1939-02-22

[Stage Direction]
Mr. JEAN-FRANQOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): Mr. Speaker, to my utmost regret it is my duty to rise to a question of privilege. Referring to yesterday's debate on the civil service commission, the reporter of the Ottawa Citizen, in a column entitled Glimpses of Parliament, writes in this morning's paper:
Mr. Pouliot, who was chairman last year, gave expression to views which, as usual, were not qualified.
My answer will be threefold. In the first place, I never speak through my hat. In the second place, I would suggest to that gentleman of the press gallery that he read the 43,602 numbered pages of the last 461 files of the civil service commission which were in the office of the clerk of the civil service committee last year, and which have all been returned to the commission. The third part of my answer shall be biblical:
They have eyes and see not;
They have ears and hear not;
They have noses and smell not.


Right Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice) moved:: That the name of Mr. Heon be substituted for that of Mr. Wermenlinger on the standing committee on public accounts.	.
That the name of Mr. Bercovitch be substituted for that of Mr. Mullins on the standing committee on public accounts.
That the name of Mr. Kennedy be substituted for that of Mr. Hansell on the special committee to inquire into the terms and operation of the Civil Service Superannuation Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 29, to amend the Fisheries Act, 1932.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. REID:: This bill, Mr. Speaker, is for the purpose of amending the Fisheries Act so as to prevent, by statute, fishing for salmon by the use of purse seines in the estuary of the Fraser river, whch area had always been the fishing ground of the individual gill net fishermen until 1933 when, for the first time and by order in council, seine fishing was allowed in this area.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



SALMON TRAP NETS PROHIBITED IN CANADIAN


[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 30, to amend the Fisheries Act, 1932.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. NEILL:: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to abolish fish traps in British Columbia.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time. QUESTIONS
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)



OTTAWA GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS AND REALTY PURCHASES

Mr. HYNDMAN:: 1.	What has been the cost of each new building erected by the government in the city of Ottawa during the years from 1935 to date?
2.	What new government buildings are now under construction in the city of Ottawa, and what is the estimated cost of each?
Questions

3.	What property or properties have been taken over by the government from the city of Ottawa each year since 1926?
4.	At what price was each property acquired?


Mr. CARDIN:: 1.
Building	Cost
Justice building (contracted for
January	13,	1935)	
SI,365,811	37Postal terminal building (contracted for	March 25, 1935)..	886,025	18
Royal Canadian mint refinery (contracted for March 13,
1935)	
459,088	96Tailing disposal building, Department of Mines and Resources	
24,860	45
Industrial minerals and ceramics laboratory, Department of
Mines and Resources	
137,786	80Ore dressing laboratory, Department of Mines and	Resources	93,887	412.	EstimatedBuilding	costNew supreme court building, including surrounding terraces and underground garages.. .. 13,360,000 00 New post office building, corner Sparks and Elgin streets..	..	686,500	00
3 and 4. Portion of Earnscliffe avenue for national research building site. Purchased January 9, 1934, for 81,650. West half of lot 2, south side of Lydia street for Department of Mines and Resources plant, Booth street area. Purchased October 18, 1937, for $450.



TORONTO HARBOUR WORKS

Mr. MARSH:: What "was the total amount spent by the federal government on all works in connection with Toronto harbour, between the years 1920 to 1938 inclusive?


Mr. CARDIN:: $7,064,370.18 (April 1, 1920, to December 31, 1938).



HAMILTON HARBOUR WORKS AND BURLINGTON BEACH CANAL IMPROVEMENTS

Mr. MARSH:: 1.	What were the total moneys spent by the federal government on Hamilton harbour, including Burlington bay, between the years 1920 to 1938, inclusive?
2.	What was the total cost of all improvements at Burlington beach canal, including all dredging, widening of canal, building and repairing piers, etc., between the years 1920 to 1938, inclusive?


Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	$996,456.77 (April 1, 1920, to December 31, 1938).
2.	$2,649,239.74 (April 1, 1920, to December 31, 1938).



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE-SEARCHES AT ST. ANSELME, QUE.

Mr. LACROIX (Beauce):: 1.	Have the Royal Canadian Mounted Police made any searches or investigations on the property of Mr. C. Aug. Cadrin, or of Mr. J. B. Cadrin, merchants at St. Anselme, county of Dorchester, province of Quebec?
2.	How many such visits were made to the said property?
3.	Did the Royal Canadian Mounted Police constables proceed by virtue of search warrants or not?
4.	If not, by what authorization?
5.	Were any complaints made that intoxicating liquor was stored in warehouses or other property of the said C. Aug. Cadrin or of the said J. B. Cadrin?
6.	If so, by whom?
7.	What were the results of such investigation?
8.	Is there a limit to the number of such searches that can be made on private property?
9.	Can such investigations be conducted at any hour of the day or night?
10.	Will steps be taken to prevent unfair and unwarranted annoyance and persecution of peaceful citizens from taking place?


Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: 1.	Yes.
2.	Two searches were made of property occupied by Mr. C. Auguste Cadrin in December 13th, 1938 and January 13th, 1939.
3.	No.
4.	Writ of assistance issued under the provisions of the Excise Act.
5.	Yes.
6.	This information cannot be disclosed.
7.	No results.
8.	The law' does not prescribe any limitation.
9.	Public interest should govern.
10.	Steps are taken at all times by members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to check the reliability of information, as far as possible, before searches are carried out under the provisions of the Excise Act.



SEED GRAIN LOANS GUARANTEE ACT-FEDERAL LIABILITY

Mr. PURDY:: What is the present liability, by provinces, of the federal government on its guarantees under the provisions of the Seed Grain Act of 1938?

Questions


Mr. DUNNING:: Under the terms of The Seed Grain Loans Guarantee Act, 1938, the dominion government guarantees the principal and interest of loans made in Alberta and Saskatchewan by chartered banks for seed grain assistance to farmers during the spring of 1938. The loans in each province are primarily guaranteed by the provincial government. The province is not required to fulfil its guarantee until three years after the date of any loan and the dominion's liability is only to the amount that the province is unable to fulfil its guarantee. The principal amount of loans authorized to be guaranteed is: Alberta SI,900,000, Saskatchewan $14,500,000.
The principal amount guaranteed is not yet determined, but general guarantees have been executed for not exceeding the maximum amount authorized.



VEGETABLE OILS IMPORT-DOMESTIC PRODUCTION OF SHORTENING

Mr. HAYHURST:: 1.	What quantity of vegetable oils in gallons was imported into Canada in 1938?
2.	What quantity of shortening containing no
animal fat was produced in Canada in:	(a)
1937; (b) 1938?


Mr. EULER:: 1-	Imports for Consumption
Oils, vegetable, for food-
Coeoanut oil, n.o.p., edible	
Cotton seed oil, refined, edible, for canning fish	
Cotton seed oil, n.o.p., edible	
Olive oil, n.o.p., edible	
Peanut oil, n.o.p., edible	
Soya bean oil, n.o.p., edible	
Oils, vegetable, not food-
Castor oil	
China wood oil	
Coeoanut oil,	not edible,	for	manufacture of soap   .	..Coeoanut oil,	not edible,	for	manufacture of refined coeoanut oil..	..
Cotton seed and crude cotton seed oil for the manufacture of refined
cotton seed oil and meal	
Essential oil. n.o.p., including bay oil and otto of limes	
Eucalyptus oil	
Flaxseed or linseed oil, raw or boiled	
Foots, being the refuse of the cotton seed oi olives after the oil has
been pressed out	
Olive oil for	manufacturing	soap or tobacco or for canning fish or foruse in the	processing	of	textile fibres, including the finishing	offabrics	Oiticica oil	
Palm and palm kernel oil, unbleached or bleached, not edible and shea . butter; palm and palm kernel, not edible, for the manufacture of
soap	
Peanut oil, crude, for refining for edible purposes	
Peanut oil for the manufacture of soap or for canning fish	
Peppermint oil	
Perilla oil, when for use in Canadian manufactures	
Rape seed oil, crude or refined	
Rape seed oil, blown, for manufacturing purposes	
Rosin oil	
Sesame seed oil	
Soya bean oil for manufacturing soap	
Vegetable oil, n.o.p., not edible	
	Calendar year
	1938
Gal.	33.212
Gal.	128.500
Gal.	10.869
Gal.	346,099
Gal.	66,778
Gal.	96,877
Gal.	213,852
Cwt.	43,682
Gal.	2,388,047
Gal.	1,438,163
Cwt.	140,419
Lb.	601,614
Lb.	17,621
Cwt.	13,753
Cwt.	37,745
Gal.	54,764
Lb.	
Cwt.	703,601
Cwt.	935.133
Gal.	941.278
Lb.	37.511
Lb.	5,685,104
Gal.	72.735
Gal.	
Gal.	89.268
Gal.	2,916
Gal.	71.972
Gal.	203,290
2.	1937-Production in slaughtering and meat packing plants, 72,926,866 pounds; 1938-not available.



DOCTOR V. S. HUDSON

Mr. MARSHALL:: In the auditor general's report for the year ended March 31. 1938, appears the following item (Part A-38, Agriculture) : '"Contribution to expenses of Dr. P. S. Hudson from England to Peru, $973.33"-1. Is Dr. Hudson a member of the Canadian civil service?
2.	What work was he engaged upon in England?
3.	When did he go to England?
4.	What are the circumstances surrouuding his transfer from England to Peru?


Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	No.
2.	Dr. Hudson is an official of the imperial bureau of plant genetics, Cambridge, England.
3.	No information.
4.	It was the purpose of the imperial bureau of plant genetics, Cambridge, England, to send an expedition to Peru to secure supplies of new species of potatoes and Dr. Hudson was to be in charge of the expedition. As Canada was especially interested in this work and
Questions

was to receive a supply of the potatoes obtained, a contribution was made towards the expenses of the expedition. Due to the illness of Dr. Hudson, the expedition was postponed and is now under way under new leadership.



