1933-02-20

Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) :: I desire to lay on the table a copy in English and French of the notes exchanged relating to the effect of the St. Lawrence Deep Waterway treaty, signed at Washington July 18, 1932, upon the diversion for power purposes through the Massena canal and Grass river.



TRADE RELATIONS WITH RUSSIA

Mr. JOHN VALLANCE (South Battle-ford) :: With the permission of the bouse I beg leave to move, seconded by the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Totzke), that the return now tabled by the Secretary of State referring to the Russian cattle deal be referred to the standing committee on agriculture and colonization, and that such committee be empowered to call witnesses and bear evidence with respect to the matter referred to therein and to report their findings and recommendations to the bouse.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That requires notice, I think, Mr. Speaker.


John Vallance: Then may it serve as a notice of motion?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It can be put on the order paper.


Mr. SPEAKER:: It cannot be moved without notice.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 17, to incorporate Canadian Railway Employees Mutual Benefit Association- Mr. Casselman.

Mr. P. G. DAVIES (Athabaska):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. Last
Friday evening, the seventeenth, while the hon. member for East Algoma (Mr. Nicholson) was discussing the second reading of Bill No. 24, to amend the criminal code, he referred to the question of where the communist party was raising its funds, and during the course of his remarks 'the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Irvine) interjected a remark to the effect that some of its funds came from the Conservative party. Upon being pressed for the source of his information the hon. member for Wetaskiwin is reported by Hansard to have replied, at page 2229, "From the hon. member for Athabaska (Mr. Davies)." Mir. Speaker, I deny ever having had any conversation with the hon. member for Wetaskiwin or anybody else on such a subject. I deny ever having made such a statement to him or to anybody else. I further deny that there is any truth whatever in his statement as reported. As a matter of fact, I was in the house at the time and I happened to notice that the hon. member for Wetaskiwin used the word "Ask" the hon. member for Athabaska, not "From," and I would ask that a correction accordingly be made in Hansard.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. DUFF:: 1.	What amount, if any, was advanced by the government of Canada to the government of Newfoundland about January 2, 1933, to pay the interest on part of Newfoundland's bonded indebtedness?
2.	What was the total amount of interest owing by Newfoundland on or about that date, and the rate of said interest?
3.	What security has the Dominion of Canada for said loan?
4.	What are the terms regarding payment of said amount loaned by Canada, and the interest rate?
5.	What is the total amount of Newfoundland's bonded and other financial indebtedness?


Richard Bedford Bennett: A statement on the
subject is being made in the British House of Commons either to-morrow or next day, and a statement will be made here at the same time.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Dropped.


CANADIAN NATIONAL PORTS
*Mr. COWAN (Port Arthur):: 1.	What are the national ports which are managed by harbour commissions?
2.	What amount has been advanced to each commission by way of gift or loan?
3.	What security does the Dominion hold for suoh advances?

Questions

4.	What amount has been guaranteed by the Dominion of Canada?
5.	Has any harbour commission issued or sold bonds without a guarantee of the Dominion of Canada; if so, in what amounts?
6.	What loss or deficit has there been in the operation of each port since the formation of the harbour commissions and how has such loss or deficit been taken care of?
7.	What harbour commissions have operated at a profit, and what are the amounts thereof?
8.	What amount for each harbour commission for each year has the Dominion of Canada had to pay?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think this question will have to stand as an order for a return because the answer would be very long, there being no limitation as to time in regard to question No. 2, for instance. Perhaps the hon. gentleman would let it stand for modification as to time.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Question stands.


FISHING BOUNTY
Mr. DUFF:: 1.	How many fishing vessels were paid the fishing bounty for the seasons of 1929, 1930, 1931, and 1932, respectively?
2.	What was the total amount paid such vessels in each of the above years?
3.	How many fishermen received the bounty during each of the years 1929, 1930, 1931, and 1932?
4.	What amount did each fisherman receive during each of those four years?
5.	What was the total amount paid out by the government, in each of those four years, out of the so-called fishing bounty fund?


Mr. DURANLEAU:: Order for return, now tabled.


LEAGUE OF NATIONS-CANADIAN EXPENDITURE
[Stage Direction]
Mr. LaVERGNE:
What has been the annual cost to Canada of its delegates to the League of Nations, in salaries, other remuneration and travelling expenses, from the date of its admission to membership?
Richard Bedford Bennett: Annual cost to Canada
of its delegations to the League of Nations -assemblies and council meetings, for living allowances and travelling expenses:
1920-	21	818,257	781921-	22	
9,403	401922-	23	
15,391	361923-	24	
10,007	561924-	25	
11,301	431925-	26	
12,454	761926-	27	
5,657	001927-	28	
18,316	40*1928-	29	
23,805	32*1929-	30	
18,741	71*1930-	31	
13,215	56*1931-	32	
13,795	48
* This period includes meetings of council.

No salary was paid for services of Canadian delegates to the League of Nations Assembly or Council.


BEAUHAENOIS POWER PROJECT
Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: 1.	Concerning the completion and construc-of the Beauharnois power project-have any agreements or arrangements been entered into by the government in relation thereto?
2.	If so, when will such agreements be laid before the house?
3.	What is the total amount of money advanced by the government to date in connection with the construction and completion of this enterprise?
4.	What is the extent of the guarantees in the same connection?
5.	What security has the Government been given or obtained for the money so advanced?
fi. What is the estimated value of such
security?
7.	Has the government taken any steps to secure a reliable legal opinion in regard to the legality and validity of the statutory authority under which the Beauharnois project and the disposition of its power are being carried on?
8.	Has the government secured any legal opinion other than that of the members of the government regarding the constitutional and legal right of the Beauharnois Light, Heat and Power Company to transmit electrical energy beyond the limits or boundaries of the province of Quebec?
9.	If so. when will these opinions (Nos. 7 and 8) be laid before the house?
10.	Did the Minister of Finance or the Prime Minister approve of loans estimated at $6,500,000 made by the Royal Bank of Canada, the Bank of Montreal and the Canadian Bank of Commerce to this enterprise?
11.	Has the government been informed as to what security the banks received for such loans?
12.	Are such loans permissible under the Canadian Bank Act?


Mr. BENNETT:: 1.	Yes:	General agreement dated the 1st
of March, 1932, relating to the project was entered into between the Beauharnois Light, Heat and Power Company and His Majesty, represented by the Minister of Railways and Canals, under authority of order-in-council P. C. 504, of same date.
General plans of the project were approved by the governor general in council on September 7, 1932, P. C. 1975.
The company also executed under date of September 17,	1932, conveyance to His
Majesty, of lands for locks and canals purposes, the crown granting, in return, to the company the necessary rights to the use of the water flowing over certain of such lands for power purposes.
Under authority of order-in-council P. C. 504, and the agreement of March 1, 1932, the Minister of Railways and Canals has approved certain detailed plans of construction.

Questions
2.	Copies will shortly be tabled.
3.	None.
4.	$15,539,000 collaterally secured by $30,007,500 First Mortgage six per cent bonds of the Beauharnois Light, Heat and Power Company.
5.	Answered by No. 4.
6.	Security is regarded as ample.
7.	No.
8.	No.
9.	Answered by 7 and 8.
10.	Any loans other than those referred to in No. 4, were so far as is known to the government loans made in the ordinary course of banking transactions, and no assent was required nor was any sought or given by the Minister of Finance or the Prime Minister.
11.	Yes.
12.	Yes.


ROBERT A. C. HENRY
Mr. BARRETTE:: 1.	Is the government negotiating at the present time with Mr. Robert A. C. Henry acting in the capacity of representative of the Beauharnois Power Corporation or the Beauharnois Light, Heat and Power Company?
2.	Did Mr. Henry sign on behalf of said companies letters or reports forwarded to the government ?
3.	Who is the representative of aforesaid companies in their dealings with the government?
4.	Is it true that ex-Senator MacDougald made representations to the government in the interest of aforesaid companies?


Mr. BENNETT:: 1.	In recent negotiations having to do with approval of plans R. A. C. Henry as general manager and L. C. Christie as secretary of the Beauharnois Light, Heat and Power Company have addressed to the Department of Railways and Canals certain communications as to approval of plans and transfer of canal lands to the crown.
2.	Yes.
3.	R. A. C. Henry and L. C. Christie.
4.	No.


RURAL ROUTE NO. 1, WALKER'S CUTTING
Mr. GIROUARD:: 1.	Have any complaints been lodged against
the mail carrier on rural route No. 1, Walker's Cutting, county of Arthabaska, within the past two years?	_
2.	Have any investigations been held?
3.	If so, by whom?
4.	Have the investigators submitted any reports ?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Yes, against both former and present contractors.
53719-142^
2.	Yes.
3.	District superintendent postal service, Montreal.
4.	Yes in each case. Complaints against former contractor substantiated and contract cancelled. Complaint against present contractor not substantiated.


RADIO LICENCE INSPECTORS
Mr. REID:: 1.	Were any inspectors appointed under the Department of Radio to inspect radio licences?
2.	If so, how many were appointed in British Columbia?
3.	Were any of the returned men's organizations given an opportunity to do this kind of service?
4.	If so, what organizations were consulted?
5.	What remuneration is given for such inspection ?


Mr. DURANLEAU:: 1.	Supervisors and vendors have been appointed for the sale of radio receiving licences.
2.	11 supervisors and 73 vendors in British Columbia.
3.	Not as organizations-but a considerable number of returned men engaged in the work.
4.	Answered by No. 3.
5.	Supervisors are allowed a commission of 10 cents and vendors 30 cents for each licence sold.


SUPERINTENDENT OF PENITENTIARIES
Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	Did General D. M. Ormond, superintendent of penitentiaries, visit any of the penitentiaries since his appointment to that office; if so, what penitentiaries and on what dates were such visits made?
2.	Did he interview convicts on said visits?
3.	In what penitentiary or penitentiaries have there been riots since the appointment of General D. M. Ormond, and on what dates did said riots take place?


Mr. GUTHRIE:: 1.	Yes. Dorchester, N.B., August 22 and 23, 1932; Kingston and Collins Bay, Ont., September 19 and 20, 1932; Kingston and Collins Bay, Ont., October 19 to Nov. 13; St. Vincent de Paul, P.Q., November 14, 1932; Kingston and Collins Bay, Ont., November 15 to 18, 1932; Kingston and Collins Bay, Ont., January 4 to 7, 1933; Kingston and Collins Bay, Ont., January 9 to 11, 1933; New Westminster and Piers Island, B.C., January 27 to February 11, 1933; Prince Albert, Sask., at present being inspected.
2.	Yes.
3.	Kingston, Ont., October 13, 17 and 20, 1932; St. Vincent de Paul, P.Q., November 4 and 7, 1932; Dorchester, N.B.. January 7, 1933.
Questions


COUNTY COURT JUDGESHIP-NORTH BAY
Mr. HURTUBISE:: 1.	Has the position of senior judge of the county court of North Bay, Ontario, become vacant under section 26 of the Judges Act?
2.	If so, has the position been filled temporarily and by whom?
3.	When may the citizens of that judiciary district expect the nomination of a successor, if none has been made?
4.	In making the appointment will the government take into consideration the great percentage of French speaking citizens in that district?


Mr. GUTHRIE:: 1.	No. Creation of vacancy subject to statutory direction.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Answered by No. 1.
4.	No decision has yet been made as to filling vacancy, but all matters proper for consideration will be considered.


CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION-ADVISORY BOARDS
Mr. ROSS:: 1.	What pay is allowed to members of the advisory boards of the Civil Service Commission?
2.	How many members are appointed to each advisory board?


Mr. CAHAN:: 1.	None. Out of town members on advisory boards are allowed their travelling expenses, and in some instances they have refused to accept expenses.
2.	An advisory examining board generally includes one or more persons prominent in professional or business life, together with representatives of the department concerned, the Civil Service Commission and the Canadian Legion.


UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF-ONTARIO
Mr. HEENAN:: What is the total amount paid out since the beginning of the unemployment relief measure in 1930 to date in: (a) public works; (b) direct relief, in the following towns, Rainy River, Ontario; Ignace, Ontario?


Mr. CAHAN:: Labour Department:
Public	Direct
Works	Relief
Rainy River	
$3,000	$617 56Ignace	
Nil	Nil
The above are dominion contributions to supplement expenditures of the province and municipality.

Public Works Department:
	Public	Direct
	Works	Relief
Rainy River,	wharf,	
1931-32.. ..	.. .. $909 60	NilIgnace	.... Nil	NilFRESH	AND FROZEN FISH	Mr. HANSON	(Skeena):	1.	What amount of fresh and frozen fish was exported to the United States from Canada during each year, from 1930 to 1932: (a) from Pacific waters; (b) from Atlantic waters; (e) from inland waters, and what was the value of same?2.	What amount of fresh fish was imported into Canada from the United States during the same years?3.	What amount of duty, in dollars and cents, was collected in each of these years?


Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	No statistics are published showing exports of fresh and frozen fish from Canada to the United States via (a) Pacific waters, (b) Atlantic waters, and (c) inland waters. During the years ended March 31, 1930, 1931 and 1932, Canada's exports of fresh and frozen fish to the United States were as under:
Fiscal years	Cwt.	$1930	
1,149,430	10,825,6801931	
997,311	9,436,6901932	
885,657	7,850,402
2 and 3. Canada's imports of fresh and frozen fish from the United States entered for consumption, during the years ended March 31, 1930, 1931 and 1932, with amount of duty collected thereon, were as under:
Value of Duty
Fiscal years	imports collected
1930	
$587,642	$37,278	781931	
539.947	41,076	331932	
362,172	24,891	31


FEDERAL DISTRICT COMMISSION-HULL EXPENDITURE
Mr. FOURNIER:: 1.	Did the Federal District Commission expend any money in the city of Hull since July, 1930?
2.	If so, what amount was expended:	(a)
from July, 1930, to January, 1931, inclusive; (b) in 1931; (c) in 1932?
3.	With respect to what exact locations was such money expended, and what kind of work was carried out?


Mr. RHODES:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) $1,209.40, (b) $3,762.98, (c) $3,165.07.
3.	The money was spent in creating a park and playground at lake Flora and for the

Motions for Papers
maintenance of same; also for laying out a park, and maintenance of same, at Val Tetreau.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS

[Stage Direction]
ministers' automobiles

[Stage Direction]
Mr. GIROUAR.D:
How many persons employed by the government of Canada receive a pension from the pension board, in addition to their salary?

Mr. BRADETTE:: 1.	In how many Canadian newspapers did the government advertise during the years 1931 and 1932?
2.	What are the names of such newspapers?
3.	What was the cost of advertising for each department?
4.	What was the total cost to the government for newspaper advertising in Canada for the years 1931 and 1932?


MOTIONS POR PAPERS
Mr. MacLEAN:: For a complete copy of all letters, telegrams, and communications; also a copy of a report of any investigations held in connection with the dismissal of the postmaster at Wood Islands North, Prince Edward Island, and the appointment of a successor to fill this position; also, a full copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams, resolutions, and other documents, including a report of tile official of the department; also report of investigation held by the government, concerning the dismissal of the postmaster at Breadalbane, Prince Edward Island, and the appointment of a successor to fill this position.


BONAVENTURE COUNTY, DAY LABOUR
Mr. POWER (for Mr. Marcil):: For a copy of paylists and invoices for material for works done by day labour in the county of Bonaventure from October 1, 1932, to date, by the Department of Public Works!


FISHERS MILLS, N.S., POST OFFICE
Mr. DUFF:: For a copy of all telegrams, letters, memorandums and other documents, from any person or persons in the province of Nova Scotia, and the Postmaster General or any of his officials,
regarding the closing of the Fishers Mills post office, in Guysborough county, with all memorandums, recommendations and other communications regarding same.


ALIENATION OF INDIAN LANDS
Mr. TETREAULT:: For a copy of all telegrams, correspondence, communications and reports exchanged between the Department of the Interior and the Department of Lands and Fisheries in the province of Quebec, respecting that province's claim to a sum of $300,000 for the alienation of Indian lands.
For a copy of all telegrams, correspondence, communications and reports exchanged between the Department of the Interior and any department of any of the governments of Ontario, Manitoba and the maritime provinces, respecting a judgment of the privy council dated November 23, 1920, relevant to the alienation of Indian lands.


LUMBER EXPORTS
J.-Eugène Tétreault: For a copy of all telegrams, correspondence, communications and reports between the Department of Trade and Commerce and any department of any of the provincial governments, since the month of May, 1932, with respect to the export of Canadian lumber.


BACON EXPORTS
J.-Eugène Tétreault: For a copy of all telegrams, correspondence, communications and reports exchanged between the Department of Trade and Commerce and any department of the provincial governments, since the month of March, 1932, respecting the exportation of bacon.
DAIRY INDUSTRY CORRESPONDENCE	. 

\


J.-Eugène Tétreault: .	;
For a copy of all telegrams, correspondence; coni ni uni cations and reports exchanged between the Department of Agriculture and any department of the various provinces, since the month ot March, 1932, respecting the dairy industry.


TRADE WITH UNITED STATES
William Duff: That, in the opinion of this house, it is expedient that the government of Canada reopen negotiations with the government of the United States of America with a view of bringing about a satisfactory reciprocal trade arrangement between Canada and the United States whereby the natural products of Canada, that is the products of the sea, the farm, the mines, and the forests, and including fish, lumber, wheat, cattle, etc., should have free entry into the United States in exchange for the admission of certain goods from the United States of America, which in the interests of both countries may be admitted into Canada, free from customs tariffs.
Trade with United States

He said: Mr. Speaker, in drafting the resolution which I have just moved I endeavoured to be as careful as possible in the wording so that the matter could be discussed entirely from a business point of view, and so that our discussion might centre around the question as to whether in the opinion of this house it is wise that this country should do all the business possible with our great neighbour to the south. In order that I may deal with this matter properly I should like, first, to give a history of the different negotiations between Canada and the United States with regard to what is commonly known as reciprocity. Or, in other words, I shall outline what might better be termed the different business relations which have existed at various time between those two great countries.
In 1854 a treaty known, as the Elgin-Marcy reciprocity treaty had been negotiated, and it proved beneficial to Canada, for the ten years the treaty was in operation.
The United States statesmen claimed, however, that it had not been so beneficial to that country, and therefore the radical Republicans in the United States Senate voted for its abrogation. One reason why the vote was so strong against it then, in the United States Senate, it is said, was that it was done in retaliation against the British attitude toward the south, during the Civil war.
In 1866, A. T. Galt, Minister of Finance, and W. P. Howland, Postmaster General in Canada, went to Washington, in an effort to secure to Canada a continuance of the benefits of free trade, and to propose that such trade be established by reciprocal legislation.
After confederation, when Sir John Macdonald was Prime Minister of this country, in an effort to hold both the Conservative and Liberal factions under his control, he favoured reciprocity with the United States, providing the provisions of the old treaty could be renewed.
In 1869, Sir John Rose, then Minister of Finance, went to Washington to confer with Secretary Fish of the United States government. There was much speculation as to what Rose had offered Fish as a basis for a renewal of the reciprocity treaty.
Sir John Rose assumed another important position, in the story of Canadian-American relations, when he went to Washington in 1871 to pave the way for a settlement of the troublesome Alabama claims dispute. Other methods had failed to settle the matter, and now the British government suggested that Rose offer the fisheries and the use of the St. Lawrence waterway, as a basis

for proceeding to the more serious points of disagreement.
A fisheries agreement, which favoured the United States, was to run for fifteen years, and the right to the use of the St. Lawrence was granted to the United States forever.
When the Mackenzie government was formed-about 1872-3-with Sir Richard Cartwright as Finance Minister, one of the first things the Liberal government did was to make a serious attempt to negotiate a reciprocity treaty with the United States.
A treaty was drafted which provided that the duties on the articles in three separate schedules should from July 1875 to July 1876 be two-thirds of the present duties, that they should be reduced to one-third the following year, and that after 1877 and for a period of twenty-one years, the articles on these three schedules were to enter each country free of duty. The first schedule contained a long list of natural products. The second contained forty articles some of which were manufactured articles; and the third a long list of manufactures.
Although the treaty was submitted to the Senate of the United States the proposal was rejected by that body.
In 1879, with the Macdonald government in power in Canada, the rates of duties on manufactured articles, were increased, although a reciprocity clause was attached to this tariff which fulfilled the election campaign promises. It provided that whenever the United States allowed Canadian natural products to enter the country free of duty, then Canada would allow the same articles to enter this country free of customs duties.
The Conservatives, from that time on, made reciprocity proposals upon the basis of this offer of 1879.
It was some years afterwards before another effort was made to secure a reciprocal arrangement. The fisheries dispute paved the way, in the next attempt, just as it had in certain previous ones. The Canadians had recognized the importance of the north Atlantic fisheries, as a lever to force concessions from the American authorities in the direction of freer trade.
The treaty of Washington of 1871 put an end to the fisheries dispute after fifteen years. The time approached for the agreement to come to an end and Canadians prepared to make the best of the opportunity.
Sir Charles Tupper went to Washington in 1888 and had a conference with Secretary of State Bayard. The Canadian offer was to give free fish for free trade in natural products. A treaty was arranged and sent to the United States Senate, but was not rati-

