1939-03-09

Mr. ESLING:: 1.	Was W. J. Doherty appointed wharfinger at Renata, on the Arrow lakes, in British Columbia? If so, when did he assume his duties? 3
2. What remuneration has he received from the date of his appointment to January 31, 1939?
3.	What amount is due him 15, 1939?

up to February


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	Yes. May 19, 1938.
2.	He has collected thirty-nine cents and is entitled to 50 per cent as remuneration.
3.	Nil.
subversive propaganda


Mr. HEAPS:: 1.	Has the attention of the government been drawn to the activities of recently naturalized subjects actively engaged in subversive propaganda tending to create racial hatreds and animosities?
2.	If it is proven, after investigation, that these persons are guilty of subversive activities, will the government revoke their naturalization certificates?


Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: 1.	Yes.
2.	The matter is being investigated.



FOOD DONATIONS TO ALBERTA DROUGHT AREAS

Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: 1.	Did the Alberta government make any requests to the dominion government for vegetables, fruit or fish for the drought areas during 1938?
2.	If so, on what basis were the costs to be borne by: (a) the provincial government; and (b) the dominion government?
3.	What costs were borne by the Saskatchewan government in respect to the dominion government's donations of apples, beans, cheese and fish for the drought areas during 1938?


Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Nil.



SUDETEN AND OTHER EUROPEAN IMMIGRANTS

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

Sudeten Immigrants


Mr. CRERAR:: I propose to read on the orders of the day a statement that I think will answer the questions that have been asked in regard to this matter.



COLONEL GEORGE MCLEOD

Mr. KENNEDY:: 1.	Is Colonel George McLeod of Edmonton, Alberta, in the employ of the federal government?
2.	If so, what position does he hold?
3.	When was he appointed?
4.	At what salary?
5.	Is he allowed a per diem expense account, and, if so, how much?
6.	What is the total amount he has received since his appointment: (a) in salary; (b) for expenses?


Mr. DUNNING:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Creditors' representative on the Alberta board of review under the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, 1934.
3.	December 31, 1936.
4.	Fees. (S25 for every full day on which he is engaged in his duties pursuant to his appointment.)
5.	Yes. A travelling allowance of $10 per diem and railway expenses while travelling.
6.	(a) $13,350; (b) $4,182.40.



SUDETEN IMMIGRANTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Alexander Crerar: A few days ago questions were asked in regard to the matter of the proposed settlement in Canada of some Sudeten German refugees. I may say at once that there has been some misunderstanding as to the actual facts. A report, originating in London, appeared in the following Canadian press dispatch on March 3:
London, March 3.-Arrangements have been completed for the transportation of 3,000 Sudeten Germans to Canada, it was reported to-night. They will be settled in the Peace River district and in northern Saskatchewan.
The Czech government has agreed to provide the $2,000,000 which the settlers will take to Canada to establish themselves in farming communities. The money came from loans and gifts made by the British and French governments after the Munich settlement.
Canadian railway companies, it is reported, have completed arrangements to take the first group of settlers early in April.
It is understood an agreement has been reached between the Canadian and Czech governments calling for each family to take a minimum of $1,500. The new settlers will be Germans who refused to become citizens of the Reich after the Munich agreement transformed their homes from under the control of Czechoslovakia to that of Germany. They refused to be nazified and voluntarily gave up their homes.
Since the German occupation of the Sudeten areas the men and their women and children have been living under conditions of extreme hardship, with the Czech government providing refugee camps for them.
It is understood a majority of the new settlers are experienced farmers. They will be chosen carefully on behalf of the Canadian government but the total is not expected to exceed 3,000.


Mr. MANION:: Was that all a quotation?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Yes, a Canadian press dispatch from London. A Prague dispatch of the fifth instant contained the following:
Prague, March 5.-Eight hundred families of former German socialists and democrats, cut adrift from their homes by Chancellor Hitler's annexation of the Sudetenland, have received permission from Ottawa to establish a village of their own in Canada, it was announced here Saturday.
The Czecho-Slovak and British governments have arranged for approximately 3,000 people to emigrate to the dominion. They will be led by two former members of the Czech Chamber of Deputies, Wenzel Jaksch and Siegfrid Taub.
Reports in London last Friday said the emigrants would be settled in the Peace River district and in northern Saskatchewan. The Prague government has allotted $1,500 to each family. This will come from the $75,000,000 which Britain recently granted Czecho-Slovakia, half as a loan and half as a gift, to aid refugees and assist in reconstruction work. . . ,
Following the partition of Czecho-Slovakia as a result of the Munich settlement, an acute refugee problem arose in Czecho-Slovakia due to the fact that tens of thousands of Czech citizens of German racial origin in the Sudeten area, who had been opposed to the nazi philosophy, fled from their homes in advance of the occupation by German troops. Shortly after this, urgent inquiries were made, from London and Prague, not only of the Canadian but of other governments as well, seeking some relief for these refugees, and Canada was asked if she would take some part in helping to solve the problem. Inquiries were set afoot by our immigration branch to discover the type and background of the refugees, and it was found that they had been engaged mainly in agriculture and small village industries. They were described as a sturdy type, but without capital, since in their flight they had abandoned everything. There were thus two classes-those who might come as agriculturists, a#d those who might come to establish new industries in this country.
When the immigration regulations were amended by order in council in the autumn of 1930, under the previous government, provision was made for the admission of farmers with sufficient means to establish themselves in agriculture in Canada. There has been a movement of such families from year to year, averaging during the past two
169S
Sudeten Immigrants

or three years about five hundred families a year. These have been settled on lands purchased with their own capital, usually farms that had come into the market at a fairly low price. All this settlement has been under the auspices of the colonization branches of our two railways. From reports that the department receives from time to time, it is apparent that the work is being well done. Many of these families have been established successfully with less than SI,500.
Early in December last a delegation from Czecho-Slovakia visited Canada to see if homes could be found for some of these refugees. The delegation consisted of an official of the Czech government and two others representing the German group from the Sudeten area. Their request was fully explored. They were told that, while we could not change the immigration regulations at present in force, no objection would be raised to their inclusion in the movement of agricultural families which has been going on for several years. It was pointed out that they would be required to meet rigid examination overseas as to their physical and mental health and their general fitness for settlement. They were further advised that each family unit-and it was estimated the average family unit was about four-would be required to have on arrival in Canada at least SI,500 of capital.
After this delegation returned to London we were advised that they had succeeded in getting capital whereby these families would be provided with the financial assistance necessary to meet the conditions laid down here, and referred to a moment ago.
Canada has not undertaken any obligation or expenditure in connection with this movement. All the costs of transportation and settlement will come from funds secured from abroad. The actual task of settlement will continue to be undertaken by the colonization branches of the railways. The statement that we have agreed to take 3,000 souls, as the London report suggests, or 800 families, as the Prague report suggests, is pure guess work. We have not agreed to take any specified number. The number to be taken will depend upon the number of those found to be physically and otherwise fit. The examination as to fitness will be hejd overseas, and colonization officials of the railways, together with medical doctors of the department of health, and immigration officials, will cooperate in an effort to see that those who come to Canada will be an asset to this dominion. The examinations will begin shortly. The total number of this group at present in Czecho-Slovakia itself is less than half the number mentioned in press dispatches.

It should be emphasized that such of these families as come to Canada for land settlement will be located under the auspices of the colonization branches of the railways. We have no information at the moment where they will be settled, but we understand that the railways intend putting them into small groups where suitable land is available, in order to make supervision for the first few years less expensive than if they were scattered over wider areas. The report from Prague that these people are coming for village settlement is entirely erroneous.
While the methods being followed for the admission of refugees to Canada may not be satisfactory to all, I believe we are going about the matter in the way best calculated to help some of these unfortunate people, without at the same time disturbing conditions here. Many members of the house know something of the pressure on the department to open the doors wider for the admission of greater numbers than are at present coming in. It is undeniably true that the plight of hundreds of thousands of the refugees in Europe is a desperate one and must appeal to the humanitarian instincts of all. The criticism has been made that, since Canada has vast areas either thinly settled or not settled at all, with a wealth of resources that many other countries envy, we should adopt a more generous attitude in the matter of immigration and give an opportunity to worthy people to make homes for themselves in our fortunate land. We must, however, having regard to existing conditions, recognize that there are limits within which we can assist; within those limits we are trying to deal with these problems with as much consideration as can be given.


Mr. PELLETIER:: I understand the Minister of Mines and Resources to say, then, that the report about which I questioned him did not come from officials of his own department, in Canada.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: No; the reports I have
read came from British and foreign dispatches.


Robert James Manion: I should like to ask two questions in connection with this matter. First, the minister mentioned the fact that other countries had been approached. Has he any record as to the numbers accepted by other countries? Secondly, are these people being settled on railway lands, or on other lands?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I have no information in regard to the first question. I know that representations were made to various governments-at any rate, so we were informed at the time.

Canada-United, States Trade Agreement
In regard to the question as to where they will be settled, this matter is under the direction, shall I say, of the colonization departments of the railways, and I presume they will follow the policy they have followed in the past in respect of these settlers. In many districts there are farms which are for sale at low prices. While I have no definite information on the point, I should think it likely that the railways will be endeavouring to settle such lands. Naturally they have a direct interest in having them settled.


Mr. CHURCH:: Why not look after your own people, here, first? Charity should begin at home.


Mr. HOMUTH:: Can the minister guarantee that these people will not go into the large towns and cities, and that they will all be settled on the land?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I do not know what sort of guarantee could be secured in that respect. But I can assure my hon. friend I think the possibilities of their going into the towns and cities are very remote indeed. As a matter of fact, they are glad to get a chance to live in peace and safety.


Miss MACPHAIL:: I should like to ask
the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar) whether any provision has been made for the admission of noted professors, scientists, musicians and other persons who are being persecuted in various countries, and who would undoubtedly prove to be a great asset to whatever country they went. Such people could not come in now, according to the statement just read by the minister.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: If their country of origin was in Europe they could not come in under the present regulations, but they could be allowed to enter by special order in council. For the information of the house I may say that in some cases where the merit was outstanding and where it was felt a contribution would be made to Canada, permission was given to enter.


Mr. POULIOT:: There are too many intelligentzia in this country already.


Mr. CLARKE (Rosedale):: Is sufficient investigation being made to find out whether these persons are communists? I think it is very important that a special investigation should be made in that regard.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: As a matter of fact every family is being investigated. The information given to us, and I believe it is authentic, is that probably ninety-five per cent of these families are Roman Catholics.


Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: Then
they could not be communists.


Mr. FAIR:: Will the medical examination of these people who are coming in be any better than it has been in the past?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The medical inspection will be a rigid one. I cannot admit the suggestion in my hon. friend's question that this inspection has been inadequate in the past.


Jean-François Pouliot: I have just one question to ask. Suppose certain of these immigrants should be found unsatisfactory; since they are refugees, to what country will they be deported?



TRADE AGREEMENTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. D. EULER (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Yesterday on the orders of the day my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion) made some reference to the practice of certain Ontario mills in importing wheat from the United States, presumably to the detriment of the Ontario producers. I have since been in touch with the millers and at some considerable sacrifice to themselves they have agreed to discontinue the importations.



CANADA-UNITED STATES-CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON MOTION FOR APPROVAL SUBJECT TO REQUIRED LEGISLATION

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, March 8, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mackenzie King that the house go into committee on the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient that parliament do approve of the trade agreement entered into at Washington on the 17th day of November, 1938, between Canada and the United States of America, and that this house do approve of the same, subject to the legislation required in order to give effect to the provisions thereof.
Mr. A. A. BROWN (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, when the house adjourned yesterday I was referring to certain industries which had been affected adversely by the Canada-United States trade agreement. In the 1935 agreement only four items of the primary metal group, which would cover such products as bars, rods, plates, sheets, castings and forgings, were affected. In 1937 the imports of those four items amounted to $2,919,000. In the new agreement concessions are made to the United States on some forty items, the imports of which from the United States amounted to $23,000,000 in 1937. The United
1700	COMMONS
Canada-United Stales Trade Agreement
States press release states that the reduction in duty on these items will improve the position of the United States producer in competition with the Canadian manufacturer.
In 1937 Canada imported machinery from the United States to the value of over $50,000,000. These importations did not include items such as aircraft, electrical apparatus, or motor vehicles. Numerous concessions have been made in this field, either the duty being bound or the tariff reduced. In the new agreement certain concessions have been made in the electrical apparatus and machinery group. In 1937 the imports from the United States of these items amounted to nearly $7,000,000. Certain reductions on some of these items were made in the 1935 agreement, and the imports increased from $4,334,000 in 1935 to $7,425,000 in 1937. Total Canadian imports from the United States in 1937 amounted to $491,000,000. The importations of non-agricultural products in that year amounted to $237,000,000. Under the present agreement duty reductions have been made on items which were imported in that year to the extent of $144,000,000. The 1935 rate has been bound on items which were imported in that year to the extent of $45,000,000. The free rate has been bound under the new agreement on items which were imported .to the extent of $48,000,000. These figures do not include imports of, articles the duties on which have been reduced under the most favoured nation clause, and which were imported in 1936 to the value of $74,000,000.
It is quite obvious that the reductions of the tariff and the concessions made in the 1935 agreement resulted in an increase of importations of United States goods into the Canadian market at the expense of the Canadian producers. It is also obvious that the additional concessions and reductions in duty which have been made are going to increase still further United States imports. As the Canadian market is restricted, these importations will be at the expense of the Canadian manufacturer and the Canadian workman.
During the course of the debate on this resolution I believe that the members on this side of the house have been successful in pointing out that the government did not make the proper preparations for the negotiation of such an important treaty, and that the failure to make these preparations seriously handicapped the representatives of the government during the period of negotiation; that the government was woefully ignorant of the economic condition of the industries of this country because it did not consult those industries whose interests have been

affected by the agreement; that the government did not take the same precaution to protect the markets, industries and workmen of Canada as did other countries in the form of quotas and restrictions; that the manufacturing and secondary industries and Canadian workmen have been sacrificed for some temporary and speculative benefit to the cattle and lumbering industries; that the interests of the vegetable and fruit growers have been sacrificed; that this agreement has diverted traffic from Canadian to United States ports; that the government has sacrificed productive revenue in making tariff reductions, which revenue produces purchasing power, and employment, making it necessary to replace this with a non-productive tax which will create unemployment and handicap Canadian industries; that this government has sacrificed part of our British preference in our best markets in wheat, fruits, and lumber; that this agreement will cause grievous harm to our transportation system, railways and steamships, by sending traffic north and south, instead of east and west; that this treaty is not reciprocal, because the United States tariff is much higher on items entering United States markets than the tariff on the same items entering the Canadian market; that this agreement is regarded as a purely economic agreement entered into by the three countries, regardless of the fact that the Canadian government attempts to attach considerable political importance to it in order to hide its faulty workmanship.
In the course of this debate many supporters of the new trade agreement were very much concerned with obtaining the highest possible price for goods produced in their part of the country, and they were equally concerned with paying the lowest possible price for goods purchased in any other part of the country. I do not think this attitude is in the best interests of Canada. According to the Canada Year Book for 1936, there were in Canada 25,491 establishments, employing 582,874 persons, paying out in wages $590,-
326,000,	and producing goods to the net value of $1,302,179,000. About 63 per cent of these workers are dependent on industries that pay about 61 per cent of the total wages and salaries and produce over 51 per cent of the net value of the manufacturing production in Canada. Also dependent on these industries for at least part of their employment are hundreds of engineers, doctors, lawyers, employees of telegraph and telephone companies, railway companies, steamship companies, and those engaged in wholesale or retail distribution.

Canada-United States Trade Agreement
Since 1935 this government has been engaged in the policy of reducing tariff protection and granting concessions in such a haphazard manner that the industrialists of this country have not been able to make any plans for the future, and this lack of confidence is reflected in the employment problem. Judging from the fruits of the trade agreements made by this government during the past four years, I think it would be better occupied in devoting more time and energy to developing the internal trade of Canada, equalizing freight rates, and inducing Canadians to buy Canadian coal, Canadian oil, Canadian farm products, and Canadian manufactured products, thus building up a stable market which the government can control, and which will provide greater purchasing power and a higher standard of living, as well as more employment for Canadian workers.
Mr. IV. J. WARD (Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention until a very few days ago to take part in this debate, but believing as I do that this trade treaty is by all odds the most important item to come before parliament this session, if not the most important piece of legislation that has been presented to the Canadian people in this generation, and in view of the attitude of a number of members of the official opposition, including their leader, during the last few weeks, I felt that I owed it to my constituents and to the people of Canada as a whole to express my opinions in respect to this allimportant piece of legislation.
I notice that the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion) is following well in the footsteps of his predecessor in the number of speeches he is making inside and outside of this house. In his address in Toronto the other day he referred to this government as being a reactionary government. When I think of the opposition to this treaty by the official Conservative party in this house I cannot but feel that they oppose it because the government is too progressive-because we are having too much free trade, they think; because of the government's introduction of penitentiary reform; because of the government's home improvement plan; because of its youth training projects; because of its prairie farm rehabilitation, and because of its various acts with respect to housing and other measures to assist the municipalities. I cannot but think that their opposition was from no other point of view than that the government has been too progressive.
I am going to pay to two or three members of the official opposition the compliment of referring for a few moments to their addresses. I took some notes while the hon. member

for Hamilton East (Mr. Brown) was speaking. One of the things he said was that thousands of men had been thrown out of employment in Hamilton as a result of the 1935 trade treaty-because, in other words, this government had lowered the tariffs on manufactured goods. He went on to say that industries would be put out of business in the city of Hamilton because of the present treaty.
I can only reply that an industry or industries which cannot succeed under the terms of this treaty, substantial though the reductions are that it makes in the duties, is much too expensive a luxury for this country to afford. I say further that an industry that cannot thrive under the duties prevailing in this country at the present time, ranging as they do from 7) to 30 per cent, is certainly too expensive for the country, and their failure must be due to incompetence or to the fact that the industry is not indigenous to the country. I would remind the house that two years ago the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett, speaking in this house, stated that there were numerous industries in Canada which should never have been allowed to establish here, that they were not indigenous to the country and had become a very real problem because of the amount of protection they required to enable them to continue to exist.
The hon. member for Hamilton East went on to say that the city of Hamilton paid in wages and salaries $40,000,000 annually. That is a very substantial sum, and we are all proud that the city of Hamilton does provide, through the medium of its industries, that amount of wages and salaries for our Canadian people. But I would remind the hon. member that the little province of Manitoba, which was formerly regarded as the postage stamp province of this dominion, produced from its farms alone from 1926 to 1930 an average yearly production of farm products amounting in value to $622,565,000. After all, therefore, the city of Hamilton, with its $40,000,000 is a very small item in the vast aggregate production of this country.	*
The hon. member also told us that word had come from the west that the west had been sold down the river by this treaty. I would suggest to the hon. member that he remain in his own little back yard because all the information I receive from the west is that they are hoping that nothing will happen to this trade treaty but that it may be given an opportunity to work out fully our economic salvation, and retrieve the lost trade of this country.
1702	COMMONS
Canada-United States Trade Agreement
The hon. gentleman also spoke of two companies manufacturing washing machines in the city of Hamilton which were put out of business by the 1935 agreement. I can say only this: If there is one item in the domestic trade of Canada where the racket of protection reached a higher degree in the last few years than any other, it was the washing machine manufacturers. I would remind the house that, through the reduction in duties on washing machines which was effected by this government, the price of power machines has been reduced from twenty to forty per cent; and I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that throughout the length and breadth of this country the housewives who were previously unable to purchase power machines will thank this government for having reduced the cost of those articles.
I intend to pay the hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Homuth) the compliment of a reference to his remarks. He also spoke of the industrial workers, and he told the house that forty per cent of Canada's total trade resulted from the Canadian manufacturing interests. He may have made that statement innocently; he may not have known the facts. The facts are that less than twenty-four per cent of the production of this country originates in the secondary industries. I have secured figures as to the number of people engaged in these industries, ranging from the manufacture of needles and pins to the making of locomotives. What do they amount to? From the boy who sweeps the floor to the manager of the factory, they number just 16-1 per cent of all the workers of this country. The total population dependent upon the secondary or manufacturing industries is just 1,771,000. Contrast this with agriculture, in which 3,261,000 are engaged, while in the related natural industries we have actively engaged something over 3,000,000 people. May I refer here to a pamphlet issued by one of the large Canadian grain firms, a concern not interested in the political effects of the tariff policies of any government. The writer points out that there is no hope of restoring the solvency of agriculture in this country until we secure a definite governmental policy in the direction of lower tariffs. I could give a lot more figures, but I do not intend to weary the house, and there are other matters with which I should like to deal. But I should like the hon. members for St. Paul's (Mr. Ross) and Waterloo South to realize that only sixteen per cent of the people of Canada are engaged in the secondary industries of this
country, and that only twenty-four per cent of the total wealth production in Canada comes from manufacturing interests.


Mr. HARRIS:: Perhaps the hon. member has also the figures of the number of employees engaged in secondary industry and in primary industry.


Mr. WARD:: Yes, I have them here. The number of employees, male and female, in the manufacturing industries of Canada is
631,000.


Joseph Henry Harris: Just short by 200,000.


William John Ward: This is taken from a publication of the bureau of statistics. I believe my hon. friend has fallen into the same trap that a number of hon. members have fallen into, that of including a myriad of other industries which really have nothing to do with manufacturing-for	instance, power
plants, construction, transportation, etcetera.


Joseph Henry Harris: How many are employed in the primary industries?


William John Ward: In agriculture, 1,103,899;
forestry, fishing and trapping, 96,983; mining, quarrying, oil and salt wells, et cetera, 71,608. The return also gives figures about electric light and power plants, construction, transportation, et cetera, but I take it the hon. member is not interested in those.


Mr. BAKER:: May I ask the hon. gentleman whether he will not admit that the best market for those 1,100,000 engaged in agriculture is provided by the 800,000 engaged in manufacturing in Canada?


William John Ward: In reply to that, I would
say that the part of the country which I have the honour to represent in this house must export. Up to date we have had to export about sixty per cent of our production. If we do not import, there is no hope whatever of our securing a market for the surplus products of the prairie farms.


Richard Langton Baker: The hon. member has not
answered my question at all.	[DOT]


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order.


