1930-03-27

OFFICIAL REPORT


[Stage Direction]
/MITI \*
*	*	it

. * * :
[Stage Direction]

C^IST-ADA.
House of
Commons HeEmtes
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, March 27, 1930

[Stage Direction]
for 1929-1930
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting further supplementary estimates for the financial year ending March 31, 1930, was presented by Hon. Charles A. Dunning (Minister of Finance) and read by Mr. Speaker to the house.
Mr. SPEAKER:: Mr. Dunning, seconded
by Mr. Crerar, moves that said estimates be referred to the committee of supply.
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance): I wanted to make an explanation with respect to that. The special committee on Canadian National Railway affairs has not yet been set up. It is desirable, I believe, that estimates of that character should be referred to that committee, and an effort is now being made to set it up, but this being a supplementary for 1929-30 should really be passed through both houses and assented to before the end of the fiscal year. I think it would be better if for the present the motion to refer could be deferred pending the setting up of the special committee. I presume we cannot refer a matter to a committee which is not yet in existence. Later on in the day the whips may be able to arrange the personnel of the committee and we may then refer the estimates to it.


Hewitt Bostock: I remember last year the motion to refer the estimates anticipated the appointment of the special committee on Canadian National Railway affairs.


Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):: I think a motion to refer the
matter to a committee, without naming the committee, would be in order. There are in the supplementary estimates two or three matters that require very careful consideration by the house. One involves the expenditure of over $4,000,000, if my memory serves me aright, in acquiring railway lines in the United States and that is a question of policy that we must very carefully consider. We probably 2419-63
could discuss it on a motion to refer, but these estimates should certainly come before the committee of supply.


Mr. DUNNING:: They will come back to the committee of supply.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What I had in mind was whether or not it would be feasible to give them the attention their importance demands, having regard to the one item I have mentioned-and there are other items of almost equal importance-between now and the end of the month. That is the real difficulty. To-day is the 27th. There are only four days between now and the end of March. Our fiscal year then ends, but the railway fiscal year does not end until the 31st d'ay of December, 1930, so I suppose there is no difficulty if the matter is not considered between now and the end of March.


Charles Avery Dunning: I shah be glad to look
into that phase of the question, but there is no desire on the part of myself or the Minister of Railways to rush these estimates through.


Richard Bedford Bennett: When may we expect the report of the Canadian National Railways? I see the Minister of Railways is now in his place.


Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Minister of Railways) :: I think it will be ready in a short
time. It is being held up pending the report of the auditors.


Hewitt Bostock: Moved by Mr. Dunning, seconded by Mr. Crerar, that said estimates be referred to a committee for further consideration.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 44, respecting a certain patent of Edgar D. Crump-Mr. Blatchford.
Bill No. 45, to amend the Act to incorporate the Imperial Trusts Company of Canada- Mr. Bell (Hamilton West).
[Stage Direction]
Questions

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

Mr. BLACK (Halifax):: 1.	What firms or companies have supplied, or are to supply, furniture for the new Canadian National Railways' hotel at Halifax, N.S?
2.	Is any second-hand furniture installed, or to be installed in said hotel?
3.	If so, from what source of supply will such second-hand furniture be obtained?


Mr. CRERAR:: 1.	The following firms are supplying furniture for The Nova Scotian:	Canada Furniture Mfgrs., Montreal, Que.; Coombe, F. E. Furniture Company, Kincardine, Ont.; Craig, W. J., Toronto, Ont.; Dupuy, Ltee., P, Montreal, Que.; Eaton, T. Co. Ltd., Montreal, Que.; Gordon Keith Furniture Company, Halifax, N.S.; Heintzman & Co. Ltd., Toronto, Ont.; Hourd & Company, London, Ont.; Jenkins, B. M. & T., Montreal, Que.; Jones Bros, of Canada, Ltd., Montreal, Que.; Kent-McClain Limited, Toronto, Ont.; Mason & Risch Limited, Toronto, Ont.; Murphy, J. M., Limited, Halifax, N.S.; Office Spec. Mfg. Co. Ltd., Montreal, Que.; Oxford Furniture Co. Ltd., Oxford, N.S.; Scott Co. Ltd., J. C., Toronto, Ont.; Simmons Limited, Montreal, Que.; Simpson Co. Ltd., Robt., Toronto, Ont.; Toronto Rattan Company, Toronto, Ont.; Willis & Co. Limited, Montreal, Que.; Wilson Co. Ltd., J. A., Toronto, Ont.; Phinney Music Co. Ltd., Halifax, N.S.
2.	Yes.
3.	Chateau Laurier hotel, Ottawa, Ont.


Mr. BLACK (Halifax):: 1.	Has hardware of United States manufacture been used in the construction of the Canadian National Railways' hotel at Halifax?
2.	If so, to what extent and to what value?
3.	What is the name of the firm or company that supplied the hardware, and who are the officers of the firm or company?
4.	Were Canadian manufacturers asked to tender on hardware supplies for the said hotel?,


Mr. CRERAR:: 1.	All hardware used in The Nova Scotian Hotel, Halifax, is of Canadian manufacture, excepting locks on doors.
2.	The manufacturers' cost of the American goods supplied is about 50 per cent of the total cost of the hardware.
IM c. Speaker.l
3.	Durand Hardware Limited, St. James street, Montreal. No information as to the officers of the company.
4.	No. Purchases made from jobbers, not manufacturers.


WINNIPEG CUSTOMS COLLECTOR
Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1.	Is there a vacancy in the position of collector of customs and national revenue at Winnipeg, Manitoba?
2.	If so, how long has the vacancy existed?
3.	How many parties applied for said position?
4.	Were examinations of applicants held?
5.	Has the Department of National Revenue given a rating of the applicants?
6.	Why has the vacancy not been filled?


Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Since April 1, 1929
3.	One.
4.	The Department of National Revenue was requested to rate the applicant.
5.	No.
6.	Answered by No. 5.


ROBERT E. COLLIS
Mr. PLUNKETT:: 1.	What was the date of the appointment of Robert E. Collis as school master at the Royal Canadian naval barracks, Esquimalt, British Columbia?
2.	What was the date of his resignation?
3.	How many requests, if any, were made at different times for the resignation of Mr. Collis?
4.	What were the reasons for asking for the resignation of Mr. Collis?
5.	During his term of office was any money kept out of his salary for superannuation fund?
6.	If so, what was the total amount withheld?
7.	Was such amount paid over to Mr. Collis upon the acceptance of his resignation?
8.	Does the superannuation fund keep such money where resignation or dismissal occur?
9.	Has the superannuation fund authority by law to keep moneys or payments which have been made to them by persons who have resigned or been dismissed from the service?
10.	What is the full amount of such sums
from all sources at present held by the superannuation fund?	[DOT]


Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	March 10, 1923.
2.	August 24, 1928.
3.	One.
4.	Services were unsatisfactory.
5.	Yes. Five per cent.
6.	$538.95.
7.	No.
8 and 9. The Civil Service Superannuation Act does not authorize return of contributions in the event of a contributor whose service is less than ten years, resigning or being dismissed.

Questions
9S7
10. Up to March 31, 1928, $64,525.05 was contributed to the fund by persons who have resigned or have been dismissed and who were ineligible to be paid their contributions.


TARIFF ADVISORY BOARD-COTTON HEARING REPORT
Mr. ADSHEAD:: 1.	Has the government received the report of the tariff board on the fifty per cent (50%) empire content in relation to cotton goods?
2.	If so, is it available to the members of the house ?


Charles Avery Dunning: 1 and 2. A public hearing of the Advisory Board on Tariff and Taxation was held and a verbatim record of the inquiry was printed and mailed to members of the House of Commons on December 5, 1929. As the reference pertained to the application of a customs regulation, the Advisory Board on Tariff and Taxation in the course of its inquiry has maintained contact with both the Finance and National Revenue departments.


BANFF NATIONAL PARK REVENUE
Mr. COOTE:: What was the revenue derived by the government in each of the last three years at the Banff national park from: (a) car registration fees; (b) camping fees; (c) swimming pool fees; (d) bath house at Upper Hot Springs; (e) all other sources?


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: Information attached hereto:
Banff National Park
	d o			fcC						
Car registrati fees	Camping	Swimmin pool fees	Upper ho springs	All other sources	Total revenue1927-28.. ..	$21,450 50	$5,259	00	$15,821	75	$10,078	85	$90,847	54	$143,457 641928-29.. ..	36,426 50	195	00	17,135	05	11,653	00	85,553	55	150,963 101929-30.. ..	38,674 50	368	00	15,716	00	11,427	90	74,745	66	140,932 0611 months to	(11 months)Feb. 28,1930	
The decrease in camping fees since 1928-29 is accounted for by the change in the regulations which provided camping privileges for one month with each auto licence issued.


IMPORTATIONS OF OLEOMARGARINE AND EGGS
Mr. LACOMBE:: 1.	What quantity of oleomargarine was imported into Canada during the years 1919, 1920 and 1921, respectively?
2.	What quantity of eggs was imported into Canada during the years 1919, 1920 and 1921, respectively ?


Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	Canada's quantity of oleomargarine imported during the years ended March 31, 1919, 1920 and 1901, was:
Years	Pounds
1919		 4,217,916
1920		 6,497.031
1921		 4,630,747
2.	Canada's quantity of eggs imported during the years ended March 31, 1919, 1920 and 1921, was:
Years	Dozens
1919		 1,755,122
1920		 5,977.480
1921		 5,341,926
2419-63J


COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURAL CONDITIONS
Mr. LACOMBE:: 1.	Did the Dominion government appoint a committee to inquire into agricultural conditions in the county of Laval-Two Mountains, composed of the following members: Messrs. Mark Senn, member for Haldimand; W. E.' Tummon, member for Hastings South; F. W. Bowen, member for Durham; Earl Rowe, member for Dufferin-Simcoe?
2.	If so, when was this committee appointed?
3.	What was the nature of its powers?
4.	Was the said committee to make a report of the inquiry?
5.	Has the report been made?
6.	If so, to whom was said report made?
7.	Is said report available to members of this house?


Charles A. Stewart: No such
committee appointed.


AIR MAIL CONTRACTS
Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1.	Have any contracts other than those included in and referred to in reference No. 21 (sessional paper No. 123), been entered into for air mail service for the year 1930, or subsequent years?
2.	What services are provided for by such
contracts ?
3.	What will the cost of such additional services be for the year 1930?
9SS
Questions


Mr. VENIOT:: 1. No.
2 & 3. Answered by No. 1.


INDIANS IN PICTOU COUNTY, N.S. ,
Mr. CANTLEY:: 1.	How many Indian reserves are in the county of Pictou, Nova Scotia, and where are they situated?
2. How many Indians are on such reserves?
3. How many Indians are in the county of Hants, Nova Scotia?
4.	What was the value of the principal items ^supplied for destitute Indians in Nova Scotia during the year 1929, separately stated as to clothing, food and medicine?
5.	What was the value of each of above classes of supplies provided for Indians in Pictou county, Nova Scotia?
6.	Who furnished such supplies and who made the distribution to Indians in Pictou county, Nova Scotia?
7.	Who supplied the medical services rendered
during the year 1929 to Indians of Pictou county?	_	.
8.	How many Indians in Pictou county received medical attendance and medicine?
9.	What was the cost of: (a) medical attendance; (b) medicine given to Indians of Pictou county, Nova Scotia, during the year 1929?


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: 1.	Fisher's Grant Reserve No. 24, Head of Moodie cove, south side of entrance to Pictou harbour; Fisher's Grant Reserve No. 24A, at Boat harbour; Fisher's Grant Reserve No. 24B, lies between and adjoining 24 and 24A; Fisher's Grant Reserve No. 24C, east of and adjoining 24A; FMier's Grant Reserve No. 24D, east of and adjacent No. 24; Fisher's Grant Reserve No. 24E, at Boat harbour; Fisher's Grant Reserve No. 24F, west of and adjoining 24A; Merigonish harbour No. 31, in Merigonish harbour.
2.	158 Indians.
3.	56 Indians.
4.	Clothing $3,851.16; food $38,552.16; medicine $1,255.97.
5.	Clothing $133.73; food $2,415.46; medicine $300.
6.	Clothing supplied by Kentville Dry Goods Company and Joseph Cohen; purchased and distributed by Nova Scotia sanatorium.
Food supplied by D. Logan & Co., and milk by Mrs. N. Campbell, Mrs. J. Murray, Mrs. D. Reynolds, and Mrs. C. Falconer; purchased through local Indian agent, Rev. R. C. MacGillivray.	_
Medicine furnished by Dr. G. W. Whitman.
7.	Dr. G. W. Whitman, Stellarton, N.S.
8.	There are 158 Indians in Pictou county, presumably all came under medical treatment at some time during the year.
9.	(a) $500; (b) $300.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. MacNUTT:: What was the total number of cords of pulp-wood shipped by water from Nova Scotia and destined to United States ports, since January 1, 1921, and up to December 31, 1929, giving: (a) name of shipper; (b) name of port of clearance; (c) number of cords shipped each year from each port during above dates?


ACTIVE MILITIA
Mr. WARD:: 1.	What is the total number of persons in
the Canadian active militia?	.
2.	How many of these are commissioned officers?
3.	What is the number of each rank of commissioned officers, and what pay and allowances do officers of each rank receive?
4.	How many non-commissioned officers are there in the service?
5.	What is the number of each rank of noncommissioned officers, and what pay and allowances do such officers receive?
6.	What other ranks or occupations are there
in the service and what pay and allowances do each receive?	.
7.	In the amendment to amend the Militia Pension Act, who w'ould be affected by the amendment?
8.	What amount is there involved?


EXPORT ACT AMENDMENT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
Mr. H. B. SHORT (Digby-Annapolis):: I
wish to call attention to an omission made in Hansard in the vote of March 25 on the Export bill. I rose in my place and announced that I was paired with the hon. member for Yictoria-Carleton (Mr. Foster) and that had I voted, I would have voted for the motion. This is omitted to be noted although all the others who announced their pairs were noted.


Hewitt Bostock: Might I say to the house
that according to May, twelfth edition, page 336, pairs are not officially recognized by_ the Chair, and it is not necessary after a division has taken place, to rise and state that so-and-so is paired with so-and-so. The custom is for the whips to leave with the Clerk of the House a list of pairs, and it is inserted in next day's Hansard.


Harry Bernard Short: In this case about a dozen
are announced as being paired, and my name is omitted.


Hewitt Bostock: The trouble is there are
too many rising together. The correction will be made.
9S9

Australian Treaty-Mr. Neill



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

[Stage Direction]
Tlie house resumed from Wednesday, March 26, consideration of the motion of Mr. Dunning for committee of supply, the amendment thereto of Mr. Gardiner, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Stevens.
['I have no objection to the item, but I think that some of the members may want to ask a few questions in regard to it, and as we have made very good progress I suggest the minister call it a day.\nProgress reported.\nOn motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the house adjourned at 10.55 p.m.\nFriday, March 28, 1930']
Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-AIberni):: I
think I might summarize the few remarks that I propose to make at this time in one brief sentence, and that is, "Hands off the Australian treaty," at the present time at least. That is a slogan or watchword that I believe would be acceptable in the office of every big industry in British Columbia, and in Vancouver and Victoria especially. It will find an echo in the shack of the fisherman, in the bunkhouse of the lumberman, in the home of the workers in our sawmills and pulp and paper plants, and even in the homes of our coal miners and of those who work on the farm, because all alike are vitally interested in the preservation of the Australian treaty. I include both capital, the management or operators, and those who work in these industries as employees, because they have a common interest. Employers and employees may have differences of opinion in regard to the wages paid or as to their other relations, but the ordinary manual workers are coming to realize more and more that they have at least this common interest with their employers, that if they cannot find a market for their products, if they cannot sell what they produce, it means the slowing down of the wheels of industry, with consequent unemployment and lower wages. Therefore, I say that both employers and employees are a unit in a matter of this kind.
I added to the slogan the words, especially at the present time; I shall explain that a little later.
I propose, as I said last night, to consider the question before us without any regard to the bickerings of party politics or the constant jangle as regards high or low tariff. I think we have heard enough of that. I propose therefore to deal with this question on its merits, to consider how it will affect Canada, how it will affect the province from which I come, and more particularly, how it will affect the interests of my constituents whom I represent here in this house. We are considering to-day a motion of want of confidence in the government moved by the Progressive element in this house, coupled with a demand for the abrogation, which means the abandonment, of the Australian treaty. We have also before
us a subamendment moved by a member representing the Conservative element in this house. That also is a motion of want of confidence, coupled with a demand that the Australian treaty be revised.


Mr. ADSHEAD:: Would it be a vote of
want of confidence if it carried, considering the ruling of Mr. Speaker the other evening?


Alan Webster Neill: Yes, both of them would.
While the Conservative amendment asks only for the revision of the treaty, not its abrogation, I propose to submit that conditions are such that if their motion carried, it would result in the abrogation or abandonment of the treaty. We are not dealing at all with the New Zealand aspect of the case nor with the importation of New Zealand butter. The house settled that matter a few days ago, and the government has decided to negotiate a separate treaty with New Zealand. So New Zealand is entirely out of the picture. We are dealing to-day with the Australian treaty and the Australian treaty alone.
I am completely against both the amendment and the subamendment, and if the suggestion that I have heard is true-I trust that it is not-that the government, working along the lines of least resistance or for the sake of political peace, might accept the subamendment, then I am against the government as well, and my position would indeed then be one of loneliness.
I am in favour of the Australian treaty and always have been, although I am not in favour of its extension to New Zealand. I should like to quote, if I may, three sentences from some remarks I made in the house on March 5, 1928. I said:
The National Dairy Association has presented three resolutions to the government. The first one asks that the Australian treaty as applied to New Zealand be cancelled. I am heartily in agreement with that.
I would pause there for a moment to point out that my attitude then was the same as my attitude a few weeks ago when I put a resolution on the order paper dealing with New Zealand butter. This gives contradiction to the statement made that my convictions in this matter were of new found origin of a few weeks ago. Quoting again from my remarks:
The second resolution asks that the dumping clause be applied on all butter sent from Australia to Canada either on direct sale or consignment as long as the Paterson scheme of bonusing exists. I agree with that suggestion and I will go further. I suggest that the dumping clause should be strengthened.
The third resolution asked that the Australian treaty be done away with altogether. I am flatly and entirely opposed to that.

Australian Treaty-Mr. Neill
Those were my sentiments in 1928, and they are my sentiments to-day-curiously enough.
A number of the British Columbia members who have spoken in this debate have asked for a revision of the treaty, and they have given as their reason, and quite properly so, their desire that Canada should get something better out of the treaty, should be able to sell more produce to Australia under it. It seems a somewhat roundabout way of trying to accomplish that object to move a motion of want of confidence in the government. We may presume that they are sincere in moving want of confidence, and if so, they must hope that it will carry. That is quite all right from their point of view. I myself have sometimes wished to see the government defeated. We will suppose that their object is achieved, that the government is defeated on the motion of want of confidence. It does not make a great deal of difference whether it is on the amendment moved by the Progressive group, who want to see the treaty abrogated, or whether it is on the motion of the official opposition, who want the treaty revised along certain lines. I ask you, sir, what would be the effect on the minds of the Australians if it were wired to them to-night or to-morrow morning that the government of Canada, and incidentally the government that passed the treaty, had been defeated on the Australian treaty. By the time the news got jumbled up on the wires it would not be clear, nor would it be of very great importance, to the people of Australia whether the government had been defeated on the amendment or on the subamendment, but the impression on their minds would undoubtedly be that Canada did not want the treaty, that Canada had asked for its abrogation or its revision, and that the government of the day had been defeated over that question.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: I do not think it will involve the defeat of the government.


Alan Webster Neill: They hope so. They say it
is going to carry. What are they voting for if they do not expect that? I ask you, sir, and the house, looking at the question from a sober point of view, so to speak, if Australia in that event would be likely to agree to a treaty that would be more favourable to Canada than the present one. If it is not going to be more favourable, why ask for a new treaty? The effect upon Australia would be especially bad when they found that the two parties in this house, who support these two amendments and particularly the members who introduced the two motions of want of confidence, both voted against the original treaty and that both have been fairly active in their condemnation of it ever since.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: May I ask a question?
When the Liberal whip proposed a subamendment the other evening and it was carried, the government was not defeated. Why should it be defeated now if the subamendment carries?


