a situation between Canada and the United States where the adverse balance of trade against us is about $300,000,000 or $400,000,000 a year, and there is margin enough there to whittle off $12,000,000 or 814,000,000 for Australia without affecting the exchange situation a particle.
Take sugar. Our purchases are very much diversified; we buy sugar from a dozen different countries. In 1929 we bought $32,000,000 worth of sugar, of which $750,000 worth came from Australia. There again what we ought to do is to sit down with Australia and ask them if they cannot extend their production of sugar and sell more to us, and if so, under what conditions. I think we should divert to Australia some of the trade that now goes to the United States protectorates and other countries.


Charles Avery Dunning: Divert it from where?


Henry Herbert Stevens: From some of the United States protectorates.


Charles Avery Dunning: Has the hon. member
the trade figures on sugar?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, but I said a moment ago that our purchases of sugar were diversified and I did not itemize them. We get probably three of four million dollars' worth or sugar from seven or eight different sources of supply.


Charles Avery Dunning: Largely the British West Indies.


Henry Herbert Stevens: A great deal from the
British West Indies, from Cuba, Porto Rico, Fiji and a number of other countries.


Charles Avery Dunning: Mainly British countries.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am not suggesting otherwise. What I am saying is that we should
divert some of our business from the American protectorates to Australia, increasing our British purchases.
Take wine. We bought last year from France, $2,262,000 worth of fermented wines. That does not include the sparkling wines. From Australia we bought only $27,000 worth. There again is a trade that we could substantially divert to Australia. I am not here to advocate an increased consumption of wine; let me get rid of that idea before it is suggested. But I do say that since we are buying wine from France and admitting it on very advantageous terms, let us increase the preference to Australia. By the way, I think that treaty with France should also be revised, and revised upwards as far as France is concerned.
Take tallow. We import a considerable quantity from the United States, $1,500,000 worth in 1929. We did not import a single pound from Australia, and Australia is one of the big producers of tallow. If we are going to import tallow, let us divert our American purchases to Australia.
Take hides. Here we are touching something that affects the farmers, and I am going to make a suggestion which I think would improve the market for the hides produced in this country, as well as give something to Australia. We purchased last year, $9,300,000 worth of hides from the United States, and from Australia, $330,000 worth. I suggest this: first, an increase in the general tariff. That will help the Canadian producer of hides. Second, give a preference to Australia, and divert your purchases, if you are going to purchase hides at all from outside, to Australia, thus reducing the adverse balance of trade.
One more thing. In connection with our exports to Australia, among the important ones are the following:
Motor cars	 $1,000,000
Printing paper	 684,000
Canned fish	 490,000
Agricultural machinery.. .	362,000
Rubber goods	 355,000
Undressed lumber	 144,000
Wrapping paper	 83,000
To deal with one of those items alone, the United States sold to Australia last year over $12,265,000 worth of undressed lumber; we sold them $144,000 worth, and we are bonus-ing a ship line from our Pacific coast to Australia. That bonus was put on last year. Is it not good business and sound common sense to follow up our bonus to a ship line to Australia by securing in the Australian market some advantage for our lumber? If we are going to find that advantage 'in the Australian market, we must gife Australia

Australian Treaty-Mr. Stevens
some advantage in the Canadian market with respect to the products that I have mentioned and others.
Time will not permit me to analyze this matter further, as I have only a moment or two more. Let me summarize thus: I do not think it is necessary, in making a treaty with Australia for the purchase of goods from that country, in any way to injure a Canadian industry; and I will specify, for instance, the butter industry and the egg industry. Without sacrificing these Canadian industries, without injuring them at all, we can open to Australia our market in Canada for such goods as we purchase from other countries, particularly the United States, and by doing that, by revising the treaty, we can materially increase our purchases from Australia, and at the same time, I think, find a more hearty response on the part of Australia for the entry of our goods into their market, to the advantage of Canadian producers. I beg therefore to move, seconded by my hon. friend from Victoria (Mr. Plunkett), in amendment to the amendment moved by the leader of the Progressive party (Mr. Gardiner):
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.
In moving this amendment, I again affirm my adherence to the principle of increasing our trade with Australia, by treaty agreement, if you wish, or by any other means that will be mutually satisfactory to both countries; but certainly the present treaty should be so revised as to give an added advantage to either country in the market of the other.


