1936-03-04

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING
(Prime Minister) moved:
That the name of Mr. McLean (East Simcoe) be substituted for that of Mr. Slaght on the
Qtiestions
[Stage Direction]
special committee appointed to study the Dominion Elections Act, 1934, and amendments thereto and the Dominion Franchise Act, 1934, and amendments thereto.
Motion agreed to.

Hon. J. C. ELLIOTT (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker. I desire to present a return asked for by the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Fleming) with regard to correspondence respecting the dismissal of Ernest J. Symons, former postmaster at Jansen, Saskatchewan. I might say that a complete return in this connection was tabled in 1932 and is contained in sessional paper No. 388 for that session. That return is available to the hon. member.



CRIMINAL CODE

[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. IC. BLAIR (Wellington North) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 10, to amend the criminal code (death penalty).
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. BLAIR:: Mr. Speaker, this bill is simply designed to abolish hanging and to bring about executions by means of lethal gas, or a lethal chamber.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. VENIOT:: 1.	What vessels having their base at Dalhousie, N.B., were engaged in patrol work by the preventive service in 1933 and 1934?
2.	What was the cost of same for each year?
3.	What vessels, having their base of patrol at Shippigan, N.B., were engaged in patrol work by the preventive service in 1933 and 1934?
4.	What was the cost of same for each year?


Mr. ELLIOTT (for Mr. Lapointe, Quebec East):: 1.	The patrol boat Vigil was based at Dalhousie, N. B., in 1933. No vessels were based at this point in 1934.
2.	The cost of the patrol boat Vigil for the calendar year 1933 was $3,417.28. In addition the establishment for a vessel of this type provided for a chief petty officer at $3.20 per day, an engine room artificer at $3.10 per day
[Mr. Mackenzie Kine.l
and an able seaman at $1.95 per day. These men received a subsistence allowance of 60 cents per day each.
3.	In 1933 the Neguac was based at Shippigan. In 1934 the Beebe was based at Shippigan.
4.	The cost of the Neguac for the calendar year 1933 was $1,530.64. The cost of the Beebe for the calendar year 1934 was $1,930.38. In addition to the above cost the establishment for vessels of this type provided for a chief petty officer at $3.20 per day, an engine room artificer at $3.10 per day and an able seaman at $1.95 per day. These men received a subsistence allowance of 60 cents per day each.


LIEUT.-COLONEL W. ARTHUR STEEL
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Was Lt-Col. W. Arthur Steel seconded by the Department of National Defence to the radio broadcasting commission?
2.	If so, from what date?
3.	What was his salary in the Department of National Defence?
4.	What is his salary as a member of the radio broadcasting commission?
5.	What will be his pension (a) if he is sent back to the Department of National Defence before being retired, and (b) if retired while still seconded by the Department of National Defence to the radio broadcasting commission?
6.	Is there any statutory provision for the superannuation of members of the radio broadcasting commission; if so, what is it?


Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	Yes.
2.	1st October, 1931.
3.	$4,453 per annum.
4.	$8,000 less five per cent.
5. (a) $1,975.38 per annum as of 1st April, 1936; (b) $3,520 per anum as of 1st April,
1936.
6.	No.


CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION-TRAVELLING EXPENSES
Mr. DESLAURIERS:: What amount was spent in travelling expenses by each commissioner and official of the civil service commission during the calendar years 1933, 1934, and 1935?


Mr. RINFRET:: Travelling expenses during the calendar years 1933, 1934 and 1935, of the commissioners and officials of the Civil Service Commission.

Bland, C. H	
Potvin, A	
Poran, W	
Boutin, N. R.. ..
Cliche, L. P	
Cole, W. B	
Daley, S. J	
Dooner, V	
*Gilchrist, G. H.. ..
Gosselin, R	
Jackson, G. T.. .. Kemmis, A. C.. .. McNaughton, H. R
Morgan, R	
Munro, M	
Nelson, S. G	
Putman, C. V.. ..


MAJOR-GENERAL A. G. L. MCNAUGHTON
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Was Major General A. G. L. McNaughton, *chief of general staff, seconded to the National Research Council; if so, on what date?
_ 2. Was he retired as chief of general staff; if so, on what date; if not, why?
3.	Referring to the previous paragraph, in the affirmative, what is his pension as chief of general staff, from the date of his retirement?
4.	If the answer to paragraph 2 is in the
negative, what pension will be paid to the said McNaughton:	(a) if he is sent back to the
Department of National Defence and retired as chief of general staff before July 4, 1936; (b) if his retirement takes place on or after July 4, 1942, and if he is seconded until then by the Department of National Defence to the National Research Council?
5.	Did his predecessor, Dr. H. M. Tory, the former president of the National Research Council, receive a pension?
6.	Is there any statutory provision for a pension to be paid to the president of the National Research Council; if so, what is it?


Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	Yes. On, the 1st June, 1935, in the following terms: "Branch of the General Staff, Maj.-Gen. A. G. L. McNaughton, C.B., C.M.G., D.S.O., M.Sc. LL.D., i.d.c., ps.c., chief of the general staff is seconded, whilst holding the appointment of president of the National Research Council, 1st June, 1935."
2.	No, because it was then decided that he should be seconded.
3.	Answered by No. 2.
4.	(a) 14,800 per annum, as of July 4, 1936; (b) $9,000 per annum, as of July 4, 1942.
5.	No.
6.	No.


THREE RIVERS ELEVATOR
Mr. HALL:: 1.	Has the government signed the lease with the Three Rivers Grain and Elevator Company,
Questions		
1933.	1934.	1935.$ 420 05	$ 74 52	$ 123 9275 55	424 05	307 89-	74 43	14 65102 55	112 98	--	-	174 0425 60	-	7 25857 15	639 35	703 7146 75	45 90	--	-	31 10195 18	346 42	359 85-	191 40	630 2540 95	58 78	175 55541 26	428 20	330 86271 20	900 51	720 8241 45	-	89 55436 24	170 70	20 05125 83	211 41	118 37$3,179 76	$3,678 65	$3,807 86
Limited, covering construction of a private elevator on a government owned wharf; if so, when?
2.	Has work on this elevator started; if so, who gave the necessary authority, and was it given before the expiratory date for the approval of plans had elapsed?
3.	What money was spent by the government in developing the site upon which the elevator is being constructed?
4.	What annual revenue does the government expect to receive, and what yield does this give on the investment?
5.	Are not the present elevator facilities at Montreal and Quebec adequate?
6.	If an elevator is required at Three Rivers, why does the government not build and operate it when they already have developed this site?
Mr. HOWE;
1.	Yes. The Three Rivers harbour commissioners who went out of office 31st October, 1935, had authorized and executed a lease of a site on the 29th October, 1935. The new board of harbour commissioners who assumed office 1st November, 1935, recognized the dbligation entered into by the old board but found a modification and revision of the terms embodied in the lease necessary in the public interest. The revised lease was executed 26th February, 1936.
2.	Yes. Approval of the plans under the Navigable Waters Protection Act was found to be unnecessary.
3.	The site leased forms part of the property Which was made available for use by dredging, filling and reclaiming 834,512 sq. ft. of land and by building 2,690 lineal feet of wharf frontage. The cost of the reclaimed area based on the total cost of the work is approximately $3 per sq. ft. On this basis the value of the site leased is $206,100.
Questions

4.	Estimated annual revenue:
1.	Rental of land, 68,700 sq. ft.
at 5c. per sq. ft	 $ 3,435
2.	For use of wharf frontage,
300 ft. at $2 per ft		600
3.	6c. per ton on all grain passing through the elevator estimated at 16,000,000 bus	 28,800
Total	$32,835
This revenue would yield 16 per cent on the investment in the land leased.
5.	This is a matter of opinion.
6.	In the opinion of the government if private capital is willing to build and operate a grain elevator at Three Rivers, it should be allowed to do so.


JACQUES-CARTIER DISTRICT-SETTLERS
Mr. MALLETTE:: How many settlers in the district of Jacques-Cartier took up land under the act that ensured them a grant of $600?


Mr. ROGERS:: Under relief legislation the dominion government has entered into an agreement with the province of Quebec, under the terms of which the dominion, province, and municipality contribute each a sum not exceeding $200 towards the settling on the land of any family which is on relief, or which would otherwise be in receipt of relief. Provision is made for an additional contribution of $33.33 for subsistence expenditures during the third year of settlement by each party to the agreement if the family is not self-supporting at the end of the two year period.
Selection of settlers is made by a committee which includes representatives of the federal government, the province, and the colonization departments of the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian National Railways. This committee has selected for settlement 976 families with 5,029 dependents, of which number 21 settlers with 97 dependents are from the district of Jacques-Cartier.


PRINTING BUREAU EMPLOYEES
Mr. FOURNIER (Hull):: 1.	What are the names and addresses of all persons appointed (a) as temporary employees, and (t>) as permanent employees at the printing bureau since October 14, 1935?
2.	Who made such appointments?
3.	Who recommended them?


Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	(a) Name-Address-Duties
(1)	Wm. J. McCabe, 198 Woodbine ave., Toronto, Ont., hand compositor.

(2)	Antonio Gariepy, 44 Bolton st., Ottawa, Ont., typist, grade 1.
(3)	Marc A. Berube, 139 Notre Dame st., Hull, Que., typist, grade 1.
(4)	Laurent St. Amour, 33 Montcalm st., Hull, Que., stenographer, grade 1.
(5)	T. D. Donoghue, 141 Patterson ave., Ottawa, Ont., hand compositor.
(6)	Alfred Schingh, 338 St. Patrick st., Ottawa, Ont., labourer.
(b) None.
2.	First to fifth by civil, service commission. Sixth by the minister.
3.	First to fifth-no knowledge. Sixth-the member for Ottawa East.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. MARSHALL:: What public buildings has the dominion government erected in the province of Alberta in 1935	(a)	from	moneys chargeable	to
capital;	(b) from moneys chargeable to
income?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Return tabled herewith.