Alan Webster Neill: Because the subamendment moved the other evening was of such a character that the government could accept it, and I have not forgotten how hon. gentlemen opposite tried to raise a great constitutional crisis because the government, they claimed, had defeated themselves, by accepting that subamendment.
The hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) has suggested that we might, so to speak, placate or please the Australians by increasing the duties on the articles that we buy from them, and then give them a greater preference to help them out. I wonder what kind of a repercussion that meets with from my Progressive friends. It is not in line with the policies which they had adopted up to now. At all events, I suggest that the preferences granted to Australia now are already substantial enough, and if Australia is not benefiting by them, it is not the fault of the preferences. Here are some of the preferences that Australia receives:
Preference to Australia per lb.
Honey	
3e.	to	lc.Raisins	
3c.	to	0c.Lard	
2c.	to	0c.Tallow	
20% to 10%Cheese	
3c.	to	0c.Butter	
4c.	to	lc.Canned vegetables	
l-|c.	to	0c.Dried apples	
25% to 10%Fruits, pears, etc	
50c. to 25c.
per 100 lbs.
On sugar the rate varies according to the analysis, but Australia has a preference of something like 50 to 66 per cent.
It is true that Australia is not selling us these products in the volume they expected, but I submit that that is solely the fault of Australia. You can drive a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink. We have done our part, and it is now up to Australia to make the horse drink. Australia made the great mistake of thinking that the mere introduction of a favourable tariff was all sufficient to develop trade. It is not so, and never will be so. Their products are not put up in the style and package with which we are familiar, nor are their goods pushed by energetic salesmen, as is the case with the products of other countries. Australia will never penetrate our market until she realizes the need of competent salesmen, and the
99 i

Australian Treaty-Mr. Neill
necessity of putting up her goods in the style to which our market is used. It is all right for Canada to help Australia by extending the services of our trade agents and trade commissioners to her, but it is not our business to give Australia greater and greater preferences in order to try and force a market in this country for Australian goods, putting the consumers of Canada to very greatly increased expenditure in the purchase of these products. There is no need of that. They would want a still higher preference. The real solution is for Australia to take advantage of the very considerable and sufficient preference which she has got and develop the market in the way that any other alert nation would do.
Now, sir, I want to picture to the house, if 1 can, the conditions existing in Australia at the present time, and under which the hon. members who have introduced these amendments want us to abrogate the treaty or very seriously revise it. Australia, as the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) said, is in some respects dissatisfied with the result of the treaty. It has not worked out as she anticipated, she has not sold us the amount of produce she expected to do-particularly in the matter of raisins, which is a Very urgent question in that country-largely, as I have suggested, through lack of business initiative. You have got a dissatisfied country to deal with. Then let us consider the financial conditions in that country to-day. Australia is in a very bad economic condition, she has strikes and labour troubles of various kinds. Here is what the Trade and Commerce Journal for March 22, 1930, says:
All the banks-
"All," Mr. Speaker.
-are imposing a more stringent check upon the volume of imports to conserve their balances in London.
How are they imposing that more stringent check? As hon. members know, we are paid by the Australian importer, not in cash, but by a draft on London, and the banks in their efforts to stop our selling goods to Australia have raised the exchange prices so high that in some cases this paper states they are up to six per cent. Again I read:
Possibly,-
Nate that, Mr. Speaker.
Possibly, when drafts are paid, the collecting banks may remit a portion of the total.
They may. Say a man in Australia owes me $5,000, but I may get only a portion of that debt because the banks there in order to conserve their balances in London are restricting importations. In other words they are doling out, the available money. Such a condition has not been paralleled for many years. I recall a somewhat similar condition in the United States, I think in 1907, when money was so scarce there during a financial panic that if you took a cheque to your bank for payment out of your own funds they would ask "What are you going to do with the money?" And if you could not give them a wholly satisfactory reason, such as that you were paying wages, you would not be able to draw out your own money. There is a condition almost parallel with that now existing in Australia. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre admits that we are suffering no great injury from the operation of the Australian treaty, that is, in any particular class of trade; eggs are not coming in at all; butter is coming in, but to such a small extent from Australia that there is no complaint. In fact no harm is being done to us, instead we are getting great advantage from the treaty. But Australia is dissatisfied with the bargain they entered into, as we are selling them about six times as much as we are buying from them. Consequently they are unwilling to buy more from us, and their banks are doling out money in an effort to restrict their importations. Under those conditions we are going to that country with a demand-it is not a request-to abrogate the treaty or to get more favourable conditions for Canada. Under those circumstances what on earth can we expect the answer will be? They will tear the treaty up and throw it in our face. They will say: "We have been waiting for this opportunity, and now it has come." We cannot put forward the Oliver Twist proposition in a case like this. I do not think the opposition parties could have selected a worse moment to suggest a revision of the treaty. It is a short-sighted policy. If a man is working for a big company, and times are very bad, so bad that he is only working part time, he does not select that moment to kick about getting an increase of wages. We do not find fault with the culture of the fire brigade when our house is burning; we are only too willing to get the services at the moment.
I am asked, why should it be such a critical time for British Columbia? I will explain the position. There are several reasons and one of the most urgent at the moment is the condition of the lumber industry. It is on record to-day that the United States senate has voted to impose a duty of a dollar and a half a thousand on our lumber going into the States. That means a most terrible blow to our lumber interests in British Columbia.
Australian Treaty-Mr. Neill

More than that, I see to-day in the paper that I have just received from home that the marine freight rates from British Columbia have gone up substantially. So there is another disadvantage to the lumber industry. The suggestion is made that there is a vague chance that the dollar and a half increase voted by the senate of the United States may be eliminated, but it is highly unlikely that it will not be imposed. I should like to quote some wires I have received showing the way in which the lumber interests of British Columbia look at this matter. Here is one:
British Columbia lumber manufacturers view with alarm possibility of losing Australian market and sincerely hope you will do everything to support their movement to widen markets and create steady employment in the lumber industry.
That is signed by the secretary of the British Columbia Lumber Manufacturing Association, a very big body. Here is another one, in part:
This is very serious matter to British Columbia lumbermen who are finding great difficulty in marketing their product in world markets.	Increased lumber trade	with
antipodes will enable mills to operate steadily and provide employment thousands of workmen in your district. Seriously appealing to you to assist lumbermen at this time.
I have other wires but I need not read them. Here are some newspaper cuttings, most of them from the Daily Province, a Conservative journal and a very ably conducted one. This paper said not long ago that the Australian treaty was pumping lifeblood into British Columbia. This is from a recent editorial:
The Senate of the United States has voted a duty of $1.50 per board thousand upon softwood lumber imported into that country, and, if the tariff becomes law, Canada will be badly hit by it	
Canada sent $36,000,000 worth of lumber to
the United States in 1928	From the port
of Vancouver alone, in that year, we exported to the United States 95,000,000 feet board measure of our fir, cedar and hemlock lumber.
Here is a notice that the shingle mills are closing down to about 25 per cent of their capacity. Here is another statement:
United States tariff will wipe out lumber exports from Royal city.
That is the city of New Westminster.
. It will seriously affect the operators of mills in this city and will wipe out 80 to 95 per cent of their exports to the United States.
Here is another one:
Means heavy loss. Canada will lose approximately $2,000,000 per year, according to Van-

couver lumber interests. It is stated that such a tariff would prove a severe blow to the lumber industry in British Columbia and is certain to have an effect on the extent of operations in this province.
These are unbiased opinions from the press of the day. I submit, sir, that in this perilous condition of affairs it is no time for a change; as the saying is, it is no time to swap horses. To make a change now would be disastrous to all British Columbia, and more particularly, of course, to its coast industries. In my district it would affect our lumber industry, our sawmills, our paper industry, our pulp mills-because despite what my hon. friend from North Vancouver said, we have pulp mills, we have one or two so situated that they cannot economically make paper. By a continuance of this treaty our farmers will benefit, because they know what a splendid home market a logging camp makes; it will benefit our fishermen, who when they take the fish out of the water know it is going to Australia by reason of the tariff preference it enjoys under this treaty; it will benefit the coal miners, because steamers will bunker at the coal mines in our district if they have goods to take to Australia. So our workers are as much interested as the operators and the head men in the various industries. Almost any revision of the Australian treaty that might be granted by Australia would hurt Canada in some degree. I fully realize, and I want to emphasize this, that the lumber interests of British Columbia are very anxious to get preferential treatment under the tariff, but I am afraid, that if they throw the treaty into the melting pot now what they will get out of it will be this, not only will there be no preference for lumber, but we will lose some of the important advantages .that we now posesss. Certainly this is not the time to ask Australia for better tariff conditions. Perhaps if economic conditions in Australia improve, and they 'become more ready to receive imports than they are to-day, they might then be approached to put o-ur lumber on a preferential basis, but now is certainly not the time to go and ask for greater privileges.
Not only that, but there is the uncertainty that might result if the treaty were abrogated and negotiations set on foot for another treaty. The .government might be defeated, and with the present treaty abrogated we would be up in the air while the neiw treaty was being negotiated. That could not be done in six months. It took fifteen years to negotiate the present treaty. Added to the uncertainty, there is the danger that Australia may take umbrage and say: "We will eliminate the

Australian Treaty-Mr. Lucas
treaty altogether." Then it would take us a long time to get back even to the stage where we are at now.
I should like to quote again from my speech which I quoted earlier in my remarks. I said:
It may be said, and I have been accused of it before, that I have been making a protectionist speech. I care not what epithet is applied, I am only applying the principle of common sense to conditions as they happen to exist. I believe that like the Sabbath, the tariff was made for man and not man for the tariff. So much as regards the Australian treaty. My suggestions in that regard are: that we should keep the treaty for the benefit of the big industries of British Columbia and the workers thereof; that we should keep the dumping clause and strengthen it if necessary; that we should cancel the treaty as regards New Zealand. These are my own view's, I think they are the views of my constituents, and I challenge any member from British Columbia to say that the carrying out of such a policy would not inure to the general benefit of the province of British Columbia.
I take the same view to-day, sir; I invite every British Columbia member to forget party politics for the time being and unite against these two amendments, the first of which proposes to do away with the treaty altogether and the other proposing to revise it under conditions which will bring about practically the same result. I think we should take this action in the interests of the industries themselves, and of the workers in these industries. I think I am able to say that I express the feelings of the various industries in the district which I represent, the feelings of the workers, of the management and of those who provide the capital when I say we do not want to do anything which will jeopardize the Australian treaty at the present time.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: 
Alan Webster Neill: I am not a financial expert,
but I understand that the man buying the draft has to pay the exchange, and it seems to me that if he had to pay the 6 per cent it would increase the cost to him without making any difference to us.


Mr. LADNER:: I should like to ask the
hon. member one question before he sits down. What harm does he see in approaching Australia with the view of getting Australia to take more lumber from British Columbia,
especially in view of the fact that recently a commission from the province visited Australia? Why does he object to an effort being made to improve that phase of the treaty?


Alan Webster Neill: I take it that my hon. friend's inquiry is as to why I object to negotiating a treaty now?


Leon Johnson Ladner: I should like to know why you object to a revision of the treaty with regard to lumber and other commodities?


Alan Webster Neill: Because I suggest that present conditions are such that Australia is just itching to throw the treaty at us, and will make no revision for our benefit. If any revision is to be made it will have to be in favour of Australia. Conditions are so entirely unripe for us to ask for an increase to our own advantage; they are sore; they do not want imports; they are trying to stop them, and this is not the time for us to say, "We want more favours." The time for that is when conditions have become stabilized, when their goods are sold here and economic conditions are improved. If we do it now I fear the result will be the total elimination of the treaty for months and perhaps years.


Mr. W. T. LUCAS (Camrose):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words in support of the amendment which has been moved by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Gardiner), asking for the abrogation of the Australian treaty. Personally I have no objection to the making of any treaty having for its purpose the lowering of tariffs for the development of trade so long as such treaty is made on fair and equitable terms.
With regard to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens), I should like to say that while I might be in sympathy with the principle involved, that of negotiating a new treaty with our sister dominion on fair and equitable terms, under the circumstances I have no option but to vote against it just as on similar occasions we have been obliged to vote against similar amendments, because if we voted for the subamendment we would be precluded from voting for our own amendment, which I think is of primary importance at the present time. If the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Acadia were adopted it would not prevent this government from doing what is suggested in the subamendment of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, the Australian treaty was not negotiated on fair and equitable terms; agriculture was singled out and

Australian Treaty-Mr. Lucas
discriminated against in order to benefit industry generally. I presume in making any treaty it is necessary to adopt a give and take attitude, but in this case agriculture was asked to give all and take nothing. As a class the farmers are not antagonistic to industry, but we do believe that industry should be able to stand on its own feet. Personally 1 believe that Canada must be developed in no lopsided fashion, but that our basic industry of agriculture and the other great industries should be developed uniformly in the progress of the country. If, in order to develop industry generally, it must be allowed to ride on the backs of the farmers of this country, who are already bearing an overload, then I am absolutely opposed to any such practice.
In this treaty there is not one single thing which benefits the farmer; he gets no advantages in Australia or New Zealand, but is subjected to keen competition with the products of these countries in his own markets. We find that in order to negotiate this treaty the tariff on farm products was reduced; the tariff on fresh meats was reduced from 3 cents per pound to one-half cent; on eggs from 2 cents a dozen to free; on butter from 4 cents per pound to one cent; on honey from 3 cents to free; on tomatoes and vegetables from one and a half cents to free, and changes were made with regard to other commodities as well.
Some hon. members in this house representing agriculture have taken the stand that protection does not benefit the farmer. I am free to admit that under the general principle of protection the farmer does not gain the benefit which is afforded industry generally, but on those commodities in which the farmer is not on an export basis I am of the opinion that he does get a benefit. Evidently Australia had the same opinion; she accepted our manufactured products provided she could get her agricultural products into Canada, and therefore she must have thought it would be an advantage to her farmers.
I find that not only are the dairy farmers complaining; I have received letters from the Southern Alberta Sheep Breeders' Association and from the Western Live Stock Growers' Association, which I will not take time to read because I presume other hon. members have received) copies also. However, they go on to point out the increasing importations not only of dairy products but also of mutton and beef into this country from Australia and New Zealand. We find that the United States tariff is being raised to such an extent as practically to close those markets not only to Canada but to the world at large,

which means that we will be shut out of the markets in the United States which we have enjoyed in the past, and from the increased importations into Canada from New Zealand and Australia in the last year it would seem that these two countries have been preparing for this condition and have been trying to develop a market in Canada. Therefore, now that the United States tariff has been increased, we may expect further increases in the products imported into Canada from Australia and New Zealand.
It is true that wheat has been the chief product of western Canada, but I think every hon. member realizes that the future for wheat growing is none too promising. As the hon. member for Red) Deer (Mr. Speakman) pointed out yesterday in his very able speech, during the last five years the wheat acreage of the four great wheat producing countries has increased by 20,000,000 acres, and in addition we find that the European countries, because of their economic conditions and in order to avoid sending money out of their countries, which they cannot afford to do, are making every effort to stimulate production within their own boundaries. I should like to give the tariffs imposed by these countries against the importation of wheat. As we know, the United States tariff is 42 cents per bushel; in France it is 53 cents; in Germany 61| cents, and in Italy 73 cents. In addition we find that French millers are compelled <to use 97 per cent of domestic wheat in making flour, and in Germany the millers are compelled to use 50 per cent of their own wheat. Further than that, these countries give a bonus on the export of wheat, so under these circumstances what are the future prospects of 'Canadian wheat being able to find) a ready market in these countries?
In these circumstances the natural tendency is to turn more and more to mixed farming. Only a few days ago we were given to understand that the Department of Agriculture had called a conference of farmers from various parts of Canada to discuss a production campaign. I believe the opinion of the farmers to be that while they are ready to do everything to increase production, they are becoming discouraged. They cannot help thinking, " What is the use of producing unless we are sure that we are going to get at least the cost of production out of it," and when they find their own markets left open to the dumping of the same commodities from all parts of the world, it is hard to get them to undertake a larger production campaign at the present time. They feel they should at least have some preference in their own markets.

Australian Treaty-Mr. Lucas
A great deal has been said about the imports of butter, and a few minutes ago the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) stated that those imports were insignificant. The viewpoint taken in regard to this tariff question seems to depend largely on whose ox is being gored. In 1925 the imports of butter amounted to 198,341 pounds, while, as a result of this Australian treaty, they had increased in 1929 to 35,928,249 pounds.


Alan Webster Neill: I was speaking definitely
about Australia; the hon. member is adding the imports from New Zealand. He might as well include Belgium or any other country.


William Thomas Lucas: When we ask for the abrogation of the Australian treaty we include the abrogation of the New Zealand treaty which was brought into effect by order in council.


Alan Webster Neill: That is a separate matter.


William Thomas Lucas: It is well understood that
when Canada negotiated a treaty with Australia each country extended to the other certain advantages in respect to lowered tariff. New Zealand asked that the same advantages should be extended to her, and by order in council 1757 the Australian treaty was made applicable to New Zealand.


Alan Webster Neill: The doing away with the Australian treaty will not cancel Canada's obligation to New Zealand; that is a separate agreement.


William Thomas Lucas: The agreement states that
subject to the provisions of the customs tariff of 1907, the governor in council may by order in council extend the advantages to the goods, produce and manufacture of any British country. If there were no treaty with Australia there would be no basis for an agreement with New Zealand.
In 1925 the importations of meat and meat products amounted to $4,264,076, but by 1929 that figure had increased to $5,904,979. Those are the figures for the imports from all countries, but it will be found that the imports from Australia and New Zealand have been increasing very rapidly for the last few years. On top of all this, the farmer has been compelled to pay more for his raisins, so is it any wonder that he is complaining? He is faced with competition in his own market and forced to pay higher prices for those commodities which he has to buy.
As I said before, this tariff question seems to be a matter of whose ox is being gored. I could not agree with the hon. member for East Calgary (Mr. Adshead) when he stated a short time ago that labour was in a different position from that of the cow. The
attitude of the Labour members in this house has been to protect labour through keeping out of the country the large influx of labour which desires (to come here. I do not blame them for taking that attitude, but is there any difference in protecting the farmers? The farmer's reward is the price he obtains for his products, and I think the farmer is asking only for that protection asked for by the Labour party.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Labour which is imported into Canada becomes part of the citizenship and national life of the country; cows do not.


William Thomas Lucas: I am putting it upon the basis of a cow; the farmer has to get his reward from the cow. Surely the farmer becomes just as good a citizen of this country as does the labour man and has just as good a right to a fair reward for his labour.
A few days ago when a resolution was introduced into the house by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote) asking for a reduction of the tariff on motor trucks, to which an amendment was moved by the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) that the debate be adjourned because he did not have sufficient information, the hon. member for Wey-burn (Mr. Young) supported that amendment till he also could get further information. The result, of course, was to retain the tariff. I think all hon. members are agreed that the tariff on motor trucks and motor oars is much too high.


Mr. YOUNG (Weyburn):: What was the amendment to which my hon. friend refers?


William Thomas Lucas: I think the hon. member is familiar with the resolution moved by the hon. member for Macleod, asking for a reduction of the tariff on motor trucks.


Edward James Young: What was the amendment to that resolution to which my hon. friend referred?


William Thomas Lucas: The amendment was moved by the hon. leader of the opposition that the debate be adjourned on the ground that he did not have sufficient information; nor did my hon. friend (Mr. Young, Weyburn), have sufficient information although he had been talking about free trade for all these years. When this question was up for debate a few days ago he defended the New Zealand treaty, and then turned around and voted to revise that treaty. If that treaty is revised, what other class of goods can we get from New Zealand except farm products?


Edward James Young: How did my hon. friend vote on that occasion?

Australian Treaty-Mr. Lucas


William Thomas Lucas: The hon. member can obtain that information by reference to the votes and proceedings. My hon. friend seemed to be bitterly disappointed about hon. members in this section of the house sacrificing their principles, and yet I find that he is supporting a government which is taxing the people on other commodities of life just as esesntial as is butter. What has he done to have the tariff reduced on wearing apparel, boots and shoes, and things of that kind which are absolute necessities. We have a tariff of 30 per cent on boots and shoes, 30 per cent on clothing, 35 per cent on woollen goods-surely the people of western Canada require woollen clothing-30 per cent on furniture and 35 per cent on enamel ware.


Mr. STEVENS:: Does the 'Consumers' League support those tariffs?


William Thomas Lucas: It is evidently supporting the government which keeps those tariffs in effect.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is terrible.


William Thomas Lucas: I believe that the representatives of western Canada all have been sincere in advocating lower tariffs and freer trade, and yet they sit in with and take responsibility for a government which has not been able to reduce those tariffs. Is it any wonder that the farmers of Canada are losing hope of obtaining any reduction?


Edward James Young: At least we have not come to the point where we ask the government to increase the duties.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The government does it.


An hon. MEMBER:: What about raisins?


William Thomas Lucas: I would like to call attention also to the composition of the cabinet.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Where are they?


William Thomas Lucas: In that cabinet are four outstanding men from, western Canada who I believe are sincere and who possess ability, and of that four, two were former leaders of the Progressive movement. One would think that when those men got into the cabinet there would have been some lowering of the tariff.
In my opinion the proper way to deal with this question is to adopt a common sense attitude. I heard a very prominent gentleman from western Canada, a strong advocate of free trade, state that he was convinced that if we were going to hold confederation together we would have to have a tariff in this country. When one looks over the rates of duties imposed by Canada from confederation down to the present time, it will be found that the rate of duty has remained fairly stationary, but for the information of my

hon. friends I would tell them that it is to-day a little higher than it was when the present government came into office. To save the .putting of these figures on Hansard, I would refer hon. members to pages 10, 11 and 12 of Trade of Canada. It will be a good education for them to look over those figures, because they will find that the average rate of duty has remained almost static since confederation, irrespective of which party has been in power.


Mr. BROWN:: The average rate.


William Thomas Lucas: The hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) would be very glad to use these rates, to show that high tariffs existed under other governments.


John Livingstone Brown: The hon. member for Lisgar is not guilty of basing his argument upon averages.


Mr. IRVINE:: He had better not.


William Thomas Lucas: I am of the opinion that the farmers still believe in the principle of free trade; I believe in that principle myself, but if we are going to have tariff then let it be administered fairly. It has been stated that we were breaking one of the planks in the platform of the Canadian Council of Agriculture.
I would like to suggest that there was also in that platform a plank on prohibition and yet we find to-day two farmer governments in western Canada are administering liquor laws. Nevertheless I believe the farmers of western Canada are just as strong to-day as ever in favour of prohibition but because of the situation they find this the most practical way to deal with the matter.


John Livingstone Brown: Is the hon. member aware
that those laws were brought in by referendum of the people?


Charles Avery Dunning: The debate has wandered far afield from the amendment and subamendment before the house. When it reaches prohibition, I think it is time to raise a point of order.


William Thomas Lucas: It was just on account of
criticisms which have been levelled against this group that I was developing my argument along those lines.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is going home, all
right.


William Thomas Lucas: Yes. I should like to give
another illustration. I believe the hon. gentlemen-and I was one of them-who voted the other night to establish a divorce court in Ontario, were just as much opposed to the principle of divorce and just as much in favour

Australian Treaty-Mr. Dickie
of maintaining the sanctity of the home as those who voted against it but we have divorce and have to deal with it. So it is with protection; I believe the farmer? of Canada are still opposed to the principle of protection, but they realize that Canada has a tariff with no hope of it being lowered and they then insist that it be administered on a basis of equality, or as near equality as can be, for all concerned.


Mr. C. H. DICKIE (Nanaimo):: Mr. Speaker, I rise for a moment or two to correct a false impression which may go abroad with respect to some remarks that were made yesterday afternoon in the course of a very able address by the hon. member for Hants-Kings (Mr. Ilsley). He claimed that because a very important member of the Conservative party had insisted that the Australian treaty should be -abrogated, our party was practically put on record as being in favour of abrogating that treaty. I do not think that is much of an argument, but it seems to be more or less accepted by those who were paying attention to his speech. You might just as well ask hon. members from the province of Quebec whether they were bound by what the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) said when he sounded the death knell of protection. We on this side of the house have views of our own; we are not blind driven cattle. Although there ai-e on this side of the house some who may favour the abrogation of the Australian treaty, a majority on the Conservative side are absolutely opposed to that action.
With respect to the advice so nicely handed out by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill), I should like to ask that hon. gentleman to confine his attention to his own constituency, because that is about as far as his vision has ever extended in the house- that and keeping the government in power. We hon. members from Vancouver island quite realize what we are doing and whether it is good politics or not we are trying in a large way to do something for the Dominion of Canada besides trying to keep ourselves in power. If that hon. gentleman could only extract a little pleasure out of some of his remarks, he might be excused, but he seems to make himself more miserable every time he says anything. In the tepid waters of the southern Pacific ocean there is a petulant fish known as the stingaree. If you happen to tread on that fish it will sting you. If it cannot sting you, it gets so angry it stings itself. I am sometimes reminded of that fish.
I see nothing dangerous in the amendment to the amendment moved by the Conservative side of the house in regard to the Australian treaty. It is simply an expression of opinion
that an endeavour be made to see whether a more equitable treaty cannot be entered into. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni tells of the consternation of the lumbering people of Vancouver island. Our United States friends shipped $12,000,000 worth of lumber to the Antipodes, to Australia, while we of British Columbia shipped only a measly $141,000 worth last year. We want to see whether we cannot obtain some concession from those people in order to enable us to ship more of our lumber to Australia, especially in view of the fact that the United States have practically told us that we cannot ship them lumber, because that is what the duty of $1.50 on rough lumber means.
The hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) pointed out certain advantages that might accrue to Australia by a revision of the treaty. We wish not to abrogate the treaty but to try to do something for Australia, for empire trade. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre pointed out where we might do something in the matter of importing hides from that country and he indicated how that might accrue to their advantage. He also showed how we might confer immense advantage on that country by buying their dried fruits instead of those of the United States who are milking us dry year after year of an immense amount of money which should be distributed throughout the British Empire. He also told us we might import sugar from Australia. There are many things that might enter into a discussion of a revision of this treaty and that would amply justify such a revision. If the Australian people, as the hon. member for Comox-Alberni suggests, are ready to throw up this treaty, they would give us six months' notice and throw it up to-morrow. There is no danger of that. We can enter into negotiations with those people in the friendliest spirit in an endeavour to do something which is good for empire trade and which will keep our money within the empire.
When this treaty was entered into with Australia, we were not in favour of all its clauses, but I think none of us voted against it when it was put to a vote in the house. We thought then as we think now, that agriculture paid the whole bill for the treaty. We thought a treaty could be arranged whereby the agriculturists of Canada would not be penalized as heavily as they were in order that we of the Pacific coast might receive a few concessions. However, we debated that question and we were unable to have the treaty arranged along any different lines. We all know when that splendid gentleman, Mr. COMMONS
Australian Treaty-Mr. Dickie
Robb, who has departed from us, came back from Australia, he had different views with respect to the treaty. If we then had passed a tariff such as good economic sense would dictate, a tariff of eight cents a pound on butter against the world and especially against the United States, we could have given Australia a concession which would have been satisfactory to them and still not have had the effect of destroying, as the treaty extended to New Zealand has done, the dairy business of Canada. In an excellent speech made by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Speakman)-and I would advise the hon. member for Comox-Alberni to study that hon. gentleman's speech and see whether he cannot make one somewhat along the same lines because it was a speech full of kindness to all concerned-


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: I would
suggest the hon. member might sting himself before he got through.


