1935-02-07

QUESTIONS

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

Mr. SPENCER:: 1.	What were the total applications for loans made to the farm loan board up to December 31, 1934, or nearest date available?
2.	How many loans were granted to the above tame?
3.	What was the aggregate amount of these loans so granted?
4.	What is the total farm mortgage indebtedness in Canada?


Mr. CAHAN:: 1.	Number of applications received up to March 31, 1934, 17,985.
2.	Number of applications approved for loans up to March 31, 1934, 5,117.
3.	Amount of loans approved to March 31, 1934, $10,692,250.
4.	The total farm mortgage indebtedness in Canada as at June 1, 1931, was $726,026,500, as reported by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics.


RELIEF CAMP NO. 3-SEEBE, ALTA.
Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: 1.	What provisions are made in relief camp No. 3, project 155, Seebe, for purposes of personal bathing and the washing of clothes?
2.	What is the nature of the water supply at this camp?
3.	Are the men in this camp called to work when the temperature has been 20 below zero?
4. Had there been complaints that clothes hung close to the wall are sometimes found frozen to the wall when morning comes?
5.	What arrangements are made to receive and deal with complaints by the men, either in their own behalf or that of others?
6.	Have men been ejected from this camp for having registered complaints?
7.	When men are dismissed from this camp are some of the clothes they have been using taken from them?
8.	Are men who have been ejected from one camp refused entrance into any other camp?


Mr. BENNETT:: 1.	Accommodation is temporarily being provided by using two contractors' tents, one for ablution and the other for laundry purposes, containing ablution basins, twelve wash tubs, one hand washing machine and two vacuum washers. Regular ablution hut now erected and fittings being installed.
2.	At present hauled from spring by team in forty-five gallon drums. Gravity system from spring 1,000 feet away under construction.
3.	Yes, cutting fire wood.
4.	No complaints received; but during cold spell inside walls of all huts were very cold.
5.	Any man has the right to lay complaints before foreman, assistant engineer, or any official and, if not satisfied, the matter is referred to headquarters, military district No. 13, Calgary.
6.	No.
7.	Men leaving camp are allowed to retain essential articles of clothing on loan.

Questions as Orders jor Returns
8.	Yes, unless the district officer commanding is satisfied that there is reasonable probability of their behaving properly in future.


FLOUR IMPORTS
Mr. REID:: 1.	What quantities of flour were imported into Canada during the calendar year 1934?
2.	What were the various quantities from each country?


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: 1.	Canada's total quantity of wheat flour imported during the calendar year 1934 amounted to 178,175 barrels.
2.	Canada's total quantities of wheat flour imported from various countries, during the calendar year 1934, were:-
Imports from	Barrels
United Kingdom	 105,431
United States	 3,338
Alaska	 1
Australia	 69,380
Hong Kong	 25


MARKETING ACT, BRITISH COLUMBIA
Mr. NEILL:: 1.	In British Columbia, how many schemes
have been proposed under the Natural Products Marketing Act?	.
2.	What is the information as to each in the following particulars: (a) name; (b) present standing-whether sanctioned by the dominion marketing board, or application pending; (c) head office address; (d) names of proposed members of the local board; (e) proposed salaries to be paid such members?


Mr. WEIR (Melfort):: 1.	Nine, received by the Minister of Agriculture.
2.	(a) 1. British Columbia tree fruit marketing scheme.
2.	British Columbia salt fish marketing scheme.
3.	British Columbia red cedar shingle
export scheme.
4.	Milk marketing scheme of the lower
mainland of British Columbia.
5.	Western halibut marketing scheme.
6.	British Columbia (interior) vegetable scheme.
7.	British Columbia coast growers'
vegetable marketing scheme. *
8.	Doors manufactured in British
Columbia.
9.	British Columbia sheep and sheep
products.
Note: Fruit export marketing scheme for
Canada is applicable to British Columbia.

(b)	1, approved; 2, approved; 3, approved; 4, approved; 5, under consideration; 6, under consideration; 7, under consideration; 8, returned; 9, returned.
(c)	1. Kelowna, B.C.; 2, Vancouver, B.C.;
3,	Vancouver, B.C.; 4, Vancouver, B.C.; 5, Prince Rupert, B.C.;	6,
Kelowna, B.C.; 7, Vancouver, B.C.; 8, Vancouver, B.C.; 9, No information.
(d)	1. W. E. Haskins; O. W. Hembling;
G. A. Barrat.
2.	Hugh Dalton; K. Kimura; T. Matsuyama; R. Nelson, F. E. Burke.
3.	British. Columbia Red Cedar
Shingle Export Assoc. (Agency).
4.	Hugh Davidson; W. T. McArthur;
Wm. J. Park.
5.	Geo. Fritz; D. Ritchie; Geo. Anderson; E. Greenstrand.
6.	T. W'ilkinson; F. W. Hack; R. B.
Homersham.
7.	Arthur Swenson; A. H. Peterson;
Joseph Maxwell.
8.	Names not given in scheme.
9.	No information.
(e)	1. $250 per month.
2.	Chairman-$3,600 per year.
3.	Salaries not given in scheme.
4.	Salaries not given in scheme.
5.	No salary authorized under scheme.
6.	To be fixed by growers' delegates.
7.	No salary authorized under scheme.
8.	No information.
9.	No information.	.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. JEAN:: 1.	Are there any accurate statistics as to the number of unemployed in Canada?
2.	Who compiles such statistics?
3.	In what manner are these statistics compiled?
4.	On what sources of information are the statistics based?
5.	What was the number of unemployed in Canada on December 31, 1934, or at the earliest possible date?
6.	What was the number of unemployed, by province, at the same date?
7.	What is the total number of dependents of those unemployed?


PICTOU, N.S. WHARF LUMBER PURCHASED
Mr. BRASSET:: 1.	Has a certain quantity of lumber been sent from Pictou, Nova Scotia, to the Magdalen islands for wharf construction?
2.	If so, what quantity has been purchased and how much has been forwarded?

International Labour Office
3.	From whom was this lumber purchased and were tenders called for the purchase of same?
4.	What price was paid for this lumber?
HORNBY SETTLEMENT PLAN On the orders of the day:


Mr. JOHN VALLANCE (South Battle-ford) :: Mr. Speaker, on January 24 I directed
a question to the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Gordon). He was not in the house, and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) promised to direct his attention to the question. I should like to repeat the question, in order to give the minister a chance to answer it or at least give us some information in regard to it. Will the minister lay on the table of the house copies of the scheme for local settlement under the Hornby plan in the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta?


Hon. W. A. GORDON (Minister of Immigration and Colonization):: Mr Speaker,
I have delayed answering the question because the plan of General Hornby, which I believe has been discussed by him with certain counties and probably with many individuals, never has been outlined1 in complete form to the department, I have written General Hornby, or had my officers write him, in the hope that he will outline to me the complete details of the scheme he has in mind. I have heard a good deal about it, but not being in possession of the complete plan he has in mind I thought it desirable to wait until he answered by communication. Then I will speak to the matter again.
INTERNATIONAL LABOUR OFFICE On the orders of the day:


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago the
hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) inquired with respect to Canada's permanent seat on the international labour organization, and I promised1 to give the answer as soon as I had the information. With the permission of the house I would like to read a short statement.
Part 13 of the treaty of Versailles, which established the international labour organization, provided that its governing body should
consist of representatives (a) of member states; (b) of employers' organizations, and (c) of workers' organizations. The States represented on the governing body were to be the eight states of chief industrial importance among the members of the international 92582-36
labour organization, who were to have permanent seats on the body, plus a number of states, first four and now eight, elected by the international labour conference for a three year term.
The question of determining which were the eight states of chief industrial importance presented difficulties from the inception of the organization. The first provisional list prepared in 1919 was challenged by a number of governments which thought they should be included in the first eight. It was not then known whether Germany and the United States would become members of the organization, and it was thought inexpedient to proceed to the establishment of a list which, everyone recognized, would require reconsideration if either of these great industrial states joined the international labour organization. Subsequently Germany decided to join the or ganization in 1920, but the United States deferred its application to enter until the summer of 1934.
In 1922 the council of the league to which the question had been referred decided that the eight members of the international labour organization should be Germany, Belgium, Canada, France, Great Britain, India, Italy and Japan. This list was prepared on the basis of seven criteria, namely:
(1)	total industrial population (in the strict sense of the term) including the mining and transport industries;
(2)	the proportion which the industrial population bears to the whole population;
(3)	total horse-power (steam and water power), not including locomotives and vessels;
(4)	Horse power per head of population.
(5)	Total length of railways;
(6)	Length of railways per thousand square kilometres of territory;
(7)	Development of the mercantile marine.
The list thus established has been in effect
since 1922. Last year, however, the entry of Russia into the League of Nations, which involved its accession to the international labour organization and the decision of the United States of America to adhere to the international labour organization, created a new situation which was further complicated by the withdrawal of Germany from the league and the international labour organization-subject to two years' notice of denunciation-which will elapse in November, 1935. It was clear to everyone concerned that this new situation would require the preparation of a new list of the eight members of chief industrial importance.

Russian Timber

It was the view of the Canadian government that the determination of the eight states of chief industrial importance was, in the first instance, the function of the international labour conference-a body on which all members of the organization are represented-and which appoints three-quarters of the governing body, and that, consequently, the governing body itself was not warranted in assuming that function. From a careful study of the treaty and of the decisions affecting its interpretation we were led to the conclusion that whatever authority was competent to determine the list of eight states, this list should only be revised when the three-year term of the elected members of the governing body had expired. Finally, the question arose as to the criteria to be adopted.
These problems, primarily of a legal and constitutional nature arising out of the interpretation of the relevant parts of the treaty of Versailles and of the opinions expressed on earlier occasions in the council of the League of Nations, have been the subject of careful consideration by the government. They were discussed with representatives of the international labour organization in Geneva by the Canadian delegation to the last assembly of the league. We have since kept in close touch with the discussions which preceded the last meeting of the governing body, at which it was decided to revise the list of eight states of chief industrial importance, and bring the revised list into force at the first opportunity. Our concern in these discussions has been to see that the international labour organization remained constant to its constitution as it was laid down by the labour articles of the treaty and has been interpreted by the competent authorities established for that purpose.
The legal and constitutional questions raised in the course of the consideration of this question are of importance to the smooth functioning of the international labour organization. and the government are considering the advisability of requesting that steps be taken to clarify and place on a definite and unmistakable basis the procedure to be followed in determining at what periods and in what manner the list of eight states should be revised in future.
At the session of the governing body which ended on January 31, the governing body adopted a revised list of eight countries of chief industrial importance, namely the United States, Great Britain, Germany, France, India, Russia, Italy and Japan, and voted unanimously to accord Canada and Belgium

seats on the governing body as deputy members until 1937. This solution of a difficult question has the great merit of securing the close cooperation and responsibility of the United States in the work of an organization with which Canada has been associated from the beginning and to which it is the policy of this government to give unwavering support. Nevertheless the constitutional administrative question cannot be said to be satisfactorily settled.
The correspondence that passed between the government and our representative at Geneva I regret to say I will not table because in the past it has never been the practice to table communications of that character, as they have been held to be confidential communications between a government and its representative.



BRITISH IMPORTS OF RUSSIAN TIMBER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, last evening the junior member for Ottawa (Mr. Ahearn) directed the attention of the house to a report in a newspaper respecting trade arrangements made between Timber Distributors Limited of Great Britain and the Soviet Union. I observe he placed upon the record a clipping from the newspaper which reads:
Deal concluded between Great Britain and Soviet. Canada to lose lumber trade. Fifty per cent of Canadian export to Britain in 1935 threatened.
It is difficult to understand just why any newspaper should make any statement of the kind which is not borne out by the article in question. No deal or contract has been made between Great Britain and the Soviet Union. Timber Distributors Limited is a joint stock company operated, as I understand it, in Great Britain. Its members are largely dealers in timber. They have for a period of years made contracts for the delivery of supplies of timber from Russia to their yards in Great Britain which they, in turn, have sold to customers. There has been inserted in such contracts a provision known as the "fall clause," and under the provisions of an article in the Ottawa agreements the Canadian government is given the right to protest to the British government if as a result of the introduction of that clause into the contract the preference which is granted to Canada under the Ottawa agreement made with Great Britain is prejudicially or injuriously affected.
Last year we did protest against the so-called "fall clause" and other terms of the

Empire Trade Agreements
contract made between the private enterprise known as Timber Distributors Limited and the Russian Soviet. As a result the board of trade determined on a middle course, and the obnoxious clause was eliminated, with the result that we secured a market for a very large quantity of timber in Great Britain. Of course we have nothing to do with the contracts which may be entered into between a private enterprise and the Soviet Union. They may make any contract they wish. But having made the contract, if it prejudicially affects the interests of Canadian shippers we then call upon the British government to take such steps as may be necessary to remedy the injury which may be done. Great Britain has secured for the executive from parliament the power to enable them to deal with the situation when necessity arises. We have already filed with the board of trade a statement indicating what the position of Canada is with respect to any contract which contains the fall clause or prejudicially affects the interests of our country in connection with the export of timber.



PELEE ISLAND COMMUNICATIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. ECCLES J. GOTT (South Essex): Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Stewart). Connected with the constituency I have the honour to represent there is an island known as Pelee island which has enjoyed three sources of direct communication, namely by cable, telephone and aerial services. All services seem to be out of commission. I should like to know if the minister can give me any assurance that the services will be restored as soon as possible.
Hon. H. A. STEWART (Minister of Public Works):: This is the first I have heard about the interruption of the services to which the hon. member has referred. I assure him without hesitation that inquiries will at once be made and communication reestablished.



EMPIRE TRADE AGREEMENTS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, January 31, consideration of the motion of Mr. Harris (Toronto-Scarborough):
That, in the opinion of this house, the operation of the trade agreements concluded at the imperial economic conference held at Ottawa, 1932, merits the approval of this house.
Mr. J. L. BROWN (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, the resolution presently before the house calling upon us to endorse the Ottawa trade agreements of 1932 was, I have no doubt, put upon the order paper at the instigation of the government. Certainly it was put there with the government's hearty approval.
The purpose in putting this resolution on the order paper is abundantly clear. It was no doubt expected that it would greatly embarrass the members of the opposition to vote against the motion, but for my part, Mr. Speaker, I have not the slightest hesitation in accepting the challenge.
The objections that were urged against the Ottawa trade agreements in 1932 still hold. The right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) has made it abundantly clear that those fundamental principles underlying these agreements to which we objected in 1932 are still there, and still open to all the objections that we urged at that time. In my judgment a great opportunity was missed at that Ottawa conference. It is not given to every man to have the opportunity to correct his blunders, but there was given to the Prime Minister the opportunity to correct the great blunder that he made at the first conference to which he went in England in 1930. But instead of embracing that opportunity he continued still to blunder, and the result was that the Ottawa agreements were built upon an utterly unsound foundation.
I had the pleasure of listening to the speech that was made by the Right Hon. Stanley Baldwin at the opening of the conference. I was sitting in a garage in a little town out in Manitoba at the time, and when I heard Mr. Baldwin's speech it filled me with delight. Stanley Baldwin expressed the hope that the agreements would be based upon reductions of tariffs rather than upon increases, but unfortunately the attitude of the Prime Minister of Canada was entirely different. He insisted that the agreements should be based upon an entirely different principle, and it is an open secret that on more than one occasion the Ottawa conference was on the verge of collapse. I have not the slightest doubt that had it not been for the spectacle which Great Britain and the dominions would have presented to the world if the imperial statesmen had gone home without an agreement, that actually that would have been the result, but it was simply impossible that the conference should disband without some agreement at least being arrived at; and so, Mr. Speaker, instead of calling those agreements, as the Minister of Trade and Com-
Empire Trade Agreements

merce (Mr. Hanson) did, the bulwark of our trade, I say that they are a house built upon the sand rather than upon the solid rock of good will. There is no issue that I would welcome more heartily, no issue on which I would more gladly conduct a campaign in my constituency than the Ottawa agreements and the difference in the attitude of the two political parties on the question of an imperial preference.
I wish to discuss these agreements from two aspects; first, their effect on the revenue and the burden of taxation; and secondly, the supposed effect of the six cents preference on wheat. But first I should like to make a few general remarks.
It is a false assumption that everything that has happened since the Ottawa agreements has been the result of those agreements. It is a very common thing for people who do not reason closely to say that, because such and such a thing was done, therefore this is the result. I know that the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) is well aware that the most common fallacy that is known in logic is "post hoc, ergo propter hoc." It is the most common fallacy to assume that because such and such a thing happened or was done that everything that subsequently followed was the result of that preceding event. It has been pointed out by the right hon. leader of the opposition that we have that fallacy to-day, the assumption that because certain things have happened in connection with our trade they are necessarily the result of the Ottawa agreements. But, Mr. Speaker, there are many other factors that have entered into the problem and these must be taken into account. Every factor must be given due consideration in endeavouring to come to a conclusion on questions such as these.
I might also point out that very often we have an entirely wrong use made of statistics. It is one thing to quote at length statistics that may be right or wrong-we will admit that they are right-but it is another thing *entirely to draw correct conclusions from those statistics. It is one thing to recognize facts, and an entirely different thing to draw the proper conclusion from those facts. We have had statistics presented to the house but we found that the conclusions drawn from them were entirely wrong. Let me give a simple illustration that we had in this house not very long ago of how entirely wrong conclusions can be drawn from certain facts.
; The Prime Minister undertook to paint us a picture of the result of the by-elections. It was a picture very different from what some others of us might paint. The Prime Minister

is evidently an expert at extracting sunshine from cucumbers, and it would be quite easy to show that the conclusions that can be drawn from the facts are very different from those which the Prime Minister drew.
I would like to say a word in commendation of the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce. I am glad to congratulate him on the high office to which he has been appointed and to which I am sure he will do honour. I should like to quote a few sentences from his speech in this debate. He said:
I believe Mr. Fielding's chief claim to fame in history-and I desire to accord to the memory of that very great gentleman that which was his due-will be the fact that he brought in the British preferential tariff. But I also believe that Mr. Fielding and Sir Wilfrid Laurier, if they had confessed what was in their inmost hearts, would have admitted that when they made that gesture for empire trade, they also held the firm belief that the government of the United Kingdom would reciprocate. But this did not occur.
May I congratulate the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce upon the moderation he displayed in making that statement. No one can object to a statement like that. It may or may not be true that Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Mr. Fielding had in their inmost hearts the hope that there would be reciprocal preference. Whether that be true or not we do not know, but there was no harm at least in the Minister of Trade and Commerce saying that.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: At the
imperial conference of 1897 Sir Wilfrid Laurier specifically asked for it.


Mr. ROWE:: And in 1902 and in 1907.


John Livingstone Brown: I am afraid that I shall
have to withdraw some of the compliments that I have passed on my hon. friend.


Richard Burpee Hanson: You will have to revise your own information.


John Livingstone Brown: I expressed my appreciation of the language that was used by the Minister of Trade and Commerce the other day when he said he believed that these two eminent statesmen had in their inmost hearts the hope that there would be reciprocal preference. If the Prime Minister would be as moderate in his language as that, one of our chief complaints against him would be removed. But he does not content himself with saying that he believes that these men in their inmost hearts hope for reciprocal trade. What he undertakes to do in season and out of season is to show that the policy of Sir Wilfrid Laurier and of Mr. Fielding was the

Empire Trade Agreements
same as his own policy, and he tries to do this by partial quotations, by taking statements here and there apart from their context, and without any regard to the circumstances under which they were spoken. By so doing he has again and again tried to impress upon the people that Sir Wilfrid Laurier's attitude was the same as his own. It has been an entire misrepresentation of the attitude of the Liberal party.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Will the
hon. member allow me a question? If not I will sit down.


John Vallance: Remember, you are in
the ministry now.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Has the
hon. gentleman read the report of the imperial conference of 1926 in which his leader asked for reciprocal trade?


John Livingstone Brown: Let me tell the difference
between the attitude of the Conservative party and the attitude of the Liberal party. The attitude of the Liberal party, as I understand it, has always been that if Great Britain saw fit to concede preferences we were willing to accept them; and there is no question that at one time, when the British government did impose duties, Sir Wilfrid Laurier did ask that in that case Canadian products might be exempt from those duties. There is no question about that fact. But that is an entirely different thing from demanding that Great Britain should change her fiscal policy for our benefit. Sir Wilfrid Laurier knew perfectly well that Canada would greatly resent any suggestion from Britain that we should change our fiscal policy to benefit her, and he knew, as we knew, that it would be regarded as an impertinence for us to suggest that the British government should change its fiscal policy in order to give us preferences. There is all the difference in the world between these two policies, and if anyone has any doubt on this point I would commend to him a reading of the speech made by the Prime Minister in defending these agreements in 1932, and after that a reading of the speech made by the leader of the opposition, who completely demolished every argument advanced by the Prime Minister.


Mr. BELL (Hamilton):: There is a limit to all things.


John Livingstone Brown: It is somewhat unfortunate that hon. gentlemen opposite are unable to differentiate between two things so essentially different that even kindergarten children would be able to distinguish between them.
I said I would discuss this question from the standpoint of the effect on the revenues and I will call two witnesses.


Leslie Gordon Bell: I always knew
there were Grits.


John Livingstone Brown: I do not object to these
interruptions; I rather delight in them, only I do not want them to use up too much of my time.


Leslie Gordon Bell: Thank heaven they were on your side.