William John Ward: There are only eleven millions of people in Canada. We can eat only so much, and beyond that point we must export. The fishermen of Nova Scotia can consume only so much fish; the rest must be exported. Of our 400,000,000-bushel production of wheat we consume from one hundred to one hundred and ten millions, and the remainder must be exported. The same is true with regard to our cattle, our cheese, our butter, and so forth. Anyone who looks at the statements

Canada-United States Trade Agreement
issued from time to time by the Department of Finance cannot but be impressed with this fact, that ninety-six per cent of the total trade of the world is done in the exchange of goods for goods. That goes to show that if we do not buy we shall not sell. That is why we from the west insist that we must import goods. It is not that we want to put any Canadian industry out of business, or damage any of the other industries of this country. But it is an economic impossibility to dispose of the vast surplus of goods produced in western Canada unless they are sold in the markets of the world.


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: May I ask the
hon. gentleman how we are going to put to work the unemployed people in our cities?


William John Ward: Mr. Speaker, I would remind you of the consequences of following the policy advocated the other day by the hon. member for St. Paul's. Let our minds go back to the period from 1930 to 1935. It will be recalled that step by step, as the government he supported, the government of that day, increased the tariffs, placed impositions against the importation of goods into this country, unemployment increased.


Mr. MASSEY:: That is just not true.


Walter Edward Foster: Order.


An hon. MEMBER:: The hon. member
cannot take it.


William John Ward: I have the figures here.


Denton Massey: Well, look at them and
read them.


William John Ward: I will give them in a few
minutes. The hon. member for Waterloo South, addressing the house the other day, spoke of the continuous changing of tariffs on the part of this government He said:
This continual tariff changing by the government, as I have said before m the house, is doing nothing but giving industry the jitters, and it is slowly but surely lowering the standard of living of the industrial workers of Canada. Member after member, particularly those from the western provinces, have stood in the house and demanded protection for the western wheat farmer.
I can excuse the hon. member for Waterloo South because he is a new member, but I assure the house that neither he nor any other member has at any time heard a western member ask for protection for the wheat growers. From time to time, as the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley), if he were here, would agree, we have asked for something in the way of a quid pro quo for the enormous cost to western Canada of bonusing the secondary industries of the country for the last fifty or sixty years. We 71492-108
have asked for that, we are still asking for it, and we must have it. Give the wheat grower and cattle raiser of western Canada the same freedom of market to buy in as he is compelled to sell in, and we will ask for no bonus or protection of any sort.
The hon. member for St. Paul's the other day spoke of the impossibility of Canadian industrial workers competing with those of some other countries. He mentioned no names, but I presume he was referring to Japan. Since he spoke I have looked up the figures, and I find that the average wages paid in the factories in Japan are from 22 to 26 cents a day. I also looked up the wages paid to the peon or native labourer of the Argentine, and I find that those labourers are paid eleven cents a day. Now, the farmers of western Canada must compete with the eleven cent labour of the Argentine farm worker. It is true it would be a terrible thing for Canadian workers to have to compete with those of Japan and I hope they never will compete with them directly, but I would point out that the Canadian industrialists are competing in a market that is two and a half times better than the market that the western wheat grower competes in. These are facts that we must sit down and consider calmly.
I say to the representatives of eastern Canada: The problem is not all yours, for we too are facing a tremendous problem. I have farmed in western Canada for forty years; nature has made my farm one of the finest in Manitoba. I balance my books every year, I keep accounts, and I can tell you I have never produced wheat at eighty cents a bushel. If I did not engage in other things as well, in sidelines, I never could carry on, pay my taxes, and retain solvency.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Has the hon. member ever heard the head of any industry, who sat in this house, complain about anything that was done for the western producer?


William John Ward: That is a perfectly proper question, and in answer I say, no. I have not heard anything of the sort, and that is to the credit of the industrialists of eastern Canada. But it would be quite inconsistent for protectionists to make any such complaint. Of course they would not, and we give them credit for being magnanimous enough not to complain. Moreover, I must say the west was very grateful during those terrible years of drought, especially in Saskatchewan, for the very generous donations from Ontario and Quebec in the form of clothing, fruit, vegetables, cheese, and so on. It was a wonderful thing for the drought area of western Canada, and it saved many from near starvation.

1704	COMMONS
Canada-United States Trade Agreement
I do say, however, that the industrialists of eastern Canada overlook an important fact. They complain about the lowering of tariffs and the consequent embarrassment of their workers, but they must not forget that when you lower a tariff you do make it easier for the agriculturist to carry on.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Not in farm implements.


William John Ward: That is one manufacture which I made it my business to look into when I visited the United States. I wanted to ascertain whether there actually was a combine in the manufacturing of farm implements, and I found to my satisfaction-or otherwise-that in my judgment there was. There is I believe a watertight combine on this continent between the United States and the Canadian manufacturers whereby implement prices remain constant on both sides of the line. That is the one item of production in Canada in which it is possible to comer or to have a combine.
May I repeat, the treaty which is now before the house is the most important item of legislation that has come before parliament in my time, and I think we should see to it that ample opportunity is given for it to prove itself. I regret, therefore, that the leader of the opposition and others should make the statements throughout the country that they do regarding the treaty. One of his friends, speaking in Toronto the other day at a Conservative convention, made a statement to which I wish to refer. The speaker was Mr. Kelso Roberts, K.C., and I presume he comes from the constituency of the hon. member for St. Paul's. I quote:
Kelso Roberts, K.C., president of St. Paul's Riding Conservative Association, spoke briefly, emphasizing that the King government had done nothing to solve the unemployment problem and declaring that if the efforts of a Conservative government, once elected, proved as futile, he would never again appear on the platform at a Conservative meeting.
I am sure that if he knew the facts he would never again appear on a Conservative platform, because I am going to prove before I sit down that, apart from the loss of life during the great war, the most disastrous occurrence in the experience of this generation was the advent of the Conservative government in 1930. Also a good deal has been said about the six-cent bonus on dominion wheat entering Great Britain, and I intend to prove not only that it brought no grist to the mill of the western wheat growers, but on the contrary, that it cost them many millions of dollars.
I spoke a moment ago of certain statements made by the leader of the opposition. In

and out of this house we have heard some rather cheap and flippant remarks from the hon. gentleman. I did not look up Hansard in this connection, but I did take down some of his slang words.


An hon. MEMBER:: What has that to do with this trade treaty?


William John Ward: It has a great deal to do with it, because these words were all used in the course of his address on the treaty. Some of the epithets in which the hon. gentleman indulged were: Claptrap, twaddle, hooey, humbug, ballyhoo, pipedreams, tongue-lashings. There were a great many more, but these are just a few of the terms he made use of in discussing the treaty and other matters. I suggest that the country is looking to the leader of the opposition, the leader of one of the great parties in Canada, for leadership in ethics in this house, and not for the sort of cheap, degrading stuff we have witnessed in this debate.


An hon. MEMBER:: That philosophy might fit the other side of the house too.


William John Ward: 
Mr. MacNICOL:: What about the exports?

Canada-United States Trade Agreement


William John Ward: 
Richard Langton Baker: Good business.


William John Ward: 
Joseph Henry Harris: Did not the United States pass the 1930 tariff act during that period, which cut off our exports to that country?


William John Ward: Is the hon. member referring to the Hawley-Smoot tariff?


Joseph Henry Harris: No, the 1930 tariff.


William John Ward: 
Mr. STEVENS:: Including gold which was not included in previous years.


William John Ward: 
Henry Herbert Stevens: The hon. member is away out there.


William John Ward: The hon. gentleman can talk to Doctor Coats about these figures, because that is where I got them.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Nearly a billion dollars
out.


William John Ward: 
Joseph Henry Harris: Is it quite ethical to call some hon. members a wrecking crew?


William John Ward: Well, I do not want to use the adjectives that were used the other day by my hon. friend's leader. Now we come to the question of the balance of internal trade.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Tell us about the increase in unemployment. That is what we would like to hear.


William John Ward: All right. When the Conservative government came into power, on a policy of curing unemployment-


Mr. SPENCE:: And they did.


William John Ward: 
David Spence: Why compare depression days with periods of good times?


William John Ward: I thank my hon. friend for ' those words, because I also have the figures for the last three years, which have been referred to by hon. members sitting near him as years of terrible depression. For the past three years the average price of wheat has been $1.16-2 per bushel.


John Ritchie MacNicol: What is it to-day?
1706	COMMONS
Canada-United, States Trade Agreement


William John Ward: Well, we measure things by averages in this country. Then I have some further figures that are tremendously interesting. I have taken 147 items purchased by Canadian farmers and compared the cost of these items with the average of farm purchasing power, both based on 1926 as 100. For the period from 1931 to 1935 inclusive the index figure for the items the farmer buys stood at 128, while farm purchasing power was 54, only showing a differential against the farmer during that period of 74. What happened between 1936 and 1938? We find that he paid 130, or 30 above the 1926 level, but that he received 95, or within five of the 1926 level. In other words, based on average values in connection with both production and consumption, the farmers throughout Canada are 35 per cent better off than they were between 1930 and 1935.
Now, I have still another table. I said I would prove that the preference on dominion wheat entering the British market had cost the farmers of Canada many millions of dollars. The wheat policy was just like most of the other terms of the 1932 trade agreement. Let us start with the 1930 grain prices. I have figures before me, again from the bureau of statistics, which show that during 1930 we rode along on a fairly even keel until about September 1, nine days after the Bennett government took office. The trade wrecking crew hadn't got down to work before this date. They did not have their machinery started up. The blasting powder had not been assembled in the depots. They were not quite ready.


John Ritchie MacNicol: It is working well now- putting men out of work.


William John Ward: In the 1930 crop year, wheat remained at about the dollar level until about the end of August. And then what happened? In August the price averaged 92 cents. Indeed, the figures I have show that on the day of the election, July 28, as reported in the Winnipeg Free Press, the average market price for wheat was 93 cents, for oats 42 cents, for barley 45 cents, for rye 56 cents, and for flax S1.S5. Let us see, however, what the prices were four months later-just four months of the operation of the government that was going to reestablish all things in Canada. In that time wheat had dropped from 93 cents to 67 cents. Oats had dropped from 42 cents to 27 cents; barley, from 45 cents to 31 cents; rye from 56 cents to 33 cents, and flax from $1.85 to $1.22.
In the month of August, 1930, wheat sold at 93 cents, but in September it had dropped to 78 cents. You will recall again, Mr. [M' Ward.]
Speaker, that this was during the time these amateurs were at work. Just one month later, namely in October, it had dropped to 72 cents. In November it was down to 64 cents, and in December, to 55 cents. In other words, wheat had dropped in December to just about half the price it had been in August when the Bennett government took office.
Now we come to the year 1932, when the preference was operating. I would remind hon. members that the treaty became effective on August 22, 1932. At the end of August wheat was selling for 56 cents.
In one month it had dropped to 51 cents; in two months, to 48 cents; in three months, to 46 cents, and one month later to 38 cents. That is what happened under the British preference, and that is why I say that the six per cent preference on Canadian wheat had a disastrous effect upon the wheat growers of western Canada, and instead of bringing them greater returns meant a loss to them of millions of dollars.


Denton Massey: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I may be forgiven for not following in my arguments the speech which has just been delivered by the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ward). I find it difficult to chase phantoms, vapourings and hallucinations. I will give the hon. member one figure, and one only. In December, 1935, the unemployed wage-earners in this country numbered 491,000. In December, 1938, three years after the advent to power of hon. members opposite, the unemployed numbered
472,000,	showing a net reduction of only 19,000 in the number of unemployed wage-earners. In the last three years of the previous administration, namely from December, 1932, to December, 1935, there was a reduction of 221,000 in the number of unemployed, a reduction eleven and a half times as great as hon. members opposite have been able to accomplish. Those, Mr. Speaker, are figures from the bureau of statistics, the source of my hon. friend's figures.
I would remind the hon. gentleman, if I may, that world trade from 1933 to 1935 rose five points of index, whereas world trade from 1935 to 1937 rose twenty points of index. In other words, while world trade was rising only five points of index, unemployment in Canada was reduced by 221,000. and while world trade was rising twenty points of index, unemployment in Canada was reduced by only 19,000. These figures, Mr. Speaker, are also from the bureau of statistics.
I am not so much concerned with such figures as the hon. member has put upon Hansard, or in his use of them as I am con-

Canada-United States Trade Agreement
cerned with this:	Throughout the length and
breadth of Canada there is deepening distress which is, I believe I may say safely to hon. members opposite, a condition which should touch the heart and mind of every hon. member of this house. We should not rise in our places and by the use of "alibis" attempt to dodge that fact. We are faced with that situation. Let us not blink the fact, and let us not make stump speeches which would do credit to "ward" politicians.
I do not purpose at length to prolong the present debate on the resolution before the house. But a sense of responsibility compels me to say a few words at this stage with respect to the ratification of the Canada-United States trade treaty. I have been elected to the house to represent some 70,000 Canadians, the vast majority of whom are dependent upon industry for their livelihood. Accordingly, if a measure is introduced to the house which tends to abridge opportunities for those industrial workers who have sent me to parliament, to say the least I should be derelict in my responsibility if I did not raise my voice in protest on their behalf. Thus I make no apology to the house for speaking in protest against the present trade treaty, at least in so far as it affects the industrial worker. Unemployment, remaining as it has at a staggeringly high figure, and the uncertainty of the future of the young would-be wage-earner, present difficulties which in many cases appear to be insurmountable to the individual. Yet we in this house are being asked to approve a treaty which will deprive many Canadian workmen, now employed, of their jobs.
I shall take as an example one of the industries which are of immediate importance to my constituency. Within a stone's throw of the border of my riding is a leather company which has prospered under reasonable protection and the advantages of the Ottawa agreements of 1932. Until recently some 150 employees have been engaged in this plant in the making of patent leather alone. I am taking this industry only as an illustration. I speak with equal feeling for the security of the jobs of the workmen in any industry, for all the men and women in my riding, yes, in the whole of Canada. I speak for all men and women whose jobs are threatened as a result of the Prime Minister's negotiations at Washington last year.
Hon. members will recall that prior to 1932 an important export from the United States to the United Kingdom was patent leather, in which commodity the United States had nearly 58 per cent of the British market. In 1932 a rate of ten per cent ad valorem was imposed by the United Kingdom against United States patent leather. In 1936 only
11'8 per cent of the British patent leather market was supplied by the United States. The greatest change took place in 1934 when the import duty to the United Kingdom was increased to 15 per cent. Prior to 1932 Canada supplied less than 20 per cent of the patent leather entering the United Kingdom. As a result of the tariff of 1932, and the increase in that tariff in 1934 against the United States, while Canada still had free entry, our share of the British market in this product rose to a total of 76-2 per cent. Under the United States-United Kingdom trade agreement, on August 1, 1939, the duty on patent leather going into the United Kingdom from the United States is to be cut in half, namely tc 7i per cent, which will have the effect ol restoring the market of the United Kingdom to the producers of patent leather in the United States at the expense of the Canadian workman.
I have not taken my opinion alone in this matter. I have discussed it personally with those who, as a result of their identification with this field of industry, are in a position tc know the exact situation and to make an accurate prognosis. Accordingly I state that the jobs of 150 men in the particular firm to which I refer are threatened. On behalf of those who hold those jobs I raise my voice in protest to the Prime Minister of Canada, that in this tripartite treaty our preferred position should be so sacrificed. If I were to take the Prime Minister's advice, which I have no intention of doing, I would go back to my riding and tell these 150 men and women and their families that this agreement was made in the name of patriotism in order tc strengthen the ties between the United Kingdom and the United States, and that they must surrender their jobs and join the ranks of the unemployed in order to bring about a closer union between these two countries That was the advice of the Prime Minister; that is what he told this house. I regret the Prime Minister is not in his seat, but does he honestly feel that such a sacrifice of livelihood is necessary, when these men and women know and when the Prime Minister himself knows that there was not, nor had there been, anything amiss or awry in the relationships between the United Kingdom and the United States?
I wonder if it is patriotic to jeopardize the jobs of Canadian workmen, especially in a time such as this? I wonder if it is patriotic to blink facts? I wonder if it is possible successfully to mix political theories and patriotism? If the relations between the United Kingdom and the United States had been strained, if as a result a treaty had been brought forward to bring together these two
1708	COMMONS
Canada-United States Trade Agreement
nations which had been drifting apart, patriotism and the love of peace might have had to play their part. But I claim it is nothing short of fatuous to state to the people of Canada that men and women should be compelled, because of the action of the right hon. gentleman opposite, to sacrifice their jobs. Certainly his latest trade treaty will make no definite contribution to the friendly relations between the United Kingdom and the United States, about which friendly relations there is definitely not even a shadow of a doubt.
If the Prime Minister of Canada wishes to talk about patriotism, if he wishes to be patriotic; if he in the fullest sense of that noble word wishes to make a contribution to world peace, let him take steps to consolidate and cement even more closely the family of empire and give an indication to the government of the United Kingdom that Canada is still a loyal member of that family. That is the type of patriotism which Canadians from coast to coast will recognize as divorced from party politics.
I shall not take up any more of the time of the house. On behalf of the men and women whose jobs are in jeopardy as a result of this treaty I raise my voice in protest, and in accordance with what I feel to be my responsibility as their representative in this parliament I shall vote against the treaty. In doing so I place my patriotism, my love of empire, my love of peace and my desire to see friendly relations maintained between the United Kingdom and the United States second to those of no man in this chamber, not even excluding the Prime Minister himself.


Mr. V. J. POTTIER (Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare):: Mr. Speaker, I have followed one speaker after the other in this debate and I am beginning to realize the difficulty the Canadian people must have in following the reasoning of certain members of this house. We have had an illustration of this in the remarks of the two hon. gentlemen who have preceded me. The hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ward) spoke on behalf of the farmers in general and the west in particular in an effort to give their point of view. He was followed by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Massey). The minute that hon. gentleman rose to address the house he began to lecture the hon. member for Dauphin. He suggested that he was a ward politician and was appealing to the few people in his constituency who might help him. From that he proceeded to make a fifteen minute speech on behalf of 150 employees in his own constituency.


Denton Massey: No, no. The hon. member cannot put words into my mouth. I made it perfectly clear that I was using these 150 men and their jobs simply as an illustration of what may happen.


Mr. GRAY:: It is a matter of opinion.


Vincent-Joseph Pottier: My sole point is that
his speech is the worst kind of ward politics.
I want to take this first opportunity to congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and his government upon negotiating the trade treaty that is now before the house. I propose quite frankly to deal with it from the point of view of an industry in which my people are largely and deeply interested. I refer to the fishing industry, and my remarks will deal in toto with the benefits that we expect from this trade treaty.
Perhaps I should preface my remarks with a few figures to indicate the extent of the fishing industry in Canada as a whole. The total value of our fisheries last year was $38,000,000, and we exported approximately $28,000,000 worth, of which $6,000,000 went to the United Kingdom. Some $14,000,000 worth, about fifty per cent of our total exports, went to the United States. Perhaps hon. members will recall the report that Cockfield-Brown and Company made in 1932, in which it was indicated that in Canada the per capita production of fish was 120 pounds, and the per capita domestic consumption only 20'7 pounds. The latter figure has been increased in late years owing to efficient advertising and the progress made in processing and other methods since this government came into power, so that our per capita consumption is to-day approximately 30 pounds. The per capita consumption in Great Britain is 40 pounds; Norway, 70 pounds; Germany, 20 pounds; the West Indies, 33 pounds; Australia, 13 pounds; Ireland, 9 pounds. It will be seen, therefore, that we must export our fishery products in order to live. When it is realized that on the north Atlantic, owing to salinity of water and the conditions as to depth and temperature, we have the largest food fish area in the world, with some 200,000 square miles of fishing grounds adjacent to the maritime provinces, it is easy to see that my fishermen are vitally interested in the export of their products.
We have in the maritime provinces 22,500 fishermen, who produce some 435,000,000 pounds of fish, of a value of $14,500,000 in an average year. Of this $14,500,000 worth, we export in an average year, as recent years go, $7,000,000 worth, or about fifty per cent of our total production to United States. Under present world con-

Canada-United, States Trade Agreement
ditions there are only three directions in which our exports can go: the United States, the West Indies and South America, or Europe. Owing to foreign competition, conditions in the West Indies and South America are such that we cannot hope in any large way to enter that market. Disturbed conditions in Europe and increased production by individual countries have shut off that market, so that there is only one direction in which we can hope for increased exports, and that is the United States. There is no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that so far as the maritime fishermen are concerned, their lifeline is a line of exported fish products to the United States. The importance of marketing our fish in the United States has been recognized by every commission that has investigated fishing conditions in the maritimes-the Duncan commission, the Maclean commission, the Price Spreads commission.
Before going on to the benefits we expect from this trade treaty I should like to make one point clear. Since being a member of this house I have observed a little confusion in the minds of some as to the meaning of the fishing industry. I have heard people say, and representations to this effect have been made to me, that it is simply a matter of going to sea and catching cod or some other kind of fish in the same place and getting the same price all the time. But that is not so.
The fishermen catch different types of fish; they fish in different areas; they market their catch differently and get different prices. In considering a trade treaty such as this, therefore, it is well to look at it from the point of view of this group of industries rather than to concentrate on one particular detail and judge the treaty from that basis alone.
In order to see at a glance the concessions which this treaty makes on fish and fish products of the Atlantic coast, I have prepared a schedule indicating the 1930 tariff, the new treaty rate, with proportional reduction, as well as the quantity and value of our fish shipped to the United States in 1937, and the duty paid, according to the United States figures. The schedule is not a long one, and rather than take the time to read it I would ask your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, to place it on Hansard.