Charles Herbert Dickie: No. In a very excellent
speech the hon. member for Red Deer gave expression to views with which we are perhaps at variance, but his remarks were made in such a delightful manner that one could not but admire his sincerity, although one might, in one's self conceit, deplore his economic views. That speech, however, made a great impression upon me and reminded me of a point which I have forgotten. That is all I wish to saj' on the question. I am absolutely opposed to abrogating the Australian treaty, to doing anything to antagonize those people against the people of British Columbia or Canada. Our opinion on this side of the house is that the amendment to the amendment does not do that; it asks simply that a treaty be entered into which will confer greater advantages upon Australians as well as upon ourselves. If as a result of the amendment to the amendment the government were to go out of power- and I have no thought that such will be the case-I do not think Canada would suffer to any great extent.
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, the amendment which was moved to the motion to go into supply by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Gardiner) representing the groups in the southeast corner, is of course a definite want of confidence motion, but it expresses, according to those who have supported it, their desires with respect to the subject matter of it. The sponsors of the amendment desire that the Australian treaty should be abrogated forthwith and they base their contention upon the 
idea that the Australian treaty at present existing imposes a hardship on agriculture as an industry for the benefit of other industries and they quote in support of their argument a great many figures and references from the treaty itself. I propose in that connection to apply the practical test rather than the theoretical test. Has the Australian treaty injured agriculture in Canada? The answer to that question will be found, of course, in the answer to another question. Have the imports of agricultural products from Australia been of such a character and in such volume as injuriously to affect agriculture in this Dominion? I have before me the statistics of the trade of Canada, and I can best illustrate by quoting directly from the import figures from Australia during the last fiscal year, ending March 31, 1929. I shall quote all of ithe articles which could even conceivably be considered to come into competition with any branch of Canadian agriculture or horticulture. I will give ithe figures in round numbers:
Value of Importations from Australia in Fiscal Year ending March 31, 1929
Apples	 $	91
Grapes	 5,000
Other fresh fruits	 2,000
Canned fruits	 93,000
Onions	 18,000
Peas	 280
Seeds	 27
Beef	 97,000
Mutton	 377,000
Butter	 93,000
Raw wool	 136,000
That comprises the full list of articles which we imported from Australia in the fiscal year 1929 which could in any sense be argued to come into competition with any branch of Canadian agriculture. I wish to ask the members of this house if they deem these imports, to the values that I have read, injuriously to affect Canadian agriculture to such a degree as to warrant the abrogation of the treaty. I am certain, Mr. Speaker, that the workmen engaged in the industries, the lumber industry, the motor industry, and all the other industries which were exporting to Australia in the same year under the treaty, consumed far more of the same products than were imported from Australia in that year; in fact, the very trade which was developed in Canada under this treaty produced a greater market in Canada for the agricultural commodities that we imported from Australia than Australia itself supplied. It increased the demand for the products of the Canadian farm and the Canadian orchard.
Let us look at the history of this treaty, again from a practical point of view. It is

Australian Treaty-Mr. Dunning
easy to argue questions of theory in regard to such matters, but we have in this particular case the practical experience of the operation of the treaty which has now been in existence for a period of fifty-three months. To the end of February last was fifty-three months from the date of coming into force of the Australian treaty. I have here the figures which indicate in a practical wiay the results of that treaty so far as trade is concerned. I find that during the period in which the treaty has been in force we have sold to Australia, 877,000,000 worth of goods and Australia has sold to us $20,900,000 worth; in other words, in fifty-three months of operation of the treaty, Canada has sold to Australia, $56,000,000 worth of goods more than Australia has sold to Canada. That is to say, month by month we have sold $1,000,000 worth of goods more to Australia than Australia has sold to us. That is the practical result of the treaty as a whole, and I may say frankly to my hon. friends in the corner who desire the abrogation of the treaty that the government is not prepared to give any encouragement at all either in this house or in the country to the idea that parliament favours the abrogation of the treaty.
The Australian treaty, as was indicated in the addresses to which we have listened in this debate, was negotiated by my predecessor in office. Every treaty, of course, is subject to criticism. It is subject to criticism for the reason that in order to arrange a treaty to sell our goods, we must also be willing to consider buying goods from the same country, and it is not possible, as my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) argued, to reach that perfect position wheTe we can always export those things which the other country does not produce and always import those things which we do not produce. That is a counsel of perfection which never has been attained in any trade treaty negotiations with any country in the world so far as I am aware. We may endeavour to approach it as near as we can, and it is in that regard a counsel of perfection.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is all I suggested, of course.


Charles Avery Dunning: The Australian treaty
was extended to New Zealand by order in council. I do not wish to get out of order, Mr. Speaker, by traversing the ground of a previous debate, but it is in order, I believe, for me to give figures respecting the operation of the Australian treaty as a whole, as respects not only Australia, but Australia and New Zealand combined. I find that we have exported to New Zealand during the fiftythree months of operation of the Australian treaty $69,000,000 worth of goods, and that we have purchased from New Zealand $40,000,000 worth, but as I indicated in a previous debate the government of Canada and the government of New Zealand are prepared to endeavour to work out a direct treaty as between Canada and New Zealand.
With respect to the Australian treaty, numerous interests in Canada representing industries other than those which specifically benefit under the treaty have on various occasions approached my colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm) with a view to opening negotiations with Australia for the extension of Canadian trade in those particular products. The Department of Trade and Commerce exists primarily for the extension of Canadian trade, and through the medium of the organization directed by that department every effort is constantly being made to extend Canadian trade not only with Australia but with all parts of the world. Notable success has been met with in the case of Australia, for during the past twelve months there has been a marked improvement in the shipment of Canadian lumber to Australia and New Zealand, an improvement which we hope and believe can be augmented in the years to come. We do not propose in connection with Australia or in connection with New Zealand to intimate either to Australia or to New Zealand that we do not want to trade with them. We do not propose that any indication shall go out to Australia, through the press or otherwise, that the Canadian parliament desires to abrogate the Australian treaty. We might conceivably be able to negotiate something better, but we are not taking the position that we desire to abrogate this treaty. With such a balance of trade in our favour as I have indicated, no government could possibly, in the interests of its own people, indicate a desire to terminate an arrangement which has worked out so satisfactorily for its own people.
Now I come to the Conservative subamend-men.t. It is very skilfully worded, worded, of course, having in mind the known policy of the government in relation to matters of this kind, but quite contrary, may I suggest, to many of the speeches from Conservative members to which we have listened in this house in past sessions, and certainly quite contrary to the propaganda which has been spread from one end of Canada to the other, outside of British Columbia, by the Conservative party with respect to the Australian treaty. As my hon. friend from Hants-Kings (Mr. Usley) said last night, the financial critic of the opposition, the hon. member for South

Australian Treaty-Mr. Dunning
Wellington (Mr. Guthrie), speaking in that capacity in the budget debate of only last year, demanded the abrogation of the Australian treaty. Now this year we are faced with a subamendment moved by my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre worded in such a way that the Conservative party may avoid expressing an opinion as to whether or not the Australian treaty should be abrogated. That subamendment is moved for the purpose of extricating the Conservative party from the dilemma of having to pronounce yes or no on the question of the abrogation of the treaty, which is what the motion of my hon. friend for Acadia (Mr. Gardiner) asks for. No word at all of its policy in the past in that regard. All of the speeches to which we have listened with respect to this subamendment have emanated from hon. members of the Conservative party from British Columbia. We have heard no word whatever from the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Senn), from the hon. member for Dufferin-Simeoe (Mr. Rowe), practically the whole of whose speeches the other day on the New Zealand trade agreement were equally applicable in other parts of Canada as against the Australian treaty. The same arguments have been used all over Canada outside British Columbia by my friends opposite denouncing the Australian treaty.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we on this side, in the interests of reasonable discussion and reasonable understanding on the part of the people of Canada of what'we do here, deem it desirable that this house should definitely place itself on record either for or against abrogation of the Australian treaty. If we accept and support the subamendment moved by my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) on behalf of the Conservative party, we deliberately deprive this house of the opportunity of expressing its will with respect to the abrogation of the Australian treaty. We do not propose, sir, to be placed in that position. My hon. friend's subamendment is of course equally a want of confidence motion. The fact that it expresses in very simple language agreement .in the policy of the present government is not the point. The point is that the adoption of the subamendment would enable this house to evade expressing by a direct vote its opinion as to whether or not the Australian treaty should be abrogated. For that reason, sir, the government cannot accept the subamendment. The government desires to see this house go on record definitely, so the people of Australia may know to what extent the people of Canada really desire to continue trade relations with them under the 
treaty, to what extent the people of Canada through their representative desire its abrogation.
That, I think, Mr. Speaker, is all I have to say at the present time except this, that the work which has been done by the officers of the Department of Trade and Commerce, and by various delegations from Canada which have visited Australia in recent months and recent years, encourages us to believe that the experience which both countries have secured through this treaty, which took so many long years to negotiate, is of a character which will encourage both countries to endeavour more and more to trade with each other. We on this side of the house are desirous that this trade should be extended, and we are certainly not in favour of saying to Australia that we do not desire to trade with her.


William Irvine: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentlemen who have spoken from this side of the house have, I think, made it very clear why the motion for the abrogation of the treaty was made. I do not believe it is necessary to recapitulate the arguments in that regard. I desire rather to make reply to some of the references made by hon. gentlemen opposite to hon. members in this section of the house. First let me say that I am not surprised at the reply which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) has just made to the arguments advanced by hon. gentlemen who have preceded me in this section of the' house. It is to be expected that the Minister of F'inance, being a member of the government which negotiated the treaty, would have more regard for the treaty than he has for the people affected by it, because the reputation of his administration is involved in the treaty. No wonder the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) runs away when he recognizes that fact.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


An hon. MEMBER:: He never runs away.


William Irvine: The minister tells us that
he is going to come down to the technical side of the argument, and he proceeds to give us certain lists of figures. In his first list he leaves out New Zealand, of course, and then he places his emphasis upon the smallness of the amount of import trade involved, that we have purchased so little from Australia and we have sold so much to her; and thus having a treaty that gives us an excellent, favourable balance of trade, it would be a shame indeed to abrogate it. I am surprised that the Minister of Finance should hold such views about trade balances as he expressed, although on second consideration, I recall that he regards a bank as

Australian Treaty-Mr. Irvine
a place where you can keep money safely. I think he might as well say that the ocean is a splendid place to keep water wet. Well, an hon. gentleman who has that conception of finance may have any kind of conception about trade. There is no such thing as a favourable balance of trade; apart from the expressions of the minister it has no meaning in so far as Canada is concerned-none whatsoever. He leaves out, I say, in his first list of figures the New Zealand part, but brings it in later and points out that during the period of the trade arrangement with that country we bought nearly $40,000,000 of goods: Now, a $40,000,000 market to the dairy industry of Canada during the last few months would have been of very great importance. We cannot disregard a market of that extent so carelessly as the Minister appears to do. However, the ultimatum has gone forth:	Nothing shall be considered
in the way of abrogating this treaty; the amount purchased from Australia and New Zealand at the expense of the agricultural industry of Canada does not matter; let it be known that certain great industries of Canada have benefited by the sacrifice of the agricultural industry; therefore the treaty must be continued.
I can understand the position of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill). He makes it clear without any equivocations at all. There are certain industries benefited by this treaty, and they happen to be in his province. Naturally he speaks for them. I disagree with him, however, when he points out that the amendment is a want of confidence in the government. The amendment is a want of confidence in the Australian treaty. So far as I am concerned, I am quite willing to vote want of confidence in the Australian treaty, and the next moment vote that this government stay where it is until the proper time, 1931, and then go to the people again. I am not seeking to defeat the government. I am seeking to express lack of confidence in the Australian treaty, and to that extent the remarks of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni were beside the point. He is very much interested apparently in what Australia may think about what we say regarding the treaty; he is not so much interested in the farmers who are suffering because of it.
Now, the Australian treaty of course is an agreement made in respect of trade between the governments of Canada and Australia, an agreement mutually arrived at. On the one hand, Australia agreed to reduce tariff on certain commodities imported from Canada; in return Canada agreed to reduced tariffs on certain commodities coming into Canada from 2419-64
Australia. Our government at that time was in a rather difficult political position. Having been elected on a platform of tariff reduction, revision of the tariff downwards with a view to free trade, it was of course anxious to get some excuse that could be used in election time as pointing towards specific tariff reductions. At the same time the government was being pressed by certain industries for an increase of tariff. So the Australian treaty appeared as a solvent of this political puzzle, for the advantages given to our protected interests were equivalent to increases in the tariff; and the reductions which were made on commodities produced by a class that has expressed itself in favour of tariff reduction. Therefore the government said; These people, the farmers, want tariff reduction; we will give them tariff reduction; they have four per cent protection on butter, we will reduce it to one cent and see how they like free trade when they get it; and in return for that we will secure further privileges in foreign markets for our manufacturers who already are protected very highly in Canada. Thus they placed the farmer at a greater disadvantage than before, because in exchanging his product of butter for commodities manufactured by our protected industries he would have three cents a pound disadvantage greater than previously. So the government when it is asked at the next election:	"How much have you reduced
the tariff; were you not elected to do that?" must reply to the farmers: "We reduced the tariff three cents a pound on butter coming from Australia."
Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to make it very clear that I am not asking for the abrogation of the Australian treaty on the ground that Australia got a better bargain than we did. So far as the two countries are concerned the bargain may be fair; I have not gone inito that phase of the matter. I am objecting to the treaty because it implies class discrimination, as the treaty affects certain classes in Canada.
Thait is the basis of our objection to it, and apparently that point escaped the hon. member for Hants-Kings (Mr. Ilsley) yesterday, when he extolled the treaty because it increased trade and especially because it increased the sale of nails and fish in the maritime provinces. I wonder whether, in the early period of our industrial development, when child labour was in vogue, it could not have been said that child labour increased trade, but what a standard of statesmanship that is. If the manufacturers of the maritime provinces are so anxious to increase trade, let them reduce the price of their nails. They can give nails away, if they wish, and



Australian Treaty-Mr. Irvine
that will increase trade still further. If it is merely an increase in trade that the hon. gentleman wants he can get it in that way, but such an increase of trade surely would not be regarded by him as sound economics. Neither is it sound economics to increase trade with Australia in the way in which that has been done.
While I am referring to the remarks of the hon. member for Hants-Kings I should like to comment upon another observation which he made. Directing his remarks to the representatives of the United Farmers of Alberta in particular, he said he had envied the independence displayed by hon. members of the United Farmers of Alberta group in this house until some hon. member on this side said that as the representative of an organized agricultural community he must represent the voice of that community. That was too much for the hon. gentleman. What to him was the voice of the people; what to him were the boasted tenets of historic and theoretical Liberalism? They are no more to him, apparently, than the reddening of the rose or the swing of Pliades to Millet's Man With the Hoe. What would he have us do? There are only two other courses, so far as I am aware, that he or any other member of the house could take. One course would be to follow, the party, to be a blind slave of the plutocratic class which dictates the policy of the party. That is one way, but there is another; my hon. friend could disregard everyone and stand up in this house expressing only what he thinks. That is the very acme of autocracy, but even if the hon. gentleman desired to do so surely he would not tell us that there is a community in Canada which thinks what he has to say so wise that they will indemnify him just for the privilege of hearing him say it on the floor of this house. With all due respect to his wisdom that is not a very safe basis of representation. The only other course is to represent the people who send us here, and in this regard also I think the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) misunderstood the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Gardiner), when the former described the latter as having defended his right to change his principles. The hon. member for Acadia did no such thing although, if it be necessary to change principles, we are not afraid to do so. The hon. member merely established the fact that from the very beginning this group worked under a very different principle from that followed by the hon. member for Lisgar when he sat in this corner of the house.
In reply to the hon. member for Hants-Kings I might say that I regard myself as a delegate of my constituents, and I regard

that as the highest function that can be fulfilled by any hon. member of this house. In trying to be such a delegate I would rather fail in trying to do some things than succeed in doing certain other things; I would rather fail in trying to be a delegate of the United Farmers of Alberta than succeed in being a thoroughly complacent and amiable partisan. May I add that I am free to serve the people who send me here, while a partisan is bound to serve the party system, the thing which sent him here. The party system is the thing which stands between hon. gentlemen apposite, who have criticized us in this regard, and the people they are supposed to represent.
The discussion on the amendment before the house has stirred up the musty arguments for and against the tariff, which cover a period of history from Adam Smith down to Stephen Leacock, who wisely made a huge joke of the "dismal science." The treaty itself is indeed a commodious umbrella under which free trader and protectionist alike can find shelter. The protectionist can argue with a great deal of force that in raising the tariff on raisins and thus increasing the price of raisins to the consumers in Canada he was true to the protectionist principle. He could also argue that in bartering with certain interests of Canada for certain privileges to the manufacturers in Canada, he was also in line with the protectionist principle. On the other hand, if he wishes to pose as an advocate of free trade or reduced tariffs, then he can argue that since he removed 3 cents from the duty on butter, he also is a free trader, and sio as I say the treaty does not lend itself to either of the contending parties. Both may stand under it if they so desire, and I could not possibly say whether or not the treaty as a whole is more favourable to the theories of the Liberal or Conservative parties, just as I cannot say whether the hon. member for Lisgar is more free trader than protectionist because of his support not only of this treaty but of a government which is manifestly protectionist.
In this connection I am reminded of an editorial which appeared recently in the Ottawa Citizen, headed "Mulberry Bush of Politics." The editorial begins by saying:
There is more fruitless discussion of tariff protectionism than of any other subject in Canadian politics.
Then it goes on to quote and comment upon certain statements made by the leaders of *both parties in this country. The first statement quoted is a very liberal statement by the leader of the opposition, in which he said:
A policy to give fair treatment, equal opportunity in competition with the peoples of the world, for the protection of agriculture, labour, industry and the consumer.

Australian Treaty-Mr. Irvine
Then the editorial goes on to quote a protectionist statement by a member of the Liberal government as follows:
Free trade is all right in theory, if countries did not erect impassable tariff walls around them. I am not afraid to say and use the word, that in a country which is excluded from the markets of another country, the tariff may legitimately be used in a reasonable way to protect the rights of the consumer and also for protection of the industries of that country so that these industries may have a right to their own market.
There you have the mulberry bush of politics. In that connection I believe there is a story of a strange way in which the foxes of Manitoba capture the turkeys. I do not vouch for the accuracy of the story itself, but I do vouch for the accuracy of its application. It is said that when the turkeys in Manitoba go to the tops of the trees in the evening to roost, they are sometimes captured by the foxes, which come to the foot of the tree, take their tails in their mouths and roll around and around the tree. The turkeys become so giddy after watching the foxes roll around the tree that they fall down, and are easily captured. It appears to me that the hon. member for Lisgar has been sitting at the top of the mulberry bush of tariff discussion and that he has watched and listened to the circumlocutions of his friends to such an extent that he has become giddy and fallen down to become the easy prey of his adversaries. He wants to be generous with regard to dairy products; he wants to salve his political conscience with butter. He has not been able to reduce the tariff on anything else, and so he dabs butter on his conscience and tries to make himself satisfied with that sort of thing. He suggests that those engaged in the dairy industry are incapable of speaking for themselves. I hope he will not charge me again with misquoting him; rather, I am interpreting him. He stands up to speak for the dairy industry, and says that they do not know what they want when they ask for the abrogation of the treaty; that apparently they are suffering from some kind of mental strain; that he knows better than they know what they want, and he knows they do not want any protection at all. When we in this corner of the house recognize the appeal of organized agriculture the hon. member for Lisgar charges us with apostasy. In doing that he reminds me of the story about the man crying "stop thief." The hon. gentleman is trying to direct the attention of the country away from himself. That word apostasy, like some of the hon. gentleman's opinions, belongs to the dark ages. It does not savour even of theoretic Liberalism, not 2419-64J
to mention Progressive philosophy. My hon. friend will have to accept either the word "apostasy" or something worse as descriptive of his own position. It is quite possible that a man who had changed his views might be dubbed an apostate, but there are worse words than that. If he believed in what he said when he was on this side of the house, then he is now an apostate; if he did) not believe what he said at that time he is worse than an apostate, and I will leave the house to supply the proper word to describe him. I presume I would be out of order if I spoke that word.
Let us see what my hon. friend was elected to do. According to the new national policy, which was apparently still born, he believed in the following:
We believe that the best interests of the empire and of Canada would he served by reciprocal action on the part of Canada through gradual reduction of the tariff on British imports, having for its objects closer union and a better understanding between Canada and the motherland, and at the same time bring about a great reduction in the cost of living to our Canadian people.
And in dealing with definite tariff demands, it says:
By reducing the customs duties on goods imported from Great Britain to one-half the rates charged under the general tariff, and that further gradual, uniform reductions be made in the remaining tariff on British imports that will ensure complete free trade between Great Britain and Canada in five years.


Henry Herbert Stevens: How long ago was that?


William Irvine: That was in 1918; I am
afraid the five years are up.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. Minister of
Railways (Mr. Crerar) was there also.


William Irvine: The hon. Minister of Railways was the leader of that new national policy; now he is the chaser of it. Let me point out what the hon. member for Lisgar did in that regard. A subamendment to the budget was moved last year by an hon. member from the farmers' group, urging upon the government the consideration of an immediate and substantial increase of the British preference as a step towards freer trade relations between Canada and other nations. That subamendment was moved on April 9, 1929. The vote upon the subamendment appears at page 1465 of last year's Hansard, and the name of the hon. member for Lisgar appears in the list of nays. That vote was cast in the face of the declaration which I have just read. Then the hon. gentleman has the audacity to stand up in this house and shout "apostasy" to hon. members across the aisle.

