Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) moved:: That when this house rises for an extended adjournment of the present session, it stand adjourned until Monday, the 30 th January, 1933, at three o'clock in the afternoon.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Richard Bedford Bennett: I would also move, with
the consent of the house, that when the house adjourns at six o'clock on Thursday next it stand adjourned until Friday morning at 10.30.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Hon. W. A. GORDON (Minister of Labour) :: I desire to table certain orders in
council passed pursuant to the relief measures, all referring to the payment of money.

Questions



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. DUFF:: 1.	How many investigations have been made by N. D. Murray into the conduct of public officials in Nova Scotia since August, 1930?
2.	In how many cases did the said commissioner report a finding of political partisanship?
3.	How many officials were dismissed on said reports?
4.	What is the total amount received by the said N. D. Murray: (a) for services; (b) for travelling and other expenses?


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: 1.	61.
2.	50.
3.	39.
4.	(a) 13,063; (b) $3,357.02.


GOVERNMENT GRAIN PURCHASES
Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	Has the government directly or indirectly purchased grain in the Winnipeg or any other market ?
2.	If so, what is the cost of the grain so purchased?
3.	Under what statutory authority were such purchases made?


Richard Bedford Bennett: With respect to this question, Mr. Speaker, I propose to make a short statement, which perhaps might be done before the orders of the day are called.
3.
Alberta	
British Columbia.. ..
Manitoba	
Ontario	
Saskatchewan	
Northwest Territories


BEAUHARNOIS QUE.,-POSTMASTER, DISMISSAL
Mr. RAYMOND:: 1.	Who acted as inquiring commissioner in connection with the dismissal of Oscar Duquette as postmaster of the town of Beauharnois?
2.	Was he assisted by counsel? If so, who acted in that capacity?
3.	What was the amount of: (a) the account presented by the inquiring commissioner in connection with this inquiry; (b) the account presented by counsel who assisted the inquiring commissioner?
4.	What was the total cost of this inquiry?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	C. A. Pariseault, K.C.
2.	No, but Ludger Codebecq, K.C., represented the postmaster and J. E. C. Bumbray, K.C., the complainants.
3.	(a) 180.40; (b) Counsels were paid by the parties they represented.
4.	$77.40.



OLD AGE PENSIONS ACT

Mr. LAFLECHE:: 1.	Is the Old Age Pensions Act in operation?
2.	If so, in what provinces?
3.	What amounts were paid under this head in each province since the act came into operation?
4.	What amount, if any, was paid to the province of Quebec?
5.	If no amount was paid to the province of Quebec, did the Prime Minister of that province request payment?


Mr. GORDON:: 1.	Yes.
2.	British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Ontario.
Amounts paid since inception of Old Age Pensions Act to Sept, 30,1932 $ 2,384,525 24 5,462,653 63 5,438,275 44 22,790,859 03 5,128,137 84 4,382 98
Dominion government's share of expenditure $ 1,426,103 63 3,080,857 90 3,109,349 91 13,278,260 26 2,970,955 54 4,382 98
$ 41,208,834 16	$ 23,869,910 22
4.	None.
5.	No.



AIR PORTS-NEW BRUNSWICK

Mr. VENIOT:: 1.	How many airports are to be established in New Brunswick?
2.	Where is each to be located?
3.	From whom was the site for each airport purchased, and on whose recommendation was each purchase made?
4.	How was the value fixed for each site?
5.	How much was paid for each airport site?
6.	What is the distance of each site from the airport of Saint John, owned by the city of Saint John?
REVISED FI)IT [ON'
Questions


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: 1 and 2. The plans for airway development in New Brunswick now under consideration provide for the construction of four intermediate aerodromes at: Upper Brockway, Fredericton Junction, Cambridge, Havelock.
3,	4 and 5. No purchases of property have yet been made.
6. The air line mileage of each site from the airport at Saint John is: Upper Brock-
Railway	Dominion
year	fiscal year
1927 (6 mos.)	1927-28
1928	1928-29
1929	1929-30
1930	1930-31
1931	1931-32
-	1932-33
1932-Jan.to	
Aug. 1932,	
Can. Nat.	
Rlys. only	1932-33
way, 51; Fredericton Junction, 31; Cambridge, 38; Havelock, 62.



MARITIME FREIGHT RATES ACT

Mr. COOTE:: What amount has been paid in each year since 1927, to all railways, under the provisions of the Maritime Freight Rates Act?


Mr. MANION:: 20% reduction on tolls $ 1,353,464 45 2,758,893 16 3,092,677 16 3,615,218 07 2,554,673 20	Deficit account $ 2,117,936 42 4,418,644 50 4,308,357 01 6,712,238 79 6,631,856 00 2,080,906 30	Total $ 3,471,400 87 7,177,537 66 7,401,034 17 10,327,456 86 9,186.529 20 2,080,906 30$13,374,926 04	$26,269,939 02	$39,644,865 06974,876 62	4,627,462 65	5,602,339 27$14,349,802 66	$30,897,401 67	$45,247,204 33



CLARK STEAMSHIP COMPANY

[Stage Direction]
Mr. LaVERGNE :
1.	Did the Clark Steamship Company receive subsidies for the purpose of providing cold storage transportation facilities on the north shore of the St. Lawrence?
2.	If so, what were the amounts of the
subsidies?	_ _
3.	Were these transportation facilities provided to the knowledge of the government out of the subsidies voted for the establishment of such facilities on the north shore of the St. Lawrence ?	.
4.	Were these subsidies applied to the installation of refrigerators on boats of the said company?
Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	No.
2,	3 and 4. Answered by No. 1.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURN


Mr. BLAIR:: 1.	Were certain payments made by the federal government to W. N. Tilley, K.C.: (a) for legal services for or to the government of Canada during the years 1919, 1920, and 1931; (b) for general counsel work during the said years for and to the government of Canada?
2.	If so, for what services and what amounts?
3.	For what retainers or services is the said Mr. Tilley retained by the government of Canada ?


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: Tabled herewith.


POSTMASTERS DISMISSED-QUEBEC PROVINCE
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Have any postmasters been dismissed for political partisanship since the month of August, 1930, in the province of Quebec?
2.	If so, what are their names, their respective addresses, and the date on which each was dismissed ?


Mr. SAUVE:: Return tabled forthwith.


TUG RENTALS-VANCOUVER
Mr. IRVINE:: 1.	Did the Vancouver harbour commissioners pay the Dominion government's public works department a rental for the use of their tug Pt. Grey? If so, how much?
2.	What was the daily cost to the harbour commissioners of operating the tug Pt. Grey?
3.	What is the daily cost to the harbour commissioners of hiring and operating the tugs Canada and Helae?
4.	Has there been an additional cost to the harbour commissioners by way of overtime for the train crews at North Vancouver to service the operation of the tug Canada as against the operation of the tug Pt. Grey during the past twelve months? If an additional cost, how much was it?
5.	Who paid for the retubing of the con-densor of the tug Pt. Grey?
6.	What qualifications did the engineer have who was employed as chief engineer on the Pt.. Grey during the first year the vessel was operated by the Vancouver harbour commissioners?
7.	Did the harbour commissioners discontinue the use of the tug Pt. Grey in the interest of economy, or because of a dispute with the-

Motions jor Papers
Public Works department, or for some other cause?
8.	What was the purchase price of the car barge ?
9.	What was the cost of transporting the car barge to Vancouver?
10.	What is the cost of repairs to the car barge since purchased over and above purchase price and during period of operation?
11.	How much would it have cost to build a similar barge in British Columbia?


PACIFIC SALVAGE COMPANY
Mr. IRVINE:: 1.	What subsidy, if any, is paid the Pacific Salvage Company for maintaining vessels at Victoria?
2.	What subsidy, if any, is paid the Pacific Salvage Company for maintaining vessels at V aneouver ?
3.	If subsidies are being given to the Pacific Salvage Company at Victoria and Vancouver, what is the purpose of the subsidies and what are the conditions?
4.	Is there a salvage unit at Victoria, distant 80 miles from Vancouver? If so, is another such.unit required at Vancouver?
5.	To whom do the profits go in the case of vessels salvaged when such vessels have been abandoned by the underwriters?
6.	What were the profits of the Pacific Salvage during the past five years?



DREDGING CONTRACTS

[Stage Direction]
Mr. LaVERGNE:
1.	Did the firm of Robertson and Genin, of Montreal, secure dredging contracts from the departments of Marine and Public Works, during the past five years?
2.	If so, what amounts were involved in these contracts?
3.	Have these contracts been completed?
4.	Were the amounts specified in the contracts paid to this firm? If so, what were the amounts ?


Mr. MARCIL:: For a copy of pay lists and accounts for materials for works performed by day labour in the county of Bonaventure, by the Department of Public Works, from May 26, 1932, to September 30, 1932.



BAIE STE. CATHERINE-TADOUSSAC FERRY

[Stage Direction]
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre) for Mr. Casgrain:
For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams, petitions and other documents, in possession of the government, in connection with the ferry boat service between Baie-Ste Catherine and Tadoussac in the county of Saguenay since the 1st of January, 1932, to date, including copy of the contracts for such boat service and the correspondence exchanged between the Department of Trade and Commerce and the Auditor General, with reference to the claim of Jean Claude Tremblay for services performed.

Mr. RAYMOND:: For a copy of all telegrams, complaints, correspondence, reports or other communications, in connection with the postmastership of the town of Beauharnois, the dismissal of Oscar Duquette, former incumbent, the appointment of his successor, since the month of August, 1930; also a copy of the report of the inquiry bearing on the dismissal of Oscar Duquette.



ALBERTA ELEVATORS-OVERAGES

Mr. D. M. KENNEDY (Peace River) (for Mr. Garland, Bow River) moved:: For a return showing the overages of each elevator company operating in the province of Alberta during each of the last ten years.


Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Before this motion is put,
Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct the attention of the hon. member to circumstances which I think will preclude the government from bringing down the information requested. The motion asks for a return showing the overages of each elevator company operating in the province of Alberta. Some days ago the hon. member communicated with the department, and the officials advised him at that time that they were unable to give this information, as it is contrary to established practice to give information that would disclose the private business of private. concerns.
I may point out that there are very elaborate statistics published annually in the blue book reports of the grain commission, giving practically all the information, but these reports do not disclose the private operations of private companies. Before the motion is pressed I should like to direct that fact to the attention of the hon. member and of the house, because unless there is some very sound reason advanced I think it would be an extremely bad precedent to establish.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Perhaps
the motion might stand until the hon. member is here.


Mr. SPEAKER:: In the absence of the
hon. member in whose name the motion appears on the order paper, it will stand.
Motion stands.



WHEAT MARKETING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Bedford Bennett: When this question was reached,
Wheat Marketing

Mr. Speaker, during the calling of questions, I requested the house to be good enough to permit the matter to stand until the orders of the day were called so that I might make a short statement. The questions are:
1.	Has the government directly or indirectly purchased grain in the Winnipeg or any other hi a t k e t ?
2.	If so, what is the cost of the grain so purchased?
3.	Under what statutory authority were such purchases made?
These questions were asked in the first instance before the orders of the day were called; subsequently they were treated as notices, and the questions appeared on the order paper to-day. In 1930 representations were made to the government that it should fix a price for wheat and become responsible for the payment of that price. I think the figure mentioned was 70 cents per bushel. The government declined to entertain the proposal suggested, and no action of that character was taken.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: May I inquire who made the request?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The pools, the provinces and others.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: To the present government?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes; it was subsequent
to August 7, after the present administration came into power. As a matter of fact it was subsequent to the development of the difficulties experienced by the pools in connection with the guarantees given by the provinces, that resulted in some adjustments being made. Late in the fall of that year Mr. John I. McFarland became general manager of Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited, which was not a cooperative agency in the western provinces but the selling agency for the pools operating in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. He was appointed to that position; he accepted the appointment without salary, and he is still discharging the duties of that office.
It will be recalled that last year we paid a bonus of five cents a bushel on wheat produced in western Canada. That action was subject to some criticism; recently one of the farm organizations in Manitoba passed a resolution against the continuance of that policy, and some members of the House of Commons from Alberta have made fairly strong speeches in opposition to it. The other day I indicated that financial conditions did not warrant the continuance of that bonus.

