1939-03-08

[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. H. MOORE (Ontario) presented the first report of the standing committee on
banking and commerce, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

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

Mr. HEON:: 1.	Were any complaints made against Corporal Joseph Boudreau, of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, while he was on duty at the Seven islands, Charlevoix county?
2.	If so, what was the nature of such complaints?
3.	Were the said complaints found justified?
4.	Is Corporal Joseph Boudreau still a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police?
5.	If so, where is he stationed?


Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: 1,	2 and 3. Certain complaints were made against Corporal Boudreau by a former employee of the government who had been dismissed. Such charges were duly investigated and every action taken that circumstances justified.
4 and 5. Corporal Boudreau is still a member of the force, stationed at Bathurst, N.B. It is not considered in the public interest to give more particulars with regard to the matter.


REAR JUDIQUE CHAPEL, N.B., POST OFFICE
Mr. BROOKS:: 1.	Has any change been made in the location of the post office at Rear Judique Chapel?
2.	If so, why, and on whose recommendation?
3.	Is the post office in as convenient a place for the public as it was before?


Mr. McLARTY:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Postmaster resigned. New postmaster recommended by Donald MacLennan, M.P.
3.	Office slightly off main road and on a hill but, according to district director, more central than old location. No complaint received.
wheat crop of 1938


Mr. HAYHURST:: 1.	What amount of the 1938 wheat crop remained on hand at February 28, 1939?
2.	How much of this crop was exported from: (a) Montreal; (b) Vancouver; (c) all other ports?


Mr. EULER:: This question bears on the same subject as the question asked by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley) the other day, which it was thought not to be in
Questions

the public interest to answer. I regret that I have to take the same position in regard to this question.



MONTREAL CONSTRUCTION SUPPLY AND EQUIPMENT SHELL CONTRACT

Mr. MacNEIL:: 1.	What is the value of the machinery purchased for the use of the Montreal Construction Supply and Equipment Limited, Montreal, for the machining of shell bodies?
2.	With what firms were the orders placed for such machinery, and were tenders called for in each instance?
3.	What has been the cost to the government for the installation of such machinery?
4.	What firms secured the orders for billets and forgings as required by the Montreal Construction Supply and Equipment Limited, and were tenders called in each instance?
5.	What price will be paid by the government for each such billet and forging, including transportation and delivery charges?


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: I have no personal objection to having this question answered, but I think that under the rules of the house when a matter has been referred to a standing committee no question with reference to it can be answered in the house. I refer to Campion, page 130, rule 37.



CANNED BEEP IMPORTS

Mr. THOMPSON:: 1. How many pounds of canned beef did Canada import from the United States during each of the years 1936, 1937 and 1938?
2. How many pounds of canned beef did Canada import from the Argentine during each of the said years?
3.	What amount of duty per pound was collected in each instance?


Mr. EULER:: 1.
Fiscal years ended
March 31	Pounds
1936		 748
1937		 11,536
1938		 48,960
2.
Fiscal years ended
March 31	Pounds
1936		 8,410,748
1937		 9,876,596
1938		 8,566,458
3.
Fiscal years
ended	United
March 31	States	Argentina
S	S
1936	
0-016	0-0141937	
0-022	0-0141938	
0-014	0-016



MAPLE PRODUCTS-EXPORTS AND VALUE

Mr. LACOMBE:: 1.	What was the total value of maple products in Canada for the years 1933, 1934, 1935, 1936, 1937 and 1938?
2.	What was the value of such products in the province of Quebec during the said years?
3.	What was the amount of such products exported in each of the said years to: (a) the United Kingdom; (b) the United States?
4.	What was the average price paid to the
producers during the same years:	(a) per
pound of maple sugar; (b) per gallon of maple syrup?


William Daum Euler: Maple products, 1933 to 1938:
1.	Value of	maple products in Canada	1933	1934	1935	1936	1937	1938Maple sugar.. ..	$ 499,713	$ 576,400	$ 740,100	$1,058,100	$ 524,200	$ 370,500Maple syrup.. ..	1,559,628	2.464,200	2,782,300	2,655.700	1,720,800	3.479.400Sugar and syrup..	2,059,341	3,040,600	3,522,400	3,713,800	2,245,000	3,849,9002.	Value of	maple products in Quebec	Maple sugar.'. ..	$ 432,000	$ 448.900	$ 595.800	$ 927,200	$ 442,200	$ 321,200Maple syrup.. ..	, 836.300	1.462.100	1.671.500	1.554.400	865.800	2.589.100Sugar and syrup..	1,268,300	1,911,000	2,267,300	2,481,600	1,308,000	2,910,3003.	'Exports of	maple products from	Canada	Maple sugar	To U.K	..Lb.	25.944	32.928	30,925	30,179	28,028	25,750$	4.099	5.070	5.351	4.406	4,198	4,729To U.S	. .Lb.	3,144,600	2.251,563	3,133,602	3,965,248	5,958.093	4,141,221$	538,108	363.896	468,489	641,074	865,292	648,815Maple syrup	To U.K	..Gal.	4,891	1,761	1,989	2,114	3,082	1.986$	12,738	3.781	4,529	5.133	7.354	4.716To U.S	..Gal.	16,629	19,622	104,182	205,620	9,885	4.046$	13,284	22,106	110,162	212,488	17,861	12,255
'Exports are for fiscal year ending March 31. 

Questions as Orders for Returns
4.	Average	prices paid producers	Maple sugar Canada.. ,	(cents per pound) 	
9	12	11	11	12	10Quebec.. .	
8	10-5	10-4	10-9	11	10Maple syrup Canada..	(dollars per gallon) 	
1.24	1.34	1.24	1.31	1.40	1.18Quebec..	99	1.14	1.06	1.12	1.11	1.10



*SUDETEN AND OTHER EUROPEAN IMMIGRANTS

Mr. GARIEPY:: 1.	Is it true, as published in La Presse of the 4th instant, page 1, that arrangements have been completed for the transportation to Canada of a number of Sudeten people and for their settlement on farms in Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia?
2.	Is the government aware of these arrangements, if such exist, or of any arrangements whatsoever for the transportation to, and settlement in Canada of Sudetens or other European immigrants?
3.	What is the nature, object and date of these arrangements, and who are the persons with whom the arrangements have been made?
4. When will such arrangements go into effect ?
5.	How many individuals will be admitted into Canada, and where will they be located by virtue of any agreement reached?
6. What is the extent of the financial responsibility, if any, assumed by the dominion government for carrying out this settlement plan?
7.	Will the government submit the proposed plan of settlement for the consideration of parliament?


Mr. CRERAR:: Yesterday I stated in reply to questions asked by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Pelletier) that I hoped to be in a position to-day to give a reply concerning the matter to which this question refers. The information is not yet quite complete; therefore I ask that this question stand. The statement will be made to-morrow.
Question stands.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. YOUNG:: 1.	How many boxes of oranges were imported
into Canada each month during the calendar year of 1938 from:	(a) the United States;
(b) British empire countries, specifying the country of origin?
2.	What was the total revenue collected each month on said oranges from: (a) United States; (b) British empire countries?
3.	What was the total importation into Canada during the calendar year 1938 of pitted dates from: (a) the United States; (b) British empire countries?
4.	What are: (a) the tariff rate from each country; (b) any other duties or taxes collected?
5.	What is the total importation of dates not pitted in the calendar year 1938 from: (a) the United States; (b) British empire countries, and what revenues were collected on importations from each of above territories?


Mr. RINFRET:: Return tabled.


NIAGARA PARKS COMMISSION
Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	What contribution has the government made towards any work done or undertaken on the Niagara frontier under the direction or subject to the control of the Niagara parks commission in each of the years 1934, 1935, 1936, 1937 and 1938?
2.	For -what purposes have such expenditures been made?
3.	How much has been paid directly to the Niagara parks commission for any of the foregoing works or enterprises?
4.	For what amount have the government assumed any liability to the Niagara parks commission for similar work which is not yet finished or which has not yet been discharged?
GOVERNOR general's WARRANTS


Mr. LENNARD:: 1.	Has the government resorted to governor general's warrants since last session for the purpose of supplying money?
2.	If so, for what purposes, in what amounts, and on what dates?


NATIONAL DEFENCE-CONTRACTS FOR AIRCRAFT MANUFACTURE
Mr. MacNEIL:: 1.	With what firms have arrangements been completed by the Department of National Defence for: (a) the manufacture of aircraft; (b) the assembling of aircraft; (c) the manufacture of aircraft motors; (d) the manufacture of parts of aircraft?
2.	Have such contracts been awarded on the basis of competitive bids or selection?


NATIONAL DEFENCE-RIFLES AND MACHINE GUNS
Mr. MacNEIL:: 1.	Has the Department of National Defence
purchased rifles during the Tears 1936, 1937, 1938 and 1939?	_
2.	If so, from w'hat sources have such rifles been purchased?
3.	Has the department made arrangements during the period mentioned to secure heavy or light machine guns other than the Bren machine gun?
4.	If so, from what sources has such equipment been procured, or will it be procured under existing arrangements?
5.	What types of machine guns will be supplied?


NATIONAL DEFENCE-LINDSAY ARSENAL
Mr. MacNEIL:: 1.	How many persons are now employed at
the dominion government arsenal at Lindsay, Ontario, as:	(a) administrative staff; (b)
technicians; (c) skilled artisans; (d) labourers?
2.	What work is now being performed In this establishment?
7H02-106

Importation oj Wheat



NATIONAL DEFENCE-QUEBEC ARSENAL

[Stage Direction]
Mr.- MacNEIL:
1.	How many persons are now employed at
the dominion government arsenal at Quebec city as:	(a) administrative staff; (b) technicians; (c) skilled artisans; (d) labourers?
2.	How many of these are officers or enlisted men?
3.	Has the dominion government arsenal at Quebec manufactured any 18-pounder, high explosive or 4-5-inch howitzer H.E. shell bodies during 1936, 1937 and 1938?
4.	If so, what has been the cost per unit?


Mr. MacNEIL:: For a copy of all shipping instructions issued by the Canadian wheat board, relating to the movement of Alberta wheat during the current wheat marketing year, via eastern or western routes.



BRITISH COLUMBLA FISH TRAPS

[Stage Direction]
Mr. NEILL;
For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the minister or any official of the Department of Fisheries and any other person or persons regarding the use of fish traps in British Columbia, since April 29, 1938, to date.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. J. MANION (Leader of the Opposition):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler), of which I have given him notice, based partly on an item which I read in the Ottawa Journal this morning, as follows:
Washington, March 7.-Discussions with Canada have begun in an effort to iron out a number of difficulties that arose after the new trade agreement with the dominion went into effect January 1.
In view of these discussions I wish to draw to the attention of the minister the very acute and urgent situation in which Ontario wheat farmers find themselves, due to the fact that they are finding it impossible to sell their wheat through the usual channels while at the same time they claim that over 600,000 bushels of subsidized American wheat have been brought into Ontario to be used by certain Ontario flour mills. It is claimed that one of these users of subsidized American wheat is offering flour at $2.60 per barrel 
in Montreal, whereas flour made from Ontario soft winter wheat could not to-day be sold for less than $2.90 per barrel. That is the statement to me, and I should like to ask the minister if this matter will be discussed with the committee which is referred to in the newspaper item I have quoted.
Hon. W. D. EULER (Minister of Trade and Commerce); Mr. Speaker, while the leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion) did give me notice that he intended to ask this question, I had not seen the article and he did not read it to me in detail. However, for his information and the information of the house I might say that so far as a United States committee discussing matters with the Canadian government is concerned, I have no knowledge of any such committee meeting any representatives of the Canadian government, and I think I should know if such a conference were taking place.
With regard to the importation of United States wheat by mills in Ontario, I have had considerable correspondence, including a good many letters from farmers and others in Ontario, complaining about the importations. There is no doubt that some wheat is coming in from the United States and being milled in Ontario, and possibly some of it is being exported. Perhaps this part of the question should be answered by my colleague the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ilsley), but these importations are coming in under the law as it stands. I may admit, however, that the situation is giving some concern to the government, but at the moment I can only say that it is receiving consideration.



UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert James Manion: I have received a telegram to which I should like to direct the attention of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers). The telegram comes from the city clerk of London, Ontario, addressed to myself, and reads:
City council of London would urge that the forty-forty-twenty division of relief costs be made retroactive to January 1st, 1939. The present basis of forty per cent payable by the municipality for the first three months of the year is more than the municipality can carry and imposes too great a burden.
I will send this telegram over to the minister for whatever consideration can be given to it, unless he wishes to make some statement about the matter now.

Canada-United. States Trade Agreement
Hon. NORMAN McL. ROGERS (Minister of Labour): This matter has already been dealt with officially in a letter from myself addressed to Mayor Cory of Trenton, who holds the position of president of the Ontario Mayors' Association. In my letter I advised Mayor Cory that it was not the intention of the government to make the forty-forty-twenty division of relief costs retroactive to cover the months of January, February and March. I also pointed out that under the arrangement as announced the municipalities of Ontario, and other municipalities in Canada, would effect a substantial saving over the entire year, inasmuch as our new basis covers the fiscal year beginning April 1, 1939, and extending to April 1, 1940.



UNITED STATES PERIODICALS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: I should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General (Mr. McLarty) and the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ilsley) concerning the circulation in Canada of certain United States magazines and papers. Some time ago the Postmaster General said these magazines did not come through the mails, but I have a letter from a clergyman who informs me that he has been receiving Scribner's magazine through the post office, and I understand that in addition there are some seventeen other United States periodicals being distributed in the same manner. Now that this matter has been directed to the attention of the government, will there be a further inquiry and will the Post Office Department deny these magazines the use of the mails? Further, will the Minister of National Revenue have some of these objectionable magazines, which are attacking the king and disparaging the British empire, seized under our laws?


Hon. N. A. McLARTY (Postmaster General):: So far as the question relates to the Post Office Department it is one that I cannot answer off-hand, but I shall be glad to give it consideration.


Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of National Revenue):: If the hon. gentleman will bring to the attention of myself or my department any publication that he contends is seditious or treasonable, it will be examined with a view to determining whether or not this is the case; and if it is the case, it will be refused entry to Canada.
71492-106)



TRADE AGREEMENTS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, February 28, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mackenzie King that the house go into committee on the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient that parliament do approve of the trade agreement entered into at Washington on the 17th day of November, 1938, between Canada and 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. J. C. LANDERYOU (Calgary East):: Mr. Speaker, just before the adjournment of this debate the other day I stated that the trouble with world trade was that every nation was trying to sell but those who wanted to buy found themselves short of purchasing power. That fact was recognized by the world conference of agricultural economists, who maintained that there was a chronic shortage of purchasing power throughout the world while on the other hand there was a tremendous surplus of commodities of all kinds. This holds true in this country as well, and I have suggested that we should increase the purchasing power of the consumer. Out of our wheat fields comes the wheat, but what do the farmers receive for it? Let me refer to some statements made by elevator agents in respect to the harvesting of the last crop:
"There is more than one farmer in this particular district wrho would be wiped out completely if called upon to satisfy all his creditors. However, I can't imagine his creditors adopting such a short-sighted policy. A number of them have threatened to turn back large portions of their farm lands if they are not given an opportunity to realize something on their crop this year. I know of one farmer who is actually turning back a section and a half of land to the municipality rather than pay his tax arrears. This particular farmer owes something like $7,000 in tax arrears, and he figures that he would be much further ahead if he surrendered his land rather than attempt to pay off the majority of his arrears out of this year's crop."
Another elevator agent also pointed out that many farmers were required to purchase new farming machinery this year, and these payments will also have to be made out of this year's crop in addition to the other debts piled up against it. The agent said that while the bushelage in many districts will exceed that of last year, the price of wheat is greatly reduced from last year.
"In fact it is generally admitted that it will take two bushels of grain to realize the same amount of money received for one bushel last year," the agent said.
1674	COMMONS
Canada-United States Trade Agreement
The same situation obtains in the fishing industry. Out of our oceans, lakes and streams come the fish, but what do the fishermen receive for them?


Mr. SPEAKER:: I regret to have to advise the hon. member that he has exhausted his time.


John Charles Landeryou: I think there must
be some mistake, Mr. Speaker; I understood that I had fifteen minutes.


Mr. TURGEON:: I rise to a point of order. I think there is some mistake in timing, because I happened to be close at hand the other evening when the hon. member stopped speaking, and I thought he had fourteen or fifteen minutes longer to speak.


Walter Edward Foster: I am in the hands of
hon. members. Of course I have to base my decision on what the assistant clerk has told me.


Ernest Lapointe: Under
the circumstances I think the house will listen to the hon. member for another fifteen minutes.


Walter Edward Foster: The hon. member may proceed.


John Charles Landeryou: The lakes, streams and oceans give fish, but the fishermen receive very little in return for their catch. From our mines comes coal, but what do the coal miners receive? Out of the forests come lumber, but what do the workers receive?
Here is a news item which appeared in the Ottawa Citizen:
Ansonville, Ontario, March 7.-Doctor E. J. Clouthier, medical officer of health, said to-day five eases of scurvy have been discovered in this northern Ontario village three miles south of Iroquois Falls. He said the disease was the "direct result of starvation and deprivation of the essential foods."
Doctor Clouthier said one case has advanced to a stage which necessitates hospital treatment. Vigilance to present spread of the disease, rare in civilized countries, is being exercised by the physician who also is conducting an investigation into the cause of the outbreak.
The next paragraph is headed "Cannot Buy Vegetables", and is as follows:
The disease is caused by a lack of vegetables and fruits in the daily diet. It was said many residents of the village who are employed at paper mills in Iroquois Falls are working only part time and are unable to purchase these essential foods.
Short of purchasing power.
The municipality is in the township of Calvert, which is under control of the provincial government. It was said the township had sought to obtain increased relief quotas 
for welfare recipients which would enable the impoverished residents to obtain the necessary vitamins but that such requests had been so frequent recently it was impossible to expect further aid.
Village authorities said the situation was made more serious by the fact many residents were insufficiently clad and that during the first two months of this winter sub-zero weather prevailed. Some householders were said to lack sufficient fuel in their homes to withstand the cold weather.


Ernest Lapointe: I was
pleased to ask the house to give further time to the hon. member, but I would like to know what this has to do with the trade treaty.


John Charles Landeryou: Simply this, that the trade treaty, regarded by the government as a solution of the economic problems of the country, has failed adequately to provide for the needs of our people.


Ernest Lapointe: It will fail if it is not ratified.


John Charles Landeryou: That is the position. May I just point out to the minister what I mean by that. Ask the farmer whether or not he is receiving all the purchasing power necessary to purchase the fish, lumber and coal that he wants. The minister and his colleagues talk about the wonderful future Canada will have because of this trade agreement. Ask the coal miner whether he is receiving all the lumber, fish and products of the farm he would like. Ask the fisherman whether he is receiving all his requirements of coal, fruit and other commodities which can be produced in Canada. The storehouses of Canada are plugged with goods. But what do we find? The people are unable to gain access to the wealth they have produced. And yet this condition exists while the government talks about blasting its way to foreign markets. As I have said before, we cannot depend very much upon our external markets. Why? Because they lead to national hard feelings and international complications which in turn may lead to war abroad.
Let us look into the situation of the province of Alberta. The following table showing the production of oil in that province will indicate what I have in mind:
Oil production
Year	(barrels)
1934		 1,265,940
1935		 1,263,750
1936		 1,320,442
1937		 2,796,908
They find themselves unable to market their oil in Canada. Oil is being brought in from foreign countries. The Liberals say that if we do not trade with the world, if we get

Canada-United States Trade Agreement
into some isolated compartment, we will endanger the peace of the world. Who would want to attack this country because we allow our own people to utilize the oil and other production of the nation?
May I now read an article published by a man who understands the oil situation in Alberta:
The efforts of Turner Valley producers to preserve and enlarge their home market continue, with three more important actions or statements taking their place in the news. The events follow announcements by major oil companies that they would displace Turner Valley oil with American oil on the Manitoba market.
To-day's first news event is an application from the Alberta Petroleum Association to the Canadian railways for a freight rate on crude oil shipments to Brandon, equivalent to the present low rates to Saskatchewan refineries of the major companies. The application requests a cut in the Brandon rate from 98 cents to 78 cents per barrel. The 20 cents per barrel saving, it is believed, would enable the Anglo-Canadian Company (with refinery at Brandon) and other independent Manitoba refiners to compete on an equitable basis with any American gasoline that might be brought into the province by the major companies, in line with their threat of a few days ago.
In Calgary a statement severely condemning the "menacing and threatening attitude" of Imperial Oil has been issued by Robert Wilkinson, president of National Petroleum Corporation, and in Toronto W. S. Campbell, former head of the Petroleum Association, has issued a report on a personal survey of the Illinois situation in which he scores the major companies for taking advantage of a "temporary chaotic condition" and calls on the government to take action.
Wilkinson states "If the independent producers and all the shareholders of companies operating in Turner Valley needed any further indication as to the ultimate fate of our promising oil industry, they now have it in the menacing and threatening attitude of Imperial Oil executives, expressed in their declarations concerning policy they intend to adopt, giving preference to foreign oil in the Manitoba market. It has been apparent that Standard Oil interests were not prepared to concede very much of the prairie oil market to Turner Valley, and that such progress in this direction as has already been made, has been niade in the face of and despite powerful opposition to any plans involving the movement of Alberta crude eastward."
"In early negotiations with railway executives two years ago, the Independent producers were assured that freight rates to Winnipeg would be made effective at once, enabling the movement of crude oil east to that point at competitive rates. Apparently sufficient pressure has been brought to bear on the railway companies to prevent them from putting into effect-


Walter Edward Foster: Order.