John Livingstone Brown: As to the effect on the
revenue, the first witness I will call is the Minister of Finance, and I want to say to him that I am discussing these Ottawa agreements as a part of the general tariff policy of the government. The hon. member for Queens (Mr. Myers) made the statement the other day, which is quite correct, that the foundations of these agreements were laid in the short session of 1930; so that when we consider the Ottawa agreements, from the-standpoint of their effect on the revenues, we must consider them as part of the tariff policy of the government. I believe it was in his first budget speech that the Minister of Finance made a statement something like this, in referring to the fact that the customs revenue had been reduced; he said that it was in part attributable to the policy of this government in encouraging home trade. Because of that reduction in customs revenue, brought about by this policy, he had to impose other taxes. There was the tax on sugar, there was the 3 per cent excise tax, so called, and there was an increase in the sales tax. I will call another witness, this time the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Willis). The hon. member for Souris seems to have been acting as spokesman for the Conservative members from the prairies. Throughout the west he has been making speeches, and the whole attempt of these hon. members is to try to show that the burden of taxation was increased under the late government. I have here a copy of the Winnipeg Free Press in which there is a report of a speech made by the hon. member in Winnipeg. The Free Press printed it very fully, and the only criticism I have to make is that it was not placed among what children call the funnies. The hon. member was trying to show these people in Wininpeg-he did not seem to have a high estimate of their intelligence-that the former government had increased the burden of tariff taxation upon the people. Point No. 3 says-
Empire Trade Agreements


Mr. WILLIS:: Read 1 and 2; they are
good too.


John Livingstone Brown: I cannot deal with the
whole speech.
Point No. 3 was the Free Press assertion that under Mr. King "there were reductions in tariff taxation and in the sales tax, which was almost wiped out." Of this Mr. Willis said:-
Listen to this:
"The peak of tariff taxation was reached in the year ending March 31, 1929, when the King administration obtained more than $200,000,000 from the people, whereas in 1933 tariff taxation netted only $65,000,000."
What does the Minister of Finance think of that? While he is deploring the fact that the revenues have been reduced to such an extent that he deems it necessary to impose a sugar tax, a sales tax and a three per cent excise tax, the hon. member for Souris goes through the country taking satisfaction from the fact that the revenues had been reduced from $200,000,000 to $65,000,000. What sort of argument is that to put to the people? I am perfectly right in saying that it ought to be placed among the funnies. The unfortunate thing is that he is not alone. I understand that hon. members from the prairies are making the same statement. When the Minister of Trade and Commerce was speaking he referred to the fact that the Liberals had adopted as a matter of policy a reduction in the tariff and I am reported as having said: "Tell that to the western provinces." What I did say was: "Tell that to the western Tories," for they have always been contending that the burden of tariff taxation was greater under the Liberals than it had been previously.
Let me give an illustration and see whether hon. gentleman can understand it. Supposing I buy a suit of clothes from England at a price of $50 and there is a duty of 30 per cent; that suit would cost me $65 and the government receives $15. Next year I happen to be a little more prosperous and I find I can stand the purchase of two suits of clothes. In the meantime the tariff has been reduced from 30 to 25 per cent. In that case I have two suits of clothes for a price of $100 and the government has received $25 in revenue, or an additional $10. Under the peculiar reasoning of hon. gentleman opposite I have had the extra burden laid upon me because I have been able to buy two suits of clothes and contribute more to the revenue. That is the same kind of argument as was used by the hon. member for Souris.
We have heard something about a certain study club that was supposed to study these 
questions and a famous document was prepared for that club. I heartily commend the idea; it is badly needed, and I hope the Minister of Finance will undertake to instruct that particular club in some of these very elementary principles of tariff taxation. They might be instructed that it is sometimes possible to have a low rate of duty and a largely increased revenue. They might learn above everything else that the amount of tariff taxation that is seen in the customs returns is only a part and often a very small part of the total burden that is laid upon the people by the tariff.
There is another item in that speech to which I wish to refer. The hon. member undertook to answer the statement that the sales tax had been reduced. Listen to what he said:
Reductions in the sales tax are claimed, whereas in the fiscal year, 1923-24, $100,000,000 was obtained, the highest on record.
Why does the hon. gentleman go back to 1923-24? Does he think that answers the statement that under the then Liberal government the sales tax was being reduced? In common fairness ought he not to have taken more recent figures than those? We know the history of the sales tax. When the Liberal government came into power the sales tax was imposed at three different points, the tax being I think two per cent at each point. Some say two and a half per cent and I am not sure just which it was but it does not matter. First it was applied to the importer or manufacturer, then to the wholesaler and then to the retail man. It was found in the actual working that, in the pyramiding, it amounted sometimes to as much as eight per cent. That method was found to be rather cumbersome and the Liberal government consolidated the tax at six per cent which was really a smaller tax than had prevailed under the Conservative government. The Liberal government gradually reduced that year after year until in the last full year of the Liberal government-


An hon. MEMBER:: Pre-election.


John Livingstone Brown: Do not talk about pre-election. From the bureau of statistics I learned that the sales tax had been reduced to $34,936,375.98 on domestic sales and $9,922,325.22 on importations. When Mr. Dunning delivered his budget speech in May, 1930, he indicated that the sales tax was to be cut in half, that is, reduced to one per cent. I think I am right in saying that in the short session of 1930 no change was made in the sales tax so that for all the fiscal year ending

Empire Trade Agreements
March 31, 1931, the rate still held and for that year the figures were $16,586,975.30 on domestic sales and $4,196,968.85 on importations. I again ask the house: Is it fair to the people of Canada for hon. members to use an argument of that kind? I will leave it to the house to characterize it for itself; I might fall foul of the Speaker were I to attempt to do so.
I am now going to deal with the supposed effect of the six cent preference on wheat. In the same speech the hon. member for Souris said:
Under the Ottawa agreements, the six cents per bushel British preference on wheat has resulted in increased sales to that country.
That is his statement; it is a very general one, but it cannot be borne out by the facts. There is not a tittle of evidence to support it; indeed, all the evidence is to the contrary. I have before me a statement which I received from the bureau of statistics just the other day in answer to a request. In 1932, the year of the Ottawa agreements, the proportion of British imports that were supplied by Canada was 44-35 per cent; in 1933 it was 40-55 per cent, and in 1934, 34-8 per cent. Does that show that the Ottawa agreements resulted in an increase in the imports from Canada into Great Britain? It indicates rather the reverse. I shall however be more fair than the hon. member for Souris is in this matter. I am willing to say that the 34-8 per cent seems to represent over a period of ten years about a fair proportion of the British imports that went from Canada and I have the figures under my hand. I have also the quantity of wheat that was exported via Canadian ports and via United States ports to Great Britain. There is this interesting fact that when we consider the value of those exports, via Canadian ports it amounts to 77-39 cents per bushel and via United States ports to 77-069 cents per bushel. I presented similar figures last year when I was able to show that wheat shipped via United States ports to Great Britain brought a slightly higher price than wheat sold via Canadian ports. I could not give an explanation of that. I asked for one and the then Minister of Trade and Commerce suggested that it might be because wheat going via United States ports is of a higher grade. I have made inquiries as to that and there is no reason to believe wheat going via United States ports is of any different grade from that going via Canadian ports. There is the situation. I maintain there is not a tittle of evidence as regards either quantity or price to show that any benefit whatever has been received from the six cent preference.
There is another matter that I want to clean up in connection with the wheat situation. I have to come again to a speech made * by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. He made a speech in Saint John, N.B., a short time ago, of which I shall read a few sections. Again I can congratulate the minister upon his straightforwardness in expressing the government's attitude in regard to this six cent preference on wheat going by American ports, as contrasted with the somewhat evasive attitude of the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) and the former Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens).
Efforts to defeat the plan to benefit Canadian ports through the empire trade agreements by shipping Canadian grain to the United Kingdom from New York and still obtaining preferential tariff treatment have been unsuccessful so far, Minister of Trade and Commerce R. B. Hanson said at a banquet here in his honour Friday night.
Recent increases in the movement of Canadian grain through United States ports had been made up of grain destined for foreign countries, and Canadian ports were handling the wheat bound for the United Kingdom.
"From time to time efforts have been made to overcome and defeat the preferred position we have received in the markets of the United Kingdom, and to obtain the preference for Canadian grain stored in Buffalo," said the minister.
Remember, the minister is speaking to a maritime province audience and is trying to convince them that this particular agreement was a benefit to their ports. That seems to be what he had in mind. He goes on to say:
Very recently and since coming into the department, my attention has been directed to the fact that between August 1, and November 23, a very substantial quantity of Canadian wheat had been shipped out via the port of New York.
"Being fearful a portion of this grain was being shipped to the United Kingdom and accorded the British preference-
Think of that, " being fearful" that some Canadian grain was being accorded the preference.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Via
American ports.


John Livingstone Brown: We do not care about
whose ports.


Richard Burpee Hanson: 1 am glad you said that. That will crucify the next Liberal candidate in Saint John.


John Livingstone Brown: All right, I shall have more to say.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I hope you will, go right ahead.
Empire Trade Agreements


John Livingstone Brown: I took steps to ascertain the facts, and I find that while in the period in question 9,146,000 bushels of Canadian wheat were exported to Europe via the port of New York, not a single bushel of this huge quantity went to the United Kingdom;
He further says:
So I think we can safely say that so far as the matter can be controlled, either by the Canadian government or by the United Kingdom government, Canadian grain for consumption in the United Kingdom is now being exported via Canadian ports.
Now let us have some facts. I am not going to dispute the figures the Minister of Trade and Commerce gave, because he reports the New York shipments, while my figures refer to American ports in general, so there may be some discrepancy. But during those months he refers to, if I draw the correct inference, in September at least 1,560,560 bushels must have gone to Great Britain from American ports. We shipped via Canadian river and sea ports 4,597,833 bushels, and the total exports of wheat to the United Kingdom from Canada were 6,158,393 bushels. So the difference must have been made up by that part of the cargoes which went from American ports, shipped to the old country for orders. No other explanation can be given for that.


Richard Burpee Hanson: You are all wrong.


John Livingstone Brown: Then there is this further
fact, that in December on the same calculation almost 2,000,000 bushels were shipped via American ports.
Going back to May and June we find shipments in May of 7,479,281 bushels and in June 7,752,227 bushels. That was before the present minister came into office. But here is the situation. The minister was telling his maritime audience of the great benefits to their ports by reason of the actions of this government, but these figures show that there is not a bushel more going via Canadian ports than there was formerly, or a bushel less going via American ports. So hon. members from the maritime provinces may take this as conclusive, that as far as protecting the trade via their ports is concerned this preference does not amount to anything, nor does it as far as the price we have received or the amount of wheat we have shipped are concerned.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Would the hon. gentleman allow a question? Is he able to say, on the authority of any official com-
munication that he has, that any wheat going via American ports has been accorded the six cents preference?


John Livingstone Brown: No, I do not say that.


Richard Burpee Hanson: But you tried to leave that inference.


John Livingstone Brown: No, I am distinctly disclaiming that. I say the minister is to be congratulated on having made a clear and straightforward statement of the policy of the government. We suspected some time ago, when this thing was up, that that was the policy of the government, but the evasive answers that we got from the Prime Minister and the former Minister of Trade and Commerce left us not knowing where we were. Now I think it is for the government to make a clear statement that that is and has been the policy of the government. If it had been candidly avowed before this the country would have had a better understanding of the whole situation.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Page the hon. member for Restigouehe-Madawaska (Mr. Michaud).


Mr BROWN:: I am not concerned with
that at all. The hon. member for Restigouehe-Madawaska and the other maritime members can take these figures, and I shall show them that in spite of the claims of the minister these particular agreements have not been worth a hoot to them.


William Earl Rowe: Would you be in favour of
rescinding them?


John Livingstone Brown: You can rescind the preference as soon as you like as far as I am concerned, because it never amounted to anything, never did a particle of good. I challenge hon. gentlemen opposite to give us any figures proving that we get any benefit.


Mr. TURNBULL:: Would you rescind the whole treaty?


Mr. SPEAKER:: The hon. member for
Lisgar a moment ago permitted an interruption; had it not been for that I should have intervened some time since.


John Livingstone Brown: I have no objection at all
to interruptions.


Franklin White Turnbull: I have no intention of interrupting without the hon member's consent, but I ask if he would be in favour of rescinding the whole treaty.


John Livingstone Brown: I am going to say this-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Answer the question.

Empire Trade Agreements


John Livingstone Brown: It would be a strange treaty indeed that had no bright spots in it, but I say without hesitation that I have not the slightest fear that any modification that might be made or proposed by the Liberals would prejudice or have any ill effect on our exports to the old country. Our attitude to Great Britain has been infinitely more acceptable to them than the attitude of the Conservative party. Did we ever hear of recriminations before this treaty came into effect?


Richard Burpee Hanson: You gave everything and got nothing.


John Livingstone Brown: There was nothing but good will. Did we ever hear the expression "humbug" in relation to any proposition we made?


Errick French Willis: Tell us about the Hawley-
Smoot tariff.


John Livingstone Brown: I have not the slightest fear that any modifications we might suggest in regard to this treaty would have any prejudicial effect upon our exports to Great Britain.


Air BELL (Hamilton):: But do you 6peak for your leader?


John Livingstone Brown: I think so. He is able to
speak for himself, but I have confidence in the leader of my party to that extent, that he will neither make nor seek any modification that will have any prejudicial effect upon our exports. Well, Mr. Speaker, I think my time must be pretty nearly exhausted-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


John Livingstone Brown: Again I wish to state that
I will have no hesitation whatever in voting against this resolution.


Mr. SAMUEL GOBEIL (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, the resolution now under consideration calls for an expression of opinion to the effect that the operation of the trade agreements concluded at the imperial conference held in Ottawa in 1932 merits the approval of this house. I think I can say that I have closely followed the speeches already delivered in this debate, and I think I can safely say also that with the exception of the last speaker, who has stated quite clearly that he welcomes this opportunity of voting against the resolution, all those who have spoken have left the impression, though not one has stated that these agreements do not merit the approval of the house, that they intend to vote against the resolution.
First I should like to refer to the speech of the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) who spent almost an hour
and a half trying to convince the house-and I imagine this side of the house in particular -that while for several weeks he opposed this legislation and voted against it, together with his party, he really favours the agreement. Yet, while he now states more clearly than ever that he is in favour of these agreements, apparently he is going to vote against the resolution. I must say that the right hon. gentleman did not convince me that this was the right attitude to take, and even if he had done so it simply would have meant that he has not the full support of the hon. members who sit behind him.
In my opinion there is one hon. member who deserves congratulations; I refer to the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid). The hon. member certainly put a great many words in his speech, which indicates that he is a great worker, and I should like to congratulate him on the labour he devoted to his address. I am not going to traverse the ground the hon. gentleman covered, except to say that many of his comparisons were not fair. For example, many of his comparisons were made in dollars. The hon. gentleman knows very well, as every hon. member knows, that because of the general decrease in commodity prices throughout the world comparisons in dollars are not fair and do not give a true picture of the situation. Others of his comparisons were between different years, which always leads to wrong conclusions. In my opinion the only	fair way	to	pass	judgment	on these
agreements is to compare the trade of other countries with that of Canada from 1930 to 1932 and again from 1932 to 1934.
Before I state why I think this house should pass this resolution I should like to refer to the speech of the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr.	Howard).	I	am sorry the hon. gentleman	is not in	his	seat,	but since	I am notresponsible for his absence I intend to proceed with	my remarks.	In	his speech	my hon.
friend painted a very dark picture of the business situation in his city. I was very much surprised to hear that, because according to my memory, and also according to the document I have before me, not more than two months ago the same hon. gentleman made a very different speech in his own city in regard to business conditions there. What is the reason for this change? Is it that the hon. member, when he speaks in his own city, has a different point of view than when he is here? Is the truth not the truth everywhere? I have before me a copy of the Sherbrooke Tribune of November 27. Every hon. member who was present the other night heard
Empire Trade Agreements

what the hon. member had to say about the business situation in Sherbrooke, but in great headlines running the full width of the newspaper I read:
Sherbrooke Knows Feverish Activity in Industry.
This is not an article written by the newspaper men; it is the report of a speech delivered by the hon. member for Sherbrooke. Here is what I find:
In a comforting report made to the chamber of commerce, Mr. C. B. Howard reveals that our silk industries are running at full time at one hundred per cent capacity, and are closely followed by the Paton manufacturing company and all the iron and steel manufacturers. Three thousand more men at work.
Remember, Mr. Speaker, that this is the report of the hon. member for Sherbrooke to the chamber of commerce. Further on I find this:
The situation is sensibly improving in our city. The business activity is increasing. The commerce is more stable, and unemployment diminished. This is the encouraging declaration that Charles B. Howard, member for Sherbrooke at Ottawa, contained in a message to the members of that chamber last night in submitting his report on the activities of the industrial committee, of which he is a member.
This may give the house an idea of the degree of sincerity we may attach to the speeches made here by the hon. member for Sherbrooke. Then the hon. member for Sherbrooke went on to talk about dairy products. I do not intend to follow him in everything he said, but he made two or three observations upon which I should like to comment. He referred first to butter and other dairy products and then to cattle.
First of all I should like to correct an observation I heard him make, and which appears in Hansard to the effect that under the King administration the duty on butter was four cents a pound. The remark may have been unintentional, and if he were present I should be quite whiling to accept his denial. The hon. member knew very well however that under the King administration the duty on foreign butter was only one cent per pound, and if he was mistaken I think he should have made a correction in Hansard.
I protest further against the affirmation made not only by the hon. member for Sherbrooke but by many hon. members to your left, Mr. Speaker, that the Prime Minister and the Conservative party generally, during the campaign of 1930 promised the Canadian farmers that if that party were returned to power the farmers would receive from 50 to 60 cents per pound for their butter. 
I absolutely deny that statement, and I deny it every time I have a chance. I never made it, and throughout the whole election campaign I never heard the Prime Minister make it. I believe I may state safely that he never made it at any time. What I heard him say and what I said was that if the Conservative party were returned to office in 1930 the government would see to it that the Canadian farmer and the Canadian dairyman obtained the Canadian market for themselves.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: You promised butter at 45 cents a pound.


Samuel Gobeil: That market was obtained. The arguments advanced by hon. members opposite are not worth anything, The only just and fair comparison is to compare Canadian prices for any commodity with the prices obtaining in other countries. Then the hon. member for Sherbrooke went on to say that we promised we would stop importations of butter, and indicated that during 1934 we imported about 2,000,000 pounds. I have not his exact figures before me, but I believe I am about correct. But he did not say why we imported it. I wish hon. members would tell us why, because I am prepared to tell them. Why did we import any quantity-for the sake of argument we will say 2,000,000 pounds -in 1934, if in fact we did import it? Will any hon. member opposite deny that on every pound of butter imported during 1934 there was a duty of five cents per pound and a special tax of three cents, making a total of eight cents per pound? They will not deny it, because it is a fact which cannot be denied. How is it that New Zealand or any other country exported butter to Canada? We know that the people of New Zealand had a free market in England for their butter, and if so why did they export to this country? Why? There was only one reason, and that is that the Canadian market price for butter was so much higher than the price in Great Britain that New Zealand could export to this country, pay the duty and bring more money to their farmers than they could by shipping to England.
If instead of taxing eight cents per pound we had taxed only one cent would the Canadian farmer be in any better position to-day? Where would the Canadian farmer be to-day if there had not been a duty of eight cents a pound on butter? There would have been only one result: Our price would have been reduced by eight cents; the Canadian price of 23 cents per pound would have been only 15 cents, had there been no protection. Further, if in 1933 and 1934 the Canadian farmer had operated under the conditions which

Empire Trade Agreements
existed in 1930 under the King administration he would not have received millions and millions of dollars which in fact he did receive.
Instead of hon. members opposite saying, "Butter was selling at from 30 cents to 35 cents per pound in 1930 and it sells for only 20 cents or 22 cents to-day" they should bear in mind what would have been the condition if we had not been protected by a tariff. Their argument means nothing.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Samuel Gobeil: I repeat: Their argument does not mean anything except this, that if hon. members opposite had been in office from 1930 to 1933, instead of receiving 22 cents per pound our Canadian farmers would have received only 15 cents or 16 cents. Do hon. members imagine that the government or that I do not regret that butter is not selling for 30 cents or 35 cents? We certainly do regret the circumstances, but we say that due to governmental action our farmers are receiving anywhere from five cents to eight cents more per pound than they would have received had a Liberal government been in office.
The hon. member for Sherbrooke went farther. He had the audacity-is that, term parliamentary?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.