In order that hon. members may have a general view of the situation I would ask them to permit me to point out that we have a very large country elevator storage in western Canada. We have five internal elevators for storage purposes at Lethbridge, Calgary, Edmonton, Saskatoon and Moose Jaw, and we have, of course, large storage facilities east of the great lakes. The storage at the head of the lakes approximates 93,000,000 bushels, and the storage east of the lakes approximates 75,500,000, and west of the lakes, including country elevators, the capacity is something like 223,000,000 bushels. So far as licensed elevators are concerned, we have thus over 390,000,000 bushels storage capacity. There is unlicensed capacity to the extent of about 25,000,000 bushels.
In the ordinary course, wheat produced by the farmer is hauled to the country elevator point. He then determines whether or not he will sell it or accept a storage ticket for it. This house is, of course, familiar with the machinery provided by the Grain Act for dealing with matters of this kind. If he accepts his storage ticket his grain is then in the elevator and it is carried by the elevator company under the conditions set out in the Grain Act. He might, of course, sell it at any time on the strength of the certificate thus issued, which indicates the number of bushels of grain he has, in a broad general way its grade, and whether or not it is under special bin or ordinary bin storage. But in some cases, I think it is fair to say, the farmer sells his grain outright to the elevator company, or whoever may be the purchaser at the moment; and in some instances, of course, the farmer, under the act, ships his grain over the loading platform into the car, if he has a carload, which he himself may forward to Fort William or elsewhere as he may be advised.
Bearing that fact in mind, I would point out that this year we have a very large crop. The figures I have received up to date would indicate that 225,000,000 bushels of this year's crop have left the farmers' fields and been unloaded at the country elevators throughout western Canada. It is difficult to say, but it is quite clear that a substantial part of that has been sold from these elevators. The figures I have would indicate that out of that approximately 225,000,000 bushels now delivered 175,000,000 bushels have actually been sold, which would mean that more than 50 per cent of this year's crop has actually been sold out of the hands of the farmers and elevators and grain dealers into the hands of

Wheat Marketing
those who ultimately receive it. Last year the entire crop, so far as we have a record -and we have, perhaps, a closer record of last year's than of most years, because of the bonus paid-the total crop sold by the farmers amounted to 265,000,000 bushels. That is to say, they marketed that quantity. This year it will thus be observed that, the crop being much larger, we have already marketed 225,000,000 bushels or within 40,000,000 bushels of last year's. The amazing thing in this year's movement is that over the period beginning in 1922, to date, for the three months of August, September and October, we have actually exported more wheat out of this country in those three months than in that period since 1922 but one year. That is, it amounts to approximately 120,000,000 bushels, notwithstanding the very low price that has been paid for it.
Having directed the attention of the house to the crop and the manner in which it is disposed of, I shall now endeavour, very briefly for the sake of some of my eastern colleagues of this House of Commons, to point out the manner in which it is financed. The elevator companies have a substantial operating capital. When the farmer brings his grain into the elevator, desiring to dispose of it for cash, the elevator company issue him a cheque and the grain then becomes their property. Obviously, the elevator company do not have working capital sufficient to enable them to purchase outright all the wheat offered, so they secure through the banks the necessary advances to enable them, with their working capital, to carry on the purchase of wheat offered. It may be said that if the elevator companies have a working capital, of 25 to 30 per cent, that is all that might be necessary, for the banks are willing to advance, on the security of hypothecated grain, the remaining 70 or 75 per cent of the purchase price; and, of course, the grain being insured, held in storage and hypothecated to the bank, the bank holds a security for its 70 or 75 per cent-it may be less-of the total purchase price, the promise to pay of the purchaser, being the elevator company, being usually in the form of a promissory note. These adjustments are made, of course, at the end of each day as the grain comes into the country elevator point. The banks insist that, as the money is the money of their depositors, they should be protected against possible fluctuations in the market- and market fluctuations have been, of course, very marked during the last few years. The technical term used is that the transaction shall be hedged, which merely means that
somewhere there should be somebody prepared to buy an option on wheat that has been sold; in other words, that there should be no such violent fluctuations of the market, between the date of purchase and the dates fixed in the hedging operation, as would imperil in any sense the security of the bank, or render possible any loss being made.
The purchase of futures, as it is called in this hedging operation, has heretofore in this country been carried on by two classes, speaking broadly: (a) the investor; and (b) the speculator. In the first class were the milling companies or the purchasers abroad, what we will call those engaged in the grain business, who purchase wheat as a commodity in their line of business and deal with it as an investment for the purposes of their business. These operations continue to some extent, of course, curtailed naturally by the recent diminution in trade throughout the world. The second class, the speculator, has practically disappeared. There has been some speculation in Canada in wheat during the last six or eight months, the buying having been from Chicago; but I think I am correct in saying that, broadly, the speculator is no longer in evidence as a purchaser of wheat. Therefore, so far as hedging operations are concerned, you have the disappearance of the speculator, who thereby played a very important part, as Sir Josiah Stamp pointed out in his report, in connection with the marketing of wheat; and you have left the investor, with his ability to purchase curtailed by reason of the general trade depression.
Under these circumstances, Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited, to which I have referred, became the only available hedging organization left in western Canada, and the government is faced at the moment with the issue as to whether or not, under these circumstances, it would give its support as provided by the Relief Act passed in 1931 and 1932 as well-this being a product of the field and the farm-by guaranteeing to the banks such sums as might be necessary to enable these operations to be carried on by this organization. But before that was done the government had to consider whether or not the interest of Canada as a whole would be best served by continuing the bonus which we granted last year or by taking the steps I have just indicated for the purpose of protecting the general situation in connection with the marketing of wheat,
I need hardly say to the house that it gave us very great anxiety and concern, but it was quite apparent from the reports we received from every person interested in the trade
Wheat Marketing

that unless hedging operations could be carried on there could be no marketing of this year's crop. The result would be that the price of wheat would fall back to less than forty cents per bushel. Therefore, not pegging the price and not interfering in any sense with the operations of the law of supply and demand but to secure the orderly and regulated disposition of the crop, the steps I have indicated were taken and the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Pools, Limited became the hedging agency in order to enable, with the assistance of the government, sales to take place and the crop to be marketed. As I have indicated, there has been marketed at the moment at least 175,000,000 bushels of the crop of this year and there has been delivered to the elevators up to Saturday roughly 225,000,000 bushels of this year's crop. While the price has fallen, it has fallen in an orderly manner and in accordance with the increased supply which, as I mentioned the other day, is out of all proportion to the demand. The crop in the southern hemisphere is now available which augments the supply by another 250,000,000 bushels. This will be in addition to the very large crop of our own country and the tremendous carryover in the United States, now in the hands of the farm board, and the relatively small carry-over in this country.
I hasten to assure the house that on a balance of financial benefits it is clear that in respect of any obligations which might be incurred-it is not possible that any heavy obligations will be incurred unless something very unforeseen happens-the amount involved will be less than would be involved by the payment of the bonus requested. Weighing the situation as a whole, the probabilities pro and con, the effect upon the dominion, the business which would be secured and the chaos which would result from the absolute failure to sell wheat except as a distress commodity, the steps which I have indicated were taken.
If I might say so, I do not think any good purpose would be served by going into the details of the operations which we have entrusted to the organizations I have mentioned under the management of Mr. McFarland. However, the closest supervision has been exercised and we believe and we have had no reason to change our minds at the present moment, that the steps taken will be more beneficial to the dominion as a whole and will secure for the country as a whole greater advantages than if we paid the producer the bonus which was paid last year and which we are pressed to continue this year.

Except for the mention of the exact financial amount involved, which obviously it is difficult to give, I think I have answered all the questions asked not only by the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Casgrain) but also by one other hon. gentleman sitting to his left who asked a similar question some days ago.


Charles A. Stewart: Did the
hedging extend beyond the quantities handled by the pool?


Richard Bedford Bennett: In a few instances I think the hedging extended beyond that but in a broad and general way it extended obly to the pool operations. That is my memory, of the matter.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: What is the actual
amount which has been guaranteed by the government for hedging operations?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The guarantees were
not in those terms. The government guaranteed against ultimate loss in connection with these transactions and our business has been to see that it does not exceed the amount which I have mentioned, namely, the five cent bonus which would be paid.


Mr. EULER:: Doubtless there would be a loss sustained by someone, probably the purchasers of the wheat, in case the price dropped. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether, the government having guaranteed the banks against loss, a loss necessarily must be suffered by the government itself or that this loss would occur only in case the purchaser of the grain was not able to sustain a loss?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The government incurs
no financial responsibility unless it is shown at the completion of the transactions that there is a loss from the sale of grain for which the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited, has the right to call for under its contract. I cannot tell at the moment whether there will or will not be a loss; that will have to be determined entirely by the termination of the transactions. The guarantee is against ultimate loss.


Ernest Lapointe: There has been no estimate made of a possible loss?


Richard Bedford Bennett: So far as I or others who have more astute minds with respect to this business can see, there can be no possible loss, or in any event no loss of a substantial proportion, depending entirely upon the termination of the transactions themselves.

Wheat Marketing


William Daum Euler: Is the loss guaranteed by the government the possible loss to the banks or to the pool itself?


Richard Bedford Bennett: To the banks. The
banks have advanced the sum of money necessary to enable the operations to be carried on and this has been done on the strength of the security of the options and of our guarantee. Any possible loss would occur through the proceeds of the sales of the commodity not being sufficient to pay the obligations.


William Daum Euler: Would they not have recourse first to the pools who are the original debtors?


Richard Bedford Bennett: This is not a pool, it is
a selling agency.


William Daum Euler: Selling agency for the pool?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is merely an organization backed up by our guarantee to carry on hedging operations to enable the grain to be sold in this country.


William Daum Euler: They have no capital of
their own?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is not that sort of an
organization; it is a selling organization.


William Daum Euler: If there is any loss, the government will sustain it?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Am I right in understanding that this guarantee is given under the Unemployment Relief Act?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I believe the correct
name is the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act.


Charles A. Stewart: Has anything of this character been done with last year's crop or is it just in connection with this year's crop?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It has been done with respect to last year's crop. Since 1930 when it was taken over this organization has permitted the possible marketing in this country of Canadian wheat.


Mr. WEIR (Macdonald):: Will the Prime
Minister be good enough to explain the present position of the durum wheat growers in Manitoba who delivered their crop to the 1930-31 pool which Mr. McFarland took over? There are about a thousand of these men who have been treated rather unfairly and I was wondering if the Prime Minister had an explanation to offer.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman
knows as well as anyone that that is not a
matter with which the selling agency had to do. The Manitoba wheat pool purchased the durum wheat and under the provisions of their contract there was to be an adjustment so that the seller would receive what had been stipulated in the contract. Unfortunately this organization, which is not the one Mr. McFarland controls, has not been able to make any such adjustments.


William Gilbert Weir: The point is
that Mr. McFarland took that wheat over and was responsible for the ultimate selling of it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. McFarland was
accountable to the Manitoba wheat pool to which he did account. The contract was between the Manitoba wheat pool and the growers themselves and no one else. I trust the hon. gentleman will realize that there is no contract between the selling agency which Mr. McFarland manages, and the growers. He had no relations with them, contractual or otherwise. Any grain he received was, like the wheat he received, from the Manitoba, Saskatchewan or Alberta wheat pool. He received that for sale and dealt with them on that basis.


Mr. DONNELLY:: If I understand aright what the Prime Minister said, if there is a loss in this hedging operation of the selling agency of Mr. McFarland, then the banks make up the loss and the government makes up that loss to the banks. But on the other side, supposing there is a profit, do the banks, or does Mr. McFarland as a selling agent, or does the government take the profit? How does the Prime Minister think this arrangement will assist the seventy municipalities that had no crop whatever this year and will have to buy their seed for next year?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am sure, Mr. Speaker,
you have been very generous in extending the widest possible latitude in regard to questions; but when you get into that of relief to municipalities, you are far away from the question under consideration. The advances made by the banks are guaranteed by the country and if, after payment of the advances, a profit remains, it belongs to the agency and not to the government.


Mr. VALLANCE:: I should like to ask
the Prime Minister a question based on the reply which he gave to the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Weir): Is he telling us now that John I. McFarland was in the employ partly of the government and also of the Manitoba pool sales agency?
Wheat Marketing


Richard Bedford Bennett: He said nothing of the
sort. Why should the hon. gentleman endeavour to mislead? If he had followed me, he certainly could not have made that statement. Mr. McFarland is receiving no salary from anyone. The most experienced grain man on this continent once told me he believed Mr. McFarland was the best grain man in North America. Whether he was right is a matter of individual opinion. Mr. McFarland was not appointed by this government. He was appointed to his position, not by the Manitoba pool but by the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited, and the appointment, needless to say, was warmly approved by the government. He has been carrying on since on that basis.


Mr. POULIOT:: As the right hon. gentleman has said that it would serve no good purpose to give any more details about the situation and as the explanations that he has already given are most interesting, would he have any objection to having the galleries cleared in order that he may give full information to the house? I have asked the Prime Minister for an answer.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: No.


Mr. YOUNG:: Is it the intention of the
government to permit this transaction to be carried on indefinitely, or is there an understanding as to the probable date when it will be terminated?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No one knows better
than does the hon. member for Weyburn the difficulty of answering that question. Obviously he knows you could not say that you would do it on this date or that, but it will be done because you must consider the market situation from the standpoint of the producer. If it were desired to wreck the market, that could be done. If it be desired in an orderly or regular manner to dispose of the crop, that cannot be done until such time as the absorbing power of the market enables the transaction to be completed without stress.


Ernest Lapointe: Referring to the matter
of advances, mentioned this afternoon, has an order in council been passed covering this question?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the matter was
covered by letters to the banks. That is my memory of it. There may be an order in council. I will look it up and let the hon. gentleman know. But there were orders in council with respect to all the assistance given by the government to the Alberta, Saskat-

chewan and Manitoba pools, and the orders in council last year were tabled just as the orders in council this year have been tabled. No liability has arisen under any of these orders in council nor is there likely to be any so far as I know, but owing to conditions of which this house has full knowledge it was thought to be in the national interest that the situation should be clarified to enable the working capital of the pools to permit them carrying on their operations without question, and the guarantees were given to them, and I think copies of all the orders in council have been laid on the table of the house.


Ernest Lapointe: Copies of these orders in council have been tabled?


Richard Bedford Bennett: So far as the three pools were concerned.


Ernest Lapointe: But I mean this year?


Richard Bedford Bennett: As to the selling agency
order in council, I am not sure. There were letters written covering the situation. They may or may not have been reduced to orders in council. I will ascertain and let the hon. gentleman know.


Ernest Lapointe: Surely the government
cannot act in any other way than by order in council. The statute requires it. Under the Relief Measures Act passed last year the governor in council acts, not by means of letters and correspondence; but the statute requires that every one of these orders and regulations shall be tabled forthwith in the house, and when parliament is not in session that they shall be published in the official gazette. I would like to know whether this will be done.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There was no necessity
for an order in council until such time as the transaction was reduced to a position where an order in council could speak with certainty. That is, at the moment the banks make such advances as may be necessary on the strength of the assurance of the government that at the appropriate time when the liability is determined the order in council will be passed, which, as the hon. gentleman will realize, is the ordinary course in matters of this kind because the amount has not been determined. As soon as it is, necessarily the order in council will be passed.


Charles A. Stewart: May I ask
if this has been the policy since 1930, of continuously hedging all the grain handled by the selling agency without any check up?

Wheat Marketing


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh no, the matter has
been checked.


Charles A. Stewart: What was
the amount of the loss last year?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman asks, what was the loss last year? As a matter of fact, on one day when I was speaking in this house there was a profit.


Charles A. Stewart: On one
day?


Richard Bedford Bennett: On several days.


Charles A. Stewart: The Prime
Minister knows perfectly well that the market has been dropping for the last two years.


Richard Bedford Bennett: When the hon. gentleman says that I know that perfectly well, there was what you call a blackboard loss when Mr. McFarland was appointed with our acquiescence. He knows as well as any other man in the world what the position of the pools was with respect to Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. He knows exactly what loss was involved in Saskatchewan, and he knows what the effect of it was on the fortunes of the pools both there and in Manitoba. In Alberta the situation was much more favourable. The hon. gentleman also knows that there were, not days, but many times when the selling operation would have resulted in a profit.


Charles A. Stewart: I am not
referring to that at all.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am answering the
question.