IMPORTS OP VEGETABLES-SEASONAL RESTRICTIONS

Mr. HEON:: 1.	How many orders in council were passed during the year 1938 with respect to vegetables, to prevent foreign products from invading the Canadian market between the months of April and July?
2.	Will orders in council of similar nature be passed during the same period in 1939?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	None required as authority contained in previous orders in council.
2.	No, unless further authority required.



LAKE ST. JOHN, ROBERVAL COUNTY, QUE., PUBLIC WORKS

Mr. HEON:: 1.	Is the dominion government, through the Public Works department, undertaking any works in Lake St. John-Itoberval county?
2.	If so, what is the nature of such works?
3.	To what amount?
4.	Is the work to be done under contract or day work?
5.	If under contract, who is the contractor?
6.	Was he the lowest tenderer?


Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) St. Henri de Taillon (Ponte a la Pipe), blasting reef.
(b) Roberval, construction of a protection wall.
3.	(a) $500.
(b) $22,000.
4.	5 and 6. (a) Day labour.
(b) Work being done by day labour. Stone required in construction of protection wall being supplied under contract by E. R. Truchon, who was the lowest tenderer.



LIFE INSURANCE PREMIUMS

Mr. FLEMING:: Has the government any knowledge, through the Department of Finance, that the life insurance companies doing business in Canada have raised, or are contemplating raising the premiums on new insurance?


Charles Avery Dunning: About four years ago
there was a more or less general increase in the premiums for new non-participating policies, the increase on the average amounting

to about 2 per cent. There has been no subsequent general revision of such rates. No general increase in participating rates has taken place for many years. The tendency has been rather in the opposite direction through the introduction of low premium special series of policies with lower dividend scales or with deferred participation. Approximately 80 per cent of new life insurance is now effected on plans providing for some form of participation.



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE-STATIONARY SEARCH LIGHTS

Mr. MacNEIL:: 1.	Have any stationary search lights been secured or installed by the Department of National Defence?
2.	If so, what firm secured the order for such search lights?


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: 1 and 2. No. Contract is now under consideration.



STANLEY PARK, VANCOUVER-FORTIFICATIONS

Mr. GREEN:: 1.	Have the fortifications in Stanley park, Vancouver, been completed and turned over to the Department of National Defence?
2.	If so, on what date were they turned over?
3.	If not, when is it expected that they will be so turned over?
4.	What will be the total cost of such fortifications?


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: 1.	The works are not yet completed.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	By the end of June, 1939.
4.	Total cost of works, approximately $205,073.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. LAWSON:: 1.	How many distributors' discounts, and on what imported articles, have been cancelled by the Department of National Revenue, customs division, since January 1, 1939?
2.	Has the tariff board given any ruling on any case submitted: (a) as to the legality of the Department of National Revenue granting general distributors' discounts or (b) cancelling the same?


Mr. ILSLEY:: Return tabled.

Questions as Orders for Returns



MONTREAL CONSTRUCTION SUPPLY AND EQUIPMENT LIMITED-SHELL MANUFACTURE


Mr. MacNEIL:: 1.	Were any members of the House of Commons carried as passengers in planes of the Royal Canadian Air Force during 1936, 1937, and 1938?
2.	If so, was permission granted by the Department of National Defence for such flights ?
3.	What are the names of the members of the House of Commons who secured this privilege, what was the number of flights in each instance, and between what points?


Mr. POWER (for Mr. Mackenzie, Vancouver) :: Return tabled.


THE BREN MACHINE GUN
Mr. MacNEIL:: 1.	Has the Department of National Defence secured information with regard to the Bren gun performance at Bisley?
2.	If so, were such reports satisfactory?
3.	Do the reports indicate that the Bren gun may be employed safely for overhead fire with advancing troops?
4.	Has the Department of National Defence secured reports on other tests made of the Bren gun in competition with other light machine guns ?
5.	If so, what do these reports indicate as to accuracy of fire and extraction?
6.	Is it true that the Bren gun was offered
to the German military command and the military staffs of other great powers and rejected?	[DOT]
7.	How many men are required to serve the Bren gun in action?


SECRETARY OF STATE-EUROPEAN TRAVEL IN 1938
Mr. WERMENLINGER:: 1.	Did the Secretary of State visit the continent of Europe during 1938?
2.	If so, was he accompanied by anybody connected with the government?
3.	What countries did he visit?
4.	What was the nature of his business with each country visited?
5.	What was accomplished by his visit to each country?


GOVERNMENT LOANS TO EX-SERVICE MEN
Mr. MacNEIL:: 1.	How many loans have been granted to
ex-service men by the Department of Pensions and National Health during, (a)	1937, (b)
1938, under the provisions enabling aid to those requiring tools and equipment in some recognized trade?
2.	What was the total amount loaned for such purposes during, (a) 1937, (b) 1938?
3.	Have any such loans been made to exservice men engaged in the fishing industry under this provision during 1937 or 1938?


IMPERIAL EX-SERVICE MEN
Mr. MacNEIL:: 1.	What is the number of imperial ex-service men now in receipt of the war veterans' allowance ?
2.	What is the number of ex-service men who served in the South African war, now in receipt of war veterans' allowance?
3.	What is the number of former imperial ex-service men now in receipt of unemployment assistance from the Department of Pensions and National Health with: (a) pre-war domicile; (b) domicile prior to 1924?
4.	What was the total number of imperial ex-service men admitted to hospitals under the Department of Pensions and National Health in: (a) 1937; (b) 1938?
5.	How many imperial ex-service men are employed in the Department of Pensions and National Health?


MOTION FOR PAPERS
Mr. GREEN:: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams, reports, memoranda and other documents passing to or from any department of the government and any Canadian trade commissioner in Australia, or any firm or corporation in Canada dealing in canned salmon, concerning unfair methods of competition with Canadian canned salmon in the marketing of Japanese or Siberian salmon in the Australian market.
1206	COMMONS
Canada-United, States Trade Agreement


TRADE AGREEMENTS
[Stage Direction]
CANADA-UNITED	STATES [DOT]- CONTINUATION	OP

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, February 21, 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 dp approve of the same, subject to the legislation required in order to give effect to the provisions thereof.
Mr. A. E. MacLEAN (Prince):: Mr. Speaker, in case there might be some little misapprehension regarding the manner in which the treaty is received in the province of Prince Edward Island and in the county I represent. I wish to take this opportunity of making a few observations on the motion now before the house.
It is a real pleasure for me, representing a rural constituency in that province, to be able to say that the treaty has been well received by the people of the province and of the county which I represent. A day or two after the press release was given out I met on the street a friend of mine; although he was strongly opposed politically to me we were always personal friends, and his first observation was: "This time we shall have nothing to fight over; we have not a word to say- the treaty is all in our favour." I believe that that represents pretty well the attitude of people in general. I make that statement for this reason: The United States has always been the natural market for the maritime provinces, and more particularly, possibly, for Prince Edward Island. If we look back over the history of Canada and study the situation of our province before we came into confederation. it will be found that at that time we had a wonderful trade with the people of the United States; we had control of our own customs laws; we had to sacrifice a good deal when we came into confederation, and ever since our people have looked longingly towards the markets of the United States in the hope that some day we might have a better entry into those markets.
While speaking of confederation, I do not think it will be out of the way for me to remind the house at this time that on July 16 of this year the seventy-fifth anniversary of confederation is being celebrated in the province of Prince Edward Island and the city of Charlottetown. A well balanced program has been arranged for the five days

of that gathering. Invitations are being sent out to the Prime Minister and the members of his cabinet, to the premiers of all provinces, to the leader of the opposition, and to all hon. members and senators. We sincerely hope that a large number of people across the dominion will take advantage of the occasion and attend this celebration in the city of Charlottetown.
The people of Prince Edward Island were not altogether satisfied with what happened after they came into the union. We were promised that we should have the central markets of Canada as an outlet for our products. We regret that that has not worked out in just the way that we had hoped. One of the difficulties is that the central provinces grow the same agricultural products that we do, and therefore it is simply impossible for us to find in those provinces a ready market for our surplus products. Another reason is the long haul and the exceedingly high freight rates. Our close proximity to the United States and the fact that we have waterborne traffic makes it much more economical for the shipper to send his products into the United States. Naturally, therefore, in all these years they have been looking at that market with longing eyes in the hope that the time again might come when they might have freer access to it.
I remember distinctly the disappointment of the people of Prince Edward Island when the reciprocity agreement of 1911 was defeated. It was defeated, I am sorry to say, by the attitude of our friends opposite, and I am really surprised to see them taking the same attitude at this time towards the treaty now before us. The fact that the United States came to the assistance of our friends, both with money and with the influence which they could bring into the campaign of 1911, goes to prove that the agreement was a splendid one; had the agreement not been entirely in favour of Canada, United States money would not have been put up, nor would the fight have been made which was made then to defeat it.
As the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) said the other day, when the treaty of 1911 was first introduced into this house, hon. gentlemen opposite did not know jvhether they were for it or against it. They were so completely overwhelmed by the wonderful offers made to Canada at that time that at the outset they did not like to oppose it, but afterwards, getting assistance from outside, they plucked up courage and determined to put up a fight against it. As the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Thompson) said