Australian Treaty-Mr. Irvine
His efforts in defending himself in supporting the government remind me of an old parlour game which no doubt many hon. members of the house have seen played. I think it is called tailing the donkey. The game is to put a picture of a donkey upon the wall, which donkey is minus a tail, and then the competitor is blindfolded and handed the tail and is told, "Now, don't look, please, but stick the tail in its proper place." The hon. gentleman from Lisgar with the handkerchief of partisanship around his eyes has been groping for the proper spot upon which to pin the donkey's tail, which would complete the picture of his defence of his apostasy, but in his struggle he has pinned the tail upon the back of the donkey's neck, thus making a monstrosity. He attacks the hon. member for Hosetown (Mr. Evans) upon the grounds of inconsistency, but I would commend to him Emerson's essay on self reliance, in which he will find the following:
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen.
I would point out to him that a great soul like the hon. member for Rosetown has nothing whatever to do with consistency. That hon. member will have to bear the penalty of the great, which is to be misunderstood. He is so great that he baffles the understanding of the hon. member for Lisgar.
I think the morality of the tariff issue was dealt with quite finally by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Speakman), and I was pleased to discover that in one instance the hon. member for Lisgar supports the nonmoral view of the tariff. He says, "What is the use of the farmers being protectionists, they can only get the husks anyway; if there was any chance of their getting the corn, then it would be all right for them to be protectionists." I quite agree with him that there is no morality in this tariff business; it is a business proposition pure and simple and there is no morality in business. We hope there will be some day, but at the present time it is every man for himself and the devil take the last one, and so far the farmer always has been last. Why does not the farmer want protection? Because so far as he knows there is no practical policy which will give him a protection equal to that which the manufacturer enjoys. There is no morality in that. Why does the manufacturer want a tariff? Because it is a practical political policy to give him the privileges he desires. There is no particular morality about that, and he is no more immoral in wanting a tariff than is the farmer in not wanting it. What we do

want is equality of treatment. We want that firstly, because equality of treatment is sound economics, and we want it secondly because if there is going to be any morality in economics it must be upon a basis of equality.
The hon. member for Lisgar wants a treaty, and he wants it at once. He does not know why he wants it and he does not know what he wants to be in it, but he must have a treaty. He calls to account the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Gardiner) for not wanting it. Let me say a word or two about the treaty, and about the subamendment which involves that treaty. The subamendmemt holds out the suggestion that this treaty which we seek to abrogate might be amended and might be improved thereby. We in this corner of the house are more interested in getting rid of a ba'd treaty than we are in negotiating a new one which, for all we know, may be equally as bad as or worse than, the present treaty. This treaty offers an example of how a government can negotiate such an agreement to the disadvantage of agriculture. If we were to vote blindly and allow the government to proceed to negotiate another treaty, it might be worse than the present one and then, like the hon. member for Lisgar, we would have to assume part of the responsibility of having asked the government to take such action. We ask for the abrogation of this treaty because it discriminates against one class of people in our community. We insist that the government recognize that discrimination and we say that it is the first essential of good government to do so. If the government fails to recognize that discrimination, it will not be able to get away from the evident implication that it is a servant of the class which is obtaining the most advantages from the treaty. There is more involved in this matter than so many pounds of butter or so many dozens of eggs; this is a very important question to the agricultural industry of Canada.
I conclude my remarks, Mr. Speaker, with the expression of the hope that this amendment will be carried, but should the government be technically defeated we shall restore it. I assure the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) who is so jealous in safeguarding the government that I shall help him to reinstate it in power. Perhaps it would be better to vote to sustain the government before we vote on the treaty, and in that way make sure that the government will be protected. I am willing to do anything which will please the hon. member for Comox-Alberni who is so afraid that the government will be wrecked.

Australian Treaty-Mr. Campbell


Mr. M. N. CAMPBELL (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the difficulty of holding the attention of the house after its having listened to such an able and inspiring address as that just delivered by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Irvine). I will admit at the outset that the Australian treaty has been of considerable benefit to Canada. My objeotion to it is not that it has been a disadvantage to Canada as a whole. I believe it has been an advantage and at the same time 1 am going to admit that the advantage it has been to industry would be to some extent passed on to agriculture. We might as well admit that, but my objection to it is that it is based upon an entirely wrong principle. I need not go any further than to quote the former leader of the Conservative party, the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen. Speaking in the house in 1925, he told the government that they had secured a good deal for the manufacturers but had asked the farmer to step up to the counter and pay the whole bill. That is the principle upon which the treaty is based, and as the speaker who has just resumed his seat has said, it is to be judged not entirely by the amount of goods we have sold or purchased under the treaty, but by the principle underlying the treaty itself.
It is a matter of considerable congratulation to us in this section of the house that the agricultural industry has apparently come into its own as regards securing prominence in the debates of parliament. I recall away back in 1922 when those of us who sat in this section had considerable difficulty in getting the house to listen to a discussion of farm problems. Farming seemed to be an industry that had been very little considered prior to that time, but the change that has come about since then is illustrated by the fact that the agricultural industry, particularly the dairy part of it, has been given a great deal of prominence especially in the last two or three sessions. In the original draft of the treaty, the one that Canada had drafted and to which Australia agreed, there was an entirely different schedule of duties from the list that finally became law under the treaty. There may have been some objections on this account from the dairy industry, that those changes were made after the treaty had been agreed to by Australia. The particular objections of course from the dairymen are based on the fact that the tariff schedules under the Australian treaty have been extended to New Zealand and it is New Zealand that has been getting most of the advantage so far as the dairy industry is concerned. As I say, however, it is at least a matter for congratulation that the farmer and his industry, agriculture, have been recognized to the extent that they have been in public discussions.
There is a great deal of talk in the three sections of the house as to the farmer's attitude towards the policy of protection. Some hon. members, themselves good protectionists, seem to think it improper, almost immoral, for a farmer to ask for protection. I do not gather that the farmer is asking for protection. For many years we had a discussion in this country and throughout the empire over what we called equality of status. Finally we came to the point where our statesmen boasted that Canada had reached a position of equality of status within the empire and that the different dominions enjoyed that equality. Later, within the last couple of years, a new phrase has been coined-equality of status within Canada particularly as applied to the disposition and ownership of our natural resources. That is about to pass into history by the transfer of the natural resources to the various provinces, but now the farmer is raising another question of equality. He is asking for his industry equality of status within the economic unit. He is asking that the industry of agriculture be recognized and put on the same basis as other industries'..
With regard to the question of protection, I am not quite so sure that the average farmer is as idealistic as his parliamentary representatives are. The farmers whom I know, the farmers with whom I discuss tJiese matters, the farmers whom I meet from day to day, are intensely ipractical men. They are realists. The average farmer realizes that theorizing and philosophizing will not milk his cows in the morning, will not put his seed into the ground or take off his crop. He realizes that prayers without work will not secure him a good crop, and as I say he is an intensely practical man. What the farmer is asking for in connection with this question of protection is that there be no discrimination against him. He finds rvhen he has to buy a pair of boots or shoes, an automobile, a motor truck, woollen or cotton clothing, hardware or the ordinary necessaries of life, he pays a tariff duty of from ten to thirty-five per cent, 'but when he offers his own products for sale on the markei he has to compete with the outside on a free trade basis. I am not saying whether the farmer is right or wrong; there may be a .difference of opinion about that. I am stating how I find the average farmer looking at these matters. I am simply stating the fact. The hon. member for Nelson (Mr. Bird) yesterday seemed to be rather shocked that the farmer was taking this stand. I am not

Australian Treaty-Mr. Campbell
so sure that I can see the matter in just that light, because I think the farmer -is choosing the lesser of two evils.
Let us illustrate the point in this way. Give the farmer a chance to-day to choose between absolute free trade, free trade in what he has to buy and what he has to sell, and the situation we have now, and the farmer will hold up his hands for free trade; there is no douibt about that. But he says that the parliament of Canada will not give him that; it will not permit him to buy his goods in the cheapest market. Therefore, he says: when I have to suffer all the injustices of the tariff in what I have to buy, surely I am not going to have free trade imposed upon me entirely on iwhat I have to sell. It would seem to me to be just as logical to argue that because a farmer did not agree with a certain clause in the criminal code, when it came to a point where that particular clause would be of some protection to him, the officers entrusted with the enforcement of the law should say: Now, you do not believe in this particular clause in the criminal code, therefore we will not give you the protection of it. That is the way I think the average farmer looks at the matter. Whether the farmer is right or wrong, we are to-day facing facts and not theories. This is something we must recognize and any government must meet the situation as it exists. Indeed, the fact that the government realizes that was exemplified by its action a feiw days ago when it accepted a motion of the opposition to cancel the agreement with New Zealand. I say "accepted" because that in substance and effect was exactly what the government did.
Several members on the government benches, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm) for one, seemed to argue that protection was of no use to the farmer. I am prepared to admit that protection can be of no use to the farmer where there is an exportable surplus. We must admit that. When there is an exportable surplus, the world market sets the price, but the Minister of Trade and Commerce and other men who take a protectionist stand would not admit that protection of industry does not benefit industry, and certainly as regards any farm product where there is not an exportable surplus, the tariff, whatever tariff there may be, , must apply and must give those in that industry some protection.


Mr. MILLAR:: Would that be a lasting benefit?


Milton Neil Campbell: My hon. friend knows there is nothing lasting. Even the very sphere we are living in to-day is not lasting. We have to deal with things as they come up day by day.


John Millar: That is hardly an answer. Would the benefit last even a few years? Would it not immediately be wiped out by increased production and reduced consumption?


Milton Neil Campbell: It might or it might not, but my point is this-and I am trying to give the farmers' viewpoint, because I am talking with those men all the time; if it applies to industry, if those engaged in industry get any advantage from the tariff, surely it must apply to the products of agriculture so far as there is no exportable surplus. Of course I realize what my hon. friend says. If a tariff increases production and that production gets beyond the needs of the consuming ability of the country, then of course the price will immediately drop to the export basis. There is no argument about that, but at the present time we are a long way off from that situation in the case of butter.
My hon. and genial friend from Weyburn (Mr. Young) had a good deal to say as to principles as applied to members in this corner of the house. I cannot see that there is any principle involved in this question at all. As the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) said a few years ago, I think it is rather a geographical question. The farmer, I say without equivocation, would be prepared to accept absolute free trade tomorrow if he were permitted to buy in the open market. What he objects to is the discrimination that free trade is applied to him simply because he has accepted that philosophy. The result is that he has to buy in a protected market and sell in the open market.
There should be considerable satisfaction to those engaged in the dairy industry at the attention and consideration which that industry has received in the debates in this house. Away back in 1867 we chose the beaver as our national emblem because, I suppose, it was symbolical of industry. The beaver is an industrious little worker, always active. But in choosing the beaver, I think, regard was also had to the material side. The beaver at that time was very valuable. About 1867 we were carrying on a valuable fur trade in Canada. But the beaver, I think, has been supplanted by the dairy cow, and I suggest that we substitute the homely and prosaic dairy cow for the beaver as the national em-

Australian Treaty-Mr. Campbell
blem of Canada. I want to make a suggestion to my hon. friend from North Battle-ford (Mr. McIntosh), who is interested in designing a new Canadian flag. I would suggest that his flag should show a fine Ayrshire cow against a grassy background, with a group of statesmen looking on admiringly. I think in view of the condition of the dairy industry at this time, such a design would be very appropriate.


George Gibson Coote: Who would be milking the
cow?


Milton Neil Campbell: Someone other than the farmer, probably.
A few days ago my hon. friend from Wey-burn accused members on this side of the house of deserting the policies and principles upon which they were elected. May I remind him that people who live in glass houses should not throw stones, and rather than trying to take the mote out of our eyes, he should be thinking of the beam in his own. Whenever anyone posing as a proponent of protection for the farmer gets up and advocates such a policy in the house, my hon. friend from Weyburn swoops down on him like an avenging angel. He is ready to fight a legion of protectionist devils if they are not in league with the government, but when the manufacturers ask for and secure protection for their products, and we ask for consideration for the consumer, my hon. friend is as mum as an oyster; no one hears a word out of him. He asked one member in this group yesterday why we did not join the consumers' league. I will tell him why I do not join it, and I think this is true of my friends here generally. We are prepared to do our fighting on the floor of this house. We do not want to do it by proxy somewhere else: here is the place to do it. But my hon. friend sits quiet when there is any fighting of that kind to be done in this house, and he excuses himself by saying: just look at what the consumers' league is doing before the tariff board. Mr. Speaker, we in this part of the house are not doing our fighting by proxy somewhere else. We are doing it right here. I want to be fair to my hon. friend, for I know that he is honest, and that his heart is in the right place, but I think he is in a false position; he realizes that he has to answer the crack of the party whip. The hon. member for Nelson (Mr. Bird) and several other speakers yesterday referred to red herrings drawn across the trail in this debate. May I tell my hon. friend from Weyburn that I consider the consumers' league is simply a red herring to distract the attention of the people from the action of its members in this house.
Let me give my hon. friend an illustration, and again I say I wish to be fair to him because I have a very high regard for him. In 1928, the representative, of the consumers' league before the tariff board, a gentleman who is employed and paid by the members of the league, wrote a letter in which he referred to the budget of 1928 as the worst budget since confederation. He referred particularly to the fact that Liberal principles were departed from in the reduction of the income tax, and in the regulations applying to the British preference, which had the effect of doubling the tariff on many articles that we import from Great Britain. That is what the representative of the consumers' league said about the 1928 budget. What did the members of the consumers' league in this house do?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Vote for the budget.


Milton Neil Campbell: They swallowed the
budget as completely and effectually as the whale swallowed Jonah, although in this case it might be more correct to say that Jonah swallowed the whale. I am sorry to have to cross swords with hon. members over there. I really feel rather sorry for them and believe they are entitled rather to our commiseration than to our condemnation. I invite them to come forward to the uplands where the air is pure and sweet. Let them come over here, where there is no party whip, and where a man can express his opinions just as he expresses them back in the country. We shall hear a great deal in the coming campaign about what the consumers' league did. I am more concerned about what the members of the consumers' league are doing in this house.
I have here a newspaper clipping of a speech delivered by the present Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Crerar) at Winnipeg, as reported in The Tribune of January 22, 1930, which, I believe, was after he was sworn in as minister. It reads:
Condemning protective tariffs, Mr. Crerar said protection was a fiscal policy which could work out in no other way than by conferring benefits on certain sections of the community at the expense of the others. The principle of protection was not suited to a new country. "We can't build up eastern cities at the expense of western cities without developing jealousies, suspicions and strife."
Noble sentiments those; but what will the Minister of Railways do when it comes to deciding these issues on the floor of this house? That is the acid test-not sentiments expounded out in the country.

Australian Treaty-Mr. Millar
I say frankly that I do not want to see trade negotiations entirely eliminated between Canada and Australia. I believe that there is much to be gained by a treaty, and I take it for granted that if the government abrogated this treaty they would negotiate another one that would not be based on the present discriminations. That is what I have in mind in supporting the amendment, that the present treaty will be supplanted by a better one.


John Millar: We
have heard at considerable length during this debate as to what the various dairymen's associations think about this matter, but we have not heard enough about what the dairymen themselves, those actually engaged in the business, think about it. I wish to place on Hansard the statement of a prominent dairyman of Saskatchewan, but before doing so I would refer to a report of the dairymen's association of Manitoba, held in the city of Winnipeg on the 6th of February last. Mr. P. E. Reid, dairy commissioner of Saskatchewan, delivered an address before the association, and from a Winnipeg Free Press correspondent's report, I quote:
Saskatchewan, last year produced an exportable surplus of dairy products, i.e., exported outside of the province; that it was useless to expect the farmer to milk cows if he could make more and easier money in any other branch of farming.
The same correspondent states that in the addresses delivered by Doctor Marker, of Alberta, and Mr. Gibson, of Manitoba, there was no reference to the Australian treaty one way or the other. That is rather significant. This correspondent says that they stressed the necessity of quality and quantity production, and by inference one could assume that they were not worrying about markets, and profitable markets, if we improved our quality and increased our production. The correspondent goes on to say:
These convention resolutions do not mean so much as some people would imagine.
I also wish to quote part of a letter written by Mr. Henry Thompson, a prominent dairy farmer of Fairlight, Saskatchewan, for twenty-two years, and a member of the dairymen's association. He says:
I am very much of the opinion that if this protection was r estored it would not benefit the producers one iota. Our biggest difficulty right along, as I find it, is that manufacturers are taking too much of the cream off the bowls right along, particularly here in Saskatchewan. They have played the same game for two or three years, to my knowledge. At the conventions they have worked a scheme to have a similar resolution put over each time.

In another part of his letter he says:
Concerning the joint dairy association, held in the Saskatchewan hotel, Regina, two years ago, for about six weeks or so previous to this convention the price paid for this grade was 45 cents per pound f.o.b. Regina, but the price was dropped 3 cents to the producers, and in conversation with a prominent creamery manager of one of the city creameries, he stated to me a short while after, that there was no local cause to warrant that drop in price, as really their supply for that grade of cream was not equal to demand, and they personally could have advanced the price to 50 cents and give the producers the benefit, without hurting themselves in the least, and that they were able to pay over 10 per cent dividend that same year.
In describing the manner in which these dairy conventions are manipulated, Mr. Thompson says:
When we greenhorns have sat and listened for some considerable time to these wonderful orations, and in rather an abrupt and blunt manner suggest that we do not accept these framed resolutions, as they have thus been prepared and cooked for us, it appears a bit funny, but the chairman begins to fidget and looks at his watch and reminds us there are other speakers yet to come, and, "I am afraid we will have to curtail this discussion. I am awfully sorry."
That is the way a prominent dairyman of Saskatchewan looks upon those resolutions on this question of protection on butter; stereotyped resolutions "prepared and cooked" for them.
I would refer to the reference made 'by the member for North Vancouver (Mr. McRae) to the attitude taken towards the Australian treaty by a prominent manufacturer. He said the manufacturers were behind the demand of the dairymen's association. I am not surprised at that in the least. The question in my mind is this:	Which way did he reason; did
he reason that in a short time the price of butter in Canada-provided the duty were increased to four cents a pound, thus bringing about increased production and reduced consumption-would be brought down to an export basis all the year round, and his workers would get cheaper butter than at present? Was that part of his reasoning? I think perhaps it was. Another reason probably is this, that by supporting the dairymen's association the manufacturers were allying themselves with those who are supposed to be representing the farmers, and they were gaining strength and support for their own efforts in getting protection for the manufacturing industry.
I listened with considerable interest to the addresses, particularly those from hon. members immediately across the floor. I found that in many respects their reasoning was sound but their conclusions were faulty. Take for instance the reasoning of the member for Red

Australian Treaty-Mr. Coote
Deer (Mr. Speakman); it was very logical, very clear, but he came to the conclusion that the tiny speck of advantage that might accrue to the farmer temporarily was well worth his support. That is just where I differ with him. Whether the principle of protection is involved matters not to me, but I think my friends in that corner of the house made a mistake in changing their attitude in regard to protection for the farmer. As representatives of farming constituencies they have, I think, made a mistake in allying themselves with those who would have protection; for I believe it would cost the farmer a great deal more than the benefit he would receive. The benefits from protection, as the member for Red Deer pointed out, would be very small indeed, and I am inclined to think those benefits would be lost in a very, very short time. After that the price of butter-and that is the commodity around which most of this discussion has centred-would in all probability be less to the producer than it is now. He would be selling his butter all the year round on an export basis, whereas now in the winter months he is receiving a higher price than the export price. It has been pointed out several times that he is receiving two cents a pound more than producers in the United States, and they are in a highly protected country. I will not detain the house longer.


Mr. KELLNER:: Will the hon. member
present the same argument in regard to wheat and ask the government to take that twelve cent duty off?


John Millar: I am pleased to answer my hon. friend. I think the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Campbell) in his address made the point very clear. When there is a large export surplus it is impossible to increase the price by protection. As long as you can keep production below demand you can protect and benefit the producer of that commodity. But the main argument from this side of the house that I have listened to, and the argument that I stand by, is that in the matter of production it will be easy indeed by reducing consumption and increasing production to have an exportable surplus. I may add another remark: when there is a surplus for export you can protect those producing only if you have control of the output. Take fruit in the United States: the Americans export about seven per cent of their apples; with control they can get rid of that surplus of seven per cent at a slight loss or perhaps at bare cost; which enables them by reducing the home supply to bring that supply below the demand, and then they can protect the apple growing industry and raise
the price of the 93 per cent above export price.
I think that is a sound argument. I believe one reason why the producers of butter in Canada cannot be benefited by protection is simply that they have not got control of their output, and I do not see how they can get it, for they are too scattered. They are unlike the manufacturers of agricultural implements who are comparatively few in number and can get together on a gentleman's agreement, and so control their output, selling their small surplus abroad at a slight loss or at a small profit and then compelling the home market to pay a higher price. But that is not the case with the wheat grower, and it is quite evident that with a large surplus it is utterly impossible to benefit the producer of wheat by protection.


George Gibson Coote: Mr. Speaker, in my opinion the debate has already taken up too much of the time of the house, and I think this is due to a custom which has grown altogether too common of late; too much time is spent in indulging in personalities and in criticism of other members, involving charges of inconsistency, apostasy and the like. We would make more progress if we confined our remarks to the question at issue. I am speaking simply for myself. Each member of this house is responsible to his constituents and not to his fellow members. The view that he expresses or the attitude that he takes on any questions coming before the house is his own particular business. If a member favours a measure I think he should advance any argument he may have in support of it, or if opposed he should advance argument against it, but leave questions of inconsistency and the like to the country.
So far as the question of consistency is concerned in my own case, I want to say that I opposed the Australian treaty in 1925 when it was introduced in this house, and I still oppose it. In that regard at least I am consistent. I am not opposed to the government entering into negotiations with New Zealand for securing, if possible, a better treaty, but I do not like to run the risk of voting to instruct the government to do so. I do not like the job they made when they negotiated the treaty with Australia and if they make as bad a job or worse in negotiating a treaty with New Zealand, I am sure I would feel compelled to oppose it and then I might be charged with inconsistency in that I had voted to instruct the government to enter into negotiations but refused to support the treaty when it was brought down. One always runs the risk of being charged with inconsistency in this house; I have found that out since I became a member.

