1930-03-11

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 26, to incorporate The Cornwall Bridge Company.-Mr. Smith (Stormont).
Bill No. 27, respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway Company (Division of capital stock). -Mr. Chevrier.
Bill No. 28, respecting The Eastern Canada Savings and Loan Company.-Mr. Black (Halifax).
BiO No. 29, to incorporate The 'Saint Nicholas Mutual Benefit Association.-Mr. Luchkovich.

Mr. J. J. E. GUERIN (St. Ann) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I beg to present a petition signed by a large number of my constituents against the state ownership of radio.
I am very glad of the opportunity which I am afforded to express myself in French. A further reason for not hesitating to make use of the French language is that there is, at present, quite a discussion with reference to the English pronunciation of this word r-a-d-i-o.
At the last presidential election in the United States, the democratic candidate. . . .
Export oj Liquor


Mr. SPEAKER:: No debate is allowed on the presentation of a petition. The petition speaks for itself.



PARLIAMENTARY RESTAURANT

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved:: That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their honours that this house has substituted the name of Miss Macphail for that of Mr. Kellner, to act on the part of the House of Commons, as a member of the joint committee of both houses on the restaurant.
And that the Clerk of the house do carry the said message to the Senate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

William Lyon Mackenzie King: That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their honours that this house has substituted the name of Mr. Telford for that of Mr. Bradette, to act on the part of the House of Commons, as a member of the joint committee of both houses on printing.
And that the Clerk of the house do carry the said message to the Senate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
Mr. J. G. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: I would
like to ask the Postmaster General whether the present air mail routes in western Canada are only of a tentative nature or whether the department have definitely decided on permanent air mail routes on the prairies.


Hon. P. J. VENIOT (Postmaster General):: On the 3rd March we inaugurated an air mail system between the different prairie provinces. The contract for this service was signed some time ago, but the contract does not specify that the routes mentioned therein are definite and the routes now being followed by the contractors are not absolutely definite; they are subject to change. Until such time as we are in a position to see whether the air mail routes laid out as contemplated will be a success, no definite routes will be laid out. It may take a month or six weeks to do this.



EXPORT OF LIQUOR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):: Yesterday the Minister of Trade and Commerce was good enough to supply answers to certain questions that had been

asked on the preceding Friday. I observe that the last figures given as to revenues are for the 31st December, 1929. My assumption is that that covers nine months from the 1st day of April to the end of December, 1929, and not a calendar year.
Question nineteen was answered by stating that supplements to forms T 204 and T 204A have been issued. Would a copy of such supplements be supplied?
Lastly, it will be observed that question twenty is not directly answered. Will the minister see that the names of the docks on the Detroit river frontier from which exportation of brewery and distillery products to the United States is permitted, are supplied?


Hon. JAMES MALCOLM (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I gave the answer
to the question on behalf of my colleague the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Euler), who is indisposed. I shall be glad to communicate to him the question of the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) and try to secure the information at once.



CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN CANADA AND THE UNITED STATES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Bedford Bennett: I hesitate to trouble you a
second time, Mr. Speaker, but I have spoken already to the right hon. the Prime Minister as to whether there is any diplomatic or other correspondence between the Dominion and the United States with respect to liquor clearances. If so, I would ask that a copy of such correspondence might be produced between now and Friday, if possible.
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING
(Prime Minister):	There has been correspondence with respect to smuggling, and it makes reference, I think, to clearances as well. I see no reason why the correspondence should not be brought down. It would require probaby the consent of the United States government in the first instance, and I shall try to obtain that forthwith.



AGRICULTURAL CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (South Wellington) :: I would inquire of the acting Minister
of Agriculture (Mr. Stewart) why the special parliamentary press correspondents were excluded from the meeting which was called for to-day by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. MARCH 11, 1930
Australian Treaty-Mr. Maybee
Motherwell) to discuss agricultural conditions in Canada. There is some complaint on this score, and-some of us are curious to know if there was any reason for the exclusion of the press from that meeting.


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Acting Minister of Agriculture):: I am unable to answer
the question asked by my hon. friend as the minister himself presided at that meeting and I was not in attendance, but I shall make inquiry.


Hugh Guthrie: Who was presiding?


Charles A. Stewart: The Minister of Agriculture, I understand.



IMPORTATION OF EGGS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. GEORGE H. PETTIT (Welland): I desire to draw the attention of the government to the steady and heavy importation of American eggs and New Zealand butter into Canada, and to ask what, if anything, the government intend to do in the matter, either by way of invoking the anti-dumping clause as it applies to eggs, or rescission of the order in council as it relates to butter. The farmers in my district feel very strongly about this matter, and are asking for immediate relief as they feel it injuriously affects the Canadian farmer and the dairy industry.
Hewitt Bostock: Stand as a notice.



THE BUDGET

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. H. II. STEVENS (Vancouver Centre): I would ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) if he could tell the house when he is likely to present the annual budget.
Hon. C. A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance) :: I shall endeavour to give the house
sufficient advance information. I cannot at the moment indicate any more than that.



SUPPLY-AUSTRALIAN TREATY PROPOSED CANCELLATION OP SPECIAL AGREEMENT WITH NEW ZEALAND AND NEGOTIATION OP TREATY

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, March 7, consideration of the motion of Mr. Dunning for committee of supply, the amendment thereto of Mr. Senn and the sub-amendment of Mr. Casgrain.
['I have no objection to letting it stand, and to discussing the matter with the minister, if that is satisfactory.\nBill stands.']
Mr. M. E. MAYBEE (Northumberland):: 
Mr. J. L. BROWN (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, my reason for taking part in this debate is to warn-as I have frequently done-the farmers of Canada against yielding to the demand that we should stand behind the policy of protection. To my mind, we could make no greater mistake than to yield to the solicitations that are made, that we should ask for protection on our products.
During the progress of this debate, Mr. Speaker, the claim has been made that the National Dairy Council best represents the farmers of Canada in so far as our dairying interests are concerned. I do not presume to speak for any but the farmers of Manitoba, and perhaps I may claim some right to speak for the organized farmers of that province, and I think I can safely say that so far as the fiscal policy of the organized farmers of Manitoba is concerned, the National Dairy Council has no right whatever to claim to

Australian Treaty-Mr. Brown
represent us in those matters. The National Dairy Council does not primarily represent the producers but the manufacturers, and we organized farmers of Manitoba have very jealously guarded our rights to speak for ourselves in these matters. From the organized farmers of Manitoba, the grain growers' association, and lately the United Farmers of Manitoba have sprung a number of commercial institutions, and these commercial institutions have been organized under the good will and patronage of the parent institution. We have established cooperative dairies, cooperative poultry organizations, live stock organizations, the United Grain Growers and the wheat pool. In the very nature of things, those entrusted with the management of these institutions are likely to give their main consideration to making them a success, and it is almost inevitable that they should fix their minds upon the duties that have been particularly entrusted to them, forgetting possibly the wider interests of the farmers as a whole.
I can give you an illustration of action that was taken by one of those institutions, which was afterwards repudiated by the united farmers' body as a whole. Just a year ago, the members of parliament from Manitoba received requests from the poultry pool of Manitoba to endorse the application that they had made for an increase in the customs tariff on certain qualities of eggs. The members from Manitoba replied to that communication, giving them to understand very clearly that we had been elected to oppose the principle of protection, and that we did not propose to yield to the request that they had then made. The poultry pool at the same time made their application to the government. The government referred the request to the tariff advisory board, much to the dismay, I may say. of those who had made the request. They have not yet come forward to plead their case before the tariff advisory board, although the time has been set on different occasions for hearings, and we have good reason to believe that they never will. The organized farmers, through their executive and through their board of directors, and in convention assembled, have repudiated that plea for greater protection on their eggs. So I shall not go any further than that at the moment, Mr. Speaker, only repeating what I have already said, that the National Dairy Council does not represent the farmers of Canada on fiscal matters. References have already been made in the house as to who does and who does not represent the western farmers. I shall have something to say in regard to that on a future occasion. If I should say all that I want to

say on that matter at the moment, you, Mr. Speaker, would probably rule me out of order.
I wish to point out what seems to me to be a very common practice in this house, that is, the misuse of statistics. When some gentlemen have a case to prove they start out with the intention of proving that case but only using those statistics that will enable them to make out their case. They do not take into consideration all the factors that are properly concerned in the problem. As a matter of fact, protectionists can generally prove their case-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


John Livingstone Brown: -when they fix their minds upon one phase of one particular problem, but they absolutely fail when they consider the question of industry or agriculture as a whole. That is the trouble with the National Dairy Council; that is the trouble with our friends opposite who insist upon fixing our attention upon butter only, neglecting to take into account the dairy industry as a whole, in all its ramifications. If we want to deal fairly with this matter we must consider not only the merits of butter, but the merits of butter in relation to its production, the export of cheese, the export of condensed and evaporated milk and milk powder, and so on. We must take all these things into account and consider them with relation to each other, and with relation to the whole problem. Unless that is done the conclusions at which the hon. gentlemen arrived by the misuse of statistics are absolutely of no value.
Objection has been taken to and criticism levelled against the fact that our dairy cows are not as numerous as they were some years ago. As a matter of fact the reduction is a very small percentage of the total number on the farms, and such reduction can be accounted for in a very large measure by the fact that during a number of years the Americans have been coming over here and paying us big prices for our cows. Some of the hon. gentlemen opposite have looked upon that as a deplorable fact, but I cannot understand the reasoning of those hon. gentlemen. I am reminded of a man who, during the reciprocity campaign, gave forth this piece of wisdom, "Well, it just seems to me that the Americans want to come over and buy our stuff as cheaply as they can get it." We might expect 'that statement from a man who bad not given any consideration to economic problems, but I think -we have the right to expect something better from hon. members of this house. Why should the fact that the Americans come over here and pay us good prices for our cows be considered an

Australian Treaty-Mr. Brown
injury to the dairy industry of Canada? I might point out that during the fiscal year 1929 there were over 21,000 milch cows sent over to the United States, and they returned to Canada the round sum of almost $2,000,000. That does not necessarily deplete out herds. The hon. member for South Hastings (Mr. Tummon) referred the other day to some remarks which he said I had made. He said:
We were told a year ago, and it has been said here to-day, that the Americans were purchasing our cattle and paying handsome prices for them; and I recall the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) saying last year that we would raise the calves and let the Americans milk the cows. Well, Mr. Speaker, I have been trying ever since to figure out just how we are going to raise the calves if the Americans have the cows.
Possibly what I said was that we were ready to raise cows, and let the Americans milk .them, but even if we do see fit to sell some of our dairy cows at high prices it does not necessarily mean that we are depleting our herds to any extent; at least, if it is a depletion it is only temporary. AH that is necessary is that we should raise a few more of those good heifers, hundreds of which are sent to the slaughter house, and in a very short time the situation will adjust itself. It is not an injury; rather it is a benefit to the people of Canada to sell these good milch cows at a higher price. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I think we might very well add that $2,000,000 to our credit, when we are talking about dairy products, because a good milch cow is just as much a dairy product as the milk she produces.
No doubt, however, hon. gentlemen opposite will be gratified to know that thait trade is not as good now as it has been; indeed, the hon. member for Hastings said:
The condition is not quite as good as it was some time ago ....
I think he should have said it was not quite as bad.
.... so far as the purchase of cattle in Canada by Americans is concerned.
I say they ought to be highly gratified, if their other argument is sound, that this is now the case. But it is quite likely that when hon. gentlemen are speaking at some later time, perhaps out on the hustings, they will point to this particular fact as another evidence of the incapacity of this government.
There is no pleasing hon. gentlemen. The hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Maloney), in a speech delivered in Toronto, complained that this government was taking exorbitant amounts in the way of taxation, and pointed to the increase in revenue during
the past year. Probably if the occasion should come when our revenues are reduced, through our inability to buy goods abroad, they will point out the fact that the reduction in revenue is also an evidence of incapacity. Thus I say it is not possible to satisfy some hon. gentlemen in these matters.
I am reminded of a story I read of an old professor of music whose pupil was very difficult to instruct. One day the old gentleman lost his patience and said to the boy, "I blay on the white keys, and I blay on the black key's, but you sing in the cracks." Hon. gentlemen opposite are apt to "sing in the cracks". I was interested in listening to the speech of the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Ladner) in which he emphasized very strongly the fact that he was in favour of a treaty between New Zealand and Canada. He said, "Let us get together, and a fair treaty can be arranged." I interjected the question, "What would you accept from New Zealand," but I did not get an answer. We might as well be honest with ourselves in this matter. It would seem from the amendment offered by the hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Serin), and the subamendment offered by this government, that the majority of the house is in favour of a treaty with New Zealand. Let us face the matter honestly: What will we accept from New Zealand? If we make a treaty with New Zealand we will have to admit into this country, either free or under preferential rates, a very large amount of agricultural produce, because our imports from New Zealand would be chiefly products of the dairy or of the flocks of sheep.
I want to say a word about what I am going to call the great apostasy; I refer to the resolution passed by the Alberta convention and read by the hon. member for Athabaska (Mr. Kellner). I was reminded of the words from Milton's great poem:
Of Man's first disobedience, and the fruit
Of that forbidden tree, whose mortal taste
Brought death into the world, and all our woe,
Hon. members have been tasting of the forbidden fruit of protection. The resolution passed at the Alberta convention has, in its preamble, a reference to the fact that the Australian treaty was opposed by United Farmers of Alberta members in the house. I do not know what debate took place in the Alberta convention but it is safe to assume since the matter was brought forward at this time by the hon. member for Athabaska, that it was introduced because of the present situation regarding the importation of butter
478	COMMONS
Australian Treaty-Mr. Brown
from New Zealand. Possibly the delegates at the Alberta convention were given to understand that the members from Alberta had opposed it for that reason.
I had occasion to look up the debates upon this matter and I found that so far as Alberta was concerned the discussion was earned on by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) and the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Spencer). Both these members made somewhat lengthy speeches but they dealt not with the importation of butter but wholly with the question of raisins. The only reference I could find to the question of the importation of competing products is in a quotation with which the hon. member for Bow River closed his speech. His concluding words were as follows:
I am opposed to the treaty in general and I can summarize my opposition to it best by quoting a conclusion arrived at by an eminent writer who discussed this treaty recently. He said:
"The treaty does give the Australian farmer a profitable market for his raisins and currants in Canada, and it will tend to reduce the price he has to pay for his rubber goods, canned salmon, automobiles and agricultural implements. It is a pretty good treaty for the Australian farmer and reflects considerable credit on his government for its bargaining ability.
I or the Canadian farmer it means an increase in his cost of living, increased competition in his home market with agricultural products from Australia,"
And so on. There is only that incidental reference in the quotation, and we may properly assume that had that not appeared in the quotation, nothing would have been said about it. Be that as it may, I would call attention to the fact that the hon. members came into this house supporting the farmers' platform, to which reference is frequently made-


An hon. MEMBER:: So did the Minister
of Railways (Mr. Crerar).


John Livingstone Brown: -and a part of that platform is this:
That all foodstuffs not included in the reciprocity agreement be placed on the free list.
Can there be any question that in passing the resolution which they did in Alberta they were not tasting of the forbidden fruits of protection? I know they have a disclaimer in their resolution that they are not here in violation of their general principles on the question of the tariff, but it is all very well to put in a disclaimer and say that you do not intend to do a thing, and then go ahead and do it.

I wonder if the hon. member for Bow River, when he goes down to Winnipeg to speak at a provincial election upon the invitation of the labour men of Winnipeg, will be able to justify the stand that he has taken in advocating what must necessarily be an increase in the price of butter. The hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Young) said that it was with a feeling of disappointment that he regarded the action of the United Farmers of Alberta. Of course it is a matter for disappointment when we see any indication that the farmers of Canada are willing to turn away from their high ideals and squabble over some of the husks; for after all, Mr. Speaker, it is only the husks that the farmers can ever get out of the principle of protection.
I have regarded this spectacle with somewhat mingled feelings. It brought to mind an experience I had some time ago. An evangelist of a certain type came to town and I remember on one occasion he put his hand on my shoulder and said, "Brother, be holy; brother, be holy." I rather resented that because I thought he had no right to assume I was not as holy as he was, and it was with some satisfaction, and a degree of unholy glee-I am not justifying my conduct, I am simply making a confession-that I read very shortly afterwards in a newspaper that he had got into trouble with his church authorities because he had registered at an hotel under an assumed name. I do not know that I need to press the parable any farther.
If the farmers of Alberta, instead of passing that resolution at their convention assembled, had taken notice of some other matters which were reported at the convention, it would have been much better for them and for the cause which they represented. At that convention Doctor C. P. Marker, the provincial dairy commissioner, stated that it was estimated that the value of dairy products in Alberta last year was the greatest on record, being about $21,000,000, or half a million dollars more than.in 1928. He further stated:
An analysis of dairying in various sections of the province brought out the interesting fact that more men are keeping their yearling heifers than formerly, a state that should reflect in future reports.
In view of those statements, it would not seem that the dairy interests of Alberta in particular and Canada in general are in that hopeless position which hon. gentlemen opposite would lead us to suppose. I see no reason why we should be discouraged and so pessimistic in regard to this matter. These things will adjust themselves naturally; no doubt there will be a variation from time to time between this product and that product,

Australian Treaty-Mr. Sinclair (Wellington)
and taking into account that fact which everybody knows to be true, but as to which no evidence can be offered as to what extent it is true-the increased consumption in Canada of dairy products-there is no reason to suppose that the dairy industry of Canada is likely to suffer, while there is every reason to believe that the high prices paid during the last few years to the farmers for their dairy products will be continued and that the industry will grow and prosper. It will continue to be what it always has been, one of the outstanding branches of Canadian agriculture.


Mr. MANION:: Before the hon. member
finishes, I would like to ask him a question, which I ask in all sincerity. Does he support this treaty as it stands, or does he believe it should be altered?


John Livingstone Brown: I have no hesitation in
saying that I voted against the treaty when it was introduced in the house. I did so because of the burden laid on the people of Canada by the duty on raisins. I took the same attitude as did the hon. gentlemen opposite.


An hon. MEMBER:: What attitude do you take now?


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


Mr. DUNCAN SINCLAIR (North Wellington) :: Mr. Speaker, I desire to say a few
words as to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Senn), especially as it refers to the dairy industry. The hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) tells us that the farmers of Canada are obtaining good prices for their cows, and because of that it is good business for the farmers. I claim that it is not good business for the dairy farmers of Canada because those cows could not be replaced at the prices for which they were sold. They are not raising heifers in my own district, they are selling them because the dairy business has got into such a state that there is no money in it for the farmer. An answer which can be made to his remarks is that contained in a questionnaire sent out by the Deputy Minister of Agriculture of the government of which he is a member. This letter, 'which was sent out to the farmers of this country, Teads as follows:
You are, I understand, interested in live stock of some kind, and are therefore, I have no doubt, interested in Canada's holding her place and even doing a little better than that on the world's markets for various live stock products. Now as a matter of fact Canada seems unfortunately to be losing ground in this connection. For instance, we no longer export any eggs
or butter. We send abroad very little dressed poultry or lambs; our exports of beef cattle are dwindling, our shipments of beef are decreasing, our exports of bacon which a few years ago were very large have almost disappeared and our shipments of cheese are rapidly falling off.
That is the reply to the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) by the Deputy Minister of Agriculture of the present government. Hon. members on this side of the house have consistently brought to the attention of the country and of the government, the condition of affairs and what would happen if importations of butter from New Zealand continued as has been the case for the last few years. The government paid no attention to our pleadings. In 1927, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell), in addressing the National Dairy Council, said in reply to the chairman:
Now we got a preference for certain exports such as paper, pulp and motor cars, what would you suggest, Mr. Chairman, to take the place of butter?
What would we give New Zealand if we did not give thean a preference for butter? Just imagine the Minister of Agriculture, the watch-dog of the farmers of this country, sacrificing the interests of our farmers for those of any other industry, whatever it might be!
What has been the result? According to the Bureau of Statistics report, we have a shortage of 100,000 milch cows. We have a shortage of hogs. We have lost our export trade to Britain in. those commodities and, sad to say, we are losing our home market. Our Canadian-made butter is just as good as any butter made in the world; there is none better. Mr. A. J. Mills, a dealer from London, England, bad this to say of Canadian butter and cheese before the National Dairy Council in 1927-and by the way, the Minister of Agriculture was present at the meeting-that there was no better butter or cheese shipped to the old country market than the Canadian product and there was ^something radically wrong with Canada when her exports had fallen off nearly to nothing.
The dairy farmers of Canada are not asking for any favours. All they want is a square deal. They expect the government at least to save the home market for them. They do not think it fair to have to compete with a country like New Zealand. Doctor Ruddick, dairy and cold storage commissioner, in addressing the agriculture committee last session, informed us that the cows of the New Zealand farmers ran at large practically twelve months of the year; that ithe farms
480	COMMONS
Australian Treaty-Mr. Sinclair (Wellington)
in New Zealand were worth from S300 to $700 an acre, and that they could feed from 50 to 80 cows on 100 acres. On the other hand, in Ontario and Quebec, the farmers can keeip only from 15 to 20 cows on 100 acres; their cows are housed for six or seven months of the year, and they are fed on expensive food. It takes a lot of money and hard work to feed these cows during the winter months and the dairy farmers of Canada object to this unfair competition. New Zealand butter is allowed into this country under a duty of one cent per pound while they charge us six cents a pound to export our butter into New Zealand. I would ask the hon. member for Lisgar whether he thinks that is fair treatment.