Jean-François Pouliot: As a matter of profit and
loss?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Purely. So far as this
particular moment is concerned, undoubtedly there will be a loss, but whether or not in the final determination of the matter there is a loss will depend entirely, as I mentioned to the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Young) on circumstances about which I do not venture to express an opinion.


Mr. MUNN:: There is one point I would
like to bring out in connection with the guarantee. I have been listening closely and I understand that the government is guaranteeing only to the banks and that the banks are financing only 75 per cent. There is no guarantee to the elevator man. The government is simply looking after the banks?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman, I
am sorry to say, has confused two things. The question of the purchase by the elevators has nothing to do with it at all in any way,
shape or form. We were dealing with the selling agency as such and with the hedging, without which the sale of grain in this country was practically an impossibility.


John Vallance: I would like to draw the attention of the government to a despatch from Manitoba, because this places the matter before the Prime Minister and the government just as it appears to the ordinary individual in Manitoba. It says:
During the winter of 1930-31 the federal government took over the grain then held by the Canadian pools and placed Mr. John I. McFarland in control. This grain has not yet been all disposed of, many millions of bushels still remaining unsold. The grain still on hand is all spring wheat, all the durum having been sold and cleared out early in the spring of 1931. To the credit of the durum growers who pooled their wheat from the 1930 crop there remains about $450,000. which should have been paid to them early in the summer of 1931.
What the durum growers want to know is why this amount is not being paid.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There could be perhaps, Mr. Speaker, more misstatements in a few lines than in the passage which the hon. gentleman has quoted, but I can hardly conceive it possible. First of all, the government did not place Mr. McFarland in charge. The directors of the organization elected him to that position. That is number one.
Number two is that there was no contact between the organization and the durum wheat growers. They did their business with the Manitoba pool, and to that pool they should look for redress. I happen to have met a delegation of them here a year ago. I went into their papers and went over their matter fully, and I think satisfied them abundantly that whatever right they had was against the Manitoba pool, and that with respect to the selling agency nothing could be done. That was an organization that had no contract, and still further, no contact, with them. It was quite clear to me that the selling agency did receive durum wheat as well as other wheat for sale, and did sell it and account for it. These matters are audited every week, and they accounted for it. So far as the durum growers having any relation to the government or to the organization of which Mr. McFarland is general manager is concerned, it was abundantly clear to me, and they had to admit it, that they had not any. Their contract was with the Manitoba pool, and to that pool, being the other party to the contract, they must look.


William Daum Euler: May I ask one other question for my own information? Apart entirely
109S
Wheat Marketing

from the guarantees to the banks in regard to hedging operations, is the government making actual cash advances on this year's crop to the pool?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No. I tried to explain
to the house that there are three pools, in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, and the pools have working capital which is ample up to the present to carry on their operations, but in seeking credit with the banks, owing to the position of the province with which they were formerly identified, they sought assistance from us, the same assistance as we gave last year without incurring any liability, and after the closest investigation of the situation we saw no likelihood, and see none now, of any obligation or liability of any kind being incurred, and wre passed the same order in council to meet the situation, a copy of which I am quite certain has been laid on the table.


William Daum Euler: In regard to the pools this
year?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, but no money has
been advanced and I cannot see any possibility or likelihood of it.


William Daum Euler: What would be the use of
it if there was no chance of a liability?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I will tell you why. The
pools got into difficulty and they had to give certain securities to the province to make good the liabilities which they incurred to the province. In order that their working capital might be protected for this purpose, the banks sought some further security to enable them to establish their credits, without any question of it being interfered with, and we acted in that sense.


Mr. McINTOSH:: The Prime Minister just made a statement to the effect that there would be a certain amount of probable loss in connection with the marketing of the western wheat crop.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He did not say that at all.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Is that the reason the government has refused to give a bushel or acreage bonus to the western farmers?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, if the 'hon. gentleman had been good enough to follow my observations he must realize that his question was answered before he asked it.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Perhaps you might answer it again.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think I am under no obligation to answer it again, no obligation whatever.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Well, amplify it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was amplified to such an extent that I thought I was saying more than I should. There was no necessity of going to the extent to which I did. I tried to explain to the hon. gentleman that in balancing what we considered to be advantages and disadvantages we concluded that we could best serve the interests of the dominion as a whole, including the farmers of western Canada, by taking the action we did take, namely that of securing the possibility of there being some organization which provided hedging. Otherwise the whole business of the marketing of grain would have been in chaos, and there would have been a debacle on a scale, which if the hon. gentleman desires to understand fully, he need only ask those who are interested in the disposition of grain in this country.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: Mr. Speaker, I hope the Prime Minister will permit me one question; I realize he has been long suffering. See if I understand him correctly: The wheat bonus is to be discontinued this year, but in lieu of that the farmers are to be assisted through the medium of this government guaranteeing the banks against any loss in their business relations with the Wheat Producers Limited, or other farm organization? To repeat, is it a fact that there is to be no wheat bonus this year, but in lieu of that the farmers are to be assisted by this government guaranteeing the banks?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not what was said, and I am sure the hon. member for Melville must realize that he has hardly made an adequate summary of what has been said. I shall endeavour to put it charitably and state simply he has not summarized the situation correctly. I have no doubt if he carefully analyzes what I save said he will realize what the position was and what action was taken. It does not seem possible to me that my words are capable of just the construction he has placed upon them.



WHEAT SHIPMENTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. A. BLACK (Halifax):: I desire to ask the Prime Minister a couple of questions based upon a Canadian Press despatch appearing in maritime newspapers of this morning, November 14. The despatch reads:

Ukrainian Minority in Poland
Wheat Preference
Ottawa, Nov.	13.-Grain	exporters in
Winnipeg do not anticipate any difficulty in shipments of Canadian wheat through United States to the United Kingdom obtaining six cents a bushel preference, it was declared in government circles here tonight. Some changes would have to be made in the methods of shipments and in some cases there might be delay required to -prove that it was Canadian wheat when it reached the United Kingdom ports but the dealers were not expecting -any important obstacles in routing through the United States.
Last week in the House of Commons the question of whether Canadian wheat held in United States elevators on its way to Britain would get the benefit of the preference. It was claimed by some speakers that wheat stored in United States elevators could not later be identified as Canadian wheat and therefore could not get a preference.
Of course a great deal of wheat going from Canada through United States ports is consigned to other European countries and the preference would have no bearing on such shipments.
As this despatch seems to 'be in conflict with the statements ma-de by the Prime Minister on November 10, 1932, as found on page 1045 of Hansard, referring to statutory conditions of British regulation number 12, as follows:
(b) Consignment to the United Kingdom on a through transit-if I might use that word

although the transit might be interrupted; but as long as the point of origin is fixed and the destination is the United Kingdom, even though there were delays in the transit the preference applies.
I should like to ask this question:
(1)	Will the Prime Minister state to the house what he meant by "delays" and "interruption in ' transit" as stated by him on November 10?
(2)	Will Canadian wheat in transit stored in elevators located in the United States enjoy the six cent preference?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. senior member for Halifax sent me a copy of the memorandum which he has just read. I do not think I can add anything to what has already been said and which appears many times in the pages of Hansard. I think the regulation under which the British government operates has been set out in Hansard at least three times. The conditions under which grain destined for the United Kingdom will receive the preference when it is not shipped direct to that country were, first, that it should be of empire origin-and when I say grain, it should be in this instance of Canadian origin-second, that it should be consigned to the United Kingdom; and third, it would then be entitled to receive the preference if it were conveyed there even although it were interrupted in
course of transit. I tried to make it abundantly clear that the regulations which deal with commodities generally and not only with grain, and have reference not to the United States alone but to other countries as well, contemplate goods which are of empire origin being conveyed to the United Kingdom through other than wholly British territory. In the case of the United States grain may be held in bond for a period of six months without paying duty. After it has been in bond for that time, it becomes dutiable by the United States at the rate of forty-two cents a bushel. When it is received in bond in the United States, if it is consigned to the United Kingdom, although the transit were delayed and there is an interruption in the directness of the transit, the regulation that I read the other day made it abundantly clear that such a commodity was entitled to the preference. I have nothing to add to or take from what was then said.



UKRAINIAN MINORITY IN POLAND

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. N. CAMPBELL (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, has the attention of the government been drawn to a petition submitted to the League of Nations by a number of members of the British House of Commons? The petition to which I have referred concerns the status of the Ukrainian minority in Poland. If the government have considered the matter I should like to know if they are in a position to give it support. This is a matter of great interest to many people in my constituency, and I should appreciate some statement from the government in connection with it. If at the present time the Prime Minister is not prepared to make a statement I should welcome an answer later on.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will
recall that an extended discussion took place in this house last year with respect to this matter. Our representatives at Geneva were present when the discussions took place at the meeting of the League of Nations. Further action, so far as the league is concerned, has not been brought to our attention. From time to time the matter has engaged the attention of the government, as petitions and other documents have been brought to our attention, but so far as I am at present able to state no action has resulted by the League of Nations or otherwise.


Mr. MICHAEL LUCHKOVICH (Vegre-ville):: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to
ask a question? The matter to which the
Steamship Bright Fan

hon. member for Mackenzie has directed the attention of the government emanates from a treaty signed on June 28, 1919. This was a so-called minority treaty signed by Canada, France, Italy, Japan, United States, Great Britain and Poland. It did not come into force until January 10, 1920. On March 15, 1923, there was a conference of ambassadors from whose deliberations arose the following resolution:
Whereas it is recognized by Poland that as far as the eastern part of Galicia is concerned, the ethnographical conditions necessitate an autonomous regime.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member is asking the government a question, and should proceed to the text of it. This is not a time for debate.


Michael Luchkovich: I am just adding
this in further explanation.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Order. There is no motion before the house. By custom some questions are permitted on the orders of the day. We cannot however spend a whole day asking questions, and this is not the proper time for debate.


Mr. LUCHKO  VICH@: I did not intend to
spend a whole day.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Much as I regret interrupting the hon. member I believe his remarks are out of order.


Mr. LUCHKO  VICH@: Very well, I shall
state my question: In view of the fact that Poland has refused to adhere to the minority treaty or the grant of autonomy, will the government give sympathetic attention to what some members of the British House of Commons are doing at the present time, namely asking that this matter be sent to the international court and a permanent commission established?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, as one
might expect, the hon. member for Vegreville has given very careful consideration to this question. On more than one occasion I have assured him that anything that we can do reasonably in the matter, would be done. Last year when the matter was before the League of Nations it was considered in great detail, and I need hardly say to him and to members in this house that it must be realized that it is a matter of grave international concern, and that they do not move too quickly in disposing of questions of that character. The action taken by the various members of the House of Commons, of course, was not the action of the British government, and this government would find it extremely difficult to take any course apart from those which exist under well

established practices in diplomacy. I think the hon. gentleman would be the first to realize the character of the difficulties which would have to be overcome before the government could support the action taken by non-official members of the British House of Commons.
The government, however, has sympathetically considered the position represented by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Luchkovich), the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Campbell) and others. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) considered the matter carefully at Geneva, and our representative on the League of Nations, Senator Beaubien, made a very strong statement of the situation. If I remember rightly the hon. member himself (Mr. Luchkovich) was in Geneva at the time, so he knows that as far as the government are concerned, they have presented the situation as clearly as possible to the League of Nations, having regard to the well established rules and practices that obtain in such cases. My memory is that according to the records there was no substantial support given Senator Beaubien; it was felt that the matter was of such delicacy that it required the most careful consideration by those responsible for the conduct of such business.
LOANS AND GUARANTEES On the orders of the day:


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, some time ago
a series of questions dealing with the amounts guaranteed or granted by this government to various institutions stood as an order for return. I should like to ask the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance if it would be possible to have that return brought down?


Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance):: One return was brought down, but whether or not it was the one in question I cannot say. However, I shall make inquiries.



HUDSON BAY RAILWAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. CAMERON R. McINTOSH (North Battleford):	Mr. Speaker, if I might be permitted to ask another question: On Friday, October 28, I directed a question to the Prime Minister concerning the sinking of the British freighter Bright Fan in Hudson strait. I asked whether the leader of the government would give to the house and country a blue book statement in connection ~with the evidence and report of the commission investi-

Customs Act
gating that catastrophe? On the following Monday, October 31, the leader of the government stated that he would give to the members of this chamber simply the report of the investigating commission. In the proceedings of the house on Friday, October 28, in the debate which took place after recess, I notice a statement made by the hon. member for Nelson (Mr. Stitt) as follows-
Pierre Édouard Blondin: It is not in order to read such a statement to the house at this point. Is the hon. member addressing a question to the government?


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Yes, I am interrogating
the government. May I say, in view of the statement by the hon. member for Nelson that the evidence clearly proves-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I would ask the hon.
member to adhere to the rules of the house.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I shall come right to
the point.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member might
as well read, as to put it in narrative form. He may address a question if he wishes.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Just give me a second,
and I will come to the question: In view of the considered and very serious statement made by the hon. member for Nelson will the Prime Minister give to the house and country not only the report of the investigating commission, but the report plus the evidence so that the people of Canada may understand exactly the situation in connection with this marine catastrophe?


Richard Bedford Bennett: So far as I can see at present,
there is no reason why money should be expended to print the evidence. The report of Mr. Justice Mellish covers the situation, and the government sees no reason at the moment for changing its views in this regard.



CUSTOMS ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. E. B. RYCKMAN (Minister of National Revenue) moved the second reading of Bill No. 6, to amend the Customs Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. MacDonald (Cape Breton South) in the chair.
On section 1-Valuation of imports.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I assume that this section is intended to implement in part article 16 of the trade agreement between Canada and the United Kingdom?


Mr. RYCKMAN:: I do not think that is specifically referred to. This was requested by the British delegation, as well as by the representatives of other parts of the empire, and we agreed to submit it to parliament.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Let me read article 16:
His Majesty's government in Canada undertake that customs administration in Canada shall be governed by such general principles as will ensure (a) the avoidance, so far as reasonably possible, of uncertainty as to the amount of customs duties and other fiscal imposts payable on the arrival of goods in Canada; (b) the reduction of delay and friction to a minimum; and (c) the provision of machinery for the prompt and impartial settlement of disputes in matters appertaining to the application of tariffs.
On reading this bill I gathered that it was an endeavour on the part of the Canadian government to carry out at least part of that article.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I would say to my right hon. friend that this amendment was independent of that article. As a matter of fact it was agreed to before that agreement was signed. It was thought by the representatives of the United Kingdom that it would be in the interests of Great Britain if this section in the act did not apply to United Kingdom exports, and after consideration and deliberation it was agreed to as a consideration by us to them, for which they asked and to which we agreed.