PENSION APPEAL COURT
Mr. MacNEIL:: 1.	How many appeals were pending consideration by the appeal court as at December 31,
1934,	in the following categories (a) appeals
by the crown from	quorum pensions	commission; (b) appeals of applicants from quorum	pensions	commission;	(c)	other
categories?	.
2.	How many appeals were filed with the
appeal court	during	1935, as follows	(a)appeals of the crown from the quorum pensions commission; (b) appeals of applicants from quorum	pensions	commission;	(c)	other
categories?
3.	How many appeals were heard by the
appeal court	during	1935, as follows	(a)appeals of the crown from the quorum pensions commission; (b) appeals of applicants from the quorum	pensions	commission;	(c)	othercategories?	.4.	Hoiv many appeals were allowed m 1935,as follows (a) appeals of the crown from the quorum pensions commission; (b) appeals of applicants from the quorum pensions commission; (c) other categories?	_5.	How many appeals were disallowed in1935,	as follows (a) appeals of the crown from the quorum pensions commission; (b) appeals of applicants from the quorum pensions commission; (c) other categories?6.	How many appeals were referred by theappeal court to the pensions commission in 1935 (a) appeals of the crown from the quorum pensions commission; (b) appeals of applicants from the quorum pensions commission; (c) other categories?	.7.	How many appeals were awaiting consideration by the appeal court as at December 31, 1935 (a) appeals of crown from quorum pensions commission; (b) appeals of applicants from quorum pensions commission; (c) other categories?
Canada-U. S. Trade Agreement
BROADVIEW, SASIC, POST OFFICE On the orders of the day:


Mr. E. E. PERLEY (Qu'Appelle):: I should like to ask the Postmaster General (Mr. Elliott) the reason for the delay in opening a new post office at Broadview, Saskatchewan. This very fine building was completed last November and taken over from the contractor, and the people would like to know what is the occasion for the delay in opening it.


John Campbell Elliott: This matter is within the jurisdiction of the Department of Public Works. The Post Office Department was advised by the chief architect on December 17 that a contract had been awarded for the supply and installation of interior fittings for this building, and under date of February 19 a request was made to the chief architect to ascertain when it would be possible to occupy the building. I understand that inquiries were made of whoever was in charge in the district, and that as soon as a decision has been reached my hon. friend will be advised.
ELMWOOD, MAN., POST OFFICE On the orders of the day:


Mr. A. A. HEAPS (Winnipeg North):: May I ask the Postmaster General (Mr. Elliott) when the post office at Elmwood, near Winnipeg, which is now completed, will be opened?


John Campbell Elliott: I think I can give the same answer to this as I did to the question put by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley). The building is under the jurisdiction of the Department of Public Works, and consideration is being given to the matter referred to by my hon. friend.
HAGGIS IMPORT RESTRICTIONS On the orders of the day:


Mr. W. A. FRASER (Northumberland):: I should like to direct a question expressly to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) A matter of national importance arises out of a communication I have received to-day from a prominent Canadian Citizen:
As a Scotchman born in Dumfriesshire of sheep stealing ancestors, I am passionately fond of the national dish of Scotland, namely, the haggis, and it always used to be my practice until a year or so ago to bring these out from Scotland in tins and consume them accompanied by the necessary neat Scotch whiskey.
Early last spring I was told that a permit was necessary from the Department of Agriculture of the dominion government to bring haggis into Canada-


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: Shame!


William Alexander Fraser: -and after voluminous correspondence with that department I was informed that the permit would be issued by a certain health officer in Edinburgh who looked after such things for the Canadian government.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Mr. BENNETT:: Reading this letter is highly improper.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I ask the hon. member to confine himself to putting his question.


William Alexander Fraser: My question is, what steps will the Minister of Agriculture take in order that Scotchmen in Canada may be permitted to import haggis direct from Scotland instead of its having to come from France under the present regulation? It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, a matter of national importance.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Older.


CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT PROPOSED APPROVAL SUBJECT TO LEGISLATION MAKING PROVISIONS EFFECTIVE
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, March 3, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mackenzie King:
That it is expedient that parliament do approve of the trade agreement entered into at Washington on the 15th day of November, 1935, between His Majesty's government in the Dominion of Canada, and the government of the United' States of America, and that this house do approve of the same, subject to the legislation required in order to give effect to the provisions thereof.
Mr. HARRY LEADER (Portage la Prairie):: In rising to continue the debate
on this motion the first statement I want to make is that I intend to vote for the resolution. I am doing this not because I think this agreement is the last word in reciprocal trade arrangements, but because I believe it is a step in the right direction. I believe it points the road that the nations of the world must follow if we are to regain our lost prosperity. I have listened with a great deal of interest to the speeches so far made. One thing has been made very clear to me, and that is that the Conservative party is opposed to reciprocity with the United States. Not that I had any doubt in the matter, because I took the view during the last election campaign, and expressed it, that we had no assurance of a fair trade arrangement with our great neighbour to the south if a Conservative government should be returned to power.
Canada-U. S. Trade Agreement


Mr. SPENCE:: You have got one now
that you will be sorry for.


Harry Leader: On the other hand I was
sure that if a Liberal government were returned we had reasonable assurance that we would have a trade arrangement with the United States. In view of the attitude that has been taken by members of the Conservative party, and particularly by the leader of that party, it seems to me that my attitude :at that time has been vindicated. The hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens) yesterday afternoon was frank enough to state that after serving twenty-four years with the Conservative party he never was con-winced that his party believed in reciprocity *with the United States. I am glad the hon. [DOT]member was manly enough to come out and make that statement. I want also to congratulate him on his assurance to the house :that he intends to vote for this resolution.
I have a political background that perhaps is not known to all hon. members of this house. Some may remember that I sat with the Progressive group in this house for four years.


James Houston Spence: You bet we do.


Harry Leader: A good many years
Ibefore that I had belonged to the Conservative party.


An hon. MEMBER:: Shame I


Harry Leader: I remember that when in
1911 reciprocity was an issue the Conservative party were opposed to reciprocity as they are now, and thinking I was a loyal Conservative and was doing what I thought was right by my party, I voted against -reciprocity and have regretted it ever since. (Now, lest someone should wonder why I am ^on this side of the house, I make this statement; I am over here believing that the Xiberal government intends to do something, and I want to help them. I make this further statement, that should a Liberal government not legislate in the interests of my people I shall not hesitate to vote against them. That is my position in this house. I believe in Liberal principles; I believe that the Liberal party at the present time has a wonderful opportunity to do something of real value for the Canadian people, beyond that of any party that ever succeeded to power in this country, and I believe that they will. Our hope is in the Liberal party and they will not fail us.
This afternoon we are again discussing reciprocity. The measure is introduced by the Liberal party and is again opposed by *the Conservative party. After all, it is not

what one says that amounts to very much, but rather his achievements. I am reminded of the old1 saying, "By their fruits ye shall know them." I believe the agreement will be beneficial to Canadians, and particularly to agriculture, that part of Canadian industry with which during all my life I have been identified, and with which I expect to be identified as long as I live.
May I refer particularly to the agreement as it affects the cat'tle industry. I was pleased to note that while pointing out that the agreement might prove to be disastrous to Canada, the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) admitted that it was beneficial to the cattle industry. For a moment I should like to discuss the terms of the agreement. It provides that cattle weighing over 700 pounds will be admitted into the United States at two cents per pound, which is a reduction of 33J per cent from the former rate of three cents per pound. A quota of 155,799 head is stated in connection with the shipment of these cattle. Then, there is the further provision that cattle weighing less than 175 pounds will be admitted at li cents per pound instead of 2i cents per pound, a reduction of forty per cent in the rate of duty. In that category we will be allowed to ship 51,933 head. The rate on dairy cattle weighing more than 700 pounds is reduced from three cents per pound to li cents per pound, or the equivalent of a reduction in duty of fifty per cent. Of 'that class 20,000 head will be allowed in. Last year we shipped 123,501 head of cattle to the United States market. If we fulfil our quota this year we will ship 227,732 head, or an increase over last year of 104,231 head. Surely that is a substantial margin of increase, and will go a great distance towards helping our cattle industry.
I should like to state what this will mean in dollars and cents. At one dollar per hundred pounds it would amount to $12 on a 1,200 pound animal, and less than that on one weighing less. It is estimated that the average benefit from the treaty will be $9 per head. Last year we reoeived 86,295,682 from the total number of cattle shipped to the United States. If at that time the rates of duty indicated under this agreement had been in force this would have added an extra amount of 81,111,509 to the receipts of cattle producers. This amount added to the purchasing power of the Canadian people could not help but boost industry all along the line.
But that is not the whole story, by any means. It is a well known fact that the price

Canada-U. S. Trade Agreement
we get for our domestic produce is regulated by the export price. In view of that fact I should like to refer to figures handed to me by the Department of Agriculture which indicate that we produce 2,000,000 head of cattle each year. If we multiply that figure by $9 we have a total of $18,000,000. Therein lies the real value of the agreement. We now have two outlets for our Canadian cattle. I should like to give the figures for the last ten years of shipments of cattle to the United Kingdom and the United States. They are as follows:
Calendar	Shipments to	Shipments toyears	United Kingdom	United States1926.. ..	, . . $ 79,985	$158,2951927.. ..	, .. 8,263	283,004192S.. ..	. . . 405	242,3541929.. ..	250.5361930.. ..	. .. 5,400	54,7161931.. .,	. .. 27,149	24,5897932.. ..	, .. 16,568	12.8651933.. .,	. .. 50,317	5,7341934.. ..	. .. 53,953	6,5671935.. ..	. .. 6,704	123,501
It appears that prior to 1930 our best market was in the United States, but during the last five years it has been in the United Kingdom. To-day we have these two markets to which we may ship our cattle-a very welcome improvement, so far as cattle producers are concerned. An alternative market adds to the stability and guarantees a fair price. May I read a portion of a communication I received from the Department of Agriculture:
The most recent development in the cattle industry is a revival of interest in Canadian cattle on the part of a number of importing firms in the United Kingdom. Six boats have been booked, having a total capacity of approximately 3,000 cattle and two boats have left the port of Saint John for British ports. The cattle situation in the old country is such that a scarcity of good fresh beef is expected and the market there is for the first time in almost a year returning to an export basis for Canada.
This agreement offers us a better opportunity to get into the United States market. The result is that we have not only the market in the United Kingdom but also the great market to the south of us to which we may ship our cattle. Although the cattle industry has suffered grievously, it would appear that brighter prospects are ahead. May I quote further from the letter from the Department of Agriculture:
The most disturbing factor in the present situation in the domestic market is the tendency to liquidate heavy supplies of unfinished cattle, cattle that are neither good nor common, but of in-between quality and a distinct loss to the producer, since the cost of such stock last fall when put in stables was as high or higher than such quality stock has been realizing during past week.
That is what I mean, Mr. Speaker. It adds stability to have this alternative market and
to be able to ship either to the United States or to the United Kingdom, whichever market is the more favourable. Anyone who has been engaged in the cattle industry knows that you do not make much money out of an animal unless it is fat, and when we have an unstable market the tendency is to get rid of beasts when they are only half fat, instead of fattening them up and thereby getting the maximum return.
While our market in the United Kingdom is very valuable, our natural market is with our neighbours to the south. At the present time, when you take into account the duty, the price of our cattle entering the United States is about on a par with the price in the old country, but transportation charges to the United Kingdom are so much heavier that for all time I think we shall have to rely mainly on the United States market. I have before me a few figures in regard to transportation charges. It costs approximately $26 including duty to ship a 1,000 pound beast from Winnipeg to St. Paul in the United States, and it costs in the neighbourhood of $30 to ship a
1,000	pound beast from Winnipeg to Glasgow or Birkenhead in the old country. There is also the danger of shrinkage in shipping to the United Kingdom market. It is a well known fact that cattle shipped to the old country very often shrink; in fact, the shrinkage often takes away all the gain that would otherwise accrue to the shipper.
As I said a few moments ago, the market at the present time is not so good, but under the stimulus of this treaty we are increasing our shipments of cattle to the United States. From January 1 of this year to date we have shipped 21,220 head of cattle to the United States as compared with 9,802 head for the same period of last year. At this point I should like to say to the government that I believe the time will come when it will be necessary to regulate our shipments of cattle to the United States so that we shall not use up all our quota in the first two or three months of the year, because to do so would work a great hardship on those who had not their cattle fattened in time and must therefore hold back and lose the benefit of shipping to the United States to the extent of the quota stated in the agreement.
I should like to say a word with regard to the quality of our products. If we are going to gain and hold a market in the United States or anywhere else we must produce what the trade demands, and I would submit to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), whom I see in his seat, that great care should be taken by the government to see that the quality of our cattle is improved. I say "improved," because at the present time they