Samuel Gobeil: He had the audacity to ask the government, "What did you do when you found that the American market was closed to us?" Why did he not finish his observation by saying that without a word of protest the Liberal government allowed the Canadian farmer to be excluded from the American market, because that government would not act for fear of provoking the Yankees. Does the hon. member for Sherbrooke realize what the Canadian farmer lost when the American market was closed to him? Does he really know what it meant? I do not think he does, because if he had such information he would not dare mention the subject. In the twelve months previous to June, 1930, the fresh milk and cream made into butter and exported amounted to 25,000,000 pounds. That is what we lost. That market was not lost through any fault of this government but through the fault of the previous administration. If someone is to be blamed it must be hon. members opposite. Owing to that market being closed, in the twelve following months the Canadian market had to absorb
25,000,000 pounds of butter which previously had been shipped to the United States. That is what we lost when we lost the American market.
The hon. member for Sherbrooke also mentioned cattle. Again I ask him, does he realize what it meant to the Canadian farmer to lose that market, and again I say, under the King administration. It meant that while in the twelve months previous to June, 1930, we exported to the United States almost 300,000 head of cattle, in the following year we exported less than 10,000 head. Was that the fault of this government? No, nobody will pretend that it was the fault of this government. Is it any wonder that the situation of the producers of beef and cattle in Canada was almost desperate when we lost such a valuable market without a protest- or at least without any protest that the citizens of this country know of? Those are only two items, Mr. Speaker. I could go on and mention almost every farm product against which we found the doors absolutely closed to us in June of 1930, and for that hon. members opposite are now trying to hold this government responsible, but they are mistaken. Is it possible that hon. members opposite so misjudge the good common sense of Canadians as to think that the people will believe them when they say that this government has closed the avenues of trade? Do they believe that the Canadian people will believe that without specific instances being given without mentioning at least some countries that have raised their tariffs against us since 1930? No, Mr. Speaker, hon. gentlemen opposite are greatly mistaken if they think they are going to be taken at their word.
What else did it mean when the American market was closed to us? What other signification did it have? What were the results in the following months? What was the balance of trade between Canada and the United States in the fiscal year 1930-31? We lost the American market only in June. The result was this, that in that fiscal year we had an adverse balance of trade with the United States of over S300.000.000. Do hon. mentbers opposite believe that such a situation could go on indefinitely? When the hon. member for Sherbrooke asks this government "What did you do?" I reply that this Conservative 'government took means to correct that adverse balance of trade against Canada. It had to be corrected, and as a result of the efforts of this government instead of having an adverse of balance of trade of over $300,000.000, that had been reduced in 1932 to $87,836,456, and in 1934, last year, it had been reduced further to S49,127,522, and that was done because of the imperial agreements
Empire Trade Agreements

which give us a sheltered market in the United Kingdom for the products of the farm that we could no longer ship to the United States.
My hon. friends opposite have another argument, and it is this. They say that these agreements prevent trade with other countries, and I have heard them say that they make impossible a trade treaty with the United States, for instance. I shall not have time to make any extended remarks upon that, but let me just quote from an American newspaper to show what the people over there think of the possibilities of trade with Canada, despite the Ottawa agreements. I quote from the Boston Sunday Advertiser:
The Ottawa empire agreements, contrary to general belief, leave ample room for Canadian-American trade. There is nothing in them to prevent Canada selling the United States more of her cattle, more of her fish, more of her milk and of copper and lumber,
and so on and so forth. That is the opinion of the Americans, but that paper goes further and, referring to the Ottawa agreements, says that, not only have they been beneficial to Canada but that they have brought to Canada more industries and given Canadians more employment. In other words, if it had not been for those agreements unemployment would have been much more severe than it is. This newspaper goes on to say:
In 1932 American branch factories established themselves in the dominion at the rate of two each week.
They crossed the border, Mr. Speaker, to sscape the Canadian tariff or to secure the benefit of the empire preference, and the loss to the United States in work and wages must have been enormous. This paper goes further and says:
To-day there are something like 1,500 of these United States branch plants in Canada, representing an investment of nearly two billion dollars and giving employment to scores of thousands of Canadians.
That is not my statement, Mr. Speaker, nor that of a member of this government, but the opinion of our neighbour to the south.
I can quite understand that the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) did not see with any very great pleasure this resolution on the order paper. We can all understand that. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, even if the right hon. gentleman had succeeded in convincing me, despite his opposition to the legislation and his vote against it two years ago, that he was in favour of these agreements to-day, that would only demonstrate one thing and that is the lack of unity among 
his followers. I shall try to give one or two-illustrations. Every member of this house must have noticed the change of tone in the speeches of the right hon. leader of the opposition with respect to these agreements. It is quite clear to anyone that he is now more in favour of these agreements than he was in. 1932. Is it a spontaneous conversion, or is there something behind it? I have it in my mind that it might be something else than: spontaneous conversion because I remember that in June of 1933 a Liberal organization with a pompous name, I believe it is called the Twentieth Century Young Liberals Association of Canada, or something of the kind, met in Ottawa for two or three days and' passed some resolutions among which was one which did not seem to be quite in accord with the opinion expressed by the leader of the Liberal party in 1932. I would refer hon. members to the Montreal Gazette of June 3, 1933. The convention turned down the resolution submitted to it, that the Liberal' party should do its utmost to abrogate the treaties entered into at the Ottawa conference. That Liberal convention, in my view, passed a resolution disapproving of the opinion that was expressed in this house by their leader in 1932.
Now, speaking of unity of sentiment and of the endorsation or the disapproval of the Ottawa agreements by the Liberal party I am going to remind the house of some of the statements that were made by hon. gentlemen opposite. First, I will quote from page 355 of Hansard of 1932 to show what the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Motherwell) said in reference to hogs, when he was discussing these agreements:
But they started out in the face of hogs selling at about 2} cents a pound-
What does he think of the price of hogs to-day?
-trying to start a campaign to bring about greater production, based on something by way of restriction that may never materialize.
Apparently it has materialized.
It is stated by the Prime Minister that in ten years we will have a potential market for 590,000 hogs, but those same potentialities extend to other countries. We would need to eat little but bacon and ham if we were to consume the products of a campaign such as this.
Then he went on to say this:
It is the greatest piece of nonsense that was ever promulgated,-
What does he think of it now?
-the greatest flimflam ever attempted to be put over on a suffering people. There is no

Empire Trade Agreements
more comfort in it than there is in a block of ice in midwinter.
I am afraid the block of ice has melted. Further on, at page 356, he said:
I did not think there was an aggregation of men in the world, either inside or outside a mental hospital, who would promulgate such a nonsensical proposition as this hog proposal as set out in the agreement.
What does he think of it now that hogs are selling at 8^ or 9 cents a pound, representing an additional 87,000,000 going into the pockets of Canadian farmers, who are receiving altogether around $30,000,000 or $35,000,000 of added money since 1932? I will quote another hon. member opposite. At page 605 of Hansard of the same year the hon. member for South Perth (Mr. Sanderson) made this statement:
Is there a single commitment in that article, Mr. Speaker-
He was referring to hogs.
-which obliges his majesty's government in the United Kingdom to increase the purchase of *Canadian bacon and ham? This provision is surrounded by ifs and whens and hows, and in any event nothing can be done until the report of this commission is brought in. I want to make this prediction,-
Let me remind him now of the prediction he made then, and ask him what he thinks *of it.
-that if in course of time the export of Canadian bacon and ham should reach the figure mentioned in article 6, the farmers all over this dominion will go into hog raising on a large scale, and instead of increasing the price of hogs the price will decrease. The price is $3.75 now, and it may go even lower.
That was the price in 1932 when we were *discussing the agreements. Apparently we have not yet reached the stage referred to by the hon. gentleman, when the raising of more hogs results in a decrease in price.
Now, so far as unity of thinking is concerned, I wish to quote some words uttered by the leader of the opposition-always with reference to the imperial agreements. The house will remember that the leader of the opposition spent at least an hour telling us how dreadful it was for the present Prime Minister to have terrorized Englishmen to the extent that he had done, until they had to yield to his whip. It seems to me that was rather a compliment, though the right hon* gentleman was far from thinking that way. Let me quote some of the phrases he used as reported at page 266 of Hansard of that year:
If we have reached the point in our history where the thought of public men not only in this country but in all parts of the empire is to be terrorized by the Prime Minister of
Canada, it is time that some of us should speak out and let the people of Great Britain know that the people of Canada are just as proud of an independent expression of view as are the people of Great Britain.
And on page 267, referring to the Prime Minister, the right hon. gentleman said:
He said to Great Britain, "You must change your fiscal policy before I will negotiate with you." He now says to us, "You must change your principles or you cannot support this agreement,"
Apparently they have changed their principles, because they support the agreement now. He went on:
The fiscal policy of Great Britain has been changed. Whether the right hon. gentleman was responsible for changing it is a matter of indifference; the fact remains that it has been changed.
The leader of the opposition was very much exercised over the fact that, according to him, the Prime Minister had imposed his will on Englishmen and terrorized and coerced them. That may be all very well in this house, but not in the country. The board of strategy, or the leader of the Liberal members from Quebec-sometimes they refer to the hon. member for Quebec East as their leader- evidently decided that these phrases were not very popular in that province, that they would not get them anywhere, and apparently therefore they deputed someone to make a different declaration, with the result that we find the following statement coming from the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Rinfret), ex-Secretary of State, as reported at page 376 of Hansard:
In my opinion articles 12, 13, and 14 dealing with the tariff board are most extraordinary. I say this is the first time any other country, even if it be the United Kingdom, has been given the right by means of a commercial treaty to dictate to the government of this country concerning certain Canadian matters.
How do my hon. friends reconcile these different expressions of opinion? The hon. gentleman went further and made this statement :
Under the provisions of these articles we are being dictated to-
The leader of the opposition declared that the Prime Minister had terrorized the English at the imperial conference, but the hon. member for St. James says:
-we are being dictated to by an external government and it makes no difference whether this dictation comes from the government of the United Kingdom, of France or any other country. We are being dictated to ... I may be all wrong about this, Mr. Speaker, but I think it is abominable that the government
Empire Trade Agreements

of Canada should be told in a trade agreement by another nation, that they shall do certain things of a local character.
What does my hon. friend think of these two statements?
^ The next move I suppose on the part of Great Britain will be to have what gentlemen they want on that board. That would not be any worse.
And further on:
Have I read that aright, Mr. Speaker? If so, not only are we being dictated to by another government to appoint a board entirely local in its character, but here are the instructions by which the board is to be bound.
And he goes on. I am stating this not particularly that the house may know because we have already heard it, but that the citizens of Canada may know the policy of the Liberal party, their disagreement among themselves on Canadian policies or the policies of their leader.


Mr. W. H. GOLDING (South Huron):: Mr. Speaker, as a result of the resolution which stands on the order paper in the name of the hon. member for Toronto-Scarborough (Mr. Harris), we are having a further discussion on the empire treaties. It opens up another discussion on some of the principles for which members of the house stand and it is in regard to those principles that a difference of opinion exists in connection with these particular treaties. I think it is generally agreed that we are all in favour of empire trade, but it is on the basis upon which this trade is formed, the regulations surrounding it and its effect on world trade that there is a distinct difference of opinion. I do not think for a moment our hon. friends opposite will suggest that we on this side are not in favour of empire trade, nor do I believe they will suggest that had the Liberal party been returned to power in 1930, we would not have had empire trade agreements effected; I do not think that is the contention. I would like to point out that in 1930 the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) certainly did succeed in making the Canadian people believe he had definite plans and policies which, if put into effect in this country, would solve all our problems, that markets would be secured for our basic products and prices for those products would be increased. Notwithstanding what the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Gobeil) has said, the fact of the matter is that the Prime Minister went up and down this country telling the people that prices of all farm commodities and other products

would be increased. I would like my hon. friend to visit the village of Exeter in my constituency and ask the people there what the Prime Minister had to say about increased prices. Other promises of the right hon. gentleman may be cited. For instance unemployment was going to be ended, and as a matter of fact all our problems were going to vanish like the melting snows on a sunny morn. I think it was generally believed he based his hopes on changing the tariff structure of this country in order to bring about these improvements. It is a fact that the present treaties are founded on the principles upon which the Conservative party hoped to fulfil the many promises given to the electors at that time.
The extent to which the increased barriers to trade were brought into effect as a result of these treaties, restricting our opportunities of promoting trade with other countries, I think is a fair question for debate. We on this side of the house believe mutual trade, and also our prospects of promoting trade elsewhere, were thereby affected. That too is a fair subject for debate. Holding that view, we opposed the treaties in 1932 and we are still of the same opinion. We feel that these treaties under their present set-up with the existing regulations will affect trade and therefore we believe they are not operating in the best interests of Canada. The hon. member for Compton suggested that we should name some countries that have raised their tariffs since these treaties have come into effect. The hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. McPhee) in one of his speeches put on the records of the house the fact that thirty-seven countries had raised their duties against Canada.
We recall the promises that were made in 1930 and now we are told that conditions are improving. We were told the same thing in 1931, 1932, 1933 and 1934. I am willing to admit there is some improvement in trade, but a similar condition exists in every other country and we are glad it does. Notwithstanding that all these promises were made in regard in promoting trade and solving our problems, what is the situation confronting us to-day? I suppose if there is any improvement, it will be credited to the empire trade agreements. It is rather amusing to listen to some of the statements, some of the addresses that have been made in connection with these treaties and some of the propaganda that has been circulated. One would think this government two years ago discovered a brand new market, one that did not exist before.

Empire Trade Agreements
As a matter of fact that market was free to Canada long before many of us saw the light of day and in all probability it will continue to be, I will not say a free market, but a market, whether these treaties are modified or amended or in the years to come discarded altogether. But what is our situation at the present time? It is simply this, that there is not one problem that was facing this country in 1930 that is not still our problem. One can go right down the list and I think my hon. friends will agree with me when I say that all the problems that were facing us at that time are still confronting us. Take the problem of our trade. Does anyone in the house suggest that the problem of finding markets for our exports has been solved? Take the problem of our taxation, and debt. Does anyone suggest that it is solved? We all know it is more serious now than when this government came into power. Take our unemployment problem, that is one that was going to be definitely ended; but a few days ago the Prime Minister admitted that there are now 400,000 unemployed, while the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) says there are at least 600,000, and the Prime Minister admits that when they came into office the number was 117,000.
Then we have the railway problem. Is that solved? What about the problems with which our farmers and wage earners are faced? It seems to me that the difficulties of our farmers during the lifetime of this government have been more serious than at any other time in our history The very fact that for a whole day here recently member after member arose to ask help for the farmers in their distress is surely evidence enough that that problem has not been solved. The fact that the government find it necessary to bring down a bill to provide 890,000,000 to assist the farmers shows how far this problem is from solution by the government and the Prime Minister who definitely promised to end unemployment and cure all the ills of the farmers. That is the situation, I venture to say no one will dispute it. I fully appreciate the fact that all of us have hopes and ambitions to accomplish certain things, and may have definite plans and ideas for doing it, but difficulties may arise which shatter those hopes and plans. That is the position in which the present government find themselves. Probably they did have some plan or idea by which they hoped to solve our problems. But after four and a half years of fair trial, facts and figures showing that they have absolutely failed, I cannot for the life of me understand how they expect hon. members of this house or the people of the country to believe that further
experimentation with or application of those plans is going to do what they have failed to accomplish during the last four and a half years, or in fact at any time they have been tried since confederation. It seems to me the government would strengthen their position if they frankly admitted that the plans with which they hoped to cure the ills of this country have failed, and would now adopt some other method.
In regard to this present resolution, and the address given by the Prime Minister in Brock-ville early in December-I link the two together because I think that address was just a forerunner of this resolution-I have something to say. I read the report of the Prime Minister's speech with considerable interest. He intimated that one of the major issues in the coming campaign would be the empire trade agreements. Perhaps I should not put it just that way, but should say that the attitude of the opposition towards those treaties was going to be a major issue. Well, I am like the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown)
I welcome any discussion of these treaties in my constituency.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Y'ou were elected in
opposition to them.


William Henry Golding: I think it is well known
that the by-election held in South Huron at which I was elected was the first by-election held in Canada after these treaties had been negotiated by the government; it was even before they had been ratified by parliament. An effort was made by members of the government and by private members who sit opposite who spoke in my constituency to make these treaties the major issue in that campaign, notwithstanding that they were not yet in effect. Promises were made to my constituents as to how their position would be improved as a result of these treaties, efforts were made to make them believe they were already feeling the beneficial effects, when as I say the treaties were not in effect at all. That was just their way of trying to fool the people. The hon. member for Compton was one of the speakers sent up to try to defeat me in that contest. In the polling division at Drysdale where my hon. friend spoke the Conservative candidate got seven votes. If my hon. friend will come up when the next contest takes place-


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: They will get no vote
at all.


William Henry Golding: My hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion), who was the first minister of the crown to come into the constituency, made a very
Empire Trade Agreements

dramatic appeal. I rather enjoy hearing him. He told the people that the eyes of the whole empire were on South Huron, and appealed to them to vote their approval of these treaties. One would have thought that the existence of the whole country hung upon them. He asked them to forget politics for the time being and vote approval. That is the sort of appeal which was made to the electors in my constituency at that time. The result of that contest did not indicate that they were very enthusiastic about these treaties.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: They were wise people.


William Henry Golding: Since that time there
have been a number of by-elections held in different sections of the country, and in each and every one the ablest speakers on the government side have tried to present the case for the government,-and I admit that they have very able and excellent speakers; indeed I wish I could express myself as forcibly and clearly as some of my hon. friends.


Mr ELLIOTT:: You have a better case.


William Henry Golding: At any rate they tried
co present the case for the government in the best possible way. But notwithstanding their best efforts they met with reverses in every constituency but one, that is in the city of Toronto where there were three candidates in the field. One must be an optimist indeed who thinks the electors can be whipped into line in regard to these treaties by any amount of oratory.
I think it ought to be clearly understood that as far as we on this side are concerned we oppose these treaties, on various grounds. But one of the grounds was that the duties against British goods were far too high, and those against foreign goods were absolutely ridiculous.
There is another thing I should like to mention. I think it would be quite impossible for anyone to read the Prime Minister's introduction of these treaties in this house without noticing the provocative and boastful language he used on that occasion. After that language his invitation to the opposition to unite with the government in passing these treaties struck me, as a new member, as rubbing it in a bit, especially in view of the fact that every hon. member on this side of the house was elected on a policy of lowering duties and extending the preference to Great Britain. When we compare that with the policy adopted by the government of raising duties on British goods to unprecedented heights, of raising them still

higher on foreign goods and then, under these treaties, slightly reducing the duties on British goods and raising them still higher on foreign goods-well, I only wonder at anyone asking members on this side to support a policy of that kind. One cannot help but question the sincerity of anyone making such a request.
I think at that time every member of the official opposition had in mind the action of the government in raising duties to such heights in 1930 and 1931, and again under these treaties, as well as pegging the duties on a great many articles for a period of five years, together with all the other frills such as specific duties, excise duties, dumping duties, arbitrary valuation for duty purposes and all the other things that have helped create the difficulties and restrictions in connection with trade. I think there is another thing we should remember, and it is that the Liberal party introduced this preferential policy in the first place while the Conservatives at that time opposed it. We ought to remember also that the Dunning budget, which was so favourably received by the British press, was introduced by the Liberal party. I am not going to discuss the contents of that budget except to say that the gist of it knocks galley west, if I may use that term, the argument that we on this side of the house are not in favour of empire trade, and by the way that argument is being used on our back concessions. I think every Canadian citizen hoped that as a result of the 1932 imperial economic conference trade barriers would be lowered. It was not only Canadians who expressed that hope; I should like to quote the words of Right Hon. Stanley Baldwin, who said:
There are two ways in which increased preference can be given-either by lowering barriers among themselves or by raising them against others. The choice between these two must be governed largely by local considerations, but subject to that, it seems to us that we should endeavour to follow the first rather than the second course. For however great our resources, we cannot isolate ourselves from the world. No nation or group of nations, however wealthy and populous, can maintain prosperity in a world where depression and impoverishment reign. Let us therefore aim at the lowering rather than the raising of barriers, even if we cannot fully achieve our purpose now, and let us remember that any action we take here is bound to have its reactions elsewhere.
That was the position taken by Right Hon. 'Stanley Baldwin, but it was not the position taken by our representatives, and as a result of their action and of these treaties there is no question that trade has been restricted and

our opportunities for promoting trade lessened. 1 think we should1 ask ourselves this question, which I think is fair and reasonable:	Supposing our delegation had
accepted the suggestion of Mr. Baldwin and the conference had agreed to lower trade barriers. Would it not have had the effect of stimulating trade not only within the empire but with the whole world? Further than that, when the whole world was trying to raise tariffs, if the empire had set the example and lowered tariffs would it not have had the effect of opening up channels of trade in many other countries? Let us look at the other picture. The very fact that the British empire agreed to raise trade barriers had its effect on trade both inside end outside the empire; it had the effect of making every country cover up, and the vicious circle continued. It seems to me that we could have done a great deal more effective blasting, if that is the term you want to use, by lowering trade barriers at that time than we have been able to do by raising them. Further than that I cannot see how we can expect to gain access to markets by shutting out goods from those same markets, by publicly admitting that certain actions were taken to shut out the foreigner, and by openly stating that every nation wanting to do business with the British empire must pay tribute for that privilege. If does seem to me that these are damaging statements,
Fiscal year- 1929-30.. 1933-34..
Empire Trade Agreements
and that it will take a good deal of scientific blasting to overcome their effects.
Now I should like to refer to some statements made by the Prime Minister when he introduced these treaties. He said:
I have not yet touched on that farm commodity which is at the moment of most immediate importance to this country. Finding wheat and flour markets is the great problem facing our wheat growers to-day.
Then he went on to tell us that we had secured free entry for wheat as against a duty of six cents a bushel against foreign countries, and that on flour we had secured free entry as against a ten per cent duty against foreigners. Then he added:
Our secured place in the British flour market means that British domestic millers can only compete with the Canadian flour if they use Canadian wheat standards.
If anyone will take time to look up our exports of wheat and flour for the past few years he will find exactly what has happened in this regard. In 1934, 178,175 barrels of flour were shipped to Canada, of which 105,431 barrels came from the United Kingdom. That is the situation we have to-day. I have before me the figures showing the value of exports in certain commodities. The following table will serve to indicate the value of the total exports of fruits, vegetables, grains, milled products, seeds, tobacco, animals (living); meats, milk and its products, and wool; and the value of that portion which went to the United Kingdom in the years mentioned:
Total exports to all countries $368,000,000
207,000,000
Exports to the United Kingdom $199,000,000 133,000,000
In 1930 our total exports of all commodities were valued at 81,145,000,000, while in 1933-34 they were valued at only 8585,000,000. While in the year 1928-29 the exports of all commodities to the United Kingdom were valued at 8431,000,000 we are told that that is the market which was discovered only two years ago. Between the fiscal years 1920-21 and
1929-30 the average value of our total exports to the United Kingdom was 8368,000,000 per year, while in the year ending December 31, 1934, our total exports to the United Kingdom were valued at $270,000,000. I know I shall be met with the arguments used by the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Gobeil), namely that it is not fair to compare values of 1930 with those of 1934. I frankly admit that under ordinary circumstances that would be quite true. The difference however is that our farmers were promised that the prices "they were getting in 1930 would be increased, and this government secured thousands of 92582-37
votes because of that promise. In view of that circumstance I believe I am quite within my rights when I make the comparisons I have made.
I should like to refer to another statement made by the Prime Minister. A few days ago he suggested that if there was any dissatisfaction in the old land in connection with these agreements the Liberal party was responsible for it. Let me state right here and now that I think that was a mighty small thing for a big man to say.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: He is small, sometimes.