George Gibson Coote: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I would ask that the discussion be carried on in a little louder tone of voice. So far we have been unable to hear what has been said by the leader of the opposition and the minister.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is the minister saying that this bill now before us is not in any way related to the Canada-United Kingdom trade agreement, but is something altogether apart from it?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: This was part of the general agreements which have been expressed in the United Kingdom agreement now before the house. This amendment implements another agreement made with the representatives of the United Kingdom.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think the minister should thank me for having helped him give a correct interpretation, because his first statement appears now to have been quite wrong.
Customs Act


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I am always glad to offer thanks when they are due.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Now may I ask if this particular amendment is going to serve the interests of Canada. I assume for the moment that it is restricted to trade between Great Britain and Canada. Why should it not be made applicable to trade generally? If the principle is sound why should it not be applied generally?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I hope my right hon. frend will pardon me if I point out that his party was instrumental in putting upon the statute books legislation which created a British preference. I can think of many cases under that preference where, in the interests of trade, articles reached Canada free of duty from the United Kingdom while they were charged from 20 per cent to 35 per cent under the intermediate and general tariffs. It is thought to be in the general interest to bring about this amendment. If my right hon. friend should ask I would say that if we had not been requested to surrender this right with regard to Great Britain, it would not have been surrendered. I think it was a good thing when it was brought in; I think it has helped the country. It may be that we will suffer in some degree, but the loss that is occasioned on the left will be made lip by the profit on the right.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Then, from what my hon. friend has said, we have to thank Great Britain rather than our own government for bringing about this change, which will be advantageous not only to Great Britain but to Canada as well. I think it is a step in the right direction; I think on behalf of the Canadian people we owe an obligation to the British government for having influenced our own administration to this extent. The minister looks upon it only from the point of view of what it means to Great Britain. I am inclined to view it in the light of what it will mean to the great body of consumers and importers in Canada,


Edmond Baird Ryckman: In our tariff legislation we have given Great Britain a preference; in many cases her goods enter free while similar goods from other countries are taxed heavily. This is along the same line; it is giving something to Great Britain.


William Daum Euler: Whatever may have been the motive behind the introduction of this amendment I think I can safely say that the government are to be congratulated on taking a step in the right direction, unless my interpretation of the section is incorrect. I rise for 
the purpose of confirming my idea of what this amendment means. I take it that the introduction of this clause means that the power given the Minister of National Revenue, under the amendment of 1930, to place fixed valuations to any amount upon any commodities imported into Canada, is now removed with regard to goods coming under the British preference. Am I correct in that understanding?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I think in substance the hon. member is correct, but his statement is not quite right. For instance, the minister has not that power; the governor general Tn council authorizes the minister to fix a valuation, upon his report.


William Daum Euler: I am afraid that is a bit
of quibbling-I do not mean to be offensive.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: With regard to the
working of this section, the governor general, on the report of the minister, authorizes him to fix a value, and I submit that that has been most helpful to the business of this country. I am glad that it remains with respect to other countries, in just the same way as I am glad that our tariff, intermediate and general, remains where we give it free to Great Britain.


William Daum Euler: My hon. friend sees criticism where there is none. I am merely trying to establish in my own mind, and for the benefit of other members as well, exactly what is the significance of this, and I am asking this question. Does it not mean that the power which was given to the government to fix values on all commodities imported into Canada, by giving that power to the Minister of National Revenue, has been removed so far as goods coming under the British preference are concerned?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Yes, or lower.


William Daum Euler: Or lower, yes; I was going
to comment on that also. It means, therefore, that there can be no longer any dump imposed on goods coming from Great Britain under the British preference. Am I correct?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: So far as goods are
concerned, under this section.


William Daum Euler: I would ask the minister
why that particular phrase is included "or any lower tariff." Are we likely to have tariffs lower to other countries than to Great Britain?

Customs Act


Edmond Baird Ryckman: We have now in certain cases tariffs lower than against Great Britain. For instance, under the Australian trade agreement, meats come in-there is quite a large number of items, cheese, as I remember, being among them-at a lower rate than the British preference. But of course these are always in the empire.


George Gibson Coote: Are these to be retroactive?
If not, are there not now certain classes of goods	in respect to which the fixed value	forduty	has been	set by	the department?	Ifthere	are such	classes	of goods, should	notthese	orders in	council	be extended and	the
goods be allowed to come in at the invoice value?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: That is a matter to be
considered. I am advised that the status quo will be maintained.


Mr. ILSLEY:: Under what authority is the currency dump, so-called, applied?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: That does not in any
sense relate to this matter. No doubt what my hon. friend is thinking about is what is commonly called the currency dump in relation to the value of the British pound fixed for special duty purposes.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes. Under what authority
is that applied? I was under the impression that it was under this section, but apparently I am wrong. I should like to know under what authority the currency dump is applied.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: There was an order in
council passed fixing the value of the pound for special duty purposes.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Under what authority was
that passed?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Under the general
authority of the statute.


William Daum Euler: Perhaps I left a wrong impression when I said that under this the dump would disappear so far as British imports are concerned, coming in under the preference. That is true only in so far as the government has power to fix artificial values with respect to prices of commodities, but I take it that the dump can still be applied if the government persists in having two valuations of the pound. Under these provisions they can still apply the dump.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Yes, and in my answer I said, the dump in relation to 43. If there were unfair trade and an unfair value of British goods, and if it were obvious that a
special duty should be levied, we have not surrendered that right, but we have in relation to the application of section 43.


Mr. SPENCER:: Under this item can the
minister give me any further information with regard to the dumping duty placed upon barbed wire from Holland?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: The hon. member spoke to me last week with reference to the barbed wire situation. That matter has not been finally dealt with; it is under consideration. I cannot say anj'thing more at the present time.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Article 16,
which refers to this particular measure, has also this provision-


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Will my right hon.
friend allow me to interrupt him? I do not think that article 16 was framed at all with special reference to this. This is a collateral agreement.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The minister is going back to his original ground, which I think he will see is unfortunately not the right one. It is all to his credit that he should be now doing something that is in accordance with the terms of the agreement, but what I wish to ascertain is this. Article 16 provides that there will be machinery for the prompt and impartial settlement of disputes in matters pertaining to the application of tariffs. Will the minister indicate whether any machinery has been thought out or whether any exists whereby disputes in this connection may be satisfactorily adjusted? If so, what is that machinery?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I do not think that the suggestion with regard to machinery relates to this matter, which is very simple and does not need machinery. I would take it, however, that article 16, the part to which my right hon. friend refers, would be referred to the tariff board when set up.


William Daum Euler: Under article 16, subsection (a) provides for:
The avoidance, so far as reasonably possible, of uncertainty as to the amount of customs duties and other fiscal imposts payable on the arrival of goods in Canada.
That is to say, the government of Canada obligates to do away with these difficulties, and what the ministry is doing today is decidedly in that direction, because the minister is now depriving the government of the right to fix these high valuations, which
Customs Act

nearly always made it impossible for the importer to know in advance, or when the goods arrived, just what the amount would be- certainly an obstacle which I think it was intended to remove.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As regards the minister's statement that artiole 16 does not relate to this matter, if that be true there must be some mistake on the part of the ministry in respect to what appears in the explanatory notes attached to the bill, because these notes read:
The only change in the subsection is made by the insertion of the underlined words in the text of this bill.
The object of this amendment is to except from the operation of the section goods entitled to entry under the British preferential tariff or any lower tariff, in pursuance of the provisions of the various trade agreements concluded at the Imperial economic conference.
Now, if it is not under article 16, under which article is it?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: As I have tried to tell my right hon. friend, this is one of those trade agreements that stand upon their own feet. It was not entered into with reference to article 16.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That raises another question.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: It is effecting a bilateral agreement.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The minister now tells us that there are other agreements than those before the house. What other agreements are there than those tabled?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I beg my right hon. friend's pardon. I did not say that there were other agreements besides this agreement and the trade agreement with the United Kingdom which the right hon. gentleman has been considering for weeks.


Edward James Young: I understand that section 43 applies to goods which are imported into Canada under such conditions as prejudicially or injuriously affect the interests of Canadian producers and manufacturers. My understanding is that it is under the provisions of this section that the currency dump has been applied. If that is correct, then the currency dump will no longer apply.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Why?


Edward James Young: It will not apply to Great
Britain because this amendment exempts that country.


Charles A. Stewart: I think perhaps the minister is quite correct in his statement as to why we have this amendment to the statute now before us. The difficulty which Canadian importers of British goods were experiencing in trying to estimate the amount of duty they were going to pay, as just referred to by the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler), perhaps has had more to do with this amendment than the carrying out of provisions of the agreement, although, of course, that is intended as well. I am afraid my hon. friend has been learning from rather expensive experience that this is a rather poor way to enforce the tariff, and I desire to congratulate him on the introduction of this measure. I hope he will extend it and that the importer of goods into Canada will not experience the difficulty which now faces him in not knowing exactly what the amount of duty is to be until, in some cases, certain of the goods have been sold.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. MAURICE DUPRE (Solicitor General) moved the second reading of Bill No. 10, to amend the Montreal Harbour Commissioners Act, 1804.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. MacDonald (Cape Breton South) in the chair.
On section 1-by-law for regulation of plant and appliances, etc.
Ernest Lapointe: Will the hon. minister
kindly explain the purpose of this change?


Mr. DUPRE:: Paragraph (n) of section 26
of the act provides that the harbour commissioners have the right to make by-laws for the regulation of all machinery and appliances used in the loading or unloading of vessels. It has been found that the provisions of this paragraph are not sufficient. The purpose of the amendment is, first, to extend the provision to all machinery and appliances whether used in loading or unloading vessels or for other purposes; second, to remove any doubt that the commissioners, under their powers, may determine the conditions under which machinery and appliances owned by third parties may be brought upon the land or water subject to the control of the commis-

Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
sioners, and, third, to provide that the commissioners may charge for space occupied by and control the service charges in respect of machinery and appliances owned by third parties within the harbour area.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time, and
passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, November 10, consideration in committee of Bill No. 8, respecting a certain trade agreement between His Majesty's government in Canada and His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom-Mr.	Bennett-Mr.	MacDonald
(Cape Breton South) in the chair.
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. MacDonald, Cape Breton):: The committee was considering
article 3 and schedule C.


Mr. ESLING:: Mr. Chairman, the items covered by this article are of peculiar interest to British Columbia and one is almost justified in the conclusion that those Who participated in the preparation of this agreement were particularly keen to see to the welfare and advantage of British Columbia. This makes all the more incredible the attitude of hon. members apposite who represent constituencies in British Columbia affected by the items contained in this schedule-timber, fish, lead and zinc. We have already disposed of other items in the way of copper, fruits, apples, poultry and farm products, but I think a few concrete Statements in this connection will give an illuminating picture.
Of the first item in this schedule, timber, British Columbia produces 49 per cent of the total production in Canada; of fish, it produces 50 per cent; of lead, 98 per cent and of zinc, 90 per cent. It is about third in the dominion in the production of copper and first in the production of silver. With respect to the primary products referred to in this schedule, British Columbia holds a very enviable position.
When lumber is considered it becomes more difficult to understand the position taken by hon. members opposite from British Columbia. I refer to the hon. member for 'Skeena (Mr. Hanson), a lumberman; the hon. member for North Vancouver (Mr. Munn), another lumberman; the hon. member for Comox-Albemi (Mr. Neill), with large lumber interests in his constituency; the hon. taember for New Westminster (Mr. Reid), 53719-70
who comes from a district which has perhaps the largest export mill in British Columbia; and the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Hanibury). I might mention also the other two hon. members who are interested mainly in matters affecting labour and an improved standard of living. These hon. members have opposed the agreement in toto although particularly interested in the schedule in connection with article 3. Their attitude is hard to understand when it is considered that the United Kingdom is offering the Dominion of Canada a better undertaking in connection with the purchase of lumber. Last year the total imports of lumber into the British Empire were 3,400,000,000 feet, of which Canada supplied only four per cent. British Columbia has a greater advantage than any other province in shipments of lumber to the United Kingdom, and the agreement offers to those in my province who are interested in the production of lumber the advantage of entering the United Kingdom markets absolutely free of duty as against a duty of ten per cent on lumber from foreign countries. Moreover, while the agreement specifically states ten per cent, the advantage by way of insurance, freight and so on brings the duty against lumber from other countries outside the empire to practically twenty per cent. How any member from British Columbia can, on his return to his constituents, justify his opposition to the item of lumber in schedule C, is incredible.
Let me refer now to the item of fish. We have the hon. member for Comox-Albemi and the hon. member for Skeena opposing this agreement and this schedule, and yet we find that in Skeena the production of fish last year amounted to $13,000,000 and in Comox-Alberni to $6,000,000. The United Kingdom says: We use a great quantity of fish and we are quite willing to buy British Columbia fish, and to show our good faith we are willing to permit Canadian fish to come in free of duty and to levy a tariff of ten per cent against fish from foreign countries. Last year the United Kingdom imported only $9,000,000 worth of fish from Canada and countries within the empire.
Coming next to the item of lead, we find that British Columbia produces 98 per cent of the total Canadian output, which is produced at Trail. It is good lead, being 99-99 per cent pure, and finds a market in practically every consuming country in the world, except, of course, the United States, from which it is barred by a duty of two and one-eighth cents per pound. The United Kingdom is the second largest consumer of lead in the world, and strange to say, last year it purchased from

1106	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
the United States about thirty per cent of its total import.
Then we have zinc, of which British Columbia produces ninety per cent of the total Canadian output. Last year the United Kingdom imported 157,000 tons of zinc, of which thirty per cent came from Canada and the balance from countries outside the empire. Strange to say, hon. members opposite seem to have very little realization of the great value of the production of these metals and the fact that a larger and wider market is extended to British Columbia. In this case the United Kingdom says: We are prepared to buy your lead and zinc and we are going to permit those metals to enter our market free of duty, while we impose a duty of ten per cent against similar products coming from countries outside the empire. It must also be remembered that in the case of lead and zinc, just as in that of fish and lumber, while the agreement refers to a specific duty of ten per cent against foreign lead and zinc, there is also the advantage of a duty on the insurance and freight on similar commodities from other countries.
As regards copper, which item has been disposed of, the hon. member for Skeena represents a district in which there is a huge copper production. Last year the total production in Canada was around 670,000 tons, of which
60.000	tons were used in home consumption, the balance being exported. In the district represented by the hon. member for Skeena the'copper production last year amounted to
15.000	tons, while that represented by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, the copper production last year amounted to 15,000 tons.