Canada-U. S. Trade Agreement
are not of as good quality as we should like to see. I heard the statement made at Brandon this winter, that the quality of cattle coming into the Manitoba market at St. Boniface has decreased forty per cent within the last ten years, and there is a reason for that. During these years of the depression farmers have more or less lost their morale and become somewhat indifferent; they have allowed their cattle to depreciate in quality. I would point out, however, that we can improve the quality of our cattle only by using good sires, and I would like to see the government undertake to do for the cattle producers of this country something along the lines followed in Great Britain and Ireland, where they have developed a better sire policy that has proven its worth in those lands. We have in operation in Manitoba and also in the dominion what are called bull loaning policies, but since the dominion government has undertaken to go into that line of work Manitoba has discontinued that policy.
Without appearing prejudiced or wishing to boost any particular breed1 of cattle I want to submit some figures which I think will be significant at least to cattlemen, and I hope they will cause some thought on the part of our Canadian officials. I love a good beast irrespective of breed. When a person speaks of beef cattle one immediately thinks of three outstanding beef breeds: the Shorthorn, the Hereford and the Aberdeen Angus. It does not matter to me what breed the animal is, so long as he is of the correct type, short legged, thick fleshed, deep bodied, the early maturing kind, the kind that will produce the best market animal. That is the sire one should buy irrespective of breed.
Now I want to give some figures in regard to the number of beef bulls that have been loaned in Manitoba from 1929 to 1932. The numbers were two hundred' and fifteen Shorthorns, twenty-seven Herefords, and eleven Aberdeen Angus. Let me give the numbers of the beef bulls that have been loaned for breeding purposes by the dominion Department of Agriculture, and I may say that these figures were handed to me just recently by officials of that department. In the last four or five years it has loaned one hundred and sixty-eight Shorthorn bulls, seventy-one Herefords, and six Aberdeen Angus. I think, Mr. Speaker, that this situation is worthy of very careful thought on the part of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) and the officials of his department. I am not going into details in regard to the bull loaning policy, but I have the idea that the farmer himself should be allowed to choose the breed that he wants, the bull he thinks it will be

in his best interests to use. I also think the government should step in and provide a bonus to the purchaser of that animal, not to the man who sells it; they should give the purchaser a bonus with the animal he buys. There should also be a bull grading system, and the man who buys an outstanding animal under that system should receive the larger bonus. The animals should be graded No. 1, No. 2 and No. 3, and in no case should any bull that is graded below No. 3 be put up for sale for breeding purposes; it should be marketed, via the stock yards.
Perhaps some hon. members have not been very much interested in what I have had to say, but to mie it is a very interesting subject and I am very glad to have had this opportunity to say a word in the House of Commons for the people whom I represent; especially am I glad that I have been able to say something in the interests of agriculture and on behalf of our stock raisers in particular.
In closing, I should like in supporting this resolution to offer my congratulations to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) upon his splendid efforts and success in securing the present trade agreement. It is more than a trade agreement; it is the hand of friendship extended to a nation that is our kin. It is an invitation to other nations of the world to trade more freely with each other and forget their economic wars.
Mr. J. R. MacNICOL- (Davenport): Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. Leader) has followed in the wake of other hon. gentlemen, especially those opposite, in supporting the resolution before the house. He was very careful to avoid any reference to the agreement being beneficial or otherwise in connection with the best market that the primary producers of Canada have, the market represented by the purchasing power of 1,000,000 workers employed in the industries of Canada. I do not include in this category the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning). I believe they are both honest in their convictions, but it would appear that the Minister of Finance has a card up his sleeve in the shape of probable changes which may be made in the intermediate tariff when the budget is brought down. If that card were thrown on the table where we could see it, it would perhaps change the tenor of some of our remarks. I intend to deal with the agreement as it is now before the house and not consider it from the point of view of any changes which may come later.

Canada-U. S. Trade Agreement
Before dealing with the agreement, I should like to congratulate my right hon. leader (Mr. Bennett) upon the clear statement he made to this house. I understand he stated that he could have concluded an agreement like this, but in his opinion such an agreement would be disastrous to the people of Canada, I congratulate the leader of the Conservative party upon having the courage to refuse to accept such an agreement, even though the acceptance of the agreement might have returned him as prime minister of this country. The Prime Minister referred to the historic policy of this party as being one of retaliation. I always like to go back into history as far as possible, and I have before me a photograph of the original draft of the national policy as drawn by Sir John A. Macdonald w-hen he attended a convention at Shaftesbury Hall, Toronto, in January, 1878. I should like to read three resolutions adopted at that convention, as follows:
1.	They are satisfied that the welfare of Canada requires the adoption of a national financial policy, which by a judicious readjustment of the tariff, will benefit and foster the agricultural, mining and manufacturing interests of the dominion.
2.	That no such readjustment will be satisfactory to the interests affected, or to the country, if adopted as a provisional means only -to meet a temporary exigency, or to supply a temporary deficit-nor unless it is made and carried out as a national policy.
3.	That until a reciprocity of trade is established with our neighbours, Canada should move in the direction of a reciprocity of tariffs, so far as her varied interests may demand.
That shows that the statement that the national policy was one of retaliation is not founded on fact. The Conservative party has not used the national policy to prevent beneficial trade with the United States. The Prime Minister also said something about not being able to negotiate for other commodities. The inference in that remark is quite clear; he was referring to the Ottawa agreements. I believe the Prime Minister mentioned coal, and in this connection I should like to read a short report of a speech made by Mrs. Mitchell F. Hepburn, the wife of the Premier of Ontario, at a meeting of the Toronto Women's Liberal Association, held in Toronto on October 25, 1934, as follows:
Mrs. Hepburn stressed the matter of trade with the United States, and interpreted Mr. Roosevelt's statement that no trade agreement would be made with Canada until after a general election as meaning that "we cannot have fair exchange with the United States until Bennett is out of office." She deplored the unnecessary expense in bringing coal from
eastern and western Canada to Ontario when Ontario might have freer exchange with the nearest point to the south. "Is there anything wrong with having freer exchange of Canadian wheat and United States cotton? There is stagnation in lumber and pulpwood industry in northern Ontario. Why not freer exchange of these products for iron and steel of the United States?" she queried.
If these remarks outline the objective of such an agreement as this, I doubt very much whether hon. members representing Alberta and Nova Scotia will endorse the doing away with the use of Nova Scotia coal in central Ontario and of Alberta coal in Manitoba. Canada has unlimited deposits of soft coal which could be used to great advantage in Ontario. I put in blowers for soft coal in four buildings and I have cut my coal bill in two. I believe it would be good policy for the government to advocate the bringing in of soft coal from Alberta and Nova Scotia. Where coal must be brought in from outside, the government should encourage the use of coal from Wales. This method would not allow coal to interfere with the British markets.
In connection with the British agreements, I should like to refer briefly to The Monthly Bulletin published by the Canadian chamber of commerce in Great Britain. In the September, 1935 issue it is stated that in the British market Canada holds first place in wheat, third in barley, first in oats, first in wheat flour, second in total grain and flour, second in cattle, second in bacon, second in hams, fifth in total meats, fifth in cheese, thirteenth in total dairy products, second in apples, fourth in canned salmon, first in lobsters, second in unmanufactured tobacco, first in copper, second in hides, second in unwrought copper, second in pig lead, first in total nonferrous metals, third in machinery, fourth in total manufactures of wood and timber, first in patent leather, second in newsprint, fourth in paper, and first in rubber manufactures. If we are to infer from what the Prime Minister said that when the British agreements are up for renewal, drastic changes will be made, I for one have grave fears of Canada continuing to hold her place in the British market.
I should like to refer briefly to what Canada gives away by this agreement. I shall not spend any time in telling the house what Canada obtains by the agreement-and there are some good features-as my hon. friends opposite can do that.
1.	Canada gives the intermediate tariff on a large number of American articles.
2.	There is a reduction of 2J per cent in the duty of motor cars valued under 31,200.
3.	There is a reduction of 7J per cent on motor cars valued at more than 31,200.
Canada-U. S. Trade Agreement

