1935-01-31

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

Mr. COOTE:: 1.	What was the amount of durum wheat of each grade on hand in all private terminal elevators in western inspection division at the beginning of the crop year 1933-34?
2.	What was the amount of each grade received into said elevators during this crop year?
3.	What amount of each grade was shipped out during said crop year?
4.	What amount of each grade was shown to be in store at end of crop year?


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: The information asked for regarding durum wheat by grades in private terminal elevators is not available. The official weighups of private terminals deal with the first four statutory grades of wheat only, and the receipts and shipments of durum grades are only partly available.


IRISH FREE STATE TRADE COMMISSIONER
Mr. MULOCK:: 1.	Is Canada represented by a trade commissioner to the Irish Free State?
2.	What has been the extent of the Canadian trade with the Irish Free State during the years 1931 to 1934, inclusive?


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: 1.	Yes.
2.	Canada's imports from and exports to the Irish Free State, calendar years 1931 to 1934,
were:-
Exports to
Imports from	Irish Free State
Irish Free	Canadian	ForeignCalendar	State	Produce	ProduceYears	$	S	$1931 	
42,438	2,639,565	7381932 	
39,721	2,578,931	6541Q33 	
26,824	3,422,074	5,9031934	
29,547	3,820,762	170
[Mr. Cbigraia.'J

Questions


SOUTH CALGARY, ALTA., BARRACKS
Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: 1.	Who are the contractors for building the new military barracks in South Calgary, Alberta, and at what price was the contract awarded?
2.	Were tenders publicly advertised in the newspapers and elsewhere?
3.	If so, what are the names of the persons who tendered and the amounts of their tenders?


Mr. STIRLING:: 1.	No military barracks are being constructed in South Calgary. The new barracks now under construction are situated in West Calgary; but no general contract has been let, the work being carried out in separate units.
2 and 3. Answered by No. 1.
Bennett & White Construction Co. Ltd., Calgary	
Buchan Construction Co., Calgary	
Forster Construction Co., Calgary Hughes & Hurst, Calgary, Alta..
McDonald Bros., Contractors, Calgary, Alta	
J. A. Tweddle Ltd
Watson & Abercrombie, Calgary


WEST CALGARY, ALTA., BARRACKS
Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: 1.	Were tenders called for the first unit of the barracks (and or) mess room on 40th Avenue and 24th Street, West Calgary, Alberta, in 1934?
2.	Was this work publicly advertised in the newspapers and elsewhere?
3.	If not, were certain persons asked to submit prices?
4.	What are the names of the persons who tendered on such work and the amounts of their tenders?
5.	To whom was said contract awarded?


Mr. STIRLING:: 1.	Yes.
2.	No.
3.	Yes.
4.	For barrack building block No. 2:
Tender "A"
For the whole of the work including a forced hot-water heating system as shown on the plans and described in the specifications :
Tender "B"
For the whole of the work but to include a steam heating system as described in the specifications:
$156,352	$155,559
If Cochrane hard blue sandstone used in lieu of artificial stone add $2,130. If all-Canadian steel used also add $5,857.
$168,000	$167,176
If Cochrane standstone used in lieu of artificial stone add $1,792. If zonolite used instead of	mineral wool	insulation	deduct $3,476.If	single phase	motor	used	add $420.	If
all-Canadian structural steel used add $2,660.
$175,000	$174,209
$179,921	$179,128
(Either Dunham or Webster systems)
If Cochrane stone used instead of artificial stone add $1,676. If rolled sections are to be used as per specifications deduct $2,490.
$174,457	$173,244
If blue standstone used prices are:
$177,407	$176,194
If structural steel allowed furnishing built-up sections add $2,490, plus cost of winter heating.
$174,654	$173,000
If Cochrane stone used in lieu of artificial stone add $1,276.
$182,347	$180,721
For Cochrane stone add $1,842. If 2" zonolite substituted for 2" rock wool deduct $3,000. If all-Canadian built-up sections used add $2,490.
Privilege-Mr. MacNicol

For the mess building-
Forster Construction Co. Ltd	 $147,800
$147,250-if copper pipe used instead of brass pipe in plumbing and heating.
These prices are based on the use of allCanadian sections in structural steel.
Buchan Construction Co	 $150,274
$150,619-if all-Canadian sections are used in structural steel.

$156,300-if copper pipe used instead of brass pipe in plumbing and heating.
Watson & Abercrombie Ltd	 $157,257
$157,602-if all-Canadian sections are used in structural steel. $156,657-if copper pipe used instead of brass pipe in plumbing and heating.
McDonald Bros	 $160,722
$161,067-if all-Canadian sections are used in structural steel.
5.	For the barracks building block No. 2:-Bennett & White Construction Co. Ltd., Calgary, Alta. For the mess building:-Forster Construction Co. Ltd., Calgary, Alta.
J. A. Tweddle Limited Hughes & Hurst


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. MICHAUD:: 1.	To what extent has the dominion agreed to contribute towards unemployment relief in the province of New Brunswick from June 1, 1934, to March 31, 1935?
2.	What sums were paid by the dominion to the province of New Brunswick between June 1, and December 31, 1934, for the relief of unemployment in that province, and under what heads?


Mr. GORDON:: Return tabled herewith.
PRIVILEGE-Mr. MacNICOL
On the orders of the day:


Mr. J. R. MacNICOL (Toronto Northwest) :: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day are called I should like to refer to some headings appearing in last night's issue of the Toronto Daily Star in reference to remarks I made yesterday. The heading of the article reads:	"Unemployment ended in Russia
MacNicol states." That heading is altogether in error; I made no such statement. Then it continues, " Toronto Conservative says Soviet leads world in national planning."
That is an error; I made no such statement. Then, " Mr. MacNicol said Russia is the only country in the world which has been able to abolish unemployment." I made no such statement.
Each and every one of those statements appearing in last night's Toronto Daily Star is absolutely and totally in error.
PRIVILEGE-Mr. MACKENZIE KING
On the orders of the day:


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker,
yesterday I drew the attention of your honour and that of the Prime Minister to what I regarded as an evasion of the privileges of this house in the publication in the press of almost the entire text of the bill on social and unemployment insurance before hon. members had been able to receive copies of the bill. Up to the present time the members of the house have not received copies.


Mr. BENNETT:: It was distributed this
morning.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: We have it now.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: They are not on the files of members in the house, as yet.
I Mr Stirling.!

Privilege-Mr. Mackenzie King


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think so.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: At least, there is not one on my file for I have just looked.
However, the point I wish to draw to the Prime Minister's attention is this. I am informed on what I believe to be reliable authority that the material that appeared in the press was given to the Canadian Press as long ago as Friday, January 25, that the Canadian Press was given the material at that time and that it was sent at that time throughout Canada. I would ask the Prime Minister if he has inquired into the matter, as he said he would yesterday, and if he can advise the house if that is a correct statement or not. The giving out of any part of a bill and not at the same time giving the public the whole of it is to my mind improper; but what is even more improper is giving anything to the press which is not given in equal measure to hon. members of this house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: [DOT] I think perhaps, Mr. Speaker, if the right hon. gentleman will carry his mind back to the time when he was Prime Minister-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That does not answer the question.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It will be answered in a moment. I am not re-writing Hansard at the moment. I am answering a question as I would put it, not as the right hon. gentleman would have it.
I point out, Mr. Speaker, that when the right hon. gentleman was Prime Minister the course followed in this house and the course that has grown up since it was a house at all especially in the case of the budget speeches, by all ministers of finance was this. I have investigated the matter with some care and I find that the budget speech has been and is mimeographed and sent to various parts of the country and remains there to be released on the day the budget speech is delivered in this house.
I am informed that when a bill is read a first time the press have a right to look at it and to take from it such extracts as they think desirable by applying to the clerk's office. Whether that is a custom that has grown up in recent years or not I have not been able to ascertain. But I have been able to consult the older members of the house, and I find that that has been the course followed.
With respect to this measure on unemployment insurance, one of my secretaries prepared a precis of the bill and delivered it I believe to the Canadian Press with the agreement that it was not to be used until
such time as the bill had been read a first time, when the information could be used if so desired; and in accordance with that arrangement, after the bill had been read the first time, that information was used. That is as far as I have been able to ascertain. I believe it is the correct and proper course, and there is nothing about it different from the course pursued in days past. It is quite competent for any member to ascertain from the table what the provisions of the bill are. Of course, that cannot be done by all at the same time. So far as the newspapers are concerned, it was dealt with in the way I have indicated, and if there is anything improper about it I cannot see what it is. That has been the custom, and if it is desired that it should not be done I see no way by which it could be prevented, because by applying to the table the information might be obtained after the house had risen. That is the reason, Mr. Speaker, why the precis was prepared as I have indicated, and given to the press for the public.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Might I say to the Prime Minister that if his secretary was able to give a precis of this bill to the press the Prime Minister might have at least directed his secretary to extend the same courtesy to the members of parliament.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That observation, Mr. Speaker, hardly calls for a reply. And just how that could be done, in view of the fact that I offered to hand the bill in the form in which it stood to the right hon. gentleman and the other leaders, and the right hon. gentleman said that he did not desire to have it-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I said, not
before everyone had it. I asked no preference.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It has never been the
custom for the Minister of Finance, for instance, to send a copy of his budget speech under seal to every member of the house. A copy of it is delivered to the former Minister of Finance sometimes and to the leader of the opposition under seal, and when the minister commences his speech, a copy of it is usually sent across the floor of the house in order that it may be followed by whoever is leading opposite, or to the former Minister of Finance in some cases. There has been no departure here from what has been regarded as the established custom of this house; and regard for the privileges of this house I think will be found to be as much exercised by this administration as by any.
Unemployment Insurance

I do not think the right hon. gentleman should complain with respect to delays about anything, in view of what transpired by which we were deprived of the use of Hansard until after one o'clock and nearly two o'clock because he had to rearrange his speech on the night on which he delivered it. This deprived us of the use of Hansard, which is against the privileges of parliament, so that we could not deal with the points he had made in his speech because we had not the opportunity to read it. If he thought it desirable to keep Hansard and the employees on duty during the whole night, I do not think that was complying with what he regards as the high privileges of parliament.


TIM BUCK'S OTTAWA MEETING
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he or the government have exercised pressure on the owners of halls in this city to prevent Mr. Tim Buck from speaking here?


Richard Bedford Bennett: As far as I know, Mr. Speaker, the answer would be in the negative to the question that is put.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Ernest Lapointe: May I ask the Prime Minister or the Minister of Labour whether there have been conventions or draft conventions adopted at any international labour conference concerning unemployment insurance, and if so, if they can be laid on the table of the house before the second reading of the bill is taken up?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The former Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) is wel aware from his position as president of the League of Nations Society of Canada of just what has taken place in connection with these conventions. In 1934 a convention was arrived at which deals with subjects other than unemployment insurance. Had it dealt with unemployment insurance only it would, as the hon. gentleman desires, have been placed on the table of the house. During the discussion of the second reading of the bill reference will be made to that fact. I did not propose to submit the convention because of the fact that it dealt with so many other matters for ratification, but such a convention has been arrived at by the League of Nations.


Ernest Lapointe: There was no convention arrived at by any previous conference?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh yes, there was a convention which dealt with various phases of it but not dealing with it alone in the manner in which it was dealt with in 1934. Other matters were also dealt with in that same convention. Doubtless the hon. member has read the 1934 convention which was arrived at after much discussion, and which deals with other matters as well, and which in its terms could not be applied to this country.


INTERNATIONAL LABOUR OFFICE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Ernest Lapointe: May I ask the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) whether he can give any information to the house about the permanent seat which Canada has occupied heretofore on the governing body of the international labour office, and if matters have reached the stage where he can lay on the table the correspondence which has taken place.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Mr. Speaker, instructions have passed between the government and the government's representative at Geneva with respect to Canada's position. I shall be very glad to look into the question and to lay any communications that are available on the table of the house to-morrow.


BRITISH IMPORTS OF RUSSIAN TIMBER
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. WILFRED HANBURY (Vancouver-Burrard):: I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister based upon items appearing in the press to the effect that agreements are being entered into by British importers for a quantity of Russian lumber to go into the old country, and it is stated that the well-known fall clause is to be a part of the contemplated agreements. Can the Prime Minister give any information that would clarify the situation at the present time?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, the question which the hon. gentleman has asked is not difficult to answer. Timber Distributors, a British firm, the members of which have been indicated previously in discussions of this house, has entered into an agreement at Paris with the Soviet Union of Russia for a supply of timber to Great Britain.
The terms of the contract are not known to the government, but during all the period of time that has elapsed, when a new contract between Timber Distributors and the Russian

Railway Commission
authorities has been in contemplation the Canadian government has been in close touch with the situation and has urged upon the authorities the necessity of such a clause being eliminated from any contract that might be made.
I think there is much misapprehension with respect to some facts in connection with these contracts. These contracts do not arise out of the Ottawa agreement, but in the Ottawa agreement there was provision that any contracts that might be made between British importers and the Soviet Union that prejudicially affected the preference granted Canadian or other empire products in the British market would be dealt with in the manner indicated in that clause.
Last year representations were made to the government of Great Britain in consequence of a proposed contract between Timber Distributors and the Russian authorities for the purchase of quantities of timber. The quantity was limited by the quota and the fall clause, so called, disappeared. The new contract has not yet reached the point where it is possible to make representations to the government, but they have been made in the meantime, anticipating the possibility of the contract, in the strongest possible terms.
The task has become more difficult for reasons which I need not refer to at this time other than to say that an effort has been made, apparently, to convey the impression that Canadians attach little value to these provisions or to the preference itself, and that has somewhat increased the difficulty of dealing with it from the government standpoint. But every possible step is being taken by representations made by the high commissioner, at the instance of this government, to the British government. When the matter reaches the president of the board of trade more formal representations will be made.
It has been suggested by one of my colleagues that the provision of the clause in the Ottawa agreement dealing with contracts that prejudicially affected the operation of the preference was applicable to all countries and not to any one country, as my statement might possibly imply.


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (West Edmonton) :: When the Prime Minister speaks
of the government not having information with respect to the proposed import of Russian timber, or at any rate with respect to an arrangement, does he mean the British government or the Canadian government?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Neither the British nor
the Canadian government is concerned in the first instance with a contract, made by a private company known as Timber Distributors, with the Russian authorities. After the contract is made, if it is believed that that contract contravenes in any way the provisions of the section of the Ottawa agreement dealing with the matter to which I have referred, it is competent for the Canadian government to make representations to the British government, which has taken power from parliament to deal with the matter, and then action is taken in accordance with the provisions of the British statute.


RAILWAY COMMISSION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways and Canals):: The hon. member for
North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) a few days ago asked a question in regard to the appointment of a chairman of the Board of Railway Commissioners, and I said I would make a statement. I will now do so. Under present railway conditions and with the decrease in cases submitted to the railway commission, it is the opinion of the government that the railway commission is overmanned. There has been no request, officially or otherwise, for an arbitral tribunal, the setting up of which would require a chairman. When any such request is made or any indication given that an arbitral tribunal may be desired by either railway, the government will appoint immediately a chairman of the railway commission.


Hon. W. D. EULER (North Waterloo):: Does that imply that no chairman will be appointed unless application is made?


Robert James Manion: Not necessarily, but we
feel at the present time that there is no urgency about the matter.


PENSIONS FOR THE BLIND
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, January 30, consideration of the motion of Mr. Cotnam:
That, in the opinion of this house, the provisions of the Old Age Pensions Act should apply to blind people over forty years of age.
Pensions for the Blind
Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver South):: I wish to say a few words in support of this resolution, because I think the hon. member for North Renfrew (Mr. Cotnam) is to be commended for bringing the matter to the attention of the house. For quite a number of years now the various organizations that have made the welfare of the blind a part of their work have been advocating adequate provision in some way for the blind. Personally I should like to see adequate provision made not only for those blind who are over forty years of age but even for those who have not reached that age, if it were necessary. I am not finding fault with the mover of the resolution for putting it in the form in which he did; in fact, I believe it was necessary to put it in that form in order to get it a hearing in the house. I simply wish to add my word of approval.


Mr. L. W. JOHNSTONE (Cape Bretan-North-Victoria):: I most heartily endorse this resolution and I think the people throughout Canada will do the same. I know quite well that not only in this house but throughout the dominion it will receive sympathetic consideration. In my long professional career I have come in contact on many occasions with blind people both young and old, and I have been afflicted nearer home than perhaps most hon. gentlemen have been. One thing has always struck me in regard to the blind, something that I have observed more among them than among those suffering from any other affliction, and that is their great earnestness and their willingness to work. We see the blind wandering along the streets, stick in hand, with no other help than their other senses, which no doubt do become more acute, finding their way about, and taking up lessons in music and in other occupations. They are always willing to help themselves. Since its introduction Braille has been of great benefit to the blind. I know of many instances where they both read and write in Braille, and now there are magazines in that system, and they have the benefit of the New Testament. Not only do they read, but they write to one another. I do not wish to take up the time of the house, but I do hope that both the house and the government will fully endorse the resolution and that we may be able in consequence to help the blind, each in his own community.


Charles A. Stewart: I wish to go on record as heartily in support of this resolution. My association with the blind goes back a considerable number of years to the days when I was in the [Mr. Manion.J
provincial government of Alberta. A school was established in Manitoba for the education of blind persons, and from that time on no one who has come in contact with the blind there can have helped being struck by the fact that something should be done in a public way for people so afflicted. Of course, we must not lose sight of the fact that there are a great many blind people who make a success of their vocations. I have in mind one or two who have succeeded. I know of a young man who became blind during his university career, and he is making a splendid success to-day in the field of insurance, as a solicitor, so that he is able to support himself and his family. In the main however this affliction is a severe handicap to numbers of people throughout the country. No later than last session I was one of those in the House of Commons who pleaded for more consideration by way of grants to the associations that were looking after the interests of blind persons.
I have nothing to add to what was in my opinion very ably put yesterday by the mover of the resolution, except to say that I wish to go on record as being heartily in accord with the idea of parliament taking this matter up and doing something tangible for those unfortunates in our country who are stricken with blindness.


Mr. R. S. WHITE (Mount Royal):: I desire merely to record my approval of the resolution before the house. I can imagine no resolution calling for legislation that will appeal to this house in a greater degree than the one moved by the hon. member for North Renfrew (Mr. Cotnam).
The point has been made by the hon. member for West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart) that some persons afflicted with blindness have made a success in life so far as monetary independence is concerned. That of course is true. An outstanding case is probably that of Sir Charles Lindsay who recently received knighthood for his benevolent and charitable work and who has been able by his industry to acquire very substantial wealth. But the proposal of the resolution, as I understand it, is to extend the Old Age Pensions Act to those afflicted with blindness so that they may come under its provisions at the age of forty years. Blind persons who are deprived of sight to view the glories of creation appeal in a special degree to our sympathy and support, but over and above what charity and institutions have done to alleviate the afflictions of those who have never seen the light of day or the glory of the sun, over and above those

Pensiom for the Blind
who are aided in this way there is still a large class of blind people who require assistance from the state and no class of people can more strongly or reasonably look to the state for aid than can the blind.


Mr. S. C. ROBINSON (West Essex):: I would like to add just a few words to what has been said respecting the resolution of the hon. member for North Renfrew (Mr. Cot-nam). In the border cities we have a considerable number of blind and every year a delegation waits on me asking me to use my endeavours to assist them by way of a pension as outlined in the hon. member's resolution.
While I am on my feet I wish to say that since the war the Lion's Club, one of the service clubs of Windsor, has been doing yeoman work for the blind, that is in establishing them in vocations that they can carry on and also assisting them financially. If it were not for that organization, the blind would be in a much worse position than they are in to-day. I believe these matters should be drawn to the attention of the house when service clubs are doing such good work on behalf of the country.


Mr. A. A. HEAPS (North Winnipeg):: I am very glad to observe the unanimity with which the house has received the resolution of the hon. member for North Renfrew (Mr. Cotnam). Under the circumstanoes it will be extremely difficult for the government not to afford some relief to the blind in accordance with the suggestions contained in the resolution now before the house. I understand during this session the government will bring down amendments to the Old Age Pensions Act and my own suggestion would be that the government should incorporate in that act the essence of the resolution under discussion. The blind themselves have for a number of years agitated for a pension at the age of probably twenty-five years and over and I sincerely hope the government will follow the lead given in other countries by other governments and give this unfortunate section of our community that pension which we all agree they ought to have. The expense involved is very small in comparison with the results achieved.