Canada-United States Trade Agreement
yesterday, the 1911 treaty would have made Canada an adjunct of the United States-so at that time they started waving the old flag, shouting "No tmck or trade with the Yankees", and declaring that if we entered into that agreement with the United States we would immediately lose our national identity and become a mere adjunct of the republic to the south. Of course that suggestion was perfectly ridiculous, and it is just as ridiculous to-day as it was at that time. Still, a good many people seem to fall for it.
The Prime Minister said the other day that he remembered Sir Wilfrid Laurier stating that it might be twenty-five years before another opportunity offered for us again to put through an agreement of that kind, and events have proved that Sir Wilfrid was right. We feel in the maritime provinces that our progress has been practically held back for twenty-five or thirty years owing to the fact that we have not had better trade relations with the United States. As has been pointed out on different occasions in the course of this debate, nine-tenths of our export trade is with the United States and Great Britain. One thing that our friends opposite cannot grasp is that you must be willing to buy before you can expect to sell; they think that trade is a one-way street. Unless they get rid of that idea they will never change their policy of high protection. To my mind, reciprocity is exactly what the word implies; it means that you must be willing to trade both ways.
The other day the leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion) said that the Prime Minister had made the statement that this was a peace pact. Well, I listened carefully to what the Prime Minister had to say, and the impression I got was that this was not a peace pact to protect us from aggression on the part of the United States or any other country, but that it was an object lesson to the whole world, teaching that the two great democratic countries could be drawn together in a policy of neighbourliness. It is not a peace pact to safeguard us from attack from any other country, but it is what the Prime Minister said it is-an object lesson to the world at large to show what can be done among the democratic nations. Our friends opposite are drawing largely on their imagination when they try to put any other construction on the treaty.
Let me read briefly some extracts from the British press and other British organizations to show what the opinion over there is. We all know what an influential body the British board of trade is. In reference to the agreement, the British board of trade summarizes it as an:
important and significant step in the efforts of the United Kingdom and the United States governments to reduce trade barriers and so contribute to world peace and prosperity.
The Manchester Guardian says:
The people of the United States and the United Kingdom will welcome the treaty, "not perhaps for the increased trade it will actually bring so much as for its political significance.
. . . Two great democratic countries are able, in a time when self-sufficiency and state regulated trade seem in the ascendent, to set the example of economic disarmament that the world so sadly needs."
The Financial News, independent, states:
The agreement marks a substantial throwback to sanity and adds: "The agreement in sum is standing testimony to the efficacy of human determination, aided by Anglo-Saxon genius for compromise."
I could read a great many more testimonials of the same sort. For example, the Yorkshire Post, Conservative, says:
The pact represents the first decisive step towards liberation of international trade the postwar world has achieved and is most valued not only for what it is but for what it promises.
And to quote the Daily Telegraph:
The goodwill the dominions have displayed in this matter merits particular recognition.
If it were not for the goodwill shown by the dominions it would have been difficult to put the treaty through.
These quotations from the British press are significant, and they bear out exactly what the Prime Minister said the other day, that we are not afraid of aggression from the United States or any other country but that the treaty is an example to the whole world of what democratic nations can do when they sincerely desire to get together.
After listening to our friends across the way in their speeches on this treaty I am led to ask this question: Where do the leader of the opposition and the Conservative party stand in relation to the treaty? Are they for it or against it? The leader of the opposition stated the other day in the closing part of his speech:
Time alone will tell, but my belief is that the ill effects of the treaty will be very much greater than the good effects.
I submit that if the ill effects of this treaty are greater than the good effects it is up to the leader of the opposition and his party as a whole to vote against the treaty on the floor of the house. But I shall watch very carefully to see whether they will venture so far. They are taking a great deal of time condemning the treaty and they will try to prejudice the minds of the public against it, but I doubt whether they will go the length of voting against it. [DOT]
1208	COMMONS
Canada-United States Trade Agreement
I cannot see how any farmer, any member representing a farming constituency in this house, in fact any member representing almost any constituency except a thoroughly industrial one, can oppose this treaty. Hon. gentlemen opposite will remember the time when the Robb budget was introduced. Industrial people from the cities in this vicinity paraded in front of the public buildings with placards on their breasts and backs, declaring that their industries would be closed down and that they were facing starvation on account of that Robb budget. Mr. Robb quietly told those gentlemen to go home and just take their time and see whether the budget would not work out for them a great deal better than they expected. The result was that the automobile industry in this country never had such a period of expansion as it had under the Robb budget.


Mr. STEWART:: Can the hon. gentleman
tell what changes were made in the budget before it was adopted in the house?


Alfred Edgar MacLean: Very few. Yesterday the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Thompson) stated that he is still for high protection. When the Conservative convention was held in Ottawa and the new leader was chosen, they adopted a resolution stating that the party stands by its old principle of high protection.


Mr. MacNICOL:: On a point of order, there is no use in the hon. gentleman making a statement that is not true. The party did no such thing as have a high protection plank.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: I accept the
hon. gentleman's correction, but his quarrel will have to be with the press, not me, because I have the clipping.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I ought to know, because I was chairman.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: History gives us to understand that the national policy of high protection was inaugurated in Canada to protect our infant industries, and when those infant industries got on their feet the party of our hon. friends opposite was pledged to do away with this high protection policy and adopt a policy of lower tariffs. But those "infant" industries, many of them now hoary with age, are still clamouring for more and more protection. And every time they shout, our friends opposite come to their assistance and are 'willing to give them higher and higher protection. When all those industrialists and manufacturers climb on the back of the farmer he has pretty heavy going.
Our hon. friends opposite must be either for or against this agreement. They cannot ride

two horses; they cannot eat their cake and have it too. They will have to make a decision on this matter, and their time to make it is not far away.
On page 1070 of Hansard of this session the leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion) is reported as saying that he is absolutely opposed to a prohibitive tariff. But from 1930 to 1935 he was a member of a government which imposed the highest tariff that was ever imposed in this country; if ever there was a tariff that could be described as a prohibitive tariff, that was it. And we know what the results were.


John Ritchie MacNicol: It made a lot of good jobs.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: I heard one of our friends over there the other day lamenting the plight of the young people of this country. I tell my hon. friends that the prohibitive tariff imposed by that government threw more people out of jobs than any other thing that ever happened. And see the other results. Not only was the indemnity of every hon. member of this house cut-we do not complain so much about that-but the salary of every member of the civil service was cut-[DOT]


An hon. MEMBER:: Why shouldn't it be?


Mr. LAWSON:: What has the tariff to do with that?


Alfred Edgar MacLean: -and the business men followed suit, and so on right along the line.


Mr. POULIOT:: The truth hurts.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: Our friends over there may protest as much as they like; all I have to say is that-
It is the set of the sails, and not the gales,
That shows the way they go.
There was a good cartoon in a recent issue of the Montreal Gazelle, which to my mind sums up, better than anything else I can think of, the attitude of hon. gentlemen opposite. It showed a Conservative gentleman, dressed in black, looking very mournful, and applying black paint to one side of this trade treaty. And there was a charming, smiling, gentle looking Liberal on the other side painting it a lovely white.


Mr. MANION:: It should have been red.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: This cartoon cleverly depicts the true state of the case. We have always told the people that the policy of the Liberal party was expansion of trade. We have told them that trade is the lifeblood of the country, that without trade we could not expect to meet our financial

Canada-United States Trade Agreement
obligations and prosper. With that in view, following hard upon the trade treaty of 1935, came the Dunning budget, providing for sweeping reductions in the tariff. Duties were reduced in many cases 17i per cent. Many articles coming from the United States were made free; the duty on farm machinery was reduced from 25 to 7i per cent, and so on all down the line. That is one pledge that the Liberal party have kept. They stated in a pamphlet which they issued in 1935 that they would seek to release and promote international as well as internal trade, and they have gone a long way in that direction.
Our trade has gone forward with leaps and bounds. I am not going to quote a great many figures but I have a few here from the bureau of statistics. Let us look at our trade with Great Britain. In the fiscal year 1934-35, the last full year of the Conservative administration, Canada's imports from the United Kingdom were $112,000,000. In the fiscal year 1937-38 they totalled $145,000,000-I use round figures-an improvement of $33,000,000, or 29 per cent. For the same two years our exports to the United Kingdom were $291,000,000 and $410,000,000, a gain of $119,000,000 or 40 per cent.
Look at our trade with the United States. In the Conservative government's last fiscal year, 1934-35, Canada's total trade with the United States was valued at $608,000,000, whereas in 1937-38 it came to $910,000,000, a gain of $300,000,000, or practically 50 per cent.


Mr. SPENCE:: Were not times better in 1937-38 than in 1934-35?