William Henry Golding: Speaking about the trade agreements on October 12, 1932, the Prime Minister said:
On wheat we have secured a preference of two shillings per quarter. Article 4 of the agreement makes the continuance of this preference, as well as the preferences granted in respect to copper, zinc and lead conditional

Empire Trade Agreements

upon empire producers of these commodities being able and willing to offer them a first sale in the United Kingdom at prices not exceeding the world prices and in quantities sufficient to supply the requirements of the United Kingdom consumers.
I am not going to labour this point, but I wish to ask hon. members opposite if they think Canada is keeping that agreement with the United Kingdom in either the letter or the spirit.
A Canadian press dispatch from Victoria, B.C., dated October 5, states:
"New Zealand is getting tired of the way in which Canada is carrying on" according to David Jones, chairman of the Meat Producers' Board of Wellington, New Zealand, who passed through here on the R.M.S. Niagara early today. "Unless the spirit of the Ottawa^ agreements is more liberally interpreted in this country, it will not be long before we will be compelled' to adopt measures which will be more to our advantage," Mr. Jones told newspapermen.
I submit in all fairness that if there is any dissatisfaction with .the agreements it has been caused by the government themselves.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: They are no good.


William Henry Golding: It seems to me that on everything we sell to the United Kingdom we manipulate and manoeuvre in order to keep the prices above ordinary prices, and against everything they have to sell to us we have tariffs, dumping duties and many other obstacles placed in the way. The result is that appeals have to be made to the tariff board; we have complaints of all kinds, and a growing sense of dissatisfaction which certainly cannot do any good to a treaty.
Hon. members opposite talk about our entry into the British market. I am satisfied our market there to-day is more restricted than it has been at any other time, and I am further satisfied that as time goes on it will become more restricted. Hon. members opposite have persuaded the United Kingdom to adopt the policy of protection, a policy which in the very nature of things promotes restriction. I submit the agricultural self-containment policy being pushed by the Minister of Agriculture in the United Kingdom is a more serious threat to our markets over there than anything whioh has happened heretofore, and something which every hon. member must consider.
At page 135 of Hansard for October 12, 1932, the Prime Minister is reported as follows:
Furthermore, it should be borne in mind that a preferential position in this market will be of immense advantage to Canada in maintaining our great wheat growing areas-

And he added:
-while world sources of supply are being compelled to adjust their acreage to market requirements.
That was a beautiful picture to hold before the western wheat grower. After reading that observation any person exporting wheat would naturally come to the conclusion that his position was secure. Certainly he would not assume that within a year and a half the same Prime Minister would be back asking him to sign an agreement to curtail his acreage and production. That is exactly what happened, and the disappointment the wheat farmers have experienced is in keeping with the disappointments so many people have experienced in connection with the trade treaties.
So far as I am concerned, and I believe I am voicing the views of hon. members on this side of the house, I welcome trade within the empire and trade with any other country. The most important objective any Canadian government could have at the present time would be to try to promote trade through lower rather than higher trade barriers. I wish to state as emphatically as I can that I object to high tariffs because they take from the farmer or the producer a large portion of the product he produces and give him nothing in return. I was more than pleased to hear the Prime Minister a few days ago tell this house, as appears in Hansard:
I have never believed in high tariffs.
That came as rather a shock to me, I must confess, although I have listened to so many statements from the Prime Minister that I really should not have been shocked at that. I think the only difference between the Prime Minister and myself so far as tariffs are concerned is that he has in season and out of season advocated and voted for high tariffs.


An hon. MEMBER:: And still higher.


William Henry Golding: Yes, and higher tariffs;
whereas since I have been privileged to be a member of this house I have spoken and voted against high tariffs, and I intend to continue to vote against high tariffs.
My right hon. leader a few nights ago outlined the situation in connection with certain tariffs to which we strongly object. Here are nine items that are used in every Canadian home: Dyed or printed cotton fabric, white cotton flannelette; wool piece fabric, wool overcoating, wool high grade suiting, wool suiting of a cheaper grade, wool hosiery,

Empire Trade Agreements
wool blankets for the household, and Ax-minster carpets. I shall not quote the rates of duty on each, but assuming that we buy one thousand dollars' worth of each of these articles-
The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr. Stanley!: The hon. member has spoken forty minutes.


William Henry Golding: I shall be through in a
minute, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry I have not another half hour. I was about to say that on these nine articles, if we imported one thousand dollars' worth of each, we would pay about $2,100 more in duty at the present time than we would have had to pay in duty under the Liberal government in 1930. That I submit is a serious situation. I want to tell my hon. friend from Compton and the members on the other side of the house that I shall have no hesitation at all in voting against this motion, and I shall not be the slightest bit afraid to go back to my constituency and meet every one of my electors.


Hon. ROBERT WEIR (Minister of Agriculture) :: Mr. Speaker, in rising to make a very few observations I take this opportunity to congratulate the hon. member for Toronto-Scarborough (Mr. Harris) for having moved this resolution. I really believe that in so doing he was prompted by the thought that is in the minds of the majority of the people of the Dominion of Canada, and that is a desire to know definitely where the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) and his party in this house stand with reference to the Ottawa agreements.
I listened to the speech of the right hon. leader of the opposition the other night. I thought it was an able speech, considering the subject, and I have read it and reread it since; but I cannot for the life of me tell definitely what his attitude is towards these agreements or what he would do in regard to them if he were prime minister of this country.
I should also like to compliment the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) for his industry in going through a long list of exports and imports to select a few specified ones such as rice and the odd carload of barley to show that there was not an increase in our export trade in all commodities. It is not necessary for me to deal with what the hon. member for New Westminster said, because his argument could not have been more completely annihilated than it was by his right hon. leader in the first few minutes of his speech, in which he said, not simply that trade had increased since the Ottawa agreements, but that in the last year alone, from October 31, 1933, to October 31, 1934, our trade with the United Kingdom had increased in the neighbourhood of $90,000,000.
I should also like to congratulate the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Howard)-and I am sorry he is not in his seat to-day, not because I wish him particularly to be present for my congratulations but rather that in his absence I do not feel like making some remarks I would otherwise have made-I should like to congratulate him on making one of the best efforts that could be made in denunciation of the policy of his right hon. leader during the period of nine years when he was Prime Minister of this country, particularly as regards a market for our live stock and dairy products.
The right hon. leader of the opposition stated at the commencement of his address that he felt it would be fairer for purposes of comparison, rather than to take the low point of the depression, 1932, and compare it with the present, to make the comparison between the time he and his government went out of power and the present time. To show you how fair the right hon. gentleman was in those remarks, and also that we may have a clear picture of the situation that confronted this government with reference to markets for our agricultural products, I should like to put on record as shortly as possible what did happen as far as the restrictions of our trade is concerned during the period of nine years when the present leader of the opposition was head of the government in this country; and I shall deal in this connection only with agricultural products. I want to show the restrictions and barriers that had been set up against our trade in agricultural products during the nine years, from 1921 to 1930, that the Liberals were in office-and they were barriers just as insuperable as though stone walls had been built without gates in them between the United States and this country. May I add that I fail to find record of any protest, however slight, on the part of hon. gentlemen opposite against the action of our neighbour to the south in thus shutting their markets to us, or any effort on the part of the Liberal government to have those barriers removed. Here are the figures:
.580
Empire Trade Agreements

'Wheat	
Cattle-
Under 700 pounds	
Over 700 pounds	
Sheep	
Beef	
Bacons and hams	
Pork (fresh, chilled or frozen) .. .. Other pork (prepared or preserved)
Lard	
Butter	
Cheese	
Eggs	
That duty on cattle in force on June 18, 1930, means a duty of $30-on a 1,000-pound steer-a prohibitive duty.
No record even nearly equalling that can be written against any other government that ever was in power in this country. While the Liberal party was in power insurmountable barriers were imposed against the export of our agricultural products to the United States which furnishes our natural market for those products; and because that market was closed entirely to our agricultural products we found ourselves in this position. In 1927, 283,000 head of cattle were marketed from this country in the United States; in 1928, 242,354 head, and in 1929 there was marketed a little over a quarter of a million head. We find ourselves confronted, then, with this problem-not only to market what had hitherto been the normal quantity of live stock but, on top of this, this great weight of a quarter of a million head, that we had been able to lift off, year after year, turned back and weighting down our live stock market. That was our first problem and one of the greatest, but it was only typical, so far as markets are concerned, in connection with our agricultural products. It was typical of the whole heritage which we received when we took power in 1930.
In the face of this one cannot conceive how it is possible for hon. members opposite to go up and down the country singing their favourite song, "We want wider markets; we will give you wider markets, lower tariffs, freer trade." Yet that is the record of hon. gentlemen opposite. As regards finding further markets for our live stock, we explored and investigated every possibility. In the first place, we took steps to give the Canadian market to the Canadian farmer. Immediately afterwards negotiations were entered into with the United Kingdom and with the other dominions in an endeavour to get a preference in those markets for our live stock, and we
IMr. R. Weir.)
U.S. tariff in force		U.S. tariff
to May, 1921	June 18, 1930	
free	42	cents bushelfree	21	cents poundfree	3	cents poundfree	$3 eachfree	6	cents poundfree	3i	cents poundfree	21	cents poundfree	31	cents poundfree	3	cents pound21 cents pound	14	cents pound20 per cent	7	cents poundfree	10	cents dozen
were successful in getting an entry for our cattle under the Ottawa agreements, without the restrictions that had been against them for years and which successive governments had tried unsuccessfully to have removed. In addition to that, we were most anxious, during the process of the negotiations in connection with the Ottawa agreements, to get every advantage we could in the way of a further market for our live stock. That was why we were exceedingly anxious, so far as our bacon and hogs were concerned, to obtain every possible advantage which we felt would raise the prices of these commodities. And we were successful to this extent, that there is less bacon eaten in this country now, with the result of a greater consumption of beef. In that way we have secured a double advantage in raising not only the price of bacon but, as well, the price of our cattle.
Under the Ottawa agreements we obtained the advantage of shipping into the United Kingdom, free of any tariff, a quota of bacon each year for five years of 280,000,000 pounds. Hon. members opposite have said that this market was always free for our bacon and hogs. The fact is however that it was no longer to be free after the report of the pig commission in the United Kingdom. Much has been said in this house with respect to the statement of Mr. Baldwin at the opening of the conference; that it was not the policy of this government but the policy of the British government, acting on the report of this pig commission, that they would not keep out these products by tariffs-because it was felt that the tariff could not be raised high enough, when you compare living conditions in the old country with conditions that prevail in competing countries. If anyone has any doubt with regard to the effect of the British government's policy, in restricting imports of bacon to the United Kingdom, on

Empire Trade Agreements
the increase of prices of bacon in this country, I do not think that any fair-minded person will dispute the evidence that can be submitted to show that there is a direct connection. And I propose to submit that evidence.
The evidence that I will give the house will show that, as the United Kingdom increased restrictions against bacon entering that country, their price went up, and our price month by month, with scarcely an exception, went up step by step with it.


Mr. YOUNG:: What raised the price in Denmark?


Robert Weir: The same thing.
In November, after the agreements were ratified and this policy put into effect, the price of select bacon at Toronto was $1.42 per hundredweight. The rate of restriction which the United Kingdom placed against foreign countries increased from fifteen per cent gradually to fifty-six per cent; and when fifty-six out of every hundred pounds had been shut out, the price of select bacon in Toronto increased from $5 to $10.17, which is in line with the increase in price of bacon in the old country.
I will ask hon. members this. If we had not obtained that advantageous market for our products, what other force existed to raise the price of bacon, when we consider the great additional quantity of cattle for which we had to find a market. Take the number of inspected slaughterings of live stock from 1931 to 1934-not estimates, but actual slaughterings in the inspected packing plants. There was an increase in 1934 of over
1,000,000 head of live stock-cattle, calves, hogs, sheep and lambs. Had it not been for this outlet to the United Kingdom, surely no fairminded person could defend any argument to the effect that there would have been an increase in price in any event. Could there have been such an increase had it not been for this advantage which we received? And it was because of the increase in the price of hogs and the decrease in the price of beef, in comparison, which had caused less bacon and more beef to be consumed, that there has resulted in the past three years an increase in the price, at the end of each year, not only of bacon but also of cattle. For the week ended December 22, 1932, the price of choice steers in Toronto was from $3.90 to $4.50 per hundred; for the week ended December 22, 1933, it was $4.50 to $5.50; and for the week ended December 22, 1934, it was $5 to $5.65, the reason for the increase being as I have stated.
What has been the effect in dollars and cents of this increase in our hog prices in the dominion, admitting that the only factor that has increased the price of hogs has been that preferential market which we have received? Here are the figures. In 1933 the public hog marketings amounted to 3,205.418 head and the average dominion price was $5 per hundredweight. In consequence of the Ottawa agreements there was an increase of $1.05 per hundredweight or $2.10 per head over 1932, or a net increase in total value of $6,731,378. In 1934 the public hog marketings amounted to 3,006,111, the dominion average price being $8 per hundredweight, showing an increase over 1932 of $4.05 per hundredweight or $8.10 per head, or a total net increase in value of $24,349,499. And taking the two years, 1933 and 1934, we have a total value of price improvement amounting to $31,080,877. But the public marketings, that is marketings through inspected abattoirs, are estimated to be approximately one-half of the total amount, and there is an increase in the price of the hogs that are marketed, outside the packing plants by the local butchers, because this price is set by the world price, so that double the amount of holdings means double $31,000,000, or approximately $60,000,000. I should be glad if hon. gentlemen could give any other reason why hog prices and cattle prices in this country have increased in view of the fact that we had to find a market for so many more live stock because of the lack of any effort on the part of hon. gentlemen opposite to prevent our products from being shut out entirely from the markets of the United States.
With reference to dairy products, if the duty against butter coming into this country from Australia and New Zealand was reduced to what it was when this government came into power, what would happen? The leader of the opposition stated in the house that one of his first objectives, if returned to power, would be to put the tariffs back to where they were when his party went out of office. He does not say that they will do this; it is an objective and that objective may be so far in the distant future that they may not be called upon to do it at all. The fact is that the price of Canadian butter on the Montreal market of a quality equivalent to Australian butter was the same as on the London market. That is, if we did not have the tariff of five cents under the treaty, or eight cents under the British preference, New Zealand and Australia could ship butter to Montreal and Vancouver for the same price
Empire Trade Agreements

as that at which it could be delivered in London, and with their difficulty in finding an outlet for their butter, there is no doubt it would have been delivered in Montreal and Vancouver at this price so that the result would have been disastrous to our dairy farmers. In 1933, if this duty had not been against butter, it would have enabled New Zealand and Australia to dispose of their butter in our country at a duty of only one cent a pound, and the following would have been the result. I am taking butter in the months when production is at its highest. In 1933. therefore the net increase due to our tariffs has been:
May to December inclusive:	Net increase
Creamery butter	$5,254,067	88Dairy butter	
2,335,141	28Total	$7,589,209	16
The figures for 1934 are as follows:
May to October inclusive:	Net increase
Creamery butter	$ 9,058,081 71
Dairy butter	 4,025,814 09
Total	$13,083,895 80
That is, through our policies that much more money was turned back to the farmers engaged in the dairy industry. The reason why I have dealt with these two items is that they were mentioned especially by the hon. member for Sherbrooke, and in both cases, if any government was responsible for the loss of markets it was that which sat for nine years under the present right hon. leader of the opposition. The effect of the tariff raised by the United States against the dairy and creamery products of this country was such as to prevent the shipment of them into the United States and to deprive us of a market that formerly absorbed as high as
52,000.000 pounds of cheese in one year, or the equivalent which is, 26,000,000 pounds of butter; or the equivalent quantity of fluid milk was thrown back to be absorbed on the markets of this country or otherwise disposed of. At the same time during the regime of the hon. gentleman opposite there had been allowed into Canada from other dominions, New Zealand and Australia, a quantity of butter in the neighbourhood of 30,000,000 pounds.
In connection with fruit I had hoped to be able to give more detailed information but this has been made unnecessary to a great extent by the excellent presentation that was made this afternoon by the hon. member for Compton. He covered the field so thoroughly that there is really little left except to fill

in a little more of this information. I quote the effect of the Imperial conference agreements. As a result of the conference agreements, Canada's exports to January 2, 1933, to the United Kingdom, showed increases of 133 per cent on barrels and 11 per cent on boxes, while United States exports to that market declined 64 per cent on barrels and 32 per cent on boxes. This is from our own statistics. I would like to quote what R. G. Phillips, Secretary of the International Apple Shippers' Association, Rochester, New York, has to say in a brief on the export apple situation. He makes the following comments:
(a)	Re export developments in Canada and the United States.
From the 1928-29 season to April 1, to the 1932-33 season to April 1, the records show as follows:
Canada gained 38 points: The United States lost 38-6 points. Canada has been broadening her field by reciprocal trade treaties and free entry into Great Britain, while United States outlets are being rapidly curtailed.
Canada is broadening her export markets by commercial treaties including Germany, France, et al, and under the Ottawa accord, while the United States sits by and sees its markets curtailed. That curtailment wall be more pronounced from now on, unless something is done.
(b)	Re economic conference agreement and exchange situation.
The net result of these trade barriers and disruptions was that United States' exports of apples to Great Britain (our best customer) declined 38 per cent this present season to April 1, 1933.
That is the report of an outside, impartial authority on the effect of the Ottawa agreements on apples so far as Canada and the United States are concerned.
The tariff agreement with Germany providing a reduction in duty on Canadian apples effective January 1, 1933, has had a wonderful effect on Canadian shipments to that country, yet hon. gentlemen opposite state that as a result of the Ottawa agreements it has been impossible for Canada to make a trade agreement with any other country. The total shipments from April 1, 1933, to January 3, 1934, to Germany amounted to 47,350 barrels as compared with 843 during the preceding fiscal year.
Protective measures of the Canadian tariff have resulted in a marked reduction in imports from the United States. A marked reduction in exports to the United States cannot be attributed to higher tariffs. Imports of apples from the United States are as follows:
Year	Barrels
1929-30	 150,549
1932-33	 e	 64,742

Empire Trade Agreements
Thus a much greater market in apples was given to those grown by Canadian apple growers.
During the fiscal year to January 4, 1934, 1,629.639 barrels of Canadian apples were sold in the United Kingdom as compared with 700,512 barrels for the corresponding period of the year before, and 1,600,003 boxes as compared with 1,442,361 boxes the year before, or increases of 133 per cent and 11 per cent respectively.
Those are three of our major commodities. Time will not permit me to go into detail in connection with others, but I would like to place on record the following summary of Canada's exports to the United Kingdom for the twelve months ended December 31, 1932, 1933 and 1934:



CANADA'S EXPORTS TO UNITED KINGDOM

[Stage Direction]
12 Months ended December 31st
Agricultural and Vegetable Products. .
Animals and Animal Products	
Fibres, Textiles and Textile Products. Wood, Wood Products and Paper.. ..
Iron and its Products	
Non-Ferrous Metals and Products.. .. Non-Metallic Minerals and Products..
108,753,660
28,839,863
1,238,597
12,046.263
5,192.957
15,071.899
1,287,089
1933 112,703,780 38,481,676 1,799,169 16,274,074 4,324,070 30.183.128 1,662,617
1934 125,344,531 52,869,822 2.135,182 26,526.968 8,987,922 46,459,152 2,182,751

[Stage Direction]
Rubber and Products (total)	
399,770	568,096	1,433,735Pneumatic tire casings	
308.836	403,935	1,134,162Socks and stockings	
394,844	637,785	976.223Automobiles (passengers)	
588,046	926,882	1,939,906Farms Implements	
434.537	358,163	1,001,921Grains and Products (total)	
505,755	93,437	1,596,290Wheat	
444,658	18,436	1,518,246

[Stage Direction]
Automobiles (passenger)	
Automobiles (freight)	
Salmon (canned)	
Paper (total)	
Wood (unmanufactured, total).
466,793 57,673 957,649 2 113.813 1,491,299
1,613,167
344,073
1,128,973
2,463.194
1,878,003
2,559,521
1,614.414
1,276,875
3,955,842
2,572,717
Paper (total	
Rubber Products (total) Automobiles (passenger)

[Stage Direction]
860,045	956,838	1,300,492
574.312	657,912	1,169,879
166,513	235,435	1,182,486
Mr. POULIOT:: All farm products!


John Vallance: Is the minister trying
to get through before six o'clock?-because I should like to ask him a question.


Robert Weir: No, I shall not
finish until after recess.
The right hon. leader of the opposition the other night selected two articles to demonstrate the effect of tariff increases by the present government under the Ottawa agreements. No doubt he had surveyed the field very carefully before he picked out these two. One can almost see in it the handwriting of a gentleman who has devoted years to this special work of just picking out enough to give the picture he desires. He set out clearly the effect of the increased duty and left the inference that the result was a decrease in trade. But here are the actual results: under Liberal
tariff in the calendar year 1930 Canada purchased 32-4 million square yards of cotton cloth, while under the Conservative tariff, in 1934, Canada purchased 63-8 million square yards, or twice as much. Not only is that true, but while the price of woollen tops from which blankets were made had gone up, yet the price of the finished article had gone down. Another point is that in 1930 Canadian workers in the woollen industry had only 22-8 per cent of their home market, foreign mills having 20-4 per cent and British mills 57-8 per cent; while in 1934 British mills had 41 per cent of the Canadian market, foreign mills 1-3 per cent and Canadian mills 57-7 per cent, with a decrease in the price of the article.
I intended to put on record the decrease in the price, but I shall not take time to do
5S4
Empire. Trade Agreements

so; if anyone wishes to look it up the figures are available. Or with the permission of the house I can put it on Hansard.


Jean-François Pouliot: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the minister is asking to put some of this on record without reading it; I strongly object.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member is quite correct, they can go on Hansard without being read only by permission of the house.


Jean-François Pouliot: I object; read the figures.