Mr. J. K. BLAIR (North Wellington):: The resolution before the house needs very little explanation. I am sure every hon. member will readily recognize the necessity for a movement of this nature. These blind people in many instances are protected and provided for by their parents but when they arrive at the age of forty, ofttimes they are destitute
and a consideration of this sort would be a kindly gesture on behalf of those who have been bereft of their sight.


Mr. F. W. GERSHAW (Medicine Hat):: I wish to compliment the hon. member for North Renfrew (Mr. Cotnam) upon bringing up this resolution. He made a very valuable contribution to the literature of the subject in his introduction of it. Blindness in the great majority of cases comes on through no fault of the individual so afflicted. It may come on as a result of accident, nerve disease or as a consequence of infection during a very early age. There are special reasons why blind people should receive help from the state. Probably the first one is that they are unable to compete in the labour market and make a living for themselves; second, by the very nature of their affliction they require extra help, attendance and services and we all know the friends and relatives are often unable to assume the burden of caring for those blind people. I therefore will give the resolution my hearty support.


Mr. G. D. STANLEY (East Calgary):: A few minutes ago I received the following telegram which I shall read:
Local committee of I.O.D.E., Lions Club and representative citizens here respectfully seek your earnest support of resolution favouring application of Old Age Pensions Act to blind persons attaining forty years. We even favour a lower age but will gratefully accept what your government deems opportune.
A. J. Bartle.
I shall not delay the consideration of the resolution which has now been discussed at some length, but I shall give my wholehearted support to the object of it.


Mr. F. R. MacMILLAN (Saskatoon):: A
few months ago I received from an organization in my city a telegram along similar lines to that which the hon. member for East Calgary (Mr. Stanley) has just read. I want to lend my support to the resolution moved by the hon. member for North Renfrew (Mr. Cotnam). I merely intend to congratulate the hon. member upon bringing this matter before the house. I think it is our duty to give the question consideration and support.


Mr. F. W. TURNBULL (Regina):: Mr. Speaker, I rise merely to put on record my approval of the principle of this resolution. Having gone that far, my zeal for social reform, which is only equalled by that of my hon. friends the new converts across the way, will not permit me to detain the house any longer.
Pensions jor the Blind


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the observations made by the hon. member for North Renfrew (Mr. Cotnam) yesterday on this resolution. No one could fail to be impressed by the picture he spread upon the record with respect to those who suffer the great affliction of blindness. There are, of course, and have been for centuries, societies and individuals that have carried on beneficent activities for the relief of those who suffer from blindness. In this country votes of money have been made by the dominion government, and I believe by perhaps all the provincial governments, towards the assistance of such societies and others engaged in helping those who suffer from this great affliction. The hon. member for North Renfrew has for many years given a great deal of thought and study to the subject matter of this resolution.
The resolution suggests that the Old Age Pensions Act should be amended to apply to blind people over forty years of age. As the mover explained, the age of forty years was adopted perhaps arbitrarily, but he suggested, and I think his reasoning was sound, that if an earlier age were fixed it might in some cases act as a deterrent to blind people taking advantage of such opportunities as are theirs to become self-supporting. That might occur in some cases, but I doubt whether it would in the majority of cases. Personally I do not think an amendment to the Old Age Pensions Act would be the most satisfactory method of dealing with a question of this character. The Old Age Pensions Act is legislation of which some provinces avail themselves, others do not. If this resolution results in legislation it might well take the form of a special act, dissociated from old age pensions.
The question of cost has always to be considered in matters of this kind, so I think that feature should be made manifest in order that the house may thoroughly understand what they are embarking upon if legislation is introduced following this resolution. I am sure every member of this chamber agrees with me that we should do everything humanly possible to alleviate the lot of those affected with blindness. This house has been in years past and is presently engaged in many researches in order to help those who by reason of this misfortune cannot help themselves. If there is a class to whom we might well devote some time and some money it is that class to which this resolution relates.
I think the only committee that could deal with the matter would be the standing com-

mittee on industrial and international relations-and I would ask the hon. gentleman who introduced the resolution to move that it be referred to that committee in order that they may take it into consideration from the angles I have suggested and others, because it is an important matter. I believe the purpose would best be served in that way. If the hon. member does not care to make the motion I would undertake to move that the resolution be referred to the standing committee on industrial relations.


Hon. CHARLES MAROIL (Bonaventure):: Before the hon. member closes I would like to say a word in support of this motion. I think the object of it is good, but it should not be confined to the class entitled to claim old age pensions. In the province from which I come, in which I am more familiar with the existing state of affairs, we have some very deserving institutes, the Montreal Institute for the Blind, the Nazareth Institute and other institutes that are also deserving of support. They have been looking after the blind for many years, or generations. I do not think they receive much assistance from the federal treasury, although they receive a certain amount from the provincial government. When the committee take up this question I suggest that it should not be limited to one class but that they look into the matter thoroughly, because if there is a class of people entitled to sympathy and wholehearted support it is certainly those who are deprived of their sight.


Mr. COTNAM:: I do not recall, since I have been a member of this house, any question or resolution on which the house seemed to be so entirely in agreement. I do not propose now to discuss the subject matter any further, but only to say that while I am quite ready to acquiesce in the suggestion of the Minister of Labour that the resolution be referred to the committee on industrial relations for further consideration, I would like it to be with the understanding that if at all possible the matter in some form be resubmitted to this house during .the present session, in order that the blind may receive financial assistance in the near future.


Mr. SPEAKER:: It is moved by Hon. Mr. Gordon that there be added to the motion as an amendment the following words:
And that the question be referred to the committee on industrial and international relations.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Motion as amended agreed to.

Federal Health Policy

John Knox Blair: Mr
Speaker, in regard to this question of health I do not think we should encourage the duplication of services which we have had in the past, with both the provinces and the federal government taking part. As a result there have been many points at which the work has not been done properly. I think the desire of the federal government should be made known and the work carried on under the provincial governments; I think the provincial ministers of health are quite competent to carry out the work but that it is the duty of this house to outline the course we wish pursued, since we make some grants towards the cost of the work.
One of the branches which, in my opinion, should be considered, is the hospitalization of tubercular patients. In Ontario I believe the poor people and the rich people are well looked after, but there is the middle class who are not able to pay the cost of hospitalization. So we find contagion spreading all the time. We find homes in which there may be tuberculous persons living with children, and conditions of that kind, and I believe that if something could be done to bring about more complete hospitalization of tubercular patients it would mean a great deal to the county in which I live.
In connection with maternity work the situation in Ontario is perhaps different from that of the western provinces. In the west, where the farms are far apart, hospitalization is required in maternity cases, but that is not so in the rural sections of Ontario. I have the statistics in regard to Ontario with the exception of those for the last two or three years. We had an excellent man in Ontario, Doctor McCullough, who furnished us with the statistics so that we might know what was going on throughout the province, but for the last few years that information has not been made available. According to my information, however, the maternal death rate in the cities is two and a half times as great as the rate in the rural parts of the province. I think if the Minister of Health looks into the matter he will find this statement to be correct. So I do not think that the hospitalization of maternity cases would lower the maternal death rate in the rural parts of Ontario; I think the larger hospitals will have to show that they can do better "ork than is
being done in the rural districts before we make any change in that regard. As I say, I am not speaking of the western provinces. People on farms there are further removed from medical assistance, but in Ontario by far the best record is found in the rural districts and villages, where the family doctor practices. I have the statistics for each city and each county for a number of years back, and I think my statement can be proved quite easily.
I might say also that in Ontario, and in fact the whole of Canada, the infant mortality rate is too high. Many other countries surpass us in that regard. I believe the average in Canada is something over 89 per thousand, while in New Zealand it is only 35. Certainly we are not among the leading countries so far as low infant mortality is concerned. According to the last report I have before me the maternal mortality rate per thousand is 5-8 in Canada, while in Italy and some other countries it is only 2-7. But while our maternal mortality is much too high I must say that it is in the rural parts of Ontario, and I presume that applies to the other provinces as well, that we find the low mortality rate of only 2-7, while in the cities it is as high as 7 and 8 per thousand.


Mr. SPENCER:: I do not wish to take up the time of the house at any great length, but I should like to refer briefly to the minister's statement in connection with this resolution. First of all I wish to thank and compliment him upon the stand he has taken with regard to this all important matter of health. Early in his remarks, however, he said that he thought my address painted altogether too gloomy a picture with regard to the health of the Canadian people. All I can say in reply is that the statements I made and the figures I gave were actual facts with regard to the health of our people.
I have in my hand a short report by a commission which was formed in the province of Alberta. This commission realized the serious situation with regard to health matters and considered it necessary to draft a plan which would be sufficiently comprehensive properly to look after the health of our people. I should like to take a moment to outline the important part of that plan, as follows:
1.	The regular general practitioner service of general medicine, minor surgery, obstetrics, etc.
2.	Specialized service, special diagnostic services and major surgery.	_
3.	Hospitalization and hospital facilities such as pathological laboratory services, X-ray services and so on.
Federal Health Policy

4.	Dental services.
5.	Prescribed medicines; prescribed surgical appliances, and so on.
6.	Preventive medical service for each unit.
This service would be a full time service
similar to that now available in Edmonton, Calgary and the rural health districts operating in the Red Deer and High River areas.
I mention that plan because in one of the provinces, which I am glad to say has been congratulated by the minister they have realized the tremendous necessity for something more to be done with regard to health matters than is being done at the present time. It is because they realize these remedies should be brought about, and because of the considerable cost to that province as well as to other provinces which may follow a like plan, that I ask the house to give consideration to the necessity for making greater grants and working in closer cooperation.
I was pleased to hear the figures given by the Minister of National Health (Mr. Sutherland) concerning the great improvement which has been made due to the attention given to serious ailments such as tuberculosis, diphtheria, smallpox and whooping cough, and the resulting reduction in death rates from these ailments. I was pleased to note the minister is sympathetic to the idea of full time health units. On the whole I believe this house should be congratulated upon having a Minister of National Health who so wholeheartedly has met a problem such as the present one and who has given us such hope for the future.
The minister made some observations however concerning which I should like to speak. He said that with the exception of certain rural districts we are fairly well supplied with hospitals. That may be true so far as the older parts of Canada are concerned, but the same statement would not apply to the newer parts of the dominion. So far as the western provinces are concerned I know we could do with a great many more hospitals. While enumerating the hospitals in Canada he stated that there were 59 for the treatment of mental cases. In view of that fact it seems to me we have a situation which is more serious than I had at first thought. A condition whereby we have to have no less than 59 hospitals to take care of our mental patients is certainly not complimentary to such a young country peopled with such a robust race. Something must be wrong with our people in this northern country if we have to have that many institutions to take care of our mental patients. In those provinces with which I have been more closely in touch I know there is usually a waiting list of mental cases to enter the hospital, already built.
May I congratulate the Minister of National Health upon his statement that the ministers

of health in the different provinces are to be invited to meet in Ottawa at some date in the near future. I should like to congratulate him further upon the address he gave and the hope he has given hon. members and people throughout the country who look forward to a great deal more being done, particularly in a preventive way, to guard the health of our people. I appreciate his observation that he has no objection to the resolution before the house.


Mr. SIJTHIERLAND:: What the hon. member has said is true. The government has no objection to the motion passing,but its passing is subject to what I have said about cooperation and investigations being proceeded with.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. WEIR (Macdonald) for Mr. Michaud:
For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams, and other documents, exchanged between the Dominion government or any member or any department thereof and all other persons relating to the following items of Schedule "A", Chapter 59, 24-25 George V, the Public Works Construction Act: Item 19, Campbeill'ton, New Brunswick, wharf repairs; item 32, Dalhousie, New Brunswick, post office; item 41, Escumimac, New Brunswick, breakwater extension; item 49, Fredericton Experimental Farm, New Brunswick, new dormitary; item 75, Harbours, and Rivers (New Brunswick only); item 98, Moncton, New Brunswick, public building.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, before the motion is put may I state the mover is not in his seat. I think it will have to stand, because in its present form the government is unable to accept it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Stands.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It will require too much work.
Motion stands.


CAMPBELLTON
[Stage Direction]
Mr. WEIR (Macdonald) for Mr. Michaud:
For a copy of all correspondence, letters, and telegrams, exchanged between the Dominion government, or any member or official thereof and any other person or persons, relating to the ferry service between CampbeJlton, New Brunswick, and Cross Point, Quebec, from May 1, 1934, to date.

Mr. WEIR (Macdonald):: For a return showing:-
1.	The revenue earned by each experimental farm and station in Canada for the fiscal year 1933-34.
2.	The total expenditure of each experimental farm and station in Canada for the fiscal year 1933-34.

Empire Trade Agreements
3.	The total revenue and expenditure of all experimental farms and stations in Canada for the year 1933-34.
OTTAWA-OFFICE BUILDING BENTALS	'


William Gilbert Weir: For a return showing the total rent paid by the government for office buildings in the city of Ottawa.


CABMAN, MAN., POST OFFICE
William Gilbert Weir: For a return showing:-
1.	Cost of repair work done on the post office at Carman, Manitoba, during the year 1934.
2.	The character of work done.
3.	The names of the person or persons doing the work.
4.	If the work was let by tender?


MONTREAL CENTRAL POST OFFICE
[Stage Direction]
Mr. DUBOIS for Mr. Deslauriers:
For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams, and other documents, exchanged between the Minister of Public Works, the Department of Public Works, or any officer of the government concerning the contract awarded to the contractors, Duranceau & Duraneeau, in connection with the erection of a central post office at Montreal:
Also a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the government or any officer of the government or any other person concerning the changes made to the said projected building in connection with the foundations;
Also a copy of the new contract, if any, entered into between the government and the new contractors in connection with the said projected building.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Mr. Harris:
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.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, before the first motion standing in the name of the hon. member for Toronto-Scarborough (Mr. Harris) is called I rise, not to take any [DOT]exception to the house proceeding with it, but rather if possible to obtain your honour's *opinion as to the bearing of the decision .given by the ex-Speaker, the Hon. Mr. Black, which relates to the same question being raised a second time in the house during the one session.
The motion of the hon. member for Toronto-Scarborough has to do with the trade agreements concluded at the imperial economic conference held at Ottawa in 1932, and it is a 92582-23
motion to express the house's approval of those agreements. The discussion on this resolution may occasion pretty full discussion of the Ottawa agreements The question therefore naturally arises whether if this allimportant subject is discussed at this stage on a private member's motion hon. members of this house will be free to discuss the agreements at a later stage, and particularly at the time the budget is brought down, when these matters will necessarily come up for consideration.
The ruling of the ex-Speaker is one that was given on May 15, 1934, and appears in the votes and proceedings of this house of that day. I shall not read the whole decision, but sufficient to indicate the important part of it and its relation to the point I am now raising. At page 332 of the votes and proceedings of 1934 the following appears:
Mr. Speaker: On April 23rd, Mr. Ralston moved an amendment to the motion of the Minister of Finance that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to resolve itself again into committee of ways and means, the following:-
"This house regrets that the proposals of the Minister of Finance give no indication of the intention of the government to abandon the policies of economic nationalism which have proved so disastrous to Canada's trade. It is of the opinion that the immediate substitution therefor of policies which will promote export trade throughout the world is essential to any permanent improvement of conditions in Canada, and to the successful application of other policies respecting credit and employment designed to effect this end."
On April 30th, Mr. Spencer moved a subamendment and on May 7th on a question of order raised by Mr. Mackenzie, of Vancouver Centre, as to the subamendment, I held that the subamendment was not in order as it sought to deal with the question of credit -which had been debated on a motion by Mr. Lucas and the matter of credit had been by consent referred to the select standing committee on banking and commerce where it is being considered.
It is now agreed that the amendment is not in order and for the same reasons as said subamendment was held to be not in order.
Then, a little further on, making reference to an amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woods-worth) the following appears:
On February 13th, Mr. Woodsworth moved the following amendment to the address in reply to the speech from the throne:-
"That the following be added to the motion: We respectfully regret that Your Excellency's present advisers have not taken such steps as are necessary to deal adequately with unemployment, to reduce the burden imposed by the public debt, and to put the agricultural industry on a basis that will ensure the farmer a decent standard of living."

Empire Trade Agreements

Thereupon, employment wag discussed and the amendment was disposed of by the house on a division resulting in 54 yeas and 89 nays.
That amendment dealt with the question of employment generally and the amendment now before the house is to the same effect and so is not in order.
The Speaker went on to say:
My decision is suported by the following precedents.
Bourinot, page 328:	"It is, however, an
ancient rule of parliament that 'no question or motion can be regularly offered if it is substantially the same with one on which the judgment of the house has already been expressed during the current session.' The old rule of parliament reads:	'That a question
being once made, and carried in the affirmative or negative, cannot be questioned again, but must stand as a judgment of the house.' "
Then, not to take up the time of the house by reading it all, and to read only what is most pertinent, let me conclude with the last paragraph:
I therefore rule that the amendment moved by Mr. Ralston is out of order as it is substantially the same as one on which the judgment of the house has already been expressed, and it deals with matters already before the house.
From this decision Mr. Ralston appealed to the house, but the Speaker was sustained. At the time lion, members on this side felt that the decision was one which would materially limit the opportunities of debate and discussion in this house. I think your honour will agree that probably no question just at the present time is more important than that of trade, particularly as affected by the Ottawa agreements.
What I would like to know before we begin a discussion of this motion is as to whether, after the motion has been discussed, hon. members will be precluded from a very full discussion of the trade agreements and their effects when we come to discuss for example, the question of reciprocity or any other question that may come up in connection with the consideration of the budget. I also submit that for the consideration of the Prime Minister because I feel that if the ruling of the former Speaker is to bind this house we might as well give up hope after this afternoon of having any further discussion of the Ottawa agreements in this parliament, and I should not like t,o think that that was the intention back of this motion.


Mr. J. H. HARRIS (Toronto-Scarborough):: I should just like to bring to the attention of the leader of the opposition this one important point. The resolution as drafted states that the operation of the trade agreements concluded at the imperial economic

conference held at Ottawa in 1932 merits the approval of this house. There is no word of policy there, no word of empire markets, and with all due respect to the right hon. gentleman I submit to your honour that my motion is in order.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have not questioned that it is in order. I have asked the Speaker's opinion.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Obviously the question is whether or not the motion is in order. There can be no decision given by the Chair with respect to any matter until that matter is to be dealt with by the chamber. The Chair cannot give decisions in anticipation of what may happen.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Not decisions. I merely asked his honour for an opinion on the matter.