John Livingstone Brown: What practical effect has it on the hon. member?


Mr. SINCLAIR (Wellington):: What practical effect has a carload of eggs shipped into my hon. friend's district on the egg market in his constituency?


John Livingstone Brown: What practical effect on
the hon. member has the New Zealand duty on Canadian butter?


John Ewen Sinclair: Just the
same effect that I should like my hon. friend from Lisgar to assume. My hon. friend quoted some poetry a little while ago. I would commend to him the following from Scott:
Breathes there a man with soul so dead,
Who never to himself has said,
This is my own, my native land!
The hon. member for Lisgar said something about the county of Hastings. I happen to have in my hand a clipping from the Financial Post, Toronto of February 27, 1930, dealing with general conditions in Hastings county. A picture of a fine dairy herd in the county of Hastings is shown, with the statement that there are many such herds in that county. The products from the dairy business of that county last year was $2,600,000. Are the farmers of Hastings asking for protection? They certainly are; they are asking that their produce should be protected and we should protect them. What has been the consequence of so much New Zealand butter entering Canada? The Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) himself admits there is something wrong, because in moving his amendment to the amendment he practically admits that there is a serious state of affairs.
Mr. 10UNG (Weyburn): No, he does not. [Mr. Duncan Sinclair.)


John Ewen Sinclair: But the
minister is just five years too late. The harm has been done. According to the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, we are short more than 100,000 milch cows. The British market has gone; the home market is completely under the control of the New Zealand butter because it sets the price of our Canadian butter, and the dairy farmers are discouraged. What has the government done in regard to the situation?
I referred a little while ago to the letter of the Deputy Minister of Agriculture. I would hate to be deputy minister under any government and have to send out a questionnaire such as he has sent out to the farmers admitting that the department has actually fallen down on the job. According to a report from dealers in Toronto, the New Zealand butter consumed in that city amounts to 75 per cent of the total consumption. The butter is put up in packages with fancy wrappings. It is not called Canadian butter and it is not called New Zealand butter although it should be. Why should the farmers of Canada be handicapped in this way while the people who are consuming this butter think they are eating Canadian butter when they are really eating foreign-made butter? When any hon. member on this side of the house brings these matters before the government, the Prime Minister in his nice, plausible way, tells us we must not say anything provocative. The other day the Minister of Finance told us we must not hurt the feelings of our sister dominion. But the farmers of Canada are getting fed up on this "hush-hush" policy of the government and are just waiting a favourable opportunity to let the government know that. This trade agreement is affecting Canada in frozen meat, lamb and mutton, because I have been given to understand that even the Prime Minister has gone out of the sheep business on account of the unfair competition he has been suffering from outside.
I will not take up much more of the time of the house. It has cost the country a great deal of money to put the dairy business into the position it held prior to the trade agreement with New Zealand. The injury that has been done cannot be repaired and the dairy industry of this country cannot be rebuilt within the next five years regardless of which government is in power.
I believe that it is the duty of any government to protect in some way our own home markets for the producers in our own country and to provide markets elsewhere for our

4S1
Australian Treaty-Mr. Neill
surplus. This government has absolutely failed to preserve our home market and has lost the British market in so far as the butter business is concerned. I agree entirely with the amendment as proposed by the hon. member for Haldimand.


Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Albernd):: I
realize how hard it must be to legislate for the farming industry of Canada when we find such divergent views expressed by farmers themselves, as we have heard in the course of this debate. I am sorry I cannot support the views of my friend the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown). His theories are unassailable, his principles fit into each other like the figures of a puzzle, but unfortunately I live in a world of hard realities and I must explore and find, if possible, a remedy for these conditions without regard to theories or academic considerations, however smoothappearing and plausible they may be.
We are considering an amendment moved by an hon. member of the official opposition to the motion to go into supply. The amendment is framed as a want of confidence motion. It was moved on the 4th day of March. I will read it:
That all the words after the word "That" be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"in the opinion of this house, order in council No. 1757, passed on the 26th day of September, 1925, respecting certain trade arrangements with the Dominion of New Zealand, should be rescinded forthwith, and immediate steps taken to negotiate a treaty with that Dominion on fair and equitable terms."
As I say, that amendment was put before the house on the 4th day of March. On the 24th of February I placed on the order paper the following resolution for consideration and debate:
That, in the opinion of this house, six months' notice should be given to the New Zealand government to cancel the application to that country of the provisions of what is generally known as the Australian treaty.
I trust that the house will bear in mind the wording of my resolution and the wording of the amendment now before' us, and have regard also for the dates when they appeared. My resolution, my -child, as it were, was born nine days before the amendment, and now hon. gentlemen opposite are trying to tell me that they are twins, in defiance of the number of medical men there are on that side of the house. It is said that stolen kisses are sweet; I do not know; I have forgotten'; it is so long ago. But if they are, the same does not apply to stolen resolutions. Stolen kisses may 2419-31
perhaps leave some suggestion of sweetness even on the party from whom they are stolen, but a stolen resolution leaves only a dark brown taste such as some of us are familiar with, the morning after. Perhaps I should be proud to have written a copy book headline which has served and will serve as a text for so many eloquent speeches on the subject in the course of this debate, but I do not know if I do feel proud.
My hon. friends opposite are entitled to some sympathy, and it is sympathy rather than respect that I accord them. Let us visualize the matter. The official opposition comprises some ninety members in this house. They are pleasant to look at. They comprise a large share of the ablest men in the public life of Canada to-day. A large number of them are prominent in finance and in public positions throughout this country. Perhaps thirty per cent of them are millionaires; some of them multi-millionaires. Perhaps another thirty per cent of them are very brainy men, because capital can always command the services of ability and brains. The remainder, while less well known, are of repute in the ridings from which they come. We have this galaxy of money and1 brains, men wise in the political manoeuvres of party warfare gathered here together. They are called upon to formulate a policy, to frame an amendment that will perhaps be historical; it has to deal with the record of the government and, if possible, to condemn it; certainly the intention is to condemn the record of the government. It is to be the spearhead of their attack, not only in this session, but in the election which may possibly come hereafter. Well, the mountain laboured, and -what did it bring forth?- not even the conventional mouse. I do not know what they did bring forth, but I know what happened. They engaged in a species of political bootlegging. They hijacked the brains and stole the resolution of a poor simple lonely, independent member of the House of Commons. Sir, I do not know what they teach in the Sunday schools to-day-evolution perhaps-but in my young days we had a very simple theology and some of the boys framed a portion of it into a doggerel which has always stuck in my mind :
He who takes what isn't his'n
When he's cotehed, he goes to prison.
There is a great thought in that. I do not suggest that any material confinement should be the punishment for the action of hon. gentlemen opposite, to which I have just alluded, but I do think it must result in some loss of respect for themselves, and possibly



Australian Treaty-Mr. Neill
some loss of prestige in the country. It is perhaps natural for them to take that line because we know that in the years past they have been engaged in a line of argument that has been wholly destructive. I am reminded of those lesser devils recorded in the Book of Job, of whom Satan asked what they were doing, and he was told that they had been wandering to and fro seeking whom they might devour. My hon. friends opposite have been engaged for so long in wholly destructive work that it is hard for them to turn to the forward-looking constructive policies which is what the country wants. So in despair like King David, when he fell from grace, they turned an envious and lustful eye upon the ewe lamb of their neighbours-in David's case the ewe lamb took the form of the wife of Uriah, the Hittite; in my case it is embodied in a resolution setting forth a nationwide policy, but my resolution is as dear to me as ever Bathsheba was to Uriah, the Hittite; it is all mine; it is my child, begotten by me, and loved and cherished by me. My hon. friends opposite, having seen it, coveted it, seized it and are now endeavouring to make a partisan use of it for the advantage of the millionaire opposition. I have no objection to them adopting my child. I am proud and pleased when I see them adopt it. All I ask is that they acknowledge the paternity of the infant. All I ask of them is that they admit I formulated their policy, and that they are following the lead I gave them.
Now, possibly the public at large will be less concerned with this abduction, which I might compare with the Rape of the Sabines, than with two conditions that it reveals. First, I would call the attention of the house to the revelation of the paucity of material possessed by the opposition when it is necessary for them to take such steps. Were there no other matters of complaint, no scandals, no extravagances, no mismanagement? Is this the only thing that they could find that they had to seize my little ewe lamb? That reveals a remarkable condition, and I think, it is rather significant. Second, it reveals an obvious condition of sterility of ideas, a sort of atrophy and an absolute lack of constructive ability.
There is another feature I think the public, apart from a few hide-bound politicians on both sides of politics, will be less and less interested in this want of confidence business. Rather they will say: what is there in this for us? They will compare-at least I hope so-the resolution and the amendment in that light. On the one hand, we have the amendment, which is primarily and essentially a vote of want [Mi. Neill.]
of confidence in the government, aimed at turning the government out-old party stuff that we have had ever since confederation. But did the hon. members who instigated and moved this amendment really expect the government or any number of men on the government side to support it? Surely not. It is true, of course, that in the last fortnight we have twice seen the government and a great many of their supporters line up with the opposition, which was a revelation to gods and men. I noticed a Conservative paper published in British Columbia appeared with a headline announcing "Bennett wins first division of the session." It shows the use they make of these things. But we who belong to the smaller groups in this house are not so much surprised, because it has been driven into us by years of observation that the great Conservative party and the great Liberal party in their relations to each other are very much like the Colonel's lady and Judy O'Grady.
This amendment, however, is on a different plane. If adopted it would mean turning the government out of power, and the government of course do not want that. Being coupled, as it is with want of confidence, it is absolutely essential to defeat it to preserve themselves. They must use every effort and pull every string to do so, a fact with which the gentlemen who moved it are perfectly aware. The very fact that it is a want of confidence motion, will compel many members, at least some, to vote for it who would have preferred to vote for the particular resolution which I put on the order paper. Now, we see the old game of party politics in the middle of the road, and the interests of the country scrambling along the side lines as best they can.
There is another feature about this amendment that I should like to call attention to. I do wish when they were adopting my resolution that they had done so wholesale and not attempted to improve on it, thereby making it very inferior in its effect. This amendment will achieve absolutely nothing. I call attention to what it proposes:
That the order in council should be rescinded forthwith.
, Nothing else, except they also propose to go on and make a treaty. They stop there at the rescinding. Now you could rescind that order in council every day in the week for the next twelve months, and you would never get a pound of butter less from New Zealand. This amendment is simply a gesture, and as the hon. Minister of Finance said, a somewhat offensive gesture, because it lacks the six months notice which I put into my resolution.

Australian Treaty-Mr. Neill
The order in council which extended the pro-visons of the treaty to New Zealand provides:
That it will be subject to the provisions of the said act.
That is the treaty. One of the provisions is that it cannot be cancelled as regards Australia without six months notice, and that applies to New Zealand too. So it is no use to say cancel the order in council; you have not done anything concrete, anything effective, because butter will come in until the expiration of six months notice to cancel the arrangement.
There is still another feature of this amendment to which I would direct the attention of the house. Both the hon. gentleman who introduced it and also the Minister of Finance proposed to negotiate a new treaty. Very well. A treaty cannot be one sided. A treaty in itself must give a preference to New Zealand for some of the products they export in return for a preference for some of the products that we export. I desire to quote the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) who asked this question of the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Ladner). He said:
Mr. Brown: What does the hon. member propose to accept from New Zealand?
Mr. Ladner:	Whatever they can send us
provided it is not going to destroy an industry that is indigenous to this country.
Of course, that was just a lawyer's quibble, because it is simply an evasion. A more sincere man would have said, " I don't know." Had he been pressed he would have given the other stereotyped answer, " That is not for us to say. Put us on the treasury benches and we will formulate our policy." But when you go to make a treaty you must face facts; you can evade them in the house and sometimes on the platform, but you cannot evade them when you go to make a treaty, and the facts are staring us in the face as regards New Zealand. I have the returns of the exports from New Zealand for the last year in which they are recorded, 1927. New Zealand record their exports under five different heads: mineral, pastoral, agricultural, forest and miscellaneous. It will be noticed that they make a distinction between agricultural and pastoral exports. The pastoral exports are wool and mutton, beef, butter, cheese; while the agricultural column covers things such as grains, potatoes, apples. Then they give the percentage of the total exports. The pastoral exports of New Zealand for 1927 represented 92-9 per cent of the total, practically 93 per cent; agricultural exports were 1-7 per cent. The total pastoral and agricultural exports amount to 94-6 per cent of the exports, so 94'6 per cent, almost 95 per cent of the total 24X9-41J
exports of New Zealand are agricultural. The other exports are trivial and comprise a very small percentage of the total exports.
Now, I ask, what are we going to give New Zealand a preference on? Is it to be on motor cars? They do not export motor cars; we do. Is it to be on clothes? The same thing applies. On what are we going to give them a preference? The only things exported by New Zealand that we do not produce are; kauri gum, which is a thing very little used; I think it is a base for varnish; rabbit skins, which I do not think we use in any quantity; and phprmium tenax, a form of native New Zealand flax, which, for reasons I need not go into, it is undesirable that we should import. So we get this result-in any treaty we make with New Zealand; we are bound to hurt our farmers for the benefit of our manufacturers. Is that what the farmers want? Ostensibly the object of rescinding the present arrangement is to benefit our farmers. If we turn our imports from New Zealand against the wool man and the mutton man will that make them any better? We cannot make a treaty with New Zealand except at the expense of our farmers, for the obvious fact that almost all New Zealand's exports are agricultural.
But my resolution was concrete and was calculated to produce immediate action-and we in the west have a way of wanting action once we start a thing. I proposed to give six months' notice for the cancellation of the treaty. I agree with the hon. Minister of Finance when he said that rescinding the order in council at once would be an offensive gesture, and unnecessary and futile; but I do not agree with him when he made practically the same remark as regards the six months' notice, because I do not think there is anything offensive in that; it can be done politely. If I lease a man my house for a long period and he comes and says, " I am going to give you regular notice to quit," I do not take that in any improper spirit at all. Under my resolution you would have six months in which to negotiate a treaty. But the minister says he is going to negotiate a treaty without giving notice, and with the hope that inside the six months he will have a satisfactory treaty negotiated. But it takes two to make a treaty, and he might fail at the end of six months, when he would have to give six months' notice which would mean a whole year before we would get any action. That is my only objection, or practically so, to his amendment dealing with the situation.
My resolution is open to receive the support of everyone. It does better than that, Mr. Speaker. In a large measure, it compels
4S4

Australian Treaty-Mr. Neill
the support of a great many people who could easily justify themselves in voting against the amendment, because they could say they do not want to vote want of confidence against the government. With my resolution, Mr. Speaker, it is different. There is no excuse, there is no loophole, there is no way out of it. It might very easily be accepted by the government as a mere expression of the opinion of the house at large. It is true that we get nowhere as regards a want of confidence vote, but we have here just what the farmer wants.
With regard to the amendment introduced by the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Casgrain) which I have heTe, it reads: -superseded as soon as possible by a treaty with that dominion, and that immediate steps should be taken to negotiate such a treaty.
Thait is, the order in council shall be superseded as soon as possible by a treaty. Had that subamendment included the six months' notice I would have been prepared to withdraw my resolution, but failing that I propose to stick to it. I wish ito emphasize, because there seems to be some doubt in some people's minds, that it is only opposed to the application of the treaty to New Zealand. I am as Strong an advocate as ever for the treaty with Australia, but this resolution of mine will afford an opportunity to every member of this house to express a real opinion, an unhampered opinion without regard to party politics, which is the curse of this country. Last election, especially in the district that I represent, because it was thought appropriate to do it there, the argument was: We must do away with these miserable minor parties, these groups, and those independents; let us go back to the good old days when there were only two parties, the outs and ins, and then only will we get stable government. That was the cry raised at every point in my riding. The result was the very opposite, because we got more groups instead of less, and we have had stable government since then. It may not have been so partisan as it otherwise would have been, but I do not think that is an ill that Canada as a whole can complain of. Look at the situation in Great Britain, where we see the two great panties, th. Liberals and the Conservatives, out of power. Where are they to-day? The public have almost thrown them into the discard. They are squabbling amongst themselves, yet Great Britain is going on, and going on in a very creditable manner. It is popular to say that because the Liberals or the Conservatives are not in power the empire is going to the dogs. But is it? Look at
[Mf. Neill.)
Snowden's action at Geneva after the late government had so messed things up as to have the country almost irretrievably involved. Then take Ramsay MacDonald's action in coming to the United States and the present negotiations with respect to disarmament. All those things suggest that in spite of the lack of prominence of either Liberals or Conservatives, in spite of group government, the empire is in no great danger.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does my hon. friend know that the MacDonald government was defeated to-day?


Alan Webster Neill: I do not, and I am sorry to hear it. But I venture to say it was due to an improper combination of the two old parties for more or less political advantage.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: That is very stable.


Mr.   NEELL@: After the next election there may be more groups. I hope at least there will be more independents. Let me dwell for a moment on that aspect of it, this party business. Did you ever see a oity council or a school board where the public would send thirteen men, seven of them (to run the school board or the city council and the other six with strict instructions to oppose them in every way possible? How long would a suggested combination like thait last? Why, the common sense of the people would be shocked, and yet it is all right to send a man to parliament for four years who is almost powerless to do anything for his district unless his particular party happens to be in power. The wretched man is hamstrung before he begins. Did you ever note, Mr. Speaker, when any matter of pressing world-wide importance, such as the war, or more recently the suggestion about handling the pensions, comes into this house, occasionally good sense prevails on. both sides of the house; a nion-partisan committee is appointed to deal with the situation, a joint committee, and have you ever known that joint committee not to bring in a unanimous report, and a good report, and one which this house was not able to carry into effect? If it is right to do it in an emergency why is it niot right to do the same thing in a smaller matter? Would it not be better to send a man to parliament ready and prepared to support any party that brings in good legislation, a man who would be prepared to put party politics behind him, always having .the interests of Canada and his district first in mind. Because I was elected as an independent I am able to take this position

Australian Treaty-Mr. Chaplin
between the two parties on this question of New Zealand butter. I believe it will be a good thing for Canada, and a good thing for my constituents. That is why I introduced the resolution, and thait is why I propose to stay with it, Mr. Speaker.


Hon. J. D. CHAPLIN (Lincoln):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Comox-Albemi (Mr. Neill) who has just taken his seat tells us that we have stolen his child. All I can say is that I have looked through the record for some time back and I cannot find where he ever gave this child very much support.


Alan Webster Neill: He gave it birth.


Mr. SPENCE:: It was stillborn.