Trade with United States
fied. The "Commercial Union" movement is the most interesting phase of the long period of agitation for reciprocity between the two countries. It had its origin in Canada. Among the most active and enthusiastic leaders, however, were some Americans. Among the leaders were the following: Erastus Wiman, President of the Great Northwestern Telegraph Company, a Canadian by birth but residing in New Jersey; Goldwin Smith, eminent historian and scholar; Benjamin Butterworth, representative in congress from Cincinnati, Ohio; and Samuel J. Ritchie, an Akron, Ohio, manufacturer, owning nickel mines in Ontario. The latter and his legal adviser, Mr. Butterworth, spent much time and money in the spread of the doctrine.
The movement was first taken up by the Toronto Mail and later by the Toronto Globe. Commercial leagues were formed throughout the country. The doctrine actually involved an unrestricted trade with the pooling of customs duties, to be divided upon some agreed proportion.
In the spring of 1888 the leaders of the Liberal party in caucus decided, after some discussion, to support Sir Richard Cartwright in a motion for what he termed "Unrestricted Reciprocity" with the United States. Conservatives and Liberals alike had supported reciprocity and many Conservatives had supported the doctrine of "Commercial Union." It 'had not yet become a party issue. When Cartwright introduced his resolution it served as a challenge. When George E. Foster arose early in the debate and offered an amendment to the main motion which stated that the government would adhere to the standing offer of 1879 the issue was clear. It had become a party question. The debate originally intended for but two or three days, dragged on for a month. Cartwright and his followers had to distinguish between commercial union and unrestricted reciprocity. The Conservatives attacked the Liberal motion chiefly because it included discrimination against the mother country and would lead, they insisted, to political union. The motion was defeated by a party vote of 124 to 67. There were four New Brunswick Conservatives who voted for the motion.
In 1890 the Colonial Secretary of Newfoundland, the Hon. Robert Bond, went to Washington and succeeded in drawing up a convention with Mr. Blaine which provided for freer trade between the two countries. When Sir John A. Macdonald heard of this he sent Sir Charles Tupper to Washington, who suggested that they proceed to base a treaty on the Elgin treaty of 1854, as a
basis for a new agreement. But Mr. Blaine insisted that that treaty was not wide enough. Sir Charles Tupper returned to Canada and intimated that an arrangement could be made. Macdonald and Tupper were urged to go to the people, in a general election, if they could assure the electorate they were negotiating a reciprocal arrangement with the United States.
In 1892 Canadian commissioners led by Mr. (Foster again presented their case to the American government. Nothing further was done in the matter until 1911, when the Hon. W. S. Fielding and the Hon. William Paterson proceeded to Washington and negotiated a reciprocity treaty which was known as the Taft-Fielding proposal. This treaty was defeated in the general election of 1911.
Now, Mr. Speaker, there is another matter which is closely allied with the reciprocity negotiations. In fact the reciprocity conversations and negotiations were really a result of the treaty of 1818 between the British government and the United States government, and in view of the present agitation regarding the renewal of the so-called modus vivendi, it would be as well to give also the history surrounding it. Article 1 of the treaty stipulated-
(a) That the inhabitants of the United States shall have forever in common with British subjects the "liberty" to take fish of every kind on a portion of the coast of Newfoundland, about the Magdialen islands, and on the north shore of the gulf of St. Lawrence eastward from Point Joli, and to dry and cure fish on the said portion of the north shore so long as it remained unsettled, and afterwards by agreement with the settlers.
(bl That the United States renounce forever the liberty claimed on the other parts of the coast for their fishermen, but that they would be permitted to enter bays and harbours on all portions of the Canadian coast for wood, water, shelter and repairs "but for no other purpose whatever."
The two countries placed different interpretations on certain parts of the above article of the treaty and difficulties arose. Consequently the Reciprocity treaty of 1854, mentioned previously, resulted, and fish and fish products of each country were admitted free of duty into the other and reciprocal fishing privileges were authorized in certain territorial waters of each country.
It was out of this treaty of 1888 that the system of issuing what are called modus vivendi licences to the United States fishing vessels was started. May I say here modus vivendi means a working arrangement, a practical compromise. The British plenipotentiaries feeling that it would take some time to have the treaty made effective recom-
Trade with United States

mended a modus vivendi not to last more than two years, under which United States fishing vessels, by the payment of a fee of one dollar and fifty cents per registered ton, could obtain the port privileges contemplated by the treaty and thus avoid the difficulties that would ensue while limiting such vessels to their liberties under the treaty of ISIS. The privileges were (a) the purchase of bait, ice, seines, lines, and all other supplies and outfits and the transhipment of catch and the shipping of crews.
These licences were yearly continued thereafter and in 1802 an act was passed giving the governor in council power to authorize the issue of the licences. This act formed section three of the Customs and Fisheries Protection Act.
In 1918 on the recommendation of an International Fisheries Commission, the privileges covered by the modus vivendi were granted reciprocally in either country to the fishing vessels of the other.
In 1921 the United States gave notice that the privileges granted in 1918 were to be terminated in that country. They were continued, however, in Canada without licence until the season of 1922 when the modus vivendi licences were again introduced, but later in that year the fee for the licence was reduced from one dollar and fifty cents per ton to a nominal sum of one dollar per vessel. The authority of council was given for the granting of such licences at the nominal fee for that year and the following year.
As a result of some agitation on the Atlantic coast for the discontinuance of the modus vivendi privileges to United States fishing vessels unless the United States recognized the advantages of such privileges, it was decided by order in council of November, 1923, that modus vivendi licences should not be continued after the end of that year. The United States government was so notified, and from that date until the present time no modus vivendi licences have been issued and United States vessels are now restricted to the simple privileges of entering our bays and harbours for the purpose of obtaining wood, water, shelter and repairs but for no other purpose whatsoever.
As I said a moment ago, in dealing with this question, which to my mind is a very serious one, especially as far as the maritime provinces are concerned, I intend only to deal with the question of the fisheries. Before dealing with what I consider would be the benefits of reciprocity may I speak for a moment in regard to what is known as the modus vivendi? From this history which I have given it appears clearly that during the
[Mr. Duff.)
years the modus vivendi was in operation United States fishing vessels could come into our ports and buy bait and supplies and tranship fish. There was a good deal of business done in the maritime provinces. I have always been a great advocate of freedom of trade. I am trying to keep as far away as I can from the political side of this matter, but I never could see why under the treaty of ISIS or subsequent treaties the late Liberal government or previous governments in this country would not allow United States fishing vessels to come into Canadian ports and do business with us. I notice, in reading the newspapers the last few months, that my good friend the member for Cumberland (Mr. Smith) was in Ottawa and strongly recommended to the government that the modus vivendi arrangement should be reopened so that fishing vessels could come into Canadian ports. I want to thank him for the great interest he has taken in the matter. I am only sorry that the newspaper reported that his idea was that every year these privileges should be granted only for the space of three months. I intend to prove that if it is a good thing that American fishing vessels be allow'ed to come into our ports for bait, ice, provisions and supplies for three months it would be a much better thing if they were allowed to come in for the whole year. I notice that in the Halifax Herald of Saturday a dispatch from Ottawa headed:
Privileges are Being Restored to United States Schooners
And the dispatch goes on to say:
The privileges, it is stated, are to be restored for a limited period, believed to be six weeks, particularly to provide for the sale of bait of which there is a large supply in Nova Scotia cold storage plants.
I hope that dispatch is only partly true. Again I say I am strongly in favour of opening our ports to United States fishing vessels; not for six weeks or three months, but for as many years as those vessels want to do business with us.


Mr. ERNST:: I should like to ask one question, and I am asking it in good faith. Does the hon. member favour the transshipment of fish in bond through Canadian ports by United States fishing vessels?


William Duff: I intend to deal with that question in a moment. It will be noticed, Mr. Speaker, that this dispatch says that the reason for granting these United States vessels the privilege of coming into our ports for six weeks is that certain cold storage plants have a large supply of bait. If these vessels had been allowed to come into our ports for

Trade with United States
twelve months of the year these cold storage plants would not have had this large quantity of bait on hand. I am very much afraid that if this arrangement is made for six weeks it will only give the cold storage plants a chance to get rid of their bait, with the result that the same thing will happen again that has happened in previous years.
If the United States fishing vessels can enter our ports twelve months of the year they can buy bait direct from the fishermen; if they are allowed to enter only for six weeks they will have to buy bait at the cold storage plants. This means that the plants-the big interests, if you like to call them that-who buy bait from the fishermen at ridiculously low prices and put it in their cold storage plants, will sell that same bait to the United States fishermen at higher prices. Last year I knew of traps full of herring and squid that had to be opened so that the herring and squid could escape because there was no one to buy them. If United States fishing vessels had been allowed to buy bait then probably these fishermen could have sold their catches. I know of another case not a thousand miles from my own home. There was no demand for bait; the squid, the best bait that can be bought, were sold by the fishermen to the cold storage plants for 30 cents a bushel, and herring was sold to the same plants for 25 cents a bushel. If United States fishermen had been allowed to come to Nova Scotia ports and buy that bait direct from the fishermen, instead of the poor devil of a fisherman getting 30 cents a bushel for bait which was later sold by the cold storage plants for 4 cents a pound, he would have received SI or $1.50 a bushel. I commend the government for considering the opening of Nova Scotia ports, but if they are going to open them at all they should be kept open so that the fishermen along the shores of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick will be able to sell their bait direct to United States and Canadian fishing vessels, which will give them a better return.
I said I was in favour of these vessels coming to our ports, not only to buy bait
but to buy ice as well. This would mean that the ice houses in Canso, Lunenburg, Yarmouth and other places would be filled with ice which would be sold to the fishermen. Then my hon. friend from Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Ernst) asked me a question. Certainly I am in favour of allowing United States vessels to trans-ship their catches in bond from Nova Scotia ports to Boston. Of course we are all interested in the fishermen and in our fisheries, but I think it will be admitted-and I say this with all modesty- that I am just as much interested in the fishermen of Nova Scotia as anyone else, and I say that if we allow United States vessels to come to Canadian ports and trans-ship their fish it will mean more labour for Canadian workmen. Ice will have to be bought. Boxes will have to be made from Canadian lumber by Canadian workmen. Men will have to pack the fish in the boxes; teamsters will have to haul the fish to the railway station; the Canadian National railways will get the haul to Yarmouth, and the steamer will carry the fish to Boston, New York or wherever they go. Surely there can be no harm in that. It will not hurt Canadian fishermen if we allow this practice to be carried on. These fish do not come in competition with fish caught by Canadian fishermen; they go direct to United States ports. So I will say that I am strongly in favour of allowing these vessels to enter our ports throughout the year so that they can do business with us and spend their good American money here.
I said that I intended to deal with only one phase of this subject, Mr. Speaker, but it might be interesting if I were to place on Hansard a statement showing the exports of certain qualities of fish shipped from Canada during the years 1919, 1926 and 1931. This statement shows our total exports of certain kinds of fish to British Empire countries and to the United States, including Puerto Rico. I have not time to read the whole statement, but I am going to ask that it be placed on Hansard so that hon. members may have the benefit of these figures.


STATEMENT SHOWING TOTAL EXPORTATION OF CERTAIN KINDS OF FISH FROM CANADA, THE TOTAL TO BRITISH EMPIRE COUNTRIES AND THE TOTAL TO THE UNITED STATES (INCLUDING PUERTO RICO) IN 1919-1926-1931
[Stage Direction]
Cod, fresh	
" boneless	
" dried	
" green-salted	
Haddock, fresh and smoked	
dried	
Pollock, Hake and Cusk, dried	
"	" greensalted
Mackerel, fresh	
" salted	
Halibut, fresh	
Salmon, fresh or frozen	
Clams, canned	
Salmon trout (lake fish)	
Whitefish	"		
Tullibee	"		
Other lake fish "		
Fish oils	
1919	1926	1931	Total	British	United	Total	British	United	Total	British	UnitedExportation	Empire	States	Exportation	Empire	States	Exportation	Empire	StatesCwt.	31,154	2,226	28,928	12,494	206	12,198	5,108	140	4,92315,323	695	14,146	19,124	108	19,004	20,035	321	19,712697,794	75,789	267,474	638,266	110,032	256,841	374,500	79,365	174,682195,229	761	194,466	67,095	92	66,940	72,067	3,792	68,23846,431	5,614	40,786	26,337	853	25,474	42,666	318	42,21779,887	4,845	62,558	36,012	4,515	11,424	13,179	1,158	1,21364,659	36,000	14,529	53,445	25,042	7,310	50,136	14,961	3,35149,501	58	49,443	8,478	208	8,270	4,807	178	4,62952,295	52,295	24,175	24 175	17 9X4	It	91,661	16,123	74,703	50,315	41,570	6,012	88]932	70,311	16,17032,590	86	32,504	32,140	204	31,883	38,394	119	38,247312,419	4,864	307,555	75,800	14,799	56,302	98,327	28,322	55,8002,100	12	2,088	8,742	27	8,714	1,774	68	1,69528,739	10	28,729	38,998	38,998	27,516	27,51611	102,609	1,094	101,515	124,480	124,480	94^170	94,170It	49,875	49,875	76,963	76,963	31,423	31 423it	231,887	37	231,845	319,414	319,188	282,435	282'4351,110,094	39,159	1,046,256	2,381,902	42,810	1,997,730	2,513] 188	105,084	2,408]104
g
s
o
[Stage Direction]
Trade with United States

Trade with United States
First I should like to deal with one or two matters which are covered by this statement. In 1919 our total exports of fresh codfish amounted to 31,154 hundredweight, or
3.115.400	pounds. Of that quantity only 2,226 hundredweight went to British Empire countries, not including Great Britain, while we sent to the United States 28,928 hundredweight or 2,892,800 pounds. Now let us take dried codfish, of which our total exports amounted to 697,794 hundredweight. In addition to British Empire countries and the United States those dried codfish went to Italy, Greece, the Argentine, Brazil and many other countries. Of that total 75,789 hundredweight went to British Empire countries, and I think I am safe in saying that practically none went to Great Britain. To the United States we shipped 267,474 hundredweight or 26,747,400 pounds. Practically our entire exports to British Empire countries went to Trinidad, Jamaica and Demerara.
I might read this whole statement, but I do not think it is necessary. For a moment, however, I should like to deal with some of the duties imposed on these fish. On the
26.747.400	pounds of dried codfish shipped to the United States in 1919 the duty amounted to 8334,342.50.
William Gordon Ernst: Have you the rate? I mean at that time, in 1919.


William Duff: It is 1J cents per pound or S5.60 per tierce of 448 pounds on dry fish alone.


William Gordon Ernst: I am merely asking for information.


William Duff: 
An hon. MEMBER:: Who imposed the
duty?


William Duff: My hon. friend asks who imposed the duty; the United States, of course. Now, in my opinion, with the Canadian fisheries in their present condition, there is only one salvation for them and that is for this government to make a trade arrangement
with the United States so that our fish might go into that country.
We hear a good deal about trawlers nowadays. I have no time to go into that question to-day, but if we had the United States for a market there would not be very much talk about trawlers because the trouble to-day is that Canada is a very small market. Great Britain is too far away from us, being some twenty-five hundred miles across the water, and they have their own source of supply so far as fish is concerned, so that practically the only market open to us now, to which we can extend our business, is the United States. I need not say that the fisheries of this country are in a deplorable condition, and I appeal to the government to do everything they can to help the industry. There is no question about it that there is a great opportunity for the government as well as for the fishermen of Canada. We read over the lintel at the main entrance to this building these words:
The wholesome sea is at her gates,
Her gates both east and west.
What is the use of having the wholesome sea at both our gates if we do not take advantage of it? The sea is full of fish and our fishermen are only too ready to catch them if they could get a half decent market, but when they have to face a duty of hundreds of thousands of dollars there is no hope for them. I do not blame this country, but the fact is that there is a duty which the United States government has imposed which makes it impossible for the fishermen of this country to carry on their operations in a proper manner. I think the time is ripe for something to be done if we are to be clear of our surplus product. This is the time for the government to enter into negotiations with the government of the United States.
In January I noticed in the Cosmopolitan magazine an interview given by Presidentelect Roosevelt, in which he made this statement:
This plan must go into effect at the same time that international trade is being restored through tariff adjustments. Every major problem before us to-day is involved with the tariff. The building of a higher tariff fence about ourselves has caused foreign retaliatory tariffs and prevented even the simple exchange and barter of goods internationally. By reciprocal agreements with other nations we shall have opportunity given to lower our tariff fence to permit the resumption of international trade. The United States can lead in outlining the mutual restoration of trade, and thus facilitate exchange.
Those are the words of President-elect Roosevelt and, I repeat, the time is ripe for this government to do something in the matter. Let me give some quotations from
22G0
Trade with United States

prominent authorities. Sir Robert Borden, Canadian 'head of Barclay's bank, declares that:
The removal of restrictions that impede the interchange of products is the crying need of nations suffering from the depression.
Certainly the fishermen of this country are suffering not only from the present depression but from restricted markets, and neither this nor any other government could do anything better than to endeavour to obtain a market for the Canadian fishermen.
Sir Herbert Holt, in his annual report of the Royal Bank of Canada, deplored:
. . . the futility of the trade warfare of which tariffs are the most important weapon.
Sir John Aird, president of the Canadian Bank of Commerce wants:
... a general and uniform reduction of tariffs the world over.
Mr. S. J. Moore of the Bank of Nova Scotia:
. . . sees the nations in a state of economic siege, trying to starve one another out of an impossible position.
And Mr. J. A. McLeod, of the Bank of Nova Scotia, calls for:
. . . sweeping reciprocal reductions in tariffs among all countries.
Surely Mr. McLeod's words, if they mean anything, are to be taken as including the United States in the desire for sweeping reciprocal reductions. We have heard a good deal about Mr. Roger Babson. As quoted in the Halifax Herald, New Year's issue, this gentleman makes the following statement:
Existing tariff discriminations whereby Nova Scotia is unable to sell her fish, coal and lumber and other products to the Atlantic seaboard territories which constitute your natural markets; and yet is compelled to pay from 25 per cent to 50 per cent additional on automobiles, clothing, shoes and practically all manufactured goods. The maritime provinces should have a separate tariff with the United States.
I do not agree with that last statement, because I think we should have only one tariff in the country; but there is no reason why a proper arrangement could not be made with our great neighbour to the south, so far as Nova Scotia and the maritimes are concerned.
Captain O'Donnell of the Eastern Steamships Company, in the same paper makes this statement:
In order that you may trade with the United States and she in turn shall offer you what she produces we must in some way bring about tariff adjustments that will be to the advantage

of all of us who live on each side of the line dividing our countries-the line on which there is not a single fortress or a suggestion that we are not neighbours and friends who trust each other.
I have here another statement giving the views of the premier of Nova Scotia, as published in the same issue of the Halifax Herald to which I have referred:
Our lumbering and fishing industries in so far as they rely upon export markets have experienced the difficulties consequent upon the lack of purchasing power in their former markets and this situation has been aggravated by adverse tariffs and unfavourable exchange.
In view of all these expressions of opinion, I think I am justified in asking the government, at the earliest opportunity, to approach the great country to the south of us, a country which has a potential market for Canada of 120,000,000 people, with a view to securing an outlet for our fish products. I am sure that with the experience which they have gone through in the last five or six years, the United States must realize that the duties they have placed on fish, both in the Fordney-McCumber and in the Hawley-Smoot tariffs, have not helped the fishermen of the United States, while they have been detrimental to those of Canada.
I hope that the suggestion will not be made either in this debate or in the country, but it might be said that if we entered into a reciprocal trade arrangement or a commercial arrangement with the United States there would be danger of this country being too closely connected with our southern neighbour. I do not think for a moment that the people of Canada will sell their birthright for a mess of pottage. We. are loyal citizens of the British Empire. If we sell our fish, lumber or anything else to the greatest, the nearest and the most natural market, as far as the maritime provinces are concerned, then I say we should fear no danger. We are daughters in our mother's house and mistress in our own. We are going to remain daughters in our mother's house and all we ask of the British Empire, all we ask of this country is to stand by the maritime provinces and give us a reciprocal trade arrangement with the United States so that we can do business with and make money in dealing in a businesslike and reciprocal manner with them.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, with the temper of the
observations of the hon. member for An-tigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff) one can find little or no complaint. I am not wholly in accord with some of his statements of fact for reasons which I shall presently indicate, but

Trade until United States
in the main there is no difference. One might summarize his statement in this way: He has made a strong plea that the legislature of another country should act differently from what it has. That is all that it means when stripped of everything, an appeal is being made to the congress of the United States to take action different from that which they have heretofore taken.


William Duff: Except holding out the olive
branch.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We shall deal with that
presently.
In view of the present condition of economic matters in the world, I think it well to make a more extended statement than I otherwise would with respect to this particular matter. It is well to remember the historic background in connection with reciprocity and it is also well to remember that the remedy which the hon. gentleman seeks is one that is not in our hands to grant. If we keep these two facts in mind I think perhaps we will be able to approach this problem without prejudice and without any feeling of resentment against another country that has pursued a fiscal policy which to its representatives in congress seems best. This is just as we have done. If we concede the right to others to do that which we ourselves have done, we will then probably be able to appreciate the problem more clearly than if we claimed the right, on the one hand, to do as we pleased and, on the other, denied that right to others.
In 1879 when the national policy was introduced in this country, section 6 of the legislation provided as follows:
6.	Any or all of the following articles,- that is to say: animals of all kinds, green fruit, hay. straw, bran, seeds of all kinds, vegetables (including potatoes and other roots), plants, trees, and shrubs, coal and coke, salt, hops, wheat, peas and beans, barley, rye, oats, Indian corn, buckwheat and all other grain, flour of wheat and flour of rye, Indian meal and oatmeal, and flour or meal of any other grain, butter, cheese, fish (salted or smoked), lard, tallow, meats (fresh, salted or smoked), and lumber, may be imported into Canada free of duty, or at a less rate of duty than is provided by this act, upon proclamation of the governor in council, which may be issued whenever it appears to his satisfaction that similar articles from Canada may be imported into the United States free of duty, or at a rate of duty not exceeding that payable on the same under such proclamation when imported into Canada.
In introducing his budget upon that occasion the late Sir Leonard Tilley made an observation which I think it might be well for me to read. He said:
I have this to say to our American friends: Is 1865 they abrogated the reciprocity treaty,
and from that day to the present a large portion of the imports from that country into the dominion have been admitted free. We have hoped, but hoped in vain, that by the adoption of that policy we w-ould lead our American friends to treat us in a more liberal spirit with regard to the same articles. Well, after having waited twelve years for the consideration of this subject, the government requiring more revenue, have determined to ask this house to impose upon the products of the United States that have been free, such a duty as may seem consistent with our position. But the government couple with the proposal, in order to show that we approach this question with no unfriendly spirit, a resolution that will be laid on the table containing a proposition to this effect: That, as to articles named, which are the natural products of the country, including lumber, if the United States take off the duties in part or in whole, we are prepared to meet them with equal concessions. The government believe in a reciprocity tariff, yet may discuss free trade or protection, but the question of to-day is-Shall we have a reciprocity tariff, or a one-sided tariff?
That was in 1879. That legislation remained upon the statute books of this country in that or some modified form for very many years. In fact, that section, the terms of which I have just read, section 6 in the legislation of 1879, will be found in the revised statutes of 1886. In 1888 there was a revision of the proposals, but in the main they remained as I have read them. The legislation of 1888 was somewhat different from 'that of 1879, and in order that there may 'be no misapprehension on the part of the house as to what the proposals of this parliament have been-when I say this parliament, I mean that although the proposals were introduced by the government of the day in the end they were crystallized into legislation which constituted the offer which the parliament of Canada made to our great neighbour with respect to the matters to which I refer-I shall read section 9 of the legislation of 1888, which is slightly different from the section I read first. The words are as follows:
9.	Any or all of the following things, that is to say: Animals of all kinds, hay, straw, vegetables (including potatoes and other roots), salt, peas, beans, barley, malt, rye, oats, buckwheat, flour or rye, oatmeal, buckwheat flour, butter, cheese, fish of all kinds, fish oil, products of fish and of all other creatures living in the water, fresh meats, poultry, stone or marble in its crude or unwrought state, lime, gypsum or plaster of paris (ground, unground, or calcined), hewn or wrought or unwrought burr and grindstones, and timber and lumber of all kinds unmanufactured in whole or in part, including shingles, clapboards, and w-ood pulp, may be imported into Canada free of duty, or at less rate of duty than is provided for by an act at the time in force, upon proclamation of the Governor General, which may be issued whenever it appears to his satisfaction that similar
Trade with United States

articles from Canada may be imported into the United States free of duty, or at a rate of duty not exceeding that payable on the same under such proclamation when imported into Canada.
It will be observed that this list contains items which were not in the first list, and that the first list contains items deleted from this one. In 1800 there was a reenactment of the terms of section 9 of 1888. In 1894, fifteen years after the original offer had been made in 1879, there was a substantial modification in the terms of the proposals. Section 7, 8, 10, 11, 12 and 24 of chapter 33 of the statutes of that year contain the offer or proposals of the dominion parliament in that regard. Sections 7, 8 and 10 read:
7.	The whole or part of the duties hereby imposed upon fish and other products of the fisheries may be remitted as respects either the United States or Newfoundland, or both, upon proclamation of the governor in council, which may be issued whenever it appears to his satisfaction that the governments of the United States and Newfoundland, or of either of them, have made changes in their tariffs of duties imposed upon articles imported from Canada, in reduction or repeal of the duties in force in the said countries respectively.
8.	Eggs may be imported into Canada free of duty, or at a less duty than is provided for by this act, upon proclamation of the governor in council, which may be issued whenever it appears to his satisfaction that eggs from Canada may be imported into the United States free of duty, or at a rate of duty not exceeding that payable on eggs under such proclamation when imported into Canada.
10.	Shingles and pulp wood, or either of them, may be imported into Canada free of duty, upon proclamation of the governor in council, which may be issued whenever it appears to his satisfaction that shingles and pulp wood, or either of them, from Canada may be imported into the United States free of duty.
Then section 11 reads:
Any or all of the following things, that is to say: green or ripe apples, beans, buckwheat, pease, potatoes, rye, rye-flour, hay, and vegetables specified in item 41 in schedule A to this act, shall be free of duty when imported into Canada from the country of production, upon proclamation of the governor in council, which may be issued whenever it appears to his satisfaction that such country imposes no duty on the like product or products imported into it from Canada.
It will be observed that instead of limiting the proposed offer to the United States of America, it is extended to any country which grants reciprocal benefits to this country.
Then barley and Indian corn were dealt with by section 12:
Barley and Indian corn shall be free of duty when imported into Canada from the country of production, upon proclamation of the governor in council, which may be issued whenever it appears to his satisfaction that such country whence either or both these products are imported admits both these products free of duty imported into it from Canada.