Richard Bedford Bennett: His honour is precluded from giving his opinion. His honour can only give his judgment upon a matter that is raised, upon a point of order being taken by a member of the house as to the propriety within the rules of discussing any resolution or question that is submitted to the house for its consideration. The Speaker of the house is not an advisory tribunal to express opinions with respect to some contingency that may or may not happen. His duty is merely to administer the rules and preserve order. As to the second there is little difficulty. As to the first, the construction of the rules, there is always some difficulty.
The opinion that was given by the former Speaker is a decision that there shall not be two discussions of a given matter at the same session of parliament. That is so fundamental for the maintenance of the institution itself that one would think there could be no doubt about its soundness.
The right hon. gentleman read from the records to show that this house had distinctly arrived at conclusions with respect to every matter mentioned in the amendment of Mr. Ralston, and a division having taken place and a conclusion having been reached it was not competent again to review that matter in the same session by projecting a new discussion into the house.
But there is also another matter to be considered, and that is that it is always competent for the house to express opinions with respect to a matter that has not been debated during the session, and up to the moment there has been no debate on the question which is now up for consideration. I was reminded the other day when discussing another matter, by my friend the Minister of

Empire Trade Agreements
Justice that just prior to the budget being delivered increasing the British preference, the then member for the city of Halifax, the retired Judge Russell, moved a motion that in the opinion of the house the British preference should be increased by, I think, about 25 per cent. Three days later the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) delivered his budget and increased the preference by 25 per cent. It was one of those motions made by arrangement for the purpose of securing an antecedent expression of opinion, and then finding that the budget itself dealt with the matter in the way I have indicated. But I do say to the right hon. gentleman that it is wholly improper to seek from the chair the expression of an opinion as to something that may be submitted; and, secondly, if there has been no point of order taken, then the debate should proceed writhout any further question. If the right hon. gentleman raises a question of order and indicates the grounds upon which he makes his point of order, we will discuss that point of order. But until that time does arrive, I submit that there is nothing before the chair to enable it to give an antecedent, shall I say, advisory opinion upon contingencies that may never arise or events that may never happen.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I did not understand the
leader of the opposition to raise any question as to the motion being in order. On the point however that he did mention there is direct authority in Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms. In paragraph 108 at page 33 there appears this statement:
The Speaker decides the questions of order only when they actually arise and not in anticipation.
I would refer the house to Denison and Brand, pages 295 and 296. I think the leader of the opposition has perhaps accomplished the purpose which he had in making his statement, but it is generally agreed that it would be impossible for me to give a decision at this time on a point of order to be raised in the future.
proposed approval op operation op agreements


CONCLUDED AT IMPERIAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE, 1932
Joseph Henry Harris: 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.
He said: The operation of the trade agreements concluded at the imperial economic conference in 1932 has been one of the main
92582-23j
factors which have made it possible for the League of Nations and indeed all fact-finding bodies to recognize during the last two or three years that Canada has recovered from the world depression probably more quickly than any other country in the world. Not only have all signatories to these pacts been benefited but they have experienced a recovery which is perhaps on a par with anything that is on record and one of which they are very proud. If the man in the street could get some idea of the magnitude of the effect they have had, if he could realize that one quarter of the world's population and perhaps one third of the world's commerce and business have been benefited by these imperial trade agreements, he would begin to form some idea of the greatness of the achievement and would then be able to measure what manner of man we have leading this Conservative party in our day and generation in this house. What a tribute to Canadians to think that there should be focussed on this country the attention of a quarter of the world's population, yea, of the whole civilized world. To think that that attention should focus on Canada with its small population of ten millions and on this city of Ottawa and on those in charge of the affairs of this part of the empire. It has made Canadians once again empire-conscious, as it were. We are thinking, acting and working together and are coming to believe that we as a people are showing the world the way out of its difficulties. These agreements are responsible for that feeling among civilized peoples. In the war we thought, acted and worked together and now in time of peace we are thinking, acting and working together again; and in my opinion when history is written fifty years hence these imperial trade agreements will be regarded as one of the real achievements so far as Canada is concerned.
To those of us who are in business, what a thrill it is to be buying sterling to pay for empire goods, whereas ten years ago we had to buy New York drafts, French marks, guilders, pesos or something else. Now we buy sterling to pay for our imports from other parts of the empire. But that perhaps was not the first duty with which this government was confronted when it came into power. We had to see to it that we got more trade and got it as quickly as possible; for we had staring us in the face at that time an adverse balance of trade of 8112,000,000, which was bleeding this country white of any surplus that it had, and that had to be arrested. Although we may have been toddling previous to 1930, this government took charge
Empire Trade Agreements


EXPORTS TO UNITED KINGDOM
[Stage Direction]
Twelve Months ending December 31
Fresh apples	Bbls.	1932 1,386,479	1933 2,640,110	1934 2,113,824$	5,639,946	10,061.420	8.120,848Canned pears	Lbs.	4,396,641	7,022,687	9,752,022$	256.276	385.346	606,555Canned salmon	$	2,523,091	2.339,298	3,262,229Bacon and ham	$	3,010,203	8,071,803	18,754,113Eggs	a	3,972	363,285	409,333Fish (fresh or frozen) 	$	355,124	701,088	733,067Timber (including partially manufactured wood)	$	4.848,157	9,013,871	17,744,390Copper (rods, sheets, etc.)	$	4,854,831	8,754,765	14,308,289Pig lead	$	1,849,717	3,047,227	2,963,356Zinc (and products)	$	2,277,559	3,427,014	5,354,372Asbestos	a	143,722	395,891	452,589Nickel (and products)	$	1,272,127	6,648,908	10,087,351Total United Kingdom exports.. ..	178,171,680	210,697,904	270,333,857IMPORTS FROM UNITED KINGDOM	Fine cotton yarns	$	G43.747	1,040,755	1,466,049Unbleached cottons	Lbs.	680,565	1,982,480	2.740,641$	265,306	661,668	855,258Bleached cottons	Lbs.	950,461	1,295,365	1.391,219$	536,079	648,450	712,579Bleached and dyed cottons	Lbs.	3,826.981	4,330,838	5,610,947$	2,292.587	2,441,465	3,069,943Linen fabrics in the web	$	760,252	959,865	1,210,912Pure linen tablecloths, etc	$	550,314	856,000	971,809Wool yarns for manufactures	Lbs.	3,130,469	3,943,499	3,309,967$	2,271.266	2,801,180	2,705,683Wool fabrics 4 oz. and under	$	31,054	457,320	527,909Wool fabrics, n.o.p	a	5,547,018	5,588,802	7,848,040Total United Kingdom imports.. ..	93,508,143	97,878,232	113,418,569
In 1931 Great Britain only supplied us with 6 per cent of our requirements of mercerized cotton yarns; last year she supplied us with 84 per cent of our requirements. That is worth while. In like manner grey cotton imports from Great Britain in 1932 represented 17 per cent of our purchases, and last year it rose to 45 per cent. The following table will show other examples of similar improvement:
Percentage of total Imports
	1931	1934
Bleached cottons	25	75Printed cottons	42	70Wood fabric	65	93The total increase in textiles	was $20)	000,000.Then further:	Leather	16	39Iron and steel	6	10The value of the imports of	empire	tea for1931 amounted to 51,780,000; for 1934,	$3,140,-
000.
I invite the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) to let his mind run back over the last fifteeen years in connection with the leather industry, and think 
of his friends in that industry, nearly all of whom were wont to support the Liberal party in days gone by. Where are they to-day? They are thinking of the good that has been done to Canada and to their industry by the operation of these agreements. Two years ago 16 per cent of our imports of fine leathers came from the United Kingdom, we are now getting 39 per cent from there. Let me read a letter from one of our friends in the leather industry. This is dated January 25 last.
With the sentiments which you express in regard to the empire trade agreement. I am in most hearty accord and were I a member of the house would concur most heartily in the motion which you propose. I believe that the trade agreements have been a distinct benefit to Canada as a whole. In the general advantage the leather industry has shared indirectly, but in addition there are certain branches of the leather industry which have benefited very directly by the trade agreement. My father will probably speak in greater detail of the advantage to the calf leather industry; I know that they have found the agreement a distinct advantage there, and certainly some sole leather tanners have benefited by it. Probably the greatest single benefit so far as the leather

Empire Trade Agreements
industry is concerned has come to those producing patent leather. May the Ottawa trade agreement remain and increase in scope and advantage to Canada.
What is the situation in regard to patent leather? Three years ago the United States shipped to the United Kingdom 18.000 hundredweight, last year 7,000 hundredweight. Canada three years ago shipped to the United Kingdom 6,000 hundredweight, last year she shipped 11,000 hundredweight, to the value of £368,422, which money came into Canada to benefit Canada generally and the leather industry in particular.
This is what the father of the gentleman just quoted says, under date of January 29. The letter has just come to my hands. I apologize for not going on with my resolution last Monday but I wanted this information:
I agree with you that the Ottawa agreements have been of the greatest possible value to Canada. Led by the premier of Canada they have operated in favour of the farmers and business generally...
The writer's view is that this is one of the greatest forward steps in the empire. The rapid growth in two or three years, in all parts, together with the understanding of each other better and finding out that what they can exchange to the advantage of both will enlarge our trade as the years pass along. The leather business has been greatly benefited, more men have been employed. The empire demand has grown for our goods. It has increased 125 per cent since the agreements have been passed. We are not looking at this from any political standpoint-
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Joseph Henry Harris: but from a business standpoint, in which every citizen should be called to see the expansion, not only in our line, but scores of other lines.
I would like to turn back for a moment to bacon and ham and try to put the picture before you of what has transpired in that industry and how it affects Canadian farmers. When these trade agreements went into effect the average price of hogs in Canada was 4 cents. In Chicago it was a good deal less than 4 cents. Canada produces 6,000,000 hogs per year. What happened inside of twelve months from the consummation of these agreements? The price went from 4 cents to 64 cents, beyond that in fact, but the average for the
year in round figures was 61 cents. In the United States the price remained stationary below 4 cents. So we have 64 cents on this side of the line and 4 cents on that side, a difference of 24 cents a pound. Six million hogs per year, produced in Canada, 24 cents per pound on a 200 pound hog, represents S5 per hog. For six million hog3 it means a total of 830,000,000. Due to these trade agreements you have put into the pockets of the Canadian farmers in that one year 830,000,000 more than they would have received had these pacts not been consummated and had the United Kingdom not seen fit to restrict her imports of bacon and ham. It did not stop there; it went from 64 cents per pound to 8 cents, in round figures, in December of 1934. If you deduct 64 from 8 you have a balance of 14 cents, which on a 200 pound hog means $3, and on a production of 6,000,000 hogs means another
818,000.000 in addition to the 830,000,000 realized within the last two years. That is all due to the action of the United Kingdom in restricting her imports, making it possible for Canada to recover a portion of that market.
But our farmers have not gone far enough. In 1932 the products of 300,000 hogs went to the United Kingdom; in 1933 the products of
600,000	hogs went to that market, and in 1934, the products of 1,000,000 hogs were sent to the United Kingdom, but under these pacts it is possible for Canada to supply a quota equal to the production from 2,500,000 hogs. So we are only about a quarter of the distance that it is possible for us to go. Even since December 31, 1934, the hog market has continued to rise. To-day it is on the basis of 84 cents, and I say to the Canadian people and the Canadian farmers that this one feature of these pacts will see to it that the Canadian hog will buy the baby a new pair of shoes.
While we were debating these agreements in 1932, my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition said:
They have made trade more difficult in this country than it was before; more difficult as between different parts of the British empire; more difficult as between different parts of the world.
With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a few figures on Hansard.
Empire Trade Agreements

to the Nile and come out at the Mediterranean and go through to England. You could act as neutral chairman between Australia and New Zealand, the United Kingdom and South Africa. Have a talk with Mrs. Harris and see what you think about it.
In Australia the business community is feeling cheerful. This also applies to New Zealand. I hope at some date not too far distant we may have the opportunity to fly the little Australian and New Zealand flags along with the union jack and see if we cannot do even better as one than we did under several.
Does that sound like a step leading to friction between the different unions of the empire? I received from a New Zealand friend a copy of the Auckland Weekly News. What do they say?
New Zealanders affirm trade within the empire.
Then they go on to say:
To do the duty that lies nearest is ever sound policy and we believe in trade within the empire.
I shall close my remarks by referring to a communication which I received on January 17 of this year:
We are delivering one case of mineral waters on instructions from our Australian office and with the compliments of our Australian directors.
Mr. Speaker, I invite the right hon. leader of the opposition to join me in the consumption of these mineral waters which have been sent with the compliments of Australia, a country which believes that we are not having more friction with different parts of the empire, but that we will go on to greater and greater things. In the name of harmony and good will I ask the right hon. gentleman opposite to join me in the consumption of these mineral waters, in the hope that we will have more harmony and he will not provoke the traders of our empire.


Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity afforded to discuss the Ottawa agreements, because I remember very well just before the vote took place the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) pointing his finger along these rows and daring each and every one of us to oppose the agreements, so that if there had been anything political in it surely we would have heeded the Prime Minister and voted with him on that occasion. But we did not heed him. I felt slightly wrathy at that time, because I never had a finger pointed at me and had never been told in that way before what to do. Coming from that great land of freedom I very much resented it.
fMr. Harris.]
The last speaker (Mr. Harris) has given figures and percentages, and he has endeavoured to make it appear that since the passing of the Ottawa agreements Canada has been saved from some great catastrophe. During the time at my disposal I am going into the matter a little more closely, and I shall examine what has happened since the conference agreements were signed, and even previous to that time. I shall not go back to the years between 1921 and 1929, but I shall come to a more recent date. Let us deal with the trade of Canada just previous to the signing of the agreements in 1932, and compare the trade of that time with the figures two years later, 1934. I propose to examine carefully just what the agreements have done for the Canadian people, and more particularly for the farmers and workers in industry.
In passing may I observe that in 1930 the total trade of Canada was well over two billion dollars, but in 1933 it had dropped to about $887,000,000. If one wants to find as low a figure as that for Canadian trade he will have to go back a good many years. It is true that in 1934 trade increased a little, but would we not have been in a terrible position if it had not increased. However, even with the increase in 1934, in which year there was a total trade of $1,019,479,094, we have to go back to the year 1914 to get as low a figure even as that. May I point out that in 1914 we had a population of only a little more than 7,000,000 people, while in 1934 we have a population of well over
10,000,000 people. Despite the difference in population in those years the trade figures are about the same.
I shall now turn to the figures for grains, because I believe they are very important. First I shall give the figures showing the total value of grains of all countries. In 1930 we shipped grains valued at $232,763,740. In the year of the Ottawa conference the grains shipped were valued at $132,930,429. That, Mr. Speaker, was the year of the conference. In 1934 however, the total grains exported to all countries were valued at only $128,284,392.
That is fact number one, namely that the value of the total grains exported from Canada has dropped since the Ottawa agreements were signed and since this government came into office.
Now let us examine what happened to our shipments of these grains to Great Britain. In 1930 we shipped over 113,000,000 bushels of wheat to Great Britain, for which there was returned to this country well over $139,000,000.

Empire Trade Agreements
I ask the house to take note of these figures. In 1932, prior to the Ottawa agreements being signed, we shipped to Great Britain over
110.000.	000 bushels of wheat for which we received just over 865,000,000. In order to save time I am giving the round figures only. But please note the difference in value of those two figures.


Mr. ERNST:: What happened to the wheat trade?


Thomas Reid: You can make your own speech after I am through. I do not want to be discourteous, but I do not want to be interrupted. In 1934, two years afterwards, what were our exports? It will be remembered that the Prime Minister told us that it was necessary for Canada to sign these agreements if Canada was to live and expand her trade, because her trade had gone, and particularly it was held out to this country that Great Britain was our great salvation. Well, let us see if Great Britain was our salvation to the extent that some hon. members are trying to make out in this house and in the country; and, Mr. Speaker, I say again that I welcome very much this opportunity of getting down to the actual facts. In 1934 it is very true that we shipped to Great Britain 112,787,849 bushels of wheat, which was a slight increase over 1932, but a great decrease as compared with 1930. But here is the astounding fact, that for that 112,787,849 bushels of wheat shipped in 1934 we received $75,699,056, while in 1930 we received $139,000,000 for the
113.000.	000 bushels that we shipped.
I heard the hon. member for Toronto-Scarborough (Mr. Harris) in his speech talking about European countries dumping their goods in Europe. What happened in our case? It is only because we dumped our goods into the old country at less than cost price that we were able to find a market for many of them at all.
I have before me the speech of the Prime Minister when he was talking about wheat, barley and oats, and the great market there was for these products. We raise, as everyone knows, considerable barley in this country, and the province of Manitoba is, I believe, famed for its barley. In 1932 we shipped to Great Britain 8,168,571 bushels of barley. That was just previous to signing on the dotted line the agreement with Great Britain. In 1934, two years later, we shipped to Great Britain only 1,398.043 bushels of barley.
Now take oats, another valuable product of this country. In 1932 we shipped to Great Britain 6,082,621 bushels of oats. After the
conference we were going to find a great market in Great Britain for our products, but we shipped to Great Britain in 1934, two years after the conference, only 4,009,382 bushels of oats.
Now let us state the total grains, including rice; it may be news to some that we are shipping rice from this country, and I am sure it must be some consolation to our farmers. In 1932, before the conference, the total of our grains shipped to Great Britain had a value of $71,330,905. That was the total just before the conference. Two years later, in 1934, the total was only $77,600,084. That was the total value of our grains shipped to Great Britain just two years after the conference, but when you take into account the vast quantities of grains that had to be shipped to make up that amount, you will see that the remark I made a moment ago that we are dumping our goods into Great Britain was very pertinent indeed. In 1930, the low year under the Liberal administration, we shipped to Great Britain $149,138,637 worth of grains -quite a difference as compared with 1934.
Now as to rice which, as I say, we are beginning to ship to the old country. In 1932 we shipped to Great Britain $14,000 worth of rice and rice meal, and two years later we shipped $4,256 worth. I am taking all the grains as I go through the list.
Let me come next to rye. The member for Toronto-Scarborough held up a bottle in order that hon. members might see it, and we have to take his word that it contained mineral water. Well, in 1932 we shipped to Great Britain 2,116,572 bushels of rye, and in 1934 we shipped only 241,820 bushels-quite a drop, two years after the conference agreements were in effect.
I notice in reading the Prime Minister's speeches that he says "what a fine country this is for growing peas." In 1932 we shipped to Great Britain 8,685 bushels of peas, and in 1934, 7,429 bushels-a considerable drop.
I come to oatmeal, which must always ap peal to those who come from the countrj north of England which is Scotland. There was a drop in our oatmeal exports. In 1932 we shipped 65,039,500 pounds of oatmeal to Great Britain, and in 1934 we shipped only 40.373,300 pounds.
Take butter. Governments have gone out and governments have come in on this one product. All these commodities I have mentioned are products of the soil and of our farmers. In 1932 we shipped to Great Britain S6,927,000 pounds of butter. Two years later, in 1934, that had dropped to 1,858,304 pounds.
Empire Trade Agreements


Mr. SANDERSON:: Wave the flag.


Thomas Reid: When the hon. member for
Toronto-Searborotigh was talking about the wonderful increase in imports from Great Britain to this country I wonder if he noticed that in 1934 we imported into Canada from the old country 1,580,304 pounds of butter. That will be very comforting news indeed to the farmers of this land who are endeavouring at present to find a market for some ten million pounds of a surplus of butter. Our exports of butter to Great Britain dropped from 86,000,000 pounds in 1932 to 1,800,000 pounds m 1934, and in addition we imported from the same country in 1934, 1,580,304 pounds.
Take cheese. In 1932 we shipped to the old country 81,310,COO pounds of cheese, and in 1934 the export had declined to 74,413,300 pounds-quite a considerable drop.


Frederick George Sanderson: Wave the flag again.


Thomas Reid: Take milk and its products,
another very important item to the farming community in this country. In 1930 we shipped milk and milk products to Great Britain to the value of $16,859,942. That had dropped in 1932 to $12,410,749. After the conference it had dropped to the low figure of $9,504,252, a very considerable drop of nearly $3,000,000 from 1932, and 87,000,000 less than the last year of Liberal administration, which was one of the low years of trade.
I well remember the Prime Minister speaking about honey; I was interested in that because I happen to be a beekeeper. He spoke about having conversations with the Hon. Howard Ferguson, and told how the old country was waiting to eat up our Canadian honey. Well, in 1932 we shipped 1,948,047 pounds and in 1934, 1,853.093. These are interesting figures in view of statements made everywhere by members on the government side that the country's trade had gone down so low that nothing could save it but the agreements; if it had not been for the agreements, we are told, the country would have been sunk, but by their finding a market in Great Britain for our agricultural and other products we were saved.
Let me mention eggs, because this is one of the few articles of the farmer the export of which has increased. I will also mention bacon and hams, and let me say that there would be something terribly wrong if no article had increased. I am not omitting any of the increases during the time at my disposal along agricultural lines. In eggs. I find that while there was a great increase in shipments to the old country, we sold our eggs

in 1932 at an average of 22J cents a dozen whereas our eggs sold last year, 1934, at about 20 cents a dozen. Take dressed poultry. That showed some increase, but if you will look carefully into the figures you will find that we shipped many pounds at a very, very low price.
Coming to bacon and hams, I well remember, when that was under discussion, the Prime Minister telling the members of -this house and the farmers that we had an unlimited market in this direction. It may be true we got some concession whereby we might send up to 280 million pounds to a free market, but let us see what advantage has been taken of that concession. In 1932 we sent 15,276,600 pounds and in 1934 it had risen to 94.559,700 pounds. But if you compare the prices of bacon and hams in the old land in 1934 and 1932 with prices obtained in 1930 you will find that the product returned a value of 13 cents a pound in 1934, 114 cents a pound in 1932 and 224 cents in 1930. Now these figures are very interesting, because after all it is what the farmer gets that counts, his returns. You can talk about percentages as much as you like, but it does not mean anything to the farmer.
Speaking of pork products I notice another article in this connection and that is dry salted pork. We lost a good deal in that market, because in 1930 we sent 4,627,400 pounds at an average price of 20 cents, which had dropped in 1932 to 1,138.900 at an average of 10 cents per pound. That was the year the Ottawa conference took place, and in 1934 it had dropped to as low as 842,100 pounds, netting us an average of 11J cents a pound

a considerable difference compared to 20 cents a pound received in 1930.
I come now to the products of our fisheries. This is of considerable interest to two sections of the country, the maritime provinces and British Columbia. Canned salmon is one of the most important of our products in British Columbia. Let us see how it has fared since the Ottawa agreements have been in operation, and during the time of this administration. In 1932 we shipped 20.517,800 pounds of canned salmon to Great Britain, and in 1934, two years later, this had dropped to 12,922,300 pounds, a difference of 8,000,000 pounds, and representing a decrease of over $1,000,000 in value. I would point out in passing that the fish products of the Atlantic coast are mostly in the form of fresh or frozen fish, and the market has been lost owing to the fact that they were unable to ship into the United States, and there is little market in the old country for fresh or frozen fish.