Mr. NEILL:: Might I ask where copper is produced in Comox-Alberni?


William Kemble Esling: I beg the hon. member's pardon. I am wrong.


Alan Webster Neill: I know the hon. gentleman is, and he is wrong on other things as well.


William Kemble Esling: I mean in the district represented by the hon. member for New Westminster, where the copper production was
15.000	tons.


Mr. REID:: Where is copper produced in
the New Westminster district?


Albert Edward Munn: North Vancouver.


William Kemble Esling: Yes, North Vancouver. It does not make much difference; it is in British Columbia, and hon. members opposite have voted against the agreement. The 15,000 tons were from the Howe Sound Mining Company.
IMr. Esling.]


Albert Edward Munn: Copper concentrates, not
copper. The hon. gentleman is away off in his geography.


William Kemble Esling: The fact remains that hon.
members, each and all of them, have voted against a wider market for Canadian copper. The United Kingdom says: We are keen to buy your copper and we are going to permit it to enter our market free of duty while imposing a duty of four cents a pound against copper from other countries. Hon. members opposite say: No; we do not want any more business in the copper line; we do not want our industries extended. The hon. member for Skeena does not want wheat to pass through his million dollar elevator at Prince Rupert. And why-


Mr. HANSON (Skeena):: I have been trying to get something for that elevator to do.


William Kemble Esling: Certainly the agreements
under discussion offer every possible opportunity to hon. members opposite to return to their constituents and explain just why they have voted against them. They make for the expansion of business, the development of our natural resources, the development of manufacturing industries, and the expansion of trade. Anything along these lines creates business and labour. I suppose when the hon. member for Vancouver South goes home, he will tell his constituents that labour, like everything else, is governed by supply and demand and if there is a demand for labour, then we shall have better wages, a better standard of living and so forth. This government is simply bringing in measures whereby industry will be increased and labour, which is now at a low ebb, in so far as employment is concerned, will be more in demand. Yet the hon. member for Vancouver South votes against these agreements and, in so doing, votes against the creation of a further demand for labour, a better standard of living, and more wages.
Then we have the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, a constituency which depends for its growth entirely on the progress and prosperity of every other portion of British Columbia, dealing with constitutional questions and hypothetical problems, and not touching at all on the commodities that are affected by this agreement, lead, zinc, lumber and fisheries. Only a few days ago there was a very interesting headline in the Prince Rupert paper, stating that the hon. member condemned this treaty because it did not help the fisheries, and the very next day in

United, Kingdom
the same paper the manager of the fishing business at Prince Rupert came out and said that already the good effects of the treaty were being felt and that the price of fish in Prince Rupert had risen higher than the price of fish in the United States.


Olof Hanson: (Skeena): The lowest price in the history of the Pacific coast is now being paid for fish in Prince Rupert.


William Kemble Esling: If the hon. gentleman will read his own Prince Rupert paper of October 28, he will see there the statement of the manager of the canning plant, or whatever it is, who says that he is delighted with the condition of the market at Prince Rupert and takes exception to the statement made by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre. He also states that the price of fish is higher in Prince Rupert today than in the United States. The same paper also mentions the statements made by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre in regard to lumber. The lumbermen of Vancouver seem to be satisfied with the effects of the treaty so far as lumber is concerned, and they commend this government for making the agreement. The fact seems to be that hon. gentlemen opposite are simply prejudiced against anything that is going to promote the welfare and progress of this dominion in these times of stress, just because the measures emanate from a Conservative government. We may not see the good effects of this agreement within the next year or so, but they are sure to come, and hon. gentlemen opposite will then have the opportunity to tell their constituents that they simply made a mistake in voting against this agreement.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say that nothing could better illustrate the endeavour of hon. gentlemen opposite to misrepresent those on this side of the house than the speech to which we have just listened. Over and over again the hon. member for West Kootenay said that certain members on this side had opposed this agreement because of this particular portion of it. May I say to him at once that no hon. member on this side is opposed to this particular portion. If he was, he would have so stated long before the imperial conference ever took place because these British duties according a preference to the dominion were not put on at the recent imperial conference but were put on by the British government many months before the conference ever took place. This schedule relates to timber, fish, salmon, other fish, canned, asbestos, zinc and lead, and on 53719-701
every one of these particular articles mentioned the British government at the time it introduced its tariff gave a ten per cent preference to the dominions, and the rate which is given under this agreement is ten per cent. So the British government have simply continued the same rate of preference. Is it conceivable that at the recent conference the government of Canada would have asked Great Britain to do away with the preference which she had given months before the conference was ever held? What we are opposing in so far as it touches this matter at all are the representations of hon. gentlemen opposite that what has been secured in the treaty in this particular is due to some effort of theirs. It is not due to some effort of theirs. It is just another example of the same thing that took place this afternoon in connection with the bill the Minister of National Revenue was concerned with. We have to thank the British government, not our own government, for what there is of advantage to Canada in this part of the agreement, because what is here set forth was granted before our own government had anything to do with the conference at all.
May I add a further point? Probably hon. members will say: Oh yes, but we have persuaded Great Britain to keep these preferences on, and to remove them only upon the consent of the government of Canada. On Friday evening I touched on that feature. In so far as that contention has any significance at all it constitutes interference by one government with the affairs of another, and similar interference at the instance of the British parliament or government we would not stand for for one minute. If in Great Britain they wish to make their agreements subject to conditions of that kind it is their own business, but it is not a precedent that we are going to follow. May I add that the Secretary of the Treasury in Great Britain made a specific statement in the British house that so far as the British parliament was concerned, it would not regard itself bound by these duties any longer than the parliament of Great Britain wished to have themselves so bound. Over and over again it has been slated by the Prime Minister and by the Minister of Trade and Commerce in this house that the British government is perfectly free to change these duties at any time they like except in so far as they may regard themselves as in honour bound. But they are not in any way legally or constitutionally bound.
1108	COMMONS
Imperial Conjerence-Trade Agreements


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am quite certain that
the right hon. gentleman does not mean to misinterpret or misrepresent my statement, but he has not stated it quite clearly. I have stated over and over again, as he very properly said, that in so far as that wide range of articles outside of the schedules mentioned in this agreement is concerned, both the parliament of Canada and the parliament of Great Britain were free to change the articles as they wished, but that unquestionably both governments would consider themselves bound in honour to maintain the undertakings set forth in the agreement, including the schedules attached to the agreement.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend limits what he says to being bound in honour. But when people make bargains they are generally bound at law and bound in a way which does not permit of change at the instance of either party. That is the point that I wish to make quite clear. There are other political parties in Great Britain besides the government now in office, and two of them at least, the Liberal party and the Labour party, have declared that if they came into office they would not necessarily regard themselves as in honour bound to carry out any phase of this agreement.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh no.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: They have so stated most emphatically, and more than that the Liberal party in Great Britain before the Conference was held passed a resolution by the National Liberal Federation to the effect that if the government sought to bind them in their fiscal freedom they would not regard as binding any provision of that kind. So the position of the British government in that particular is perfectly clear. What we are criticizing in this particular schedule is not what the hon. member for West Kootenay would have the house and the country believe, a preference being continued which was granted to us by the British government before the conference took place, but rather the representations of gentlemen like himself who would seek to have the country believe that this is something which the Canadian government were responsible for bringing about at the recent conference and that we should be thankful at this moment for having this particular preference because of the Canadian government's efforts. It was due to nothing of the kind.


William Kemble Esling: The right hon. gentleman is beating about the bush. These agreements go into force tomorrow in the United Kingdom, and lead and zinc from the empire will continue to enter the United Kingdom free *of duty. Surely the imposition of a tariff against lead and zinc from non-empire countries was a part of the conference agreement. We all admit that empire lead goes into the United Kingdom at world prices, but lead from outside the empire does not, and must pay a duty of ten per cent. If that is not a satisfactory result from the conference, it is pretty hard to tell what could be. As a result of the conference Canadian lead and zinc will find a larger market than they enjoyed heretofore. Canadian leads and zincs 'will replace the supplies of Mexico and the United States.
W'hen the right hon. gentleman opposite charges that we stress these particular items Under schedule C, I say we have good cause to do so. We lay stress on the advantages contained in schedule C because every hon. member from the province of British Columbia in the Liberal and Labour ranks opposite voted against the ratification of this agreement. Schedule C is part of the agreement. They have recorded their opposition to the benefits contained in schedule C by refusing to ratify the agreement. In other words they have said: "We do not want our Canadian copper to enter the United Kingdom market enjoying a preference of four cents per pound against other copper; we do not want our lead or zinc to enter the United Kingdom free. We do not wish our fish or our lumber to enjoy advantages in the British market." Hon. members opposite do not want anything that would increase or encourage production or industry in the Dominion of Canada. That is the situation.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I thank the hon. member for drawing particular attention to lead and zinc. What was the position? Before this conference was called lead and zinc from the dominions enjoyed a preference of ten per cent in the British market. After the conference, and under the agreement now before us the preference is subjected to a condition which did not exist before, namely, that the lead and zinc has to be sold at world prices.


William Kemble Esling: They certainly always had to sell their lead and zinc at world prices. You always had to sell copper at world prices.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No. There was
a straight preference of ten per cent.

United Kingdom


William Kemble Esling: The price was fixed in the British market.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Now it is
fixed in the world market.


Mr. BRADETTE:: It would seem that hon. members opposite do not realize that during the debate on the Dunning budget of 1930 the then leader of the opposition stated the gov-vernment of the day was stealing the policy of the Conservative party, and stated further his opposition to a British preference.
Now, so far as northern Ontario and our consideration of trade policies is concerned, our policy has always been that first of all we should patronize Canadian industry and buy Canadian goods; secondly that we should buy goods within the British Empire, and thirdly those from foreign countries. I wish to say this, before I am through, that in northern Ontario we need not only the British market, but also the markets of the world. There is one statement to which I wish to make reference before I proceed further. Speaking last Thursday the Prime Minister made a statement which in my view reflects upon the house. At that time he wished to create the impression throughout the width and breadth of the country that the present session of parliament is costing an enormous sum of money. That is not a true statement of the facts. First of all we all know that we came here under the unwritten understanding that we would receive no more money than we would get at an ordinary session. And, secondly, I am sure that the country would not for one moment begrudge the money paid the sessional employees in and around the parliament buildings. If, as the Prime Minister states it will cost the country $100,000, in my view the expenditure is warranted. He must realize that some of the people engaged in the house will be out of employment from the adjournment until the sittings are resumed after the New Year. I notice the hon. member for Argenteuil is laughing. However it is not a laughing matter for a lot of people who must earn their bread and butter from the present session.
At this time I should like to place before the house and country as forcibly as possible the situation which obtains in northern Ontario. I am not a sob-sister artist, but I shall endeavour to outline the facts as they exist. First of all I shall deal with the present situation, and secondly I shall deal with the needs of industry. I believe I am in order when I direct my attention to these matters, and that my remarks may come under schedule
C of the agreement. First of all, I stated on every possible occasion since the last general election campaign that if hon. members opposite took office we would have no longer an export market in the United States for pulpwood produced in northern Canada. This statement applies not only to the wooded areas of northern Ontario but to the whole of northern Canada.
During the last election campaign I protested vigorously against statements made by the hon. member for East Algoma (Mr. Nicholson) and by some ministers of the Ontario government, that we should be restricted from exporting pulpwood into the United States. In a few brief moments I shall show, Mr. Chairman, that the only market we have for our surplus pulpwood is in the United States. Following the principles laid down by the Prime Minister we could not sell that pulpwood to the United States market.
In the province of Ontario-and I believe the same system is followed in the whole of Canada-primarily the land belongs to the crown. In enticing industries to come to the northern section of the province there were granted to those industries some large areas of timber lands. Some of the lands so granted were to the extent of 5,000 square miles, and I believe that at that time such grants were justified. Industries investing about $100,000,000 in the northern country should have been given a permanent supply of raw material, so far as newsprint is concerned. Then, secondly, there is the land which belongs to the crown, and from which land the government has nevei taken pulpwood. Then, thirdly, there is the freeholder, the man who a few years ago took holdings in northern Ontario, eventually receiving a deed from the government. The deed he received gave him full rights with the exception of mineral rights, to any resources found on the farm. It is also a fact that the Ontario government has parcelled out several sections of northern Ontario to private interests, and such interests are primarily interested in cutting timber and pulpwood for exportation to the United States.
I said a few minutes ago that the big newsprint interests have their own limits, so that we would expect first of all they would cut from those lands. For fifty miles on each side of their limits however they buy from the settlers but those living further away naturally must necessarily find a market for their pulpwood. Again I say that the American market is the only place in which we can satisfactorily dispose of any pulpwood surplus we may have in any section of Canada. We will recall a time during the session of 1931 when the present Prime Minister stated that
1110	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
foreign countries have to buy raw materials from Canada. This is a statement which will not stand investigation, because we find that at. the next session a restriction was placed upon the export of pulpwood from Canada to the United States. That country was forced to buy most of its pulpwood from Russia. In the pulpwood industry there is competition from the Scandinavian countries, and, in a small measure from Germany. Those countries were in a position largely to supply the pulpwood requirements of the United States. I should like hon. members to realize that the pulpwood exported from northern Ontario is as far as the settler is concerned, a finished product, the same as wheat is said to be the finished product of the western farmer. He sells his wheat in its original form. When the domestic market has been saturated he must look to an outside market. That outside market, so far as pulpwood is concerned, cannot be found within the British Empire. Certainly, it has to be found within the United States, because if hon. members would consult the quarterly reports of the Department of Trade and Commerce for the years 1929, 1930, 1931 and 1932 they would find that not a single stick of pulpwood was shipped to any point within the empire outside of Canada.
I should like to read to the house some figures so that hon. members may realize the timber situation in Canada. The only market we have at the present time is the one that we have tried to shut off. It may be all very well to cut out unfair competition in manufactured products, but what are we to do with our pulpwood when in northern Ontario we have a big surplus. As I said a few moments ago, not a single cord of pulpwood finds its way to any country within the British Empire; all our pulpwood is sold in the United States. Our exports for the last few years, with their value in round figures, have been as follows:
Cords Value
1929	
1,406,000	$14,000,0001930	
1,345,000	14,000,0001931	
1,164,000	12,000,0001932	
832,924	8,600,000
That trade is dwindling now, and without trying to prophesy anything I am afraid that we in northern Ontario will have to pay the piper in connection with all these restrictions we are putting against foreign countries. This agreement may benefit the producers of copper and other articles, but certainly it will not help our settlers, those tens of thousands of people in the north who knew prosperity only a few years ago. The moment that the United States market is shut off, a number of those people in northern Ontario,

