1933-05-15

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1933-34

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting supplementary estimates for the financial year ending March 31, 1934, was presented by Hon. E. N. Rhodes (Minister of Finance), read by Mr. Speaker to the house, and referred to the committee of supply.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. C. ELLIOTT (West Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Sutherland) arising out of a report that appears in this morning's Citizen of a statement made by Brigadier Anderson. He is reported as saying:
It is my own idea that militia training in Canada should be on a basis of conscription, under which every man between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five might be compelled to train so many days each year.
I wish to ask the Minister of National Defence or the acting Prime Minister if that represents the present policy of the government.


Sir GEORGE PERLEY (Acting Prime Minister):: If my hon. friend will allow me I will take that as notice of motion. It is not the policy of this government at all, but at

Business of the House
the same time I think that question ought to be answered by the Minister of National Defence himself, who does not happen to be here this morning.



PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND CAR FERRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. E. MacLEAN (Prince):: I would like to ask the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) a question in connection with a press dispatch that I noticed stating that the operating deficit of the car ferry steamer to Prince Edward Island will be charged to the consolidated revenue of Canada rather than to the Canadian National Railways. I would like to ask if that is a fact, and if it will affect the standing of the men?


Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways) :: I think I will have to make a few remarks in reply to that question. The Prince Edward Island car ferry has been operated in the past iby the Canadian National Railways as part of eastern lines, and whatever deficit there has been on it has been absorbed into the eastern lines' deficit. There has been a great deal of pressure, as my hon. friend probably knows, from Prince Edward Island chambers of commerce and various other bodies who seem to desire very strongly that so far as accounting is concerned it should be dealt with by the government itself, while operation is still handled by the Canadian National Railways. At their request, and after a great deal of pressure,-because frankly I did not see any advantage in it myself-it has been arranged that in the future, while the Canadian National Railways will still handle the ferry as they have in the past, the accounting will be separate and the estimate for the deficit on the operation of the ferry, if any, will be submitted to the house as a separate estimate.
I do not think it will make any difference in any shape or form to the men working on the ferry, I cannot see how it should.



PRIVATE BILL


[Stage Direction]
On the order for the house to go into committee on Bill No. 102, respecting a certain patent of Genter Thickener Company-Mr. Chevrier.
George Halsey Perley: Mr. Speaker, with the consent of the
hon. gentleman who is responsible for this bill I would like it to stand until the Prime Minister is present, because he has something he wishes to say on it. It can come up tomorrow night when he will be here.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: May I ask the
acting Prime Minister (Sir George Perley) how much time this week he expects the Prime Minister to be here? From accounts in the press it would appear that the Prime Minister is not to be in parliament at all this week, except for one day.


George Halsey Perley: The Prime Minister will be here tomorrow and answer for himself. As far as I am concerned I have been hoping that hon. gentlemen on the other side would allow the session to close early this week.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I hope the
acting Prime Minister and members of the government will keep in mind that we are sitting here morning, afternoon and night, and we hope every effort will be made by the government to facilitate prorogation.


George Halsey Perley: May I say to my right hon. friend that so far there has been business before the house at all times, and certainly none of the time has been wasted by the government.



SARNIA-PORT HURON VEHICULAR TUNNEL COMPANY CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

[Stage Direction]
Mr. ROSS W. GRAY (West Lambton) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 41, to incorporate the Sarnia-Port Huron Vehicular Tunnel Company.
Motion agreed to; amendments read the second time and concurred in.

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

Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	What is the amount of interest which the government pays annually on government tax-free bonds?
2.	What is the amount of interest which the government pays annually on other government bonds?


Mr. RHODES:: 1.	On bonds presently outstanding, $39,347-950.25; after November 1, 1933, the annual interest on tax-free bonds will be $17,548,534.
2.	$87,891,548.88.
Questions


BANQUE PROVINCIALE-DEPOSITS
Mr. FERLAND:: 1.	What is the amount of deposits in savings accounts of the Banque Provinciale du Canada in eaeh province?
2.	What are the guarantees of this bank to insure the reimbursement of such deposits?


Mr. RHODES:: 1.	Not reported under the Bank Act.
2.	There is no statutory guarantee. Depositors in a bank rely upon the liquidity and solvency of the institution.


MOOSE BAY-WHARF
Mr. BOULANGER:: 1. What was the cost of repairs made since August 7, 1930, to the wharf at Moose bay, Piopolis, on lake Megantie, province of Quebec?
2.	Were the repairs carried out by contract?
3.	Was the contract awarded after calling for public tenders and to the lowest tenderer?
4.	To whom was the contract awarded?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1.	$1,642.17.
2.	No.
3 and 4. Answered by No. 2.


CRANE ISLAND-WIRELESS STATION
Mr. FAFARD:: 1.	Did the government establish a wireless station at Crane island last year?
2.	If so, who is in charge of such station and what salary or remuneration does he receive?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) Charles Narcisse Roy; (b) $100 per year.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURN


Mr. FERLAND:: 1.	What towns and cities in the province of Quebec have letter carriers for the purpose of mail delivery from house to house?
2.	What towns and cities in such province have no letter carrier service?
3.	What is the population of each town and city in the province of Quebec?


Mr. CAHAN:: Tabled forthwith:


CANADIAN INSTITUTE OF PATENT SOLICITORS
Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: 1.	What is the purpose of the body known as the Canadian Institute of Patent Solicitors name<J in regulation 12, governing the Unfair Competition Act of 1932?
2.	What firms or individuals are members of the said Canadian Institute of Patent Solicitors?
IMr. Rhodes.]
3.	Is this institute an incorporated legal body?
4.	Has the institute authority to say who may or who may not practise before the Canadian trade mark office; if so, for what reason?
5.	Is the attorney who is fully qualified and who has been^ practising before the Canadian trade mark office for years, obliged to pay fees to this institute before being recognized by the trade mark office of the government; if so, why?
6.	What provision has been made for existing Canadian patent attorneys to continue practising if they should not feel disposed to join the Canadian Institute of Patent Solicitors?



MOTION FOR PAPERS


Mr. BOTHWELL:: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and other documents, passing between the Canadian Legion, British Empire Service League of Shaunavon, Saskatchewan, or any representative thereof, and the Department of Public Works and the Department of National Defence, together with a copy of correspondence passing between the said two departments or between any person and either of the said departments, relative to the lease-or renewal thereof-of the armoury at Shaunavon, Saskatchewan, since August, 1930.



COMPANIES AND CREDITORS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. H. CAHAN (Secretary of State) moved the second reading of and concurrence in an amendment made by the Senate to Bill No. 77, to facilitate compromises and arrangements between companies and their creditors.
He said:	The only amendment, Mr. Speaker, is the substitution of the word "and" for the word "on".
Motion agreed to; amendment read the second time and concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. H. CAHAN (Secretary of State) moved the second reading of Bill No. 107, respecting a certain trade agreement between Canada and France.
He said:	Mr. Speaker, this bill is framed
to approve of the trade arrangement between Canada and France which was signed at Ottawa on the 12th of May of this year. It is within the knowledge of the house that the former trade agreement, which was signed in 1922, was terminated in June of last year, and this is a new agreement to provide for reciprocal tariffs on the exchange of goods between the two countries in substitution for the agreement which was terminated.

Canada-France Trade Agreement
The house is well aware that since 1892, when Mr. Maline made his celebrated report to the French government, France has been one of the most highly protected countries in Europe or, I think, in the world. When that report was made the basis of the French tariff law France became predominantly protective in its tariff policy, and in that year established its new schedules under which there was a maximum general tariff and also a minimum tariff applicable to all imports into France. Especially in respect to agricultural products has France been highly protected. It has been the policy of France ever since 1892 to protect its own agricultural products with a view to making that country independent of the rest of the world, especially with regard to wheat and other grains, in case a national emergency should arise, and the French people again be called to arms. It is a very significant fact that, going back for scores of years and in fact for centuries, no man has reached the age of fifty-five or sixty in France who has not seen that country over-run by foreign troops in an attempt to subjugate that nation. France has felt unable to protect its supplies of food coming from overseas, and therefore has insisted on maintaining a highly protective policy for the purpose of encouraging the production of food supplies within its own boundaries. Those hon. gentlemen who have gone through France, as I have on many occasions, will remember passing through miles and miles of wheat fields which compare not only well but very favourably indeed with the best wheat fields of our western country.
Prior to 1892, when France adopted these maximum and minimum tariffs, Canada had no trade arrangement with that country. Our trade and commercial arrangements were governed up to that time by treaties or conventions which had been negotiated by the government of the United Kingdom and which applied to us as they did to the other dominions, colonies and possessions of Great Britain. But after this new tariff was adopted Sir Charles Tupper, then High Commissioner for Canada at London, proceeded to Paris and on behalf of the government of Canada concluded negotiations for the first trade treaty with France, which was signed by the British ambassador and by Sir Charles Tupper, on behalf of Canada, on February 6, 1893. This trade treaty was subsequently approved by the Canadian parliament in 1894.
Under the provision of that trade arrangement Canada secured the French minimum tariff on some nineteen staple Canadian products in return for concessions made by Canada, by way of reduction of our Canadian import duties on wines, soaps and a number of other products of France. But after 1893 Canadian industrial and agricultural production increased very rapidly and became more diversified than before, and the agreement which was ratified by Canada in 1895 came to be regarded with more or less dissatisfaction in this country. Further negotiations then ensued between the two countries after the close of a colonial conference at London in 1902, at which it was practically decided that this dominion would grant special preferences to Great Britain which would not be granted to foreign countries. But after the return of Sir Wilfrid Laurier from the colonial conference of 1902 the French government insisted that no modification of the existing trade arrangement with France would be made unless Canada would concede to France the same low preferential rates, which had been conceded to Great Britain, and which were comprised in the so-called "British preferential tariff." The government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier however refused to make this concession, and so for a time the negotiations continued and finally failed. But in 1907 the government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier resumed negotiations with France, and on September 19 of that year a new convention was signed at Paris by the British ambassador and by Mr. Fielding, then Minister of Finance, and Mr. Brodeur, a minister of the crown, I have forgotten his office-
An hon. MEMBER:: Minister of Marine.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Yes, Minister of Marine and Fisheries, on behalf of Canada. Owing to the opposition of the French Senate, which still continued, this convention was further modified and amended by a supplemental convention, signed January 23, 1909, and this amended convention of 1907-09 was then approved and came into force on February 1, 1910. The list of Canadian products entering France under the French minimum tariff was extended by this trade convention, and France, Algeria and the French colonies received the benefit of Canada's intermediate tariff which had then been established.
These arrangements continued until after the close of the great war, when, the French tariff having been increased from time to time, it was found that the high general tariff of France had practically precluded numerous industrial and agricultural products of Canada from access to the French market. The Canadian government then proposed to grant to all French products the advantages of Canada's intermediate tariff in return for the grant of the French minimum tariff to a more extended list of Canadian products. This the
4994	COMMONS
Canada-France Trade Agreement
French government of the day refused to concede, and on the recommendation of the Minister of Trade and Commerce the convention of 1907-09 was denounced by Canada on March 19, 1920, and terminated on June 19, 1920. The following year, further negotiations between the governments of the two countries resulted in a modus vivendi or temporary arrangement being concluded at Paris on January 29, 1921. Broadly speaking, this temporary arrangement was based on the convention then recently terminated. Twenty-six new items were included in this arrangement on terms more favourable to Canada, but a number of Canadian products then received less favourable rates from France, being removed from the French minimum rate and granted new tariff rates which were intermediate between the French minimum tariff and the French maximum tariff.
In the following summer of 1922 the Hon. W. S. Fielding, then Minister of Finance, and the then Minister of Marine and Fisheries, the present distinguished member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) negotiated a new convention with France which was signed at Paris on December 15, 1922, by the British ambassador and by the two Canadian ministers mentioned. This new trade convention was approved by parliament and brought into force on September 5, 1923. Under its terms Canada afforded to France fixed tariff rates on a number of items substantially lower than Canada's intermediate tariff, so that thereafter there were fixed rates on thirty-one items or parts of items on the Canadian tariff, lower than the intermediate tariff rates then prevailing; and this new 'arrangement also conceded to France Canada's intermediate tariff rates, less a discount of ten per cent on ninety-one items or parts of items, and intermediate rates decreased by a discount of fifteen per cent on three items. In addition, Canada granted to France complete most favoured nation treatment in respect of all tariff matters. In return France granted its minimum tariff on one hundred and forty-one tariff items, a considerable number of which-I say this without special criticism-covered chemical and other products which have never since been produced in Canada, and on other items certain percentages of reduction in the maximum general tariff of France.
Canada was also then accorded better tariff treatment in the French colonies, and provision was made for Canadian products receiving, on importation into France, any tariff concessions then made or thereafter to be made by France to the United States of America. Under this convention of 1922

France retained the unfettered right to increase all or any of her tariff rates, minimum or maximum, at will, without consulting Canada.- Widespread increases in French maximum and minimum rates have been the outstanding characteristic of the French tariff policy since that convention came into force.
In April and August of 1926, there was a general increase in French customs rates aggregating approximately sixty-nine per cent of the rates in force on nearly all commodities. These rates were effected for the purpose of readjusting French customs tariff protection to French national industry and production. Later, the French tariff revision of September 6, 1927, not only reclassified numerous sections of the French tariff but also established maximum and minimum rates considerably higher than those which had previously been in force. For example-I trust the house will allow this digression because it is of real significance under present conditions-since 1926 the French minimum customs duty on Canadian wheat and other wheat products has been raised on four different occasions. Expressing these increases in the equivalent of Canadian currency it will be ascertained that on September 3, 1927, the previously existing rate was increased to 17^ cents per bushel; by November 18, 1927, the rate had been increased to 27 cents per bushel; by May 24, 1929, it had been increased to 37 cents per bushel; by May 20, 1930, to 33 cents per bushel and since May 20, 1930, to 85 cents per bushel. These were all increases in the minimum tariff of France. The maximum rate or the general tariff was made twice the minimum rate and on the importations of wheat into France from Canada it stands to-day at approximately $1.70 per bushel. The increases I have mentioned, that is those up to 85 cents per bushel, were made in the minimum tariff to which Canada was entitled under the convention then in force. Since June of last year when that treaty was terminated, as I said before, Canadian wheat has been subjected to the maximum tariff rate which is the equivalent of $1.70 per bushel in Canadian currency.
Under the French law of December 1, 1929, importations of foreign wheat into France have been restricted by prescribing the percentages of domestic and foreign wheat which may lawfully be used in making flour to be used for bread making. The percentages of foreign wheat which have been prescribed from time to time for domestic use have varied according to the supplies of domestic wheat available. When I was in France, only three per cent of foreign wheat was permitted

Canada-France Trade Agreement
to be used, but, at the present time, by a decree recently passed, I understand that this percentage of foreign wheat has been reduced from three to one per cent. While I was in France carrying on these negotiations the fall in wheat prices on the French domestic market which then averaged, as the exchange fluctuated, from $1.25 to $1.30 per bushel in Canadian money, had caused such widespread resentment in the agricultural communities throughout France that at one time it was thought the life of the government would be seriously endangered. One afternoon I attended at the Chamber of Deputies when this matter was being discussed and I noticed that a large number of deputies representing agricultural communities were strong in their denunciation of the government for allowing the price of wheat to fall as low as the equivalent in our money of $1.25 per bushel.
In 1931, under the auspices of the League of Nations, France entered into an agreement known as the Stresa convention. This convention has been published in the reports of the League of Nations and I fancy tha.t nearly every member of the house who is interested in agricultural production and especially wheat production is familiar with its terms. Under the terms of this convention France agreed to exceptional and temporary measures in order to assist Hungary and Jugoslavia. Later on, the terms of this convention were extended to Roumania. A rebate of thirty per cent of the minimum tariff on wheat imported into France was allowed to these three countries. This convention granted to each of these three countries the privilege of supplying ten per cent of the annual importations of wheat into France. Therefore, at the present time thirty per cent of the total annual importations of wheat into France is obtained from these three countries of central Europe.
During the discussions which ensued, especially with regard to wheat items, I learned that France was vigorously encouraging the production of wheat in her colonies in northern Africa. The importations of wheat from Algeria, Tunis and Morocco increased from 14,000,000 bushels in 1931 to 24,000,000 bushels last year. Although I have no personal knowledge of the facts, it was stated to me in these conversations that the department of agriculture of France was encouraging the sowing of hard wheat in Algeria. The result has been that France is receiving an independent supply of hard wheat of practically the same standard as that previously imported from Canada. In talking this over with a gentleman who had expert knowledge
of wheat growing I was told' that unless France imported new seed from Canada from time to time she would be unable to keep up the production of hard wheat in Algeria. Because of the climate and the soil of that country, if the wheat produced is sown again from year to year it becomes more in the nature of soft than hard wheat. There is a gradual deterioration in the hardness of the wheat. These are matters with regard to which I am not capable of giving the house an expert opinion, save this. That, as wheat forms by far the largest part in value of Canada's annual exports to France, I have stressed the difficulties which we have, to meet in that market for this important product and I also state that the question of retaining the minimum tariff for Canadian wheat in the French market was one of the greatest difficulties that beset me during the negotiations.
But to return to the trade convention of 1922, France thereafter negotiated with Germany a new trade convention which came into force on December 15, 1928, and by which Germany received from France complete most-favoured nation treatment, and owing to the competition which then ensued Canadian products were by the Franco-German treaty subjected to more severe competition in many lines in the French market. Coincident with the negotiation of this Franco-German treaty, the French government further increased their minimum and maximum rates on many Canadian products which had been included in our Canadian convention of 1922 and thus increased the customs payable on those Canadian products entering the French market. Moreover, as I have already stated, while France under the 1922 convention with Canada was at complete liberty to raise her tariff rates at will, Canada had granted to France fixed tariff rates on thirty-one items or parts of items of our tariff which were substantially lower than our intermediate rates, and by reason [DOT] of these fixed rates and of the fact that by successive trade agreements Canada had granted most-favoured foreign nation treatment to twenty-three other countries, the whole tariff structure of this country was, in respect of those favoured fixed items, anchored and immovable, so that as long as the convention of 1922 remained in force, Canada was unable to increase her tariff on those items in respect of her imports from twenty-two or twenty-three other countries.
It was therefore deemed essential by this government that Canada should recover freedom of action in tariff matters. Early in February, 1931, the Canadian government sought to obtain satisfactory modifications of

Canada-France Trade Agreement
the terms of the French trade agreement of 1922 and, failing in this endeavour, this government on December 15, 1931, gave to France six months' notice of the termination of the convention of 1922. At the same time Canada offered to France to enter immediately upon the negotiation of a new trade convention which might be deemed more satisfactory to both countries. The old trade convention therefore terminated on June 16, 1932. Although in the meantime the Canadian government had proposed an interim arrangement to December 31, 1932, on the basis of granting to France, during this interim, most-favoured national treatment for her products in Canada, the French government refused to consent to such an interim arrangement.
It was under these circumstances that, as I was leaving Canada to attend the general assembly of the League of Nations in September last, I was authorized by the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett), who is also Secretary of State for External Affairs, to open, on behalf of the government, conversations with the government of France regarding a new commercial convention between the two countries. In September, therefore, on my way to Geneva, with the assistance and cooperation of the Hon. Philippe Roy, Canadian Minister at Paris, who certainly has a very intimate knowledge of French political affairs and a close acquaintance and friendship with nearly every prominent statesman in France, I met the French Premier, the Minister of Commerce and some of the important officials of the French Department of Foreign Affairs. It was agreed that these conversations would be renewed after my return to Paris at the close of the general assembly of the League of Nations.
The negotiations with the French government commenced effectively in October of last year and were continued with the government of Mr. Herriot until it was defeated in the French chamber in November last. The negotiations thereafter continued with the government of Mr. Paul Boncourt who succeeded Mr. Herriot as premier, and they were practically concluded, except with regard to three or four contentious items under discussion which remained to be settled, as we anticipated, on the morning of January 28 last. We terminated the session of the commission on the 26th to resume on the 27th. On the 27th a crisis arose and I was unable to see the Premier and the Minister of Commerce who had promised to receive me that afternoon. The Minister of Commerce promised to see me later, during the recess

between seven and eight o'clock, and then I received word that owing to a crisis having arisen, a caucus of his party had been called for the recess and that our meeting had to be postponed. I was awakened early the following morning from my sleep by the private secretary of one of the ministers to tell me that the discussion had continued all night; that the government had been voted out of office at six o'clock that morning and that they had handed in their resignation at seven o'clock. We therefore initialled the various items agreed to and left, I think, three or four items for further discussion.
I then returned to Canada and after my return a new government was formed with Mr. Deladier as premier. Since that date the negotiations have been concluded, resulting in this trade arrangement and in the other convention. This has been greatly due to the kindly offices of that very estimable gentleman who occupies the position of French Minister at Ottawa and who certainly has devoted himself unsparingly to bringing about a satisfactory trade arrangement between the two countries. I have to pay him a high tribute for his kindness and courtesy to me during the remainder of the negotiations.
Under this new trade arrangement, products coming from France enumerated in schedule C, including seventy-seven tariff items, will enjoy the intermediate tariff of Canada with a discount of 10 per cent therefrom. On fifteen tariff items a higher discount than 10 per cent is granted. Under this arrangement there are no increases on importations into Canada. In respect of seven items, the British preferential tariff is granted, especially in respect to books printed in France in the French language, surgical instruments and scientific apparatus, cinematograph and moving picture films made in France and speaking the French language, while certain articles of special religious significance are admitted to this country free. In respect of certain imports admitted under the same rate as the British preferential tariff, it will be noted that these items will come into force when authorized by order in council. Several of these items, especially books and surgical instruments, seemingly conflict with the Ottawa conference trade agreement between Great Britain and Canada. But during the negotiation of this trade arrangement assurances were received from the government of the United Kingdom that there would be no objection to the inclusion of these ispecial articles in the trade agreement with France. I therefore inserted a proviso in regard to these items coming into force by order in council, in order that official recognition of

Canada-France Trade Agreement
these concessions might be first obtained from the government of the United Kingdom. I think there is a clear understanding with regard to these matters.
Schedule D contains a supplementary list of tariff items in respect to which French products will enjoy Canada's intermediate tariff. This trade arrangement will be approved and confirmed, if this bill becomes law. As hon. members will notice, it is a provisional agreement which is made pending the conclusion of a commercial convention which will regulate in a more complete and permanent manner tradie relations between Canada and France. There were insurmountable difficulties in the way of concluding a more permanent convention, these difficulties being due chiefly to the application of the French minimum tariff to Canadian wheat, and due also to the fact that international monetary policy has not been so stabilized as to enable the respective governments to determine on what basis duties will be levied when imported into either one country or the other. I do not wish to repeat statements about the proposed London economic conference, but it was felt by the Canadian representative that, owing to the wheat conference which was then likely to take place, and is now being held at Geneva, and owing to the subject matter of wheat being one which will come under discussion at London, it was better to arrive at a provisional agreement capable of giving temporary satisfaction than to attempt at this stage to procure a permanent trade convention with France. This trade arrangement is made for the fixed period of one year from May 12, 1933, the date on which it was signed. It may be terminated on May 12, 1934, by either party giving prior notice to the other to that effect on or before February 12, 1934. This trade arrangement may be extended beyond May 12, 1934, by the tacit consent of both parties. If it is continued after May 12, 1934, by tacit consent it may be terminted by either party giving the other three months' notice to that effect.
To this statement one exception is made in respect of No. 68 of the French tariff, which deals with wheat. That exception is to the effect that wheat and other wheat products included in tariff item No. 68 shall enjoy the French minimum tariff for the duration of the present agreement, which is fixed for one year from the date of its signature, with a proviso that not later than March 31, 1934, the two governments will examine together the conditions under which France may find it possible to extend beyond May 12, 1934, this concession of its minimum tariff to Canadian
wheat. Moreover another exception is contained in the note attached to schedule A to the effect that a quota of 25,000 quintals of canned salmon will be effective until October 1, of the present year. France has entered into an arrangement with Japan with respect to a supply of canned salmon, and until October 1 next it was impossible, except by violating that convention, to grant to Canada a quota larger than 25,000 quintals.


Mr. NEILL:: Is that the League of Nations quintal or the British quintal?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: French quintals.


Alan Webster Neill: One hundred pounds?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I shall have to look that
up. As a matter of fact I did not know there was a League of Nations quintal. The one in question however is the European and continental measurement. They agreed that on October 1 of this year they will arrange a new quota. That quota will be arranged on the basis of the French quota law, and will be determined by exportations made from Canada to France in the years 1927, 1928, 1929 and 1930. I find that under this tariff arrangement the quintal is equal to 220 pounds. Moreover, with regard to canned lobsters I find we are entitled to an annual quota of 3,000 quintals. Under this trade arrangement Canadian products mentioned in schedule A covering 185 items will enjoy the French minimum tariff. Canadian products mentioned in schedule B covering sixty-five other items will enjoy percentages of reduction in the French general tariff which are specified in schedule B. Provision is also made with respect to exportation of Canadian products to the French colonies and territories. The French colonies are divided into two main groups. The first group comprises the assimilated colonies to which the French customs tariff applies. This group includes Algeria, Indo-C'hina, Madagascar and its dependencies, Mayotte and Camores, Guadaloupe and its dependencies, Martinique, French Guiana and Reunion.
The second group, whose tariffs are not assimilated to that of France, that is, which have a special tariff of their own, includes St. Pierre and Miquelon, Tunis, Morocco, Syria and Lebanon, French West Africa, including Senegal, French Guiana, Mauritania, Ivory Coast, Dahomey, French Sudan, High Volta and Niger. Other colonies not assimilated are French Equatorial Africa, Gabun, Togoland, Oameroons, French Somaliland, French settlements in India, French Oceania, New Hebrides and New Caledonia.
4998	COMMONS
Canada-France Trade Agreement
Under these trade arrangements the Canadian products mentioned in schedule A which enjoy the French minimum tariff in France when imported into the French colonies which are termed assimilated, that is colonies which have the same customs tariff as France, will enjoy the minimum tariff, whether this is the French customs minimum tariff or the minimum special colonial tariff then in force in that colony. Canadian products mentioned in schedule B on importation into the French colonies whose tariff is assimilated to that of France will enjoy the percentages of reduction on the general or maximum tariff mentioned in schedule B whether that tariff is the French tariff or a special colonial tariff. In the French colonies which are not assimilated, that is, which do not come under t'he French tariff, as well as in all French protectorates, the products of Canada enumerated in both schedules A and B will enjoy the lowest customs tariff a/pplicable to such goods, no matter what may be their origin.
I suppose that in looking ahead one cannot altogether ignore the advantage of Canadian products having access to the territories of France. Spread as they are throughout the world, they represent a population of sixty millions of people. According to the last statistics available to me their annual imports were $707,000,000 or S70S.000.000 of our money, and their exports $588,000,000 of our money, representing a total trade of nearly $1,300,000,000. We have participated in this trade to a certain extent, but I think not exceeding $1,000,000 to $1,500,000-1 thought I had the statistics at hand, but I have not at the moment. The opinion prevalent in the discussions which I had with the commission, which was composed of official representatives of the French Foreign Office, the Finance department, the Commercial department and the departments of Agriculture and Colonies, was that in many of these colonies Canada had rare opportunities for advancing its trade.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not think it necessary to proceed further to discuss the items of these schedules. I .would only remind the house that under the conditions which now prevail throughout the world it must be conceded that I met with exceptional difficulties in the prolonged discussions which took place at Paris. In those discussions I trust I was not unduly anxious to secure a new trade arrangement with France by reason of the fact that I am one of the ministers of the crown in this government representing the province of Quebec, which province by racial ties and speech and intimate social intercourse has special affinities for France and a desire

to maintain the most cordial relations between Canada and France, though I was not unmindful of such considerations. Moreover I can say with all frankness that whether I succeeded to your satisfaction or not I gave to these negotiations all my heart and mind and strength. I did the best I could, and perhaps I am egotistical enough to think that I did as well as could possibly have been done under the conditions which confronted me.