Mr WEIR (Melfort):: These figures are taken from the Price and Price Indexes of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics:
In 1932	In Dec. 1934
drop from 1930	drop from 1930
Blue denim	
9.6c.	per	lb.	7.7c.	per	lb.Cotton sheeting	
3.6c.	per	lb.	1.0c.	per	lb.Balbriggan underwear	
53.0c.	per	doz.	43.0c.	per	doz.Woollen cloth	
20.0c.	per	yd.	10.0c.	per	yd.Botany cloth	
25.0c.	per	yd.	24.0c.	per	yd.Middling cotton	
6.3c.	per	lb.	0.5c.	per	lb.3-4 blood wool	
7.3c.	per	lb.	3.0e.	per	lb.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Robert Weir: Mr. Speaker, when the house took recess at six o'clock I had dealt with one of the major arguments presented by the right hon. leader of the opposition. Nothing could be better evidence of how difficult it was for the right hon. gentleman to find arguments than the fact that he was forced to select the arguments he did, because they vindicate the stand taken by the manufacturers before 1930 that if they were assured of some tariff stability they could produce goods more cheaply and secure wider markets.
The next argument presented by the right hon. gentleman is an even better demonstration of how difficult he found it to discover anything to say against the Ottawa agreements. He had to travel all the way to the state of western Australia in an endeavour to find an argument against these agreements. He suggested that western Australia asked for separation from Australia oecause of these agreements. The referendum on the subject of separation was granted to the people of that state by a Conservative government and the vote was held in 1932, so the Ottawa agreements had nothing whatever to do with it. Although the referendum was carried the government that granted the referendum was defeated while the party that took a stand against the referendum was returned to power.
The right hon. gentleman next criticized this government for taking to itself the rights of parliament. This I deny absolutely. This government never has taken any step without having received the sanction of parliament,

but what was the record of my right hon. friend when his government was in power? I hold in my hand a copy of an order in council dated at Government House, Ottawa, September 26, 1925, which reads:
Present
The Deputy of His Excellency The Governor General in Council
The Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Finance, is pleased to order that under the provisions of section 5 of The Australian Trade Agreement Act, 1925, and sulbject to the provisions of the said act, the rates of duties set out in schedule 2 to the said act shall be and the same are hereby extended to goods the produce or manufacture of New Zealand when imported into Canada.
Without even bringing the matter before parliament the government of the right hon. gentleman changed treaties to such an extent as to make a complete new treaty.
Then the right hon. gentleman dealt at some length with the attitude of the Prime Minister during the conference. In reading from the statement by Right Hon. Stanley Baldwin my right hon. friend was careful to read only that part that suited him. I should like to read what Mr. Baldwin said at the conclusion of the Ottawa conference:
Over that conference it was fitting that your own Prime Minister, the Prime Minister of Canada, should preside, and fortunate have we been that in Canada's Prime Minister we have a man so admirably qualified for that difficult task. He possesses a power of drive given to few, which is an essential element in the conduct of business of this kind. He has a grasp of detail which is astonishing, and yet with all, when one realizes what a grasp of detail involves, I have been struck all the time by his accessibility, that he has always been ready to discuss points as they arise with any delegation at any hour and in any place.

Empire Trade Agreements
Nothing could more completely contradict the case which the right hon. gentleman and his followers have endeavoured to build up since that conference, to the effect that the Prime Minister had taken a dictatorial attitude at that time. I venture to say that when the minor details of that conference have been forgotten, the memory that will be outstanding in the minds of those who attended will be the particular characteristics of the Prime Minister that made it a success, as stated so well by Right Hon. Stanley Baldwin.
The other day in his address the right hon. leader of the opposition stated that he sat in the gallery and listened to the opening remarks of Mr. Baldwin. I think it only fair to the people of the country, and especially to hon. members of this house, that I take this opportunity of putting on record, by way of contrast to the attitude of the right hon. gentleman now, a verbatim statement given by him and appearing in the Toronto Daily Star of September 28, 1932, in an interview with Mr. R. E. Knowles:
"I observed you, Mr. King, at the conference's opening, sitting in the gallery, beside Sir Robert Borden. Did' you and he suffer much? I mean, did you exceedingly long to be in the game? Did you not feel you could have done it better yourself?"
Mr. King only stroked the dome of St. Paul's, afore referred to, and laughed. "It was a great relief," he said-
In this you have the picture of a man who for nine years was prime minister of the country, clearly stating his great relief at being out of it all, with no urge, no thrill, no call of duty to see what contribution he could make. He was glad that it was possible for him to escape the effort.
The right hon. gentleman stated that Conservative members of parliament have been going around the country suggesting that if he is returned to power he will cancel the Ottawa agreements, and he has intimated that this is not correct. I should like to quote from one of the most partisan Liberal newspapers in western Canada, the Moose Jaw Times of October 19, 1933, which says:
We venture to predict that one of the first and major matters that Canada will expect of Mackenzie King and the Liberal party- when returned to power so soon as Premier Bennett provides a general election-will be a cancellation of the Bennett trade agreements-
This resolution has been placed before the house, Mr. Speaker, so that the people of Canada may know just where the right bon. gentleman stands in connection with this matter. He has stated that he has not
changed his attitude since the Ottawa agreements were signed in 1932, and I should like to put on record what his attitude was at that time. I quote from Hansard of October 17, 1932:
How can we be expected to support them, and still preserve our self-respect in the matter of supporting our own principles? ... I say the principle imbedded here is wholly indefensible and is undeserving of any support from any part of the British empire.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Robert Weir: I am glad hon.
gentlemen opposite say "hear, hear," because following the discussion of these agreements, and before the vote was taken, the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote) moved an amendment, which asked that the Canadian dollar be placed on a parity with the British pound. So the house was asked whether or not it was in favour of the Ottawa agreements, with the added condition that the dollar be placed on a parity with the pound. The right hon. gentleman and, I believe, all his supporters, voted for that amendment, but what is the position at the present time? To-day the dollar is on a parity with the pound, but they refuse to take the stand they took at that time.
I have carefully read the statement of the right hon. leader of the opposition as to his stand on these agreements. In one-half column there are six if's, a number of and's, but's, maybe's, whether's, whether or not's and unless's. Plenty of loopholes have been left, and in addition he said he reserved the right to make a decision on such changes as might be desired. I must say, Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, that this, from the standpoint of a speech which purports to make a statement, is not a speech at all; but rather it is a cross-word puzzle.
Mr. G. W. MePHEE (Yorkton):	Mr. Speaker, when before six o'clock I listened to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) read into Hansard multitudinous statistics I recalled an incident which took place in this house when there was a passage between Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Sir George Foster. Sir Wilfrid, after listening to Sir George' read page after page of statistics to prove that Canada was prosperous, rose in his place and said, "When the party I have the honour to lead comes into power it will not be necessary for one to read statistics to prove that he is prosperous. I will ask every artisan, merchant and farmer in the country to put his hands in his pockets, and there he will find the evidence of his prosperity."
Empire Trade Agreements

In placing these statistics on Hansard the minister was simply imitating his leader's actions in the year 1931. We well remember that on April 21, 1931, the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) said, respecting western Canada, that these great provinces had produced $1,900,000,000 worth of new wealth in two years. He said he knew from bank reports that there were tens of thousands of farmers in western Canada who had bank balances, that he knew the farmers in western Canada had $300,000,000 worth of automobiles which in the previous year had cost them $9,000,000 or $10,000,000 in running costs and registration fees.
After hearing what the Prime Minister had to say and after listening to the Minister of Agriculture to-night I wondered whether or not we might be mistaken with regard to our prosperity, and I thought that perhaps, after all, these figures read so glibly might indicate that we are prosperous. But what are the hard facts? Never before in the history of Canada has agriculture in all its phases sunk to such a low level as it has during the regime of the right hon. gentleman opposite.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is a wonderful argument.


Mr. McPHEE:: I will give you the details of the argument later on.


Mr. SANDERSON:: You can't take it; that's the trouble.
Mr. MoPHEE: The minister read statistics to prove that the cattle business is prosperous, that the hog business is prosperous, and compared the prices for those commodities with the prices of 1932. Why did he not go back to 1930? That is the year his leader said agriculture in Canada was suffering, and that the panacea needed was simply his return to office, in which event the people of Canada would have all they required. Why did not the Minister of Agriculture tell the house and country that bacon and hams were worth $24 a hundredweight in 1930, while in the peak of the year 1933 they were worth only 111 per hundredweight? Why did he not tell them that, instead of putting on Hansard thousands of figures which can be of no use? I should like to place side by side with those statistics quoted by the minister the figures appearing in the statement I hold in my hand.


An hon. MEMBER:: Oh, oh.


George Washington McPhee: My hon. friend is a small individual and the person to whom he refers

is a large one, and I would not begin to compare them. I do not interrupt when the hon. member is speaking; as a matter of fact I do not interrupt anyone. I want the Minister of Agriculture to take notice of the facts I am about to place on Hansard. I notice he has one of the highly respected cattle men of western Canada sitting beside him, and I wish he would take the advice of that gentleman. On November 4, a farmer of Stornoway shipped 26 head of cattle and 20 hogs to Winnipeg. The hon. member about whom I have just spoken has no doubt on many occasions shipped cattle to Winnipeg. On November 5, 1934, he received a statement from Winnipeg indicating that the cattle and hogs had been sold for $490.75 and after paying freight and other charges amounting to $108.75 the sum of $382 was coming to him. The result was that he received only $382 for 26 steers and 20 hogs. These are the hard facts, so far as agriculture in Canada is concerned.
I believe the figures I have given bear out my statement that never in the history of western Canada has agriculture reached such a low ebb as it has during the last five years under the supervision of the present government.


Frederick George Sanderson: The same applies to eastern Canada.


George Washington McPhee: The question of the endorsement of the trade agreements reopens the whole matter of trade with Great Britain, and the preferences which Canada has given Great Britain in our markets. We go back to 1897, when the government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier introduced a preference which gave Great Britain a 25 per cent preference in the Canadian market. That amount was afterwards increased to 33J per cent. What was the attitude of the Conservative party of that day concerning the subject of the British preference? Now they throw out the challenge, "Would you interfere with imperial conference agreements if your party came into office?" Let us go back to 1897 and see what their record was.


An hon. MEMBER:: Would you cancel the agreements?


George Washington McPhee: Yes we would, and restore the Liberal policy; and believe me we have already said so, from the Atlantic to the Pacific in four provincial elections and in half a dozen by-elections. I will deal with that before I am through.

Empire Trade Agreements
Let us go back to 1897 when the British preference was introduced, and examine the attitude of the Conservative party of that [DOT]day. These great loyalists of to-day, what were they then? Speaking in the House of Commons in the year 1897 Sir Charles Tupper, then leader of the Conservative party, said this about the British preference:
What is the result? The result is that this tariff goes into operation, and the hon. gentleman knows that the industries of this country are already paralyzed in consequence. While hon. members gloat, vindictively gloat over the destruction of Canadian industries, I was reading the wail, the sorrowful wail, of those industries in the Montreal Gazette, where one manufacturer after another declared that their industries were ruined, that their mills must close, and that they saw staring them in the face a return to the deplorable state of things that existed when the hon. gentleman who last addressed the house was in charge of the fiscal policy of this country. I say that a deeper wrong was never inflicted upon Canada.
I deplore from the bottom of my heart the ruin that is going to be inflicted upon the best interests of Canada.
So said the Conservative party of 1897. Three or four yeans later the preference was increased to 33 i per cent. This country derived great benefits from its trade with Great Britain; the volume increased by leaps and bounds. The Minister of Agriculture gave some figures showing our trade with the United Kingdom since the agreements became effective in 1932. Let me go back to the three years before 1930 and compare the trade in Canada with the United Kingdom in that period with our trade with the United Kingdom in the last three years. My hon. friend picked out the lowest year in this series of years of debt, deficit and decay. He took the year 1932 as the criterion. But let us go back to 1929, 1928, 1927, 1926, 1925, 1924, 1923, 1922, those prosperous years of empire trade, and see what are the figures.
In 1927 our imports from Great Britain amounted in round figures to 8163,930,000, and our exports $448,000,000, or $285,000,000 more of exports than imports. In 1928 our imports from Great Britain amounted to $186,000,000, and our exports to Great Britain, $412,000,000.


Mr. LOUCKS:: What was our export of wheat in 1929?


George Washington McPhee: I will come to that in a minute, and I thank my hon. friend very much for reminding me of it; but let me complete these figures first. In 1929 our imports from Great Britain were $194,000,000, and our exports to Great Britain, $431,000,000. There was not a year previous to 1930 that
our exports to Great Britain were not anywhere from two to three hundred million dollars more than our imports from Great Britain. But what about the years 'since 1932? In 1932 we imported from Great Britain $106,000,000 worth of goods as compared with $194,000,000 in 1929, and we exported to Great Britain $174,000,000 as compared with $431,000,000 of exports in 1929. In 1933 we imported $86,000,000 worth of British goods-a marked drop-and we exported $185,000,000 worth, as compared with $431,000,000 in 1929. In 1934 we imported from Great Britain $113,000,000 worth of goods and exported $270,000,000, as compared with $448,000,000 six years before that. Why did not my hon. friend take the years 1929, 1928, 1927, or preceding years and make his comparison with any of those years before 1930?
My hon. friend from Rosetown (Mr. Loucks) spoke about wheat, and I am mighty glad he mentioned it because there were some promises made in 1930 about wheat, and I want to go into that matter.
For the last two fiscal years for which we have the figures, what have been our shipments of wheat to Great Britain?-and remember that we are supposed to have a preference of six cents a bushel in the British market for our wheat. For the year ended March, 1933, Great Britain imported 133,000,000 bushels of wheat, and for the year ended March, 1934, 132,000,000 odd bushels- not very much difference. In 1933 Great Britain imported 75,000,000 bushels of our wheat, and she imported from the United States 2,000,000 bushels; from the Argentine
15.000.	000; from Australia, 26,000,000; from Russia, 3,900,000, and from other countries,
10.000.	000 bushels. But last year the United Kingdom imported from Canada only 46,000,000 bushels of wheat; from the Argentine,
29.000.	000; from Australia, 28,000,000; from Russia, 14,000,000, and from other countries,
13.000.	000 bushels, proving conclusively that during the year 1934, notwithstanding our preference of six cents a bushel in the British market, we sold 29,000,000 bushels less of wheat than we did in 1933, and that amount was taken up by the Argentine, Australia and Russia.
To complete the record of the Liberal government with regard to Canada's trade with Great Britain, let me say that every concession that was given by Canada to Grpat Britain was the result of Liberal administration of affairs in this country. Take, for instance, the first 25 per cent preference in 1897; then the increase to 331 per cent some
5S8

Empire Trade Agreements
four or five years later. The next preference to be extended to Great Britain is in what was known as the Dunning budget. I want this house and' the country to realize the condition that was created in the mind of the British purchaser as a result of nine years of Liberal rule in this country under the leadership of the right hon. gentleman who now leads the opposition in this house. In one of the government publications published in the summer of 1930 there is this report of conditions obtaining in England with regard to Canadian produce. It is headed, "Canada Week in Bristol, England," and reads:
May 1, 1930-"Canada Week" designed as part of the publicity campaign that is bringing to the notice of British people the immense variety of Canada's products has just been successfully held in Bristol, England.
Five hundred leading stores gave up their windows to attractive displays of Canadian goods and tens of thousands of the public entered for a competition based on the varying popularity of what they saw or purchased.
Importers and wholesalers report a marked increase in demand and it may be said that Canada is definitely on the map so far as the west of England is concerned.
The lord mayor and city council gave the "Canada Week" the fullest civic support. Premises were taken in the heart of the city for the headquarters of the campaign to "boost" Canadian products and here thousands of samples were sold every day.
That was the condition of Canadian trade with Great Britain in 1930; but what happened in 1930?


An hon. MEMBER:: The Hawley-Smoot
tariff.


George Washington McPhee: I will deal with that later. In 1930 we had a promiser go up and down this country. Notwithstanding that Canada then was prosperous, so prosperous that to-day Conservative speakers will not compare their record with that year or the years before it, we had a promiser go up and down this country saying: What you want is high tariffs in Canada. And now, Mr. Speaker, I come to the subject of wheat. "Listen, you agriculturists of western Canada and the rest of Canada"-I am going back to June 10, 1930. "Listen, you agriculturists of western Canada and the rest of Canada, you who have been taught to mock at tariffs and applaud free trade; tell me when did free trade ever fight for you. I will make tariffs fight for you. I will use tariffs to blast a way into the markets of the world." Those were the effervescent statements that won the election of 1930; and while my hon. friends opposite may gloat over the fact that numerically they have a majority in the house to put this motion

through, I challenge them to appeal to the acid test of public opinion in Canada and see what will be the result.
At the time those statements were made by the present Prime Minister, Canadian wheat was selling for SI. 10 a bushel, on June 10, 1930. What is the price to-day? The price to-day Mr. Speaker, is 60 cents a bushel, and it is pegged at that. Coarse grains went down last month from 17 to 20 cents a bushel, and yet we hear talk about a prosperous Canadian agriculture!


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Never under the Tories.


Mr McPHEE:: One of the cartoons my
hon. friends opposite used in our western country in the election campaign of 1930 showed a Canadian wheat farmer standing in the middle of a wheat field shouting to a diminutive picture of the then leader of the government, "What are you going to do for my wheat?" Well, if he had the same concern about doing something for the farmer with wheat at $1.10 a bushel, what is the situation now with wheat at half that price?
High tariffs were to be the panacea that was going to cure all the ills of the country. The first imperial conference took place and the Prime Minister went to Great Britain and told the people of that country that they must maintain an open market for us, that they must impose a duty of ten per cent against the rest of the world so that we might have a preference. He was turned down. The Minister of Agriculture quotes the final message of Mr. Stanley Baldwin to the present Prime Minister of Canada as Mr. Baldwin was leaving this country. Naturally, an Englishman is a gentleman, and in leaving the country Mr. Baldwin wanted to pay as nice a compliment as he could to the man whose guest he had been. Why did not the Minister of Agriculture quote what Mr. Thomas said? Why did he not quote what Snowden said? Snowden said, "If you adopt the ten per cent tariff, then we are on the slippery slope that will lead to the bottomless pit." And there was Mr. Thomas with his "humbug."
The first imperial conference proved a fiasco, and at the second imperial conference we were supposed to get a preference of six cents a bushel on our wheat. Is there anyone in this house who will raise his hand and say that as a result of that agreement he got one cent of an increase in the price of his wheat, let alone six cents a bushel? But we did get something else out of that agreement. We again got a dose of high tariff which put us further into the mire than we had been

Empire Trade Agreements
in before. We are told in the schedule attached to the agreement that Canada would give a preference to Great Britain in connection with a certain number of articles, and here again I want to pay tribute to the astuteness of the British bargainer. What do you suppose some of these articles were? What were some of the concessions which we gave to Great Britain in return for the supposed six cents a bushel on our wheat? To begin with, mickey mouse periodicals, No. 171 of the schedule. If any of my hon. friends opposite have any doubt about it let them refer to the article. Then we find automobiles from Great Britain, free of duty. There are two kinds of automobiles we could import from Great Britain, the millionaire's car and the little baby Austin, and I should like to see the baby Austin in operation on some of our sideroads in this country.


Mr. DUFF:: What about the Bennett
buggy?


George Washington McPhee: I think I have some photographs in my desk. The millionaire automobile is admitted into Canada free of duty under the pretence of giving Canadian farmers a preference of six cents a bushel on their wheat, but if you want to import a bicycle for your boy or a baby carriage for your child you pay a duty of thirty-five cents on the dollar. Another item is ladies' long elbow length kid gloves; these are free of duty under the pretence of a benefit of six cents a bushel to Canadian farmers on their wheat, and which they never did get. But if you want to import babies' socks you pay 35 cents on the dollar and in addition seventy-five cents on a dozen pairs.
An evening or two ago, at the close of the session, I went down to get my mail and I got a government publication published under the auspices of the Minister of Public Works- a government report. I opened the book and in the dim and dismal light surrounding the post office I saw the almost nude picture of a man. I wondered whether it was Mussolini or Hitler or the rotund figure of my right hon. friend the Prime Minister. When I got to my room where there was a light I found that it was a picture of Job, the title being "Job in his Misery." Well, we are all familiar with the biblical story; we know what misery Job suffered, and we would be a hardhearted generation if we did not sympathize to the fullest extent with him in his affliction. But there are human boils and economic boils, and I do not need to tell the farmer and the labouring man of Canada that this country has had economic boils
during the last five years. And what are some of the boils it has had? Tariff ruination for one thing. I have here a statement in connection with western agriculture which I should like to put on record. These are authentic figures. The Minister of Agriculture put some figures on Hansard and they may be authentic too, but it would take a generation to read them over and compare them.
In the United States a Ford truck can be bought for 595 bushels of potatoes; in Canada it would take 3,200 bushels to buy the same truck. A turkey rancher in the United States can buy a Ford truck for 2,795 pounds, whereas it would take 6,600 pounds of turkey in Canada to buy the same truck here. In the United States a cattle man can exchange six steers for a Ford truck whereas his brother the Canadian farmer would have to sell thirty Canadian steers at the price in this country if he wanted the same truck here. And if wheat is sold in the United States to buy the truck, the United States grain grower can get the Ford truck f.o.b. Detroit for 468 bushels of wheat, whereas the Canadian wheat grower would have to give in exchange, for the same truck in Canada, 1,082 bushels of No. 1 northern Canadian wheat.


Mr. GOTT:: I suggest that the minister's figures are more discernible to people than the hon. gentleman's.


Mr. MacLEAN:: Put it in onions and he will understand it.


George Washington McPhee: We don't grow onions in our part of the country.


Eccles James Gott: They are brain builders.