as well as others in different parts of Canada, will have to leave their holdings. So I hope the government and the Prime Minister will abandon this policy of trying to shut out the foreigner. Whether he is French, American or German, if we can sell our primary products to the foreigner at a profit, he is the man with whom we want to deal.
Hon. members should not say that we have been criticizing any increases in trade that may come out of these agreements. We are criticizing the restrictions which they impose. Surely it should be possible for this house to pause for a moment and consider the situation which exists in northern Ontario which, geographically speaking, is the central part of Canada. During the last ten years there has been an increase in population in my riding of over 300 per cent. That section of Ontario showed the greatest progress in regard to colonization of any part of Canada, and surely this is not the time to stultify those developments. I direct my appeal to the industrialists of this country. One of the finest markets they possess is the market in northern Ontario; only last year we bought and paid for goods to the value of over $100,000,000. Just consider for a moment what an industry such as the mill at Iroquois Falls means not only to that particular section but to the entire country. The same thing applies to the Spruce Falls company, which in the last few years has spent $28,000,000 in the vicinity of Kapuskasing. There is also a large sulphite mill at Smooth Rock Falls. If that market is destroyed our industrialists will have to look for other outside markets, and that is why I resent the suggestion that we should shut out the foreigner. That is a word which is not popular in my section of the country. Almost every dollar we get there, whether it comes from the mine or from the forest, comes from the United States. Only three years ago a solid trainload of newsprint left the mill at Iroquois Falls daily for the United States; to-day we have only a train and a half a week. So the foreigner is not so bad at times.
In northern Ontario we have regard for the problems of every part of Canada. We support what has been done for the maritimes and for the west; we cannot be accused of parochialism. But in dealing with such momentous questions as these trade treaties I believe every section of the country should be considered, and I believe I should bring up the problems of northern Ontario, despite the suggestion by the Prime Minister that we are wasting our time here. Every member pf this house received a mandate from his constituents, and I believe it is the duty of every

United, Kingdom
member to bring forward as forcefully and as frequently as possible, the problems concerning his part of the country. Local questions may become national problems, and in any case we are here to represent our people.
For a few moments I should like to deal with an industry which is suffering greatly at the present time. The other day I listened with close attention to the statement of the Prime Minister, in which he referred to the money invested in industrial concerns, particularly the textile industry, by people of small means, and said we should protect those investments. I sympathize with those people. We do not want to see the small investors suffer, but in Canada today we have an industry that is suffering greatly. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been invested in the newsprint industry, which has given employment to tens of thousands of people. This industry in part has done away with seasonal unemployment, which is a problem peculiar to Canada. We all know that when the summer season closes, people on farms, longshoremen, and people engaged in navigation and in different lines of construction are thrown out of employment. In the lumber and newsprint industry we have a means of balancing that situation, allowing those people to find employment in the forests at reasonable remuneration during the winter months.
I have said that hundreds of millions of dollars have been invested in that industry; today it is on its last legs. I have not time to discuss the merits or demerits of these different companies; I am making this plea to the government in the hope that they will consider the case of this industry, in which so many people are interested, big and small, working men and men of finance, economists and men of affairs. I say it is absolutely necessary to increase the outside market for newsprint. We supply more than fifty per cent of the newsprint requirements of the United States, in addition to the requirements of our own people. This means that we have been filling the newsprint demands of at least 65,000,000 people in the United States, but lately we have found our market becoming more and more restricted. There is no tariff barrier in regard to our newsprint, but we find a keener and keener competition from outside countries. I really believe-and I say this very seriously, and I do not think anyone can accuse me of extreme partisanship-that by means of these trade agreements we are going to jeopardize one of our greatest industries, through putting restrictions on our trade with foreign countries. If we keep the foreigner out of our market the foreigner is not going
to buy our commodities. I believe this will apply to pulpwood; I believe we will lose to an even greater extent the American market which is absolutely essential to the newsprint industry of Canada.
Now I should like to read an editorial which appeared in the Montreal Star of October 31, 1932, in order that the house may realize how serious the situation really is. The editorial
reads:
The attention of the governments of Canada, and especially the governments of the Dominion, of the province of Quebec and of the province of Ontario, should be called with all the urgency possible to an exceedingly serious situation which has suddenly developed in the already desperate newsprint field. The entire newsprint industry in this country is in immediate danger of complete ruin.
No more sensational statement could easily be made,-and yet it is entirely true. The ruin of the newsprint industry will not only wipe out one of the basic industries of Canada, but it will destroy investments to the value of hundreds of millions and drive thousands of workers into the already overcrowded breadlines. No government with the power to prevent it should dream of sitting still and permitting it to happen.
The facts are perfectly well known in inner circles. A drive, engineered in a foreign country, is being made with great skill and daring which will force Canadian newsprint companies into bankruptcy. Prices of newsprint are being lowered to rates below the cost of production, and some short-sighted Canadians have been foolish enough to help along the attack on Canadian solvency by falling victims to the wiles of the invaders.
When the Canadian companies have been killed off, what will happen? The foreign company will then possess a practical monopoly. Will it keep the rates below the cost of production? Or will it, having the Canadian consuming public in its power, raise rates not only to a highly profitable level, but also high enough to recoup the invading company for its "war expenses" during the campaign of devastation?
Canadians who are cooperating with the prospective monopolists are selling their birthright for a mess of very thin pottage. The pottage will not last long, but they will for a very long time mourn the losses they will suffer when competition is killed in Canada and Canadian prices will be fixed arbitrarily in New York.	.	.
This is surely a ease in which the interested governments should intervene at once. They must have remedies in their hands which could safeguard a Canadian industry and keep work for Canadian citizens. Premier Taschereau, Premier Bennett and Premier Henry should get together without delay. They should study the situation from top to bottom. They should see what can be done. And then they should do it.-and not stand on the order of their doing. There may not be many hours to spare. The danger is imminent.
As I have already pointed out, apart from the enormous amount of capital invested in that industry, there must be borne in mind the fact that during the coming winter tens
1112	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
of thousands of workers will be laid off from our forests owing to that deplorable situation. I am not talking politics when I mention this. It is outside the realm of politics, because, as the Montreal Star has pointed out, it is imperative that all the influential people of this country should get together to ascertain every possible way in which the industry may be saved. This is not the time or the place to discuss the shortcomings of the newsprint industry. No doubt in the past it has sinned in the direction of overproduction, with a saturated market, and in the matter of over-capitalization. The fact remains, however, that with the large market it has in Canada, and with its potential market in the United States, the industry can survive. I say, therefore, that this is the time for the government to show some consideration to the so-called foreigner. Of the capital invested in this industry a considerable portion has come from the United States. Indeed, in some branches of the industry the capital is almost entirely American. But let us remember, as one American said to me recently, that in the present turmoil brought about by our fiscal policy, amounting to a fiscal war, the Americans are not likely to buy our newsprint to any considerable extent. What we have at the moment is a fiscal war. We have talked about the hundred years of peace between ourselves and those whom we call our cousins to the south of us, but the policy which this country is now pursuing will not tend to minimize that condition; on the contrary, these treaties will' rather aggravate that fiscal warfare.
Hon. members in every section of this house should read some excellent articles written by Mr. Frederick Noad and A. R. Randall-Jones, which appeared in the Saturday Night of last month and last week. These articles will indicate the seriousness of the situation. And remember that what applies so forcibly to northern Ontario applies to every section of Canada. Take our shoe manufacturers, steel manufacturers and textile manufacturers: the best customer they have had in the last ten years is the northern section of Ontario. That being so, are we going to penalize that section of the country, the consumers and primary producers? But if you adopt a policy that will antagonize the foreigner, you will find that our production will be curtailed to a large extent, for ninety per cent of the production in our part of the country, at least, finds its way into the United States. That remark applies more particularly to the products of our mines, our

forests and rivers, and when we receive American dollars in return for what we export to that country, those dollars find their way into the home market for the commodities that we require. Even our gold, in most cases, found its way to the New York market. In my section of the country the only customer for our newsprint is the United States, and the same thing is true of pulp-wood, though not to the same extent. That is true also of our fisheries; most of the fish caught in our rivers finds its way to the American market.


An hon. MEMBER:: And lumber.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: We do not produce so much lumber; we have a limited production, but no doubt some of it also finds its way to the United States. That is why I am appealing for the northern section of Canada, northern Ontario: what is done to benefit that section of the country will be reflected in Canada as a whole. The returns which we in the northern section of Ontario receive for our exports to the United States are spent in the industrial centres of Canada in the form of hard cash for the commodities which we need. Our money goes to such centres as Toronto, Montreal, Quebec and Winnipeg.
I could go on indefinitely elaborating this point, but I think hon. members will get valuable information from some excellent articles written by Mr. Frederick Noad and Mr. A. R. Randall Jones, which appeared in Saturday Night of last week. They make an exhaustive study of the newsprint situation.
I know that the house is fully aware of the multitude of articles that could be produced from our forest resources-cellulose, wood pulp and paper board, and so forth-but some of our industries have not been doing as well as they might have done, having relied solely upon the production of newsprint. I believe that a good deal could be done to help the industry to get on its feet, if only the government would find a wider market for our newsprint production.
I will give you some statistics to show the necessity for outside markets apart from Great Britain. Take the item of pulpwood, for example. I would refer the house to the quarterly report, volume 32, for the year 1931-32, where it will be found that our total exports of wood pulp amounted in 1931 to
1,482,000	hundredweight, valued at $4,627,000. In 1932 wood pulp, sulphite, etc., were exported to the extent of 930,000 hundredweight, valued at $3,020,976. Here again we find that most of our production is shipped to the United States. We have a market in Great.

United Kingdom
Britain, but it has been a very limited one. No doubt -it will be enlarged, but to the extent that this is brought about by means of our trade agreement it will be an encroachment upon the American market and by its tariff restrictions against foreign countries as I have said, if we antagonize the foreigner and refuse altogether to trade with him we shall suffer in consequence. Who are some of our other customers? Belgium in 1931 imported 132,000 hundredweight valued at 8573,000, and in 1932 that market bought from us 196,000 hundredweight valued at $774,000. Under the present agreement we shall not be able to trade with Belgium; we are not supposed to deal with them and they are not supposed to buy from us. I emphasize this because it is important to the newer sections of this country which are producing primary commodities. I make the statement that these treaties will not help such sections of the country; the wood pulp industry will not receive any benefit whatever. Another country on the list of importers of our wood products is Japan. In 1931 they imported 337,094 hundredweights valued at $284,336, and in 1932, 321,746 hundredweight valued at $464,271. Japan is one foreign country that is buying our wood pulp, which is absolutely necessary to the maintenance of this great industry throughout Canada. Take wood pulp mechanically prepared. We find that our total exports in 1931 were 3,872,092 hundredweight valued at $5,540,973; and there again you find the United States importing a large quantity. They took from us 93,034 hundredweight valued at S254,000. As regards wood pulp, the major proportion of the total production went to foreign countries. Are we going to take a chance, therefore, with that trade which is absolutely essential to the economic life of Canada? Are we going to jeopardize the newer sections of this country? All the wooded areas of Canada must look to export fields for the marketing of their production in pulpwood, newsprint and sulphite. In the case of my own section of the country, we ship a few hundredweight daily to Cornwall but as I have pointed out, our main market is in the United States.
We in central Canada have been willing at all times to listen to the requests made by other provinces and we feel that the present government should consider the situation which will result through the loss of the American market. I stand absolutely foursquare as far as British preference is concerned. I supported as strongly as I possibly could the Dunning budget, which was the best measure for British preference ever presented
in this house. I am decidedly in favour of trade within the empire, but I am not in favour of shutting out the foreigner. Such a course will jeopardize the future not only of my section of Ontario, but of all the newer sections of Canada.
As members of this house we must face insinuations from the other side, but I resent the attempt to create the impression that we on this side are against trade within the empire. A country with the large surpluses which Canada has must have access to the British market and also to the export markets of the world and not only to restricted markets. \\ e are absolutely in agreement that the channels of trade should become wider and wider rather than being restricted. I have followed the retail business for a number of years and I think that what applies to my business applies to all of northern Ontario. The course I have followed has been to sell Canadian goods first, then British goods and, lastly, foreign goods.
This matter should be kept out of the political arena, but I do not think we should 'be denied an opportunity of discussion. At the beginning of the present session some hon. *members opposite were inclined to think that We should not say anything for or against these agreements. Hon. members of this house have received a mandate from the people and it is their duty to bring to the attention of the country such local matters as may be important and which may in turn become national. I take part in this discussion without reluctance because I feel it my duty to do so regardless of what hon. members opposite may say. I deplore the statement made last Week by the right hon. the Prime Minister to the effect that too much time has been taken up by members of the opposition. The members of the opposition have never prevented any hon. member on the government side from speaking his mind. A challenge has been thrown down to the government by my right hon. leader and by the former Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) for a thorough discussion on this matter. I feel it 'my right to bring to the attention of the house the anomaly which exists at the present 'time in my section of the country and which Will be aggravated by the present treaty.
The people in the great republic to the south have recently expressed their mind in no uncertain terms, and although I do not wish to pose as a prophet, I believe that the great channels of trade in that country will become more easily accessible to us. However, under present conditions it would be
1114	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
almost impossible for this administration to enter into negotiations with the government in Washington. The president-elect of the United States has made reference to the tariff restrictions which have proved prejudicial to his country, and these treaties increase further those barriers. Hon. friends opposite on several occasions have thrown up to us the fact that we did nothing when the United States erected tariff walls against us, but we felt that we should not interfere with that country. We do not want the present government to interfere with the domestic policies of the United States, but I am sure that the clear mandate expressed on November 8 will open up the trade channels into that country. The fact that Canada is trying to exclude the foreigner will make it all the harder for this country.
We are in a wonderful geographical position as far as the United States is concerned. That other great member of the British Empire, Australia, would give almost anything to be closer to the American market. Its market is right within our reach, and yet we are erecting further barriers against it. I will admit that that country has erected barriers against our products, but in spite of those barriers the Canadian producer, such as the dairyman, has been able to find a market in the United States. I do not wish to prophesy, but I think I am safe in saying that within two years at least Washington will be willing to lower the tariff walls which have been the cause of friction between our two countries. Last summer I made a visit to the United States and I found that the showing of a Canadian dollar bill or the mention of the word "Canada" was considered to be almost an insult. This feeling has arisen because of the tariff walls between the two countries and for no other reason. Two years ago we had a wonderful celebration commemorating one hundred years of peace between the two countries, but actually there is no peace. Because of the desire for protective tariffs, all kinds of complications have arisen between the two countries.
My particular part of the country is not directly concerned with the steel and other industries, but we are willing to help them in their legitimate requests. The large industrial centres should give attention to the problems which confront the newer sections which are opening up civilization and creating a heritage which will be of immense benefit to the country as a whole, and to the British Empire.