Empire Trade Agreements
The total of fishery exports in 1930 was $35,697,027, and that had dropped in 1932 to $24,437,078, and in 1934 to 820,779,938, or a drop of $15,000,000 since 1930, and with the fresh fish market of the Atlantic coast producers practically lost. Of the total I will indicate what went to Great Britain, taking the two years again. In 1932 we sent to Great Britain S5,481,301, and in 1934, after the conference agreements had been adopted, it had dropped to $4,6S5,328, or a drop of nearly $1,000,000 since the Ottawa conference, being almost the same quantity as was shipped in 1930.
Another product is maple sugar, which is consumed almost entirely in the United States. Our exports in maple sugar had dropped by about 1,000.000 pounds in 1934. Now, with regard to importations-


An hon. MEMBER:: What about lumber?


Thomas Reid: Don't worry; I do not intend to omit that. I wish I had more time, because I welcome this very much. The figures in regard to flour importations will comfort our people. In 1932 we imported 21,967 barrels of flour and since the Ottawa conference the figure has increased to 51,501. I have been endeavouring to get the importations from Great Britain, which I understand were considerably larger during the calendar year 1934.
I come now to lumber and newsprint, which are products of our forests. It may interest the house to know just how these two products are divided in value and in the number of those engaged, because it is important to have these figures before us. In the pulp and paper industry there were 26,669 persons in Canada engaged in 1933, and those are the latest figures that I can secure. There were 22,361 engaged in the lumber industry in the same year, or more persons engaged in pulp and paper than in lumber production. The value of lumber produced in Canada in the same year was $62,927,987 and the value of the pulp and paper was approximately $144,000,000, so that there is quite a comparison between the two. As a matter of fact, the exports from our forests equal 30-4 per cent of the value of all our total exports. I might point out that in the matter of exports newsprint takes second place in value and that only to wheat. Pulpwood comes third and lumber takes sixth place in comparison with wheat. The total unmanufactured wood pulp which was sent to Great Britain in 1930 amounted to SI,407,870. In 1932 that had increased just a little to SI,424,159. We were told however that after *the agreements were enacted that trade would
increase. In 1934, two years later, exports of unmanufactured wood pulp had dropped to $1,313,243. Exports of wood pulp dropped from $8,196,144 in 1932 to $4,883,318 in 1934.
As regards newsprint, it may interest the house to know that one-half of the total requirements of the United States in the manufacture of all kinds of paper comes from the Dominion of Canada. In 1930 our newsprint exports amounted to $145,610,519; this dropped in 1932 to $103,003,352 and in 1934, two years later, it dropped to $73,238,482, or a fifty per cent drop in total exports and a smaller percentage of that great total going to Great Britain.


An hon. MEMBER:: Where was it shipped to?


Thomas Reid: As regards the total amount
of newsprint exports I gave to the house, it is principally shipped to the United States. Very little newsprint is shipped to Great Britain, and there seems to be very little market in that country for it. But newsprint and the production of paper is by far the largest part of our forest products industry, and I have endeavoured to place before the house the percentages, the total figures and also the number of men employed in both industries. Therefore, when we hear people talking about the lumber industry, they overlook the point that it is just one part. If exports of lumber from British Columbia to Great Britain have increased, I might point out that we were selling the very best lumber for less money than we could obtain for it from other countries, because the average was $17.50 when we were receiving from the United States and other lands an average of $23 for a thousand feet. So when this country is willing to give away their product, and the very best, and dump it into other countries, it is no use bragging in the house that we are doing so very well.
Let me now take the total of wood and wood products including all paper exports. In 1930 our total exports were $289,566,675; in 1932 this had dropped to $175,740,279 and in 1934, two years later, during the administration of my hon. friends opposite, it had dropped to $143,142,398.
As we are going through the whole wood item, there is another little one which is that of railroad ties. Some hon. members will ask: What market is there for ties? It is quite considerable. In 1930 we sold $1,104,835 worth of railroad ties, of which Great Britain took $340,127 worth. In 1934 only $1,153 worth was sold to Great Britain,
Empire Trade Agreements

or practically nothing. The trade to Great Britain had dropped from 8340,127 in 1930 to $49,324 in 1932, and two years later to only $1,153.
Another important item is shingles. There is practically speaking no market in Great Britain for our cedar shingles. In 1930 our total exports of shingles amounted to $6,704,494 and in 1934 this had dropped to 83,764418.
Another matter that I wish to speak on and that has been discussed here, may be debated, if not under this heading, under some other. The other evening, when the hon. member for North Huron (Mr. Spotton) was speaking, I noticed that he talked of the great immigration to this country that had taken place during the Liberal administration being left on the doorstep of the present government, and they were compelled to bear the burden of it. I also heard the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) make the same statement in the house last year. I have taken the trouble to go into the figures very carefully and am now placing the facts before the house. I would draw attention to the fact that they are taken from the records, and the years I shall quote are those of the Liberal and the Conservative administrations. The Right Hon. Sir Robert Borden assumed office in October, 1911; Mr. Mackenzie King assumed office in December, 1921. For the ten fiscal years 1911-12 to 1920-21 the total immigration wTas 1,678,316 of which number 629,464 were British. In the ten fiscal years 1921-22 to 1930-31, the total immigration was 1,217,069 of which number 491,727 were British, or a difference of 461,246 more during the Conservative administrations than during the ten years of the Liberal administration. I think those facts should be placed before the house, because I have listened a good many times to other statements being made. I have gone carefully into these figures and if they are wrong I shall be glad to correct them.


Robert James Manion: Would the hon. gentleman supply the figures for the four years of the present government and for the last four years of the former government, if he has them?


Thomas Reid: I have not the figures. I
have not the immigration figures for the last four years of the Liberal administration compared with the four years of this government, but I will tell you what I do have. We have heard a lot about Canadians who went out
[Mr. Reid.l
from this country during our administration, but the number brought back was not told. Here is a return for those four years. For the years 1926-1930 Canadians returning from the United States numbered 141,359. For the four years of the present administration the figures are 68,388. For the four years ended 1930 British subjects returning numbered 13,431, while only 4,334 Britishers returned during the four years this government have been in office.
The Minister of Labour has spoken about the type of immigrants. Let me give you one example. During the years 1912-1921, ten years, the Conservative government allowed 36,314 orientals to enter this country, consisting of 29,024 Chinese, and 7,290 Japanese. During the ten years of our administration, 1922-1931, the total number admitted was 7,141. Those living in British Columbia feel very keenly about that.


Mr. C. B. HOWARD (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, after listening to the remarks of the hon. member for Toronto-Scarborough (Mr. Harris) one would think that not only were we returning to prosperous times but that conditions in this country were ideal. It is time someone put before this House of Commons what in my opinion is one of the most outstanding and extraordinary situations facing the Canadian people to-day. Who is going to pay the taxes? The position is this; the municipalities all over Canada are obliged to increase taxation in order to get revenues to meet their budgets, even those which are able to meet their liabilities. The provincial governments are driven to finding new sources of taxation. The federal government has got to the stage of bringing down legislation which will increase taxation considerably. Where is the money to come from to meet the increasing taxation with which we are faced at the present time?


Franklin White Turnbull: From the empire trade agreements.


Charles Benjamin Howard: 
Ira Delbert Cotnam: And you rescinded the treaty.


Charles Benjamin Howard: You bet we did. The government said, "Put us in power and we will put the price of butter back to 50 cents a pound." The farmers believed them and voted for them. When the next election comes along what are they going to do about the butter question? You fellows that slid in on butter will slide out in the same way.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: Why did you rescind the treaty?


Charles Benjamin Howard: The duty on butter, under the King administration, was four cents per pound. That treaty was rescinded. This government did not say they would raise the duty; they said they would not allow Australian or New Zealand butter to come into this country to the detriment of the farmers of the eastern townships, and because of that promise they received many votes. Now this government has placed a duty of five cents per pound against butter coming
Empire Trade Agreements

into Canada, but what has happened? The depreciated currencies of those countries, as against the gold standard prevailing in Canada, technically speaking, has enabled them to bonus butter to the extent of five cents a pound, to the detriment of our farmers.
How did this government handle the butter situation last winter? They said to New Zealand and Australia, "If you continue to ship this butter to Canada we will have to do something to stop it." They had done nothing except impose a duty of five cents per pound. Then they said, "This is what we will do. You bring your butter to Canada and place it in bonded warehouses in British Columbia and Halifax. We will tell you when to sell it and when to stop selling it." This was under the administration of the former Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) and the present Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir). Every time butter went up to 31 cents a pound they telephoned from Ottawa to Halifax and Vancouver, saying, "Unload your butter," and that butter was sold- until our price dropped to 29 cents. Then Ottawa said, "Stop selling your butter." Then, naturally, our butter went up to 30| or 31 cents, and the government telephoned again, "Sell some more New Zealand and Australian butter," and when the price dropped below 30 cents they telephoned again and had that sale stopped. Why, Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister was in opposition I heard him abuse the previous government for the instability of their tariff policy. What do you think of what I have just cited as a tariff policy on butter?


Richard Bedford Bennett: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, it may be well to correct the hon. gentleman by pointing out to him that the holding of butter in warehouses is provided for under a treaty made with Australia.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I accept that explanation, Mr. Speaker, and tell the farmers of the eastern townships that the butter situation was handled without any tariff, without any consultation with the elected members of this
house, but under an arrangement made between the government of this country and the government of Australia. Just here I should like to give a few figures, though as a rule I do not like to quote them. I should like to give our importations of butter during the last few years:
1933
Pounds
879,670
876.894
2,602,744
During the first six months of 1933 we imported 574,907 pounds of butter, while during the first six months of 1934 our importations amounted to 807,757 pounds.


Robert James Manion: How many pounds in 1929?


Charles Benjamin Howard: That is a very nice question from the Minister of Railways. In 1929 we imported about 26,000,000 pounds of butter, but the price to the Canadian farmer was 32 i cents. I say that the farmers of the eastern townships would be glad to see New Zealand and Australian butter coming into this country if they could sell their butter for 32, cents per pound, as they did under a Liberal administration.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Mr. Speaker, a few
moments before six o'clock the Prime Minister rose to speak to a point of order and to make a correction. He did so, as he said, just to make the record complete. I hold in my hand a copy of the Sherbrooke Daily Record, an independent newspaper which most of the time has supported the government of hon. members opposite. I shall quote the exact words, as reported in this newspaper, of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) who spoke at a meeting held at Ayer's Cliff which was attended by Mr. John T. Hackett, the member for Stanstead, Doctor F. H. Picket, the member for Brome-Missisquoi, Doctor J. C. Moore, the member for Chateau-guay-Huntingdon, Mr. J. E. Tetreault, the member for Shefford, Mr. Samuel Gobeil, the member for Compton and several others. Referring to this famous agreement, or this telephone tariff policy, the Minister of Agriculture used the following words:
And to the everlasting honour of the Australian government this undertaking was adhered to in both the letter and the spirit, despite the fact that it was written in no treaty, placed in no memorandum, but merely made by word of mouth between Mr. Maloney and myself.
I leave it to the house to judge the accuracy of the Prime Minister's correction.
Let me illustrate one of the fundamental reasons why the farming industry is in the bad condition in which it finds itself to-day. This condition may be due not so much to low prices-and prices are very low-as to the unbalanced condition between the price the farmer has to pay for what he buys and the price he receives for his produce. About Christmas time I was called to the office of two young men who about that time had purchased an insurance brokerage business and were drawing up their first annual statement. While I was with them the door of their

Empire Trade Agreements
office opened and a gentleman dressed "dans l'etoffe du pays," apparently a real farmer, walked in and inquired as to the amount of his indebtedness. One of the men went to the ledger and said, "You still owe us thirteen dollars." The farmer handed over a five dollar bill and said, "If I can get you another five dollars to pay on the amount still owing will you wipe off the balance?" The insurance man replied, "Well, you must remember the fire insurance premium on your building expired some time ago and we have carried your account for almost three years." The farmer replied, "I appreciate what you have done, but do you know how I got that five dollar bill? This morning I brought to the Sherbrooke market twenty bushels of potatoes and sold them for twenty-five cents a bushel. I have brought you the five dollars to pay on my account."
Such are the conditions the farmers have to face. After that farmer had ploughed the ground, had disc-harrowed it, had fertilized it, had planted his potatoes, had chased away the potato bugs, had dug the potatoes and had delivered to the Sherbrooke market, all he could bring down in one load, he received only enough to pay about one-third of his insurance bill. The consequence is that his buildings are not insured to-day, and if they would be destroyed by fire he would lose their value.
I should like to say a word concerning beef prices and in that connection may I relate an actual incident. After I have finished hon. members will have some idea of what is happening to beef prices on that famous market into which the Prime Minister was going to blast his way. A merchant living at Wotton in the county of Wolfe had to get some money to meet his bills from the wholesaler, and with that in mind he set out on the ranges to interview farmers who owed him money. He went to a certain farmer and said to him, "I must have some money on the account you owe me. I have been reasonable in my treatment of this account, but I really must have money; how much can you pay me?" The farmer answered, "Well now, the interest has not been paid on my mortgage, my taxes are due next month, and I have no money in the house. I should like to pay you, but how can I?" The merchant, who was a fairly keen business man, asked if the farmer had something he could sell. He said, ''I will buy anything you have for sale and will be pleased to credit it to your account." They went to the barns and looked over the stock which the farmer did not want to sell but which, in order to meet 92582-24
his obligation, he let the merchant have. They finally agreed on a purchase price for two two-year-old steers, in splendid condition, two farrow cows, well fatted, and one cow still milking. After a great deal of bargaining the merchant allowed the farmer $40 for the five animals. The farmer thought the merchant was stealing them, and the merchant thought the farmer had driven a hard bargain. Next day the merchant sent a truck to the farm and had the five head loaded and taken to the Montreal market, where they were placed in the pens. The cattle were seen by different buyers, fed and watered. The truck had carried them from the farm to the market, a distance of one hundred and forty miles, for $3 per head, a reasonable charge. Finally the statement came through the mail. There was a large sheet checked off in columns showing inspection charges, watering charges, feeding charges, unloading charges, and charges of all kinds. It was shown that the cattle had weighed 2,755 pounds and that they had sold at the price of one cent per pound. The net result was that after deducting the charges, the merchant who had paid $40 for the five head received a cheque from the market for $4.79. I repeat, he received $4.79 for five head of cattle on the market of Montreal, and I have in my hand a photostatic copy of the cheque. I shall not give any names. This government has been in power almost five years, and yet a merchant who sells five head of cattle receives only $4.79. When conditions are as bad as that I say it is time to have a change of government.


Mr. SPOTTON:: Tell us the real story.


Charles Benjamin Howard: The hon. members for Compton, Brome-Missisquoi and Stanstead are taking sides with the farmers-and) rightly so. They come from rural constituencies; especially is that true of the hon. member for Brome-Missdsquoi. What have the members sitting behind the present government obtained for the farmers in their constituencies? They tried to obtain an increase in the price of fluid milk, after our market in the United States had been cut off. However this government did not take any action; it did not get an increase in the price of milk. On the contrary it did absolutely nothing to support the prices farmers in the eastern townships received for their milk. However the provincial government stepped in.


Mr. HACKETT:: When?


Charles Benjamin Howard: About a year ago.

Empire Trade Agreements


John Thomas Hackett: After a committee had been organized in this house, and they were forced to it.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Why did you not take that step?


John Thomas Hackett: We had not the authority.


Charles Benjamin Howard: But according to the Prime Minister you have the authority to do other things you are going to try to do at this session. The price of S1.35 per hundredweight which the farmer received in Sherbrooke was raised to SI.80, and SI.85 in Montreal, with no surplus thrown back, which means an actual increase of practically fifty per cent, and all of this increase went to the farmer. This milk problem may be one for the provincial government; I shall not discuss that question. But I say here and now that the present government did not do a single thing for members in the rural constituencies by way of helping the farmers.
I want to quote an example which to my mind illustrates the situation as well as anything. When this government came into power the basic interest rate in government financing, federal, provincial and municipal, was 4J per cent. Labour at that time was receiving 40 cents an hour and the price of agricultural products, of pork, for instance, was 10 cents a pound; and mind you, in that situation this country was fairly prosperous. Interest, after all, is only the wages of money that goes to the man who has the money; then there is the wages that go to labour; and the price of agricultural products is the wages of the farmer. Well, what happened? The price of labour went down to 15 cents an hour, and for many there was no work at all, with thousands going on the unemployed list. The price of agricultural products, of pork, for instance, which I mentioned a moment ago, went down to 2J cents a pound. But what happened to the interest rate? Not only did the interest rate jump up considerably, but this banner province of Ontario, which boasts of its financial standing, put out a thirty million dollar issue of bonds at 6-15 per cent interest. Now, Mr. Speaker, if the interest rate had stayed where it was or had gone down proportionately with the wages and the price of agricultural products, the situation would not have been so bad; but when a government sits in power and allows the interest rate to go up nearly two per cent while the wages of labour are coming down from 40 to 15 cents an hour, and the price of agricultural products is coming down from 10 cents to 2J cents a pound, the government 
has to do one of two things; it has either to raise the price of labour and the price of farm products-and I say to the government, you have not been able to do that-or decrease the interest rate.


An hon. MEMBER:: Or resign.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Not so very long ago the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) spoke in this house and suggested that interest rates be cut, and cut immediately, and he made a great plea for lower rates. The Prime Minister followed him and made this statement, which you will find in Hansard: " The hon. member suggests decreasing the interest rates. That is a sacred contract." A sacred contract! I want to ask you, Mr. Speaker, if there is any man in this house who is qualified to distinguish between those two kinds of contracts, the contract with the labouring men and the farmer, and the contract with the moneyed man, and then tell this house and the Canadian people that the contract with the moneyed man is sacred but that the contract with the labour man may be broken, that you can just throw him out on the street if you do not need him any more, and that for farm products you can pay the lowest price at which you can get them.


Ernest Lapointe: He had not talked with Litvinoff then.


Charles Benjamin Howard: No, perhaps he had not
discussed it with the Russians at that time. But this is a serious question, Mr. Speaker. When we realize, after all this talk about the Canadian National Railways, that there are in the hands of the public over two billion dollars in securities, including the advances the government has made, on which this country is paying five per cent interest, it is obvious that if that debt had been refunded even in 1931 we would have saved the taxpayers of this country two per cent interest on two billion dollars, which is forty million dollars a year.


Robert James Manion: When did the Canadian
National Railways owe two billion dollars to the public?


Charles Benjamin Howard: The Minister of Railways certainly is not serious when he asks that question.


Robert James Manion: I am serious.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I stated just previously
what they owed directly to the public, together with the advances which the government have made to the railway and which are carried in the national debt of Canada.

Empire Trade Agreements
So what difference does it make? The total indebtedness of the Canadian National Railways, including the money advanced to them, is in excess of two billion dollars, and the minister knows it. I repeat that if that debt had been refunded it would have made a saving of forty million dollars a year. But no, that is a sacred contract.