By this statute the acts that I have just previously quoted were repealed. That contains the offers that were made up to that day, and it might be well in this regard to refer to the speech that was made by the late Right Hon. George E. Foster on March 27, 1890, when this and the similar section that I have just read were under consideration :
I now come to another item about which there has been considerable discussion in the house, and out of it. It is that which relates to plants, fruits, shrubs and the like, and with which this house dealt in 1888. By an order in council of April 14, 1888, certain fruits and plants and shrubs were placed upon the free list. This arose from the fact that in the Tariff Act of 1879, there was a clause which left it permissive with the government, on a certain list of articles, to either reduce the duty upon them or to remove the duty altogether when such articles were either free, or of less duty in the United States than was charged here. The matter was brought to the attention of the government in 1888 under the peculiar circumstances which at that time prevailed. It was contended by gentlemen of the opposition that it was not treating the United States fairly, when they had any one of these articles at a lower duty, if we did not place that article on the same tariff footing as it was in the United States. It was contended on this side of the house that this clause of the act was simply permissive and not mandatory on the government and that it rested with the government of Canada to say whether this should be done in individual instances or not. and that what was contemplated in that article in the tariff law was that when those products as a whole, or as many of them as Canada should consider it to be in her interest to reciprocate in, were placed on the free list or had a lower rate of duty imposed upon them, the government would reduce its duties upon them, to the same level. However, under the circumstances that prevailed at that time, it was decided to put these articles on the free list, and a very considerable amount of duty was lost in consequence, and a very considerable damage was done to a large and important interest in this country.
I read that merely to indicate that at that time there was a contention made that the offer must be taken as a whole, rather than that the individual items that constituted the offer Should be considered if the circumstances warranted. In the event, it transpired that the government of the day treated the offer as referring to individual items. In 1891, the year following the speech to which I have just referred, the finance minister, still the Right Hon. George E. Foster, said:
But I may say this, that the government holds itself ready, as the Liberal-Conservative governments have always done, to meet the United States on a fair and equitable basis and with the sincere and earnest desire to remove all differences that exist and to give the greatest freedom of trade compatible with the best interests of this country in its relations with the United States of America. Certainly no govern-

Trade with United States
ment of a self-governing and self-respecting country should be asked to do more. Further than this, we can state that while wre are willing to make all the concessions that on these lines can fairly be made, we are not willing to go so far as to injuriously 6hut ourselves out from the trade which we have with Great Britain and the other countries in the world, that we are not willing to forego, for a doubtful gain, the substantial advantages which we have enjoyed and expect to enjoy from our relations with the mother country, from which connection we have reaped so much in the past and from which we hope so much in the future.
Then in the speech of 1894, in which a revision of the offer was made, as I have just read, these words were used by the Right Hon. George E. Foster:
When we come to the grains-oats have been kept at 10 cents per bushel, and cornmeal at 40 cents per barrel, but two schedules have been formed with other grains, and two or three other agricultural products, The first schedule contains corn and barley. The duties on these are kept -as they were before, but there is added this clause, "Provided that barley and Indian corn shall be free of duty when imported into Canada from the country of production, if such country, whence either or both are imported, admits both these products free of duty, when imported thence from Canada. That is an offer of reciprocity to any country that chooses to take it up.
The object of leaving oats out of that proposal was to retain protection to that product of the farmer in Canada, a very large product and one which, in some portions of Canada, might be adversely affected at certain times and under certain conditions, if the duty were removed. Then again buckwheat, buckwhat meal, rye, rye flour, beans, peas, hay, potatoes, green and ripe apples,' and vegetables, are left with the same duties, or nearly the same, as they had under the old tariff, and it is enacted that each of the above products shall be admitted free of duty from any country which imposes no duty on the like product when imported from Canada.
I repeat that by 1894 the parliament of Canada had extended the offer made in 1879 with respect to the countries that might accept it, because in 1894 the offer became open to all the countries of the world, whereas in 1879 it had reference only to the United States, and later to Newfoundland. So that the effect between 1879 and 1894 was to induce the Canadian people, speaking through their representatives in this parliament, to place upon the statute books an offer that was open to all the world with respect to the items to which I have referred. After the change of administration in 1896 it will be recalled that certain reciprocal offers were made, and I think perhaps it might be advantageous to refer to them.
Section 7 of chapter 16 of the revised statutes of 1897 reads as follows:
The whole or part of the duties hereby imposed upon fish and other products of the
fisheries may be remitted as respects either the United States or Newfoundland, or both, upon proclamation of the governor in council, which may be issued, whenever it appears to his satisfaction that the governments of the United States and Newfoundland, or either of them, have made changes in their tariffs of duties imposed upon articles imported from Canada, in reduction or repeal of the duties in force in the said countries respectively.
Then there was a protective clause with respect to the French treaty of 1894. Section 16 reads:
Nothing contained in the foregoing provisions shall affect the French Treaty Act, 1894, or chapter three of the statutes of 1895, intituled An Act respecting Commercial Treaties affecting Canada.
Then follows section 17:
17. When the customs tariff of any country admits the products of Canada on terms which, on the whole, are as favourable to Canada as the terms of the reciprocal tariff herein referred to are to the countries to which it may apply, articles which are the growth, produce, or manufacture of such country, when imported direct therefrom, may then be entered for duty, or taken out of warehouse for consumption in Canada, at the reduced rates of duty, provided in the reciprocal tariff set forth in schedule D to this act.
2.	Any question arising as to the countries entitled to the benefits of the reciprocal tariff shall be decided by the controller of customs, subject to the authority of the governor in council.
3.	The governor in council may extend the benefits of the reciprocal tariff to any country entitled thereto by virtue of a treaty with Her Majesty.
4.	The controller of customs may make such regulations as are necessary for carrying out the intention of this section.
The house will observe that instead of declaring that the benefits might be clearly reciprocal, the words used were "on the whole." That is, if on consideration of the whole tariff proposals it was clear that the benefits this country would derive would equal the benefits this country was offering or giving or granting, then the reciprocal arrangement would apply by virtue of the proclamation. That, too, was an extension of the general principle that began in 1879. That is, we find in 1897 not any astute desire to find equality through the crossing of a "t" or the dotting of an "i", but rather, if on the whole the benefits were at least equal, the reciprocal provisions should obtain.
Then we have further a consideration of this matter by reason of the fact that there was a continuous increase in the American tariff. The McKinley tariff had been increasing the then tariff of the United States, the Dingley tariff and the tariffs that followed, until the advent into power of the Democratic administration under President
Trade with United States

Wilson, when there was a complete revision of the tariffs and a reduction resulting in free entry into the United States markets of many of our commodities. This was coupled with a reciprocal provision in the American Tariff Act whereby on proclamation they could admit into their markets free certain commodities produced in Canada, if Canada took similar action. It will be remembered that pursuant to that provision the Dominion of Canada did issue a proclamation whereby wheat, flour and semolina were given free entry into the Canadian market, and as a result we had free entry into the American market.
The matter of course engaged the attention of the new administration of 1896. Perhaps it will be within the memory of most hon. members in this house that the late Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier set up a commission which went to Washington for the purpose of ascertaining just what could be done to extend our trade in that direction. It will also be recalled that in the end that mission failed. We find that in 1910 the late Right Hon. W. S. Fielding, then Minister of Finance, in his budget speech used these words:
Wre had had negotiations from time to time with our American friends in relation to better trade conditions, and they had not turned out very successfully. We had, after repeated efforts, taken the ground that we should not again approach the United States with proposals for betterment of our trade relations, and that, if the matter was to be reopened again, it should be reopened, not upon the initiative of Canada, but upon the initiative of the United States. Accordingly, we declined to make any approach to the United States while the question of the French treaty was pending.
We claimed that our treaty with France was a treaty of reciprocity; that is to say, that we granted to France certain concessions in return for which France granted us similar or equivalent concessions. We said to the United States; If you want these concessions that France received from us, you should be prepared to purchase them as France did by giving what we would regard as equivalent concessions. To that our friends in the United States naturally demurred. They claimed that if they gave us what is called the favoured nation treatment- the best that was going-that we should do the same with them. That, however, was a view we ought not to take. We refused to take it in the beginning, and we refuse to take it now.
Those were the words of Mr. Fielding in 1910 after, as you will remember, an earnest effort had been made by the Canadian government of that day to induce our American friends to enter into a trade agreement.
In 1911, the next year, an agreement was entered into which was not quite what the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat described. It was not a treaty; the hon. member referred to it as such. On more than one 
occasion I have in this house indicated clearly the reasons I for one was opposed to that measure. First, it was an agreement incorporated into the statutes of both countries for that year, and it mentioned a limited number of items. But it was so framed that the change by this dominion of its tariff with respect to any one of those items terminated the agreement; secondly, the agreement was for no period of time, or for no definite length of years. It merely meant that if the interests of the United States could best be served by terminating it, all they had to do was to change the tariff rate on any single item, and the agreement then fell by the way. Equally, if the Dominion of Canada came to a similar conclusion and changed a single item, then, the agreement fell. I have made this statement so frequently that I hesitate to trouble the house to listen again, but I shall repeat that in my judgment any trade agreement which creates a channel of trade that may be terminated at the caprice or without notice to the other party, or be terminated by one party without considering the interests of the other, is fatal to the interests of both, because there is always a conflict of interest. All the terms of the agreement no longer have any appplication if, by reason of changed conditions one of the parties concludes the best thing it can do is to terminate the agreement by merely changing the tariff in regard to one item.
The people of Canada rejected the proposal, and I believe if they were asked again they would conclude that any arrangement which left us in a position whereby our trade relations could be changed over night for any reason, good or bad, which might occur to the minds of the American congress, would not be a sound or sane venture for a country such as ours. That is, we cannot hope to develop the resources of our country or give it favourable position in the trade of the world if we render it possible for a channel of trade to be dammed up, shut off, diverted or ruined by any action which may be taken by another party without notice to or regard for ourselves. Whatever else may be said, the fact is that with the coming of the great war the agreement could not have remained in the terms in which it stood because it would have been essential for either one or both of the parties to have modified it.
In the meantime, as will be remembered the Democratic party having come into power, and President Wilson's policy being that of lower tariffs, we had access to the American market for our wheat, cattle and many other commodities under terms which were highly satisfactory to Canadian producers.

Trade with United States
There then came a change of administration in the United States and also a change of administration in Canada. The Liberal party was in power in this country and the Republican party in power in the United States. The old veteran Minister of Finance, Mr. Fielding, was again in his former position. I think it is fair to say that everything reasonable men could do compatible with self respect and regard for the honour of their country was done by the Minister of Finance of that day to secure lower tariffs from the United States. But the efforts failed.
I find that in 1923, after the new Republican administration was in power, Mr. Fielding in his budget speech used these words:
In the name of the Liberal party of Canada, I declare to-day that we stand for reciprocity with the United States. I say that when the opportunity comes to make a fair treaty or agreement-and I say the agreement of 1911 was a fair and reasonable agreement and I am glad that our Progressive friends call for a repetition of that agreement in their motion to-day; to that extent I agree with it-but I say that when the opportunity comes we are proud to declare in the face of the parliament of Canada, whatever the fate of it may be, that this Liberal party stands for reciprocity with the United States when we can get a fair and reasonable agreement. That is our position. We are content to let the people judge between the hon. gentleman and ourselves on that point.
And towards the close of the debate, on May 23, 1923, the right hon. gentleman opposite who is now leader of the opposition used these words:
What is the position with regard to the United States? Since the Liberal convention was held, there lias been enacted by the United States a much higher tariff than ever before existed between Canada and the United States. The Fordney-McCumber tariff, so-called, to-day is operating to the disadvantage of Canada. Is there any member of this house who will stand up in his place and say: Nothwithstanding that obvious fact we think we should throw down our bars against the United States and give them an opportunity to come in here and affect our industries in a manner even more seriously than they have already been affected.
Now, sir, I conceive those words to be words to which I can give my hearty support. I have said on more than one occasion, when the right hon. gentleman was leader of the government, that those words express, I believe, the general view of the Canadian people.
Is there any member of this house who will stand up in his place and say: Notwithstanding that obvious fact we think we should throw down our bars against the United States and give them an opportunity to come in here and affect our industries in a manner even more seriously than they have already been affected.
That was in 1923, it indicated the view which I believe was a reflection of the sound 53719-143
opinion of the Canadian people. And the right hon. gentleman proceeded in these words:
But, sir, we had another aim, and I think it is becoming apparent to anyone who reads the American press of to-day. The Americans, as I have said, have put up a high tariff wall against us affecting no part of this country more than the part from which my hon. friends the Progressive group come. They have that wall, but we want to show them that if they wish to sell they must also be ready to buy. There can be no jug-handled proposition in matters of trade. If you wish to sell you have got to be trilling to buy. If you wish to buy you have to be willing to sell. I think our American friends will come to see that if, as a result of their-and it is their own business, of course-if as a result of their action Canada is going to seek and obtain new markets in winch to buy and sell in Britain, new markets m France and new markets in Italy, is going to develop a reciprocal trade and eifect agreements with Australia and possibly other countries as well, if they begin to see that in all these directions we are striking out into and creating new lines of commerce, and that we can manage very well as we are, I am inclined to think that that line of thought, quicker than anything else, will bring about the change which my hon. friends of the Progressive group opposite hope may come.
I should think that is not an unsound argument. In this house on a previous occasion I made that statement, I now repeat it. May I in that regard point out that at that same session, dealing with the tariff, Mr. Fielding in his budget proposed what was enacted in the Revised Statutes of Canada, vol. 2, chapter 44, which was originally found in the statutes of 1923, chapter 42:
11.	If the President of the United States, under authority of the United States Tariff Act ot 1922. determines to reduce the duties imposed by such act on the following articles, that is to say:-
Cattle; wheat; wheat flour; oats; barley; potatoes; onions; turnips; hay; fish as enumerated in paragraphs 717. 718, 719, and 720 of the said Tariff Act of 1922,
The governor in council may by order in council make such reductions of duties on such articles imported into Canada from the United States as may be deemed reasonable by way of compensation for such reductions on Canadian products imported into the United States.
That was in 1923. That was the offer of the Liberal government of that day-not of the Liberal government, the offer of the parliament of Canada of that day, under which, as I have indicated, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance made the observations to which I have alluded. In face of that, as has been pointed out by the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff), instead of taking advantage of the offer as made and of the suggestion contained in the speeches of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, the tariff of the

Trade with United States

United States was raised against Canada higher still.
Now we are confronted with new conditions. I suggest to the hon. gentleman that he is asking this government to take a step which he should not ask it to take at this moment. If he earnestly desires to accomplish the purpose he has in mind-and he does-then obviously nothing should be done that would in any sense have the effect of lessening the possibility of success in the adoption of the arguments to which I have just referred, which are not my own but which I adopt, in dealing with the United States. If the hon. gentleman is prepared, as he apparently is, to accept the statements made in the interview by the president-elect, that is that by reciprocal agreements he proposes, nay he expects, to advance the trading interests of the United States, obviously any action taken by this parliament at this moment along the line suggested by the hon. gentleman would be premature. If we have the opportunity indicated in the statement made in the Cosmopolitan magazine and the interview to which the hon. gentleman referred of reliance by the new administration upon reciprocal agreements, then with our standing proposals, which have been the policy of all governments in this country since 1879 until to-day, it occurs to me that the hon. gentleman will best serve the interests that he desires to promote, having made the speech he has, and after such debate as may be thought desirable, by withdrawing the motion, in order that it may be made apparent to all who run and read that this parliament is still of the same opinion that it was in 1879, and that successive administrations have but given effect to one general view; that is that there is an earnest desire on the part of the Canadian people, with their great natural resources, their fisheries and forests and wide plains, to take advantage of the markets afforded by the most populous community in the world living together under one form of government.
But there is another reason, and I put it to the house as being, I submit, a conclusive reason why at this time, after this discussion, which cannot but be helpful, we should not adopt any resolution that would involve the possibility of being taken as an indication of a division of opinion. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) the other day directed attention to the fact that a draft annotated agenda for the monetary and economic conference had been issued. I indicated that while that is a draft agenda only, it is now published, and any

person who so desired might avail himself of the opportunity to read it. Among the items on that agenda for consideration you will perhaps recall that after some difficulty this was added:
5.	Tariff and treaty policy.
A. Tariff policy:
(]) Cessation of tariff increases.
(2)	Reduction of tariffs.
(3)	Special aspects of the tariff problem.
(4)	Method of procedure.
I will not weary the house by reading from the annotations with respect to the item on the agenda, I will content myself by directing attention to the fact that the United States, with some reluctance, shall I say, has agreed to have placed on the agenda an item dealing with the question of tariffs.
Now every thoughtful Canadian realizes that our geographical position has imposed on us difficulties of the first order. The hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough in very mild and moderate terms referred to the preconfederation trading arrangements with the United States of America. Any man born as I was in the maritime provinces knows just what those trading agreements meant to the maritimes. There was then no Dominion of Canada, there was then no confederation. Reciprocal trading relations between the maritime provinces-not as a unit, of course, but each dealing with its own peculiar problems -and the United States of America gave a very substantial measure of prosperity to that part of this country. The termination of the treaty undoubtedly wrought great injury to the maritime provinces. But under the terms of the treaty it could be terminated, and the notice given was in accordance with the provisions of the treaty. It is undoubtedly true that where there was no treaty, as during the Wilson administration, the termination of that tariff arrangement by the legislative action of congress under the Republican administration did very great injury to the Dominion of Canada. There is no doubt that when channels of trade have been established, the destruction of such channels of trade, whether after six months' notice or without notice at all, works a very great injury on those who have created those channels. Our geographical position imposes upon this country extraordinary difficulties. No hon. member of this house who has had cause to think upon the problems of trade, as all have, fails to realize the truth of the statement by the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff) as to our natural market, if you can use that term when dealing with a foreign country, being the United States of America. I wonder how many members of

Trade with United States
this house have taken the trouble to study tihe situation according to the map: Look at the New England states and the city of New York, and remember the fast services by water, with splendid ships, that now exist between Yarmouth, we will say, and the city of New York. Think of the opportunities of modern cold storage facilities to supply the markets of that great city, whose population is at least half that of this dominion, with fish products just as fresh as could possibly be secured in any pant of the world.
On the other hand we have this argument, which 'has prevailed in the United States congress to this day: The Gloucester fishermen, and those of the New England towns, say that these hardy Newfoundlanders and mari-timers create unfair competition because of the quality of their products, which need not be here described, and they say they find it necessary to impose a duty of 2 cents a pound upon the fish brought to United States ports, as against free entry for fish caught by citizens of the United States. In dealing with a commodity such as fish, where the price per pound is not large, of course the result is that a 2 cent rate becomes such an addition to the cost as to represent practically a prohibition against the importation of Canadian fish. That is one item; I might mention others, but I will not take time to do so. These possibilities exist by reason of our geographical position and the easy transportation by water between the maritimes and the great cities and teeming communities of the eastern United States.
We must concede the absolute right of the United States congress to determine what it conceives to be best in the interests of that country. That is clear. In my judgment all we can do is follow the course that has been followed by successive governments and indicate clearly our willingness to negotiate on terms that are fair and reasonable, to quote the words that have been used by both Liberal and Conservative prime ministers and ministers of finance. We can only be ready and willing to avail ourselves of any proposals that are fair and reasonable and are not of such a character as will involve injury to this country if they are speedily terminated. I regard that as a factor of the utmost importance, and I believe I always shall, because I never have seen any answer to that argument, whether it be the notice that terminated that reciprocity agreement in 1864 or 1865, or the more recent termination of the Wilson tariff statute.
I can only repeat, Mr. Speaker, that I congratulate the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough for affording the house an op-53719- 143J
portunity to discuss this matter. I have expressed my feeling in that regard, and have given two reasons for that feeling, the one being the historic reason, indicating the willingness of all parties and of this parliament, speaking as parliament, to make agreements that are fair and reasonable and for the good of the people as a whole, and the other argument being that we have been given to understand that within a few months an opportunity will be afforded not to one or two nations but to all the great nations of the world to realize the difficulties that have arisen because of too great reliance having been placed upon nationality as the determining factor in making trade agreements-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am glad to hear hon.
gentlemen opposite applaud that statement, but let them remember that no ten millions of people can afford to be the victims of the application of the converse of that argument. That is the other side of the question. Willing as we may be and always have been to consider any fair and reasonable proposals, as the former Prime Minister, now the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) said, no man will stand in this house to-day and express the view that we should place ourselves in such a position that as a result of the action we take, that which we have built up by such intense effort may be destroyed. Let me repeat that I cannot express the situation more clearly than it was expressed by the right hon. gentleman when he was leading the government, nor do I desire to do so. For that second reason, however, I do suggest that since the house, speaking for the whole of Canada, has expressed a unanimity of opinion as to the desirability of such an agreement being made if possible, the mover of the resolution, having served the excellent purpose that he had in mind, might further advance the object that is so dear to his heart by withdrawing the resolution after the discussion has served the purpose -which he has in view.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: Mr. Speaker, in rising to second the resolution which has been so ably moved by the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff), I wish to congratulate the hon. gentleman on his splendid review of the different negotiations that have taken place in connection with reciprocity, starting in the early days of confederation and continuing to the present time. I think he presented his views in a very impartial and unbiased manner and endeavoured to show as clearly as possible the
Trade with United Slates

benefit? that would accrue to Canada if something of a reciprocal nature could be arranged between the two countries.
I am sorry the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) who has just spoken, did not see fit to tell the house that the government was ready to adopt the resolution, thus making it known to the United States that Canada was willing to trade on reasonable terms, under some carefully worded and carefully thought out trade agreement which would be beneficial to both countries. The right hon. gentleman advanced two reasons as to why this step should not be taken at the present time. The first reason was that in view of the fact that a new government has come into power in the United States it would be premature for Canada to make any advances along this line at the present time. With that argument I cannot agree; I think this is the opportune time for Canada to make a definite pronouncement in this connection. I believe we should let the United States understand that we are perfectly willing to enter into a reciprocal agreement with them if they are willing to meet us on fair and reasonable -terms.
The other argument advanced by the Prime Minister was that in view of the fact that the World economic conference was to be held in the very near future, the matter of tariffs as between Canada and the United States and, for that matter, the world over, might better be left for discussion until that time. He intimated that pending that conference we should not make any pronouncement on the subject. I ask, however, why should not Canada take the lead in this regard? If we believe, as a great proportion of the Canadian people do believe, that there should be lower tariffs, why should not Canada endeavour to take the lead and if possible to make her position clearly felt at that world conference with respect to this important question of reducing tariffs? However, I think we were all glad to see that the Prime Minister was if anything much more reasonable, if I may be permitted to use that term, in his attitude towards tariffs to-day than he has been in the past. There was a time when he told us that he would make the whole world pay tribute to Canada.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Just when did he say
that?


Alfred Edgar MacLean: I believe that has been
quoted in the press very often.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: Perhaps my right hon.
friend will say he has been misquoted.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, the statement is
there. Don't misquote it, however, that is all.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: At any rate, the right
hon. gentleman wa's of the opinion that foreign nations should pay tribute to the empire as a whole if they wanted to sell within its borders. Shut out the foreigner was the idea conveyed. Today however, possibly in view of the trade returns of our own country, the Prime Minister has learned the lesson that the policy of higher tariffs is not for the good of Canada nor for the good of any other country that adopts it.
I do not think anyone can take exception to the views I express when I state that the United States is the natural market for the maritime provinces, and notwithstanding the fact that high tariffs have been placed against a great many of our commodities, our farm products and the products of our fisheries are still entering that market over those barriers. I want to tell the Prime Minister and this house here and now that if it were not for the quantity of our products which we are still able to sell in the United States, I am at a loss to know what the farmers and the fishermen of the maritimes would do. We know that -they are in a bad enough position at the present time, but if that market which they have in the United States were altogether closed to them they would be in a very much worse position than that in which they now find themselves.
Our friends have always told us, and no one was stronger in this than the Prime Minister at the last election, that they would build up the home market for all Canadian products. Well, this government has endeavoured to preserve the home market for the producers of Canada and to-day I ask the farmers of the country how they like that market. They have it now with a vengeance, but that market is not affording them very much relief. This idea of our friends, of building up the home market for Canadian products, so that the people of the maritime provinces can dispose of their products in central Canada, is an old delusion. It has been trotted out and has done duty at every election, just as it did in 1930, when we were told that the market for the producers of the maritimes would be found in central Canada.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: Where did you sell your potatoes this winter?-Right in Toronto.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: All that we sold in
Toronto was harmless. The hon. gentleman can ask his own friends from the maritimes.