Australian Treaty-Mr. Coote
I want to assure the government and the house that in my constituency there is more antagonism to the Australian treaty than there is to the extension of that treaty to New Zealand. I am anxious to vote for the abrogation of the treaty with Australia, 'because in that way we will get rid of both the Australian treaty and its extension to New Zealand. Cutting off the extension of the benefits of this treaty to New Zealand would simply be equivalent to cutting off one limb of the tree; I am anxious to see the tree itself cut down. If Australia were to abandon what is generally known as the Paterson scheme, instituted for the promotion of the export trade in butter, we would be faced with importations of just as much butter from Australia as we are now receiving from New Zealand. I am unable to understand the attitude of the hon. member for Comox-Albemi (Mr. Neill).
Those who are raising beef and mutton are facing the same conditions that are being experienced by the producers of butter, and just here I should like to quote briefly from a letter which was sent to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) by the Western Live Stock Growers' Association. It is dated November 18, 1929, and says:
Australia has not been exporting beef into Canada until this year. We find there was none last year, against 1,616,000 pounds for the first nine months of this year, and the mutton and lamb exports to Canada have increased from 1,119,000 pounds last year- to 3,359,000 pounds for the first nine months of this year, which, at the present rate, will amount to nearly four times as much lamb and mutton as the preceding year. New Zealand shipped us last year 1,756,000 pounds of beef as against 2,000,000 pounds for the first nine months of this year, also a big increase. These two countries have such an enormous advantage over us in the cost of raising cattle and sheep that we can easily understand that the ability to capture the Canadian market might only be measured by the time it takes to raise more stock on their almost limitless ranges. Formerly a large part of the Australian beef surplus was going to the United States, but we find that the sales there have been declining, one of the reasons being that they are getting a foothold in this country since the United States tariff has been increased.
I shall not read the whole letter, but it goes on to point out that steers are marketed in Australia at about $17 per head, and they have no chance of competing against stock raised under such conditions.
During the debate with regard to the New Zealand treaty the objection seemed to be with regard to butter. Butter is too slippery for me to stand on, and I should like to ask this question:	Why should we listen to the

complaint of the butter makers and agree to revise the treaty with New Zealand, and at the same time refuse to listen to the case brought forward by these stock growers and sheep men? Why make fish of one and flesh of another? That is one thing I cannot understand, and I think I am consistent in saying that if this house signifies by a large vote its approval of a revision of the New Zealand treaty, I do not see why we should not do away with the treaty with Australia. There is a provision in this treaty giving either country the privilege of abrogating it on six months' notice, and that is all we are asking the government to do.
I believe in low tariffs, and I believe that the farmers of western Canada cannot carry on their business successfully under a high tariff. The duties which were imposed on butter and eggs before the Australian treaty came into effect amounted to the equivalent of probably 10 per cent, and I believe that the farmers of western Canada would be willing to have all these articles on the free list if the government would put furniture, paints and oils, pumps, harness, kitchenware and all the rest of these things on the same level. But does any member of this house believe that the_ government, in negotiating a trade treaty with New Zealand or Australia, would be willing to put these things on a reciprocal basis? For instance, would the government reduce the duty on furniture and harness and a number of similar articles to the same level as_ the duty on butter and eggs? As I have said, I always have been an advocate of low tariffs, and when I have urged any reduction in the tariff it has not been on any article which was listed at anything like 10 per cent. I think there are many things on which the duty should be reduced.
One hon. member has charged us with being under the dictation of our organization, the United Farmers of Alberta. I am no more under the dictation of the United Farmers of Alberta, Mr. Speaker, than he is under the dictation of the Liberal party, and in fact not nearly so much. I was nominated by the United Farmers of Alberta in my constituency; my campaign was financed by the United Farmers of Alberta in my constituency, and as a rule I report to then once a year, at their annual convention. They have never attempted to dictate to me in any way. The United Farmers of Alberta is a body of farmers who have organized together for mutual assistance, mutual help and I might say mutual protection. Their motto is "Equal rights to all", and in asking for the abrogation of this treaty I believe I am living up to that motto.

Australian Treaty-Mr. Bennett


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, we have had an extended discussion upon the motion to go kbo supply and the amendment thereto, involving the abrogation of the Australian trade treaty negotiated some few years ago by the late Minister of Finance. A few days ago we also had a discussion with respect to the New Zealand treaty, which arose out of the Australian treaty.
May I venture to say that very frequently there is a confusion of thought as between the Australian and the New Zealand treaties; it is a habit on the part of some members of the house to refer to the New Zealand treaty as though it were the Australian treaty. Such, of course, is not the case. The Australian treaty was negotiated; the New Zealand treaty was not. The Australian treaty represented at least some discussion on the .part of the contracting parties; the New Zealand treaty came into effect by an order in council passed under the provisions of section 5 of the Australian treaty. In the one case there was a frank and clear discussion and negotiation; in the other case there was nothing but an order in council in the belief that it was advisable to apply the Australian treaty to New Zealand, regardless of what the consequences might be. These, I think, are facts abundantly established by the record.
Then there is another question arising out of the New Zealand treaty. It has been successfully contended in this house, I think, not only by those who sit to the .left of Mr Speaker but also by those who spoke from the government benches, that the New Zealand treaty has threatened the very HL of one of the basic industries of Canada; that if it were continued in its operation undoubtedly it would destroy the dairy industry oi Canada, and that a period of at least three years must elapse before the dairy industry in this country can regain the position which it held before the treaty was made, and which it lost by reason of the treaty.
In the case of Australia there is this clear distinction: The government, acting in what the Australian trade authorities believe not bo be good faith, imposed upon the imports of butter a dumping duty amounting to 6 cents per pound. The effect of that duty was to shut off importations from Australia, it amounts to prohibition. No such dumping duty was brought into operation against importations from New Zealand. As a result the dairy industry in this country which, in the judgment of those who can speak with authority, is one of or perhaps the most important of the farm industries apart from the growing of grain, has been seriously injured.
This industry also relates closely to the production of meats, of hides and of pork products sold in various parts of the world, and it has been established that unless something is done immediately there is grave danger with respect not only to the butter industry of Canada but also to the hog industry and the related meat industries throughout the country. The loss of 130,000 milch cows, according to the figures given by those able to speak with authority, would mean at least half a million less pigs produced in the country as compared with the years previous to this diminution.
Under these circumstances I never have had the least difficulty in arriving at the conclusion that such a trade treaty as that existing with New Zealand should be abrogated and a new treaty negotiated, substituting negotiation and discussion for direct executive action, and affording an opportunity to Ihis parliament to pass upon the merits of that, particular treaty, an opportunity which was not afforded when the treaty now in existence came into being.
We also have this further difficulty. At the moment this country is faced with conditions which certainly are alarming to the thoughtful man. We have an adverse trade balance increasing steadly, and we have therefore a condition which is the negation of that to which the Minister of Finance referred when he was dealing with the Australian situation. How long can this country continue with an adverse visible trade balance? Our trade with Australia, however, has resulted in a great favourable trade balance annually, according to the statements made this afternoon by the minister. That he regards as being very desirable. I made a mental note to ask him why, if it is so desirable in the case of Australia, is it not injurious to continue to increase the enormous adverse trade balance with the United States of America? That trade balance is measured not by millions but by hundreds of millions of dollars, and it must be paid either by the invisible balances or by gold. Under those circumstances, if it is true, and apparently it is true from what the minister has said-I do not think anyone will quarrel with that observation that a favourable trade balance is to be desired, the condition in regard to Australia has been favourable to Canada due to the action taken by the government in connection with the dumping clause.
One thing which there is a tendency to forget is that trade is of two kinds, internal and external. The expansion of this internal trade of this country between the provinces is something which should engage the attention

Australian Treaty-Mr. Bennett
of this government more fully than any other matter, but although that should be the case, we find that last year we bought from the United States nearly one billion dollars' worth of products for the purpose of supplying the internal trade of Canada. A portion of the goods imported was utilized for the manufacture of products which went into our external trade. But there again we meet with a difficulty. An hon. member the other day placed a question on the order paper asking the quantities of manufactured goods imported and sold. In order to understand the answer given he must have before him an explanation of how the classification is made. For instance, blister copper is classified as manufactured goods because it comes out of the smelter in blister form, which is exported not as a raw product, which it is so far as commerce is concerned, but as a manufactured product. I could name other commodities, such as lead, asbestos and pulp, all of which are partly fabricated or processed when they leave the country and which are classified for trade purposes as manufactured goods. It must be apparent to every thoughtful man that blister copper is of no use so far as manufacturing is concerned; it must be refined, and up until a few months ago all the refined copper which was used in Canada was imported from the United States. It is true that recently they have been doing something at Trail in the way of refining copper, but I mention that merely as an illustration of the difficulty in understanding trade statistics when the word "manufactured" is utilized in the sense in which it is in the trade returns of all countries. As the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm) very properly admitted last year, when you use the word ''manufactured" with reference to various commodities which are partly fabricated or processed before they leave Canada, you have a considerable volume of goods, but for the purpose of trade those goods are not manufactured. Some of the goods classified as manufactured goods, are, so far as business is concerned, nothing more than unmanufactured goods or raw material. Last year the Minister of Trade and Commerce was good enough to indicate the list from which the classification was made, but it is a very difficult thing to make accurate comparisons when you come to deal with copper, for instance, as raw material exported from Canada, and then have to deal with refined copper as a manufactured commodity imported from the United States. It is very difficult for the Canadian people to arrive at a fair comparison.
At six o'clock the house took recess.

After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, when the house rose at six o'clock I was directing attention to the failure of the government to deal with the problem of the internal trade of Canada on such a basis as would ensure the largest measure of employment to Canadians in the fabrication of our own raw materials which are exported so frequently under the name of manufactured materials. The internal trade of a country, even of a country of ten million people, is of transcendent importance, and the failure of the government to recognize that fact constitutes one of the strongest counts in the indictment against the administration. I again point out that last year to meet the internal trade of Canada we imported nearly 81,000,000,000 worth of goods from the United States. That meant for people outside of this country so much employment that might usefully have been brought here. While a portion of that $1,000,000,000 represented the purchase price of goods not produced in Canada, such as petroleum, oranges, lemons, and other tropical fruits, sugar and other commodities, there could have been expended in this country by the production of goods from our own materials to meet our requisites something between $300,000,000 and $500,000,000.


Charles A. Stewart: Much nearer $300,000,000 than $500,000,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That depends on how you arrive at what might be done; but certainly $300,000,000 is the minimum value of the goods that might have been produced in this country but were imported from abroad. So much for the problem of internal trade, which, I point out, the government has apparently entirely overlooked. While we appoint trade commissioners abroad we neglect the trade at home. While we are content to dwell upon the great volume of our exports and of the imports that we draw from foreign countries, we overlook the fact that this adverse trade with the United States amounts to some $400,000,000 which must be counterbalanced either by invisible balances or payments in gold which arise from favourable balances such as those we had last year with Australia and New Zealand.
Let us come to the problem of external trade. To put the matter briefly, the external trade of Canada may be divided into two classes, namely, the trade which arises from the sale of our natural products partly fabricated or wholly unfabricated-that is in

Australian Treaty-Mr. Bennett
the raw state-and to a small extent what is described as the fabricated or manufactured products of the country. As regards the first branch of our external trade, I can illustrate it by the exports of asbestos, pig lead, silver, blister copper, pulpwood, logs and various other raw materials such as gypsum from Nova Scotia. I direct the attention of the hon. member for Hants-Kings (Mr. Ilsley) to that. Then if you turn to what might be called the partly fabricated articles, there might be included in that class some of those that I have just mentioned, such as blister copper, partly refined nickel, and other minerals and metals that hon. members present will have in mind. The wholly manufactured goods consist largely of commodities such as newsprint which, outside of grain and grain products, constitutes the largest single item in our exports. Grain products constitute the largest body of our exports. That in itself is again subdivided into manufactured products such as flour and other cereal products and the raw wheat, rye, barley and other grains. It is within the memory of hon. members that the combined value of the exports of grain and grain products and of wood and wood products amounts to between $700,000,000 and $800,000,000 of the $1,200,000,000 constituting our exports, or, as a matter of fact, a little more in a good year. If you add to that the partly fabricated metal and mineral products you have in those items substantially over $1,000,000,000 of the entire exports of the country. Those items, as I have said, are either wholly raw or partly manufactured or wholly manufactured. To absorb those goods in their raw state various countries find no difficulty. The United States of America is almost entirely dependent upon Canada for some forms of raw materials. There are in every part of the world countries engaged in the business of manufacturing that are importing large quantities of our partly manufactured or processed materials. For instance, asbestos and nickel go across the ocean in large quantities. Many of our minerals find a market in Japan or Germany where they are fabricated into goods that come back to this country and are sold in competition with our own goods, and are manufactured under labour and other conditions with which we cannot compete.
But at the moment I am not dealing with that phase of the matter; I am dealing only with the division of our external trade into the classes to which I have alluded, and I am pointing out that with respect to our raw material practically every country in the world, our great neighbour to the south in
particular, is drawing from us. Then we come to our partly fabricated materials and we find the United States drawing from us pulp, which after all is only partly fabricated. As regards fabricated materials we find them drawing from us almost our entire export of newsprint-I shall speak presently of that- and other goods of that class.
How are we able to carry on this external trade? The United States have trade commissioners in every part of the globe. They have their consular agents here and their business is to see what they can do to create markets for their products. This summer I was in a small community in Canada half way between the east and the west and I found there that the consular agent had been busy soliciting business in the broad sense in connection with a contract that had been recently awarded for the construction of a new hospital. Wherever goods are required, whether door locks at the Chateau Laurier or hardware of any kind in which trade may be afforded to the producers of their own country, you will find the consular agents of the United States seeking that market for their people. We have through the vision of Sir George Foster, established trade commissioners in different parts of the world. They have endeavoured to the best of their ability to do the same sort of business for Canada as American consular agents have done for the United States. We have extended our trade to a great many countries. It has been developed very greatly during the last few years, but that trade has not been in the materials that will make business for Canada. It has been in those partly manufactured goods and those raw materials which go to the countries to which I have referred.
Let me go further. The United States foreign trade to-day consists of less than 10 per cent of their whole trade, actually about 8 per cent. As the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) related the other day. in a classic discussion between Mr. Blain and Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Blain pointed out that the policy of the United States was the policy which this country should adopt; that the internal trade of the United States belonged to the American people and after they had secured a monopoly against any possible competitors in their own market, they would go to the outside world with their external trade, and destroy competition with the surplus products of their factories. What has happened in this country? By reason of the fiscal policies that we have adopted we have been ever seeking more and more external markets, while the internal trade of our country has been sacrificed to the United States

Australian Treaty-Mr. Bennett
of America. Do you mean to tell me that any country with a population and rich resources such as Canada has should be buying one billion dollars' worth of goods a year from the United States? Do you mean to tell me that that sort of thing would be at all possible if this country were doing its duty to its own citizens? The hon. gentleman referred this afternoon to what had been done by other countries and pointed out the favourable balance of exports over imports. I might point out to him and to this house that the real truth is that the favourable balance of trade of the United States, amounting as it does, in some years, to billions of dollars, has laid the foundation for their vast accretion of material resources that has enabled them to expand their foreign trade to every part of the world and to meet competition on terms that have driven many of the former competitors out of those markets.


Edward James Young: What do they
take in exchange for all these goods?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Gold. I wonder if the
hon. gentleman knows that the adverse balance of trade of other countries with the United States is compensated for in gold, and that, to-day the United States is the largest depository of gold in the world, which furnishes the basis of a national credit unequalled in the history of finance.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend does not contend that this all came from their foreign trade?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Does the Minister of
the Interior (Mr. Stewart) not know that the major part of it came from foreign trade during the great war, from exports paid for in gold, which meant a surplus of , exports over imports?


Charles A. Stewart: Exactly. I agree with my hon. friend now.


Edward James Young: What effect did all this gold coming into the United States have on prices and on the cost of living in the United States?


Richard Bedford Bennett: As the hon. gentleman
has raised the question of the cost of living, let me tell him that the cost of living in Canada to-day has reached the figure of 160 as compared with 100 for pre-war prices, and the cost of living to-day in Canada is higher than in the United States. That is the fact. What is more, from January, 1922, when this government assumed office, the figures supplied by the Labour department last month show that the lowest figure was 155, 100 being

the basis, and the figure is now 160, whereas in the United States there has been a greater diminution in the cost of living in those years than in Canada. Further, there has been a higher standard of living in the United States than in any other country in the world. There are no 25-cent an hour men working for the United States of America. What is more, the production of wealth in the United States is higher than in any other country in the world of which we have any record.


Edward James Young: Do you mean
the per capita production?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not the per capita production of new wealth, but the largest production in percentages. The hon. gentleman knows that. If it is desired, and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) seems to think it
is,	to have a favourable trade balance, which has been the basis of the accumulation of the national wealth of the United States, a very large volume of the gold which furnishes the basis of unlimited credit has arisen because of the surplus of exports over imports. I wonder if hon. gentlemen saw the figures of last year's trade balance. I wonder if the Minister of Finance realizes, as some business men on that side of the house must, that this Dominion last year took nearly one billion dollars of the export trade of the United States; for what was to us imports was to them exports. While we were creating an unfavourable trade balance for Canada, they were creating the greatest favourable trade balance of any country in the world. These are the facts; we must look them in the face.. The day of theories, of platitudinous reference to dictionaries and old historic volumes on free trade are a thing of the past. We are living in the realm of realities; we have tc* deal with actualities. When I read the observations of the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Crerar), I realize that it will not be the great apostasy of which the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) has spoken so learnedly that requires discussion; it will be something worse than that. I agree with the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote); I am not concerned in the argument between these two rival factions as to which side of the house they should sit on. It is quite within the competence of the hon. member for Lisgar and his friends to associate themselves with the government of the day and thereby abandon their former friends, if they wish to do
it.	That is only a matter for history; it is not a matter in which we have any deep concern. We leave it at that. But it is not.

Australian Treaty-Mr. Bennett
the same kind of thing when we come to deal with a minister of the crown; of whom more anon.
I would point out to the hon. member for Weyburn that we are no longer living in a day when we can discuss this matter in an academic sense. We are confronted with a condition in which our external trade, thanks to hon. gentlemen opposite, has been menaced and destroyed by the invasion and penetration of our market by our great neighbours to the south, who have taken it from us to the extent of nearly one billion dollars a year, and thus compelled Canadians to seek abroad in external fields a market for their products. Those markets can be made possible only by tremendous effort, in which the nation itself has assisted. We have assisted by subsidizing steamship lines, by subsidizing lines of communication other than steamship routes, by reducing the postal rates, by sending our trade commissioners to every part of the world to develop and expand our trade. All these things we have done. Why? Because we have been compelled to do it through the neglect of our own government to care for our own trade. That is the reason. If a storekeeper in a village permits trade to go to a rival from outside the community, and has to go to other communities far removed to find a market, I wonder if there is any man who would not say that that storekeeper had neglected his own home market, his own community. It is the internal trade of the country which has made the United States what it is. By securing a monopoly of its own domestic business, and exporting the surplus of the mass production of its mills and factories, it has been able to destroy the export trade that other countries enjoyed before the war. These are post war conditions. Once more I say Canada is dealing with actualities.
Let me point out that the other method by which we expand trade is by negotiating trade treaties. Perhaps the most classic example of a trade treaty'-I thought of it this afternoon as the Minister of Finance was speaking-is the trade treaty negotiated between France and Great Britain in the days of Cobden. You will all recall his attachment to free trade, and the conditions that existed in France with its highly protective tariff in the days of the Second Empire. You will all recall that Mr. Cobden, in consequence of a chance conversation that he had with a well known free trade economist of France, Mr. Chevalier, made up his mind to see if a trade treaty couldl not be made between France and Great Britain, because France at
that time was a highly protectionist country while Britain under Peel had become more or less attached to free trade. I have here the life of Cobden by John Morley, and I read these words at page 239 of the second volume:
In the early part of September, Cobden paid a visit to Hawarden, and there he opened his mind to Mr. Gladstone. They were both of them thoroughly alive to the objections to which on strictly economic grounds treaties of commerce must always be open.
Now, I should like that sentence to be engraven on the memories of some of my friends opposite:
They were both of them thoroughly alive to the objections to which on strictly economic grounds treaties of commerce must always be open.
I heard some of them from my friends this afternoon, some of the grounds that were in the minds of Cobden and Gladstone at that time. Now, let me proceed with this quotation:
They both felt it to be perfectly true, if economic rules were never under any circumstances to be contravened, that, as Mr. Bright had already said, it was our business to look to our own tariffs, and to release French products from the duties that prevented our trading with France: and this without any stipulation as to what France should do in return. But then they felt that the occasion was one which could not be judged in this simple way. An economic principle by itself, as all sensible men have now learnt, can never be decisive of anything in the mixed and complex sphere of practice.
Now, sir, could any words more aptly describe the situation which in 1930 prevailed between Australia and Canada and that which prevailed between France and England in 1859?
But then they felt that the occasion was one which could not be judged in this simple way. An economic principle by itself, as all sensible men have now learnt, can never be decisive of anything in the mixed and complex sphere of practice. Neither Cobden nor Mr. Gladstone could resist the force of M. Chevalier's emphatic assurance, that in no other way could the French tariff be altered in the direction of free trade than through a diplomatic act, that is to say, a commercial treaty with England. The emperor, moreover, in spite of his absolutist system, was practically powerless to reduce his duties, unless the English government gave him the help of a corresponding movement on their side.
Mr. Gladstone discerned both the opportunity which such a movement would afford for continuing the great work of tariff reform, and the strong influence that a commercial treaty would have upon the violent and dangerous perturbations in the political sentiment of the two nations towards one another.
After a few more lines, he proceeds:
He was, in fact, continuing the work which Sir Robert Peel had begun in 1842, along the

Australian Treaty-Mr. Bennett
very lines which Peel had then expressly laid down. In the case of wine and brandy. Sir Robert Peel had said that he did not reduce the duty, because he hoped that they might employ these duties-
I commend these words to my hon. friends on the government side, words quoted from Sir Robert Peel:
-"as instruments of negotiation, with a view of effecting a reduction in the duties imposed by other countries on the produce of our own country."
I wonder if hon. gentlemen realize the true significance of those words. Let me repeat them:
[DOT]-"as instruments of negotiation, with a view of affecting a reduction in the duties imposed by other countries on the produce of our own country."
Again quoting from Sir Robert Peel:
"I am disposed, to carry too far that principle of withholding from ourselves the benefits of reduction of duties in order to force other nations to act in a reciprocal manner, and in many cases we weakened the effect of instruments we held in our own hands by reducing the duty of articles relative to which negotiations might have been entered into. Our general rule was that in cases where the articles were elements of manufacture, or where there was risk from smuggling, we took to ourselves the advantage likely to arise from a reduction of duty on these articles; but in others, wine for example, we made no reduction of duty, and intend to make no reduction of duty, in the hope that we shall induce other countries to give to us an equivalent advantage." The discussion therefore between Mr. Gladstone and Cobden at Hawarden in 1859 turned upon the means of realizing the hope then expressed by Sir Robert Peel in 1843, and expressed by him not casually, but as an element in a deliberate policy.
Now, sir, that principle laid down by Sir Robert Peel in 1843, and once more asserted by Gladstone in his conversation with Cobden in 1859, made possible in the end a commercial treaty between France and Great Britain. It laid the foundation of the great fame and reputation of Cobden, and it also did much to improve relations between the two countries. The principle laid down by Peel I commend to my hon. friend from Rosetown (Mr. Evans) in particular, and I commend it to every other hon.. member: that the reduction of duties in themselves may imperil the very negotiation that has to be carried on for the purpose of making decent commercial treaties with the countries with whom you would deal. That principle apparently was in the mind of the late Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb), because when he endeavoured first of all to negotiate a treaty-after negotiations had been initiated by my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) in the short time that he was at the department-

he did so on the theory that having as he had an opportunity to increase the general tariff to have something to bargain with, he reduced the items which were to be the subject matter of negotiation so he would be able to make a reasonable agreement. But hon. gentlemen would not permit that to be done. It was not done, with the result that this treaty was negotiated between Australia and Canada, and I say frankly to the house that had I been a member at that time I should have voted against the treaty. That treaty disregarded certain fundamental principles that should obtain in the negotiation of treaties between countries. One of them was referred to by my hon. friend from Vacouver North (Mr. McRae) yesterday. It is this: no treaty made between this country and any other country in the world, whether it be the motherland, a sister dominion, or a British colony, is ever upon a sound basis if its effect is to destroy a basic industry of this country. That is fundamental. The effect of the treaty made without negotiation, by order in council, was, as I pointed out this afternoon, to destroy one of our basic industries. This so-called Australian treaty negotiated by the late Minister of Finance was a treaty which but for the bad faith shown by the Canadian government in putting a dumping duty upon Australian butter, would have wrecked entirely the industry that has been so seriously threatened by the treaties that have been made. There is no gainsaying that. It is obvious to every man and is known to all.
Let us see what happened. When that treaty was negotiated and brought down to this house for acceptance, the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen pointed out exactly what would happen, the member for Welland (Mr. Pettit) also pointed out exactly what would happen, and it has happened exactly as they said. But the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) put the dumping clause in operation against Australian butter, although the Paterson agreement was in force at the very time that the treaty was negotiated. That Paterson agreement was not something new, it did not suddenly spring into being, but it afforded the government in the view of the Australians an excuse, not a reason, to do something which they say, and I think properly so, is not in good faith between two countries making treaties one with the other. That is only five short years ago. Let me recall what has happened since. In the meantime we have established a channel of trade for some of our products in Australia, and they have established a trade for some of their products here. I was rather