John Livingstone Brown: In view of
the speech made this afternoon by my hon. friend from Acadia (Mr. Gardiner), the leader of the United Farmers of Alberta, it is perhaps to be expected that I should make some brief reply.
In my speech the other day I spoke of what I called the great apostasy. I find that the hon. member for Acadia hunted up a very excellent dictionary, for it gave exactly the definition of apostasy that was in my own mind. The hon. member has defended1 his right to change his principles. I certainly am not disputing that right. Perhaps it might be very convenient at other times for others to claim that same right. However, if it is

proper to change your principles it is certainly permissible to change your tactics, and sometimes when we in this house are accused of changing our principles I would point out that what we have changed, if we have changed anything at all, is simply our tactics-adopting different means of obtaining the same thing.
I might point out, for instance, that those in Saskatchewan who now call themselves the Progressives have done what hon. members in that corner of the house where my hon. friend from Acadia sits have persistently refused to do; they have accepted some of the responsibilities of government. If we in this part of the house have in any way changed our tactics, it is because we have felt that we should assume some of the obligations of government which hon. members in that corner of the house have persistently refused to accept. Their position has been that they would like simply to sit on the fence and jump this way or that as the circumstances require. That may be a very comfortable position when you are able to maintain it, but I am more than ever convinced that permanent government cannot be carried on in that way, and I would like to point out to hon. members that the Prime Minister of Great Britain has recently made the statement, as reported in the press, that he will not be dictated to by the opposition. I think in that statement there is room for thought on the part of those who think it is possible for a minority in parliament to be the final arbiter of the country's policies. The Saskatchewan Progressives, in their provincial affairs, have recognized the folly of that position, and whether the government that has been formed in Saskatchewan is a good one or not, certainly the necessity has been impressed upon the Progressives in that province of uniting with the Conservative party in order that government might be carried on. It is not a matter of concern whether it is a good or a bad government; the important thing is that the necessity of taking that position was impressed upon the Progressives. It is said that politics sometimes make strange bedfellows, and it would certainly be strange to see the hon. member for Rosetown (Mr. Evans) associated in the next federal campaign with those in Saskatchewan who will undoubtedly be supporting the policies of the official opposition in this house. He says that they have not changed their principles, and I must take his word for it. If there is anything sinister in my use of the word "apostasy," I am certainly pleased to withdraw it, and to admit that the hon.

Australian Treaty-Mr. Brown
gentlemen who sit in that comer of the bouse are perfectly honest and sincere, and in season and out of season have advocated certain principles; but I must add that while I still retain my confidence in their honesty and sincerity I have perhaps a little less regard for the intellectual capacity which they have displayed in facing this particular question. Their sense of logic does not seem to be as highly developed as one would have expected it to be after the years they have spent in this house. Consciously or unconsciously the United Farmers of Alberta in the resolution that they passed at their convention, and in the position which they have taken in this house, have endorsed the principle of protection of agricultural products. I say that, consciously or unconsciously, they have done that.


Mr. KENNEDY:: Is that because they
asked for the abrogation of the Australian treaty?


John Livingstone Brown: I am going to explain that. The amendment has been brought before the house under somewhat peculiar circumstances. It will be recalled that a short time ago the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) moved that the house go into committee of supply. He was met by an amendment from the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Senn) to the effect that the order in council extending the provisions of the Australian treaty to New Zealand be rescinded and a treaty be negotiated with New Zealand. From this side of the house then there was moved another amendment, the terms of which are quite familiar, indicating the desirability of making a treaty with New Zealand in matters of trade.
Now, when this question of the Australian treaty was brought before the convention of the United Farmers of Alberta, and especially when reference was made to that treaty by the hon. member for Athabaska (Mr. Kellner) in speaking to the amendment on the motion to go into supply, it indicated to me very clearly that it had reference to the general situation that has developed in regard to Australia butter and the propaganda that has been carried on throughout Canada for the placing of a duty on such butter.