Trade with United States


Richard Burpee Hanson: I will ask someone who knows more about it than the hon. gentleman does.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: My hon. friend can make his speech when his time comes and I shall be glad to listen to him. Let me tell him however that if he will look up the statistics as given by the Bureau of Statistics he will find where our potatoes from the maritimes are sold year in and year out. What do we find when we come to central Canada with our products? We find that the farmers there are producing the very same commodities that we are offering for sale. They are producing butter and cheese, potatoes and vegetables, and they are supplying the cities of Toronto and Montreal, which are the large centres of consumption in this part of the country. The result is that when we look for a market for our products in these centres we are practically shut out.
The difficulty with our farmers at the present time is to find a market. They cannot find a market in those centres which are easily accessible. The United States is the place they can reach with the least difficulty, where therei are water transportation and cheap freight rates to enable them to get the full benefit of the market and to obtain the maximum for their produce. What is the situation with respect to our shipments to Great Britain? As regards the province of Prince Edward Island, our cheese and butter and a great many of our other products have to be loaded on the trains, hauled a distance of seven or eight hundred miles to Montreal, and then loaded on the boat for Great Britain, being taken back past our own door, all of which costs the farmers and the producers of that province a tremendous amount of money. We are three or four thousand miles from the British market and only a few hundred miles from the American, and there are many products we have to sell that are really not required at all in the British market.
The hon. member for Antigonish-Guys-borough (Mr. Duff) has dealt fully with the fisheries question, which I myself haw brought up in this house on different occasions. Let me refer to it for a moment. Take the question of the shipment of live lobsters. Last season, had it not been for our live lobster trade there would have been really nothing in the fishing season for our fishermen. Our canned goods go largely to the markets of Great Britain, and the price was so low that the fishermen were receiving only 2, 3 and 4 cents per pound for the lobsters that were being packed and
shipped to that market, whereas for their live lobsters going to the United States they were receiving, 15, 20 and often as high as 25 and 30 cents per pound. You can see therefore that if it were not for these shipments of live lobsters to the United States the fishermen of the maritime provinces could scarcely carry on.
As regards the question of lowering tariffs, as I said a moment ago, I am glad to see that the Prime Minister is apparently more favourable to this line of action than he has been in the past. It was my privilege to hear the Right Hon. Stanley Baldwin at the Imperial conference, and he made these remarks:
No nation or group of nations, however wealthy and populous, can maintain prosperity in a world where depression and impoverishment reign. Let us therefore aim at the lowering rather than the raising of barriers, even if we cannot fully achieve our purpose now, and let us remember that any action we take here is bound to have its reactions elsewhere.
Mr. Baldwin was plainly of the opinion, even at that conference, where I am sorry to say tariffs were really raised rather than lowered, that the only solution for the problem confronting not only Canada but the world at large was the lowering of tariff barriers if at all possible. With 120.000.000 people right at our doors, is it not natural that we in the maritimes should want to trade with them? Why not try to do business along business lines? Why should this or any otheT government seek to act differently in the negotiating of trade treaties for the extending of trade than would a business man? Business men are afteT business, they try to find markets near at hand and all that this resolution asks for is that similar action be taken by this government.
There is no need to go over all the history from confederation to the present time as it deals with the reciprocity agreements which have been advanced. There is no reason why we should not attempt at the present time to negotiate an agreement better than any agreements negotiated in the past. It is within the possibilities of belief that the present government now coming into power in the United States will be more favourable to trade relations with Canada than have the governments in the past. I think it was during the election campaign that Presidentelect Roosevelt said: Why not let us sit around a table and work out these difficulties; let us start trading with our neighbours in Canada; let us endeavour to get trade moving and then if we can do that we can set our people to work. The members of the government do not seem to realize that the great
Trade with United States

need of this country at the present time is trade. Before I conclude my remarks I intend to quote a few figures to show how the trade of this country, our export trade especially, has fallen off since this government came into power.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member should also give the figures for the rest of the world to show how much better off we are.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: The right hon. gentleman should not seek shelter and attempt to defend the policy of his own government by referring to world conditions. Canada's trade returns cut a soriy figure to-day.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They are better than those of other countries.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: I am sorry to say that the tide is still running out, we have not yet reached low ebb. The statement of the Department of National Revenue issued a few days ago shows that our trade returns are still falling off.
Those of us who remember back to 1910 and 1911 and the. agreement brought down at that time wonder why our hon. friends who came into power through the defeat of the reciprocity agreement did not endeavour to meet the United States in connection with that matter, or through some modified agreement.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh, oh.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: The Prime Minister laughs.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, because you had been at it for two years or more before we came into power.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: When that treaty was introduced into this house I understand that even our right hon. friend and many other hon. members of the house were so impressed with it that they were not sure whether or not it should be opposed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Does the hon. member refer to me? I opposed it from the minute it was published, and I was not a member of the house at that time.


Mr. YOUNG:: More shame.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: In the most vigorous language you could use.


Richard Bedford Bennett: You will find a letter in the Toronto News.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: I do not know whether or not my right hon. friend should be congratulated for that. We maritime people do not think so. When Sir Robert Borden made his first speech on the reciprocity agreement,

Sir Wilfrid Laurier made the remark that he could not tell whether his right hon. friend was for or against the agreement. It was a very mild critioism, his chief argument being that it would injure our transportation systems. Later on the opposition to the agreement developed and our hon. friends became very seriously alarmed at the possibility of this commercial union becoming a political union, that we would become an annex to the United States. I do not see why our hon. friends at that time should have been so much alarmed. They seemed to have the same idea as they have at the present time. They do not grasp the fact that trade and trade alone is the life blood of any country. At that time they endeavoured to convince the people that if this reciprocity treaty went through the industrial life of this country would be ruined. Had they been wise they would have showed the people that the increase of trade which would have developed through the reciprocity agreement would have helped the prosperity of this country. The Prime Minister himself to-day stated that when we had the reciprocity agreement with the United States the maritime provinces were more prosperous than they have ever been since. I do not think for one moment that that agreement would have injured the industrial life of this country. However, resolutions were adopted in the provincial legislatures, in boards of trade and every place else opposing this reciprocity agreement. Speaking at a board of trade luncheon at Toronto on November 3,	1910, Sir George W. Ross told the
audience that it was a step towards annexation and he asked the people of Canada to form themselves into organizations in an attempt to prevent any possible annexation to the United States.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And that gentleman was afterwards the leader of the Liberal party in the Senate.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: That does not make any difference.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I just mention it.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: An attempt was made at that time to hoodwink the people of Canada with regard to these negotiations. I think to-day the people of Canada are too intelligent to be fooled by anything of that kind. Sir George W. Ross told his audience that Canadian wheat would lose its identity in passing through the United States and Canada would lose her World markets for that commodity. He told them that the same thing would happen, in connection with Canadian cheese. Those were the arguments put for-

Trade with United States
ward at that time. Sir James Whitney, the Premier of Ontario moved a similar resolution against reciprocity in the Ontario legislature.
This agreement was defeated at the polls in 1911 and I think this constitutes the greatest crime ever committed against the agriculturists of the maritime provinces. Although that offer remained open on the statute books of the United States for ten or twelve years our good Conservative friends here never made any move to accept it even in a modified form that would have met their wishes, and I say emphatically that that is one thing which the people of the maritime provinces hold against the Conservative party. They are responsible for the defeat of the reciprocity agreement. It is due to the neglect of the Conservative party, after the offer had been held open for that period of time by the United States, that no attempt was made to put through even a modified agreement if the agreement as written by Mr. Fielding was not acceptable to the Conservative party. So it is no wonder that the United States then increased her tariffs. The Prime Minister would lead us to believe that the United States was as much to blame as Canada in the matter of increasing tariffs. The United States waited ten or twelve years, and then realizing that Canada apparently had no intention of accepting the treaty in any shape or form, they naturally said to themselves: All we can do is to put up a prohibitory tariff against Canada and shut her goods out of our market. This they proceeded to do, and I say without fear of contradiction that if there is a high tariff imposed by the United States against Canada to-day, a great deal of the blame for that lies at the doors of our friends opposite.
I should like to give a few figures of our exports from the maritimes to the United States and our imports from that country, which strikingly illustrate the nature of the trade we enjoy with the United States. I have picked out just two or three of the most outstanding items. In 1931 we imported from the United States 195,917 hundredweight of potatoes, and in the same year we shipped to the United States 4,594,121 bushels. Of poultry, we imported none from the United States, and we exported to that country 278,480 pounds. Of turnips we imported none from the United States, and we shipped to that country 1,838,829 bushels. Those figures are small compared with our exports in other years. On a great many occasions we have shipped many more millions of bushels to the United States than the figure I have just given. There is one thing I should like the house to realize, and that is that this
5,000,000 bushels of potatoes which we shipped to the United States from the maritimes had to climb over a tariff wall of 75 cents per 100 pounds, and still our friends on the other side of the house ask, what is the use of the American market for the people of the maritimes or for Canada? They ask us, why don't you sell in Toronto and Montreal? Let me tell them that it would take only the shipments from a very few farms in the maritime provinces, given a good year, to completely fill the markets of Toronto and Montreal, and consequently we have to find a larger market than Canada affords.
Notwithstanding that this government promised to do so much for the farmer-they were going to find markets for farm products and blast a way into the markets of the world that were reluctant to receive our products -the best this government can offer us now is to tell the farmers of this country that there is only one thing for them to do, and that is to cut down their production. I say that if ever condemnation could be laid at the door of any government, it should be laid at the door of this government for its suggestion now to the farmers of this country to cut down their production of agricultural and other products.
Our fish products have been referred to by the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff). We have a very large market for our fresh fish in the United States, in spite of the fact, as the Prime Minister has stated, that there is a duty of two cents a pound against our fish. The Prime Minister said that we could not get our fish into the United States market because it was a low-priced product, but nevertheless, in spite of the duty, we are making very large shipments of fresh fish of various kinds to the United States from the maritimes.
In connection with the potato situation, I may say that I have moved in this house for a return to be brought down giving full information regarding the potato embargo and the report which the British officials who were sent over here to investigate made some time ago. Up to the present time the papers have not been brought down. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) did read a letter the other day informing this house that the British government has refused to lift its embargo. So, as far as blasting a way in-to that market is concerned, we have lost all hope, and so far as regards forcing our way into other reluctant markets, nothing has been accomplished.	.
I would also point out that the Cuban, market has largely been lost to the people in the maritime provinces. The Cuban people told
Trade with United States

us positively that unless we made some kind of a reciprocal arrangement whereby they could ship their sugar into Canada, they were not prepared to buy the products of this country. So what with the dumping duties which have been imposed by this government and the different arrangements which they have put into effect, Cuban sugar has been practically shut out of our market, and in consequence we have to a great extent lost the Cuban market for our potatoes.


Mr. STEVENS:: If my hon. friend will permit a question, may I ask what action of v<is government has shut out Cuban sugar rrom this market?


Alfred Edgar MacLean: Since my hon. friend has raised that question, and it is a fair one-my hon. friend always wishes to be fair-this matter came up in the house last year, and the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Young) at page 9-08 of Hansard of November 7, 1932, asked regarding the importation of sugar from Cuba, and the Prime Minister in reply said: Mr. Bennett: Not the duty on sugar. It was to take care of the sugar that came from Cuba under circumstances which, as the hon. gentleman knows, were destroying not only the beet sugar industry here but the West Indian sugar industry as well. It was to preserve the market we had promised them under the treaty as well as the beet sugar industry here that the order in council was passed dealing with Cuban sugar.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The West Indian treaty-passed by my friends opposite is the controlling factor in regard to Cuban sugar.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: I cannot agree with my hon. friend at all. Our friends opposite have been trying to put that over the Canadian people too long, but we are going to nip it in the bud right now.


Henry Herbert Stevens: We de not have to put it over because it happens to be statute law.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: The hon. member for Weyburn, following up his question, then went on to say:
Mr. Young: The value for duty was fixed, and so the duty was raised. The minister told us that that was done to encourage the farmers to sow beets, but what did he do? He raised the duty on refined sugar and left the duty on raw sugar where it was.
Mr. Bennett: That was covered by the treaty, and he could not change it. Surely the hon. gentleman knows that.
Mr. Young: Then what benefit was the beet grower going to get out of it? He was going to sell raw sugar.
Mr. Bennett: It kept Cuban sugar out.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: So we have the Prime Minister's own word for it that they shut out Cuban sugar.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Refined sugar.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: It makes no difference; the minister cannot hide behind the discrimination between refined and raw sugar. The Cuban people would be as happy to sell raw sugar as to sell refined. The minute Cuban sugar is shut out of our market, we are doing an injury to that country. To get back at us they have imposed a duty against our potatoes. The hon. member for Kings (Mr. Macdonald) was sent to Cuba and upon his return was asked question after question in this house. Finally we received a little information to the effect that they were perfectly willing to trade with Canada, provided Canada were content to trade with them and to take some of their sugar.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member must know that Cuba is now growing her own potatoes.


Edward James Young: Where do they get their seed?


Richard Bedford Bennett: From us.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: I think the Prime Minister should revise his statistics. They are still importing large quantities of potatoes, but chiefly from the United States. However, even in the face of the increased duty against our potatoes, we still ship some to Cuba. I am trying to drive home the point that Cuba is still buying potatoes, but that the farmers of the mari-times are forced to take a loss because of the duty which has been imposed against them by Cuba as a result of the policy of this government. I hope nothing more will be said about the Cuban sugar situation because we have heard the Prime Minister's statement to the effect that by order in council he shut Cuban sugar out of Canada.


William Duff: By fixing prices for duty purposes.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: Yes. I am pleased to see -the Minister of Trade and Commerce in his seat, because there are some figures concerning the trade of Canada which I should like to place on Hansard. In 1922 the export trade of Canada was valued at $753,927,009. As everyone knows that trade went up by leaps and bounds until we find that in the year 1929 it reached its highest point, namely, $1,388,896,073, or an increase of S634,969,061 in the period of a few years under Liberal rule.
What do we find to-day? Under the policy of the present government the export trade has continued to decrease until we find that for the last ten months it is valued at only $350,000,000. That is the lowest trade figure in the last twenty years of Canadian history

Trade with United States
If we take the top figure of $3,000,000 per month for the next two months the total export trade of Canada for the year would stand at only $356,000,000. One would think with figures like these staring hon. members opposite in the face, they would see the error of their way and be willing to reverse their policy in an endeavour to restore to Canada its export trade. They should accept all suggestions from any corner of the house towards reciprocal or other trade arrangements which would benefit not only the trade of Canada and our financial standing but would benefit Canadian farmers. After the mad race for high tariffs which we have witnessed I believe the time has come when this house should consider very carefully every proposal put forward in an endeavour to reach a trade condition which at least to some extent would relieve the Canadian farmers and fishermen.
From an order for return passed by this house a few days ago we learn that 527,000 pounds of New Zealand butter have been admitted into Canada within the last twelve or thirteen months. I see the hon. member opposite in his seat who only a few days ago introduced a resolution asking that something be done by this government for the dairy farmers. I was not surprised when he introduced that resolution, because if ever there was a time when the dairy farmers of Canada required assistance, it is to-day. Notwithstanding the fact that hon. members opposite won the election because of their cry against the Liberal party's policy in connection with New Zealand butter, yet we find in the return to which I have referred that in the short period of only twelve or thirteen months, this large quantity of New Zealand butter has been admitted into Canada. I could give instance after instance of a similar nature, where our friends opposite have neglected to fulfil their promises.
Again I appeal to hon. members opposite not to try to side-track the resolution now before us, not to ask that it be withdrawn, but to give it careful consideration. I suggest that arising from it there should be a treaty which would not have for its purpose the wiping out or injuring of any industry, but rather the improvement of our agriculture and fishing industries. Undoubtedly there are certain commodities people in Canada require which the United States can supply. On the other hand we produce commodities that the United States could use and would be willing to buy from us. As a common sense business proposition, why in the world cannot the people of the United States and
the people of Canada get together on some form of reciprocal agreement which would be beneficial to each country, and benefit particularly the farmers and fishermen of this country?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that after the very dispassionate manner in which the mover of the resolution (Mr. Duff) discussed the subject, and after the very thorough and, I should add, illuminating manner in which the Prime Minister has dealt with the topic, the house will not expect me in any controversial spirit to engage with the hon. member (Mr. MacLean) who has just taken his seat. To him I would say only this, that for good and sufficient reasons the Canadian people in 1911 defeated the reciprocity pact; it was not a treaty at all.


Mr. MUNN:: And they have been sorry
ever since.


Richard Burpee Hanson: They have never said so, and I shall have to have better evidence than that supplied by the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. Munn) before I change my opinion in the matter. Therefore I have no desire whatever to engage in any controversy as to the whys or wherefores surrounding the defeat of reciprocity in 1911. Rather should we, I believe, devote our attention to the consideration we should give to the resolution before us, directing our minds chiefly to the question as to whether or not at this time the subject matter should be before us at all.
I have no doubt in the world as to the sincerity of the hon. member wTho proposed the resolution. No doubt he has listened to the legend telling of the advantages of the reciprocity treaty of 1854. I was not born in those days, and I doubt if many hon. members in the house remember even the latter part of the period involved. I do however recall hearing my grandfather, who was in trade in a small way, telling me about the days of the reciprocity treaty of 1854. I believe it is the consensus of opinion that so far as the maritime provinces were concerned that convention or treaty, or whatever you may wish to call it, was of advantage to that section of Canada. But we have to remember what day and generation that was. I also recall having heard him tell of the distress that prevailed in the maritime provinces because of the abrogation of that treaty. To me as a young boy he gave a lesson as to what might happen if we entered into an arrangement whereby our trade should be turned into certain channels and then be arbitrarily cut
Trade with United States

off, as happened in 1867. That is one of the reasons why I think the Canadian people in 1911 voted as they did. It may not have been a good reason, but I have no doubt it was a reason.
I desire to congratulate the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough, on the manner in which he treated the subject. There is no question where he stands. He believes it to be in the interests of the people of Nova Scotia, particularly the fishing interests, to have access to the New England market. I was bom in sight of American territory, and I have lived all my life there. I represent a constituency which adjoins the American republic on an extensive border line, and I know that propinquity, contiguity, is a strong factor in creating a disposition to trade with our American neighbours, especially between the maritime provinces and New England. Personally I am perfectly willing to enter into an arrangement at any time with respect to that if it can be done on fair and reasonable terms, and terms that will be stable as to time. But I am not willing that we should enter into an arrangement which can be terminated at the whim of any American politician. I spent a week in the gallery of the United States Senate in April, 1929, when the Hawley-Smoot bill was being dealt with in its last stages, and I witnessed what they did and how they handled it. I have no desire to repeat the story here. But there is a large measure of sentiment in both countries ready to consider this question on its merits, and when the proper time arrives, I think we should consider it in that way.
The historical data that has been placed upon Hansard this afternoon by the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) should be of great value. I commend it particularly to the notice of the hon. member for Prince. If he will go back to his constituents and tell them that as long ago as 1879 the government of Sir John A. Macdonald, wThen Sir Leonard Tilly was finance minister, put an offer of reciprocity on the statute books of this country, he will be doing the fair thing, but knowing him as I do I doubt if he will do it. Let him tell them also of the statement made by Mr. Fielding in 1923. I was a member of the house at the time and recall the circumstances very well. As far as I am aware that proposal which is quite in line with the policy of the Conservative party previous to 1896, has never been repealed.
The hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough has touched, very properly from his standpoint, on the question of the modus 
vivendi. I lived for twenty-one years in the constituency of Charlotte, New Brunswick, where they have the largest body of fishermen of any county in New Brunswick, though not as large as some in Nova Scotia. That county particularly, lying as it does along the shores of the bay of Fundy, and adjacent to the American border, is particularly interested in this question. Personally I never could understand why the modus vivendi with respect to the use of our ports was cut off, and I commend the action of the administration in renewing it in the last few days. But I do suggest, in the absence of further information, that the period suggested seems to be too short. I never could understand why it should be limited as to time or as to its operation. I agree entirely with the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough that in the absence of good arguments to the contrary our ports should be open to the Gloucester fishermen not only for shelter and wood and water and repairs but for the privilege of buying bait and supplies and transshipping fish in bond to the American republic. I understand that privilege has been enjoyed at Prince Rupert, British Columbia, for years and years, and why the same principle is not applicable on the Atlantic coast I do not understand. I think some explanation is due. I believe the government will be conferring a benefit upon the fishermen of the Atlantic provinces if they can see their way clear to renewing this modus vivendi for twelve months in the year and allowing the Gloucester fishermen to make those purchases in our ports. I would add, though, that the greatest enemy of the project is not the Canadian government but the supply men of Gloucester, who are absolutely opposed to the distribution of that money in Canada. It is just another illustration of their attitude tow'ards this country. I am told that many of the men who are interested in the vessels as owners are also interested in the business of supplying these vessels with bait and provisions. The hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough will probably know about that better than I.
Perhaps it would have been just as well if the motion had been withdrawn after the Prime Minister made his statement this afternoon, but as that has not been done I think we ought to go ahead and examine it at some little length, if only for educational purposes, for the benefit of those who, living in the interior of the country, are perhaps not as much interested in the matter as we who are contiguous to New England. It must, I think, be apparent to all that whenever a Repub-

Trade with United States
liean administration has been in power in the United States, save and except the one of 1911, adverse tariffs have been imposed against us by our neighbours to the south, and whenever a Democratic administration has been in power, there has been, at all events to a degree, a reversal of that situation. Therefore I confess that I have some little hope, though no certainty, that the Democratic party, which is about to assume office in a very few days, will give some consideration to this problem of better trade relations with other countries, especially Canada. I suggest to my hon. friend from Antigonish-Guysborough that perhaps his resolution is a little premature. Having regard to the fact that the Democratic administration is not yet in office, and that the administration now going out is moribund and without power in the United States congress, it would have been better had he delayed bringing up the question.
The second reason why the motion is premature is the one alluded to by the Prime Minister; I refer to the World economic conference which we hope will be held very shortly, and at which this very question of tariffs is to be discussed. I think I have made it plain on more than one occasion during the years I have been honoured with a seat in this house that I am not a high tariff man.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear. Come over here.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not
want to be provocative, but when I look over there I see every stripe of political colour with regard to the tariff. I see the hon. member for North Bruce (Mr. Malcolm), who has high protection on his furniture, and I see free traders scattered all over. I see the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Howard), with his protected industries; probably he *wants even more protection. I understand that he is a director of a great new industry that was recently established in his province with a 35 per cent protection.


John Vallance: And you see Tories
from Saskatchewan sitting beside you.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes, but
there are Tories and Tories. There is the old crusted variety, like Sir Wilfrid Laurier, than whom there was no greater Tory in Canada in his day.
Hon. gentlemen have succeeded in diverting me for a moment from the line of thought I was pursuing. I think in due time we will
all come to recognize-and I say this without political bias-that tariffs are best used as weapons in securing trade. That is the argument upon which, in my own constituency, I have based my defence of a tariff system in Canada. I do know, however, that the United States never had more respect for Canada than she had when we put up our tariffs against that country as a result of the election of 1930. Further, she never had more contempt for Canada than she had during the period from 1922 to 1930, when this country turned the other cheek after being slapped repeatedly. Then we had the spectacle of the Dunning budget, by which the Liberal party endeavoured to withdraw from an impossible position which they had assumed for eight years.


Mr. MALCOLM:: Very good years for
trade.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes, good all over the world, and Canada got her share. But let me tell the ex-Minister of Trade and Commerce that during those eight years we were selling the raw material of this country, part of our heritage.


James Malcolm: I beg to differ with my hon. friend. The percentage of manufactured goods exported was higher during that period than it is to-day.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That included newsprint; that is why.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If the
hon. gentleman includes flour and that sort of thing among manufactured products probably he is correct. It all depends on how you classify those things. I do say, however, that in my own province, and I believe in Nova Scotia as well, the great bulk of the exports during those years was raw materials.


An hon. MEMBER:: Would you call lumber raw material?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes, I
would say that lumber in a semi-manufactured state is raw material. Come down with me to the county of Charlotte and I will show you where white pine sawn only one way, that is with the wane on, is being carried over to Mattawamkeag, Maine, and sold to the Diamond Match Company. There it is manufactured into match blocks and shipped to various parts of the United States for manufacture into matches. Also I will tell the hon. gentleman that these match blocks, made out of Canadian white pine cut down
Trade with United States

in the county of Charlotte, New Brunswick, are being manufactured into match blocks in Maine and shipped to England in the manufactured state. If that is not exporting our raw material I do not know what it is. The only reason they do not ship the tree to the plant in Maine is that they want the lumber to dry and be air seasoned before it is manufactured. That is what we did from 1922 to 1930; we exported raw material out of this country, and many a man went after it. We lost a million good Canadians during that period.