Hon. JAMES MALCOLM (North Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure it has been a pleasure to everyone in the house to note with what thoroughness the Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan) has dealt with the matter of this treaty. I think we all feel that we can extend a word of congratulation to the Secretary of State for the tireless efforts he has put forth in order to bring about the best possible convention that could be arranged at the present time. As he points out, the convention is not a permanent one, but only more or less of a stop-gap to keep the door open until after the economic conference, and therefore I am sure the difficulties encountered were even greater than had it been a permanent treaty.
Those of us sitting to your left, Mr. Speaker, can naturally have no objection to a treaty being made with the republic of France. We accept the principle of a treaty with any country if by that treaty better trade can be developed between two parts of the world.
The provisions of the agreement are long and intricate. As to the actual terms of the agreement made by the Secretary of State and the actual terms of the agreement which it supersedes, there is practically no difference, as I propose to show in a few moments.
I do not object that the minister has given us such a careful and lengthy review of the treaty, but I do object to a treaty of such magnitude being presented at such a late hour in the session as to make it utterly impossible to give to it the careful study that it deserves. It is only because it is a provisional agreement that we probably should not expect to go into it as thoroughly as if it were a fixed agreement for a term of years. The minister points out that the old treaty could be terminated on six months' notice. That is quite true, it was an indeterminate treaty, but on three months' notice either party could terminate it. I cannot see a particle of difference between these terms of the old and the terms of the new treaty. The minister states that this treaty is for a year, but by tacit consent, whatever that means it will continue in force. I figure that this means that if nothing is said the treaty goes on. It can however be ter-



IS, 1933

[Stage Direction]
Canada-France Trade Agreement
minated by notice, in three months' time. As to any criticism that might be made in committee on the rates of duty applicable to any of the items, I doubt if criticism can be very well founded. I am sure the minister agrees with me that it will take at least a year to find out what the workings of the customs tariff will be on many of these items. At the present time importers find it absolutely impossible to get information as to what merchandise will cost when it arrives in the country. Fluctuating rates of exchange, dumping duties and other regulations have been a tremendous barrier to importation, and I doubt if the situation will be clarified much by the terms of this treaty.
The convention to which the minister referred, which was made by the late government on December 15, 1922, was not for any specified time, as has been pointed out. The present government saw fit to terminate that treaty, and their reason was very clear. They pointed out that under the terms of, the treaty there were certain definite rates given France which also applied to other countries enjoying most favoured nation treatment, and that in this case the rates were so low as to be injurious to Canadian production. I have no quarrel with the government on that score; that is their policy, but I doubt very much if the terms of the treaty will bring the relief anticipated or will increase trade to any great extent.
Under the old treaty the French colonies were all included with France. The minister has pointed out that since the old convention was made there have been some changes in the tariff structure of France by which a separate tariff is maintained in what they term the non-assimilated colonies, and the same tariff is maintained in the assimilated colonies. Under the old treaty Canada gave concessions to France with regard to the intermediate tariff and most. favoured nation treatment. As the minister pointed out, on ninety-two items it also gave a ten per cent reduction from the intermediate tariff, and on three items of textiles a fifteen per cent reduction, while on one hundred and thirty-one items there were fixed duties lower than the intermediate rates. In connection with the ninety-two items on which there was a ten per cent reduction from the intermediate tariff and in connection with the three textile items the proportionate differences between the general and intermediate tariffs were to be maintained as at the time the treaty was signed. Canada was not obligated to give France any preferences ac' corded to other parts of the empire, and at that time no foreign country was accorded tariff reductions more favourable than those
specifically granted to France in the treaty.
I notice that the minister has gone further; he has given France the British preferential rate on some items.
By the former convention France granted Canada minimum rates of duty, including the guarantee of most favoured nation treatment, on 141 items or part items, and on a much longer list of items reductions were granted from the general tariff representing various specified percentages of the difference between the general and minimum rates or, if lower, the rates of duty applied to the United States on products of a similar kind. That is to say, we were given the same rates that were accorded the United States. On all other goods we came under the general tariff as it existed before the notable increase made by the decree of March 28, 1921, so long as United States products were exempted from that increase. Then, in the event of the pre-1921 general tariff being withdrawn from the United States, we were given a reduction from the existing general tariff of 25 per cent of the difference between the general and mimimum tariffs. The French colonies, possessions and so on, not having the same tariff as France gave Canada most favoured foreign nation rates, and St. Pierre, Miquelon, the French West Indies and French Guiana accorded minimum tariff treatment on some or all food products. Not all the French colonies had in force duties lower than their general tariffs.
With regard to a great many items in the French tariff the effect of the Franco-Can-adian convention was to give Canada the same rates that applied to the United States, which country, as I think the minister mentioned this morning, under an agreement made in 1910 was accorded the French minimum on about one hundred items. When the French tariff was increased by the 1921 decree, mentioned a moment ago, the United States was exempted from those increases. Until 1927 the goods of the United States entered France under either the minimum rates secured in 1910 or under an intermediate tariff which consisted of the pre-1921 general tariff. On September 6, 1927, the situation changed; a French decree increased duties, both minimum and general, and a new Franco-German treaty went into force. In consequence many intermediate rates-the pre-1921 general tariff 

which applied to Canada and the United States, lapsed, and as a result the United States was placed under the new general tariff with regard to many products. On the items affected Canada was at once granted reductions from the general tariff in pursuance of the Franco-Canadian convention of commerce.
5000	COMMONS
Canada-France Trade Agreement
After some Franco-Ameriean negotiations a French decree of November 15, 1927, followed by decrees of March 15, May 12 and June 28, 1928, in the main restored to the United States the intermediate rates previously enjoyed, except that wherever the new minimum tariff exceeded the old intermediate rates, the new minimum rates went into force. Canada, through her convention of commerce with France, was given the benefit of these decrees wherever they established rates lower than those otherwise resulting from the convention.
Such were the terms of the old agreement. I do not know that there is any need to review the terms of the new treaty, which the minister has so ably explained, before giving the bill second reading. In committee, of course, we will have to study the schedules in order to arrive at what will be the actual effect, but might I point out briefly that article I of the convention now before us provides:
The natural or manufactured products, originating in and coming from Canada, enumerated in schedule A to this agreement, shall enjoy, on their importation into French customs territory, the French minimum tariff, that is to say the most favoured foreign nation treatment.
The minister will agree that there are no fixed rates here, so there is no particular change between this article and the old convention; France can raise her duties at any time. The minister has explained what is meant by the expression "French customs territory." He has pointed out that these words mean that some territories are under the assimilated and others under the non-assimilated rates. Article 2 provides:
The natural or manufactured products, originating in and coming from the French customs territory, enumerated in schedule C to this agreement, shall enjoy, on their importation into Canada, the rates of the Canadian intermediate tariff-
There is not much change there from the old convention; we would have to examine the customs tariff to see where any change occurs. Article 8 states:
The natural or manufactured products, originating in and coming from Canada, enumerated in schedules A and B to this agreement, and the natural or manufactured products originating in and coming from French customs territory, enumerated in schedules C and D to this agreement shall, on their importation into the territory of the other party, enjoy the most favourable rates accorded to any foreign country that may arise from modifications made in the tariff classification-

That means the best rates both ways, as was provided in article 12 of the original treaty, so again there is no change. Article 4 of the present treaty is very much the same as article 14 of the old treaty except that the verbiage has been changed somewhat, though I doubt very much if it has been clarified. Under article 14 of the old treaty we could not import through United States ports but we could export through United States ports. That is the provision contained in article 4, so again there is no change. I believe article 5 of the present treaty is almost the same as article 2 of the old treaty; certain rights are reserved. Perhaps if I read article 2 of the old treaty it would explain to the house the thought behind this item better than it is explained in the new treaty:
The grant of the minimum tariff for the products enumerated in schedule A means the treatment of the most favoured nation as respects such products, but does not entitle Canada to claim the benefit of any preferential advantage which France may grant to her protectorates or the benefit of any tariff resulting from economic agreements which France may enter into with border states, or the benefits of any tariff which France may grant for products the importation of which is designed to facilitate settlements with those countries that were at war with France during the years 1914-18.
That is identically the same thought that is contained in this long article 5. The special terms which France may have with border states, such as the Luxembourg agreement, which my hon. friend knows about, still exist and will not be given Canada under this new agreement. In the last part of article 5 there is a new clause, section (e), which has to do with exchange, and which was not necessary at the time the former agreement was drawn. Article 6 is amazing:
The high contracting parties undertake not to interfere with the course of trade by any prohibitions or restrictions of importation or exportation.
The minister agrees in that undertaking that he will not put an embargo upon French merchandise; but the exceptions are so broad that clause (f) declares:
All necessary measures to face exceptional or abnormal circumstances and to assure the protection of the economic and financial interests of the country. The duration of these measures shall be limited to the duration of the causes of the circumstances which have brought them into effect.
Who is to be judge? I presume the governor in council, and I submit to the minister that he has drafted a treaty which, so far as the agreement not to put on embargoes

Canada-France Trade Agreement
or restrictions or prohibitions is concerned, gives him ample power under the clauses that follow to impose all the restrictions he likes. Article 7 is the same as article XVI of the old treaty.
The natural or manufactured products of the territory of either of the high contracting parties," exported to the territories of the other, shall not be subjected to pther or higher duties or charges than those paid on the exportation of similar articles of any other foreign country.
In other words, there shall not be an export tax on goods sold to France any higher than the export tax which is placed on goods sold to any other country. In my opinion, that is more carefully covered in article XVI of the old agreement:
The high contracting parties grant to each other as regards export duties and taxes the most favoured nation treatment. Drawbacks on the exportation of French or Canadian products Shall not be higher than the amount of the import, excise, interior consumption or town duties collected upon the said products or the materials entering into their manufacture.
There have been I believe some breaches of the next article, 8, which provides:
The internal taxes which are levied in the territory of one of the high contracting parties for the benefit of any authority on the production, circulation, conditioning, offering for sale, sale or consumption of natural or manufactured products, shall not, under any pretext, affect the goods of the other party after importation to a higher degree or in more onerous conditions than similar national products.
That is pretty well covered by article XVIII of the old agreement. Under the old agreement, which is the same in spirit, we did break that clause by some of our sales tax regulations; we applied the sales tax and then made exemptions in respect of domestic goods. I am under the impression that when you apply the sales tax and make an exemption of domestic goods you contravene the spirit of that convention. Article 9 deals with the country of origin and is practically the same as article XIX of the old convention. Article 10 is practically the same as the other article XX, and article 11 is interesting; but it is the same as article XXI of the old agreement. In this instance, however, I think the minister has probably gone further than the former government went in signing the treaty in which the old article XXI appeared. That old article XXI provided:
France and Canada grant to each other reciprocally the treatment of nationals as respects the protection of trade marks, patents, commercial names, industrial designs and patterns, names of origin of products and the prevention of unfair competition.
Article 11 of the new agreement makes this provision:
Each of the high contracting parties agrees to protect within its territorial limits the natural or manufactured products of the other party against all forms of dishonest competition, particularly with regard to the use, for commercial purposes, of false indications, relative to the place of origin, nature, kind or substantial qualities of goods.
Each of the high contracting parties agrees to insure within its territorial limits, respect for the appellations of origin of wine. . . .
I submit to the minister that he has gone quite a distance in that clause.
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The hon. gentleman does
not recall that the previous government of which he was a member signed at the Hague, on November 6, 1925, an international convention for the protection of international property rights and that that government ratified and adopted that convention on May 1, 1928, six years after that trade convention was signed. This introduced restrictions which are more severe than any that appeared in the former agreement.


James Malcolm: Does my hon. friend
happen to have a copy of the Hague convention?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It has 'been distributed to
members of the house; it is in the distribution office. I have my own copy here which I will let the hon. gentleman have.


James Malcolm: Does the minister know
the article that has reference to this particular matter?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The first article gives a definition, and if the hon. gentleman will turn the pages he will see some articles marked in lead pencil.


James Malcolm: Yes. It states that trade names shall be protected in all countries of the union, and so on. We are not discussing that.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: We are discussing trade
names.


James Malcolm: We are discussing more than trade names, I submit. It is a question of territorial names.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I suggest that the hon. member leave that discussion until we reach the particular clause.


James Malcolm: I was going to observe
in passing that the minister has gone further in article 11 than Canada has ever gone before in restricting the use of such a word as, for example, champagne. Champagne originates in the Champagne district and therefore the



Canada-Franee Trade Agreement
word champagne is a trademark in the opinion of French wine-makers, and we could not then make Canadian champagne. In the same way, Portugal tried to reserve the right to the use of the word port in all descriptions of certain wine. I presume that Cognac Jamac and other brandy producing areas would claim the right to a monopoly of such names, so that we could call a Canadian brandy Cognac. However, I will discuss this in more detail at a later stage.
Article 12 is the same as the old articles XXII and V as to general agreement. Article 13 deals with the question of delays and is a very good clause if it can be practised. But it has not been shown of late that the practice of facilitating import has been resorted to. Article 14 is more or less like the old article VI. Article 17 has to do with the terms of the treaty. As I said, at the moment I do not see any difference and I also do not see that the tacit consent means any more than its continuance if no notice is given. The schedules have certain omissions as compared with the old list and also have certain additions. The minimum tariff granted under schedule A is the same as was granted under the old treaty. I notice the minister has secured the minimum rate for canned fish which is slightly better than the rate granted under the old treaty. The minister will however probably recall that at the time the old treaty was negotiated the Canadian packers were not willing to submit and could not agree to any standard inspection. There had been some difficulty with their product and France was not prepared to grant the minimum rate. It is very hard to follow schedule B and I believe these items will have to be dealt with when we are in committee.
I do not intend to delay the house any longer, further than to say that it is unfortunate that a long term and definite treaty could not have been made with France. I realize the difficulties raised by the economic conference and probably the minister has done well to make stop-gap treaty. I believe he has tried consistently to arrive at some satisfactory conclusion in the face of enormous difficulties against the export of Canadian wheat to France. France has a great desire to be self-sufficient in the production of wheat but in times of peace she would like to have considerable Canadian hard wheat with which to step up the quality of her bread. France can and does export a considerable quantity of soft wheat for which the exporter receives a rebate which helps to pay the duty on hard wheat imported. Canadian wheat could not have entered France over the tariffs which 
existed and be sold at the price at which it was sold and I believe there have been some evasions of the regulations to have permitted France to import the large quantity of wheat which she imported last year.
I want to compliment the minister upon the clarity of his explanation and when we get to the items I hope he will be able to show that the difference between the rates granted under this treaty and those granted under the old will not be destructive to trade. I do not believe any advantages the minister may claim for this convention can be clearly understood until we actually know the amount of duty which will have to be paid and the regulations which will surround importations. We always find France a difficult country with which to establish an equitable trade balance. There are some commodities we can sell them and if .the minister thinks that by the terms arranged some additional export business can be built up, I am very glad to know it. I trust that this agreement will reestablish the trade which existed with France before the old agreement was cancelled.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Gagnon in the chair.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2

Trade agreement approved.
Alan Webster Neill: Is it the intention of the
minister to take up the schedules in detail or does this section cover them? There are a lot of details in the schedules which we would like to discuss, and I think they should be considered article by article.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: So far as I am concerned, I am perfectly willing to discuss them now. Perhaps we had better let the section stand until we go through the schedules.


Alan Webster Neill: I think the schedules should be discussed article by article.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: We could pass this section
and reserve the right to discuss the articles.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 3, 4 and 5 agreed to.
On the schedule-Article 1.
Alan Webster Neill: This article covers schedule
A. I notice there is no provision made for the inclusion of pilchards, canned pilchards, pilchard oil and pilchard meal. I had hoped that the language used would be "fish or fish products." As this is supposed to be only a temporary measure, I suggest to the minister

Canacla-France Trade Agreement
that he consider the advisability of providing for pilchards, canned pilchards, pilchard oil and pilchard meal in any succeeding negotiations.


James Malcolm: We are on article 1 and the hon. member is discussing an item in schedule A.


Alan Webster Neill: The schedule comes under
this article and I assume that we are following the practice adopted in discussing the Imperial conference treaties. That is why I am discussing schedule A which is referred to in article 1. Item 47 reads:
Fish of the salmonoid family, preserved "au naturel," marinated or otherwise prepared.
I hope there is no doubt that that item includes what is known as canned salmon. The term "au naturel'' suggests the thing in its natural state.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The wording of schedule A is simply a translation of the schedule to the French customs tariff. This item covers the whole salmon family.


Alan Webster Neill: I want to have an assurance
that it covers canned salmon as we know it.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It does, yes.


Alan Webster Neill: There is another point which
I would like to have explained. I may be stupid, but those in the industry may find this point difficult of definition. There is a note to this item reading as follows:
N.B.-As long as the bill to modify the customs tariff of the above products has not been put into force, these products shall be submitted to a rate equal to the general tariff with a reduction of 72 per cent.
That seems to be a contradictory provision.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That is quite clear, if I may so state. The French government have a bill which was being passed when this trade agreement was being negotiated, changing the duty on salmon. It will apply to all imports of salmon and therefore they made it clear to us that until that bill passes-and I do not know whether it has yet become a decree- these products coming from Canada and other countries will be subject to the general tariff with a reduction of 72 per cent. As soon as the new minimum tariff with respect to these items comes into force in France, we shall have that minimum tariff.


Alan Webster Neill: Yes. Then it seems to me
this is contradicted by the note at the foot of page 14:
Notes annexed to schedule A.
53719-3161 '
It says:
From the putting into force of .the commercial agreement, canned salmonoids . . . will be admitted . . .
At a reduction-
Representing a duty of 84 francs per 100 kilogs. gross.
But it says that after the agreement is put into effect the rates shall be the general tariff less 72 per cent. That does not agree with what the minister has just said and which is borne out by the footnote of item 47 on page 10, that we have to go back to the minimum tariff as soon as the bill passes. The note on page 14 implies that we shall not go back to the minimum tariff.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: We shall not go back to the same specific minimum tariff, but we shall go back to the minimum tariff which the French have changed in the meantime and of which they have given notice in this agreement.


Alan Webster Neill: The footnote reads that from the putting into force of the commercial agreement the rate will be so much. It does not say that it will terminate when the customs bill is passed. There may be some explanation, but I must say that it is rather complicated. I notice that the proposal, which is contained in the second paragraph of the footnote, is to put through a customs bill increasing the minimum tariff by 84 francs per 100 kilos, so that the tariff will be very substantially increased, and as far as I can figure it out with the foreign coinage and weights, it will come to something like $1.50 a case which, on a salmon selling at about $4.50 a case, is perhaps not a prohibitive, but rather a heavy duty.
While I am on my feet, I would also point out, although it really should come in on a later clause, that French sardines coming into Canada have been given a very favourable rate. That appears on page 19, item 120, sardines. The rate is the intermediate tariff less a discount of 20 per cent. This will interfere, will it not. with our sardine trade on both the Atlantic and the Pacific? I understand there is on the Atlantic coast quite a large sardine trade and it declares itself to be in a very distressed condition. This will also interfere with our production on the west coast of tinned pilchards, which are really a species of sardines or are classified as such. Will the minister explain why he has given this increased import preference to an article of home production?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I can simply reply that you
cannot make omelettes without breaking eggs; we cannot expect to receive favourable admis-

Canada*France Trade Agreement
sion of our products into France unless we give certain modifications with respect to the admission of their products to this country.
The item mentioned by the hon. member refers to a special fish, the sardine, which, under the French law, is a specific fish; it is not a sprat. In this case it is cooked in oil and preserved in oil, and accompanied by a certificate. This is a high class product of France in regard to which they wish to obtain special entry into Canada, and in consideration of the rates which they granted to us, we have granted them one in this case. This was a bargaining of rates; it was nothing else. I may have failed to drive a good bargain, but I had to drive a bargain with regard to every item of the French tariff and every item of ours. Day after day for six or seven hours a day we bargained and I have obtained the best bargain I could.


Alan Webster Neill: I have no doubt the minister is quite correct in that. This is only a little rough on whoever happens to own the eggs that are used to make the omelette. The minister say that this refers to a special kind of sardine as defined in the French law. But this word is defined in our tariff:
Sardines, cooked in oil and preserved in oil.
That is exactly the way it is done in Canada. The certificate does not make any difference. They are cooked in oil in sealed tin containers. This is certainly going to be pretty hard on the sardine trade in both the east and the west.


Mr. HEAPS:: The clause refers to certain minimum tariffs which the French are conceding to Canadian goods entering France. I should like, as a matter of information, if the minister could give to the committee some idea of the height or otherwise of the French tariff, because the bill does not give us any information in that particular respect. Can the minister inform the committee as to the height of the French tariff on the main commodities which Canada exports to France?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: There is in France a minimum tariff and a maximum tariff. The maximum is two, three and in some cases four times as high as the minimum. The maximum tariff is evidently intended to be practically prohibitive. The minimum tariff is designed to give in any event a reasonable protection to French industry. As between the two, where we could not obtain the minimum tariff, we did the best we could to obtain a reduction, by certain percentages named, in the maximum tariff of France. In order to ex-
plain the matter, you have to take every relative item of the French tariff and ascertain what is the maximum and what is the minimum.


Abraham Albert Heaps: That does not quite answer the question I asked.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Perhaps I did not understand what the hon. gentleman was asking.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Is it possible to give in specific amounts what the tariff is on our main exports to France? Is it 10, 20, 40 or 50 per cent? Can the minister give that, so that we may have a more intelligent understanding of what the treaty really means?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The hon. gentleman wishes to know what is the average duty that will be paid on Canadian exports to France under this arrangement?


Abraham Albert Heaps: That is the idea.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That is the average?


Abraham Albert Heaps: The average, of course, would not give us a proper understanding. I should prefer that he give us the actual amounts imposed by France on 'the main exports of Canadian goods .to France.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: If the hon. gentleman, wishes, we shall take item by item; we shall take the next, wheat, and go through tire list. Would the hon. gentleman indicate any particular item and give me the number of it?
Mr. NEILiL: Item 47.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Gagnon):: It is not exactly in order now to refer .to different items of the schedule. When we are discussing the schedules, it would be.


Mr. EULER:: It was understood it would be.


Alan Webster Neill: We are not going to go through the detailed schedules; we are dealing with the articles of the main schedule and it was understood 'the articles of the main schedule would have to cover schedules A, B and C.


Onésime Gagnon: U it is the pleasure of the committee, we might consider schedule A.


Alan Webster Neill: I am discussing article 1 which deals with schedule A, and .that certainly is in order. If we proceeded in that way business would be expedited.


George Halsey Perley: As I understand it in discussing article 1 we .may refer .to any item in schedule A.

Canada-France Trade Agreement


Alan Webster Neill: The minister was going to give us the maximum tariff rates on tariff item No. 47.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That is the item dealing with fish, preserved. The rate of duty on December 13 last was 42-50 francs per 100 kilogrammes and was levied on the gross weight.


Alan Webster Neill: 42-50 what?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Duty, specific.


Mr. YOUNG:: On the gross weight.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The special provisions are these, that on February 1, 1932, the French minimum duty on canned salmon was increased and ranged from 42-50 to 75 francs per 100 kilogrammes. So that at the present time *that duty is 75 francs per 100 kilogrammes on certain kinds of preserved fish. They have also given us notice with regard to a possible further increase.


Alan Webster Neill: There is something wrong, there, Mr. Chairman. The minister states that the duty was raised to 75 francs per 100 kilogrammes. If he would turn to page 14 of the bill he will find we are going to get a rate, meantime, of the general tariff "reduced by 72 per cent, the rate thus dbtained representing a duty of 84 francs per 100 kilogrammes gross." If we .take 72 per cent of the total, and we have left 84 francs, the original rate must have been much higher than 75 francs.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I said it was increased in
1932, and further increased while I was in France.


Alan Webster Neill: From 75 francs you are now
taking 72 per cent and are producing 84 francs.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: No, that is the new duty
proposed.


Alan Webster Neill: Oh, this is hopeless.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I should like some further
information with regard to item No. 68 dealing with wheat, spelt, meslin, grains and flours. This item deals with the export of wheat from Canada to France.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I thought I had dealt with
that item when I introduced the bill. As the hon. member has said, item 68 deals with wheat, spelt and meslin. The general tariff rate is 160 francs per 100 kilogrammes, equal to $2.84 per 100 pounds. The minimum duty is 80 francs per 100 kilogrammes or $1.42 per 100 pounds, prior to the time I was conducting the negotiations there were various increases in the minimum tariff of France on wheat. At the time I was there the selling price of wheat in France was from $1.25 to $1.30 per bushel, and the duty at that time under the minimum tariff was 85 cents a bushel. The duty under the maximum tariff was $1.70 per bushel. At the present time every bushel of wheat going into France is subject to a maximum tariff rate equivalent to $1.70. When this treaty comes into force it will be reduced one-half, but we will still pay the tariff rate of 85 cents.
The former Minister of Trade and1 Commerce (Mr. Malcolm) referred to the fact- and it is undoubtedly a fact-that in certain cases the French importer receives a rebate on the re-exportation to other countries of a certain part of his French wheat, and that in certain cases when such licences for export are allowed, with the corresponding rebate, it enables them in special circumstances, for the production of certain high-grade brands of flour, to import Canadian wheat at a duty less than $1.70 as at present, or less than 85 cents a bushel, as it will be when this agreement is confirmed by statute of this parliament.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I presume the figures the
minister has given in dollars and cents refer to the present rate on Canadian currency.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Yes, I am not considering
the fluctuation. The rate on the franc was about four cents when the computation was made.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Can the minister give the
committee information as to the amount of Canadian wheat exported in the last two or three years from this country to France?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Yes, I can.


Onésime Gagnon: Shall section 1 carry?


Abraham Albert Heaps: I have asked for some information.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I have a complete statement of it.