John Charles Landeryou: May I finish-


Walter Edward Foster: I am advised the hon. member has now exhausted his time.
^ Mr. HUGHES CLEAVER (Halton): Mr. Speaker, after a few general remarks in regard to the treaty I should like to confine most of my observations to those parts of it which have to do particularly with the fruit and vegetable industry, because an important part of my constituency is interested in the production of fruit and vegetables. The Canada-United States and the Great Britain-United States trade agreements, in so far as they encourage a closer relationship and better understanding among these three great democracies, are admittedly highly beneficial to a world filled with misunderstanding and misgivings.
Our friends of the Conservative party are opposing the Canada-United States trade agreement solely upon the ground that, according to their contention, the price which we have paid for the agreement is too high. In plain words they say the Yankees are better traders than we are, and that we have been outwitted. Personally I have no such inferiority complex with regard to the three gentlemen who had most to do with the negotiation of the agreement. I refer to Mr. Hector McKinnon of the Department of Finance, Mr. Wilgress of the Department of Trade and Commerce and Mr. Robertson of the Department of External Affairs. For many months these men carried on continuous negotiations, and instead of expressing dissatisfaction with the results it is my opinion that parliament and the Canadian people owe those men a great debt of gratitude.
In my opinion, when viewed by actual performance instead of by politically tinged prophecies, the treaty will prove to be one of the greatest economic accomplishments in the history of this nation. In giving directions to our negotiators, and in accepting the responsibility for the final result, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and his ministers have taken a leading part in anc have made a real contribution to the consolidation of the democratic peoples in the world to-day. It is my opinion that had it not been for the spirit which Canada showed in negotiating the 1935 agreement with the United States, the present agreement could not have been consummated. Even though we had not been able to negotiate a trade agreement as advantageous as is the new trade agreement, it is my firm belief that present-day world conditions demanded that closer economic relations should be formed between the great democracies at almost any cost. Fortunately for Canada, we were not called upon to make any serious concessions and we have received many important advantages. It
1676	COMMONS
Canada-United, States Trade Agreement
is a fallacy to suggest that trade agreements cannot be made which will be beneficial to both contracting parties. It is equally a fallacy to suggest that of necessity some interests must be injured. During this debate the Conservative opposition has roundly scored the agreement, but on looking up the record I find that the 1935 agreement was just as vigorously opposed.


An hon. MEMBER:: Rightly so.
I ask the hon. gentleman to rise in his place now and tell us of the many basic industries which the treaty of 1935 has destroyed. Then the hon. member goes on to say on the same page:
I contend that this agreement gives away Canada's birthright.
And then on page 806:
If we vote for trade agreements we are voting for complete commercial union with the United States.


Mr. CLEAVER:: Perhaps my hon. friend will not be so proud of that a little later on. On looking up the record I find that the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol), made the following statement when referring to the treaty of 1935, as reported on page 770 of Hansard for 1936:
This will result in displacing from employment thousands of men engaged in industry in this country.
Then, in referring to the section of the agreement which had to do with the tariff on agricultural implements, the same hon. member had this to say, as reported on page 1115 of Hansard for 1936:
This not only will bring the price down but may wipe them out of business.
The hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Thompson) is reported on page 774 of the same Hansard as follows:
... it is my considered opinion that Canada, with 11,000,000 people and situated on the northern part of this continent, will never be able to make a satisfactory and permanent trade agreement with the 125,000,000 people living to the south.
Then the former hon. member for Hamilton West, the late Mr. Wilton, is reported on page 791 as follows:
I see in this agreement the possibility of the American rather than the Canadian flag floating over Canada.
I should say here that the present hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Marsh) was not the one who made that statement. Then the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) said:
I make no apologies for having been opposed to every offer we have had from the United States since at least I was a young man.
That is a most helpful sort of attitude, is it not? Then the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) is reported on page 804 as follows:
I oppose this agreement entirely because I fear it will have an injurious effect in regard to employment. It will destroy many a basic industry in Canada.

The hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Stewart) is usually reserved in his remarks, but he is reported on page 836 as follows:
Many of our industrial plants will be forced to close.
And again:
Unemployment with all its hardships will be increased; the investment of capital in industry in Canada will be discouraged.
Then the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lawson) is reported on page 961 as follows:
I say that this trade agreement is making a serious contribution to the economic domination of this country by the United States.
Let us look dispassionately over the record to see just what did happen to Canadian business after the advent of that trade agreement which was to bring ruin and the possibility of the United States flag floating over Canada. Trade agreements are made primarily to increase trade. Our exports of merchandise only to the United States-I have excluded gold-for the years 1935 to 1938 were as follows:	.
1935		$304,000,000
1936		 360,000,000
1937	''	"	
435,000,0001938	j.	j	
343,000,000
Our imports of merchandise, again excluding gold, from the United States were as follows:
1935	$303,000,000
1936!	 319,000,000
1937		 393,000,000
1938		 487,000,000
There was a trade increase of S516,000,000 in three years, made up as follows:
1936		$ 72,000,000
1937	 221,000,000
1938 j	 223,000,000


Mr. LAWSON:: Was not the major portion of the total trade increase made up of increased importations from the United States into Canada?


Hughes Cleaver: I am just going to deal with that. I think I can show to the satisfaction of the house just what did happen.

Canada-United States Trade Agreement
After I have covered that part of my address, I shall try to answer any questions that remain to be answered. Everything went well for the first two years and we did not hear a peep out of the opposition. Unemployment decreased sharply, revenues were buoyant, the budget deficit was substantially reduced, and then what happened? In the last few months of 1937 a serious recession struck United States business, a recession more severe in its onset than that of the great depression. By March, 1938, business in the United States had receded by over one-third across the entire business section of the country. The United States is the largest single customer for Canadian products. Taking the ten year period from 1928 to 1937, both inclusive, we find that the United States purchased on the average 40-27 per cent of our total yearly exports. Our next best customer was the United Kingdom which purchased on the average 36-91 per cent of our total yearly exports. Some may question these figures, so I would ask the permission of the house to place the details on Hansard without taking time to read them.


Walter Edward Foster: Shall the hon. member
have leave to have this table placed on Hansard?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Agreed.


Hughes Cleaver: The table is as follows:
	Percentage	Percentage of our exports to
	exports to	United States
	United Kingdom	compared to
Year	to total Cana-	our total
	dian exports	exports
1927	35-6	37-31928	33-3	39-21929	31-4	36-81930	25-1	46-01931	27-4	43-71932	29-0	42-91933	34-9	37-41934	43-3	33-01935	38-4	40-31936	37-9	42-41937	38-4	41-0Average yearly percentage. ..	36-91	40-27
When our best customer suffered severe business reverses, what could one expect? Our sales to that customer also suffered. At the end of March, 1938, we found our exports to the United States had fallen by $92,000,000 below those of the previous year. On the other hand, Canada did not immediately feel the effect of that recession; our recession was not as severe, and consequently our imports from the United States did not decline. The trade reaction was exactly what one would expect. What do our Conservative friends
say now? If the hon. member for York South will just listen, I shall give my explanation for what it is worth.


James Earl Lawson: I am listening.


Hughes Cleaver: They now say that the 1935 treaty was lopsided. In 1936, when our exports to the United States exceeded our imports from that country by $41,000,000 and the balance was then decidedly in our favour, we did not hear anything at all about the treaty being lopsided. Again in 1937, when the balance was still substantially in our favour, we heard no criticism. But in 1938 the treaty suddenly becomes fraught with inequalities. Right at this point, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a suggestion: Canadian prosperity depends upon the prosperity of Canada's customer nations. So long as we have large surpluses of the field, the forest and the mine, just so long we must of necessity be a world-trading nation, whether we want to or not. It necessarily follows that just as soon as any of our customers run into hard times, we shall suffer as a result of their hard times, and for this reason I believe our system of taxation should be set up in such a way that, when hard times come, all groups of our people will bear their reasonable share of the depression according to their ability to bear it.
During the last great depression many of our people were compelled to use up their entire life-savings, and to-day are penniless, while many others of our people still have their large fortunes intact. From a truly democratic point of view this should not be permitted. Our people are reasonable and do not expect us to accomplish the impossible, and when hard times come I do not think anyone would complain if everyone shared the hard times according to his or her ability. I therefore urge that the major part of our revenues should be collected by way of income tax, because in this way taxation would be paid according to one's actual yearly receipts.
What about other calamities which were to befall us as a result of the 1935 trade agreement? Well, we still have our birthright, Lanark notwithstanding. The union jack is still flying over Canada, Hamilton West notwithstanding. And what about the agricultural implement business? The hon. member for Davenport prophesied that a reduction in the tariff to 12J per cent, to use his own words, might wipe the agricultural implement industry out of business. But we reduced the tariff still further, down to seven
1678	COMMONS
Canada-United States Trade Agreement
per cent in 1937, and we find now that the manufacturer of agricultural implements in Canada increased his production by thirty-eight per cent over 1935. The following are the production figures:
1935	$13,692,000
1937	 18,961,000
What about the prophecy of the hon. member for Leeds, that "the investment of capital in industry will be discouraged."? If he has troubled to look up the figures he must have been simply shocked, because he would have found that instead of investment of capital in industry being discouraged in Ontario, the province from which he comes, Ontario manufacturers increased their factory construction figures from $3,645,000 in 1935 to $17,932,600 in 1937. The total industrial construction for Ontario for the three years, 1935, 1936 and 1937, was as follows:
1935		$ 3.645,000
1936	 7,207.400
1937	 17,932,000
Does that look as if the investment of capital in industry were being discouraged? In view of all this record of prophecies compared with actual achievements, is it any wonder I suggest that the electors will not pay too much attention to fresh prophecies from these same hon. gentlemen?
I should now like to direct my remarks to the fruit and vegetable industry. First, a few remarks in regard to the size of the industry. The house may be surprised to learn that at the bureau of statistics there is no information available respecting the vegetable industry other than that contained in the 1931 census. This is an extremely unsatisfactory and unbusinesslike state of affairs, and I should like to impress upon the minister the urgent necessity of an up-to-date record in regard to this industry.
In 1931 the total production of vegetables was approximately $33,000,000. Those who have been closely in touch with this industry know what a spectacular increase in production has since taken place. In January of this year, Messrs. Davis and Ritchie presented to the Ontario Vegetable Growers Association at Hamilton a report in which they estimated that, exclusive of field crops of potatoes, Canada has 627.000 acres devoted to the production of vegetables, now producing annually $90,000,000 worth of vegetables. Doctor Hopper, of the Department of Agriculture, has prepared an estimate based upon the per capita consumption of vegetables at Ottawa and Toronto, where accurate figures are available, and his estimate of Canada's production of vegetables is $86,000,000. After carefully 
checking the figures and the deductions on which these estimates are based I am convinced that both of them will be found to be extremely conservative. In any event, it will be seen that production in this industry has nearly trebled in the last eight years. This great increase in volume has been brought about from several causes:
1.	Trucking facilities have brought into production thousands of acres of land which previously were not accessible to large markets.
2.	The medical profession has in recent years stressed the importance of fresh vegetables from a health point of view. Many of the important vitamins required in a properly balanced diet can be obtained only through the use of fresh vegetables.
3.	Many farmers who, prior to the depression. were raising only grain, cattle, dairy produce and hogs, started raising vegetables to enhance their incomes. This, in turn, depressed the price of vegetables and compelled vegetable growers to step up their production in order to survive. The combined result of all of these factors has been to increase the gross production from $33,000,000 in 1931 to about $90,000,000 in 1938.
In regard to tree fruits and small fruits an estimate arrived at in the same manner as that used by Doctor Hopper in regard to vegetables would place our total fruit production at about $60,000,000. This would make a total production of fruit and vegetables in Canada of about $150,000,000 annually.
Marketing facilities have not kept pace with this greatly increased production, and as a result we find wide price fluctuations which are detrimental to consumers and producers alike. We have reached a point. Mr. Speaker, where modem marketing facilities are urgently needed, and on behalf of the growers in my riding and throughout Canada I do wish to commend the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) for the steps which he has already taken to improve marketing facilities, and to urge upon him the necessity for adequate central markets in all large centres in this dominion. These markets would be self-liquidating as to cost. I do not know of any greater contribution that our Department of Agriculture could make at this time to this industry than the building of fruit and vegetable markets.
I should now like to give some information in regard to the amount of capital invested in this industry and also as to the cost of production in order that an accurate conclusion may be reached as to the valuable contribution which this industry makes to our national life.