Robert James Manion: I do not think, Mr. Speaker, that that statement should go out to the public. The bonds owing by the Canadian National Railways are $1,255,000,000, not $2,000,000,0000, and the interest payable is on that $1,255,000,000; so refunding at two per cent less would not make a saving of $40,000,000.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Mr. Speaker, I do not
wish to lose part of my forty minutes by debating that question any further. I stated, and I state again, that with the money advanced to the Canadian National Railway- we advanced them, for example, $75,000,000, or something like that last year, and charged it up to the railway-including all those advances made by the Canadian government, the investment in the Canadian National Railways to-day is in excess of two billion dollars, and the Minister of Railways knows it.


Robert James Manion: You cannot refund what
is owing to the government.


Charles Benjamin Howard: But when the suggestion
is made that those bonds be refunded, the answer comes back:	Oh, you could not call
in those bonds because that is a sacred contract. But let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the Quebec Central Railroad in Sherbrooke closed their shop one night, a surprise closing that nobody knew anything about, and threw out on the street men who had spent their lives in the service of that company-one man with twenty-two years' service, and many men whose length of service was from fifteen to eighteen years-and they were thrown out on the street overnight while if they had been allowed to go on they would have become pensionable after a certain date. That was not a sacred contract, but with money it is a sacred contract.
I will go further. Mr. Speaker, and say that every single bond could have been refunded, and the Prime Minister and the government know how to do it. They could have gone ahead and called these bonds, if there was no other way, and there are several. They could have done W'hat we did during the war, formed patriotic committees, because I still have faith in the Canadian people and in the moneyed 92582-241
men in this country, and if you had appealed to them they would have come across and converted their bonds. Somebody gets up and says:	Oh, but what about the widows
and orphans and the small holders? But I say, Mr. Speaker, with prices as they are today, 65 cents of our money to-day will purchase as much as one dollar did in 1929, and therefore the person who is in receipt of interest would not have suffered any real reduction in purchasing power had the bonds been converted.
Furthermore, there would not have been all over this country the agitation that we see to-day and that is carried to the extreme of advocating no payment of interest whatever, the defaulting of obligations, and creating a situation such as has never been seen before in any other country of the world practically except Canada under the present government.
But to come back to the farmers, I want to underline this because I think it is quite important. Our farmers, no matter how they want to cultivate their own farms, no matter how much produce and fodder they want to raise, if they are going to produce milk from dairy herds, must purchase feed in the winter months. What has happened to the feed they have to buy? The price to the farmer of bran, shorts and middlings has increased some five dollars a ton, and I have had telephone call after telephone call to this effect: "Mr. Howard, it is true that we are getting a little more for our milk, but did you see the price of feed to-day as quoted in the paper? The price of feed is going up, which takes away any profit that we might have had." There was no way of getting medium priced feed for fattening purposes. Everybody in the farming game knows that you must have corn for fattening hogs, cattle and so forth. You bring in your corn, as we have been doing for years and must continue to do, from the Argentine and the United States, and what has happened to the corn situation? We imported, in 1931, 9.512.000 bushels; in 1932, 8,700,000; in 1933, 7,300,000; and in 1934,
5.200,000.	You may say, those are considerable imports. Yes, but most of it was made into corn flakes and other prepared foods for human consumption. The total imports for feeding purposes under the general tariff were
151,000	bushels, and under the intermediate tariff, 1,345,000. On the corn that was brought in for the farmer to feed his stock he had to pay 25 cents a bushel under the general tariff, while under the intermediate tariff the rate was 20 cents. But the manufacturer did Dot pay any duty at all.
Empire Trade Agreements


An hon. MEMBER:: What has happened
to the barley grower of Manitoba and Saskatchewan?


Charles Benjamin Howard: There are many other
matters I should like to discuss, but I want to say one word with regard to industry, and I think it is only right that I should do so. The Prime Minister, speaking in this house on the address the other day, made some remarks with regard to a delegation, to show how terrible the situation was and how hard it was for the manufacturers to get along. He looked across the floor when he said, as reported on page 78 of Hansard:
Were we to allow that to continue and destroy Canadian industry? Does the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Howard) believe that that should be done?
And so on. What he was pointing out was that a firm of manufacturers of running shoes, operating in the eastern townships, were meeting with competition in running shoes from Czechoslovakia. Very true; there is no question about it. But when we interrupted him he changed his subject, and do you know why? Because the Canadian manufacturer in the eastern townships making running shoes has to bring in his raw rubber just the same as the man in Czechoslovakia has to import his. But when the raw rubber comes in here what do you do with it? We find sales tax, excise tax and more taxes on our product, on linen thread and cotton, as well as on all the things that go into the manufacture of running shoes. The government taxes the products that go into the manufacture of the article. Well, you can place a tariff around the country and increase internal competition, which will mean a reduction in prices and a reduction in labour, but you will have the conditions which we have experienced during the past four years. And when you increase the cost of the manufacturer's raw product in Canada you may give him his Canadian market, but you will throw him out of the shoe business so far as competition in the markets of the world is concerned. If this country is to get back on its feet it must not only have the Canadian market, which is a wonderful market, but it must pay good wages to labour and also get into the foreign market. And this cannot be done if you increase the price of raw materials.
To sum up, I have only this to say. This government, to my mind, has instituted tariff by telephone, and has given bluff to the farmers and nothing to the workers, and

under this last bill it does nothing for unemployment, but leaves it a cost to the municipalities and the provincial governments. It has increased to manufacturers the cost of their raw products with the result that their foreign markets cannot be retained. To business it says, "You are done for now, because government control will be instituted," and to money it has said "good-bye." We have had a good deal of flag waving in this country in theory, but this afternoon for the first time we had a genuine exhibition of it in the House of Commons, using real flags. All I have to say is, we trust it will be the waving for the next election.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I desire to make some observations with respect to the subject matter of this resolution. Hon. gentlemen who have preceded me will, I am sure, not expect me to follow them in their budget addresses which they have delivered in advance. There is one observation with respect to my genial friend from Sherbrooke (Mr. Howard) which I should like to make, and it is this. Surely he knows that of the billion and a quarter of bonds issued by the Canadian National Railway Company and guaranteed by the Dominion of Canada, the largest proportion has been domiciled and owned in the United States and it was obviously impossible that they could be called and converted.


Charles Benjamin Howard: You knew Australia had done it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Australia's debt was domiciled either in Australia or in the United Kingdom, and the British government itself cooperated with the Australian government. I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Toronto-Scarborough (Mr. Harris) on having brought this subject matter to the attention of the House of Commons. There is no doubt about it that in 1932 when these agreements were before the house there was a very marked difference of opinion. I had hoped, however, with the passing of time, with the results which have flowed from the agreements as they have been demonstrated by the trade figures brought down from time to time by the various governmental departments and crystallized into a whole by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, that hon. gentlemen opposite who opposed these agreements, genuinely I believe, would have changed their opinion. And my view in that respect, I thought, had been confirmed by a statement which was handed to the press in November from behind the doors of the

Empire Trade Agreements
Liberal federation which met in this city at that time, in which statement the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) in effect, implicitly if not in express terms, performed what I considered a great recantation.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: You have a monopoly of recantation on that side.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I may be all wrong in the inference I have drawn from the statement handed out. Certainly we were not taken into his confidence explicitly, but I am satisfied that in the minds of the people of the country there has been left the impression that there has been a marked change in the attitude of the right hon. gentleman; and I venture to suggest that any hon. gentleman in this house, listening to-night and this afternoon to the statements made here by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) and the hon. member for Sherbrooke will be in absolute doubt as to what their opinion is regarding the subject matter of this resolution. So far as the hon. member for Sherbrooke is concerned, I could not, from any single phrase or paragraph of his address, arrive at any conclusion as to whether he was for these agreements or against them.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Watch the vote.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I have no doubt in that regard. The hon. gentleman is always regular; he will wait until his leader has made his statement and then follow suit.


Charles A. Stewart: I would not stress that too much.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There is no doubt that the trade of this country began to decline as long ago as 1929. When hon. gentlemen went out of power in the summer of 1930 they left this country with a declining foreign trade and an adverse balance of trade of 8100,000,000. There is no doubt about that; hon. gentlemen will not dispute it. All the reasons for this decline in trade are now after five years quite apparent; they were not so apparent then. But I understand they were twofold: first, all the great nations of the world between 1922 and 1930 had raised their tariffs against this country. Canada did not follow suit but deliberately, as a matter of public policy, announced at the time-and did so, as I recall it, with a good deal of pride-that this was the only country among the great trading nations of the world that had intentionally lowered its tariffs.


Mr. BROWN:: Tell that to the western provinces.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I understand that to be the case. That is the reason why this country became the dumping ground of all the other trading nations of the world. That was the situation in 1930.


Mr. DUFF:: Was the consumer benefited by that?	[DOT]


Richard Burpee Hanson: As i Live only a few minutes to go, perhaps the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff) will be good enough to hold himself
in peace.


William Duff: The hon. member put himself in the position of being asked that question.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Allow me to proceed. I do not think the Canadian consumer benefited; certainly Canadian industry and labour did not benefit by it, and I suggest that the Canadian labourer is a consumer as well as anybody else. In 1930, 1931, 1932 we were in the grip of the greatest depression the world has ever seen, and international trade, foreign trade, import trade, export trade dwindled from 100 to 33J per cent the world over, free trade or no free trade, protection or no protection. Canada suffered as did every other trading country in the world.
Then came the Ottawa agreements, and I venture to suggest to hon. members that the consummation of those agreements was the vindication of a principle for which hon. gentlemen opposite and those who preceded them in the seats of the Liberal party, and hon. gentlemen on this side of the house and those who led the fortunes of the Conservative party for forty years, had been striving, namely, the principle of mutual reciprocal trade within the empire. 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.


An hon. MEMBER:: They did.


Richard Burpee Hanson: They did ultimately. Why? Because the whole fiscal policy of the United Kingdom was changed after 1930 and it was not possible for any government to obtain mutual reciprocal trade within the empire before. I do not blame
Empire Trade Agreements

them for their failure. It was impossible for England, committed to free trade as she was during all that long period of years, to have admitted the principle. Mr. Chamberlain at one time would have been agreeable personally to doing it, but he simply could not bring the British people to his way of thinking. After 1930 there was a change in the fiscal policy of the United Kingdom and these agreements which all parties in this country were eager to explore and adopt came into being and ought to have been accepted as the triumph of a great principle for which Canada had stood for forty years.
There is no doubt-and we might as well face the situation fairly-that from 1929, and perhaps prior to that time, down to the spring of 1933 the trade of this country had steadily declined. Hon. gentlemen opposite will say that this was because we raised the tariffs against imports. That has been dealt with so effectively and so many times on the floor of the house that I do not propose tonight to traverse the situation even for a single moment; but I say this, that after the Ottawa agreements had been in force for a few months, after they had been in force for a full two years as they were in November, 1934, the usefulness and benefit of these agreements fully demonstrated themselves and they are to-day the bulwark of Canadian commerce. What happened? Adverse trade balances were changed into favourable ones. Exports increased. We formerly had to export gold or borrow in foreign countries to pay our indebtedness, and to-day this country closed the calendar year, if you include the export of gold as a commodity, with a favourable trade balance of a quarter of a billion dollars. Canada has maintained her place as the fifth trading nation in the world and we have per capita the largest foreign trade, I believe, of any trading country on earth-154 a head. That is something for Canada and Canadians to be proud of, as compared with S34 per capita in the United Kingdom and S14 per capita in the United States. Surely that is an enviable position for a little country like Canada.
I have with me to-night a statement of just what the trade of this country has been very recently in regard to the empire agreements,
and I desire very briefly to lay the facts before the house. During the twelve months ended November 30, 1934, domestic exports from Canada to British Empire coimtries totalled in value $334,785,000, as compared with $217,203,000 in the twelve months ended November 30, 1932. This is a gain of $117,582,000, or exactly 54-1 per cent.
In 1934 our exports to foreign countries reached a total of $308,181,000 as against $287,245,000 in 1932, a gain of $20,936,000 or seven per cent in the face of all the adverse tariffs that have been raised against this country. The gain is not as large as we would like to see it, but it ds a gain and a substantial one. The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) this afternoon referred to the decline in the wheat trade. I suggest to him that the figures which I have given and will give a little later showing the character of our trade has changed. But the trade is there. No one knows it better than the hon. gentleman from British Columbia in connection with the export of lumber. If they do not know it we in eastern Canada do. In 1934 the exports to foreign countries from Canada reached a total of $308,181,000 as against 8287,245,000 in 1932, a gain of 7 per cent. Imports from empire countries in the same twelve months, ended November 30, 1934, amounted to $156,956,000 as compared with $129,332,000 for the twelve months ended November 30, 1932, an increase of over $35,000 000 or over 21 per cent. May I add that in November alone our total foreign trade was in excess of $115,000,000, or at the rate of nearly a billion and a half dollars for the year. If we keep up the rate of advance that we have established since the empire trade agreements came into full operation we shall soon be back to the two billion dollar mark for foreign trade. Surely that is an achievement of which this country and every citizen in it ought to be proud, in the face of economic conditions to-day.
I have here a table showing Canada's total imports and exports to empire countries fcr the yea'rs 1932, 1933 and 1934, and the percentage of increase in the two year period. I propose to hand this statement to Hansard for inclusion in these remarks.

JANUARY 31, l'J35	375
Empire Trade Agreements


CANADA'S TOTAL IMPORTS AND EXPORTS TO EMPIRE COUNTRIES
[Stage Direction]
Twelve Months Ended November 30
Empire countries	1932	1933	1934	Per cent increase 1934 overImports from:	$	$	$	1932British Empire (Total)	.... 129,332,090	131,048,000	156,974,000	21.4United Kingdom	. . . . 94,816,000	96.553,000	114,430,000	20.7Australia	. . . . 5,820,000	4,758,000	6,568,000	12.9British East Africa	.... 747,000	993,000	1,405,000	88.1British India	.... 4,661,000	4,708,000	7,344,000	57.6British South Africa	.. . . 4,040,000	4.721,000	2,807,000	-30.5*British Straits Settlements	.. .. 233,000	781,000	1,658,000	611.6British West Indies	. . . . 10,133,000	9,236,000	11,316,000	11.7Newfoundland	. . .. 678,000	606,000	1,269,000	87.2New Zealand	.... 791,000	1,951,000	2,944,000	272.2Domestic exports to:	British Empire (Total)	.... 217,203,000	251,340,000	334,785,000	54.1United Kingdom	.. .. 177,443,000	207,540,000	270,685,000	52.5Australia	.... 7,093,000	9,889,000	16,395,000	131.1British East Africa	.... 422,000	464,000	593,000	40.5British India	.... 2,832,000	2,636,000	4,703,000	66.1British South Africa	.. .. 4.829,000	5,686,000	11,859,000	145.6British Straits Settlements	.. .. 319,000	489,000	1,274,000	299.4British West Indies	. . .. 6.826,000	7,240,000	7.493.000	9.8Newfoundland	.. .. 5,640,000	5.974,000	6.531,000	15.8New Zealand	.... 3,381,000	3,703,000	6,637,000	96.3
*The decrease in Canada's imports from British South Africa for the twelve months ended November 30, 1934, compared with similar period in 1932, was practically wholly due to falling off in the imports of corn and sugar, which, during this period decreased as follows:-corn, from $1,636,588 to $887,391, and sugar, from $2,284,368 to $1,366,622. The decrease in the imports of corn was due to partial failure of the corn crop in British South Africa during 1933. The movement of corn from British South Africa is once more in evidence, the imports in October and November amounting to $779,859.
Surely these figures are impressive. Surely they show that Canada is leading the way back to a substantial and healthy foreign trade. Surely they demonstrate the efficiency of the imperial conference trade agreements.
To the hon. member for Sherbrooke I would say that corn is not used altogether in making corn flakes. I am sure the statement he made in that respect was intended only as a joke.
I have been endeavouring to get an exact statement of the trade of this country for the full calendar year ended December 31, 1934. The particulars have been delivered to me in a form in which they are difficult to use, but I desire to put on record a few figures taken here and there from this statement. Dealing first with our total domestic exports to the United Kingdom, these have grown from §178,000.000 in 1932 to 3270,000,000 in 1934. The exports under this group comprise many items. I should like to advert to a few which are the products of our primary producers. In 1932 this country exported to Great Britain, 1,386,479 barrels of apples of a total value of §5,639,946. In 1933, the first year of the agreements, that export had just doubled in volume, 2,640,110 barrels with a value of §10,061,000. Surely these figures demonstrate the value of the empire trade agreements to
the apple growers of the Annapolis valley. If hon. members have any doubt of that let them ask the hon. member for Hants-Kings (Mr. Ilsley). He knew the value of these agreements to his people when they were brought down, and as was his duty he voted for the principle of them. I think he was very wise; I think he will agree with that himself. So I cannot understand the attitude of hon. gentlemen who oppose these agreements, having regard to the benefits that accrue to them in their own constituencies.
Let us take lumber. I think I know something about lumber. A man could not be born and brought up in New Brunswick and practise law and be engaged in litigation there and see the operations of the lumber business from day to day without knowing a little about lumber. I know this, that our trade in lumber with the United Kingdom for many years had dwindled to practically nothing. Then after these agreements were brought into effect a start was made in the right direction, and the growth of the trade, while it has not been phenomenal, while probably no great fortunes have been made out of it, has nevertheless been impressive. So impressive has it been that our people in that part of the country at all events are very anxious
Empire Trade Agreements
[Stage Direction]
indeed to consolidate their position in the English market. They are watching very closely the effects of the proposed arrangements between the Soviet republics and the timber distributors of the United Kingdom. I want to say that the very matter in reference to which the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Hanbury) interrogated the Prime Minister this afternoon, is one which has occasioned great anxiety to the lumber producers of eastern Canada, because we desire to sell our spruce to the United Kingdom. We have had under these agreements a sheltered market for many of our products there. Our position is not quite so clear with respect to lumber, but because of the inclusion of article 21, I think it is, in the- United Kingdom-Canada trade agreement, we enjoy the privilege of appeal to the government of the United Kingdom in regard to the " fall clause " in the timber agreement with the Soviet republic. That article was included in the agreement at the insistence of this government. Up to the present it has not been necessary to make use of it, but if it should become necessary to do so that provision will be of the very greatest advantage to the timber exporters of the eastern provinces.
I have often wondered, Mr. Speaker, as I have sat in this house-now a good many years-why in matters of this character we should not have unanimous approval, particularly where an arrangement has been made that has the effect of extending our foreign trade. There is a great deal of unanimity with regard to extending our trade with the United States. The hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough was good enough yesterday to let his resolution go by the board because negotiations are now pending with respect to that veiy important matter.
William Duff: I want to see New Brunswick lumber go to the United States, which is its natural market, free of duty.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Contracts of that sort, of course, are not unilateral; they are bilateral. I venture to say that the arrangement we make will be as good as anyone could make under the circumstances.


William Duff: Then you will not have to
ship your lumber to the United Kingdom.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I will say, however, that for certain classes of our lumber the United Kingdom is the better market of the two. There has been a great change in the use of lumber in the United States.