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: Just for accuracy-on
New Zealand butter.


John Livingstone Brown: I beg your pardon; on New Zealand butter. Now, it was either intended to be considered in connection with that question or it was not. If it was intended to be considered in relation to the general question of duties on New Zealand butter, then the
hon. members in that particular comer of the house have certainly by their action endorsed the demand that we should have protection against New Zealand butter. There can be no getting away from that. If, on the other hand, they say there is no connection between the two, that this present amendment for the abrogation of the Australian treaty is something entirely distinct from the question of New Zealand butter, then what position do they find themselves in? They find themselves in this position, that when a very important question was under discussion the other day, that is, the question of making a trade treaty with New Zealand, hon. gentlemen there had nothing to say in the matter; they sat perfectly still and refused to vote one way or the other. And we may very properly ask why?


Alfred Speakman: Is the hon. member asking the question now?


John Livingstone Brown: Yes.


Alfred Speakman: The members in this
corner of the house, knowing the effect of the subamendment, equally with that of the amendment, was a vote of want of confidence in the government, did not wish to associate themselves with the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown), and his associates in voting want of confidence in the government, or with the opposition in attempting to defend the government from their attack.


John Livingstone Brown: I do not very clearly catch the force of the reason. I have not been aware that up to the present time hon. members in that particular comer of the house have shown any aversion to voting want of confidence in the government when it suited them.
Now, the situation is simply this. Here is a most important question brought to the notice of this house, the question of making a trade treaty with New Zealand, and hon. members simply sit there silent, and we do not know yet whether they are in favour of such a treaty or not. They have not said whether they are in favour of it or not. That is the situation in which they find themselves.


Robert Gardiner: I may say to the hon. member that when the treaty comes before the house we will deal with it.


John Livingstone Brown: But the hon. gentleman has not said whether he is in favour of any kind of treaty.


Robert Gardiner: I want to see what the treaty is first.


Ernest Lapointe: Wait and see.


John Livingstone Brown: I am afraid that an argument of that kind will hardly be sufficient
95S

Australian Treaty-Mr. Brown
explanation for the country. It is all very well to say we will determine what the treaty is when it comes before the house; that is perfectly right; but the question is: Are we in favour of any kind of treaty? Hon. members in that particular corner of the house have refused to answer that question.
Now, let me turn to the treaty itself. It was opposed in the house by the United Farmers of Alberta members, and it was also opposed at their convention on the ground that it was discriminatory. That is the term used again and again; it was discriminatory. And discrimination is pointed out in two respects: it is discriminatory because it admits Australian agricultural products into Canada free in competition with Canadian agricultural products. Now, I admit that objection was not urged by hon. members in that corner of the house at the time the treaty was under consideration. It was urged, of course, by hon. gentlemen immediately opposite, as they urged it to-day. From their point of view they have been perfectly consistent in the matter; we must say that for them. But I maintain that hon. gentlemen in that particular corner of the house have not been perfectly consistent. They are opposing the treaty today because it is discriminatory. They say: "Oh, well, now, we don't oppose it because of its discrimination in that particular direction." But the hon. member for Acadia speaking today referred to its effect and he said: "We have got new light upon the subject." Well, is that "new light" the fact that agricultural products from Australia are competing with Canadian agricultural products? The fact of the matter is that hon. members in that corner of the house have, consciously or unconsciously, advocated the principle of duties on agricultural products. I do not see any difference, Mr. Speaker, in principle between demanding protection on agricultural products and objecting to the removal of what protection there is. The two things are the same in principle. I know, of course, it might be contended that at a certain particular point the duty was just right; but who is going to say what is the particular point at which the duty is just right? There is no difference between advocating protection and objecting to protection being removed.
Again, a very interesting point has been brought out. This treaty, it is said, is discriminatory because it has removed certain duties from Australian agricultural products. And yet the hon. member for Rosetown particularly referred to the fact that those duties were no good to us anyway. I cannot understand the force of the argument that would object-


William Irvine: That is evident.