James Malcolm: Can my hon. friend tell me how many more Canadian citizens would be employed cutting this white pine into match blocks? It is a trivial operation.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I can tell the hon. gentleman that if that plant were in Canada just that many more Canadians would be employed.


James Malcolm: Just how many? It is a trivial operation, as my hon. friend knows.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am free to confess that I do not know anything about it. I do not know how big the operation may be, but I see the plant as I go by Matta-wamkeag, Maine, every month or every two weeks, and I know that the plant is in the United States and that it is manufacturing Canadian raw material.


James Malcolm: What about Canadian cotton mills manufacturing United States cotton ?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Everyone knows that raw cotton is not indigenous to this country. Rightly or wrongly, fifty years or more ago we built up a cotton industry in this country. I do not know, but it is just possible that if we had it to do all over again we would proceed differently. Rightly or wrongly we built up an automobile manufacturing business in this country, in which millions of dollars have been invested. Since that industry was established all governments have given it protection. Rightly or wrongly we built up other industries in this country, including the furniture industry, and we have given them protection. My hon. friend makes very good furniture; I bought some of it and was glad to have it. I paid for it, and I suppose according to the arguments of my hon. friend I paid him 35 per cent excess profits on it. I only hope the government of this country has received some of that back in income tax.

To be serious, and to return once more to the resolution moved by the hon. member for Antigonish-Gusborough-


James Malcolm: Would my hon. friend permit a question before he gets serious, apropos of what he says about the United States having built up an industry for making match blocks? Why should they not continue to get the pine to supply that industry?


Richard Burpee Hanson: So far as I am concerned I would much rather see that industry in Canada. The hon. member for North Bruce may desire to see it in the United States; I guess that is the truth, and that is typical of the policies of the Liberal party for years past. They have sought to change Canada into a country of hewers of wood and drawers of water, and if hon. gentlemen opposite had their way there would not be a single industry left in this country. That is my answer to the hon. member for North Bruce; the record of his own party.
Having regard to history and to the present position of political parties in the United States; having regard to all the facts, I must say that any discussion of this question at the present time can be nothing else than academic. I would refer the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough to the remarks made by Mr. Fielding when he delivered that speech in 1923. I have not Hansard by me, but he said that having regard to the conditions that then obtained, having regard to the fact that they were putting through a tariff bill in the United States congress at that very time, it would not be opportune, it would not be right, it would not be in keeping with the dignity of Canada as an independent nation for us to go down there with our hat in our hand, and I hope that this country will never witness such a spectacle, much as I should like to see us extend our trade with our neighbours to the south.
For these reasons I do not think it is opportune for the hon. gentleman to press his motion at this time. At the same time no harm will have come from the discussion of the problem in a very moderate way, as I have attempted to discuss it. I repeat, I am not a high tariff man but I am willing to use tariffs for purposes of negotiation, as weapons to get fair trade, and I believe that I shall live to see the day, as many hon. gentlemen opposite will live to see it, when the United States of America will recognize the fact that Canada's protective tariff is as much a weapon of barter with us as it is an instrument to carry out the principle of protection itself.

Trade with United States


John Vallance: I listened with a good deal of interest to what I might call the Prime Minister's historical recitation this afternoon and I learned a good deal from him, but I am sorry to say that I can hardly agree with him in his conclusion when he suggests to the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff) that he withdraw this resolution after some debate on it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not say that.


John Vallance: For the very reasons he gave why it should be withdrawn, I think it should be fully discussed and that this house should register the fact that it is unanimously in support of such a resolution. Why should we not support it? What does the resolution propose? Let me quote:
That, in the opinion of this house, it is expedient that the government of Canada reopen negotiations with the government of the United States of America with a view of bringing about a satisfactory reciprocal trade arrangement between Canada and the United States whereby the natural products of Canada, that is the products of the sea, the farm, the mines, and the forests, and including fish, lumber, wheat, cattle, etc., should have free entry into the United States in exchange for the admission of certain goods from the United States of America, which in the _ interests of both countries may be admitted into Canada, free from customs tariffs.
The hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough dealt very ably with the question of reciprocity with the United States from the standpoint of the fishermen, and I wish to refer for a moment or two to the effect which such a resolution as this might have on agriculture, especially the cattle industry.
We have been and to-day are very much concerned about markets for all our surplus products, and we have been discussing the possibility of an arrangement with Russia whereby we might be able to dispose of 100,000 head of cattle. In discussing a resolution of this kind, it seems to me that if we went back over a period of years and realized the possibilities of that great market to the south of us, most of us would be able to convince ourselves of the advisability of adopting what is here proposed. The Russian deal was a barter of coal for cattle and the suggestion I am going to make to the government in support of this resolution is also coal for cattle; and I propose to give some figures showing to what extent the cattle industry had been developed, so far as our exports to the United States are concerned. In 1919 we exported to the United States over half a million head of cattle, and our
subsequent exports, together with corresponding values, will appear from the following
table:
Twelve months		
ended		
September 30	.Number	Value1920	. . . 420,891	$35,082,0231921	. .. 247,106	15.277.6211922	. .. 224.032	4.699.3581923	. .. 161.801	4.475.5041924	. .. 140.715	4.903.4901925	. . . 123,438	3.324,0871926	. . . 159,512	4.620.8631927	. .. 194,039	6.699.4061928	. .. 316,608	17.260,8401929	. . . 240,050	13,234,671Twelve months	ended	June 30	1930	. .. 190.515	9,934.2821931	. .. 22,481	763.8581932	. .. 18,651	649.890
I will not blame the government entirely for this condition-


Mr. STEWART (Lethbridge):: I hope not.


John Vallance: My hon. friend from
Lethbridge says, "I hope not." Well, if we continue to ignore resolutions such as the one now under discussion, we shall find before long that our exports of cattle will not only have dwindled to 18,000 but have entirely disappeared. What we are trying to do is to bring about an export condition comparable to that of 1919, and coming from Lethbridge as the hon. member does, he will not, I am sure, vote against this resolution.
From October 3, 1913, to May 27, 1921, under the Underwood tariff, there were in force in the United States rates which permitted our cattle to get into that market free. The emergency tariff, from May 27, 1921, to September 21, 1922, imposed a duty of 30 per cent, and then the Fordney-McCumber tariff, from September 21, 1922, to June IS, 1930, fixed these rates:	On less than 1,050
pounds li cents per pound; 1,050 pounds and over, 2 cents per pound. Then came the Hawley-Smoot tariff, from June 18, 1930, to date, carrying these rates:	Less than 700
pounds, 2i cents per pound; 700 pounds and over, 3 cents per pound.
It seems to me that the time is ripe for this government and this house to give expression to the attitude of the Canadian people towards a reciprocal trade agreement with the United States.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is on the statute
books now.


John Vallance: The Prime Minister
says it is on the statute books now, so that
Trade with United States

there can be no harm in allowing this resolution to be voted on. By so doing this house would be intimating to the people of the United States that Canada is still willing to enter into a reciprocal agreement with them.
It is only to put the position of the cattle industry before the house that I have spoken. I do not think there is any branch of agriculture to-day, badly off as wheat is in regard to markets, that needs a market more urgently than does the cattle industry. We are not exporting cattle. The cattle that should have foimd a fall market were turned back on the ranges and are to-day running the ranges in Saskatchewan and Alberta. If we adopt this resolution we shall show the United States our willingness to enter into a reciprocal arrangement with them. In a few days' time there will come into office there a government which I believe will be more sympathetic to a proposal of this sort than the government which is going out. I fully intend to support the resolution.


Mr. HARRY BUTCHER (Last Mountain):: I shall support this resolution because it discloses evidence of a willingness on our part to remove the restrictions upon trade between the United States and ourselves without adding to the duties on goods imported from other countries. I am heartily in agreement with the speaker who has just resumed his seat (Mr. Vallanee). I am convinced that such an arrangement would be of immense benefit to the wheat growers and cattle raisers of western Canada. Great benefits would accrue if this resolution should receive the support of this house and ultimately become law here and in the United States.
I am exceedingly gratified to see the reception given to the resolution by the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett). I am sure that the sympathy he has shown towards it will meet with the approval of the whole country. I remember the experience of 1911 when the reciprocity pact then proposed was turned down by the people of Canada. I have always felt that that was a great mistake and that had the people approved it it would have been for the good of Canada and we would have received benefits for all time. I have always felt that that pact was not turned down because of its merits or demerits. Many arguments were advanced by its opponents, but those arguments were more of the nature of a red herring drawn across the trail, an attempt to obscure the fact that the arrangement would be beneficial to Canada as a whole. It was alleged that the existing trade fMr. Vallanee.]
connections would be disrupted, that the trade routes would be changed, that it would have the effect of disturbing the existing transportation systems which had been designed for east and west traffic, that great loss would result to the shareholders in our transportation systems, that our natural resources would be depleted to our harm and to the good of the United States. It was also urged that Canada was rich and did not need reciprocity, that the ties with the mother country would be weakened and ultimately there would be the annexation of Canada by the United States. I do not think there are many hon. members of this house who would fear any one of these supposed dangers today.
We have reached the time when we realize that we need more trade with every country willing to trade with us. The Prime Minister gave expression this afternoon to that view when he said: There is an earnest desire upon the part of the Canadian people to trade with the United States. As Canada turned down the proposed arrangement in 1911 it is perhaps our duty at this time to take the first step in reopening negotiations. I think it would be for the good of Canada that we should make known our wishes with regard to the matter, although it might be better for the government to wait until the new administration is in power in the United States before making formal approaches.
I hope that this resolution may be implemented because I believe it would greatly increase the volume of trade between Canada and the United States to the mutual advantage of both countries. I believe it would lead to a better understanding and a greater appreciation, each of the other, and would tend to eradicate the animosity which has been engendered by the high tariff walls of our respective countries. I believe this is a good time to consider the matter, because on both sides of that imaginary line which is called the boundary between the United States and Canada there is a growing opinion in favour of freer trade between the two countries as well as among other countries of the world. Many men and organizations have been urging that tariff walls should be lowered to permit our trading more freely with each other. I am most heartily in agreement with any suggestion of the kind.
The resolution reads:
That, in the opinion of this house, it is expedient that the government of Canada reopen negotiations with the government of the United States of America with a view of bringing about a satisfactory reciprocal trade

Trade with United States
arrangement between Canada and the United States whereby the natural products of Canada, that is the products of the sea, the farm, the mine3, and the forests, and including fish, lumber, wheat, cattle, etc., should have free entry into the United States in exchange for the admission of certain goods from the United States of America, which in the interests of both countries may be admitted into Canada, free from customs tariffs.
Surely no hon. member can object to that resolution. It speaks only of arrangements being made which shall be in the interests of both countries. Every hon. member who has the interests of Canada at heart desires that our trade shall increase and unemployment be lessened, and even more so if this can be done without any harm whatsoever to any industry in this country. For these reasons I heartily support the resolution.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Charles A. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to speak for more than a few minutes on the motion proposed by the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff). As one of the older members of this house, needless to say I was greatly interested in the discussion which took place this afternoon. The discussion pursued lines which in the past have been rather controversial, and the unanimity with which the motion was received this afternoon was consequently somewhat of a surprise to me. I have lived a considerable time in Canada; I have a vivid recollection of the attitude of hon. gentlemen on both sides of the house with respect to public questions and reciprocity is one in which I have always been much interested. I know something of its history, and I followed this afternoon the rehearsal of its history by the mover of the resolution (Mr. Duff) and in the remarks made by the leader of the government (Mr. Bennett) with respect to the attitude which the respective political parties had taken on this very important question.
No one will deny for a moment that trade with the United States is the most important in which the Canadian people are engaged. One need only refer to -the annual trade returns issued by government departments to realize that our trade with the United States has always been the most important. Indeed, our trade with the United States and with Great Britain represents about
seventy-five per cent of our total trade, and it has been so for many years.
I shall not recapitulate what has been so well stated this afternoon, by both the mover of the resolution and the leader of the government. I wish rather to base my remarks on events from 1911 onwards. I happened to be in western Canada in 1911, and as one who believed in the utmost freedom of trade and in trade expansion, a cause which I have always espoused and supported, believing that the widest possible measure of trade would be the most beneficial to Canada. I naturally was strongly in favour of the reciprocity treaty. I have never subscribed to the narrower views of trade held by the Conservative party, who believed, and they are entitled to that belief, that the secondary industries were entitled to a certain amount of protection. I believed that it was impossible in any way to lend protection to the great natural industries of this country, our basic industries, lumbering, mining and fishing, upon which the whole success of the commercial fabric of Canada depends, and for that reason I have constantly been opposed to the granting of special privileges which the party opposite have always been willing to extend to secondary industries for their encouragement, and in order, to use their own language, to create a home market for the primary industries of this country. It will be many years before that happy condition of affairs comes about in Canada. I am not forgetting the terrible arraignment which hon. gentlemen now sitting on the treasury benches meted out to us who were then sitting on that side, in speeches much more vitriolic than that made by the right hon. gentleman this afternoon. Many a time it was hurled across the floor of this house that we were only too willing to turn the other cheek when our neighbours to the south saw fit to increase their tariffs against us. But the striking fact remains that throughout all these years in which the tariff controversy has raged, the United States, ever since we have kept trade statistics in this country, has been the best customer for Canadian products. That is the amazing thing, that the United States has remained our best customer, even in face of the exorbitant tariffs enforced by the Americans from time to time against us, tariff increases which made it easy to inflame public opinion in Canada against the United States. It was thought wise in this country to have a great national policy, and hon. gentlemen of the Conservative party talked about "red-blooded Canadianism" if you did
22S0
Trade with United States

not support their policy. My hon. friends opposite got very considerable support in Canada in 1930 on the basis of those very same statements. It is easy to inflame public opinion, but the fact remains, which no one can deny, that through it all the Americans were the best customers that Canada possessed for her products.
My right hon. friend has said-I shall not have time to go fully into this-that it was because we rvere shipping them our raw products. Let me simply say in passing that the volume of our raw products going to the United States was never comparable to the volume of raw products coming from the United States to Canada. These are facts that we should remember. But the amazing thing to me is that after all the statements made by the great Conservative party now represented by gentlemen on the government benches, and after all the criticism that was offered of the attitude of the Liberal party with regard to our trade with the United States, after all the statements made by Mr. Fielding and the men in the government of that day who supported him, and after the statements made by my right hon. leader when he was at the head of the government- the amazing thing, I say, is that these statements are now accepted in toto by the leader of the Conservative party in this house, and, of course, he speaks for the whole party Why, if I were to refer to some of the statements made in earlier days by the right hon. leader of the government, who amazed me by his statement to the house to-day that the only objection he took in 1911 to reciprocity was that there was no time limit placed upon the agreement-*


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not say that, pardon me.


Charles A. Stewart: I am sorry if I did not catch his remark correctly.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I gave two reasons why I opposed it.


Charles A. Stewart: The right hon. gentleman gave many more in 1911.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I gave six, as a matter of fact.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, and
twice six.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, six; I remember
them.


Charles A. Stewart: My right
hon. friend must remember that I was one TMr. C. A. Stewart.]
of those who sat and listened to him. He made a speech in London on that occasion. He was brought to eastern Canada and all over Canada as the champion boy orator. He was opposing reciprocity.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not correct; I did not speak in London in 1911. The hon. gentleman is confusing 1905 with 1911.


Charles A. Stewart: Did not my hon. friend tour Canada in 1911 in the interests of the Conservative party? He may not have spoken in London, but he spoke in various other places, often in the province of Alberta, I am bound to say, and he was successful. I am always willing to admit that my right hon. friend had some measure of success. He is a forceful speaker, and I hope that he will be just as forceful in his championship of the policy that he enunciated to-day. If he is I shall be with him, as I was on a former occasion. It was extremely pleasing to me this afternoon to be in the position where I could support the right hon. gentleman and his party in something which I think and have alw'ays thought is of vital importance to Canada.
May I say that I was one of those who supported, with all the power I possessed, the reciprocity offer of Mr. Fielding to the United States, believing that despite all the obstacles that had been put in the way of it, the United States was, and still continues to be, the best market for Canadian products. What would it mean if we could remove some of those obstacles? One hon. gentleman has spoken of fish, and another hon. gentleman has spoken of cattle. The removal of those obstacles would mean more than we can estimate. I have not time to go into details, but I know what it would mean to the cattle industry of western Canada. We are trying to sell our cattle to Russia because we have to sell them somewhere, and we cannot sell them in Canada. That is perhaps also one of the vital reasons for our interest in a departure from what is known as sound money, so that wre may sell some of our cattle to Great Britain, as well as other agricultural products. But I emphasize once more that the country to the south, our closest market, is the market we ought to cultivate.
I am surprised for another reason. In the fall session of last year, and only in the fall session, an agreement wfith Great Britain was placed before parliament which members on this side of the house opposed to some extent. We did not oppose the principle contained in the agreement, because it was

Trade with United States
directly in line with our policy, but we did oppose the five year guarantee to continue the duties imposed upon certain commodities to be exchanged between Great Britain and Canada. I wonder if hon. members have looked at the list of commodities mentioned in that agreement? When the Prime Minister was speaking this afternoon I went through it, and I could not help but wonder what would happen if to-morrow President-elect Roosevelt should take office and send an invitation to the Canadian government to consider a reciprocal trade agreement. What position would the Prime Minister take? What would he do, in the light of the agreement with Great Britain to which the government has committed Canada for a period of five years? What would he offer not only to the United States but to any other foreign country wishing to enter into an agreement with us? I have all kinds of sympathy for the Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan) who has spent a considerable time in Paris. I did not know how he could come back with any kind of agreement with France. Why? He would experience difficulty because of the cast iron provisions this government saw fit to enter into in the trade agreement with Great Britain. They did not need to do it, but they did it with their eyes open, and to-day we have the spectacle of the leader of the government pledging the Conservative party to a reciprocal agreement with the United States which, he says, has been their policy since 1854. But he forgets-we do not forget -that hon. members who preceded him and sat on that side of the house went about the length and breadth of the country, and with every ounce of energy they possessed condemned the 1911 agreement. This afternoon, however, the leader of the government said the agreement was not so bad after all.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He did not; he said
exactly the opposite.


Charles A. Stewart: They did
not have a time limit, he says. The Prime Minister lays a great deal of emphasis on agreements which must have a certain length of time attached to them. If my right hon. friend will turn to his remarks of this afternoon, if he does not change them before revised Hansard is printed-


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman
should withdraw that statement.


Charles A. Stewart: I will withdraw it; I will withdraw anything that does not seem to do credit to my right hon. friend. But I want to say this to him-and I am
perfectly right in saying it-that that was my understanding. I sat here and listened very carefully to the remarks of the right hon. gentleman this afternoon. If my right hon. friend says he did not make that statement, I withdraw my remark.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have not seen the report of my speech, so whatever Hansard says is correct.


Charles A. Stewart: If my right hon. friend says he did not say it, I withdraw.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What statement?
Mr.	STEWART	(Edmonton):	That	the
only objection you took was the time limit.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Certainly I did not say
that at all.
Mr.	STEWART	(Edmonton):	Well,	my
hearing certainly must be bad.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is not your hearing at all.


Charles A. Stewart: But as far as the right hon. gentleman is concerned I find I am on the same platform-


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.
Mr.	STEWART (Edmonton):	Not	on
these-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not on reciprocity, either.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, that is what I fear; that is what I am coming to.


Mr. McGIBBON:: May I ask a question?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, all the questions you like.


Peter McGibbon: Did we not put into effect from 1917 to 1921 every article of the 1911 reciprocity agreement, and were they not annulled by the United States?


Charles A. Stewart: I cannot agree with my hon. friend.


Peter McGibbon: Well that is a fact.


Charles A. Stewart: I should like to know of one particular instance where the Conservative party made any offer to implement the agreement of 1911. If the hon. member is sincere in that suggestion, I should like to ask this question: Why did he oppose it in 1911, and why did his friends oppose it?


Peter McGibbon: Every one of them was put into effect from 1917 to 1921.


Charles A. Stewart: Some comments are founded on faots, and others on jokes. All I have to say is that if the right hon. gentleman who leads the government is

Trade with United States

sincere in the protestations he made to-day, if he really means now to subscribe to the resolution moved by Mr. Fielding in 1923, I am here to tell him there are many of his followers sitting in this chamber to-night who did not subscribe to it, and who have not changed their position from that time to this. If hon. gentlemen opposite have changed their views, then it is a complete right about face so far as the Conservative party is concerned.
All I have to say is that the more publicity that is given to the resolution before us, the better for Canada. If it will increase trade- because heaven knows there is nothing we need worse-certainly it would be of great benefit to the country. If ever I had any doubts about the position I have taken concerning trade matters, oertainly they have been dispelled within the last year and a half or two years. Hon. gentlemen opposite have demonstrated beyond peradventure that by their trade policies they can ruin the country quicker than by any other course they could pursue. If hon. members do not believe what I say, I ask them to look at the trade returns. Where are we going? Where are we to get the revenue with which to pay our indebtedness? Where are we to get the money to meet the ordinary running expenses of the country? I have much sympathy for my good friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes). No man in the government is entitled to more sympathy than he, because one of these days he will have to make a rather sorry statement to the House of Commons concerning the revenue of the country.
The quicker we revive trade and the quicker this suicidal policy of the Conservative party is changed to one of reciprocity with people who are willing to trade with us, the better it will be for Canada. I could not sit stall in my seat and observe without comment the sudden change of front shown by the government. We were to have an announcement which, we understood, would startle us, but nothing could startle me more than the statement I heard to-day; nothing could appeal to me more. I expected an entirely different statement.
If we approach the United States showing that we are unwilling, as the party opposite has demonstrated in the past, to give any concessions that will injure Canadian industry- and I mean secondary industries, because the Lord knows we cannot injure the primary industries-if we go with the avowed intention of having extreme protection, I have very little faith in the result of any trade arrangements we may try to make with the United
fMr. C. A. Stewart.]
States. In my view any trade agreement on that basis with Great Britain can be of very little benefit, and to prove my contention I would ask any hon. member to look at the current trade statistics. The figures will indicate that the improvement in trade with Great Britain is so small it is hardly noticeable. If the government approached the United States with a fixed policy of that kind in mind, the possibilities of reciprocity would be very small indeed. But, I believe in spite of everything that can be done, in spite of the high tariff forces in the United States, in spite of the high tariff forces in Canada, our trade with the United States will increase. Perhaps hon. gentlemen opposite, after three years of trial of a high tariff policy, will be willing to listen to reason. Perhaps they will be willing to offer something worth while towards the improvement of trade conditions.
An hon. MEMBER; What a hope!


Charles A. Stewart: Perhaps it
is a faint hope; but after the speech of this afternoon I am prepared to hope for anything. I believe a better day has dawned. When we have a frank admission, as we had this afternoon, a right about face, a change of heart, when the worst that could be said was that we exported some few logs for the making of matches-I never heard of manufactured matches getting into Canada, but perhaps they will under a reciprocal agreement-then I am convinced that the dawn of a better day is here.
I support this resolution most heartily. I hope it will carry by a large majority, so that to-morrow it will be known in Washington that the Canadian parliament is favourable to a reciprocal agreement with the United States. My hon. friend stated this afternoon that until the Dunning budget came down in 1930 there was no change. My view is that we should trade with any who will trade with us on a fair and equitable basis, and I believe that is the policy that will prevail. On the other hand we will never build up trade with other nations if we put up impossible barriers, which is exactly what hon. gentlemen on the opposite side have been doing. But to-day they say they are going to right about face; in that respect I for one will lend them all the support I can. But knowing them as I have in the past, having listened to their declarations on the public platform, I am going to take their present statements with some grains of salt. I want them to show me that they mean what they say. For heaven's sake do not try any more agreements such as have just been enacted with the mother coun-

Trade with United States
try, because it is no good. And do not tie yourselves up for five years so that you cannot trade with anyone else without referring the matter to the country with which you have the cast iron agreement.


An hon. MEMBER:: What about your
twelve years?


Charles A. Stewart: What about a lot of things? All I can say is that I hope and trust that you really mean what you said this afternoon, because if so there is some hope for Canadian trade.