Walter Edward Foster: The hon. member cannot place it on Hansard except with the unanimous consent of the house.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Vincent-Joseph Pottier: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have used the 1937 figures of our exports to the United States because they are the latest I could get, and it is necessary to use the United States figures because they are related directly to the tariff items.
The schedule is as follows:
Principal concessions on fish and fish products-Atlantic coast in Canada-United States trade agreement
1.	Cod, haddock, hake, pollock and
cusk
(a)	Fresh or frozen
(1)	Whole or beheaded or
eviscerated
Without fins removed..
(2)	Filleted, skinned, boned, sliced or portions.. ..
(b)	Pickled or salted
(1)	Neither skinned nor boned
43 per cent moisture or
less	;.
over 43 per cent moisture	
(2)	Skinned or boned.. ..
(c)	Smoked
(1)	Whole beheaded or
eviscerated	
(2)	Filleted, skinned, boned, sliced or portioned.. ..
2.	Swordfish
(a) Fresh	
3.	Mackerel
(a) Fresh	
4.	Herring	 [DOT][DOT]
(a)	Pickled or salted containers
over 15 lbs	 [DOT] [DOT]
(b)	Smoked or kippered herring
(1)	Hard, dry-smoked, whole or beheaded.. ..
(2)	Boned, whether or not
skinned	
Tariff rate 1930	New rate
1 c lb.	Jc lb.
21c lb.	lie lb.
lie lb.	Jc lb.
fc lb. 2 c lb.	Jc lb. lie lb.
2Jc lb.	lie lb.
3 c lb.	2 c lb.
2 c lb.	1 c lb.
2 c lb.	1 c lb.
1 c lb.	Jc lb.
lie lb.	Jc lb.
3 e lb.	lie lb.
Re-	Quantities
rctio	n lb., 1937
%	
25	1,648,513
25	8,712,655
50	1,452,867
50 25	23,150.311 2,069,342
50	841,483
33	1,777,823
50	1,279,503
50	1,805,903
38	2,045,546
50	801,326
50	48,770
	45,633,042
Value 1937	Duty paid
$ 76,099	$ 16,481
887,537	196,034
77,659	18,160
893.524 206,876	173,628 41,386
86,408	11,037
179,723	53,334
273,662	25,590
96,092	36,118
65,526	20,455
22,527	9,016
4,225	1,463
$2,869,858	$602,702
1710	COMMONS
Canada-United States Trade Agreement
We also have reductions on fresh halibut and salmon of from 2 cents to 1 cent per pound; sturgeon, fresh shad and eels from
I	cent per pound to i cent; frozen mackerel from 2 cents to li cents; salted ale wives from
II	cents to g cent per pound. The agreement also provides for the rebinding of free entry for fish for three years, as well as concessions for prepared and preserved fish products.
It will be seen from this schedule that the reductions have been from twenty-five to fifty per cent on practically every dutiable fish of any importance. It is important in that regard to remember that we can obtain as a maximum only a fifty per cent reduction, because the President of the United States in negotiating a trade treaty cannot go beyond a fifty per cent reduction from the existing tariff; that is the 1930 tariff. Having in mind the opposition that existed for some time in the United States to any reduction whatever on fishery items, a study of the reductions made by this treaty shows that our negotiators must have had a touch of genius to obtain the concessions they did. I well remember that back in 1933 a group of United States sea captains went aboard the Thibault, as a fishing delegation, directly to Washington to protest against any reduction in the duty on fishery items. I remember how they were met, and we in the maritimes are particularly sensitive to these things. One of the commissioners made this statement, and I have never forgotten it since the day I read it, because, as I saw it at least, it meant prosperity or depression to our Canadian fishermen. This was the statement Commissioner Page made to the delegates and to Captain Morrissey, as a result of their conference: "Our sympathies are absolutely with you. If there is anything we can do, you can count upon us". But that was a death blow to the Canadian fishermen at that time so far as obtaining concessions was concerned. Following the opposition in that country there was never a reduction of major importance up to the present time. An efficient campaign was organized by the national fisheries association, and notwithstanding all the obstacles, we obtained the concessions which appear in the schedules that have already been referred to.
The people of the maritimes understood the difficulties and fully appreciated the situation. They are thankful for the efforts which have been made and the results which have been obtained. The 1930 tariff can be said to have meant generally the protection of United States fishermen on certain species of fish during periods of abundant domestic 
production, permitting the marketing of Canadian products during periods only of scarcity in the United States. The reductions in the tariff as we have them to-day will, I believe, have these three effects. First, we are going to see an increased export to the United States during periods of scarcity. Second, we are going to see increased exports during periods of United States production. Third, we are going to have the benefits of reductions on the same volume of business that we had before the treaty. I do not believe for a moment that we are going to glut the United States market. Our equipment and our production are not such as would enable that to be done under ordinary circumstances. Supply and demand in the United States will, I believe, control the United States production, and we shall fit into that general picture.
It is difficult, of course, to foretell in dollars and cents how far exports to the United States will increase. While tariff reductions are the most important element, another factor is the capacity of our fish dealers and merchants and fishermen to take advantage of the reduction; also, conditions in the United States will have a great deal to do in determining the extent of our increased business. There are bound to 'be increases' under these items, and those increases will benefit the individual fishermen, of the kind of whom I have a large number in my constituency, and whom I keep in mind at all times. Up to the present these men have been operating under great difficulties. I hope and believe that these concessions will relieve them of those difficulties and enable them to carry on with a greater profit.
In considering the effects of this treaty it is important to know something of the history of past changes in tariffs with the United States. I intend hurriedly to go over them.
The first major change between Canada and the United States was under the treaty which lasted from 1S54 to 1866. We had free entry of fish into the United States, and our exports to that country doubled during that time.
The next phase was under the treaty of Washington. Again we had free entry of fish. In 1872 the value of our exports of fish to the United States was $1,336,000; when the treaty expired in 1885, it was $2,579,000. As a result of the termination of that treaty, and because of lack of the market which had been provided under the previous treaty, in the province of Nova Scotia alone 2,400 men dropped out of the fishing industry.
The next major change was in 1898, when, after the Spanish-Ameriean war, Puerto Rico went to the United States and tariffs were
raised. As a result of the restriction of markets our fishing industry lost 1,064 men in Nova Scotia alone.	.
The next major change in tariffs was in 1914, when free entry of fish into the United States was provided for under the Underwood tariff. In the previous year our exports of fish to the United States amounted to $6,914,000; by 1919 they had increased to $18,560,000.	,
As a result of the Fordney-McCumber tariff of 1921 business again dropped. Our sales of fish decreased from $18,560,000 in 1920 to $16,750,000 in 1929, and 2,700 Nova Scotians had to leave the industry.
As a consequence of the prohibitive 1930 tariff there was again a fall in our exports to the United States, from $16,750,000 in 1929 to $11,430,000 in 1931. Because of these two tariffs, the Fordney-McCumber and Hawley-Smoot tariffs, in the port of Yarmouth alone a fleet of more than twenty vessels was wiped out. It was impossible for our fishermen successfully to prosecute the industry under those conditions. Generally speaking, over this period of years the up or down movement of the United States tariff has meant the decrease or increase of our exports to that
country.	. .
So far as I can see, in the mantimes this treaty has been well received, not only by Liberals but by every sincere and well meaning Conservative, by all the better thinking people, by those who have at heart the real interests of the fishing industry. Criticism comes only from three selfish groups-I think that is a fair way to describe them. They are types which can be put into one or other of these pigeonholes. The first type of individual is he who is dealing in only one kind of fish. At the outset I referred to this element in the industry. What he wants is something like Santa Claus something which would enable him to go into every market in the world free of duty and sell fish without competition from other countries. All you will hear from that sort of person is criticism of just one detail, and from a selfish standpoint.
The second kind of critics is composed of a very few fish merchants who are anxious to get cheap fish from the fishermen. There are really very few of these among the merchants carrying on a sort of whispering campaign against this treaty. They are against the treaty because they want to continue to buy cheap fish; they are afraid that, with this added market, the fisherman will command a better price and will make them pay more for his fish.
The third sort of person from whom you hear criticism is the one who, because of political malice, has lost all sense of sincerity.
9, 1939	7711
Canada-United States Trade Agreement
He is afraid that the Liberal party has negotiated an agreement which the fisherman is going to favour. We recognize that type of critic as a subtle person, outwardly concerned for the fishermen but inwardly hopeful that the treaty will bring no benefit to the men of the maritime provinces. He is the fellow who in 1935 attacked the then treaty because it did not provide enough reductions. But now you will hear him say, "We have reductions, but they are of no value." Reductions were good in 1935, but they are no good at the present time. I think I should tell the house that in the maritime provinces we designate that sort of person as just a political humbug.
There are only these three classes criticizing the treaty from the point of view of the fisherman. First, there is the individual who is dealing in one detail of the industry; then there is the fish merchant who wants to buy cheap fish; and the third is the man whose political sense	has	got the	better of hisjudgment and	who	is against the treaty.	I
say I call that third class political humbugs.
While in this critical mood, perhaps I should deal briefly with the remarks of the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) a few days ago. I	take	them in	order. Let	ustake the first	one.	He said,	as reported	at
page 1291 of Hansard:
I quoted certain Nova Scotia periodicals and the statements of gentlemen who are interested in the fishing industry in that province. Ihey were almost unanimous in the view that the present treaty was of practically no benefit to the fishermen.
Criticism from that class is the criticism of one who is interested in one detail of the industry, and therefore what he says cannot be regarded as qualifying him to pass judgment on behalf of the industry as a whole. I should say that he was quoting from a newspaper which, as is well known in Nova Scotia and in the maritime provinces, is "agin the government," to put it mildly. That newspaper is the Halifax Herald.


Mr. BROOKS:: It is very much in favour of the fishermen.


Vincent-Joseph Pottier: If the hon. gentleman will listen to my speech, he will learn more about the fisheries than he knew the other day. The next statement the hon. member made was this:
The experience of the fishing industry has been that up to the present time there is no improvement, either in markets or in prices.
I take that to mean that we have shipped no more fish. Let me refer the house to what the hon. gentleman said later on as
2	COMMONS
Canada-United, States Trade Agreement
reported at page 1292. On page 1291 he says that there is no increase in markets, there are no improvements; and on page 1404 he makes the statement that the market has been crowded with Nova Scotia fish since the treaty took effect. I wonder which statement the hon. member wishes to have us believe-what he says on page 1291 or what he says on page 1292.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The hon. member is referring to a dispatch from a Boston paper which I was quoting. They are not my own words.


Vincent-Joseph Pottier: All I have to say to that is that if the hon. member did not think that what he quoted was right, he should not have quoted it. The two statements contradict each other. I will tell you why that condition is brought about. These three groups, this order of destructionists, are so few that they cannot meet together and arrive at the same argument. The result is that you will hear one argument in one place to a certain effect and another argument somewhere else, the exact opposite, and the contradiction between what is said on page 1291 and what we find on page 1292 is clear evidence of that faot. Next, he says that:
. . . the holders were not anxious to sell, and the United States buyers were not in a hurry to buy, each expecting to derive some benefit from the treaty. Time has proven that the American buyers won out. . . .
The treaty has been in force only since the first of January, 1939, and my hon. friend apparently wants the house to gauge it by the activities of what, in common parlance,
I would call a group of United States gamblers as against a group of Canadian gamblers on the effects of the treaty. The fact is that we have had twice the amount of fish shipped in the month of January that we had in an average month last year in fillets; and yet it is a poor way of judging the treaty to take one month's performance in relation to the activities of two groups competing one against the other. The hon. member says further:
I understand that during the past month large quantities of salt and smoked fish have been returned to Canada as unfit for sale.
I wondered when my hon. friend spoke whether he was arguing that the fact that tariff items had been reduced had had some deteriorating effect on the fish, or whether the fish were being infected by some disease in consequence of the reduction, or whether he was arguing in favour of shipping rotten fish to the United States.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I was arguing that the Boston merchants did not wish to accept the fish-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Walter Edward Foster: The hon. member may ask a question, but he must not interrupt the hon. member who is speaking.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: He has no right to misinterpret my remarks.


Vincent-Joseph Pottier: I have quoted the hon. gentleman correctly, and I was placing upon his statements the constructions to which they seemed to me to be open.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I object not to the quotation but to the interpretation.


Vincent-Joseph Pottier: He says further:
Fresh fish, such as halibut and swordfish, are usually consigned to a commission merchant 111 Boston with the understanding that they will be sold at market prices which the shipper receives, less freight, duty, entry and commission. . . . My opinion is that the shipper will derive very little, if any, benefit from the treaty, and just at the present time it looks as if he might suffer a heavy loss.
The only way in which that can be interpreted, it seems to me, is that the higher the duty the more the return to the shipper. In other words, if you reduce the duty the shipper gets less money. But that is absurd and ridiculous, because if you ship articles to a foreign country the less the duty taken off the greater the return. Then he says:
I might say, Mr. Speaker, that if fifteen years ago there had been some such tariff reduction as is being made in this treaty, before the United States had spent millions ot dollars on trawlers and other fishing equipment, the treaty might have been of more benefit to the fishermen of the maritime provinces.
_ 1 disagree that United States equipment is such that we cannot compete and ship fish to that country. However, in one sense I was pleased when the hon. member made this remark. In 1911 we heard the absolute opposite, that tariff reductions were injurious, and the hon. member's party carried the country on that cry. Now he says that fifteen years ago tariff reductions would have been good- of course, they are not good now. In other words, hon. members are coming gradualh'' to the realization that the Liberals were right in 1911 when they were in favour of reduced duties, in respect of this industry in particular.
With regard to what the hon. member says, that fifteen years ago these reductions would have been good, I would remind him that his party had it in their power from 1916 to 1920 to bring about free entry of fish into the United States. If they had taken advantage

Canada-United States Trade Agreement
of the opportunities they had in negotiations in that period, we would have had free fish fifteen years ago. The United States, under the Underwood tariff, had given us free fish. They made representations asking our government to allow United States vessels to enter our ports. The Canadian government of that day, I submit quite negligently, lost this opportunity of concluding a treaty with the United States that would have given us free entry for our fish for fifteen years and another two years thereafter if notice of termination had been given. I should like to refer to the report of the conference between Canada and the United States, dated September 6, 1918, and dealing with fishery items. After referring to a number of matters this unanimous report was made:
In the light of these facts your commissioners feel constrained to recommend that the Canadian duty on fresh and frozen fish not including shell fish be removed and with a view to assuring stability in the industry that the two countries enter into an agreement by which such fish will be admitted customs duty free from either country into the other, and that such arrangement remain in force for fifteen years, and thereafter until two years after the date when either party thereto shall give notice to the other of its wish to terminate the same.
I have gone into this matter very carefully, and I think if the government of that day had felt towards the fishermen as the present government feels, we would have had a fifteen-year treaty between the two countries providing for the free entry of fish, and the wishes of my hon. friend, who said that fifteen years ago tariff reductions would have been good, would have been fulfilled. When I think of the pressure that was exerted by the present government on behalf of the fishermen in the negotiation of this treaty, and compare it with the lack of interest and understanding shown by the government of 1916-20, I can see what is going to happen to this treaty when the testing time comes. The fishermen of the maritime provinces will see prominently displayed on the banner of hon. gentlemen opposite the slogan "No truck or trade with the Yankees." They realize that the Conservative party is not in favour of the reductions in tariff that have been made.
I disagree with my hon. friend when he says, as his last point, that no benefits will be derived by the individual fishermen. I think we are going to have an increase in production and also, we believe, increased revenues, so that in my opinion the fishermen will benefit from this treaty in very large measure. As an illustration I mentioned that our exports to the United States amounted to
$7,000,000, half of which is dutiable and the other half free. If under this treaty we can increase the $3,500,000 that is dutiable to thrice that amount or more, it will mean that the value of our production will be increased from $14,500,000 to $20,500,000, which in turn will mean one-third more revenue to the industry as a whole. When it is remembered that this will entail practically no increase in capital cost to the fishermen, it will be seen that this will be of great benefit to them.
For a number of years past I have realized the seriousness of the situation in which our fishermen found themselves. In 1937 I stated that unless something was done we would have on the shores of the maritime provinces deserted villages with gaping cellars as monuments of bygone days. I still think that was true. I have followed the gradual trend of the satisfied and self-contained community of former days to the village or district inhabited by poor, discouraged and rather hopeless individuals who had lost every sense of security and all hope for the future. In some instances there has been an improvement since the dark days of 1933. Those conditions were brought about largely by tariff walls put up by foreign countries against the products of our fishermen. I think this treaty will help. There can be no doubt that it will bring benefits to the fishermen which otherwise they would be unable to obtain. I believe that when considering the fishing industry as it exists in Canada and the United States, divisions should be forgotten. I believe each country thereby will enjoy greater prosperity; it will mean better understanding, and trade in both directions will-
Form in heaven's light
One arch of peace.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Speaker, when this treaty was announced some months ago I gave expression to the view that any measure that would improve economic conditions as between Canada and the United States, or that would assist in improving the relationship existing between the United States and Great Britain, would be a worth-while effort and a good move. But I qualified that by saying that it would all depend on the terms of the treaty and the basis upon which it was negotiated and consummated. It is my intention this afternoon to approach this question, I hope without too much prejudice but with a view to analysing within the brief time at my disposal the background not only of the treaty but also of the relationship existing between Canada and the United States. By "background" of course I mean economically.
1714	COMMONS
Canada-United States Trade Agreement
Fortunately the national and social background is all that one could desire, and of it we are all exceedingly proud. It is the economic background with which I desire to deal, having regard to the possible effect of this treaty upon Canada's trade policy as a whole.
Reference has been made, particularly by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) as well as by many other hon. members, to what has been termed the prevalence of economic nationalism in the world to-dajr, and that has been deplored. I am not going to enter upon any very extensive discussion as to whether that is good or bad, but it has been introduced and referred to repeatedly during the debate on this treaty. Furthermore, and this is why I mentioned the first point, it also has been stated that the agreements entered into at the economic conference of 1932 contributed to or aggravated the trend to economic nationalism.
With that contention I take distinct issue, and I propose to deal with it somewhat briefly. Before doing so, however, it seems to me there is a contradiction in the attitude of many hon. members who have spoken in [DOT] support of the treaty. On the one hand it is argued that Canada was justified in giving concessions-and the word "sacrifices" has been used-because that contributed to the improved relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom. That is one presentation. On the other hand it is argued that Canada is realizing very marked benefits from this treaty. It must be obvious, Mr. Speaker, that you cannot take both positions. On the one hand if we are going to claim that we have been broad-minded and generous and have made sacrifices in the interests of this international amity about which we hear so much, certainly on the other hand we cannot claim that we have obtained some rich benefits out of the thing for which we sacrificed ourselves. So obviously there is considerable inconsistency in the attitude of those who support the treaty.
Now let me deal briefly with this argument that the imperial economic agreements of 1932 contributed to the extension of economic nationalism. I do not think Canada or Great Britain can be blamed in any sense whatever for economic nationalism. For no country did more, or attempted to do more to promote international amity and goodwill in the world during the last fifteen or twenty years, since the war, than did Great Britain. And certainly Canada has not done anything towards the promotion of economic nationalism in the world. Let it be remembered 
that Great Britain risked everything. She risked her national existence in the interests of peace and disarmament. Year after year, and year after year, the British parliament went on participating in disarmament agreements, scrapping warships and other warlike material to the value of hundreds of millions of pounds, in the hope that the rest of the world would join in on a general policy of disarmament. And, sir, to say that Great Britain and Canada and the other dominions of the empire which joined in the Ottawa conference are responsible in any way or in any degree for economic nationalism, is a blight upon the honour, the goodwill and the good faith of Great Britain and the dominions of the British empire.
What are the facts? The facts are that following the great war-and I want to emphasize this-all down through those years, around 1923 and 1924, country after country introduced entirely new methods of international trade, forced upon them by internal conditions. Remember: I am not criticizing those countries for what they did. They did it in self defence, and out of a sense of self preservation. Those European countries- Italy, France, Germany, Austria, Poland, Roumania, Bulgaria, Greece, and other countries particularly of Europe, as well as elsewhere-learned during the war very feevere lessons as to being unprepared economically to face conditions which in fact did arise out of the last war and might arise out of a second war.
And so country after country, based upon fear and experience, introduced new methods to cope with their internal difficulties. For instance, the record was placed upon Hansard by me several years ago with respect to Italy. Italy, one of our prominent customers, in 1923 put inhibitions and quotas upon a whole list of articles, and thereby seriously affected our trade with that country-a trade which used to be extensive. That trade has now fallen down to small figures. The decrease began in 1923; it was not after the intra-imperial agreements, at all.
We know what Russia has done; we know what Germany did. Germany, of course, was forced to it not only by economic conditions of the country but also by international exchange. The same is true of other countries; there has been difficulty in connection with getting external exchange to meet their obligations abroad. These are the factors which have forced such countries as Italy, Germany, Russia, the Netherlands and other central European countries to which I have referred to adopt extreme measures in dealing with their foreign trade policy. And it

Canada-United States
Trade Agreement
was the introduction of these quotas, internal taxes, prohibitions, and various strange devices, plus the necessity for exchange or,
I should say, the collapse of international exchange-it was all that, based upon stark fear, that was the cause of the dislocation of external trade. And it was not, I would ask the house to remember, until more than ten years after the war that the Ottawa agreements were made. Therefore to say that those agreements made at Ottawa had anything to do with the promotion of world nationalism is a statement, I believe, without foundation.
It has been asked, and particularly by the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. McKenzie)-to use his words-"What is the use of debating this treaty?" "Why should we waste the time of the house debating the treaty? It is in force, and you can do nothing about it.'5 That is perfectly true; the treaty is in force, and nothing we can do will change it; I am satisfied of that. But, to say that that is a reason why we should be silent and not discuss this all important matter is of course ridiculous. It would be a negation of parliamentary duties and responsibilities.
I make no apologies for discussing the treaty. I believe it ought to be discussed as dispassionately and as intelligently as we can. We ought to consider the various parts of it, and we ought to discuss the major policy involved.
I want to say that in my opinion the treaty is going to have very definite and serious effects upon our external trade policy generally. Time alone will tell whether by and large, on balance, it will be beneficial or adverse. But there is no question that hon. members on either side of the house have a perfect right to express their views in the matter. That it will affect our trade with the British empire and with thirty-eight other countries, very definitely and very directly, cannot be questioned. I say that because the treaty deals with the most favoured nation proposal, or policy, which affects the trade of thirty-eight different countries to which I shall refer in a minute.
I propose to discuss the treaty from two main aspects, first as to its effect from the most favoured nation clause, and also from the financial standpoint. Perhaps before saying anything more with respect to most favoured nation treatment I might read the definition given by authorities in the customs branch. The definition of "most favoured nations" as it appears in the schedule to the customs tariff is as follows:
In addition to enjoying the benefits of the intermediate tariff, the products of countries entitled to most favoured nation treatment
shall not be subjected to higher duties or charges than those paid on like articles the produce or manufacture of any foreign countries.
That' is a clear, succinct definition of what we mean when we refer to most favoured nation treatment. Probably at this time I might run over the names of the thirty-eight countries receiving most favoured nation treatment, so that hon. members will be apprised of the extent of this particular policy. They are:
Argentine Republic	.
Belgium (Colonies and possessions)
Bolivia
Colombia
Costa Rica
Curacao
Czechoslovakia
Denmark
Esthonia
Finland	.
France (Colonies and possessions)
Guam
Guatemala
Hawaii
Hayti
Hungary
Italy
Japan
Latvia _
Lithuania
Luxembourg	_	_
Netherlands (Netherlands Indies, Curacao and Surinam)
Norway
Panama
Philippine Islands
Poland
Porto Rico
Portugal
Roumania
Samoa (American)
Serb (Croat and Slovene Kingdom)
Spain
Surinam
Sweden
Switzerland
United States of America
Venezuela
Virgin Islands.
These are the countries to which the most favoured nation clause in Canada's tariff applies. In other words every one of those nations will receive the full benefits of all the special deductions made in the treaty. What I am asking myself is this-and I know it is a very serious question: Did the government take care to understand and apprise themselves of the full effect of the reductions upon their trade with these other, countries? It may be argued that at the present time our foreign trade is favourable to Canada. That is true. And it may therefore be argued that if we do extend the same advantages to these countries no one could complain. But there is this feature to consider: In a world which is trading to-day under bilateral agreements, in a world where nearly every country with which we deal uses quotas, inhibitions
Canada-United States

Trade Agreement
and prohibitions of one kind or another, for Canada to, shall I say, disarm itself entirely by voluntarily giving those countries access to this territory on the full list included in this and other treaties, without receiving back from those countries one single concession-I say for us to put ourselves in that position is in my opinion a decided and definite weakness.
Let me repeat. Other countries are basing their external trade largely upon bilateral agreements, that is, agreements by which one country gives a concession for a like concession on the part of the other. We, on the other hand, have made this treaty with the United States, and every last benefit in it will be given to these other thirty-eight countries, with not a single concession being granted to us in return. Not only that, but we have no concession to offer to them. If to-morrow we try to make a trade treaty with Italy, Germany or any one of the countries the names of which I have read, and ask for some concession, that country will reply, "What have you to offer?" They will tell us that they already have the full advantage of our intermediate tariff, that they already have the full advantage of all we have given the United States, France and all these other countries. I submit that we have tied our hands so that we can have no expectation of working out bilateral agreements.
Some years ago when I was still Minister of Trade and Commerce I had in mind the abandonment of the most favoured nation policy in connection with Canadian trade. Our trade is largely with the British empire and the United States, the balance being comparatively small although not unimportant.