James Dew Chaplin: I never knew that the hon. gentleman ever made any claim to be an old woman.
In discussing this motion, Mr. Speaker, we have to go back to the terms of the Australian treaty, and although this gentleman is very keen now on the terms of the New Zealand treaty, which came originally from the Australian treaty, I find he never took the trouble to vote on the Australian treaty in the first place. He never took the trouble to be here in the house when the vote was taken. He is not even now on the record as being paired. That is how much interest be took in the matter. I find also from the record, Mr. Speaker, that during the past several years there have been different amendments and different motions moved in respect to the same treaty. I have in mind particularly one in which the gentleman figured. And he can always find an excuse for supporting the government. He has always done it. He is one of the first-to use an expression that has been used in the house before-to man the lifeboat to save the government in case it is in danger. Let me quote a few of his words, in 1926, when he spoke on a resolution respecting grading of eggs, to see how he stands. He evidently was in favour of the wording of the agreement, but he did not want to vote against the government. I will just take is own words for it. He said:
Sly action in this connection was much along the line referred to a few weeks ago by an hon. gentleman on the opposite side in regard to the man who would not stop talking until he got compensation for the widow's cow. I think there are occasions when that is undignified, but that was the only possible remedy. This is the opportunity for me to do that, but I cannot stultify my convictions in this particular instance and the interest of my constituents by voting against the government in this matter, although I would like to do so.
Is it a fact that the hon. gentleman would have liked to vote against the government,
but in the interests of his constituents and because of the plums which might come from the government, he did not want to do it? That gentleman is very well known in this house-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


James Dew Chaplin: -and for an independent member it is evident that he gets a great deal of support from the Liberal benches.
Referring to the motion under discussion, the Minister of Finance the other day said, ''You do not want to hit a sister nation over the head by introducing a resolution of this kind; that is not the way to transact business," I can tell the Minister of Finance that he and this government have not hesitated to hit a great industry of this country over the head. This matter has not been confined to this session alone; it has not been brought up just prior to an election, but it is a matter of four or five years' duration.
Let me refer to the words of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) himself, when he told the people of Woodstock, "If this treaty is hurting the industry, we can abrogate the treaty." Does that mean hitting the other nation over the head? In his Winnipeg address he is quoted as saying:
The government is fully prepared in the interests of Canada to readjust its fiscal policy from time to time to meet any changes in existing fiscal structure which may affect our markets. If the United States or any other country does not want to trade with Canada, except ou equal terms, then surely we can look as never before to the rest of the world, and particularly to the rest of the British Empire.
I would like to ask the Prime Minister if the treaty is anything else but unequal, as far as Canada is concerned? I ask him this question: Is it fair that goods should enter Canada under a duty of half a cent per pound, while goods of a similar character from this country are taxed five, six or ten cents per pound? Is that a fair treaty? I ask the Prime Minister if that is an equal or an unequal basis. I would further ask him this: Is it right that Australian or New Zealand mutton and other meat should come into Canada at half a cent a pound when our products exported to those countries are charged six cents a pound? I ask him if cheese should enter this country practically free when our cheese is charged five or six cents per pound. The same thing is true of everything mentioned in the treaty. In other words, it is not a treaty; it is nothing but a give-away, and the farmers of this country are suffering from it. I warned the government when the treaty was being discussed. I told them there were industries being pro-

Australian Treaty-Mr. Chaplin
tected; I happened to be in a business that was affected, but it did not stop me from Celling the government that it had no right so sign a treaty under which certain people were reaping great advantages, while a main industry of the country was being ruined. The Prime Minister says, "Oh yes, we will trade evenly with people." I would like to ask the Prime Minister and the minister sitting by him, who made the French treaty, whether that treaty has worked out to the benefit of Canada. I would like to know if it was fair for us to give France a treaty om dozens of articles with a stationary duty and take from them a treaty under which the duty could be changed the minute after it was signed. That is what happened1 in that instance.
Most of our friends sitting in the corner on my left voted for the French treaty. They had their eyes opened on that treaty, and they were very chary about voting for the Australian treaty. I notice certain gentlemen an the other side who voted against the Australian treaty; I would like to know what they have to say. We have not yet had a word from them. There are five or six members over there who voted against that treaty, and I would like to know what they are going to say in reference to this one.


John Livingstone Brown: There were five or six over there voted for it.


James Dew Chaplin: No, not five or six; there were only three. The minister helped to make that treaty, and after he came back tried to defend it. He told us, when speaking about the amount of butter that was going to be shipped, "We did not make a treaty for the old days of Jacques Cartier; we made a treaty for the present day,farmers of the province of Quebec." He and his confreres went to France and made a treaty. The result was that there was a higher duty on salted butter, but a lessened duty on unsalted butter, and we were not shipping unsalted butter. "Oh," he said, "we have made a great treaty with Belgium; I have seen merchants in Montreal, and they have things ready for oig business." I would like to ask him whether any business did eventuate from it, and if so, where it is? Probably there were a few hundred pounds of butter shipped under that ;reaty, but that was all.
I hope that the treaty-making propensities af the government will be put under control, and that the gentlemen who were most active in this work will let some one else do the negotiating in future, if there are any treaties to be made.
This treaty with New Zealand should not be kept on the statute book at all; we should 
have a fair treaty. I take the Prime Minister's word for it; he says that any nation which is not willing to trade with us on an equal basis should not be given the opportunity to trade at all. I call him there; I charge him with the fact that they have made a treaty which is not fair to Canada and not fair to a great industry in Canada. It is not anything new for us to criticize this treaty. You would think by the remarks of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) that it was his thought altogether. May I tell him that he has just come in at the heel of the hunt; he sees what the situation is and wants to take advantage of it. He never has been against any treaty; he has swallowed them all, just as he swallows everything this government does.


Mr. JOHN MILLAR (Qu'Appelle):: Mr
Speaker, after listening to the wails of woe from the other side of the house and the admonitions to rush to the assistance of the dairy industry, I began to wonder how some of our friends would fare if they tried the milking of cows and the carrying on of the dairying industry. If they have not had that experience, perhaps a little advice would be in order. When they sit down with their milk stool to milk a brindle cow, it might be well for them to be careful. When one is milking a cow about the only part he is safe in tickling is her fancy. Some of the hon. members opposite might find their milk pail upset during their first experience.
When our friends speak of the lack of exports of butter they very conveniently forget to mention anything about production and home consumption. I have some figures in that regard which I would like to place on Hansard. The exports to the United States of cream and milk have greatly increased. In January, 1930, Canada exported 48,591 gallons of cream and 132,041 gallons of milk. For the twelve months' period preceding, Canada exported to the United States, 2,341, 497 gallons of cream and 3,171,014 gallons of milk.


Mr. QUINN:: If the trade is so profitable why has the cow population of Canada decreased and not increased?


John Millar: If the hon. member will
have patience I will come to that. The per capita consumption of dairy products has increased very materially, as is shown in the following comparison between the years 1921 and 1928:
Commodity Butter.	.	.Cheese.	.	.
Milk. . . . Ice cream. .
25.79 pounds 2.51 pounds 240 pounds 5.26 pints
29.31 pounds 3.54 pounds 470 pounds 7.04 pints

Australian Treaty-Mr. Millar
I listened to a very instructive and interesting address delivered the other night in Dominion church by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Kennedy). He had some illustrated slides which he was showing to the audience, one of which was a picture of a dairy herd. Referring to the lack of a desire upon the part of farmers to milk cows, he said that the good crops of 1927-he mentioned other years, but I have forgotten just which ones-had done more to lower the production of butter in Canada than all the treaties which have been entered into. I think that statement is quite true because if the farmer can make a good living out of growing wheat and other grain, he does not care to milk cows.
Some objection has been raised to the practice of selling cows to the United States, and that is one reason why the herds have been somewhat lessened. I cannot understand the reasoning or the mentality of anyone who will Object, to a farmer raising cows for the purpose of selling them at good prices. That is much easier than milking cows. It is his own business and he is the person who ought to be allowed to decide what he will do. Cows have been sold at $150, $200 and occasionally at higher prices, and I consider that mighty good business. The fact that such prices can be obtained is to be attributed to the work done by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) and his department. There are about nine or ten disease-free areas where the practice of slaughtering diseased animals has been carried on since 1924, and it is the cows from those areas which bring the high prices. I think that practice might well be continued. I can easily imagine hon. members sitting to the left of Mr. Speaker complaining in the course of a few years because the sale of cows of this class to the United States had fallen off.
There is another reason why we are not exporting as much butter. Raw milk will flow into channels most profitable. That is the statement made by those who know the dairy industry, such as Doctor Ruddick, the dairy commissioner. The following figures, which refer to the western, eastern, northern and central districts of Ontario, are very interesting. The increase from 1920 to 1927 in the number of establishments dealing with dairying in western Ontario amounted to 6-1 per cent. During the same period northern Ontario shows an increase of 336-6 per cent in the number of patrons, while the central and eastern districts show a very slight falling off of 8-7 per cent and 5-3 per cent respectively. Western Ontario shows an increase in the production of creamery butter during that
same period amounting to 59-8 per cent. The central district shows an increase of 119 per cent; the eastern district an increase of 209 per cent; and the northern district the enormous increase of 630 per cent. How can hon. members say that the dairy industry is going to the dogs when faced with such figures?
The total production of milk has been very rapid and the increase was continuous up to the year 1928. I think it has been stated that there was a decrease in the total production for the year 1929, but I would point out that there was also a decrease in the production of wheat during that year. Due to that condition. I expect the revenue of our two railways will fall off in the year 1929, but will anyone argue that because there is a falling off in revenue for one year after a continuous period of expansion, therefore the two railways must be heading towards bankruptcy?
I would like to give some figures in connection with the production of raw milk in Ontario. Not only did the number of patrons in northern Ontario increase by 336-6 per cent but the number of cows increased 340-6 per cent; cheese 4-6 per cent and the sale of other products increased by 1058 per cent and all dairy products increased 302 per cent. Another cause of fluctuation is shortage of feed and climatic conditions. In western Canada last summer there were considerable areas where the pastures were entirely dried up. There was a large area where pasture fields were as bare as the carpet in this chamber. It is not surprising, therefore, if in certain districts such as that the production of milk falls off in a season of that kind.
The hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) lamented Canada's great loss because of the importation of New Zealand butter. He pointed out that the whey and the skimmed milk would have fed so many pigs; the pigs would have started to grow into hogs; the hogs would have been turned by and by into bacon, and Canada, because she had not those thousands of hogs, had suffered a serious loss. That reminds me of a pioneer settler in the vicinity of Moose Jaw in the early days of the history of western Canada. One day he rode on his saddle for some forty miles into Moose Jaw, and while talking to some friends there he said "I have lost $100,000 this year." Some one asked him why, and he said "because I did not have $10,000 to buy cows to eat up the grass I have passed coming in here." The loss complained of by my hon. friend is very similar to that. The men that my hon. friend seemed to think ought to be milking cows and producing butter are raising grain. Look at
Australian Treaty-Mr. Millar

the enormous increase in the production of wheat during the past ten years. Not so very long ago we were growing only 100,000,000 bushels of wheat in a year, whereas in 1928 we produced 533,000,000 bushels. If some of those people who are growing wheat had each the power to turn themselves into twins, it would be quite possible for one half of them to continue to produce wheat, while the other half could have been milking cows and producing butter and cheese. As a matter of fact, however, no person can work more than ten or twelve hours a day at one job; he cannot carry on two jobs at the same time, and the fact is that our people have decided to grow wheat rather than to milk cows. When the hard years come and the price of grain goes down and stays down, as is the case now, the effect will be that many farmers will return to the milking of cows and the production of butter, cheese and milk.
New Zealand butter enters Canada, but I would ask the reason why. It is simply because the price of butter in Canada is above an export basis, otherwise they would ship their butter to England or other export markets. Those who advocate the abrogation of this treaty might well be just a little careful lest they find themselves in a more difficult position. It may be that instead of selling what they have in the way of butter during the winter months at a price above export, they will have to sell it at export price. They ask for an increase of three cents per pound in the tariff. Let us look at the effect of that. If the tariff is increased three cents per pound, some seem to argue that the price of butter may be increased by that amount. Supposing that that is the case, New Zealand butter can come into Canada just as it is doing now; the inducements will be exactly the same. They will simply receive three cents per pound more and pay three cents' duty, so that the raising of the duty by three cents, provided the price is also raised three cents, will make no difference so far as New Zealand butter is concerned. The inducements will be exactly the same and the profits to the New Zealand grower will be exactly the same as now. Well, some one will say, we will not raise the price three cents; we will raise the tariff three cents and the price two cents. Supposing they do that, I am willing to admit the price of butter in Canada may rise temporarily during a few months, but what will be the ultimate effect? An increase in the price of any commodity will lower consumption; it will also stimulate production. In the case of butter in Canada it will also have the effect of encouraging the storing of butter during 
the summer months when we are on an export basis and holding it in storage for the winter months. Even though you keep out New Zealand butter, how long is it likely to be before the curtailment of consumption, the increase of production and the throwing on to the markets in the winter months of the butter that has been put into storage during the summer, will bring the price down to an export basis? It may not be very long and the dairyman may find himself in the position that, whereas now he is able to sell for a part of the year at higher than export basis, he is compelled during the whole year to sell at an export price and can get no more.
When this matter was being heard before the tariff board, the chairman of the National Dairy Council was asked the question: What is the price of butter now in the United States and what is the price in Canada? He admitted that the price in Canada was H to 2 cents per pound higher than in the United States at that very time. I do not argue that this is always so, because under a tariff such as this the fluctuation will be rapid and violent. Sometimes the price will be up; frequently it will be down; but at that time it was being sold in the United States for It to 2 cents per pound lower than it was being sold at in Canada and the United States has a tariff of 12 cents per pound on butter. If in a great country with a population of 115,000,000, a tariff cannot keep the price of butter up, what chance has it of doing that in Canada where we have only 9,000,000 people? Very little indeed.
I think in two or three speeches from the other side of the house it was said that Canada could not be expected to compete against New Zealand. They have milder weather and cows can pasture all the year round. Our dairy commissioner, Mr. Ruddick, spent some time in New Zealand; he knows conditions there very well and he has pointed out that because of the looseness of the soil during the rainy season, they have found it necessary, in order to protect their pasture, to stable their cows. One speaker recently pointed out that all that was necessary was to put rubber blankets over the cows and everything was lovely. Perhaps it will be necessary also to produce cows that have paws like dogs so that they will not sink into the mud.
Reference has been made to the fact that in New Zealand the price of land is from $300 to $500 and as high as $700 an acre, and that is used as an argument why Canada cannot compete against New Zealand. I would suggest it is a reason why we can. When, as the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe stated, they can keep 100 cows on 100 acres in New Zea-

Australian Treaty-Mr. Millar
land and we can keep only about 50 cows on 100 acres in Canada, the advantage is all with Canada. Another speaker has placed it at a much lower figure. Be it so. Land here is very much cheaper. Whenever we come into competition with the countries to the south, where they have a milder climate, the stock from Canada stands up very well. If I am not mistaken, the world record for the production of eggs belongs to Canada, and has belonged to it for years. When our poultry was taken to the second world's poultry congress held in Spain, it was a source of wonder to the people there that our birds from this northern climate could stand up so well while other stock was wilting and dying. Our poultry stood up week after week, and the people there were anxious to buy foundation poultry stock from Canada. The Americans are also very glad to get foundation stock in milch cows from Canada, not alone because of their milk production, but because they are a hardier animal. Take our stock that is sent to the Chicago fair, our horses, our cattle, our hogs, every kind of live stock; our record is something that Canada need never be ashamed of. We have reason to be proud of it from one end of the country to the other. Some members on the other side of the house, when they go back home, ought really be ashamed to look a good cow in the face after all they have said about our Canadian cow not being able to stand up against the New Zealand cow.
I agree with the statement that has been made more than once that the farmer in Canada is not in a very prosperous condition. I do not think he is as prosperous as those engaged in other lines of business, but I am quite convinced that protection will not help him in the least. While I was speaking of protection and its effects, I forgot to point out that while protection might temporarily raise the price of butter, only to come down afterwards probably to a lower point than it- has reached now, the advantage it would be to the Canadian farmer would be very small. There is also this consideration. If the farmer gets behind protection, it certainly will help to raise the price of the articles that he must purchase. His overhead will increase, and he will be in the position of having backed the policy of protection. While the government may possibly have this part of the treaty abrogated, I am convinced, after studying the matter very carefully, that the benefits to the Canadian dairyman, if there are any, would be very, very small indeed.
The hon. gentleman who preceded me asked if it was fair that we should have a duty of one cent a pound against New Zealand butter
when New Zealand has a duty of six cents a pound against Canadian butter. I cannot understand the mentality of anybody who advocates this brick-for-brick policy. To me it seems like building a dam to keep a stream from running uphill. Coals are always going out from Newcastle; they are not being shipped in there, and butter is not moving from Canada to New Zealand, and never wall in our day. So why interest ourselves in what their tariff on butter is? I care not if it is only half a cent a pound; it makes absolutely no difference. It would be no benefit to the Canadian dairyman or to Canada as a whole if the New Zealand duty on butter were cancelled at once. We have our export market, and we would not now turn around and ship our butter to New Zealand, a country which is already producing enormous quantities of butter.
I would like to add one word in regard to the general standing of Canada, because there has been so much pessimistic talk. Some little time ago a survey was made by a survey board in the United States of a number of the principal countries to see how many years of prosperity they had enjoyed as compared with years of depression and although this survey was conducted by the people of the United States, they placed Canada at the head of the list. There were ten or a dozen countries inquired into. The United States came second, Great Britain third, but Canada was placed at the top of the list.
I shall not detain the house any longer. I have no objections to this matter being taken up; in fact, I think it well for the government to arrange a new treaty with New Zealand. But I repeat that an increased duty on New Zealand butter is not likely to help the Canadian dairyman very much, if at all.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It might be proper, Mr. Speaker, if we now discuss the amendment and the subamendment under consideration.
The original motion by the government was that the Speaker leave the chair that the house might go into committee of supply. That motion was made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning). It is a government motion. The opposition moved in amendment that the Speaker do not leave the chair, but that the order in council extending the Australian treaty to New Zealand be rescinded. The government has now moved, speaking through its Minister of Finance, a subamendment which it asks the house to adopt. If it is adopted the government will then be in the position of having on the records of this house an amendment,

Australian Treaty-Mr. Bennett moved from the government side, to its own motion to go into supply. I wonder if the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) or any member who has any knowledge of parliamentary procedure and practice has ever known such a thing in this country as a government amending its own motion to go into supply. It is like voting want of confidence in itself just before the people get a chance to so vote-and it is done, a colleague suggests to me, in order that the vote might be unanimous. I wonder if any such picture of parliamentatry practice has been presented in this country before. The Minister of Finance stands in his place and reads this subamendment to the amendment, and then, being unable to move it, and being unable to find any of his colleagues who may constitutionally do so, he hands it to the chief government whip to move. In other words, the chief whip of the government party moves a subamendment to the amendment to vote want of confidence in the government itself. All it means, of course, is that the committee of supply must be discharged if the subamendment carries. Presumably it will carry, because the government have the majority with which to carry it, and so they will be carrying an amendment to their own motion to go into supply. It is no wonder the Minister of Finance laughs. It is calculated to make the gods laugh. Could anything be more in keeping with the general tendencies of this administration? It must be humiliating to the hon. gentleman from South Huron (Mr. McMillan) yonder. It must be humiliating to him to be called upon to support a subamendment that would vote want of confidence in his own administration. When he goes back to his constituents he can tell them how proud he was to have been able to assist the government in declaring its lack of confidence in itself. It is so utterly at variance with his usual attitude towards the administration. It is well that we should look at these facts as they are. I would ask any gentleman here if in the wealth of his experience he has ever before known any such instance to occur.
Leaving that for the moment, the hon. gentleman for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) has indulged in language which I had not been accustomed to hear in this parliament, language which was cheered by the government. I shall not, sir, refer to the Chair not taking any steps to curb such language. It is for the Chair to say whether or not language charging theft, and speaking of stealing is in order, and to be used by hon. gentlemen in this house, and repeatedly used in charging that a resolution had been stolen. That is 
not my conception of parliamentary practice and procedure in the conduct of debate. But the government, headed by the Prime Minister, laughed vociferously at those observations of their supporter in the guise of an Independent. I do protest against such language. I am not yet in charge of the affairs of this house, but all I can say is, that if I ever am I shall not permit any hon. gentleman, whether he supports me or not, to use such language as that without protest to the Chair. In my judgment it is destructive of the dignified conduct of the business of this house and the traditions of parliamentary usage and procedure.
Now, let me deal with his statement that we have stolen a resolution that was placed upon the order paper by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni. Any one who knows his record of independence and the statement that he himself has made as to his conception of his duties as a member, will realize that in making the charges he did he was influenced by the fear that he would be deprived of some little kudos in the constituency he represents if he failed to get the benefit of having moved such a resolution. He was fearful too that this house would have the opportunity of voting yea or nay upon the principle embodied in this resolution, of saying whether or not the government is responsible for the treaty under discussion. He did not desire that the house should vote upon that question and he hoped by putting his resolution on the order paper to deprive members of this house of an opportunity of placing responsibility on the government for the present condition of our dairy industry. Everybody of course knows that. When the hon. gentleman says that the idea in this amendment to the motion to go into supply was stolen by any member on this side of the house, he must know that he is stating what is entirely beside the question. He must know that during the last three years, and particularly during the last year, in fact in his own constituency last summer, attention was directed to the operation of the New Zealand treaty as it affected the dairy industry. And what is more, he must have known, as he reads the public press, that the Conservative party was under an obligation at this session of parliament to afford opportunity to the members of this house to say whether or not in their opinion that treaty should be continued or not. In pursuance of that promise given by the Conservative party, at the earliest opportunity this amendment was moved to the motion to go into supply. When the hon. member said *hat that amendment is anticipating or stealing