Alfred Edgar MacLean: What do our friends over there want? They must be hard to please if those figures do not please them.
Now let us look at the export figures, comparing the same two years, 1934-35 and 1937-38. The percentage of gain in Canada's exports to some of the leading countries was as follows: Great Britain, 40 per cent; United States, 39 per cent; Australia, 79 per cent; Japan, 57 per cent; South Africa, 33 per cent; New Zealand, 118 per cent; Belgium, 24 per cent; the Netherlands, 32 per cent; Germany, 174 per cent; Argentina, 85 per cent, and Ireland, 25 per cent.
Right down the list you find that we have made a substantial gain in our export trade. Is not that what our country needs? Is it not what we have been looking for? We have a great deal-I was going to say to be thankful for, and I do not know that I can use a better expression, in the very favourable situation we enjoy not only from the trade angle but also from the financial angle.
Hon. members will recall that during those five years Mr. Bennett was not only prime minister but for most of the time was finance minister as well. He was going to show this country not only how he could run it as prime minister but also how to finance it. In the last year that the Liberals were in power Canada had a surplus of over $47,000,000. The first year after our friends came in they had a deficit of over $87,000,000. The next year the deficit was $114,000,000, the next year $220,000,000, the next year $133,000,000, and in the year following there was a deficit of over $116,000,000. Again I use round figures. The total deficit for those five years was over $672,000,000. That is the record of their party, brought about largely by the trade policies they have followed, because it was shown here yesterday that you cannot have trade dropping off and at the same time maintain your revenue. Our friends opposite complain about the balance of trade. We find that last year we brought in from the United States only $78,000,000 more than we sold them and, as the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler) said the other day, our favourable balance of trade with the whole world was $280,000,000.
Now coming more particularly to the benefits which will accrue to my own province, I should like to refer to the potato situation. In one of his speeches the leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion) said he thought one county in the maritimes could supply all the potatoes we were permitted to ship under this agreement. I cannot agree with that suggestion; I do not think any county down there could produce 2,500,000 bushels of marketable potatoes, which is our quota under the new agreement. The important thing, however, is that if you take 2,500,000 bushels from the maritime provinces and ship them to the United States you relieve the situation to that extent, so that the different markets in the central provinces may be able to absorb the remainder of the crop. That is why we down there are so pleased with the provisions of this treaty.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, the duty prior to 1935 was 75 cents per hundred pounds. Under the 1935 agreement that was reduced to 45 cents, and there was a quota established of 750,000 bushels. Under the new agreement the quota has been increased to 1,500,000 bushels of seed potatoes, while the duty has been further reduced to 37i cents per hundred pounds or 22J cents per bushel. That is a real concession. We are permitted to ship in twice the amount of seed potatoes and matters can be arranged in regard to the months of
1210	COMMONS
Canada-United States Trade Agreement
shipment; potatoes can be held and shipped into the United States in plenty of time for spring seeding. Then in regard to table stock, in 1935 there was no quota for potatoes of this class. Under the new agreement, however, we have a quota of 1,000,000 bushels of table stock at .374 cents per hundred pounds, from March 1 to November 30. That gives us a total of 2,500,000 bushels that we are permitted to ship to the United States. That is what we in the maritimes have been looking and longing for during the past number of years. Quite a substantial duty remains, but I am glad to say that we have a wonderful trade in seed potatoes. I believe eighty per cent of the seed potatoes entering the United States come from Prince Edward Island. Some of the other members from the man-times are going to deal with this question, so I will leave it in their hands, since they are better prepared to deal with it than I am.
Under this treaty free entry is granted in connection with a great many of our fishery products. Our lobster industry alone is estimated to produce 83,000,000 annually, and we are given free entry for lobsters for the duration of the agreement. This means a great deal to the Canadian fishermen because, as you know, there has been a very strong agitation in some of the Atlantic states to shut out Canadian lobsters. We also have free entry for clams, quahaugs, oysters, crabs, scallops and smelts, and I may say there is a tremendous trade in the last named fish. A splendid table was placed upon Hansard the other day by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, appearing at page 1068. I will not take time to read it again, but I would direct the attention of hon. members to it.
Then, Mr. Speaker, the reduced duty on dairy cattle is a big item in our part of the country. We have always enjoyed a splendid trade in these cattle, and some of the finest dairy herds in the maritimes are in the province of Prince Edward Island. One of the boys from my county exhibited his cattle successfully in Ottawa; he swept the boards at the Royal Winter Fair in competition with United States herds and then went to the United States, where he was again successful against the very best herds from the different experimental farms in that country. I think that is a real tribute to the dairy farmers of Prince Edward Island.
If this agreement will do anything to bring about a more equitable distribution of products I think we should be all in favour of it. I think we all agree that our greatest difficulty to-day is that there is too great a spread between what the farmer receives for

what he sells and what he has to pay for what he buys. We have all spoken on this question. Our friends in the far corner are very strong in their views, and we appreciate their sentiments and their sincerity. But nothing concrete was done to deal with this situation until the negotiation of this treaty. The reduction of many duties, which means so much to the consumer, and the opportunity which is given the producer to widen his market, constitute the first concrete evidence we have had in this house that we are trying to bridge the gulf between the consumer and the man who has to market his products. So I think the government are to be congratulated on what they have done.
In conclusion I wish to repeat what the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) said the other day. When the reciprocity agreement was defeated in 1911 Sir Wilfrid Laurier stated that it might be twenty-five years before another agreement could be negotiated, and he was quite correct. Would not those great statesmen of the past have rejoiced to see the consummation of such a trade pact as this? Would not Fielding, Paterson and Laurier have loved to see the triumph of the principles for which they stood? We are proud indeed that to-day we have a leader of the Liberal party who has caught the vision of those who have gone before, and who has understood so well the message expressed in the words of our own poet-
To you from falling hands we throw The torch; be yours to hold it high.
Let us go on as a party. There is no doubt but that we are on the right track. This agreement gives consideration to all classes of citizens, the consumer, the producer, the farmer, the manufacturer, the labourer and the fisherman. I submit that trade is the very lifeblood of the nation. Without trade we become a decadent people. With trade we go forward to fulfil our destiny as a great and growing nation. Why should Canada fear competition? Canada, a young and virile nation, can compete with any country in the world.


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: 1216	COMMONS
Canada-United, States Trade Agreement
failure and burial of the League of Nations, which was to have removed international trade barriers, but has promoted more strife than peace. After its failure in achievements, the race was on to go to Washington for appeasement by means of these treaties. The league has gone up in smoke and is in ruins, and this agreement is the result of the new Washington trade treaty league of nations, and to appease the United States and get her help, something that is indispensable, by the Johnson act and the Ludlow resolutions.
With few exceptions, we get our news, published in the Canadian papers, with regard to Britain and this treaty through United States chains of newspapers. In my opinion the 1935 treaty was a mistake and a failure.
Recently I read this dispatch:
From Ottawa comes the report that if the Conservatives wax critical of the United States trade agreement signed at Washington last week the government is ready to make it a major issue in the general election which will likely be held next year.
I say, let the next election come, and it cannot come too soon for Canada's good. I am not one of those Conservatives who apologizes for the share the Conservative party had in the defeat of reciprocity in 1911, an agreement by which the grain trade would have been diverted to north and south; industry and agriculture would have been seriously injured, and would have made paupers out of our soldiers for the cheap boon of reciprocity. That reciprocity treaty would have made a Lazarus out of a country that Laurier professed to have made a nation.
In his last budget speech the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning), summing up the condition of Canadian-United States trade in the fiscal year which ended March 31, 1938, said:
Total exports of that country-
The United States-
-fell six per cent below the figure for the previous year to a total of $343,000,000, while imports, at $487,300,000, showed an increase of nearly 24 per cent.
A correspondingly adverse trend did not occur in the British market which absorbed more of our products than in the previous year.
That is the situation which existed under the 1935 agreement with the United States, which the Prime Minister has now agreed to continue * and expand. It is interesting to note that it flouts the very principle essential to international trade, and which he eloquently expounded when he laid the 1935 agreement before parliament. He said in the house at that time:
The government of the United States and the government of this country were actuated by one and the same motive, namely to make an agreement that would be equally beneficial to both countries. Could anything destroy the agreement more effectively than that it should be shown in the course of the next three years that one country had got considerably the better of the other? Would not the effect of an agreement reached in that way be to destroy the possibility of its continuance beyond the period of three years?
The Prime Minister apparently feared that it would, if Canada had not the best of the bargain. But when the balance swung against Canada, as the statement I have quoted of the Minister of Finance indicates that it did in the last fiscal year, the Prime Minister forgets it all and hastens to Washington to continue the agreement and extend its operation for another three years to several hundred new articles as well.
The whole question in connection with the treaty amounts to this: Are Canadians willing to see Great Britain open her markets to the United States on the same terms as she gives the dominions? Britain can take only so much bacon, butter and meat. Are we prepared to check the development of the dominions by selling less to the United Kingdom? Are we prepared to help the fruit growers of the southern United States in order that Florida and California may be able to sell in Canada the surplus fruits grown in those states at the expense of our fruit and vegetables?
As I see it, this treaty is free trade and anti-imperial. Our negotiators have driven the dominion out of the British market in order to act the part of Santa Claus to our United States competitors. All we can do here is to hold a post-mortem into it all which will end only in talk.
After all is said and done, not a line of the treaty can be changed or a comma inserted in it, or any amendments made, and it is only shadow-boxing for the Prime Minister to say that we shall go into committee on the resolution and consider the bill in detail on three readings; we can change nothing in it. When we get down to brass-tacks, the House of Commons will become in actual practice, nothing but a house of yes men and a house of nodders, and the whole treaty has been consummated over the heads of industry, labour and agriculture and of parliament in session. So far as this treaty is concerned, the executive have usurped the functions of parliament, and the private member has ceased to exist. It is enough to make the dictators laugh at our democratic way of doing things. Talk of Hitler and Mussolini! Where does the private member

Canada-United. States Trade Agreement
stand when all this has been done over his head? He is supposed to be the connecting link between the government of the day and the electorate, and when he ceases to function Burke says that all parliamentary government is at an end. As I say, not a line of this treaty can be changed here by us. This tremendous transaction, which may involve the ruin of many of our industries and of our agriculture, and labour, and cause widespread unemployment, was carried out over the head of parliament.
The United Kingdom cannot possibly give the United States the kind of trade treaty which the Americans ask for without reducing drastically the amount of preference which dominion goods receive in the United Kingdom markets and British goods receive in dominion markets, or without reducing the degree of protection which British goods now enjoy in their own home market. Why were not industry and labour consulted before such root and branch changes were made in our tariff? Why destroy preferences beyond recall? Why create a Pan-American orbit to please the United States and drive Canada into it for trade, defence and migration purposes? What is parliament for? What is our tariff board for? What are boards of trade and labour unions for? Have they no stake in the country? What mandate has the government? Talk of free parliaments; they are now abolished and can only hold a postmortem. The manner in which the treaty has been negotiated calls for constitutional, parliamentary and cabinet reform. The system is vicious and cannot last. It is deplorable to think of a treaty of such magnitude and such importance being launched without any prior consultation with the business or labour community. Washington, not Ottawa, has become the economic capital of Canada and it will in time become the economic centre of the British empire. The Anglo-American treaty means the end of the Ottawa agreements and the end of British preferences, and it is the forerunner of the dissolution of the British empire.
The proposed agreement is in no sense a business or commercial treaty; it is a political one to gain the friendship of the United States from European and dictators' menaces. Already there is an adverse balance of trade between the United States and Canada, because we are buying many millions more worth of goods from them than they are from us. The adverse trade balance between Britain and the United States is five to one against Britain. Australia buys from Britain more than the United States does.
71492-77j
The new agreements will have disastrous results on imperial unity, and England can no longer devote itself to the cause of empire development and make it effective. What it is going to do is to break up the great Anglo-Saxon confederation known as the British empire and not as the English-speaking union say, "unite the great Anglo-Saxon people." It allows the United States to function as an entity but refuses the same to the dominions. These same people have been misled about the United States before-witness the Irish treaty, the Indian Act, the League of Nations, the treaty of Versailles, the Kellogg pacts; for to please the United States we passed all those pacts. To please the United States we also chased Japan and Italy into German arms.
These unilateral agreements by Canada and Australia will mean the destruction of the Ottawa agreements, and the United States will now become the economic centre of the British empire. The reason for this rightabout-face by the government is the danger of the European situation and to secure the support of the United States for its Canadian anti-empire foreign policy. This new agreement will largely nullify the greater benefits which the Ottawa agreements in the years to come might have conferred upon the British empire as a whole, prolong the drawbacks in Canada which business is carrying at present, and lead to widespread unemployment in Canada as well as lead to additional burdens and an increase in taxation, which social services and unemployment are placing on the two central provinces of Canada, that pay now 80 per cent of the cash taxes of Canada.
That is the result, immediate welcome in certain quarters, but you will see the end of it very shortly. This agreement will ruin forever inter-imperial trade, and as Great Britain has to import 80 per cent of her food and almost 100 per cent of her raw materials she will now have to depend on foreign countries. We had an economic unit, the British empire, and under the Chamberlain program let me point out what that unit is. It consists of the British commonwealth of nations, with a population of 450,000,000. Its trade constitutes one-third of the trade of the whole world. Here are some facts. The United Kingdom buys 20 per cent of the total value of her imports from the major dominions, while she sells to them about 26 per cent of the total value of her exports. The dependent empire buys from her somewhat more than half her total exports of iron and steel, wood products, pottery, glass, cutlery and hardware, 60 per cent of British exports of electrical goods, 75 per cent of wearing apparel.
8	COMMONS
Canada-United, States Trade Agreement
paper and cardboard. But for the dominions exclusive of Great Britain 54 per cent of their exports are sold outside the empire, while about 50 per cent of their imports come from sources outside the empire. Bulking it all together, in this empire of 450,000,000 people, our position is being destroyed by the loss of preferences.