Onésime Gagnon: Probably the minister will give it after recess.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at three o'clock.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Mr. Chairman, when the committee adjourned an hon. gentleman opposite

Canada-France Trade Agreement
was asking me as to the details of Canada's exports of wheat to France.
Year ended	Exports
March 31st	(bushels)	Value1928	
2,438,709	$ 3,271,2201929	
5,170,285	6,720,0621930	
6,346,525	7,980,9181931	
8,556,407	7,443,6811932	
20,071.074	12,753,1161933	
8,901,097
I have not the number of bushels for 1933. It will be seen that there is a very considerable variation in the quantities of wheat sold
to France. It is due to the fact that when there is a good crop in France wheat is not imported under the heavy import duties levied against foreign wheat, but when there is a partial failure of the wheat crop in France there is a large quantity imported notwithstanding the high duties.
In order that hon. gentlemen may see what a large proportion of our exports to France consist of wheat I have had prepared during recess the following schedule:
Year ended March 31st
1927..	.
1928..	.
1929..	.
1930..	.
1931..	.
1932..	.
1933..	.
Imports from France $27,992,322 26,473,732 26.215,696 25,158,207 19,004,102 13.570,000 7,712,558
Exports to France $15,220,232 9,946,145 16,131,188 16,507.011 13.285,758 17,954,321 12,730,226
Excess of imports $12,772,090 16,527,587 10,084,508 8.651,196 5,718,344
Excess
of exports

Of our exports to France over 90 per cent are what may be called agricultural products in the state in which they are produced, and raw minerals and metals. We have a certain export of agricultural implements and other manufactured products, but these are comparatively small in quantity and value; whereas our imports from France are about 95 per cent-over 90 per cent at any rate,-wines, brandies, liqueurs and manufactured goods largely for luxury consumption. The textiles which we import from France are largely textiles of very high value, not sold in large quantities in this country, and owing to the financial depression of the last two or three years the consumption of that class of goods has been reduced, while undoubtedly, owing to the rescission of the treaty, from June last the imports have been restricted by reason of the fact that instead of our intermediate tariff with a reduction of 10 per cent applying to many of these goods our general tariff has since been applied.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I am very much obliged to the minister for the very interesting and detailed statement he has just submitted. There is one other question on which I would like a little further information, that is the question relating to the minimum tariff. I did not quite catch what the minister said this morning on this question. Do I understand that the present minimum tariff, which Canada receives from France is fixed, or is it liable to be changed at any time by the French government?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The minimum tariff is different on each item. The minimum tariff is liable to change at the option of the French
*Mr. Cahan.]
government at any time, there is no restriction. I show the hon. gentleman my brief on the French minimum tariff concerning Canadian imports. Under each item of that tariff I had prepared a brief for the purpose of negotiations, but it is so large and varied that I am afraid this discussion would be greatly prolonged if we had to go into the details. If this treaty passes this parliament and comes into force I have no doubt the Minister of National Revenue in his department and also particularly the Minister of Trade and Commerce will circulate throughout the country a detailed statement of the duties which are imposed under each item of the French minimum tariff which is of interest to Canada, and also a detailed statement of the French maximum tariff from which certain percentages. are reduced according to these schedules.


William Daum Euler: The minister stated this
morning that the French maximum tariff was apparently designed to prevent entirely the importation of certain commodities into that country, and that under the minimum tariff fair protection in their market was still provided. He has stated now that there is nothing to prevent the French government from changing that minimum tariff. I take it then that if they desire to exclude from France any of the commodities which are now given the benefit of the minimum tariff they could immediately, without any notice to this country, change the minimum tariff so that it would have the same effect as their maximum tariff and exclude the goods. I suppose that is the fact?

Canada-Franee Trade Agreement


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That is true. They sometimes give a short notice, but they are at liberty to change it without notice, and on the other hand we are at liberty to change our tariff in like manner.


William Daum Euler: They could at any moment entirely abolish any advantage we have under this treaty, but we also have the privilege, without giving them any notice, of making similar changes in the benefits we are giving to them under the treaty?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Yes, that is correct.


Mr. DONNELLY:: I understood the
minister to say that Canadian wheat under this tariff will enjoy in the French market the minimum tariff of any country in the world. Is that correct?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That is correct, with the
exception of the reservation made with regard to the three Danubian states.
Mr. DONNELLY': Then I should like to ask if there is any difference between this and the former agreement. Did not Canada enjoy the minimum tariff under the former agreement with France, with regard to wheat?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Exactly so.


James J. Donnelly: There was a great deal of criticism from hon. gentlemen opposite with regard to that agreement; they said we only enjoyed the minimum tariff and that France was at liberty to raise or lower that tariff at any time. Are there any restrictions in this treaty to prevent France raising or lowering her tariff against our wheat?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Not the slightest, so far as
I know.


James J. Donnelly: So really there is no
difference between this agreement and the previous agreement with regard to the importation of Canadian wheat into France?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Except that under the
former tariff they were at complete liberty to increase the rate, and they did so four times during the life of the treaty. Under the present treaty they are at liberty to raise the tariff still higher, but if they raise it too high it is for us either to reduce the corresponding advantages they receive or to give notice of the rescission of the treaty. Each side is perfectly free with regard to raising or decreasing the tariff rate.


James J. Donnelly: Then I understand that we are in the same position as previously.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Except that in the old treaty there were many items which were fixed so far as Canada was concerned, and this parliament could not increase those duties except in violation of the agreement.


James J. Donnelly: The only difference I
see is that under this agreement we do not enjoy the lowest tariff rates; there are Danubian states which enjoy that lower rate. Under the old agreement negotiated ' by the Liberal party, which was criticized so severely by hon. gentlemen opposite, the Danubian states did not have a lower tariff. Now we see other countries with a lower rate of duty on their wheat entering France than is given us, and that condition did not exist previously.


William Daum Euler: I should like to ask just
one other question. We have not had time to examine the provisions of the treaty at all, of course, so I should like to ask the minister whether, as a result of the concessions we give to France, those concessions are given automatically to any other countries.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I believe they will be given automatically to twenty-three other countries which enjoy most favoured nation treatment in Canada, by reason of the outstanding agreements with those countries.


Mr. BOUCHARD:: Will the minister be good enough to tell us the difference between the old treaty and the present treaty with regard to maple sugar? Under the old treaty we had only the word "sugar," while in this treaty maple sugar and maple syrup are dealt with specifically. Would the minister tell the committee the tariff rate on maple sugar and maple syrup, which come under items 91 and 93, and would the minister inform the committee what were the old rates?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Under the old treaty the rate was the minimum tariff, which was 170 francs per 100 kilos. At the rate of exchange existing at the time this agreement was negotiated-I have not figured it at the rate to-day-that would mean a duty of $3.02 per hundred pounds on sugar.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: On any kind of sugar, or just on maple sugar?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Maple sugar goes in exactly as other sugar goes, except that now there is no specific reduction with regard to maple sugar. In the fiscal year 1931 Canada exported to France only 192 pounds of maple sugar valued at $61. During the fiscal year 1927 Canada exported to France 262,682 hundredweight of sugars of all kinds, valued at
5008	COMMONS
Canada-France Trade Agreement
$1,156,115. On inquiry in France I found that maple sugar and maple syrup were hardly known except by friends of those living in Quebec who occasionally, at Christmas and other times, send them samples of maple sugar and maple syrup, and a small quantity of maple syrup was introduced for the purpose of giving a certain taste to tobacco used in the manufacture of cigarettes. Under this agreement maple sugar and maple syrup remain under the minimum tariff.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: Will the same rates apply under this new tariff? The minister said the old rate was about 3 cents a pound. Will that be the rate under this new tariff, which specifically mentions mafile sugar?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It will be exactly the same. Under the maximum tariff it would pay twice the duty, and instead of that tariff of S6.04 per hundred pounds the sole concession I could obtain was to have it placed under the minimum tariff, at one-half that rate.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I am not going to direct any questions to the minister but I should like to make one or two general observations with regard to the treaty. In common with other members of the house I realize that the bargain made by the minister is perhaps as good as could be made by any other hon. member under the circumstances. In spite of the remarks of the minister, however, and the valuable services he has given in this connection, I do not see very much difference between the treaty now before the house and the previous treaty with France, which was abrogated not long ago. As a matter of fact it appears to me that the introduction of this treaty at the present time is in itself a vindication of the former treaty, which was denounced by hon. gentlemen opposite mainly, I believe, because of the minimum tariff imposed by France on commodities we exported to that country. Now we find the government coming to parliament with exactly the same provision, and at any time the government of France can increase their tariffs against goods exported by Canada.
Further, Mr. Chairman, I think this treaty indicates that the idea of blasting our way into the markets of the world has proven an absolute failure. The indications are, as this treaty clearly proves, that we have to negotiate and sometimes we cannot negotiate with other people just as we please. Thirdly, in my opinion, the old idea of treaty making is now more or less obsolete. We have before us at the present moment a trade treaty containing many scores of tariff items, and it is fMr. Cahan.]
not really a treaty in that sense of the word because a treaty that can be abrogated at a moment's notice ceases to be such. What the minister said this morning when he introduced the measure is absolutely true, and I subscribe to it, namely, that France was trying to make herself commercially independent of all other nations. That is perfectly obvious to anyone who has attempted to understand the course of France's actions in the past few years. But what France has been doing is precisely what every other nation has been doing or attempting to do in the same period.


An hon. MEMBER:: Not for the same
reason.


Abraham Albert Heaps: No; it may not be for exactly the same reasons, but the causes are similar. Within the last few years, with the advent of modern machinery, it has become much more easy for all nations to be self contained- much more easy than it has ever been in the past. We can now manufacture our own goods more easily than we did years ago; we can produce crops from our farms much more easily with modern machinery than at any time in the past. The practice of all nations to-day is therefore to export as much as they can. The nations of the world are becoming exporters, so that treaty making in the old sense is now more or less out of date and almost impossible. The things that France needed some years ago she may not need to-day and the things we need to-day we may not need to-morrow; and what applies to France and Canada applies to every other part of the world. At the same time I am in favour of endeavouring, by every means in our power, to foster closer trade relations between Canada and other countries, but I do not believe that we can bring about such relations by having tariff barriers such as now exist in France. Take wheat, for instance; that country has a tariff against that commodity equivalent to 85 cents a bushel, which works out approximately, on the basis of present value, at about 120 per cent. If wheat goes down the percentage will be greater, though of course if it goes up the percentage will be less. There is no telling however when France may increase her tariff on wheat and thus close what might be a potential market to Canada.
Further, I believe that while we are attempting to foster trade between Canada and France or any other part of the world there is no reason why we should not also foster trade between one province in this dominion and the others. Why should we attempt to export wheat to France when we

Canada-F ranee
Trade Agreement
have, or at any rate until recently had, 1,600,000 people drawing relief in Canada? It might be well for us to have Quebec supply our western provinces with the things she produces and have the western provinces supply the east with the products of the west. Naturally we should then be on a more or less self contained basis, and when we had exports in the form of surplus commodities then I would favour the interchange of commodities between nations, because the more of our surplus commodities we sell abroad and the more foreign commodities we bring in in exchange for ours the better it should be for the people of Canada.
In conclusion let me emphasize the fact that the idea of treaty making is of very little benefit in the long run to the people of Canada as it has been carried on in the last few years. We had an example last summer in connection with the imperial trade conferences, and we have before us to-day, though on a smaller scale, a replica of the agreements which we were called upon to consider last fall. Those agreements between Canada and other parts of the empire have not fulfilled expectations, and I do not believe that the agreement now before us will in any way foster trade between this country and France. On the contrary it might ultimately create a feeling which would not be in the best interests of either country.


Mr. HANSON (Skeena):: Item 128 in schedule A deals with woods, in rough logs not squared, with or without bark, of any length, and the minimum tariff is applied to that item. I cannot find anything with regard to planed, squared or manufactured lumber.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: What item is the hon. gentleman referring to?


Olof Hanson: Items 128, 128bis, 129 and 130.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The minimum tariff is granted on wood in rough logs, not squared, with or without bark, and of a certain circumference, or squared or sawn common wood, and also on paving blocks, but it is confined to that. Those products are the only ones with respect to which they were prepared to give us the minimum tariff. These items were discussed one by one, sometimes for days, but that was the entire concession obtained.


Olof Hanson: Then we are not at liberty to ship manufactured lumber to France?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Yes, under the general tariff.


Olof Hanson: We used to ship railway sleepers and bridge timber, partly manufactured.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: If the hon. gentleman means sawn common lumber, that goes under the minimum tariff.


Olof Hanson: Sawn lumber, but not manufactured into flooring and other articles. This is the same as we used to ship to Japan. We can ship to Japan squared timber for further manufacture in that country, as well as to the United States, but on planed or manufactured lumber there is a duty.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: If it is sawn lumber, I understand it goes under the minimum tariff; if planed or otherwise dressed or manufactured, it would come under 'their maximum tariff.


James Malcolm: The expression used in some of the other customs tariff items is, not further manufactured.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I have taken the items of the French tariff, and in that tariff, under 128, the literal translation would be common woods in the rough-that means not planed or otherwise manufactured-and logs not squared, with a certain circumference. Of that we exported from Canada bo France in 1932, 401 metric tons, while the exports, in metric tons, to other countries were: Austria, 38,000; Belgium, 12,000; Finland, 57,000; Germany, 37,000; Latvia, 13,000; Poland, 22,000; Roumania, 11,000; Sweden, 46,000. So on exactly the same basis Canada was not able to obtain in that market a very large sale for either logs or sawn lumber.


Olof Hanson: Do they come
in under lumber products and take the minimum rates?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: They come in exactly the
same as ours, under the minimum tariff.


Olof Hanson: Will they be
on the same basis as Canada?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: On the same basis.


Olof Hanson: Does that apply to manufactured or unmanufactured lumber.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That manufactured is under their general maximum tariff.


James Malcolm: What is meant by the
words "common woods"? Does that differentiate between soft and hard woods?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It excludes such special
woods as mahogany and others which enter into the manufacture of high class furniture.

Canada-France Trade Agreement


James Malcolm: Are birch and maple
excluded?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: No; I understand that birch, maple and spruce would come in as common woods.


Mr. MUNN:: Are we obtaining any special preference under this treaty with regard to wood products?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: No.


Albert Edward Munn: There is no change? There
is no advantage?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: If the hon. gentleman refers to the old treaty which expired in June, we are getting exactly the same terms as before. If he refers to the maximum tariff which has been in effect since last June, we are getting a reduction, I think of one half or even more.


James J. Donnelly: I should like to ask
the minister a question with reference to the regulations which might affect our exports of wheat to France. For some years past certain countries in Europe have enacted regulations whereby anybody exporting wheat would receive a token or certificate which would permit them to import the same quantity of wheat free of duty. Can the minister state whether France has such a regulation in effect at the present time?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The manufacturer of flour
in France who exports flour made out of French wheat can obtain a special licence to import a corresponding quantity of foreign wheat. This is only done by the granting of special licences and it was under such special licences that a very considerable part of our exports of hard wheat in recent years have been imported into France.


James J. Donnelly: That was free of duty?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Upon the export of flour
made from French wheat they can obtain, under certain restrictions, the right to import foreign wheat for mixing purposes. This is imported at a lower rate of duty than the minimum.


Albert Edward Munn: Much lower?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: My impression is that it
is free of duty or a very low rate.


James Malcolm: I think it is ten cents.


Mr. VALLANCE:: Does this treaty limit
us to a quota? Just before one o'clock the minister was giving the details of the importations of wheat into France. I was not in the chamber at the time but these figures have been given to me. The minister also 
recited the rates of tariff which had applied to Canadian wheat and I think he went as far back as when the rate was only fifteen cents per bushel. From that rate it had mounted up until last June the rate was $1.75.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The maximum tariff rate.


John Vallance: Because the treaty was nullified in June, Canadian wheat was subject to a tariff of $1.75 per bushel. As far as Canada was concerned, there was no minimum tariff because we had no treaty. I shall repeat the figures given by the minister and he can correct me if I am wrong. In 1929 we exported
5.000.	000 bushels of "wheat to France for which we received $6,000,000. In 1930 we exported
6.000.	000 bushels for which we received $7,000,000. In 1931 we exported 8,000,000 bushels for which w^e received $7,000,000. In 1932 we exported 20.000,000 for which we received $12,000,000. In 1933 we shipped 15,000,000 bushels.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I have not the quantity for 1933 but the price received was $8,901,000.


John Vallance: The minister does not have the volume which made up that $8,000,000?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: No.


John Vallance: The minister told the hon. member for Willow Bunch that under certain conditions when millers in France exported flour made from French wheat they were allowed to import foreign wheat. I do not know whether the minister can tell us but it would be very interesting to know just what percentage of the exports of 1932 and 1933 went in under the minimum tariff and what percentage went in under this other arrangement.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I have no statistics and I do not think they were available during the discussions.


John Vallance: The minister will notice that our exports have been increasing from year to year. I am interested to find out just why that increase has taken place.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: There is some difference between the French and Canadian statistics. It was stated during the discussions that the Canadian statistics contained only the quantity of wheat exported direct to France. It was stated that vessels have left Canadian ports with wheat consigned to Liverpool or Southampton and have been diverted to France while on the way. Such wheat would appear in the French but not in the Canadian statistics. Leaving that aside, I might state to the committee that the very best opinion I could form after discussing this matter for five

or six hours a day for many days is that the French have not the slightest intention of allowing wheat to come in from Canada or anywhere else which will interfere with the French domestic production. I think it will be found that in the years when the Canadian exports decreased, the production of French domestic wheat has been increased, and then, when there has been an increase in the Canadian exports, it will be found to be due to a partial failure in the French wheat crop of that year.
I can offer no hope to the committee that France is likely to change this policy.


John Vallance: In spite of the fact that under this treaty we are able to export wheat to France at eighty cents per bushel, the Canadian growers will have no larger market than they had before.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: They will have just the
market that is permitted by the French production. When I was there, only three per cent of foreign wheat was allowed to enter into manufacture of flour. Since I left France,
I have seen a later decree that only one per cent of foreign wheat could enter into the manufacture of flour. Therefore our wheat market in France is unstable owing to the policy of that country to restrict by prohibitive measures, for an import of one per cent or three per cent is a restrictive measure, the importation and the use in France of foreign, including Canadian wheat.


James J. Donnelly: I want to thank the
minister for his honest and frank statement concerning the exportation of our wheat to France. I trust this trade agreement which we now have before us has not been the cause of the French government lowering our quota from three to one per cent, as he has just stated to be the case.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Our quota has not been
changed from three to one per cent. I said that while I was in France, the total foreign importation was limited to three per cent. I understand by a decree which I have seen since, the total foreign importation has been limited to one per cent. That percentage may be increased to 5, 10 or 11 per cent if there is a fair prospect that the French crop for the ensuing year is not coming up to the normal standard.


John Vallance: The minister this morning, if I understood him aright, said that there are' some European countries which have treaty arrangements with France whereby they are allowed 30 per cent less than the minimum-
Canada-Franee Trade Agreement


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: They get a rebate on the
minimum rate. France, under the Stress agreement, if I remember correctly, was to advance certain funds to assist in the rehabilitation of those three Danubian states. France grants to them first the right to export to her 30 per cent of her annual imports of wheat, each state of the three to have the advantage of 10 per cent of France's annual imports, and there is on that importation of wheat a rebate in duty which is. paid back to those three countries for the purpose of assisting certain public works there.


James J. Donnelly: What percentage of the duty paid is returned?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I had the figures before me
this morning, but my memory is 30 per cent.


James J. Donnelly: At the present time
that would foe about twenty-four cents a bushel.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: A little more than that.


Edward James Young: Is it the practice of the
French government to lower the duty on wheat in years when their own crop is not sufficient for their needs?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: In recent years there has
been no lowering of the duty; each change has been an increase of duty. The French farmer is a very potent factor in French politics. When 1 was in Paris I saw a demonstration against the government of the day when, by the numbers I saw in the streets there must have been some thousands who had come in to the city to make certain protests against certain proposals of the French government.


Edward James Young: Did they get a hearing?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I saw streets of Paris lined
with police and soldiers for the purpose of maintaining order in that city.
The hon. member for Willow Bunch says that I am frank. I am very frank; I am not holding out to the wheat growers of Canada the hope of getting any very substantial market in France except in those years when the French production is not up to the demands of their domestic consumption.


James Malcolm: I do not agree with the minister in the last statement he has made. I think he agrees with me that in some years when the French production of wheat has been high, we have had a fairly good export to that country. I also believe the regulations made from time to time as to rebating to the millers of flour an amount equal _ to the duty paid if the wheat were of foreign

Canada-France Trade Agreement
origin really constitute the factor which enables us to ship wheat to France. If France does a very substantial export business of flour milled from domestic wheat, under some internal arrangements, most of our wheat enters. I cannot understand how Canadian wheat could have entered under the general duty and sold in France at the price at which it was sold there during the past year. The minister knows wheat in France to-day is not as high as wheat in Canada plus the rate of duty which has been charged during the past year.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Yes.


James Malcolm: If the prices are higher. I would like to know them.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I figured it up at the rate
of exchange of the day-when domestic wheat was selling at $1.30 per bushel, the price having been reduced in a short time, as alleged by those arguing the case, from $1.75 per bushel, and there was a vigorous protest throughout the country against this reduction in price.


James Malcolm: What was the rate of
duty that day?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: About eighty-five cents a
bushel minimum and I am told-and this is information that may not be accurate; it is not official-that they were able to buy Canadian wheat and land it at that time, at a French port ait about forty to forty-five cents a bushel.


Edward James Young: Was eighty-five cents the
general rate at that time?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It was the minimum tariff
rate.


Edward James Young: Were we getting the minimum tariff rate at that time?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: No; we had not since the
previous June.


Edward James Young: What rate of duty was
Canadian wheat paying at that time?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It was $1.75.


James Malcolm: That is the point.


James J. Donnelly: It would be impossible to land Canadian wheat in France during the past year at forty-one cents a bushel.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It was said to be between
forty cents and fifty cents.


James Malcolm: I may not have expressed myself well. At the very time of which the minister speaks, when Canadian

wheat was paying a duty of $1.75, when sold in France. Even if the cost of the wheat was only fifty cents a bushel, with the duty it would cost $2.25 delivered in France.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The hon. gentleman means
that a rebate was being given at that time?


James Malcolm: Yes.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: A rebate was being given
which brought the duty down to the present minimum tariff.


James Malcolm: That is the point I am making; the effect of the rebate permitted the gale of our wheat. Therefore I contend that if whatever wheat we have sold was by virtue of the rebate, the minister is not quite correct in saying that in future our sales of wheat to France will be governed entirely by the scarcity of production within her territory. I believe our sales to France will continue to be governed, as in the past, by the effect of the rebate on flour exported.


Mr. MORAND:: Will flour exported displace our wheat in other markets?


James Malcolm: Flour exported makes
an opportunity for us to ship in wheat.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: That is to France, but
flour exported to other countries takes the place of our flour or wheat.


James Malcolm: It might do so or it
might take the place of the softer varieties of United States wheat.


Edward James Young: How much wheat does
France consume in a year?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I have not the particulars of the production. She is one of the largest wheat producing countries of Europe.


Edward James Young: I said consumption.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That can be found from the imports and what She produces; I have not the figures.


Mr. GIROUARD:: What is the minimum
tariff regarding item 37, butter, fresh, melted or salted?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Item 37 of the French tariff is "butter, fresh, melted or salted," the minimum tariff being 200 francs per 100 kilos which, at the time of negotiating-and I have the figures here-amounted in Canadian currency to $3.55 per hundred pounds or a little over cents a pound. At the same fime the general tariff was $7.11 per 100 pounds, but there was put into force for one year-from September 28, 1932, while these discussions were going on-a higher duty for a period of

Canada-Franee Trade Agreement
one year for the protection of French production, and that higher duty amounted to 700 francs per 100 kilos, S12.44 cor 100 pounds, or nearly 124 cents a pound. That duty will be in effect until September 28, 1933, unless previously repealed by decree of the French government.


Mr. RALSTON:: I ask the minister to turn to items 46 to 49 inclusive, appearing in Schedule A. Item 46 is for "fish, dried, salted or smoked." Will the minister tell me whether there is any regulation in force in France, and if so what, providing a bonus to salt water fishermen?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I presume the hon. member refers to the St. Pierre fishermen. I cannot answer the question accurately, but I know that the minimum tariff rate is high, and I understood that that was so for the protection of French fishermen fishing off the St. Pierre, Miquelon and Newfoundland coasts. When I was dealing with the French government the minimum tariff ran, on different kinds of dried, salted and smoked fish, from 100 francs to 300 francs per 100 kilos. That is, there was a tariff varying from $2.67 per 100 pounds to $5.33 per 100 pounds according to the class of fish. On dried and certain other kinds of fish, which they call stock fish, salted or smoked, the tariff was $1.78 for 100 pounds.


James Layton Ralston: Is cod classified separately?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Dried, salted or smoked cod is under the first classification.


James Layton Ralston: That is, from $2.67 to $5.33 per 100 pounds.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Yes.


James Layton Ralston: The minimum tariff is the same under the old treaty as under the new. It applies in both cases.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Yes.


James Layton Ralston: The minister referred to lobsters, under item 49. I am a little apprehensive about the note annexed to Schedule A which has to do with the importation of lobsters, and which seems to forecast the possibility of a quota regulation. Could the minister tell us anything on that point?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: There is a quota. To which pages did you refer?


James Layton Ralston: Pages 14 and 15 of the bill. On page 15 there is a reference to lobsters.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Yes, there is a quota on lobsters going into France. Our quota for the minimum tariff is 3,000 quintals or 660,000 odd pounds. We are not prevented from sending an amount in excess of that quota, but we have to pay the maximum tariff duty on the excess.


James Layton Ralston: I did not understand that the quota is actually in force.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Yes, they have a regular quota system.


James Layton Ralston: I notice that the second paragraph on page 16 reads:
In case the importation into France of canned lobsters and spiny lobsters is submitted to quotas, the French government reserves the right to submit the importation of the above category originating in Canada to the regime of licences of importation which may he applied to similar goods from other sources.
I took that paragraph to mean that it was possibly envisaged that there would be a quota. The hon. minister states that there is one now.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Certainly a quota was imposed upon us, in view of the fact that under arrangements outstanding 3,000 quintals was the full amount that could be allowed to us at the time. In the previous year we had exported to France 382 metric tons of lobsters preserved or prepared. The imports of France of preserved or prepared lobsters amounted to 6,192 metric tons. Of that amount 2,779 came from Great Britain, 1,170 from Germany, 811 from Japan, 547 from the Union of South Africa, 382 from Canada, 152 from a French colony, and 129 from Soviet Russia.


James Layton Ralston: Over half came from Canada.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: No; the United Kingdom sent more than we did. Canada sent only 382 metric tons, whereas Japan sent 811. Those figures deal with the year before the rescission of the French treaty.


James Layton Ralston: I believe the minister will find that those lobsters sent from Great Britain to France came originally from Canada.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That may be so.


James Layton Ralston: I think it is. I do not mean that they were all Canadian lobsters, but I suggest that a very large proportion of them were.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: As a matter of fact it would not make any difference whether or not the shipment was direct because, with respect to

Canada-France Trade Agreement
lobsters, I understand Great Britain enjoys the French minimum tariff. So that whether they were shipped from Canada direct or shipped via Southampton or Liverpool they would receive exactly the same treatment, namely the minimum tariff, in France.


James Layton Ralston: Has Great Britain enjoyed a minimum tariff under a treaty arrangement?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I believe Great Britain enjoys a minimum tariff in France on almost everything, in view of the fact that up until last year French productions were admitted into England at the lowest possible rates of duty. I cannot speak for the last two or three months.


James Layton Ralston: I am wondering whether or not England and France even had the formality of a treaty.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Oh, yes, there is a treaty outstanding.


James Layton Ralston: I believe the minister stated that 382 metric tons were shipped by Canada to France. Then I did not quite oatch the figures that he gave as those which would be applicable to Canada. I thought it was more than that.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: No, it is three thousand quintals at 220 pounds and a fraction.


James Layton Ralston: That is 660,000 pounds.
Now if a metric ton-here is where the minister has me completely at a disadvantage as he has been dealing with metric measures -if a metric ton is the same as our ton, that is 2.000 pounds, then 382 tons would be 764,000 pounds, whereas the quota, he is pointing out, is only 660,000, indicating that the quota could not have been in effect at that time, if I am right in my figures.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I cannot tell as to the quota being in effect. As far as my memory goes, at the time of our discussion there was a temporary quota in effect with regard to importation of canned and preserved lobsters into that country.