George Washington McPhee: If they are brain builders they sent a very poor sample of the product to this house.
The Minister of Agriculture in 1930 in conjunction with his leader, in order to encourage Canadian agriculture, Canadian wheat growing, said: "Tariffs are the panacea", and a ten per cent duty was put on barbed wire coming into this country that came in free of duty from 1897 down to the date of this agreement we are supposed to ratify on behalf of the Canadian agriculturists. Further, a duty of 25 per cent was put on cream separators. That is the way in which the Minister of Agriculture was going to help the dairymen-charge them 25 per cent duty for the machines which they required to separate the cream from the milk. Now we are called upon to endorse the agreement which imposes that further iniquity upon the Canadian agriculturist. I say that already Canada has
Empire Trade Agreements

pronounced judgment on this sort of thing. The hon. member for Compton (Mr. Gobeil) said:	"Let us take a vote on this; we will
show what the people of this country think of this agreement." Anyone can see that a vote in this house with the party opposite with an effective majority would mean a majority for the government. But what about the country? People all over this country from the storm-girt shores of Nova Scotia to where the province of British Columbia bathes its feet in the placid waters of the Pacific, have already pronounced judgment upon these agreements.
Do my hon. friends think that the election in Nova Scotia was not fought upon these agreements? Well, the Conservative party in that province was almost wiped out of existence. What about the old province of Ontario? What about the first by-election that was held there after these agreements became law, the by-election in South Oxford, when the man who ran there on behalf of the Liberal party discussed nothing but these imperial conference agreements? What about Ontario, as I say, when my hon. friends opposite, entrenched as they were, were almost wiped off the map? What about Saskatchewan, the province from which the Minister of Agriculture comes? Do hon. gentlemen opposite think these agreements were not an issue in that election? They were.


Frederick George Sanderson: The only issue.


George Washington McPhee: The minister went out to
that province to discuss these Imperial conference agreements. So did the hon. member for Rosetown. Notwithstanding the fact that Mr. Anderson, the ally of the Prime Minister and the political godfather of the Minister of Agriculture, stood side by side with the Tory party, he and his friends were wiped out, horse, foot and artillery; they had not a man in the legislature to support them. That election was fought on these agreements. What about the election in British Columbia? These agreements were an issue there and the same fate befell the Conservative party in that province, with the one exception that one poor Conservative was elected and he had to change his designation before he got into the legislature. That is what happened in British Columbia. Now my hon. friends opposite say: "Let us put this thing to the test." Yes, put it to the test in this house where numerically by the effervescence of 1930 they have a majority. My hon. friends hold on until the last minute. Why did they not put this to the acid test last

fall? Why did the government not go to the country last fall at the end of four years as in public decency they should have done? No, they did like their allies, Mr. Anderson of Saskatchewan and Mr. Henry of Ontario; they held on until the last minute to the fleshpots of their political Egypt. Bill Nye, the great American humourist, in his address-to bachelors, makes this statement:
Remember boys that the fellow who stands on the brink of the river frightened to jump into the water is ten times more apt to catch cold than the fellow who tumbles in head first-
Mr. Anderson of Saskatchewan and Mr. Henry of Ontario stood on the brink of the river of public opinion, shivering, and what a chill went down their spines when on June 19 last they went into the frigid waters of public opinion in this country! And the same thing will happen to the right hon. gentleman who leads the government. Let him bring on the election. He may in those fireside chats of his, communing with the spirits, talking over the radio, think he can dress up the old Tory party in a new crazy patchwork garment, but let the time come-and let it come soon 

and the public intelligence of the electors of Canada will carry that old party to the grave of its political incapacity, unwept, unhonoured and unsung.


Franklin White Turnbull: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to follow the hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. McPhee) through the mass of material that he delivered in the last forty minutes, because through it all he has not yet told us whether in his opinion this treaty merits the approval of the people. He talks about the crazy patchwork garment that was according to him put out in the speech of the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett), but he forgets that his leader was very anxious all through this session to have that program that went over the radio put into effect, so much so that we could not even have private members' days; we could not even vote any supply-there was this great eagerness to put into effect throughout Canada the social reform program that my hon. friend calls a crazy patchwork quilt.
The election in Saskatchewan was not won on the question of the empire treaties. It was won on the solemn promise of Mr. Gardiner to tear up $10,000,000 of relief notes which Mr. Gardiner did not have and never will have to tear up. It was won on the promise that no more relief notes would be asked for from the people for the relief they were getting, a promise which was broken

Empire Trade Agreements
within twenty-four hours of the time Mr. Gardiner got into office. It was won on the promise of dollar wheat, and my hon. friend says that after a few months of Liberal rule in Saskatchewan wheat is now sixty cents a bushel. It was won in my hon. friend's constituency by the letter he sent to some of his foreign speaking supporters telling them that from private information he had obtained in this house there were rumours that the foreign speaking people of Saskatchewan were going to be disfranchised.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Shame.


George Washington McPhee: Will my hon. friend permit a question? Is it not a fact that this was in the original bill?


Franklin White Turnbull: He said that there was a rumour that foreign speaking people would be disfranchised.


George Washington McPhee: It was not a rumour at all; it was a reality. I have the proof before me, if the hon. member wants it.


Franklin White Turnbull: This parliament did not disfranchise them.


George Washington McPhee: But the bill was introduced here.


Franklin White Turnbull: In addition to that he says it may not be true, but make the best use of it. It will set the heather on fire in Saskatchewan. To one of these foreign speaking residents he said: "Use this to the best of your ability and ask everyone in Saskatchewan to register a vote against the Tory government of Saskatchewan"-because of something that was to be done here in Ottawa.
Mr. YO'UNG: It was in a bill brought down by the government.


Franklin White Turnbull: 
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Franklin White Turnbull: But my hon. friends opposite are very careful not to say what tariffs are unwarranted. If they did they might have the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) objecting to the abolition of the duties on motor cars and rubber overshoes. In 1932 he was the gentleman who objected to these millionaires' motor cars coming into the country free, because they wanted to build some in Kitchener,


Mr. EULER:: We do not build them there,


William Duff: What about the babies' rubber pants?


An hon. MEMBER:: You will need them.
Mr. TURlNBULL: The right hon. leader of the opposition says they are ready to trade on a reciprocal basis; so are we. A few years ago he was not prepared to trade on a reciprocal basis; he was prepared to give Great Britain a fifty per cent preference, getting nothing in return. That is not a reciprocal basis. My hon. friends say it would be good for this country to give Great Britain a fifty per cent preference, on the old theory that you cannot sell unless you buy. If we should give it to Great Britain on that theory surely we should give it to the United States on the same basis; and if it would improve our sales in Great Britain surely a fifty per cent reduction would increase our sales in the United States, and in Germany, and in France, and all over the world. But my hon. friends do not urge that. They urged a fifty per cent reduction in 1919; the leader of the opposition then said that by that pledge he would stand or fall, but for nine years the only thing he did towards putting it into effect was to move in the opposite direction, finding it necessary to require that textiles should have a fifty per cent empire content instead of thirty-three and a third. The old content was restored by this government when they came back into office, and the British people appreciated' it.
As the leader of the opposition said the other night, it is of no great advantage to quote figures unless the proper inference is drawn from them, because, he said, world: factors have affected the whole course of world trade as well as trade between Great Britain and Canada, and would have affected' it if there had been no trade agreements. That is true; there have been world factors, that affected trade. That is the trouble with all the arguments put forward by my hon. friends on the opposite side. They forget that in quoting the 1930 figures they are.
Empire Trade Agreements

quoting figures with respect to what happened before they allowed the United States to shut our goods out of their markets. They forget also that they are quoting figures of what happened before they allowed Europe to shut wheat out of their markets. There has 'been something said with regard to the sales of wheat since this government came into office. AVbeat should be discussed on the basis of the crop year, not the calendar year nor the fiscal year. The year for the wheat business is from July to July, the crop year. What is the record? I have here the figures from the Grain Trade of Canada:
Exports
Crop year:	bushels
1928-	29	
344,900,0001929-	30	
148,000,0001930-	31	
220.000,0001931-	32	
178,000,0001932-	33	
240,000.0001933-	34	
170,000,000
Note that the figures for the crop year 1929-30, ended July 31, the very time the Mackenzie King government went out of office, show that our sales of wheat had dropped to 148,000,000 bushels. In no single year since, at least, as far back as 1926, have we sold less wheat than we did for the last crop year that the Liberals were in office.


Mr. DONNELLY:: Is that to Great Britain or to the world?


Franklin White Turnbull: To the world. My hon. friends are very much worried about tariffs. They are in opposition now, which explains it all. The hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) said not long ago, that after forty years of experience of the Liberal party he had come to the conclusion that the Liberals always talked free trade out of office and practised protection in office.


Frederick George Sanderson: What did he say about the Conservative party?


Franklin White Turnbull: He did not have the inside knowledge of them that he had of the Liberals. Hon. gentlemen opposite have been
making some comparisons with regard to the loss of exports as compared with 1930. I agree that there has been a loss of exports, measured in dollars. I agree that there have been world factors that influence things in this country. Apparently they do not admit that, except when they want to use the argument to their own advantage. But if we are to be responsible for some of this loss of trade then I say let the Liberal party take the responsibility for their share.


An hon. MEMBER:: We will in a few months.


Franklin White Turnbull: According to the
Dunning budget speech made on May 1, 1930, we lost in that year 8243,000,000 of our export market, of which the greatest part was grain, the commodity that the hon. member for Yorkton is so much concerned about. I took the trouble to find out the loss until the end of September, 1930, which should also be credited to the Liberal party. Our loss in exports for six months of that year was $138,000,000. So when you compare 1930 with 1932 you should attribute at least $380,000,000 of the drop to the Liberal party, because it took place when they were in office.
Now, let us see what these world factors meant. It is true there was a drop in the dollar value of our trade; it is equally true that that drop took place all over the world. The exports of Great Britain declined just the same as ours; the exports of the United States declined just t'he same as ours. While there may have been a tariff party in the United States strangling trade, as my hon. friends say, there was none in Great Britain between 1930 and 1932, but the trade dropped just the same, because of world conditions. The drop started under Liberal rule and continued under Conservative rule until we succeeded in arresting it. Part of the drop in trade was a drop in volume; another part was in value. In order to find out how much was volume I took the trouble to get the Canadian trade figures for exports converted into 1926 values, as follows:
Fiscal years:	Declared'value 1926 value
1926	
$1,315,356,000	$1,315,356,0001929	
1,363,710,000	1,548,000,0001930	
1,120,258,000	1,255,496,0001931	
799,743.000	1,097,832,0001932	
576,344,000	1,007,261,0001933	
473,800.000	975,283,0001934	
579,343,000	1,054,661,000
So if you give us to the end of the fiscal pretty well in effect-on the 1926 valuation year Which closed on March 31, 1931-because basis our drop from 1930 had been somewhere up to that time the Dunning budget had been in the neighbourhood of $250,000,000, while

Empire Trade Agreements
[DOT]our drop from 1931 until the present time has been $43,000,000. So the bulk of our drop has been in volume.
The situation when this government came into office was that the markets of the world were closed to our wheat. The hon. member for Yorkton says there was prosperity in the country. I happen to know that delegations of unemployed people paraded to the legislative buildings in Regina as early as 1929. They were promised nothing, but their leaders were arrested and put in gaol as vagrants. At that time we had started down the hill of depression. During the course of that campaign Mr. Dunning said that the only market we had left was the market in Great Britain. Speaking in Ottawa on July 22, 1930, the right hon. leader of the apposition declared that our trouble was that we were not able to sell our wheat. In 1929 we had only half a crop, but we were not able to sell it and he said that was the cause of our trouble in 1930. He was merely repeating what Mr. Dunning had said in western Canada. Mr. Dunning realized the position; he knew we had only one market left for agricultural products, but he did not believe he could get a reciprocal treaty, because he said the British people would never tax foodstuffs. Believing he could not get a reciprocal treaty and a real preference he tried for the next best thing, a sentimental preference, and in order to do that he reduced the duty on a number of articles coming from Great Britain and increased the duty on similar articles coming from the United States and other countries.
The right hon. leader of the apposition objected because increases in the tariff were set out in these treaties. There were increases in the tariff under the Dunning budget, put through for the very same reason the tariff was increased under these treaties, to divert trade now going to the United States, who would not buy our goods, to Great Britain, who would buy our goods. Duties were increased under the Dunning budget just as they were under these treaties; they were fine in the Dunning budget, but they were anathema when put through by a Conservative government. The right hon. gentleman will remember that on one occasion he made a treaty with Australia, and in order to give Australia a preference on raisins he raised the duty on raisins coming into this country from the United States and other countries to three and a half cents per pound, 92582-38
or a duty of forty per cent. There are occasions when you cannot give a preference unless you raise the duties in the intermediate and general sohedules. For instance, we had no duty on ethylene glycol prior to these treaties, but in order to give Great Britain a preference we imposed a tariff of 15 per cent in the intermediate and general tariffs, leaving it free from Great Britain. That was what we did in connection with cream separators, to which my hon. friend from Yorkton referred. They were free across the board when we came into office. We imposed a duty of 25 per cent under the intermediate and general tariffs with free entry from Great Britain, and the country from which they come free is the country that fixes the price. The prices are lower to-day than they were when we came into office.
It was the Liberal policy of 1930 to give a sentimental preference in the hope that thereby they would reap some benefit. That was on the theory that you must buy in order to sell. When I was a boy I was taught that I must sell in order to get the money to buy. My Liberal friends, as usual, have things upside down and do the buying first. Let us examine this proposition of buying in order to sell. Suppose we had given Great Britain the complete Canadian textile market, had closed up all our own textile mills and prohibited the importation of textiles from any other country, so that Great Britain would have all the business. Then, having done that, suppose a British miller started out to buy a cargo of wheat for his mills, knowing he had to sell his flour in competition with the rest of the world. Suppose he was offered a cargo of Canadian wheat at $1 a bushel and a cargo of Argentine wheat of comparable quality at 99 cents a bushel. Which would he buy? We all know that he would buy the Argentine wheat, just as you or I would, and that is a complete answer to the argument that you must buy in order to sell. I think it is a complete answer to any onesided arrangement. As the right hon. leader of the opposition said in his younger days, when he was a little more obstreperous than he is now, if I may use the expression, trade cannot be a jug-handled proposition; it must work both ways. That was when he was talking about reciprocity with the United States; he did not want reciprocity in those days. He told hon. members in the far corner of the house that with the United States duty as it was, shutting our goods out of their country and perhaps pressing more heavily on the part of the country from which the Progressives came

Empire Trade Agreements

than on any other part, he was not prepared to lower our duties against the United States, that trade was a two way street and there was not any jug-handled proposition about it. That is what has gone wrong with our Liberal friends; they talk free trade, but when they do that they do not mean it; they mean free imports, and free imports and free trade are two entirely different things.
A fifty per cent preference to Great Britain under the Dunning budget would not have induced any further purchases from that country, and did not induce any. We took the position that a trade agreement had to be a two way agreement. Referring again to the opening speech of the right hon. Prime Minister at Winnipeg, in 1930, he said:
We pledge ourselves to foster and support a plan for greater empire trade to be based on mutual advantage.
The imperial preference treaties were a fulfilment of that pledge, a pledge upon which the people of the country returned the Conservative party to power in 1930. The great difference between the two parties at that time was that the Dunning budget was a preference in return for a hope, while the Conservative program called for a preference for a preference. The people preferred the latter, and under the leadership of the right hon. Prime Minister they got it, in spite of the fact that very few people, eitheT within or without this house, thought that could be accomplished.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that the house is rather indebted to the hon. member for Toronto-Scarborough (Mr. Harris) for giving us the opportunity of pronouncing once more upon these agreements. If some hon. gentlemen opposite will take the trouble to look through Hansard of 1932 and 1933 and read some of the remarks they made about these treaties at that time I think they will welcome this opportunity of taking some of their words off the record, of saying a good word for the treaties for which all the rest of the people of Canada have a good word, and of putting themselves right with the Canadian people just as they have in connection with social reform. The right hon. leader of the opposition objected to the treaties because they were based on Conservative tariff policies, and, he said, would further aggravate conditions that were already pretty bad. He said that we had abandoned the principle of control of our own fiscal policy and had supported another equally vicious, namely the principle of imperial control. He said that the abandonment of our fiscal freedom was a principle we ought not to support. Later on 
the right hon. gentleman said that it was a Tory conspiracy, a protectionist zollverein, and that it was going to extend like a ring of iron around the British empire as a whole. Then, as the Minister of Agriculture said this afternoon, having established all those principles which he could not possibly swallow he seemed content to swallow them all if we would just place the dollar on a parity with the pound-and all his friends on the other side of the house swallowed them with him.
Mr. Hepburn was afraid it would provoke another trade war. The hon. member for Melville (Mr. Motherwell) thought the whole world would be smothered in hogs. The hon. member for St. James (Mr. Rinfret) thought our national status was very badly affected, and that an attempt was being made to depart from the principle of self government within the empire. They seemed to be afraid of a danger of creating ill feeling, but all their speeches reeked with dissention and ill feeling.
The hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston) was quite sure the treaties would not be of the slightest benefit to the lumbermen of the maritime provinces. The hon. member for St. Mary (Mr. Deslauriers) was sure it would lead to a military alliance, that it was part of a scheme of imperial defence, and that our autonomy was seriously affected. The hon. member for Nicolet (Mr. Dubois) thought it would be very much better and much to our advantage to trade with the entire world, but especially would it be to our advantage to trade with the United States. The hon. member said that the agreements were no more or less than economic imperialism, and that there would be military imperialism. Then, the dhief whip of the Liberal party, the hon. member for Charle-voix-Saguenay (Mr. Oasgrain) was sure that we would have to build a navy or contribute to the defence of the empire. The hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. McPhee) set the heather on fire again with the idea of building up a military caste to enforce the tariff policy. The hon. member for North Wellington (Mr. Blair) would not sacrifice his birthright for a mess of pottage. Now that the terms of the treaty were disclosed his farm was for sale, because, he said, there was nothing in it for the farmer. I wonder if his farm has been sold. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) broke out in Winnipeg while on his way west, and has not recovered from it yet. He outlined fourteen different objections to the treaty, the principal one being that we had locked the door and barred the gate. He ventured

Empire Trade Agreements
the prediction that unless the Canadian people through the Canadian parliament inside of five years altered the agreements they would witness a complete destruction of the lumber industry in the province of British Columbia.
I think perhaps I shall be a little more kind than usual to the hon. member for South Perth (Mr. Sanderson), and I shall let him off.


Frederick George Sanderson: Go ahead.


Franklin White Turnbull: I do not believe he
would like to hear what he said. We heard parts of it this afternoon. However, if he wishes to hear some of it, I will say he said the following:
The fact is, we have never had a piece of legislation like this in this country, and' I hope we never shall have anything like it again.
After all that I should think hon. gentlemen opposite would welcome an opportunity to place themselves on record before the Canadian people after having seen the treaties in operation for two years.
One of the greatest objections to the tariff was that it was protective. I have already quoted observations made by the hon. member for Labelle concerning the question of protection. I have quoted the objection of the hon. member for North Waterloo. He has objected that the treaty reduced the duties on motor trucks and allowed rubber overshoes in free, and that that action has had the effect of discriminating against industries in his town of Kitchener. I have the information also that at a certain stage of proceedings in the House of Commons he expressed approval of the Prime Minister's policy regarding protection. The hon. member's words were:
That statement apparently gives some comfort to my friends opposite. And I have no apologies to make for it. In fact I was going to say in regard to that that the leader of the government and myself in my modest way were in substantial agreement.
So far as I can see, the view of the Liberal party is that they do not disapprove of the treaties quite as much as they did in 1932, but if brought into office they will modify them. I say to them that is no reason for voting against the treaties, because the agreements contain a clause providing that they may be modified or varied from time to time as the parties may decide. For that reason we could modify them inside of five years without waiting until the five years have expired. On that ground hon. members opposite should vote for the treaties, instead of opposing them, because there are provisions for modification.
82582-38j
At this point may I interject some observations to correct the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) on some of his figures. I do not know whether all his figures were as incorrect as the ones to which I shall make reference, but I hope they were not. He said Canada exported 86,000,000 pounds of butter in 1932. When I heard it I was amazed at the success of our exporters, but unfortunately I discovered he had quoted ten times too much.


Mr. REID:: I got the figures from the
Minister of Trade and Commerce.


Franklin White Turnbull: The figures were correct when my hon. friend found them, but he made a mistake in converting them from hundreds to pounds.


Thomas Reid: I dispute that statement.


Franklin White Turnbull: The leader of the
opposition-


Thomas Reid: It is incorrect, and I dispute
that statement.


Franklin White Turnbull: The right hon. leader
of the opposition has made the statement that if his party is returned to office his first objective will be to bring the tariff of Canada back to where it was at the time he left office. I do not know what these objectives mean, because only a few days ago the right hon. gentleman said that one of his objectives was to have free trade in automobiles. He has not yet reached that objective, and I do not think he ever will. However he has stated that one objective is to put the tariffs back to where they were when he left office. He states he never said he would cancel the treaty. I will tell him he cannot put the tariffs back where they were when he left office unless he does cancel the treaty. The hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) rose in his place the minute after the leader of the opposition sat down and put upon the right hon. gentleman's words the interpretation every other hon. member put upon them, namely, that they could only mean he intended to abrogate the treaties.
I have in my hand a statement containing sixteen pages of items with respect to our tariffs in which the rates are lower than they were when we took office. These pages contain 219 items and parts of items, and 167 of those items and parts of items are on the British free list which formerly had tariff protection of from 7i to 25 per cent. Thirty-five of those items are free to the world. If the right hon. leader of the opposition does as he says he will, namely, put the
Empire Trade Agreements

tariff back to where it was when he left office, he will have to change some of his so-called anti-protectionist principles. He will have to raise the tariff on each of those items; he will have to take 167 items off the free list so far as Great Britain is concerned and put them back on the list bearing duties ranging from 7j per cent to 25 per cent. The opposition applauded when he made that statement.


An hon. MEMBER:: Put the items on the record.