Finlay MacDonald: I have no desire to limit the discussion, but I must call the attention of the committee to the fact that article 3 deals

simply with the continuation of the ten per cent duty on certain articles. While I hesitated to stop the hon. member, I think he should relate his remarks to the present schedule.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I greatly appreciate your courtesy, sir, but I simply followed the hon. member for West Kootenay (Mr. Esling) who dealt with lumber. I understand that pulp-wood and newsprint would come under that heading.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The committee must have been impressed by the sincerity of the hon. member in advocating the consideration of the grievances of his own district, but I am sure he will not expect me to deal.with the many points he brought up. I desire, however, to deal with one or two matters mentioned by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) and to make clear, as far as I am able to do so, the purpose of article 3.
It will be recalled the suggestion was made by the right hon. gentleman, to which agreement was given, that the treaty should be taken up article by article, and I intend to try to keep my present remarks within the bounds of this article. It deals with the extension of the admission of goods from Canada and from the other dominions free into Great Britain under the privileges or powers of the Import Duties Act of Great Britain, which free entry would have ended on November 15 had it not been for action taken in the negotiating of these treaties. In order that I may again point out to the committee that both the right hon. gentleman and ourselves are clear on that phase of the matter, I shall quote what the right hon. gentleman said a few months ago as reported in Hansard of the first session of 1932. He said then in very clear and, I think, concise terms what his estimate of the situation was and with which I very largely if not wholly agree. I quote'his words as follows:
I suppose hon. gentlemen opposite are familiar with the fact, that, while Great Britain has a twenty per cent tariff as against foreign nations there is a provision that that tariff does not come into effect, so far as the dominions are concerned, until the fifteenth of November next.
That is tomorrow.
But on the fifteenth of November, unless in the meantime an arrangement has been made which is satisfactory to Great Britain, that twenty per cent tariff as matters now stand will apply against Canada as well as against foreign countries. In what position will we then be in regard-to our markets in Great Britain? Great Britain has kept her bargaining power very much in reserve but it is none the less very real. She has said that nothing will take place, so far as the dominions are concerned, until

United Kingdom
the fifteenth of November, but, as I understand tile provisions of the British import duties, this twenty per cent tariff will then become applicable against Canada and the other dominions, subject to any special arrangements or modifications that may be made at the Imperial conference. That is a very serious thing. Nothing could be more so.
I quite agree with the right hon. gentleman that that is a correct interpretation of the Import Duties Act, and in order that it may be made clear to hon. members, I shall quote from section 4, subsection 2 of the Import Duties Act, 1932, of Great Britain. This is referring now to the very subject under discussion:
In the case of goods which are shown to the satisfaction of the commissioners to have been consigned from any part of the British Empire and grown, produced or manufactured in any country to which this section applies, neither the general ad valorem nor any additional duty shall be chargeable until the fifteenth day of November, 1932, or if a later date is fixed for the purpose of this section by resolution of the Commons House of Parliament either generally or as respects any particular country then, in cases to which the resolution applies, until that later date.
In other words, the right hon. gentleman is quite correct in his statement. The Import Duties Act allowed goods from Canada to enter free prior to November 15 and no longer.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Unless an
arrangement were made.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Unless, as the right hon.
gentleman very properly says, modifications or special arrangements were made at the imperial conference. At the conference provision was made under article 3 for continuance of admission of these goods free for the period of the treaty, namely five years. That is virtually all that there is in article 3. I do not wish to labour the point, but I trust that I have made it clear. I find myself very happily in entire accord with the interpretation of it given by the right hon. gentleman himself.
To digress now to another subject, my right hon. friend asked me a question and I promised to bring certain information before the committee and to his attention. The other day he asked me what the duties were as suggested at the imperial conference of 1923 in relation to the items in schedules B and C of this agreement. I am happy to be in a position to give to the right hon. gentleman the suggested duties of the conference of 1923 and, alongside them, the duties suggested in this agreement. They are as follows:
-	Resolution at Imperial Economic Conference, 1923	Trade Agreement signed at Ottawa, 1932
	Nil	3d. per bushel 15s. per cwt. 15% ad valorem 4s. 6d. per cwt. 4s. 6d. per cwt. 3s. 6d. per cwt. plus sugar duty 10s. 6d. per cwt. Is. 2d. to 2s. Id. per dozen 5s. per cwt. plus preference on sugar content. 2d. per lb. 10% ad valorem 10% ad valorem *10% ad valorem 10% ad valorem (all) 10% ad valorem 10% ad valorem 10% ad valorem
	Nil	
	Nil	
	5s. per cwt. Nil	
		
	5s. per cwt. plus sugar duty 10s. 6d. per cwt. Nil	
Dried fruit, viz., raisins, figs, plums, prunes			
	Nil	
Copper, unwrought, refined or not, in ingots, bars, blocks, slabs,	Nil	
	Nil	
	Nil	
	10s. per cwt. 10s. per cwt. (on lobster, crayfish, and crabs.) Nil	
		
		
	Nil	
	Nil	
		
On c.i.f. value of canned salmon imported from Canada into United Kingdom during 1930 (latest available statistics) 10% ad valorem would be the equivalent of 9-7 shillings per cwt.
The right hon. gentleman asked me also another question: The tariff of the United Kingdom on foreign goods in schedules B and C of this trade agreement with Canada,
first, before Import Duties Act of 1932 was passed; second, under that act, and, third, in consequence of the new trade agreement. The information is as follows:
1116	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
Tariff of United Kingdom on Foreign Goods in Schedule B and C of Trade Agreement with Canada.
(1) Before Import Duties Act of 1932; (2) Under that Act; (3) In Consequence of New Trade Agreement.
(All these goods were duty free and continue duty free when imported from Canada, except as regards sugar content in sweetened goods.)
Goods	Tariff on foreign goods before Import Duties Act, 1932	Tariff on foreign goods under Import Duties Act, March 1, 1932	Preference margin against foreign goods guaranteed under trade agreement signed August 20, 1932Wheat (grain)	Schedule B Free	Free	3d. per bushelFree	10% ad valorem	15s. per cwt.Cheese	Free	10% ad valorem	15% ad valoremApples raw (except cider apples)	Free	10% ad valorem	4s. 6d. per cwt.Pears, raw	Free	10% ad valorem	4s. 6d. per cwt.Apples, eanned	Free except sugar	10% ad valorem	3s. 6d. per cwt.duty	but not less than	plus sugar prefer-Dried fruits, viz., raisins, plums, prunes, figs.	7s. per cwt.	sugar duty; 25% ad valorem on fruit preserved without sugar by chemicals or artificial heat. (Previous duty not	ence. 10s. 6 per cwt.Eggs in shell	Free	affected) 10% ad valorem	Is. 2d. to 2s. Id.Condensed milk, whole sweetened	Duty on sugar con-	Duty on sugar con-	per dozen. 5s. per cwt. plustent (5s. 4d. per	tent plus 10%; or	sugar preference.Copper, unwrought, refined or not, in ingots, bars, blocks, slabs, cakes, rods	cwt. on sweetened milk, less if only slightly sweetened.) Free	if higher, total duty of 20%. Free	2d. per lb.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Am I not right in saying that according to what the minister has just read Great Britain in 1923 was prepared to give a higher preference on apples than was obtained at the recent conference?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I should have added in
connection with the first schedule which I read that none of these duties was realized; they were suggested but never came into effect.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: They were
agreed to by the British government but the British parliament did not subsequently ratify them.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The British parliament?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: So far as Canada was concerned nothing was secured. On apples for instance in 1923 five shillings was asked and not secured. In 1932 four shillings and sixpence was asked and not secured.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: They were
secured in both cases so far as the British government was concerned, but in Great Britain parliament did not subsequently enact the preferences proposed in 1923.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I shall not quibble. The duties did not come into force and never were enjoyed.


Albert Edward Munn: Lumber has been mentioned by the hon. member for West Kootenay (Mr. Esling), and other members. Here is the situation as I see it as a lumberman. I do not think the lumbermen of Canada really appreciate the significance of the breakers that are ahead. A wonderful industry has been developed here in Canada, not because we had a big market overseas; for the United States has always been our big market as long as I can remember, and I have been in the lumber business for a long time. But the building up of their tariff wall has put us in a position where the bulk of the lumber business in Canada is already bankrupt, and now by this agreement we have nothing to offer to the United States if there was a chance of reciprocity. If you keep on building up our wall, eventually the United States may shut out our pulpwood, as the hon. member for North Timiskaming (Mr. Bradette), suggested. At present the United States let our shingles in free, but if they put a duty on shingles our shingle industry would go out of business.
As regards the ten per cent preference on lumber under this agreement, there may be

United Kingdom
isolated cases where some benefits may arise, but generally speaking it is not going to help us any. Practically the only lumber which Great Britain buys from us in British Columbia are big timbers and clears and aeroplane spruce which they cannot get anywhere else in the world, and that is they are buying it from us. The freight on that to Great Britain is approximately $14 a thousand, and as I said, they buy it from us because they cannot get it anywhere else. When we are producing that, we are producing at the same time a big percentage of low grade cuts that we cannot afford to ship to the old country and which we have to market in Canada or in the United States as we have been doing for many, many years. If we had a twenty per cent preference we might get some of that into Great Britain, but not with a ten per cent preference and a freight rate of approximately $14 as against the freight rate from Scandinavian countries of $7. There is a difference in favour of the Scandinavian countries of $7, and I would say that we would have to get a preference of twenty per cent for our lumber to put us on an even keel with the Scandinavian countries with their $7 freight rate. Our average price on lumber would be approximately $30. That would leave an advantage to the Scandinavian countries of $4 a thousand. It is a simple mathematical and geographical problem.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Will my hon. friend permit me a question? Is he aware that Great Britain figures its duty c.i.f. delivered?


Albert Edward Munn: Yes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: With lumber at the very
low price at which it is today, $10 or $12 or $14 a thousand, and sometimes less, would that not give you an advantage of over twenty per cent even with the ten per cent preference?


Alan Webster Neill: But the freight rate from
Scandinavia is not $14.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Quite true, but in Great Britain the duty is imposed on all the incidental charges, commissions, port dues, and so forth. I am not indulging in mere supposition because this is in the act. Subsection 1 of section 15 of the Import Duties Act reads:
The value of any imported goods for the purposes of this act shall be taken to be the price which an importer would give for the goods on a purchase in the open market if the goods were delivered to him at the port of importation, freight, insurance, commission and all other costs, charges and expenses incidental to the purchase and delivery at that port (except any duties of customs) having been paid, and duty shall be paid on that value as fixed by the commissioners.
That means that every conceivable charge including freight, insurance, commission and everything else is included when calculating the duty, which would make the preference approximately twenty per cent. It is rather disturbing, to say the least, that my hon. friend should make light of this preference and say it is worthless.


Albert Edward Munn: It is a question of mathematics, of course, but even if the minister is correct-[DOT]


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am correct, because
that is the law.


Albert Edward Munn: -it would make very little difference, only 70 cents, and instead of the advantage of the Scandinavian countries being $4, it would be $3.30.
I wanted to say a word or two about copper before six o'clock. In my riding we have the largest copper mine in the British Empire. If this agreement goes through, my opinion is that that copper mine is going to be put out of business until such time as they can build a smelter. At the present time they ship their concentrates to Tacoma, where they are refined. The Minister of Trade and Commerce is familiar with the situation, and if I am wrong I should like to be corrected. Unless the government can arrange that these concentrates can be refined in Tacoma in bond and the refined copper then shipped on to Great Britain and enter free of duty, this mine will be put out of business. If the material does not go forward in bond, it gets no preference. The difficulty, of course, could be overcome by building a smelter, but at a time like this the company should not be required to do that. My opinion, I repeat, is that unless it can be arranged that this stuff can be smelted at Tacoma and sent on in bond to Great Britain the mine will be put out of business, and it is one of the biggest copper mines in the world.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The hon. member suggests we are by this agreement putting the Howe Sound Copper Mining Company out of business.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: He did not say that.


Albert Edward Munn: That would be so if they did not have the privilege of having it shipped.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is, if this agreement goes through as it is, we are putting the Howe Sound Copper Mining Company out of business.


Albert Edward Munn: Absolutely.
1118	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements


Henry Herbert Stevens: The hem. member has made himself perfectly clear. In the first place, the passing or the non-passing of this agreement does not affect to the extent of one iota the present status of the Howe Sound Copper Mining Company. Let us have that clear.