Mr. JOSEPH NEEDHAM (The Battle-fords) :: Mr. Speaker, I do not rise to condemn this trade agreement, but I wish there had been coupled with it a policy providing some benefits to our own Canadian people. I am not so much concerned with foreign markets as I am with our market at home.


John Ritchie MacNicol: This treaty kills the
home market.


Joseph Needham: If I saw coupled with this agreement a policy under which our own people would be enabled to enjoy their own production to a greater degree than they can at the present time, it would have been welcomed all over this dominion. When this agreement was signed last November it was acclaimed in the press as a wonderful achievement, as something that would be of great benefit to Canada and to the Canadian people. But many people are still looking for the benefits that were to accrue from the trade agreement of 1935.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in presenting this agreement to the house outlined very fully what he had in mind and what he hoped this agreement would do for this dominion. He said that the Canadian producers in every part of the dominion will share in the benefits. And he went on to outline the benefits to the fishermen in the east, to the potato growers, the fox farmers, the producers of maple products, the dairymen, cheese factories, the growers of hay and of wheat, barley and clover seed, the lumbermen, paper mills, and those raising horses, cattle and poultry. He then dealt with the great benefits resulting to the mining industry.
Referring to the increased quotas for cattle, of which so much has been said, I find in this month's issue of Canadian Business the statement that the former quotas on heavy cattle, calves and dairy cows were all increased last month-referring to November -but the former quotas in 1938 were unused by 45 per cent, 74 per cent and 33 per cent respectively. Therefore many will question whether great advantage is to be obtained from increased quotas.
I notice that the Prime Minister did not mention agricultural implements, of which

special mention was made in 1935, when the trade agreement reduced the tariff from 25 per cent to 12J per cent and the price of agricultural implements went up, not only once but twice. I do not see any change under this agreement in the tariff on agricultural implements. He also said that this agreement means increased purchasing power, and made special mention of Alberta. It may mean increased purchasing power, but I am wondering whether the government have taken any steps to see that the reduction in tariff is passed on to the consumer. I have not heard anything from the Liberal side as to whether this phase of the agreement is receiving attention. I have asked housewives whether they can see any change in the prices of the things they buy for the home, and I have yet to find one that can say she has found any benefits that came into effect on January 1.
The Prime Minister said that the consumers will benefit from the removal of the special excise tax of three per cent. Those benefits should be apparent by now.


Mr. LEADER:: The excise tax is not yet removed.


Joseph Needham: Well, the tariffs are down. I also notice that the Prime Minister had the same thing to say in regard to the 1935 agreement. Speaking on February 25, 1936, as reported in Hansard at page 515, he said:
-to producers and consumers alike, it will assist our railways, will bring about an increase in purchasing power, and which may help very materially to lift our country out of the depression from which it has been suffering for so many years and to restore an era of prosperity and of better relations with other lands.
The same things were said then as have been repeated this year. But the real test is, did the trade agreement of 1935 produce those results?


John Ritchie MacNicol: No, it did not.


Joseph Needham: Did it bring that era of prosperity? Of course the Liberal side now say, time only will tell; you cannot judge it yet. But this is only the 1935 agreement carried a little further. No doubt it will increase the amount of goods passing between the two countries; that is to be expected. But will it tend towards a solution of our economic problems? Will it give more security for the Canadian people? Increasing the amount of goods passing between the two countries may work to the detriment of Canada. The sales of the two countries may increase, and if they do, in the same proportion as at present, we will be much worse off three years hence than we are to-day from

Canada-United, States Trade Agreement
the standpoint of trade, because of the large adverse balance of trade with the United States.
I believe the first function of a government should be to look after the welfare of its people and to see that they are provided for in every possible way. I repeat that there is something seriously wrong when the people of this country cannot enjoy the wealth they produce. I will not dwell upon our resources and our equipment to produce all these things, about which we have heard so much, but it is said that we need markets. The best market Canada can have is her own market at home, which should be supplied to the saturation point before we become very much concerned about exports. I would ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) these questions: Are our people getting all the food they can eat? If not, why? Have our people the warm clothing they need in this cold weather? If not, why? Have they decent homes in which to live? You need only look at the slums in our cities and the shacks on the prairies for an answer to that question. Are our old people, many of whom did the pioneer work of this country, enjoying the fruits of their life work, with that feeling of security to which they are entitled? Again I ask the question: If not, why? It seems to me these are questions the Prime Minister should answer. If we ask the unemployed, they will have an answer. If wTe ask the transient youths, they will have an answer. If we ask the part time worker or the farmer, they will have an answer.
There is one thing, Mr. Speaker, that grieves me more than anything else as I travel through the older settlements of my own province, and I have no doubt the same thing applies to an even greater extent in Manitoba. I find the second generation renting the homes in which they were born, from mortgage companies, the homesteads of their parents. That is becoming more and more prevalent in these days, and I think it is one of the things that should be the first concern of this government. If our people were properly provided for in regard to the necessities of life we would not be bothered with heavy surpluses of various commodities. It is common knowledge that we have a large carry-over of butter and similar commodities, which is being kept in cold storage while our people are not able to buy them. Last summer in the west it was reported that there were three million pounds of whitefish in storage in Winnipeg, not because the people of the west could not consume that amount of fish but because they were unable to purchase it. It was also
reported that application had been made for a closed season on whitefish in Manitoba for this winter, in order that the surplus might be consumed.
So, with thousands of our people lacking the bare necessities of life, I question whether it is the best policy for us to be devising ways and means of sending out of this country more cattle, hogs, milk, cream, potatoes, butter and similar commodities. We know that our exports can be paid for only by imports. If our people have not the value of the goods that are exported-and if they had, it would not be necessary to export them, because they would be consumed at home-how are they going to buy the imports that are necessary?
I have been reading a small book published in 1937, by the Secretary of Agriculture of the United States, in which he sets out some of the serious problems they are facing in that country. I should like to quote a few sentences from that book:
Every new device-
I think he has in mind the fact that the lack of purchasing power in the hands of the consumer is largely due to the advent of machinery, which does away with the distribution of wages with which the necessities of life may be purchased.
Every new device has meant that a continually larger number of farmers' sons and daughters have moved to town.
I think this can be applied to Canada one hundred per cent. Then he goes on to say that the per capita consumption of wheat, at five bushels, has remained unchanged for years. Since 1918 they have produced forty per cent more milk with only a fifteen per cent increase in dairy cows. Their increase in pork and lard is eighteen per cent with nine per cent fewer hogs. Chickens are producing more eggs per hundred pounds of feed than they were twenty years ago. Now listen; he says there seems to be good reason to believe that in the decade just ahead there will be continued the trend which characterized the decade of the nineteen twenties, when the manufacturing industries, at the end of that decade, were able to turn out forty per cent more goods with two per cent less man hours; the mining industry five per cent more goods with twenty per cent less man hours. The railroads were able to haul the same quantity of material with twenty per cent less man hours. The nation's total output increased forty-six per cent with an increase of only sixteen per cent in the number of workers. In 1929 about eighty-eight per cent of all the processing of farm products was carried on by corporations. Prior to 1929 very few people
1220	COMMONS
Canada-United States Trade Agreement
felt that corporations had much to do with booms and depressions. Now we know that they have much to do with them, because the worker has no bargaining power, nor has the farmer any bargaining power, selling to a corporation, except in times of extreme shortage, and the same applies to the purchase of almost all the articles we buy. Here he gives what he would term a solution:
Profits made from inventions should be used in correcting the economic problem created by the machine.
It is possible to make the machine the servant of man, and not the master. These advances in both industry and agriculture provide the material out of which we might construct a more ample life for all our people. The benefits should be. distributed to those who need them.
One would almost think he was a social crediter. But, listen:
Let us not expand exports as an end in itself, instead of a means. Unless we can buy back the goods sent to us in exchange for our goods, it does not do any good to increase the volume of exports.
This is something which I think demands our very serious consideration.
I repeat: Canada's best market is represented by the huge unsatisfied wants of our own people, and when those needs are supplied we can then turn our attention to securing markets abroad.
All hon. members recall that ten, fifteen or twenty years ago, when mass production was coming into its own, it was thought that it would be one of the greatest advancements, and would do much towards solving our difficulties and making for a richer life. But it did not turn out that way, did it? The natural thing to follow mass production should have been mass consumption. However, that was a part which was not attended to, and no provision was made for it. The mass production was by machinery, and wages were not distributed to buy back the production. Goods began to pile up.
How did the manufacturers act? Some of you can well remember when that intensive advertising program was put on, when it was thought that by that means they could get rid of their production. That program was effective for a while, but it was not sufficient. Then, what followed? They began a system of selling on the instalment plan, and made use of high pressure salesmen. That relieved the pressure for a little while. But still goods piled up faster than they were being sold or consumed; and then the depression struck. That was going on not only in Canada, but the world over. And so I say that accompanying mass production there must be mass consumption. If the government were making