Australian Treaty-Mr. Bennett
amused-shall I say?-than surprised by the observations made by the hon. member for Hants-Kings (Mr. Ilsley) yesterday in connection with the extensive business in nails and wire that Canada is doing with Australia. He told us all about the Sydney nail works, yell, how many nails do you think we sold to Australia last year from Nova Scotia?- $8,000 worth! . Those are the figures given by the department-$17,971 in all, of which $8,000 worth went from there; and of wire, out of the total, $-10,000 worth went from Nova Scotia. So that the great Besco plant in Nova Scotia was able to sell to Australia, undeT this treaty, $48,000 worth of goods, including the nail that was found in the box.
Leaving that for the moment may I point out that when the treaty came into this house the hon. gentleman who at present holds the portfolio of Minister of Railways and Canals voted for it, and his colleagues to my left voted against it. It was one more instance in which for some reason undisclosed on the record they and he viewed it somewhat differently. Whether or not he with his keen vision and prophetic sight could look into the future and see himself occupying the office of Minister of Railways we do not know; at any rate, he managed on that occasion to vote for the treaty.
Now, when the treaty came into this house, what happened'? Prom the discussion that took place the house realized that if it were carried out in the terms indicated it would not be beneficial to this Dominion. Although I was not in the house at the time, I want to say clearly that I cannot see how I could have supported that treaty. What is more, the late Minister of Finance realized the possible injuries to Canada in connection with it. It is a well known fact that he said not a pound of butter-or an insignificant amount -would come in under that treaty. So certain was the Prime Minister of it that when he spoke in Woodstock a few months after, pointing out the benefits of the treaty, he told the people there that if by any possible chance it could be shown that the treaty would be injurious to the interests of Canada the government would take steps to annul or cancel or abrogate it.	Yet a week later,
without negotiation, the government passed an order in council which, by executive action, made that treaty applicable entirely to New Zealand. We have all seen the result.
What is the present condition? We have an entirely different situation from what we had then. To-day in Canada we have an adverse trade balance of over $100,000,000 per annum. Has anybody looked without
some alarm at the trade figures of this country for January and February? Has any thoughtful man who knows business at all studied them without realizing that if employment is to be given to the Canadian artisan every Canadian must do his utmost to sell goods wherever he can get a chance to sell them? It is because of that very fact that we who sit to the left, ever mindful of our obligation, have from that day to this, as you will find upon the records of the house, suggested to the government not the annulment or abrogation of the treaty at a time like this, but that the treaty should be amended to the mutual advantage of both countries. I make a clear distinction between Australia and New Zealand in that regard. We cannot afford to risk for a single moment the destruction of a great basic industry, the dairy $ industry in this country, confronted as we are with unemployment, with our industrial fabric threatened, and the markets of France, Italy and Germany shut out from the Canadian wheat farmer by hostile tariffs that have reached a maximum of 80 cents a bushel. I say to my friends to my left that they might better withdraw this resolution than have it before parliament at this time, the economic conditions in Canada being what they are.
Take the paper industry. Over-production, which is not the fault of this government, has compelled Canadians to accept a price for their paper in the markets of the United States and other parts of the world that according to modern economists is below its real cost and value. I wonder if hon. members know that newsprint shipped from this country to Australia and New Zealand netted the producer less than $42 a ton? And do they realize what that means? In order that the machines might be operated at capacity newsprint, the surplus product of those machines, has been sold abroad during the last twelve months at a price that has not met the cost of production. That surplus product had to find a market. If these conditions continue, can we afford to abrogate the treaty ? Having regard to present economic conditions in Can. ada; having regard to the almost superhuman effort that industrialists and others are making to provide employment for artisans, can we afford to abrogate that treaty? For my part, though I would have voted against the treaty had I been in the house at the time, realizing the conditions prevailing in this country to-day I am not prepared to vote for its abrogation-my hon. friend (Mr. Stewart, Edmonton) is concerned only about laughing



Australian Treaty-Mr. Bennett
over the evils that come to this country. It is an old story; the hon. gentleman's efforts are restricted to smiling at injuries which have been done to the people of Canada.


Charles A. Stewart: I very
seldom interrupt a speaker, but I wish to correct my hon. friend. I am not laughing at the ills that befall the people of this country; I am laughing at my hon. friend.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what I would
think my hon. friend would do, because his appreciation of the treaty is usually indicated by laughter; that is his usual practice. It is the old story: Nero fiddled while Rome burned. The hon. member contents himself with that and pays no attention to words of warning. But the warnings were given in this house five years ago; they were given when the treaty was entered into, and the very conditions have arisen which were then forecast by those who sat to the left of the Speaker. Those are the facts; sophistry or casuistry will not change the record of history. It is there; it is embalmed in Hansard. I ask the Minister of the Interior, the Minister of Railways and Canals or any other member of the administration:	Can you afford at this moment
to abrogate the treaty? The Minister of Finance is not in his place, but I ask: What has Australia been saying during the last three years? What has Australia said in the last six months? Who will answer that question for the government? Australia has said: We will not tolerate any longer the adverse balance of trade against us in the form in which it now exists. We want improved treaties and improved conditions; we want a nearer approach to equilibrium as between the two countries than we have now. It is not we who have demanded that; they have demanded it. I ask the Minister of Finance, or someone on behalf of the government, to say whetheT or not the attitude my hon. friends take to-night is taken because they desire the people of Australia to say that the Canadian people are heartily behind the treaty which the Australian people say they will no longer tolerate. That is the question. We will not be deluded with any sophistry such as that which the Minister of Finance indulges in, when he suggests we should take this action. Some of us know what the Australian government is doing; we know what it has done. We know from the utterwces of their public men and by communicaticns from our own trade commissioners that i hese people are not acquiescent in the present conditions. How, then, are they to be remedied? They are to be remedied only by fresh negotiations,
(Mr Bennett.]
and when the government to-night asks this house to vote against the abrogation of the treaty, speaking for myself and for my friends here, owing to the conditions confronting this country at present I am not prepared to vote for the abrogation of the treaty. But we say to the government that by our vote we are not prepared to mark our approval of the treaty beyond the opportunity that may come during the next few months for the government to see what can be done; because if we do not move our great neighbours have intimated that they propose to take steps in the matter. The government of Australia has said that it will not longer tolerate this condition, and I believe what it has said it means. When this action was taken by my hon. friends to my left I thought, as I think now, that it was not the opportune moment. As I say, I am prepared to vote against the abrogation of the treaty at the moment, with this warning to the government: Unless conditions change between now and this time next year, when they will not be here and others will be responsible for the conduct of the government of this country, my position will be different. In the very nature of things, the treaty must be revised, because it cannot continue. The people of Australia have intimated that they will not permit it to continue, and the people of this country know that there are paragraphs in it which operate entirely against the economic well being of Canada.
These are my reasons for the position I have taken. I have occupied some little time in developing my views in this respect, because trade is something, after all, that every business man knows something about in practice, if not in theory. The hon. gentleman who is Minister of Railways and Canals occupied a very important business position during the time he was out of this house; he can tell you some of the hardships that are encountered in the conduct of business.. Business in these days is not the simple thing that some imagine it to be; in one respect it is a very great science, and in another respect it is indeed simple. It is all nonsense talking about exports paying for imports; that theory was exploded in practice long ago. Every man who has studied the history and operation of business knows that. Why should any one come here with theories from text books fifty or sixty years old and try to make other people believe that the science of political economy does not progress, that it endures but does not change? We all know in practice that what has made the United States the country it is to-day in material resources alone-

Australian Treaty-Mr. Bennett


Edward James Young: And in unemployment.


Mr. McINTOSH:: They have 6,000,000 unemployed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: So the figure is increasing now.


Mr. VALLANCE:: How old was the book from which you quoted?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Has the hon. gentleman
had a brain wave? What with interruptions from three sources at once, we have the figures of unemployment in the United States at 6,000,000, 4,000,000 and 3,000,000. Well, it is not for me to say how large the figure may be, but this I will say: The history of unemployment in the United States was that of an inevitable condition. Any thoughtful observer oi trends in connection with trade realized the inevitability of the present result. If you substitute machines for men to the extent to which that has been done during the last five years-


John Vallance: We have not been doing that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I know the hon. gentleman has not, because the only machine of which he had any knowledge was broken during the last election in Saskatchewan. In hi3 case it is not from lack of willingness to try but rather from lack of opportunity. However, let us proceed a step further with the point I was developing.


John Vallance: Would the hon. gentleman mind telling us who broke that machine?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I would say, the common sense and the outraged conscience of a free people. At any rate, the fact is that there is unemployment in the United States. But I wonder if hon. gentlemen ever thought of unemployment in a great country whose natural resources have been established by favourable balances of trade reaching into billions of dollars and extended over a period of a quarter of a century, as compared with a young, undeveloped territory with a population of 10,000,000 people and an adverse trade balance amounting to over $100,000,000 in a year. I wonder if the hon. gentleman realizes the implications of that statement. My hon. friend from North Battleford must realize them, as every thoughtful man does; as I do, with all the sense of responsibility I have.
I am sorry my hon. friend from Hants-Kings (Mr. Ilsley) seemed to think that one who by toil accumulated a little wealth and then, because he was called upon to accept a place
of trust and responsibility, abandoned occupations from which he was formerly able to derive a large income, is thinking of himself all the time. That is not so. I wonder whether the hon. gentleman, if he had had the same opportunities that I had, would have abandoned those occupations. Let him answer that before he goes out of this house to attack me with respect to my attitude towards business. I would just remind him oi that. It is all very well to exalt the necessity of men giving themselves to public life, but when a young member of this house goes out upon the public platform and denounces men who, by their own efforts, have accumulated a little money and then have abandoned their former occupations, which were very profitable indeed, in an endeavour to render some little service to Canada, he is not giving the best that is in him.


Mr. ILSLEY:: Do you say that is what I did?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what the Globe reports my hon. friend as having done at St. Catharines.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I denounced nobody.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend quibbles over the use of a word. He did not denounce; he only disapproved and he ridiculed the idea that the man of wealth was able to do an}'-thing for his country. That is what he did, he intimated that the men who had accomplished something in this world were incapable of serving the state.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege, and I desire to state what I said. I said that gentlemen of great wealth had a distinctive and peculiar outlook upon problems, which was not that of the great mass of the people. That is all.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not what the hoc. gentleman is reported as having said. Renamed the front benches on this side of the house and said they were filled with millionaires, and he mentioned the attitude they would have towards the problems of the. people. Well, it was not so long ago that I was very poor, and I am not ashamed to say it. Neither am I ashamed to say that in my day I have made a great deal of money, but no man can say that a dollar of it has been made dishonestly. It is time that sort of thing should be stopped.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Who said it was?

Australian Treaty-Mr. Bennett


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman was reflecting upon a man who had accumulated a million dollars as being unfit to serve the state.


James Lorimer Ilsley: My hon. friend is entirely misrepresenting me. He does not accept my correction.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Toronto Globe reports the speech of the hon. gentleman at St. Catharines, and I take it as being an accurate report. Now sir-


Mr. CAHILL:: Withdraw the statement.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Withdraw what? I am quoting from the Toronto Globe, and my hon. friend says it is an inaccurate statement of what he said.


Mr. McMILLAN:: The hon gentleman is forced to accept the statement of an hon. member.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member says the report in the newspaper is inaccurate, that is all. I have referred to the report which appeared in the paper. Let my hon. friend quarrel with the paper and not with me; let him write his letter of retraction to the paper; let him set himself right. I expect to be in St. Catharines to-morrow and then I will find out what he did say, from people who heard him.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Let me make the statement-


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am not going to have any statement made during the course of my remarks. The hon. gentleman has spoken.


James Lorimer Ilsley: On a question of privilege.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have permitted the hon gentleman to ask a question.


Hewitt Bostock: No interruption without the consent of the hon. member speaking, is permissible unless it is on a question of privilege.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is a question of privilege.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman can make a speech later. There can be no question of privilege in the middle of my remarks.


Hewitt Bostock: There can be no interruption during the course of an address without the consent of the speaker, unless it is on a question of privilege. The hon. gentleman may speak on a question of privilege.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There can be no question of privilege in the middle of my speech. If the hon. gentleman wishes to ask a question I am quite willing that he should do so.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I think I have the floor.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There can be no question of privilege in the middle of my speech.


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. gentleman must state his question of privilege.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But he does not state it in the middle of my speech; he raises the point after I have sat down.


Hewitt Bostock: If he thinks it arises from a statement made by the hon. gentleman surely he is entitled to state his question of privilege.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But not to interrupt my remarks. Surely, Mr. Speaker, there are certain rules of order which govern debates in this house. I said that if the hon. gentleman desired to ask a question he might do so. He did ask his question and I have answered it.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I have been attacked for what I said in St. Catharines, I presume. I am going to state what I said in St. Catharines; it is very simple. My hon. friend has stated that I attacked men of great wealth, and he has said that I intimated that he did not make his money honestly.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not say that.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is a fair inference from what my hon. friend said.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not say that and I submit, Mr. Speaker, that this is not a question of privilege.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The hon. gentleman spent several moments trying to establish that he made his money honestly.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Withdraw.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I did not accuse the hon. member of not making his money honestly.


Hewitt Bostock: Order, please.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I made no reference to the hon. gentleman personally.


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not say that the hon. gentleman had said I made money dishonestly, nor did I intimate it. He attacked members on the front bench.

Australian Treaty-Mr. Bennett


Hewitt Bostock: I would ask the hon. member for Hants-Kings (Mr. Ilsley) to take his seat.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I was observing when I was interrupted that business was a rather complex matter in these days, and I was trying to point out what was involved in the exports and imports of a country. I have endeavoured as best I could to point out what this government has done with relation to these matters, and I repeat that with the economic situation now existing in Canada, we dare not in any sense lessen the markets which may be available for the products of this country without facing the responsibility of putting Canadians out of work. That is what it means.
The observations made by hon. gentlemen opposite this afternoon that the business was largely from British Columbia is not borne out by the facts. Sixty per cent of the newsprint which entered Australia and New Zealand came from eastern Canada, not from the west coast.


Mr. BRADETTE:: What about it?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Because of the speeches made by British Columbia members it has been asserted in the house this afternoon that this was purely a British Columbia matter.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Is the hon. member sorry that that business came from other parts of Canada?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Could anything be worse than that-an hon. gentleman rising in his place and asking me if I am sorry that this business came from eastern Canada and not from the west? It is the old story of the east against the west; they cannot conceive of a man living in western Canada having any but a prejudicial feeling against the east. I wonder if the hon. gentleman realizes that most of us were born in eastern Canada and went to western Canada to live, and that we believe in one Canada, not nine Canadas or a divided Canada. That bears out the observations of the hon. Minister of Railways when he said that we must not permit benefits to accrue to the east at the expense of the west. He was reported as saying that the other day at Brandon when he accepted office.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I think my hon. friend is quite mistaken.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The press may have reported it wrongly. It is not a question of east or west, it is a question of Canada as a whole. When the Australian treaty was
made it was made for the whole of Canada, not the west alone, and when there was an effort this afternoon, as there has been on other occasions, to make the house believe that this is a purely western business, the fact is that sixty per cent of the newsprint imported into Australia came from eastern and not western Canada. It is true the fish products came largely from the west, but other articles came from Cape Breton; there was steel from the British Empire Steel Corporation. As far as I know there are no steel plants in western Canada. The products mentioned the other day by the hon. member for Hants-Kings were products produced in the east and not in the west.


Mr. BANCROFT:: I hope my hon. friend has not forgotten that there is a large steel plant at Selkirk.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not think that plant carries on a very large export business with Australia; as I understand it, it is engaged largely in the melting of scrap.
In view of the circumstances to which I have alluded, this house will be well advised- I wish my hon. friend to the left had withdrawn his resolution after it had been discussed-to realize that the time is not ripe for the abrogation of this treaty. In saying that, I want the government to understand clearly that I for my own part, and for those who are associated with me, reserve the right to insist on the abrogation of that treaty should conditions arise to warrant that step being taken. If Canadian industry is placed in the future upon a solid basis, under an intelligent and a sane fiscal policy which will restore prosperity to Canada, that treaty, along with others, must be subject to revision. The Australians already have intimated that that is their intention, and we on our part cannot be solely in control of the negotiations.


Charles A. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I thought we
were supposed to be discussing the Australian treaty, but after listening for an hour and a quarter to the remarks of the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett), I begin to wonder whether we are discussing the Australian treaty or the general economic situation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The one arises out of the )ther.


Charles A. Stewart: I do not propose to spend very much time in discussing the general economic situation, but I would like to refer to a few matters which we have heard mentioned so frequently from across the
1022	COMMONS
Australian Treaty-Mr. Stewart (Edmonton)
floor of the house. There never has been an attempt on the part of this government to negotiate a treaty, there never has been an attempt on the part of this government to deal with the tariff, but that we have been told by the opposition that we were going to ruin Canada. It has been only within the last two or three years that they have ceased crying blue ruin. I challenge any hon. member opposite to deny that assertion having been made by Right Hon. Arthur Meighen and by my hon. friend who is now leading the Conservative party.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I deny absolutely that
I have ever preached blue ruin in this country; there is the answer.


Charles A. Stewart: I will accept cheerfully my hon. friend's denial, but it is about on a par with his statement to-night- at which I smiled-'that had he been in the house at the time he would have voted against the Australian treaty, but that he was not prepared to-night to do so.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so.


Charles A. Stewart: We hear a great deal about the condition in which Canada finds herself, but we have not heard a word during this present debate about the wonderful prosperity of the United States. That country has increased its tariff in order to protect its farmers and its industry, but not a word has been uttered upon this occasion as to the prosperity of that country. What has happened? There is more unemployment to-day in the United States than there is in Canada.


An hon. MEMBER:: Not at all.


Charles A. Stewart: Oh yes, my hon. friends have admitted it. We have heard much in the past about the prosperity of the United States, brought about by an increase in their tariff, and that was offered as an example to the Canadian government as to what should be done in the interests of the Canadian people. That country has increased its tariff, and in view of that action it was pointed out how much had been gained by our mighty neighbour across the line. But what about this present debate? We have not heard a thing about the United States. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, the prosperity of Canada during the period this government has been in office has never been excelled in any period in her history. I make that assertion without fear of contradiction.


An hon. MEMBER:: The hon. minister
should go down to the maritime provinces.


Charles A. Stewart: I read the press of the maritime provinces, and what does it say? That the maritime provinces now are enjoying unprecedented prosperity. I know my hon. friend will not say that.


An hon. MEMBER:: I know the conditions prevailing there.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend has said that the implementing of the Duncan report has performed a wonderful service for the maritime provinces.


Mr. HANSON:: But that report has not
been fully implemented.


Charles A. Stewart: There is
one thing yet to be done, and when that is done my hon. friend will admit that the mari-times have never received from any government the treatment which they have received from this government. In reply to my hon. friend's assertion that conditions in Canada have not been prosperous; that the splendid situation in the United States has been built up through all the generations during which they have enjoyed protective tariffs-that is his argument-and that our internal trade is suffering because we do not build up protective tariffs, I am not going into details; I simply leave the question to the good judgment of the house. We are at the present time suffering a depression in common with every other country but not to the same extent that it has hit the other countries with whom we are doing business.
My hon. friend spent about twenty minutes in discussing the advisability of being very careful in regard1 to treaties. He will not deny that if a treaty is to be brought about, there must be concessions on both sides. Both countries expect to get something out of a treaty, otherwise it would not be negotiated by either. I do not think that can be contradicted. We would not make treaties except for the purpose of mutual benefits, and naturally each country is extremely anxious to receive the outmost advantage out of any treaty made with the other. I know full well my hon. friend will argue that there would not have been much wrong with the Australian treaty if we had raised the general tariff. How would the raising of the general tariff affect the situation at this time of which my hon. friend is complaining? What is the complaint? It is that as regards natural products such as butter, beef, wool, mutton we are allowing the importation of those commodities to the detriment of the agricultural community. I ask him the question: had we accepted his suggestion and had we raised the

Australian Treaty-Mr. Stewart (Edmonton)
general tariff, or if you please, left it at what it was before the treaty was negotiated, to what extent would it have stopped the importation of butter into Canada at this time? May I tell him?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I will tell my hon. friend. Imposing the dumping duty answers that.


Charles A. Stewart: The dumping duty, my hon. friend says, has stopped the importation of Australian butter.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


Charles A. Stewart: But it did
not stop the importation of Australian mutton or beef. It has not stopped the importation of New Zealand butter, but the conditions that exist in Canada to-day have so far been more favourable than in any other countiy purchasing those commodities. I do not think anyone will deny that. I think it is a perfectly proper statement that- the prices of butter, beef and mutton in Canada are very much higher than in other countries. We were competitors in all those commodities in the British market. We were exporters of butter. To-day we are out of the export butter business.


Mr. MACDONALD (Richmond):: Why?


Charles A. Stewart: Because we are shipping cream and milk to the United States. As soon as we reach the point where we can satisfy our home consumption, we shall be exporting again. That is the reason we are not exporting butter. We are exporting cheese, as my hon. friends will agree, and we have to take world prices for that commodity when we are on an export basis. I have some sympathy with the complaint of my hon. friends. They claim that the remedy is to give food products in Canada the same measure of protection that is given to manufactured articles. I would be willing to consider it if I thought it would do the farming community any good. Did such action do the United States farmer any good? That is the difficulty of the United States government to-day and with the exception of France, the United States enjoys the highest protective tariff in Christendom. Nevertheless the farmers of the United States with a protective home market are in a worse situation than the Canadian farmers. I make the claim that in seven years out of ten-and this has been the history of Canada-food products have been on an export basis. We are not on an export basis to-day as regards butter.