On the higher priced cars the reduction is 10 per cent.
4.	The existing tariff on fruits and vegetables is slashed by 10 per cent to 15 per cent.
5.	The duty on practically all agricultural implements is cut in half.
6.	We have promised to abolish special valuations for duty purposes.
7.	Canada gives specific reductions on sixty-eight items.
8.	Canada allows free entry on twenty items now dutiable.
9.	Canada guarantees not to increase the intermediate tariff on seventy-seven items.
10.	Canada guarantees not to impose duties on fifteen items now duty free.
11.	Canada will allow Canadian tourists to bring back $100 worth of goods from the United States.
12.	There is also the favoured nation treatment which will apply also to twenty-nine other countries.
We had a dose of this kind of medicine between 1921 and 1926, when the government of the present Prime Minister reduced duties in the sessions of 1922, 1923, 1924 and later in 1925. What was the result? The Prime Minister will remember that a large delegation of manufacturers came here on September 4, 1924, and submitted figures to show that as a direct result of these several slashes in the tariff there was a net loss to Canada of 417 industries which closed their doors and threw their men on the labour market. Do we want another dose of that kind of medicine? Speaking as one who ought to know a little about industry and labour, if years at it count for anything, I intend to prove that many of the schedules are a menace to employment of workers throughout Canada.
Let me divide the iron and steel industries into ten subdivisions, taking the figures of 1929-30, the last years during which the Liberal party was in power prior to the election of 1930. I give the list: blooms and billets; castings and forgings; pipes, tubes and fittings; wire; boilers and engines; hardware and cutlery; machinery (not farm); tools and stampings; vehicles; sundry items.
In the year 1929-30 Canada imported from outside countries $278,000,000 worth of these lines of goods. Canadian industries, had they been given an opportunity to manufacture these goods, could and would have manufactured not less than $100,000,000 worth of them. It was because of the decline in the productivity of industries in Canada that the last Liberal government was defeated in 1930; the country had gotten into such a state as a result of the effect of its policies

on industry throughout Canada, thousands of men being out of work, that the workers in 1929 were begging that government to go to the country; and w'hen that government did appeal to the electorate it was thoroughly defeated. The leader of the Conservative party, when he came into power, reversed that policy. I am very much surprised at the way some hon. gentlemen opposite talk; they certainly cannot be familiar with what industry in Canada achieved under the Conservative government, for I make this statement without fear of successful contradiction, that Canada's position would have been infinitely worse than it actually was during the last four or five years had it not been for the tariff of the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett. I made a survey of a great number of these industries and I know. The tariff structure erected by the leader of the opposition when he was prime minister resulted in bringing into Canada 135 new industries which began to manufacture goods many of which had never theretofore been produced in this country. Those industries occupy
5,000,000 square feet of floor space, have invested in them $40,000,000, and employ 10,000 employees; and in addition to that, hundreds of other established industries employing from
80,000	to 90,000 more men were kept in motion in old lines, making goods that would not have been manufactured had it not been for that Conservative tariff policy.
The former prime minister, I know, received from industrial workers of Canada unbounded credit for what he did, and that was very well reflected in the last federal election in the cities that early benefited from that tariff policy-Toronto, which elected nine Conservatives out of eleven members; Hamilton, two out of two, or rather three out of three, taking the county; and St. Catharines and London, all of which profited considerably by the Conservative tariff.


Mr. YOUNG:: If the hon. gentleman will
look around him in the house he will see what the real result was.


Mr. MacNICOL:: Well, if the hon. gentleman's party continues in the policy it is now pursuing, the membership of the next parliament will reflect the views of the people regarding that policy.
Let me now take up certain schedules one at a time, as rapidly as I can. The first item I look at is 184d. The new arrangement wipes out the duty on United States magazines. The late government placed on magazines coming from the United States a duty that had the effect of having printed in Canada about fifty of these American publications.

Canada-U. S. Trade Agreement
This resulted in giving employment in various companies to approximately 250 printers and other workers. It resulted in bringing into Canada, from Chicago two plants which operated in Toronto, making ink too, and in which some fifty workers were employed. In other words, the printing industry, backed up by the tariff imposed by the leader of the opposition, then prime minister, resulted in providing directly 300 new jobs, with a monthly payroll of $40,000, and the government received some $6,000 per month in postage from mailing the magazines. I cannot understand1 how hon. gentlemen on the opposite side who are familiar with that situation can denounce legislation that brings about such results.
Coming now to the iron and steel industry,
I take item 378b, bars and rods, not further processed than hammered or pressed. The duty has been reduced from 30 to 25 per cent. The next item, 380, is steel plates, flanged, dished, curved, hot rolled, which has been reduced from 30 to 25 per cent. This will result in a good deal of steel equipment being brought into the country, flanged, dished and curved by the great American plants, so that American workmen will receive that much extra labour in addition to the manufacture of raw steel plates. The next item is 381b, sheets of iron or steel. The reduction has been from $7 to $6 a ton, and that will certainly help the Belgian steel makers of the European cartel; but it will not help the steel makers in Sydney, Nova Scotia or in Sault Ste. Marie or Hamilton. It will mean a harder time for Canadians to keep their plants in operation. Item 382d is cold rolled hoop steel and 383d, 383e, 383f and 383g all have reference to a line of equipment the making of which has recently begun in Canada. A short time ago I went to see the plant in operation in Hamilton and as a Canadian I was greatly pleased to see fellow Canadians making this new line of equipment. In my opinion it is tough on the men who have invested money in these steel plants, which have given work to Canadians, and much tougher still on the men engaged in these plants, to find themselves with the possibility of being thrown out of work. Undoubtedly these plants will be affected to the extent that the reduction in the tariff makes curtailment inevitable. In the last three items we have reductions from 15 to Yl\ per cent; from 25 to 20 per cent; and from 25 to 20 per cent. Take item 387, railway rails, which are made in Sydney, Nova Scotia and in Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario. The tariff has been reduced from $7 to $6 per ton. Every man in this house knows that the steel
mills in Sydney, Nova Scotia, and Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, have had a hard struggle during the last few years, and I for one cannot understand why the government, now that these mills are beginning to find things a little better, should reduce the duty on rails from $7 to $6 a ton. I feel that the men working in these plants have a grievance against the government as a result of this item in the schedule. The same applies to item 387a, covering railway fish plates and so on. A list of steel mills and forging shops in Canada deal with those items, and these factories will be affected proportionately because of the reduction in duty from $8 to $7 per ton. Then the rate under item 388c, covering iron and steel beams, not punched, is reduced from 17i per cent to 12i per cent. Recently, Mr. Speaker, the steel mills of Siault Ste. Marie commenced to roll beams in additional smaller sizes. This line is new industry in Canada, and should be encouraged to continue to roll wider beams and give work to more men instead of having the tariff reduced in this way. I might say the same with regard to item 388d, which covers iron and steel angles and channels, on which the duty has been reduced from 40 per cent to 35 per cent, and with regard to item 350, covering wire of all metals and kinds, under which the rate has been reduced from 35 per cent to 30 per cent. In the town of Waterloo, Quebec, they have a very good wire mill, I am told, and in addition there are large mills in Montreal, Hamilton and Toronto.
Before going further, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that I am not referring to the western provinces simply because I have not made a survey of the towns and cities of the west from an industrial standpoint. Therefore I am not qualified to state what mills out there, if there are any, of this kind are affected as the mills of the east are.
Then item 312 refers to asbestos. We have by far the largest asbestos deposits in the world, but, being a very small consuming country, the asbestos is not manufactured into finished products to the extent one might expect. People have been getting into that business, however, and mills in Montreal and elsewhere have been manufacturing asbestos into pipe coverings and that sort of thing. The men working in these plants will be affected by the reduction in the duty on asbestos from 25 per cent to 22i per cent. Then we have item 388, covering iron or steel angles, beams and so forth, on which the duty is not changed. Item 392 covers forgings. We have very fine forging mills in Belleville and Guelph, Ontario, two of the smaller cities of the province, and in


Mr. DEACHMAN:: Where does the hon.
member get his 800,000 families?


John Ritchie MacNicol: That is the number in
industry.


Robert John Deachman: Figures show that in
1933 there were only 493,903 employees in Canadian industry.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The hon. member can
speak when I have finished. I heard him the other night. I refer to his own county-or rather the county he represents-to show what industry means, as compared with the county of Waterloo. The county of Huron has an acreage of 830,000; the county of Waterloo
330,000.	The assessed value of Huron county is $41,000,000, of Waterloo county $31,000,000. In Huron county there are approximately 180 small and large factories; in Waterloo, 400. That is reflected in the sums invested, being only $6,000,000 in Huron in contrast with $90,000,000 in Waterloo. There is a corresponding difference in the number of workers, 1,500 in Huron as compared with
20,000	in Waterloo. Of course these figures are for some years back. Wages in Huron totalled $1,200,000 as against $22,000,000 in Waterloo. That is what industry does for a county; if there were twice as many industrial plants in Huron the farm values of the county would be much higher than they are. No one would claim that the higher assessed value of land in Waterloo is owing to any higher quality in the land itself. It is clear evidence of what industry does for the farmers.
I checked the prices of farm produce in the two main towns of Huron, Goderich and Clinton, as compared with prices in the two main towns of Waterloo county, Kitchener and Galt, on the same day, and I found that Kitchener and Galt prices averaged 25 to 50 per cent, and in some cases 100 per cent higher than in Huron. Why is that? It is because of the larger percentage of men working in industry in Waterloo.
I wish now to give some idea of what the United States does for its industries. In this house there are many who denounce industry at every opportunity; they cannot denounce industry without denouncing the men working in industry, nor can they denounce the employer without also denouncing the employed. We do not find it so in the United States. In considering this agreement I recall what took place in England in 1843-44 when
Wheat.. 12739-49

Canada-U. S. Trade Agreement

the then Mr. Disraeli opposed his own leader, Sir Robert Peel, in the introduction of free trade. He said:	'	.
We will admit into the home market, at reduced rates, the corn, hemp, and tallow of the northern powers,-
Meaning Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, and so forth.
-provided they will reduce, in equal proportion, the duties which they now levy on our cutlery and hardware.
That is the situation here. By this agreement the United States, according to the speeches of hon. gentlemen opposite, allow a certain amount of our raw products to enter their country, but in exchange for that they receive the right to ship into this country millions of dollars worth of manufactured goods. This will result in displacing from employment thousands of men engaged in industry in this country.
On April 29, 1934, United States Senator Glass introduced a bill to amend the Federal Reserve Act, section 13, with the object of encouraging industry by providing for loans to industry. We have had no such proposition in this country. The bill provided that:
In exceptional circumstances, when it appears to the satisfaction of a federal reserve bank that an established industrial or commercial business located in its district is unable to obtain requisite financial assistance on a reasonable basis from the usual sources, the Federal Reserve Bank, pursuant to authority granted by the Federal Reserve Board, may make loans to, or purchase obligations of, such business, ...
This is encouragement to business. In this proposed agreement also the United States are encouraging their own business. The whole American plan has been to encourage industry. Their industrial market, as the result of the encouragement of industry, is the greatest market they have, just as in this country the greatest market for the farmer is the home industrial market. In considering any agreement with other countries, such as Japan and the other twenty-nine countries that come under this same agreement, consideration should be given to the wages paid to the Canadian worker in comparison with the wages paid to the foreign worker. I find that in Japan the silk throwers receive 2-2 cents per hour, cotton spinners 2-2 cents, cotton weavers, 1-9 cents, hosiery knitters, 4-2 cents, glass makers, 4-9 cents, potters, 5 cents, shoe makers 5-1 cents and founders 6'3 cents. Compare those rates with the wages paid in Canada. How can the industrial worker in the textile, shoemaking or hosiery plants in Canada compete with labour wages of that kind?


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: The hon. member has spoken forty minutes.