John Livingstone Brown: I beg pardon?


William Irvine: That is evident.


John Livingstone Brown: I cannot understand the
force of the argument that would object to the treaty because duties were being removed, and then contend, on the other hand, that these duties were no good to us. Nor can I understatnd the force of the argument that would object to our manufacturing industries receiving concessions in Australia on the ground that their interests were being served by increasing the disadvantages of the farmers of Canada. If the duty is no good to us, as the hon. member for Rosetown so persistently asserted, and I think it has also been admitted by the United Farmers of Alberta-


An hon. MEMBER:: No.


John Livingstone Brown: If that duty is of little
value, as they claim-and I am inclined to agree with them-why contend it is discriminatory, that the interests of our farmers have been sacrificed? For my part, Mr. Speaker, I am quite willing that Canadian manufacturing interests should find all possible markets for their goods, particularly if our interests are not being sacrificed in doing that for them. How can it be contended that if these duties on our products were no good, in giving them up we are making any sacrifice?


John Evans: Does the hon. gentleman
maintain that the duty on butter previous to the Australian treaty was any benefit to our farmers?


John Livingstone Brown: No, most certainly I do not,
I never have; but I am not so inconsistent as to take the position that the giving up of that duty is a sacrifice for the benefit of the Canadian manufacturer. I think I am quite right when I say that the hon. member for Rosetown w'as somewhat lacking in his ability to grasp a clear, logical argument. Hon. members immediately opposite are quite consistent in the matter, but as the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) pointed out, the hon. member for Rosetown is absolutely inconsistent.
I have no .particular interest in the financial welfare of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) for instance, but I do not say that I would have any particular objection to giving away a lead dime if someone would give him a silver dollar. I am giving up something which is of no use to me in order that he may reap the benefit, and that is exactly the position in regard to the Australian treaty, so far as the question of agricultural products

Australian Treaty-Mr. Brown
is concerned. If the duties were of no use to us, why do we say that we are making a sacrifice by giving .up something useless?
Something has been said about change of principles as applied to the Liberal-Progressives. I may say that you have never yet heard any member who sits as a Liberal-Progressive advocating duty on agricultural products. We realize that so far as the farmer is concerned, protection is a snare and a delusion.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Is it not true that the Liberal-Progressives have been supporting protection for other industries?


John Livingstone Brown: No.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Why get so excited over a few cents, then.?


John Livingstone Brown: If the hon. member will join the consumers' league, and if he will spend some of his money to fight the principle of protection- by the means which we consider most effective, he will soon find out that we are not advocates for protected industry.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: You will not do it in the house by vote.


John Livingstone Brown: 
James Dew Chaplin: It was giving protection to the farmers of Australia; that is what you were doing.