Finlay MacDonald: Why?


Charles A. Stewart: Simply because of the increased consumption of butter in Canada; not because we have been suffering with respect to manufactured products as my hon. friend would have us believe, but because we have increased in manufactured products by leaps and bounds and because we have consumed and are consuming more butter. As a matter of fact as regards the consumption of butter, Canada ranks perhaps the highest in the world, consuming 29 pounds per annum per capita. It is because we have had prosperity that our people have been able to buy butter. The moment we go on an export basis again with respect to butter or any other commodity, we shall have to take world prices and again we shall be competitors of New Zealand and Australia in the British or any other market that is buying commodities of this character.
I do not contend for a moment that something cannot be done with the Australian treaty. I would regret it if we were to lose the advantage of the Australian market, because it means and will mean much to Canada. I am in favour of increasing to the fullest extent and by every possible means inter-empire trade, trade with Britain and with the overseas dominions. I believe this commonwealth of nations will profit tremendously by treaties that will increase the trade of overseas dominions one with another. If we are to have a trade treaty with New Zealand or Australia, there are few commodities that Australia and New Zealand have for export other than food products. If they cannot make a trade treaty with a country that can take some of those products, a moderate supply of them. I do not see what advantage the Australians or New Zealanders are going to have in making a trade treaty at all. But we in Canada have been friendly competitors of theirs in the British market, and that market has fixed the price for our butter, cheese, wheat, and generally speaking for all the food products that we have to export. At the present time my hon. friends are taking advantage of a situation when they find the Canadian market for butter the highest in price of any market in the world, higher even than the United States. My hon. friend forgot to mention that. The price of butter in Canada is higher than that in the United States where they have three times the protection that the Canadian government has placed against butter.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not what last
week's New York market shows.
1024	COMMONS
Australian Treaty-Mr. Stewart (Edmonton)


Mr. STEW  ART@Edmonton: Two weeks ago in Chicago and two weeks ago in New York the quotations were one cent lower than Canadian prices.


Mr. McGIBBON:: That was not the case yesterday.


Charles A. Stewart: There may be fluctuations. My hon. friend will not deny that there is very little difference in the price to-day, but a year ago and two years ago he was making the welkin ring in regard to having for food products a protected market such as the United States has. We do not hear that now. It was that which brought me to my feet on this occasion, because I am not in the habit of making speeches in the house. My hon. friends are attempting to take advantage of a situation that is only temporary, because as I say-and my hon. friend can look up the figures and see whether or not I am wrong-at least seven years out of ten we shall be on an export basis so far as butter and other food products are concerned. If Canada is to progress, to go forward, we must have markets for those food products. It will be generations before we can consume all that we can produce in this country.
The complaint of hon. gentlemen opposite is that we have not protected our home market. Without going into details or giving figures, I state most emphatically that within the last five years we have increased our manufacturing to a greater degree than in any other five year period in the history of Canada. That was not done by increasing tariffs; rather the reverse. Then we are criticized by some hon. gentlemen for not decreasing tariffs still further. When we find ourselves in a situation such as I have described, with a market that consumes more than it produces of but one commodity, perhaps two-because we have to import bacon at the present time, whereas formerly we were exporting bacon-we are told that we should right-about-face and declare that the policy that we have followed, and under which our trade and manufacturing has developed to a greater degree than ever before, is all wrong. It is a perfect absurdity. If hon. gentlemen opposite were in office to-morrow, and they increased the duty against American or Australian butter, they would put our agriculturists in the same position as that in which the American agriculturists find themselves to-day, and the United States government, in that highly protected country, is at the present time offering various kinds of encouragement to the American farmer. With
[Mr Bennett.]
a surplus production, the export price regulates the price in the home market. That is a situation that we cannot get over. I might believe in protection were it not for this very stubborn fact that faces me upon every occasion.


Mr. McQUARRIE:: Are the American
farmers asking for lower tariffs?


Charles A. Stewart: The American farmers are asking for money these days. They tried tariff relief and found out the fallacy of it. Now they are seeking relief from some other quarter.


William Garland McQuarrie: They want higher
tariffs.


Charles A. Stewart: Not higher
tariffs; they tried that. That is not the solution of the problem in any country that must be an exporting country, and it needs no argument to convince hon. gentlemen opposite of that fact. Everybody knows that you cannot assist the farmer by putting a tariff on the goods that he must export, and which fixes the market price in his own country.
With respect to the motion of my hon. friend, I intend to vote against it. I do not say that this treaty is a perfect one. I do not say that changes might not be made in it perhaps to the mutual benefit of both countries. I quite realize what my hon. friend says, that there have been mutterings from Australia to the effect that in their opinion they are not getting a fair deal out of this treaty, and that they would like to revamp it. So far as we are concerned, having proper regard for the interests of this country, we are perfectly willing to do so. I am going to vote against the motion as well as against the amendment.


Hon. R. J. MANION (Fort William):: At this late hour I do not intend to delay the house more than five or ten minutes at the most. I sat here and listened to my hon. friend who has just taken his seat (Mr. Stewart, Edmonton) as I have to the remarks of various other ministers, .and heard him repeat over and over again-he said it four or five times in the fifteen minutes he was up-that we have never had such a prosperous five year period as during the time this government has been in office. I do not mind saying that, although hon. gentlemen opposite sometimes accuse us of crying blue ruin when we tell the truth, I am not going to let that deter me from stating the facts. I say that never before in the history of this country as far back as I can remember, and T ran remember back a few years at least,

Australian Treaty-Mr. Manion
have we had a deputation coming clear through from the Pacific coast to the Great lakes and on to Ottawa asking this government to help in the unemployment situation. That happened this very year, and I stood for over two hours with that delegation until I was driven out by the heat. It was a delegation representing every town from Vancouver and Victoria down through to Fort William and Port Arthur. They came here asking for help, and all they got from this government was an effort on the part of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) to convince them that there was no unemployment ait all. He ended up by talking in a general way about unemployment insurance, and then a day or two afterwards in this house assured one of the Winnipeg members that unemployment insurance was a matter for the provinces to take up, that this government had no intention of doing it, but that if the provinces wanted to take it up, this government would not mind cooperating. I repeat, never before have there been so many labour groups urging any government to do something to relieve the unemployment situation. The government was asked to call a conference. The great United States, with all its prosperity- I deny that the United States has been hit anything like as hard as the minister tries to make out-called a conference of its leading business men, and only a couple of Sundays ago I listened to a minister telling of the advantages that had accrued through the calling of that conference. This government would not call a conference to satisfy anybody. Right in my own oity of Fort William, for the first time in our history, we had parades of the unemployed, and one of the first places in this country to ask for assistance in the matter of unemployment was the home town of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Heenan). While the Minister of Labour was telling this country there was no unemployment, the town of Kenora, through its member in the legislature at Toronto, was asking for assistance to relieve the unemployment situation in that town.
We hear a great deal about unemployment in the United States. But what about the million and a half people in free trade England who are on the dole at the present time, and the number is constantly increasing? So far as the United States is concerned, it is true that conditions there have not been so good since the stock market crash last fall, but that is true of every other country. Certainly conditions in the United States are not so bad that they are talking of coming down to free trade. As the hon. member for
New Westminster pointed out, the people there are asking for a greater amount of protection. I do not notice that they are cutting down the protection their producers have against Canadian products. Within the last few days they have raised the duties against the products of Canada which they import to the amount of $75,000,000 annually. That is in addition to the $100,000,000 of imports which the Fordney tariff shut out from Canada in 1922. What does this government propose to do to see that we get a fair deal with the United States? The only thing done is that the government says we must not do anything to provoke Washington, and we go on allowing our agricultural products of all kinds to be barred out of the United States. We do nothing in return but sit quiet and boast of the immense amount of unemployment there is in that great country.
I have heard' a great many arguments in this house to-day and yesterday to the effect that tariffs increase the cost of living. I represent largely a workingman's constituency -, not entirely, because it comprises in part a farming section, but three-quarters of it is a workingman's constituency; and for thirteen years I have been taking in this house the same attitude on protection that I am taking now. I believe in a Canadian policy. I believe in the national policy properly brought up to date. In those thirteen years in which I have consistently taken that attitude I have never had the working people in my constituency complain that such a policy would increase the cost of living. I do not believe that any man or any woman in this country cares about the cost of living so long as he or she can get work and wages to pay that cost of living. That is the important part.
The government has claimed that we on this side of the house have been playing politics in connection with the butter industry, in connection with the fruit industry, and in connection with the egg industry. We have been told that it was either playing politics or just a joke. This government, as a matter of fact, makes no attempt to look after any interest in this country. Its whole policy is a policy of permitting this country to be swamped by the surplus products of other countries. The only possible way in which this country can get on its feet is to produce within its own borders some of that $900,000,000 worth of goods that we purchase from the United States in a year. We bought last year from the United States $338,000,000 worth of iron and steel products. Two thirds of those products could have been produced here.
1026	COMMONS
Australian Treaty-Mr. Young (Weybum)
Every pound of the butter that we are importing from New Zealand could and should have been produced in this Dominion. Out of all our imports we should produce at lea9t fifty, sixty or possibly seventy-five per cent in this Dominion. Not until we adopt a policy such as that, a real Canadian-first policy, to produce what we can produce economically in this country, will this Dominion once more get back on its feet.


Edward James Young: Mr. Speaker, when I came into the chamber tonight my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) was talking about asbestos, puipwood, pulp and, I think, generally about the export of our raw materials and bringing them back into this country as manufactured goods. His argument, I believe, was that we should refuse to export those things in the raw or semi-raw state and should insist on everything being processed in this country and shipped out as finished products to other countries. It might interest the hon. gentleman and the house to know that at the present time we in Canada are the largest per capita exporters of manufactured goods in the world. I know my hon. friend will say, as he said this afternoon, that by our method of accounting we take goods that are manufactured to a very slight degree, in fact are not very far removed from the raw state, and count them as manufactured goods; but he also said that every other nation does the same thing; so that would still leave us in the lead as the greatest per capita exporters of manufactured products in the world.
My hon. friend who has just taken his seat (Mr. Manion) referred to the unemployment situation in Great Britain where he said a million and a half are unemployed. Granted that that is so. In the United States, a highly protected country, there are six million unemployed. Taking the population of the United States as three times that of Great Britain-it is only approximately so,-the ratio of unemployment is four and a half in Great Britain to six in the United States.


Robert James Manion: They have not yet had to put the dole system into force in the United States.


Edward James Young: That is really unemployment insurance, to which the participants contribute. Now, let me come back to adbestos. I think my hon. friend's argument was we export our raw asbestos and import the finished product. In round figures we export about 814,000,000 worth of asbestos, and we import about 81,000,000 of manufac-

tured asbestos goods. His idea is that we should insist on this 814,000,000 worth of raw asbestos being manufactured in this country into the finished product. But supposing those who buy our raw asbestos and process it should refuse to buy it if a prohibitive export duty were imposed?


An hon. MEMBER:: They cannot.


Edward James Young: Why not?


An hon. MEMBER:: Because they cannot get it any place else.


Mr. CAHAN:: They cannot get it anywhere else in the world.


Edward James Young: They can buy
asbestos in South Africa.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: They cannot for manufacture in the United States.


Edward James Young: They can buy
it in Rhodesia.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: They cannot.


Edward James Young: If we refuse to
sell them our raw asbestos they will simply tell us to keep it, and they will buy their raw material somewhere else.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Where?


Edward James Young: In Rhodesia.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The hon. gentleman ought to study the elements of the asbestos business. He is absolutely ignorant of them.


Edward James Young: Further than
that, my hon. friend says-and his associates over there have repeated the argument time and1 again-that we should not export any of our mineral products in the raw state; we should finish them here. Let us see how they would encourage the mining industry in this country. The first thing in connection with a mine is the prospector, and they would encourage him by putting a higher duty on his pick and shovel, his boots and clothing, thus making it more expensive for him to go out and locate a claim. That is the encouragement they would give the prospector. Then when he has located his claim and sold it to a syndicate who will develop it, my hon. friends opposite would add a duty on all the machinery that syndicate requires to develop the claim into a mine.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: And tax the stock certificates; that is what this government did.


Edward James Young: An Ontario
mine on the installation of one single hoist had to pay no less than $70,000 in duty. But my hon. friends opposite think that is not

Australian Treaty-Mr. Young (Weybum)
enough; these duties they would make so high as to render it almost impossible to develop the mining properties of this country. That is the way they would encourage our mining industry. Then if the mining syndicate overcome that difficulty and get their mine developed to the producing point and have a chance to sell the ore abroad, my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre would say: "No, you must not sell your ore abroad; you must build a smelter in Canada and treat your ore here." And to encourage them he would increase the duty on the machinery of that smelter! That is how hon. gentlemen opposite propose to develop industry in Canada by means of their protective tariff.
My hon. friend had something to say about the United States favourable balance of trade and our adverse balance of trade. When I asked him how the United States received payment for all the surplus goods they sent abroad, he said they accepted it in gold. I should like to ask him if we in Canada pay our adverse balance of trade to the United States in gold?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Certainly.


Edward James Young: Certainly not.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If the hon. gentleman
will ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning), he will tell him exactly what has been going on during the last few months.


Edward James Young: Are we shipping that out of the country?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, we have to make
arrangements for the purchase of it. When I say gold I mean money.


Edward James Young: Our exports of
gold last year amounted to $60,000,000 and our imports were about half that amount, leaving a net export of $30,000,000 odd.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is right.


Edward James Young: How do we redress that two or three hundred million dollar adverse balance of trade? We pay for it in goods or in services, not in gold.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Or borrow.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: We pay part of it by borrowing money in the United States.


Edward James Young: We are not
borrowing much at the present time.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, we are, we are
borrowing too much.


Edward James Young: The country of
Australia has been held up to us as a model country which we should follow in these matters.


Richard Bedford Bennett: By whom?


Edward James Young: By my hon.
friend's predecessor in office.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is a complete
answer.


Edward James Young: He told us that we should do as Australia was doing, that Australia was going to build up a high tariff wall that would shut out imports and permit only exports, and that that was the policy that would develop their resources. What did they do? They adopted one of the highest tariffs in the world.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is lucky for my hon.
friend that the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen is not here.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Order nothing.


Edward James Young: Am I the only
one who is glad of it?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, there are a lot of
others over there who are glad.


Edward James Young: And over there, also.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No.


Edward James Young: Now, let us see what happened in Australia under their high tariff. They have over two hundred and fifty items in their tariff which carry a rate of over forty per cent. This has increased the cost of production to such a point that it has become impossible for them to export- to compete in the markets of the world. They said in their hearts: "We will adopt a tariff that will make it possible for us to sell and not to buy." The result has been the very reverse. Now they have to buy instead of sell, and they are wondering how they are going to pay for their imports, because they cannot make anything cheap enough to sell to anybody else. That has resulted in their adverse exchange rate of about six per cent, mentioned the other night by my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre. He said they redressed that by the export of gold, and the figure quoted by him was $79,000,000 odd.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I said in the last eight months.


Edward James Young: That makes it worse still.
1028	COMMONS
Australian Treaty-Mr. Young (Weyburn)


Henry Herbert Stevens: I also said it was one of Australia's chief products. My hon. friend takes a small item and twists it-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Edward James Young: I was going to add that my hon. friend said Australia could afford to do that because she is a producer of gold. I am one year behind my hon. friend, because he had one book out of the library ahead of mine. Last year Australia produced only about twelve or thirteen million dollars' worth of gold.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, pounds sterling.


Edward James Young: 
Henry Herbert Stevens: You are all wrong.


Edward James Young: 
Henry Herbert Stevens: According to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm).


Edward James Young: These figures
show that Australia is depleting her gold reserve. She has nothing to give in exchange for her imports. The tariff policy that she has adopted has made it impossible for her to trade with the world, and she has to deplete her gold reserve. Take the issue of January 18th of the Commercial Intelligence Journal, and it will show you that the Australian government is even now drafting a law to make the Commonwealth Bank of Australia-the government bank-the sole repository of gold in that country, and to prevent entirely the importation of gold. That is the situation. That is because, as the hon. gentleman said, she is exporting gold that she is not producing, and she is depleting her gold reserve. That is the situation that has been brought about in Australia by this tariff policy which my hon. friends are so fond of advocating.
My hon. friend from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) took me to task the other night for preferring the consumer to the producer. He said that while he has great respect for the consumer and the consumer's rights, he prefers the producer when the two interests clash. He would rather satisfy the producer than the consumer. I must admit that that belief is very popular in the world at the present time. Nearly every country has taken that attitude. They have undertaken to encourage the pro-
ducer and lost sight of the consumer, and with what result? This has been the result; production has been encouraged to the point that the consumer is no longer able to buy the product of the producer; the purchasing power of the consumer has gone. You cannot tell me that there is too much food in the world; we have hundreds of millions of bushels of wheat in this country, and yet there are millions of people starving in Europe. It is a fact that 75 per cent of the people of the world to-day are wearing clothes frayed at the edges, yet the shelves in our shops are loaded with the products of manufacturers that cannot be sold.


James Dew Chaplin: Is wheat so dear they cannot buy it?


Edward James Young: No. they are so poor they cannot buy it. This is the result of the policy adopted by practically every country of the world which favours the producer at the expense of the consumer. What is the remedy for the situation? There is only one remedy, and that is to bring those goods to a price the consumer can afford to pay. That is the only remedy. My hon. friend spoke of the depression in the United States as being due to the introduction of machinery.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And mass production.


Edward James Young: The introduction of machinery and the adoption of what is called mass production has resulted in the possibility of producing the same quantity of goods with a lesser amount of labour. A certain percentage of the persons employed are laid off, and are thrown out of work; what should have happened then would be a reduction in price. Had there been a corresponding reduction in price where the manufacturer could then afford to sell his goods for less, and if he had reduced the price of his goods, the purchasing power would have been increased; there would have been a greater demand for the goods, more people would have been employed in that and other industries, and the men laid off because of the introduction of improved methods would be employed in some other way. But they have not done that They have endeavoured to maintain the price until the time arrived when so many men were unemployed that there was no possibility of their buying the goods. That is the cause of unemployment, so far as the introduction of improved methods is concerned. The only remedy for that situation is to lower the price so as to enable the people to purchase the goods in the shops, and set the wheels of industry going again.

Australian Treaty-Mr. Gershaw


Mr. MACDOUGALL:: If lower prices are
good, would it not be a good thing for those owners of wheat to reduce the price of wheat that is being held in western Canada, and sell it for 25 cents a bushel?


Edward James Young: I see what my
hon. friend means. He asks, Why do you not sell your product lower than anybody else? To my mind that would not remedy the situation.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: No, but it would
be following out your explanation logically.


Edward James Young: What is it that
keeps prices high? It is of no use to lower the price of a single commodity unless you can bring the prices of all commodities down. What keeps the price of a commodity at a high level? It is the universal system of tariff all over the world which keeps prices up. There should be a system whereby prices of all commodities would be reduced to the point where the people could buy them.
There is some talk of revision of the Australian treaty. We bought from her last year something like S3,500,000 worth of goods and sold to her about $19,420,000 worth. The duty we collected on that trade was $133,770. There is not very much produced in Australia that comes into competition with our products, and there is not very much we ship into Australia that comes into competition with her products; why not have free trade between the two countries? That would be a step in the direction of empire free trade, and a step towards the resolution of my hon. friend (Mr. Fansher) which aims at extending the British preference. It would not hurt any Canadian industry; it would help both countries and we would lose very little revenue by it.
labour this point in particular. We know that in a normal year we grow something in the neighbourhood of 500,000,000 bushels of grain. Each man, woman and child consumes about five bushels per year so that we have food enough for 100,000,000 people. Our population is only 10,000,000. The same thing applies, to some extent, to meat and cheese, and to a large number of products. At the present time there is over-production throughout the country, and the farmers are suffering on that account. Perhaps in no district in Canada have the farmers suffered more than in southern Alberta, where they tried the great venture of raising large crops of wheat and grain. This turned out unfortunately, and now they are turning to mixed farming and sheep raising.
It has been clearly established that this treaty provides a market for lines of manufactured goods, and it thus helps those engaged in these industries to prosper. However, it has not been shown that it is of any benefit to the farmer or to the great basic industry of agriculture, which at the present time greatly needs help. There is a strong presumption that it is not only of no benefit but is somewhat of an additional handicap instead. It has been often said that we should manage our own affairs in our own way, and with that in mind I venture to suggest this condition of affairs to the government, so that in the discussion of new treaties at any economic conference at least they will know some of the handicaps under which a great basic industry of this country is struggling.