Mr. J. G. TURGEON (Cariboo):: I could not rise for the first time to address the house without first saying a word to His Honour the Speaker who has been given authority to preside over the destinies of the House of Commons. I would speak in this connection particularly since it has been my privilege to have had his honour's friendship for some years. Naturally my remarks to-day will be in English, not only because ' English is the language of my every-day life and, therefore, of my thoughts, but because essentially it is the language of my constituency and of the province from which I come. At the same time, not merely for the sake of saying a few words in the two official languages but in order that I may pay a tribute to His Honour the Speaker, I crave the indulgence of the house to speak briefly in the language which is particularly his own and that of the province from which he comes, the language which his ancestors and certain of my ancestors brought to this country hundreds of years ago, the language which has given so much to the literature and to the social and political life of Canada and, if I may add a purely personal tone, the language which my own elderly father took with him from the old province of Quebec when as a young man he went to my native province of New Brunswick. It is the language which during the last thirty-five or thirty-six years he has used in this chamber on many occasions.
(Translation): I wish to extend to the hanr-ourable Speaker my sincerest congratulations on the occasion of his election to the exalted and responsible office which he now occupies. I also wish to congratulate the house for having chosen to preside over its deliberations a man whose tact, learning and parliamentary experience assure him of a splendid career in the speaker's chair.
(Text): May I preface my remarks cm. the subject of reciprocity by saying a word or two with reference to the first minister of Canada (Mr. Mackenzie King). Speaking last week on this subject the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett), in his condemnation of the agreement made on behalf of Canada by the Prime Minister, brought before us an image of the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier refusing to accept an offer of reciprocity from the United States because he thought it militated against the interests of Canadian producers and industry. It is true that the name of Laurier is one which may be conjured with in this house and country, but I must say that it is not one the image of which may effectively be brought before us by the very people who

Canada-U. S. Trade Agreement
hounded him throughout his life and eventually sacrificed him because of their pretended patriotism and their grasping greed for political power. It was in connection with this very question of freer trade with the United States that Sir Wilfrid Laurier in 1911 met his defeat.
In appreciation of the Prime Minister of to-day may I say that in bringing before Canada an opportunity once more to accept the privileges of a reciprocal agreement with the United States he is treading on hallowed ground, ground hallowed by the sufferings and struggles, and eventually, by the sacrifice of the great past chieftain of the Liberal party, Sir Wilfrid Laurier. On behalf not only of myself but of the people in the great constituency I have the honour and privilege of representing in this chamber I wish to pay the Prime Minister our hearty and cordial respects for what he has done. He has given us an opportunity for a greater degree of material prosperity than we have had in the last five or six years. But by the manner in which he brought about this reciprocal agreement he has done something more than that for the Canadian people. He has restored to people of Canada that confidence, that faith in their fellowmen and that belief in the institutions of government which during the last four or five years they had been losing, but which has now returned.
As I listened to the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) who has just taken his seat, two points were developed with which I think I ought to deal. He said that hon. members ought to accept the statement by the leader of the opposition that he had had an opportunity of making an agreement similar to the one before us, but that in the interests of Canada he refused to make it. I would be more ready to accept that statement if during the election campaign the right hon. gentleman opposite, the then Prime Minister, had made that statement publicly. I come from a district the very development of which demands an agreement of this kind and demands a market for its natural' products. Throughout the riding we were told, from meeting to meeting, that ail we had to do was to wait until election day had passed and Canada would have a reciprocal agreement with the United States.
The other statement made by the hon. member for Davenport to which I shall pay a little attention was that when we talked about the benefits to be received by Canadian producers through the operation of the agreement, we were not taking into consideration the trade they would lose by reason of lack 12739-49J
of ability to deal with the woodsmen of this country. I have before me a communication dealing with this matter which, with permission of the house, I shall read. Before reading it, however, on behalf of myself and the people in that part of northern British Columbia which I represent may I say a word to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) in appreciation of the efforts he has exercised on our behalf not only in connection with negotiating this agreement but in connection with everything else that has come before the government since he entered the cabinet formed by the first minister.
The telegram is adressed to me by the Prince George Spruce Manufacturers Association, a group which the hon. member for Davenport will no doubt admit has something to do with lumber and woodsmen. It is in these words:	.
J. G. Turgeon, M.P.,
Ottawa, Ont.
Reciprocity treaty with United States best thing that has happened to northern British Columbia lumber industry in many years. Prior to imposition of American tariff this district shipping eighty per cent to United states operated fifteen sawmills employing at least 2,500 men cutting 120,000,000 feet payroll about $2,000,000. Following imposition tariff this shrunk year by year until only five mills operated employing about 500 men. Fall has seen marked improvement price and shipment volume and definite plans for this year call for operation ten mills with prospects of more and' with greater scale operations for mills which operated last year.
Log scale and employment should be at least double last year's with considerable additional employment in railway and other auxiliary services. Additional employment should take care of most employable relief cases in sawmill area. Possibly best feature of treaty is that it permits shipment to States of low grade lumber for crating, et cetera, which could not be shipped under four dollar tariff, and which was formerly dumped on prairie at ruinously low prices depressing that market. This association has no political bias and is glad to commend any government action which helps our industry. The reciprocity agreement has been definitely helpful.
Prince George Spruce Manufacturers Association.
In addition to the lumber industry in that great portion of northern British Columbia we have that very important cattle industry which permeates every -part of northern British Columbia and finds its way into the great Peace River district, which is partly in Cariboo and partly in Alberta. During the last few years the voice of the Peace River district has made itself heard in this house, on many occasions, always I think complaining of injustices because of action or lack of action by governments in the past. The voice of the Peace River district has been heard all
Canada-V. S. Trade Agreement

over the north American continent, and even across the ocean in Great Britain and part of Europe, crying to the world for settlement of its fertile and productive soil, and I am glad to-day, Mr. Speaker, speaking on behalf of the great cattle raising and agri-* cultural industry of Cariboo, to read in connection with this trade agreement a few telegrams of approval that I have received with respect to the reciprocity treaty now before the house. The first is from Dawson Creek, B.C., signed by W. S. Bullen, president of the Peace River Block Live Stock Breeding and Feeding Association. It says:
Peace River Live Stock Breeding and Feeding Association unanimously approve reciprocity agreement. Same vital to live stock industry of this northern district which is most important source of profit. Will supply outlet for live stock and secure means assisting this country return to prosperity. Dawson Creek centre very heavy shipments hogs and cattle but heavily grained cattle being sold at loss to feeders.
W. S. Bullen, President.
I have another one signed by the board of trade of Fort St. John, which is the centre of all that part of northern British Columbia lying north of the Peace river, and which only awaits action such as this agreement and other action that parliament can take, to bring it to the prosperity that will ultimately come to it. The telegram reads:
At special meeting Fort St. John board of trade the following resolution was unanimously passed, that this board of trade wire J. G. Turgeon, M.P., expressing its support of reciprocity trade treaty in general.
D. P. McKay, Secretary, Fort St. John Board' of Trade.
I have another telegram from Fort St. John, reading as follows:
Peace River Block Farmers endorse reciprocal trade agreement between the United States and Canada.
J. W. Abbott, President,
Peace River Block Farmers Institute.
I do not intend to spend much more time upon this question, because I think these messages, not from individuals, but from reliable associations of producers express better than I can their appreciation and commendation of the action of the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada and his colleagues in negotiating this treaty with the United States. There are, however, one or two observations that I should like to make.
I have heard it said in the house, as have other hon. members-and it is but a repetition of the argument that was so destructive of the reciprocity pact in 1911-that we must be careful forever to maintain our east and west trade channel which has built up this

Canada of ours, and that we must be perpetually upon our guard against even commencing on a north and south trade channel. That is the argument which has been underlying the whole economic policy of Canada practically ever since confederation, or at least since 1878 when the national policy of Sir John A. Macdonald was introduced. All Canada has heard the complaints from British Columbia and Alberta with reference to injustices in the freight rate structure of Canada. Let me ask you this, Mr. Speaker: If there are injustices in our freight rate structure, are not those injustices based upon that very element of our economic policy which says that we must forever maintain our traffic in an east and west channel? But this Canada of ours is a country which extends not only from the Atlantic to the Pacific, but north and south. Many portions of this dominion are but thinly populated, and there has been built up, by a combination of unconscionably high tariffs linked together with that very element of our economic policy which says that we must maintain our trade in a channel running east and west, a concentration of industry at a few points in Ontario and Quebec, with the result that we have that unjust and unholy accumulation of wealth against which the whole country is crying to-day.
We can look for many causes; we can trace many of the steps that have been taken by these few men in Canada who control the accumulated productive wealth of the country, but the most potent cause of all is the undue protection that has been given by high tariffs to our secondary industries, coupled with our freight rate structure and that element of our economic policy which says that forever we must maintain our channel of trade east and west, and that everything that is produced and required in the maritime provinces down by the Atlantic, and everything that is produced and required in the far western provinces, on the prairies and in British Columbia, must find its way to and from those central points where the secondary industries are established' in those central portions of Canada. I am not saying anything against secondary industries, but I believe this Canada of ours was meant by providence for primary production, and that our secondary industries should be built upon the success of our primary industries. But because of that, combination of circumstances to which I have referred, unconscionably high tariffs and the freight rate structure, we have seen our secondary industries prosper out of all proportion to our primary industries. No one objects to our secondary industries

Canada-U. S. Trade Agreement
prospering, but we do object to their prospering through the strangling of our primary producers.
I well remember that immediately following the election of 1911-and in that election campaign we were told that we must maintain our east and west trade channel and must beware of starting traffic north and1 south-at the very first session of parliament the government, supported by the present leader of the opposition, did two things almost by the same instrument. First, they caused the death of a motion that was presented to the House of Commons asking that the congestion of traffic in hauling grain from the prairie provinces to Fort William-it will be remembered there was a serious congestion in the year 1911-12- be relieved by lowering t'he freight rate from the prairies to the Pacific coast. The killing of that motion was followed almost immediately by an announcement by the then Minister of Trade and Commerce, the late Sir George Foster, that he had arranged with the United States Interstate Commerce Commission for a reduction of freight rates on Canadian grain passing over American railroads to American ports for shipment to Great Britain and Europe. That was within three months of the time when the reciprocity agreement negotiated by Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Mr. Fielding in 1911 had been defeated by the same cry that has been raised in the house during this debate, that we must beware of north and south channels of trade.
Let me ask a question with relation to this very cry. Before long the house will be giving consideration to possible means of increasing the tourist traffic; we shall be doing everything within our power to bring tourists from the United States to Canada. The former Minister of Railways, Mr. Manion, has stated that a properly organized tourist traffic would bring into Canada from one to two billions of new money. If every time we think of trading with the United States we are told that we must not have any traffic north and south, how can we encourage tourist traffic? I represent a constituency in the great undeveloped and fertile section of northern British Columbia. If we cannot have a traffic north and south, how can we bring in tourists to that great area? How can we do anything to advance the development of that part of British Columbia if we must always be on our guard against opening up, even to the least degree, channels of traffic running north and south instead of east and west? On behalf of the people of northern British Columbia, and especially those who live in the far reaches of the Peace river, I want to see something done to break the grip of certain interests
in this country. I want to see channels of trade opened up to the north and south. Wealth has been concentrated in the hands of a very few and I want to see something done to break the grip which that concentration of wealth has upon the whole of Canada. I believe the greatest step that could be taken has been taken by this government by the introduction of this reciprocity agreement. I desire to commend the right hon. the Prime Minister and his colleagues upon the action they have taken. I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and through you, the house, for the patience and courtesy it has shown me in listening to my first attempt to address it.