Australian Treaty-Mr. Bennett
something that he proposed to do, he must know, if he reads the public prints at all, that the amendment to the motion to go into supply is but giving expression to the considered and declared policy of the Conservative party because of the injury that has been wrought to the agricultural industry of Canada through the operation of the New Zealand trade agreement.
I will not follow the hon. gentleman through his observations further beyond saying that there is not a member in this house that does not know that the Conservative party has declared during the last few months preceding the meeting of this house that in view of the serious, nay, more, the very desperate condition of the dairy industry of this country, by reason of the New Zealand treaty, an opportunity would be afforded to hon. members to say whether or not they support the government in continuing this treaty as part of the policy of the country. That opportunity can be afforded in one way and in one way only. It is all right for the member for Comox-Alberni to declare against party government, but I should like to know what form of government we would have if we had not the party form of administration. And because we have party government, it is inherent to our system that an opportunity should be afforded to call attention to the grievances of the people that they may be redressed, an opportunity that is always afforded before proceeding to vote supply, an opportunity which enables hon. members to say yea or nay upon questions of public policy for which the government is responsible. The government of this country is responsible for the New Zealand treaty. One week after the Prime Minister at Woodstock stated that if the operations of the Australian treaty were prejudicial to the dairy industry of Canada the treaty would be rescinded by notice being given, his government passed an order in council whereby they made the Australian treaty applicable to the Dominion of New Zealand.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend is quoting me. What were the exact words that I used at Woodstock? Some hon. gentlemen say "would", others say "could". I wish he would give me the exact words.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We will obtain them for the right hon. gentleman. I did not bring [DOT]them downstairs. They are in Hansard of last session just as they were printed in the local paper, and I shall put them on Hansard as part of my observations in the exact terms in which they are quoted as the language of the right hon. gentleman. I do not desire
for a single moment to misquote him in that regard. The words as reported read:
There is one condition of that treaty which says that we are free to alter or to abrogate it altogether on six months' notice. I say to the farmers of Oxford that if the Australian treaty does any injury to your industry I will undertake to say on behalf of the government that I will give that six months' notice in short order.
But let us go a step further. How many members of this house supporting the Liberal party prior to 1921 and 1922 did not denounce the previous administration for governing by order in council? Have you ever heard of it? Is there one member of the government who has not gone through Canada and denounced .the Conservative administration for governing by order in council? And yet what have we here? We have a treaty which was not negotiated, we have a treaty which canid into being by order in council That is what I protest against now; I have always protested against it. I protest against any trade agreement which is made merely by order in council as a substitute for the collective will of the people as expressed in this parliament. The will of the cabinet is not sufficient. The cabinet at best is only the delegated authority or agent of this parliament and when it acts as such in respect to trade treaties it should not be permitted to function. In doing so it is going beyond its proper powers. I ask the hon. Minister of Railways (Mr. Crerar) what he thinks of making treaties by order in council? Where are those who in times gone by, my friend from South Huron (Mr. McMillan) and others, who talked so loudly of the mismanagement of the former administration, of their attempting to govern by orders in council; where are they now when a treaty with New Zealand is made by this government purely by order in council? Without negotiation, without discussion, without an opportunity for the members of this house to say whether they thought such an arrangement beneficial or otherwise, the government of the day passes an order in council and brings into being a trade treaty with New Zealand. The hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) the other day said it could not be described as a treaty. One of the sections of the Australian treaty made possible the passing of this order in council whereby the provisions of that trade agreement became applicable to New Zealand in its trade relations with this Dominion. It is true that section five of the Australian treaty was passed by this parliament. Of course it was. The government machinery was sufficiently powerful by a majority to enact it,

Australian Treaty-Mr. Bennett
and ifche division upon the passing of that treaty will be found in the journals of parliament, because that treaty was not adopted by this house without a vote. That treaty contained a clause which made possible the passing of this order in council. But I submit to this house and to the country that it is not sound parliamentary practice that an order in council should be the basis of a treaty. Always preceding any treaty there should 'be negotiations and discussions and opportunities to consider the various phases of the proposed agreement.
Hon. gentlemen this afternoon have argued that these treaties-the Australian treaty and its extension to New Zealand by order in council-have had no injurious effect upon	the dairy	industry of this	country.The hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. Millar) the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) and other hon. members have argued in that sense, that this treaty, called the New Zealand	'treaty, has had	no	injuriouseffect	upon the	dairy industry	of	Canada.Well,	I wonder	who, reading	the	records,
can seriously say that is so. We do know that before the treaty came into force, Canada was a country thait exported butter. We now know that it has ceased to be a country exporting butter in any quantity and has become a butter importing country in very large quantities from the Dominion with which the treaty was made; we know that 35,000,000 pounds of butter were brought last year from New Zealand, whence prior to that treaty little or none was imported, and we know that the markets we had in the countries of the world for the sale of our porducts are markets now satisfied by the products of other countries. Is there no cause and effect there? To what other cause is that change attributable? Is there any cause other than this treaty? Let that question be answered. Why is it you have your herds diminished by
125,000	milch cows? Is there any other cause? Previously to the treaty we had no importations, relatively, but we now have importations of about 35,000,000 pounds per annum and they are increasing.
In my hand I hold a copy of a Halifax paper, dated 6th of March, with these words contained therein:
Port Dunedin Smashes Record At Port Of Halifax
Motorship Is To Land Large Cargo Of Frozen Meats From Antipodes Port Dunedin's Cargo Includes 31,650 Carcasses of Lamb Has Butter Shipment Will Discharge 4.000 Quarters of Beef and 270 Bales of Wool
Smashing all re;ords at the port of Halifax for importations of frozen meats from the Antipodes, the Commonwealth and Dominion Line freighter Port Dunedin is due at eight o'clock this morning from Australian and New Zealand ports direct to land a total of 31,650 carcasses of lamb and 4,000 quarters of beef, according to an announcement made yesterday by the Robert Reford Company. The Port Dunedin is to discharge at pier 23.
In addition the freighter is to land 4,000 boxes of approximately 232.000 pounds of butter from New Zealand, and 270 bales of wool.
To Load Apples
Another feature of her visit is that the Port Dunedin will be the first ship of the Commonwealth and Dominion Line to load cargo at Halifax, a shipment of about 1,000 tons of freight including apples and general cargo, having been booked for the steamer. From Halifax, the Port Dunedin is to proceed to London.
Modern Freighter
One of the most modern freighters ever to visit the port the Dunedin is a motorship built in 1925. Her fuel-carrying capacity enabled her to sail from the Antipodes without replenishing her bunkers, and it is understood to take her across to England.
Her arrival follows 24 hours after the departure yesterday of the New Zealand Shipping Company's freighter Surrey which sailed yesterday for London after discharging nearly 110,000 boxes of New Zealand butter here.
Does this house realize that 110,000 boxes of butter means over 6.000,000 pounds, 3.000 tons? So that in one day 3,000 tons of New Zealand butter was landed in Halifax, and the next day 232.000 pounds more. Is that effect from the cause we have, indicated or not? We know that prior to this treaty the duty was 4 cents a pound on butter from New Zealand, and we now know it is 1 cent. We know that before this butter did not come. We now know it comes. Can a better case of cause and effect be mentioned than that? With respect to frozen mutton and frozen meats you have the same story. These are not fancies with respect to protein content in butter, or anything of the sort; these are facta established by the shipping records of the country. My hon. friend from Weyburn (Mr. Young) endeavours to say that a few men are promoting some purpose of their own.
I wonder if he realizes that in every part of Canada, in every province of Canada, the farmers have indicated that the result of this treaty is injurious to the dairy industry of the country.


Mr. YOUNG (Weyburn):: Organized propaganda.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend says it is organized propaganda. All I can say is, let him go down to the parts of Ontario that
[Mf. Bennett.]

Australian Treaty-Mr. Bennett
I have visited during the last six months and tell them that. Let him go, as I did, to the creameries there and find them selling New Zealand butter because there was not sufficient cream to enable them to meet their requirements, and they had to purchase that butter in order to meet the demands of their customers. Is that organized propaganda?


Edward James Young: A splendid
market for butter in Canada.


Richard Bedford Bennett: New Zealand butter.


Edward James Young: Our butter too.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But our people cannot
meet that unfair competition and the dairy industry is being destroyed. What is more, the only people apparently who do not know it are those who are so wedded to the idea that the use of the word "protection" would be, in some sense, offensive to their intelligence and injurious to their political beliefs.
May I say this to the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown), who spoke so feelingly about the use of the word "protection," and to my hon. friend from Weyburn (Mr. Young), and to my hon. friend from Qu'Appelle (Mr. Millar)-I think I can best illustrate the situation by referring to words that the hon. member for Lisgar should remember; I hope he has not forgotten them, although his associations during the last few years have not been conducive to his remembering. He asked if anyone recalled the miracle of the blind man, who, when remonstrated with, replied, "One thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, and now I see."


Edward James Young: We hope you
will be able to see some day.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And all I can say with
respect to this matter is that the farmers of this country now know that it is a matter of cause and effect. The cause was the New Zealand treaty, the effect their ruin. That is the story. I wiill not repeat the statements that have been made, indicating so clearly that the effects of the treaty are not limited to the dairy industry alone. You see them in the hog industry and the cattle industry; you see them reflected all the way along in our exports and in our imports. You see reflected the effects of this treaty. And so I say, sir, to the Prime Minister and to the members of his administration, that the difficulty with them in the negotiation of treaties is that they do not bring to bear upon the problems affected the consideration that their importance demands. They do not realize the implications of what they are doing. That has been the trouble. That was the difficulty with the French treaty, to which attention
has been drawn; that was the difficulty with the Italian treaty, and that is the difficulty with the New Zealand treaty. The government did not realize not only the direct results but the serious implications that followed from the course which they embarked upon, the logical consequences of their action.
But, sir, why are we arguing now about the value of this treaty, or what the government thinks about it? Do hon. gentlemen realize that the government itself now says that it proposes to substitute for the amendment which we have offered a subamendlment of its own, showing its lack of confidence in itself, by which they, in terms, declare that this treaty should be superseded? Why supersede what is a good thing? Will the hon. member for Lisgar bare his back and walk up to the punishment that is before him and say, I will now vote to supersede a treaty that I declare is good? Will the hon. member for Qu'Appelle walk up to the bench and vote for the superseding of the treaty which he says is good? Will he or will he not? Will the hon. member for Weyburn vote to supersede the treaty or not?


Edward James Young: You will see.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I will see; of course I
will. He will march up to the sacrifice as they all do. Here are the words of the amendment. Mark you, they are now voting-the hon. gentlemen from Qu'Appelle, from Wey-bum and from Lisgar, all those hon. members who have spoken on the merits of the New Zealand treaty, are now going to do what? They are going to vote for a subamendment which will become an amendment to the motion to go into supply, and which will stand against supply being granted until it is disposed of. The amendment will then read:
That all the words after "be" in the fourth line of the amendment be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"That in the opinion of this house order in council No. 1557 passed on the 20th day of September, 1925, respecting certain trade arrangements with the Dominion of New Zealand be

Now here comes the subamendment. After the word "be," they are going to vote for whait?
-superseded as soon as possible by a treaty with that dominion and that immediate steps should be taken to negotiate such a treaty.
That is what they are going to vote for. It will be a spectacle for the gods to see them march up to the slaughter after they have declared that the treaty is one of the finest products of statesmanship the world has ever seen, after they have spoken all over the

Australian Treaty-Mr. Bennett
country telling the people what a magnificent treaty it is, and how great the benefits are to this country. Now they are going to vote that it be superseded by a new treaty to be negotiated as soon as possible.


Mr. VALLANCE:: A little better.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then what is the matter with this one? My hon. friend says it will be a little better. Ask the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, who has been quoting figures to show that nothing more could be desired.


John Vallance: Wait until we get the
new treaty; he will quote even better figures.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is a very intelligent answer, and it is for that reason we have proposed this amendment to the motion to go into supply. The Minister of Finance, who moved this house into supply, now suggests that he will supersede the New Zealand treaty with a new treaty to be negotiated as soon as possible. We have had some experience as to what the term "as soon as possible" means. We must remember that those words have a definite meaning on the part of the government, because only a few years ago the government was instructed to do something "as soon as possible." That was in 1926, and in 1930 they are moving. So if this government is permitted to remain in office and allowed to negotiate a treaty "as soon as possible," it may mean that action will be taken in the year 1934, and the hon. member, if he were then there, would start negotiations at that time. That is the reason we have asked that the order in council be rescinded forthwith; that is the reason we say that before any economic conference is held the great Dominion of New Zealand shall know exactly how Canadian sentiment stands. They should know that we are dissatisfied with this treaty, and desire a new treaty upon fair and equitable terms. We do not want any glittering platitudes to try to escape the responsibility that belongs to us; we desire to follow the good old course of saying "Clear the decks before you negotiate." give us an even chance and do not make this Dominon believe that this treaty will continue if we fail to arrive at a conclusion. Let me put this to the government: If you fail to negotiate a treaty, does this treaty stand or not? That is the question. Are you going to leave it there, or are you going to terminate it? Are you, Mr. Minister of Trade and Commerce, going to permit this treaty to remain or not? Does it stand, if your negotiations fail?


Hugh Guthrie: Give him a chance to
answer.
[Mf. Bennett.]


James Malcolm: I will answer when I
am making my speech.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He will answer; let us
see that he does answer. Let us see that he states whether this treaty stands or falls if he fails in his negotiations. Who would enter into negotiations of any kind about a matter as important as this, leaving uncertain what were the matters to be considered. All they ask in the subamendment is that this order in council be superseded by a treaty negotiated as soon as possible.


Mr. YOUNG (Saskatoon):: Do you not
agree with that?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member for
Saskatoon asks if I agree with that.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: You have been complaining to-day about this being by order in council. The amendment is to supersede it by a treaty; that is exactly what you have been asking for, and you could vote for it yourself.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman fails to realize that in our amendment we asked for the rescission of the order in council; that is the crux of it. Let us wipe out the order in council. The Minister of Finance had the effrontery to tell this house the other day that he was not going to treat a sister dominion in this way by knocking it down before he dealt with it.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, that is right.


Richard Bedford Bennett: WTe are going to deal
with them openly. Rescind the order in council and deal with them for a treaty; then they know that if we make no treaty they have none. Give them six months' notice at once, so that next winter the farmers of this country will not be further injured by the uncertainty as to what is going to happen to this treaty. If the order in council were rescinded on the 1st of April and six months' notice were given, what would happen? We have April, May, June, July, August and September, and the 1st of October would be the date on which the abrogation of the treaty would be operative. In the meantime contracts are being made on the basis of a one cent per pound duty. We say the time has come to leave no uncertainty in the minds of those with whom we have contracted. Terminate the contract; give notice at once, and let us begin to negotiate.


Charles Avery Dunning: Does my hon. friend
seriously assert that contracts for next winter's butter are being entered into now?

Australian Treaty-Mr. Bennett


Richard Bedford Bennett: A gentleman told me the other day that contracts were being negotiated for next season.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, negotiated.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is all I can say, yes. One of the largest dealers of this country asserted that he wanted to know where he stood in regard to these matters, because he did not like this government, Micawber-like, to be waiting for something to turn up. Commercial men make their contracts in advance so that they will know where they stand, and people who supply butter make contracts in advance so that they will know how those contracts will be filled. Mr. Speaker, we say that when two men begin to negotiate it is not good business for one to have his hands tied behind him.
The hon. member plays upon what he calls loyalty. All I can say is that the Conservative party always has stood before the people of this country and has said, " If you give a preference you should get one in return." That has been our policy since the days of Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir Charles Tup-per. As they pointed out, it always was competent for the Conservative party, when it was in power, to grant a jug-handled preference to any country if it so desired, but it said, " If we give we must get, and we do not propose to give the markets of our country to particular nations on a more favourable basis than we afford others unless we get something in return." That is the position we have taken, and when the Minister of Finance talks about loyalty, I say the greatest loyalty any man in this house owes is his loyalty to Canada rather than to any other country in the world, and he can best display that loyalty in this instance by seeing to it that the Canadian dairy producer gets an opportunity equal to that given the dairy producer in any other part of the world.
Tell me why the Canadian dairy farmer should lose his market to the extent of 35,000,000 pounds of butter per annum? Why should not that market be supplied by our own farmers? If we on this side of the house stand for the Canadian farmer it is because we believe our first duty to be to the Canadian people. We believe that the basic industry of this country is agriculture, and we believe that the dairy industry is one of the most important branches of agriculture. There has been a great deal of preaching about agricul-* ture going on throughout this country by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) who is not in his place, by those who come from the grain growing sections, and at times by the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Crerar) when he was not talking about something else. We have heard this preaching about the necessity of developing herds; we have heard about the thousands of dollars spent upon improving stock; we have heard about the increase in the quantity of milk and cream produced. When we think of these matters we believe them, and because we believe in them we propose to act upon our beliefs by abrogating an unfair and unjust trade agreement made by order in council between the Dominion of New Zealand and this country, which agreement does not afford to the Canadian farmer an equal opportunity with other producers to supply the requirements of his own people.
In times gone by, those who sit opposite to me have said it is cheap talk to speak about the British Empire and loyalty to that empire. That was the answer given by the Minister of Finance the other night as to why we should not abrogate the New Zealand treaty. He pictured this sister dominion of ours going to an economic conference after being hit between the eyes with the notice that this treaty is to be terminated. My experience, and the experience of men in this country who have had to deal with just such problems in days gone by at very vital moments in our history, has been that it is best to face facts squarely. We should say that New Zealand has nothing to expect from existing conditions; that we are going to start de novo; we are going to start on a different basis to negotiate a trade agreement on fair and equitable terms. By that we mean that unless we can do it in that way it will not be done. Let there be no misunderstanding about that. No agreement, Mr. Speaker, is fair or just or equitable which makes it possible to ship 35,000,000 pounds of butter into this country under a duty of one cent per pound while the freight rate on that butter in the refrigerator ships which bring it from New Zealand is only a little more per hundred pounds from New Zealand to Vancouver than the rate from Vancouver to Calgary by rail.
M,r. DUNNING: Wall my hon. friend permit just one question? Would he rather have oleomargarine instead of New Zealand butter?


An hon. MEMBER:: That is claptrap.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is wholly unworthy of the hon. Minister of Finance, although I would suggest it is quite worthy-


Charles Avery Dunning: Might I suggest that it is right to the point?
496	COMMONS
Australian Treaty-Mr. Bennett


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is quite worthy of the one-time premier of Saskatchewan but not of the Minister of Finance.


Charles Avery Dunning: The 'present Premier of Saskatohawan.


Richard Bedford Bennett: By any method of comparison he would stack up pretty well with the Minister of Finance. I was not in this house when any vote was taken upon oleomargarine, and when the hon. gentleman states that I was, he makes a statement either about which he knows nothing or which he knows to be untrue.


Charles Avery Dunning: I apologize and substitute for my hon. friend the name of his party.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Richard Bedford Bennett: So far as I know that also would be hardly correct, although I
speak subject to correction. You cannot divert me from the main issue by talking about oleomargarine or any other subject. The question before the house is: Is this treaty good or not? Will any member of this house say that it is good?


An hon. MEMBER:: It is good.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am glad to see there is one man of courage, because the Minister of Finance says it is not.


Charles Avery Dunning: Mr. Speaker, I must ask that my hon. friend withdraw the statement;
I never made any such statement.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then what does the subamendment mean?


Charles Avery Dunning: Exactly what it says.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then why supersede a good thing by another?


Charles Avery Dunning: I can answer that, if my hon. friend will permit me. It is not impossible to supersede a good thing by a better thing.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That seems to be a reasonable answer and indicates exactly the attitude of mind of the government in this subamendment. To use the language of the street, the cat is out of the bag. If is not intended for action, it is intended as an excuse for saying, "We will supersede the treaty with something better," and then take no action at all; that is the point.