John Livingstone Brown: Perhaps it did, but we are looking at it from the standpoint of the farmers of Canada; from that point of view it was not in any sense a protective tariff. I have been interested in looking into the question of the imports of fruits to find to what extent our fears at that time were realized. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre submitted some figures in regard to fruits. The
only figures which I have at my command are figures in regard to raisins and currants, and I wish to put them on record so that hon. members may study them at their leisure.
The imports of raisins into Canada during the fiscal year ending March 31, 1925, were as follows:
Pounds
United Kingdom	 154,121
British South	Africa.. ..	50,990
Australia	 158,458
France	 2,500
Greece	 111,380
Spain	 1,547,270
Syria	 13,350
Turkey	 1,151,469
United States	 41,232,094
I have the following figures for the calendar year ending December 31, 1929:
Pounds
United Kingdom	 230,925
United States	 33,176,914
Alaska	 30
Australia	 6,032,164
Belgium	 117
British South	Africa.. ..	178,942
France	 3,039
Greece	 139,552
Spain	 513,827
Syria	 605
Turkey	 547,531
I have given the figures for raisins, and before making further comment I wish to give the figures as they apply to .currants.
The imports of currants for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1925, are as follows:
Pounds
United Kingdom	 10,488
Australia	 167,683
France	 32,860
Greece	 4,535,015
United States	 1,137,418
For the calendar year ending December 31, 1929, we have the following figures:
Pounds
United Kingdom	 1,360
United States	 167,613
Australia	 3,986.513
Greece	 365,873
You will remember that the purpose of the treaty was to promote trade from Australia. In what degree has that purpose been accomplished? How -far have we accomplished the purpose of turning the trade in raisins and currants to Australia? You will notice that our imports of currants from Australia in 1925 were only 167,683 pounds, while in the calendar year 1929 they amounted to 3,968,513 pounds. The figures for the fiscal year 1929 are still more impressive; we imported from Australia 4,863,824 pounds. We now get almost entirely from Australia the currants that we formerly got from Greece; that may or may not be good policy. I remember when

Australian Treaty-Mr. Brown
the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) spoke about the treaty he mentioned the fact that Greece owed us something, and it might be better to get our payment from Greece in that way. There may be something in that argument.


Edward Joseph Garland: It was a
good speech, was it not?


John Livingstone Brown: Yes, it was a good speech. I am citing these figures to show that in the matter of currants the purpose of the treaty has been accomplished in a very large measure, and without laying the burden upon the consumers of currants, as we had feared would be the case. I find that under the present rate of duty as applied to importations of currants, we paid a total of $16,004.58, while if the old rates of duty had been applied the duty would have totalled $23,502.73. So we have accomplished the purposes of the treaty with regard to currants; we have switched the trade from Greece to Australia, and even under the 3 cent duty on importations from other countries we are paying less in customs duties than we would have paid under the old rates.


John Evans: Does the hon. gentleman
know whether the Australian raisins and currants are sold that much cheaper in this country?


John Livingstone Brown: I am speaking only of
currants at the moment and so far as I am able to see the price of currants has not materially changed. Under any circumstances that point could not be taken so long as we are getting them in free of duty; there might be some argument if the duty were still high, but since the duty is low the point need not be considered at all.
I will admit that the case is not nearly so well proven in regard to raisins, but there are indications in that direction. During 1925 our chief imports of raisins came from the United States, and amounting to 41,232,094 pounds.


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: What was the
rate of duty then?


John Livingstone Brown: Two-thirds of a cent per pound. In the calendar year 1929 the importations from the United States had fallen to 33,176,914 pounds. While I know it is not possible to make a fair comparison by simply taking two years, yet over the whole period there is an indication that our imports from the United States have been going down while the imports from Australia have been increasing. We imported about 8.000,000 pounds
TMr. Brown.]
less from the United States, while our imports from Australia increased from practically nothing to 6,032,162 pounds.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Would the hon. member tell us the rate on raisins coming from the United States now?


John Livingstone Brown: Three cents per pound.


James Dew Chaplin: And the duty on over
33,000,000 pounds of raisins amounted to over


John Livingstone Brown: That is so. I want to give all the statistics and be fair. It was suggested to me that in a measure the United States were absorbing that duty. I do not know whether that assumption is correct; I am not going to say, and I am not going to base an argument on an assumption, but starting with that assumption I made an investigation and found that while we paid 7 cents per pound for our raisins in the United States in 1925, in 1929 we were paying 5 cents per pound.


James Dew Chaplin: Raise the duty a little higher and perhaps you will get them for nothing.


John Livingstone Brown: I know that is not conclusive, but it does seem an indication at least that the United States is determined to hold this trade.