Mr. MARCIL:: Coming back to cod, which is a very important product of the lower St. Lawrence, has any real advantage been secured on the French market for salted cod?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: No, it remains under the
minimum tariff as it was before.


James Layton Ralston: In reference to cod,
would my hon. friend tell me the amount of dry salt cod which the figures show was imported into France from Canada, referring to items 45 and 46.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I can simply give the total
import into France of cod; dried, salted and smoked; which was 5,069 metric tons. That is for the year 1930, the last figures I have.


James Layton Ralston: That is the total imports?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Yes. These are French
figures. The Minister of Trade and Commerce, who has the figures at hand, tells me that our exports of dried cod to France were practically nothing in recent years.


James Layton Ralston: They could not be, over
that tariff wall. They are paying the fishermen 75 cents to $1 per hundredweight, and the minister is pointing out that the minimum tariff is $5 and $6. So I cannot see how there could be much. With regard to exports of fresh fish from Canada to France, can the minister tell me if the figures show any appreciable amount?


Mr. STEVENS:: Yes, $40,000 last year.


James Layton Ralston: Will the minister tell me the minimum tariff on fresh fish, that is item 46?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It is about $1.33 of our
money per hundredweight. I am computing at the rate of exchange as at the time of the negotiations. It has fluctuated somewhat.


James Layton Ralston: One wonders whether
there really is any advantage at all in putting items like this in the treaty. I quite understand this was in the previous treaty, but in view of the height of the minimum tariff can the minister tell me if there was any discussion about the possibility of dropping it altogether? What is the advantage of including it?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Perhaps there may be during the present year no advantage. There are a number of items under the minimum tariff of France with respect to which as far as my knowledge goes, which is not extensive, the Canadian producer probably cannot profit for months. But this I will say, that there is no item included under the minimum tariff in this agreement and there is no item included in the other schedule which fixes reductions from the maximum tariff, that was not asked for by somebody in Canada. The number of requests that came in with regard to this treaty was very large. We simply dealt with items with respect to which some person in Canada thought that he might do business if they were placed on the minimum tariff.

Canada-France Trade, Agreement


James Layton Ralston: With all due respect to
the minister, no doubt concessions were asked for, but I can hardly conceive of anyone in the fish business simply asking for the French minimum tariff, for instance, on salted fish. He must have asked for further concessions.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: If he did he asked for
something which, except in one instance, France has never granted to anyone and has absolutely and imperatively refused to grant to Canada, that is a concession below the minimum tariff. The only way that has been done is in the arrangement made with the three Danubian states under conditions accepted by the conference held at Stresa under the auspices of the League of Nations. The fact is that whether for present or future trading there was some person in Canada who put in a memorandum asking for the minimum tariff on fish.


James Layton Ralston: Coming back to lobsters, what I fear is this. It seems to me, according to the documents in front of me-I have the French convention and I have this treaty -that this is the first time a quota is expressly recognized by us.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: If we recognize the facts
that have been evident during the past ten years we have to recognize that France did reserve absolute liberty of action, and that France has imposed quotas on many of the imports from Canada which are mentioned as being under the minimum tariff in the preceding treaty.


James Layton Ralston: I was speaking about
lobsters particularly. We now recognize that France may impose a quota on lobsters, that these lobsters must be accompanied by special certificates of origin, and that certain control has to be exercised with regard to permits. It seems to me, just on the documents that I have here, that the export of lobsters is going to be more restricted and that there is less likelihood of doing business under the treaty now put before us than there was before.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: All I can say is that up
to September 25, 1932, there had been in force quotas on lobsters. I do not pretend to have searched further than that, but on that date I have a note that there were then quota restrictions in force in France on canned and preserved lobsters.


James Layton Ralston: I do not see any advantage in this treaty at any rate for the fishermen, either on fresh or salt fish, or lobsters.


Mr. DUBOIS (Translation):: Reverting to
item 37, is the hon. minister in a position to inform the house what quantity of butter, in pounds, Canada exported to France in 1931, 1932 and 1933?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The Minister of Trade and
Commerce will look it up. If the hon. gentleman will simply procure one of the ordinary statistical returns made by the government he will see these products set forth in detail.
I cannot carry them in my mind.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is not shown in the
return. I think the export is very small, and would be included in the general term, "all other items." The export of butter is very insignificant. I have not the detailed returns here; it would take a little time to look them up.


Lucien Dubois: Is it the same for cheese-item 36?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Well, cheese is small too. In the fiscal year 1932, $9,000 worth, and $5,000 in 1931.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: Could the minister tell
us w'hat kind of cheese is included? Is it cheddar cheese?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I presume it is Canadian
cheese.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: But that term covers
many kinds of cheese.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is not subdivided.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: I might remind the
committee that France is perhaps second to no other country in the production of cheese, not only in varietj"- but also in quality. Canada produces a very good Cheddar cheese, but without disparaging our own products I think the committee will agree that we have not the same variety of cheese that they have in France. I was told that small cheese, such as Chateau cheese, for instance, has found quite a substantial market in France. It just shows that as the French people may have developed a taste for Canadian cheese so we may have developed a taste for French cheese, which indicates that freer trade between the two nations is more satisfactory to both.
While I am on my feet may I remind the committee that in France the tariff really has worked for the farmers, but here in Canada though the farmers have been promised during election campaigns and at other times that the tariff would work for them, that has not been the case. As soon as the tariff is lowered on wheat and other articles there is an agita-

Canada-France Trade Agreement
tion in France, where I think there is more equity as between the benefits received by the different classes of the community from the tariff.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I can only say that when I was in France I was busy for seven or eight hours a day sitting with a commission composed of seven or eight gentlemen, experts from different departments, and I was not worrying over Canadian domestic politics at all. 1 was trying to make the best possible bargain for the sale of our goods in France.
In reply to the hon. gentleman who was dealing with butter, may I say that I recall that butter was not included in the schedule with the expectation of increasing our market in France for butter. We have had a considerable market in St. Pierre, Miquelon and the French West Indies, and butter was included so that we might retain the lowest rate of duty on butter entering those colonies, which are near us.


Mr. BRADETTE:: I am particularly interested in item 168, which covers wood pulp chemically treated, under guarantee of clearance to be discharged by "les contributions indirectes." I do not know what those words mean, but I believe that under the previous treaty we did very little trade with France under this item, and I should like a little information from the minister in this regard. Apparently in the past we did not sell raw pulpwood to France, but I have been told by competent authorities that a potential market exists in that country. Will the minister be good enough to tell us the exports of wood pulp and similar material during the last year the previous treaty was in operation, and also whether it will be possible to create a new market in France for Canadian wood pulp.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I really believe that our exporters have not paid particular attention to the markets in France, which of course are highly competitive. I am sure many things could be sold there if special agencies were created for the purpose. With respect to wood pulp, our right to the minimum tariff is confined to chemical dry pulp which is used in the manufacture of artificial silk. We never have been able to compete with Norway and Finland with regard to wet pulp.


Mr. CHEVRIER:: Under item 190 would the minister say how many tons of coal we exported to France in 1932, and what kind of coal it was?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: We have not exported coal to France and we do not expect to do so. We

have some advantage on coal in St. Pierre, Miquelon and the French West Indies, which are near our ports and to which at times we export coal.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Have we had any trade of that kind with St. Pierre, Miquelon and the other colonies?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I was told that by exporting coal there we could do some business in bunker coal, with the vessels which come there for coaling purposes. If the hon. gentleman wishes me to do so I can look up these statistics, but they are available to him just as they are to me. I remember that I was asked to have coal included, not with the expectation of sending coal from Cape Breton or British Columbia to France but in order that coal might be sent to some of the French colonies, especially to supply bunker coal to ships calling at those colonies, which might create a market of some modest value.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: I do not intend to go through all these items; many questions have been asked with regard to them. I do not want to belittle the efforts of the minister in negotiating a treaty of this kind, but up to the present time I have not found any great advantages in it. Most of these items constitute what might be called a fishing expedition, an exploration into the possibilities.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It must be a fishing expedition when only five per cent of our exports to France are manufactured goods. France will not reduce her minimum tariff under any circumstances; it has been done only once, by treaty, and to ask for reductions in the minimum tariff is to ask in vain. What would the hon. gentleman do when met with a decisive "No" of that kind? The only thing to do is to go through the items of the French tariff one by one, as we did, and to study the correspondence received in order to ascertain on which items there was any prospect of maintaining, expending or increasing our exports to that country.


Mr. SANDERSON:: I should like to ask the minister a question with regard to item 68, which covers wheat flour. I am quite well aware that for some time we have not exported much flour to France, but at one time that trade was fairly large. Is there any change in this treaty, as compared with the old agreement, in the duty on Canadian flour entering France? It is not necessary for me to remind the committee that the milling industry in Canada has been in a very depressed state for three or four years. Any outlet for Canadian flour would therefore be welcomed not only

Canada-France Trade Agreement
by the milling industry but by the farmers generally. Will the minister tell me whether, in his negotiations in France, he was successful or not, he made any effort to get some favourable consideration for Canadian flour going into that country.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: We obtained the minimum tariff, which is the lowest tariff France gives or will give to foreign flour products. I could do no more.


Frederick George Sanderson: I am quite aware it is the minimum tariff, but is that any advantage to the Canadian miller over the arrangements that were in force up to last summer?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I do not think so.


Frederick George Sanderson: It is just the same.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Just the same.


Frederick George Sanderson: As a matter of fact, there is no more advantage for the grower of wheat in Canada to sell his wheat to France than there was a year ago, and the same applies to flour.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Not the slightest difference.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: May I direct the minister's attention to item 31, dealing with oleo-margine, edible fats, and similar products. Am I wrong if I am under the impression that the sale and manufacture of oleomargarine in Canada was prohibited? I remember having made my maiden speech against this product, and I should like to have more information in regard to it.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: This includes all sorts of edible fats, and the caption is simply the one used in the French tariff. Without defining any particular edible fats, it gives us the minimum tariff with respect to all these edible fat products.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: Is there any more
oleomargarine manufactured in Canada?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I do not know whether any has been manufactured, and it would not have made any difference, because I was not an expert who knew all the edible fats that were manufactured in Canada. I may inform the hon. gentleman however that this includes every kind and description of edible fats and therefore we used the caption as it appears in the French tariff under item 31.


James Malcolm: The minister has been refreshingly frank in admitting that with respect to a great many items in schedule A Canadian exporters can look with little hope for an increase in the existing volume of business, if any does exist. He has said with 53719-317
regard to wheat that there is little hope in that direction, and he has admitted with regard to flour that there is also but little hope. There has been some discussion in the press that due to this treaty pneumatic tires, and casings may go in larger quantities from Canada to France, and that we may have an increase of business in canned salmon and wood pulp for the manufacture of artificial silk. I would submit that under the terms of the old treaty we had on pneumatic tires a duty of 375 francs per hundred kilos; on lobsters, canned, 42J francs per hundred kilos; on canned salmon 59J francs per hundred kilos; on wood pulp -75 to 13 francs per hundred kilos; on lead in pigs, of which we exported $571,000 worth, we had 4-25 francs per hundred kilos. Will the minister give to the committee the existing rates of duty under the French minimum tariff, with respect to the principal commodities which he thinks we may export to France, so that Canadian exporters who are looking forward to receiving considerable benefit from this treaty will be able to analyze his statement to the committee and ascertain just what duties they will have to face under the minimum tariff m trying to export their products.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: W ith all deference, I suggest that the hon. gentleman is not serious in asking me to go over scores of items.


James Malcolm: No, the principal ones.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The Department of Trade and Commerce will undoubtedly send out to the public a complete and thorough analysis. All I have to say is that if the duties which the hon. gentleman has mentioned with respect to certain articles were the minimum duties under the old tariff treaty, they will continue under that minimum.


James Malcolm: Have they not been increased?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Not since last June.


James Malcolm: I am giving 1929 rates.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The 1929 rates remain practically the same. I should expect, from the discussions I heard, that there will be some increase in their minimum duties on lead, and it is just possible that there may be some increase in their minimum tariff on zinc. But whatever they are, we have to take them or take nothing. In dealing with France we are face to face with a choice between her minimum and her maximum tariffs. I may observe that those gentlemen regarded it as incomprehensible that we should have so slight a



Canada-France Trade Agreement
difference between our minimum, that is to say our intermediate for foreign purposes, and our general tariff. They have made their maximum tariff two, three and four times as high as their minimum, with a view to compelling foreign countries to make concessions in order to obtain their minimum tariff, and they thought that we had not adopted the most efficient tariff policy because our general tariff was on so many items the same as our intermediate.


James Malcolm: Hear, hear.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Granted. They said it was useless for a foreign country to deal with us because they obtained no advantages by coming in under the intermediate tariff. The reason for it I did not explain to them, but I have a clear reason in my own mind, and it is this. The one large country in the world which is under the general tariff of Canada is the United States, and we have not increased the general tariff above the intermediate tariff in respect of many items, because we did not wish to restrict our importations from the United States-in other words, because we did not wish to offend the United States.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That applies particularly to hon. gentlemen opposite, more particularly than to this government. But this I learned- I intended to reserve it until after the close of the economic conference at London, but I will say it now. In future, if we wish to deal advantageously with European countries in the matter of trade, and to secure concessions from them on the main exports which go from Canada, we shall find it very necessary to increase our general tariff in order to induce them to give us advantages for the purpose of procuring the admission of these products under our intermediate tariff, and if we do not do so we shall not obtain the advantages in their market which are necessary to increase our export trade with them.
This world has not reached that high plane of idealism where setting aside national interests the different nations are willing to sit together and deal fraternally with each other, giving the same favours to foreign industry in trade and commerce as they preserve for domestic industry and commerce. Any person who has that idea in his mind, that this is not a trading proposition, should have sat down day after day and week after week with me in the discussions I had with the French commission with respect to these matters.

It is a trading proposition. Nationalism is not dead. The international spirit may be improving in certain respects but during my lifetime and during my generation I expect to find Canada treating foreign nations in a different manner to that in which she treats her own producers and I expect to find foreign nations treating their own domestic production more favourably than the foreign production of Canada or any other country.


James Malcolm: I am sorry the minister
cannot give the committee the exact rates of duty.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Can the hon. member tell
me the item he wishes?


James Malcolm: I mentioned rubber products and tires.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Rubber products are covered by item 620g and items lower down.


James Malcolm: What is the rate on
rubber tires; I think the number is 620i.
Mr. 'CAHAN:	That item deals with solid
tires. The minimum rate is 200 francs per hundred kilos, which is equivalent to $3.50 per hundred pounds.


James Malcolm: What is the rate for
620h?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That item covers inner
tubes, pneumatic tires and covers. The minimum rate is 250 francs per hundred kilos which at the rate of exchange in effect at the time I was conducting negotiations is equal to $4.25 per hundred pounds. The rate of exchange has fluctuated a little since that time.


James Malcolm: That is a concession.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That is on the minimum
tariff; the former rate to Canada was $6.67 per hundred pounds.


James Malcolm: 375 francs under the
intermediate.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: On 620i the former rate to Canada was $4.45 per hundred pounds.


James Malcolm: Can the minister give
us the same information with regard to canned salmon? What benefit accrues under the reduced rate?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: We have the minimum
rate but they are increasing their rates on canned salmon.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: How much
longer has the Japanese treaty with France to run?

Canada-Franee Trade Agreement


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: What is the number of the canned salmon item?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Forty-seven.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The Japanese previously
enjoyed the minimum rate which is 42.5 francs per hundred kilograms, equal to 76 cents per hundred pounds. Under the old treaty the rate to Canada was $1.66 per hundred pounds. We now get the minimum tariff. I understand that this minimum tariff is to be increased from 76 cents to 84 cents. We will have the advantage of a reduction of one-half in the tariff on salmon and will be able to compete on equal terms with Japan.


Charles A. Stewart: This will
bring us on an equality with Japan?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Yes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: For the first time.


Ernest Lapointe: There is an item in
schedule A covering tobacco in leaves or stalks. Does the minister expect that we will be able to export any tobacco to France?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The minimum rate on this item is free but we wished to mention the minimum rate that we might be placed in a favourable position should an increase be made in the tariff. I devoted some time to this tobacco item, in connection with which my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce supplied me with considerable data. From my discussions with the members of the French tobacco regie I can see no reason why our sales of tobacco to France should not increase in an equal proportion to our sales of tobacco to Great Britain. This will depend upon the producers in Canada taking the necessary measures to enter the French market. The High Commissioner at London gave me some data with regard to the increase of tobacco sales in London, not only for smoking tobacco but for tdbacco to be used in the manufacture of cigarettes. I found the head of the French tobacco regie to be a very amiable gentleman. He told me that some twenty years ago he had visited Quebec city to see some people of the same speech and race as himself. He then investigated French Canadian supplies of tobacco but he found them not up to standard. He told me that he did not know that we had made any^ improvement since. I showed him the statistics with regard to our improved production and pointed out that certain grades were deemed by the British manufacturer to be equal to grades now produced in the United States. He told me that if this treaty went into force, he certainly would be pre-53719-3172
pared to receive overtures from Canadian producers of tobacco. He stated also that he would send experts to Canada to examine into the matter. I think there is reasonable ground for expecting an increase in the exports of tobacco from Canada to France. However, it will be necessary to convince the French experts that our tobacco is as suitable for smoking purposes and for the manufacture of cigarettes as the grades which they are now purchasing from the United States. Up to the time I was there they were purchasing tobacco in the United States at a disadvantage as compared with the discount on exchange that then existed in respect of Canadian funds. I am hopeful something may be done in the way of increasing that trade and I know the Minister of Trade and Commerce has the matter well in hand and has been giving a thorough and detailed study to the subject.


Ernest Lapointe: Can anybody import tobacco into France?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: No, tobacco is imported by the government only. It is necessary to convince the experts of the government as to the quality of our tobaccos.


Alan Webster Neill: I am sorry I cannot agree with the minister's interpretation of the duty on canned salmon. He told us just now that the duty was to be reduced to 84 francs per 100 kilograms. Item No. 47 states that the duty will be the minimum tariff and then there is a provision at the foot of page 14 that from the putting into force of the commercial agreement, the rates will be the general tariff reduced by 72 per cent, the rate thus obtained representing a duty of 84 francs per 100 kilograms gross. That is not my opinion; I am quoting from the paragraph. That would mean a rate of 84 francs, but then the paragraph goes on to state:
On the other hand, it is the intention of the French govrenment, ... to amend its customs legislation m such manner as to increase by_
Not "to" but "by".
-by 84 francs per 100 kilos gross the minimum tar in on canned salmonoids.
If it read "to increase to 84 francs", I would understand it, but "to increase by" certainly means to add to. They are certainly going to add it to the minimum stated under item 47 which, by the footnote on page 14, is to be 84 francs per 100 kilograms. I suggest that we are going to pay exactly double that; first, the original minimum, and, if they pass that bill, there will be another 84 francs on top of that. If it does not mean that, then either I am or the English language is falling off. I ask the minister to read that paragraph.

Canada-France Trade Agreement


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: There may be a mistranslation there. Has the hon. member for Quebec East the French version before him?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Will he look at the notes annexed to schedule A on page 14 where it says:
In such manner as to increase-
The experts in Canada have studied the matter and have compiled this memorandum which the Minister of Trade and Commerce has kindly given to me.
The general tariff in France is 300 francs for 100 kilograms. The minimum tariff is 75 francs. The rate to Canada under the old treaty was 165 francs up to June 16, 1932. It was 300 francs after that date and until the conclusion of this treaty. The rate to Japan was 75 francs up to September 25, 1932. From June 16, 1932, under the general tariff of France our export of canned salmon paid 300 francs per 100 kilograms, while Japan paid only 84 francs per 100 kilograms. Under the new treaty there is granted a reduction of 72 per cent discount from the general tariff. That brings it down to 84 francs per 100 kilograms and 84 francs at the rate of exchange on May 15 amounted to $1.49 per 100 pounds.


Ernest Lapointe: The French version of the treaty says that the rate will be raised "to".


Alan Webster Neill: That is very important. We
should make an amendment to that effect. It makes a great difference whether it is "to" or "by"; it means a difference of 84 francs.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I suppose the notes were
prepared by one of the translators and a mistake may have been made. We shall take pains to have that changed.


Alan Webster Neill: Will the minister amend it?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: With the consent of the
committee I shall have one of the translators of the house look into the matter and amend it. It is all covered in the first paragraph to the notes in Schedule A; that is the operative part:
From the putting into force of the commercial agreement-
That is, this agreement.
-canned salmonoids coming _ under Ex No. 47 of the French customs tariff, exported from Canada will be admitted on French customs territory at a rate corresponding to the general tariff reduced by 72 per cent, the rate thus obtained representing a duty of 84 francs per 100 kilogs. gross.

The operative part of the memorandum is correct. The note which has been annexed by one of the translators may be a misprint, or it may have been, by chance, a mistranslation.


Charles A. Stewart: I should like to inquire of the minister just in a general way regarding schedule C and items 549 to 564, all dealing with silks.


George Halsey Perley: Schedule C is
not included in this article. The article we are discussing covers schedules A and B. Perhaps the hon. gentleman will wait until we come to the next article.
Article 1 agreed to.
On article 2.


George Halsey Perley: I suppose we
shall adopt the same system that we did in regard to article one; that is, on article 2, schedules C and D may be discussed. Then, when we pass article 2, it carries with it schedules C and D. The hon. member for West Edmonton might ask his question now.


Charles A. Stewart: I am interested chiefly in the silk items. I gather from what the minister has said with respect to schedule A, that, owing to the fact that the French government have been raising duties continuously since 1930, the duties on imports of Canadian goods into France are much higher than they were under the old treaty.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: When initiated.


Charles A. Stewart: And even
as late as 1930. I am speaking largely from memory, but as I remember the matter, as there was no definite arrangement for fixed tariffs, the French government were continuously raising their duties, thus affecting Canadian treaty articles. In view of the fact that the duties on those silk articles as well as on textiles of wool and cotton were raised rather extensively in the Empire trade treaties, they will be at a higher rate than they were under the old schedules. Inasmuch as the duties now in effect under this trade agreement are much higher than under the old on our exports to France, so are the duties higher on imports from France, particularly as they affect silks and other textiles.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: As a matter of fact, in a
general way the textiles composed of silk and artificial silk were not largely dealt with in the agreement made at Ottawa a year ago. As a matter of fact with a few exceptions

Canada-France Trade Agreement
these items have not been increased by the trade agreement made with Great Britain. And with regard to most of these items, while the tariff remains the same France is obtaining the 10 per cent reduction which she enjoyed under the old convention. As a matter of fact France is left nearly in the same position as she was prior to the rescission of the old French trade agreement. So far as the financial condition of Canadian consumers will permit, and the purchases of luxuries affected thereby, she will preserve in Canada nearly the same position as that occupied by her prior to the rescission of the treaty. I believe that general observation is quite correct.


Alan Webster Neill: I suggest that in the notes
appearing on page 14 of the bill the word "therefore" should be substituted for the words "on the other hand" in the line third from the bottom of the page. I am told that the word "therefore" would give a better translation, and would make better sense. Then on the first line of page 15 I suggest the word "by" should be stricken out and the word "to" substituted therefor.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That is merely a matter of translation. If the committee will allow it to stand I should like to have the official translator go over it so as to have the language more precise.


Alan Webster Neill: The minister will let the
article stand?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: After listening to the
speeches in the French language of _ ten or fifteen hon. gentlemen my French is improving from day to day and from week to week. I read it very well, but I should like to have the official translator look over the bill.


Alan Webster Neill: Will the minister let the
article stand?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Is it necessary to have it
stand, when only a note is at fault? That part of the bill to which the hon. member has referred is simply a note in explanation. The operative clause is entirely correct.


Alan Webster Neill: Pardon me; the notes relate
to Schedule A. There is a reference to addenda numbers 47 and 49 of the French customs tariff. These notes must be passed as something, and I suggest they are part of the schedule. When we have passed the article we have passed it all.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Bury):: I call the hon. member's attention to the fact that the note is part of Schedule A, and Schedule A was passed under article 1.


Alan Webster Neill: Schedule A is not passed.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes; we are now on
Schedules C and D.


Alan Webster Neill: We are on article No. 1.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, No. 2.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: Article 1
is passed.


Alan Webster Neill: When did it pass?


Henry Herbert Stevens: A quarter of an hour ago.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: I said,
"Shall the article pass?" And it was passed.


Alan Webster Neill: I do not wish to harass the
minister, but it is quite evident that we must not pass part of a bill in which there appears a gross error.


Ernest Lapointe: It is merely a mistake
in translation.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I believe the language now
in the bill is quite clear, and could not be made clearer.


Alan Webster Neill: It is clear, if you accept the
explanation that there is a mistake in it. But are we going to pass legislation which obviously reads wrongly?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I believe the hon. member
is not correct in that statement.


Alan Webster Neill: The minister states that these are notes. Yes, but they are part of the schedule.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The note is part of the
schedule.


Alan Webster Neill: Hear, hear.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: And the note to which
reference has been made is official. I thought the hon. member was referring to notes concerning items 47 and 49.


Alan Webster Neill: I referred to page 14 of the
bill.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I thought the hon. member
was referring to a note concerning item 47 appearing at page 10.


Alan Webster Neill: No, I am speaking about
page 14.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Where is the mistake?


Alan Webster Neill: We find these words, "notes
annexed to Schedule A. Addenda Nos. 47 and 49 of French customs tariff." I propose that the word "therefore" should be substi-
Canada-France Trade Agreement

tilted for the words "on the other hand" appearing three lines from the bottom of the page, and that at the top of page 15 the word "to" should be substituted for the word "by" so that it will read:
in such maimer as to increase to 84 francs.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The hon. member may hold up the schedule if he wishes but-


Alan Webster Neill: I do not wish to.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The French minister has
signed for both the French and the English translations, and before changing that translation I should like to see the official translator and ascertain if it is correct. I believe the assurance given by me, that before this treaty is finally passed I should have that done, is quite sufficient.


Alan Webster Neill: I did not understand it that way.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: But I must have the consent of the French minister before I can change the translation.


Alan Webster Neill: That is quite satisfactory.


Charles A. Stewart: May I ask the minister if there is any change in the rates on wine? I believe the Liberal government are responsible for the increased duties on wine. I believe, however, there is no change in the schedule.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: No; I think French wines
will come in and continue to come in at the same rate of duty as obtained before the treaty was abrogated. Of course for a few months past they have come in under the general tariff, but the treaty will restore the old rate.
their own' prices, the federal government should not be blamed too severely for the high prices charged in sales of French wines, liqueurs and brandies.
Article 2 agreed to.
Articles 3, 4 and 5 agreed to.
On article 6.


Charles A. Stewart: Will there be no dumping duties against importations from France now?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: There is a provision that we do not restrict ourselves in respect of dumping duties. But I cannot give any promise in that respect. The treatment given to France is exactly the same as we give to other countries, and France gives us the same treatment as she gives to other countries. But I did obtain an oral assurance from France that if by reason of any changes in the international monetary system stability of exchange is obtained they would consider the reduction of their surtaxes in consideration of our making similar reductions on importations from France. That is as far as I could go.