Franklin White Turnbull: Some question has been raised with regard to our exports of hogs. I have before me figures for one western constituency which indicate that in that constituency in the year 1929, 21,000 hogs were marketed. In 1932 there were 70,000 marketed, or three and one-third times as many. In 1929, 1,151 of those hogs were selects, and in 1932, 6,023 were selects, or five and one-half times as many. Of bacon hogs there were 3,000 selects in 1929, whereas in 1932 there were 22,000 or more than seven times as many. Of course that may not be attributable to the treaty. I have before me a record from the Canadian Packers' Association indicating that in 1932 Canada produced about 6,000,000 hogs, and that in 1933 about the same number were produced. The difference between the 1932 and the 1933 price was an average of $6.36 per hundred pounds, or $12.72 per hog. That was the time my hon, friend from South Perth thought that the $3.75 price would drop far lower because the world would be Bmothered with hogs.


Frederick George Sanderson: Will my hon. friend permit a question?


Franklin White Turnbull: Certainly.


Frederick George Sanderson: I would ask my hon, friend whether he is prepared to say that the increase in the price of hogs and the sale of hogs was entirely due to the Ottawa conference?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sure.


Frederick George Sanderson: I am asking the hon. nember for Regina.


Franklin White Turnbull: I am of the opinion that ;he greatest part of the increase, if not all of it, was due to the empire agreements, and the agreements were not all eyewash, as my hon. friend said they were. As a result of the agreements the producers of Canada received

over $28,000,000 more for their hogs in 1933 than they did in 1932.
With respect to cattle, the Hawley-Smoot tariff was put into effect in June, 1930, and our sales of 232,000 head of cattle in 1930 fell to 5,600 head. We found some sort of market for them in the old country. Our exports to the United Kingdom were none in the fiscal year 1930, but were 50,000 head in 1933. If we had not had an opening in Great Britain for these cattle, shut out of the United States market as we were, we would have been in a rather difficult position.
My hon. friends opposite are in favour of freer trade. The figures of the bureau of statistics show that in 1925, when my hon. friends were in office, of the goods we imported from Great Britain 17-5 per cent were free; in 1929, 20 per cent were free; in 1932, 25 per cent were free, and in 1934, 45-7 per cent of the goods coming from Great Britain entered this country free. Now if my hon. friends opposite are in favour of freer trade they ought to vote for these treaties because they gave us freer trade. We have had increase in trade not only with Great Britain but with all countries. Our exports to all countries in 1933 amounted in round figures to $160,000,000; in 1934 they were $231,000,000, an increase of 44 per cent. Our exports to foreign countries increased from $85,000,000 to $117,000,000, an increase of 37 per cent, while our exports to the United States increased from $51,000,000 to $82,000,000, an increase of 61 per cent; and our imports increased accordingly. That shows that by our tarff agreements we have succeeded in getting freer trade with other countries, and having got it, and thereby increased the purchasing power in our own country, we were able then to buy and sell more goods in our own country.
But there are other benefits that arise from the treaties that have not yet been touched on so far as I know. The first is that by these treaties we escaped the British Import Duties Act. It did not need any act of the British government to make those duties effective. The act was passed in the spring of 1932 and automatically was to become effective in November of that year unless a treaty was made. If the treaty had not been made our goods going into Great Britain would have been subject to a duty of ten per cent or higher in all those lines of agricultural products that we have been selling to Great Britain since then. That alone is sufficient or should be sufficient to obtain the support of all members from all corners of the house.

Empire Trade Agreements
But in addition to that fact there was a clause in the treaty which prevented dumping on the British market. That clause is so important that I intend to read it in full. It is article 21 of the treaty, as follows:
This agreement is made on the express condition that if either government is satisfied that any preferences hereby granted in respect of any particular class of commodities are likely to he frustrated in whole or in part by reason of the creation or maintenance directly or indirectly of prices for such class of commodities through state action on the part of any foreign country, that government hereby declares that it will exercise the powers which it now has or will hereafter take to prohibit the entry from such foreign country directly or indirectly of such commodity into its country for such time as may be necessary to make effective and to maintain the preferences hereby granted by it.
This was the article that was invoked by the Canadian government to prevent the agreement being made by the British Timber Distributors Limited, the agreement that was under discussion in the house here to-day. Every member of this house knows what happened in 1932. Russia having ruined her ruble for foreign purposes by inflation, and desiring foreign exchange, was under the necessity of selling something to some other country in order to get foreign exchange to pay for her five year plan. The result was that she elected to take wheat as one of the articles that she would sell. She took it from her people to the point of starving millions of them to death and dumped it on the English market at whatever price she could get for it, driving the price of wheat down to the lowest level that it had reached in England for years. As a result we in western Canada were getting about 20 cents a bushel at the shipping point for first class varieties of wheat. That was the condition that prevailed in 1932. But article 21 of the agreement, which I have just read, prohibits that sort of thing, and if anything of that kind does happen all we have to do is appeal to the British government and have them put into effect article 21 with regard to the dumping of that product into Great Britain. The result has been an increased value for our wheat in the British market, and in that one item alone the treaty has been of immense value to the western farmer. We have had an increase in the price of our wheat from 43 cents to as high as SI a bushel. The price is a little depressed at the present moment by reason of a case with respect to gold that is now pending in the United States courts.
Under these treaties we increased not only our business with the United Kingdom but our business with the other countries of the empire. I have here the figures of our exports
by calendar years, for 1932 and 1934, and I take those years not because 1932 was the lowest year, but because 1932 was the treaty year, and from the treaty year we start. The figures are as follows:
Exports-By Calendar Years Country	1932	1934United Kingdom..	..$178,000,000	$278,000,000'British South Africa.	4,400.000	11.500.000Irish Free State..	..	2,500,000	3,800,000Australia	
7.100.000	16.870,000New Zealand	
3,400,000	6,800.000British India	
2.700,000	4,600,000Newfoundland	
5,600,000	6,600,000


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, several days
ago a member of the Liberal party moved a resolution which in reality amounted to a motion of lack of confidence in the government, and it was moved ostensibly that we might get along with the business of the house more quickly. Some of us felt that the object sought was not being attained in that way, that that resolution so presented was delaying our getting down to the real business of the house, so notwithstanding the wording of the resolution I declared that I would vote against it. I do not believe the house should' be held up by purely party motions of that kind. To-night we have a similar exhibition from the government side. What is the resolution that has taken up a second day of the time of this house? It is as follows:
That, in the opinion of this house, the operation of the trade agreements concluded at the imperial economic conference held at Ottawa, 1932, merits the approval of this house.
That is, it is a vote of confidence in the government, moved by a supporter of the government It is a most extraordinary thing, and if there were such a thing as ruling a motion of that kind out of order it should be ruled out of order. Since I cannot do anything else in the matter I propose therefore, irrespective of the terms of the resolution, to vote against it. That is the only way we can make a protest against such purely partisan resolutions. Either we have to walk out, which is one possible course, and refuse to vote on such resolutions, or else we must vote them down until such time as both the old parties understand that there are at least a few people who are not to be played with in this way.
What is the business of the house? We were told that the government was prepared with a reform program, and we had some twenty major reforms listed in the speech
Empire Trade Agreements


James Shaver Woodsworth: No, "eclaA" is not the right word; perhaps "ballyhoo" would be a better word-with almost as much ballyhoo as the present reform program of the government. Certainly we were given to believe that the imperial conference agreements were going to be the solution of Canada's greatest problems. Has it solved them? I do not think any member of the government will dare to say that it has. The best witness that I can produce is the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) himself who comes forward now and tells us that we are in a very bad way; that we have been sick unto death and that the only possible way to get out of our troubles is by adopting an altogether new type of program. I agree with him that we are to have a new type of program.


Miss MACPHAIL:: A change of medicine.
Empire Trade Agreements


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, we are to have a change of medicine, a new line of treatment. All I want to suggest here is that entirely irrespective of this or that particular industrial or local benefit that may have come through the imperial trade agreements, those agreements did not to any large degree solve any of the major economic problems of Canada. I think that must be admitted. Further than that, I would appeal to the government that they do not bring forward or permit their supporters, if they have control over them, to bring forward any more of these time wasting resolutions, but that we get down to the reform program we were promised at this session.


Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, for the first two weeks of this session every party in this house made a very sincere effort to abstain from partisan political strife, and in most cases the effort was successful. We made unprecedented progress with the business and the debates were kept upon a high plane. Then the hon. member for Toronto Scarborough (Mr. Harris) was prompted to bring in this motion and by so doing he pulled the plug out of the boat. The flag of truce came down with a run and the House of Commons was suddenly transformed from a legislative body into a political hustings. So it will continue to the end of this debate.
I feel strongly tempted to follow the example of the last speaker (Mr. Woods-worth), and say that I will vote against the motion just for that reason. The introduction at this time of this resolution was totally uncalled for. The agreements are not on the legislative program of this session; they are not up for revision or alteration in any sense. If the government wish to get a verdict on their actions in that regard, they will get a verdict from the people at the polls. The fact that this motion is passed by their usual large majority will not affect the issue one iota in the country, and we are wasting a great deal of time when we should be getting on with more important business. The hon. member who introduced the motion began mildly and in general terms, but he had not got into his stride very far before he turned it into a political appeal of a partisan character to the people at large. The introduction of the two flags at the close of his remarks gave just that nice touch of political patriotism without which some people seem to think no speech is complete when presented to the people of Canada.
The motion as introduced is a trick. It demands yes or no to a specific question which 
is not capable of being intelligently answered yes or no. It is like the old gag of asking a candidate if he had stopped beating his wife, or of the curate who, embarrassed by discovering when he was the guest of his bishop that he was eating a bad egg, said that it was good in spots. This is a similar matter; these treaties are good in spots. It would be very remarkable if they were not. I presume they had some good effect in connection with apples and hogs. I take the word of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) for that rather than my own knowledge, because these matters have not cut any issue in the district which I represent. I will take his word for it that they have been productive of good on those particular types of industry. Then as regards lumber they also have been of some benefit, helping us get an alternative market to that destroyed by other policies. I am willing to give credit for such benefits, although I regret to say that they did not produce much improvement in the district in which I live.
The hon. member who introduced this motion, and indeed every speaker on both sides, has played up statistics; they can prove anything by statistics, more so at the present time than ever before I think, because there was a distinct drop in prices and trade and then a distinct uplift. It is therefore easy, by taking either two succeeding years or months, or going back two or three years to produce any result whatsover from the same set of figures quite sincerely without any manipulation of them except in the way they are presented. I have here a string of instances by which I could prove that while no doubt the statement as to increased trade with the empire is correct, in many cases you find that, it was accompanied by still greater increases in our foreign trade. I am not going to press that because as I say with figures you can prove anything. I am going to quote only one instance. I shall take it, as I suppose other hon. members take their information, from the bulletins of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. I call this to the attention of the present Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hanson); I am sorry he is not in his seat. I do not accuse him of any wrongdoing;
I simply call his attention to it and suggest that he should instruct his deputies and clerks to be more careful. This stuff that is got out from day to day and from week to week is I think intended largely as propaganda on behalf of the government, and I do not object to that provided the figures are accurate. This is from the hulletin of Tuesday, January 22, 1935:

Empire Trade Agreements
Canada's Imports
December, 1934	 $11,081,000
December, 1933	 10,988,000
Difference	 $	93,000
This difference is said to represent eight per cent, and it is not a clerical error, because the word eight is written out. But if any hon. member will check that I think he will find it is not eight per cent but -8 or eight-tenths of one per cent. That is just one thing I picked up casually the other day. If they are all no more reliable than that, what is the use of quoting statistics? And while it says there has been this increase in empire trade of less than one per cent, in the case of foreign countries it was fourteen per cent.
I could give a lot of other instances such as increased imports from the British empire of one per cent and from foreign countries of thirteen per cent; or decreased imports from the United Kingdom of over one per cent while from the United States they increased twenty per cent. But as I say I am not going to press that; I am merely giving it to illustrate that you can prove anything from figures. The real fact is that these increased figures that everyone is quoting to his own advantage result from the general improvement in trade and not solely from the Ottawa agreements. If they were due solely to the Ottawa agreements then the increase in trade would be reflected in the trade with the British empire only, whereas I could give half a dozen instances in which it is shown to a far greater extent in trade with foreign countries.
I turn back to some notes of a speech I made on October 25, 1932, dealing with this subject-a rather rash speech; I was taking upon myself the role of a prophet and trying to foresee conditions as they would happen in years to come. However I am not greatly dissatisfied with the result; while perhaps I exaggerated in one respect there are other things I did not foresee that have turned out to be a disadvantage to the district I represent. I see I said:
We will all hope it turns out better than we believe it will-but always looking forward to a world conference.
I was emphasizing that what I hoped for was a satisfactory outcome of the world conference; that it failed was not the fault of this dominion or of the Prime Minister. I stated that on butter there was to be a preference of ten per cent but that it was largely nullified by the fact that the same privilege was given to New Zealand and to Australia; that these countries were our principal competitors and that it would be
practically impossible for us to meet the competition of New Zealand and to some extent that of Australia. I said I did not altogether blame the government for this, but that the preference given us was immaterial because our biggest competitor got it also. In regard to eggs I said that the preference was about eight to ten per cent, but unfortunately because of our distance we could compete only with storage eggs, and we have to compete with eggs from Denmark, situated close to the English markets, delivered fresh daily, and that owing to the fact that at that time they depreciated their currency to the same extent as Great Britain they had a preference of twenty-five per cent over us. That particular factor has now passed away. In connection with eggs I also referred to the much greater benefit it would have been if the government had given us relief in connection with freight rates on grain to British Columbia. I give the Prime Minister credit, for I believe it was entirely due to him, that since then we have got a small measure of redress for that grievance, but not to the extent we should, and only on a small part of the traffic.
Then we come to the question of fish and-lumber, and I see I said that Mr. Tolmie, the premier of the province, understood that fish and lumber were to get a twenty per cent preference, but when he heard that Great Britain refused to give more than ten per cent because Canada held back on textiles he-wired to Ottawa emphatically protesting against the two basic industries in the west being sacrificed on account of secondary industries in the east, and I gave him credit for so doing.
As to lumber, we did not get a preference on props or lumber for shipbuilding, and while we may or may not have got a preference on shingles-I forget if we did-it was of no use anyway because of course the British people do not use wooden shingles, on their houses. The ten per cent was not sufficient, although I frankly admit that the results were better than I expected.	We
received some little help from the fact that the exchange was favourable to us, but we have now lost that. What I think helped: us more than anything was the very unusual: situation that arose because Russia took it upon herself to arrest some British subjects and put them in gaol, and Britain stayed by her subjects and promptly put an embargo on all trade with Russia, a thing that would not happen again in a hundred years. That switched the trade to Canada, and British trade once directed into any course has a way-
Empire Trade Agreements

of staying put. Of course they had some lingering antipathy to the Russians for the way they had acted, which was very largely the cause of our getting a foothold in the lumber market of Great Britain. But it is uphill work; it is a long haul. There is a handicap against us of about $10 per thousand feet on the haul. Then there is the fall clause always hanging over our heads, and section 21 has been discovered not to be as effective as we supposed. A great basic fact is that Russia is an enormous buyer of goods from Great Britain, and Britain is first and last a salesman; she wants to sell, and Russia cannot pay gold for everything she buys, therefore she has to sell goods; that is a large factor at the back of the desire you see in Britain to buy lumber from Russia.
The trade we lost to the United States-I am not going to give figures; they have been given in the house before-was not compensated by the trade we got from Britain.
Then as to the fish business, I see I said that the canners wanted a specific duty because that would help them best in competition against Japan, which had an enormous advantage over us because their yen was badly depreciated. But the canners did not get a specific duty. They then asked for twenty per cent; they got ten per cent, which was not enough. And here are the results:
In spite of the Ottawa preference Canada sold Great Britain only about one-third as much canned salmon in February. 1933, as in February, 1932. Both Russia and the United States increased their sales greatly. There must be a reason.
Then in the bulletin of the Department of Trade and Commerce, which I assume to be correct in this ease, I find that in 1933 Canada was third in the imports of canned salmon into Great Britain, with 45,833 hundredweights. The United States was first with something over 161,000 hundredweights and soviet Russia was second with over 91,000 hundredweights. Two years ago Canada was first with over 80,000 hundredweights, but under these so called preferential advantages we have dropped to 45,000 hundredweights.
Now I come to a situation which particularly concerns the people whom I represent; I refer to coal. I can hardly be expected to hold up both hands in wild enthusiasm for the treaties when the coal miners whom I represent have been badly hit in connection with the import of coal. It is now possible, and in fact it has been encouraged under the treaties, to import coal from Great Britain, the mining of which has been subsidized by

the British government. We cannot put on any duty or any dumping duty because of these treaties. It is brought out practically as ballast in ships coming to Vancouver to load wheat; part of it comes in free and part at a reduced rate of duty, but because of the provisions of the treaty we cannot put on a dumping duty. Another grievance in this regard is that the tariff board, which is a faint but expensive echo of a few autocratic gentlemen in the customs department, has ruled that the production of 900 tons of coal does not constitute production in Canada. Therefore they have ruled that we could not put a dumping duty on that coal brought here from Great Britain in that way. But when it suited them to do so they put a high duty on tin for the benefit of some manufacturer in eastern Canada. Our cannery men in the west cannot buy their tin from that plant because of the long rail haul; they have to get their tin either from the United States or from Great Britain by water, and consequently they have to pay the duty. An opportunity arose for some relief in that regard because a certain class of tin was not being manufactured in 'Canada, but the manufacturers were on the alert. They started what I was going to call a two by four factory, but it was not that big; it was a little one horse concern that could have been put in a chicken house. They turned out a few cases of these tins and that was considered to constitute production in Canada. But the production of 900 tons of coal did not constitute the production of coal in Canada. So the cannery men should not be expected to support the operation of these treaties.
Then I come to the question of wheat. I am not going into that matter in detail; men better qualified than I have dealt with it, but I must say that we appear to have made one grand mess of the wheat situation if this statement is true :
The spread between Canadian and Argentine wheat prices has not only kept Canadian wheat and flour out of importing countries but it has been so wide that British millers import the Argentine product, mill it in Britain and in the first nine months of this year have shipped 50,425 barrels of it back to Canada for domestic consumption.
Is that not a remarkable thing, that Argentine flour milled in Britain should be imported into Canada? Possibly it is being used on our prairies, when we cannot sell our own wheat. This article also states that we imported 60,000 barrels of Australian soft wheat flour brought in via the old country. In the meantime we are losing the European market

Empire Trade Agreements
I have another objection to these treaties.
I understood that we were going to ease up on our restrictions on British goods, but we are not easing up at all. Time and again I have had retailers complain to me of the conditions undeT which they import goods from Great Britain. They have shown me the invoices and the customs memorandums. They never know, when they buy something from Great Britain, what the ultimate cost will be; weeks and sometimes months after the goods are sold and paid for the customs people come along and rake up some new change or ruling and the retail men have to pay up. They have no remedy. Trade will never increase under conditions like those; the British people and the Canadian buyers get disgusted.
If I might digress for a moment I should say that we have too many rulings and regulations in Canada. We are not governing here in this house; the country is governed by the men in the government offices, the customs offices and these other places, who make the rules and regulations. We are being governed by an autocratic body of officials who are not responsible to God or man. That is what we are suffering from. Someone once said "Allow me to write the poems of a nation and I care not who makes its laws." I could say, "Let me make the rules and regulations and I care not who makes the laws," because to suit myself I can make rules and regulations that are not justified in carrying out the purpose of the act, and that are practically acts by themselves.
The hon. member who introduced this resolution said, at page 356 of Hansard:
". . . and in another fifty years' time history will tell that the standard of living of the people in the Ukraine, Roumania. Bulgaria, will be raised by the consumption of the manufactured goods from the industrial part of Europe."
That was what someone had told him, and from that he drew the inference that these pacts would be all right. Well, fifty years is a long time hence, and I wonder if the hon. member knows that in regard to many of the articles included such as cheese, butter, milk products, poultry and so on, the treaties expire this year, and that with regard to the other commodities they expire in two years. So there is not much for the Balkans to acquire a new standard of living. Already we have got down to quotas. The British Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Elliott, has gone in for protection and, like the British people, he is doing it thoroughly.
He is going to make Great Britain self sustaining agriculturally as far as possible, and he has a very good weapon to his hand. There is an enormous bonus on wheat, for example, and when he has managed to encourage the production of wheat or beef or butter, as the case may be, to the point where there is danger of a poor market, he can provide a good market by a wave of the hand. He can simply say to Canada and New Zealand, "Ship in less; put on a quota" and that will provide his market, but we will have to pay the price. The boast has been made that the Prime Minister induced Great Britain to go in for protection. If that is so I think he has a good deal to answer for, because I think it has been the curse of the Canadian agricultural producer; we are losing the best market we ever had or ever will have.
Let me give you a homely illustration of how quotas work. Last year, in the height of the depression, when I went home I told a good friend of mine that I was going to buy, and I did buy, thirty ricks of firewood from him; but I did not buy all I wanted from him; I bought ten or fifteen ricks from somebody else. It would be a suitable comparison if I went to my friend this year and said, " I am going to make a treaty with you which will be very much to your advantage. I am going to give you all my business in firewood this year; I am not going to buy from anybody else, but I am going to buy a good deal of coal and I am only going to need eight ricks of wood." Would he prefer to sell me thirty ricks in an open market, in open competition, or would he be gratified to be told that he was going to have a complete monopoly of my trade, but could sell only eight ricks? I think that is a fair illustration, even though it is a humble one.
I am not deprecating trade treaties with Great Britain. I was bom there; my forebears lie there, and I am not likely to take the attitude that we should not Have trade treaties with Great Britain. But I should like to do business in Mr. Baldwin's way. He sat not many feet from where I am standing now and urged that the measure of preference given to Great Britain should not be obtained by raising high tariffs against other nations but should be secured by reducing tariffs against British imports. That is what must be done if we are to get on a satisfactory basis. We want treaties not only with Great Britain but with the whole world, but as a result of these treaties we are unable to make agreements with other countries because the tariff
Empire Trade Agreements

in the intermediate column is so high they do not want to do business with us, and we cannot give them the British preference because that is confined to Great Britain alone. Consequently we have nothing to offer, and these agreements stand in the way. I believe I speak for the province of British Columbia when I say that we want to sell our fish, lumber, copper and our coal and we want to sell it in the best market, namely the nearest market. At the same time we want to be free to deal with the whole world in exactly the same way and in the same spirit as that in which Great Britain has dealt with the world. Great Britain always has wanted and I believe always will want to deal with the whole world. That is the policy that has made Britain great, and has made the British empire the greatest in history. That policy has made Britain great and prosperous, and I believe if we follow her example we too will become great and prosperous.