James Dew Chaplin: This must be a case where the producer pays the duty.


John Livingstone Brown: Perhaps it is.


Mr. MANION:: Remember that when we are discussing the budget.


John Livingstone Brown: Possibly it may be such a case. I am simply trying to state the facts. It is a fact that the raisins we buy in the United States come to Canada for 2 cents a pound less than was the case previously. It is true that we are paying 3 cents a pound duty, but that is a difference between 3 cents and two-thirds of a cent, which is nearly 2 cents. I am giving only the prices which appear in the trade returns, and these are the only prices we have to go by. If hon. members look up the figures I think they will find my calculation is correct.


James Dew Chaplin: The law of supply and demand has nothing to do with the price.


John Livingstone Brown: This is significant in view of the statement made last night by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St,. George (Mr. Cahan) when he spoke of the great market for California raisins created by the making

Divorce Court for Ontario
of wine all over the United States. In view of that statement it is significant that we are buying raisins from the United States two cents per pound cheaper that we were buying them in 1925.


John Evans: Who gets the difference?


John Livingstone Brown: I cannot explain why, but it is a fact that Australian raisins were coming in during 1925 at about twelve cents per pound, and they are still coming in at the same price. I suppose the only explanation to be offered is that they are of a superior quality, as we are buying 6,000,000 pounds instead of only about 158,000 pounds. It may not be a fair assumption to say that the United States is absorbing that duty, but in order to be fair I would like to put some figures on record. A rate of three cents per pound paid on the raisins received last year from the United States would amount to $1,001,425.89; had the former rate of duty been imposed that total would have been S262,005.54, leaving a balance against us of S739,420.35.


James Dew Chaplin: That is the bonus you paid to the Australian farmer?


Mr. BROW  N@: If the assumption is correct that the United States is absorbing part of that duty, it would reduce that amount by S663,539.28, leaving a net total against us of 875,881.07.


Mr. LUCAS:: Has the hon. gentleman
stated how many raisins were received from Australia?


John Livingstone Brown: I have given that figure a number of times-it was 6,032,162 pounds for the calendar year 1929. I present these facts for the consideration of the house in an effort to prove that the fears expressed as to the burden being placed upon the consumer have not been realized, although there is still a considerable balance to be made up. It is quite probable that as the years go by that adverse balance will be entirely wiped out. As regards raisins, I do not desire to draw absolute conclusions from these figures; for I admit that in a measure they are based upon assumption, but in the matter of currants, I think my contention is absolutely proven, that we have accomplished the purpose of th; treaty and no burden has been laid upon the consumer.
On motion of Mr. McRae the debate was adjourned.



Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Speaker, may I make a very brief explanation regarding the taking of the vote on the amendment to the bill regarding divorce? I was guilty of a slight deviation from the rule of silence, which guilt was shared by most members of the house, aud I was carrying on a conversation with the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin). We did not notice that the vote for the affirmative had not been completed, and when an hon. member to our right voted, we both rose in our seats and the teller counted us for the affirmative. It was our intention to vote in the negative, and when the negative vote was called for we voted for the negative. I must apologize to the house for my indiscretion and I ask that the vote be corrected.


John Livingstone Brown: The hon. members voted "inadvertently."


Henry Herbert Stevens: It was not an intentional inadvertence.


James Dew Chaplin: Mr. Speaker, I am informed by the clerk of the house that the records show that I voted both ways, when I intended 6nly to vote against the amendment. I was not paying attention at the moment to the progress of the vote, and when the hon. gentlemen to my right voted I did likewise. I ask that my vote be recorded in the negative.


John Livingstone Brown: The hon. member can
sympathize with the hon. member for Nelson (Mr. Bird).


James Dew Chaplin: Unfortunately the vote
was not close enough to make the decision so important. Besides there is a further difference, I was not paired.
On motion of Mr. Lapointe the house adjourned at 10.55 p.m.
Wednesday, March 26, 1930