Mr. DUNNING:: About twenty per cent.


Henry Herbert Stevens: For us to give away all our trading advantages, to release the others fiom the necessity of making concessions to us, seems to me to be an exceedingly questionable policy. I have in my hand a publication issued by the Department of Trade and Commerce and dated 1938, and I ask hon. members to listen to some excerpts which I shall read. They have heard me read the list of countries which have the most favoured nation advantage. This is what this publication has to say regarding most favoured nation agreements :
Ihe benefit to Canadian exports of mostfavoured-nation treatment in any country depends on the customs and treaty system of the particular importing country concerned.
This is the present government speaking through its own publication. Of the countries I have mentioned, eleven have a single 
tariff which is open to all countries. In other words, we get no advantage over any other country. With minor exceptions, Argentina applies her tariff equally to imports from all countries. Belgium has a minimum tariff which in practice is applied equally to imports from all countries. The customs duties of Bolivia are applied equally to imports from all countries. Denmark has a single tariff schedule, and the general tariff of Italy is applicable to imports from all countries. The Netherlands has a single tariff schedule without tariff preference to any country. Norway has a single tariff schedule, and the duties of Panama apply equally to imports from all countries. Sweden has commercial treaties with various countries and has granted conventional rates of duties which, however, have been incorporated into her ordinary tariff and made applicable to all countries. Switzerland operates under a single column tariff which applies to all countries, and no preferences exist under the tariff of Venezuela. This policy by these countries of attempting to give parity to all countries makes the binding of the most favoured nation clause meaningless. My submission is that we could well afford to consider again the advisability of casting aside the most favoured nation policy as far as Canada is concerned.
I dislike quoting, but for the purpose of the record I think I should read what the United States press release had to say as to the effects of the most favoured nation feature of this treaty upon the trade of Canada. I quote:
The actual effect, therefore, was an enduring reduction in rates on a large volume of trade.
Ihe concession by Canada of most-favourednation treatment meant much more than the mere removal of the differentials which iormerly existed against American goods as compared with the goods of most other non-*riA!sh.countries. A much greater gain lay m the fact that the lower rates resulting from that provision improved the position of American producers in competition with Canadian producers of the same commodities.
That is the point in this treaty that appeals to the United States government. Then they go on to say:
There are still hundreds of items in the Canadian tariff with respect to which the United States benefits directly by the mostfavoured-nation provision-items on which the rates now being paid are lower than before 1936 solely by virtue of this provision. The imports of this group from the United States in 1937 amounted to $79,000,000.
They refer there to the hundreds of items which are in addition to those specified in the schedule to the treaty. In other words, over and above all the schedules, the United States has, by virtue of the inclusion of the most

Canada-United, States Trade Agreement
favoured nation clause in this treaty, an advantage in trade which in 1937 amounted to $79,000,000.
I should like to refer briefly to the question of dumping, because the dumping provision has a part in this whole set-up. We have in our tariff law a section which was placed there by a distinguished minister of the Laurier government, the late Right Hon. W. S. Fielding, who is recognized as having been one of the outstanding finance ministers of Canada. He was a man whom I knew well and respected most highly. He introduced into the Canadian tariff a policy which I am sorry to say is scoffed at to-day by the Liberal party. It is not applied energetically by the government, and yet it is one of the soundest provisions in the tariff structure of this country. I refer to section 6 of the customs tariff, known as the dumping clause. What is the history of the dumping clause? I would invite the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ward) and others who talk so, shall I say recklessly, about the desire of certain industries to have protection, to study the history of this clause and the doctrine which lies behind it. If they did that, I think we would hear much less railing against importers and the policy of protection in Canada. At the risk of being tedious I am going to read this section into the record.
I remind the house that I conceive it to be one of the soundest pieces of doctrine ever introduced into the customs laws of this country. Section 6 reads:
In the case of articles exported to Canada of a class or kind made or produced in Canada, if the export or actual selling price to an importer in Canada is less than the fair market value of the same article [DOT] when sold for home consumption in the usual and ordinary course in the country whence exported to Canada at the time of its exportation to Canada, or is less than the fair market value or value for duty thereof as determined under the provisions of section thirty-six of the Customs Act-
That latter part is later than Mr. Fielding's time.
-or is less than the value for duty thereof as determined bv the minister ... or is less than the fair market value thereof as fixed under the provisions of section forty-three of the Customs Act, there shall, in addition to the duties otherwise established, be levied, collected and paid on such article, on its importation into Canada, a special or dumping duty, equal to the difference between the said selling price of the article for export and the said fair market value thereof or value for duty thereof.
Now there are goods being imported from the United States at the present time-and from other countries as well, I think, but I have reference particularly to the United States-which are being sold in Canada for
less than the fair market value in the United States; and they are entering this country in large quantities. It is a question of administration; it is not a question of Tory protection or any other form of Tory doctrine. These goods are coming in, as they have been for over thirty years, contrary to the laws of Canada, and contrary to the doctrine introduced into the laws of this country by a Liberal finance minister whose authority no Liberal member of this house would question. Yet these goods continue to come in here in definance of the law as it stands, and to the injury of Canadian production.
For example, there is a certain machine in common household use. I am not going to mention it because I do not wish to give particular instances here, for this is not the place. But a certain manufacturer in the United States makes a small number of cheap machines, less than ten per cent of his output, which are advertised for sale at about half the regular price of his general production. They get the advantage of low-price advertising. The aim is to attract interest in his product, and this firm will discharge a salesman if he sells one of these machines, or more than one, in a district in the United States. The salesmen must sell only the higher priced machine there. They can quote on the other, but all sorts of difficulties are put in the way of delivery, and they do not sell the cheap machine in the United States. They are, however, shipped into Canada and sold here in competition with our own products at a loss to the manufacturer in the United States, although they are listed there in an attempt to comply with this law. In my opinion, that i3 the sort of thing we are going to suffer from when this treaty comes into force because it covers a great many articles of that kind. I have merely cited one case as an illustration.
I should like now to refer briefly to the point I made a moment ago as to the difficulties of doing external trade in these days. I have before me an article written by the Hon. Rupert E. Beckett, and published in the Monetary Times of March 4 last, and I quote it because it is an excellent illustration of the difficulties to which I have referred and which, I warn the house and I warn the government, will, if we are not very careful, arise from this treaty because of its most favoured nation feature:
In many other countries where British interests were well established, particularly in southeastern Europe and South America, they have been seriously jeopardized by the intrusion of political considerations and influences into the economic sphere. Fair competition British
1718	COMMONS
Canada-United States Trade Agreement
traders can meet, but to-day the destination of business is frequently decided not by competitive efficiency but by political manoeuvres and considerations of national expediency.
That is precisely what I have been referring to here. These other countries, more or less under duress, forced by fear and anxiety, have imposed quotas and other restrictions, new and strange devices rather than deal on a competitive basis. The article continues:
A new, and more subtle, form of trading has come into vogue, in which one country undertakes to absorb another's output of a particular crop or material. A primary producing country naturally finds the prospect of securing an assured market for its products an alluring one, but in practice the interchange has proved to have considerable drawbacks. The dominant partner in the agreement, whilst itself receiving much-needed raw materials, has been able to dump inferior or unwanted goods on the other.
I quote that merely for the purpose of emphasizing the dangers of the most favoured nation feature of this agreement.
I have been speaking, Mr. Speaker, for about half an hour, and I had hoped that I might have some slight influence upon the members of the government, but I notice that neither the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) nor the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) has even done me the courtesy of listening.


Charles Avery Dunning: We were just discussing
one of your points.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What is the use of wasting the time of the house discussing this or any other measure in the atmosphere that prevails in this chamber and has done so in recent times? In regard to these matters I had some serious and definite views which I was prepared to offer, not in any captious or partisan manner, but simply because I am absolutely convinced that this country must face these issues. Moreover, in 1925 I pointed out to the house that if we pursued the policy we were then pursuing, and are still pursuing, in connection with our trade with the United States, sooner or later we would reach a point where we would be economically shackled and bound to that country-and we have pretty nearly reached that stage.
When this treaty was being negotiated we should have taken up with the government of the United States the whole question of our economic relationship. We should have pointed out to them that we owed the United States, as I can show, in the neighbourhood of four and a half billion dollars, on which interest has to be paid. There are heavy capital investments in Canada which must be returned

to the United States in some form and at some time. And yet, Mr. Speaker, we have been frittering away our birthright year after year, and year after year.
The hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ward) a few moments ago quoted figures on external trade.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Did he know what they were all about?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I should not have minded if he did not, but he never quoted them anywhere near correctly. In one instance he was not within one billion dollars of the correct figure. He quoted our export trade figure at $1,900,000,000. I have figures before me now, on the authority of the Bank of Canada statistical summary, and for the very year the hon. member quoted the figure of $1,900,000,000, our exports were actually something over $900,000,000.
I want to call attention to a few figures. In the years from 1926 to 1938 we imported from the United States $6,516,000,000 worth of goods. In the same period we exported to them $4,285,000,000 worth of goods. In other words, there was an adverse balance of trade of some two billions of dollars in those thirteen years. Not only is that the case, but I want to impress on the house this fact, that while we can go on frittering away our patrimony for a long time yet because undoubtedly we have vast resources in this country, sooner or later we shall have to face this situation. I repeat, that in those thirteen years we have had an adverse balance of trade with the United States of $2,200,000,000, in addition to which we have to pay over $200,000,000 a year in interest. We cannot escape that fact.
This situation ought to be reviewed. I do not think it is saying anything unkind of the United States to say this, that they must realize that we are one of their heavy debtors and that we are among the best customers they have. As I said the other day, we are a debtor that is valuable to them, because our debts are in the form of investments which in the main are rendering them handsome returns. We have the right, as one business man talking to another, to say to the United States that the only way by which we can liquidate our position and maintain a liquid condition with the United States is to sell them more goods.
In nearly all the figures quoted in this debate in connection with exports to the United States, gold has been added. In the earlier years gold never was added. In recent

Canada-United States Trade Agreement
years, however, gold is added. I want to say further to the house, and particularly to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning), who still is not listening to me-


Charles Avery Dunning: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am listening to the hon. member.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend is not.


Charles Avery Dunning: He cannot misrepresent me in that fashion.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend is sitting there in a bored condition, reading a newspaper.


Charles Avery Dunning: I cannot help it if the hon. member bores me, but I am listening.


Henry Herbert Stevens: All right. I am quite satisfied with the minister's attitude. He says I bore him.


Mr. REID:: No wonder.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am telling him and this government that unless they review this situation with the United States they are going to put this country under a more severe economic strain as the years go by. I can show that in connection with the newsprint industry. I can show it in connection with the gold mining industry.


Charles Avery Dunning: If that is true to-day, was it not even more true when my hon. friend was Minister of Trade and Commerce?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I would not say so.


Charles Avery Dunning: And what did he do
about it?


Henry Herbert Stevens: What did I do about it?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I told my hon. friend a little while ago.


An hon. MEMBER:: Formed a new party.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I told him when I was seeking with sweet reasonableness to gain his attention-which I did not accomplish. I told him at that time that when I was a member of the then government, I recognized the situation and initiated steps to study it.


Charles Avery Dunning: "To study the situation!"


Henry Herbert Stevens: But I left the government, and I have not had any chance to carry out what I found to be necessary. I am not saying that any great condemnation should rest upon those who have been administering this department in years gone by, but I say that the time has arrived when we ought to give consideration to the matter. That is what I am urging; and it is the lack of interest in
and the lackadaisical attention of the house to these problems which really annoy me, and annoy me very much.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friends may laugh.
I am going to say frankly now to my hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) -and he is, I believe, the only man in the house who has been here longer than I have- that never before in my experience in parliament have I witnessed such an attempt by the forces of numbers and majority control to howl down fair discussion in this chamber as has been evident this session.


Mr. POWER:: The hon. member is complaining that we are not listening to him, not that we are interrupting him.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No. My hon. friend knows what I am referring to. I am just going to close my remarks-and it is useless to talk- with this, that unless this parliament gets down to more serious consideration of these problems, the institution of parliament is threatened. That is what I have to say.


An hon. MEMBER:: Tory propaganda.


Ross Wilfred Gray: Ballyhoo.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend can say ''ballyhoo."


Ross Wilfred Gray: That is what the hon. member's leader said.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend the chief whip of the Liberal party has not the right to say very much, because he has not been here very much.


Ernest Lapointe: Another lecture.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have been looking rather longingly to see him in his seat.


An hon. MEMBER:: He has been ill.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I did not know that. He knows that if I knew he had been ill I would not say anything unkind about him. Nevertheless my hon. friend has not been here and does not know what has been going on. What I said was with no desire to be unkind to my hon. friend.


Ross Wilfred Gray: Well, I have been reading the debates.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am just throwing aside, as being utterly useless-which it is-any effort, or, rather, any further effort.
Mr. A. MacG. YOUNG (Saskatoon): Mr. Speaker, I have been very much astonished in the last minute or two at the remarks of
1"20	COMMONS
Canada-United States Trade Agreement
my hon. friend (Mr. Stevens). As a rule he is a good debater; he debates in an excellent way; but the manner in which he closed the debate to-night must leave a bad impression not only upon this house but upon this country.
It is not my intention to analyse in detail the trade agreement which is at present the subject of discussion before this house. Last year I was unfortunately absent from the house when the budget was presented and debated. I was, however, able to express privately my views to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and other members of the government and, frankly, the budget of last year was disappointing to me. I believe also it was disappointing to the government itself. The government had hoped before parliament prorogued last year to be in a position to present the trade agreement, but owing to prolonged negotiations, over much of which there was no control in Canada, the date when the trade agreement was finally consummated was subsequent to prorogation. Because I was disappointed, and perhaps even somewhat critical with respect to the budget, I feel it all the more incumbent upon me now to express my views in connection with this trade agreement. I realized last year, and so stated, that it might be unwise, indeed probably would be unwise, to make some slight alterations in the tariff while at that time negotiations were under way regarding this trade agreement.
I am in complete accord with bilateral trade agreements, but as a Liberal I cannot accept the view that it is only in that way that tariff changes should be effected. If at any time it is in the interests of this country to reduce the tariff on any article entering Canada, that tariff should be reduced, whether or not there is any so-called concession given by another country. Last year the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) referred to unilateral changes in the tariff, and considered them unwise, at least at that time. While I am in perfect sympathy with bilateral agreements, I must insist that at all times when downward revisions of the tariff can be made in the interests of this country, they should be made, irrespective of any concessions received from any other country.
As a member of the Liberal party I am indeed proud of the achievement of our government in concluding what is perhaps the most extensive and favourable trade agreement which has been made by Canada during this century, indeed perhaps since confederation. I should like to congratulate the Prime Minister upon his able presentation to

this house in connection with this trade agreement. I have also listened to or read other excellent contributions to the debate, but I should like to make special mention of the address delivered by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ilsley). He made a clear, concise and convincing review of the benefits which will accrue to Canada under this agreement.
This debate reveals clearly the different points of view between the parties represented in this house. Members of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party, both in the house and outside it, have from time to time been proclaiming that there is really no difference between the policy of the Liberal party and the policy of the Conservative party, that they are really so much alike that they might be regarded as having a distinction without any difference. No doubt those hon. members of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party were making those speeches for political effect. They tried to make the people of the country believe that, after all is said and done, these two great old parties have drifted together so closely that they are now really as one, and that now the party really opposing them is the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party.
Well, let us look at the situation as we have it before us in the house at the present time. The leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion) and his party not only have been extremely critical of the agreement as a whole, but have picked out individual items here and there stating that they would adversely affect their part of the country, and inferentially endeavouring to lead the house and the country to conclude that the trade agreement as a whole is not in the interests of this country.
What is the history of the parties with respect to trade agreements? The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) went back nearly half a century in an endeavour to show that certain persons in the United States held views which, in his judgment, were inimical to that republic having closer trade relationships with Canada. He also quoted certain unfortunate remarks of United States statesmen in connection with the reciprocal trade agreement arranged by Sir Wilfrid Laurier and the Right Hon. Mr. Fielding. It is true that certain men in the United States did use certain unfortunate phrases, such as, "Canada is at the parting of the ways," and others, referring to the possibility of annexation.


Robert James Manion: What is the hon. gentleman reading from?

Canada-United States Trade Agreement


Mr. YOUNG:: It is not from your book, anyhow, my hon. friend.


Robert James Manion: But the hon. gentleman
is reading it. What is it?


Alexander MacGillivray Young: I have some notes here.


Robert James Manion: Notes! You have a whole essay.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: No doubt these extravagant and unwarranted statements were used in the United States to help secure support from the Tories in the United States, and the same statements were fanned into a burning flame of partiotism by the Tories in Canada to prevent the passage of the reciprocal pact in 1911. The Tories have always had a great faculty of waving the flag to prevent Liberal governments from taking away some of the special privileges from the few in an endeavour to deal in a fair and just way with the masses of the people and with the consumers of Canada.
Let us look at the negotiations which took place between Canada and the United States in connection with consummating a trade agreement when the Conservative party was in power under the leadership of the Right Hon. Mr. Bennett. How far did they progress? Just to the point where it would be advantageous for political purposes. The public did not have, could not have, any knowledge, of what the proposed agreement was; it could be used in various parts of the country for political effect, and Conservative speakers would draw on their imagination as to the content of the agreement, according to the feeling of the people in the locality where such speeches were made.
But what is the important point? The agreement was not consummated by the Conservative party. Within a very few weeks after the Liberal party came into power in 1935, a reciprocal trade agreement was consummated. During the discussion of that trade agreement in this house it became abundantly clear that the Conservative party was not at any time really in favour of a trade agreement, and that was why it had not been signed the previous year.
What is the attitude to-day of the leader of the opposition? Is he for this trade agreement? Not only he, but every hon. member of this house, will be called upon to say whether he is for or against this trade agreement, and I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that at the conclusion of this debate, when the vote is taken, the people of this country will know in more certain fashion than ever before just where the parties of this country really stand on fiscal policy. Members of the Tory party have been saying in the house, and
particularly outside the house in different sections of the country where they believe it would be more beneficial to them, that they were in favour of trade agreements, that they were in favour of wider trading with other countries. If that be true, they will have an opportunity in this house within the next day or two, perhaps within the next few hours, to demonstrate to the Canadian people that they really believe in a greater opportunity for the interchange of goods with other countries. The leader of the opposition said as to this agreement, that only time could tell whether it is good or whether it is not. I ask him, and I ask every member of his party, this question: Are they prepared to give this trade agreement such an opportunity, so that time will tell? If they vote against this agreement, and if by any chance their vote should prevent it from becoming law, my question is, how will time tell? If they succeed in voting down this resolution-


Robert James Manion: With thirty-eight against one hundred and eighty.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: -then time will have lost its opportunity to tell whether the trade agreement be good or bad; time will never have a chance, and I say to hon. members opposite that unless they are prepared to give this treaty an opportunity, they are placing themselves definitely, absolutely and irrevocably on record as being opposed to freer interchange of goods or a greater opportunity for international trade.