Charles Avery Dunning: I must object to those words being placed upon Hansard.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Once more I say to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, does he mean business or not?


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend is ostensibly quoting me-


Richard Bedford Bennett: He was not mentioned.


Charles Avery Dunning: I must object to my hon. friend putting into my mouth words which I never said.


Mr. STEVENS:: Where is the point of order?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The point of order is once more a figment of the imagination of the hon. gentleman, to enable him to make an interruption which is wholly unworthy of the high office he holds. Now, Mr. Speaker, again I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce, do you mean action or amusement?


Charles Avery Dunning: I must rise again to a point of order. My hon. friend has stated that I had indicated that the reason for the subamendment was that the government intended to take no action.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I said no such thing.


Charles Avery Dunning: I made no such statement, and as a matter of fact I indicated that the government had taken action already and had made the government of New Zealand aware of that fact.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That was not what I said, as the record will show. Why should the hon. gentleman be so sensitive because he is faced with an alternative which he desires always to escape?


Charles Avery Dunning: I merely want the truth, that is all.


Richard Bedford Bennett: All I can say is that the hon. gentleman is sitting in the wrong place to get it.


Charles Avery Dunning: From you.


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. leader of the opposition was giving his own interpretation of the subamendment, but I do not gather from his remarks that he was putting into the mouth of the hon. Minister of Finance words which he did not utter.
At six o'clock the house took recess.

Navigable Waters-Mr. Church
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Toronto Northwest):: moved the second reading of Bill No. 3, to amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act (approval of parliament.)


Mr. ELLIOTT:: Explain.


Thomas Langton Church: This is the same bill that was before the house last year. There was a division on the second reading, the yeas being 72 and the nays So. The Navigable Waters Protection Act was passed about 1909 when hydro-electric power development in Canada was practically in its infancy and the act was intended as a protection to the water powers and to help out the work of the International Deep Waterways Commission. Instead of the act fulfilling the function for which it was intended, it has not afforded any protection at all. There is in Canada hardly a navigable stream where they have not given away the water powers. The absurd construction placed upon the act in many places throughout the country has almost brought the act into ridicule. I will refer in a moment or two to the decisions regarding the Humber river.
The bill now before the house proposes to restore the approval power to parliament and to remove it from the Minister of Public Works. It amends chapter 140 of the revised statutes of Canada, which is a general statute known as the Navigable Waters Protection Act 1909. It provides that the jurisdiction now vested in the Minister of Public Works shall be repealed in so far as it affects international navigable boundary waters.
The first clause of the bill provides that the following shall be inserted immediately after section nine of the said act:
9A (1) No work except harbour improvements shall be commenced or constructed in, upon, over, under, through or across any international navigable boundary waters between the Dominion of Canada and the United States of America, or any part of the river St. Lawrence-
The house will notice that this is limited* to international navigable boundary waters between Canada and the United States.
-without the approval of parliament or on any terms or conditions other than those approved by parliament.
Clause (2) of the proposed bill provides:
Plans of any such work, in duplicate, and a description of the proposed site, shall be deposited with the Clerk of the House of Commons.
Clause (3) provides:
No order in council, regulation or permit purporting to grant the right to commence or construct such work shall have any force or effect unless authorized by parliament.
The last clause provides:
The preceding section shall be deemed to have come into force on the 1st day of January, 1930.
In the Navigable Waters Protection Act there is a definition of word "work". What is "work" under the act? It is as follows:
"Work" includes any bridge, boom, dam, aboiteau, wharf, dock, pier or other structure, tunnel or pipe, or telegraph or power cable or wire and the approaches or other works necessary or appurtenant thereto, or any work, structure or device, whether similar in character to the foregoing or not, which may interfere with navigation.
A great principle of public policy is involved in this bill. As the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. McRae) said last year in a similar debate on the Seven Sisters power matter, the exploitation of water power in the United States is the crime of the century. That was also the opinion of President Roosevelt and it is the opinion of everybody who has the public interest at heart. It is a crime to throw away all these magnificent water powers to private greed and gain when they are needed for navigation purposes. Navigation seems to be made a football of in the house. When you hear people talking about water power, you would think there were only two provinces in confederation. Take for instance the St. Lawrence waterways. If the Dominion government would develop the power and have a national hydro-electric power policy for this country, and develop and generate power from canal works and sell it at cost, what they would make out of it would pay for the St. Lawrence waterway, but they are giving this power away to the provinces. One province has given away the Beauharnois power. Another company is to be given power in the Ottawa river at the Carillon falls and another private company, the St. Maurice. Three years ago the government were committed to giving the Carillon away also. At that time the government could not lay down a policy. I asked the Minister of Railways and Canals: Will you lay down a policy regarding the Carillon power, and he did not do so until some time afterwards when the



Navigable Waters-Mr. Church
people rose against it. As regards the Seven Sisters, they called a conference and the result of it was that they gave away the Seven Sisters falls to a lot of private capitalists and also the Beauharnois. The units of Beau-harnois stock rose from ten, and one hundred dollars and now are one thousand dollars.
Where does the high court of parliament come in as regards this act? In Ontario there is an act that provides that no municipality can give away a franchise without the vote of the electorate. That act was placed on the statute books by Sir James Whitney. I would repeal the Beauharnois contract under the powers contained in the Navigatble Waters Act because the act provides for that being done. They have not kept their contract so far no money has been spent on navigation. The question was debated in the Quebec legislature a short time ago and some of the members described the Beauharnois people as one of the most gigantic trusts and monopolies on the north American continent today. It was urged in the Quebec legislature last week that it should be repealed. I would repeal it to-day. It would be good Conservative doctrine if you did appeal it.
In 1905 Sir James Whitney and Sir Adam Beck criticized the Ross government for giving away the whole Niagara river to Mackenzie and Mann and other power interests. An election took place in 1905 and the municipalities rose in rebellion. There was a change of government and Sir James Whitney came into office. Within twenty four hours he revoked that contract and restored that river for all time to the people of Ontario. Private ownership was bought out, in some cases given thirty three and a third per cent and in some cases fifty per cent more was given them to get out, and they got out gradually and the Niagara was finally restored to the people. What happened in the Niagara river yesterday will happen in the St. Lawrence to-day if there was any public spirit in Ontario. What will posterity say when they sail up the St. Lawrence and see what is happening on that river, this handing over of those magnificent resources over the heads of the people? The people have had nothing to say about the matter at all. They are sold into power slavery to these power companies. The people's representatives are also powerless and can do nothing because of this antiquated 1909 act; they cannot say anything because of this act which is one of the most monstrous acts for giving away to private companies the title deeds to our natural resources. It is called the Navigable Waters Protection Act. There is no "protection" whatever about it.

The people are not protected. It protects power barons A, B and C in getting away with the title deeds to power not only in the St. Lawrence but in many other streams.
Now is the time for parliament to assert itself if there is any respect for public rights in Canada. It would1 have paid the province of Ontario to have gone ahead with the development of power at Morrisburg. The water flows past Ontario's door on the way to Quebec, and Ontario has the first claim to it. Sir Adam Beck asked for power under this particular act to develop and generate it at Morrisburg, and to erect a dam on the St. Lawrence, there to generate power for the province of Ontario. But what was the minister's reply? He would not empower him to do it, but gave Quebec the power refused Ontario, for the Beauharnois people, thus making Ontario just a filling station for the Quebec power privately owned. Ontario should have insisted on the Morrisburg dam. The Dominion government has been sacrificing the rights and privileges of the people of this country. I say that it would be both good politics and good policy for hon. gentlemen opposite to develop these magnificent water-powers and preserve them for all posterity. Let us launch a great national hydro policy and develop and generate that power, to protect the people from the exorbitant rates which will otherwise be charged both for the Gatineau power and the Beauharnois power in the years that are to come. The people of the province of Ontario will pay in charges for direct current sufficient to retire the whole of the bonds in thirty years. What will be the result at the end of that thirty-year term? Instead of quoting S15 per horse-power as they do to-day, which is too much already, they will want $40, $50, $60 or $70 per horse-power, and it will serve Ontario right. Where is the Minister of Labour (Mr. Heenan), who poses as the friend of the workingmen? I see that he has gone to open a Liberal campaign in the city of London. What is he doing to save these water-power resources to the workingman?


Charles Avery Dunning: He is right here.


Thomas Langton Church: Sir Adaim Beck was not
dead twenty-four hours before they started to undo bis work. The private corporations at once got busy and they have already undone much of his work in Ontario, where the press and the municipalities seem to have gone to sleep over this question, and are too proud to fight. The day will come when the people of this country will have to buy back all of those powers and pay millions and millions of dollars for them.

Navigable Waters-Mr. Church
Last session I asked the minister who were the directors and president of the Beauhairnois, and the reply I received was: "No information." Imagine, no information as to who the party of the first pant was, as to their bona fides, as to their ability to carry out the work. I pointed out then, and I repeat now, that the order in council is ultra vires of this parliament because that work interferes with the flow of the water from the great lakes to the sea. This country settled its canal policy in 1854 for all time. This country, since 1854, has jurisdiction over all canals and operates them as national undertakings, as links in the transportation system; but last year the government made a scrap of paper of this long settled canal policy by letting the Beauharnois contract, giving 'these people the right to build, among other things, a navigation canal. The government is going to build the locks itself. What is the government going to get out of it? These people are changing the bed of the river. They are erecting big weirs, which may fall down, and some of the municipalities in Ontario are holding meetings about it. The time has come for parliament to assert itself before it is too late. So this is Liberalism as they have it up to date! That is the way Liberalism parts with the natural resources of this country, with the Seven Sisters power site, with Beauharnois, the Gatineau, and other sites. That might have been all right thirty yeans ago, giving aiway water-powers to .private capitalists, but that policy was stopped in Ontario long ago by Sir James Whitney. This government will have the battle of its life 'before many years are over for having alienated the water-powers of the St. Lawrence. The water-powers are the property of the people. I am sorry to see Sir Adam Beck's work being undone.
Only the other day the municipality of Toronto sent a deputation down here with reference to a bridge over the Humber. The deputation was met by five cabinet ministers, who talked more that morning than they have done all session in the house. One of the matters discussed was the erection of a bridge across the Humber river, a little stream where water lilies grow, and 'canoes and row boats and other small craft ply about. The minister contended that that was a navigable stream. Three hundred thousand Shriners are coming to Canada, and I would suggest that the minister mobilize the Canadian navy on the Humber and give a demonstration to the American people of what the department can do. That just shows the absurdity to which the act can be carried. It puts me in mind of the fifth proposition in Euclid, the pons 2410-32i
asinorum, the absurdity to which the minister is prepared to go in interpreting that act. On a Sunday two thousand motor cars will be waiting to cross over that small bridge. There are many bridges across the river mow. There is first the electric railway bridge. There is a vehicular bridge, and I would suggest that my hon. friend from Southeast Grey, if she were there on a Sunday, could do a good business removing people's tonsils while they are waiting to cross. The case of the Humber was settled in 1909 by Mr. Pugsley, when he was Minister of Public Works. I might point out that farther up the river some of the municipalities are asking for a bridge and the township of York is encouraging them. In spite of all the traffic that crosses the Humber, the minister says that we will have to have a swing bridge. This bridge that we are asking for over the Humber is necessary, and it could have been completed before summer if it had not been for the absurd way in which this particular application has been treated. If this is what the new Liberalism means, all I can say is that there will be a day of reckoning.
Talk of the family compact of 1837! It was a mere myth compared with the family compact that we have to-day-a family compact that has grabbed the water-powers from the people, grabbed them over the heads ol the representatives of the people in parliament assembled. The representatives of the people have nothing to say; they stand in the side lines while the family compact go ahead with their schemes. These exploiters of the public domain are in many cases Americans. Who own the Beauharnois power rights? Who are the directors of that company and of other similar power companies? Last year the federal trade commission of the United States investigated the activities of the power trusts of that country, and the sworn evidence adduced before that commission showed that these power interests in the United States were buying up newspapers and had established a great super power trust, reaching from the city of Washington up to Boston and New York and then over into Canada. Already they have grabbed many of our best water-powers. The Navigable Waters Protection Act has outlined its usefulness, although originally intended as a protective measure to assist the International Joint Commission. Its main purpose was to conserve for future generations our water-powers instead of giving them to private corporations for exploitation. The power barons are flourishing in this country like the proverbial green bay tree. Who is going to stop their activities? The power to

Navigable Waters-Mr. Elliott
do so has been taken away from the representatives of the people here assembled. Are we going to stand for that? Or are we going to assert the interests of the people? I am glad to see that the Progressive party in the west have for many years been alive to this situation, and showed it by the fight they made against the alienation of the Seven Sisters water-power. I hope before the evening is over they will assert themselves on this question in the interests of the people of Canada.


John Campbell Elliott: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend from Toronto Northwest (Mr. Church) has said, this is a bill which was rejected by this house last session. The main reasons given by him in its favour on that occasion were that if adopted it would have the effect of revoking the approval given to the plans of the Beau-harnois Company. Apparently he has changed his view with regard to that company in the meantime, because the bill which he now introduces is to be deemed to have come into force on the first day of January, 1930, so that it would not operate to revoke the permit given to the Beauharnois Company.
In regard to the application of the city of Toronto to construct a bridge over the Humber river, which he described as not being a navigable river, may I refer my hon. friend to the fact that the city-of which I think he was then solicitor, if not mayor at the time- when an application was made by the Canadian National Railways, formerly the Grand Trunk, for approval of plans of a bridge across that river, opposed the application on the ground that the Humber was a navigable river. That was the attitude of the city of Toronto some years ago.
I do not propose to enter into an argument with my hon. friend as to whether the attitude taken by the department in regard to the approval of plans for a bridge to be constructed by the city of Toronto over the Humber river is correct or not. All I have to say that that is the attitude which has been taken by the department in regard to these various applications ever since 1882, when the Navigable Waters Protection Act came into force. Under that legislation, which is very simple, if an application is made for approval of plans it is addressed to the Public Works Department, and in this connection may I call the attention of the house to the following clause:
No work shall be built or placed in, upon, over, under, through or across any navigable water unless the site thereof has been approved by the governor in council, nor unless such work is built, placed and maintained in accordance with plans and regulations approved or made by the governor in council.
IMf. Church.]
What is primarly the object of this clause? It is to ascertain that the site selected for the proposed structure is the proper site. That, as I say, is the primary object; after that come the details or plans providing for the structure. When an application of this kind has been made it is advertised for four weeks in the Canada Gazette and in two local newspapers, so as to give notice to anybody who may desire to object to the proposed structure. If any serious objection is raised, it is the practice for the Minister of the department to give a hearing at which in the presence of the Departmental engineers all parties concerned -may appear and present their views.
May I call -attention to the kind of thing done under this act? After listening to what I have to say I think my hon. friend will be one of the first to see what the effect of his bill would be. In 1927 the department approved of seventy-six applications, in 1928 of eighty-three, and in 1929 of eighty-five. Under his bill, as drawn, not -all such applications would require to be confirmed by private acts of parliament, but the great majority of them would. Of local private acts, in 1927 we had thirty-six, in 1928 twenty-nine, and in 1929 thirty-four. So if my hon. friend's suggestion were adopted we would about treble the number of local private acts required -to be passed on by this house.
Now, what are the things that my hon. friend would have dealt with by this parliament? I may give a few instances. A short time ago we were called upon to approve the transmission line of the Niagara Power Company across -the Niagara river. The main question was as to whether the transmission lines were in the opinion of the engineers satisfactory. Another application was as to the proper location of the Bell Telephone cable from Prescott to Ogdensburg. The main question involved -there was as to whether or not it was placed low enough, and as to whether or not the site was correct. Another application had reference to the Bell Telephone cable to Port Huron, Michigan. The question there was as to whether it was placed far enough under where -the boats were travelling to make navigation safe. Another application was the -location of a proposed oil pipe of the Imperial Oil Company between Sarnia and Port Huron. The question there was a3 to whether the location was proper.
Those are samples of what would, under my hon. friend's bill, require acts of parliament. There is a clear distinction, which my hon. friend, as an excellent municipal -lawyer, knows very well, between the acts that are done as legislative acts and those that are done as administrative acts.

Navigable Waters-Mr. Elliott
So far as the right to cross a river with a cable is concerned, the Navigable Waters Protection Act has for nearly fifty years permitted that right, provided the cable was properly located and so constructed as to protect navigation. But the administrative act which is performed by engineers after investigation is as to W'hether the site is correct, whether it is at the proper depth or height, and whether all the possible safeguards to navigation have been provided.
I submit that it would very greatly increase the work of this house, and perhaps, in some cases, double the length of the session, if these things were done by this legislative body rather than by an administrative departmental body. They are technical questions. Engineering expert opinions have to govern in regard to them. This parliament, for instance, would not go to Sarnia to see whether the site of the oil pipe of the Imperial Oil Company for transmitting oil from Sarnia to Port Huron was or was not in the proper place. An engineer would do it, just as an engineer does it now'. The suggestion of my hon. friend is wholly impracticable. May I also point out that it is now, and has been for nearly half a century, absolutely unnecessary, because if it is the public that he wishes to protect against something improper being done, under the Navigable Waters Protection Act they are now protected by section 12, which says:
Parliament may, at any time, annul or vary any order of the governor in council made under this part. Any action of parliament in that behalf shall not be deemed an infringement of the rights of the local authority, company or person concerned.
They are not limited. After the approval is granted they may, at any time, annul or vary any order of the governor in council made under this part. The public, therefore, are absolutely protected by section 12 of the act, and the act as it now stands is a practical, well-working act, which gives rise to very little difficulty. It has worked out well through all the time it has been in operation.
I cannot agree with the bill as proposed. It would largely cumber the records of the house; as I say, it would probably double the length of the session, and would not meet the requirements of the various concerns which are seeking development in this country. Suppose some concern comes along and desires approval of a pipe line, or something of that kind, from Prescott to Ogdensburg, or from Sarnia to Port Huron, just after the close of the session; all their development, all their business would be held up until the following year. I am sure that that would not be the desire of hon. members of this house. As my hon. friend
the Solicitor General (Mr. Cannon) reminds me, under section 12 parliament can always review, repeal or annul whatever has been done under this act.


Thomas Langton Church: Do I understand the minister to say that I had changed my opinion on the Beauharnois matter? If so, will he kindly quote some words of mine to that effect? I never changed my opinion on that. I have expressed myself on this question on seven or eight different occasions. I had a bill up, but owing to my absence from the house through illness, I was unable to go on with it.


John Campbell Elliott: I do not want to get into an argument with my hon. friend. I will take his word for anything. I am going by his two bills. The first bill a year ago applied to all permits granted after January 1, 1929. This year he makes it applicable to all permits granted after January 1 of this year. His bill of last year would have repealed the approval given to Beauharnois. His bill of this year does not.


Thomas Langton Church: You changed your opinion on hydro when you went all over Middlesex.


John Campbell Elliott: Not at all.
Motion negatived.


CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT
[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading of Bill No. 5, to amend the criminal code (firearms, homicide, offences).- Mr. Church.
Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend stated the other
day that he would allow this bill to stand until the government measure was brought down.


Thomas Langton Church: I have no objection to letting it stand, and to discussing the matter with the minister, if that is satisfactory.
Bill stands.



MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE ACT

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading of Bill No. 7, to amend the Marriage and Divorce Act.-Mr. Bourassa.
Mr. HENRI BOURASSA (Labelle) (Translation) :: Mr. Speaker, on Friday, last, when
this bill was called, I stated that I did not think it opportune to discuss it previous to the motion of which I gave notice and which appears under No. 21, on the orders of the day. Since then, I have changed my mind.
502	COMMONS
Divorce Court jor Ontario-Division
However, in deference to the members who are not present and who had not anticipated that the bill would be discussed this evening, I wish to state that I shall take the first favourable opportunity to move its second reading.
Bill stands.