Mr. T. A. THOMPSON (Lanark):: The hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Turgeon) has said a great deal about traffic north and south, but I want to say to him and to the house that I do not think there was ever in Canada a government that was not quite willing to have trade move north and south so long as the benefits of that trade were mutual and so long as it w'as evenly balanced. I do not believe there is any question about the principle of the agreement before us at the present time. It meets with geineral approval and it is only a waste of time to talk about trade north and south. We as Canadians are willing to trade wherever trade is beneficial. I do not think objections will be taken to trading with any country so long as the benefits accruing from that trade are evenly balanced. We must bear in mind that the channels of trade between Canada and the United States were not closed by Canada; they were blocked almost completely by the tariffs and restrictions placed upon Canadian exports by the government at Washington.
The question before the house is whether Canada is being justly compensated for what she is giving. Are we receiving fair treatment in this agreement? After examining the agreement I have arrived at the conclusion that the concessions received by Canada are altogether inadequate to reimburse her for the concessions she is making to the United States. A comparison of the terms of this agreement with those of our trade with the United States between 1913 and 1921, when our agricultural products entered that country free, will show how paltry are the advantages we are receiving. It is quite true that the President of the United States was authorized to reduce tariffs by only fifty per cent, but in the ease of many items vital to the trade of Canada we do not get a fifty per cent reduction. In many cases the same commodities entered the United States between 1913 and 1921 free of duty. We have received on cattle, on lumber and on grass seed some concessions
Canada-U. S. Trade Agreement


Mr. J. J. KINLEY (Queens-Lunenburg):: The resolution before the house asks our approval of the Canada-United States agreement. A perusal of that agreement reveals at once how complex and intricate a modern trade agreement is, both in its general terms and in the schedules of the tariff items. In its .preparation considerable skill, experience and technical knowledge is required. It always has .been the pride of leaders in our country to try their hands at trade agreements with foreign countries. I think we can agree that this time the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mackenzie King) rose to the occasion and that he and his associates have brought to parliament an agreement which will be in the interests of the people of this country. He grasped the opportunity as it presented itself; he made an agreement quickly and effectively, and that is perhaps one of the
things that appeals most to the people of this country This agreement must face the ordinary hazards of business when it becomes part of the law of the country. Some people will say it is a good agreement for the United States and others will say it is eminently in the interests of Canada. Let us hope it will be in the interests of both countries; that must be so if we are to have any permanent benefit from it.
The other day the hon. member for Dufferia-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) said there was no sentiment in business. As a business man of some experience let me say that in my opinion there is a good deal of sentiment in business, and I believe it is well for every business main to recognize that fact. We all like to think that we are logical, but no one knows better than public men that when sentiment is appealed to logic takes second place. I heard the hon. gentleman say there was no sentiment in business; I could tell, however, from the tenor of his remarks that he was a past master in sentiment, and that he used it yell for his own benefit on the hustings when appealing for election. I believe this idea that there is no sentiment in business had its origin in. the philosophy of law, with people who only have to do with business when it becomes unhealthy, when friendship ceases, and there can be no dealings of any kind. The sentiment that we require at this time, however, is the good will that has been so ably portrayed by the Prime Minister in his speeches aud actions.
This modern agreement makes provision for almost eveiy eventuality; it contains conditions that never before were considered necessary in a trade agreement. For example there is a provision for exchange; it deals with the value of our money, so there will be no inequalities in this regard. There is provision also that we may carry on properly the marketing of our products with no outside interference. The agreement provides against low wages to labour; it considers our morals and our health in their relation to trade, and finally the escape clauses provide a method of retreat, if it should prove disadvantageous to Canada.
Our trade agreements come close to our people. We hear very little from those who benefit, but those who are hurt talk loudly. I was anxious, as I know we were all anxious, to hear what the right hon. leader of the apposition (Mr. Bennett) would have to say. From his experience and his position in the house we expected him to say the worst, and we knew that when he was through we would have heard the most that could be said
Canada-U. S. Trade Agreement

against this agreement. After listening to his two hour speech may I say that in my opinion the members of this house and the country generally were more firmly convinced than ever that the Prime Minister and his associates did a splendid job when they went to Washington. The right hon. gentleman dipped into the past in an endeavour to defend the actions of his party in former years. I hardly think that was necessary. I am not one of those who believe that one party is always right and the other party is always wrong. I have been taught that whenever serious minded men get together for a serious purpose there is always an element of truth and an element of error, and in this case we must decide which predominates.
The policy of the Liberal party is one of wider markets and foreign trade. That policy was supported by the Liberals in the last election; it was endorsed by the people, and I think that endorsement is sufficient for parliament to carry out the terms of this agreement as quickly as possible. An eminent public man in Canada has made some splendid speeches recently; in one of them he said in effect it was wonderful, the instinct of the average man to be right as against the superior knowledge of the intellectuals. We know that by his vote the average man has endorsed the policy of the Liberal party. In addition to that only yesterday we heard the hon. member for East Kootenay (Mr. Stevens), the leader of the one time Reconstruction party, who represents the opinions of a great many people in this country, say on the floor of the house that he would support this agreement because he thought it was a step in the right direction. During the last campaign we said, "Vote King and get action." The people voted King and they got action. I believe we in this parliament, fresh from the people, representing as we do the view they expressed by their votes, should give this agreement a good send-off, with the good wishes of every member of the house.
It is not only the Liberals who are in favour of this agreement; the financiers of the country are in favour of it also. Only the other day the governor of the Bank of Canada said in no uncertain terms that the shackles of trade must be loosed in order that Canada might do business with the world, and at the annual meeting of the bank of Nova Scotia the president of that institution made it plain that he believed that the first element to be considered in order to bring this country some measure of prosperity was the advancement of export 
trade for Canada. In 1911 the Liberal party, under Sir Wilfrid Laurier, was defeated on the issue of reciprocity, and we have heard quite a good deal about that, At that time Sir Wilfrid Laurier was attacked not only by the Conservative party in Canada; he also had to do battle with the reactionary interests in the United States. In addition he was attacked at a time when he was most vulnerable, because of an unholy alliance in this country. All these things combined to bring about the defeat of the great Canadian chieftain of that time. Privilege was in the saddle, within and without. The Liberal party was beaten and reciprocity went down. Why? Because Sir Wilfrid Laurier, instead of putting it through parliament and letting the people judge by experience, went to the country and met defeat. To my hon. friend who says: King should have submitted this to parliament and asked them to decide, I say:	To-day the country needs leadership.
And the Prime Minister gave us leadership; he has behind him a party of stability, put there by the Canadian people for the very purpose of doing this thing, and he did it well.
We cannot talk about reciprocity or trade agreements without thinking of a great Nova Scotian. I refer to the late Right Hen. W. S. Fielding, the little gray man from Nova Scotia, who for years was the finance minister of this country; who knew the problems of the maritime provinces, and could in a way that was almost marvellous harmonize the desires of his people down there with those of the people of central Canada so that we worked together effectively and successfully. We had prosperity in this country in the days of Laurier and Fielding. In those days we had no depression. I do not say that the conditions were the same. But they said: Leave well enough alone. That was the cry when Laurier was defeated on reciprocity. There are some who say that the present Prime Minister did not act quickly enough or was not persistent enough during his former years in office. I suppose he had the lesson of 1911 before him. Between 1921 and 1930 this country was prosperous, and perhaps he would have been unwise to disturb that prosperity; he knew what the Tories would say if they got a chance at him. Furthermore, he had practically no majority from 1921 to 1930; he governed this country almost by compromise, and he did it well. When anyone says that my right hon. leader should have made a treaty under such conditions he is saying something which will not bear examination. With regard to the

Canoda-U. S. Trade Agreement
Underwood tariff, that was a fine gesture on the part of the United States, an expression of good will, if you like. We gave them nothing; they lowered their tariff on many articles, and the fishing industry of my province was never more prosperous than in the years of the Underwood tariff.
I want to deal briefly with some of the objections raised the other day by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett). He said the fishermen of this country who have to compete with the American trawlers will get very little out of this agreement-the American trawler, forsooth! In this country, competing against the Canadian fishermen, are beam trawlers bought on the bargain counter in England and now used as a club to keep down prices to the fishermen. A corporation which in the last analysis has its home in the United States becomes a primary producer in a position to dictate prices to the fishermen of Nova Scotia. If the leader of the opposition was so particular about our fishermen he should have looked after them when he was in power. He was there for five years; during that time the fishermen suffered as much as any other people in Canada, yet they received nothing at his hands. But now that he is in opposition he tells them they will have the competition of the American trawler.


An hon. MEMBER:: They lost their
market.