William John Loucks: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the motion of the hon. member for Toronto-Scarborough (Mr. Harris). Before proceeding to any further observations I may have to make I should like to deal with the remarks of the hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Neill). As a farmer and probably because I am a new member in this chamber I am mystified when I hear hon. members quoting only the figures which suit themselves. That is the practice the hon. member w'ho has just taken his seat has followed. He talked about canned salmon, and quoted the 1933 prices for that commodity. I observed, however, that he was very careful not to quote the prices for 1934. For his information I should like to give a comparison of the figures. In 1933, $1,985,000 worth of canned salmon was shipped from Canada, while in 1934, S2,600,000 worth was shipped. Why did he avoid quoting the figures for 1934?


Alan Webster Neill: I did not get the 1934 figures.


William John Loucks: The hon. member was
careful not to get them. I suppose if he had been referring to apples he would have avoided the 1934 figures.


Alan Webster Neill: I did not quote the 1933
figures for apples.


William John Loucks: I know you didn't, because you were careful not to. There was a very decided increase.


Alan Webster Neill: I am not interested in
apples.


William John Loucks: The hon. member just quotes what suits him. I shall give him the figures for apples, because he should be concerned about the apple growers in his province. In 1933, 1,677,000 barrels of apples were shipped, while in 1934, there were 3,057,000. In 1933, the value of the exports was $8,930,000, while in 1934 they were valued at $11,400,000. I wonder why the hon. gentleman did not mention apples.


Edward James Young: What was the price per
barrel each year?


William John Loucks: I shall not take time to
give that.


Edward James Young: No, he will not do that.


William John Loucks: 
Edward James Young: Thirty-two cents.


William John Loucks: Not at my station. To-day what is the price? At the same station the price is 63 cents for the same grade of wheat. I think we may attribute a great deal of that increase to the fact that under the treaties we received a preference of six cents. I hold
in my hand a newspaper which was printed in 1930 at the height of the election campaign. The heading reads: The Saskatchewan Issue. On the front page appears the picture of the gentleman who makes the statement appearing in the paper; I refer to the Hon. Mr. Dunning. This paper was printed on July 14, 1930, in the city of Regina and published by the Saskatchewan Liberal Association. Mr. Dunning asks the following question:
Where and how will Saskatchewan market its wheat? The Dunning budget contains the answer.
This is what Mr. Dunning said on July 14, 1930:
All major European markets are now closed to us as a result of prohibitive tariffs following the war.


An hon. MEMBER:: Read it again.


William John Loucks: Yes, I shall.
All major European markets are now closed to us as a result of prohibitive tariffs following the war.
When I hear hon. members from Saskatchewan who sit opposite attempting to show that this government is to blame for loss of markets in Europe, I cannot understand them. Here is something else he said:
Only one market remains, the British market.
That is what Mr. Dunning said in July, 1930. Was he right or wrong? That is what he said when hon. gentlemen opposite were still in power. He went on:
If we lose it, there is no other market left. Losing it, Saskatchewan farmers would be ruined.
He was right. Mr. Dunning went on to ask:
Are rve in danger of losing it?
I hope that hon. members of the opposition will get this reply of Mr. Dunning. He said:
Yes, as 1929 proved, unless we act, and act now. How can we hope to secure and hold the British market? There is only one answer, only one way, and that is by buying goods from Britain who in turn will buy our wheat.
Mr. Dunning said that there was only one way, and that was to get a treaty with Great Britain as quickly as possible, and that our only hope was the British market. This government got that British market. The hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. McPhee) ventured to-night-he is very venturesome anyway-to use the word "humbug" in his speech, but there are not many members opposite saying much about humbug to-day so far as the present Prime Minister is concerned. True, the Prime Minister went over to England in 1930. True, the western farmer knows he
Empire Trade Agreements

went over and said things to the British government at that time, and it is also true that there was a change of government in England after he was there. True, the Prime Minister was responsible for bringing the imperial conference to this city of Ottawa in 1932, something which had never happened before. True, it is also that he got results from that conference in the shape of the trade treaties. In other words, Mr. Speaker, he carried out at the conference just what Mr. Dunning in his famous budget was advocating.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


William John Loucks: Certainly he did.


Mr. SPOTTON:: And that was Grit campaign literature in Saskatchewan in 1930.


William John Loucks: Yes. I do not pretend to be a debater, Mr. Speaker. I am just an ordinary farmer, but I throw out a challenge to the hon. member for Yorkton, lawyer as he is, to come up to Biggar in my constituency of Rosetown and I will debate the treaties with him on any platform-a dirt farmer against a lawyer. I will go further and say that I will entertain the hon. gentleman if he will come. I would like to coax him to come up there, and I would like to see how far he will get in debating the treaties with just an ordinary farmer in the rural constituency of Rosetown.
I am sorry the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Totzke) is not in his seat. He was not successful in winning his nomination. Last spring he spoke on the marketing bill in this house, and apparently he sent the Hansard report of his speech to one of his supporters, a farmer, from whom I received a letter in which he says: "I want to compliment you, Mr. Loucks, on your speech. Watch and see what will happen our member from Humboldt in the next election." Well, Mr. Speaker, he did not have to wait till the next election because the hon. member did not even get his nomination. The hon. member for Humboldt replied to me that my career would be very short as a member of parliament, but I would like to say to him that he never got to first base; he could not get the nomination. What was the reason? I am told that the Liberals in Humboldt constituency have said: Because our member has opposed the treaties and the marketing bill we cannot elect him in this constituency. That is the reason why I believe he did not get the nomination. What about the hon. member for South Battleford (Mr. Vallance)? Was he successful in getting his nomination? No, he was defeated; he could not get the nomination.
I have it on very good authority that the Liberals in Kindersley were saying the same

thing, that the fact that their member had opposed the marketing bill and the treaties meant that Liberals in the constituency would not support him. I think I am right in what I am saying. I got it from reliable Liberals from that part of the country.
What happened in my own constituency at the nomination meeting on the tenth of August? Why bless you, Mr. Speaker, to my surprise we had over three hundred delegates who had taken time off from harvesting to attend that meeting, and the gentleman who got up and nominated me made it clear that he had never been a Conservative. He said he liked the very attitude of Mr. Loucks when he was speaking, and he complimented me on the stand that I had taken, and said that it gave him great pleasure to get up and nominate me. He said some very flattering things about this government and myself in nominating me. It was a surprise to me because he is not a Conservative at all. This same gentleman, a lawyer in Outlook, informed me quite recently that when my campaign starts and we go on the hustings, "I am at your service, Mr. Loucks."
I wished to hold a meeting in my constituency some time before coming here for the session, and I went to see the school trustees to get .permission to use the school-house. My hon. friend from South Battle-ford must pass it every time he goes to Saskatoon. Here is what happened. I went to one of the trustees, knowing him to be a staunch Liberal, and asked him if I could have the schoolhouse. He said, "Certainly, with pleasure, so far as I am concerned. I have been a Liberal; in the last provincial election I thought I had intelligence when I voted for the Liberals, but I got gypped." He said that Mr. Gardiner and his bunch came out and said they would cancel the $10,000,000 in notes given to the federal government by western farmers, a matter which the provincial government had nothing to do with, and he said, "I have had all I want to do with the Liberal party." When I got to the meeting after advertising it, as I always do, T asked the audience to appoint a chairman, and they told me to appoint my own chairman. I said, "I will call on Mr. Weir." Mr. Weir was one of the school trustees, and they weTe surprised when I called on him to act as chairman because he was a staunch Liberal. But Mr. Weir came forward and said it was a pleasure to act as chairman for me on that occasion, 'because I had had the courage to speak in the house in defence of the marketing bill and the empire trade treaties. I wonder how many Liberals in
FEBRUARY 7, 1935	t>07
Empire Trade Agreements
Saskatchewan are feeling the same way. They have not such short memories. They have not forgotten what has been taking place here in Ottawa, and they know that the Prime Minister has carried out what was the policy of Mr. Dunning, and has put it into actual practice. Mr. Dunning meant every word of that policy, and I have every respect for him. I think it is up to the members of this house who come from the west to speak in support of these treaties. The farmers all over this country know that if it had not been for the British market which we got as a result of these treaties, we would have had no market for our agricultural products, and the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Turnbull) has quoted facts and figures to prove my statement and the truth of Mr. Dunning's statement.
Sometimes I wonder whether hon. gentlemen opposite are sincere when they say they want to have this question decided by a vote. So far as I am concerned I hope they will get the opportunity because it will do me an awful lot of good in the Rosetown constituency. I am sorry the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) is not in his seat at the moment. If my memory serves me aright it was in 1932 that the hon. member, for whom I have a great respect, got up and said that he had about fifty hogs, and he said, "I wish I had knocked them on the head." That was when they were worth 2j cents a pound. I think he must be glad he did not knock them on the head now that hogs are to 9 cents a pound. Yet the hon. gentleman gets up and tries to discredit the treaties, notwithstanding that they have increased the price to him on the bacon type by nearly 6 cents a pound.
Let me assure my hon. friends to your left, Mr. Speaker, that so far as I am concerned, and I think I speak for those representing this government from Saskatchewan, the people resent the attitude of the party opposite towards these treaties and the other measures that have been brought down. I wonder when I hear the leader of the opposition expressing his anxiety to get down to business why hon. members behind him should get up and discredit all that the Prime Minister indicated in his broadcast, because that is not the attitude of the leader of the opposition himself. He would like to see these measures placed on the statute books as quickly as possible; but if they have no more merit than some of his followers can see in them, then I fail to see why he should want to have them embodied in legislation.
If I had time, there are many things which I should like to say in regard to the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act and its operation in Saskatchewan, but I will not weary the house at the moment with a discussion of that subject. I must confine my remarks to the resolution. I want to assure members on the other side that I have fairly good reason to know the attitude of the farmers of the west, and particularly of Saskatchewan, and I think I can safely say to-night, from what has happened in the last few months, that we shall send down from our province at the next election fifteen members on this side out of the twenty-one.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William John Loucks: My hon. friends laugh, but they will remember how sure they were of the provincial election. I have it on good authority that the gentleman who has the Liberal nomination in my constituency made this statement, " If the Prime Minister places on the statute books the measures which he promised in his broadcast to carry into legislation, then I fear for my chances." It is characteristic of the people of the west not to live to the party but to live to the policy, to live to the things that give results. If my hon. friends here think that they can go to Saskatchewan and convince the people there that the Conservatives have lost all their markets, then I say to my hon. friends, "You are missing your guess, and there is no question about that."
Again I compliment the hon. member for Toronto-Scarborough on this splendid resolution, and I do not feel under any condemnation because we have spent some time indicating the beneficial results of the empire trade treaties.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I wish to associate myself with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) in his attitude toward this resolution. I do feel that it is a very dangerous precedent for us to set. Are we going to go over legislation which is two or three years old? If so we are certainly laying out a good deal of extra work for ourselves in the future. It is a most extraordinary procedure for us to be asked now to approve of the operation of the treaties. The resolution asks us to say whether or not the operation of the trade agreements has been beneficial to Canada. I doubt very much whether anyone can answer that question. I think it is much too soon for us to know. There are a great
Empire Trade Agreements

many factors which we cannot weigh for a considerable time yet. If the temporary gains that have been made in hog prices-and I am inclined to think that the agreements had some effect on these prices-have been at such great cost as to lead to dissatisfaction and offence almost in Great Britain, as one is led to believe from many newspapers as well as from conversations with different people, all of which would show that there is a feeling in Great Britain not only against the treaties but against Canada because of them, then it seems to me that we are paying very dearly indeed for any temporary gains. Moreover, if by the treaties we have added to the cost of those things which we purchase from Great Britain, we have possibly more than eaten up all the benefits that would accrue. If the Canadian consumer and the British manufacturer are paying dearly for the advantage given the Canadian manufacturer, then I for one cannot say that the trade pacts have worked out beneficially to this country. I think it is quite possible, and time will likely prove it to be true, that the preferential arrangement within the empire has given offence to the world at large; the reaction of other countries to the preference within the empire will result in diverting their trade to those countries that are not involved in the agreements under discussion.
To me it is amusing-it is interesting to have something amusing in this house-to hear members of the government take so much credit for the rise in farm prices. Well, there is this you can say about farm prices now as compared with the 1932 level; they could scarcely have fallen further, because had they done so they would have fallen out of sight. If they were going to move they had to rise. If the government had been as much interested in farm prices in 1932 as they now appear to be, they would have depreciated Canadian currency and made it possible for Canada to take advantage to such extent as it could of the agreements at the time they were made. We were not able to avail ourselves of the agreements until the country to the south of us had taken such action in connection with monetary matters as brought the Canadian dollar to a parity with the pound. In other words, the government of Canada waited until another country had made it possible for this dominion to take whatever advantage it could of the British market. While the hon. member for Rosetown (Mr. Loucks) was shedding tears over the price the farmers got for hogs in 1932, he ought to have been willing to assume some responsibility in the matter, because the adverse exchange from which we 
suffered then had a good deal to do with the prices we were receiving at that time for our hogs.
As I listened to the torrent of figures which flowed from the mouth of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) before dinner, I was reminded of the broadcast of Colling and Colling over CFRB at 6.30, which I endure in order to hear Jim Hunter, who does much to justify the Telegram. As I listened to the figures which poured with such power from the minister's lips I could make nothing of them at all and I am sure that everybody in the house felt the same way. Possibly when one reads them in Hansard they may have meaning, but they certainly conveyed nothing to me as I heard them read. As I listened to the blasts of oratory from the hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. McPhee) I thought how very happy a position those hon. gentlemen are in; whatever their party does is right and whatever their leader does is just the thing to do. I wish I had the kind of mind that could put myself in that position. It is so happy.
There is no real assurance that the market which Canadian farm products now find in Great Britain will continue. It is well known to hon. members that the Minister for Agriculture in Great Britain, Mr. Elliott, .is pursuing a policy of self sufficiency in agricultural products within that country. Whether or not he can ever achieve this is another matter, but he at any rate is trying to do so and the very moment they are able to produce within their own country those things which they require, we shall see a very rapid dropping of exports from this country to Great Britain. Therefore I feel we are building on a false premise if we believe we are going to continue to ship to either Great Britain, or, indeed to other European countries -any great quantities of foodstuffs.
I believe some of the pools in Canada have approved the treaties, but if I can judge the pools from the cooperative company with which I have had something to do in Ontario, then it can be said that each pool considers the commodity which it handles, and if conditions or prices have been improved for that commodity, the pool then draws the conclusion, which is not always the correct one, that conditions have been improved for the people generally. But when we are considering a standard of living for the Canadian people-and I am thinking again of agriculture-two factors enter in, selling prices and living costs. It is true that selling prices are a great factor, but living costs are also,

Empire Trade Agreements
so if by the trade treaties we get increased living costs, that may more than counteract any increase in prices caused by them.
In closing I want to say only one other thing and that is, in my opinion it is dubious if world trade will again reach the volume of 1929. There are possibly a number of reasons for that, but certainly one of them is that to-day every country in the world is striving for self sufficiency and the success that has been attained by European countries in growing foodstuffs shows to what a degree this ideal, if it be an ideal, can be reached. If countries are going to become more and more self sufficient, then it is unlikely for a long time at any rate that the volume of trade will be again as great as in 1929.
There is another reason why trade is not increasing and that is lack of the medium of exchange. In this country we try to sell to other countries those goods which our own people would like to buy but cannot afford, and other countries are trying to sell to us their surplus goods which their own people, if they had a higher standard of living, could use but which they again have not the money to purchase. Therefore I think the root causes of a fall in the volume of trade are these two factors: On the one hand lack of sufficient money to effect an exchange of goods, and second, a growing sufficiency of all nations due in part to invention and energy and due in part to very many years of high tariffs by almost all countries in the world.
I certainly am not going to put myself in the ridiculous position of supporting a motion which is going to make us do the work of two years over again. We started this session in the rarefied atmosphere of high endeavour for a couple of weeks. To-day we fell back very far toward the bad old days. I hope we shall not stay in this particular state of mind too long, because I feel the temper of the Canadian people will not stand too much of the sort of exhibition that we have Rad to-day. I am going to vote against the -motion because I think it is one that should *not have been moved. It is one with which the house has nothing to do at this moment, and even if I agreed with it I would still vote against it, offered as it is at this time.


Mr. F. P. QUINN (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I should be failing in my duty if, representing the constituency of Halifax, I did not express myself while this debate was in progress, and I offer no apologies to any hon. members for 92582-39
doing so. I offer no apologies particularly to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) or to the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail). I draw the attention of the house to the routine proceedings and orders of the day for Thursday, February 7, which is to-day. I find there under notices of motion, No. 5, the following:
Mr. Woodsworth-The following proposed resolution:-
That, in the opinion of this house, since the capitalist system is failing to function in the interests of the great majority of the people of Canada, it should be superseded by a cooperative common-wealth.
What is sauce for the goose is surely sauce for the gander. If an hon. member who supports the government can move a resolution of confidence in his party and his government and a leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation can move a resolution of confidence in his party, then I think we are about fifty fifty; we should call it square and forget that part of the discussion.
The constituency and the port of Halifax have certainly benefited by the Ottawa trade agreements; I should hate to go down to the waterfront in that city and venture an opinion to the contrary. One hon. member speaking from the opposite side of the house said tonight: "If you want to get the evidence of prosperity, put your hand in your pocket." That is quite correct; I subscribe to that. The year just closed has established a record in the shipping cargo tonnage of the port of Halifax. That is no accident; that did not just happen. I am sure that the increased volume of trade through the port of Halifax and through the ports of St. John, Montreal and Quebec during the past year has been mainly due to the operation of the empire trade agreements.
I listen to hon. gentlemen opposite talk about what they would do if their party was in power and what they did when their party was in power. You hear them shouting for wider markets and lowering of tariffs, but their attitude when in power is quite different from their policies when in opposition. We hear a good deal from hon. members on the opposite side about the expansion of trade while their party was in power. I thought I should like to look up the statistics of imports from and exports to the United States, therefore I got from the bureau of statistics the figures for two years, 1921 when the Liberal party was coming into power, and 1930 when they were going out. The figures are as follows:

Empire Trade Agreements

Exports to the United States Year ended-
March 31, 1921	$542,322,967
March 31, 1930	 515,049,763
Decrease	$ 27,273,204
Where is this great widening of markets and expansion of trade of which they boast? They had nine of the most prosperous years in the history of the world; they had the greatest opportunity this country ever had to develop trade with the United States, but they went back to the extent of $27,000,000 in those nine years.
Then we come to the figures for imports: Imports from the United States Year ended-
March 31, 1921	$856,176,820
March 31, 1930	 847,442,037
Decrease	$ 8,734,783
I	think that sufficiently answers the question regarding the business developed with the country to the south of us.
If I want an opinion concerning the virtues of the Liberal party I would not go to the leader of the opposition, because I know what he would tell me. Nor would I go to the Prime Minister if I wanted to have the virtues of the Conservative party extolled; nor would I go to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre to learn of the merits of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. I would go to more disinterested authorities. On the day this resolution was introduced I received a book entitled The Story of Canada's Industrial Expansion. On the front page I see the statement:
A remarkable record.
Not only has there been notable progress during the past ten years, but even through recent years of depression this progress has continued in a remarkable way, giving good ground for encouragement and providing a cheerful outlook for the current year.
Head the evidence in these articles on:
New industries established in Canada in the past four years;
And so on. This is reprinted from Industrial Canada of January, 1935, and published by the Canadian Manufacturers' Association.


Mr. RALSTON:: They are disinterested!


Felix Patrick Quinn: The hon. member for Shel-burne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston) surely will not say that E. A. Saunders, secretary of the Halifax board of trade, would broadcast Tory propaganda. I would say he is a disinterested gentleman.
 JJ


James Layton Ralston: I was referring to the
Canadian Manufacturers' Association.


Felix Patrick Quinn: I quote from a gentleman
who is interested only in the expansion of trade, Mr. Saunders, secretary of the Halifax board of trade, not a biased politician.
Those who consider that Nova Scotia is backward industrially, has few, if any, new industries, and is not expanding its manufacturing' operations, should read this impressive record-compiled by Mr. Saunders. It should be an, eye opener, for it reveals the establishment of quite a number of new factories within the-last few years and shows that the province by the Atlantic is making industrial progress, even in recent difficult times, as well as the rest of Canada.
I was interested in that. I take it that each of these articles would be from the pen of someone as disinterested politically as Mr. Saunders. I come to Canadian products exported to the United Kingdom, of which substantial amounts are reported. It is too late to quote figures, but I shall just run through the list of articles:
Apples, fresh Fruits, canned Vegetables, canned Cereal foods
Canvas shoes, rubber soles
Boots and shoes, rubber
Cattle
Fish, fresh
Fish, preserved
Leather, unmanufactured
Bacon and hams
Meats, canned
Poultry
Wool
Wood, unmanufactured Doors, sashes and blinds Paperboard
Pig iron, ingots and billets
Bars and rods
Wire
Farm implements Wire nails
Automobiles, passenger Aluminium
Copper in ingots, bars, etc.
Nickel Zinc spelter Asbestos Soap.


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

International Labour Conventions
Friday, February 8, 1935