Robert James Manion: Your party voted solidly, except for the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Usley) against the empire trade agreements.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: I have looked over this trade agreement and I find there benefits for farmers, benefits for lumber men, benefits for fishermen, benefits for various classes, but I find further that there are benefits for every Canadian consumer, which means benefits for every man, woman and child in this country. The Liberal party promised the people of Canada that tariffs would be reduced to the level of the Dunning budget. I am happy to say that a close study of this agreement reveals that on practically everything the duty has been reduced to the level of the Dunning budget of 1930, and, in many instances, has gone much beyond that point.
Take, for example, farm machinery. Under the Dunning budget there were certain items at six per cent, others at 7\ per cent, and still others at ten per cent. Under this agreement the tariff on all farm machinery has been reduced to 71 per cent. There have been
1722	COMMONS
Canada-United States Trade Agreement
some who have already said, " Yes, duties have been reduced, but when they were reduced the prices of farm machinery were not reduced, they were increased." I regret to say that prices were somewhat higher. Recently these prices have been reduced to a certain extent. After the extensive investigation which a committee of this house made with respect to the farm implement industry of Canada, and the corresponding investigation made by a similar committee of the congress of the United States, it was clearly disclosed that no manufacturer of farm implements prepared his price list until the largest manufacturing company in both countries had brought down its price lists. In Canada there is every appearance that there is, if not a definite combination in restraint of trade, at least a complete understanding that prices shall not be reduced below an agreed level.
I should like to say now to the government and to this house that this is a matter which in the immediate future should receive the most careful scrutiny, and if the evidence warrants it, prosecution should be undertaken against any firms who in an unlawful combination act together to maintain unwarranted prices for farm machinery, or for any other goods.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: Mr. Speaker, when the house rose at six o'clock I was discussing the attitude of the various parties towards the trade agreement. I sometimes listen with interest to the speeches of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell). Sometimes he makes a good speech; sometimes he talks like a Liberal, and I ask myself why he is sitting in that corner. As 1 have said already, the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation speakers refer to the two old parties as being alike, that they are on the same road, which I might call the road of trade. It is important that we examine carefully whether or not this is true. It may be that these parties are on the same road, but let us look more closely. A couple of years ago, with my wife, I took an extended automobile trip through the United States. We travelled over wonderful roads, extremely well marked. If you followed the road bearing your particular number you might arrive at your destination, but there was one thing which that number did not give, and that was the direction. If you neglected that and

went the wrong way you would end up at a point opposite to that of choice. The Liberals and Conservatives may be on the same road, but they are going in opposite directions. That is the difference which the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation speakers do not point out. The direction the Conservative party has always followed leads to the building up of impediments to international trade, to the blocking of international trade, while the Liberals have always gone in the opposite direction, that of the lowering or the removal of impediments to international trade.
Where do the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation members stand? Do they favour the Tory or the Liberal direction? My only objection, if I have one, to the course pursued by the Liberal party concerns neither the road nor the direction, but rather the speed with which they travel. I should like to get into high gear and go faster. It may be that no party is willing to travel at the rate at which I am prepared to go. If my Cooperative Commonwealth Federation friends were really anxious to see the Liberals go a bit faster, would it not be better for them to join the Liberal party and assist those of us who are trying to get as far as possible in the right direction with the least delay? The Cooperative Commonwealth Federation members come from western Canada, and all they have succeeded in doing is dividing western influence and delaying progress. Heaven forbid that I should raise an east-west issue. I do not believe in that. I believe in a united Canada. At the same time there is such a thing as a balanced policy, the best policy having regard to Canada as a whole, and western opinion should not be divided in its influence. In my judgment this division of opinion has been a great detriment to western Canada. In a democracy such as ours I do not believe it is in the public interest that there should be more than two parties in this country, and the public is beginning to share that view if one is to judge from the small number of Cooperative Commonwealth Federation members returned at the last election.
I am happy to support this extensive trade agreement. It is not only on the right road, facing the right direction; it has gone a long distance in that direction, and I congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and his government upon the success of their efforts. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar says he will support this agreement, and other Cooperative Commonwealth Federation members have said the same thing. I ask this question: What part did they have in urging fonvard and assisting with the agreement? They have done nothing; in fact,

Canada-United States Trade Agreement
both within and without this house Cooperative Commonwealth Federation members have rather belittled the idea that there was much advantage in extending international trade. They have advanced the notion that the thing to do is to socialize the whole state. Why will my hon. friend from Rosetown-Biggar support this agreement? He does not dare oppose it, or whatever chance he may have of reelection to this house would be entirely removed; h'e would not have the ghost of a chance for reelection. He did nothing to assist in bringing about this agreement, yet I suppose he will go back to his constituency and tell how he helped his people.
I should now like to say just a word to the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley). Where does he stand on this question? I put that squarely to him, although I see he is not in his seat. Do the people of the constituency of Qu'Appelle believe in a better opportunity to exchange the goods which they do not require for the goods of other countries? I venture the opinion that there is not one person in his constituency who does not approve this agreement taken as a whole. The people of Qu'Appelle, together with the people of this whole country, will watch this vote more keenly than they have watched any other vote ever taken in this house. Now that we have a chance to advance the interests of our country-for this agreement is in the interests of the whole of Canada-let us do our duty as citizens and not think in terms of party. I say this to my Tory friends, who deep down in their hearts know that this agreement is in Canada's interests. It is also true that it is in the interests of the other party to the agreement', the United States; and any agreement, if it is to be counted good, must be mutually beneficial.
I commend the government also for the part they played in assisting in the negotiations between the United States and the United Kingdom. I desire to emphasize especially that part of the Prime Minister's address in this house in which he made it clear that Canada was willing to negotiate agreements not only with the United States and members of the British commonwealth but with all countries willing to trade with us on a fair and equitable basis. The leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion) rather poked fun at the reference by the Prime Minister to the effect of such agreements on the peace of the world, and amused himself by referring to the peaceful boundary line between us and our great and friendly neighbour. He knew the Prime Minister was not thinking about any disturbance between these two countries but was referring to Great Britain, the United States and Canada pointing the way to international goodwill by means of greater international trade, and holding this out as a beacon light for the whole world to follow. If the example of these nations who have concluded these agreements were followed by the whole world, it would lead to international goodwill, to the cessation of the suicidal race to rearm, and to the removal of the causes which lead to war. It was this wider sphere to which the Prime Minister referred. It is interesting to note British public opinion in connection with the trade agreement. I quote from the London Spectator of November 25, 1938:
In the simple but significant ceremony that attended the signature of the Anglo-American trade treaty at Washington last week the just comment was supplied, very fitly, by the Prime Minister of Canada, Mr. Mackenzie King, when he said that "it must be increasingly apparent that the stability of the civilization which we cherish depends more than ever on the friendly association of the English-speaking nations of the old world and the new.
That assertion deserves study in some detail, for it states an important truth with singular accuracy. The English-speaking nations . . . are to-day in a special sense the trustees of the only kind of civilization their own citizens, and those of many lesser states, think worth maintaining. That is not merely apparent, but increasingly apparent, for war not merely on common human freedom but on the elemental rights of the individual is being waged over ever-widening tracts of the globe with a savagery incompatible with the survival of any liberal civilization at all.
That tragedy has had one compensation. It has driven the custodians of this freedom into closer association in common sympathy for common protection.
Then it goes on to say:
But mutual good will alone will not make the relations between two friendly nations what they need to be "under the strenuous conditions of the modern world," and it is the merit of British and American statesmanship-the credit is due to Mr. Cordell Hull more than any other single man-that it has set itself quietly and patiently to remove obstacles to full cooperation between the two countries and negotiate agreements which, without assuming any formal political significance, shall advertise to their own citizens and to the world their resolve to substitute practical cooperation resolutely and increasingly for economic or any other form of conflict. The fundamental value of the Anglo-American trade agreement lies as much in the sacrifices each country was ready to make as in the advantages it secured for its own traders-for till it is realized that every such negotiation must be based on the simple principle of give and take the attempt of each side to concentrate on taking must spell inevitable disaster. Hardly less important were the concurrent negotiations between the United States and Canada and the treaty signed by the union and the dominion simultaneously with the major Anglo-American agreement. That, and the fact that other British
1724	COMMONS
Canada-United States Trade Agreement
dominions like Australia had to be brought into the discussions because concessions made to America might affect their own trade with Britain, opens up suggestive possibilities.
Then the editorial goes on to speak of the Ottawa agreements of 1932, and it has this
to say:
It to some extent decreased the trade and to a considerable extent increased the suspicions and antagonisms of states outside the empire,
articularly the United States and Germany.
ince then, and to some extent in consequence, Germany has developed a closed economy based on trade by barter, which makes the prospect of any beneficial commercial agreement with her remote. But that fact, unfortunate in itself, has had some favourable reactions, in producing the recognition among states which still prefer free interchange of the need for increasing trade among themselves. The Anglo-American agreement has gone far to meet that need, for through the operation of the most favoured nation clause it means that the tariffs of both countries are lowered not merely in relation to one another, but to all countries with which they have signed most favoured nation treaties.
It goes on to say:
In what form and by what methods the Ottawa circle can be widened, with economic consequences that would produce political results no less valuable than the economic, are matters for further thought. But Mr. Hull, Mr. Mackenzie King and Mr. Stanley have performed a service of no small value in turning the minds of all reflective men in that direction.
A quotation from the Economist-and this is worthy of note-dated November 19, 1938, speaking about the trade agreement in a laudatory way, says:
All those on either side who have worked for this agreement have the right to congratulate themselves on its successful birth. And, if bouquets are being distributed, one of the largest must be reserved for Mr. Mackenzie King. Even the briefest study of the terms of the agreement is enough to show how little could have been done without the readiness of Canada to offer her generous cooperation.
It is recognized by members of the government, by the Liberal party, yes, and by the citizens of Canada, that the central and directing figure in all these negotiations was the Prime Minister of Canada. Time will tell, and history will record this as one of the finest achievements in Canada's history, and a lasting tribute to the genius of our Prime Minister.
When British empire countries were arranging trade agreements, and having especially in mind the fact that the Right Hon. Mr. Bennett insisted on Great Britain changing her fiscal policy to one of protection, when he insisted that preferences be

granted to countries of the British commonwealth by raising duties against other countries, rather than by lowering tariff barriers and other impediments to trade between empire countries, I was somewhat anxious as to the effects this would have on other nations. I still ask, what was its effect? I quoted British opinion as to its effect. In these trade agreements between Canada and the United States, and the United States and the United Kingdom, the British empire has shown its desire to trade more freely, not only with the United States, but, under the most favoured nation clause, with other countries as well; and, as I said, the Prime Minister has made it abundantly clear in his statement to the house during this debate that Canada desires to trade with all countries willing to trade with us on a fair basis. When all countries are prepared to adopt this attitude, and put it into practice, we may hope for international goodwill, and the removal of the fear of war.
Mr. Speaker, I think we have heard enough in the house during this debate to know that between parties there is a vital difference. Within a very short time we shall have an opportunity of having every party in the house record its vote as to where it stands. In this country hereafter we shall know definitely and accurately whether the Conservative party is going along the same road and in the same direction as the Liberal party. And those of us who record our vote, whether it be to-night or on another day, will have made an everlasting record as to where we stand, because in the trade agreement we have something which is beneficial not only to Canada but to the United States. We have a tripartite agreement between ourselves, the United States and Great Britain, which points the way to a solution of difficulties not only between those countries, but also among all the countries of the world.
I heartily support the resolution, and I trust that when the vote is taken we may be unanimous in declaring that we put our country ahead of our party, and that we support the agreement.


Mr. W. A. WALSH (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak to the resolution before the house I would suggest to hon. members opposite that their constant glorification of the trade treaty, and their constant crowing and blowing, to use a rather vulgar expression, with respect to the effects of the trade treaty, remind me very much of the old Chinese proverb which was quoted the other

Canada-United States Trade Agreement
day in the Alberta legislature, and which has been quoted on many previous occasions- "The crowing hen never lays eggs."
An hon. MEMBER-. The crowing hen?


William Allen Walsh: I can assure hon. members that all the crowing they are doing about the trade treaty is not going to produce good effects, so far as Canada is concerned.
I am not commencing my address as most hon. members on the Liberal side do, namely, by suggesting that unexpectedly they were called upon to take part in the debate. Having been prepared since the resolution was introduced, I am ready to take part in the debate, but it is not my intention to do so. I recognize the futility of presenting arguments, to any great extent, in the House of Commons as it is at present constituted, and I do not care to waste my efforts. I would rather place the work I have done in analysing the effects of the treaty before an audience which will at least listen with some degree of appreciation and will give at least some weight to the facts presented to them.
I say this after due and deliberate consideration, considering the treatment I received when I attempted to address the house on Tuesday afternoon of this week. I want to say further that if the house does not raise itself above its present level, the people of Canada will themselves take steps to remedy the situation.


An hon. MEMBER:: Order.


William Allen Walsh: We have heard "order" too frequently in the house to pay very much attention to a word of that kind. Before placing on Hansard a record of what I had intended to say, I should like to make brief reference to two hon. members. I have not had an opportunity to do so before. I have great admiration for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning), and it is my hope and prayer that his health will continue to improve to such an extent that he may continue to grace the public life of Canada. May I also make passing reference to a friend who sits with us on this side of the house, who is at present seriously ill, and for whose recovery every hon. member is hoping. I refer to the hon. member for Peterborough West (Mr. Duffus). He is a man who is very much respected, and I know there has not been a member on either side of the house who has not heard with a considerable degree of regret about his serious illness. I know our thoughts are with him, and with the members of his family.
Rather than continue the debate, I am merely going to do what we sometimes do
in school. Hon. members will excuse my referring to the class-room, but that is my natural habitat. At times we ask the pupils to write essays and compositions, and at other times we ask them to develop plans along certain lines. I am going to give the house the plan which I should have elaborated considerably had I spoken earlier in the debate. I had hoped that when I got through with that elaboration I should have been able to leave this treaty so stark bare that even members on the Liberal side of the house would see the hideousness of the implications involved in it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Allen Walsh: Sometimes when I speak
in this house, face the audience that I am now facing and listen to the groans and guttural sounds that sometimes come forth, I wonder whether I have not landed in the central part of Africa which is inhabited by other than human beings.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


William Allen Walsh: First, I was going to say
that our industries were not taken into the confidence of the government. They were not given an opportunity to submit arguments. That is quite different from the policy of the United States. I was going to refer hon. members to the United States statutes, volume forty-eight, page 943, where they would find section 4 of an act which sets out definitely the policy of the United States. That is something we have not in this country. The government- of Canada do not seem to realize the seriousness of signing a trade treaty with a foreign party. They do not seem to realize that that foreign power may be hedged in by certain definite statutes, outside which they cannot go. Those engaged in commercial enterprise, those engaged in industry in this country, and even members of parliament were not informed of what the government were doing. Yet the government come before this parliament of free people with this treaty. The whole thing seems preposterous to me. It is a far-fetched procedure. We are now debating a trade treaty which has been signed and which is in effect, and yet members of this parliament did not have a word to say as to whether that treaty should or should not be signed, as to whether the various items in the treaty were going to affect their parts of the country adversely or otherwise.
We have had one glaring example of this already in the case of cattle. When this government signed the treaty they did not know the possible results of that one item and
1720	COMMONS
Canada-United States Trade Agreement
they had to get an explanation. I can see the representatives of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) going hat-in-hand to the President of the United States and saying. "We are very sorry, but we did not quite understand the meaning of that particular paragraph; we thought we were going to get so many head of cattle into the United States, and instead of that you tell us it is only so many; cannot you do something for us"? The President of the United States, seeing the meekness with which he is approached, and being in a conciliatory mood, agrees to let them have a certain concession.
The same thing is true with regard to wheat. Can one imagine a more ridiculous situation than this country with its bins filled to overflowing with wheat and yet importing wheat under this trade treaty to which the Liberal members are content to agree and to which the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Young) hoped we would give a unanimous expression of opinion! This country, overflowing with wheat, is importing thousands of bushels to be milled.


Mr. ILSLEY:: The trade agreement does not mention wheat.


William Allen Walsh: But it is coming in; that is the difficulty.


Mr. CLEAVER:: He did not know that.


William Allen Walsh: If the hon. member who has just spoken knew half as much as the least on this side of the house, he would be a credit as a member of parliament.
The second point I wanted to make is that I would take strong exception to the most favoured nation clause. I was going to read certain articles in the trade agreement in order to show that it is utterly impossible to make a suitable and practical trade agreement with foreign countries if we are going to embody in each and every one the most favoured nation clause. I realize that previous governments have done this. Previous governments have made mistakes, but it is up to this government to remedy such mistakes. Our bargaining powers would be much more effective if we could go to a country and bargain for reciprocal trade, knowing that that was not going to affect our trade with any other country with which we had an agreement.
I was going to go further into that argument. I was going to deal with the argument which the Prime Minister put forward in the supplementary edition of his speech on the trade treaty when he referred to the totalitarian states. I was going to take exception to his suggestion that we should and would make 
agreements with these totalitarian states as long as they maintained their present position with their dictatorial rulers and their oppression of minority races. Trade with them by all means, but do not trade with them under their present form of government and while they follow their present policy of the suppression and oppression of minority races.
As my third point I was going to read what Lord Beaverbrook had to say about this treaty. He commended it very highly from the British point of view. He pointed out what Great Britain was going to gain under the treaty signed with the United States at the same time. I was going to read what Mr. Cordell Hull had to say from the United States point of view. If we are to believe the statements of these men that Great Britain and the United States have made tremendous gains as a result of these treaties, those gains must have been made at the expense of the third party, the Dominion of Canada. If I took the time to read what Lord Beaverbrook had to say, hon. members would find that he suggests that the British dominions would have to make certain sacrifices. We are making certain sacrifices, but we do not need to make more in order to get a favourable trade agreement.	[DOT]
The fourth point I was going to elaborate was in connection with the effect of the 1935 trade treaty. I was going to quote what had been said by the Prime Minister, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler) and the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Usley) to show the house how preposterous were the statements they made in 1936 when viewed in the light of 1939. If the trade treaty of 1935 worked so disastrously for the Dominion of Canada, how can we believe them when they suggest that this treaty is going to be better than the 1935 one?
Next, I was going to refer to the effect of the agreements of 1932 on empire trade. I was going to show by means of figures that the agreements of 1932 were of tremendous value to this country, but they have been superseded more or less by this present treaty.
I was going to show that by the removal of the six cents preference on wheat we are short-circuiting our own traffic from our own Canadian ports, and I was going to ask the members from New Brunswick and Nova Scotia to try to justify the loss of traffic to our eastern ports of Saint John and Halifax. If they could justify the conditions that prevailed in those ports during this winter, I would give them credit for more ingenuity than I think they possess. We are short-circuiting our traffic from our own eastern ports, and I for one am going to protest

Canada-United States Trade Agreement
most vigorously at an opportune moment, because I am interested particularly in one of our eastern ports, the port of Montreal.
The ministers of the crown do not seem to realize that there is a strong economic pull away from our eastern Canadian ports, and that we have to do something to eliminate or overcome that strong economic pull. I was going to read in support of my argument a letter addressed to the Prime Minister from Mr. W. R. Eakin, president of the Shipping Federation of Montreal, and representations from the board of trade of Montreal and from others who are interested in our Canadian ports, not only Montreal but our maritime ports and the port of Quebec.
For my sixth point I was going into the history of reciprocity and would have proved pretty conclusively that reciprocity has always been a nefarious instrument in the economic development of this country. It has always worked to the disadvantage of Canada. I was going to focus the attention of the house upon the historical development of trade treaties between Canada and the United States as they have affected this country. I was going to point out the effects of the changes made in the economic policies of the United States of America.
Some of my friends in this house will remember the wonderful trade we built up in cattle prior to 1922. The cattle of Canada passed from north to south, but in 1922 the Republican government terminated the then existing tariff in the United States, and what happened? Our cattle were stopped at the border. Our markets were glutted with cattle, and prices of beef went down to such an extent that Canadian farmers could not afford to continue in that line of business. We had to find new markets, and we found them by shipping our cattle east and west instead of north and south. Now this trade treaty comes in with a view to diverting a part of that trade.
One cannot play with trade routes the way this government is playing with them. Trade routes become firmly and definitely established, and once we have a definite trade route and are profiting by it, it is well for us to stay in that route and not to branch out of it. If we lose a good trade route we have lost something that is hard to regain, and if we are now going to sacrifice the market that we have in Great Britain at the present time, we shall have great difficulty in getting that market back again in the future. Get it back we shall have to, because if history repeats itself, and mark you, Mr. Speaker, history always does repeat itself-and always our 71492-109
trade agreements with the United States have only spelled ruin so far as Canada was concerned-this particular trade treaty will in turn be abrogated in due course, as always has happened because the policy of the United States government is not towards that kind of trade. Then we shall have to find new trade routes, and that is going to be rather difficult.
For my seventh point I was going to take a specific industry in Canada, the dress industry, and I was going to show by figures exactly what this trade treaty means to that business. What does it mean? It means the complete elimination of the dress manufacturing business in this dominion, and that means a tremendous loss to Montreal and Toronto. Bear in mind, too, that with that industry go all the allied industries associated with it, including those engaged in the manufacture of fabrics who supply the dress manufacturers with the materials wdth which to make their dresses. These goods are coming in now from the United States of America. Not only are they coming in and meeting certain restrictions by our customs, but we are actually facilitating their coming in. I know of a very large shipment of dresses that came in to the Robert Simpson Company of Toronto. They came right through to the Robert Simpson Company's store in Toronto, right up to the floor on which those dresses were to be sold, and there they were unpacked.
I was also going to show the effect of the $100 exemption on this particular trade. I was coming from New York once and there was a lady sitting opposite with three suitcases. The inspector came along and asked her, "Have you anything to declare?" She said, "yes", and he gave her a slip, upon which she wrote down so many dresses, so many hats, so many shoes, and it totalled up to probably S99.99. The inspector took the slip and looked at it and said, "Is that all you have to declare?" She replied "yes"; the inspector said, "Thank you", and that was all. He did not open her suitcases, did not look into them at all; he simply took her word and passed on. That is the way in which the $100 exemption is working so far as the dress-goods trade is concerned. I go to New York but I do not buy a suit of clothes there; but when the women go they buy dresses, hats, shoes and other apparel, and bring them back in as large quantities as the law will permit.


Ross Wilfred Gray: Is the hon. member opposed to the exemption?


William Allen Walsh: I opposed it when it was first introduced. I am very, very glad that the hon. chief whip of the Liberal party is

1728	COMMONS
Canada-United, States Trade Agreement
able to resume his place in the house, because I have missed his happy questions and his occasional cross-fire, and I trust that his health will permit him to be in his seat almost continuously from now to the end of the session.


Ross Wilfred Gray: But that does not answer my question.