William Duff: No.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If the hon. member does not believe me let him get in touch with some of those who are in the export trade; they will tell him that there has been a very great change in that respect. It may be that the appeal I am making will fall upon deaf ears, but the enlargement of our foreign trade and our export trade is so vital that before I fake my seat I venture to appeal to hon. gentlemen opposite to change their attitude towards these agreements while there is yet time, and to get behind and support them, as I believe it is their manifest dut^- to do.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, in discussing this resolution, which is in the nature of a private member's motion, I should like first to direct the attention of the house to the nature of the motion and to the circumstance of this subject being debated at this time. The motion reads:
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.
What, after all, does the resolution amount to? The government has a policy which, as is known by all hon. members in this house and throughout the country, is supported by its following. This resolution asks for the approval of that policy by the house. The fact that the government is in the majority, and is supported by hon. gentlemen opposite to the extent that it is, is evidence that its policy has the approval of the majority of this house. So this means that they are asking their own majority for approval of their own work. We hardly expect that hon. gentlemen opposite are going to vote any disapproval of their own policy. This motion only calls for an expression on the part of this house that the operation of these agreements merits the approval of the majority, which the government has already.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: Of all hon. membero not of the majority.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Then may I say that my hon. friend will be very much disappointed if he is looking for any such verdict on the operation of these agreements. But may I direct attention to another point. If this motion is intended really to afford an opportunity for a very full discussion of the all important trade policies of the government opposite, and this is the most important feature of their policy, it is extraordinary that the matter should come before the house on the motion of a private member. As I

Empire Trade Agreements
pointed out this afternoon there is a time recognized in the proceedings of this house at which to discuss great questions of trade and the major policies of the administration. That time is when the house is moved into committee of ways and means, when there is ample opportunity for discussing a question of this magnitude. There is no single policy of hon. gentlemen opposite which, in their eyes, is so important as the Ottawa trade agreements, and I do submit that it is an extraordinary thing that we should be asked to discuss this major policy on the motion of a private member.
It is still more extraordinary for the reason that none of us knows what is to. be the effect of this discussion at this time. This afternoon I asked his honour the Speaker to enlighten hon. members as to what would be the effect of the discussion of this question on this motion, whether in view of the decision given by a previous Speaker it would preclude any further discussion of the question in the course of the present session. I directed the attention of the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) to the same point, but the right hon. gentleman informed us that the Speaker was not here to give expressions of opinion and that he, the Prime Minister, would give no expression of opinion either. Yet the ruling of an ex-speaker of this house, given during the present parliament, still stands, that a subject once discussed in this house cannot be taken up again during the same session of parliament.
Is the motive of hon. gentlemen opposite that of stifling further discussion of the Ottawa trade agreements? It looks very much like it. It looks as if, at the very beginning of this session, they are anxious to avoid as much as they possibly can in the way of discussion of the agreements, and they are preparing the way now so that, if it should suit their purpose when we begin to discuss the effect of these agreements on any reciprocity agreement or on trade in a large way, they may be able to look in the direction of the Speaker and point to the previous decision that has been given by a Speaker of this house with regard to a question not being discussed a second time during the same session.
If that is not it, what is the reason? The only other reason would appear to be that hon. gentlemen opposite, who have promised to reform the capitalist system, and the Prime Minister, who has said that he has a large program of social and industrial legislation in the nature of reform, want a little more time in which to get that program worked
out, and they rather hope that by a discussion that may continue for a considerable period of time on a private member's motion, this question being so important, we will still further delay the time at which this house can take up the question of unemployment.
I say that at this time instead of discussing trade agreements the house ought to be discussing the unemployment problem and means of remedying it. If this government were at all appreciative of conditions throughout the country and what the country expects of this particular session, they would bring forward not simply one measure of social and industrial reform but their entire program; not a program relating to something which is to come into effect a year and a half from now, but a program showing what they purpose doing in the matter of dealing with the situation that now exists, and particularly the distressing condition of unemployment. The fact that we have the motion before us and that hon. gentlemen opposite have chosen this particular course makes their purpose quite clear.
Be the consequences what they may, whether we are to be shut off from further discussion of this question at a later time, or whether the time of the house is to be taken up in discussing matters which for the last two years in this house and on the hustings have been discussed to a greater extent than any others, we will proceed to State our position briefly but clearly. If hon. gentlemen opposite want to know exactly where the opposition stands they cannot call a vote too soon.
I am surprised that bon. gentlemen opposite want to know how the agreements have operated, or rather what approval should be given to them. Since the agreements were brought before the house two and a half years ago they have .been before t'he country rnd have been discussed and considered at every by-election. They have been discussed more during by-election campaigns than at any other time. I know hon. gentlemen opposite attach great importance to their mechanical majority in this chamber, but we on this side attach greater importance to the voice of the people as it has been expressed in the bjr-elections. Regardless of the majority they may 'be able to muster on this or any resolution, let me draw their attention to the fact that there still remains the circumstance that every by-election which has been held since the agreements went into effect has resulted, with one exception, in a Liberal member being returned to parliament. Those Liberal members have been elected, among
Empire Trade Agreements

other reasons, because of the attitude of this party with respect to the trade agreements. The one return to the ranks of hon. gentlemen opposite was a candidate who was elected by a minority of votes and, as I have said previously, by the support of a minister who had resigned from the government. The voice of the people so far as these agreements are concerned stands nine to one in favour of the Liberal party. Since the people have expressed themselves as forcibly as that it is evident that what they want is not more discussion in this house on questions such as the one before us but an opportunity to express their views at the polls.
To come more particularly to the motion, may I say that hon. gentlemen opposite seem to feel they can debate the merits of the Ottawa agreements on a basis of statistics. It has been frequently said that one can prove almost anything from statistics, and I doubt if that particular maxim will find more in the way of application than to statistics relating to trade at the present time. May I however draw the attention of hon. members to the way in which comparisons are being made. When the Prime Minister and his following are discussing statistics they state it is not fair to compare present trade with trade as it was in the days of great prosperity under a Liberal regime. They say it is most unfair to make comparisons of trade when it was at its highest point, such as in the year 1928 under a Liberal regime, with trade to-day. On the other hand What do they do? When they make their comparisons they compare trade to-day with trade as it was at its lowest point in the period of the depression, a low point which was reached as a result of their own policy. They compare trade as it was in 1932 with trade to-day. I shall have a word to say as to how I believe trade reached the low level in 1932, and I shall show that it was a result of the trade agreements. In 1932 trade did not go down or just flattten out like a punctured tire, without some definite and specific cause. That is the cause which-
An hen. MEMBER:	Oh, oh.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker,
I am going to ask that you kindly prevent interruptions by hon. gentlemen opposite.
I think I am entitled to present our case.
I shall not be very long, but I am entitled during the time at my disposal to present it without interruption from hon. gentlemen opposite.
(Mr. Mackenzie King.]


Ira Delbert Cotnam: You just made forty the
other day in one speech. Practice what you preach.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The right hon. gentleman interrupted me forty times.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The right hon. gentleman is quite right. If any hon. member wishes to ask a question he should intimate that he is desirous of doing so. Then if the right hon. leader of the opposition, who has the floor, indicates his willingness to answer the question, he will follow the usual procedure of resuming his seat and permitting the question. Otherwise I would ask that the ordinary rules of debate be followed.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Thank you,
Mr. Speaker. May I say with regard to interruptions that if in the course of speaking I make a slight error, as is sometimes inevitable, which I do not notice at the time, or if I make a statement which is not accurate in any particular, I shall welcome my attention being drawn to it. If I make a mistake in regard to a matter of fact I shall be only too happy to correct it. May I say, however, that I shall expect these interruptions rather from the Prime Minister than from a number of gentlemen who apparently are not attempting to do anything else but interrupt. If I have had to interrupt the Prime Minister in his remarks it has been because I have had to draw his attention to the fact that he was misrepresentating my attitude. I shall expect him to do the same when I am speaking, if I misrepresent him, or if I make a statement which is not correct.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I would be on my feet
all the time.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am glad
the Prime Minister has afforded his following a little merriment. I could see they were looking pretty grim, the more this question was discussed.
I was pointing out methods of comparison.
I believe I have made it clear that hon. gentlemen opposite assert that hon. members on this side of the house should not make comparisons between trade as it is to-day and as it was in the days when the Liberal party held office. However, when they come to a discussion they attempt to show that a great improvement has taken place in the last two years by making their comparisons with trade at the lowest point it has been since they held office. I think

Empire Trade Agreements
the truer comparison, although it is not absolutely accurate, would be neither of these extremes, but the mean which lies between, namely, a comparison of present trade with trade as it was at the time hon. gentlemen came into office in 1930. In other words, if comparisons are to be made at all, that is a much fairer basis upon which to make them.
But even in making comparisons on that basis one has to consider that there are many factors which account for the trade between Great Britain being what it is to-day, factors that are apart altogether from the Ottawa agreements. There are world factors which have affected the whole course of world trade, have had their effect upon the trade between Great Britain and Canada and would have had their effect if there had been no trade agreements. May I say, however, that had there been no Ottawa agreements these world factors would have had a much more favourable effect upon the trade between Great Britain and Canada than has been the case under the trade agreements. Some of these world factors are perfectly obvious. Just to give point to what I have said, may I draw attention to the trade between this country and the United States, showing how it has increased over the same period in which trade between Great Britain and Canada has increased. .May I draw attention also to the fact that ever since the present government came into office, and indeed before, we have had a much larger volume of trade with the United States than with Great Britain. When we are discussing the operation of any agreement and its effect upon trade we have to consider the effect upon trade as a whole.
What are the facts with regard to trade between Canada and the United States as compared with trade between Canada and Great Britain since the Ottawa agreements went into effect? I do not think it will be argued by hon. gentlemen opposite that any increase of trade between Canada and the United States was due to the Ottawa agreements. The Ottawa agreements were enacted, amongst other things, to make trade with other countries as difficult in comparison as it could possibly be made. What has our trade with the United States approximated in millions of dollars, giving the figures in round numbers? For the twelve months ended October 31, 1933, our total trade with the United States was 8372,000,000. Our total trade with the United States for the twelve months ended October 31,1934, was 8492,000,000, or a gain in that one year of 8120,000,000. With the United Kingdom our total trade
for the twelve months ended October 31, 1933, was $293,000,000, and in the next twelve months, ended October 31, 1934, it was $383,000,000, or a gain of $90,000,000. In other words, after the Ottawa agreements went into effect our total gain of trade with Great Britain was 890,000,000, but our total gain of trade with the United States was
8120,000,000. I submit that nothing more than that is necessary to prove that so far as there has been an improvement of trade in this country, it is due not to the Ottawa agreements but to something else. It may well be that the reason our trade is not greater than it is with the United States, and also with Great Britain, is found in the Ottawa agreements; but certainly it cannot be claimed, in view of the figures that I have given, that the increase of trade between Canada and Great Britain is due in particular to these agreements.
Another factor that should be taken into consideration is the method by which these agreements have been administered, the method by which all our tariff legislation has been administered. We well know that for a time trade came about as nearly to being embargoed as was possible. As I have said, we got down to the flat tire phase in 1932, and then when hon. gentlemen opposite, through their endeavour to restrict trade and to develop a policy of economic nationalism for the country, had pretty nearly ruined the country altogether, they began to see the necessity of easing up on some of the restrictions they had previously imposed and of administering many of the laws very differently from what they had been doing theretofore. That of itself, which made for greater freedom of trade, in other words that step in the direction of Liberal policy, began at once to make itself felt, and as some of the restrictive measures and methods of artificial valuation and the like were made less exacting than they had been, trade naturally responded to this opportunity to flow which previously had been denied to it. I submit that if one had the time to do so, he could show that all the increase in trade that came about was due to some relaxation of the tariff barriers and restrictions which had been imposed by hon. gentlemen opposite under these agreements or under their administration of their terms.
There is another factor so far as trade between Canada and Britain is concerned: it rs what has taken place in Britain itself in regard to some of the other countries with which she trades. I shall mention only one. We all know that there has been an unfortunate difference between the Irish Free
3S0
Empire Trade Agreements

State and Great Britain ever since these agreements went into force or shortly after. With what result? With the result that so far as cattle and some other commodities are concerned they were not shipped to the same extent from Ireland to Britain as had previously been the case, and at once there was a demand, not due to the Ottawa agreements in any sense of the word, but due to the situation that had been created between Ireland and Great Britain, whereby trade from Ireland was restricted and lessened, and greater opportunity thereby given to trade from Canada. But that was not in any way the result of the operation of the Ottawa agreements.
May I point out also that since the Ottawa agreements have come into force, our currency has very considerably depreciated. From the time hon. gentlemen opposite came into office up to the time of the Ottawa agreements our currency depreciated. When you are taking account of the figures of trade as they were in the days of the Liberal administration, it is to be remembered that our dollar was valued at one hundred cents, whereas to-day under hon. gentlemen opposite it is valued at around sixty cents. That of itself will account in very large measure for this supposed increase in trade that has taken place in the last few years, and it is something apart altogether from the Ottawa agreements. These are only a few of the things that might be mentioned. Innumerable factors enter into the matter of expansion and restriction of trade; I have mentioned only four, but I think the four are sufficiently obvious to make perfectly clear the point I have been seeking to make.
Apart altogether from statistics, the only way in which a true comparison can be made in respect of the operation of these agreements is to ask ourselves what trade would have been had there been no Ottawa agreements at all? What would trade have amounted to had the policies which were in force when the present administration came into office been continued-had a policy such as that which was laid down by the Liberal administration in the so-called Dunning budget been followed as compared with what we have as a result of the Ottawa agreements? That is the only true basis of comparison. Here may I say that we come to something that is fundamental in the Ottawa agreements, namely that the Ottawa agreements are founded on a policy of protection. They are founded on a policy of restriction of trade, not on a policy of greater freedom of trade; and in estimating how they have operated one has not merely to keep in mind the actual results (Mr. Mackenzie King.]
of the agreements as we see them, but also, as far as we can endeavour to see what the trend would have been, what in all likelihood would have been the result of the operation of the different policies which hon. gentlemen opposite changed when they came into power. Now, this last factor is not capable of being reduced to a definite term. In the nature of things we cannot say exactly that so many hundreds of thousands of dollars or hundreds of millions of dollars of difference would have occurred; but what we can readily see is how entirely different the trend would have been had different policies remained in force.
To understand the Ottawa agreements one has to go back to the first meeting of the imperial conference in London in 1930 which was attended by the right hon. the Prime Minister, and also to what was done at the first session of this parliament; because it was at that time that the Prime Minister began to lay the ground work of his policy of economic nationalism. He began by increasing duties against all countries and against Great Britain before he went to the conference, and then when he got to the conference he told the British people that there would be no preference with Canada unless it was on the basis of a preference granted, not by the lowering of existing tariffs in favour of Britain, as had been done under Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Sir Robert Borden and every other predecessor of my right hon. friend in this country, but by the raising of tariffs against other countries. More than that, he stated that there would be no agreement entered into until Britain herself changed her fiscal policy. When therefore we endeavour to estimate the effect of these Ottawa agreements upon trade between Great Britain and Canada, We have to ask ourselves what trade would have been had Britain not become a protectionist country but had remained, as she was, a comparatively open market so far as Canada was concerned.
The Prime Minister at the conference in London told the government there that they must change their fiscal policy from one that was in the nature of freedom of trade to one in the nature of protection and restriction of trade. He advocated a ten per cent increase in tariffs and he made it quite clear that he would not negotiate agreements with Britain until that or some change was made. How was that situation viewed? It was because of the attitude of the Prime Minister of Canada that the then Secretary of State in Great Britain said that the suggestions he was making were all humbug and that they could not be entertained. The Prime Minister of Great

3S1
Empire Trade Agreements
Britain himself said, " It is impossible; we cannot do the thing we are asked to do." And Lord Passfield made perfectly clear, in a speech in the House of Lords, what was represented as the basis on which alone Canada was prepared thereafter to trade with Great Britain, namely, that the British government must change its fiscal policy. Inasmuch as the British government were unwilling to make any change at that time, the Prime Minister came back without any trade arrangement at all.
As against that position, one has to take
the position as it would have been had the attitude proposed by the Liberal party been adopted. We knew that the conference was coming in the fall of 1930. We knew that some countries were adopting policies of economic nationalism. We knew that there was necessity to seek markets with greater effort than ever where there was a possibility of obtaining or maintaining them. We therefore made a special effort to get as large an entry of our products into the British market as possible. The Dunning budget was framed on the basis, that where we were losing trade in one direction because of tariff walls being raised by other countries we should seek to gain trade or at least to maintain what we had within the British empire where we had an open market, practically as it was at that time-the largest market in the world. As I say, we cannot assert definitely what the result would have been; but anyone who stops to contemplate what it might have been will readily see that the trade between Britain and Canada would have been infinitely greater under the arrangement proposed by the Dunning budget than it is under the changes that have been made by hon. gentlemen opposite.
I need not repeat, what is well known to everyone, that trade cannot be carried on all in one direction; and once the Prime Minister of Canada practically closed the door, if not completely at any rate in part, against trade coming to Canada from Great Britain, as was done when he raised the duties against Britain, to that extent he made it more difficult for us to sell our products in the British market. And every step he has taken in dealing with trade matters has been in the direction of raising tariffs higher and higher and making trade more and more impossible, with the result that our great primary producers in this country have had very little chance to get into the British market with their goods.
The reason Sir Wilfrid Laurier adopted the policy with respect to the British preference which he did was this. He saw that trade, in
order to be carried on at all, had to flow both ways, and his desire was, not to make trade between Britain and Canada more and more difficult but to make it relatively easier by giving us an opportunity to sell what we could in the British market, by giving Britain an opportunity in our market with respect to the things desired by our own consumers and producers.
I cannot go over the whole story of his negotiations with London, but we know that after the Prime Minister came back he showed Britain, with a stronger hand than ever I presume, that his intention was to go on raising tariffs, against Britain as well as other countries because we had the whole tariff changed in considerable part and duties put up higher than ever at the next session. Then we had the conference in Ottawa.
What took place at the conference here in Ottawa is most significant. When the British delegates were meeting with delegates from other parts of the empire, the British delegation stated in the clearest language possible what they regarded as the course that should be pursued in endeavouring to work out reciprocal agreements between the different parts of the empire; and when we come to ask ourselves how these agreements have operated, how they have affected trade, we must pause and put this question to ourselves:	What would have been the position
of trade between Britain and Canada to-day and since 1932 had the proposals of the British delegation been carried out, instead of proposals which were diametrically opposite and for which the Prime Minister of Canada was himself responsible? I am not going to say in my own words what the proposals of the British delegation were; I will read what was said in this very chamber at the opening meeting of the conference. I happened to be sitting in the gallery opposite when the Right Hon. Stanley Baldwin, who was head of the British delegation, a former prime minister of Great Britain, made his address at the opening of the conference and set out the policies which he hoped, and not he alone but the British delegation as a whole, would govern with respect to trade within the empire in any agreements that might be made. Here are his words, as reported in the proceedings of the conference at Ottawa on July 21, 1932:
What then should be the first aim of this conference? It should be to clear out the channels of trade among ourselves . . . we hope that as a result of this conference we may be able, not only to maintain existing preferences, but, in addition, to find ways of increasing them. There are two ways in which increased preference can be given-either by lowering
Empire Trade Agreements

barriers among ourselves 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 howrever 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. His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom therefore place before the conference as its general objective the expansion of empire trade, brought about as far as possible by the lowering of trade barriers as between the several members of the empire.
If hon. gentlemen opposite or the Prime Minister had accepted the objective as set forth by the former Prime Minister of Great Britain, every party in this country as well as every party in Great Britain would have been as one with regard to the agreements that might have been reached. There would have been no difference whatever. The reason that we on this side objected to the Ottawa agreements was that we believed Mr. Baldwin was right in what he suggested, and that the Prime Minister of Canada was wrong. We believe that because Canada did not accept the attitude proposed by Britain, to aim at bringing about preferences through the lowering of tariffs within the empire, instead of bringing about preferences by raising higher tariffs against the w'orld, the greatest mistake was made that has been made in this country at any time. That is where our difference arises with respect to the Ottawa agreements, and that difference goes right to the root of everything respecting them. That is why we have been opposed to these agreements. It is not that wre were opposed to an agreement with Britain; we have always sought to further trade with Britain even to a greater extent than with any other country. It was Sir Wilfrid Laurier who was the first to give a preference to Great Britain. The idea of a preference did not originate with hon. gentlemen opposite; it originated with a Liberal prime minister who was anxious to further the interests of his own country and of the empire at the same time. That is exactly what would have happened had the Ottawa agreements been based on policies such as are set forth. But the policies that were made to govern were those, not of greater freedom of trade but of more and more in the way of protection, more and
[Mr. Mackenzie King.l
more in the way of restriction as between the different parts of the empire and more and more in the way of restrictions than ever as against the rest of the world.
So far as these Ottawa agreements are concerned, this was not merely an effort to further a policy of economic nationalism for Canada but from the point of view of the Prime Minister it w*as economic imperialism as well. If he had his way we would have tariffs so high there would be relatively speaking no trade with any other part of the world. It is a very different matter to make your tariff arrangements within your own empire in a way which the nations of the world generally will recognize is right and proper as between members of a great commonwealth from effecting this result in a way which nations generally resent, and which causes them not to hesitate to show their resentment when it comes to their subsequent dealings with your country. That, may I again say, is the real basis of our objections to these agreements. Obviously there is a distinct line of demarcation. Let me repeat: It is not that we are opposed to an agreement with Britain; we have never at any time been opposed to agreements, but we are opposed to a wrong method of negotiation; we are opposed to wrong principles governing, and we are opposed in the negotiations to false actions-actions that are detrimental to our own trade.
What was bound to be the effect of these agreements once they were entered into on the basis insisted upon by the Prime Minister of Canada? It is well known what took place in Ottawa; it is well known that the British delegation were told pretty plainly that they, would either negotiate on his basis or there would be no negotiations at all.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes; hon.
gentlemen opposite applaud that attitude and yet regard themselves as the great upholders of the empire. It was not a matter of any consequence to them or to him whether a greater question might be raised within the empire which might serve to create internal dissension of a very far-reaching character or whether there should have been an endeavour to keep all parts of the empire as nearly in unity as it was possible to have them. Once the line insisted upon by the Prime Minister was taken, we began to have the inimical effects of the Ottawa agreements. We have listened this afternoon and evening to one or two speakers, the mover of the resolution in particular, telling how the agreements had