Canada-United States Trade Agreement
On account of the scarcity of suitable lands and suitable locations for the production of fruits and vegetables, the first major problem which a grower faces is the original investment for land suitable for his operations. In the Burlington district land suitable for the growing of fruits and vegetables has under normal conditions in the past commanded a price varying from $800 to $1,000 an acre for the bare land without buildings. If we take a fifteen acre farm as perhaps the average size farm suitable for the purpose-and there are many of our growers raising vegetables, alone, on farms as small as five acres per farm-it will be seen that a capital outlay of at least $12,000 is involved. To this amount must be added the cost of suitable buildings, which will involve at least another $6,000. This total of $18,000 is still not the entire capital outlay required, because the grower also requires quite a large quantity of equipment to assist him in (a) the cultivation of the land, (b) producing and caring for plants, (c) combating all the different pests and plant blight diseases which the grower encounters, (d) packing, storage and marketing facilities. So much for the capital outlay involved. Many of our growers have from twenty to thirty thousand dollars invested in farm, farm buildings and equipment.
Now, coming to the annual operating expense involved in the production of fruits and vegetables, I should like to read into the record the actual figures of crop production and operating cost of one twenty-acre farm in my riding. A grower in the Burlington district has very kindly supplied these figures to me:
Year: 1938
Receipts	 $8,548 91
Operating costs	 8,033 29
Net profit and wages of owner $ 515 62
The following is a statement of his operating expenses, broken down:
Wages (other than his own).. $2,925 45
Baskets and containers	
892	15Fertilizer and manure	
613	25Trucking	
199	24Storage	
435	55Hydro power	
253	93Telephone	
58	92Hay, oats, straw	
145	66Seeds and plants	
31175Spray	
84	03Maintenance of equipment.. ..	316	25General expense	
117	11Water	
100	00Taxes	
180	00
Five per cent interest on capital
investment	 1,400	00
Total	$8,033 29
At this point I should like to say that some of our growers are paying for water for forcing purposes as high as $900 per annum.
From these figures it will be seen that the grower, after producing crops to the value of over $8,000, at the end of a season had a net profit of $515.62 as his total compensation for his year's work. The management ability required to produce eight or nine thousand dollars worth of produce from twenty acres of land in one year is not by any means the entire story. The grower must bring real business ability to play in the sale of his crop. From its nature it is extremely perishable. Much of it must be marketed within twenty-four or forty-eight hours, otherwise it is a total loss-and there is an added difficulty here in that the grower does not know actually when his various crops will mature. He is dependent upon weather conditions. Abnormal weather conditions will often mature crops rapidly, causing periodical gluts of the market; and here again real business ability must be brought into play to prevent consequent loss. Is it any wonder that our growers are asking for marketing legislation which will provide the necessary market machinery to achieve orderly marketing?
Now, as to the Liberal policy in regard to fruits and vegetables, our policy has been that the Canadian market should be preserved for the Canadian producer, while Canadian crops are available to supply our requirements, and when our own crops are not in production in sufficient quantities to supply our needs, then to permit the importation of fruits and vegetables produced elsewhere. This policy, in so far as it can be made to function, is beneficial to our producers and consumers alike.
In regard to the present trade agreement in so far as it applies to fruits and vegetables, we have received two main criticisms from the opposition.
1. The hon. member for Yale (Mr. Stirling), as reported at page 1094 of this year's Hansard used these words:
For some reason or another, which I have never been able to understand, the Liberal government has it in wrong for fruits and vegetables.
I was amazed to hear such an utterance from an hon. gentleman who has been a minister of the crown and who is usually so fair in his language.
I want to cite the facts and leave it for the members of this house to judge the inaccuracy of that statement. From the years 1906 to 1930 there was very little change in
1680	COMMONS
Canada-XJnited, Stales Trade Agreement
tariff rates on fruits and vegetables entering Canada. In May, 1930, the Dunning budget provided for drastic increases in the tariff on fruit and vegetables, and for the first time the principle of seasonal tariffs was adopted. This was the first effective tariff protection granted to the industry, and it was given by a Liberal administration. Then followed the Bennett administration, when rates were drastically increased. The increases under the Bennett administration raised the hopes of the growers but did not bring about any increase in price to the Canadian producer of field crops. They did, however, artificially stimulate the production of out-of-season crops in hothouses. This principle we do not believe to be economically sound. It enhances the cost to the consumer manyfold and makes no commensurate profit for the producers. Just right here-


Mr. HOMUTH:: Is the hon. member
opposed to hothouses?


Hughes Cleaver: I have made the statement, and the hon. member can read it in Hansard.
Just right here, however, I should like to say that growers who, under the shelter of the tariff, built greenhouses for the purpose of growing vegetables in midwinter under glass have, in my opinion, a just claim for compensation for plant investment which has virtually been confiscated through a repeal of tariffs which should never have been granted. Since 1935 this government has by its two trade agreements made substantial reductions in tariffs; but in no instance has the reduction in rates been below the point where our growers have been amply protected; the reductions in tariffs which have been made in other commodities through the trade agreement of 1935 have increased the general prosperity of Canada, and in this our growers have shared. From 1932 to 1935 our growers
Vegetables
Asparagus, crate 15 lbs	
Beans (green), hamper 35 lbs.
Cabbage, crate 85 lbs	
Carrots, crate 87 lbs	
Cauliflower, crate 40 lbs....
Celery, crate 71 lbs	
Cucumbers, hamper 55 lbs...
Lettuce, crate 76 lbs	
Onions, per 100 lbs	
Rhubarb, box, 46 lbs	
Spinach, bushel 22 lbs	
Tomatoes, lug 34 lbs	
never had higher protection for their products, and I state without fear of contradiction that our growers have never experienced three worse years in the history of the industry. If any hon. member will take the trouble to inquire of any grower, he will tell him in no uncertain terms that he does not want a return of the good old high tariff years 1932 to 1935.


Mr. SPENCE:: They did not tell the hon. member that.


Hughes Cleaver: I did not hear what was said.


David Spence: I said that the people of Burlington did not tell the hon. member that.


Hughes Cleaver: I should like to know how my hon. friend knows that.


David Spence: I do know.


Hughes Cleaver: I have talked with scores of important growers and they tell me in no uncertain terms that the three worst years ever experienced by the fruit and vegetable industry were the three high tariff years 1932 to 1935.


Mr. LENNARD:: That was not caused by high tariffs though.


Hughes Cleaver: The hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Barber) gave the following schedule showing the effective tariff protection in force in 1935; rates in force after the reduction made by the 1935 agreement, and the rates which will be in force as a result of the present trade agreement. Again I should like with the permission of the house to place this schedule on the record without taking the time to read it.


Walter Edward Foster: Only with the consent of the house.


Hughes Cleaver: The schedule is as follows:
In-season	In-season	In-seasonperiod, 1935	period, 1936	period, 1939?1.23	$ .89	$ .751.43	.95	.67-22.41	1.10	.83-82.73	1.65	.88-42.06	1.04	.76-82.13	.83	.74-12.54	1.81	1.23-51.90	.88	.79-61.50	1.08	.951.50	.88	.56-6* 49i	.31	.041.65	.68	.51

Canada-United States Trade Agreement
Take the first item, asparagus. Under the 1938 agreement the duty on asparagus has been reduced to seventy-five cents a 15-pound crate. Let us see what effect this and previous reductions had on the selling price of asparagus. This house was told by an hon. member of the Conservative opposition in 1936 that the reduction in the tariff in that year to eighty-nine cents on a 15-pound crate would lower the price to six cents a pound in Canada. Our Conservative friends must have been startled to see that no price change occurred. The following were the selling prices of No. 1 asparagus, six-inch length, for the years 1935 to 1938, both inclusive, as supplied by the Ontario Asparagus Growers' Association:
	Per pound
1Q35			 10 c
		 10 c
1Q37 			 104c
1938			 10 c
By the press of last week I notice that the 1939 price, notwithstanding the reduction under the trade agreement now coming into force, has already been agreed upon at 10i cents a pound for No. 1, five-inch length, and 91 cents a pound for No 1, six-inch length.


Mr. LOCKHART:: Is that for the six-inch length as quoted before?


Hughes Cleaver: 
Mr. BARBER:: Why does not the hon. member give my entire statement?


Hughes Cleaver: I have read the hon. member's criticism and findings. I am not here to propagate Tory propaganda, but I am giving the hon. member's own answer.


Harry James Barber: But tell all the truth.


Hughes Cleaver: I have read the entire statement-


Harry James Barber: No, the hon. member has not.


Hughes Cleaver: It was convincing I
thought, and entirely answers the hon. member's own argument. How could a reduction in the tariff on onions to $18 a ton affect the selling price of onions selling at $15 a ton?


Harry James Barber: Because they could not reach the Winnipeg market; that is the reason.	[DOT]


Hughes Cleaver: Well, my hon. friend is able to answer that to his own satisfaction, but I suggest that his answer will not be very satisfactory to growers.
However, I should like to state that the last reductions have now brought the tariff on fruit and vegetables down to a point where perhaps there should not be much more reduction. All that we have done is to remove the hypocrisy from the existing tariff schedules and bring the tariff down to the point where there is still ample protection for our growers.
Now a word to the consumer. The effect of tariffs varies with existing conditions. In regard to an article as to which there is a combine, monopoly or quasi-monopoly, as in
1682	COMMONS
Canada-United States Trade Agreement
the automotive industry, all the tariff protection is added by the manufacturer to the price which the consumer pays. We know that to our sorrow. On the other hand, where sufficient competition exists in the industry receiving tariff protection, the amount of the tariff protection is not added, and the resulting sale price is never in excess of cost plus a reasonable profit. The onion illustration given by my hon. friend clearly illustrates my point. For this reason, as regards a tariff to protect the fruit and vegetable industry or any other industry in which unrestrained competition exists and which is economically sound, profiteering is impossible.
To come to the second type of criticism from our friends in the opposition, this was constructive criticism in regard to the splitting of seasonal dates for the imposition of the duty and the fact that all processed fruits and vegetables entering Great Britain under the empire trade agreement should be 100 per cent Canadian content. I wish to congratulate the two hon. members of the Conservative opposition who raised these two important points.


Walter Edward Foster: Order. I am sorry to
have to tell the hon. member that his time has expired.


Hughes Cleaver: As I have just reached
the point where I am saying a word of praise for the Conservative opposition, I should like to have the leave of the house to conclude.


Walter Edward Foster: Only with the unanimous consent of the house.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


Hughes Cleaver: I have already made the strongest possible representations to the government with respect to both of these points, and again I wish to repeat these representations in the hope that something will be done about them.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: With what result?