William Allen Walsh: I answered it. I said that I opposed the exemption when it was first introduced; I oppose it now because it works an injury to manufacturing industries established in my own city; and if the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) were in his seat, I would include those in the city of Quebec as well; for there is a great shoe industry established there right in his own riding, and he also should be opposing this exemption if he had the real interests of his constituents at heart.
I am going to conclude with a suggestion. I am not finding fault with every item in this trade treaty. There are good features in any treaty; there are some good features in this one. I would have elaborated on that point if it had been my desire to do so. But I just want to leave with the house this one suggestion. It came to my mind as the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Clarke) was speaking. I was sitting beside the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens) and we recalled another expression by that famous United States president. I cannot quote his exact words, but he said something like this: If you buy goods from a foreign country, you have the goods and they have your money; but if you buy goods made at home you have the goods and you have the money too.


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: He never said anything of the kind.


An hon. MEMBER:: It was Barnum who
made that statement.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


Joseph Henry Harris: Mr. Speaker, a few of my Liberal friends were asking for the question to be put, and put now, I suppose. But the question is not going to be put for half an hour. Some hon. members who are left in the house and who would like to go to the hockey match will find themselves remaining here if they are going to vote. The thought occurred to me as I looked round the chamber that, in so far as I wanted to say something to the ministry, perhaps, Mr. Speaker, you might page the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Power), the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie), the Minister of Transport (Mr. 
Howe), the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Michaud), the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cardin), and particularly-


An hon. MEMBER:: That is small.


Joseph Henry Harris: -the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler), who should be here guiding this bill through the house. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) asked to be excused; we will excuse him. While they are coming in, I would ask hon. members to try to think not only of this trade treaty in its own terms but also of the added effect of the treaty of 1935.
I have listened with a good deal of interest to the speeches of ministers of the crown, particularly the Prime Minister and the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and of other Liberal members.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Here he comes.


Joseph Henry Harris: I must say that to my mind the speakers seem to have entirely ignored all the difficulties. I appreciate very much that the Minister of Trade and Commerce has come into the chamber. I was just saying to him and to his colleagues that-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Louder.


Joseph Henry Harris: The reason I spoke in such a high tone of voice was that I thought perhaps the minister might hear me up in his room or at the hockey match. The particular question I wish to put is this, what is this treaty going to do for the expansion of employment in Canada? What did the last treaty do to help out unemployment? Did it make for more employment?


An hon. MEMBER:: Yes.


Joseph Henry Harris: By the time I have finished perhaps the real situation may look a little bit different.
For twenty years it has been my pleasure to trade each and every week with my friends in the United States. Not a month goes by but I consummate a deal in Great Britain. Five cars lying in Montreal cannot go to Germany, although they are properly sold there, because of the two kinds of currency which are in vogue and because they are demanding a barter arrangement before they will permit a bona fide sale of goods to that country. For twenty years Italy has received goods which I have had the pleasure of shipping, yet this year we cannot ship there. With that background I approach this question of trade, perhaps thinking I know something about how we deal with our fellow men in these other countries.
An hon. member has said that the Conservative party could not make up their minds

Canada-United States Trade Agreement
as to what they were going to do. We studied these problems and we listened to what others in other lands were saying. 1 was particularly struck with a statement which appeared on November 26 last in the London Economist, page 485:
In these cases the effect of the agreement will largely be to divert a quantity of trade from dominion (largely Canadian) to American hands without increasing the total volume of
imports.
That is a startling statement. So I checked up on what the Prime Minister had to say when he introduced the last agreement. He said this:
The government of the United States and the government of this country were actuated by one desire, namely to make an agreement that would be equally beneficial to both countries.
Then, instead of making a statement of fact, the Prime Minister-as he is prone to do- asks a question:
Could anything destroy the agreement more effectively than that it should be shown in the course of this 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?
Implying that if it did it would not be continued. The evidence is all against the 1935 agreement so far as that is concerned; and I call to witness the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) in his budget speech of last year, wherein he said:
Total exports to 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.
There, Mr. Speaker, is evidence from the Prime Minister's own Minister of Finance that the 1935 agreement did not work to the general advantage and benefit of Canada, and the implication should have been sufficient for the Prime Minister not to rush down to Washington to consummate another agreement at any cost, but to mark time and see whether or not one should be consummated.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce made a speech in this house a few weeks ago. Did he review the trade as from 1935 to date? Did he give us anything constructive or concrete upon which we could cast an intelligent vote in favour of this agreement? He contented himself with taking just the January, 1939, figures. In one short sentence he said: "Of course a month's figures are not sufficient".
But at the same time he had the audacity to quote them to this house.


William Daum Euler: Oh, oh.


Joseph Henry Harris: And he went on to say, even as the hon. member for Queens-Lunen-burg (Mr. Ivinley) said, that in January we had a great increase in exports from this country. I suppose he got his statistics from the bureau of statistics and under his own signature, in like manner as I have mine. But why did not the Minister of Trade and Commerce, why did not my friend who sits to my right here, read the line all the way through and show that for the ten months ended January 31, 1939, our exports to the United States shrank by 16-1 per cent, or $60,000,000, rather than use just the one month's figures, for January, which showed us an increase over the figure for January, 1938?
If he is going to stick to January, let us stick to the true facts, as the Prime Minister was wont to say when he was talking about the Canadian press release. Tell the people of Canada that there were no gold bullion exports in the figures for January, 1938, whereas in January of this year the government bolstered its figures by adding in $10,255,000 of gold bullion exports. I say to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, go a little further. He knows and I know that in December, just prior to this January month, the figures for which he put on Hansard, trade was $4,235,000 against us. He knows and I know that ever since November 16, when this trade treaty of 1938 was signed, manufacturers and anybody else shipping goods to the United States held back their shipments to get the full advantage of any concessions which were given to Canada under the Canada-United States trade agreement. He knows and I know that there were quotas in this new deal, and the rush to get the quotas in before January 31 had the effect of expanding by several million dollars our January exports.
Let us look at the other side of the picture. Importers and the like, who went to import goods from the United States are not bringing in their full spring requirements now. Why? They are holding back their imports in order to take full advantage of that three per cent excise tax ruling, the million dollars a month of excise which this treaty has given away and which comes off shortly. Watch the figures for February, March, April and May and see what happens. I say to the Minister of Trade and Commerce that the picture which the government has put on the Canadian Hansard is not a fair picture to give to the people, if all the considerations are noted.
1730	COMMONS
Canada-United States Trade Agreement


William Daum Euler: When I gave the figures with regard to increased exports in January, it was in reply to what the leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion) had stated when he said time would tell. I was showing that time had already told to the extent of one month.


Joseph Henry Harris: Let 11s go a little further. Time will tell? Time has told already. When these negotiations were consummated at Washington, they used, as the minister knows, the figures supplied by the Department of Commerce at Washington. Take on the one hand the statistics supplied at Washington, and on the other the statistics supplied by our own bureau of statistics, and you find what the minister recited, as far as total trade is concerned, when he spoke on the address. On the other hand, taking the figures from the Department of Commerce at Washington -and those were the figures used in the negotiations-you find an adverse balance of trade against Canada for the twelve months ended December 31, 1938, amounting to $196,107,000. The minister shakes his head. Well, I will read the figures from the United States government's publication.


William Daum Euler: Which publication?


Joseph Henry Harris: The publication issued by the Department of Commerce at Washington, dated February 7, giving the value of exports and imports for home consumption by grand divisions and countries.


William Daum Euler: Why not use the Canadian figures?


Joseph Henry Harris: The minister used them, and I refer to them to show that he did not take the whole line. He stopped when he came to an adverse trade against us of 16-1 per cent. My hon. friends on the Liberal benches did likewise. For the twelve months ended December 31, 1938, imports by Canada from the United States for home consumption amounted to $452,852,000 while exports into the United States were $256,745,000. Take the mean of the two sets of figures, and even then I say to the Minister of Trade and Commerce-I think I should call him the minister of trade for Waterloo North because he looks after only the industries in that constituency-and to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers), who has just come to life and now sits behind him, that this trade balance alone means the jobs of 100,000 Canadians. If these goods could be produced in Canada in the secondary industries, 100,000 more of our people would be put to work.


Mr. ROGERS:: Were they employed in 1932?


Robert James Manion: That was the bottom of the world depression.


Joseph Henry Harris: I will go back to 1932 and I will go back to the minister's Purvis commission, who folded up their tent and silently stole away and are now doing nothing about the unemployment situation. We find in this new trade agreement the very items that were in the 1935 treaty, showing that employees in the secondary industries, in two important groups, are out of employment. What item more than anything else in these two treaties has been seriously affected? Iron and steel and all the groups that fall into that category, including machinery, have been more seriously affected than any other group; and yet walking the streets of Canada to-day, according to the report, I have before me, there are 45,000 iron and steel workers who are without jobs. In paper products, printing and advertising there are 7,104. In lumber and the products of lumber, there are 7,445. Let me give some other figures:
Number out
Industry	of employment
Rubber products	 5,199
Primary coal products	 3,729
Clay, glass, stone	 5,526
Chemicals	 1,136
Electrical apparatus	 5 261
Other industries	 22,760
In other words, we have a total of 86.610; and when one takes transportation services, hotel services, trade and commerce, the retail trade and so on, we can add another 30,000. These are the people who should be employed now but are not.
Of course my hon. friends will say that I am giving only one side of the picture. Let me give them the other side. There has been some increase in employment in Canada in some branches. But will any hon. member rise in his place and say that in the textile industry, which since 1929 has had an increase in employment, that increase was not made possible by the Bennett emergency session? They know that the Bennett emergency tariffs reestablished the textile industry, and reestablished it to the extent, as the Minister of Labour is well aware, of 11,000 hands.
Under this trade treaty, by handing some of this business over to the United States, the textile industry is to-day in a precarious position. Logging as a primary industry has added 13,561 to its payroll since 1930, and the reason for that is well known. It is the same reason that caused the packing industry to add 5,000 to their payroll since that time-all as a result of the empire trade treaties. But what we gained under the

Canada-United States Trade Agreement
Bennett emergency session and in the empire trade treaties is being lost to us by the paralyzing of the secondary industries through these two agreements.
Have we really the machinery with which to make these deals? The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) mentioned Mr. Wilgress, Mr. Robertson and Mr. Hector McKinnon, three able, hardworking civil servants, three of the best we have. But are they equipped? Have they the necessary help and assistance? Are they not rather charged primarily with the responsibility for correspondence and all the business that comes to their own departmental desks? Is not Mr. Wilgress looking after commercial intelligence? Are not he and his secretary and stenographer charged with that responsibility? I have not the pleasure of knowing Mr. Robertson, but I assume he is busy with his own Department of External Affairs.
I ask you hon. members to stack up against these gentlemen the conditions obtaining in the United States on the one hand and in Great Britain on the other. The Minister of Trade and Commerce knows that at Washington, all the time, all the year round, there are secretariats looking after all kinds of producer organizations and all kinds of industry. He knows that as far back as January, 1938, to November, 1938, when the deal was signed, the Americans knew what goods would be affected. Their representatives were, busy. I attended a meeting in Chicago as early as April-the deal was to come off in November-and I know they were then figuring ways and means to make sure that their production would not be harmed. The cotton growers met in April; the horticultural and agricultural groups met at Washington and studied the whole plan of action; they knew exactly what they were going after. Did this government recognize the horticultural societies? Did the Minister of Agriculture recognize the grain growers' association? Did the government recognize the Canadian Manufacturers' Association? Were these people called in? Did they have a chance? Did they know what was going to happen? Did the Minister of Labour call in the Federation of Labour? Did labour know what was going to happen to them? No! "Wait until you get it and then take it and like it." That has been the policy of this administration in drawing up their trade treaties. Yet they say, " We follow the British way." .
Did they follow the British way? They did not. In London, on the Strand and up Kingsway you can go into scores of offices
where you will find organizations and associations embracing all producing and manufacturing institutions in the British isles, and each association has its own chartered accountant who has access at all times to the books of each and every industry in order to see that their interests are looked after, through the board of trade, and by the way the president of that board is an active cabinet minister in England. But they even go further than that. I do not need to remind this house that they have one highly trained body of men whose duty it is to look after trade matters in order to see that imports come into that country only under the supervision of the import duties advisory committee. Would hon. members stack up our three junior men here against such men as Right Hon. Lord May, KB.E., at $25,000 yearly; Sir Sydney J. Chapman, K.CB., C.B.E., at $15,000; Sir Allan Powell, CB.E., at $15,000; Sir Percy W. L. Ashley, K.B.E., C.B., at $10,000, and all the staff officers associated with them? They are organized to look after the interests of Great Britain in connection with matters of trade.
I ask those members of parliament who are here; I ask the ordinary member, what do you know about this trade treaty? I do not think you know a great deal about it; that is my frank, considered opinion, after listening to this and many other debates. I say that in a kindly way, because I know hon. members have a great deal to do; but I say it is not fair to Canada to charge our three commissioners with the responsibility of looking after a matter of this sort. And may I say that if any supporters of the party in power in Great Britain were to ridicule the president of the board of trade as some of our free trade friends are wont to ridicule the heads of similar organizations in Canada; or if they were to ridicule the organizations which serve that board, they would be read out of their party. Here it seems to be considered rather a fine thing to ridicule the manufacturers' association, the lumbermen's association and other similar organizations.
To sum up the whole situation, when the Minister of Trade and Commerce complains because my leader said population was not a fair basis of comparison, and said that we were a great trading country and should be considered on a par with the United States or with Great Britain in a trade deal, I say to him that the odds are fifty to one against us in regard to organization in consummating any such agreement. That is the position as it stands to-day.
1732	COMMONS
Canada-United, States Trade Agreement


William Daum Euler: What officials were employed by the Bennett administration when they tried to negotiate a trade treaty with the United States? Precisely the same ones that we used.


Joseph Henry Harris: The minister reminds me
of the hon. member for Huron North (Mr. Deachman); he also goes back into history. The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) went back to 1842. Not satisfied with that, the hon. member for Huron North went back to Adam and Eve. Why not look ahead instead of to the rear? I like to look forward and not backward, and I want to put the facts on record. We are up against a difficult situation in trying to consummate a deal with the United States. Their mode of living, tastes and possible production are all very much the same as ours, with the result that every time we open our markets to them we have to restrict our own production. On the other hand Great Britain, which is the world's largest purchaser, is a complementary market, and that is a real advantage. It is only common sense that we must retain the preference we now possess. Sir Wilfrid Laurier believed in it; Right Hon. R. B. Bennett consummated it, but now what do we find? We find this government narrowing the preference, meddling with what we already have, to our own detriment, as is indicated in the passage I read from the London Economist. My hon. friends opposite seem to have lost their British make-up in some way or another. "What we have we hold'' seems to have been something in the past as far as they are concerned.
It is perhaps unnecessary for me to say this, but I see the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Cleaver) in the house, so I might remind him that our vegetable and fruit growing conditions are not the same as they are in the United States. Their climate is so much ahead of ours that they have a natural advantage over us. It is also common knowledge that they are over-industrialized in their secondary industries, and that they are anxious to get their extra capacity operating. When they do so they will produce more than they need for themselves, and when we lower our valuations for duty purposes and the other restrictions against dumping, the result will be that millions of dollars worth of their extra production will be dumped into this country, and more of our own people will be without work.
The hon. member for Mount Royal (Mr. Walsh) told the house a short time ago that he opposed the $100 free entry. I do not believe in allowing S100 worth of goods to be 
brought in by tourists; I say that condition should not obtain in this country; for the reason that these goods consist of clothing, boots and shoes, dresses, refrigerators, radios, small motors and things of that kind which have a high labour content. The records show $6,000,000 of imports coming in free under that exemption, and we know there is another $6,000,000 not recorded; so, if we know anything at all about it, we know that means $1,200,000 taken from the wage rolls of the people of Canada.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Why does the hon. gentleman say there is another $6,000,000 not recorded? I ask the question for information.


Joseph Henry Harris: For the very simple reason that the efficiency of our customs men at border ports, as the minister knows, is only fair. When I went to school and got a mark of "fair" on an examination, it meant that I was rated at fifty or more. So I would say the efficiency is about fifty per cent, and I believe the minister will agree with me.


James Lorimer Ilsley: No. I just wanted the basis for my hon. friend's statement.


Joseph Henry Harris: The spirit of these trade
agreements is something that should be given more thought. Each year sees revenue bills passed by the United States against the natural products of this country. Even during 1938, sawed timber was added to the revenue bill in order that Uncle Sam might collect $1.50 a thousand feet on it. That is a new touch. But the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie)-and if he is at the hockey match I hope he can hear me-says, "Oh, but we hope that $1.50 will be taken off in June." Some hon. member to my right says there is no doubt about it, but let me remind my hon. friend that Canada has in this agreement agreed to relinquish further its guaranteed preference on lumber if and when the United States repeals the import tax on Canadian lumber. They have already sold us out in that regard, which means that more and more of the lumber we formerly sent to Great Britain under the British preference will be displaced by lumber coming from the United States. What about copper, with its four cents a pound, in all its ramifications placed against us as a revenue tax in 1934?
I should like to say something about animal oils and fats, and butter. The Liberal party are sliding down so fast on that toboggan of 40,000.000 or 50,000,000 pounds of surplus butter which is in Canada at the present time that they will hit bottom when the next election comes. Even though they

Canada-United States Trade Agreement
have had a reference before their tariff board for over two years, asking that something be done in like manner to that which was done in the United States with respect to vegetable oils and fats going into that country, to the tune of from three to six cents per pound excise tax, nothing has been done in Canada. This is another example of the do-nothing administration.
And with what other result? The result has been that imports of this substitute for our natural fats have risen from the figure of 90,000,000 pounds which was reached about five years ago, until in the year ending December 31, 1938, it reached the figure of 255,000,000 pounds. There is as much vegetable oil coming into Canada, free of all duty and tax, as there is creamery butter made in this country. Yet this administration sits impotent, and does nothing about the matter. It does not call for the tariff board report; nothing is done about it. That is another example of the revenue tax legislation of the United States-and we may expect more of it.
The hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ward) has come into the chamber-I had not noticed him before. He had something to say this afternoon about duties, and about our exports and imports. But he seemed to have forgotten that in 1930 the United States put through their tariff act of that year with the result that our exports to that country in the year dropped by $128,000,000, or 42 per cent. So I will ask the page boy to present my hon. friend with a copy of the tariff act of 1930 of the United States, and when he has finished with it he can return it to the library of parliament.


William John Ward: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Joseph Henry Harris: Yes, half a dozen of them
-as long as it does not come off my time.


William John Ward: Does he deny the favourable
trade balance figures given this afternoon?


Joseph Henry Harris: Does my hon. friend deny
the unfavourable trade balance figure of $196,000.000 for the year 1938, which I gave when he was on his way home from the hockey match, a little while ago? A hundred thousand of our people are looking for jobs. The hon. member quoted figures this afternoon, but I would say to him there are only 100,000 employees in the primary industries and there are 900,000 in the secondary industries. The rate is nine to one. Put your secondary industry unemployed men to work.
I should like to say something about transportation, and cutting off the business of our
ports. I should like to say something about coal. I should like to say something about magazines and advertising which, in 1936- including magazine and other literature imports-stood at $2,900,000 and in 1939 had jumped to $5,900,000, filling this country with advertisements of all kinds of produce from the United States, and paralyzing our industry.
But the house will learn more of that anon.
I have only five minutes left. Divide up the work of the Minister of Finance with the Minister of Trade and Commerce. The Minister of Trade and Commerce has taken the work on tariffs of the Minister of Finance entirely off the board for three years, because the scope of our aggregate trade shows these astounding and astonishing figures: By this agreement seventy per cent of the trade of Canada is hamstrung for three years. There is $350,000,000 worth of trade within the confines of this trade agreement-and there is nothing the government can do about it. They have extended the most favoured nation treatment affecting trade valued at $241,000,000. The margin of our preference with Great Britain has been narrowed.
I wish the hon. member for Prince (Mr. MacLean) were in his seat. I have something on my desk I should like to give to him. This is your job, Mr. Minister of Trade and Commerce. The Prime Minister stated at page 904 of Hansard-and I shall not bother looking it up; hon. members can look it up for themselves-when he was talking about trade relations with Canada, "We want to give the exact truth." That is what he said, as reported in Hansard. But he gave only a half truth when he issued that press release pamphlet, and only a half truth when he made his speech in the House of Commons. At my own expense I put a staff of university students of commerce and finance to record our trade and the effects of the 1935 treaty, and what did I find? I found sixty-four pages of items, amounting to $350,000,000, all of which are affected by the trade treaty, and are favours given to the United States. I found fourteen pages of favours given to Canada by the United States. And when I analyse those figures, which I should like to place on Hansard-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Joseph Henry Harris: And when I analyse those figures I find that for every dollar of actual value that we have received from the United States we have given two dollars of actual value to the people of the United States. And if hon. members want to multiply that by the Donulation-I will not do it, but they may do
1734	COMMONS
Canada-United States Trade Agreement
it themselves-they will see it is forty to one against us. That is the picture with regard to this trade agreement-forty to one against us.
All right, shake your head. If you think we are as big as the United States; if you think you are as good a trader as the United States, if you think you are as good a trader as Great Britain, the actual dollars are two to one against us.
I make this charge: I say the government of Canada has not been fair to the people of Canada. It should file on the table of the house a record of the actual effects these trade treaties are going to have, and the effect the 1935 trade treaty had, particularly on the secondary industries in this country. Let us judge, not by the exact truth, so-called by the Prime Minister in his speech, but by the facts. And we shall have an opportunity to judge by the facts, before the next election. And these one-trippers who are in the House of Commons to-day-many of whom were at the hockey match to-night-after the next election will be like that book about which we have heard so much-"Gone With the Wind."