Mr. FINLAY MacDONALD (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, it would1 appear to
me as an. ordinary onlooker that there must be considerable disappointment in the ranks of the hon. gentleman's friends. It is quite evident that all the speeches that we have been listening to this afternoon from that side were prepared with the expectation that the government was going to oppose the resolution of my hon. friend from Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff). They show a persistent attempt to create the impression in the country that this government is opposed to reciprocal relations with the United States. Now I come from the province of Nova Scotia, the proudest province of the dominion, where there is a tradition in favour of reciprocity with the United States. It was said by Joseph Howe many years ago that if you were to throw a board on the waters of Nova Scotia it would float to Boston. In those early days before confederation there was a great trade between the maritime provinces, particularly Nova Scotia and Boston. Fishing vessels from Boston, Provincetown and the other New England ports always came to Nova Scotia-including the little village in which I was bom-and fitted out, shipped men and materials, and came back in the fall and discharged their crews. Many of the crews went to Boston during the winter months, and shortly afterwards their families followed them, with the result that to-day in the New England states there are more people of Nova Scotia parentage than there are in the province of Nova Scotia itself.
From the discussion this afternoon it is quite clear that both parties are in favour of this resolution. Let me say right here that I am not in favour of it in the terms in which it is expressed. There is no doubt that many years ago Nova Scotia enjoyed great prosperity owing to the freedom of trade that existed between it and the New England states. But things are different to-day. We sometimes make the mistake of thinking that 53719-1445
if we could return to the days of our fathers and grandfathers we would enjoy the same prosperity that they did. Such is not the case. I doubt whether the fishermen of Gloucester and Provincetown and Boston are much more prosperous to-day than our own fishermen are. It must be remembered that the fish business has gone down all over the world. It has certainly gone down in the maritime provinces. During the past few years we have tried to build up a fresh fish business with upper Canada. For this purpose trawlers have been licensed; out on the banks they keep in daily touch by wireless with the merchants, thus ensuring a continuous supply of fresh fish from Nova Scotia to the Toronto and Montreal markets. It is urged that they have been the death of the shore fisherman'-with that I will deal later- but just let me ask you what would happen to that fresh fish business if the bars were let down and fresh fish landed from vessels sailing out of Gloucester and Boston appeared in the Montreal and Toronto markets. It is true that the shore fishermen throughout the lower provinces have suffered; I do not think that anywhere in the country there is greater destitution and suffering than among the fishermen of the maritime provinces. I am in agreement with my hon. friend from Antig-onish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff) on one point,, and that is the great desirability of the modus vivendi. I believe that American fishing vessels should be permitted to enter maritime province ports to tranship their fish, purchase their supplies, make all necessary repairs and ship men if necessary. That would give our shore fishermen an opportunity to make a living which they do not now enjoy. I could tell you stories of shore fishermen who pursue that hardy calling, going out to sea in the early morning, returning with their boatload of fish, and being obliged either to sell them for one cent apiece or to throw them away. With proper cold storage facilities the fishermen could put those fish away for bait and so get a reasonable living. In this connection I might mention that we have storage facilities at North Sydney and Sydney Harbour, but these have been practically destroyed so that they are of absolutely no use to the fishermen. With such facilities as these afforded, however, the town of North Sydney would prosper.
There is one point to which I should direct the attention of my hon. friend. Among other things his resolution includes the natural products of Canada, the products of the sea, the farm, the forests and the mines. I wonder how long the coal mines of Nova Scotia would
Trade with United Stales

last if we had reciprocity with regard to coal. Their destruction would be very sudden and very complete. I venture to believe that this great industry in Nova Scotia, upon which one-fifth of our population depends for a livelihood, would disappear in a few years. Therefore I am obliged to take issue with my hon. friend on that point, though as far as fish go I am at one with him.


Mr. VINCENT DUPUIS (Laprairie-Napier-yille) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I deem it
my duty to express the views of those who I have the honour of representing in the house- the farmers of Laprairie-Napierville-on this all important question introduced by the resolution of the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff). The resolution reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this house, it is expedient that the government of Canada reopen negotiations with the government of the United States of America with a view of bringing about a satisfactory reciprocal trade arrangement between Canada and the United States whereby the natural products of Canada, that is the products of the sea, the farm, the mines, and the forests, and including fish, lumber, wheat, cattle, etc., should have free entry into the United States in exchange for the admission of certain goods from the United States of America, which in the interests of both countries may be admitted into Canada, free from customs tariffs.
To summarize, this motion requests the renewal of the treaty negotiated by the Liberal party, in 1911, in order to promote wider trade relations with our neighbours to the south. I need not mention that the Quebec farmers, especially those located on the south shore of the St. Lawrence river, close to the United States frontier are, and have always been, in favour of a reciprocal trade treaty. Indeed the people of Laprairie-Napierville and those of the counties bordering on the United States, would greatly benefit from such a treaty. Producers of milk, butter and cream, who are numerous in these counties, under a fair tariff, compared with the one our friends opposite recently enacted, sold at a profit their milk products to the United States. If such an agreement could be concluded between the two countries, there is no doubt that our farmers would find, in the United States, a market which would improve their condition, especially in these times of depression. The same may be said about the farmers who specialize in wheat and hay. A number of western members and all those interested in the live stock trade have sufficiently threshed out this question, I need not, therefore further insist.

The Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) stated, this afternoon, that one of the main reasons why he opposed reciprocity, in 1911, was that the treaty could be terminated without notification. I do not see how the right hon. Prime Minister could oppose this resolution for such a trivial reason, because now that he is in power he can amend, as he pleases, this resolution and add a clause stipulating that in case one of the contracting parties washed to end this treaty, a notice should be given.
The right hon. Prime Minister further stated that our two great political parties have had this question before them ever since 1879, and have always favoured a reciprocal treaty with our neighbours to the south; he also added that, as the two parties agreed on this resolution, the mover should, in the interest of the country withdraw his motion, and not insist that a vote be taken. I find it hard to understand why the members opposite would oppose this resolution simply because it might bring on a vote which would divide the house into two adverse camps. I have some notions of logic, yet I cannot quite grasp how the people's representatives, in the house, can possibly be in favour of a measure and when a vote is taken refuse to support it.
May I request the right hon. Prime Minister to explain how it is possible for him to be both for and against this resolution.
He will permit me, however, to remind him of the speeches he made, when he first came out as a candidate in the Dominion election of 1911. We have but to refer to the press despatches of that date to ascertain how strenuously the Calgary candidate opposed the reciprocity treaty with the United States. One of the main arguments invoked to justify his opposition was, that if this measure carried, the empire would be destroyed, the spirit of loyalty existing in Canada would be crushed; he did not wish to trade with the United States, because this would be an act of disloyalty. And how many other arguments did he invoke! After being elected, he had the honour of moving the address in reply to the speech from the throne, and the following are his words on the reciprocal trade treaty:
Mr. Speaker, in that portion of this great Dominion in which I am privileged to reside, a very substantial portion of our population has come from the great republic to the south, and one of the strongest reasons I had for opposing the reciprocity agreement was that it threw into the melting pot for solution a question that involved a problem in patriotism. When we remember that so large a portion of our population came from that great republic, where they

Trade with United States
inherited traditions that were at least not favourable to monarchial institutions; when they learned through the medium of the American press, that, however much their former political parties differed with each other, they showed unanimity in favour of these proposals, and when they found American public men preaching a doctrine that indicated that the consequences of this agreement would be the absorption of western Canada at least by the great republic, and at all events rendering impossible for all time the commercial and organic union of those overseas dominions and the motherland which comprise the British Empire, it was little wonder that these people allied themselves with those who were in favour of the reciprocity pact.
Having read the speeches delivered by the then representative for Calgary-now the Prime Minister of Canada-on the hustings and in the house, we are rather agreeably surprised to note what are his views on this question to-day. The right hon. Prime Minister has greatly changed his views since those days when Laurier compared his speeches to the turbulent wafers of the Bow river. Evidently he shows that he is intelligent, which no one has ever doubted. I am a Liberal, however, I am not so narrowminded as to think that nothing good can come from outside the Liberal ranks. No one in this house will recognize more readily than I do that the Prime Minister is steering in the direction of liberalism. Although I do not expect that he will join our ranks, I can assert that he is not one of those mentioned by Lady Asquith who stated that only the gods and fools do not alter their views. I can assert here, and pay him the compliment, that he is neither in one nor the other of these classes, notwithstanding the fact that a large number of his one-sided followers have so exalted him that they sometimes have looked upon him as a god. The right hon. Prime Minister has this afternoon brought them to earth by informing them that he has altered his views since 1911, that he is neither a god nor a fool.
As to us, sir, we have no need of changing our views on the subject, and no one will ever blame us for it, especially when we witness members opposite view this question of trade reciprocity in the same light as we do. I am doubly in favour of this resolution because I note by the change faking place opposite towards our own views, that we are still more assured of being in the right path.
I therefore trust that this resolution will receive the unanimous support of the house. Let hon. gentlemen opposite not fall into the error of resorting to such tactics as contending that they approve of the resolution,
but not in its present form. Let them not blunder by opposing this resolution; let them prove their patriotism by voting unanimously in favour of this resolution, so that the government in power across the border be made aware, once for all, that the reciprocal trade treaty is not a dead letter in our statutes, but is always and more than ever a living issue, and, that the moment the United States will show their willingness to act, they will find on this side of the frontier people who will welcome their proposals and say: We are ready to negotiate a reciprocal treaty with you on products of the land and sea, and also those that can be exchanged to the mutual benefit of the two parties interested.
I shall close my remarks, sir, by stating that everything prompts me to hope that the right hon. Prime Minister, as well as his followers, will continue to show that they are intelligent, farsighted and wise by unanimously voting for this resolution,


Mr. MAURICE BRASSET (Gaspe) (Translation) :: May I, sir, add a few words in support of the resolution of my hon. friend from Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff). I must congratulate him on the splendid speech he made on the subject of the maritime fisheries.
I closely followed the reply of the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett). Briefly, it means that we cannot have a reciprocal treaty with the United States because, first, our neighbours to the south would have to lower their tariff, and our government is unable to force them to take such a step. My reply to the right hon. Prime Minister is that it was himself wrho, last summer, was responsible for the agreements concluded with the British commonwealth. Since he displayed his great ability in bringing about a trade treaty with the British commonwealth, he might do the same to obtain from the United States government what the Liberal party has often attempted: to negotiate a reciprocal treaty.
In 1911, the Liberal party did negotiate such a treaty with the United States, but unfortunately, this famous treaty was rejected by the people. Had the Liberal party been maintained in power, in 1911, I am convinced that Canada would have been better served. Moreover, the great majority of the people admit, today, that had the treaty been ratified Canada would have made great strides along the path of prosperity.
Trade with United States

Our country had a few years of such prosperity from 1921 to 1929, however, after the Tories returned to power business declined and prosperity gave way to depression.
The hon. member for Antigonish-Guys-borough did not wish to introduce politics into this question, this afternoon. He simply requested the government to use its good offices in order to negotiate a reciprocal treaty, especially in connection with the fisheries of Canada. I shall support this motion and I trust the right hon. Prime Minister will enter into negotiations with the United States in order to obtain reciprocal arrangements in tariff matters. The United States will certainly not lower their duty on fish unless we are ready to grant them reciprocal advantages. May I point out to the house that our fish industry has been in a deplorable state for a number of years. Not only are we unable to export our fish, but when we wish to import the necessary fishing equipment, such as nets, marine motors, etc., we have to contend with too high a tariff. If we are willing to lower our tariff on marine motors and all fishing equipment entering Canada from the United States, I think the latter will grant us, in return, concessions on our fish.
The only way to bring back prosperity is to conclude a trade treaty with the United States. As long as the Conservative government maintains its 1930 tariff, prosperity will not return to us. I therefore beseech the right hon. Prime Minister not to reject the resolution introduced by the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff), but to give it his serious consideration, and therefore, I trust the house will unanimously vote in favour of this resolution.


Mr. EUSEBE ROBERGE (Megantic) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
state that I entirely approve of the resolution introduced by the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff), requesting the government to negotiate a new trade treaty with the United States so as to permit on the one hand, our products of the farm, mines, forests and sea to enter their country free of duty, and, on the other hand, admit into this country, also free of duty, the products we require. The government must act to relieve the present situation of the farming classes and thus avoid a general bankruptcy.
Because of the present crisis, we should set aside party differences and endeavour to save the situation. I therefore think that the best way to do so, would be to negotiate a reciprocal trade treaty with the United States.

The people of Canada would be very grateful to the government if it brought back to the farming classes the prosperity they enjoyed under the liberal regime. The slightest improvement in our trade relations with our neighbours would mean more to us than all the agreements signed at the Imperial Economic Conference of 1932.
I believe that some of the members of this administration will be forced, by circumstances, to cast their vote in favour of this motion.
I shall quote what the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley) stated in the house, at page 692 of Hansard, on October 25, 1932:
I would also draw the attention of the leader of the opposition to this fact, that the strongest argument brought against the reciprocity pact of 1911 was that it was to continue for only one year. That is what defeated that pact, and we know what happened to the Liberal party on that occasion.
The hon. gentleman stated that if, in 1911, reciprocity was defeated, it was because we requested a treaty for one year only. Now that the Conservatives are in power, they can negotiate such a treaty for a much longer period, and, with the President elect of the United States, they will have a better chance of negotiating a treaty than with the present incumbent who is highly protectionist, and, owing to this fact the United States is passing through a crisis of greater severity than that of any crisis experienced for many years past, and which was the starting point of the present world wide crisis.
When the hon. member for Brome-Mis-sisquoi introduced his resolution, on February 8, 1933, requesting that the committee on agriculture be divided into two sections-a motion which I endorsed at Plessisville-he stated, page 1919 of Hansard:
I would like to remind the house that all kinds of farm produce, with the exception of beef, are selling for higher prices in Canada to-day than anywhere else in the world.
The hon. member forgot to mention maple sugar, which is also a product of the farm, and, as I have the privilege of having in my county the largest maple sugar factory in Canada, I am glad to be able to give the house some Statistics as to the profits our farmers would have made, and would still be making, if our maple sugar entered into the United States free of duty. The factory is known under the name of aProducteurs de Sucre d'erable de Quebec." This cooperative

Trade with United States
company sent me the following figures of their maple sugar exports to the United States:
Pounds	Value
1929	
13,036,058	$2,473,6201930	
5,959,638	1,229,7471931	
2,572,578	483,6581932	
3,363,180	600,067
In 1929, the duty on maple sugar entering the United States was 2 cents per pound, in 1930, 4 cents per pound, in 1931 and 1932, 8 cents per pound. The only market we have for our maple sugar is the United States. You will readily see, sir, what a great advantage it would be for the farming classes, who are to-day in very poor circumstances, if they could obtain some concession on the duty on maple sugar.
The United States, sir, is the only natural market for the products of Quebec, and prosperity will not return unless we can conclude a reciprocal treaty with our neighbours to the south.
As stated, there lies the only market for our maple sugar products and we are obliged to pay a duty of 8 cents per pound while the price obtained here by the farmer varies between 34 to 4 cents per lb. The same may be said of numerous other farm products, such as butter, milk and especially young live stock. Not being able to ship the latter to Great Britain, our farmers practically give them away. The price of calves, sheep, etc., has fallen by more than 50 per cent.
By negotiating a trade treaty with the United States, the farming classes would immediately realize profits on their products. Such a treaty is the only way opened to the government in order to end the depression existing on the farm.


Mr. F. W. GERSHAW (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words in connection with this resolution. As I understand it, the resolution suggests the reopening of negotiations with the United States to arrange if possible a reciprocal pact for the exchange of the natural products of this country for certain products of the United States. It is an effort to procure wider markets, and our trade returns clearly show that wider markets are badly needed. Canadian imports in 1929 were valued at $1,265,000,000; in 1932 they had dwindled to $578,000,000. Taking the value in 1926 as the basis, the volume would be represented by $1,403,000,000 and $808,000,000 respectively. In 1929 the exports of Canada were valued at $1,363,000,000 and in 1932 they had dwindled to $576,000,000. We find that the volume of exports of agricultural products has diminished from 129 to 72.4. Surely it is evident that wider markets are needed for our Canadian products.
A few weeks ago the news went abroad that there was a possibility of selling some of our Canadian cattle in Russia. That news reached the ears of men in this country who are vitally interested in the cattle business, and many of us who represent western constituencies have received numerous letters from men who are anxious to sell their cattle. Of course, it was realized that this government could not guarantee profits or accept Russian bonds, but it was felt that there was a market for cattle in Russia and they hoped that some way would be found by which some of our surplus stock could reach that market. Nothing more clearly indicates the desire of the primary producers of Canada to find a market; nothing more clearly indicates the need of such a market, and these people are looking to the members of this parliament for some solution of their problem.
Someone has said that we should not go to Mr. Roosevelt with our hat in our hand to beg for an agreement. I think the Canadian people will agree with that, but they realize also that a salesman does not wait in his office for orders to come in. Surely Canadians are not bankrupt as far as salesmanship is concerned. Surely, when they have a great surplus to dispose of, they will not hesitate to try to find a market for it. This resolution deals particularly with primary products, and we all know that the prosperity of Canada as a whole depends upon the prosperity of those in the primary industries. IVe know that the curve marking the general business follows the curve which indicates the activity in the agricultural industry. That being so, it is of the greatest importance to the people of Canada as a whole that they should have a prosperous agricultural industry. It is true that in making agreements we cannot expect to get all the advantages. Some of our secondary industries may have to be sacrificed. But if that is true, is it not also true that those industries are failing in any case? Is it not so that as the days go by and we make little progress in solving our problems, industry after industry in Canada is failing to balance its budget, as it were-failing even to earn the interest on its bonds? So that the larger considerations must first receive the attention of this house.
The district whence I come was once one of the great ranching districts of Canada. Later the ranches were broken up as settlers came in, and to-day those great areas are
Trade with United States

vacant. If there was a market for our cattle those areas would be used for ranching purposes, but the few ranchers who have thus far survived are finding it extremely difficult to carry on, and if present conditions continue they, too, will have to give up. As an illustration I might point out that one junction which the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) knows well, the junction of Dunmore, once shipped thousands and thousands of cattle, and to-day the Canadian Pacific Railway Company is asking permission to have that station closed. Nothing more clearly indicates the fate which has befallen the ranching industry in that country. Their great market was in the United States, but changes in the American tariffs have shut off that great market.
I wish to put on record a few figures which will indicate what the various American tariffs have done to this great Canadian industry. From October 3, 1913, to May 27, 1921, the United States under the Underwood tariff allowed our cattle to enter that country free, and what do we find? We find that in the year 1920, 420,891 cattle entered the United States. Then on May 27, 1921, the United States imposed an emergency tariff of thirty per cent against our cattle, which tariff remained in force until September 21, 1922. At once we see that, instead of shipping some 400,000 cattle, to the United States our exports dropped to 224,000. Then on September 21, 1922, the Fordney-McCumber tariff came into force and at once there was a further drop in our exports, so that in 1925 we shipped only 123,438 head to the United States. The last blow came on June 18, 1930, when the Hawley-Smoot tariff came into operation. That tariff levies a duty on cattle, of less than 700 pounds, of 21 cents a pound, and of 3 cents a pound on cattle over 700 pounds. In the year ending June 30, 1932, our exports of cattle to the United States dropped to 18.651. Nothing more clearly illustrates the advantage of that great market than the fact that we have suffered so much when it has been closed to us.
Of course I realize that it is not within the power of the members of this house to open that American market. On the other hand the responsibility of governments for the welfare of its citizens has been fully established, and an effort might and should be made to get us into that market at least under more favourable terms than we can enter it at present. Years have passed since any active effort has been made in that direction, but 1 believe that, especially at this time, if a real effort was made in a businesslike way it would

bring some measure of hope and courage to men who are at the present time most discouraged .


Mr. ALPHONSE FOURNIER (Hull) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I closely followed the remarks made this afternoon by the right hon. Prime Minister, on the resolution before the house.
To my mind this resolution purports to lay down the principle that a reciprocal trade treaty between the United States and Canada is desirable. We have witnessed a most amazing change in the views of the leader of the government. However, in order to explain his present attitude, he referred to Canadian history as far back as 1865, the year our reciprocal treaty with the United States was abrogated. After this event the Conservative party which held power in 1879, adopted, it seems, a measure endorsing the policy of reciprocity with the United States. This measure purported to allow free entry into Canada of a large number of products from the United States the moment the latter country reciprocated those advantages. Again this policy was endorsed by the Conservative party in 1888. In 1890 and 1894, however, it was slightly modified, that is, the reciprocity policy was extended to all other countries which offered us the same privileges.
This is somewhat the stand taken by the Conservative party, judging from the speech of the right hon. Prime Minister, as regards our trade relations with the United States. He also referred to the attitude of the Liberal party from 1897 to 1911, on trade matters. There were but slight changes, it seems, in the acts of 1897, 1904, 1910 and even 1911, and, according to the Prime Minister we are led to believe the two parties, in connection with external trade, advocated the same policy.
May I, sir, endeavour to prove that with the same policies we do not beget the same results. In 1911, the Liberal party, after recognizing the principle of reciprocity, adopted a measure allowing the free entry into Canada of numerous products, while the United States adopted a similar measure. Then the election of 1911 took place. Although advocating the same policy, as it seems, the Conservative party endeavoured to defeat this reciprocal trade treaty, or rather defeat the two measures, and their battle horse was: "No truck nor trade with the Yankees." In 1911, the Conservative party, therefore, denied-and we blamed them for it, at the time-the policy advocated by Cartier and Macdonald, in 1879, 1888, and the other years when measures tending to the same

Trade with United States
results were enacted. The Conservative party succeeded in convincing the majority of the people that they were right, and the people voted down the reciprocity treaty with the United States after winning the election, notwithstanding the fact that the Democrats were still in power in the United States, no steps were ever taken by the Conservative party to put into force these acts.
In 1923, under the Liberal regime, efforts were made to bring about such reciprocal arrangements but no results followed-I think that the Republican party was then in power. In a few days the United States will have at the helm of affairs the Democratic party which on many scores resembles the Liberal party, especially as regards their tariff policy. Is it the advent to power of this party which has brought about such a change in the Prime Minister's views on trade intercourse with the United States? He has, however, for eveT so long, known what was the trend of trade with our neighbours to the south as shown in the statistics, and also that with other nations. He is fully aware that, even with our high tariff protection, our trade with the United States represents half of our total trade with the entire world and the two-thirds of our trade with foreign countries. Our trade with the United States is twice as large as that with the British Empire. He is fully aware that notwithstanding all tariff restrictions and obstacles, it was impossible for us not to trade with United States.
The right hon. Prime Minister referred to our geographical situation. If it is true that this geographical situation lends itself to trade intercourse with the United States is it not much more natural to trade with them than with distant countries.
I doubt very much whether this so long delayed repentance on the part of the Prime Minister can have practical results in connection with our trade with the United States. What has been the Conservative party's tariff policy with our neighbours, since it assumed power, in 1930? They increased the customs duties on two-thirds of our tariff items, contending that the Fordney-McCumber and Hawley-Smoot tariffs, necessarily obliged us to adopt such a policy. It was laying down the principle that the tariff was to be used as a threat rather than as a means of trading.
We must, however, note with joy this acknowledgment by the Prime Minister, because we, the Liberal party, are convinced that we shall only return to prosperity by increasing our trade with the United States, as well as with the other countries.
When you raise a tariff barrier between Canada and the United States, you hinder trade, whether it be imports or exports. When I examine our trade statistics for 1931,
I find that we are making a great blunder in refusing to trade with the United States, notwithstanding their prohibitive tariff, because in	1931, our exports to the
nations comprising the British Commonwealth amounted to $292,884,145, and our imports were $204,935,168; while our exports to foreign lands, in those countries which also have a high tariff wall against us, amounted to $506,768,522 and our imports to $701,677,513. This proves that our trade outside the empire is far larger than within the empire.
It took our government two years to negotiate a pact with Uie British Commonwealth. Why should it not now endeavour to negotiate trade conventions with the other countries? Our agreements with the various nations of the British Commonwealth will always appear as an impediment, however, even then, I think that an honest and sincere effort on the part of our government would produce good results. I fear that, not having the same policy as the Domocrats in tariff matters, our government may encounter some opposition from our neighbours to the south, however the effort will not harm us.
I have but one further argument to set forth, before closing my remarks. The Prime Minister, in a meek and very conciliating mood, requested the sponsor to withdraw his resolution. His party was well disposed to negotiate with the United States. It was better not to bring on any clash between the two parties in the house. In due time, he would take the necessary course to open up trade negotiations with the United States. If the policy submitted to the house is to the advantage of Canada, if the principle of reciprocity is sound, there is no need for the sponsor of this resolution to withdraw it. If it is desired to show a united front before the country, the United States and the other countries, this resolution should be unanimously carried, thus the house would give a proof of its sincerity. I am aware that our friends opposite hailing from Quebec will find it hard to vote for this trade and policy, they who, in 1911, 1917, 1921, 1925, 1926 and 1930, boasted of the contrary throughout Quebec; however, it is never too late to repent. I think that they would rise in the people's esteem by adopting the principle of this resolution.