Hughes Cleaver: I shall come to that in
a moment. The following fruits and vegetables have two distinct seasons, an early crop and a late crop, namely, cabbages, carrots, beets, beans, celery, cauliflower, lettuce, pears. As to all of these the seasonal tariff period is not sufficiently long to include both crops, unless it is split up as to time of application. Under the trade agreement split periods are provided only in regard to cabbages, beets and carrots. Unless this situation is corrected, only one-half the crop as to the

other five products will be protected. We were all pleased to learn, just a few days ago, that the difficulty in regard to much of the cattle quota being taken by Mexico was promptly adjusted, and I hope the difficulty in regard to split periods for fruit and vegetables will also be adjusted.


Mr. H. G. CLARKE (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, I have followed pretty closely the debate that has taken place so far in regard to this trade agreement, and it appears to me that members of the government are experiencing difficulty in discovering any benefits to which they can point as being likely to accrue to Canada under this arrangement. Yesterday the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) referred to what he called the delay in connection with the consideration of this treaty, and compared the length of time taken to debate the British empire trade agreements with the time that has been devoted to this agreement. It should be pointed out that the debate on the empire trade agreements required a total of twenty-six parliamentary days while on the other hand only seven parliamentary days have been devoted thus far to the discussion of the Canada-United States agreement, and we are now on the eighth day. So it is evident that there has been nothing in the way of any hold-up or delay in the consideration of this agreement. I would also suggest that if we took into account the time occupied by hon. members on the government side during this debate, with all the quotations they have read, with each taking his full forty minutes, I think it will be found that the Conservative opposition have not taken up a great deal of the time of this house in undue criticism.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, it is up to the government to establish in what way this treaty will relieve unemployment. It has been stated by some hon. members that this agreement could be judged only with the passage of time. But I would direct attention to the fact that it is now four years since the 1935 agreement became effective, and the unemployment question is still with us to a very marked degree. If the trade agreement of 1935 had lived up to all the promises which were made for it when it was passed, after four years we would not have the serious situation that prevails to-day in connection with unemployment.
I should also like to direct attention to another very important phase of this treaty, namely the tariffs on manufactured goods coming into Canada as compared to the

Canada-United. States Trade Agreement
tariffs on these same goods exported from Canada to the United States. I have given some study to the tariff schedules of Canada and the United States, and I am convinced that this indicates that we in Canada are not getting a fair deal under this treaty. I have a number of articles which I should like to mention; I could place them on Hansard, but I suppose I shall be required to read them.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: I think the hon. member will have to read them.


Harry Gladstone Clarke: I know.


Mr. HEAPS:: Might I point out that
we have just granted that courtesy to an hon. member opposite, and I do not see why it should not be accorded hon. members on this side as well.


Harry Gladstone Clarke: I can probably read this list in the time it would take us to argue the point. The list is made up of items taken almost at random during a casual study of the tariff, and in many cases it will show that the United States duties are more than one hundred per cent higher than ours. It is as follows:
Article
Curtains	
Silk clothing	
Wood handles of all kinds Scissors and shears	
Builders hardware	
Electric vacuum cleaners	
Hand fire extinguishers	
Water meters.. ..		
Augers, bite and drills	
Wrenches	
Tools, n.o.p	[DOT]
Furniture, house and office of metal	
Manufactures of silver	
Manufactures of zinc	
Batteries	
Gas meters	
Slide, hook or zipper fasteners	
Lamps and lanterns	
Insulators, electric	
Manufactures of cement	
Toys and some tables	
Dolls	
Fishing rods	
Mechanical metal toys	
Toys of all kinds, n.o.p	
Toilet brushes	
Fountain pens	
Aluminum kitchen or household hollow ware
Aluminum manufactures	
Aluminum pipes or tubes	
Canadian tariff Per cent 30 30 20 30
20
25
35
274
20
30
274
20
30
30
27 to 30
274
30
United States tariff Per cent 40 to 90
65 334
45 plus 34 cents to 45 plus 20 cents each, except sheep shears of certain value where duty is 224 plus 10 cents each 45 35 45
65 plus 55 cents to $4.50 each 45 to 60 45
mostly 45 45 50 45
35 to 40
65 plus 55 cents each to 65 plus $4.50 each
40 to 45 60 to 70 30 to 40 70
1 cent each plus 50 to 90 55 (if valued at $10 or over, 30) 70 1 few kinds 1 reduced 70 | to 45
Mostly 50 plus 1 cent to 2 cents
each
40 plus 72 cents dozen 40 plus 84 cents pound 45 45
I venture to suggest that there is hardly a kitchen in this country that does not contain from thirty to forty different kinds of cooking utensils made of either enamel or aluminum, which come into Canada under this protection.


Mr. DEACHMAN:: Does my hon. friend want them to cost the kitchen more?


Harry Gladstone Clarke: No. But there would be an opportunity for us to sell our
goods in the United States, as they sell theirs here. We would sell them for less, there is no doubt about it.


Robert John Deachman: The hon. member is asking for higher priced kitchen utensils.


Harry Gladstone Clarke: I do not
wish my remarks to be misconstrued. I will state definitely, however, that I believe in trade treaties, and I think that as a nation we should go into the markets of the world
!6S4	COMMONS
Canada-United Stales Trade Agreement
and dispose of our goods, where we can profitably do so, in order that we may build up and develop our Canadian industry. I believe it is the duty of the government to assist our manufacturers of primary and secondary products in order to dispose of their products in the markets of the world, because through that medium we could give employment to thousands of Canadians.
While I do not advocate a policy of government subsidization of industry, I do feel it would be of material assistance if our government were to encourage a system designed more materially to assist our manufacturers, in order that they may be able to provide the much needed employment in Canada at the present time. The argument is often advanced that as a result of tariffs prevailing price levels are increased. To those who advance this argument I would ask: What does it matter if the prevailing prices of goods are high, if our people have not the money or means to purchase them? It would not matter if you could buy a gold brick for ten cents, if you had not the ten cents.


Robert John Deachman: You bought one in 1930.


Walter Edward Foster: Order.


Harry Gladstone Clarke: If we do not give employment to our people through the efforts of our manufacturers, and through our industries, how are they going to have any money? If the men and women in the urban districts of our country find themselves unemployed, and without money or purchasing power, it is only natural that they cannot be purchasers of the products of our rural districts.
I believe it is also essential that our government should give more consideration to the diversification of industry in Canada, so that the production of commodities may be increased, and our manufacturers and industrialists may assist materially in creating a greater number of skilled workers. Unskilled men, who possess no particular qualifications to fit them for employment, are to-day unemployed, and many of these men might be trained for skilled labour. I am confident a policy of this type, if given leadership by the government, would have the effect of producing a higher standard of living among the people.
I would suggest further that if the government is sincere in their endeavour to do something for Canada, that is to provide employment, to build great Canadian industries in Canada rather than in the United States, and to increase the purchasing power of our people, then it is time they put their tariff

experts to work on a revision of the duty on manufactured goods coming into Canada, so as to place this country in a position to bargain with countries which are shipping goods into the markets of Canada at tariff rates below those which apply to manufactured goods in their markets. A policy of this kind, if sincerely and diligently followed, would provide our Canadian manufacturers with a means to compete with foreign manufacturers, and especially those of the United States.
I have already cited examples which indicated that, in many cases, the duties against Canadian goods going into the markets of the United States are over one hundred per cent greater than the duty we impose against United States goods coming into competition with those of our manufacturers.
I hold in my hand an ordinary room key of a large hotel in Canada, and on it I see the words "Made in the U.S.A." This is one of a large number of small articles imported from the United States, in the production of which there is considerable labour content. If Canadians insisted upon made-in-Canada goods, we would produce these commodities and thereby give employment to our industrial workers. I believe almost all members of the house have at some time or another been in the United States and have made purchases in that country, but I am sure that on very few occasions have they seen over there a manufactured commodity labelled "Made in Canada." While visiting in the United States I have looked for articles marked in that way, and have failed to find them. I believe if any hon. member had seen such articles he would remember them, because we know they are very scarce. I have made many purchases in the United States and I believe I have never bought an article in that country labelled "Made in Canada."
This is one of the points I should like to present in an effort to show that our tariffs are onesided. When we enter the shops in Canada we find all classes of manufactured articles labelled "Made in Japan," "Made in Yugoslavia," or "Made in UEA." I could go on enumerating the names of countries in which articles being sold over our counters are made. I maintain that to a great extent this is the cause of unemployment in Canada. If our manufacturers, through a fair tariff arrangement, had opportunities to sell their products in other countries, we should have prosperity and very little trouble with hard times.
Is there an hon. member who conscientiously believes that under the lopsided tariff schedules

Canada-United. States Trade Agreement
which now prevail we can achieve any measure of success in the development of Canadian industry, and thereby provide for the employment of our people? If there is such person I should like to know him.
It is a known fact that people of the United States, through a policy of protecting their own industry and giving employment to their own people at fair and equitable wage rates, have made that country one of the greatest nations of the world. Lincoln laid down the doctrine of government of the people, for the people and by the people. I believe we should adopt that policy in Canada. If we were to do so we should be taking an important step in the direction of lifting Canada out of the condition in which she is to-day, of placing ourselves back on the road to prosperity, of providing our youth with employment and our parents with the much desired and necessary purchasing power- which is so essential to the prosperity of the nation.
We have heard the argument advanced in the house that we must not antagonize the United States, and that in order to be assured of their friendliness, of necessity we must make trade agreements, with the knowledge that they will receive the lion's share. I do not believe for one moment that that is a sound argument. For over a hundred years we have lived as friendly nations, side by side, and I believe we shall continue to do so in the future. If we as a nation would make our trade treaties with the United States on the basis of a fair exchange of commodities, I believe that that government, instead of becoming antagonistic, would develop a greater respect for the government of this country and be more willing to cooperate than they were during the periods when the Hawley-Smoot and McCumber tariffs were applied against our producers.
I believe that this government stands condemned in the eyes of the business people of this country for having entered into a trade agreement without adequate knowledge of the results which might ultimately ensue. It is interesting to note that the concessions granted by the United States were considered carefully, and in no case was the slightest opportunity afforded to Canadian producers to obtain even a small percentage of the United States domestic market. Then as a further safeguard to the people of that country, the United States government has the privilege of applying quotas and regulations designed to restrict trade under any concession granted when it might interfere with home producers. As long as these tactics
are used against us, I believe we should adopt similar restrictions in connection with the concessions we grant.
If there is one thing needed in connection with the making of future agreements it is to have our tariff experts and those who make recommendations to the responsible ministers make a survey of the potential trade advantages to be gained and the possible disadvantages which might be sustained. This should be done in order that we may at least know where we are going when we consider an agreement of this kind in this house. We should know the amount of labour involved in producing any particular commodity. It is a known fact that for eight or ten months prior to the signing of this agreement the tariff committee of the United States government consulted with United States producers in order to learn what concessions might be advantageous and what might be disastrous in connection with any changes in the protection under which American industry was operating. The record of this government is entirely different. We not only made a pilgrimage to Washington and accepted what they offered but we made sacrifices in the markets of the United Kingdom, the extent of which will not be known for some time to come.
I have endeavoured to be as brief as possible and I think it will be found that I have kept well within my time limit, without asking for any extension.