Charles A. Stewart: I thought
probably the government had changed their policy as far as France was concerned, but apparently they are still sticking to it.
Mr. R1CKMAN: If the hon. member will look at the last clause of the article he will see we were careful not to part with anything.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, I was afraid there was a catch in it.
Article 6 agreed to.
Articles 7 to 17 inclusive agreed to.


Ernest Lapointe: That is a great relief.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: May I point out that the
French government is anxious to have the rates still further reduced. They pointed out that in their opinion the sales being made by commissions were made at very high prices. I had to suggest that the high rates at which French wines, liqueurs, and brandies are sold in Canada were due not only to the alleged high rates of import duties imposed by the federal government, but due to the very large profits made by some of the provincial commissions in the sales of French wines.


Ernest Lapointe: Possibly.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: As the liquor commissions
are not under our control, and as they fix


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Before the chairman reports the bill may I say that we allowed section 2, approving of the agreement, to pass before we discussed the agreement itself. I hope the members of the government will recognize that in raising no objection we simply took it as a foregone conclusion that the measure had been agreed to and being now in force was going through. I do not think, however, that this procedure should be regarded as a precedent. The schedule and agreement should be discussed and the house given a chance to consider its terms before we are asked to approve it.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The right hon. gentleman knows that we concluded this treaty under most extraordinary circumstances, and it was impossible to bring it before parliament at an

Canada-France Trade Agreement
earlier date. We recognize that the right hon. gentleman and those sitting by him on the opposite side have shown every consideration, in view of the approaching end of the session, to enable us to bring negotiation to a conclusion, for which we are very grateful.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My point was directed chiefly to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who, I am afraid, unless the point were raised might on some future occasion endeavour to use this as a precedent, for having agreements approved before we actually discussed them.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, I would never do a thing like that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It was done in the case of the Canada-United Kingdom agreement and we protested then.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Will article 15 take in French colonies and mandates? I allude to Syria.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: There are only two French mandates.


Mr. DUPUIS:: All French books will be
free?
Mr. -CAHAN:	I do not quite understand
what the hon. gentleman is asking.


Vincent Dupuis: I am asking if French books under item Ex 169 will enter Canada free?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: 


Vincent Dupuis: from England?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Yes.
The same as English books Yes.


Vincent Dupuis: Well, Mr. Chairman, I am
glad that those on your right sometimes accept suggestions coming from this side, because on November 15, 1932, in the early part of this session we called the attention of the Minister of Finance to the subject and he promised us that he would ask the British government about it and ascertain if there would be any objection to allowing French books to be admitted for the use of those in Canada who wish to study French literature.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Well, the mandates are included with the colonies?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: They are included.


Charles Marcil: Before the bill is reported, is the minister in a position to say what the trade with France is at the present time, and what trade he anticipates will be brought about as a result of this new treaty?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The hon. gentleman will
find in the earlier part of the debate this afternoon a complete tabular statement of the trade with France, which I trust it is mot necessary to repeat. I can only say with regard to the future that I think this will improve the conditions which prevailed when France was on our general tariff and we were on its maximum tariff. The extent to Which trade will improve I think depends very largely on general economic conditions outside of and beyond the question of these tariffs. I can make no prognostications. With hon. gentlemen opposite, in view of present financial and monetary conditions of the world, I simply hope for the best.


Vincent Dupuis: I understand schedule C
is passed?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Yes, everything is passed.


Vincent Dupuis: Item Ex 169 as to books
is marked "same rate as British preferential tariff."


Henry Herbert Stevens: Free.
-Mr. CAHAN:	Let me say to my hon.
friend that I do not wish to detract at all from any credit which he may deserve to receive for any suggestion he made, but he is not the only person either in the house or outside who made similar suggestions. The fact is it was practically agreed upon before the hon. gentleman made his suggestion, and we were then negotiating to that end.


Vincent Dupuis: With all'due respect to the minister I would direct his attention to the reference to this subject in the house on the 15th of November. He will note that these items, 171, 171a and 178 of the British preferential tariff were passed without comment.


Henry Herbert Stevens: You do not object to my hon. friend doing what you wanted?


Vincent Dupuis: The items were passed
without any notice whatsoever even against the wish of the Minister of Trade and Commerce.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, with my hearty approval.


Vincent Dupuis: I am glad the minister accepted my suggestion. I know he is broadminded.


Mr. DUPRE:: Let us say all is well that
ends well.


Vincent Dupuis: I am glad to see that all
the ministers are ready to admit that the
Canada-France

Trade Agreement
suggestion I made on November 15 was good. The Minister of Finance promised me at that time that he would look into the matter, and he has acceded to my suggestion.


James Malcolm: The Solicitor General
made the remark that all was well that ended well, but I do not think this is ended yet. I should like to ask the Secretary of State if it is the intention to allow these books to enter without the application of the dumping duty.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: This tariff does not deal
with dumping duties, and those duties are not imposed upon goods which have free entry.


James Malcolm: Oh, yes they are.


Henry Herbert Stevens: There is no dumping duty applicable in this case.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Then I cannot answer.


Mr. RYCKMAN:: The dumping duty applies only if they are of a class or kind made in Canada, and it would not have application here.


James Malcolm: I should like to point
out that the Minister of National Revenue has answered the question by saying if they are of a class or kind made in Canada they are subject to dumping duty. If the current rate of exchange is different from the rate set by the Department of National Revenue these books, which are supposed to be free, will be subject to a dumping duty.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That is why I said it would not apply. They are not of a class or kind made in Canada; these books are printed in French in France.


James Malcolm: If the same books were printed in French in Canada they would be subject to the dumping duty.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I doubt if you will find any of them printed in Canada.


Onésime Gagnon: Since my hon. friend from Laprairie-Lapierville has been so anxious to score a personal point may I ask him to remember that in the treaty put through by the late government in 1922 a duty of 15 per cent was imposed on these books. I am afraid the hon. member is not paying a compliment to those who negotiated the treaty at that time,


Vincent Dupuis: My hon. friend is a little
late; it has been mentioned already that since the English books were admitted free, it was only fair that the same provisions be made for French books.
!Mr. Dupuis.]


Lucien Dubois: Mr. Chairman, I wish to put a question to the hon. Secretary of State. Will the translation of this bill be ready to-morrow morning?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The French version is ready


Lucien Dubois: No, I
requested the French version but I have not received it. '


Maurice Dupré: We have it.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: So far as the treaty is concerned, it is printed separately in French and in English, and I understood that copies were available.


Lucien Dubois: I asked for a copy but could not obtain one.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The hon. member for Quebec East has a copy.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: I could not get one. I
asked for a copy similar to that which the hon. member for Quebec East has, but I could not get it.
Bill reported.



CANADA-FRANCE CONVENTION CONCERNING RIGHTS OP NATIONALS AND COMMERCIAL AND SHIPPING MATTERS

Charles Hazlitt Cahan: While this convention, may be terminated by either party upon six months' notice, it is of such character that its provisions will likely be maintained for an indefinite period of time, affording a substantially permanent settlement of the problems with which it is directly concerned. Obviously it would have been unsatisfactory to incorporate the provisions dealing with the rights of Canadian nationals, Canadian corporate enterprises and Canadian shipping in a provisional trade arrangement which may be revised at the close of a period of one year.
The present convention concerning the rights of nationals and commercial and shipping matters deals solely with the second class of commercial relations. It defines and determines the legal rights and privileges of. Canadian nationals in France and in the French colonies, protectorates and mandated territories and in corresponding manner the reciprocal rights and privileges of French nationals in Canada. It defines and determines the rights and privileges of Canadian corporate enterprises doing business in France and in territories under French rule, and in corresponding manner it deals with the rights and privileges of French corporate enterprises in Canada. Similarly, and on a reciprocal basis, it provides for Canadian shipping in the ports of French territories and French shipping in Canadian maritime ports.
The present convention follows closely the precedent generally adopted for dealing with similar problems and modern commercial treaty practice. It accords the Canadian nationals and Canadian business and shipping interests in French territories, as a matter of right, as favourable a position as has been established in modern treaty practice between countries which have reached the same advanced stage of civilization as these two countries. It should be observed that it also includes the undertaking by the two governments to deal with the special problems of corporate taxation which have given rise to difficulties in recent years.
In article 2 of this convention Canada and France agree to conclude another convention with regard to the subject of double taxation of persons and companies engaged in business in both countries. We discussed that third convention as it was a matter of special importance to Canadian banks and corporations which are doing business in France by branches or agencies. There has been a very considerable and insistent demand that Canada should negotiate with France with regard to an equitable adjustment of these matters. At Paris we

drew up such a convention, which has since been approved by the officials of the Department of National Revenue here and which is now under the consideration of the financial and fiscal experts of the French government. As however their approval had not been obtained by May 12, it was inevitable that there should be a delay; but we hope at the next approaching session of parliament to submit to this parliament this third convention dealing with that particular subject of double taxation.
This convention, in terms, does not infringe on the immigration laws of either country. It gives to the nationals of either country the right to acquire property interests in the other country. The nationals of each country are exempted from compulsory military service in the other. The nationals of either country are granted free access to the courts of justice, either as plaintiffs or as defendants, in all processes within the jurisdictional authority of the courts of the respective countries, and merchants and manufacturers of either country are entitled not only to travel in the other country but to bring in samples for the purpose of trading and soliciting orders, and companies and societies are authorized to establish branches and carry on business in each of the countries concerned.
Provision is made in article 8, which is perhaps an innovation, whereby Canada reserves to itself the right to appoint consuls general, consuls, vice-consuls and consular agents, to reside in the ports and towns of French territories. With regard to the shipping of goods over the railways of either country, article 9 provides that goods shipped through the territory of one of the high contracting parties, with destination in the territory of the other party, on the railways of the latter, in relation to conditions and costs of transportation, and to rates and taxes of every description affecting transportation, shall receive as favourable treatment as that which is generally applicable to similar goods in the interior traffic of that country, under the same conditions, for the same directions and for the same distances, and shall enjoy most favoured nation treatment. With regard to the right of transshipment across either country, the goods shipped through a country are entitled to most favoured nation treatment and to the same treatment as that given to the transport of domestic goods and commodities. Article 13 contains a provision with regard to the rights of the shipping of one country which enter the ports of the other. There is also a provision covering vessels entering for shelter

Convention with France
and those that may be stranded or wrecked. Article 20 reads:
If a dispute arises between the high contracting parties in regard to _ the proper interpretation or application of this convention which cannot be solved by diplomatic means, the matters in dispute shall be submitted to the Permanent Court of International Justice at the Hague.
In dealing with the provisions with regard to the rights of French shipping generally and of wrecked and stranded ships, I took particular pains to keep in mind the existing Can-adion law dealing with these -matters and I think I can assure bon. gentlemen that the provisions of this treaty are entirely consistent with the law at present in existence in Canada. In dealing with Canadian shipping, for the purposes of this convention we confined it to shipping registered in Canada. I might have proceeded further and perhaps a little more definitely but at the time of the negotiations we knew that the shipping laws of the British commonwealth were being revised and that at an early date Canada must recast and reenact her own shipping law in compliance with the resolutions of the imperial conference. I sought to avoid any distinct engagement in this convention which was not thoroughly consistent with our existing statutes and with the policy which hon. gentlemen opposite inaugurated at London and which this government has consistently carried into effect so far as we have dealt with shipping matters. I commend this bill to the consideration of the committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Gagnon in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Do the matters dealt with in this convention differ in any particular from the provisions of the imperial act except to be brought more exactly into conformity with our own conditions?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I do not think so. The former Minister of Justice will remember that when negotiations were commenced at Paris in 1921 or 1922 there was a treaty outstanding between Great Britain and France dealing with commercial matters. This treaty governed similar relations between Canada and France because Canada was then a colony or dominion of Great Britain. The hon. member will also recall that some innovations were made in the treaty of 1921 covering certain rights of Canadian nationals. The scope
of the treaty of 1922 has been widened somewhat in view of the advance made since that time in the status of 'this country and in view of the fact that we are now exercising a larger autonomy than we did prior to that time.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As I understand the Secretary of State, he proceeded in this matter in the manner agreed to at the imperial conference of 1923 with respect to the negotiation of treaties. He has, as the representative of Canada, proceeded on the basis of the equality of status of the self governing parts of the empire in negotiating these conventions. I should like to congratulate the hon. Secretary of State upon his indefatigable industry and upon his high sense of public service and duty. I offer him further congratulations upon the broadening of his own views with respect to the negotiation of agreements on the part of the self-governing parts of the British Empire. I am glad to see that he has come to accept so wholeheartedly the views put forward some years ago by hon. gentlemen on this side and which he was not at that time as ready and prepared to accept as he is to-day.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I suppose it may be regarded as a compliment that having reached and exceeded three score years and ten I can still modify my views to meet existing conditions. I think hon. members should remember and carefully consider the proposition that once a decisive step is taken

some may regard it as a forward step while others may regard it as a backward step-whenever the parliament of Canada takes a decisive step by the voice of a majority of its members- I am not dealing with petty affairs, I am dealing with large national and international interests-succeeding governments are bound in loyalty and good faith to carry out and develop those principles. You cannot go backward and retrace your steps to the same status from which you started. I think I can say for myself, for the other members of the government and for the Prime Minister that we have faithfully endeavoured to carry out that policy in national, in interdominion and international matters.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I believe this parliament will always value the opinions of my hon. friend. For this reason, I am pleased to gather from his remarks that his present view has become with him a matter of sincere conviction, and that he now believes that the method of proceeding he has followed, will tend, perhaps even more than any other, towards the preservation of the solidarity of the provinces with regard to it. I have never
Convention with France

interest of all that each part should be conceded full recognition of its capacity to negotiate international affairs of immediate concern to itself.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: In the same jocular manner may I say that where we have found that the right hon. gentlemen and his associates were swerving too much to the left or perhaps too much to the right, we have endeavoured as best we could to guide the progress of events in an intermediate direction so as to escape some possible evils and achieve all the good ends which they had in mind at the time.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In this case my hon. friend has followed our course to the letter.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Convention approved.
Ernest Lapointe: This section covers the schedule. I would like some explanation of article 2 of the schedule which governs fiscal matters in relation to individuals. The two countries agree that their nationals-
-shall not be submitted, in respect of their persons, property, rights and interests, profession, occupation, business or industry and in general in all matters in the territory of the other to rates, taxes, imposts or contributions of whatever discription, and without regard to the authority on behalf of which they are levied, other or higher than those which are imposed on nationals in similar circumstances.
Has there been any communication or understanding with the provinces to this effect in regard to licence or other taxes which may be levied by them on the nationals of France who live within their boundaries and engage in some profession, trade or occupation? Will this prevent the provinces from levying a higher tax on the nationals of France than on their own nationals?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: As a matter of fact this is
a treaty dealing on the one side with Canadian nationals and, on the other, with French nationals and my opinion would be that in Canada, after this treaty goes into force, we cannot impose a higher tax on a Frenchman because of his French race and nationality.


Ernest Lapointe: That will bind the provinces as well.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: If this treaty is approved, it will bind the provinces as well. I do not think there is any objection whatever from the provinces with regard to it. I have never heard of any, but I am saying to the hon. gentleman and emphasizing the fact that this treaty is made with France.


Ernest Lapointe: Personally I am quite
willing to accept it, but not very long ago representatives of the provinces in cases before the supreme court argued that this parliament could not bind the provinces, even through the negotiation of treaties with foreign countries, without the provinces agreeing to the provisions thereof. I have heard arguments along those lines. I do not say that I agree with that, and I trust the nationals of France will be treated by every province as well as by the Dominion government exactly as are the nationals of Canada. I wish merely to prevent any disagreement along that line in other quarters.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would like
the minister to allow this section to stand until we approve the schedule. This will not delay matters at all, but it will regularize the procedure.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Very well.
Section 2 stands.
Sections 3 to 5 inclusive agreed to.
Articles 1 to 21 inclusive agreed to.
On article 22.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: By our unquestioned approval the minister will appreciate, I am sure, the complete confidence we have placed in his discretion and judgment in these important international matters; and also, may I say, our regard for the great care and industry which we know characterizes all his work.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I can only say that I appreciate the compliment, but in this matter I was not influenced by any partisan aims, ambitions or counsels; I tried to do the best I could for the country.
Article 22 agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



CANADIAN AND BRITISH INSURANCE COMPANIES

[Stage Direction]
Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of Bill No. 104, to amend an act respecting Canadian and British Insurance Companies.
He said: This is a Senate bill embodying two amendments to chapter 46 of the statutes of 1932. The first widens the list of securities in which insurance companies may invest to include a certain group of companies which have more particular reference to the province

Canada-France Trade Agreement
of Quebec with which the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) may be familiar, and other securities of a similar character. The second amendment is to carry out what, I have no doubt was the original intention when the act was drafted, namely, to enable, on the winding up of a company, the return of securities in the case of the whole list of companies. As the matter stands now, the authority of the minister to return securities in the case of a company which is wound up is limited to the extent that life, marine and fraternal insurance companies on being wound up could not have their securities returned.
Mr. H. E. SPENCER (Battle River):: I
wonder whether I might bring something to the attention of the Minister of Finance with regard to insurance. I do not know whether he would care to answer a question with regard to a certain clause in the Insurance Act. Lately there has been considerable complaint regarding insurance companies refusing to take further premiums if the holders of the policies have let them go beyond a certain date, even where the cash surrender value has been greater than the amount of the premium. I understand that insurance companies have taken advantage of this in the last twelve months owing to a certain clause not being in the last Insurance Act. Has the minister heard about this and is he in a position to make a statement to the house?


Mr. RHODES:: I am sorry I did not anticipate that a question of this character would be asked, and I fear I am not in a position to give an answer as comprehensive as my hon. friend would wish.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. E.N. RHODES (Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of Bill No. 105, to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act.
He said:	I believe there will be no objection to my moving a further stage of this bill.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Not if the
minister can explain the bill.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am afraid I cannot give
any better explanation than has already been given the house. In simple language, the effect of the bill is to place members of the Senate, with respect to matters referred1 to
in the bill, in precisely the same position as is now occupied by members of the House of Commons. Apparently the fact that there was a distinction is a matter of only recent discovery.


Ernest Lapointe: I understand that Sir
Allen Aylesworth suggested the amendment, and I rely upon his judgment.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.

Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Before six o'clock is called I believe I should advise the house that after eight o'clock, if agreeable, we shall proceed with supply, taking up first the item in the Department of Agriculture.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Very well.


Ernest Lapointe: What next?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: There are still further
items in Pensions and National Health, together with a list of supplementary estimates.


Ernest Lapointe: And if everything is
voted before nine o'clock, what then?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: There are other bills on
the order paper with which we could proceed.
Mr. CASGItAIN: The shipping bill?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If we lack material with which to proceed we can take up the shipping bill.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock. CANADA-FRANCE TRADE AGREEMENT


Right Hon.   S@: Mr. Speaker, with the unanimous consent of the house I should like to ask to have the third reading of Bill No. 107, an act respecting a certain trade agreement between Canada and France. A change of one word was spoken about this afternoon, and the Secretary of State has had it investigated and will make an explanation regarding it if the house is willing.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: On page 15 of this bill, in the first line, the word "by" should be "to." I took this up with

Canada-France Trade Agreement
the French legation, and I find that through some printer's or other error the mistake crept in. It is agreed that the change should be made. I therefore ask, with the unanimous consent of the house, before the third reading to change the word "by" to "to."


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: I am not objecting to that, but may I take the opportunity of asking the hon. minister who translated the bill? Was it translated by the officers of the house in the ordinary way?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: No, this is a schedule prepared with the treaty; the treaty is in both French and English. As a matter of fact the original translation of the draft was made by myself in Paris, assisted by Mr. Jean Desy and put before the translators of the French government and approved, though certain minor modifications were subsequently made. The translation in the French copy was printed from the treaty as signed, but there are typographical errors in it; the proofreading in the rush was not as careful as it should be. I understand that the officers of the house have a perfect right to correct merely typographical errors in the French proof that was put through hurriedly at a late hour.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: This has nothing to do with the ordinary staff of translators of the house?
. Mr. CAHAN: No, the treaty was submitted in French to the French translators. Who read the proof I do not know; I did not. There are some slight corrections from the proof, and this change of the word "by" to "to" is a proper change. It escaped notice and I took it up with the Department of External Affairs, and also with the French legation, and all are agreed that the change should be made. It should read:
-in such manner as to increase to 84 francs per one hundred kilos.
Owing to a mistake which was pointed out by the hon. member for Comox-Albemi (Mr. Neill) it appeared as if it were "to increase by 84 francs." It is clear from the other clauses that that is an error.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As the Secretary of State has just pointed out, the error was drawn to the attention of the committee by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, and if he is satisfied I think the rest of us will be.
It does not need an amendment; it is a typographical error.
Mr. CAHAN moved that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed. rMr. Cahan.]

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Plunkett in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OP AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
Live stock, $1,430,000.
John Vallance: On a previous occasion when the Minister of Agriculture came before this committee with his estimates we discussed at some length the marketing problem of the live stock men, particularly of western Canada. At that time I made a statement that there was discrimination against the farmer who was delivering his live stock by truck. The minister challenged my statement, and, I did not at the time have the figures before me. Since then I have received quite a number of communications and would like now to correct any statement I made that was misleading. I hold in my hand a communication addressed to me from Luseland, Saskatchewan, dated April 4, written by Mr. George F. Twiss. Mr. Twiss happens to be in partnership with another man in the trucking of live stock from that community to the markets of Saskatoon. I would like to place it on record so that we will have this straightened out. He says:
Dear Sir,-
The issue of the Saskatoon Star Phoenix of April 1. on the third page states in a head-Lne: Discrimination in Amounts Paid for Hogs Denied. This headline is misleading, and the article is a comment on your question in the House of Commons, inquiring if the "penalty" against trucked-in hogs was imposed in order to encourage business for the railroads.
Up until quite recently car lot hogs in Saskatoon brought 20 cents per 100 pounds more than trucked-in hogs. Edmonton, Calgary and Moose Jaw stock yards did likewise, and North Battleford is still paying 20 cents per 100 pounds less.
The charges in effect at Saskatoon stock yards for car	lot and trucked-in hogs were
respectively as follows:
_	Car lot Trucked-in
iardage	08	.12Commission	10	25Price	20+	^20	-
This discrimination works out per head on an average hog of 200 pounds trucked-in thus:
Yardage	04
Commission	15
Price difference	40
The total discrimination is therefore .59 against trucked-in hogs. The commission is based on an average carlot of 100 hogs, eighty being the minimum carload.
Your assertion that there was a discrimination of $1 per hog seems therefore too high-
That is the reason, Mr. Chairman, I want this corrected.
-except in the case of a 400 pound hog, which would be about correct.

Supply-Agriculture-Live Stock
Mir. Blackwell, manager of the Saskatoon stock yards, explains that because there is a keen demand for hogs ajt present, the practice of paying 20 cents less for trucked-in hogs has been discontinued. Does he mean that when this demand is satisfied the practice will be revived? As a matter of fact the farmers can better afford to lose 20 cents per 100 pounds on hogs when there is a "keen demand" for them than when not. Who gets the 40 cents per hog?
Mr. Blackwell in this article starts out with saying: "As far as the stock yards is concerned there has never been any greater difference than 4 cents per hog," and yet a man trucking hogs into Saskatoon received 59 cents less per hog than if shipped by rail. Who got the balance? Does it cost this amount for service? If so why let the farmer have 40 cents of it now? Mr. R. Grant Thompson, secretary of the Saskatchewan Live Stock Pool, draws a herring across the trail and confuses the issue. He explains by comparing charges in Saskatoon with United States yards, which had nothing to do with your question. Even the Hon. Mr. Weir evades the question, according to the report in the Star Pheonix. He said that a careful study of the stock yards in the past year had been made throughout Canada, and that his information was that the extra fee of $1 was not per hog but per truck. Where did he get this information? It must have been the wildest of guesses.
Then he goes on to say something about the minister which I do not propose to read into the record, and he concludes with these words:
Your question has not been answered and the public are looking to you to get the correct one.
I have two or three other letters here, but I do not intend to weary the committee by reading them because they are along the same line. These men have proven that there is a discrimination to a greater extent than the minister admitted when we discussed this question last. I have here a letter from a farmer in O'Malley who claims that he is penalized one hog in twenty when they are shipped by truck. I have another letter here from Brancepeth, Saskatchewan, in which a similar complaint is made, and both these writers ask me to press for an answer from the minister. The hon. gentleman has had some time in which to investigate and review this question. I do not wish to read these letters into the record because I think the first one placed very plainly before the minister the position of the farmer who trucks his 'hogs to the stockyards in the west.


Hon. ROBERT WEIR (Minister of Agriculture ):: As I recall it, the statement made by the hon. member the last time this matter was discussed was that there was a discrepancy of SI per hog. I am sure the committee will realize that no person can
give definite information with regard to this discrepancy unless he knows the number of hogs in a carload or in a truck. The answer I gave was that the difference would be roughly $1 a truck load, the extra cost being the fairest estimate the stockyards feel they can make as to the extra charge for the greater amount of work necessary in handling hogs delivered by truck, because sometimes they have to handle six or seven shipments instead of one. The hon. member for South Battleford notified me of his intention to make this correction and read the letters to which he has referred. I took the opportunity to secure a statement with reference to comparative prices for the handling of hogs in the Saskatoon stockyards, whether by rail or by truck. The following are the figures furnished me:
By rail, average car of 80 hogs:
Unloading per car	$ I 00
Fire insurance per car	 0 15
Cleaning and disinfecting car.. ..	0 75
Yardage 80 hogs at 8 cents	 6 40
Feed, approximately 4 cwt. at $1.50. 6 00 Commission per car	10 00

Per hog 30.4 cents.
By truck, say 15 hogs in truck load or driven
in:
Unloading, no charge	 -
Fire insurance	$ 0 10
Cleaning and disinfecting, no charge -
Yardage 15 hogs at 8 cents	 1 20
Feed (truck hogs not fed before sale)	*-
Service charge 4 cents per hog.. ..	0 60
Commission 25 cents each	 3 75

Per hog 37.6 cents.
That is a difference of 6-8 cents per hog. It is not necessary for me to make any comment on these figures. In these letters certain items have been selected, and I think the comparison is not altogether fair with regard to the cost of hogs delivered by truck and those delivered by rail.


John Vallance: I should like to ask the minister the date of the memorandum to which he referred.


Robert Weir: It bears no date, but these are the accepted charges.


John Vallance: Then I should like to
read a portion of another letter in order to prove that while the statement just made by the minister may be quite correct to-day it was not correct when this question was under consideration previously. This is a

Supply-Agriculture-Live Stock
letter dated April 18, 1933, addressed to myself:
Dear Sir,

We wish to voice our appreciation of your effort to find out why farmers who deliver hogs by truck, or any other conveyance other than the train service, to some of our stock yards are penalized.
Saskatoon stopped doing so during this past winter after the roads were blocked. They may start doing so again soon for roads are opening up.
Neither is Moose Jaw quoting "trueked-in" prices right now. But Prince Albert is and has been for the past year or so.
The penalty is 20 cents per hundredweight. Bacon hogs to-day are (in P.A. carlots $4.45 and local or "trucked-in," $4.20.
This represents a considerable loss to each farmer for each load even and then consider what it means to the average farmer over a period of time; say one year.
That is not from the constituency of South Battloford, either. I do not need to read further; I only want to show that probably the information just given the committee by the minister is correct to-day, but when this letter was written the stock yards had just ceased penalizing the farmer who trucked in his hogs, and they did so simply because no hogs were coming in trucks. What they are exercised about now, and the reason I am directing this matter to the attention of the minister, is that since the roads are open we should see to it that this practice is not permitted in the stock yards of western Canada. As I said previously, it always appears to me that whether a farmer drives his hogs ahead of him or whether he brings them by truck or in any other conveyance he should receive the same treatment that is accorded the farmer who ships in carload lots.