John James Kinley: Ten years ago Lunenburg
had 2,500 men on the sea; to-day we have less than a thousand, and unless something is done to help them the salt fishing industry faces extinction. It is my privilege as a member of this parliament to ask that something be done to stimulate that primary industry. We hear a lot about free trade and protection; I think one minister of the crown some days ago said that if we are to continue a high or an excessive tariff policy in this country we must stimulate the primary industries. The condition of the primary industry of fishing is such that it needs stimulation, and we ask that that industry be given consideration.
Then the leader of the opposition pointed out that the duty on flour was reduced to fifty cents a barrel, and, he said: You remember the old days when it came in schooners from Boston. Bread is the staff of life to the fishermen, and they complain that now they can buy flour cheaper in Newfoundland than in Nova Scotia. It looks as if the primary producer of flour does not get the benefit of the duty in any event. If there is any country that should be able to produce flour cheaply
for its people Canada is that country. Hon. members would think a long time before voting for a high duty on flour, I believe.
Then the leader of the opposition says: Look at the revenue the country is going to lose by this agreement. From my experience in business I find that low prices increase turnover. If I want more business I put on a sale and reduce prices. Canada will do more business as a result of this agreement, and in spite of the fact that we shall not have to pay as much tribute in duties, the exchequer of the country will gain.
The right hon. gentleman said further that the British empire agreements made this agreement possible. Well, if so, he has done a good job in that regard, because I think this agreement is beneficial. But may I remind him of this: if the manufacturers of this country are going to be hurt by this agreement, how much more are they hurt by the British empire agreements? This agreement does not give the lowest level of Canadian duties; the lowest general level of Canadian duties is that provided under the British empire agreements. If there is the hazard that we are to be flooded by goods from other countries, they would come in the first place from the countries enjoying the lowest level of duties.
Then the right hon. gentleman, referring to our seaports, said that this agreement will ruin Halifax, Saint John, Quebec and Montreal. We know well that under the most favoured nation treatment they can bring goods in from such countries through the United States. But our trade with the British empire is not permitted to come through the United States. Then he says that we buy a lot from the United States and they buy little from us, per capita. I have never heard that you count people in business; it seems to me that the size of the invoice is what counts. The amount of goods we sell them would be a fairer way to consider the matter; the balance of trade is what counts. They have
127,000,000 people as potential customers for this country. They are adjacent to Canada and their standard of living is high. With such a great potential market I say that if we are aggressive and efficient and adopt the slogan "wake up, Canada," we can so increase the trade of this country that there will be practically no unemployment.
Queens-Lunenburg in Nova Scotia, the riding I represent, is an important fishing centre; it is probably the greatest fishing county in Canada. It. is a great maritime county, and has also its share of manufacturing. My criticism of the agreement would be that it does not go far enough; I should like to see
Canada-U. S. Trade Agreement

it go much further. I frankly admit that I am disappointed in the provisions affecting the fish of the cod family; I am sorry they are not included in the agreement. I can quite understand why trade in fresh fish might be objectionable to the Gloucester fishermen, but when it comes to salt fish they are not to any extent producers. It seems to me some effort should be made whereby our salt fish would find a better market in the United States, including Porto Rico.
Then, there was a reduction in the duty on halibut, and we hope that the reduction will bring about a greater trade in that commodity. There is a reference to swordfish. May I say that swordfish are caught chiefly off the east coast of Nova Scotia, and many of our Lunenburg fishermen with the larger boats spend the summer swordfishing. I believe most of the swordfish shipped to the United States are caught by fishermen from my county. I trust that the lowering of duty may help them in their business, and that this change may be only a start towards what might be done in the future.
We find that lobsters remain on the free list. Lobster fishing is still the greatest item of the fishing industry in the province of Nova Scotia, and while there may have been no immediate danger of a duty on lobsters, in these days of tariff wars it is hard to tell what may happen. Let me inform the house that only a few months ago, after the agreement was made, the duty on frozen swordfish, which are not included in the terms of the agreement, was raised to three cents, and I am told that change was made because there was a desire to prevent frozen swordfish from Japan from entering the United States. This example will serve to show the hazard which exists even to our free goods, if the policy of high protection is followed. I say it was a splendid achievement to remove that hazard.
The same could be said about paper. In Queens county, part of the constituency I have the honour to represent, is situated the Mersey Pulp and Paper Company. I believe this is the only paper company in Nova Scotia, and I am informed that it employs over six hundred men. To a great extent they conduct an export trade, and they have two steamers running to New York. Their business has been stabilized so that they may make commitments and know that they will be able to carry them out. They may approach the financiers of the country and say, "Our business is stable and a market is guaranteed by the government for the next few years." They are placed in an enviable position.

With regard to lumber may I say that the provisions of the agreement will improve the lumber business in Nova Scotia. We know that in the winter the farmers' sons desire to go 'to the woods and earn some cash money, as they call it. The agreement offers the opportunity they have been seeking, and a greater trade in lumber will immediately be reflected in the prosperity of the farmers in my county.
The same observations apply to cattle. Only a few days ago, while on my way to Ottawa, I stopped at the station and saw herds of cattle being put into box cars. I said, "This has not happened for years; what is going on"? The reply was "They are buying Lunenburg oxen and sending them to the United States. We believe they are going to use them in the lumber woods this winter." That is a splendid improvement, and it is a help to the cattle raising industry
We find that the duties on vegetables have been lowered. My constituents sell turnips in the United States, and I believe that in that regard the farmers will derive benefit. Undoubtedly the export market controls the home market of the country, because that export market absorbs the surplus production. If we have an overabundance on the home market, prices become depressed, but if the surplus can be disposed of, if it can be sent to a foreign market, conditions at home are stabilized. Under those circumstances prices are better at home, and everybody feels better about it. After all the export market is the controlling factor of all business enterprises, and especially is that true of our primary industries.
Foreign trade is the emblem of the efficiency of our people. We can sell to one another at home, and may continue for a long time selling to each other in an inefficient manner or in a manner that is not quite up to the mark, but when we enter the foreign market, if we are to compete successfully with other countries, we must be efficient. There is no finer evidence of the efficiency of a people than the fact that they can enter a foreign market and place their goods therein in competition with the rest of the world. An ambition to do a great foreign trade is a worthy one. We know that in the past all great countries have had extensive foreign trade, and we find our greatest example in the mother country.
The leader of the opposition said, "Oh, but Canadians can bring back $100 worth of goods when returning from Boston or other points in the United States, and that is bad." Well, I would remind the right

Canada-U. S. Trade Agreement
hon. gentleman that there are 127,000.000 people in the United States who can take our goods back to their country, whereas only 11,000,000 can bring them back into Canada. 1 will tell the right hon. gentleman that it will give decent citizens a chance to be honest. Goods are coming in now anyway, and I must say that in the province of Nova Scotia we appreciate this provision. After all, not one dollar's worth will come in from the United States by reason of the agreement unless some citizen feels that he would derive advantage or that his family would be benefited by bringing in goods bought in the United States. That is the idea behind this feature of the trade agreement. The principle behind trade agreements is to give the special privilege of dealing with other countries, and to give our citizens the opportunity to buy where it can be done most effectively and advantageously.
Some have said that people in the United States were anxious to have coal on the free list in Canada. We know that under the British empire agreements anthracite coal is free. In Canada we have long winters during which we must keep warm, and coal is expensive. It seems to me that, if we could have traded fish for anthracite coal nobody would have been hurt. I am told however that because coal is on the free list in the British empire agreement, in order to maintain a proper ratio between the two agreements it was impossible to change the arrangements in connection with coal from the United States. For many years coal entered Canada free. I do not think the entrance of American anthracite coal would present any great competition with coal produced in Canada.
As I said before, if I have any criticism of the agreement it would be that I should like to have seen something more done in connection with the marketing of fish. However we must not criticize an agreement for what is not in it; we must be satisfied with what is in it. I hope that good will developed in the future will bring about further reductions in duties and advantages in trade which our people in the maritimes may enjoy. We wish to trade with the 127,000,000 people in the United States; if we could do that in fish we wrould not be coming to the government asking for help, and there would be no depression in the constituency I represent.
The other day the right hon. leader of the opposition said: I stand for Canada, and I reject this agreement because it interferes with the rights of Canada. But he was not
thinking of the rights of Canada when he made the empire shipping agreement, whereby the sailors of this country were put in a class along with sailors from all other parts of the world. I regard that merchant shipping agreement, Mr. Speaker, as against the interests of the maritime people of this country, and I would like to know if it was a factor in making it easier to bring about the empire trade agreements. There is sometimes more money in carrying goods than in selling them, when you take into account the insurance and the other costs of transportation. With the Canadian manufacturer making all kinds of protests against a lowering of the tariff on his products, you can well see, sir, how it came about that the rights of the sailors down by the sea were sacrificed in the interests of the people of upper Canada who wanted higher tariffs.
I regard this trade agreement as a step in the right direction, and I hope that we shall go still further in the same direction. The leader of the opposition himself indicated how inequalities in the working out of the agreement could be corrected, by the raising of the intermediate tariff if and when that should become necessary, and I am sure that the prime minister will take him at his word if the agreement is found to work any injustice. I am confident that the government will use the power they have in their hands for the benefit of this country.


Mr. J. A. BRADETTE (Cochrane):: Mr. Speaker, there are times in the fife of a person and in the life of a nation when there are unmistakable signs of rejoicing, and one of such times came last fall when it was announced throughout the country that the government intended to bring about a trade agreement between Canada and the United States. I believe I am voicing the sentiments of the people of my constituency, if not of the whole of Canada, when I say that every citizen who has studied the question must realize the wonderful benefits that will come, not so much from reciprocity, but from freer trade between the great neighbouring nation to the south and this dominion. There is nothing clearer than that, and I believe the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) might well take some of the credit of the agreement to himself, but sopietimes man and nature are incomprehensible to the ordinary man. For me it is hard to comprehend the attitude of the leader of the opposition to-day when during the last election everybody was under the impression that not only the Liberal party but the Conservative party was in favour of freer trade between Canada aud the United States.

Canada-U. S. Trade Agreement
Before I proceed further I want to compliment most sincerely the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) upon the wonderful work he has done in bringing about this agreement and upon the splendid presentation of the case which he made to the house only a few days ago. We now hear coming back to this house the echoes of the voice [DOT] of the Canadian people. A voice heard throughout the length and breadth of this land in favour of the freer trade policies inaugurated in this agreement between Canada and the United States.
Freer trade between Canada and the United States is not a new question; it is an old one. It has been advocated in our national life for the last seventy-five years. I am sure that everyone who has read Canadian history must be fully seized of this fact, that every time we had freer trade with the United States we had prosperity in this country. Every student of our history knows that prior to 1846, before the repeal of the corn laws in Great Britain, we had great prosperity in Canada because we were allowed to buy American wheat, grind it into flour in this country and ship it to Great Britain, paying practically no duty at all. Then in 1846 Great Britain repealed her corn laws, and that was the beginning of a period of misery and depression for Canada. There followed in this country an agitation deeper than that of 1837. We all remember reading in our history books of the burning of the parliament building in Montreal, and, unlike the previous insurrection of 1837, it was not burned by French Canadians but by people of British descent. One of the leaders in that movement was J. J. Abbott, who afterwards became Prime Minister of Canada. There was talk at that time of annexation to the United States, and a good many of our Canadians had to go to the United States to seek work. Anyone who reads our history cannot escape the conclusion that freer trade between the two countries has always brought a period of greater prosperity for the United States and Canada.
We also remember the depression which this country suffered when Great Britain imposed upon us certain laws that struck at shipping on the St. Lawrence river. Again an agitation followed for a number of years, and then in 1856 our trade recovered when the United States allowed us freer access to their market. I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that anyone, be he Liberal or Conservative, who reads our history with an open mind, cannot escape the conclusion that in those periods when we had freer trade between Canada and the United States we had a period of greater prosperity.
[Mr. Bradette.l
In 1866 the freer trade agreement that we had with the United States was abrogated because, I believe, the American people thought that we were in sympathy with the south, and again we had hard times in Canada. Again the question of freer trade was revived, and an agitation was carried on for a number of years, eventually coming to a head in 1911, when Mr. Fielding brought down his reciprocity agreement in the House of Commons.
I was living in the suburbs of Montreal at that time, and I vividly remember reading in the press of Montreal a report of what happened in the House of Commons when Mr. Fielding brought down his trade agreement and on the floor of the house enumerated the different items shortly before the general election of that year. I remember reading of the cheers that came not only from the Liberal but from the Conservative benches. The two major parties then-and I believe there were only two parties at that time-were absolutely in agreement in thinking that freer trade would be advantageous to both countries. In the discussion that followed I remember that when one Conservative asked Mr. Fielding what he would do about American wheat, he replied that it would be put on the free list, and there was applause from all sections of the House of Commons. But unfortunately for Canada and the United States -that agreeement did not go through-and it must be remembered, Mr. Speaker, that no trade agreement can operate to the exclusive benefit of one country alone. Some indiscretion was committed either by Mr. Champ Clark or by Mr. Taft, and in the election campaign the Conservatives fought against the trade agreement. They must have long since deplored their action, realizing that they had not been fair to their own country and to the great leader of the Liberal party, Sir Wilfrid Laurier.
It is all very well for the leader of the opposition to say to-day that the reciprocity pact of 1911 was defeated by the electorate, but I say no, Mr. Speaker, the electors in 1911 did not have a chance to get a clear vision of what the reciprocity pact meant. Those who come from Quebec will remember what happened in that province in 1911. There was no discussion of the reciprocity pact. Instead, the Conservative party was accusing the then Prime Minister, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, of being untrue to the British connection in regard to the naval bill. We all remember that vividly. The Conservative party knew that the reciprocity pact would be a good thing for Canada, but the accusation was made that