Mr. J. J. KINLEY (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, the resolution before the house asks our approval of the terms and provisions of a new Canada-United States trade agreement. This trade agreement replaces the agreement of 1935 and is now part of the tariff structure of this country. The 1935 agreement was supplanted before it had run to maturity, because of developments in the relations between Great Britain and the United States. These countries having expressed a desire to negotiate a reciprocal trade agreement, an important situation was created for Canada. Our government found it necessary to cooperate with our two greatest customers for the purpose of the extension and promotion of trade. To have refused would have certainly created a most unfavourable reaction which could not have been justified on any grounds. Under ordinary circumstances the government could have been required to carry out separate negotiations within the near future. The situation which was created really afforded an opportunity to Canada to negotiate a new immediate trade agreement with the United
1686	COMMONS
Canada-United. States Trade Agreement
States. That new trade agreement has been signed, with the result that our favourable trade relations with that country have been amplified and extended for another three years. I believe that this new arrangement will not only maintain Canada's trade position, but improve it considerably.
As far as our trade relations with Great Britain are concerned, certain amendments were made at her request. There is no doubt that certain concessions were granted but, on the other hand, there are compensations in the United States agreement which are more attractive to Canadian business generally. I know that the new agreement appeals to the people along the Atlantic coast and to the people in Queens-Lunenburg, the constituency which I have the honour to represent. These negotiations have placed Canada in harmony with her two greatest customers, the United Kingdom and our great neighbour to the south. The amendments made in the threeway agreement will no doubt justify in the minds of the British authorities a continuance without interruption of our present imperial trade relations. I think it was a splendid thing that these matters could be considered concurrently, and thus make provision for the immediate future. It produces a tariff stability which I believe is highly reassuring to business generally. To be constantly changing the tariff is disconcerting to business arrangements, and a measure of permanence is always greatly to be desired.
If we are to judge from the comments made in this house by hon. members of the Conservative party under the leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion), we must conclude that they are opposed to this agreement. I think we have here the line of demarcation between the policies of the two great parties in this country. The Liberal policy is one of extension of trade and promotion of goodwill. The Conservative party preach a doctrine of economic nationalism.


Mr. STEWART:: Nonsense.


John James Kinley: 
Mr. STEVENS:: As the leader of the opposition is not in the house, may I say that he did not imply any such thing. He merely asked a question of the minister on the orders of the day.


John James Kinley: I think a reference to
Hansard will show that he said more than that.
The hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) was the first member of the house to criticize the reduction which the treaty makes in the duty on fish. Let me say that I do not agree with his conclusions; I shall presently give my reasons for disagreeing with them. I am also reminded that the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan)-


Mr. BROOKS:: I have not been correctly quoted. I did not criticize anything but the result of the treaty. It was not the provisions, it was the results that were being obtained from the treaty at the present time that I criticized.


John James Kinley: I have Hansard here. The hon. member said first that the agreement had been of no benefit to the shipper and that it would be of no benefit to the fishermen. He finally said that he was satisfied that when the full force of these concessions to the United States are felt, our difficulties in this connection will be greater than they were before.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The results.


John James Kinley: Well, we judge most things by results, but we must know. The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George is an
16SS	COMMONS
Canada-United States Trade Agreement
old Nova Scotian, and one would naturally expect he would say something about the provisions affecting the fishing industry of the maritime provinces. Instead of that, he made a bitter speech, calling up the unfortunate incidents of history as between our country and the United States; and he, too, appealed to nationalism; we might say that he appealed to passion and prejudice. After I heard the speech of the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George I was satisfied that in so far as the provisions in the agreement for the reduction of duties on fish were concerned, they were all to the good.
With regard to the fishing industry, for years efforts have been made to get something done to improve the industry, and the question always arose, how could this be accomplished? The unanimous answer to that question is that the fishing industry needs markets. This opinion is expressed very strongly in the report of the royal commission on price spreads, of which the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens) was the first chairman.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Hear, hear.


John James Kinley: The hon. gentleman says "hear, hear." I think the need is appaient from the experience of past conditions as well as present conditions in the industry. The market value in Canada in 1933 of fish was $27,496,946; in 1937 it increased to $38,976,294. In 1933 the value of exports was $20,206,000, which had increased by 1937 to S28,833,000. It is assured that seventy per cent of Canada's production of fish finds a market abroad, of which the United States alone takes approximately one-half, and a larger percentage is indicated by the shipments from the maritime provinces. At present there is an over-production all along the Atlantic coast. But it is expected that the lowering of tariffs will greatly increase our exports to the United States and will create a much more healthy situation in the fishing industry.
The hon. member for Royal does not think that the fish schedules in this treaty are of
any value; he believes that the agreement generally will be detrimental to Canadian industry. Well, there are people in the United States who say the same thing about their end of the bargain. I have under my hand the Congressional Record of Thursday, February 16, 1939, at page 2120 of which Mr. Treadway, a Massachusetts member of the house of representatives, said the following:
The present trade treaty program goes under the name of "reciprocity," but it has no right to that name. Reciprocity contemplates mutual benefits, but the present program is a strictly onesided proposition in favour of foreign nations and against the interests of our own people.
With regard to the fish schedules, I find at page 2122 that Mr. Bates, a representative of Massachusetts, said:
In connection with our domestic industries being affected, I wish to read a brief paragraph from a letter from Mr. E. H. Cooley, manager of the Massachusetts Fisheries Association, in which he states: "Canadian smoked fillets are quoted this morning on the Boston fish pier at from 11J to 13 cents per pound, when the lowest cost of production in Boston is 14J cents a pound, this being the cost of production, not including any profit whatever."
In other words, under that agreement Canadian fish are being sold in this country at less than the cost of production here.
So we see that in. the United States congress there are pessimists, the same as there are in this house, who think that in a trade agreement everything must be on one side.
In his efforts to discredit the provision applicable to fish, the hon. member for Royal quoted an article which he said appeared in the Halifax Herald. Mr. Speaker, the Halifax morning papers, the Chronicle and the Herald, come to my home each day, and while the Halifax Herald prints the opinions of people regarding this treaty and criticizes some features of it, I have not seen anything in that paper from an editorial point of view which would indicate that they do not think the fish schedules are of great benefit to the fishermen of eastern Canada. Displayed in large type each day in the Halifax Herald is a list of the prices of fish at Boston. On Saturday, February 25, they were as follows:
Haddock.. Serod.. . . Large cod.. Market cod
Hake	
Pollock.. .
(Prices are in dollars per hundredweight) (Ex-vessel prices are for first sales only)
Ex-Vessel
Inshore

Offshore $0 00
5	00
6	00 5 00
4 50-$4 60 3 75
Wholesale

7	00- 8 00
8	00- 9 00 7 00- 8 00 6 50- 7 50 5 75- 6 75
[Mr. Kinley.l

Canada-United. States Trade Agreement
Comparing these prices with the prices received by the Nova Scotia fishermen does not indicate that they are very much depressed, and by comparison you can at once see the advantage of the United States market to Canadian fishermen. However, I am told it does not portray quite correctly the. situation, as the prices are for first sales only. These, at any rate, are the prices quoted in the Herald.
In contrast to that, may I quote from a letter I received, dated January 5, 1939, showing the prices paid for the same kind of fish in my own riding. It refers to the trip landed by one schooner which fished on La Have. The prices paid for this trip are as follows:
Per pound
Haddock	
21	centsMarket cod	
21	centsLarge cod	
14	centsScrod (haddock or cod)	
1	cent
My informant tells me that these prices are probably higher than could be paid for large trips from the fishing banks to the eastward. Need I say more as to the value of the United States market to Canadian fishermen?
The hon. member for Royal told us a story about inferior fish being shipped to the United States. I am afraid that this story is not true. Immediately after the hon. member made his speech I wired to the largest exporters of fish in Nova Scotia a firm which does business in my constituency. They say, in answer to my telegram: "Have no knowledge of salt fish being returned." However, not being satisfied with that, I went to the Department of Fisheries and asked the deputy minister if he would wire into the field and find out the situation, as I thought this was a serious accusation against the fisheries of the maritime provinces. He wired to his chief officer at Halifax. May I quote from the reply:
Re wire twenty-fifth have been in touch larger fish firms here North Sydney, Lunenburg, Liverpool, Lockeport, Shelburne and Yarmouth but cannot find that any shipments salt fish returned here from U.S.A. excepting one of about three hundred fifty boxes boneless cod of thirty pounds each made by Lockeport Company to A P T Company which due to Boston strike was not unloaded there Lockeport comany states and it was returned to Lockeport ut resliipped next boat trip and accepted.
As hon. members know, there was a strike at the Boston docks, and on that account the fish could not be handled there. They were sent back to Nova Scotia and reshipped to Boston by the next boat. But we are told because of this that bad fish is being shipped to the United States.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I should like to tell my
hon. friend that I received my information from a reliable source, just as I presume he considers his was received.


John James Kinley: Mine is official, from the
Department of Fisheries. Canadian fish are of the very highest quality, naturally so. The fishing banks are about 125 miles from the port of Lunenburg, the greatest commercial fishing centre in Canada, and fish caught one day can be landed in the market the next day, whereas United States vessels fishing on the same grounds must travel five hundred miles to reach their home port. There is an old Chinese proverb that a guest and a fish never look so good after the third day. That, however, was before the days of modern refrigeration; Canadian fish has the advantage of being processed while it is still fresh. The market' in the United States for Canadian fillets has been so far a quality market, and it is expected that with the reduction in duty this market will be much increased.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: If the hon. member will
permit a question, his reply was concerning salt fish only. Has he any reply concerning smoked fish?


John James Kinley: Yes. Let me quote the
following on that point:
Vague rumour of two carloads frozen smoked fish returned by rail but cannot get confirmation and C.N.R. here advise no shipments such fish made from Halifax to western section province last two months. Have made inquiry through Calder re N.B. returns but he knows of none. Wire further advice if necessary. Think substantiation of statement in house should be requested.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Who said that?


John James Kinley: That comes from an official of the department.
Let us now take, for instance, one item in the treaty-fillets, fresh or frozen. Six million pounds of these fillets were exported in 1937. Under the agreement the duty is reduced from 24 to If cents a pound, a reduction of | of a cent a pound. This is the only fish that is restricted to a quota, the quota being fifteen per cent of the annual consumption of the United States, domestic production plus imports, and in any case not less than 15,000,000 pounds. This means that 9,000,000 pounds more fillets, with a round fish production of about 27,000,000 pounds, can be shipped to the United States under the lower duty rates. This item alone represents a saving in duty of $41,944, and if we fill the extra quota, which naturally would be expected, it will mean a saving in duty of $114,975.
1690	COMMONS
Canada-United, States Trade Agreement
Before I pass this, the question was asked the other day, in connection with the cattle quota, whether there were any other quotas that must be shared with other countries. Yes, there are. This quota can be shared with certain other countries. But may I remind hon. members that under the present production and present exports we are entitled to 93-8 per cent of the amount going into the United States. On allocation we would be entitled to that percentage, and that is a protection for the future. For instance, there is a total importation of fillets of cod, haddock, et cetera, of 6.719,000 pounds. Last year we shipped 6,301,000 pounds. These fish were shipped in there against the tariff as it stood last year. The United States has put on a quota of 15,000,000 pounds, and it is reasonable to think that they expect us to fill that quota. It is apparent, therefore, what a great benefit that is going to be to the fishermen of the maritime provinces.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Are any of these fish brought in from Newfoundland and reshipped to the United States?