provision whereby the people of Canada could buy to the limits of their needs, they would be provided the most effective way of meeting the present situation.
I am not condemning the trade agreement, but I am saying the government should have given more attention to seeing that the people are provided with at least the necessities of food, clothing and shelter. Those were the things pledged by the Prime Minister in 1935. If ever a prime minister had a mandate from a country to carry out his pledge, certainly he had it.
No doubt many hon. members are, I was going to say, concerned, with the attitude of the group to which I belong, when we press for monetary reform. That is what we were sent here for. That is what our constituents pledged us to, and we pledged our abilities to that one end. And so we will press on through this session; and as long as we are here we shall have the same story to tell. I say that because I do not believe there is any solution to the problems facing Canada, unless it be through the economic system we advocate, one which would make such provision as would enable the people at least to enjoy what they produce.
This trade agreement is in reality a fixing of tariff rates and certain quotas between the United States and Canada. It seems strange to me that for over half a century governments have been monkeying with these tariff rates. Surely by this time they should have found the proper relationship or proper balance, one with the other. Yet they seem to be just as far away from it as ever.
I am fully aware that from the point of view of tariff this is a difficult country to govern. We have differences of view in different parts of the country; some advocate low tariff, some high tariff, some no tariff at all; and so it goes. But I would back up the suggestion of the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) who, speaking in the house last week, pleaded with the government to make at least a start towards relieving the situation by purchasing outright, with debt-free money, the bonds coming due this year, thus relieving the taxpayers of $14,000,000. There would be a beginning from which point the development could be enlarged. But it is high time the government sought in some other way than by trade agreements to solve the economic problems of the country.
I wish to place on Hansard the considered opinion of the group to which I belong with respect to the trade agreement. It is as follows:
We believe in the principle of freer trade with other nations, but say that while there is

Canada-United States Trade Agreement
so much want and poverty in Canada, the first concern of this government should be the welfare of the Canadian people.
We reaffirm the statement we have often made that foreign markets are not a solution to Canada's economic problems; that our troubles are due not so much to the lack of external markets as to the- restricted consumption at home. Restricted consumption means restricted markets; restricted markets mean restricted production. This in turn means further restricted purchasing power.
We believe that the bases of all prices for both primary and secondary products should be cost of production plus a fair commission. To that end we favour a proper adjustment of tariffs or subsidies, not to benefit one class only but for all citizens; that exchange rates should be fixed by agreement between nations, having regard to the price levels of the various countries, and the rates necessary to give each of them approximate equilibrium. When this is accomplished the general price level will remain stable.
The object of each nation should be to keep its imports and exports as near equal as possible over a period of time, so that international trade would become an exchange of goods and services between nations to their mutual advantage, instead of a desperate struggle by each to lower its price level with a view to underselling others.


Mr. RALPH MAYBANK (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the debate this afternoon, to me at any rate, illustrates how very often hon. members can be in agreement upon one point or another, and yet, on the whole, and particularly in respect to the conclusions at which they arrive, can be in complete disagreement. In spite of points in common, they can, in general, hold to views so wide apart that one would think it was quite impossible for them ever to come together. No person I fancy can be in closer agreement than I with the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) when he indicates keen desire to see continuance of the British empire. Nor can there perhaps be more complete disagreement between two people, than there is between us when he suggests that the manner of ensuring its continuance is to insist upon trade going there which might more profitably go somewhere else. And so on with respect to the remainder of his speech. As soon as we get away from his remarks indicating his desire for a continuance of the empire, there seems to be a very thorough disagreement between him and me with regard to his beliefs. And so it is very often. Many of us have the same aims, but we cannot agree at all upon the necessary procedure.
Likewise with reference to the hon. member who has just spoken (Mr. Needham), often throughout his speech I found myself in agreement with him. For example, no one, I think, would controvert his statement that trade entirely within a country is the best possible kind of trade for such country, because if trade can be effected entirely within a country, we have a producer producing within the country, and then the carriage to the consumer within the country, thus providing employment for those engaged in the transport industry. Next we have the complete manufacture, shall we say, of a second commodity, which in turn is carried by the same transport workers back to the person who produced the first. Economists, I think, have always been agreed that this is the most advantageous form of trade. But our position is that we could not possibly, with the sort of production we have in this country, have our trade confined entirely within the country.
The hon. member speaks of mass consumption meeting mass production. Well, it would simply mean liquidating the mass of the people in this country if you attempted to have mass consumption at home of all the wheat that is produced in Canada, or of the cattle W'e produce.


Joseph Needham: May I just interrupt to say that I did not advocate anything of that kind at all.


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: You certainly did


Ralph Maybank: I have no objection, Mr. Speaker, to being interrupted, but I thought the hon. gentleman was going to ask a question. He may not have intended what I have just now been indicating, but certainly mass consumption, as he called it, could not within Canada keep up with what we raise or produce in this country, and as respects a very large amount of our production nothing can be done with it except sell it to the people of some foreign country. Mass consumption -it just can't be. We could not for a moment consume all the nickel we produce, which I understand comprises the greater part of the world's supply. Likewise with our wheat, our cattle, and many other products.
But again my hon. friend and I come to a point of agreement when he says that you cannot sell if you do not take back goods in exchange; perhaps not from the person to whom you sell; the settlement of international indebtedness is often roundabout. While you do not always take back products from the person to whom you sell, you must take goods from somewhere in exchange for those you send out of the country.
1222	COMMONS
Canada-United, States Trade Agreement
That shows, Mr. Speaker, the extent to which persons can be in complete disagreement with respect to the means of bringing about what they consider desirable. I say at once that I am heartily in favour of this treaty because of the tariff reductions it makes. My view is that tariff reductions are good in themselves. That is my general position. There might be some particular drastic tariff action downward with which I might disagree, but because of the tendency of the low tariffs towards mitigating the cost of living pressure on the consumer, I always favour tariff reductions. I agree at once with the hon. gentleman who has last spoken, that a treaty such as this is not a complete solution of the economic conditions of this country, nor could it be of any country; but it has a tendency at any rate, because of the tariff reductions, to reduce the cost of production to the primary producer.
There are other reasons for supporting the treaty, aside from the reductions to which I refer; for the treaty on its export side is better than it is on what I might call its import side. That is, its encouragement of the exportation of goods from this country is perhaps more important than the part of the treaty .which deals with the so-called concessions that we give to the United States. But primarily, just on account of the tariff reductions that are being made, I am strongly in support of the treaty.
I do not hold very much with the statements that have been made anent the danger of this country being flooded with cheap foreign goods. In the first place, no goods can be sent into this country unless the nation sending them in takes payment for them in some of the goods we produce; either that country or some other country must take the goods we produce in settlement of the goods we buy. It is true, as I have said, that international indebtedness may be settled in a roundabout route.
It is possible, although I do not see much indication of its probability in this treaty, that factory workers, for instance, might be displaced, but goods could not come into the country without Canadians being given employment to produce goods with which to pay for them. It just is not possible. Persons in this country must labour to produce goods to pay for the goods which come in. Personally I have no desire to see any man put out of work, be he a factory worker or engaged in any other work. I do think, however, that it would be well, when we are considering this situation, to have in mind the classification of persons in this country into their several callings.

According to the last decennial census in Canada we had gainfully employed in. agriculture about 1,100,000 men and 24,000 women. They made up 28-7 per cent of the population. In forestry, fishing and trapping we had close to 100,000; the percentage was 2-5 of the total population. For mining, quarrying, oil and salt wells the percentage of the population was 1-8 per cent. I believe that in the period since the last census the percentage in that particular industry will have been greatly increased.
Coming to manufacturing, we have 16 per cent of the population employed in it, and likewise 16 per cent of the population dependent upon those so employed. In electric light and power the percentage is one-half of one per cent; in construction, 6| per cent; in transportation, 7-8 per cent; in trade, 9-9 per cent; in finance and insurance 2-4 per cent; the services generally, as they are called, account for 19-5 per cent. There were a certain number of people, about 165,000, not particularly categorized, and representing 4-3 per cent.
Bearing in mind that classification of our people, I think we are bound to say that a tariff reduction having any tendency at all to cheapen goods is bound to benefit by far the great majority of the people of this country. Again, we should remember that one of our largest customers both in respect of imports and exports is the United States of America. This treaty has affected 58 per cent of our total import trade from them. It makes reductions in the duties on a large number of items, not that it makes any difference how many items there are, on account of the fact that they amount to 58 per cent of the trade; and these reductions go all the way from very small amounts up to a complete wiping out of the tariff; a 100 per cent reduction.
As has been pointed out already in this debate, every section of the public in Canada is affected by the cheapening of the costs of production. We have a right to consider not merely the general consumer but the fishermen, the lumbermen, the farmers, and the miners. That is, they are to be considered as producers, and this treaty cheapens the cost of production. But aside altogether from that, there is a general benefit to that person whom we sometimes call the consumer. Of course all are consumers.
In order that we may see the effect of some of these reductions I have noted one or two of them. For example, take cotton woven fabrics, unbleached. In 1935 we had a tariff of 25 per cent plus four cents per pound specific tariff, and on top of that, of course, the well known three per cent excise tax.