DIVORCE COURT FOR ONTARIO

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, March 7, consideration of the motion of Mr. Woods-worth for the second reading of Bill No. 20, to provide in the province of Ontario for the dissolution and annulment of marriage.
Mr. J. E. LETELLIER DE ST. JUST (Compton) (Translation):	Mr. Speaker,
when the debate on Bill No. 20 was adjourned last Friday, I was stating that Christian civilization had been, throughout the centuries, the foundation of the immovable principles and traditions which have and will always remain in spite of the attacks launched against it by legislators.
I have little faith in a community that evolves by destroying the fundamental principles established by God himself. Such an evolution would be, to my mind, a highly regrettable backsliding of society.
I shall, at the outset, lay down as a principle that divorce is a criminal attempt against the family. It is a source of disunion and disruption. Where does the child receive its first training if not at home? What a sad sight it is to see children deprived of the motherly advice and caret Allow me to point out as an example the neighbouring republic.
In closing my remarks, sir, I wish to be well understood-it is useless to insist-I would like to see divorce wiped off our statutes, because even should we be overruled by the majority, our principles would remain unaltered; however, to avoid after all a greater evil, may I suggest to this hon. house that a commissioner or commissioners be appointed by the government with instructions to inquire into the means to be taken in order to protect the children born from marriages annulled by law.
Ernest Lapointe: I just desire to say I am opposed to this bill for the same reasons I have opposed it before, and for the reasons I have also opposed other legislation proposed in this house dealing with divorce. I wish to say that I oppose it from a civil, moral and social point of view. I wish merely to add that the fact that jurisdiction is given to this parliament in matters of divorce does not mean that we are bound either to grant divorce ourselves by private legislation, or to authorize the courts to dissolve marriage.


Hewitt Bostock: There being a tie, I declare that I vote against the motion. I declare the motion lost.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the right hon. Prime Minister. Just to what extent my pair went I did not know with certainty; therefore I did not vote. Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.



SUPPLY-AUSTRALIAN TREATY PROPOSED CANCELLATION OF SPECIAL AGREEMENT WITH NEW ZEALAND AND NEGOTIATION OF TREATY.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Hon. Mr. Dunning (Minister of Finance) for committee of supply, the amendment thereto of Mr. Senn, and the subamendment of Mr. Oasgrain.
Hon JAMES MALCOLM (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Senn) in justifying his amendment to the motion to go into supply by which he called for the immediate cancellation of the Dominion s trade agreement with the sister dominon ot New Zealand, prefaced his remarks with the statement that the government had failed to realize the serious condition of the agricultural industry. He then cited the circular which was sent out by the Department of Agriculture calling the attention of the producers of Canada to the fact that there had been a serious decline in agricultural exports. The hon. member interpreted the circular to mean that the industry was not in a good position because the exports were declining, but he is quite mistaken in the intention of the circular sent out by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell). The circular was an appeal to the agriculturists of Canada to
the effect that if they wanted to hold their place in the export market, certain branches of industrial production would have to be speeded up; it did not in any way indicate the inference put upon it by my hon. friend.
The hon. member then went on to say that the farmers of the provinces of Ontario and Quebec were beginning to realize that the greatest asset which agriculture had was the home market, and that this market was especially valuable to the producers of butter, but he did not refer in any way to the value of the home market created by the export from this Dominion to sister dominions of S40,-000,000 worth of processed merchandise. The criticism of the hon. member was based largely upon what he termed the neglect by this government of the dairy industry, and he based his argument upon the extent of the importation of butter.
I want to make a statement clearly, without prejudice and without bias, and I will state the situation in the dairy industry as it appeals to me, using figures which are authoritative, which I do not think can be contradicted and which I believe other hon. members have used. Admittedly there has been a substantial increase in the importation of butter from Australia and New Zealand, which importation amounted to approximately
35,000,000 pounds during the past year. Thirty-five million pounds of butter is exactly 12J per cent of the total consumption of butter in this Dominion, so that it can be stated quite fairly that out of every 8 pounds of butter consumed in the Dominion, 7 pounds were produced within our boundaries, and 1 pound was produced in New Zealand.
Likewise during the period under review there has been a substantial increase in the exports from Canada amounting to $40,000,000. For quite some time there has been a decided interest on the part of Canadians in the Australian and New Zealand trade. This interest is evidenced on every hand, but it is best evidenced by the fact that the Department of Trade and Commerce, since these treaties went into effect, has received more than 200 and, in fact, I think almost 300 letters from various producers in the dominion who, at the time the treaties went into effect, were not interested in export but who, since the treaties have been in existence, have become interested. These producers have approached the government with the request that we should enter into negotiations to have a broadening of the terms of the treaty so that the favourable relations might be extended to more commodities than were considered at the time the treaty was made.
Roberge,
Robitaille,
Rowe,
Ryerson,
St-Pere,
Sanderson,
Seguin,
Sinclair (Queens), Sinclair (Wellington North),
Smith (Cumberland), Spotton,
Sylvestre,
Taylor,
Telford,
Tobin,
Verville.-79.



Australian Treaty-Mr. Malcolm
It is also true that representations had been made to the government by those interested in the dairy industry. From time to time representatives of the dairy industry have claimed that the preference given to New Zealand butter was altogether too great and we have been asked by the dairy industry to enter into negotiations with the two governments so that the terms of the treaty might be modified or a new treaty might be made.
Another point I wish to make with regard to these treaties is that since the inauguration of the direct steamship service between Vancouver and New Zealand in the last year, our exports of lumber to Australia have more than doubled. They were falling off very much in the fiscal year ending March 31, 1929, but during the last six months of 1929 our exports of lumber from British Columiba to the Antipodes have more than doubled. Indeed at this very moment there is in Australia and New Zealand a deputation of Canadian lumbermen canvassing the situation there and cabling the government to enter into negotiations with a view of hawing better tariffs arranged on Canadian lumber entering Australia and New Zealand.
These are not the only arguments which have brought about the condition which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) has described. When the treaty was entered into with Australia and afterwards extended by order in council to New Zealand, the exchange was not in exadtly the same position that it is in to-d!ay. Cables from London indicate that New Zealand money is to-day at a discount of four per cent-yesterday it was three per cent-so that many new factors have entered into the question. The government has concluded that, as the conditions existing in Canada during the past yeai under this treaty were not as favourable in some respects as they had been, and as there is a still greater possiblity of extending ouir trade to those dominions, providing for certain commodities which we now know we can export but which in 1925 we did not know we could export, very careful study should be given to the terms of the treaty, the opportunities for further export and to the representations of the dairy council with regard to the importation of butter.
These considerations have brought about certain negotiations which have been conducted by our trade commissioner, Mr. Croft, in New Zealand with the government of New Zealand, representing to that government that Canada actually desired a cessation of the
[Mi. Malcolm.]
operations under which we are now working and desired to make a new trade treaty directly with that sister dominion.
The leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett), when he was speaking, laid great stress on one or two points. Particularly he directed my attention to the position we would be in should the order in council which extends the terms of the Australian treaty to New Zealand not be cancelled. While I am dealing with that I should like to point out that the criticism of my hon. friend as to the government making a treaty by order in council is not well founded. When the Australian treaty was before the house for discussion, every hon. member then present knows that clause 5 of the treaty read:
Subject to the provisions of the customs tariff, 1907, the governor in council may, by order in council, extend the said advantages to goods the produce or manufacture of-
Not New Zealand, but "any British country."
In approving the principle of the Australian treaty, the Canadian parliament by a substantial majority gave the government authority to extend the same privileges to any other British country. If hon. members had so objected to those privileges being extended by order in council, I do not think they could have done other than have spoken and voted against the adoption of the Australian treaty, or at least voted for the removal of the objectionable clause. The Minister of Finance has stated to the house that these representations have been made. Therefore I think it is largely a matter of form as to how they should be made. The amendment of the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Senn) calls for an immediate cancellation of the order in council and the opening up of negotiations between the sister dominion of New Zealand and Canada. The subamendment states that, negotiations having been entered into, negotiations should continue without cancellation of the order in council.
May I call my hon. friend's attention to one or two points which must be considered? As the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) stated to-day, we could not immediately stop the importation of anything from New Zealand because the terms of the Australian treaty, which terms were extended to New Zealand, demand that six months' notice be given. Therefore even if we gave notice, it would be six months before the notice could be effective. My hon. friend says that he wants to start with a clean sheet, to wipe out past arrangements, before he starts to

Australian Treaty-Mr. Malcolm
negotiate. In as large projects as this, where contracts have been in existence, I believe he himself has negotiated for new terms of contract without cancelling the old. Every businessman in Canada has done the same thing. Within less than six months we are facing an economic conference and if negotiations can be carried on in the interim, over the thousands of miles that intervene between this Dominion and New Zealand, it is quite possible that the economic conference will provide the best place for a full discussion of our differences. I feel sure that a treaty can be drafted without any difficulty to supplement the order in council.
As much has been said against the benefits of the treaty by the leader of the opposition and other members, I should like to refer to the results of these treaties. One cannot treat our trade relations between the two dominions separately, as the same terms apply in each in relation to imports.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If the government cannot treat them separately, why are they undertaking to negotiate a treaty with one and not with both?


James Malcolm: That is a fair question. It happens at the present time that the Patterson scheme of bonusing the dairy industry with four cents a pound comes into conflict with Canada's regulations under the dumping order. As a result there is practically no importation of butter from Australia. The importation is almost all from New Zealand; it is relatively small from Australia.
But before I go into that, I want to refer to the remarks of my hon. friend. My hon. friend used the most extravagant language of which he is capable-and that means the most extravagant language there is-in speaking of the dairy industry. My hon. friend told the house of the deplorable condition of the dairy industry. The facts as related by hon. gentlemen opposite as to the condition of the dairy industry are not borne out by the statements of those engaged in the industry. I should like to read the most authoritative statement that I believe can be read to the Canadian house of parliament. The Ontario Milk Producer is a journal which is supposed to be looking after the interests of the dairy men of the province, just as the government considers that it is looking after the interests of the milk producers who are the farmers of the Dominion. This is not an old issue of the Ontario Milk Producer, but the March issue of 1930, and the leading editorial has this to say:
Nineteen-thirty should be the producer's year. In saying this we have no thought of prices in mind. No one can forecast prices with any great degree of accuracy. We can vouch for this however. Prices for dairy products generally at this, the beginning of another production season, are at least as high in Canada as in any other dairy country we know of. And this applies to manufactured products such as butter and cheese, more particularly the farmer. In so far as values are concerned the dairymen of Canada start off in 1930 on a pretty good footing as compared with the dairymen of some other countries.
I think we will all agree that the hon. leader of the opposition made a very telling election speech. It should appeal to anybody in the country who conceded his premises. My hon. friend is a very astute and clever debater. He has spent his whole life in trying to make good cases out of mighty bad ones. He is as able a lawyer and as able a debater as the British Empire has ever had. I will pay him the compliment of saying that he is able to make a better case out of a bad case than any other man who has been in this house.
Now I want to give the actual figures. In
1925 our imports were:
From Australia	$ 2,271,216
From New Zealand. . . .	1,713,830
Total of	$ 3,985,046
In the year 1929 our total imports were:
From Australia	$ 3,519,123
From New Zealand. . . .	14,987,302
Total of	$18,506,425
In return, see how our export trade to these countries has grown. In the year 1925, our exports were:
To Australia	$14,061,658
To New Zealand	 16,213,942
Total of	$30,275,600
In the year 1929, our exports were:
To Australia	$19,135,217
To New Zealand	 20,424,710
Total of	$39,559,927
A customer that gives us $40,000,000 worth of business in return for $18,000,000 worth is a customer worth considering, and at this time in the economic history of the world, when every economist of note is pointing out that world trade and export trade are the fundamentals of success for every nation, when we are endeavouring to market our products in every country in ever increasing quantities, when we have succeeded in build-


Richard Bedford Bennett: The figures in the pamphlet issued by the hon. gentleman's department show a diminution in the number of milch cows between 1927 and 1928 of 101,000, and 6,000 certain in 1929.


James Malcolm: My hon. friend may be quite correct, but a small percentage like that would not affect the matter at all because we are dealing in very large figures.
The dairy herds of Canada, I believe it 13 safe to say, have not varied in any one year between 1925 and 1928 by 100,000. In 1925 our dairy herds comprised 3,200,000 cattle. In 1927 the figure might have been slightly higher than in 1928.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Higher by 101,000.


James Malcolm: It may be that as to 1929 my hon. friends are correct because there had been a heavy sale of milch cattle to the United States, but in no one year has the total number of 3,200,000 cattle diminished by 100,000, and that is a small percentage.
There has been an increase of 126,000,000 pounds of milk produced on the farms of this country between 1925 and 1928. It is only fair to say that the manufacture of butter and cheese in this Dominion has slightly decreased. In 1925 we produced 269,495,000 [Mf. Malcolm.]
pounds of butter, and in 1928, 258,027,000 pounds, or a decline of 11,468,000 pounds, being 4 per cent. In the manufacture of cheese we had a larger decline. In 1925 we produced 177,672,000 pounds of cheese; in 1928, 145,019,000 pounds, or a decline of
32.653.000.	That is a decline, I will admit, of 20 per cent.
The total estimated consumption of butter rose from 256,000,000 pounds in 1925, to 280,000,000 pounds in 1928, an increase of nearly
24.000.	000 pounds in four years. The per capita consumption of butter rose during the same period from 23.61 pounds per person to 29.06 pounds, which indicates, I contend, a very distinct rise in the standard of living of the Canadian people.
As a result of this lack of increase in production and the decided increase in consumption, Canada for the last few years has been on basis, an importer of butter. In 1928 our imports exceeded our exports by nearly 15,000,000 pounds, whereas in 1925 our exports exceeded our imports by 26,000,000 pounds. In the calendar year just closed we imported
35,928,000	pounds of butter and exported
1.404.000,	leaving us an importer, on balance, of 34,500,000 pounds.
Offsetting these two declines in the production of butter and cheese we have two gains, one a gain of 34,000,000 pounds of milk used in the manufacture of condensed milk, powdered milk and other products, and the other a gain in the consumption of fresh milk by our people of 718,000,000 pounds. The value of the total dairy production of this Dominion is what counts, and that has not declined, the figures for 1928 being slightly higher than for any previous year.
While the value of creamery butter produced w'as about $1,000,000 less in 1928 than in 1927, on the other hand the value of the cheese production was $5,000,000 more in 1928 than in 1927. The selling value of the dairy and creamery butter in Canada in 1925 was $95,000,000, and in 1928, $93,000,000, although the quantity was 11,000,000 pounds less. The value of the cheese production in Canada in 1925 was $36,500,000. The value declined in 1928 by $5,000,000 to $30,500,000, Although the decline in the actual number of pounds produced was 32,000,000. The total value of milk production in this country-and it is the total value of the milk production that is of the greatest interest to the farmers-in the year 1925 was $284,000,000, and in 1928, $297,000,000, or a gain of $13,000,000.
I want to refer to a subject to which some hon. gentlemen speaking from the other side of the house made reference a few evenings ago. I want to ask any member whether he

thinks he has the right to dictate to the producer of milk how he shall sell his milk. In some counties the milk producers receive a very much higher price for their milk sold in the form of cream; in other counties they receive their best price from the condensed milk factories; and in some locations near large cities they receive their best price by selling their milk fresh to the dairies. If our farmers, for other reasons, are not particularly attracted by the laborious work of operating a dairy and choose to take the easier course of selling their milk in the fresh form, I do not see that it is the duty of any member of this house to dictate to them as to what manufacturing industry they shall sell their product. I would say to my hon. friend the leader of the opposition that one might just as well argue on behalf of the lumber industry as against the pulp and paper industry. If a man can get a higher price for his spruce logs from the pulp mill than from the saw mill, then it is his privilege to sell to the pulp mill rather than to the saw mill.
The production of butter for 1929 is as yet unknown, but it is interesting to note that our butter imports exceeded our butter exports by 34,500,000 pounds, and as the stocks in cold storage were comparable with those for the preceding year, it is safe to assume the consumption of butter in Canada exceeded production by something like 34,500,000 pounds.
Let us analyse our production and consumption in conjunction with the export figures. We have an excess consumption of 24,000,000 pounds by our own calculation. We also have by our own calculation a decrease in production of 11,000,000 pounds. Those figures total 35,000,000 pounds. So the calculation of our butter imports and exports must be correct, and we must be short of reaching our consumption within this Dominion by our own production by something like this amount quoted of 35,000,000 pounds.
Now, it may be argued that the price paid for butter in the Dominion was not sufficiently high during the period to induce our farmers to make enough butter to meet the home demand. But if this argument be true, it equally holds true for export and explains why our farmers did not wish to make butter for the export market, because in the Dominion during the past few years the prevailing price for butter has been from three to four cents a pound higher than the price on the Liverpool market, to which our export butter was shipped. In 1928 the average price in Montreal was 40-66 cents; in Liverpool it was 37-05 cents. In 1929 the average price in Montreal was 42-09 cents; in Liverpool it
Australian Treaty-Mr. Malcolm
was 38-03 cents. Indeed, sir, at the very moment the prevailing prices for butter are higher in the Dominion than they are in England or the United States.
Now, let us admit, just for the sake of being agreeable to my hon. friends opposite, that their argument is correct, that the home market is the best market for the Canadian milk producer who sells his product, not in the form of fresh milk, not to the condensing plant, but to the dairy factory. Compare the present conditions of the milk producer with the conditions existing when this government took the reins of office in 1922. Then the home market would not consume the butter produced, and we were on an export price basis, the export price governed the returns of the milk producer. In 1922 the milk producers of this Dominion were paid by the dairy factories for their milk the enormous sum of $76,477,000. But something happened in the meantime. A great home market sprang up; an increase in the consumption of butter running into tens of millions of pounds took place. By 1928 the home production could not supply the domestic demand, and there being no export, home prices governed-prices from three to four cents higher than could have been obtained if export prices had governed. As a consequence during that year, 1928, the men for whom we are thinking, these men whose interests have been so sadly neglected by this government-as my hon. friend says- these men were paid by the dairy factories for their milk not $76,000,000 but $103,000,000. The milk producers of this country, for whose interests my hon. friends opposite are so concerned, received for their milk $27,000,000 more from the dairy factories in 1928 than they did in 1922.
Nothing has been said by my hon. friends opposite as to our increasing consumption of fresh milk at better prices than the dairy factories pay; nothing has been said of the export of cream and milk to the United States amounting to sufficient to make 25,000,000 pounds of butter. Had this not been exported, had it been made into butter in Canada, to-day we would be, not on an import basis, but an export basis, and instead of home prices governing our milk producers would be taking export prices for their product. If the dairy farmer can export his products more profitably in the form of milk and cream than in the form of butter, who is going to gainsay his right to do so?
Now, we are speaking of giving consideration to the dairy industry. There is more than one way of helping the industry. A few years ago we were told by hon. gentlemen

Australian Treaty-Mr. Malcolm
opposite that this government was giving too much consideration to agriculture and very little consideration to the manufacturing industry.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Who said that?


James Malcolm: That was the general
argument from the other side of the house.


Robert James Manion: It never was.


James Malcolm: We were told by hon. gentlemen opposite-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Whom?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, by whom?


James Malcolm: I was told by so many hon. gentlemen opposite that I can hardly name any particular one.


Robert James Manion: Name one.


James Malcolm: My hon. friend does not like the argument.


Robert James Manion: Let us have one.