Mr. D. J. HARTIGAN (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, after listening to the
maniacal and bellicose remarks of the hon. member who has just taken his seat, there was only one thing I had cause to regret, and that was the deprivation the people of Canada suffer owing to the fact that television has not been fully developed.
For one reason, and one only, I did not intend to speak on the trade treaty, and that is that the treaty as such has been in operation only since January 1. All this debating which has taken place in the House of Commons with respect to the trade treaty, to a very great extent has been w'aste effort. It is not based on facts. How could it be? We have yet to see the effects of the treaty. The hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Harris), who has just taken his seat, has recorded a great array of figures; in fact, we were staggered by the millions and thousands which came rolling out. At the same time he went back into 1938. 1935 and other years. The trade treaties which wrere negotiated between Great Britain and the United States and between Canada and the United States came into effect on January 1. How can any decision be based on anything but conjecture when it goes back of this year? I doubt if the figures for January and February of this year are complete, because there are always odds and ends which come up later.
I do not think the language which has emanated from the other side of the house in condemnation of this treaty is going to sway

the people of Canada one iota. They remember quite well the period from 1930 to 1935. The hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens) sat as a member of the price spreads committee, and he must remember the evidence given of the staggering profits which were made by the textile people and other manufacturers during those tenable years. During the greatest depression Canada has ever known, many manufacturers made immense fortunes while the majority of Canadian people were in want.
I do not intend to go back of January 1, 1938, because to my mind to do that would be useless as far as any discussion of this treaty is concerned. Canada has a small population, and in the last forty years our manufacturing industry has been developed so intensely as to outstrip our growth in population. No effort has been made to find out how the products of our industries can be distributed in Canada. I think that is our main trouble as far as trade in Canada is concerned, and this disability must be overcome in some way. There are one or two ways in which it can be done. The upper house met here some time ago and had to adjourn for lack of work. The upper house of the federal parliament had an opportunity to render real service to the people of this country by staying here and going into the railway problem, not from the point of view of unification but from the point of view of making distribution more readily available to the Canadian people.


Walter Edward Foster: It is against the rules of the house to make any reference to the other chamber.


David James Hartigan: People say that there is no possibility of changing the situation as it exists at the present time, but I say that great opportunities are available to the parliament of Canada to change the system so that we may have better distribution. We can make our railways 100 per cent efficient in the distribution of the products of our factories. That would be one of the greatest helps in increasing trade in this country.
Every Conservative member, when discussing this trade treaty, has stressed its effect upon some small manufacturing concern in his own riding which was perhaps near and dear to his heart. But not one of them has spoken on the trade treaty from the point of view of the consumers who make up the greatest part of our population. Our greatest efforts should be to make available the commodities of this country to the ordinary wage-earner, the farmer and the artisan. No speaker on the other side of the house has expressed that idea. One or twro of them were

Canada-United, States Trade Agreement
so hard put to-night that they had to refer to the fact that the customs officers on the border were not performing their duties properly. I think many of us who cross the line are quite pleased when the customs officers do not interfere with us, and I believe the same would apply to most travellers. Hon. members are advancing a very poor argument when they complain of a customs officer not making a proper examination. In most instances only S40 or S50 worth of goods would be involved, and I venture to say that it is only in rare cases that the amount involved is over $100.
Canada is a country of large areas, but our population is sparse. However, we have extensive railways. A cry has gone through the country which is fostering unrest and imbuing fear in the hearts of the people-the cry of the railway problem. Our railways are our greatest adjuncts to trade. Some people advocate that our railways should be amalgamated or unified, although they do not say how that is to be done. They do not realize how many people will be thrown out of employment. They do not realize how many people are utterly dependent upon the railways.


Walter Edward Foster: The hon. member is
wandering away from the subject matter of the resolution, which has to do with the ratification of a trade treaty.


David James Hartigan: This concerns the trade of the country. I was just indicating why the Canadian National Railways should be left as it is.


Walter Edward Foster: That is not the question before the house at the moment.


David James Hartigan: I am pleading that the Canadian National Railways should be left as it is. It is our greatest adjunct to trade in the country. There are thousands of people who have no other means of getting their necessities of life.
There is another great problem which faces the Dominion of Canada and which should be grasped at its flood-tide. What we need is population. This is complementary to this trade treaty. This trade treaty has been the greatest thing ever put through. I maintain that the people of Canada would not consent for one moment to go back to the days from 1930 to 1935 when our high tariff prevailed. A commission should be appointed to go to the old country to study this matter. They should consult with the refugees who are being driven from pillar to post- 71492-110


Walter Edward Foster: I must ask the hon. member to confine himself to the discussion of the resolution before the house, which has to do with the ratification of a trade treaty. There should not be a long discussion on the immigration policy of the government.


David James Hartigan: I maintain that trade is one of our great problems and must be for a great number of years to come, and if we bring in a population that will help consumption, naturally our home trade is going to increase. If we get enough population in this country to consume all that we produce, does anyone think we would have to look for markets outside. With the great area we have, we should be taking advantage of international loans, and now is our opportunity to get people in to consume our goods.
So far as this particular trade treaty is concerned, we know what it has done in the two months it has been in operation, and what its results will be in the future we must leave to the future to decide. We know that it will do good. Even if we did not want to enter into a trade treaty with the United States at this time, the people of this country are cognizant of the fact that the United States and Great Britain were going to negotiate a trade treaty whether or not Canada came in. In any event, our preference in the British market would have terminated in June, and we would , have lost it then anyway. Why keep harping on what has gone and on what would have been lost in any event, with no compensating results unless an agreement had been entered into? Those are the questions which the people of Canada must consider.
I say further that we should take advantage of every opportunity that offers to increase our population. It is no use our holding on to the idea that we are going to get a population purely British. We have so big an area to populate that Canada is bound to be a cosmopolitan country. If we hold off too long, when we want population we may not be able to get population commensurate with the needs of the country and under as favourable conditions as now. So far as trade is concerned, why worry about who comes in or who does not come in to increase our population? This trade treaty is signed and it is good for three years.


Walter Edward Foster: Again I remind the hon. member that he cannot discuss immigration on this resolution.


David James Hartigan: This government has consummated this agreement with the United States, and its benefits are already becoming

1736	COMMONS
Canada-United. States Trade Agreement
apparent to the people of Canada. But I maintain that we have to go a step further and increase the ability of our population to consume the goods we produce in this country, and we cannot do that with the small population we have now. If we want to make Canada the great country that it should be and that destiny intended it to be, we must go on and on year after year increasing our consumptive capacity for all the manufactured and basic products that we produce in Canada. I say it is no use for hon. gentlemen to rise in their places and give figures, going back ten or fifteen years. That has nothing to do with the present trade agreement. It is of no earthly use to us and does not help out the situation one bit. The safest thing we can do is to leave this trade agreement to the judgment of the Canadian people. One or two manufacturing industries may be hurt, but I venture to say that the majority will not be hurt. If there are some few industries in this country suffering from an inferiority complex, which feel inferior in business ability, management and productivity to our great neighbour nation to the south, let us bring in people who will produce the goods, and not only produce them, but distribute them and sell them at a profit.


Walter Edward Foster: Is the house ready for
the question? Those in favour will please say Aye.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Aye.


Walter Edward Foster: Those opposed will please say Nay.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Nay.


Walter Edward Foster: In my opinion the Ayes
have it.


Mr. FINN:: Mr. Speaker, in face of the
fact that I had risen in my place, do you persist in doing what you have just done?


Walter Edward Foster: Order. I did not persist in doing what I have just done. Having asked if the house was ready for the question and if there were any more members to speak, and not noticing the hon, member, I put the question.


Robert Emmett Finn: Then I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the question be withdrawn.


Walter Edward Foster: Those opposed to the
motion will please say Nay.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Nay.


Walter Edward Foster: In my opinion the Ayes
have it. I declare the motion carried.
Motion (Mr. Mackenzie King) agreed to.


Ernest Lapointe: I move,
Mr. Speaker:
That the trade agreement between Canada and the United States of America, laid on the table of the house on the twelfth day of January, 1939, be referred to the committee of ways and means.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Sir Eugene Fiset in the chair.
On schedule 1:
Customs tariff-6. Live hogs: one cent per pound.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-7. Meats, fresh, n.o.p.:
ex (a) Edible offal of beef and veal, 4 cents per pound;
ex (c) Pork, 1J cents per pound.
Robert James Manion: What quantity of meats
did we import last year?


Ernest Lapointe: I think I had better move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.


Robert James Manion: Yes. May I make it clear that I do not want the minister to think we are blocking this in any way. There are certain details we want to get, and I did not suppose we should reach this to-night.


Ernest Lapointe: I think it is only fair to report progress and go ahead with some other business.
Progress reported.


NATIONAL FILM BOARD
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, March 7, consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Euler-Sir Eugene Fiset in the chair:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to create a national film board empowered and directed to reviewT and report on government film activities and to discharge such other duties as the governor in council may request; and to authorize the governor in council to appoint, and determine the salary of, a commissioner, to be the chief executive officer of the board. Also, to provide for the appointment of an interdepartmental committee to centralize government film distribution.

National Film Board
Mr. LAWSON:: Mr. Chairman, the other
evening when this resolution was before the house I made some extended remarks in connection therewith, in the course of which I made a statement which was in error and which I should like to correct. I made the statement that there was in existence in each province or in nearly every one of the provinces a film bureau, and that the work to be done by this national bureau would be pure duplication. Upon making inquiries I found afterwards that all those provinces which three or four years ago had motion picture bureaux have, during the past two or three years, disbanded them in the interests of economy and have not now such a bureau. However, I should still like to persist in respect of some other matters I raised. When the minister has an opportunity. I should like him to tell us the purpose of bringing to Canada a gentleman who, I understand, was brought here from England and who spent some weeks here making a survey in connection with this matter. I should like to know something about the report he made, whether this scheme was recommended by him, and what that gentleman's report cost us.


William Daum Euler: As a matter of fact, I had
not expected that this matter would come up this evening. I shall be glad on another occasion, perhaps when we are in committee on the bill, to give the information for which my hon. friend asks. The gentleman who was here from England was invited by me to come here for the purpose of giving us some expert advice with regard to this matter. While the bill is largely according to his recommendations, it was framed only after the deputy ministers of the various departments concerned had carefully canvassed the whole situation, discussed the merits of the scheme advanced, and adopted it unanimously.


James Earl Lawson: There are some other matters in connection with this that I should like to raise. I have no objection to their standing over until the bill itself is in the committee stage, except that, in order to get the bill into the committee stage, it has to have its second reading, and I do not want to be taken as approving the principle of it, because on the information at present available to me I am very much opposed to the proposal, and I hope to be convinced by the minister before we are through with it that this is-


William Daum Euler: The hon. member will be.


James Earl Lawson: [DOT]-a necessary expenditure. Frankly, to me it is just a waste of the taxpayer's money. That is on the information 71492-1101
I now have available. So I should like the minister, on another occasion, as he suggests, to bring us information as to what experience this particular gentleman had in the motion picture industiy, and why someone from England was selected, rather than some Canadian, to make a report to us in connection with the matter; for we have in this country many men skilled in the motion picture art.
On this occasion I should also like to reply to a question which in the course of the discussion the other evening the minister put to me. I had said that in my opinion, if any particular province wanted a motion picture film showing the scenic beauty of that province to attract tourists, or showing some industrial operation within its borders, why should that province not make it and bear the expense of it; and my hon. friend posed to me, what about a national film? I have had an opportunity in the meantime to do a little thinking about a national film, and it seems to me that the only thought the minister could have had in mind as regards a national film, as distinct from a film connected with one particular province, would be a film which, if for example it were scenic, would cover the dominion from coast to coast and show outstanding features of the different provinces. May I say to the minister that if he attempted to make a film of that kind and do justice to the scenic beauties of the different provinces, it simply could not be done in less than twelve, fourteen or fifteen thousand feet of film. How on earth could one ever hope to have that quantity of film run for an exhibition purpose? When any hon. member goes to a regular motion picture theatre and sees a show or performance there, he will probably see 6,500 to 8,000 feet of film, and it will take him a minimum of two hours, and probably two and a half hours, to see it. What earthly possibility would there ever be of an audience sitting for four hours to see a national film, if that is what the minister has in mind?
May I make a concrete suggestion to the minister? By sheer accident I saw not long ago some film taken by somebody who was interested in mining and mining geology. He had carried with him into the north country one of those small motion picture cameras which anyone can operate, one which you hold up to your eye and turn the crank and expose the motion picture film. On that sort of machine, which is comparatively inexpensive, you use a 16 mm. film. As I pointed out to the house the other night, a 16 mm. film is the only kind which can be exhibited in places other than the regular operating room of a motion picture theatre. That is because
173S
National Film Board

of fire hazard. I saw the picture taken by this gentleman who was interested in mining geology, and I assure the committee that it demonstrated excellently anything which might be desired in an educational way.
Before the minister brings down his bill,
I should like him to consider yet another aspect of this matter. It is proposed to have a board, I assume an advisory board of some kind, consisting of two ministers, three civil servants, three persons from the outside. Who will the three from the outside ibe? The minister made some suggestions the other night, and it must be obvious that these three will have to be representative of race and geography and all sorts of things.


William Daum Euler: Why so?


James Earl Lawson: All right. I will say: Why so? Number one: Because it always has been, and I am afraid always will be, on every kind of 'board you have in Canada. Take the board of governors of the broadcasting corporation. Take your national harbours board, with one from the east, one from the west, and one from the centre. Take every board you have in Canada. Number two: If they are not going to be from different parts of Canada the minister is not going to accomplish the purpose he outlined to this house the other night as being behind this board, namely that he wanted to get views representative of all Canada on this board in order that he might have the advantage of their advice as to what sort of films should be produced to advertise Canada. If I misunderstood the minister in that regard I am sorry, but that is what I understood to be the purpose of the advisory board.


William Daum Euler: I do not think I said that.


James Earl Lawson: What is the purpose?


William Daum Euler: Speaking offhand, I should say that the whole purpose would be to get from among the citizens of Canada three outsiders who would best serve the interests we have in view.


James Earl Lawson: But what is the purpose?


William Daum Euler: I never had in mind such matters as race and religion and all the other things which might divide the people of a country. I should like to get away from that altogether. That was not in my mind.


James Earl Lawson: Then what is the purpose of the board?


William Daum Euler: I can state it again. It seems to me that there is an entire misapprehension on the part of my hon. friend with regard to the purpose of this bill. I stated at the outset

that the purpose was to coordinate the film activities of the various departments. As they are now, five or six departments are engaged, not in producing films but in having films produced, and are showing them and using them for their own purposes, which are quite proper. But there has also been a good deal of overlapping and inefficiency which we believe can be obviated by having this board, which will concentrate, unify and coordinate them all. That is the real purpose. There is, however, a more or less remote object, and that is the getting out of what may be called national films, which it would not be the duty of any one department now showing films to initiate.


James Earl Lawson: Will the minister give an illustration? What does he mean by a national film?


William Daum Euler: There might be an educational film for the use of children throughout the country, for educational purposes. I give that merely as a possible example, but I emphasize again, the primary purpose of the bill as it is now is to coordinate the work at present done in the various departments. The national objective may be carried into practice, but that is at the moment not the primary purpose. The purpose is to bring about efficiency and economies, because there is some waste as the work is carried on at the present time in the various departments, and to make a better use of the film bureau which we now have. My predecessor will bear me out, I believe, when I repeat what I said the other evening, that we have in the film bureau as well equipped a plant as there is in north America. The hon. member for York South the other night rather objected to that statement and conveyed the idea that it was not an efficient organization.


James Earl Lawson: I simply asked the minister to satisfy himself on the point.


William Daum Euler: To-day there was in my
office a gentleman who, I know, has had a wide experience in all lines of film production. In fact, he was at one time engaged in Hollywood itself. He assured me to-day that the equipment we have in our own film bureau in the Department of Trade and Commerce is the equal of anything of its size in Hollywood. It is absolutely up to date. I repeat that for the information of the committee. I do not know that I can add anything more at the moment. I am not familiar with the technicalities of the film business, as my hon. friend is, but I am assured that we have an efficient plant, and I am satisfied that by

National Film Board
having this film board or some similar organization. we can improve efficiency, practise economy and secure a much better distribution than we have now.


Henry Herbert Stevens: When this motion was
before the committee the other evening, just at eleven o'clock I was responsible, I believe, for its being carried over, but there are one or two observations which I wanted to make. I am under a slight apprehension -as to just where we are heading if this resolution passes. In the first place I wish to say frankly that the motion picture bureau operating under the Department of Trade and Commerce, as far as its activities go, with the more or less limited appropriations that have been voted from year to year in the past, is in my opinion one of the most efficient, from the point of view of both equipment and personnel, that one could desire to have. I think the country has been extremely fortunate in having that personnel.
Another point referred to by the the minister is this. In recent years there has been a tendency to develop motion picture branches within other departments. I think that is deplorable, but we do not need a film board, nor need we have any bill, to deal with that. That is purely administrative. It is not peculiar to the motion picture industry. For instance, in statistics there is an. overlapping, although some years ago it was all brought into the bureau of statistics.
The motion picture bureau was established for the purpose of serving all departments; but it is one of the inherent sins of the civil service

I do not say this in a condemnatory way, though it is a fact nevertheless-that there is a strong tendency on the part of civil servants to develop and expand their particular branches. For instance, there was a certain natural resources branch of the old Department of the Interior which was started with one man and a stenographer, and within a few years it had grown to 180 employees with vast expenditures for printing, illustrating and all the rest of it. Most of the material issued was taken from the bureau of statistics, revamped and issued a second time on very fine paper, with equally fine printing and lithographing. That was done away with.
What I am afraid of is this. We shall build up a film board-it is called a film board, and that is the dangerous part of it; but according to the resolution the board is only to review and report. Well, one does not need to erect a new board to review and report. The minister has told us that several deputies have already reported. At least that is what I understood him to say.


William Daum Euler: No. They conferred as to
what sort of organization should be set up.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Well, there are the deputies and other responsible officers in the other departments; all that has to be done if there is overlapping, is for the Prime Minister-because if there is overlapping, the necessary action must be taken under the authority of the Prime Minister-to have those responsible in each department for the motion picture business get together, and then the Prime Minister, simply by order in council, would provide that the motion picture bureau, which might be put anywhere, I do not care where, should as at present constituted serve as the motion picture organization for the government. That is all that is necessary. A long review is not required nor is it necessary to constitute a new board. I venture this statement. If this resolution passes, if a film board is started, within five years there will be another radio commission or some other duplicate of that body,
When I was minister, speaking from memory I believe the vote for the motion picture bureau was in the neighbourhood of $50,000- I think it was less. Last year it was $88,000, and this year it is $150,000. That is before this coordinating effort has even begun. I warn the government that if this motion carries, they are heading in the direction of a new body of commissioners-I think a commissioner is contemplated, but I venture to say there will be commissioners or a commissioner and two or three assistants-and then there will be a glorification of their duties and their office, with an ever-increasing expenditure and ambitious undertakings entered upon. I would appeal to the Prime Minister to deal with this question in this way: that he and his colleagues in council issue instructions to the deputy ministers concerned-and if they know it comes from the cabinet they will act accordingly-that they must get together, iron out their differences, and turn over their activities to the existing bureau. If they do not like to turn them over to the Department of Trade and Commerce, or if it is thought better to put the bureau under some other department that can handle the work better, put it there; but do not let us start calling in outside people to tell the government what to do in a simple matter of administration.
In saying this, I am not criticizing the so-called motion picture bureau. It has been well managed, and I think its equipment is good. The hon. member for York South (Mr. Lawson) and I have differed on this before, but it is a perfectly friendly difference of opinion;
National Film Board

many of the films that have been issued have been of such a nature that I question whether it would be commercially possible to make and distribute them. That is particularly true of educational films, which have been valuable and which have been sent to various countries. Speaking now with my knowledge of the situation three or four years ago, to my mind this bureau has rendered a valuable service to Canada. But let us keep down the expense. I venture to say that if the government gives Mr. Badgley and the present staff of the motion picture bureau a reasonable vote, and turns over to that bureau the activities which have grown up in other departments in recent years, it will have an organization just as satisfactory as any that might be created in the form of a commission. I should like to emphasize that I think it necessary that we face these questions as administrative matters. They do not call for a public or semi-public investigation; they are purely administrative.


William Daum Euler: No.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am going to be very
strong in my opinion about that, because I know what I am talking about. The Prime Minister has frequently emphasized the principle of responsible government. He will please believe that I am not criticizing now, but I am urging that this is a case where the responsibility of the government can properly be exercised. I know that whoever is Prime Minister is an extremely busy man and cannot possibly delve into all the details of departmental conflicts and matters of that kind. But I assure him that if he will take administrative charge of this matter and instinct the various departments to get together, that can be done without need for this legislation. I fear that if this bill is allowed to pass, it will be simply the foundation for another commission. That may not be intended, but that is what it will become. I know the tendency, and it happens before one realizes it. So I warn the government that in my opinion they are starting something both costly and unnecessary.


William Allen Walsh: I remember a discussion that took place in this house a few years ago, when the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) was criticizing the Department of Fisheries in regard to the manner in which it had expanded during the previous few years. He gave as an example a workman engaged to shovel snow in front of the parliament buildings; and his analogy was that he came back five years later and found a whole line of offices, containing the 
commissioner of snow shovellers, several assistant commissioners, an accountant and a whole staff of employees. That is what is liable to happen in this case, and I quite agree with what was said by the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens).
In saying that I do not want it to be understood that I am in any way disparaging the effort that is being made to concentrate these activities within one department. I think that is all to the good. I think anyone in this house who has had anything to do with education, directly or indirectly, will appreciate the value of visual education in this day and age. I know that in connection with schools, colleges and universities a bureau of this kind would be of tremendous value, and I know it would be put to wide use. So I am hoping that despite the criticism that is being offered against this plan, which in my opinion will lead to extravagant expenditure that would be better devoted to the production of films rather than to the establishment of a commission or board such as is suggested here, the same amount of money will be voted but will be spent on the actual films rather than on the body that is to look after this work. I am quite certain that this can be carried on along the lines suggested by the former Minister of Trade and Commerce. I personally have desired to take advantage of these activities as carried on in different departments, and have found it difficult to know exactly where to locate certain films. I knew they existed, but I did not know exactly how to go about getting them. We would write one department; they would suggest that we write some other department, and by the time we got in touch with the right department the reason for wanting the film had disappeared or we had found another source.
In considering the development of this activity I hope the minister will take due cognizance of the fact that most schools are now being equipped with certain types of projectors, and will see to it that the films issued by his department will be such that schools as well as commercial enterprises may take advantage of them. All schools have not the 35 mm. machines; some have 16mm. and some 9 mm., and I should like to see this bureau developed in such a way that it will be of practical assistance to every institution in Canada as well as to commercial enterprises for the purpose of advertising Canada to better advantage both within and without this country. I hope the minister will take the criticism I am offering, in good faith. I am anxious to see this development,

National Film Board
but I am not anxious to see it along the line suggested. I should like to see the department organized so that those who may wish to take advantage of it may do so without too much trouble.