Mr. J. H. MYERS (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, We in the maritime provinces, all things being equal, would be quite in favour of the
Trade with United States

resolution now under consideration. For generations our natural market has been down the Atlantic seaboard in the New England states. We always found a profitable market there, and while that market remained open to us we in the maritime provinces were very prosperous indeed. My idea of the tariff situation to-day is that tariffs throughout the world,-in America, Europe or wherever you may go-are much too high. To my mind they constitute a great restraint upon the trade and commerce between countries.
Hon. gentlemen opposite who spoke this afternoon appear to have tried to convey the impression to the house and the country- and more- particularly the country-that the tariffs imposed against us by the United States are of our own making. They would try to have us believe that the tariffs against our goods entering the United States were made in Ottawa. Such, however, is not the case. Those tariffs are made in Washington, and anything that this parliament has been able to do or say has not had the effect of lowering their tariffs. The hon. member for Prince (Mr. MacLean) spoke about the decline of trade between Canada and the United States. True, trade has declined, but while trade will decrease or increase very quickly according to the prices of the different commodities concerned, a decline in value does not always indicate a decline in volume. That is one point which should not be forgotten. However there has 'been a very good reason for the decrease in trade in the last two years between Canada and the United States.
After six o'clock I managed to secure some figures concerning a few of the commodities with which I am most concerned, and I should like to place them on Hansard to show what has happened during the last few years. The hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Gershaw) spoke about the cattle trade, and made reference to the great trade enjoyed until the year 1921 between the western prairie provinces and the United States. Why should there not have been that trade? Up to 1921 Canadian cattle entered the American market free of duty, and I am of the opinion they should still enter under the same condition; we all believe that. However, in 1930 conditions were different. As the hon. member stated, cattle of 700 pounds or under were subjected to duty of two and a half cents a pounds while on cattle over 700 pounds the duty was three cents per pound. Again, take poultry; in 1921 the United States duty was one cent a pound; in 1930 it was 8 cents a pound. It was intended that the duty should be prohibitive; that is why it was put on. On sheep, which entered the United States

free in 1921, you now have to pay $3 per head, almost half the price of the sheep. Oats that in 1921 entered the United States at 6 cents for thirty-two pounds now pay 16 cents -prohibitive again. Wheat, which was free in 1921, now pays 42 cents per bushel. Wheat flour, which was free in 1921, now pays SI.04 a barrel. Pork, something in which we are all interested-in our section of the country vitally so, for it is one of the chief articles of export-in 1921 was free of duty; to-day it pays 3| cents a pound to enter the American market. Butter in 1921 carried a duty of 2J cents a pound. I would not complain about that, but imagine a duty on butter in 1930 of 14 cents a pound, almost the price of the article! Cheese in 1920 was 20 per cent ad valorem; now it is 35 per cent. Cream, which was free-and this should interest the farmers of central Canada-now pays 56.6 cents per gallon, a duty intended to be prohibitive and nothing else. Potatoes, in which we, in our province, are vitally interested, were free in 1921; now we have to pay a duty of 75 cents per hundred pounds to get them into the United States. Turnips, another article that we export largely, were 15 per cent then1; they are now 25 cents per hundred pounds. So it is easy to see why the trade between Canada and the United- States should decline, under the duties I have mentioned, duties which were clearly meant to be prohibitive.
But just as the exports from Canada to the United States have declined, we are pleased to be able to inform this house that owing to the beneficial arrangements made at the Imperial economic conference held here last August, our exports to British countries are on the increase. During the last six months of 1932 our exports to the United Kingdom totalled 8116,487,568 as against 8102,433,809 for -the first half of the year, an increase of $13,953,759. That is where our exports are going now. We have found the United States market very fickle, and I believe that is what the Canadian exporter is afraid of. We want markets upon which we can -rely over a long period of -time. It is no light matter for an exporter to establish connections in a certain country and build up the shipping facilities necessary to move his product, and then have his exports to that country ruthlessly dhut off overnight, as was done by the United States in 1930.
The same is true of Canada's exports to other British dominions. During the last six months of 1932 our exports to empire countries totalled $137,209,418 compared with $126,483,054 for the same period of 1931, a gain in the year of $10,726,364.

Trade with 'Jnited States
Now my Eon. friend from Prince (Mr. MacLean) made some statements tihiis afternoon with reference to the export of potatoes. He told us, I think, that somewhere around
4,000,000 bushels of potatoes had been exported, largely from the maritime provinces, even in spite of the 75 cents per hundred pounds duty. My hon. friend was a little in error there, because in the year he refers to the duty on potatoes was only 50 cents a bushel. I remember quite well the fight that took place with reference to this duty on potatoes in 1929. I happened at that time to be a director of the Prince Edward Island Potato Growers' Association. Foolishly, I now think, we spent a considerable sum of money in conjunction with men and firms in the southern states who were buying our potatoes; we had men at Washington looking after our interests; we did all that men could do to prevent the United States from raising that duty on our potatoes from 50 cents to 75 cents. Our effort was absolutely in vain. The state of Maine and other potato growing localities of New England simply brushed us aside; they had their way, and the duty was put at 75 cents per one hundred pounds.
Now we are just as anxious to trade with the United States as they are to trade with us. Figures have been given here to-day about the great volume of export business that we had with the United States up to a year or two ago. That business now is to a certain extent shut off. I imagine that the American people will miss that business, and they will now be more ready to listen to us regarding a reduction in tariffs than they would have been had we allowed that business to flow freely over our borders. I think we have given them a little check-up and taught them a lesson, and I believe that with the new government to be inaugurated in Washington, representing the Democratic party, who have always appeared to be a lower tariff party, we shall soon be able to arrange some nice little bargains with them in reference to the interchange of goods, especially products of the farm, the sea, and the forest.
A good deal has been said here to-day about that famous 1011 reciprocity election. I remember it very well. I took a considerable part in it in support of the candidates who were contesting the constituency I now have the honour to represent. The result of that election was no snap verdict. I do not remember any question that was more clearly and fully put to the Canadian electors, and more fully explained to them than was that reciprocity pact during the campaign of 1911. I imagine it was some time in late March
or early April that Mr. Fielding, the Minister of Finance at the time, came back from Washington with that agreement. It was announced here in the House of Commons, it was published in the Canadian press; from one end of this country to the other, speakers on both sides of politics went out and fully explained the matter to the electors. And vou must take this further fact into consideration, that for fifteen long years the Conservative party had been in hopeless opposition.
I say "hopeless" because some of the Conservatives we tried to persuade to cling to the old Tory banner were becoming discouraged, and we were almost discouraged ourselves. I do not see how the defeat of the reciprocity pact of 1911 ever can be blamed on the Conservative party. It is quite true that Conservative politicians and candidates did their best to explain to the Canadian people that it would not be good for them to enter into that agreement, but it is equally true that my hon. friend the late Minister of Justice and his colleagues went the length and breadth of this country in support of that proposal, using great eloquence and taking full advantage of the fact that at their head they had a loved leader, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who until that day never had tasted defeat. That is quite an asset to any party. Those were the conditions, and if there is any fault to be found with the verdict that was rendered on that occasion I do not see that the blame should rest with the Conservative party. The old Tories voted as they always had voted, so there must have been a lot of Liberals who turned over and voted against the reciprocity pact. Therefore the credit or discredit, depending on how you look at it, for the defeat of that pact belongs to the Liberal voters.	.
I do not intend to take up much more of the time of the house on this question. I was a little surprised this afternoon to hear my hon. friend from Prince mention butter; I thought that was the one question upon which he would not have touched. My hon. friend mentioned the live lobster industry of Prince Edward Island; he spoke of it in such a tone of voice that one would almost think there was some great obstacle in the way of shipping those lobsters to the United States. My hon. friend knows very well that live lobsters enter the United States free of duty, so there is no reason why we should not do a good, profitable business in that line. My hon. friend, however, bemoaned the fact that during the present year we have imported some 350,000 pounds of New Zealand butter. Why, Mr. Speaker, that would not butter very many slices of bread. Last year we manufactured
Trade with United States

within our own borders some 300,000,000 pounds of butter, almost all of which was consumed in Canada, so it will be seen that 350,000 pounds would not be a drop in the bucket. It is quite true that the price of butter was low last summer; I regret that fact as much as anyone could regret it because that is the way I make my living. But just think what would have happened if hon. gentlemen opposite had been in power and that famous New Zealand agreement had been in force, under which from 30,000,000 to 54,000,000 pounds of butter annually was allowed into Canada to flood our market.
I have no quarrel with the resolution now before the house. I confess quite freely and frankly that the people of the maritime provinces, and I believe the people of the dominion generally, are anxious indeed to trade with the United States. That is quite natural, because they are our nearest neighbours, but there is no use in my trying to sell a horse to my neighbour if he does not want to buy it. Before I can do business I must look for someone who needs a horse and is able to buy it. I would be the last man on earth to accuse my hon. friend from Antigonish-Guys-borough (Mr. Duff) of doing anything in an underhand way; I know he would not do that, but I have an idea that hon. gentlemen opposite have taken into consideration the fact that the Prime Minister so ably piloted Canada through the Ottawa conference and arrived at trade agreements which within the next three or four years cannot help but make agriculture in this country prosperous; I am afraid they feared that the right hon. gentleman might do the same thing again and arrive at a beneficial agreement with the United States. To my mind this resolution is advanced at this time more or less to forestall any action of that kind on the part of the Prime Minister. If that be the object of the resolution I should feel like voting against it, but if it was advanced in an honest desire to secure a trade agreement between Canada and the United States I should be very happy to support it.
Mr. F. H. PICKEtL (Brome-Missisquoi): Mr. Speaker, this resolution reads:
.. .it is expedient that the government of Canada reopen negotiations with the government of the United States of America with a view of bringing about a satisfactory reciprocal trade arrangement between Canada and the United States whereby the natural products of Canada, that is the products of the sea, the farm, the mines and the forests, and including fish, lumber, wheat, cattle, etc., should have free entry into the United States in exchange for the admission of certain goods from the United States of America...

I want to say right here, Mr. Speaker, that as far as products of the farm are concerned I am absolutely against any reciprocal arrangement with the United States. If we had reciprocity with the United States to-day we would get five cents a pound less for our butter and seven cents a dozen less for our eggs. Do hon. gentlemen opposite understand that? To-day Canadian farm produce commands the highest prices paid anywhere on earth. That does not include beef, but I would tell western members that beef is going to bring a better price; we have concluded a trade arrangement with Great Britain which eventually will provide a good market for our beef.
With regard to fish, lumber and cattle, if some arrangement could be made by which these commodities could be admitted to the United States I would be very much in favour of it, but certainly such an arrangement would hurt us if it included the products of the farm, and I shall have to vote against the resolution for that reason. Since last August, when for the first time in a good many years Canadian farm produce commanded better prices than were paid in the United States, I have expected advances to be made with regard to reciprocity, but I did not expect those advances to come from the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff). I thought they would come from the United States. This takes me back a great many years. I am older than most members of this house, and I live within striking distance of the American line, so I know how our people have been treated. The treaty we had with the United States was abrogated in 1865 and for several years, until 1878 or 1879, the farmers of Canada took 10 cents a pound for their butter, 5 cents for eggs and 5 cents for cheese, while the Americans were laughing at us. Their attitude was, "If you want to participate in the advantages of our markets, join us". I know what I am talking about.
In 1879 we brought down a national policy. At that time we did no manufacturing in Canada but depended upon foreign markets, principally the United States and England, for manufactured goods. We brought down a tariff, and I want to say right here that there are only two industries that have been uninterruptedly well protected since 1879, namely, tobacco and rubber. Where are those industries to-day? They are both flourishing, and I contend that if all our industries had had good, sane, reasonable and continuous protection they would also be flourishing today.

Trade with United Slates
I have been amused as well as perplexed by the logic of the hon. member for West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart) who is a free trader. I have heard him on two or three occasions in this house, the last time just before adjournment, extolling the healthy and enviable position of the rubber industry in Canada. I wonder what that hon. gentleman thinks the healthy and enviable position of the rubber industry is due to. Is it due to free trade? Well, they have had a steady 35 per cent protection since 1879. From 1879 until 1885 or 1886 I could save my return fare on the railway going twenty miles to Richford, Vermont, in buying two pairs of rubbers. We began to establish rubber factories, commencing with one in the county adjoining me, the county of Granby. We built the Miner factory, the Granby, the Dominion, the Hamilton, the Gutta Percha, the Goderich, the Goodyear, Jacques Cartier, and other rubber concerns, and to-day all these rubber companies are competing. There is clean, healthy internal competition and we are keeping the money in Canada. What is the result? To-day you can buy better rubbers made in Canada as cheaply as in the United States. Furthermore, we export more rubber goods per head of population than any country on earth, and that condition in the rubber industry is due to the fact that that industry has had sane, continuous protection.
I contend that if you are going to have protection you must have a tariff that protects; a wish-washy halfway measure, half protection and half free trade, does not amount to anything. To-day, if someone suggested raising the tariff on rubber to 50, 75 or 100 per cent, there would be a terrible howl in this house. But what difference would it make to the price of rubber? Not a cent. If you took the duty right off it would not make the difference of a cent, but that 35 per cent protection is a safeguard. It is no longer protection but a safeguard; that is all. Had all our other industries received that protection they would be in the same position, so that the protection they receive would be no longer protection but a safeguard.
I will not detain the house longer. I simply want to state and state most emphatically that the eastern dairy farmer in Canada cannot be in favour of this resolution. If butter, cheese, eggs and the products of the farm come under a reciprocal arrangement, so far as trade with the United States is concerned, it will be disastrous to us, and for that reason I shall have to vote against the resolution.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: I listened with much interest this afternoon to the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) in his remarks upon this resolution. He gave us an exhaustive review of the various negotiations between this country and the United States with respect to reciprocity, going back to a time iprior to confederation and carrying his review up until the year 1930. Outstanding in that review were at least two significant features. One feature was that the Liberal attitude in this parliament had always been favourable to a reciprocal trade arrangement with the United States, if such could be obtained on terms mutually advantageous. I noticed that in speaking the Prime Minister enlarged the Liberal attitude somewhat and termed it the attitude of this parliament. Now, I regret to say that a review of the debates of this parliament would not disclose any such acquiescence by hon. gentlemen opposite in the Liberal point of view. It is something new to have it said by the leader of the Conservative party that the attitude of this parliament has been consistently one of desiring a reciprocal trade arrangement with the United States. That is one feature which would indicate that my right hon. friend, if he believes what he says at this moment, has experienced a change alike of heart and of mind as a consequence of the changed conditions that have come about of recent years. I notice that the right hon. gentleman has just come into the chamber. May I repeat to him what I have just said. I was saying that, in reviewing the situation this afternoon, he left the impression that -the general view which this parliament had taken was one favourable to reciprocity-


Richard Bedford Bennett: In natural products.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am glad to have him give -me exact terms, because I had not so understood the position of the Conservative party up to the present time. As I recollect the discussions in this house, the Conservative -party has from time to time strongly opposed a reciprocal trade agreement with the United States-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not in natural products.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: -in natural products, and has given at different times various reasons for such opposition. However, if to-night we are agreed that hon. gentlemen opposite as well as those on this side of the house favour a reciprocal agreement in natural products, then I say that the sooner we seek to bring about such an agreement the better; for surely nothing is so greatly needed at the
Trade with United States

present time as a market for our natural products, and that market the best that can be obtained.
I followed with special interest the concluding portion of my right hon. friend s remarks. It was not, however, as we might have expected, that we should try to obtain a market in the United States for our natural products as quickly as possible, it was that we should not pass this resolution because in the near future there was going to be a world economic conference which, among other things, would deal with the question of tariffs. That was the concluding part of my right hon. friend's remarks, and on this ground he made a plea to the mover of the resolution (Mr. Duff) that he should permit a debate but withdraw his resolution at its conclusion. If my right hon. friend had been logical and consistent he would not have asked that the resolution be withdrawn, he would have asked that it carry unanimously so that when this world economic conference takes place all those who attend would at least know the position of the Canadian parliament upon this matter.


Richard Bedford Bennett: May I interrupt my right hon. friend?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If he will observe the
terms of the resolution he will note that the words are that this country should reopen the matter. I quoted the right hon. gentleman himself in an effort to show why we should not reopen the matter.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why not?


Richard Bedford Bennett: A very good reason.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: With respect
to the question of reciprocity, this parliament of Canada and different governments have been governed pretty much by conditions as they existed at the time; they have necessarily been restricted in their actions by the opportunities that presented themselves.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That was the other feature to which I referred a moment ago, that was made apparent by the Prime Minister in his review. When no opportunity presented itself, naturally there was not the same reason for pressing the matter. On the other hand, where the United States took a particular course with respect to its tariff and the existing conditions demanded that Canada should as a consequence take a course which would serve to protect her own interests, the Canadian government has always

felt free to take the course that seemed to be the right course under the then existing conditions. The course taken has been governed by circumstances. That is a thoroughly logical position, and it is the position which I think my right hon. friend ought to take to-night. Conditions to-day are different from what they have been at any other time; they are different in Canada as respects the need for markets, a need which has never been so great as it is at the moment. An opportunity is being presented to-day such as has not been presented since 1911. As my right hon. friend knows, the president-elect of the United States has indicated publicly that he is prepared to make reciprocal agreements with any countries that are prepared to make reciprocal agreements with the United States.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But not with respect to natural and farm products.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: His terms were broad enough to include almost everything if a mutually satisfactory arrangement could be reached. If he is prepared to negotiate reciprocal treaties, then I think my right hon. friend ought to find out from him if he would consider a reciprocal treaty with Canada in natural products. When the incoming administration in the United States publicly states that it is prepared to negotiate reciprocal treaties, then I think the government of the day in Canada should at least not hesitate to open negotiations. These should be opened through the minister at Washington.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Before the president is
installed?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Begin now to prepare for negotiations through the minister at Washington. He should be made au fait with all phases of the matter in order that no time may be lost.
May I say to my right hon. friend that in this connection I do not think he is as much concerned about the world economic conference to be held in the near future as he is about the recent Imperial economic conference which was held in Canada. I recall that the Chancellor of the Exchequer of Great Britain, speaking, I believe, in the British parliament, or at a public meeting, made the statement, in order to obtain support for the United Kingdom-Canada agreement, that unless the United Kingdom-Canada trade agreement went through, in all probability Canada would seek to bring about a reciprocal agreement with the United States. I think that is a correct interpretation of his remarks.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Substantially correct.

Trade with United States


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If the Chancellor of the Exchequer of Great Britain had that impression in his mind he got it while he was here at the imperial conference.


Mr. BELL (Hamilton):: Why?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am sure he
did not get it out of his own head or from any one in Britain, and I do not see why my hon. friend should ask, why. He was speaking about conditions in Canada as he had been told about them in this country during the conference, and I have not the slightest doubt in the world that he got the impression which he had from the right hon. gentleman who is now leading the government. That is precisely the point of view which has been put forward time and time again by the Conservative party with respect to the trade agreement with Great Britain, that the choice lay between Canada trading with Great Britain or trading with the United States. May I say that there is no such alternative; Canada is quite as able to trade with Great Britain and with the United States as Great Britain is to trade with Canada and with other countries of the world. That is the position which we should take at the present time.
What are the difficulties likely to confront the present government when this world economic conference to which the Prime Minister has alluded takes place? The conference is going to consider the question of tariffs and in this connection so far as Canada is concerned there will come up possible reciprocal agreements which can be arrived at between this and other countries. The first obstacle that is going to stand in the way of a reciprocal agreement between Canada and any other country will then be seen to be the trade agreements arrived at during the imperial conference this last summer. Immediately my right hon. friend is going to feel obliaed to say: We would like very much to join in this movement for the reduction of tariffs but so far as Canada is concerned we can go only so far; it is quite true that we can reduce our tariff to a certain figure but we cannot go below that because we have entered into an agreement with Great Britain that for five years we will maintain a certain tariff as against all other countries so as to give a certain margin of preference to the United Kingdom. Upon what basis was that tariff arrived at? We used to have and have yet to a certain extent, although one is now pretty well shattered, three tariff levels; we have the general tariff, the intermediate tariff and the British preferential.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And the treaty tariff.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Our tariff has been so altered that for the most part on commodities likely to be a factor in trade negotiations with other countries the intermediate tariff has been brought up to the level of the general. If we began to bargain with any other country we would find ourselves in a position where we could not as respects certain commodities make a reciprocal offer because we have to maintain for five years to come a tariff rate which w'ould give Great Britain a preference of a fixed amount. If my right hon. friend really wishes to trade with the United States the first step he will have to take will be to have that treaty modified so as to leave him absolutely free to make a reciprocal agreement with the United States.


Leslie Gordon Bell: Are you objecting to the British preference?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am not objecting to the British preference. May I say that I would go much further with respect to British preference than have hon. gentlemen opposite. I would begin by giving a British preference which would be a preference and would mean something to Canadian as well as to British trade.
The point I wish to make at the moment is this: My right hon. friend would find himself fortified in an effort to modify the United Kingdom-Canada agreement if he had from this House of Commons a unanimous expression in favour of this resolution which states that this country is desirous of entering into a reciprocal agreement with the United States on natural products.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not what it says.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It asks that we re-open negotiations, and that is a very mild way of stating the objective. It is only a beginning, but it is a beginning in the right direction.
We have heard a great deal this afternoon and evening with respect to the need of a market for cattle. I think it is pretty generally agreed that so far as Canadian cattle are concerned, the United States is a natural market. May I pause here to re-emphasize what the Prime Minister said this afternoon so that his words may reappear from time to time when we discuss the relations of trade between the United States and Canada. He said that we were all agreed that the United States was the natural market for Canadian products.


Richard Bedford Bennett: So far as it was possible to have a natural market for anything.
Trade with United Slates


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I was just
going to add that, and I am very glad to add my right hon. friend's modifying words. That is what we have been contending, that the United States, situated as we are, was our natural market, and that so far as it is possible to secure that market we ought to secure it, and if the ministry is anxious to promote trade they will find under existing conditions a way to make it possible to get into that market.