James Malcolm: From the beginning of 1922 we were told that if we would look after the manufacturing industry and establish a good home market there would be no trouble for the dairy industry. The home market was the great thing. I should like to review what has happened to the home market. Now we have the largest home market for the consumption of butter in our history, greater in the case of butter by 34,000,000 pounds than in 1922. At that time the total amount of butter consumed was 234,000,000 pounds. At that time we were using butter substitutes to the extent of 14,000,000 pounds -substitutes which had been banned, but which in 1917 had been admitted owing to war conditions. In 1922 the use of one of these substitutes, oleomargarine, was growing very rapidly, and it was argued in this house I am going to be fair and say the stand was taken by members on both sides-that the production of butter would be seriously affected if we continued the use of this substitute which was sold at a very much lower price and which would have been very much below the price of butter now. It is safe to assume that the consumption of oleomargarine by this country to-day would have been very close to the consumption of Australian and New Zealand butter. In 1923 the Minister of Agriculture pleaded with this house, that partly in the interests of the health of the people, and partly in consideration of the dairy industry, the importation and manufacture of oleomargarine should be suspended,
[Mi. Malcolm.]
and the question was voted on. There are many hon. gentlemen on both sides of the house,-I know there are ten or twelve opposite me-who at that time voted to continue the use of this substitute. Now, Mr. Speaker, the banning of oleomargarine itself has meant a tremendous increase in the consumption of butter. But that is not the only factor which has been of importance. The consumption of butter in this Dominion has risen to the enormous total of 280,000,000 pounds, and that consumption has to be explained in some other way than by the banning of oleomargarine. It can be explained, as I said a moment ago, by the home market which has been created. In 1922 this Dominion had an industrial production in value -which has been quoted by statisticians all over the Dominion-and which I do not think is questioned-of twenty-five hundred million dollars. In 1928 we had an industrial production of four thousand million dollars. The industrial production in this Dominion has increased enormously. That has been brought about by better conditions, by better credits, and by the building up of export trade by many of our industrialists. It is with pride that I say there are industries in Canada to-day running into the tens of millions which export fifty per cent of their total production. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, the fact remains that the home market created since this government came into office has accounted for an increase in labour alone of
250,000	men. Two hundred and fifty thousand people gainfully employed in the Dominion represents one million butter eaters, on a ratio of one in four gainfully employed. On a per capita consumption of 29 pounds these million citizens dependent cm industry for their livelihood represent an increased consumption of twenty-nine million pounds. It is rather interesting to note how accurate the calculation is. We have to-day an increased consumption of forty-four million pounds, probably fourteen or sixteen million pounds of which was caused by the banning of a substitute, leaving about thirty million pounds to be accounted for by the increased consuming power of our industrial population.
I quite realize, Mr. Speaker, that some of my friends opposite have endeavoured, through their speeches in the house and on the hustings, to create an impression that all the benefits in our treaties with Australia and New Zealand have gone to manufacturing industry, and that all the injuries have gone to the dairying industry. I admit that our exports to the Antipodes are not in the raw form. Every export which we make to Australia and New

Australian Treaty-Mr. Malcolm
Zealand is raw material which has been through the hands of intelligent labour, and has been revalued in the process. But let me also point out that our exports of canned fish from the maritime provinces and from British Columbia have provided a market for the basic producer of fish, and have also created a market for the farmer who supplies food to the men who processed the fish and put them in form so that they could be exported across the Paoific ocean. Let me also point out that our export on paper and paper products has provided for the farmer of this country a market for his logs, whether they went in the form of paper or of lumber, and has also provided a market by the employment of Canadian citizens to manufacture this wood into a more highly finished state. And so on down the line, of exports. What, after all, are manufactured goods; what are processed goods, but raw material which through the addition of labour, have been given a much higher value? I contend, sir, that when we could not possibly ship to New Zealand and Australia butter and butter products, or dairy products of any kind, we should not be criticized if our exports are processed goods, which create a market, at home, giving our producers a better market for farm products within the Dominion of Canada.
My friends opposite argued some time ago that we were doing nothing to help the manufacturing industries of this country. They argued that our agriculturists were being asked to compete in the markets of the world, and that if we would stimulate industry we would have a home market that would be of substantial value to our Canadian farmer. It does seem to me, Mr. Speaker, that with a growth in industrial production of sixty per cent in Canada from 1922 to 1928, and with our producers taking export prices for butter in 1922 and home prices three to four, cents higher in 1928, this government has been able almost to accomplish the impossible by meeting the demands of my friends opposite on both counts.
It is to be admitted, Mr. Speaker, that when the treaty was made with Australia, the benefits of which were afterwards extended to New Zealand, there were, as I said in my opening remarks, many commodities which it was not thought we could export to these sister dominions. With the growing interest in the possibility of trade, and the approaches to the government for many years past in that connection, the government felt, many months ago, that it was extremely advisable to appoint an interdepartmental economic committee of high officials to study carefully the condition
of Canadian exports, and to secure all the information available, so that we could approach the economic conference in London with more data before us than we have had on any previous occasion. I admit that in the past governments have not been in as good a position to negotiate treaties as I think they should be. A government should have at its command full information as to the possible export of every commodity, regardless of whether or not that commodity had been exported before. At the time the Australian treaty was negotiated, the Minister of Finance had before him certain representations of Canadian producers. He went to Australia with his mind made up to do the best he could for those who had made representations to him. I contend, Mr. Speaker, that that is not good enough. There are dozens of industries in this Dominion which could be in the export market if they were only shown how the market could be handled. It has been the desire of this government during this summer and fall to have the committee to which I have referred, study the conditions as they pertain to exports from Canada, so that we can go to the economic conference better prepared to deal with our sister dominions, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and the mother country.
The hon. member for Haldimand asks that this house vote against the amendment to go into supply by cancelling the treaty now in existence. The hon. Minister of Finance has told the house sincerely and frankly that already he has opened negotiations with a sister dominion, New Zealand, for a new treaty. It seems to me that my hon. friend the leader of the opposition must have had some inkling of what the Minister of Finance was doing, and tried to beat him to his object by submitting his amendment. I think, however, Mr. Speaker, that the house will agree that the manner of approach of the Minister of Finance is a much more honourable one in dealing with a sister dominion than to cancel a treaty forthwith.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Speaker, the well prepared speech to which we have just listened, delivered by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm), has certainly been an excellent attempt to draw the minds of hon. members of the house away from the immediate point before them, and to have them consider a lengthy dissertation upon the trade of the country in its various branches.
I should like to impress upon the minds of the minister and his colleagues that no one in this house objects to the making or pass-

Australian Treaty-Mr. Stevens
ing of fair trade treaties, and so far as I know, very few people in the country do so. We are all in favour of the extension of Canadian trade, so long as that extension of trade is on a fair basis. When the minister referred at all to the matter under discussion I think he spent practically ninety per cent of his time in discussing the Australian treaty. I wonder if it occurred to him, to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) or to other members of the government that within a few months after this treaty was made with Australia, when the first butter from Australia started to flood this market, about February, 1926, the late Mr. Boivin, who was then Minister of Customs, put on a 6 cent dump against Australian butter, which effectively kept Australian butter out of this market, but he immediately extended the privilege by order in council to New Zealand, and it is from trade with New Zealand that the dairymen of Canada have suffered.


James Malcolm: I did mention that in my speech.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I did not catch it. Let me point out that if our action is reprehensible in regard to what we now propose to give the dairymen of Canada in order to afford reasonable protection against this unfair competition, how much more reprehensible was the action of the government itself in imposing that 6 cent dump against Australian butter. Surely this is an inconsistency that cannot be possibly explained or evaded. I am not saying that the 6 cent dump should not have been applied, but what I say, and what we on this side have said since the inception of the discussion on this treaty, is that the original draft of the treaty made by the late Minister of Finance, when he was Minister of Trade and Commerce, was the draft which should have come before this house. It was the draft of the treaty in which the general tariff was increased, and the then existing duties were maintained against Australia and New Zealand in regard to these particular articles. That is our argument, and that has been our argument from start to finish. It is useless for the minister to review all branches of trade between Canada and Australia, drawing attention to advantages here or advantages there, increases here and increases there, we all admit that and welcome it. But what we say is that if one industry of this Dominion has to suffer severely, then this parliament ought to take cognizance of that instance.
The minister read from a farm journal a moment ago, but I did not recognize it as

one of the well known dairy journals. I have in my hand one of the most outstanding dairy journals in eastern Canada, the Farm and Dairy, published in Peterborough, from which I should like to read just one paragraph:
Letters on the New Zealand butter menace still continue to arrive at the office of Farm and Dairy. From Prince Edward Island to British Columbia, producers, manufacturers and dealers are emphatic in declaring that ever-increasing importations are working disaster to the dairy industry of Canada.
I wish the minister had had the courtesy to wait until I finished reading this extract. It continues:
There is no questioning the fact that the New Zealand imports are having a depressing effect on our winter prices. The situation discourages winter production. The remedy, the correspondents point out, is the restoration of the four cent duty on butter in effect before the passing of the Australian treaty and the New Zealand order in council.
That is an extract from the most outstanding authority on farm and dairy activities in Canada. Then ithe minister went on to dilate on the growing internal market, and the fact that there had been an increase in consumption. An hour or tiwo previously, the real Minister of Agriculture appeared before a conference of dairymen that has been heralded from one end of the country to the other. We are sorry the minister has been ill and not able to attend the house but I learn that he has been attending to his duties to-day, hence his attendance at the conference. This meeting of dairymen has been called in the interests of the dairy industry, and we read the following statement from this evening's edition of the Ottawa Citizen:
Canada had witnessed year by year the disappearance of farm products from the export market, said the minister. He cited the fact that eggs had completely vanished as an item of Canadian overseas trade, while butter was going the same way. There were some who felt satisfaction over this condition inasmuch as it indicated greater consumption in the domestic market-
That is the very argument the Minister of Trade and Commerce has been labouring during the last three-quarters of an hour. Hiis colleague the Minister of Agriculture used the language I am now reading, and he is a greater authority on the subject. The quotation continues:
But when one saw Canadian bacon also disappearing from the export market, then a situation was created which could be viewed only with concern. This country, which had been an exporter of bacon for the past 50 years, was now on an import basis; while exports of cheese were going down.

Australian Treaty-Mr. Stevens
Here is the statement of the Minister of Agriculture who belongs to the very same government as the minister who has just spoken. In the minister's statement he deplored the falling off in the dairy industry.


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: He did not say that at all.
Mr. STEVEN'S: He deplored the falling off of exports and the decline of the dairying industry.


Malcolm McLean: Not of the dairying industry, but of butter.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend may
quibble over it if he wishes. I will not waste my time quibbling with him; the words speak for themselves. He deplores it and points out that not only have eggs disappeared from the export list, but butter has also disappeared and as a result or corollary to it, bacon also has disappeared.
The deputy minister then qpeaks in the following terms:
Dr. J. H. Grisdale, deputy minister of agriculture, said dairy products had developed, but the export trade in these commodities, said Dr Grisdale, had fallen off. The prospects were that Canada would not export any bacon this year, in spite of the fact that in 1921, this country had exported 104 million pounds.
I cite that, not as my argument, but as the problem with which the Minister of Agriculture and his deputy have been struggling, in conjunction with representatives of the dairy industry who a-re meeting in this very city. What is the sense or use of trying to justify this treaty in the face of these results and these facts? I say to the minister and to the government that as far as I am concerned-and I think I speak for every member on this side of the house-in so far as the trade agreement with Australia and New Zealand is fair and equitable and working in that manner, we are for it. But if, as experience shows, it is working a serious injury to an industry in this country, we say the treaty should be revised 'and should have been revised long ago.
Let us look at the picture in a broad and general way. The Minister has gloried in certain increases since 1921 or 1922. I have noticed, as a matter of practice, that this government seems to think it is doing well if one of its members can stand in his place and point out that there has been no serious decline in any given line of production. That is an entirely wrong view to take. This Dominion of Canada ought to be progressing faster than any other country under the sun.
If the ratio of progress is not the best, it is not good enough. What is the situation? We find that since this treaty came into operation there has been a decrease between 1926 and 1928 of some 500,000,000 pounds in the production of butter-the figures for 1929 are not available-and in that period the decrease in the number of milch cows amounted to between 100,000 and 125,000. That is an alarming situation. With the increased consumption which the minister speaks of and with this imporation of some 35,000,000 pounds of butter from one country alone, there should be a rapid expansion of this splendid industry, an increase in the number of milch cows and an increase in the production of butter and other dairy products such as cheese and so on.
Year after year this house has been voting something like $4,000,000 for dairying and live stock purposes-I have the estimates for this year before me-in addition to what is being spent by the different provincial governments, but we find this decline continuing. Every dairying organization in Canada, as represented by the great gathering in the city of Ottawa to-day, attribute that decline to the working of the treaty. Why does the government resist what is such an obvious fact? Why does not the government face the situation and say, "There has been obviously an injury done by the effects of this treaty and we will take steps to remedy it"? The minister admitted a decline in exports, he admitted an increase in imports, and he quoted figures to show that production was not increasing to any great extent; in fact his figures show that there is a decline in some respects. Those facts are obvious, they are not propaganda and they surely call for the closest study and attention.
The minister put forth the argument that this order in council could not be cancelled, and he rested his argument upon the legal authority of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill). He said that that hon. member had advised him that inasmuch as this order in council was based upon clause 5 of the Australian treaty it could not be cancelled except upon six months' notice, and he said that because of that we on this side were wrong in our proposals. I cannot say that I have the same profound respect for the opinion of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni.


James Malcolm: I must interrupt my
hon. friend to say that while I appreciate his humour I cannot agree that I made any such statement.

Australian Treaty-Mr. Stevens


Henry Herbert Stevens: I will admit that my
language is perhaps a little more definite than that of the minister, but I heard him quote the member for Comox-Albemi. I prefer the authority of the customs act to that of the hon. member for Comox-Albemi, and that act contains the provision that the governor in council may by order in council withdraw the benefits of the British preferential tariff from any British country, other than the United Kingdom, which is receiving the benefit of it. In other words, you put it on by order in council and you can withdraw it by order in council, so that the argument of the minister would not seem to have very much weight.
The hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) has stated that New Zealand of her own volition had extended to Canada the British preferential rate, and while he did not make the specific argument the inference was that we were simply reciprocating by this order in council a courtesy extended to us by New Zealand. But what are the facts? It is quite true that New Zealand admitted Canadian goods under the preferential tariff rate, but I find that since 1907 we have been admitting New Zealand goods under the British preferential rate so that there was no obligation whatsoever upon Canada to extend to New Zealand anything further without receiving from them some quid pro quo. In other words, this order in council extending the provisions of the treaty to New Zealand was an action upon the part of this government which was not asked for and which was not reciprocated by New Zealand; it was a gratuitous thing extended to New Zealand at the expense of the dairymen of Canada.
The resolution of the hon. Minister of Finance is that this order in council should be superseded as soon as possible. What are to be the determining factors in deciding what is "as soon as possible"? We are asking for the cancellation of the order in council forthwith; there is no ambiguity about our request. It is quite clear from the remarks of the Minister of Trade and Commerce that this shall not be done before the economic conference which takes place this coming autumn.


James Malcolm: My hon. friend is quite right in that; I think it will take the whole of the summer to carry out the negotiations.


Henry Herbert Stevens: There we have it. As far as the dairy industry is concerned, it can sweat.


James Malcolm: My hon. friend realizes
the difficulties. He will realize also that the importation of butter is carried on during a six months period.


Henry Herbert Stevens: As my hon. leader said
this afternoon-by the way some of the hon. members laughed at has suggestion-what about the contractual arrangements which must be made either for the importation of butter from New Zealand on the one hand or for the production in this country on the other. Arrangements must be made for storage space and other matters in order to carry the summer butter through the winter, and those arrangements must be completed during the producing season, which in this country covers the months of April, May, June, July and August. The hon. minister says that this matter will not be dealt with until after the economic conference to be held at the end of September, and any negotiations there must be followed by a long period of consideration, so that it can be said that it will be a year before anything definite is done. That point should be made perfectly clear to the dairying industry-that the position the government takes is that nothing shall be done in this matter for another year. I ask again, what are to be the determining factors? Are they to be governed by political exigencies, by the wishes of New Zealand, or, as stated by the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Young), the will of the consumer? My hon. friend takes his ideas entirely from his particular friend and henchman, Mr. Deach-man, and I-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I want to say this: I can understand-


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


Edward James Young: I ask that that statement be withdrawn; I have a few ideas of my own.


Henry Herbert Stevens: We are glad to know
that,' but I will say to my hon. friend that I can quite understand-


Edward James Young: I am asking
that that statement be withdrawn. [DOT]


Henry Herbert Stevens: There is nothing to be
withdrawn; my hon. friend cannot ask for such frivolous and silly things as that. I can quite understand why the hon. gentleman is so anxious for the welfare of the consumer, because this gentleman, Mr. Deachman, who represents him so ably is a consumer and that is all, a consumer purely and absolutely.

Australian Treaty-Mr. Stevens


Edward James Young: My hon. friend is very brave in attacking a man who is not in the house to defend himself.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Henry Herbert Stevens: This man is a simon-pure consumer and nothing else. He appears before a body which claims to be representing or is appointed by the government of the country for the purpose of studying these matters-


Edward James Young: He is not appointed by the government of the country.


Henry Herbert Stevens: -as the representative of the so-called Consumers' League which consists of my hon. friend and one other.
Mr. YOUNG' (Weyburn): I wish to correct my hon. friend's statement. That is not a fact.


Henry Herbert Stevens: If my hon. friend has anything to say, there is a parliamentary way of saying it rather than standing on his feet trying to interrupt a member who is speaking. My hon. friend says that the whole question should be argued on the basis of what is the right of the consumer. Everyone who breathes is a consumer, but everyone is not a producer. It happens in this case that we are standing for the rights of a body of producers in this country, and if there is a body of producers that deserve consideration more than any other body of producers, it is the dairy farmers. My hon. friend himself in his speech a few days ago taunted the dairy men of this country. He said: "Do you want to go and carry a milk pail?" Then he went on to say how the farmers preferred to grow wheat, indicating that there was a much better future for them in growing wheat than in carrying a milk pail. But the dairy industiy and those engaged in it are entitled to every atom of respect that we can extend to them, for one reason if for no other, and that is that they rvork every day of the year. There is no Sunday off; there is no one day or half day *off; they work morning and night, Sundays .and week days. It is a most exacting industry. As I said a moment ago, it is essentially a producers' industry and as such it is entitled to the consideration of the house and not the taunts of my hon. friend.
The minister a moment ago asked the question: What right have wre to dictate where the farmers shall sell their milk? Nobody is suggesting that the farmer shall sell his milk here or there. Nobody is interfering with him. We are responding to an appeal and a very earnest one made from every province in the Dominion by the dairymen of Canada. There is not a province that has not poured 2419-33
forth time and time again an appeal to parliament to remedy this condition, and we are responding to that appeal.
We are not seeking to dislocate trade with Australia and New Zealand. We welcome it; we want to see it expand, and if time would permit I would like to show the minister-I may do so at some other time-how we can expand that trade. When we amended the treaty that was first brought back from Canada, we did more to injure Australia's chances for trading with Canada than in any other way. Had the original draft, that was presented to the Prime Minister and his government by his then Minister of Trade and Commerce, who himself went to Australia for the purpose of securing that treaty, and that was approved by Australia-had that been the draft that was made finally the agreement or the treaty, Australia would have had more access to our markets on other lines of goods than she has to-day. I remember in the brief time in 1926 when I was Minister of Customs, the representative of Australia came to Canada to discuss the situation with the government and it happended that he discussed it with me. I have forgotten his name; I think it was Mr. Thomas. This gentleman was at first very earnest about the six per cent dumping duty, but he went on to point out that if we would give Australia some opportunity of getting into our markets, they could ship dried fruits to Canada. I pointed out to him that one of his chief handicaps was the splendid system which California had of packaging and merchandising her fruit, the result of years of study. He agreed with me that that was so, but he said: "If we had just a little more preference in your market so that we might be encouraged as to the future, our producers and packers would be stimulated to put up a better package and to study the market more thoroughly." In that one branch of activity alone I believe our trade with Australia could be immensely expanded. I belive we could buy from that sister dominion a very much larger amount of her produce than we do at the present time.
Then there is the question of hardwoods. I think it was last year there was before Mr. Moore a proposal to restrict the importation of certain hardwoods that were coming in too freely from the United States. There again Australia could serve us. Why not divert some of our hardwood purchases to Australia? Why not study the Australian treaty from the standpoint of increasing the purchases of goods that we require that will displace goods from the United States or other countries not

514	COMMONS
Australian Treaty-Mr. Stevens
within the empire? There is where we can do some good for the promotion of trade between the two countries, but instead of that the government talks about hitting a blow. The Minister of Finance said that our attitude was hitting a blow at New Zealand, but the present government about the month of February, 1926, struck a blow straight in the face of Australia. I know, and the Minister of Trade and Commerce knows, that Australia has ever since resented the action of the government, called it a piece of chicanery and duplicity to enter into a contract with them and then, within six months, to impose a dumping duty against their products. The treaty should never have been passed in the form in which it was, and that was the stand we took at that time. We pointed out to the government what the results would be and the results have been exactly what we pointed out. It is only right and fair to the dairymen of Canada that the government should admit the injury that has been done to them and should seek in a friendly way to remedy it.
We talk very readily about the increase in our sales of lumber and fish. The minister knows perfectly well that British Columbia and the maritime provinces are exceedingly anxious to stimulate that trade. There is no doubt about that; but is it fair; is it good debating; is it good statesmanship for a government to hold up before one section of the country a possible infringement of their exports just to cover up their dereliction of duty to the ruination of another industry?
The minister knows there is no other man in the house who would be more seriously affected politically than I or my colleagues from Vancouver, by anything that would injure trade with Australia. The great city of Vancouver is most earnestly in favour of and anxious for the treaty and for the extension of trade with Australia, but I would not under any circumstances justify the injury done to the great dairy industry of the countiy no matter what the result might be. The whole question narrows itself down to this:	Here is a treaty. There have been
certain given results from that treaty. Some of those results have been beneficial to Canada-admitted; but in one or two respects the treaty has been decidedly injurious to Canada, indeed has threatened the very existence of many engaged in the industry affected. It is not enough for the minister to say: Oh, there has been expansion here and there in the dairy industry. I imagine that around certain centres where ice cream is being consumed in very large quantities some of the 
dairy interests may be benefiting from that business, but that is not the way to look at this question. We know from personal observation and have the testimony of many hon. members of this house that in this great province of Ontario, yes, indeed, in my own province, in certain sections, and in other parts of the country, farm after farm is being abandoned or is being offered for sale for the price of the buildings on the farm. That is not a condition that anyone can justify. It is a condition that challenges the attention of parliament. If the existence in business of all these people in Ontario, in the maritime provinces, in Quebec and in other parts of the country is threatened by any action on the part of this government, then parliament is bound to pause in its proceedings and give first consideration to that very thing. And that is the condition. I do not know what the number is, but I venture to say that in this province of Ontario particularly, and the same is true in lesser degree perhaps of the other provinces, literally hundreds of the best type of citizens we have are being driven into bankruptcy and into the corner as a direct result of the unfair competition coming through this treaty. These are the things that we tell the government must be considered, and that is why we have moved, as we have, that this order in council should be forthwith cancelled.
Let me make it abundantly clear-let me, shall I say, repudiate what the minister has sought to present in his argument-that our proposal is not aimed at the Australian treaty as a whole, but at one particular part of that treaty as applied to New Zealand butter. That is what we are driving at, and it is to that we direct the attention of this house. That is what we are going to vote on in a few moments. I shall not detain the house further at this hour other than to appeal again to the Prime Minister to forget this chicanery, this evasion, this seeking to becloud the issue, and face what is the demand, and the reasonable demand, of a great body of the citizens of Canada.