Robert Weir: The figures I gave
are the accepted charges throughout the year. There has been no change since the committee considered these items previously. If the farmer feels that there is anything unfair in the charges he should report it to the stock yard agent, who is an official of the government, and he will report it immediately to the department, when the necessary steps will be taken to remove as far as possible any discrimination that exists.


John Vallance: If I hand to the minister the communications I have received will he consider this an announcement to the department that there is some discrepancy?


Robert Weir: Yes.


Mr. KENNEDY (Peace River):: I would
not make a speech at this time but the matter which I wish to bring to the attention of the 
minister is of considerable importance. In the United Kingdom-Canada treaty, article 6 contains a provision with regard to the guaranteed market in Great Britain for 2,500,000 hundredweight of bacon and hams. I noticed in a paper published in Ontario that since the treaty went into effect the quality of Canadian bacon was going down relatively. We are all familiar with the argument that the exportable surplus determines the price in Canada, If that is so it is something which is very important from the point of view of the Canadian hog raiser. I have received from the department the live stock and meat trade review for November, December, January and February and also the weekly reports for April. I find that in November, when I believe the treaty went into effect, Canadian and Danish bacon were selling within 2 shillings per hundredweight of each other in Great Britain-62 shillings for the Canadian and 64 Shillings for the Danish. That was the closing top for November, 1932. The average was 55 shillings for the Canadian and 56 shillings and sixpence for the Danish, or a spread of one shilling and sixpence per hundredweight. From that time the spread between Danish and Canadian bacon has increased, until in April, 1933, the average on the British market was 70 shillings for the Canadian bacon and 80 shillings for the Danish, or a spread of 10 shillings per hundredweight.
I thought that possibly because of the increased demand or at any rate the increased market, there was a tendency towards short-age of the good type to send to Great Britain. Looking up the records, however, showing the quantity of hogs coming forward to the markets in Canada, as well as the quality and grading, I find that the grading has certainly been keeping up, but it seems that the packing end of the industry has been falling down. The packers are continually circularizing the farmer through the bulletin of the industrial and development council of Canadian packers. They have always said that farming is one half of the live stock industry and packing the other. We have had a hog grading policy in this country for ten years, and there has appeared a marked improvement in the quality of Canadian hogs coming forward to the market, and it seems to me to have been demonstrated that the packers in Canada, if they wish to, can put on the British market a product that is up to the Danish, and at a price equal to theirs. The inference must be therefore that they are falling down where there is no justification for failure. I would

Supply-Agriculture

Live Stock
ask the minister to inquire into this matter and if there is no definite improvement then I suggest that at the next session there should be an inquiry into the whole subject to ascertain the trouble.


Robert Weir: The spread between cured Danish bacon of the best grade and cured Canadian bacon of the best grade is on the average, I think, around 8 to 10 shillings per hundredweight. I was surprised when the hon. member said that the spread at one time had shrunk to as little as one shilling, if that was for the best bacon in both grades. It is possible that owing to the restrictions imposed by the government of the United Kingdom on Danish bacon the quality of that product might have gone up. The supply of it of course was only four-fifths of what it had been previously, and those who had developed a taste for it and formed the habit of purchasing Danish bacon might, by their demands for it when the commodity was scarcer, have raised the price. It is also possible that at that time Canadian bacon was scarcer and that those who wanted to have it when it was not available similarly raised the price by their demands. Another point which is perhaps of small consideration on the whole is nevertheless worth mentioning. The spread might have been the result of the sum total of a number of causes, one of them being (his. When the United Kingdom decided that it would restrict imports of bacon to such an extent as to raise the price of the primary product in that market, Denmark had to decrease her exports of bacon to the United Kingdom by 20 per cent. So that they could get into the United Kingdom market the greatest number of pounds of the highest quality bacon, the processors of bacon in Denmark adopted the method of cutting from five to six pounds from each side of the bacon, and what they cut off from either side was the poorest bacon. The result was that it raised the average quality of their bacon, and that might have had some effect.
So far as the department is concerned, there has been no difference in the instructions given to our graders, nor has there been any difference in the operations of the graders themselves. In Denmark they have one considerable advantage over us in the grading of hogs in that the entire kill is graded on the rail. We have given a good deal of effort to seeing whether we cannot in Canada also work out some system whereby hogs can be graded on the rail. One of the greatest difficulties has been overcome, that of identity. Different means of maintaining the identity of the hog, 53719-318
from the time it left the farmyard until it reached the slaughter house, had been tried-branding with indelible ink and so on-but such methods were not satisfactory. However, we have at last devised a method that should leave grading very little subject to error in maintaining the identity of the hog as shipped from farm to slaughter house. But the farmer who ships his hogs and sells them on the basis of grading on the rail will have to wait for final payment until the animal has been slaughtered. To illustrate with an extreme case, there are a great number of hogs that are shipped from western Canada, in particular from Edmonton, as far east as Moncton, New Brunswick. Coming through Moncton last fall I was surprised to learn that live hogs had been shipped to that point from Edmonton. I admit that that is an extreme case but I am sure that the farmers would hesitate quite a while before being in favour of waiting that long for their returns. There would be another difficulty which would confront us before we could adopt the policy of grading on rail. Some of the biggest losses in the packing of hogs are caused by bruises or injuries en route. When strange groups of hogs are put with other strange groups they are liable to fight with each other and the teeth and hoof marks make bruises which prevent the bacon being put in the top class. A farmer might have ten select hogs which because of bruises in shipment, either by truck or rail, would not grade as select. A peculiar thing is that hogs shipped by truck are more liable to bruises than those shipped in car lots. If the car lot shipment takes two or three days en route to market the hoof and tooth marks may almost entirely disappear, and they do sometimes disappear entirely as far as leaving any marks on the slaughtered animal is concerned. We realize that grading on rail is a much more accurate method of grading but we have some difficulties yet to overcome.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: I discussed this matter with the minister two or three weeks ago and at that time he gave me much the same answer he has given the committee to-night. I conveyed the information I received to one or two farmers in Ontario who had drawn this matter to my attention and I would not like to tell the minister the words they used when they heard his explanation. I simply say this to indicate that the farmer is exceedingly sceptical concerning this whole business. One of these farmers is one of the foremost men in the province of Ontario. He lives at Burlington and the minister may know him, his name being Somerset. He tells me that the farmers in his district are con-



REVISF.D EDITION COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
Supply-Agriculture-Live Stock
vinced that the packers are taking advantage of the market and are not grading the farmers' hogs up to the bacon type. This provides more bacon than the graded hogs would justify. In other words, he alleges they are breaking our market in Great Britain by shipping to places where below grade bacon will be accepted. The figures given by the hon. member for Peace River would appear to indicate that there is some validity in the charges made by these men. Has the minister considered the absolute necessity of grading bacon for export? It is my firm opinion that sooner or later the minister will reach the stage where he will decide that both bacon and hams should be graded for export by government graders. Only in that way can we maintain the quality -of our products, as we have maintained the quality of our grain by similar methods.
Robert Weir: The information
which I gave When I spoke before was obtained not from the packers but from the personal and impartial observations of our own officials. As I told the hon. member for Bow River when we discussed this matter, we have given 'Consideration to the question of the grading of finished products before export. As yet no machinery has been worked out but we hope to get over the difficulties incident to grading on the rail and establish the two systems at as early a date as possible.


Edward Joseph Garland: Would not the establishment of a' marketing board facilitate work of this character?


Robert Weir: No, I would think not.


Mr. BROWN:: There is a matter I would
like, to bring to the attention of the minister. I would have brought this to his attention earlier but my information came to hand only to-day. The minister may not be prepared to give me an answer at the moment but I would be quite willing to obtain an explanation later on. I will read a letter which I received from Snowflake, Manitoba, as follows:
Could you find out from Mr. Weir why they buy bulls in Ontario and ship them out west when we have plenty of them out here. I think it is unfair to the breeders here to bring bulls from the east. There are a number of bulls brought into the Carman district and the breeders here would like to know what the bulls cost in the east. There are eight or ten bulls here in the Snowflake district and good ones too that the farmers would be pleased to sell. Would be pleased if you could find what those bulls cost in the east.

I am not always in favour of buying at home but it does seem that where animals of equal merit can be secured within a very short distance of where they are to be used, it would be a wise policy to purchase them. I do not know what the situation is in regard to prices. If the minister can tell me now *what was paid for these animals, I should be 'glad to receive the information but if not, I can get it at a later date.


Robert Weir: We had buyers at the spring shows in the west to purchase sires that were considered to be of a quality high 'enough to meet the demands of the policy. If anything, the prices did not vary very much although they were perhaps a little cheaper in Ontario. These men bought a large proportion of the bulls available that were of the quality Vequired. It might he that the animals referred to by the hon. member's correspondent Vere not of the breed that is in demand.


Albert Joseph Brown: They would be Shorthorns.


Robert Weir: We are very anxious to locate dual purpose Shorthorns in numbers much greater than we have been able to obtain up to date. As far as we are able we purchase everything that is up to standard in the west for the west and similarly as far as the east is concerned. If this man has a number of animals of a superior type, we shall be glad to make inquiries if the hon. member will give us his name. Of course he realizes than an animal sometimes looks very different to the man who owns it.


Albert Joseph Brown: Do I understand that animals are purchased only at the sales?


Robert Weir: No, we purchase them outside the sales when we can locate them.
Mr. MoINTOSH: The minister stated that the average marketing cost for hogs in carloads of eighty was 30-4 cents and delivered by truck, 37-6 cents. He then went on to say that the difference in the average marketing cost, one way as compared with the other, was 6 cents and a fraction. I am wondering if the minister is right, as the figures I gave would make a difference of 7-2 cents.


Robert Weir: That would be correct.


Mr. McINTOSH:: Should we not have the record straight?


Robert Weir: I made the calculation as I was reading and may have made a mistake.

Supply-Agriculture-Live Stock


Albert Joseph Brown: Can the minister give me the prices paid for the animals purchased in the east?


Robert Weir: That depends upon the quality and breed of the animals. If the Ron. member will let me have the name of his correspondent we shall be glad to have one of our officials go and investigate the matter, provided it does not entail too large an expense. I shall be glad to give my hon. friend a detailed report of the prices we paid.


Mr. WEIR (Macdonald):: Is Canada at the present time shipping any appreciable number of bulls to the old country for breeding purposes?


Robert Weir: Not for breeding, just for canning purposes.


William Gilbert Weir: I had sent to me a few days ago a communication referring in a very uncomplimentary manner to stock that had been rejected for breeding purposes here being sent to the old country and classed as breeding stock. If the minister says that breeding cattle are not being sent to the old country in any numbers, I shall not bother with the matter. Much of the stock, it was claimed, was not of a character high enough to be licenced for breeding purposes in the old country.


Robert Weir: After the removal of the restrictions for cattle trading, it was possible for us to ship to the old country to inland points, males and females. Many bulls that were purchased here at two, two and a quarter and two and a half cents per pound for canners and that were purchased here as such, were bought by some of the old country farmers at the stockyards. It was not intended when they were purchased and shipped from here that they would be taken out as breeding animals, and a good deal of dissatisfaction was caused in the old country by this being done. The Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries there got in touch with me and I had no hesitation in cabling him that any animals which were shipped as commercial animals were to be slaughtered unless the females passed the port inspector, and that other animals for breeding purposes would be shipped as such with their pedigrees, so that the difficulty has been completely cleared up.


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: The matter brought up by the hon. member for Peace River strikes me as being somewhat important and serious, especially as we have been looking forward to the gradual development and very great 53719-318J
increase of our trade in hams and bacons in the old country. I can quite appreciate that there may be a good deal of weight in the minister's suggestion that the average value and quality of Danish bacon may be on the increase as the number exported may have diminished; it will be the poroest quality that will be kept at home and the best will be exported. But an average spread of ten shillings a hundredweight, not for the average, but for the very best quality, is serious and it seems to me that it brings up the question whether the packers on our side are taking advantage of the British market to ship bacon and ham that is not of the very best quality. That, of course, is doubly serious. On the one hand it is going to discredit Canadian bacon and ham on the British market and make it extremely difficult for us to take advantage of that market as we had hoped. On the other, as our domestic prices are largely determined by the export price, if we do not succeed in securing the highest possible export price, this will have a detrimental effect on the market as a whole.
In speaking of the possibility of controlling the situation, the minister was asked, I think by the hon. member for Bow River, whether he did not believe the establishment of a marketing board would not have some effect on the matter. I understood the minister to say that he did not think it could. In the former discussion which took place in the house on the subject of a marketing board, it was suggested that one of the definite functions of such a board should be to see that the animals, meats and other products under its control, that were exported, came up to a proper export standard for the very purpose of avoiding what apparently is now taking place; that is, by seeing to it that nothing save the very best left Canada for the old country, that the credit of this country and the standard of quality for the dominion in our cattle meats and dairy products as well as in grain, should be kept to the highest possible mark. In view of the great importance of the question, an inquiry should be instituted to ascertain whether the suggestion made is correct that at least some of the packers, not all of them, are in fact shipping to the old country as No. 1 Wiltshire bacon and ham, commodities which do not come up to that quality and which have not been purchased here as such, and by so doing are destroying our market. Should this be proven to be the case, I should like the minister to consider very seriously the question of controlling that situation, because it affects not merely this year's business but our hopes of developing a market worth
5036	COMMONS
Supply-Agriculture-Live Stock
while in the old country under the terms of the British trade agreements. May I ask the minister, if he has the records here: How much in the way of bacon and ham we have shipped over to the old country during the first months of this year, and how does the amount compare with what was shipped last year? The figures would bear upon the question whether we are increasing our trade and taking advantage of the market.


Robert Weir: We have kept in very close touch with the quality of bacon that has been shipped to the United Kingdom, so close a touch that we know a number of shipments were made that were decidedly below standard and they were checked up and traced to their source, though it is not advisable to mention it. But the machinery is being developed and we hope at no very distant date we shall be in a position to undertake the inspection of all agricultural products, manufactured or otherwise, that are exported to the United Kingdom. It must not be understood that we would think at the present time of allowing only No. 1 grade to be exported, because as regards bacon, for example, if we were to permit only the top grade to be exported, this might have a detrimental effect on the market at home by keeping our inferior product here. The hon. member for Red Deer has mentioned cattle. The poor quality of some of our cattle that were exported this spring was brought very emphatically to my attention at the time of the export. I looked into the matter carefully and the facts I obtained were these: that 87i per cent of cattle that up to that time were exported to the United Kingdom were purchased by old country buyers themselves who had been operating on their home markets for years and who knew better than anyone else the quality they should have there for sale. Mr. Brown of Manchester who has purchased by far the largest percentage of our cattle, stated, that on any shipload he purchased he wanted some of each different quality with of course the highest percentage of good cattle; he also wanted some mediocre cattle and he could handle a few of the cheapest and poorest type of what we call our canner cow. He had a few clients for one quality, a few for another, and a number no doubt for the best quality of our goods. His feeling was this-and I was influenced a good deal in that connection because he is one of our biggest purchasers-that if he could not get in this country the kind of animal he wanted to meet his market in the old land, or, if he were purchasing in Calgary or Winnipeg and after he had purchased were to 
send a representative there who did not understand the old country market as well as he did and would eliminate some of the animals he had purchased, this would have a tendency to drive him off the market. That was why the action was taken. I appreciate as fully as hon. members opposite do-who I am sure realize this-the danger of creating in the old country a poor name for our cattle that are exported.
Bacon exports for the first three months of this year and last year are as follows:
Exports
Year	pounds
1933	 11,562,300
1932	 5,648,000


Alfred Speakman: What the minister has said is perfectly true. I do not think any exception could be taken to permitting the old country buyer to come to this country and buy any cattle he wished. Nor would there be any great objection to the sale of inferior bacons, if they were purchased as such, so labelled and sold as such in the old country. That is not the point to which I had reference. The suggestion has been made, not merely in this House of Commons but throughout the country, that hogs have been bought as grades lower than select, butchered, made into Wiltshire bacons and sold in the old country as No. 1 Wiltshire sides. There could be no harm in selling the second grade quality if the product sold were represented and labelled as second grade. The difficulty comes in, however, when second grade quality is bought, but afterwards sold as first grade, thereby destroying the reputation for first grade quality. I should think we would not be so much interested in making certain that none but first grade goes to the old country, but rather that we should make certain that the customer buying first grade receives what he buys. If he buys second grade and receives second grade, it is his own lookout. That is the point to which I had reference, namely, that we should make certain that Sharp practice which is suspected on the part of some farmers and some factories-I aim using no names-whereby they buy lower grades which they sell as No. 1 and for which they receive the select price, should be discontinued.


John Vallance: On previous occasions, probably two or three times during this session, there has been up for discussion a matter which in my opinion has been and still is of vital importance to the cattle breeders in Canada. I refer to the shipment of 100,000 head of Canadian cattle to Russia. The Prime Minister and probably the Minister of Trade and Commerce have taken some part in the

Supply-Agriculture-Live Stock
discussion of this matter. Hon. members will recall that on one occasion the Prime Minister promised that one item in the Department of Agriculture would be held up so that the Minister of Agriculture would be afforded an opportunity of speaking to this matter. Naturally the country is looking forward to this discussion, and is anxious to receive an expression of opinion from tlhe minister concerning the suggested shipment of 190,000 head of Canadian cattle.
I have before me a return for which I asked earlier in the session. It contains telegrams from various organizations urging the Minister of Agriculture to put forward his best efforts to consummate the deal. Going through the correspondence I find that the minister has been sympathetic towards the deal, and to-day the cattle breeders are wondering why it did not go through. I should like the minister to avail himself of this oportunity to state to the country why the deal did not go through, after encouragement had been given to the live stock industry in Canada.


Robert Weir: In the first place
the hon. member has stated that I was sympathetic to this much-discussed and much-advertised1 cattle deal with Russia. I have every sympathy with the trade and have done everything I could at all times not only in this but in other connections, to supply information to any person who wished to carry on trade in agricultural products. Especially am I in favour, so far as our legislation will permit, of trade between Canada and other countries in any kind of agricultural products. I believe the correspondence which has been laid on the table is the best record of the whole matter. So far as I know under the existing statutes or legislation there is nothing to prevent any person from trading with Russia or with any other country.


Edward James Young: Except the embargo.


Robert Weir: Under the legislation of the country, as I said.


Edward James Young: Except the embargo.


Robert Weir: Is that not part of
the legislation?


Edward James Young: Not a very desirable part.


Robert Weir: That is a matter of opinion. When Mr. Serkau came to me the chief purpose of his visits was to get information as to the quality and number of cattle we had for export. He wished to know also if there was anything to prevent selling our cattle to Russia. I referred him to the Department of National Revenue so that he
might learn the conditions under which he would have to carry on trade. As the correspondence will show, Mr. Serkau considered those conditions eminently satisfactory. I gave him information upon all occasions he asked for it, and that was the limit of my activity in the matter.


John Vallance: The return which was
laid on the table at my request proves what the minister has said, namely, that he facilitated Mr. Serkau's effort, and encouraged him to go ahead with the deal. The minister went so far as to give Mr. Serkau the code which might be used while that gentleman was in Russia. The point which occurs to me, however, is this, that after all the encouragement the minister gave and all the expense to which Mr. Serkau was put, he must have had some assurance from some source that he had at least a chance of putting through the deal. I am not entirely satisfied with the explanation given by the minister because 'the record I have before me proves to me-and I do not wish to do the minister an injustice-that he encouraged Mr. Serkau in his effort. It must have cost a great amount of money to go even as far as he went. As the hon. member for Weyburn has said, probably the embargo is the cause, or it may have been the statement made by the Prime Minister to the effect that we would have no trade with Russia.
I believe the minister agrees, as he states, in some of the communications I have before me, that such a deal would have been beneficial. I notice here a series of telegrams sent to the minister. One from Myrtle, Manitoba, is as follows:
Hon. Robert Weir,
Minister of Agriculture,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Impending deal with Russia as reported in press the best news cattle men have received for some time. If consummated will give great encouragement so badly needed at present time. Better cattle markets means more money for other commodities. Sincerely hope you may be successful in closing this deal.
James B. Davidson.
That telegram was dated December 28, 1932. The minister's reply is dated December 29, the following day, and is as follows:
I acknowledge receipt of your telegram of December 28 reading as follows:
"Impending deal with Russia as reported in press is the best news cattle men have received for some time. If consummated will give great encouragement so badly needed at present time. Better cattle markets mean more money for other commodities. Sincerely hope you may be successful in closing this deal."
This seems a repetition, although it is addressed and signed by the minister. The
5038	COMMONS
Supply-Agriculture-Live Stock
letter is dated on the following day and sent to Mr. James B. Davidson. This all indicates that the minister did give this organization some encouragement, and there is still in the back of the minds of the farmers the feeling that they did not get a square deal, that the matter was not given the consideration that it ought to have had.


Robert Weir: Did the hon. member not make a mistake in giving the impression that my reply was a telegram to him? Was not my reply a letter quoting his telegram?


Mr. MULLINS:: I am somewhat surprised at hon. gentlemen opposite bringing up that foolish deal. There is nothing to it; you are only playing politics. It was the most foolish deal I have ever heard of; I have been in the cattle export trade for fifty years. It is not possible to ship cattle to Russia; you would land only shadows. The hon. gentleman who has just spoken knows that you cannot have cattle twenty-two days at sea and land anything but a bunch of skeletons. I wonder that the Minister of Agriculture did not ask a few questions of someone who has been in the business-


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Condemnation of the
government.


Henry Alfred Mullins: Now let me tell you
about Mr. G. G. Serkau, because I do not think you know anything about him. He put his hand in the public treasury of Manitoba years ago-I have the list right here. I will say it outside the house as well as inside if Mr. G. G. Serkau wishes; I am not hiding behind the privileges of the house. Here is a list of the foolish deals that the Manitoba government made down through the Liberal regime and into the present regime, giving the farmers cattle at $120 and $110 apiece that were worth $30 and never should have been bought at any higher price. A lot of cows were bought and placed with farmers, and I have the list here-I will read it for your information and then I think you should be done with this matter for all time to come. And Mr. G. G. Serkau is on the list as the greatest debtor of any of them. He put his hand in the public treasury of Manitoba before he ever came here, yet you will not give credit to the man who said no when he looked at it. Serkau wanted to put his hand in this treasury and get $4,000,000 to go and play with when he had already received money from the province of Manitoba to the extent of hundreds.


An hon. MEMBER:: How did he do it?
[Mr. Vallance.l


Henry Alfred Mullins: He got it by way of loan from the Manitoba government, and has never paid the loan back. Why would you mention a man like that? He is not a cattle man, nor are any of those associated with him cattle men. The cattle business is on too high a plane, no one in it would do a thing like that; if they borrow money they repay it. It is an insult from the apposition side of the house to say that he was a cattle man. "G. G. Serkau"-many years ago I saw that name on the list, and I wondered if it was still there. It took me a long time to get it, but I had one of my friends ask for a return in the Manitoba house and they brought it down. He owes them interest and principal which he has never paid. Now I ask my hon. friend from South Battleford (Mr. Vallance), would he trust a man like that with $4,000,000?


Mr. MERCIER (St. Henri):: He might
make enough profit to reimburse the province.


Henry Alfred Mullins: He borrowed $1,500, to
put cattle out; with interest it amounts now to $1,750, and he never repaid the government. If Mr. Serkau wishes I will make the statement outside the house, I am not writ proof.


An hon. MEMBER:: Let's go out.


Henry Alfred Mullins: I am sorry the hon.
gentleman fell in with him. I saw the Toronto Star full of it, but any man who has ever been in the business would know it was a fool deal. It would have been a nice thing for those gentlemen to have the government of Canada guarantee them against loss. I have never had anyone guarantee me against loss, and I have been exporting for over fifty years. This man is a German lawyer, and I don't believe he knows a cow from a heifer.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: Explain.


Henry Alfred Mullins: They are getting back
into live stock in Saskatchewan, but I see they are going down on mules. I see they have less mules in Saskatchewan than they formerly had.


An hon. MEMBER:: They are going up
on jackasses.


Henry Alfred Mullins: For the information of the hon. gentlemen opposite I may say that you cannot ship cattle to any Russian port and land them in any kind of condition. Twenty-two days at sea! Mr. Chairman, twelve days at sea and your ship should be docking or your cattle will not be in very good shape. I remember having cattle on a ship that

Supply-Agriculture-Live Stock
broke her shaft in mid-ooean. and drifted down to the Azores; she was twenty-two days out, and the cattle were not worth anything -they could scarcely walk ashore. How would you take cattle from here and land them in a Russian port? I am astonished at intelligent men trying to bring that deal up again; I thought it was dead. You know that that is not a man you would place confidence in or give money to. What a godsend it is that there is a man at the helm of this old ship called Canada who can say no.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Is it at
sea?