William Daum Euler: Rather than resenting what my hon. friend calls criticism, Mr. Chairman, I would say that he has advanced better than I did myself the reasons why there should be a film board or some central organization. When my hon. friend says that he approves the idea of one body-and I think he said this-being responsible for the distribution of films of an educational nature, for instance, which might be sent to the schools, and that sort of thing, he is presenting an argument for some central body to do this work.


Henry Herbert Stevens: You have it now.


William Daum Euler: No.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Sure.


William Daum Euler: We do not have it now. I must differ with my hon. friend.


James Earl Lawson: What does Mr. Badgley
do now?


William Daum Euler: He produces films, as he is
asked by others. As it is now, he receives requests from the various departments to produce certain films. That is practically all he does. He produces the films, but he has nothing to do with their initiation. That comes from the various departments.
The hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens) has suggested, in effect, that the Prime Minister should give instructions to the various departments to get together and to coordinate their efforts. That was carefully discussed in council, and the suggestion was made there that the whole organization and the complete preparation of films should be placed in one department. Since the film bureau is now in the Department of Trade and Commerce, it was suggested that it might all be placed under that department. But I will leave it to hon. members, and perhaps I should appeal particularly to those who have been members of a government: We will suppose the Minister of Trade and Commerce is in complete charge, that the Minister of Transport comes along and states he wants a certain film, and that the Minister of Mines and Resources states he wants some other film. All this has to pass the inspection and obtain the approval of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I say that ministers are human. They are just as jealous of their own rights in their own departments as are other people. I for one, as Minister of Trade and
Commerce, would not like to be placed in the position of having to pass on the application for a picture by this colleague or by that colleague.


James Earl Lawson: Why could it not go to the treasury board? An expenditure of money is involved.


William Daum Euler: From what I know of the treasury board-and I have been a member of it for seven or eight years-they have enough to do, without passing on films. This is a matter which does not seem to me to come under the purview of the treasury board.
The argument advanced by the hon. member for Royal is the one I have been trying to make, and possibly did not make as clearly as I should have. This will have the effect of concentration in one spot.
Then again, while I am not emphasizing the point I think it is of importance, and bears directly on what the hon. member for Kootenay East has said. He has commented on the fact that we now have items amounting to $150,000, whereas when he was in office the appropriation was only $50,000.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It was $40,000 in 1937.


William Daum Euler: It seems to me that goes to prove that the film has become a most powerful factor in the education of our people, and in publicity generally. I am not going to say here that there may not be some expansion, so far as expenditures are concerned, and quite justifiably so. But I would also say that I do not share the fear of the hon. member for Kootenay East, that this is going to expand into a large organization with a tremendous expense. I believe I can assure the committee that that will not take place.
As a matter of fact, as I said the other night the film board itself will not have any paid officials whatsoever. There will be only one paid official, namely the commissioner himself.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Their expenses will be paid?


William Daum Euler: Yes, travelling expenses. May
I point out that the fact that money must be voted by parliament indicates that there is a most complete control of expenditures. Unless money is voted, the board cannot spend it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Would the minister say, if possible-and if not, would he bring the information down later-what other departments now operate anything in the nature of a motion picture branch, and what have been the appropriations in the last few years for each of those departments?
National Film Board


William Daum Euler: There is no other department which operates a film bureau.


Henry Herbert Stevens: But they have some activities in that respect.


William Daum Euler: Yes.


John Ritchie MacNicol: What do they do?


William Daum Euler: Well, the Department of Fisheries may get out pictures; the parks branch may get out pictures; the Department of Agriculture has some, and I know in connection with tourist business the Department of Transport has some. There may be some others.


James Earl Lawson: When the minister says
"get out pictures," he does not mean that they make them?


William Daum Euler: No. There is only one film making organization in the government, and that is the motion picture bureau which is attached to the Department of Trade and Commerce. For instance, when the Minister of Transport gets out a film to illustrate the beauties of Canada, for purposes of tourist travel, he has it made either in our own department, by our own film bureau, or he may have some private film manufacturing organization make it for him. I believe he has done that in the past, and as I said the other night, there is nothing to prevent its being done again. We have to use our own well equipped film bureau for most of the government work, but it is provided in the bill that if the board is satisfied the work can be done better in some other way, by a private film organization, it may be done in that way, with the board's consent. But the board's consent must be obtained.
So far as the board is concerned, the purpose is that the various requests for films which come from the departments must be passed on by the central organization, in order to avoid overlapping and to make it more efficient. Then, later on, it must see to it that there is a better distribution than has been given by the various departments. And then-and I mention it again, because I think it is important, although I do not emphasize it-it is a direct or primary purpose of the bill that there should be some organization which could initiate what are sometimes called documentary films, but which I have called national films, or films which may be of use to the whole nation, or to the youth of the nation, in an educational way, and which would not be initiated by any one department, because each department has its own specialized work to do.


John Ritchie MacNicol: If it were allowed to initiate films, would that not increase the work of the motion picture bureau?


William Daum Euler: It might enlarge the work of the picture bureau. But if it is legitimate, and if the house votes money for a national purpose, then I see no reason why a moving picture bureau should not enlarge its activities. I do not see why it should enlarge the expense of the board itself. I do not see why the board ever should change in number, or why there should be any greater expense.


Mr. LACROIX (Quebec-Montmorency):: May I ask the minister if the bilingual nature of the country will be taken care of, especially in so far as explanations in the French language are concerned?


William Daum Euler: I should think if any of the departments wanted a film issued in bilingual form, there would be no reason why it should not be done.


Wilfrid Lacroix: I should not like to have any distributed in the province of Quebec without having them bilingual. I should like the minister to take note of that.


William Daum Euler: It would be in the hands of any minister who wished to distribute the film.


Mr. HAYHURST:: I think the appointment of a commissioner would be an excellent idea because, as all hon. members know, visual instruction is important these days. Coordination of the work of the different departments could be brought about by a commissioner. But, in connection with a position as important as the one now in question, -would the minister assure us that the appointment would be made because of efficiency and not because of political leaning?


William Daum Euler: I will give that assurance very freely.


David Spence: What does the hon. member
expect?


William Allen Walsh: I notice the word "commissioner" appears in the resolution. Would such commissioner have the same status as a commissioner of immigration or a commissioner of excise, and other officials of that kind?


William Daum Euler: If the hon. member is inquiring as to whether or not he would have the status of a deputy minister, I would say, no.


James Earl Lawson: Would the minister suggest what functions the commissioner would perform other than those now being performed

Prairie Farm Rehabilitation
by Mr. Badgley of the motion picture bureau?
I understood the minister to say that one of the objectives is to get better distribution than has been obtained heretofore. Conceivably that might be one reason. Can the minister suggest any other purpose for this higher salaried official-because that is what he would be-being superimposed on the top of the motion picture bureau we already have?


William Daum Euler: For the information of the hon. member may I point out that there is a section in the bill describing the duties of the commissioner.


James Earl Lawson: But that does not mean much. However, I shall leave discussion of that point until the bill is introduced.


William Daum Euler: Possibly it would be better to discuss it then.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Euler thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 35, to create a national film board.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


PRAIRIE FARM REHABILITATION
[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to amend the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act to extend the period of its operation and to vest in the minister authority to enter into certain agreements and to carry out and perform certain duties incidental to the operation of the act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Sir Eugene Fiset in the chair.
Mr. GARDINER:: The Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act was passed in 1935 under which an advisory committee was set up to advise the minister. Section 7 reads:
The governor in council may make such regulations as may be necessary or expedient for the effectual execution and working of this act and the attainment of the intention and objects thereof.
That is really the active part of the legislation. During the-four or five years this act has been in operation we have found it necessary to do certain things by regulation which, now that the practice has been established, we think should be in legislative form. The act of 1935 set out that certain amounts were to be expended over a five year period. That period comes to an end this year, and the
intention is to take the date out of the act in order to make it possible to continue activities under the prairie farm rehabilitation legislation. The practices which have been found necessary to be followed in order to carry out the intention of the act, and which will now be put in legislative form are, first, the entering into agreements with provinces, cities and other municipal bodies for the carrying on of activities within the province or the municipality; second, the acquiring of lands. Where we decide to flood areas we sometimes have to acquire land before it is done. Then, on occasion in connection with irrigation activities we have to acquire land, and also sometimes in the setting up of community pastures. Instead of basing our action on order in council, based upon regulation, we are asking for legislative authority to do it by order in council. The other provision has to do with the acquiring of machinery necessary to the carrying out of works, and the disposing of that machinery when we are through with it.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weybum):: There are a
number of matters I should like to discuss, but perhaps it would be better to leave them until the bill is before us in committee.
I should like, however, to ask the minister if he can give us certain information now which would enable us to discuss this matter more intelligently when the bill is brought down. For instance, I have in mind what sums of money have been spent under the act, what projects have been undertaken, where they are located and their cost. If the minister had a table containing this information, perhaps he could place it on Hansard. If we had this information before us, I am sure it would save us asking a number of questions when the bill is brought down.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have no information
available to provide what has been suggested by the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas), that is, to indicate where these different works have been carried out and their number. I can say, however, that the first year the act was in operation $750,000 was voted, and to the best of my memory the amount expended was in the neighbourhood of $400,000. The next year $1,000,000 was voted and a little over $750,000 was expended. The year following $2,000,000 was voted and between $1,600,000 and $1,700,000 was expended. This past year $3,500,000 was voted, of which the greater part will have been expended before the end of March. I do not think there will be more than $100,000 remaining unexpended if there is that amount. The number of projects runs
Prairie Farm Rehabilitation

into the hundreds, and I am not sure that they do not run into the thousands. It would be impossible for me to enumerate them at the moment, but I can have the information brought down and placed on the table so that hon. members can discuss the matter in detail when the legislation is going through or on my estimates, which, after all, would give us the best opportunity.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I was not
thinking so much of a list of all the projects; what I had in mind were the larger projects, and possibly the total number of dug-outs, the total number of dams, the total number of acres put under irrigation, the total number of community pastures set up, and so on. If the minister has not that information, perhaps he will have it available in committee.


James Garfield Gardiner: I think most of that information has been made available already, either in answers to questions or in preparation of orders for return. If any orders have not been brought down, they will be tabled within a short time, in order to have them available before this legislation is discussed.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have been
watching for that information. If we can have it before the bill is brought down, we shall be able to discuss this matter much more intelligently.


James Garfield Gardiner: I will see that that is done.
Mr, HANSELL: Will there be much difference between the present bill and the previous act, or is it just intended to extend the period of time?


James Garfield Gardiner: The only amendment to the phraseology of the old act is to extend the period of time, and then three sections are being added to do under legislative authority what I suggested a moment ago had been done previously by regulation and order in council.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Was all the money
expended under this legislation provided by the federal government, or did the provinces and the municipalities subscribe anything?


James Garfield Gardiner: All the money expended under this legislation was provided by the federal government.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Gardiner thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 36, to amend the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PENSION ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. G. POWER (Minister of Pensions and National Health) moved the second reading of Bill No. 6, to amend the Pension Act.
Mr. H. C. GREEN (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, to-night I am disappointed that the Minister of Pensions and National Health did not explain this bill because soldier legislation is of great interest to all members of the house and is hard to understand unless one has followed soldier problems closely. It must be particularly difficult for those members who are not veterans, and after all there are only about thirty-five members of this present parliament who served overseas. For these reasons I think the minister might have taken the time to explain to the house exactly what this bill purports to do.


Charles Gavan Power: He did on the resolution
and first reading of the bill.


Howard Charles Green: It was not a long explanation.


Charles Gavan Power: I thought my hon. friends
were intelligent enough to understand it.


Howard Charles Green: I am afraid the minister
overestimated our intelligence.


Charles Gavan Power: He knows he did.


Howard Charles Green: The Pension Act is the
charter of the veteran who was disabled on service, and of his dependents, but these amendments directly concern not only those veterans who are drawing pensions but also those who in the future will be able to prove that they have suffered disability as a result of their service.
This charter, the Pension Act, has been amended only once before by this parliament, and that was in 1936 at our first session. Then it was amended only after a most careful and searching investigation by a special committee on pensions and returned soldier problems. That special committee heard representations by soldier bodies; they heard evidence from departmental officials; they studied the bills which were placed before the house at that time; and they brought in a unanimous report in so far as amendments to the Pension Act were concerned.
That committee was composed practically entirely of veterans, and I think members on the other side of the house will agree with

Pension Act Amendment
me when I say that we left politics outside the door of that committee and considered soldier problems on a non-partisan basis.
I suggest to the minister to-night that this could be done again now, and that it is greatly to be desired. I suggest that the same procedure be followed in regard to this pension bill we are now considering and also in regard to all the present-day returned soldier problems. I do not think it is fair to the returned soldiers of Canada that legislation of this type should be rushed through without being given due consideration, and I urge strongly to-night that this bill be sent to such a special committee because the bill does not meet the present situation. It does not meet obvious defects in our pension law, and now that the Pension Act is being opened up, all these defects should be remedied.
The bill does only two things. First of all, it abolishes the pension appeal court, and I think the government are to be commended for providing for its abolition. The last report of the Department of Pensions and National Health gives, at page 77, the figures of the findings of the pension appeal court during the fiscal year ending March 31, 1938, and we find these figures startling.
During that fiscal year the appeal court rendered 2,363 decisions on appeal. Of that number only nineteen appeals by veterans were granted, and twenty-three cases were sent back for rehearing. In other words, in about forty cases only out of over 2,300, the veteran either won his appeal or had a chance of gaining a pension on a rehearing. But against that, the crown, in other words the government, won seventeen appeals. There were seventeen crown appeals allowed as against nineteen appeals by the veterans across Canada, and there were sixteen crown cases sent back for rehearing. So that during the year the pension appeal court has not been of very great benefit; in fact, one might say it has been of no benefit at all, to the veterans of Canada.
Under this bill the appeal court is to be replaced by appeal boards of the pension commission. These appeal boards will take the place of the present quorums of the penr sion commission, and according to the bill are to consist of three members instead of two, which is the number making up the quorums at the present time. These new appeal boards will sit not in Ottawa alone, as is the case with the present appeal court, but in the different large centres of Canada. I think this is a splendid move because the boards will have the great advantage of seeing and hearing most of the applicants, and on the other side of the picture the applicants
will have more confidence in these appeal boards than they have at the present time in a court which sits at Ottawa.
Another thing which is done by this bill No. 6-and I repeat that this bill touches only two problems-is that it extends the deadline for pension applications by veterans who served in a theatre of war, from January 1, 1940, to January 1, 1942.
For the benefit of those members who have not followed soldier legislation, there was no deadline prior to 1936. In that year when the Pension Act was amended, parliament set July 1, 1936, as the deadline for applications by veterans who served only in England or Canada, and January 1, 1940, as the deadline for the others, in other words, for the front line men. In respect of this latter class there was a discretion given to the pension commission to grant leave to apply for a pension even after the deadline had gone into effect. It will be found in the present section 12A, paragraph (b). Section 12A starts by saying that:
A pension for disability of a member of the forces, shall not be awarded unless application therefor has been made-
Then follows paragraph (a), which provides for the man who did not serve in a theatre of war; paragraph (b), reads as follows:
(b) before the first day of January, 1940, with respect to a member of the forces who saw service in a theatre of actual war, provided always that the commission may, in its discretion, with respect to this class, grant leave to have the application entertained after the first day of January, 1940.
At that time, in the committee which met in 1936, strong objection was taken to there being a deadline for the fighting men. I would point out to members of the house that each year it becomes more difficult for these veterans to prove their claims. They have to trace their disability back to the war, and each year it is more difficult to do that. The number of applications is dropping year after year; we find, for instance, that in the fiscal year 1934-35 there were 15,122 applications for pension; in the fiscal year 1935-36 that number had dropped to 11,216; in 1936-37 it fell to 11,096, and in the last year of which we have a record, the fiscal year 1937-38, the number was 10,450, or a further drop of 646 applications.
Then there is this fact to be remembered with regard to a deadline, that most of the applicants will be men who were actually wounded overseas. There are thousands and thousands of Canadians who were wounded overseas but are not yet drawing a pension.
Pension Act Amendment

From time to time they break down from their disabilities; and I do not think any additional restriction should be placed upon the opportunity of men of that type to get a pension. They should not have this additional handicap of being required first to go to the commission and convince it that it should exercise its discretion to allow them to apply for a pension. Such discretion may be exercised freely. It will depend a great deal on the members of the commission. But certainly the deadline means some restriction on the obtaining of a pension and I submit to this house that there should be no deadline for the fighting men.
Bill No. 6 extends it until after the next election; the deadline is extended to January 1, 1942, which means that the act will probably have to be reopened again in 1941.
Those are the two things which are done by this bill. But there are other defects in the Pension Act which Bill No. 6 does not touch at all. I have no doubt that practically every hon. member in this chamber to-night has run across cases of the classes I am going to recite.
First of all, under the present Pension Act, section 77, no pension is payable in respect of the child of a pensioner born after May 1, 1933. In other words, if a pensioner has children born before May 1, 1933, he draws an allowance for them until they are sixteen years of age; but if he has children born after that date he cannot draw any allowance for such children. That means there is a split family; the allowance is paid for some children and not for others. It also means discrimination as between the old and the young pensioners. I thought the position was very clearly set forth in a letter which I received a few weeks ago from a pensioner in British Columbia. He says;
I am a disabled veteran sixty per cent, gun shot wounds leg and foot, three years five months in hospital, was married after 1933. Now I have two children. My last child was born without doctor or even nurse. I am healthy in body and mind. Now is it justice 1 should be penalized just because I was married after 1933. My wife has to go out selling laces from door to door.
There is no justice in that situation. There is no rhyme or reason for it, and if the people of Canada realized that such a situation existed, I do not believe they would stand for it.
Another defect in the present act is that no pension is payable in respect of the wife of a pensioner married on or after that same date. May 1, 1933. That again means discrimination, particularly as between the old and the young pensioner. The women married after that date deserve the allowance.

There is no justification for denying it. It would not open the way to deathbed marriages such as apparently occurred after the American civil war. It would not allow things like that to be done because the provision would apply not to a widow but only to the wife of a pensioner.
A third defect, probably the most serious of all, is that no pension after death is payable to the widow of a pensioner unless (1) he dies of his pensionable disability, or (2) was a pensioner drawing a pension of eighty per cent or over. I can best illustrate that situation in this way. Suppose a man is drawing a fifty per cent pension for a leg wound or any other disability: unless he dies of that disability his widow gets no pension. If he is unfortunate enough to be run over by a street-car his widow is just out of luck. Many of these widows of pensioners are in a desperate plight. There is little possibility of many pensioners providing for the proper care of their wives in the event of the husband's death, and I suggest that the Pension Act should be amended at this session.	This matter should not be
allowed to drift any longer. For example, the act might be amended to give the pension commission power in needy cases to pay the whole or at least a portion of the pension for death to the pensioner's widow. Under the present War Veterans' Allowance Act, which covers a class of men who cannot trace their disabilities to war service, the whole or at least a portion of the war veteran's allowance can be paid to the widow of the recipient for the period of a year. That is in section 9 of the act, which reads:
After the death of any recipient an amount not exceeding the sum of twelve monthly instalments of the allowance which the recipient was receiving at the time of his death may, at the discretion of the board, be paid to his widow or for the benefit of any child.
Yet that cannot be done in the case of a pensioner. Unless the widow of a pensioner can show entitlement to pension for death, she cannot get any payment at all after her husband's death; she is just cut off and left to fend for herself.
A fourth defect in the present act-and I intend to refer this evening only to these four-has to do with nerve and mental cases. Medical members of the house will be glad to learn that this situation has been caused by medical experts. They have decided that many nerve or mental troubles are congenital defects; in other words, they are defects from birth and not caused by war service. For example, if a soldier has a bad nervous break-

down, under these medical findings it is because he was bom to have it and not because of the alarms, the sufferings and the hardships of the war. Hence no pension is payable in many cases, in fact in far too many of these nerve cases. I cannot under- -stand it; it is beyond me; it is a matter of medical opinion. But these pensions are withheld because of the way in which the Pension Act reads. I refer hon. members to section 11, subsection 1(b), which is as follows:
No deduction shall be made from the degree of actual disability of any member of the forces who has served in a theatre of actual war on account of any disability or disabling condition which existed in him at the time at which he became a member of the forces; but-
And it is always these "buts" which cause the trouble.
-no pension shall be-paid for a disability or disabling condition which at such time was wilfully concealed, was obvious, was not of a nature to cause rejection from service, or was a congenital defect.
The trouble is that the doctors hold that these nerve troubles are a congenital defect. In 1936 we proposed an amendment to that section by adding these words, "of a nature other than mental, neuropathic or psychopathic," which I think would get over the difficulty. We could not, however, have that amendment accepted by the committee.
These are the main defects in the act. There may be others, and the whole act should be carefully reviewed and brought up to date now. Perhaps we could get finality if this were done, and it would not be necessary to tinker further with the act. Certainly every soldier in Canada will be glad when the act is finally brought to completion. Under the proposed bill No. 6, however, we cannot get finality, we cannot stop tinkeiing, simply because the bill as presented does not touch at all some of the most urgent problems facing the pensioners of Canada to-day, and facing those soldiers who, while they may not be drawing a pension now, will, as time goes on, be able to show that they are entitled to do so.


Thomas Langton Church: have been what they were when the South African war and the great war broke out. These veterans of 1885 now respectfully ask that the government place them on the same footing and terms, also conditions, as the South African veterans. There must be many South African veterans now living, over seventy years of age, who will come under the federal government's pension scheme. The veterans of 1885 are all over seventy years of age and they could apply for old age pension ; but under this heading, if they so applied and they had a case which by extraordinary effort they were able to prove, it would be necessary for them to assign their property to the old age pension board, and if that property were sold or disposed of, the money so loaned would have to be repaid to the board out of the purchase money, which to a greater or less extent might cripple them.
The Ontario pension board would only pay the $20 monthly, with no further allowance for married men. Many of these men are suffering great hardships rather than come under the stigma and humiliation of accepting an old age pension.
It is eleven o'clock and I move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned. TRADE AGREEMENTS



CANADA-UNITED STATES-TABULAR STATEMENT OF TARIFF CHANGES

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: With the consent of the
house, I should like to lay on the table a tabular statement both in English and in French of tariff changes resulting from the Canada-United States trade agreement. This will be helpful to the committee.


Robert James Manion: Will it be distributed?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is for distribution to members of the house.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Friday, March 10, 1939