Canada-United States Trade Agreement
By the former agreement, effected in 1935 and brought into effect on January 1, 1936, we cut that down to 20 per cent, and the four cents specific went down to 3i cents. To-day's agreement reduces that to 17 per cent, plus three cents per pound. With this difference, however: In the former agreement the reduction which I have spoken of left the three per cent excise tax untouched. Under this agreement the three per cent excise tax will also be taken off. I suggest that this will involve a total reduction of probably 35 per cent on the tariff as it was before the time of the first agreement.
In 1935 we were able to buy half a million dollars' worth of these goods, but as a result of the reduction effected by the last treaty we were able in 1937 to purchase one and a third million dollars' worth. There is not much doubt that by reason of further cheapening now, we shall be able to buy a great deal more.
A similar story might be told regarding cotton dyed fabrics. In 1935 we were able to buy SS89,000 worth, but through the reductions I have mentioned-a little different in respect of these dyed fabrics and the unbleached ones, in 1937 we were able to buy about one and a half million dollars' worth. Through to-day's further reductions we should be able to purchase more than we have done in the past.
Taking now the case of cotton apparel, I find this. We had at first a duty of 35 per cent plus four cents per pound plus three per cent excise. This was cut to 30 per cent and li cents a pound plus the three per cent. To-day this is being reduced to a straight 30 per cent, and all this represents a total reduction of 23 per cent. We bought to the value of $882,000 in 1935 and over one and a half million dollars worth in 1937.
A similar story can be told with reference to a very large number of items, such as engines and boilers, Diesel engines, aircraft engines, ore crushers, refrigerators, boots and shoes, pharmaceutical preparations, as well as a host of other goods.
If we were to dwell at this moment on the export side of the treaty, a commensurate improvement could be noted. But this is not at the moment my intention. As I have said, there is to be a further reduction of the three per cent excise tax. This tax was put on sometimes between 1930 and 1935, and it was imposed, as hon. members will remember, upon all or nearly all imports. It was levied not on the price of the goods but on the price plus the duty, so that this three per cent has more often turned out to be a tax of three and a half to five per cent. Not so very often five per cent, but there are instances when it was as high as that.
I agree with hon. members who have hitherto spoken with reference to this subject that while under this agreement the three per cent tax is to be taken off only those articles named in the agreement, this practically means a complete repeal of that excise tax. I do not know whether logically it would have to be repealed in respect of every article, although I have not been able to think of many articles on which it might be retained. But I agree with the speakers, mostly on the Conservative side of the house, who have stated that complete repeal must be the result. The difference however, between me and these Conservative speakers is that they speak with disapproval of the repeal of the three per cent excise, while I, on the other hand, welcome it, and am very glad indeed that the tax will come off not merely those articles which I mentioned in the treaty, but others as well.
I have mentioned that this tax was usually more than three per cent. In order to illustrate the importance not merely of some of the tariff reductions but of the excise repeal in particular, I might draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, the case of artificial silk wearing apparel. Prior to 1936, in respect to that item we had a duty of 50 per cent plus the three per cent special excise. This made a total effective tariff of, not 53 per cent, but 54| per cent. In 1936 this was cut down to 31J per cent, plus the excise tax. To-day this is being further reduced to 30 per cent, without the excise tax. This, I figure, represents a total tariff reduction of 45 per cent. I must add, however, that, with a tariff of 30 per cent, these articles are still a highly protected product.
I might have said that I desired to introduce that particular illustration for the purpose also of drawing attention to the favoured nation clause of the treaty. It is true that the reductions which are effected in this agreement with respect to United States goods apply to a great many more nations than the United States. For example, this artificial silk apparel will come in from France at the same rate of duty as that charged when it enters from the United States. There are certain points of difference between some speakers and myself with regard to the favoured nation clause. It has been said several times that we give these tariff concessions to more nations than those to which the United States gives corresponding concessions. I do not know that from my point of view it matters much, but it does not happen to be true that our concessions go to a larger number of nations than do the United States concessions. The contrary is the fact. We have made treaties con-

1224	. COMMONS
Canada-United States Trade Agreement
taining this favoured nation clause with quite a number of nations: The Argentine, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Esthonia, Finland, France, Germany, Guatemala, Haiti, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Norway, Panama, Poland, Portugal, Roumania, Russia, Salvador, Spain, Sweden, Hruguay, Venezuela, Yugoslavia. The United States on the other hand have not made agreements with quite so large a number of nations. The nations with which they report having agreements are:	Cuba, Belgium, Haiti,
Sweden, Brazil, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Honduras, Colombia, Guatemala, France, Nicaragua, Finland. Salvador, Costa Rica, Czechoslovakia, Ecuador.
That list is clearly a shorter one than ours, but although the United States have the favoured nation clause in all these agreements and although we have it in all ours, and ours is a larger list, the fact of the matter is that the United States concessions are granted to every nation whether they have an agreement with that nation or not. The appropriate American document sets forth the changes in import duties to every country in the world with the exception of Germany, and, at the time this particular pamphlet was published, January 21, 1937, Australia. They did not give any concessions to either Germany or Australia, but with respect to Australia the situation may have changed in the meantime. From my point of view, however, it does not matter very much that when the United States confers a benefit upon us it promptly gives it to a larger number of nations, nor does it matter to me that when we make an agreement with the United States we promptly give the concessions to twenty-three or twenty-four or thirty nations. Personally I should be glad to see the ambit of the privilege enlarged rather than restricted.
I freely admit that I was bitterly disappointed last year because there were no tariff reductions throughout the whole session. I realized, of course, what the position was. We could have had tariff reductions then, but had they been effected, it is probable that in the intervening period between sessions we would not have been able to persuade the United States to make the reductions in their tariff we have now been able to obtain, and consequently it was probably worth while to wait in order to obtain a benefit for the exporting section of our people at the same time as we should confer a benefit upon the general consumer through reduced import duties.
As I have said, I think the export side of the agreement is even better than the part

dealing with our own tariff reductions, in spite of the fact that there are numerous important reductions in our own duties, some of which I have mentioned. With reference to the side of the agreement designed to assist our export trade, I do not desire to speak at length but only sufficiently long to make two observations. The first is that the United States reductions by which our exporting public are benefited affect a trade of $327,500,000; and that this is S3 per cent of the total export trade to the United States. The total trade last year was $493,000,000. Now the point I wish to make particularly, is this, that this $327,500,000 worth of export trade is really $327,500,000 worth of Canadian labour; for there is little, if anything, that is produced that cannot be reckoned in terms of the labour that is in it. We thus open to our exporters a market of 130,000,000 people, affecting trade of the size stated, and as soon as this is done there is given an enormous impetus to Canadian employment.
The other observation I desire to make with reference to the exportation arises out of the lament of opposition speakers, that we have surrendered privileges to Great Britain. It is said that we have given up certain privileges we had in the British market and that this is a matter of regret. It is, however, a fact that by giving them up we brought the United States and Great Britain into an agreement. Aside altogether from that, however, we drew material advantages from our action. The United States gave to the British people certain privileges, and by reason of the favoured nation clause in our treaty, those privileges automatically and immediately came to us also. Our potential trade with reference to a great many of the articles on which concessions were granted, is very great and we get, almost like a direct benefit, this benefit under the British treaty by reason of our favoured nation clause in this agreement.
For example, varnishes from England are reduced from 25 to 15 per cent and automatically we get whatever benefit there is in that. In our commerce reports, paints and varnishes are not separately categorized, but we did a total business in those lines of $911,000 last year. Of that trade $52,500 or 5-7 per cent went to the United States. It went in at the 25 per cent United States customs level. It will now enter, by virtue of the British agreement as it affects varnishes, at 15 per cent, which represents a tariff reduction of 40 per cent.
Again, graphite is one of our exports. Last year we exported $142,000 worth, of which

Canada-United States Trade Agreement
$69,000 went to the United States. The tariff wall against it was 30 per cent. By reason of the agreement now consummated with England that duty has been cut in half, reduced to 15 per cent. The benefit to Great Britain we also get, by reason of the most favoured nation provision. If the demand for graphite were what the economists call an elastic demand, we might expect the doubling of our exports to the United States by reason of the treaty. However, I shouldn't care to follow that line of argument too far, or I might get into the position of the girl who was selling hens from eggs not yet laid.
One other item in the British-Ameriean treaty that took my attention is pig-iron. The duty on pig-iron entering the United States from Great Britain was cut by 40 per cent, from $1.25 to 75 cents a ton. Again by reason of the most favoured nation clause that rate comes to us. Last year we exported 21,352 tons of pig-iron, valued at $412,000. Of this the United States took the major part, 16,000 tons of a value of $322,000. It is now 40 per cent easier for us to enter the United States market by reason, first of all, of the releasing of Great Britain from certain engagements she had with us and the consequent effecting of the Great Britain-United States treaty, and by reason of the fact that we have a most favoured nation treaty with the United States herself.
In fact our dealings with Great Britain in this respect illustrate to me peculiarly the wisdom of casting bread upon the waters. I speak with considerable humility, because I cannot claim, as some might be able to do, that I have always fully observed the tenets of religion or the axioms of ethics. I have, however, always believed that these tenets and axioms, when actually applied in business dealings, abundantly demonstrate their truth. No one disputes the wisdom of the golden rule as a general rule of life; it is accepted, even if only theoretically, by everyone. As an economic rule it is equally sound. The best way for this nation to help itself is to help some other nation. Let a nation bring health to another one or increase the health of another nation, and at once a condition is set up which is bound to bring material benefit to the first nation, usually with great promptness. The doctrine, "Do unto others as you would that they should do unto you," which is known as a sound rule in the moral world, is, I submit, also a sound and salutary rule in the world of economics.


Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Peel):: In rising to take part in the discussion of this important resolution, and in attempting to interpret the views of the constituency I 71492-781	.
represent in this house, I should like first to remind hon. members that this session of this eighteenth parliament of Canada is being subjected at this moment to perhaps the most critical and interested observation and examination that any parliament has undergone for a considerable number of years. To those of us-and there are many hon. members who can speak with just as much conviction on this point as I-who try to live close to the people and the problems of those whom we represent, comes forcibly in these days the realization that the general public is tired of all the old-time platitudes, the old political nostrums, whether done up in the old-time parcels or with new wrappings; they are also tired of talk not based on common sense and sound judgment and not leading to definite action. So, as I approach the discussion of the new trade agreement between Canada and the United States, I do so with the studied purpose in mind that we must consider first of all the welfare of our people, all other considerations being secondary.
It is only natural and proper that the government of the day should stress all the advantages which the treaty appears in their eyes to offer. They will stress its great importance so far as international understanding is concerned. They will stress the need for Anglo-Saxon unity in these days. They will stress the view that the volume of this country's business will be advantageously affected, and that certain classes of producers in this country will benefit by the agreement. That the government supporters take that attitude is exactly what I should expect. But the prospective advantages under this agreement as seen by the general public may not appear quite the same as they do to those who so ardently support the agreement in this house. On the other hand we may also say that those who find the agreement likely to be so devastating to our national life might perhaps tone that theme down a little too, just as in the case of a man in public life. He is not quite so prominent or brilliant a figure as his friends and his party say he is, nor is he quite such a national liability as his political opponents may attempt to prove.
Under our British parliamentary institutions and our constitutional practice it is the job of the opposition to leave the advantages of a measure to be stressed by the party responsible for it, and it is our duty as the opposition to point out the weaknesses of this agreement and make sure that the people of Canada understand both sides of the problem presented to them. There are none of us who say that we disagree with the movement
1226	COMMONS
Canada-United States Trade Agreement
towards Anglo-Saxon unity in these days. But on the other hand surely it can be said with some fairness that a few changes in the customs schedules of our country are not likely to be the major factor in bringing the cautious United States into European entanglements. More than that, surely political imagination must have run wild when some. hon. member suggested that it was going to be a great factor in fostering international goodwill. I cannot imagine- although perhaps there are those in the house who can-that Herr Hitler is apt to shake and shiver and then mellow into gentle affection towards us because the Canadian fruit grower loses some of his protection in the sheltered market of Great Britain. We disregard the depth of the roots of international misunderstandings if we allow ourselves to be influenced by such arguments as that. I believe that, so far as the promotion of international goodwill and understanding is concerned, the treaty has only the puniest possibilities at best. Strongly as I may feel with respect to the effect of the agreement on industry and agriculture in my own constituency I am bound to say that it will be judged by its results by the people of Canada.
During another debate this session the suggestion was advanced that some hon. members were opposed in principle to wider markets for our products. Surely that is a far-fetched suggestion for any hon. member to make. I have never heard anyone say in this house that we should not go after wider markets for our products; but I have heard it said, and I subscribe to the doctrine, that when we approach the world for a larger share of its markets we must make sure that the price we pay for that larger share is not either out of reach or out of reason as far as our own people are concerned. More than that, in reaching out for wider markets and deeper and broader channels of trade we must also bear in mind particularly the fact that the standard of living in our country must not be reduced by virtue of any wholesale diminution of our tariff barriers. In addition, a further safeguard must be taken into consideration, and that is the protection of our home market, in defence of which I believe far too little is said in this house. With these safeguards in mind I believe there are few members of this house but would be in favour of wider markets for all our products.
I do not think anyone will deny that when the 1938 agreement was entered into, agriculture and industry were confronted with very unsatisfactory conditions. We were receiving low prices for our field crops and the
IMr. Graydon.]
products of our gardens and orchards, and in addition we had a stagnant industry in this country. In many instances we had low wages; unemployment was widespread, and business faced the future without confidence. This after three years under the 1935 agreement. So perhaps we on this side of the house, and the public at large, may be pardoned if we cast somewhat questioning glances at the possible effects of the new agreement which has been negotiated. I am one of those who believe that a Canada in which abundant prosperity obtains for both agriculture and industry will provide the strongest possible unit in the chain of empire. That seems to me to be one of the greatest possible contributions we can make as a valuable member of an economic and political commonwealth of British nations.
I probably know the situation in regard to industry and agriculture better as it exists in the county of Peel than as it concerns Canada as a whole, and may I tell the house that this agreement does seriously affect us. Imported building and paving brick has to meet a duty of only 15 per cent now as compared with 20 per cent previously. Knitted garments have lost their specific duty protection of 25 cents per pound, while the duty on socks and stockings has been dropped from 32i per cent to 20 per cent ad valorem, with the specific duty pared from $1.35 a dozen pairs to $1. The protection has been reduced on boots and shoes from 35 per cent to 30 per cent. Ruled and coated paper manufacturers, whose plants in Brampton are not to be equalled anywhere in Canada, have had their protective duty reduced from 32i per cent to 271 per cent. Copeland-Chatterson, Limited, which is favourably known throughout the dominion as a company making superior quality loose-leaf systems, now will have to face an already highly competitive market with protection on electro-plated parts for loose-leaf binders reduced from 33J per cent to 25 per cent, which, with the removal of the excise tax, means a difference of nearly 12 per cent.
But, Mr. Speaker, while all these things are important, at the moment I am particularly concerned with the effect these reductions will have upon the workingmen employed in these particular industries. To-day many of the workingmen in my district have great difficulty in making ends meet, and some fail to do even that. It is difficult to see how the terms of this agreement will be of any benefit to those people who toil in our plants, who work hard for every cent they get, especially when the products of the workmen of another country, which compete with their own products, find

Canada-United States Trade Agreement
freer access to our markets. You may say, " Oh, yes, but the men on the soil will fare better than those in some of the industries you have described." Perhaps I have not painted the complete picture, and I shall do so as quickly as possible. In another address in this house this year I dealt with the question of the concessions given by the United States on cattle and milk. I need not go into that further at this time, except to say that many farmers were of the opinion that the export quota under the treaty of 60,000 cattle per quarter was for Canada alone. No wonder cattlemen in my riding and throughout Canada were disappointed and discouraged when they found that almost half that quota was filled by Mexico in January of this year. Then, after the quota had been open for one month, we found that we could not ship any more cattle under the lower duty. To-day I picked up the February 16 issue of the weekly live stock market report, published by this government, which states that during the previous week we shipped to the United States 39 beef cattle, 170 dairy cows and 886 calves. I need say no more in that regard; every farmer in Canada will understand that language.
Now may I hurry on to a discussion of the effect of this agreement on another important industry of which the people of my county are proud. I have spoken previously in this house about the great horticultural industry and the flower growing concerns which are so important to the welfare of my riding. In the town of Brampton we have over forty acres covered with glass and heated the year round. The budget of 1930, which was brought down by the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning), gave us the protection of a 40 per cent duty against United States competition, because of the tremendous drawbacks with which we were faced in regard to the expense of heating, variations in climate and so on. It is true that this was a countervailing provision, but in any event we were given that protection. Under the 1935 agreement, however, the duty was entirely removed from all cut flower products coming from the United States, while the duty in that country against our products remained at 40 per cent. I, along with members from all sides of the house protested at the time, and in the budget of 1936 the 40 per cent protection was again put in force, equalling the amount of the duty collected by the United States.
We expected that this would be all we would have to suffer from trade agreements. But in this agreement we find that the duty has again been reduced from 40 per cent to 25 per cent. True, there is a countervailing
provision; but may I say that while some of us were hoping the treaty would not contain any provision prejudicially affecting the cut-flower producers, we have been very much disappointed. I know that the cut flower producers and others engaged in horticultural pursuits are willing to await the practical results of the treaty itself. In the meantime, however, I am told that the producers in Brampton are experiencing some loss of business in the maritime provinces and to some extent in the western provinces as well. May I ask, if the 40 per cent protection was regarded as essential in 1930 and was still considered necessary in the budget of 1936, what changes have taken place in the industry since that time to warrant the reduction to 25 per cent? That is a question which may reasonably be asked. In that nine year period they have not experienced any great prosperity; on the contrary they have suffered many adversities.
Of course, the plant operators constitute one factor. The men working in the plants are another. Those of us who have been hoping through all the years that wage levels would be raised and that there would be more security for the people working in the plants have been doomed to disappointment. All we can do now is to hope the agreement will not work as badly as has been suspected.
I come now to another important branch of agriculture, namely the fruit and vegetable industry. Vegetable growers generally have felt that under the 1935 agreement they bore a greater share of the burden of concessions given by Canada to the United States than did almost any other group in the country. The results have shown that very largely they are right. While imports of all commodities increased during the three years of the last agreement by something like 30 per cent, the increase in importations of fresh vegetables increased not by 30 per cent but by over 53 per cent in the same period. I submit they had a right to expect no further burden to be placed upon them under the present treaty.
But what happened? On three main fronts they have had to give ground under the present treaty. First of all, there was the cut in the general tariff on vegetables coming from the United States to Canada. Under the previous arrangement, which obtained between 1930 and 1935, there was a broad, general tariff of 30 per cent against vegetables coming in. Under the 1935 agreement the rate was reduced by this government to 15 per cent. Under the present agreement there is a further reduction to 10 per cent.
But in addition to that there is the question of added values. Advanced valuations were
1228	COMMONS
Canada-United States Trade Agreement
first placed by the Bennett administration on fresh vegetable products coming into Canada. The changes which took place in that connection are important. When the 1935 agreement came into effect, these values, which were really the major factor in the protection of the vegetable grower, were reduced by 20 per cent from what they were previously. In the latest pact a limit has been set upon the period in which the advanced valuations may be applied. In most instances these periods are shorter than obtained previously. For example, in connection with beans coming into Canada, the period was shortened from 131 days to 98 days; on celery, from 196 days to 1S2 days; on lettuce, 146 days to 126 days. There is no added value protection on spinach.
The third main front on which vegetable growers had to give way was in connection with the three per cent excise tax. The vegetable growers have taken up the matter in an organized way. One of their problems is this: With the restriction upon the period in which advanced valuations may be made, the point arises as to whether or not that period should be at the earlier or at the later part of the season. A conflict now looms up between the early and late producers. In the opinion of those more qualified to give an opinion than I am, it may result in confusion in the industry.
My plea to the government is this: I would ask it to give some consideration to the splitting of those periods, so that the growers, both early and late, will be able to get some advantage from the restricted periods for advanced valuations which are now in effect.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, February 23, 1939