John James Kinley: I have here the amount of fish fillets that were imported into the United States from Newfoundland last year. It was a veiy small amount-59,840 pounds. There is this about the fresh fish business, that our geographical position gives us a preference, because we are just overnight from the United States market. I am told that a great deal of filleted fish from Nova Scotia enters the United States by rail through the Niagara peninsula.
Fresh fish are sold by auction at the Boston fish pier each day, and by reason of our geographical position we have in the United States a natural preference over other countries in the matter of fresh fish. As their home production is their largest source of supply, and the price is controlled by the home production, any reduction in duty on fresh fish goes to the man who ships it in.
Take another item in the treaty-mackerel, fresh and frozen. On fresh mackerel the duty is reduced from two cents a pound to one cent, and on frozen mackerel from two cents to one and one-half cents a pound. This is a large reduction when you consider the price paid for the primary product. I have seen mackerel sold for less than one cent a pound. The export of mackerel in 1937 amounted to 1,805,903 pounds, a big item. But as the

hon. member for Royal says, there is no provision in the trade agreement for salt mackerel. I quote his statement:
No reduction was made in the duty on salt mackerel, although a reduction would have been of great benefit to the mackerel fisheries. This is probably due to Norway being the major supplier.
On almost every kind of fish, except salt mackerel, there is a reduction in duty, but in the opinion of my hon. friend the only thing that would benefit the fisherman would be a reduction on salt mackerel. He wants to feed the people of the United States on salt mackerel, and apparently he thinks he could do the Tory party some good by showing that there is no reduction of duty on this item in the new treaty. It is true that it is not there, because Norway is the chief source of supply, and under the most favoured nation provision the principle is that you must lower the duty first to the country which is the principal source of supply.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: That is what I said.


John James Kinley: We hope that by a circuitous route we shall get the salt mackerel in.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: That is the kind of route you are travelling.


John James Kinley: No, the route my hon. friends are travelling is this, that when every kind of fish is granted a reduction of duty, it is of no value in their eyes; the only thing that is of value in their eyes is the thing we did not get, and that is salt mackerel.
The reductions in duties on fish are very sweeping. In addition to what I have already mentioned there is a 50 per cent reduction on finnan haddie and smoked cod, hake, pollock, cusk and herring, 40 per cent on smoked salmon, 33 per cent on smoked fillets of cod, haddock, hake, pollock and cusk, of which over 3,500,000 pounds were shipped last year which means that nearly 10,000,000 pounds of round fish are caught. There is a 50 per cent reduction on halibut, salmon, swordfish, mackerel, shad, eels and sturgeon, as well as keeping free of duty for the life of the treaty such items as lobsters, scallops, oysters, clams, quahaugs and smelts, and a 50 per cent reduction on pickled and salted cod, haddock, hake, pollock and cusk. Last year the United States purchased from us approximately 25,000,000 pounds of these fish. This reduction also applies to the duty on pickled salmon and alewives, while there is a thirty-eight per cent reduction on split herring and a twenty-five per cent reduction on salted cod, haddock, hake, pollock and cusk when skinned and boned.

Canada-United, States Trade Agreement
Some people in Nova Scotia who are enthusiastic about their own particular business, as I suppose is to be expected, complain about the relative duty as between dry salted fish with over forty-three per cent of moisture and dry salted fish with less than forty-three per cent of moisture. Here is the story. Prior to this agreement the duty on cod containing not more than forty-three per cent of moisture was 1| cents, which meant $1.40 on each quintal of fish; and when containing over forty-three per cent of moisture the duty was three-quarters of a cent a pound or eighty-four cents on each quintal of fish, the difference being fifty-six cents. In the trade agreement the duty on fish containing not over forty-three per cent of moisture was reduced to five-eighths of a cent a pound, which amounts to seventy cents on a quintal of fish; on fish containing over forty-three per cent of moisture the duty was reduced to three-eighths of a cent a pound or forty-two cents a quintal, the difference being twenty-eight cents. So it will be seen that the agreement is an improvement in the interests of those marketing the drier fish. It would have been very nice to get a larger reduction, but in each case the maximum reduction of fifty per cent was made. It must not be forgotten that total imports into the United States of fish with over forty-three per cent of moisture had a market value of $2,008,136, of which Canada supplied $893,524 worth. The total value of imports of fish containing not more than forty-three per cent of moisture was $150,008, of which Canada supplied $77,659 worth.
In the Mackenzie-Zwicker report, the importance of keeping the price of fish low in the foreign market, so that it will be within the price range of mass consumption, is stressed. The fact is that there is a reduction of seventy cents a quintal in the duty on dried fish, while the price of these fish to the primary producer is quoted at $4.50 a quintal for large fish and S3.75 for medium fish, so it will be seen that the duty is quite a good percentage of the primary cost.
With regard to the competition of Newfoundland, it is true that we have that competition, and they seem to have an advantage with Labrador slop fish that are sent to the Porto Rico market. It may be that Canadian and Newfoundland interests should cooperate to bring about stability in the foreign market for salted fish, because Newfoundland is much the larger producer of salted cod fish.
By reason of the British agreement we have obtained a reduction on another fish, namely kippers, from three cents to two cents a
pound. The kipper is a popular fish, especially for breakfast. It will be recalled that the press, whether for the sake of advertising or as a matter of general interest, stated that President Roosevelt usually ate scrambled eggs for breakfast; but when Anthony Eden visited the United States, that handsome, stream-lined Englishman ate a kippered herring for his breakfast.
Fish is a highly perishable product; in the interests of the fishermen and the shippers I believe that with our market extended under this treaty, some provision should be made for the orderly marketing of this product, and I think this would be generally accepted as a benefit to all.
I should now like to say a word with regard to manufacturing.


Frederick George Sanderson: Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member, but he has spoken for forty minutes.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


John James Kinley: I do not desire to impose upon the time of the house. I should like to have said something about manufacturing and farming, but time will not permit. I think, however, I have said enough to convince the house that so far as the fishing industry is concerned, this trade agreement is the best achievement of any government in Canada for some years. I should like to compliment the government at this time, because when the 1935 agreement was negotiated we felt rather disappointed. Now, however, after a few years of industrious endeavour on the part of members from the maritime provinces, we find that one of the major items in this trade agreement provides that fish from the maritime provinces shall have freer access to the United States market, which for many kinds of fish is our natural market, near at hand and with a large consuming population.


Mr. J. P. BARRY (Northumberland, N.B.):: Mr. Speaker, I had no intention whatever of taking any part in this debate; I had intended to make what observations I thought desirable when the budget was brought down, but the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) has been kind enough to extend to me a special invitation to make my maiden speech. I should like to say to the hon. member that I look forward with pleasurable anticipation to the time when I may hear him make his first speech.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Would the hon. member please explain? I do not quite understand.
1692	COMMONS
Canada-United States Trade Agreement


John Patrick Barry: Very well. I have no desire to detract at all from any glory the hon. member may have gained by the very nice essays he has read to this house.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I rise to a point of order.
I have read no essays to this house. I never read a speech, but I have noticed that most hon. members from New Brunswick have been reading essays ever since they have been in this house.


Frederick George Sanderson: Order. That
is not a point of order.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: And that applies particularly to the hon. member for King's (Mr. Grant).


Frederick George Sanderson: Order.


John Patrick Barry: I am quite willing to leave
that to the judgment of the house. I would say to the hon. member that if he will rise in his place, open his mouth and pour forth his soul untrammeled by the written word, he will find a satisfaction that he will never experience if he continues the practice he has followed in the past.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I will say this, Mr. Speaker; I will meet the hon. gentleman anywhere in New Brunswick or anywhere else, on any platform, and speak entirely without notes; and that goes for any other member from that province.


Frederick George Sanderson: Order. That
is not a point of order.


John Patrick Barry: I did not start this; my
hon. friend started it, but apparently he cannot take it.


Frank Exton Lennard: You went out of your
way to start it.


John Patrick Barry: You read your speech.
The hon. gentleman forgets that we have in this house 180 Liberal members and thirty-five Conservatives and he also forgets that we have twenty-five Liberals from the maritime provinces while he is the only one of his party to be returned from that area.


Mr. PERLEY:: And he is equal to the
bunch of them.


John Patrick Barry: The hon. gentleman may
think and apparently his associates agree, that he can handle the case for the Conservatives by himself, as against the twenty-five Liberals. May I say to him that I have no reason for rising in my place in the House of Commons and criticizing the government, because everything it has done has met with my approval and that of my constituents. I can well understand that perhaps the hon. member feels he has some

apology to make to the people of the maritime provinces for the stand he has taken. I am sure if he recalls the year 1932, when one could buy in the county of Carleton a dozen eggs, a barrel of potatoes and a pound of butter for thirty-seven cents, he will not be so free to criticize at the present time. That seems to be enough on that score.
Perhaps at this stage it might not be a bad idea, after listening to the speeches which have been made, to consider exactly what the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) had in mind when he went to the United States to negotiate the trade treaty. I am sure if he had any particular part of Canada in mind, then surely that part must have been the maritime provinces. Undoubtedly his prime intention was to break down trade barriers. Any hon. member who looks impartially at the trade treaty will see that undoubtedly that was one of the objects the Prime Minister had in mind. He desired to arrange matters so as to permit goods to flow out of Canada into the United States, and from that country into Canada. He desired undoubtedly to give us an opportunity to get rid of our surplus goods. He desired to allow us to get in exchange those commodities we require. In addition to that, I have no doubt he wished to destroy those feelings of enmity and ill will which had grown up between Canada and the United States and between United States and Great Britain.


David Spence: There never was any ill will.


John Patrick Barry: As a final object I am quite sure he desired to draw the democracies of the world closer together in a bond of unity. Hon. members opposite may refer to the trade agreement as an effort towards economic appeasement, if they so desire. But call it what they may, I certainly believe, and I believe the people of Canada will agree, that was a worthy and desirable object.
There are certain things the treaty was not intended to do. May I say that I marvel at the faith and confidence which hon. members of the opposition have in the efficacy of the policies of the present government. There was no intention whatever in the minds of those who negotiated the treaty to put anything over the people of the United States. This was no horse-trading deal. Undoubtedly we desired that they should receive benefits, and that in return we should receive benefits. We had no objection to the people of the United States gaining something, and we expected that in return we would gain something. Certainly it was not the intention of

Canada-United States Trade Agreement
the Prime Minister to prevent United States goods from coming into this country. Above all things, never for one moment did it cross his mind that the trade treaty alone would end unemployment, start the wheels of industry to run, pay off the national debt, abolish all taxation, and fill the pockets of Canadians with money taken from the pockets of the people of the United States. Nor was it the belief of the Prime Minister that the trade treaty would make of Canada a Heaven on earth.


George Halsey Perley: That is what he said.


Mr. GRANT:: That is what Bennett said.


John Patrick Barry: This is merely a step in the right direction, and it will remove the obstructions which have been damming up channels of trade and surrounding the nations of the world with Chinese walls. In other words, it was intended to break down tariffs.
I should like for a few moments to show the house what high tariffs have done to the maritime provinces. Certainly I do not have to argue in this fashion before the people of my own constituency, because they are well aware of the truth of what I am about to say. High tariffs have raised the prices of goods to consumers, for the benefit of industrial centres. That is a statement which is accepted as truth by the people in my constituency. The policy of high tariffs has undoubtedly created discontent in the minds of people, so far as the operation of the confederation of 1867 is concerned. They feel they have been discriminated against and that they, as consumers, have been sacrificed for the benefit of manufacturing centres. The belief has stirred up animosity between the maritime and the central provinces, and between west and east. I believe no person will deny that the high tariff policy has increased unemployment from approximately 100,000 persons to about a million and a half. By destroying trade it has brought the country to the verge of financial ruin. It has stirred up international ill will, and that ill will has extended even to England. It is well known by the people in my constituency that they always have hard times under Tory governments, but that under Liberal rule they always have better times.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Will the hon. member say that there are good times in his constituency to-day?