Empire Trade Agreements
operated with respect to one or two industries. May I repeat: we have no evidence that these industries would not have been as well off without the agreements as with them. It would be a surprise to me if agreements of the kind did not give some particular advantage to certain specially favoured industries, but the kind of agreements that Canada needs to-day are not those that are going to work to the benefit of a few privileged interests in one section of Canada, but those that will do justice to all classes in all parts of the country.
The first consideration in this country with respect to every agreement should be its effect upon consumers and producers. May I now pause to show how these agreements have operated with respect to consumers and producers. In this connection I had better at once make clear why, on the basis of the policies which we on this side are upholding in very definite terms, we cannot support these agreements in the terms in which they at present stand. I have said that these agreements are founded on a policy of protection, not of ordinary or moderate protection but of extraordinary, high protection. With what consequence? W'ith the consequence that as a party we have felt that if this country is to be saved and brought out of the depression at all, those high tariff policies will have to go. What has made them more restrictive than ever has been in the manner in which they have been and are administered. So we have laid down the following as our policy in matters of trade:
The Liberal party believes that trade is the basis of industrial and commercial development, and that Canada needs trade.
It will promote trade with all nations and negotiate trade agreements with any country willing to trade with Canada on a reciprocal basis.
It will abolish the extravagant increases in the tariff made by the present administration which have had the effect of strangling trade, exploiting consumers and robbing our railways of business.
It will abolish all unwarranted extra taxes on imports, such as the exchange and dumping duties, as imposed by the present administration.
It will end the making and altering of tariffs by executive action.
It will substitute stability for uncertainty in the administration of customs laws.
It will continue the Liberal policy of the British preference by a percentage reduction
in existing tariffs rather than by a percentage increase against foreign countries in existing tariffs.
It will grant to British imports a real preference.
Every one of those statements of policy has a bearing upon these trade agreements and we cannot accept these agreements in the form in which they are at the present time without Stultifying ourselves with respect to every one of the declarations therein made. Let me direct attention to just one or two of them again:
It-
That is the Liberal party.
*-will promote trade with all nations and negotiate trade agreements with any country willing to trade with Canada on a reciprocal basis.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: More hot air.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think the hon. gentleman who interrupted had the floor pretty much to himself yesterday. I sat here for an hour and listened to him read his speech from beginning to end and never uttered a word.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: Just the instructions the right hon. gentleman gave his chief whip. I watched my right hon. friend yesterday.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, to see that my hon. friend keeps his interruptions to himself.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: Just the way the right hon. gentleman did.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I, as I have said, draw attention first of all to the clause in our declaration that the Liberal party seeks to develop trade with all countries of the world. Therein lies one of the fundamental objections to the present agreements with Britain as they stand, that they make more difficult the negotiation of agreements with other countries. I have to pause here to explain one of the subtle things about these Ottawa agreements, something that is perhaps not so apparent but to which notice was drawn at the time we were objecting to them. It is this: that in addition to raising the tariff in the Ottawa agreements, the tariff was so changed as to do away with advantages which had previously obtained in this country under the intermediate tariffs framed as such with the express purpose of affording facilities in the matter of tariff negotiations with other countries. We have had in Canada and we have to-day three tariffs, the general tariff, the intermediate tariff and the British
Empire Trade Agreements


Richard Bedford Bennett: Fifty per cent.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend said we said fifty per cent at the outset, and that now we have changed it to " substantial." May I give the reason? It is very obvious. The whole situation in regard to trade between Canada and Great Britain and the rest of the world has been completely altered as a result of the Ottawa agreements. What might have been an appropriate preference to Great Britain at a time when relatively speaking she had no protective tariff at all, would not be appropriate now that she is a protectionist country. Whether the preferences to be given will be fifty per cent or less or more will now necessarily depend upon negotiations between the two countries. But a policy. to give a real and substantial preference remains fundamentally what it has been from the start. The exact extent of the preference will depend upon the circum-

Empire Trade Agreements
stances as they exist when the opportunity for further negotiations may present itself.
I said we would abolish the extravagant increases in the tariff made by the present administration, which have had the effect of strangling trade, exploiting the consumers and robbing the railways of business. Let me give an example of the extent to which the consumers have been affected by the Ottawa agreements, and the way in which they have been administered. I cannot begin to go over the list in detail, but I can take one or two commodities that will serve as examples. I will give the present cost of landing a shipment from the United Kingdom based on the rates charged since the agreements came into force in comparison with those charged under the previous administration. As I have said,
Commodity
Dyed or printed cotton fabric.. ..
White cotton	
Wool piece fabrics	
Wool overcoatings	
High grade wool suitings	
Cheaper grade wool suitings.. .. Wool hosiery (depending on value)
Wool blankets, household	
Axminster carpets	
there are such variations in the administration of the tariff, in the different taxes imposed and the way in which they are administered, that no statement can be made of them as on any one day which with certainty will be applicable a few months later; consequently I have to point out the time for which this compilation was made. This is the situation as it was in November, 1933, about fourteen months ago, and about fourteen months after the agreements came into effect. It will show at a glance just what the effect of these Ottawa agreements has been as far as consumers are concerned. Remember that what affects consumers affects producers as well, because these things all enter into the cost of living and the cost of production. The figures follow:
Liberals
Cost landed under in percentage
19.18 16.15 26.
26.
26.
26.
19.18	to 26. 21.45 23.75
Conservatives
34.
34.
41.50
65.75 44.
51.25
56.50
50.75
55.50
Looking at it in another way we may see what this amounts to expressed in terms of dollars, not percentage. Here are nine items.
Assume we were importing $1,000 worth of each, bringing the total bill to $9,000; what is the result?
Commodity
Dyed or printed cotton fabric	
White cotton flannelette	
Wool piece fabrics	
Wool overcoatings, not less than 18 ozs. sq. yd.
Wool high grade suitings	
Wool suitings, cheaper grade	
Wool hosiery	
Wool blankets, household	
Axminster carpets	
Total	
Cost landed under
Invoice	Liberals	Conservativ$1,000	$ 191	80	$ 340 001,000	161	50	340 001,000	260	00	415 001,000	260	00	657 501.000	260	00	440 001,000	260	00	512 501,000	191	80	to	565 00260	00	1,000	214	50	507 501,000	237	50	555 00$9,000	$2,037	10	to	$4,332 50
2,105 40
It may be claimed by hon. members opposite that these imposts helped to raise revenue, but as a matter of fact the duties have been so high that goods have not been coming in; customs duties have fallen off very considerably, and the country has lost revenue. So the producers of these commodities, who formerly had a fairly good time of it and who carried on their businesses quite well, have been put in the position of being 92582-25
able to raise their prices to a level that would meet this importing rate; the consumer has had to carry that, and in addition he has had to raise the taxes to make up the revenues necessary for the conduct of the business of the country. So we begin to see something of the burdens that are on the backs of the people of this country as a consequence of these agreements. What that has meant to trade and to our railways

Empire Trade Agreements

and shipping is only too apparent, and these are some of the reasons why this depression has continued for so many years.
But there is something especially interesting and significant about this matter when one comes to compare the cost of landing these different products, as it was immediately after the present government came into office, with what it had become at the time of the Ottawa agreements, and with what it has become since. I must say that I cannot help but believe there was something in the nature of design in the very high tariffs which were put on at the outset, a design which discloses an intention to see trade brought to as low a level as possible as quickly as possible, so that when we were half way through this parliament there might be a chance to revive trade simply by lifting some of the most obvious of the restrictions. Let us see how that works. Take the fluctuation in the duties on wool overcoating fabric. Prior to September 16, 1930, the total duties and taxes amounted to 26 per cent. After June 2, 1931, they were up to 70i per cent. After April 7, 1932, which was just before the conference, they were up to 113J per cent. After October 13, 1932, the conference having come in just between, they were 100 per cent. After April, 1933, they were 83J per cent, and after September 20, 1933, they were 67i per cent. These figures include customs duties, excise tax, sales tax and dump duties as they have been in force at the different dates given. There is the reason for the unemployment we have had for so long in this country; the tariffs have been so arranged, so added to, so manipulated, so carried along and administered, that with respect to many commodities trade was practically brought to a standstill during 1932. Since then-not by changes that resulted from the Ottawa agreements but by other changes made by the government-some of these restrictions have been removed, and trade has begun to respond. The government claims that this response is due to the Ottawa agreements, I say that the response is due to the removal of some restrictions which never, at any time, needed to be imposed, under the Ottawa agreements or any others.
Now let us take the fluctuations with regard to wool blankets from Great Britain; let us see how those work out. Prior to September 16, 1930, total duties and taxes amounted to 21i per cent. After June 2, 1931, they were 60J per cent. After April 7, 1932, they were 100J per cent. After October 13, 1932, they were 77J per cent. After March 22, 1933, they were 64J per cent, and after September
[Mr Howard.]
20, 1933, they totalled 52 per cent. It is observable again that during 1932 the total duties and taxes were higher than they had been at any other time, and the inevitable result was a period of acute depression.
Before I leave that point let me just direct attention to the difference in the total duties and taxes on wool overcoating fabric as between September 16, 1930, and September 20, 1933. In the former case they totalled 26 per cent; in the latter case they were 67J per cent, which represented the lowest point under this administration. Then with regard to wool blankets from Great Britain the total duties and taxes up to September 16, 1930, amounted to 21\ per cent. After September 20, 1932, the lowest point they reached under this administration, then amounted to 52. per cent. That is the effect of the excessive tariff, in large part, and the way in which the agreements have been administered. As I have said, this is only an indication of what has been.true with respect to a very large number of commodities. Consumers and producers in this country have been adversely affected, and that effect has extended to all those engaged in or dependent upon trade in any way.
That covers all I shall attempt to say in detail in connection with specific features. I should like now to mention another reason why we have been opposed to the agreements.
I have said that the Ottawa agreements have made trade negotiations with other countries more difficult. We all know that this government has been trying to effect agreements with other countries. We were told by the Prime Minister a day or two ago that negotiations are to be carried on now with regard to reciprocity; we have hon. gentlemen opposite admitting at last that reciprocal trade with the United States is a desirable and a good thing. At the time of the Ottawa conference, if I am not mistaken, the British delegates were told pretty plainly that if they did not come across in the way this government- wished, trade would be speedily turned in the direction of the United States instead of in the direction of Great Britain.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am not interrupting, but that is an incorrect statement, and I must at once nail it as being untrue.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am very much
obliged to the Prime Minister for so saying, but the impression was pretty general at the time as to what was the basis on which some of the negotiations were effected. The point that I was discussing, however, was the effect of the agreements on negotiations with other

Empire Trade Agreements
countries. I said that hon. gentlemen opposite now are speaking of reciprocity with the United States, and a day or two ago the Prime Minister said negotiations were about to commence. We know, as a matter of fact, that negotiations commenced two years ago; I wonder if the Prime Minister will say I am wrong in that. They have not just commenced.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I will say that is not a correct statement of what I said.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am not saying what the Prime Minister-*


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not desire to interrupt, but the hon. gentleman said I said negotiations were about to begin and they had begun two years ago. If you will read the records you will find that is not correct.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I did not say that. I said the Prime Minister had said it was within the last few days negotiations were being begun, and I was saying that there was good reason to believe they had begun two years ago. Does the Prime Minister say that is not correct, and that they were not begun two years ago?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Prime Minister will answer the question, since the right hon. gentleman has made a statement which is not according to the record. In June, 1934, which was a little over six months ago, the congress of the United States passed an act which authorized the president to carry out negotiations that are now being carried out.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: 1934?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Six months ago.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: And this is 1935.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Six months ago.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is exactly what I say.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is exactly
what I say, that the Prime Minister said negotiations for reciprocity had begun six months ago. That is surely clear.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The right hon. gentleman must not say that, because I did not say that. Cannot the right hon. gentleman repeat what I said? I did not mention the word "reciprocity;" I said "trade agreement."


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My point is
not in reference to the particular phrase,
92582-25}	t
whether it be "trade agreement" or "reciprocity." My point is as to when negotiations for better trade arrangements with the United States began, and the Prime Minister -if I have him right at last-has indicated six months ago.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not say that, even. What is the matter with the right hon. gentleman, that he will persist, not only in this house but outside of it, in changing what I say?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The record is there.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, the record is not
there. The record as it is made the right hon. gentleman changes-in Hansard, when I am not present, he does it. He proceeds to say what I did not say at all. I said that the president of the United States had no authority until June, 1934. That is what I desire to say-when the act of congress was passed. That is what I desire to make clear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I will not take up the time at the moment to discuss with the Prime Minister the question of changes. I say the record in Hansard will show what I am saying now, namely that the Prime Minister has intimated to this house that negotiations with respect to trade arrangements with the United States had taken place within the last six months. I am not trying to misrepresent the Prime Minister. I am trying to say what my understanding of his statement is. I think I am correct in that statement. I say we have it on very good authority that it is not six months ago, but that it is two years ago that these negotiations were going on. We know very well why the negotiations have not succeeded. The reason is that every time there has been an attempt to negotiate with the United States these Ottawa agreements have stood in the way. It has been impossible to make any real agreement or to reach any negotiations -by the way, they have not been reached yet-until it was seen what could be done by way of further modification of these agreements. I will venture to say this, that before this house will see any agreement with the United States we will find further changes in these Ottawa trade pacts which will help to make negotiations possible. I shall name my authority. It is the member of the ministry of my right hon. friend who has been advising the country of what has taken place. I refer to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hanson) who has just spoken.
Empire Trade Agreements

Speaking at London, Ontario, on January 28, just three nights ago, he said as reported by the Canadian Press:
Negotiations had been going on between Canada and the United States for two years, the minister told-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: -

for two years, the minister told the annual meeting of the London Liberal-Conservative Association, and he was convinced there was a wide variety of commodities on which reciprocal preference arrangements could be made.
I am sorry if I used the word "reciprocity" or "reciprocal." That may not have been permissible, but the minister gave me a pretty good lead. I repeat: It is an open secret that the reason an agreement has not been reached before this is the fact that the Ottawa agreements have stood in the way, and they have stood in the way of agreements with other countries. They will continue to stand in the way until those agreements are materially changed.
While I have in my hand the report of the address by the Minister of Trade and Commerce may I read what he said in reference to myself? I quote:
Mr. King had declined to take reciprocal action at that time-
Referring to arrangements with the United States.
-for fear of being provocative, the minister said. "This was the attitude of a traitor."


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not think I said that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Here it is, in quotation marks.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I deny ever saying that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am pleased the minister denies it, because I must confess I was surprised when I saw it. The dispatch appears in the Montreal Gazette of January 29, and is reported by the Canadian Press. Dated at London, Ontario, January 28, the paragraph reads:
Mr. King had declined to take reciprocal action at that time for fear of being provocative, the minister said.
And then in quotation marks:
"This was the attitude of a traitor."


Richard Burpee Hanson: I deny the use of that language.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am pleased to have the minister state he did not use that language, and I accept his statement. I

must confess I was a little suprised when I saw it coming from him, especially after the words of greeting and good wishes I had extended to him in his new office only a few days previously.
I shall leave the question of the effect the trade agreements have had upon negotiations with other countries, but I wish to point out that is another reason why we cannot accept the Ottawa agreements in the form in which they stand.
One of the other main objections to the agreement-and this is another fundamental objection-is that they restrict the fiscal freedom of this parliament. That is a fundamental reason for our objection to them. As long as agreements exist which deprive this House of Commons of its freedom to deal with our fiscal policy as we think best, and as the people of the country consider best, so long will any such agreements not meet the wishes and opinions of hon. gentlemen on this side of the house. Agreements can be and in the past have been drawn which leave parliament perfectly free in the matter of the alteration of the tariff. But as hon. members are well aware these Ottawa agreements peg the tariff at a certain figure, with respect to a large number of items.
When a government seeks to bind parliament for a period of years to a certain tariff it is imposing a tax over the period of time for which that agreement stands. A government so long as it is in office may if it wishes enter into a contract, and having made the contract is in duty bound to stand by it, but it cannot bind its sucessors with respect to their rights in the matter of taxation. No government worthy of being described as a British government, in the true sense, has ever attempted to do anything of the kind. On behalf of the Liberal party I have taken very strong exception to those features of the Ottawa tariff agreement, not merely to the feature which with respect to some commodities pegged the tariff at a particular height but also to the feature which bound us for a period of years to maintain certain rates of tariff. I have said that was alienating the authority and control of parliament over fiscal policy, over taxation, over tariff, and that the Liberal party would not support a principle of the kind. I do not think it was a necessary course to follow, but it has been done, and has been done in order to rivet protection on this country, whether or not a government may be returned to power by a people who have been aroused in their indignation against the excessive protection to which they have been subjected. That feature of these agreements cannot be permitted to

Empire Trade Agreements
remain as it is if another Liberal administration comes into office. The fiscal freedom of this parliament will have to be restored, and I do not think that any British government will take exception to an attitude of the kind. I say that because the British government have admitted that such is the right of any political party with respect to agreements to which they have not been parties.
The Prime Minister said when I mentioned this subject before: "What about the agreement your government entered into with the West Indies? What about the agreement you entered into with France"? I think I pointed out that there is a great difference between an agreement which lessens taxation and lowers tariffs and one which raises both. May I point out this further fact? There is a great difference between an agreement to which all parties in the house at the time it is presented to the house for acceptance are agreed, and an agreement to which exception is taken from the moment of its introduction. There is a difference between an agreement entered into with the West Indies or w'ith France that met with no opposition from the opposition of the day, and these Ottawa agreements. All parties in the house supported the agreement with the West Indies and with France, and as such all were under an obligation to maintain them when they were in office. There may have been a discussion of features of them, but as for a division on them I do not recall any. But, at any rate, if there has been opposition to any agreement the position we take on this side is that the party that has opposed that agreement is at perfect liberty, when it comes into office, to alter that agreement if it so desires, having made its position one of record. But that is a very different position from that which hon. gentlemen opposite are taking with respect to these Ottawa agreements, it is that they must be maintained regardless altogether of the heights to which they have raised tariffs and taxation and the time for which they bind the country. I made the position of the Liberal party on that matter very clear at the time the agreements themselves were being discussed.
Here I wish to draw attention to what the Minister of Trade and Commerce said in the course of his remarks to-night, namely, that I had at a recent meeting of the National Liberal Federation completely changed my attitude with respect to the Ottawa agreements. I have changed nothing in any particular with respect to my attitude toward the Ottawa agreements from the time of their introduction and as I have presented my
opposition to them ever since. My attitude remains to-day what it was at the beginning; what I then stated in the house was the attitude which I took towards them. It was stated specifically with regard to this feature in particular, namely, the question of the binding nature of these agreements as they would be viewed by the Liberal party if it came into office.
I know hon. gentlemen opposite have been saying all over the country: Mr. King has said that if he was returned to power he would cancel the agreements. I have said nothing of the kind.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Some hon.
gentlemen say, "oh, oh," but I challenge them to show me where I have. I ask them to point to a single instance in which I have made any statement of the kind. I have never at any time, either in this House of Commons or speaking on a public platform, said that if the Liberal party came into office they would immediately cancel these agreements. I have said in this house very clearly that if we came into office there were certain features we would wish to change, and we would reserve the right to cancel the agreements if we wished. But to reserve the right to take a certain step is very different from saying that we would cancel the agreements. May I make clear exactly what I did say? -for I have the record from Hansard here. If hon. members will look at Hansard of November 7, 1932, page 963, they will find that what I said was this:
I wish to say that I think the parliament of Canada should be free at all times to alter its tariff in any respect that it desires, and that we should not bind ourselves to maintain a certain tariff rate, even if it is fixed only so as to continue a margin of preference; but subsequent parliaments or the same parliament, at subsequent sessions, should at all times be free to alter rates of duty in any and every particular.
That is the statement that I made at the time with respect to these agreements. It is the statement which I adhere to at the present time, and it is going to be the position of the Liberal party so long as I am honoured with its confidence in the matter of its leadership.
May I give another quotation which will make it perfectly clear what was in my mind at the time I was speaking, and has been in. my mind all along. It will be found at page 1019 of Hansard of November 8, 1932, and it-was apropos the statement which was made by the government at the time these agree-
Empire Trade Agreements

meats were brought in, namely, that they were ironclad agreements. We were told at the outset that we had to support them as they stood, that we could not make a change in any item. That is why we opposed them so strongly at the outset. We were asked to accept the whole of them without a change, and to do a thing that was not done in the British parliament, namely, to accept the agreements and change the tariff by those agreements before the tariff itself had first been altered after consideration by this house in committee of the whole. We took our stand very definitely. I pointed out that in Great Britain the British government dealt very differently with the House of Commons. The British government did not seek to maintain that it was the duty of an opposition that was opposed to the agreements to continue the agreements indefinitely and with- . out any change when they came into power. What the British government said emphatically was that the obligation was upon the party that made the agreement to continue it as long as it remained in office, but that a party that had opposed it had always the freedom to make any change it might wish in regard to a matter which was contrary to its principles. Here is what I said at page 1049 of Hansard of November 8, 1932:
May I say to the Prime Minister that I cannot understand why he or his colleague, the Minister of Finance, cannot be just as frank with this House of Commons as the Chancellor of Exchequer and the Financial Secretary in England were with the British House of Commons. The statement was made quite frankly in England that, so far as the government of the day in that country having been a party to the making of it they will feel themselves in honour bound to carry out the agreement. They have said, however, and have made it quite clear, that the House of Commons is free at all times to change duties if it so wishes, and that it cannot be bound legally or constitutionally to maintain any tariff or tariffs of any particular level. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer in England says that Great Britain is bound for five years only in that sense, J say the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance should declare to this house that we are bound only to the same extent as Great Britain is. This parliament is perfectly free at all times to alter any duties that it may think it advisable to alter. As I repeatedly have said, if any time we should be in office and decide that it is desirable in the interests of the country, and in accordance with the wish of the people of this country, that tariff schedules should be changed, we shall consider ourselves free as those who believe in freedom in the matter of fiscal policy, to make such changes in the tariff of this country as we may think necessary. I want to make that very clear, so that there may be no mistake about it now or at any time in the future.