['What is it that\nkeeps prices high? It is of no use to lower the price of a single commodity unless you can bring the prices of all commodities down. What keeps the price of a commodity at a high level? It is the universal system of tariff all over the world which keeps prices up. There should be a system whereby prices of all commodities would be reduced to the point where the people could buy them.\nThere is some talk of revision of the Australian treaty. We bought from her last year something like S3,500,000 worth of goods and sold to her about $19,420,000 worth. The duty we collected on that trade was $133,770. There is not very much produced in Australia that comes into competition with our products, and there is not very much we ship into Australia that comes into competition with her products; why not have free trade between the two countries? That would be a step in the direction of empire free trade, and a step towards the resolution of my hon. friend (Mr. Fansher) which aims at extending the British preference. It would not hurt any Canadian industry; it would help both countries and we would lose very little revenue by it.\nlabour this point in particular. We know that in a normal year we grow something in the neighbourhood of 500,000,000 bushels of grain. Each man, woman and child consumes about five bushels per year so that we have food enough for 100,000,000 people. Our population is only 10,000,000. The same thing applies, to some extent, to meat and cheese, and to a large number of products. At the present time there is over-production throughout the country, and the farmers are suffering on that account. Perhaps in no district in Canada have the farmers suffered more than in southern Alberta, where they tried the great venture of raising large crops of wheat and grain. This turned out unfortunately, and now they are turning to mixed farming and sheep raising.\nIt has been clearly established that this treaty provides a market for lines of manufactured goods, and it thus helps those engaged in these industries to prosper. However, it has not been shown that it is of any benefit to the farmer or to the great basic industry of agriculture, which at the present time greatly needs help. There is a strong presumption that it is not only of no benefit but is somewhat of an additional handicap instead. It has been often said that we should manage our own affairs in our own way, and with that in mind I venture to suggest this condition of affairs to the government, so that in the discussion of new treaties at any economic conference at least they will know some of the handicaps under which a great basic industry of this country is struggling.']
Mr. F. W. GERSHAW (Medicine Hat):: I would like to take a few minutes to express what I conceive to be the opinion of the people in the district from which I come. I have a standing arrangement with an hon. gentleman on the other side not to vote in his absence, but I would like to express my preference for and my support of the amendment offered by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Gardiner).
As has been said so often, the farming industry, which is the great basic industry of this country, is at the present time in a critical condition. I believe almost any farmer in Canada would sell out, if he could. Not being able to do that, however, he simply must struggle along and do the best he can. It is not necessary for me to repeat the arguments which have been advanced or to
Adshead,
Anderson (Toronto-High Park),
Arthurs,
Barber,
Bell (Hamilton West),
Bell (St. Antoine), Bell (St. John-Albert), Bennett,
Black (Yukon),
Black (Halifax), Bowen,
Cahan,
Charters,
Clark,
Cowan,
Dickie,
Embury,
Ernst,
Esling,
Fraser,
Garland (Carleton), Geary,
Grimmer,
Hanson,
Hocken,
Hubbs,
Jones,
Ladner,
Macdonald (Richmond-West Cape Breton), Maedougall,
McGibbon,
McQuarrie,
McRae,
Maybee,
Murpliy,
Peck,
Perley (Sir George), Price,
Rennie,
Ross (Kingston City), Ryerson,

Australian Treaty-Division
Senn,	Spence,
Sinclair (Wellington	Stewart (Leeds),
North).	Stirling,
Smith (Cumberland),	Thompson,
Smoke, Sipankie,	Tunimon.-51.
NAYS	
Messrs:	
Allan,	King (Kootenay
Bancroft,	East),
Beaubien,	King. Mackenzie
Benoit,	(Prince Albert),
Bertrand,	Lacombe,
Bettez,	Laflamme,
Bird,	Langlois,
Blanchard,	Lang.
Blatchford,	Lapierre,
Bock,	Letellier
Boivin,	Lovie,
Bothwell,	Lucas,
Boucher,	Luchkovieh,
Boulanger,	Macdonald
Bourassa,	(Glengary),
Bourgeois,	MacLean (Prince),
Bradette,	McLean (Melfortj,
Brown,	Macphail (Miss),
Cahill,	McDiarmid,
Cannon,	McIntosh,
Casgrain,	McKenzie,
Cayley,	McMillan,
Chevrier,	McPhereon,
Coote,	Marcil,
Crerar,	Mereier (Laurier-
Desaulniers,	Outremont),
Descoteaux,	Mereier (St. Henri)
Dionne,	Millar,
Duff,	Milne,
Dtimaine,	Morrissy,
Dunning,	Neill,
Dupuis,	O'Connor,
Evans,	Parent,
Fafard,	Power,
Fansher (Last	Raymond,
Mountain),	Roberge,
Fansher (Lambton	Robitaille,
East),	St-Pere,
Ferland,	Sanderson,
Gardiner,	Seguin,
Garland (Bow River),	Sinclair (Queens),
Gervais,	Smith (Stormont),
Girouard,	Sipeakman,
Glen,	Steedsman,
Goulet,	Stewart (Edmonton
Hall,	West),
Heenan,	Sylvestre,
Howden,	Taylor,
Ilsley,	Telford,
Irvine,	Totzke,
Jelliff,	Y allance,
J enkins,	Veniot,
Johnston (Long Lake),	Yerville.
Kellner,	Young (Saskatoon),
Kennedy,	Young (Weyburn).-103.
(During the taking of the vote):


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I do not know whether or
not this is a matter of privilege, Mr. Speaker, but a moment ago I looked across the floor and thought I recognized the Secretary of State, with whom I was paired, so I voted.

Now I find it was the hon. member for St. Denis (Mr. Denis). I should not have voted, and I am very sorry. I should like to withdraw my vote before the announcement is made, if I may do so, because I voted by mistake.
PAIRS:
(The list of pairs is furnished by the chief whips.) Messrs:	
Tobin,	Harris,
Delisle,	Chaplin,
Motherwell,	McGregor,
Lapointe,	Guthrie.
Elliott,	Edwards (South Waterloo),
Bowman,	Hodgins.
Hay,	Matthews,
Baldwin,	Johnstone (Cape Breton),
Lavigueur,	Kaiser,
Fontaine,	Anderson (Halton),
Parent,	Boys.
Ralston,	MacNutt,
Malcolm,	Stevens,
Rinfret,	Cahan,
Cardin,	Cantley,
Euler,	Manion,
J acobs,	Young (Toronto Northeast),
Gershaw,	Whitt, (London),
Gray.	Lawson,
Bouchard,	Pettit,
Morin,	Rycltman,
Prevost,	Stinson,
Rheaume,	Church,
Fiset, Sir Eugene,	MacLaren,
Hepburn,	Spotton,
Denis,	Simpson,
Pouliot,	Lennox.
Guerin,	Maloney,
McPhee,	Macdonald (Kings),
Ross (Moose Jaw)	, Plunkett,
Thorson,	Brady,
Odette,	Robinson,
Rutherford,	Gott.
Wilson (Vaudreuil-	White (Mount
Soulanges)	Royal),
Dussaut,	Cotnam,
Lacroix,	Rowe,
Howard,	Casselman.
Kay,	Wilson (Wentworth),
Donnelly,	Quinn.


Hewitt Bostock: the amendment.	The question now is on
The house divided on the amendment (Mr.	
Gardiner) which was negatived on the following division:
 YEAS Messrs:	
Bird,	Garland (Bow River)r
Boucher,	Irvine,
Coote,	Jelliff,
Evans,	Kellner,
Fansher (Last	Kennedy,
Mountain),	Lucas,
Fansher (Lambton	Luchkovieh,
East),	Macphail,
Gardiner,	Speakman.-16.

Australian Treaty-Pairs
++NAYS
Messrs:
Adshead,	Lacombe,
Allan,	Ladner,
Anderson (Toronto-	Laflamme,
High Park),	Langlois,
Bancroft,	Lang,
Barber,	Lapierre,
Beaubien,	Letellier,
Bell (Hamilton	Lovie,
West),	Macdonald
Bell (St. Antoine),	(Glengarry),
Bell (St. John-Albert),	Macdonald (Richmond-
Bennett,	West Cape Breton),
Benoit,	Macdougall,
Bettez,	MacLean (Prince),
Black (Yukon),	McLean (Melfort),
Black (Halifax),	McDiarmid,
Blanchcard,	MoGibbon,
Blatchford,	McIntosh,
Bock,	McKenzie,
Boivin,	McMillan,
Both well,	McPherson,
Boulanger,	McQuarrie,
B our a sea,	McRae,
Bourgeois,	Manion,
Bowen,	Marcil,
Bradette,	Maybee,
Brown,	Mercier (Laurier-
Cahill,	Outremont),
Cannon,	Mercier (St. Henri),
Casgrain,	Millar,
Caeselman,	Milne,
Cayley,	Morin,
Charters,	Morrissy,
Chevrier,	Murphy,
Cotnam,	Neill,
Cowan,	O'Connor,
Crerar,	Parent,
Desaulniers,	Peck,
Descoteaux,	Perley (Sir George),
Dickie,	Power,
Dionne,	Price,
Duff,	Raymond,
Dumaine,	Rennie,
Dunning,	Roberge,
Dupuis,	Robitaille,
Embury,	Ross (Kingston City)
Esling,	Ryekman,
Fafard,	Ryerson,
F erland,	St-Pere,
Fraser,	Sanderson,
Garland (Carleton),	Seguin,
Geary,	Senn,
Gervais,	Simpson,
Girouard,	Sinclair (Queens),
Glen,	Sinclair (Wellington
Goulet,	North),
Grimmer,	Smith (Cumberland),
Hall,	Smith (Stormont),
Hanson,	Smoke,
Hay,	Spankie,
Heenan,	Spence
Howden,	Steedsman,
Hubbs,	Stevens,
Ilsley,	Stewart (Edmonton
Jenkins,	West),
Jonhston (Long Lake), Stewart (Leeds),	
Jones,	Stirling,
Kaiser,	Sylvestre,
King (Kootenay	Taylor,
East),	Telford,
King, Mackenzie	Thompson,
(Prince Albert),	Totzke,
Tummon,	Young (Toronto
Veniot,	Northeast),
Verville,	Young
Young (Saskatoon),	(Weyburn).-141.
PAIRS:
(The list of pairs is furnished by the chief whips.)
Messrs:
Deslauriers,	Spencer.


Mr. ELLIOTT:: I was paired with the hon. member for South Waterloo (Mr. Edwards). Had I voted, I would have voted against both the subamendment and the amendment.


Mr. THORSON:: I was paired with the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Brady). Had I voted, I would have voted against both the subamendment and the amendment.


Mr. BOWMAN:: I was paired with the hon. member for East Middlessex (Mr. Hodgins). Had I voted, I would have voted against both the subamendment and the amendment.


Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: I was paired with the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Plunkett). Had I voted, I would have voted against both the subamendment and the amendment.


Mr. ROWE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Lacroix). Had I voted, I would have voted for the subamendment and against the amendment.


George Taylor MacNutt: I was paired with the
hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston). Had I voted, I would have voted for the subamendment and against the amendment.


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


Mr. KAISER:: I was paired with the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. Lavi-gueur). Had I voted, I would have voted for the subamendment and against the amendment.


Mr. RYCKMAN:: I was paired with the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Rouville (Mr. Morin). Had I voted, I would have voted for the subamendment.


Robert James Manion: I was paired with the hon. Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Euler). Had I voted, I would have voted for the subamendment.
1032	, COMMONS
Supply-Harbours and Rivers-Quebec


Mr. CHURCH:: I was paired with the hon. member for Jacques-Cartier (Mr. Rheaume) Had I voted, I would have voted for the subamendment.


Mr. QUINN:: I was paired with the hon. member for Willow Bunch (Mr. Donnelly). Had I voted, I would have voted for the subamendment and against the amendment.


Mr. TOBIN:: I was paired with the hon.
member for Toronto-Scarborough (Mr. Harris). Had I voted, I would have voted against both the subamendment and the amendment.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee of supply, Mr. Johnston in the chair.



[Stage Direction]
Quebec-harbours and rivers-Cap de la Madeleine-in full and final settlement of the claim of Messrs. Munn & Shea in connection with their contract for wharf extension, $27,249.25.
Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: When we were
discussing this item the other evening the minister was asked to make an explanation. It had been suggested that the department had given contracts to people who did not intend to carry them out at the price named in the contract, as they expected to receive payment for extras. Some hon. members were of the opinion that this item proved conclusively that the contract had been taken at a lower figure than it should have been and that this item was to cover payment for extras.


John Campbell Elliott: It is possibly true that the
contract was taken at a lower figure than it should have been, but that is not the basis upon which this allowance is being made. The circumstances in connection with this item are unusual. The contract was taken at a price much below the next lowest tenderer, but that of itself would not entitle the contractor to remuneration. This claim is based on three different grounds. First of all, the estimate for ballast was made at $2 per cubic yard. At the time the tender was made there seemed to be no doubt that the contractor would be able to obtain his ballast at $2 per cubic yard, but between the time of putting in the tender and the awarding of the contract the Wayagamack Pulp and Paper Company had commenced the construction of a large wharf at Three Rivers and had contracted for the whole available supply of stone at that point. Another quarry had1 to be opened up and the stone cost the contractor $1 per cubic yard extra, which made an increase of about 
$32,000. They claim also that they were delayed in getting the berth dredged for their crib seats, as previous orders for the dredge had been boobed and they had to wait their turn, losing about two months.
As my hon. friend will remember, the fall of 1927, when this work was being carried out, was exceptionally wet. Having failed to get their stone at the former quarry, the quarry which they opened for the supply of ballast stone, near Grondines, thirty miles below the site of the work, was so flooded that they were not able to work it. They were not able to discontinue operations as it would have left the wharf in an unsafe condition, so they had to buy stone at greatly enhanced prices, filling the crib during the winter under adverse conditions, and this made the work expensive. This high water continued until late in 1928. The district engineer states that the contractors' claim in this respect is substantiated by the fact that in 1927 and 1928 the St. Lawrence river level rose and kept at practically spring flood heights during those years. There was considerable damage all over the province and many bridges, railway wharves and roads were washed away. The engineer states further that in the spring of 1928, following the very wet autumn of 1927' the water level was still so high that the wharf and approach to the wharf were flooded to such an extent that they could not get to the wharf with the stone. This meant that the stone in railway cars was subject to demurrage and when unloaded had to be rehandled as it could not be taken to the wharf. The district engineer states that the contractors executed the work as best they could under the adverse conditions, and did all that it was humanly possible to do to proceed with the work in the most economical way.
The report shows that the stone filling between the cribs, on the stated figures given by the company, gives a price of $3.35 per cubic yard instead of their tender price of $2, and the engineer considered that the adverse conditions amounted to practically force majeure and recommended the claim for favourable consideration. What was done was this: an estimate was taken j the books were submitted for examination by the officials of the department, and it was found that this work cost the contractors $54,498.50 more than the amount they received. The recommendation of the local engineer was that in view of the diligence with which they had proceeded and the difficulties with which they had been confronted, and which had increased the cost of the work by this amount,

Supply-Harbours and Rivers-Quebec
one-half of this claim be paid. After a number of consultations, including interviews with the contractors during which they urged very strongly the payment of their whole claim, the practice that had been followed by the department in similar cases, of dividing under such exceptional circumstances the loss with the contractors, was adopted.
SIR GEORGE PERLEY: The latter part of the minister's explanation seems to be quite proper. The main item, I understand, was the extra cost of ballast which had been estimated at $2 and which it was found for certain reasons cost over $3. Is that a good reason for making an extra payment? Would the contractors have presented the government with some money if they had been able to get their ballast at II instead of having to pay $2 as was estimated?


John Campbell Elliott: There is no doubt about that and I may tell my hon. friend the contractors feel they are very badly treated as it is. They have lost their time and they are out now the sum of $27,000, but it is this force majeure that is, in the opinion of the engineers, responsible for the fact that the contractors were not able to get into the new quarry which they owned.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I listened very attentively to everything the minister said. Does it not all come down to this, that the department is making a compassionate allowance? There is not a single instance of a legal or even equitable claim against the department, but because the contractors have fallen upon bad days and met a serious contingency they had not counted upon, the department now, as a compassionate allowance, is making a contribution of 50 per cent of the loss. This is on the same basis as the Escuminac item in New Brunswick.


John Campbell Elliott: Quite so.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I should like, for the information of parliament, to know what is the annual cost to the country of proceeding cn that principle; because I know the amount is increasing. A claim for extra cost of procuring ballast would never be allowed by a private ' company if they had a contract with the contractor, or by a municipality which was guarding money collected from the taxpayers by direct taxation. I am satisfied on that point, having had a very substantial municipal experience in connection with public works. I am not at the moment adversely criticizing this policy, because I know of cases of great hardship such as occurred in the Escuminac 2419-66
case where not the contractor but the subcontractor lost $10,000 and was pretty nearly wiped out. This policy is costing the country a great deal of money and we ought to know for the last fiscal year how many such cases there have been and what it is going to cost the country to divide these losses. It cannot be urged that there was any force majeure in connection with the ballast; it was simply lack of foresight on the part of the contractor. He did not make a contract for the delivery of his ballast; someone else got in ahead of him, and he had to open up a new quarry, and that accounts for $32,000 of the total loss, according to the minister's statement. I do not think the contractor was entitled to a cent on account of the increased cost of the ballast. We might as well understand the principle on which this money is voted. This is purely a gift to the contractor. He did not look after his contract in a businesslike way. Had he secured the ballast before the other people got in ahead of him, he would have been able to do the work at the bid price. It is not a case of force majeure. Floods and high water, of course, are beyond the control of a contractor, but he ought not to be paid because of his neglect in securing the ballast.


John Campbell Elliott: I think my hon. friend has taken a pretty reasonable view, and if I may say so, a fairly accurate view of the legal situation, except that the law with regard to
force majeure is that if the circumstances were so unusual that they could not by any reasonable diligence have been foreseen and provided against, it could not have been in the contemplation of the parties.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is not quite that wide.


John Campbell Elliott: I think my hon. friend will find that that is exactly what it is.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That would cover lack
of business ability.


John Campbell Elliott: I want to be fair to my hon. friend because I think that he has been absolutely fair in his criticism of the Escuminac case as well as the one now under consideration. Might I point out that it was not lack of diligence on the pant of the contractor that prevented his getting the stone before the Wayagamack company got in? They got in between the time he submitted his tender and the time he was awarded the contract.


Richard Burpee Hanson: He should have had an option on the stone.


John Campbell Elliott: I think my hon. friend would hardly say that a contractor who did not know whether he was going to get the

1034	COMMONS
Supply-Harbours and Rivers, Quebec.
contract was justified in going to the expense of obtaining an option. There have been very few of these cases during my regime as Minister of Public Works. I should be very glad to get my hon. friend a complete list of such cases for some years past, and I think he will find that the department has adopted an absolutely uniform method in regard to all.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I have no doubt about
that, but it would be interesting to have a list of the cases.


John Campbell Elliott: I shall be very glad to supply that information. My hon. friend would not expect me to be able to give him the list offhand. This year there are not more than one or two other cases besides the Escu-minac case and this one, and I think this is by far the largest.


Mr. CANTLEY:: Would the minister be good enough to tell us how many tenders were put in for the work and what the amounts were?


John Campbell Elliott: The following is a list
showing the tenderers and their amounts:
Chief engineer's estimate	$121,702	001.	Munn and Shea, Limited	
110,942	002.	Page Equipment & ConstructionCo	
121,786	603.	Atlas Construction Co., Limited. 124,992 004.	Onesome Poliquin-Jos Poliquin. 128,939 805.	Joseph St. Jean-Albert Brouillet 139,998 006.	J. Alphonse Lemay	
160.533	367.	Weddell & Saunders	
174,321	00


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Cap St. Ignace-wharf, $20,000.
George Halsey Perley: What county is
this in?


John Campbell Elliott: This is in Montmagny
county. The work is under contract.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is this the total cost of
the work, or just a payment on account?


John Campbell Elliott: This is just the start. The work will cost in the vicinity of $100,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Carleton-wharf extension, $10,000.
Richard Burpee Hanson: Is this in Bonaventure
cormty?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is this the total amount
io be paid, or just a partial payment?


John Campbell Elliott: The estimated cost is
$24,000. This is just a start. fMr. Elliott.]


Richard Burpee Hanson: What is the nature of the extension? They have a large pulp wharf there now.


John Campbell Elliott: This work has been requested by the residents of Carleton and has been urged by the engineer and by the member. In 1929, during a heavy storm, some of the fishing boats moored at the wharf were driven ashore and completely wrecked. The proposed extension will provide the required shelter at this harbour, which is the only port of refuge within a radius of eighty miles. There has been a remarkable and very substantial revival in the lumber industry due to the building of several large mills in the vicinity. This construction will increase the traffic greatly by water, as Dalhousie, St. Omer and Carleton are linked together by a local service and the wharfage accommodation is totally inadequate.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Caughnawaga-wharf repairs, $1,800.
Richard Burpee Hanson: This is the Indian village, is it not? Is there anything larger than a canoe landing at Caughnawaga?


John Campbell Elliott: There are two ferries.
Some 45,000 vehicles are carried to and from this port annually.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Cloridorme-wharf, $15,000.
George Halsey Perley: Is this a new
work?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


George Halsey Perley: How much is it going to cost altogether?


John Campbell Elliott: The estimated cost is


George Halsey Perley: Where is the
place?


John Campbell Elliott: Grand Cloridorme is a
large cove located in the centre of the municipality of Cloridorme, fourteen miles southeast of Grand Vallee and forty-nine miles from the terminus of the A. Q. and W. railway at Gaspe Basin. This work was requested in numerous petitions from the residents of the parish of Ste. Ceeile du Cloridorme dating back to 1923, and is required to provide landing facilities for steamers and coasting schooners and to permit fishing boats to harbour here. The annual traffic amounts to approximately $125,000.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What county is it in?


John Campbell Elliott: Gaspe.

Supply-Harbours and Rivers-Quebec


George Halsey Perley: How far is it
to the next good wharf in either direction?


John Campbell Elliott: This is fourteen miles
southeast of Grand Vallee.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Doucet's Landing-(Ste. Angele de Laval) - dredging, $45,000.
George Halsey Perley: I think we should have some explanation of this large item. It is new work, I assume?


John Campbell Elliott: This dredging is to remove the dangerous ledge to the east of the present channel between this place and Three Rivers and facilitate the ferry service between these places which is carried on by two boats every half hour. The traffic carried on here is very heavy, consisting of 4,500 tons of general freight and express parcels, 21,211 autos, 192,579 passengers and 19,500 teams. It is very dangerous for boats to pass one another in a high wind and in the winter season.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What county is that in?


John Campbell Elliott: Nicolet county.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Doucet's landing-(Ste. Angele de Laval) - wharf reconstruction, $6,400.
Richard Burpee Hanson: Is that part of the same
work?


John Campbell Elliott: No, this is to complete
payment on the contract with J. E. Fleury for the reconstruction of the headblock and approach of this wharf. The approach was in a very bad condition, the cribwork being so badly decayed that it has had to be closed to traffic, after a freight car loaded with paper cores broke through and fell into the river.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Fassett-wharf reconstruction, $8,500.
George Halsey Perley: How much business is there at Fassett? It is a place down on the Ottawa river, I believe


John Campbell Elliott: It is a village on the
north shore of the Ottawa river on the Canadian Pacific railway, fifty miles east of Ottawa. It has important lumbering industries.


George Halsey Perley: Important lumbering industries?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


George Halsey Perley: Have you any
figures of the amount of business done there? I understood the mill was closed down.
24.19-661


John Campbell Elliott: The work was requested
by the district engineer in his annual estimates and is required to keep the wharf in a condition suitable for the accommodation of the traffic handled by the boats of the Ottawa Transportation Company. During the season of 192S, approximately SO tons of freight were handled at this place.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is a large amount!


John Campbell Elliott: During the season of
192S-29 a portion of the landing-head was rebuilt with cribwork. It is now proposed to reconstruct the remaining part, which is of pile construction, and in very bad condition.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I submit, Mr. Chairman,
that is a trivial amount of traffic, not more than two carloads of freight in a whole season.


John Campbell Elliott: Perhaps I should have
given some further information. The condition of the wharf is such that we have to decide whether we shall allow it to go altogether or repair it. This is the report of the district engineer:
The top of the piles in high level landing are in an advanced state of decay, so much so that the high level freight shed had to be supported temporarily last summer. Some of the floor stringers had to be braced also to keep this structure open to traffic. This part of the wharf will have to be rebuilt immediately.
This work cannot be postponed without detriment to the public.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I suppose the wharf is not fit even to handle the boat traffic?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Well, they are entitled to it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Grand Anse (Gaspe Co.)-wharf, $34,000.
George Halsey Perley: Is this to complete the work?


John Campbell Elliott: This is required to complete the contract entered into in November 1929.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Grand Entry, M.I. - pilework extensions, $4,500.
Thomas Cantley: Where is this place?


John Campbell Elliott: In the Magdalen islands, Gaspe county.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is there anything for St. Pierre and Miquelon in these estimates?


Sir EUGENE FISET:: Yes, a warehouse I


Richard Burpee Hanson: It will be needed soon.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
1036	COMMONS
Supply-Harbours and Rivers-Quebec
Quebec-harbours and rivers generally- repairs and improvements, $100,000.
George Halsey Perley: I have no objection to the item, but I think that some of the members may want to ask a few questions in regard to it, and as we have made very good progress I suggest the minister call it a day.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the house adjourned at 10.55 p.m.
Friday, March 28, 1930