John Patrick Barry: I will say they are infinitely better than they were when the Tory government was in power. I believe, if the hon. member is fair, he will admit the truth of what I said a few moments ago in connection with Carleton.
What are the arguments against the treaty? I have listened to this debate since it first began, and I am sure that the general public have reached the conclusion that the arguments against this trade treaty are based on the opinions of penny newspapers, nickel magazines and other one-man opinions; they are based on claptrap and balderdash. There has been but a single idea in mind-the personal aggrandizement of the writer. These arguments have been put forth apparently with the idea that if you throw a lot of mud, some of it will stick.
The hon. member for Royal referred to potatoes. I am surprised at his mention of potatoes in view of the unsavoury connection that vegetable has with his own party in the maritime provinces. He should have followed the example of the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Patterson) and mentioned the additional 12,500,000 bushels of potatoes which will be allowed into the United States market by the increased quota. Our hon. friends have picked out single items to discuss and have not considered the treaty as a whole. I do not know how one can discover its benefits unless one considers it as a unit. The trouble is that the Tories can never get out of their own backyards. Several of them, when making speeches, got lost in their own apple orchards. I wonder why it is they can never take a national view? The irony of it is that they call their policy a national policy.
I support this treaty, first, because it fulfils the intentions for which it was created. Second, it undoubtedly benefits the fishermen by fixing free entry and gives three years of stability. Third, it helps the farmer to sell his potatoes, practically the only exportable farm crop in New Brunswick. Fourth, it helps in the export of lumber and lumber products. This treaty benefits the three basic industries of my own county, namely, farming, fishing and lumbering.


Mr. A. A. BROWN (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, if I were to choose a mediator to bring central and eastern Canada together, it certainly would not be the last speaker (Mr. Barry).
I have no apologies to offer for continuing the debate on the trade agreement with the United States, because it materially affects the jobs and the standard of living of thousands of industrial workers in my constituency. For the past four years many of these workers have been out of employment or have been reduced to working only two or three days a week because of the tremendous increase in imports from the United States and other foreign countries. There has been at
1694	COMMONS
Canada-United States Trade Agreement
least one result from this debate; the cattle quota has been increased. I have no doubt that when the debate is concluded we will see messengers being sent to the United States by this government in an effort to remedy the inequalities from which Canada is suffering because of this treaty.
I feel it is my duty to deal with this matter as a representative of the industrial constituency of Hamilton East. I think I should express what I believe to be the views of the people of my constituency with regard to this agreement, which the right lion. Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) said would effect a major reconstruction of the Canadian tariff. In the city of Hamilton, part of which I represent, there are about five hundred diversified industries, dealing with all forms of iron, steel, textiles, fibre, rubber, wood and food products. These industries employ some 33,000 persons, produce goods to the value of S185,-000,000 a year, and pay wages and salaries to the extent of $40,000,000 annually. This is purchasing power, about which some of our friends to my left are so eagerly inquiring.
Hamilton, situated in the heart of the famous Niagara fruit belt, provides a splendid consumers' market for the many hundreds of fruit, vegetable and dairy farmers who live in the surrounding districts. Hundreds of manufacturing firms are dependent upon the iron, steel and textile industries for the materials and supplies with which to manufacture their products. Hundreds of merchants, retailers, barbers, professional men, doctors and others are dependent upon the wages and salaries of these employees. Practically all of these industries are dependent for their existence upon a reasonable amount of tariff protection. That reasonable amount of tariff protection was considerably impaired by the trade treaty of 1935 with the United States, and considerable harm was done to our industries. By the trade treaty now before the house this reasonable measure of protection is further impaired. Our industries are being handicapped by the mass production competition of the United States, and the competition of low wages and standards of living which prevail in other favoured nations which are to receive the same benefits under this agreement as the United States, without their granting any concessions to Canada.
When the Prime Minister introduced the trade agreement to the house in 1936, he and other members of his government predicted that the increase in trade which would follow that agreement would bring untold benefits to Canada, would increase our revenues, would cure our taxation troubles, would solve our

unemployment problem and raise our standard of living. Those predictions of the Prime Minister were never realized. While it is true that some parts of the country received temporary benefits during the three years this treaty was in operation, the fact remains that the same problems of unemployment and taxation are with us. During that three year period Canada purchased some $320,000,000 worth of goods more than she sold to the United States-and in this figure I am not including gold. These were principally manufactured or partly manufactured goods, with a high content of labour.
When the Prime Minister introduced the present trade treaty into the house with his lengthy and somewhat political utterances, which covered some sixteen and a half pages of Hansard, he ignored the fact that his 1936 predictions had not been realized. He again-spoke enthusiastically, even aggressively, of the benefits which Canada would receive under the new treaty. He reiterated his belief in the policy of the Liberal party, that trade was the panacea for all our political and economic problems, that trade was the basis of industrial and commercial development, that what Canada needed was trade. Canada's need of trade was emphasized on the ground that trade means increased production, increased consumption, increased distribution, increased transportation, increased employment, an increase in the standard of living, and consequently increased prosperity.
On March 17, 1938, when the United States and Canadian governments announced the signing of the new trade agreements, both issued press releases describing the benefits received and the concessions made by each party. While the Canadian release contained a fairly accurate account of those benefits and concessions, there was a lack of detail and also a lack of frankness in dealing with some of the items, while the press release issued by the United States government gave a full and complete account of the agreement, indicated quite clearly how the United States government had protected its markets by quota restrictions and then went on to give reasons to substantiate the statement that the United States benefited a great deal more than Canada from the agreement.
During his address in this debate the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler) placed on Hansard the opinions of representative people and of newspapers in support of the new trade agreement; but I noticed that the dates of those opinions and newspaper quotations were within one week of the issue of the press release, and for that reason I would not place too high a value upon them,

Canada-United States Trade Agreement
because I do not think sufficient time had elapsed to study the effects of the new agreement upon Canadian industry. It is only now that our manufacturers, working men, farmers and fruit and vegetable growers are beginning to experience the disastrous effects the treaty has had in Canada, and I venture to say that those whose opinions the minister quoted would, if given the opportunity, revise them even at this comparatively early date.
I also should like to place on Hansard some opinions on the trade agreement that have been expressed in the United States and Canada. First, I quote from an editorial in the Labour Leader, dated December 2, 1938:
So far as we can learn, the new treaty has not been favourably received by either the east or the west. Last week a university professor from western Canada made a statement to the effect that the west had again been sold down the river. In the same week the Ontario Vegetable Growers' Association condemned the treaty on the grounds that it would be more difficult to dispose of their crops in the home market while at the same time the Canadian manufacturers were protesting that the removal of the three per cent excise tax would penalize many industries. We also learn that communications have been pouring in to the finance department from manufacturers protesting the tax on raw- materials when the finished products have been relieved of taxation.
From the Financial Post I quote this:
Commercial printers were amazed, alarmed and perplexed when they learned the terms of the Canada-United States trade treaty which provides for free entry of printed matter when shipped into Canada in individual packages valued at not more than one dollar.
The Toronto Globe and Mail of February 1 last has this heading:
Japan textiles crowd Canada. A. 0. Dawson defines the position of the world's textiles as desperate.
It goes on to say:
Mr. Dawson pointed out in one product alone Canada has imported in the first half of 1938 twenty-five per cent of Japan's total exports.
In the Financial Post of November 26, 1938, I find this heading:
British Columbia lumbermen speculate on the effect of the trade treaty.
The article goes on to say:
British Columbia lumbermen say it is largely a matter of opinion whether the advantages given in the United States market will compensate for their sacrifice of British preference in United Kingdom.
Again the Financial Post says:
Lifting of three per cent import excise will effect cuts in duty up to five per cent.
Then from the Toronto Evening Telegram of November 18, 1938, I quote this:
Canada pays large price to open doors of trading between Britain and the United States. Yields wheat and apple preference for cattle benefits in United States.
The New York Times of November 18, 1938,
says:
Farmers benefit under trade pact. British treaty an advantage to corn, rice, hogs, apples and citrus fruit producers. At present American wheat sold abroad is marketed at prices below domestic levels and the government makes up losses by export subsidies. The wheat concessions should go far in helping the American wheat farmer to reestablish a profitable market in Great Britain. Experts predict a fifty per cent expansion in Britain purchases of lard. The agreement likewise substantially enlarges British import quotas on pork, hams, cured pork and other products.
The Buffalo Courier of November 18, 1938, contains the following front page headline:
Preferred rates on Canadian shipments removed-Canadian grain will flow once more through our port-Welcome news to the thousands of grain workers who have suffered from reduced working hours since 1932.
There is no doubt that the operation of the present agreement during the past two months has affected adversely the basic steel, iron and textile industries not only in the city of Hamilton but throughout Canada. This effect will be reflected in reduced revenue, reduced purchasing power, an increase in taxation, an increase in the number of unemployed and an increase in the number on relief. In the year ending December 31, 1938, there were 19,166 individuals on relief in Hamilton, and I attribute that principally to the imports of United States manufactured goods under the 1935 agreement and to the apprehension of employers of labour as to the terms of the present agreement.
When the present government in 1936 reduced the tariff on washing machines, the Apex washer was being manufactured in Montreal by the Robert Mitchell Company. This machine is now being imported direct from the United States. The ABC washer was also being made in Canada by the Northern Electric Company, and it is now being imported in large quantities from their United States factories. My experience and observation of various industries in Hamilton have been that when the Canadian tariff is reduced beyond what may be considered the reasonable amount of protection necessary, Canadian industries that have parent companies in the United States immediately stop making their products in Canada and import direct from their factories in the United States. A reasonable protection is the amount of protection necessary to allow our manufacturers to compete with the products of other manufacturers coming into our markets. Percentage means nothing; it is simply a matter of the amount of protection necessary to enable our industries to keep their men employed.

Questions


Mr. McNIVEN:: Will the hon. member
indicate what amount he thinks would be necessary to accomplish the purpose he has in mind?


Albert A. Brown: I may possibly do that
later on. At the present time there are about seventeen establishments in Canada making washing machines, and most of those machines have about ninety per cent British content. Further importations, which have been increasing since 1933, will so restrict the available market that I have no doubt that some of these manufacturers will have to suspend operations and follow the two industries I have already mentioned.
Since 1933 the growth of imports of washing machines has been as follows:
No. of
Year	machines
1934		 3,014
1935		 3,380
1936		 8,428
1937		 16,914
1938 (June and July inclusive)..	6,545
As showing further the effects of this treaty upon our industries, let me say that I received last week a letter from the manager of an advertising concern who advised me that he was losing a contract with a manufacturing company which was making machinery, because, the head of the company stated, the present treaty was putting him out of business.
I wish to deal specifically with items which affect the industries established in my own constituency, and I think that at this stage, Mr. Speaker, if the house would not object, you might call it six o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, March 9, 1939