Henry Alfred Mullins: That is one of our difficulties, making this kind of fool deals and getting us into the mess you have got us in.
While I am on my feet I am going to say a few plain words to the minister. I say to him: Go to the stock yards with some practical man; go out over the west and then go to the old country and see the conditions of the markets. Unless you have live stock on the farms in western Canada or any country, agriculture cannot succeed. This afternoon out at Renfrew, I walked through the best herd of Hereford cattle that I ever saw. That looks like a healthy business, but the minister should go to the stock yards with a practical man, not with a packer, and not with Mr. Todd. I say that because he is the smoothest lobbyist who has been around these quarters for some time. Take some man who has had some practical experience; I will find you plenty of them who will give the time, men who can tell you about bruising hogs. Go to the bacon market and look at the sides of bacon that come out of the cases all bruised, and selling as second grade. My friends ask how it gets to be second grade; go and watch your agricultural students grading these hogs and see them put them through the gates. It is not done by the trucks, it is not the cars, it is these students grading the farmer's hogs. Leave the farmer alone. If you want to put anyone in there get a practical man, one whose life has been forged on the anvil of practical experience, not one of these theorists out of a college. There are too many of them wearing a $10 hat on a $2 head. It is the practical end I want to see put into operation. I have sat here and listened to hon. gentlemen opposite speak on various subjects, but the most important question in this country to-day is the success of the live stock industry. I have given forty years of my life to the removal of the embargo and I am through; we are into the English market. But not a man opposite
would stand up and admit that the channel had been cleared. It took forty years to get cattle back into the English market under the conditions that existed previously; this has been brought about by the efforts of the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Trade and Commerce, but they are not given any credit from the other side of the house. Now females get into the market just as male cattle do; the avenue is clear and the market is available.
I am not going to make very many more contributions to the live stock industry; I fully intended not to speak on the subject again. After having been told in the agriculture committee how the poor old cow has been exploited I have decided that I have been at the wrong end of the cow all these years. If I had been handling milk, probably I would have made as much as a friend from Montreal made. I sold him a few cows once and it was hard work to pay for them, but I heard him tell that committee that his plant is worth over $2,000,000. I know I did a great deal more work for the farmers than he ever did, but I did not get that much for it. I am anxious for the success of the live stock industry; I do not want it to fail, but if you do not go at it in a practical way it will be a failure all the way through. You can get a lesson from a practical Scotchman just west of here. I did not know he was a Scotchman until I asked him; no wonder it is a success. He has 250 of the best white face cattle I have ever looked at. My hon. friend from North Battleford was there, addressed the meeting and then went out in the field with this gentleman and' looked over his herd of cattle. Go to the stock yards and get a few practical men and forget about cooperation. Cooperation is only exploitation; that is what it has been in eveiy market. The farmer has been fooled; they have got him to ship his cattle through that one channel while some fellow draws a big salary and keeps a good fat position for himself.
In this connection, Mr. Chairman, I remember listening to one of the best broadcasts I ever heard with regard to these cooperative schemes we are talking about. This broadcast was by Bob Schuler, an evangelist in Los Angeles, who said, "Labour, you have a perfect right to be organized so long as some man at your head is not leading you for some specific purpose, to get a job in parliament or something else. Farmers, you are the biggest fools that ever went into organization." That is what he said over the radio, and he went on to say, "I am one of you; I have ten acres of walnuts just outside Los
5040	COMMONS
Supply-Agriculture-Live Stock
Angeles, and my wife and I shook hands every year when we sold the walnuts, for which we received $1,600. Then a nice, clever young man, with one of these baby moustaches, came to the door and said we should join up in order to help our brethren get better organization. I went into the organization, and I have never Shaken hands with my wife since. I get $400 a year for my walnuts now; that young man gets $30,000 a year and he does not know walnuts from hickory nuts."
How about your grain pool in the west, which you asked me to help get through? I worked hard to put over that idea, thinking it was a good thing, but what a farce it has turned out to be. Some of the men have not been paid for their 1028 crop yet. The farmers are being drawn into some fool scheme all the time. Leave the markets the way we had them in the old days; throw them open. The Minister of Agriculture can do it by a stroke of the pen. You do not want these close restrictions, surrounded by all kinds of fool policies. Who owns the stock yards in Canada, with the exception of a few privately owned yards in the west, which should be under strict supervision. I would have all the live stock shipped to the stock yards; I would not let them go direct to the packers. At present a truck driver will pick up a farmer's hogs out in the country and take them right to the yard of the packer. What will happen the poor farmer? If you knew some of the packers as well as I know them you would say the farmer would not get any the best of it. Who owns one of the stock yards in Winnipeg? It is owned by the three railroads. We own the Canadian National and the Canadian Northern, and that leaves the Canadian Pacific with only a minority say. The government controls -the majority of the stock in that yard, so why does not the minister throw it open and give us back the system we had in the old days? You could go to -the hay market then and bring back a load of hay for your cattle, but now what do you get? You buy a bale of hay weighing eighty pounds but you pay for a hundred pounds. They ask you to bale it at eighty pounds so it will be easy to lift, but when the poor farmer comes to buy it he pays for a hundred pounds. Look at the bills; they are appalling in comparison with what it cost years ago. It is no wonder the live stock industry is dwindling into insignificance; a man has no chance.
Let -me say here, Mr. Chairman, that unless the railroads put back the freight rates to the level of forty yeans ago, and reduce them by

forty per cent, no man will be able to farm successfully in western Canada, particularly in regard to live stock. When the road was coupled up at Jackfish in 1885 they said to us, "Give us fourteen -cars o-f cattle and we will give you a trainload rate." There was a crew of five on that train and we paid 60J cents a hundred from Winnipeg to Montreal. Today a train consists of seventy-five cars of cattle, but the crew still numbers only five, and the railway companies charge up the increased cost to labour, though it is not labour. They are paying the men a little more money, but they are not -being paid too much. The late James Hill went out through Montana and the Dakotas to make a survey of what was wrong with the farmers in order to see why they were going bankrupt and leaving the land. He came home and cut freight rates in half.
Hon. gentlemen opposite harp about the tariff. They remind me of a Chinese concert I heard in Vancouver; it was played all on one string. Why not be big enough and broad enough to help save the country and the farmers? Why not help meet the situation that exists to-day? The old ship is floundering around in the trough of the sea; why not help guide it safely through? Why play politics all the time? I am surprised at my hon. friend from South Battleford; I never thought he would leave himself wide open by referring to that man Serkau, who has done nothing but exploit the farmers of the west. The Toronto Star fell for it; the headlines said Mr. Bennett should resign. I wonder if hon. gentlemen opposite are big enough now to say that Mr. Bennett was right, if they are broadminded enough to say, "You were right about this man. He had his hands in the treasury of Manitoba and you stopped him from getting hold of the funds in Ottawa." I am proud .that the Prime Minister did that, and I am sorry that my hon. friend from South Battleford should get up and introduce the subject of shipping cattle to Russia under the Serkau scheme. Unless we wake up and do something right now to bring about an improvement in our pure bred sires and to distribute them throughout the country we are going to be faced with very serious competition from Russia, because representatives of that country are in Scotland right now buying all the pure bred sires they can get hold of. They are going -to take those sires back and we are going to face strong competition from them. Let us build up our herds; let us buy more pure breds and distribute them among the farmers so that we can build up the live stock industry of Canada.

Supply-Agriculture-Live Stock
Don't let Russia beat us to it. I assure you, it would be impossible to sell anything but top cattle to the Russians; they know what they are about. I saw some of them in Perth, Scotland, once buying pure breds and 1 would hate to see them come to this country, if that were possible, and take the tops of our cattle, leaving us with the culls. Heaven knows we have enough culls at the present time without getting more. I want us to breed a better grade of cattle in this country. Serkau came to me and made this remark, "You are not too old to go back into business?" I replied, "I don't think I am. What do you mean?" Then he asked me whether I would join him and I said, "No, do you think I would go to the Minister of Trade and Commerce with such a scheme as that? Do you think I would go to the Prime Minister with such a scheme? Why, he would throw me out of his office and he would be justified."
After reading about those cows that came here with Champlain, and having heard how they were exploited, I felt that I ought to say something, and I could not keep still after my hon. friend from South Battleford broke in. I thought I would let him know all about Mr. Serkau.


John Vallance: Our good friend from Marquette has on previous occasions read me a similar lecture on the live stock industry.
I was interested when he suggested that we could not ship cattle to Russia because of the twenty-two day voyage, because I can remember the time when we made a shipment, though a limited one, that took many more days than that in crossing. The hon. gentleman knows his Bible well enough to answer this question: How did Noah manage to keep his cattle all that time on the ark? I think he will agree that we can ship cattle much more easily than horses, and we have shipped horses to Russia on more than one occasion. So that the objection from the point of view of the voyage is not well founded. Let me tell my hon. friend that I am not through with the cattle industry yet, for it happens that I am not as old as he, and naturally I am looking to a somewhat longer future in the business. I can assure him that my interest in the farmer and in the cattle breeder is as great as his own, and it was because of that interest I have in them that I wanted us to ship 100,000 head of cattle. I wanted that done in the interests of the cattle producers. As late as 1921 we were able to ship to the United States five times that number in one year, whereas last year we shipped only 18.000. We have shipped
a few cattle to the old country, but what the industry needs to-day, as proved by the record that was tabled in the house, is a wider market. We need more markets. My chief reason for getting up to-night was to give the minister, and the Prime Minister as well, an opportunity to tell the country why that attitude was taken with regard to the Serkau deal. So far as Serkau is concerned, I knew nothing about him. My hon. friend from Marquette told me privately what he has told the house to-night and through the house the country; he was the one that made me acquainted with the facts. There is nothing in this document tabled in the house that would indicate to me that what he has read to-night is true. In Mr. McDonald especially Mr. Serkau had a real business man who knew the cattle business probably as well as my hon. friend from Marquette.


Henry Alfred Mullins: I admit that we did ship a good many cattle to the United States, but I would ask all practical men in this house this question. What man among them, if it were not for some political reason, would ship a well-bred growing yearling out of the country to be processed in the United States? Certainly I would not do it. If I had a well-bred yearling on my farm I do not think the United States would get it. I have seen calves leaving Winnipeg on their way to the United States, trainloads of cattle starved for two days until they got on the scales under 1,000 pounds. Our cattle industry has been ruined by inexperienced men who have got into the business. We shipped to the United States in 1930, just when this government was coming into office, 35,000 yearlings, well-bred animals; also trainloads of calves leaving the ranches to find their way to Minneapolis. Would not that spell disaster to the cattle trade? Surely any practical man knows that this sort of thing was the ruination of the industry. Some poor chap found himself under the necessity of going to the barn and taking out a yearling which he had to sacrifice for binder twine. My sympathy goes out to that man. That is the type of man I want to help become successful so that he will not have to make such sacrifices. Let me point out that that is not the logical market for yearlings. They do not want your 1,000 pound cattle; they want small cattle. Personally I do not care Where they go after they have passed that weight.
Now, what is the use of fitting up ships to take cattle overseas when with a change of government a high duty is imposed upon them? It simply means the disruption of the

Supply-Agriculture-Live Stock
trade. We were sending constant shipments of cattle to the British market, and receiving in western Canada splendid returns, but a restriction was put on on the other side with the result that our trade was disrupted-the most important industry in the west. I do not regard it as second to wheat, because you cannot grow wheat unless you fertilize the land and you cannot fertilize it without cattle. But I emphasize the fact that the shipping of young cattle is absolutely wrong. I want to see a channel opened up to the British market; I want to see ships fitted up so that our cattle men can obtain a market, shipping their cattle at reasonable rates. More than that, I want to see the railways, which are giving cheap rates to passengers, extend cheap rates to the cattle industry. You can keep UP tlie price of wheat; I am not as much interested in that as in cattle, because eventually you will grow more wheat and have better crops by keeping a good stock of cattle on the farm.
Mr. SPEAIiMAN: Has the minister still in mind the possibility of creating a marketing board at some time? In the part of Canada with which I am familiar, and throughout eastern Canada as well, the farmers' organizations and farmers generally are still very desirous of seeing such a body created. While they do not look to the board to perform miracles, they do look to it as offering the means of bringing some order out of the chaos which now exists in marketing conditions. I hope the minister has not given up the idea.


Henry Alfred Mullins: Let the farmer alone; he is as good a salesman as anybody.


James J. Donnelly: I understand that this company in Winnipeg approached the government to ask for financial backing or a financial guarantee before they made these shipments to Russia or before the deal with Russia was completed. I understand also that when their suggestion was turned down, some little time afterwards they agreed to go on with the deal without any financial guarantee; all they wanted was an assurance of what the regulations would be in the future. I was told by one of the officials of a well known oil company that they had approached the government in connection with this matter. They were willing to finance the deal, buy the cattle and take Russian oil in exchange provided the government would assure them that the regulations would not be changed. They could not get this assurance and for that reason the deal was not put through. I was told this by two officials in the oil company and I should 
like to know the reason why this assurance was not given to Mr. Serkau and the oil company. The same thing happened in connection with the importation of gasoline from Roumania. We found that gasoline could be laid down at Montreal for six cents a gallon but we could not get any assurance from the government as to what the rate of duty would be or whether any dumping duty would be applied. Can the minister give us any reason why this assurance was not given to either one of these companies?


Robert Weir: As far as I am
aware, no such proposition was put up to the government by any oil company. However, granting that it had been put up in the manner the hon. member for Willow Bunch suggests it was, I think, had he been in the place of any member of the government he would have had no hesitation in stating that no government could give an assurance as to what the tariff on any commodity would be in the future. If the government did that for any company or for any individual they would be establishing a precedent and would have to act similarly in the case of all such requests. This would tie the hands of government absolutely.


Edward James Young: A very excellent precedent.


Mr. STEWART (Lethbridge):: Early in
December of last year the press of southern Alberta carried a dispatch stating that a shipment of seventeen carloads of poultry was then between Montreal and Moncton to be shipped to the London market from Saint John. Has the minister any information as to the extent of the poultry shipments last Christmas from Canada to the United Kingdom? Did these Shipments have any beneficial effect upon the local market by eliminating surplus stock, and did the producer in Canada obtain a higher price because of these shipments? What are the prospects for increasing our poultry trade in Great Britain and what percentage of that market can Canada supply? Did we receive any benefits under the Ottawa agreements as far as poultry shipments to Great Britain are concerned?


Robert Weir: In November of
last year the Canadian poultry pool investigated the possibility of obtaining wider markets for poultry. Inquiries were made in the United Kingdom but replies were received to the effect that there was no market there, that the market was glutted. In spite of this information they decided to make a trial shipment. The first- shipment was collected

Supply-Agriculture-Live Stock
in Manitoba from four points just outside of Winnipeg. A number of carloads were got together. Great care was exercised in the method in which this poultry was prepared and shipped and careful records were kept of the temperatures of the shipment when en route both by ship and by rail. An effort was made to determine the best possible manner of making future shipments should this trial shipment prove satisfactory. The Department of Agriculture in cooperation with the Department of Trade and Commerce sent Mr. Brown, the chief of the poultry division along with this shipment. Elaborate and carefully prepared publicity was sent along with Mr. Brown and preparations were made to put our poultry before the public of the United Kingdom in the best possible way. I believe there were thirty-three carloads approximating one million pounds of poultry shipped. This shipment received a very fine reception, exceeding all expectations. The poultry sold in the United Kingdom for prices that return to the producer in Canada from three to four cents per pound more than the domestic price at Winnipeg. No one can say what would have happened to the domestic market had this shipment not been made. Inquiries have already been received for from two to three times as much poultry as we Shipped last year. I want to take this opportunity to express before this committee my personal appreciation of the vision and foresight of the president of the Canadian Cooperative Poultry Pool in undertaking this trial shipment in spite of all discouragement. Other companies were appointed but declined to participate. When I say that the price received returned three cents per pound more than the domestic price it must not be forgotten that the depreciation in their currency at that time reduced the price of our product by from five to six cents per pound. In the case of Shipments this year, the increased value of the pound together with the operations of the stabilization fund will mean a further advantage in price. No person can make an estimate of the amount of poultry that the United Kingdom market can absorb, but there is certainly a prospective demand for Canadian poultry. Under the Ottawa agreements we received a ten per cent preference.


Edward James Young: Did those shippers of poultry know what the rate of duty would be before they shipped?


Robert Weir: There was no duty into the old country.


Edward James Young: They knew that?


Robert Weir: They did know it. There was a preference of ten per cent applying to shipments made after November 15.


Edward James Young: The point I am making is
that they knew what they would have to pay in the form of duty.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: They had no assurance
that it would not be raised.


Robert Weir: There was no duty. Mr. YOUNG: They knew it?


Mr. MacMILLAN:: I understand that some discussion took place in the agriculture committee of the Senate in regard to stock yard charges to farmers. I happen to be a shareholder in a stock yard which I think I can say I was more or less responsible for developing in my own city. It is controlled in Toronto by a bunch of financial racketeers and I know they took thousands of dollars out of the earnings of that yard and developed and extended it further. If my memory serves me aright, last year I received a dividend of 16 per cent, which is not bad. We shareholders can get no infomation. I wrote to the secretary on April 24 asking him for a financial statement and some other questions and he replied on May 12 saying that he had turned my letter over to the president. The president moved1 the office of the company from a downtown office to his own at the stock yards at Toronto and I presume to-day the stock yard at Saskatoon is probably paying a large portion of the rent of his office, stenographer's fees, and so forth, at the stock yard at Toronto. He soaks the Saskatoon stock yard a large sum as president although he has nothing whatever to do; then the other directors of the company who live at Toronto also soak the yard large sums of money. I should like to suggest to the minister that it might be good business in the interests of - stock raisers to hold an investigation into these stock yard charges.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: May I ask the minister, if I am in order in doing so on this item, whether he has any reasons to give me why a tubercular tested area has not been established in the county of Saguenay? I spoke to the minister about this matter last year. It was decided to open up such a zone in the counties of Charlevoix, Saguenay, Rober-val and Chicoutimi, and I was told that zones were established in those districts with the exception of the county of Saguenay.


Robert Weir: I am not sure
whether I caught the hon. member's question
Supply-Agriculture-Live Stock

correctly, but there is part of Saguenay county that is not included in the restricted area.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Why was it not includued?


Robert Weir: No application was made for it. The application is made by the municipalities or, I believe in Quebec, by the parishes through the provincial government, but for part of Saguenay county no application was made.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I am sorry I have to disagree with the minister because I think this area was established1 in 1930. Requests and petitions were signed by the municipalities and the farmers' clubs and sponsored by the provincial government at the same time as similar requests were made on behalf of the people in Chicoutimi and Roberval. I think at the same time as the matter was taken up by the hon. member for Chicoutimi I joined with him in signing the petitions and presenting them to the Department of Agriculture.
I think one of the reasons given to me last year or the year before was that there were not enough men on the staff of the Department of Agriculture to look after this matter in the late spring and the fall, but it would be attended to as soon as it would be possible to do so. The minister may have confused the matter, because that is one of the answers he gave to me before; he told me that as soon as men were available to attend to the tests he would see to it that the tests were made.


Robert Weir: As I stated, I did
not hear the hon. member's question very clearly in the beginning; I thought he was asking why part of Saguenay county was not included. Part of that county was not included because no request came from it. The other parts of the county were included at that time, and no doubt it is this area to *which the hon. member has reference. Every effort will be made to carry on the work in that particular district. We are taking every step possible, I may say-and I am sure this will be appreciated fully by the hon. member to get as many French speaking veterinaries as are available to do the work not only there but in all parts of Quebec where there are French speaking people.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Has the minister at the present time French speaking veterinaries to attend to this work?


Robert Weir: We have a number, but not sufficient to do all the work that there is in Quebec.
	,


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: When does he expect
that this test will be made?
Mr. A\EIR (Melfort):	I could not state
definitely.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Can the minister give the committee any information with respect to the Beatty live stock scheme? I do not know whether it has any connection with the Department of Agriculture, but it received a good deal of advertising when it came into operation a year or so ago.


Robert Weir: That is in no way
connected with the Department of Agriculture and I am not in a position to give information concerning it.


Edward Joseph Garland: Can the minister give a report on the development of the pure bred sire plan which I think he inaugurated himself? It was a plan by which clubs were to be organized in districts throughout the country and when a number organized a club, they were to share a pure bred sire.


Robert Weir: The pure bred sire area policy is a provincial one. The hon. member for Bow River, however, means, I believe, the pure bred sire policy inaugurated by me as head of this department. We have up to the end of March, 1933, some 1,280 pure bred sires, chiefly in districts where it is very difficult for the farmer to get high quality sires. I know of nothing that is more appreciated at the present time by the farmers than that policy. Because of their financial condition it is very difficult, if not impossible for many men who appreciate the value of live stock, especially a soldier settler who is starting in, to purchase such animals, and they value the assistance we have given them. One regrettable feature of the matter, however, is that we have not been able to fill the applications for one strain of sires that is in greatest demand; there are not sufficient animals of the right quality in the country.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Was this policy inaugurated recently by the minister or his department?


Robert Weir: In the fall of 1930.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: How many districts in Quebec, for instance, have taken advantage of this policy so far?


Robert Weir: We have not the exact number, but a large number of bulls have gone into the province of Quebec. In addition, in that province we have another policy that is particularly suited to it. In conjunction with the provincial government we pay a grant of 50 per cent for young bulls of sufficiently

Supply-Pensions
good quality for dairy purposes that are sent out. A very large number of bulls have been sent out under that policy and quite a number under the other one. In 1931, under the policy that I first described, out of 839, 126 went into Quebec and while under the other policy we have not the number, it was very large.


Edward Joseph Garland: Would the
minister, before this part of the subject is disposed of, give us exactly the number of districts served in each of the provinces?


Robert Weir: We have not that exact information here. I 'believe they are very well distributed throughout the whole dominion. Under this policy there are more animals available proportionately in the west than in the east, because in the east we have supplementary policies such as the one I have described for the benefit of the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay.


Edward Joseph Garland: Can the minister give me the figures for Saskatchewan and Alberta?


Robert Weir: I have not that information.


Edward Joseph Garland: Can the minister get it ?


Robert Weir: Yes, and I shall be glad to give it to the hon. member.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Could the minister give us some figures with regard to the grants to owners of sire horses that have been passed by either the dominion or provincial veterin-aries? Can he give the amount the government has paid in grants during the past year and, if possible, by provinces?


Robert Weir: The hon. member asked for that information on the order paper,
. did he not?


Henry Elvins Spencer: No.


Robert Weir: Someone did, and we gave the information. However, I shall be glad to let the hon. member have it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
War veterans' allowances, $1,650,000.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: When
does the minister expect to have functioning the new pensions administration made possible by the legislation of a few days ago?


Hon. MURRAY MacLAREN (Minister of Pensions and National Health):: That has not
been considered yet. It will probably take some little time to get everything straightened out.


Edward Joseph Garland: The other evening I discussed with the minister the condition of veterans on relief in the city of Montreal. The minister's reply was not as complete or as sympathetic as I had hoped. This government went into office on a definite pledge to end unemployment, or to perish in the attempt. Someone has suggested that it did not end unemployment, and that Canada is perishing in the attempt.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: The government will perish, too.


Edward Joseph Garland: 
Frederick George Sanderson: I note in the item
that the total expenditure for the fiscal year 1932-33 was SI.500.000. Could the minister give the committee some information as to how this money was paid out to the different provinces?


Murray MacLaren: While we are looking
up those figures, I shall reply to the hon. member for Bow River. He has said that the amount allowed is too small.


Edward Joseph Garland: Does the
minister think it is adequate?


Murray MacLaren: It is to help people
carry on, and does not necessarily amount to a substantial living, or anything of that kind. As a matter of fact unemployment relief administered through the department is working out reasonably well. I wish that understood. On the whole, under the circumstances of unemployment, poverty and distress, relief as administered is doing reasonably well. That is the report of our officials situated in various parts of Canada. I think we should bear in mind that the intention is to relieve a condition of distress. It is well to remember also that in addition there are earnings which may be made by the individual.


Edward Joseph Garland: Rubbish;
that does not apply to the city of Montreal.


Murray MacLaren: 
Frederick George Sanderson: I am not criticizing it.
Mr. MabLARBN: Well, I do not wish to claim too much for it.


Mr. POWER:: Don't do so; you were not responsible for it.


Murray MacLaren: It is a very well administered part of the departmental work.


Frederick George Sanderson: I quite agree.


Murray MacLaren: It fills a distinct place in the country. Further, there is an increase there of $150,000, and the indications are that for a number of years there will be an increased expenditure, because as time goes on and men get older they qualify for the class.


Charles Gavan Power: When will the peak be
reached?

Supply-Pensions


Murray MacLaren: In seventeen years.


Charles Gavan Power: From the commencement?


Murray MacLaren: That is the estimate. I find that from time to time these estimates do not work out exactly as was expected, but that is the estimate to-day. As to the amounts, I can give them according to districts.
District-	Amount
Montreal		. $118,621 . 95,418
	. 70,806
	. 277,499
	. 82,620
Winnipeg	 Regina	 Calgary.. 			. 129,626 . 71,950 . 102,910 . 267,279
Saint John		. 40,963


Edward Joseph Garland: I wonder if
the minister thinks a man is an agitator who protests against relief which provides him and his family with meals at the rate of five cents apiece. Would the minister not agitate under those conditions? I do not think I have ever been so disgusted in this house in twelve years as I have been to-night when I heard the minister rail at these unfortunate people because they are protesting against such a miserable pittance which does not provide them with enough to keep healthy. I ask the minister to go in person into the homes of these people, study the faces of the children, see the pallor of their countenances due to under-nourishment, and ask himself if he does not think that an officer with wealth who applies for a pension is not a more vicious type of agitator than the man who strives to secure a little better than five cents a meal for himself and his children.
The minister says that the basis upon which this relief is granted is that it is sufficient for civilians. I protest that civilian relief is not adequate, has not been adequate since the beginning of this depression; but to put a soldier on that same basis is gross injustice and inhumanity. The civilian at least has physical fitness, was not subject to the Shocks of war. Here is a case I have under my hand, a man suffering from a gunshot wound in the spine and osteo-myelitis of the left ilium and chronic neurasthenia. Does the minister say that that man is not suffering more than a civilian and is entitled only to the same relief? This condition is intolerable. I do not blame these men for writing letters to this house protesting against such a condition; they would not be Canadians if they did not. It is a wonder to me that they have been so unutterably patient up to this time.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I have listened to what the hon. member for Bow River has said, and I think he is speaking largely of item 198 rather than item 206.


Edward Joseph Garland: I am speaking to the point anyway.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Yes, I agree with you.


Murray MacLaren: That is quite in order.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Yes, I thank the minister. I want to say that under item 198, unemployment relief, we have for 1933-34 $2,600,000, and for last year we had $2,225,000. That is an increase of $375,000 this year. The families for whom I am speaking are families of returned men who cannot get one dollar of relief. I have had one particular letter from my own riding from a man with a family of eight who has had to haul cordwood into North Battleford, forty miles, in order to get enough for his family to live on, and the members of this family-as are many others- are not living as they should; they are simply on the verge of starvation. In this letter to me this man says that it is impossible to get any relief, and they have been practically starving all winter. Because this man has not got his pension established he cannot get a dollar to keep his family from starvation's door. Is there not something that the minister and his department can do in such a case? I think a case such as I have cited is a disgrace to Canada.


Edward Joseph Garland: It is a disgrace to the government. It is not Canada that is responsible; it would do more.


Murray MacLaren: Will the hon. member inform me, is the man to whom he refers a pensioner?


Cameron Ross McIntosh: No; that is the point, the man is not a pensioner, but his family is starving and he cannot get any help.


Murray MacLaren: But that is the answer to the question.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: But is it fair, is it honourable on the part of the government or the country?


Murray MacLaren: This is a vote of parliament for pensioners; that is the point.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I understand-


Murray MacLaren: Pardon me; let me finish. This is for pensioners, and we are not allowed by parliament to pay it to other than pensioners. That disposes of that point.
Supply-Pensions


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Not quite.


Murray MacLaren: \ es, that is an absolute answer. The case is that of a returned soldier in the constituency of North Battleford who requires relief. I do not know what steps he has taken, but I do know that the proper authorities to approach would be the Department of Labour and the provincial government where he resides. It is not for me to say, but I understand that proper provision is made for these cases.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: May I say that this is a returned man who is not living in an unemployment area of Saskatchewan, and the Saskatchewan relief commission is loath to help men in such a situation. Being a returned man he feels that although his pension is not established he should be able to get some relief from this government, but he has found it impossible to do so. I am just asking if there is not some way to remedy a condition of that kind, or must it go on forever?


Murray MacLaren: I think my hon. friend must understand the procedure in connection with unemployment relief in his province; it is carried on by the municipality, with the assistance of the province and the dominion. It is not for me to say about these matters, because they are dealt with in a different way, and I am sure my hon. friend is more familiar with the procedure than I am.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I am too familiar with
the so-called relief procedure in Saskatchewan.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I should
like to say a word or two with regard to the point raised by the hon. member for North Battleford.


An hon. MEMBER :: Is this the new minister?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: No, just one who knows something of what he is talking about.