G'anada-U. S. Trade Agreement
we were being sold to the United States. We should remember matters like this when we are discussing this resolution.
I think it was a good thing for Canada when on October 14 last the people spoke so distinctly. The decision was in favour of this pact and politics should not be instilled into the matter. When the people of Canada went to the polls they were satisfied that all parties were in full agreement that we needed freer trade with the United States. There is no avoiding the fact that the verdict of the people was clear. I do not believe the Conservative party is being true to its principles. When we go back into history we find that whenever they were on the government side they were in favour of a reciprocity agreement and freer trade with the United States. Along with the great majority o.f the Canadian people I find it hard to .make that fine distinction made by the leader of the opposition and some of his supporters, that the Liberal party is not playing fair with the country. As the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) said so well yesterday, no Liberal or anybody else in this country has to take a back seat to any Conservative. Our loyalty to Canada and to the British empire is much greater than mere treaties. That loyalty is what we carry in our souls and in our hearts. I am gl'ad that for four years our Conservative friends will not have an opportunity of again raising the old tbogey, of again poisoning the minds of the Canadian people by trying to make them believe that the Liberal party is ready to sell this country body and soul to the United States.
We are fortunate in being a neighbour of the United States. I do not doubt for a single moment that Australia would pay much for similar access to the American market to that which we have. I do not think the leader of the opposition is really sincere when he pictures the United States as being a monster ready to devour every little Canadian. Surely he must realize that the matter was one of bargaining and of playing fair. I could go into the elections of 1911 in greater detail, but I shall not take up the time of the house. In making the references I do I am speaking *not as a Liberal only, but as a Canadian. Only a few months before the elections the Conservatives in the house were pounding their desks with both hands when Mr. Fielding announced a reciprocity pact between the two nations. It must be admitted that the Americans were partly to blame for what happened afterwards.
Every hon. member remembers the Wilson-Underwood tariff which gave access to the primary products of Canada to the American market. Prosperity reigned in this country. Then that tariff was withdrawn to be replaced with the Fordney-McCumber tariff. I could never understand why this tariff was put into effect in view of the great benefits which had been derived by both countries from the Wilson-Underwood tariff. Then I was dumbfounded and astonished later on when the Hawley-Smoot tariff was put into effect. This tariff was put into effect at a time when Canada was buying millions and millions of dollars' worth of goods from the United States. Even the American people found fault with the Hawley-Smoot tariff and I do not believe they were wholly behind it. Many of them realized that it was unfair, not only to Canada but also to the United States. Nearly 500 newspapers in the United States have spoken against this tariff, and I should like to give one or two quotations to show the feeling in that country. The first article is headed, "A Dangerous Tariff" and is from the Phoenix, Arizona, Republican, an independent progressive paper. It reads:
If the advocates of general upward revision could have their way we should shortly be commercially isolated. The exports of the United States have come vastly to exceed our imports. Our markets have been extended and enlarged throughout the world, and to hold them we must maintain a friendly commercial attitude towards those whose business we enjoy. Otherwise not only we may, but we almost certainly would, provoke the retaliatory tariff legislation which would drive us out of many of our markets.
The next quotation is from the Columbus Despatch. It is headed, "An Example of Greed," and reads:
The Hawley bill more than neutralizes its farm increases by heavy increases on many articles of which the farmers are almost universally buyers, not producers and sellers. Building materials, shoes, leather and harness are examples.
The bill is one of the most striking examples of tariff boosting greed in all our tariff history and threatens a harmful interruption of world commerce, and business in general, unless saner counsels prevail before it is finally passed. President Hoover wTas right in advising only limited revision.
Perhaps this is why the nations of the world are beginning to realize that intensive nationalism does not pay. This principle which applies to Canada, applies just as forcibly to the United States. I can remember reading statements by great American writers to the effect that the United States could live within itself; that it was such a wonderful unit with such climatic conditions and1 everything else that it did not need any export

Canada-V. S. Trade Agreement
trade. I believe that country has paid dearly for that philosophy. This applies equally to Canada.
I come from a section of Canada which is always penalized by tariffs. Northern Ontario is a producer of primary products which must find an outside market. At Iroquois Falls is one of the largest newsprint mills in Canada, large enough to supply the newsprint requirements of this country. A few moments ago the hon. member for Lanark (Mr Thompson) was saying that we should deal only within the British empire, but for his information I would tell1 him that the only market for newsprint is in the United States. It is all very well for hon. members opposite to refer to industries in their constituencies employing 100 or 500 men; this mill at Iroquois Falls employs 3,000 men in the mill alone, while thousands of men are employed in the fruitful occupations of lumbering, driving and so on. Yet our Conservative friends want to check any trade we have with the United States.
It was a wonderful sight five years ago to see going from the town of Iroquois Falls trainloads of newsprint manufactured on this side of the border. And where did that newsprint go? It was not manufactured for the Canadian market, which was saturated; nor was it manufactured for Great Britain. By the way I shall always be in favour of trade with the mother country; indeed, I am in favour of the British preference, because I believe it was the most wonderful thing we ever had between the two countries, Canada and Great Britain. But I can tell hon. members that every pound of that newsprint coming from one mill-and there are three in my riding-found its way thirty-six hours later to New York. We were satisfied to get American money in return for that Canadian product, the product of Canadian labour. These are facts which we must always bear in mind.
In our section of the country we are writing Canadian history in large letters. We are developing normally, and I maintain that within twenty years there will be found in northern Quebec and northern Ontario hundreds of thousands of people whom twenty-five years ago we should not have dreamed of having. In our part of Canada we are neither easterners nor westerners. We sympathize with the wheat growers of the prairies and we sympathize equally with the industrialists in the east; but at the same time we do not want to pay through the nose for the sake of supporting some mushroom industry. We are logical enough to realize

that sometimes, during the infancy of an industry, a certain amount of protection is needed, but if you have too much protection it defeats its own purpose. I am absolutely in sympathy with the industries I mentioned a few minutes ago, but when we find that we have to pay forty cents a gallon for high test gasoline, then we know there is something wrong somewhere. And let me say that in this matter my sympathy does not extend to people driving motor cars for pleasure; I am thinking more of the farmers and those poorer people who use trucks in order to earn their living. The same applies to many matters I might mention.
We have been lobbied during the present session by some of the fruit and vegetable growers, and my sympathy goes out to them, but it has been too often an excuse for making us pay exorbitant prices in northern Ontario. As I listen to some of the members representing Toronto constituencies I wonder whether their vision ever rises above the horizon of Toronto. Do they ever come to our section and study our problem? We do not want to see them suffer hard times in their industries, but surely in a discussion of this kind it ought to be possible for us all to take the broad national point of view, so that everyone may be prepared to make some sacrifice in order to promote the general well-being. Coming to the question of a seasonal tariff on fruit and vegetables, I am in favour of this to some extent; but so far as our section is concerned, I can say that we have never been able to buy our requirements at reasonable prices during the winter or even in the summer. The only time we have some relief is when they begin to dump commodities from the Niagara peninsula.
I suggest that we should envisage Canada as a whole, concentrating neither on eastern nor on western Canada. There are some other matters I should like to discuss, but I do not think I have the time before six o'clock. I wish, however, to refer to some prophecies made by the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe). No doubt he was sincere, and I do not for a moment question his sincerity. But he prophesied that within a few years the people would realize that this trade agreement had not been fair to Canada. I believe it was in 1930 that the hon. gentleman, discussing the New Zealand trade agreement- this was at the time of an election-tried to pit one section of the empire against another. He tried to make out that if we had not bought from New Zealand as much butter as we had, there would have been millions of cows and bulls in Canada. Well, his party

Elections and Franchise
abrogated the New Zealand agreement after the election of 1930 and I have yet to see that wonderful parade of live stock. If the hon. gentleman is as true in his prediction of yesterday as he was in that prophecy, then I am not worrying much about the effect of the present agreement.
The leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) also made a statement which seemed to me to be rather far-fetched. At page 622 of Hansard, speaking of the population of Canada and the United States respectively, he put our population at 11,000,000 and that of the United States at 127,000,000, and he observed:
Ah. more; for we were buying from them $28.86 worth per head during the year before while they were buying from us $2.23 per head.
Surely the leader of the opposition could not have intended to create the impression that for every dollar's worth of goods we buy from the United States they should buy from us the equivalent in ratio. Let us look at the figures for a moment, taking the two respective estimates of population. The ratio of 11,000,000 to 127,000,000 is as 1 to ll%i, and the ratio of buying, S2.23 to $28.86, is as 1 to 13, so that according to the hon. gentleman's argument, if the United States bought from us in the same ratio as we bought from them, they would have to buy $3,665,-
220,000,	or more than we produce. Surely the right hon. gentleman never intended to make that statement unless it was for effect.
I will give the total exports in the year to which the leader of the opposition alluded. In 1932 the total exports were $501,000,000, in round figures, and in 1933 $537,000,000. But under the trade agreement with the United States, the leader of the opposition wants to create the impression that, in order to be fair to Canada, the United States must buy from us at the very least approximately $3,665,000,000 worth of goods.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, March 5, 1936