Mr. M. F. HEPBURN (West Elgin):: It
is only a few hours ago, Mr. Speaker, that I decided to enter into this debate. Now I feel particularly privileged to follow the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens). We on this side of the house read a short time ago an anmounoemenit to the effect that he was going to retire from public life. We also read his political obituary which was printed in the newspapers throughout the country, and those obituaries flattered him very much. I am happy to say that apparently

Australian Treaty-Mr. Hepburn
he has reconsidered his decision and has returned to this house. We hope that he may have the privilege of sitting on that side for many years to come.
I want to speak a word on this subject from the viewpoint of the dairy fanner, because I own and operate a dairy farm just south of the city of St. Thomas. I have also operated a dairy factory, and1 I was for several years head of an organization which supplied Windsor with milk. It is from the producers' viewpoint that I wish to speak.
From the other side of the house we have heard from a brilliant lawyer, the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett), and from the other gentleman to whom I just referred, the skilled accountant from Vancouver. After carefully listening to their speeches I am firmly convinced that they are much more familiar with golf sticks than with milk stools. I see in their argument the same old Tory attack on the policy of low tariff. At this particular time they are bending every effort in order to bring the farmers into the camp of high protection. On this question they feel that the government perhaps is more or less vulnerable. I welcome a debate of this kind because I think that when the matter has been properly discussed the opposition members will see that in dissociating the butter question from the dairy industry as a whole they are presenting to this house arguments which are in themselves very misleading. Of course, coupled with their economic argument, -we have the same old blue ruin cry, so charasteristic of our friends across the way. We recall in 1925 similar propaganda on their part. In 1926 they mixed the campaign up a little and threw in a little scandal in order to wade up the gutter to the throne if possible. I think that they have overdone this blue ruin talk.
Last summer in my constituency I had the privilege and pleasure, along with the hon. member who sits on this side of the house from South Battleford (Mr. Vallance), of going to Port Stanley and hearing the address of the brilliant leader of the opposition at that great Tory picnic. Amongst other things he indulged, of course, in this blue ruin talk with respect to the dairy industry. I shall never forget him on that occasion. Words literally flowed from his lips. If any word hesitated, it was swept to destruction by the thousands that surged in its wake as the hon. gentleman was carried along on the flood tide of his verbosity. His verbal machine gun killed the lowly mosquito by the thousands. The charges that he made with respect to the sins of omission and commission of this government filled many pages of the Conservative 2419-33J
papers which reported his meeting. [ shall never forget him as he waxed enthusiastic. He became even dramatic. He indulged in mild gesticulations and wound up with an appeal which should have aroused sympathy in every breast. I can picture him as he raised his eyes skyward and said, "Ladies and gentlemen, men and women of Elgin counity, I ask you to do something at once to save our dairy industry from total destruction. We are becoming a dependent nation." Probably it was because he was gazing skyward that he did not notice the ripple of laughter that came from the four or five hundred people who had gathered to listen to him. I want to emphasize that point because I think it is dangerous to dissociate the butter question from the dairy industry as a whole. Butter is a slippery subject, and even a parliamentary lawyer may slip now and again on this question. While the hon. leader of the opposition was depicting the terrible condition existing in the dairy industry, at that time in the town of Aylmer, a few miles away, the great Carnation milk plant was preparing to ship, not a carload, but a whole trainload of milk to the Canadian west. It made a gala day for Elgin; it was something that had never been done before in the county. We had the movies there, and speeches, and among the events that took place was the presenting to some of the members of parliament present of a gallon can of condensed milk each.


An hon. MEMBER:: Did you get any?


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: I got a can.


Mr. MACDONALD (Richmond):: How did you take it? In a nurse bottle?


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: I wish the hon. gentleman would speak in am audible tone.


Felix Patrick Quinn: The butter would trip you.


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: If the hon. gemtlemai would take a little of that milk he would have sufficient gusto to speak loud enough that we all could hear him. Even the Conservative paper suggested that a can of that milk should be sent to the leader of the opposition, with the compliments of the dairy industry of the county of Elgin. I did not take literally the promise made by the hon. leader of the opposition when he accepted the nomination in Winnipeg that he was going to devote his services and his fortune to the Conservative party. I felt that he still had enough means loft to buy the necessities of life, and so I donated the can of milk that I received to a worthier cause, to the children's shelter in the city of St. Thomas.
516	COMMONS
Australian Treaty-Mr. Hepburn
I have mentioned that matter, Mr. Speaker, to show that this talk about the dairy industry 4s largely political. To emphasize that further, I want to tell the hon. leader of the opposition that a very prominent farmer in the county of Elgin who listened to him on that day wrote to the press the following day and in describing the speakers on that occasion mentioned the fact that the Elgin provincial member spoke like a statesman, but the hon. leader of the Conservative party talked more like a politician. So that was the effect of the hon. leader's crusade in Elgin county, trying to tell the people there that the dairy industry was being ruined, when actually it was progressing at a rate never before heard of in that particular part of Ontario.
I am not going to deal with the statements made by the brilliant lawyer and prominent accountant across the way, but I desire to refer to the speeches made by my good friend from Haldimand (Mr. Senn), the mover of the amendment, who in some respects is a neighbour of mine, and the hon. gentleman (Mr. Rowe) who seconded the amendment. They both described themselves as farmers and vitally interested in the welfare of the farmers of this county. I am afraid that they have been carried away by the brilliant arguments put forward by their leader, and they are sadly mistaken with respect to this industry as a whole. They have been painting a terrible picture of the conditions in the dairy industry, and to relieve the gloom I wish to put on Hansard figures of the steady progress made in dairy production as a whole. These are the figures:
Year	Total production
1925		 $284,000,000
1926		 277,000,000
1927		 294,000,000
1928		 297,000,000
That does not look to me as though the the industry is in a state of stagnation. But something even more important than that should be taken into consideration-the price that our farmers are getting for their dairy products. My hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm) has made mention of the editorial appearing in the Milk Producer to the effect that so far as the editor knows no dairy producers in the world are getting as much for their products as our Canadian dairymen. That is a very significant statement, and if it is true I think all the talk from across the floor should more or less peter out into thin air, being simply political propaganda.
Let us analyze world prices so far as they apply to dairy products. We know the price

of butter is lower in the United States than it is in Canada. All my hon. friends have to do if they want to verify that for themselves is to go to the library and look up the comparative prices of butter as between Toronto and Chicago or Montreal and New York. Then if they will go further and look up the dairy reports from London, England, they will find that Canadian cheese is bringing about 11 shillings per hundredweight more than New Zealand cheese. So our dairymen are selling their butter at higher prices on the home market than obtain elsewhere, and for their superior cheese product, recognized as such throughout the world, they are receiving in the export market a higher price than their competitors. Here is something even more significant. I have dealt with the major dairy products, butter and cheese. I have a telegram before me from the manager of probably the biggest milk factory in southern Ontario; it is an international concern. I asked him to advise me by telegram with respect to the prices paid in their Canadian plants and in their American plants. He wired back that at the present time the Canadian plants are paying from 15 to 25 cents per hundredweight more than they are paying at their United States factories, and that during the past winter they have paid as high as 40 cents per hundredweight more in Canada than in the United States. So taking all those factors into consideration, I do not think our daily industry is suffering in the way our friends would have us believe.
I want to make reference to the total production of our dairy farmers. The figures are already on Hansard, but for the sake of argument I want to quote them again. In 1925 our total production was $284,000,000; in 1928 it was $297,000,000. At the same time while production in terms of value was increasing, our exports were decreasing. There is only one conclusion that any intelligent man can draw from those figures, and that is that we are consuming more of our produce at home than we ever did before. I do not care how brilliant or misleading an argument may be, if we are producing more and exporting less, then of necessity we must be consuming more of that produce at home.
Let us see what we are doing in that respect. Statistics show us that Canadians are the greatest consumers of butter in the world-29'31 pounds per capita; we have increased our cheese consumption to 3-54 pounds per capita, and largely by reason of the educational campaign that has been carried on for greater milk consumption we have increased our per capita milk consumption from 240 pounds to 470 pounds. Those facts are

Australian Treaty-Mr. Hepburn
significant. We are building up our home market, which is just what our Conservative friends have always asked for. We have accelerated, so to speak, this consumption by the tremendous American tourist traffic throughout the Dominion. I do not think any mention has been made of that important factor. Those of us from southern Ontario probably are more in touch with that traffic than are members from other parts of Canada. We do know that practically every other car on the road in southern Ontario during four or five months of the summer is an American car, and its occupants consume our dairy produce. I know of no way of accurately arriving at any figures which would indicate the amount of this food consumption. But we all know our American friends are strong coffee drinkers-I would not confine their drinking altogether to coffee; but they do drink coffee-and I think the rapid increase in our coffee imports would be indicative of the amount of food consumed by these tourists while in the Dominion. I find that between 1926 and 1928 our imports of coffee increased by over 25 per cent. Statisticians tell us that the American tourists spend in Canada $300,000,000 per year. On the basis of our coffee imports I think we may safely say that $75,000,000 of food products are consumed in Canada annually by American tourists, which products otherwise would go into the export trade. So when we are taking into consideration the misleading propaganda, if I may call it so, from across the floor, mention should be made at least of the tremendous consumption of Canadian produce in Canada by our American friends. I know our hon. friends across the way have no objection to American tourists coming over here and buying our food products and consuming them here. In my home town of St. Thomas the proprietor of a little restaurant told me recently that in one day last summer he fed 267 American tourists. I do not know how much that consumption will increase next year, but it will be considerably increased, because the tunnel at Windsor is being completed and the bridge is already in operation. We look for a thirty-three per cent increase in the American tourist trade next summer, and in view of that if we have even a further falling off of our dairy exports I think we can attribute it to some extent to the increased American tourist trade.
Now, as one who operates a large farm, I feel it should be my privilege to sell my produce in any market I choose. The last thing I should like to do to the hon. leader of the opposition would be to tell him that he could no longer act as a corporation lawyer but must go out and handle rural cases, which probably would not yield him
such a nice income as his corporation practice. I want to sell in any market that suits me, and the market in which we are selling in southern Ontario is a highly profitable market. I have confirmation of this in a telegram over the signature of J. P. Coyle, general manager of the Carnation Milk Company, who himself enjoys the confidence of all the farmers of Elgin county. He tells me that he has paid $2 per hundredweight for whole milk in the past five months, as an average price. I do not know whether my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre, skilled accountant as he is, could follow the analysis of this thing, but in order to make it plain I might tell him that on this basis he is paying 57 cents per pound in terms of butter fat. Figuring that in terms of butter it means that we are getting 71 cents per pound, and have been for the past five months. From a national standpoint, if we farmers of Elgin can sell our produce for 71 cents a pound, buy our requirements for around 40 cents, and make a net profit of 31 cents-again from a national standpoint-I think that is pretty good business for the country. A year ago, speaking on the budget, I made mention of that particular fact, and I said that we were making in that year, as near as I could figure, about three and a half million dollars on that particular transaction. Just a few days ago I had the privilege of reading an address by J. P. Singleton, chief of the division of dairy markets, Ottawa. Now, Mr. Singleton is not a politician. He has no axe to grind. His chief concern is to direct properly the dairymen of this country. I believe he is a man of very high standing, a man in whom we have a great deal of confidence. He said this:
During the year ending November, 1929, the butter fat in various products, states Mr. Singleton, had an average value of 55.07 cents per pound as compared with an average value of 44.13 cents per pound fat in the various products imported, a difference of 10.94 cents per pound fat. From these figures Mr. Singleton estimates that the country is richer by $2,738,000 by exporting dairy products as we did and by importing to supply part of our home requirements.
Is it not a peculiar thing, that with that great array of talent which we have along the front benches of the Conservative party, including the brilliant lawyer from South Wellington, and the skilled accountant from Vancouver Centre, who has certainly a nose for investigating, not one of them has yet dropped on to the fact that we are making money on the deal.
I want to make further mention of the speech of my hon. friend from Dufferin-Sim-coe (Mr. Roiwe). He is possessed of what I might call a vivid imagination, and no doubt
518	COMMONS
Australian Treaty-Mr. Hepburn
he will go a long way in public life. His suggestion is that we increase our production of butter by fifty million pounds, for domestic consumption and then another twenty-five million, in order that we might go on the export market. He knows very wall indeed, if he knows anything about trade questions, that if we are going back on the export basis we will have to take five cents a pound less for butter, and yet he advocates this as a farmer in the interests of the farmer. Is that what he realty wants? Surety not. I think he has the interests of the farmer more at heart than that. He must realize that by selling in a domestic market we are selling in the highest priced market in the world. He says that the farmer cannot make money out of present prices, and he advocates a system which will bring the fanner lower prices. In order to get this production he is going to create a hierd of cows, 284,000 in number. These cows are going to be parties of the first part. He is then going to create
160.000	lifters of bacon hogs, 10 hogs to a litter. These hogs are to total 1,600,000 in number and are to be parties of the second part. They a.re to feed on the skim milk of these fictitious cows. Imagine it! He suggests carrying the hogs along for six months of their lives on skimmed milk, something that is absolutely ridiculous, as any hog producer in this country knows. He might produce some hogs o.f the southern razonbaek type, such as they sell in Florida, but he certainly will not produce bacon hogs. Then he is going to solve the wheat question. In the last six months in the lives of these hogs they are going to eat wheat. Then the
1.600.000	hogs are to be dumped on the markets in order that hog prices might be smashed completely. But he goes beyond that, and he carries this thing right cn to its final analysis. He says that the value of the fertilizer from these fictitious cows will amount to $6,400,000 a year, and the fertilizer' from the hogs wil amount to another $6,000,000. Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not know anything about the county of Dufferin, but I do know that in Elgin county we never as yet have had to enrich our fields with fertilizer from unborn hogs and cows. He makes a great .case in point over .the loss of our cow population. I am not a bit alarmed about that. While operating a dairy factory I knew of one producer with seven cows who brought in over five hundred pounds of milk, whereas another producer with twenty-five cows brought in less than five hundred pounds of milk. In view of that fact, it was a mighty good thing that we inaugurated a campaign

of cow-testing in order that the brindled cows with the crumpled horns could be sent to the stock yards, and their ringside seats taken by highly producing pure breds. Improved production is the object we are trying to attain now. The horn, member knows too that the T.B. test meant that thousands of cows and dairy heifers have been slaughtered in the Toronto stock yard's, and I do not think he objects to that. And then there is the sending of our cows to the American republic to the south. Those cows did not go there with the intention of having their calves bom American citizens. They went there because of certain conditions created by a Tory administration in the United States. This forms a very interesting sidelight on the question, and I think that the Conservative party might see the light of day if they would look across the line and follow the Bennett policy as it is thoroughly applied over there with respect to the dairy industry. They put a twelve-cent tariff on butter; the farmers over there, feeling themselves secure behind the tariff, came to Canada to buy cows at any price, and yet we are blamed for selling our cows under such conditions. However, we did sell them; we are business men down there. In that way they increased their production, but when they reached the saturation point they found the tariff was no good to them, and in January this year the price of butter in the United States fell to 31 cents a pound. What do my friends think of that? This same Tory administration which had led the farmers up a blind alley were thoroughly alarmed, so they undertook to establish a farm loan fund in order to try to bolster up the price of butter, and they loaned in some instances three million dollars to various concerns to hold butter off the market. But that did not do any good, and to-day the farmers over there are sadder but wiser. But that is the unfortunate part of it. I have some regard for my farmer friends, and I try to represent them honestly if I can, and I say that it was rather unfortunate that the Tory administration in the United States should for their political gain trick the farmers in this way, by leading them up a blind alley. They should hang their heads in shame, the same as my friends opposite should do.
There is the policy advocated by our Conservative friends, thoroughly complete. I want to appeal to the sympathy of our hon. friends across the way as their leader did at Port Stanley when he held his arms heavenward and appealed to the powers that be to annihilate this terrible Liberal administration which was bringing disaster to the dairying industry of Canada. Think of the men who

Export of Liquor
have been disillusioned by this Tory propaganda, who came over to Canada, paid heavily for cows, and are now in debt; who perhaps have their places mortgaged, and who to-day receive a lower price for their butter than the established world price. It is shameful on the part of any political party to do such a thing to an unsuspecting rural population.
I am going to ask this government to stand pat on their tariff policy, despite the protectionist propaganda that is coming through all the papers of this country. Speaking of my hon. friend from Vancouver South (Mr. Ladner) I think I called him a doubting Thomas a year or so ago. He does not know whether he is for the treaty or against it, but if he gets in office he is going to create a very fine situation. He states that he is quite willing to make treaties with Australia or with New Zealand. He says he is quite willing to sell the products of Canada in Australia and New Zealand. Yes, he is big-hearted; he would give these people the sleeves out of his vest, no doubt, but he is not willing to take anything in return. Apparently he does not realize that trade is the exchange of goods. He is going to make the hole in the fence big enough to allow his chickens on his neighbour's garden, but not big enough to let his neighbour's chickens on his garden. That is the logic of his argument from across the floor of the house. If we are going to trade with other countries, certainly we must take something in return; there is no getting around that fact.
I have only another two or three minutes to speak, but in that short time I want to deal with the propaganda being carried on from across the floor, having in view the herding of the farmers into the camp of the high protectionists. One of the most bitter Conservative papers in southern Ontario admitted that sometimes tariffs created worse conditions after being applied than existed before. In the rubber industry they tried to bolster up a false price, and what was the effect? It stimulated production without the corresponding demand, and the rubber industry to-day is practically driven out of existence as a result of these false economics. The same thing applies in regard to sugar. Some producers in the United States are asking for a higher tariff, in spite of the fact that there is a total overproduction of sugar in the world to-day. The cure that is being recommended by them is that they be given a higher tariff in order that they might further increase the production of sugar, and further swamp a market that is already overcrowded. This is the type of economics being preached by the Conservative party the world over. It is the proud boast of our hon. friends opposite that
fifty-two countries have raised their tariffs. We will admit that; we will admit that fifty-two countries have stimulated production without a corresponding demand. Prdbably that is why we have so much unemployment and grief throughout the world. The great economists to-day are directing the minds of the intelligent people, or the people who are susceptible to reason, in the direction of removing to some extent the trade barriers which are bringing grief all over the world.
There has been a great deal said about retaliation against the United States. This has a direct bearing on the question of tariff now under discussion, and I want to say in regard to our American friends, that I doubt very much if the American tariff bill, when it is finally drafted and presented to the house, will contain any serious increases at all. They realize that if they increase the cost of production in the United States they cannot compete in export markets with countries maintaining lower costs of production.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Wednesday, March 12, 1930