Murray MacLaren: Is that the distinction?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: If there is
any such idea in the minister's mind I am sure it is unnecessary for me to relieve him of it. The point raised by the hon. member for North Battleford is the subject to which I should like to address myself. The hon. gentleman cites an instance of a returned man in his constituency who cannot get aid from the government out of the vote now under discussion which, as the minister has pointed out, is money voted by parliament not for all exservice men but for those ex-service men suffering from disabilities which have been found pensionable. Clearly, according to the 
statement of the hon. member for North Battleford, the case in question does not come within the purview of the legislation at all.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: The minister explained
that; you have not said anything new yet.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Very often
my hon. friend talks without saying anything new. I am stating the premise, but my hon. friend does not wish me to go further. To continue, the hon. gentleman knows perfectly well that the case he has cited dops not come under this item at all.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: The minister said that
half an hour ago.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: My hon.
friend did not seem to understand it.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I did understand it, but I made an appeal following that.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Then the
hon. member went on and in a tragic appeal to this government asked if something could not be done. If the hon. gentleman knows anything about the system of relief in this country he must know perfectly well that the relief of civilians or soldiers not in receipt of pension is administered by the municipalities, the provinces and the dominion.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I admitted that.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: So instead of appealing to this government in the name of high heaven to do something, let the hon. gentleman get in touch with the authorities in his own constituency; let him bring the matter to their attention and to that of the provincial and federal government. Further I want to add that remarks such as those uttered by the hon. member for North Battleford do not serve bo assist the ex-service men; if anything they merely serve to becloud the issue and stir up discontent throughout the country. They leave the impression with many of these ex-service men that they are entitled to an allowance under this item before us, while as a matter of fact that is not so. If instead of beclouding the issue the hon. member would explain this matter clearly many individuals would be put on the right track.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: The hon. member rose
to explain something, but in his closing remarks he beclouded the whole'issue. He got up to help the minister, but by the time he sat down he was doing his best to destroy him. Let me say, Mr. Chairman, that the

Supply-Trade-Grain Act
political edge my hon. friend tried to put on my remarks does not rightly belong to them at all. I was not trying to make out a political case. If every time my hon. friend talks about returned men he must bring in politics he must not think every other person does so. I repudiate the construction my hon. friend from Winnipeg South Centre has tried to place on the remarks I made. I was merely speaking for a returned man in the constituency of North Battleford who wrote and said that while he was trying to get his pension established his family was practically starving and that he had appealed to the municipality and the province without result. My point was this:	Cannot this government
do anything in such a case? If the government cannot, let it say so. Surely a man can present a case of that kind to parliament and ask the minister in a courteous way if anything can be done without having an hon. gentleman get up and talk about politics when his own remarks are all politically biased, I am just asking the minister-and I think I know the hon. gentleman better than my hon. friend from Winnipeg South Centre knows him-if anything can be done. The minister said nothing could be done. If that is so, all right; I now know what to tell this returned man.


Murray MacLaren: First of all may I point out that this does not fall within my department; the Minister of Labour can inform my hon. friend in this matter, since he administers the Department of Labour. My hon. friend asks if anything can be done, and I say that a great deal can be done, and my hon. friend can so inform his correspondent when he answers his letter. He should inform the gentleman that he must apply to the municipal authorities; that is the first move, because relief is administered by the municipal authorities, the province and the federal government. I ask my hon. friend to do that, and if he does so I do not think there will be any great difficulty.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I am quite willing to do that, but I think it has been done already with no result.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I Should like to make it very clear indeed that the comments we have heard to-night are almost entirely concerned with unemployment relief and have nothing to do with war veterans'
allowances, which we are now discussing. I agree with what the minister has said in regard to the administration of these war veterans' allowances, and I think that is the feeling among all ex-service men in the Dominion of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The Canada Grain Act, including management, operation, maintenance and equipment of elevators, administration of, $2,295,172.20.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Minister
of Trade and Commerce has promised to give me some material illustrative of the advertising he has been doing.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The right hon. gentleman
asked a question with regard to the amounts spent in connection with the advertisement known as Canada Expects, and so on. I have the various amounts in connection with a list of dailies which I will give him if he wishes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I suggest that
my hon. friend put them on Hansard.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I will give the list to
Hansard:
Montreal Gazette	$ 305 76
Toronto Globe	
634	40Toronto Mail and Empire.. ..	582	40Calgary Herald	
246	40Edmonton Journal	
246	40Vancouver Province	
376	32V:ctoria Colonist	
160	16Winnipeg Free Press	
394	24Winnipeg Tribune	
271	04Hamilton Spectator	
283	36Ottawa Citizen	
223	20Ottawa Journal	
223	20Toronto Telegram	
640	64Windsor Border City Star.. ..	264	88Halifax Herald and Mail	332	64London Free Press	
275	00Montreal Herald	
146	40Montreal La Patrie	
244	00Montreal Star	
525	00Quebec Chronicle	
125	00Quebec L'Evenement	
188	16

Another question was asked with regard to the amounts paid in previous years. In 1929-30 the amount was $76,000, in round figures; in 1930-31, $93,000; in 1931-32, $8,000; in 1932-33, $15,000. The statement is extended :



Supply-Trade-Grain Act
Recapitulation of advertising in Canada and elsewhere placed through the Ottawa publicity bureau of the Department of Trade and Commerce
1929-30	1930-31	1931-32	1932-33Daily newspapers	
Weekly newspapers	. .. $26,882 31	$38,895 89	$3,334 52	$7,130 36. .. 7,822 50	40,020 30	Trade publications	. .. 23,656 30	10,242 76	2,984 7i	1,625 66Financial papers	. .. 4,254 40	1,712 97	105 00	175 00Magazines	. .. 8,328 80	1,311 45	105 00	Foreign publications	. .. 4,935 00	251 74	369 26	3,748 04Miscellaneous publications	. .. 525 00	874 80	1,102 62	2,535 00Total advertising	.. . $76,403 31	*$93,309 91	$8,001 10	$15,213 40Produced in Canada campaign which was stopped August, 1930	
$ 1,289 14J. J. Gibbon contract, October 22, 1930	
92,020 77Total	
$93,309 91


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What about the weeklies?


Ernest Lapointe: Did anyone ask for tlhis?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What about the weeklies?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have somewhere a statement with regard to them. I think the question has been pretty fully answered, unless my right hon. friend insists.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If the minister will give to Hansard a statement with regard to the weeklies that will do.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I will try to do that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I lent the
minister the advertisement. Will he be good enough to give it back to me?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Certainly. It is suoh a good one, I should like the right hon. gentleman to preserve it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, I want to use it.


Mr. GARDINER:: Last fall when the house was in session the minister brought in a bill to amend the Canada Grain Act, to permit the 'Board of Grain Commissioners to make a change in the rates. Under that legislation I 'understand that the hoard changed the rate for storage from one-thirtieth to one forty-fifth of a cent per bushel. I have received communications asking whether it is possible for the board to reduce the spread between the Winnipeg price and the price paid the producer. Generally speaking, the freight rate in the west from many points in Manitoba and in eastern Saskatchewan is something like fifteen cents per bushel. The elevator com-
panies make a reduction from the Winnipeg price of twenty, twenty-one or twenty-two cents per bushel, giving the difference between the fifteen cenits and that twenty, twenty-one or twenty-two cents. May I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether in his judgment the Board of Grain Commissioners under the present legislation have any means of dosing up that spread to some extent? There is a complaint in the west at the present time in that regard in view oif the low price of grain.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The answer to the first part of the question is that the Board of Grain Commissioners, under their powers extended by the grain act, and as is their duty, from year to year fix storage elevator rates. Last year they fixed one forty-fifth of a cent instead of one-thirtieth as a fair rate, but organizations, both cooperative and private, have represented that that reduction was not warranted and is improvident. The whole question will be considered by the board in July before the rate is fixed for next year, and a full hearing will be given. As regards the other part of the question, including the question of freight rates, all I can say is that the board has jurisdiction only in so far as eievator handling charges are concerned, and to the extent that they have jurisdiction they intend, as I learned talking to the chairman a few days ago, to give the whole matter careful consideration. All who desire to be heard will be heard before the rates for the next crop year are fixed.


William Gilbert Weir: The matter
which I am going to bring up now has been discussed in previous sessions, namely, the situation with respect to growers of durum wheat who delivered wheat to the Manitoba pool during the crop year 1930-31. I do not

Supply-Trade-Archives
wish to delay the 'house to-night, although it is causing considerable concern in a certain section of Manitoba; and I would not have brought it up had it not been that there was forwarded to me a letter in which the delegation representing the durum wheat growers of Manitoba apparently waited on the Minister of Trade and Commerce last fall. I presume he fully understands the situation. In the closing words of this communication they say:
Mr. Stevens was very interested in knowing what Mr. Bennett had said to us in the two interviews we had with him. We explained that he had asked us to wait for a while and give them time to sell all the balance of the wheat they were holding. Mr. Stevens told us that he sympathized with us very much but that he was in no position at present to make any promises. He promised that he would read our original letter to Mr. Bennett and also your resolution and that he would go into the matter as fully as he could with Mr. Bennett.
I want to ask the minister what answer he gave this committee when the occasion arose, and if he has not yet given an answer, what answer he is in a position to give.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The answer must be that which has already been given. What I said to them, and what I think all who have given consideration to the matter have also said, is that one sympathizes very much with the view taken by these producers of durum wheat. But their claim is against the pool in which they participated; there is no question about that. The Prime Minister is alleged to have said, as indicated by my hon. friend, that when the selling agency completed its sale of all holdings then possible, there would be some thing out of which the pool would be able to further compensate these growers, and that position still stands.


William Gilbert Weir: That is all very well, but I do not think it will satisfy these people, who in the first place contracted to deliver wheat to the Manitoba wheat pool, which was to turn it over to the central selling agency. Durum wheat at that time was selling slightly under common wheat, and the initial payment established for durum wheat was considerably below common wheat. Durum wheat that year, however, was all sold at a price considerably above common wheat-


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is quite right.


William Gilbert Weir: -and from a rought estimate I gather 'that it brought in about $500,000 more than was actually paid over to the grower. If it was dealt with on the same basis there would be roughly about 53719-319^
$200,000 coming to these people. I think the growers have a good claim to an adjustment, particularly with respect to the difference in the initial payments when the wheat was originally taken in. It is true that these farmers were contracted to deliver their wheat to the Manitoba pool, but a general change was made and Mr. McFarland was put in charge and the responsibility is now on the Dominion government. No accounting has been made of how this business has been handled and these people do not know exactly what is coming to them. Any figures presented are merely estimates and Mr. McFarland has given no real accounting. During the past two years I have taken up this matter on different occasions. I do not want to delay the proceedings at this late stage but I think this is of sufficient importance to be looked into and some action taken. This particular area in Manitoba where durum wheat is grown has been particularly hard hit during the past two years. The growers have suffered from causes other than not getting the full amount for their wheat, and I ask the minister to adjust this discrimination at the first opportunity.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Civil Government-Public Archives-salaries- to provide for the continuance in office of J. B.
, Noble, senior bookbinder, from April 1, 1933, to March 31, 1934, $1.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: What is the explanation of this item?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Tins item really comes
under the Department of the Secretary of State but I think I can explain it. This gentleman is over the age of seventy-five years and is a highly skilled bookbinder now engaged upon the fine tool work necessary in the embossing of the Book of Remembrance. The one dollar is for the purpose of legislating this man on for another year, the money for his salary being provided in the main estimates.
Mr. 10UNG:	Is that subject to the ten
per cent deduction?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Public buildings-Ontario-^Windsor-government s share of cost of local improvements, $1,950.
Mr. MITCHELL:: I received a letter a
few days ago in connection with the employees engaged on the bridge at Burlington canal. I understand that arrangements were made to put these men on an eight hour day
Supply-Public Works

but for some reason or other this has not been done. This bridge is on one of the most travelled highways in the province and the operators are forced to work twelve hours a day for seven days a week. In view of the fact that there is considerable traffic over this bridge and also because of the amount of unemployment, I think this would be an opportune time to put these men on an eight hour basis. I think we are long past the stage where government employees should be asked to work such long hours. I know something of the conditions which obtain on this bridge because I have passed over it many times. I would like the minister to take this matter under advisement and consider the introducing of an eight hour day in the near future.


Hoa. H. A. STEWART (Minister of Public Works):: I have also received representations in the same direction and the matter will be taken up with the treasury board or the council with a view to ascertaining whether under the circumstances we can meet the requests.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Harbours and rivers-Nova Scotia-Broad Cove Marsh-breakwater-wharf replacement, $13,400.	.
Cow Bay (Port Morien)-breakwater replacement, $19,000.
Dingwall-dredging, $39,000.
Grand Desert-harbour protection and repairs *-further amount required, $2,700.
Hantsport-to complete siding to wharf, $9,500.
Harbours and rivers generally-for maintenance of services, no new works to be undertaken-further amount required, $75,000.
Little Judique harbour-breakwater extension, $1,900.
Liverpool-dredging, $35,000.
Malagash-mooring pier, $1,600.
Port Hood island-extension of shore protection, $2,500.
South Bar (Sydney harbour)-extensions, improvements, $3,500-Total, $203,100.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: This is a very large item. Is it due to repairs made necessary by high seas, or does the government expect a provincial election?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am not surprised at my right hon. friend asking that question, and at first blush that inference could be drawn. I may say to my right hon. friend, if my colleague will permit me-


Hugh Alexander Stewart: You know more about it than I do.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Last year we had the greatest storm in the memory of the oldest living inhabitant of the province of Nova Scotia. This storm washed away many wharfs and did much damage to entrances to harbours.

This damage was the greatest ever known. Take the item of Liverpool, dredging. The total output of the Mersey Paper Company is shipped to New York, all from this harbour. This company has a specially constructed vessel but at the moment it is unable to load to its full depth because of the amount of sediment swept into the harbour by this storm. The item for dredging at Dingwall arises through an arrangement made with a company which is opening up a gypsum quarry to supply a market already in existence. The arrangement is that this company will file a bond and agree to expend a certain amount of money. This vote will not be expended unless the bond and proper securities are filed. The item of S75.000 arises solely because of the circumstances I have indicated-


Charles A. Stewart: I thought these harbours were all closed five years ago because of a storm at that time.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: They have had two very bad storms down there in the last few years.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
New Brunswick
[Stage Direction]
Oampbellton-cribwork block. $2,000.
Dipper Harbour-dredging. $8,000.
Harshman's Brook-harbour improvements, $3.000-Total. $13,000.
Mr. TOTZKE:: What counties are these works in?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The Campbell-ton item is to construct a cribwork at the Campbellton ferry to facilitate the ferry service between Campbellton and Cross Point in Restigouche and Madawaska county.


Albert Frederick Totzke: In what counties are the other two works?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Dipper harbour is in Saint John-Albert. This is to provide for dredging an area inside the breakwater to a depth of five feet at low water.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Quebec
Montmagny-extension to protection wall, $16,800.
Notre Dame de Pierreville-protection work, $19,000.
Riviere St. Pierre-contribution towards dredging, the provincial government having contributed a like amount, $3,000.
St. Andrews-wharf, $3,300-Total, $42,100.
Albert Frederick Totzke: What counties are these in?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: This work at Montmagny is requested by the municipal

Supply-Fisheries
council of that place. It is in the constituency of Montmagny.


Mr. BERTRAND:: What about Notre Dame de Pierreville?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It is in Yamaska.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Dredging - maritime provinces - further amount required, $12,000.
Dredging - Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta-further amount required, $17,000-Total, $29,000.
John Vallance: I notice there is an item for dredging in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. Where is the dredging in Saskatchewan? Is it in Mackenzie?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It is in lake
Winnipegosis.
Mr. MoINTOSH: That is not in Saskatchewan.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Those provinces have been grouped together in this one vote. This particular dredging is in lake Winnipegosis.


John Vallance: If it is in Manitoba, why charge it up to Saskatchewan? Is there no dredging in Saskatchewan?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That has been the heading of the vote for many years just as I found it when I came in.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Mail subsidies and steamship subventions- additional amount required to provide for ocean service subsidies, and to assist the shipment of live stock to the United Kingdom, $70,000.
Alan Webster Neill: Might I ask the particulars
of this vote?


Henry Herbert Stevens: This item, as I intimated the other night, provides for $25,000 additional to the Canadian-Australian-New Zealand mail subsidy to make up the present subsidy to what actually the mail would cost, which cost, on investigation, we found would be roughly $95,000. There is an item in the appropriation for continuance of the Canada-Ohina service for the balance of the year. The amount in the main estimates would carry it only until the end of September. Then there is an item for assisting in the [DOT]movement of live stock to the British market.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is this to help carry out the United Kingdom-Canada agreement?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, to help out the Canadian live stock exporter.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Could the minister give further particulars of that? How is the assistance given with regard to moving live stock?


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is a small contribution towards fitting up some of the ships.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
To assist in the conservation and development of the deep-sea fisheries and the demand for fish-further amount required, $10,000.
James Layton Ralston: Will the minister please explain this item?


Hon. ALFRED DURANLEAU (Acting Minister of Fisheries):: The estimates of last year had been cut down by practically one-half in the main estimates which were voted a few days ago. We had taken into consideration the expenses made during the last fiscal year prior to t'he time the estimates were brought before the house. Since the estimates were voted by the house, we received further claims which increased our expenses of last year, so we think we shall be short this year by about $10,000 if this further amount is not voted.


James Layton Ralston: Is this for advertising, or what is it for?


Alfred Duranleau: I do not remember exactly, but I am sure it is because the main estimate was cut by one-half.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, and that was too large.


James Layton Ralston: I should like to know whether this was for teaching the housewife how to cook fish, or whether it was for advertising or for freight or express subventions, or what in connection with the encouragement of t'he conservation of fisheries If the minister does not recollect, I am not going to press the question now.


Alfred Duranleau: I have not my main estimates before me this evening. I did not think this matter would come up to-night, but I can supply the information.


James Layton Ralston: I shall bring just one point to the minister's attention. I shall not ask him for an answer to-night, but I would like him to consider the matter. I refer to the lobster industry. The matter has been men-
Supply-Labour-Combines

tioned to me more than once by those who are engaged in this industry and it is this: The possibility of establishing some fund-and it would not be a large one-for buying from the fishermen large female lobsters so that they may be returned to the water and thus the bed be not depleted. I shall mention a fund that will be available for that purpose.


Alfred Duranleau: If the expense is not too large, we may have something available for it.


James Layton Ralston: There is two years' interest on the Halifax award that has never been paid. It is referred to in the report of the Maclean commission. There is a recommendation that the money should be expended for the benefit of the fishermen. A portion of it could be used with excellent results in connection with the conservation of the lobster fisheries. Will the minister take the matter into consideration?


Alfred Duranleau: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Labour-Combines Investigation Act-further amount required, $18,000.
Henry Elvins Spencer: Could the minister give
us the cost of the coal inquiry which has just been made?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have not the details before me, but my understanding is that there nave been a large number of investigations and the expense involved has exhausted the appropriation in the main estimates.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Can the minister give me the cost of the recent coal inquiry?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I can secure that information from the Minister of Labour later, but I do not have it before me now.


Edward Joseph Garland: I would
like to ask the government, all of them that are now present: In the event of Quebec failing to take action on the report of the inquiry into the coal situation, will this government take action?


George Halsey Perley: I may say to
the hon. gentleman that the matter will be thoroughly considered.


Edward Joseph Garland: I would
have preferred that the minister had said no; that under the law the action must be taken by the province of Quebec. I want to submit this to the government: If they have found out something that should be corrected, the 
best way to have it remedied is to disclose it. Until public opinion is created governments of all stripes are reluctant to act; they prefer to take the quiet attitude of hush, hush. They have done that continually in the past. When the great scandals in connection with brokerage firms of eastern Canada became known, you could not get the attorney general of Ontario to act, you could not get the attorney general of the province of Quebec to act. It was not until the province of Alberta took the bit in its teeth and ran away with the whole business of prosecuting Solloway and Mills, thereby showing the public the scandalous condition of *affairs, that the other provinces were compelled to act by virtue of the development of public opinion. In this case, too, I venture to predict that, until .public opinion is aroused the province of Quebec will not act. I urge upon this government the publication of the report at the earliest possible moment.


Edward James Young: I draw the attention of the government to the fact that the idea seems to prevail in some quarters that the thing to do after an investigation is to prosecute. Actually the people are not interested in prosecutions, but they are interested in cheaper coal. Will the government take any action along that line?


Humphrey Mitchell: It would seem that the only people who do not know anything about the coal inquiry are the members of the House of Commons. We saw striking headlines in the Toronto Globe and in the Mail and Empire. I believe the publicity in connection with the report should first have come to the House of Commons. The man who wrote the newspaper articles must have received information from somewhere. I am in entire agreement with the hon. member for Bow River. After all is said and done, sunlight is good for the health of the human being, and sunlight in connection with the coal investigation would be a good thing for the Canadian people.


Edward Joseph Garland: The people are entitled to it.


Humphrey Mitchell: Members of this house and the people throughout the country are entitled to the information contained in the report, no matter who may be implicated, or the positions such people may occupy in the life of the country. There is no doubt that the evidence should be laid on the table forthwith.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Supply-Miscellaneous
To assist tourist traffic, salaries and retiring allowances of the former national development bureau, $30,000.
John Vallance: How does the government propose to assist tourist traffic and take care of salaries and retiring allowances with only $30,000?


Mr. MURPHY:: Mr. Chairman, a branch of the Department of the Interior known as the national development bureau has for a number of years been carrying on a work, part of which was the development of tourist travel. That work is to be continued in the Department of the Interior, and this amount will provide the necessary funds.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Loan to the Chicoutimi harbour commissioners for the construction of harbour improvements and facilities, additional to the amount authorized by the Chicoutimi Harbour Loan Act, 1931, and to be subject to the provisions of the said act, $332,100.
Edward Joseph Garland: I have
always thought it a mistake on the part of this government to have opened the Chicoutimi harbour commission.


Alfred Duranleau: Not this government.


Edward Joseph Garland: The previous government. I should say. I was at that time, and still am, convinced that almost the entire expenditure of the commission is for the benefit of the aluminum company located at Chicoutimi, which is part of the Andrew Mellon outfit of the United States, and part of the great aluminum combine. Advantage to the people generally in that district does not enter into the picture at all. The port is used principally by the aluminum company. I should like to know why this additional amount is being voted1 in the supplementary estimates, and what it is for.


Alfred Duranleau: When we came into
power we were faced with a contract which had been awarded for the construction of a pier, and some improvements in the harbour of Chicoutimi. This amount is to take care of the expenses made necessary partly to complete the works which had been undertaken by the previous government.


Edward Joseph Garland: What is
the total amount of money expended up to this time, and the total amount expected to be required for the completion of the work?


Alfred Duranleau: I have not the exact figure here, but I believe the amount expended up to date is about $3,000,000.


Edward Joseph Garland: How much is required?


Alfred Duranleau: To complete the
works, including trackage and some small sheds, it will require a further amount of about three or four thousand dollars.


Robert Gardiner: Over and above this
amount?


Alfred Duranleau: Yes.


Robert Gardiner: What is the amount
of the contract?


Alfred Duranleau: I have not that information before me, but altogether it was about $2,700,000.


Robert Gardiner: Will this amount complete the work?


Alfred Duranleau: This amount is over
and above the amount of the contract because, when I say "the contract" I must say that when we came into power we were faced even with verbal contracts for large amounts.


Robert Gardiner: Verbal?


Edward Joseph Garland: With verbal contracts?


Alfred Duranleau: Yes, for work which
had been started at that time.


Edward Joseph Garland: What is a verbal contract?


Alfred Duranleau: My hon. friend knows.


Edward Joseph Garland: I never
heard of such a thing before; I never heard of public money being spent on verbal contracts.


Alfred Duranleau: I was faced with that situation, and works were under construction.


Edward Joseph Garland: Does the minister tell us that someone went to him and said, "I have a contract for so much"?


Alfred Duranleau: Yes.


Edward Joseph Garland: And he
paid the money out?


Alfred Duranleau: Yes, and the Liberal government-


Edward Joseph Garland: This is
scandalous. If that is the way money is being expended it is time this government went out of office.


Alfred Duranleau: We were faced with
such things when we came into power, and we had to complete the work.
Supply-Miscellaneous


Robert Gardiner: Does the minister mean to say verbal contracts had been entered into and works were being proceeded with when he came into power, and that he had to pay the money because the contract had been proceeded with?


Alfred Duranleau: Yes.


Robert Gardiner: We had better let this item stand until we have further information. This is too serious.


Alfred Duranleau: Yes, but that is how the matter stood when we came into power; that is the situation.


Robert Gardiner: The minister should
give the information to the committee. That is scandalous.


Ernest Lapointe: I would advise the
minister to bring his documents with him.


Edward Joseph Garland: Documents of a verbal contract?


Robert Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, you
will understand that we wish item 332 to stand.
Item stands.
Further amount to complete balance of payment for restoration of Saint John harbour, after the fire of 1931, including engineering and other services, not exceeding $50,000.


Edward Joseph Garland: Let us have an explanation of this item. This is another fairly substantial sum; what is it for?


Alfred Duranleau: I think the item is
well detailed in the estimate.


Robert Gardiner: Is this the one for the harbour commission?


Alfred Duranleau: Yes. As a matter of fact the work of reconstruction was done at very low cost, and this is the amount required for completion.


Robert Gardiner: Is this a loan to the harbour commission, and will interest be charged on it the same as on other loans to harbour commissions?


Alfred Duranleau: No, this will not be h loan to the commission.


Robert Gardiner: Under whose jurisdiction was this money spent?


Alfred Duranleau: This amount was spent under our own jurisdiction.


Robert Gardiner: Any particular reason for that?


Alfred Duranleau: Yes, we had some of our own employees supervise the work and

we had the engineering under our control. I can say to this committee that we have saved a large amount of money on that construction.


Frederick George Sanderson: How much?


Alfred Duranleau: Many thousands of dollars.


Ernest Lapointe: Was that under contract?


Alfred Duranleau: It was cost plus four per cent, and the purpose was to control the whole thing, the engineering and the finances.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Who had the contract?


Alfred Duranleau: Two firms had the contract, the Northern Construction company for a certain part of the works, and the Foundation Company, Limited, for the other part, at cost plus four per cent.


Robert Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, I do not quite understand the situation that has developed at Saint John, in view of the fact that they have a harbour commission there to look after all the harbour work. The explanation that the minister has given is not clear to me as to the reason why the department went over the head of the harbour commission to construct certain works, or to even to supervise works being constructed. Is it usual for the department to do that where you have a harbour commission looking after the harbour works?


Alfred Duranleau: It was unusual; it was due to the fact that as the committee knows a large fire had taken place there and we had to rebuild the whole thing within, I think, four months. As a matter of fact the whole construction was practically completed by the first of December, when the season of navigation opened. That is the reason the department came to the rescue of the harbour com-fnission. I think anyone who would go there and see the work that has been done for the *money expended will say that the job was done very cheaply.


James Malcolm: Item 332, which the minister allowed to stand, was, he said, an inheritance from the previous government. I want to point out that the loan to the Chicoutimi 'harbour commission, described in this item, was authorized by the Chicoutimi Harbour Loan Act of 1931.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: We are coming back to that item.


James Malcolm: When the Minister of Marine brings down his papers to-morrow I would like him to note that the very money

Privilege-Mr. Gobeil
he is asking for is under the Chicoutimi Harbour Loan Act which did not come into force until 1931.


George Halsey Perley: That item stands.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Mr. Chairman, I draw your attention to the fact that it is after eleven o'clock.


James Malcolm: Let us go on by unanimous consent.


George Halsey Perley: As the hon. gentleman has called attention to the time, I move that the committee rise and report progress.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At 11.07 o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Tuesday, May 16, 1933