Richard Bedford Bennett: You did not get into it in nine years.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Let me go
back to the question of markets. Our natural market we are agreed is the United States. May I point out that while we here have been discussing this matter as affected by the United Kingdom-Canada agreement, in Great Britain they have also been discussing the question of trade under the United Kingdom-Canada agreement. They have been discussing in that connection the possibility of at least one other country finding a market for its cattle, and finding that market in Great Britain. That brings this whole question, it seems to me, very much to a head. Is this treaty to operate one way w'ith respect to Great Britain and another way with respect to Canada? We have the statement from British statesmen and men in public life in Great Britain that so far as the United Kingdom-Canada agreement is concerned, Great Britain under its provisions is free to make reciprocal arrangements and can do so, and further that the treaty can be modified if it stands in the way of any reciprocal agreement. I have said before, and I wish to repeat, that I think in that regard there is no doubt in the world that the British ministers at the recent conference did score a point over our Canadian ministers in that the British statesmen took good care to see that what they were giving to Canada could, for the most part, be given to any other country in the form of reciprocal agreements, if they wished to do so, while we on the other hand, by binding ourselves for a period of five years to maintain a certain margin of preference based on keeping our general tariff at a certain level tied our hands so that we could not make reciprocal agreements with other countries.
May I read an item which appeared in the press of the past week with relation to the pacts made at Ottawa, and which are stated to be capable of modification. It bears directly on what we are discussing at the moment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Who is the author?
[Mr. Bennett.J


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is a dispatch from the Canadian Press, London, February 10, and it refers to a reception that was given to the representative of the Argentine republic in Great Britain. Great Britain is anxious to promote trade with the Argentine republic, just as we are anxious to promote trade with the United States, and she also is confronted with the question of just in what position she stands vis-a-vis this United Kingdom-Canada agreement. Here is the public statement that goes out from Great Britain with respect to the United Kingdom-Canada agreement in its relation to the possibility of Great Britain negotiating a reciprocal trade agreement with respect to the Argentine. I shall read the entire article so as not to be accused of having omitted any part of it. It is a dispatch from the Canadian Press. I read what appears in the Ottawa Citizen of February 11, 1933.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I could just as well read it from the Ottawa Journal, as
all the papers carried the same dispatch, It
reads:
(Canadian Press)
London, Feb. 10.-"Agreements made at the Ottawa conference do not preclude trade negotiations with other countries," the Prince of Wales told a large gathering at the Argentine Club to-night.
The occasion was a welcome to Vice-president Rooa of Argentina, who heads a trade delegation to the L'nited Kingdom.
Walter Runciman, president of the board of trade, another speaker at the banquet, declared modification of present restrictions on export of money from Argentina was desirable, and he coupled an assurance that the agreements made at the Ottawa economic conference affecting meat were capable of modification when to "mutual advantage."
The speaker said Great Britain regarded Argentina at least "first cousin" of the Empire, if not "son of the Empire."
The Prince of Wales prophesied that anyone returning to the earth a century from now would find Argentina a "great and leading nation with a highly developed and original culture." He added that this depended upon keeping the nation prosperous and that in turn depended upon prosperity of the beef industry which he said is closely bound up with the British market.
"But while Argentina requires this market, I do not forget that there are things we want from Argentina ourselves-security for our investments and an increasing market for our goods, with facilities for obtaining remittances in payment.
"Agreements made at Ottawa do not in any way preclude negotiations with other countries, and the Argentine is naturally one of the first countries we want to negotiate with."


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask, if
these agreements arrived at in Ottawa do not

Trade with United States
stand in the way of negotiating an agreement respecting cattle, to speak of one commodity only, between the Argentine and Great Britain, why should these agreements be permitted to stand in the way of a reciprocal agreement between Canada and the United States? If the Argentine can be described, as it was described by one of the British ministers who was present at the Ottawa conference this past year, as a cousin or son of Great Britain, surely some description of Canada that would indicate an even more immediate relationship than that would be wholly appropriate as applied to this country; and if the Argentine in the future is to be looked upon as a great and prosperous country because it has had a market for its cattle in Great Britain, why should not this country equally be looked upon as a great and prosperous country in view of the markets which it also has been able to find with regard to cattle and other commodities?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The market the Argentine needs is not for cattle, but meats.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am speaking of Canadian cattle.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Argentine is looking for a market for her meats.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The relationship is close enough between cattle and meats. The point I wish to make is this: When my right hon. friend asks us to withdraw this resolution because there is going to be a world conference which is going to discuss tariffs why does he not ask Great Britain similarly to defer her negotiations? I say to him that that proposal is a bluff pure and simple. It is not a reason; it is not an argument. The argument is entirely the other way; the logic of the position is entirely the other way. What my right hon. friend should do is to allow this house to pass this resolution, which he would lead us to infer is one which meets with his approval-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not in those terms.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend always seeks to save himself by some few little words which will serve his purpose.
I do not find fault with him for that. But I am looking at the main objective. What we are seeking at the moment in Canada is trade with every country that will trade with us on a basis that is mutually advantageous. We should not permit any treaty or agreement that has been entered into between the United Kingdom and Canada to stand in the way of reciprocal arrangements of the kind if that same treaty is not to be permitted
to stand in the way of reciprocal arrangements which can be made with other countries by Great Britain, the other party to the agreement. So I say to my right hon. friend and hon. gentlemen opposite that if they are sincere in their willingness to promote trade with the great country to the south, they will not ask that this resolution be withdrawn or seek to postpone a vote upon it, but they will let us have a division upon it immediately, if it is not to be carried unanimously-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Or amended, as it will
be.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We will see
the nature of the amendment and then judge the mind of hon. gentlemen opposite.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We will not adopt that
resolution.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If my right
hon. friend wishes to amend the resolution, it is quite proper he should do so. We will then understand that he does not wish it to be carried in the form in which it is, and we shall judge by his amendment what if anything he is prepared to do. But the step to be taken now is to clear the decks as quickly as possible of any obstacle in the way of further reciprocal agreements, and the first step necessary in that regard is for my right hon. friend to have the United Kingdom-Canada trade agreement so modified as to leave his hands absolutely free to negotiate a trade agreement with the United States if the opportunity offers.


Mr. J. L. BOWMAN (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat surprised at the attitude of the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr, Mackenzie King), who has just taken his seat. For about one-tenth of the time of his speech he indicated a belief that the sooner a reciprocal agreement was brought about, the better it would be for all concerned. For the remaining nine-tenths of his time he pointed out the obstacles in the way of bringing such an agreement into effect.
May I state frankly that I had not intended to say anything until I heard the remarks of the hon. member for West Edmonton (Mr Stewart). While listening to his speech I could not help but think that from 1921 to 1930 he had been a minister in a government led by the right hon. gentleman opposite. During his speech I found myself considering the record of that government so far as reciprocal agreements with the United States are concerned. This evening the right hon. leader of the opposition stated that we should have new markets, that from 1911 until the present

Trade with United States

day there never has been a time when new markets were more needed than they are today. I should like to remind him that when he assumed office in 1921 our export trade to the United States was valued at about $560,000,000. But, as a result of the Fordney-Mc-Cumber tariff which came into force in September of the following year, just after the right hon. gentleman took office, our export trade fell from $560,000,000 to $304,000,000. Was there ever a time in our history when we needed new markets, and needed markets in the United States, more than we did then? What did the right hon. leader of the opposition and the hon. member for West Edmonton do to recover the market lost at that time? What was the attitude of the leader of the opposition?-" Don't provoke."
The right hon. leader of the opposition has mentioned cattle, and the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Gershaw) gave some figures in that connection. Prior to the Fordney-McCumber tariff we had shipped to the United States over 400,000 head of cattle yearly; that has been reduced to 18,000 head. Why? There are two measures responsible, namely the Fordney-McCumber tariff and the Hawley-Smoot tariff of 1930. There has been a similar decline all down the line. The hon. member for Queens (Mr. Myers) gave figures showing the increases in tariffs which were placed against our natural products going into the United States during the nine years the right hon. gentleman opposite led the government. What did he do to restore a single dollar's worth of that trade to the primary producers of Canada? If he has such a burning desire to enter into a reciprocal agreement with the United States, and if there was such a desire during those nine years of office, certainly no one would be led to that conclusion from the record of his government or the results shown in the trade figures.
Let me enlarge a little upon that phase of the matter. I do not wish to repeat figures which have been placed on record, but it should be pointed out that the Fordney-McCumber tariff came into effect in the United States on September 21, 1922. It has been pointed out that in 1921 wheat entered free, but when the right hon. gentleman left office there was a duty of forty-two cents a bushel on it. What did he do with the United States to get back some of that trade?


James Malcolm: Was that his fault?


James Langstaff Bowman: No, perhaps not; I will give him credit for that. But where was his effort to improve trade conditions? Where was the burning desire for reciprocity? There

may have been a desire, but what did it accomplish? What was done, in a practical way, to restore the trade we lost during those years? Let us see the figures in connection with wheat flour. We find that under the emergency tariff measure which came into effect on May 21, 1921, there was an ad valorem duty of twenty per cent. But when the right hon. gentleman opposite and his partly left office there was a duty of $1.04 per hundred pounds. The right hon. gentleman has said there is a connection between cattle and beef. Quite true. What happened with respect to meats? In 1921 beef entered free; mutton, free; lamb, free; pork, free. But when the right hon. gentleman left office in 1930 the duty on beef had risen to six cents per pound, on mutton to five cents per pound, on lamb to seven cents per pound and on pork to two and a half cents per pound.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: That
was under a Tory government.


James Langstaff Bowman: No, it was prior to the
time the Tory government came into office.


Edward James Young: There was a Tory government in the United States.


James Langstaff Bowman: What did you do about
it? We could go all down the list of natural products which we in Canada were anxious to sell to the United States. From September, 1920, to September, 1921, our trade in agricultural products with the United States was valued at $159,000,000. From September, 1921, to September, 1922, the year the Fordney-MoCumfoer tariff went into effect, it had dropped to $55,000,000.
When the right hon. gentleman and his party went into power they were immediately met by the Fordney-McCumber measure. They knew then the attitude of the United States in connection with tariffs on natural products. They were in power for eight or nine years subsequent to the introduction of that tariff measure, and if there had been any fruitful soil in the United States which could have been cultivated in their efforts to spread the desire for reciprocal trade arrangements, surely something could have been done in that time. But what do we find? We find that just before they left office another tariff measure, known as the Hawley-Smoot tariff, became effective. Did they do anything to prevent it? Were their hands tied? Were they unable to do anything? What do we find after they had been in office for eight years? Let me give just a few instances. On poultry the tariff is increased by the Hawley-Smoot bill from 3 cents to

Trade with United States
8 cents per pound; on sheep from $2 to $3 per head; on oats from 15 cents to 16 cents per bushel; on bacon from 2 cents per pound to 3i cents; on fresh meat from 3 cents to 6 cents; on mutton from 2^ cents to 5 cents; on lamb from 4 cents to 7 cents; on butter from 12 cents to 14 cents; on cheese from 5 cents to 7 cents; on cream from 30 cents a gallon to 56-6 cents a gallon. One could . continue the list indefinitely.


James Malcolm: What did the American public do to the government that raised those tariffs?


James Langstaff Bowman: May I ask the hon. gentleman in return what the people of Canada did to his government? What was the result? The result was that- our trade in agricultural products with the United States fell from
S55.000.000 to S9.000.000. And all the time, I presume, judging from the statement made this evening by the right hon. leader of the opposition, there was that burning desire to enter into reciprocal agreements for trade with the United States. I point this out merely to bring home the fact that after all, if you are going to make a trade agreement, there have to be two parties to the agreement.


James Malcolm: That is what we were up against.


James Langstaff Bowman: That is what we are up against exactly, I will admit it. Every country desiring to trade with another country must submit some proposition which is mutually satisfactory-


Mr. HEPBLTRN:: Can't you blast your way into markets any more?


James Langstaff Bowman: I do not know that the hon. gentleman who has interrupted will ever get a chance to blast a way into any market.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: There will not be any markets left.


James Langstaff Bowman: No, not if the policy inaugurated by my hon. friends opposite were continued, because the trade we desire in agricultural products with the United States disappeared under their regime.
As far as the resolution is concerned, that there should be brought about a satisfactory reciprocal trade arrangement between Canada and the United States, I do not think anyone in the house would differ from it.


Mr. ELLIOTT:: Vote for it, then.


James Langstaff Bowman: I think that is the desire of every hon. member of this house, and the whole question at the present time as far as I personally am concerned is how and when
53719-145J
the United States government should be approached.


Miss MACPHAIL:: A good time would have been 1911.


James Langstaff Bowman: There may be a difference-of opinion as to that, but one thing certain is that the electorate settled that question at that time.
The leader of the government has said that at the World economic conference, to be held some time this summer, the question of tariffs and trade barriers is to come under consideration. I think it is the general consensus of opinion in this house that tariffs to-day are too high-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


James Langstaff Bowman: -that there are too many barriers and restrictions to trade. But there again we have the question of entering into a mutually satisfactory agreement with the different countries with which we purpose to trade.
The resolution in question goes on, after referring to a satisfactory reciprocal trade arrangement between Canada and the United
States:
Whereby the natural products of Canada, that is the products of the sea, the farm, the mines, and the forests, and including fish, lumber, wheat, cattle, etc., should have free entry into the United States. . . .
Well, if any hon. member of this house can show us how we can get that free entry, that is what we are looking for.


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: That is your job.


James Langstaff Bowman: No hon. gentlemen on the opposite side, no hon. gentleman in this house, has shown us the way to get that free entry. As a matter of fact the right hon. leader of the opposition and his government during nine years in office showed how not to get free entry, and how the United States shut their doors in our faces as far as trade was concerned. The right hon. leader of the opposition stated that we should make it possible to get into that market, but did he make any suggestion as to how it was to be made possible? If we followed his example it would show how to make it impossible.
Now, Mr. Speaker, that concludes what I have to say in respect to the resolution, except that as far as I personally am concerned, and as far as western Canada is concerned, we would welcome any mutually satisfactory reciprocal agreement with the United States whereby our natural products would enter the United States free or on any reasonable and mutually satisfactory basis.
Trade with United States


Mr. G. G. COOTE (Macleod):: 
Richard Bedford Bennett: The Hawley-Smoot tariff.


George Gibson Coote: Yes, the Hawley-Smoot
tariff was passed in the interval. Personally I am particularly interested in a market for our cattle. The policy of the present government in keeping our currency at such a high level in the United States, and consequently keeping the pound at such a relatively low value in Canada, makes it almost impossible to market our cattle in Britain. Therefore we should seek every possible opportunity of negotiating with the United States to see if it is possible to secure entry to that market on more favourable terms.
One other reason I should like to suggest. We are told that our contractual obligations in the United States are so great that we must keep our currency as near as possible to the level of the currency of the United States; in other words, to use the expression of the man on the street, our currency seems to be tied to that of the United States. We are told that people in the United States have an investment in Canada of over four billion

dollars. Surely investors in the United States and the authorities there must realize that the only way we can pay these obligations is by the export and sale of goods, including the gold that is produced in Canada. Surely the authorities in the United States must see the need of allowing us to export our goods to that country if we are to continue to meet those contractual obligations. I think that very fact should be of considerable help to any government.


Mr. MacMILLAN:: I object, Mr. Speaker,
to the hon. gentleman reading his speech.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I think the hon. member is quite in order.


George Gibson Coote: I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the house provide the hon. member with a better pair of spectacles. Since the low tariff party soon will come into office in the United States surely it would be good policy on our part to hold out to them the olive branch. By passing this resolution we would indicate to the United States that the parliament and people of Canada are in favour of entering into negotiations designed to bring about the best possible trade relations between these two great countries on the North American continent.


Mr. F. W. TURNBULL (Regina):: Mr. Speaker, I feel that the house is indebted to the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff) for bringing forward this resolution, if only for the reason that it allows our old friends of the Liberal party to show that they are still running true to form. They are wonderful free traders when they are in opposition, but by the time they get in office they are wonderful protectionists. For ten years the burning desire of the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough for free trade with the United States in fish has been slumbering under the ashes, but some breeze has blown away those ashes, and immediately we get a resolution in favour of reciprocity.


William Duff: Not at all; I always was in
favour of it.


Franklin White Turnbull: There has been no
change of heart or mind in the Conservative party; it has declared itself in favour of reciprocal trade on mutually satisfactory terms. Those words are contained, I believe, in the speech delivered by Sir John A. Macdonald when he introduced the national policy in 1887. While the Conservative party believes in tariffs in order to protect the workingmen of this country from the competition of cheaper labour in other countries, at the same time we believe that reciprocal trade between

Trade with United States
ourselves and other countries under carefully prepared treaties will benefit all concerned. It is true that our trade with other countries has been restricted and that we need markets for our natural products. It is true that we need markets for cattle, for wheat and for the other products of the farm, but we have needed them for the last ten years. Can hon. gentlemen opposite name one single treaty which they negotiated during the ten years they were in office which sold one dollar's worth of farm products? We had a treaty with Australia, which was later extended to New Zealand, which sold manufactured goods, but the farmers of Canada paid for that sale by the opening of the Canadian market to butter, while my hon. friend the ex-Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm) declared that wheat products could find their own market, and that the Department of Trade and Commerce was not so much interested in the sale of these commodities as in the sale of manufactured goods. As soon as hon. gentlemen opposite got into opposition they became great friends of the people who want to sell natural products. When we came into office we proceeded to make the Canadian market available to Canadian farmers.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: And look at the prices.


Franklin White Turnbull: If my hon. friend knew what the prices were she would realize that the prices of farm products in Canada are better than in any other part of the world, and that is due in great part to the action taken by this government. After having given the farmers of this country the Canadian market, which they never had under the government of hon. gentlemen opposite, we turned to the problem of finding a market abroad. Whatever else may be -said of them, the treaties into which we have entered were framed with the intent of selling the products of the farm, of the forest, of the mine and of the sea. In return we have agreed to facilitate the importation of manufactured goods from the mother country. While we were trying to find this market within the empire for our farm products, hon. gentlemen opposite were fighting us tooth and nail. Why are they so anxious to trade with the United States, with Russia or with any other country while they fight so bitterly against trading with the mother country? As a result of the treaties we made we are selling farm products in that market.
Let me point out that the United Kingdom market is likely to be open to us so long as we are able to supply it. If we make a treaty with the United States have we any guarantee that the treaty will be continued?
Hon. gentlemen opposite say we should not make a treaty that will be continuous at all; they want us to make one that can be abrogated the next day. They do not believe in five year terms. Are we to give up the British market once more in order to get the United States market, which we may have for fifteen minutes, for five years or for as long as they choose to allow us to enter? Over and over again we have extended our trade east and west; then we began to trade with the United States until our east and west channels were closed up; then the United States market was closed to us, as happened in 1866, and we had no markets at all. Nothing in the imperial conference treaties precludes us from negotiating treaties with other countries, so long as subsequent treaties are negotiated in accordance with the terms of the treaties already made.
Hon. gentlemen opposite suggest that we should approach the United States in the hope of getting reciprocity. Why? We are told that the opportunity exists now because President Roosevelt is said to be in favour of lower tariffs. Let me remind hon. gentlemen what happened to President Wilson when he attempted to reduce the United States tariff a few years ago. At the next election his party was swept out of office. My hon. friends say that the reason they did not do this in the ten years during which they were in office was that a favourable opportunity had not presented itself, and now they say that a favourable opportunity does exist. What is the favourable opportunity? Not a single thing has been said on the other side of the house to indicate that the American government is any more favourable to taking Canadian farm products into that country than they were before. More than that, President-elect Roosevelt in the course of his election campaign declared that he did not know of one single item in the farm schedules on which the duty was too high. He was prepared to lower duties where they were too high, but he did not know of one single item where they were too high. Does that offer us any opportunity to sell our natural products?
It is very necessary that the quality of Canadian goods going to Great Britain should not be impaired. I remember hearing years ago Mr. Andrew Broder, the old member for Dundas, long since dead, telling what had happened to Canadian products when we had reciprocity with the United States. Canadian butter of good quality was sent across the lino into the United States. It was stamped as American butter and sold in the British
Trade aith United States

market as such, while cheap American butter was stamped as Canadian butter and shipped from New York to the British market as a Canadian product. The result was that it took us a long time to regain the reputation for Canadian products in the British market which we had lost in those years.
If there is any possibility of opening up trade negotiations with the United States, if there is any disposition on the part of the United States to reduce their tariffs as they affect Canada and to do business with us, that feeling in the United States is not due to the attitude my hon. friends took in the spring of 1930 when they declared that they were afraid to increase their general tariff and were afraid to increase the British preference lest it might provoke the United States and be misunderstood on the other side of the line. If any favourable attitude has arisen in the United States in recent years it is due to the fact that this country has taken an independent, manly stand with .respect to its own economic affairs. It is due to the fact that this government has put into force tariff schedules calculated to meet the interests of the people of this country, regardless of whether they provoke the United States or any other country. And if to-day the United States are prepared to deal with us, it is because they respect the attitude we have taken and realize that they are dealing with people whom they can neither browbeat nor frighten, people who are not afraid, people who will do what is best in their own interests, regardless of whether anybody in the United States disapproves or not.
To-day the Hearst press, which helped to elect President Roosevelt, is printing its diatribes against any reductions in their tariff. They are urging still higher tariffs so as to make up for the depreciation in currency in those countries which are trying to trade with them. It is true that this country needs trade. The people need internal trade even more than they do external. It is the fact that we had an external trade that makes us so susceptible during this time of depression.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what Mr. Dunning said the other day.


Franklin White Turnbull: Our external trade with America, amounting to S200,000,000 of farm products in 1922, when hon. gentlemen opposite came into power, has dwindled to less than 810,000,000 owing to the action of an outside government. It was the action of Prance, Germany and Italy that killed our external trade in wheat. I am in favour of external trade but not at the expense of internal trade. We must have an external
fMr. Turnbull.]
trade on proper terms as between this and other countries. With respect to trade with the United States, there is not a person in Canada that I know of who is not desirous of increasing the trade of this country on terms advantageous to us. We are getting a market in Great Britain for our products. The figures produced daily by the bureau of statistics show an extending trade in practically every line of farm products in that country. True, we are not getting the benefit we should get, the benefits we shall get when exchange comes back to normal.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: When
there is a change in government.


Franklin White Turnbull: My hon. friend must not be pessimistic, for if we have to wait for a change of government we shall wait a long time. Our trade relations must be built on lines that will last, and in directions that can be maintained; they must provide a market that will be continuous. It costs money to build markets in foreign countries, and there is no desire to build markets in foreign countries when the people who are trying to establish them know that the day they are established they are liable to be killed by tariff action in some other country. If we can get a trade relationship with the United States which will last long enough to make it worth while, which will provide for the sale of western cattle, our western wheat, our British Columbia lumber, along with that of Quebec and Ontario, and which will enable my hon. friend from Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff) to sell his fish, and the people of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island to sell their potatoes-


Edward James Young: And radishes.


Franklin White Turnbull: I think the hon. gentleman would be better able to sell cabbages and socks. If, as I was saying, we can establish trade relations along these lines, which will be sufficiently continuous to enable us to keep the market once we have it, and to keep it long enough to make it worth while to establish such trade relations, and if we can do so without destroying the trade we already have, then I do not think there is any person in any part of this country who would object. If it is necessary that an opportunity should be provided for trade relations with the United States, and if the opportunity is as apparent as my hon. friends opposite think it is, then surely in the course of this debate they should have been able to give evidence of some kind to show that such an opportunity was available.

Trade with United States
We have heard something to-night with regard to trade with Great Britain. We have heard about the Imperial conference and its effects, and we have been told what is taking place. It is exactly what we contended all last fall. These were the very things this side of the house was saying last year. We were claiming on this side of the house that these treaties did not preclude us from trading with other countries. My hon. friends were saying that they did, and now they quote British authorities to show that we were right. They said that we were building up an economic imperialism within the empire, a zollverein. They say that we have a high tariff wall around the whole empire to shut out the rest of the world. That was the story they told the public last year; that was the story they gave us last fall; that was the argument we heard until they had so confounded themselves that they did not know which way to vote when the vote on treaties came up. Within two or three months from that time we find the right hon. the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) coming back to this house and confessing that he was wrong all along and that we were right.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Franklin White Turnbull: I do not wonder that
hon. members laugh at him. He now says that this treaty does not preclude Great Britain from trading with other countries, that it is quite open for her so to do. It is the same for us.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Not for
us, that is the rub.


Franklin White Turnbull: There is nothing in
our treaty to prevent our trading with other countries.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Of course there is.


Franklin White Turnbull: The Secretary of State
(Mr. Cahan) has been in France negotiating a treaty with that country.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Where is the treaty?


Franklin White Turnbull: My hon. friends are in
a hurry.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Give us another Regina announcement.


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: Read us his speech on
Japan.


Franklin White Turnbull: My hon. friends are in
a hurry. May I remind them of what happens to Liberals when they get too much in a hurry? We have an example over in the
other comer of the chamber; look where they have got to.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The
tariff board.


Franklin White Turnbull: The hon. member for
Vancouver (Mr. Mackenzie) wants to run after and catch up with them.


Leslie Gordon Bell: Oh no; he runs
up a stick.


Franklin White Turnbull: He wants to catch up
with the Liberals in that comer who were in a hurry. The hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Young) says: No, "let them alone and they'll come home, bringing their tails behind them." I urge the hon. member for Vancouver not to get into too much of a hurry about anything; it is a part of the folly of youth that wears away in old age. He will get the treaty in due course.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put pursuant to standing order.
Tuesday, February 21, 1933