That was the position that I took. I reserved to this party, should we come into office-and I was making the reservation clear at the beginning-the right to alter any feature of these agreements that we might think desirable. We were not binding ourselves to accept the agreement in the form in which it was drafted but reserved to ourselves the right to make such changes as we wished.
I want to make perfectly clear, Mr. Speaker, what I said at the meeting of the National Liberal Federation, and it indicates what I had in mind at the time I made those statements. If the Liberal administration should be returned to power in the next general election and we have to consider the matter of these tariffs, I do not propose to act towards Great Britain in the manner in which the Prime Minister of Canada acted when he came into office. I do not propose to go to any conference or to any meeting of ministers in England, or to have any ministers of the crown that may be in the cabinet of the day go to any gathering in England and threaten and bully the British people with regard to what is a matter of their concern, when I am trying to make an agreement that will be of mutual benefit to both sides of the empire. I would deal with the British government as I would expect English gentlemen would deal with Canadian ministers of the crown in matters of this kind. I would indicate that so far as these agreements are concerned there are features that are not satisfactory to the Liberal party in Canada; that we should like these objectionable features to be altered, and that we believe the agreements as they stand are not approved by the people of Canada. The fact that we would be in office would be an evidence that they were not approved, and therefore we would wish to negotiate a modification of the agreements in certain particulars. If we could get a modification of the agreements in a manner that would serve the interests of this country and be mutually beneficial, then the agreements as modified would be continued for the period for which they have been drawn. If we could not get these modifications, if we could not get the obvious changes in the agreements which we believe the Canadian people wish to have made, then we would reserve to ourselves the right to say whether we would forthwith cancel these agreements in whole or in part or whether we would allow them to run for the remainder of the time and not carry them on for a further period.
I am making no threats; I am simply indicating the position which I believe is the sound one for any administration to take.

Empire Trade Agreements
And may I say that if a Liberal administration should be returned to office one of the very first things that would be done would be to get into communication with the British government with respect to what we believe to be necessary modifications in the agreements, on the understanding that there are certain features relating to the tariff which we would wish to have changed in this country, pointing out particularly that we desire to have the fiscal freedom of this parliament maintained. And, as I have said, if as a result of the negotiations we could bring the agreements into conformity with the will and wishes of the people of the country, then, as modified, they would be continued. But if we could not effect a change of that kind then it would be time to decide what further step might be necessary with respect to them.
That is the position I have taken from the start and it is the position which I take now and shall continue to take for the time it may be necessary to speak in public further on these matters. I have every reason in making that statement to believe that the British government will welcome opportunities to modify these agreements. I believe that in all parts of the empire there is a very keen desire to have the agreements quite materially changed. Let me direct the attention of hon. members to what has appeared within the last few days in a despatch to Ottawa as the result of a visit of Premier MacDonald's son to Australia and what he said on his return. I quote from the Montreal Star of January 24 the following:
Attempt to modify Ottawa pacts seen Malcolm MacDonald back from Antipodes visit
London, January 24-(C.P. Cable).-Reports last night indicate that Malcolm MacDonald, British Under-Secretary of State, may urge modification of the intra-empire trade agreements reached at Ottawa in 1932, following a visit to Australia. Mr. MacDonald, son of the premier, returned from Australia last night following informal talks regarding the trade agreements and completion of a_ report on emigration. The only source of information, which came from competent circles, said that the under-secretary had become convinced of the necessity for changes during unofficial talks with Australian business and political leaders.
Now everyone knows how these agreements are viewed in Australia. I wonder whether hon. gentlemen have seen a petition presented recently in the House of Lords from western Australia praying to be permitted to withdraw altogether from the Australian commonwealth in consequence of the manner in which the agrarian interests of Australia have suffered from these agreements. In December last a delegation went from western Australia to Britain to present a petition to
the British parliament, and it was tabled in the House of Lords on December 18, praying for legislation by the British parliament which would restore western Australia to its former status as a separate and distinct self governing colony in the British empire. What reason did they give, among other things? Let me quote from the petition:
In consequence of the burden of the federal tariff the economic structure of western Australia has already become seriously jeopardized and with the continuance of such burden the state of Western Australia, the primary producers, and the people of that state are faced inevitably with national bankruptcy and ruin.
The only effective means whereby the people and the state of Western Australia can be relieved from the said burden, and the said wrong can be removed, is the withdrawal of the people of the state of Western Australia from the Commonwealth of Australia and the restoration of Western Australia to its former status as a separate and distinct self-governing colony in the British Empire.
I have nothing to say regarding the effect of the presentation of that petition; I merely direct attention to the effect which has been produced in Australia as a result of high tariffs which have served possibly certain protected interests but which have made the lot of the agrarian classes in that country such that they would prefer to withdraw altogether from the Australian commonwealth. And now may I ask hon. gentlemen whether they think tariff agreements that bring about that kind of sectional difference in a country help either the country or the British empire.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It has no reference to the Ottawa agreements.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: But tariffs
are fixed by the agreements.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not at all.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: They relate
to the tariffs. But I leave Australia and come to Canada, and I say that the way in which my right hon. friend has raised the tariffs in this country, and what he has done under the Ottawa agreements, has gone further in helping to create sectional differences in this country than anything that has happened in many a day past. We have at the present time the maritime provinces drawing attention to the manner in which their rights are being affected as a result of the economic conditions arising from tariff matters, and we have western Canada in a similar position. My right hon. friend knows very well that while these tariffs may serve the interests of a few privileged groups here and there,
Empire Trade Agreements

so far as the great primary producers are concerned they suffer very considerably under them.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The right hon. gentleman said a few moments ago that he trusted that I would direct his attention to any misstatements. May I point out that both these commissions are sitting under arrangements made originally by the right hon. gentleman.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That may be so, but they are dealing with conditions that have come about under the administration of my right hon. friend, and they are pretty emphatic in what they have to say touching these matters.
I will conclude with this word. My right hon. friend has said that there is an impression in England that has been created there against these Ottawa agreements which is affecting some of those traders who are seeking to further their business interests in London. I think he intimated that there were certain of them who were representing, or had represented that what the Liberal party had been saying about the agreements in Canada was perhaps correct, and that the British people had formed the impression that possibly after all these agreements were not so popular in Canada. May I say to my right hon. friend that the impression that has been created in Britain with regard to these agreements began first of all when Englishmen were here as delegates during the period of the negotiations. That was the first impression. But the impression that has been deepest of all has been that created by the by-elections in this country which have taken place since the agreements went into effect; and if the Ottawa agreements are to-day regarded in England as not being popular in Canada it is because the British government and the British people have recognized that every by-election that has been fought on them since the agreements went into force has resulted in a victory for those who oppose them.
Mr. J. II. MYERS (Queens):	I have
listened with more than the usual amount of interest to the discussion which has taken place to-day on this all-important resolution moved by the hon. member for Toronto-Scarborough (Mr. Harris). It is not necessary to read the resolution; it states simply that the result of the Ottawa trade agreements merits the approval of this house. The resolution might very well have gone a little further than that; it might have said that it merited the approval of the people and especially of the farmers of the Dominion of

Canada. My chief reason for taking part in this debate is the fact that while these agreements have perhaps been more beneficial to the farmers of the dominion than to anybody else, not a single farmer in this chamber has to-day been bold enough to raise his voice in defence of them. I hope however before this debate concludes that we shall hear from farmers on both sides of the house because I would at least express the hope that among hon. gentlemen opposite there are some farmers who have a proper sense of justice and can see what a benefit these agreements have been to the farming industry of Canada.
I was particularly amused to-night, more so perhaps than on previous occasions when he has spoken, at the speech of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King). His speeches always amuse me; they are in themselves so contradictory, but he excelled himself to-night in the contradictions that were contained in his address.


An hon. MEMBER:: Oh, oh.


Mr. MYERS:: If the hon. member followed his leader's address as closely as I did, this would be very apparent to him. It was so apparent to me that I was forced to the conclusion that the leader of the opposition is in himself a huge contradiction. He went on to tell us how as a result of the Ottawa agreements trade in Canada had shrunk; that merchants, traders and business men throughout the country by reason of the changes in the tariff-and he was speaking of the Ottawa agreements-were refusing or neglecting or fearful to enter into business contracts in the ordinary business way. Further, he went on to prove what a loss the agreements had caused to the railways and shipping, the carrying trades of the dominion. This evening the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hanson) showed us, so clearly that anyone, the dullest, could understand, figures to prove the increase in trade that had taken place by reason of the Ottawa agreements between Canada and the other British dominions. The leader of the opposition, in an effort to contradict the minister, while admits ting that the figures given by the minister were quite correct-he did not attempt to deny them-quoted an elaborate table of figures to show that the trade and commerce of Canada with other countries, and particularly with the United States, had increased by leaps and bounds, especially within the last twelve months. That in itself was, to my mind, a huge contradiction.
We know now just where the leader of the opposition stands. He went over to the old

Empire Trade Agreements
country this year to try to get his ear to the ground and to find out how the people there felt regarding these agreements. If I remember rightly, from a reading of the newspapers after he returned I would gather that he was still opposed to the Ottawa agreements; that the people of the old country were opposed to them, and that he intended to carry on his opposition. Later on in the fall of the year when he met his supporters in conference in this city to talk over some organization matters and their tactics with reference to the present session of parliament, he apparently had modified his views, and I was led to believe, at least by press reports, that he was now in accord with the Ottawa trade agreements. However, I always doubted that. I remember very well the long drawn out debates on this question during the session of 1932 when we met here to ratify the agreements. I remember very well the undying, persistent opposition that these trade agreements met with at the hands of the leader of the opposition. So when I read in the newspapers that he was coming round and beginning to favour the agreements, I always had my doubts in the matter. My doubts however are completely swept away to-night. So far as I am concerned, the leader of the opposition to-night is just where he was in 1932. He is heartily opposed to the Ottawa agreements. He seems to be opposed to the farmers of this dominion being given a fair chance at all with reference to their own business.
Then he goes on to tell us what the Liberal party will do when, as he says, it is returned to power, which heaven forbid! I have my doubts whether the intelligent electorate of Canada will again place their business affairs in the hands of the leader of the opposition. But he waxes very eloquent when he says with reference to these agreements: "When we are returned to power we will reserve the right to change, modify or, if we see fit, to cancel the Ottawa agreements." If by any chance the leader of the opposition should succeed in coming back to power he would not need to reserve the right to do anything with reference to these or any other agreements; the majority that he would then have in parliament would give him the right without any reservations whatever.
The leader of the opposition also referred to something else. He was speaking, I think, in connection with the dissension that is now apparent between the two sections of Australia. Well, I have read a good deal about that and so far as I have been able to gather I have never understood that the desire on the part
of western Australia to draw away from the rest of the Australian commonwealth had anything to do with the Ottawa trade agreements, or, in fact, with the fiscal policy of Australia. As I have read, it is purely a matter of distance between the two sections of Australia, which are very widely separated. Of course the Prime Minister checked him up on that and he dropped it quickly. Then the hon. gentleman went on to speak of some dissensions that were now taking place in Canada. He mentioned a royal commission that is sitting to adjudicate upon or to try to harmonize the differences existing between the maritime provinces and the dominion. Let me say that that commission is necessitated by reason of the fact that the leader of the opposition failed miserably when his party was in power to implement the findings of the Duncan commission appointed by them to settle the differences between the maritime provinces and the rest of the dominion. We in the maritime provinces had to wait nine years, until the Conservative party came into power, before we succeeded in getting our rights in this regard. The present government and the present Prime Minister gave us this royal commission to settle these claims.
Now as a farmer-and I assume I have as much right to speak from the standpoint of a farmer as any other hon. member in this chamber; my right in that regard has never been challenged-let me say a word with reference to the British preference. The British preference is an old question in Canada. I believe it was first put on the statute books by Sir Wilfrid Laurier's government many years ago. It is possible that Sir Wilfrid Laurier had a different idea regarding the British preference from that which obtained later. As a farmer I have given a good deal of thought and study to this question. I do not believe that there is a man in this chamber to-night who holds stronger views with reference to Great Britain and the ties that bind Canada to the British empire than I do. I am a Britisher first, last and always. Yet I like fair play even from my friends. To my mind the situation is this; under the British preference British manufacturers were allowed to send manufactured goods into Canada. I was very glad to welcome that; I would say nothing against it. But when we sought to send the products of Canadian farms into Great Britain, what preference did we get? Absolutely none. It is true that our butter and eggs, bacon and beef, entered the British market free, but so did similar products from Denmark, Holland and other European countries. And these countries were
Empire Trade Agreements

hundreds of miles distant from the markets of Great Britain but we were thousands of miles. So we were handicapped by freight rates, a handicap that we could not overcome, to-day when we enjoy a preference of ten per cent on these products entering the British market we are still only about on a par with the other countries to which I have referred, when transportation charges are taken into consideration. Let me tell the leader of the opposition that if he should come back into power and should attempt to do away with the ten per cent preference that the farmers of Canada now enjoy, he would meet with the resentment and opposition of the farmers of Canada.
Speaking of trade agreements, I do not know whether hon. members on the other side are frightened of the word "reciprocity." I am not, and I do not know why the Liberal party should be.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: We are not.


John Howard Myers: They had a lot to do with reciprocity in 1911. I believe it is an admitted fact that the Liberal electors of Canada rejected reciprocity-


Frederick George Sanderson: Did the Conservatives vote for it?


John Howard Myers: No, there was no reason
why we should. But there were not enough of us to affect it one way or the other; you know that as well as I do. From 1896 down through 1900, 1904 and 1908, there were too many Grits in Canada for us; there were not enough Tories to affect the thing either way.


Frederick George Sanderson: There will not be
many left after the next election.


John Howard Myers: When the electors finally
were offered the reciprocity pact of 1911 it was by the Liberal electors that that treaty was defeated. Let us take into consideration the question of trade agreements with the United States. I shall welcome any good, sensible trade agreement with the United States, absolutely. But at the same time I can see great difficulties. It is true that in June last the president of the United States was given power by congress to negotiate agreements with other countries, Canada included, but so far as I can understand the thought and sentiment with reference to trade matters in the United States they have not undergone any change of heart. The farmer in the United States is just as jealous of a home market for his own farm products as he was in 1930 when the Hawley-Smoot tariff was put into effect to protect him. We

must be fair about these things; we cannot blame the United States farmers for that. It is the duty of the American government to protect the American farmer. It is the duty of this government, so far as it reasonably can, to protect the Canadian farmer. And why not? I have often heard the statement made that the United States is our natural market. I believe if I were to ask anyone here to-night why the United States is our natural market the only reply would be, because it is our nearest market. Let us examine that for a moment. At home on my farm there is just a line fence separating me from my neighbours on each side. They are my nearest market. But what is the use of trying to sell a horse to my neighbour on one side if he already has as many horses as he needs? What is the use of trying to sell a cow to my neighbour on the other side if he has cattle of his own to dispose of? That is pretty much the situation that obtains between Canada and the United States. Can any hon. member name anything that we produce on Canadian farms that is not produced equally well and often in greater volume on the farms of the United States? You can go on down the line and include live stock, field crops or anything you care to mention. There is one exception, however, and perhaps I may be pardoned for naming it. In the province of Prince Edward Island we grow turnips that are not equalled in any other country of the world; that goes without saying. With that exception, however, the farmers of the United States produce practically every crop that we produce in Canada, and in addition they produce several crops which I could mention that are not produced in Canada at all. Com was mentioned to-night, and let me tell my hon. friend from Sherbrooke (Mr. Howard) that it is not necessary to feed corn to hogs. I have fed a great many hogs in my lifetime, and I never fed them corn. I see no valid reason why we should allow United States corn to come on the markets of Canada in any great volume, in order to displace feeds grown here that are just as good. Our own Canadian barley and oats are just as good as corn. Someone says they are better, and that is a fact. I suppose the hon. member for Sherbrooke is hardly aware of the fact that the Canadian hog makes much superior bacon than the United States hog, which is always referred to as the soft, flabby, corn-fed hog.
I was saying that in addition to producing all the crops that are produced in Canada the farmers of the United States produce other

Select Standing Committees
crops that are not grown here at all. Only a limited quantity of corn is grown in Canada, chiefly for ensilage purposes, while corn is one of the major crops of the United States. Cotton is not grown in Canada at all, but it is the chief crop of the southern United States. In any trade agreement that may be made between Canada and the United States there should be a swap-off. It is true that they require certain commodities at certain seasons of the year, and certain other commodities at all times, that are produced in Canada, but on the other hand there are certain things which we require from them, . even among farm products. In connection with these commodities we might have a reciprocal agreement which would work to the advantage of both nations. A matter of that kind must be worked out in a sensible, logical, levelheaded way, rather than as the former government tried to work it out. After years of quietly hushing things up, with the fear that they might offend the United States; after coaxing for years for the opportunity of getting into that market, which did not want and did not need our products, they turned around and threw a brick through the parlour window of the White House at Washington. On that brick was a label called the Dunning budget, which said, "We will build a tariff wall brick for brick with your wall against commodities of a kind produced in Canada coming into this country." That was not a sensible way in which to go about such a matter; there is a much better way.
It is almost eleven o'clock, Mr. Speaker. A great deal more might be said along this line, but as a farmer I just wish to add my voice to what has been said already in support of the Ottawa agreements. Let me assure my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition that if during the next election campaign he tries to lay unholy hands on the first real trade agreements to give protection to the Canadian farmers, he will meet with undying opposition on the part of those farmers.
In conclusion let me say, Mr. Speaker, that as a farmer I appreciate what the Prime Minister has done for the farmers of Canada in bringing about these trade agreements with the mother country.
On motion of Mr. Brown the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Bennett the house adjourned at 10.57 pan.
Friday, February 1, 1935