Albert Edward Munn: But they have to pay four cents per pound duty.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I will come to the four cents in a moment. It does not alter the status of the company one iota. The point my 'hon. friend is making, and for which I wish to thank him-because it is rather refreshing- is that the advantages of this agreement so far as copper is concerned are so valuable that if the Howe Sound Copper Mining Company finds itself unable to avail itself of them, its business in competition with other firms will be seriously affected.
There are two big producers in British Columbia, at Anyox and Howe Sound. I do not believe the Trail smelters are smelting much copper just now. At Anyox the copper is reduced to a blister copper condition. That mine will enjoy the full four-cent preference; it will have full enjoyment of the preference which my hon. friend has now assured us is of very great value, and for which information I thank him. They will receive the 'benefit because they ship that blister copper to Tacoma where it is refined, and it goes on to 'Great Britain. Under the British regulations copper treated in that way is admitted free. On the other hand the Howe Sound Copper Mining Company, which produces copper concentrates which in turn are shipped to Tacoma, and there smelted and refined, will not enjoy the benefits of the British regulations. Because they are not smelting in Canada they do not receive the benefit for which provision is made in the agreement. Let us have this clear: We are not in any way interfering with the business of the Howe Sound Copper Mining Company. The only point is that that company 'by its process of smelting its ores in Tacoma is unable to qualify for the preference.
Mr. MUN'N: The minister is placing a duty, or asking Great Britain to place a duty, on their product. They are placed in that position. I am not criticizing, but I am asking whether it would not be possible to have the regulation changed so that they would not be penalized.


Henry Herbert Stevens: There are ways in which it could be done. For instance, the Howe Sound Copper Mining Company could have a smelter in British Columbia.


Albert Edward Munn: Why ask them to go to that expense at a time like this?


Henry Herbert Stevens: And, by the way, I think they ought to have had one in British Columbia years ago. I have always held that opinion, and stated it clearly. The hon. member who defeated me so vigorously will recall that he, I and others have taken the stand that the smelting should have been done in British Columbia.


William Daum Euler: What is the other way?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The other way is that they might make an arrangement with the Anyox smelters so that concentrates could be shipped to Anyox. I do not think the cost of shipment to Anyox would be much greater than shipment to Tacoma. The chief cost of moving the goods is in loading and unloading. I believe in one instance the distance would be about five hundred miles north, whereas in the other it would be about one hundred and sixty miles south.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Albert Edward Munn: Before recess I was speaking of the copper situation as it affects British Columbia, with especial reference to the Howe Sound Copper Mining Company, which is located in North Vancouver. So that I will not be misunderstood let me repeat that my question was whether it would be possible for this company to continue to have its concentrates refined in bond at Tacoma, where they have been refined for the last twenty years, and then get access to the British market under the preference. If that cannot be done it puts the company in this position: If they continue shipping to Tacoma, when the copper is sent to Great Britain it will have to pay the duty. This is the biggest copper mine in the British Empire. It might be said that they should build a smelter of their own. We should be very glad to see them do so; we hope that some day they will build a smelter, but we do not think it would be fair to ask them to undertake a capital expenditure of that magnitude at this time. I know the government want to help that industry, and I should like to know if it would be possible to extend to that company the privilege of having those concentrates smelted in Tacoma, and have the copper enter the British market under this preference.

United Kingdom


Alan Webster Neill: I should like, if I may, to
revert for a moment to the remarks made this afternoon by the hon. member for West Kootenay (Mr. Esling). He went a long distance out of his way, and flew over mountain ranges and valleys to attack the very innocent members from the coast and northern British Columbia. We have not done anything to him, but he saw fit to deal with our local matters and local conditions in connection with which he very speedily showed his ignorance. I think if we had time to go into his economics we would find that he was just as unsound there as he was hazy in his geography.
The hon. member exhausted almost all the adjectives and many of the adverbs in the English language in expressing his surprise and almost horror that certain members from the coast of British Columbia should have voted against this treaty which, by the way, was not under discussion at the time, since we were discussing article 3. I am going to try to confine myself to a discussion of that article. The hon. member said it was incredible that we should vote against the treaty. He could not grasp it; he could not understand it; he could not conceive how we came to do it. I am glad to say, Mr. Chairman, that I am not responsible for his failure to achieve in any of these lines; it is not my fault. Of course I sympathize with him if he is in such a condition of mental or spiritual impotence that he cannot grasp the situation, but it is nothing to me.
With regard to lumber, which is mentioned here, it is true that under the treaty we get a ten per cent preference, together with an additional preference of at least six or seven per cent which comes about by reason of the exchange situation. Under those circumstances we have a good chance to compete with the United States-and the United States only- in the United Kingdom market. But we cannot compete with Norway where the exchange is against us and that is the country with which we want to compete. The hon. member for North Vancouver set the difference between Norwegian and Canadian prices at $4 per thousand in favour of Britain buying from Norway. I have figured it out very closely, and I make it $3 in favour of Norway as against Canada. I am leaving out and saying nothing about the heavy freight rate we must pay as compared with the freight rate from Norway. Owing to the tariff war with the United States in which we find ourselves engaged-I am not saying anything about who is to blame, though the Americans
started it-we have lost a trade in the northwestern states of the union which the Prime Minister himself estimated at $39,000,000 a year. We have lost that trade because of the $4 duty imposed by the United States, and in return we hope to gain a portion-and it will be only a share-of the British market. I have figured out, from the figures given by the Prime Minister, that this market is worth at most $4,000,000 a year, so you could hardly expect us to throw our hats in the air in our appreciation of a condition by which we lose a trade worth $39,000,000 and get in return a more or less dubious chance of gaining a share, or even the whole, of a $4,000,000 market.
Again, the hon. member stated that we were to blame because we voted against the principle of this treaty before we knew the details. I really cannot agree with him there. The right hon. Prime Minister spoke on October 12, and filled something more than one hundred columns of Hansard with his explanation of these treaties. The right hon. gentleman does understand and can explain these things; he did not mix up refined copper and concentrates, or Comox-Alberni and Kootenay. He knows what he is talking about; he explained these matters lucidly and at great length, and before that the treaties had been laid on the table. I spoke on October 25. I am not going to take time to rehash what I said then; if the hon. member for West Kootenay would like to have it I shall be glad to send him a printed copy of what I said, which he can carry around with him and dive into when opportunity offers, in early morning, at sunny noon or dewy eve. He will be able to look it over at his leisure, and perhaps when he sees what I really did say he will come aTound and do the prodigal son act.
I spoke thirteen days after the Prime Minister explained the matter, and in the meantime I studied the question very carefully. The only member from British Columbia who really has a right to be enthusiastic over this treaty is the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Stirling). It certainly does affect his constituents very favourably, and if I were in his position I would have no hesitation in supporting it. The other members, however, simply spoke in the stereotyped political manner we hear every day of every session. Even the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser), generally so alert of mind and ready of tongue, had to use an alien language in order to disguise the paucity of his defence.
I said before that I carefully studied this
1120	COMMONS
Imperial C(inference-Trade Agreements
question, and I repeat that statement. With the exception of the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) who shares with me this desk and the responsibility of being independent, there is no one in this house who has greater occasion to study these things before voting on them than I have. I have nothing to gain by voting against this measure and nothing to lose by voting for it. Possibly there might be supposed to be some vague advantage in supporting the government, but the people to whom I am responsible are the people who elected me and sent me here, and I must be very careful in their interests when I vote. They are enlightened people, and now they are taking a still more careful view of the situation and the way I look after their interests here. In addition to that, I have to be particularly careful for another reason. Either last year or the year before I was mentally overcome, apparently, and voted in support of a government measure. It was rather an important measure; I studied it carefully and came to the conclusion that the government were right. I thought the Liberal party, the official opposition, were exaggerating the possible evil effects of the measure, and I did not think the government were likely to act as the opposition suggested. I supported the government on that occasion and I thought they were right then. I am sorry to say, however, that the way in which the measure was used-indeed I can truthfully say abused- was so harsh, extreme and drastic that I have since regretted having voted for it, and now when I go home I do not say very much about having supported it.
There was another matter which the hon. gentleman dealt with when he was splashing around in words just as a child splashes around in a bath. I caught this expression, which I wrote down. He said that he found that other members from British Columbia and myself were opposing this article and schedule now before us. Why should I oppose it, as he says. Who said I was going to? Let me read it:
His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom undertake that the general ad valorem duty of ten per cent imposed by section 1 of the Import Duties Act, 1932, on the foreign goods specified in schedule C shaill not be reduced except with the consent of His Majesty's government in Canada.
Schedule C narrates half a dozen items. So far as it goes that is a good section and the hon. member for West Kootenay, bless his little heart, need not worry; I will not vote against him or the government. I am going to vote for this, not because he has con-

vinced me by his denunciation or for any reason of that kind. He is a fellow British Columbian and I should not like to let him down, but he need not worry. He has worked up a storm in a teacup, but I can assure him that I will vote for article 3 and schedule C.


Mr. POWER:: Will the minister tell us whether or not an arrangement has been entered into between the asbestos manufacturers in England and the asbestos producers of Canada in connection with the conference.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Not that I know of.


Charles Gavan Power: I am sure the minister is familiar with the situation with respect to asbestos. I am informed that the asbestos industry in Great Britain and to a certain extent in continental Europe is controlled by a trust or a cartel the head of which is the British firm of Newall, Turner & Company. This firm, in addition to manufacturing asbestos products, also owns and controls asbestos mines in Rhodesia. The producers of asbestos, the manufacturers, are able to produce this product at, I am informed, something like a shilling a day, which is what they pay their Kaffir labour. Now, Rhodesia, enjoys absolutely the same preference as we do. My information, further, is to the effect that in spite of this ten per cent preference, which existed prior to the conference, we have not been able to ship any of this mineral into the British market, and in view of the fact that the British manufacturer is the proprietor of mines in Rhodesia, which country enjoys the same preference as we do, it appears altogether unlikely that any benefit whatsoever will be derived by the Canadian producers of asbestos. I should be very glad if the minister could give me information on that point.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend, I know, is usually pretty well informed oh matters he brings forward. I am not able either to confirm or to deny his statement in regard to this *matter.


Charles Gavan Power: I should have thought that before entering into a treaty of which we have heard so much and which was announced in the newspapers as a treaty that would save a number of our industries, the minister representing the government would at least have obtained some information regarding our prospects of enlarging our trade in this mineral in the United Kingdom market. However, if there is nothing further to be said on the matter, I am prepared to drop it.

United Kingdom


Henry Herbert Stevens: When my hon. friend
speaks about an agreement between the Canadian asbestos interests and the members of what he alleges to be a cartel-


Charles Gavan Power: I was under the impression
that negotiations had been entered into between these two groups.


Henry Herbert Stevens: If there were any such
negotiations it was a private matter which for the moment does not come under our cognizance. We do get a preference of ten per cent in the British market-


Charles Gavan Power: So does Rhodesia.


Henry Herbert Stevens: And so does Rhodesia,
yes. Of course, we could not complain about Southern Rhodesia getting a preference in the British market as well as ourselves; there is no complaint on that score. We are also aware, of course, that in common with many other products, there has been in this instance severe competition from Russian sources. We are shipping some asbestos to Great Britain, but most of our asbestos has gone not to Great Britain but rather to the United States.


Charles Gavan Power: What quantity do we ship
to the United Kingdom?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The imports into the
United Kingdom for the calendar year 1930 are, in long tons:
Long
tons
Soviet Union	  577
Italy	 127
United States	 66
Other foreign countries	 266
This gives a total import from foreign sources of 1,033 tons. Then there are imports from the following sources:
Long
tons
Cyprus	 1,400
Union of South	Africa	 6,787
Rhodesia	 9,252
Bechuanaland	 341
Canada	 3,636
Other British countries	 209
In other words, there is a total import of 21,625 long tons from empire sources as against 1,033 from foreign sources.


Charles Gavan Power: It would appear that the
only way in which we could improve our position would be to take tonnage from other empire sources. Am I right-with the exception of the odd thousand tons?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Except in this regard.
These figures are for 1930 and the Russian source of supply was just commencing to 53719-71
develop. Their exports might be expected to increase in the future, so that we have protection against that foreign competition to the extent of ten per cent.


Charles Gavan Power: I speak again subject to
correction, but I understated that the British cartel which I mentioned were forced by the Russians to take a larger proportion of their output, but they did not think it desirable to take any more from Canada.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I cannot confirm that
statement.


Charles Gavan Power: I want to say a word
especially with respect to the timber provisions contained in schedule C, but I should also like before I begin my observations to say that if the expectations of those Who hoped that the timber trade would be rehabilitated by this conference and by these trade agreements were not realized, I cannot find that we should blame either this government or the British government, and least of all the Canadian Lumbermen's Association and their chairman, the hon. member for East Algoma (Mr. Nicholson), who during all the time of the conference devoted himself to the interests of the trade which he was asked to represent, and gave good and valuable service. These hopes and expectations were not realized, but I am sure no one can blame him for that.
Possibly I would not have taken part in this debate had it not been for an incident which occurred about ten days ago. I was listening to the radio in an endeavour to obtain some news of the American elections when I heard a voice which seemed to be strangely familiar, although somewhat more assured than usual, that of the Solicitor General (Mr. Dupre). He was referring to the conference, and he made the statement that there had been a conspiracy in that the Hon. Mr. Taschereau had sent his observers to Ottawa who had seen the right hon. the Prime Minister every day. The Solicitor General then went on to say in a sarcastic manner that the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) had prayed for the success of the conference. Apparently this was considered by his followers to be more or less of a joke. I do not know whether or not the Solicitor General meant that the hon. member was not in the habit of praying, but in any case his remarks were received with loud applause. As I said before, I would not have paid much attention to this debate had it not been for the fact that names other than my own were brought into the discussion.

1122	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
With respect to the first accusation, I should like to say to the Solicitor General that I did not see the Prime Minister every day. If he does not believe me, he can ask the Prime Minister.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member did
call to see me with a group.


Charles Gavan Power: Exactly, and I was coming
to that; but the accusation is that I saw the Prime Minister every day. The Prime Minister knows that I did not see him every day, that I saw him with a group, and this is the group with whom I must have conspired. Will the Prime Minister or any hon. member of this house say that I could have conspired with such an open, jovial, friendly gentleman as the Hon. Mr. Tolmie, Premier of British Columbia? That gentleman was present, as was the Hon. Colonel Harrington, the Premier of Nova Scotia. Surely the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) will admit that that gentleman is no plotter. I think it will be admitted that the same applies to the Hon. Mr. Richards, the Premier of New Brunswick, who was also present, as well as Mr. Finlayson, the Minister of Lands and Forests of Ontario. Will any hon. member say that the hon. member for East Algoma is a beetle-browed Guy Fawkes who would conspire against this government? Those are the people with whom I was associated, those are the people with whom I saw the Prime Minister. I suggest to the Solicitor General that he does not have to be any more ridiculous or silly than he is obliged to be in following the dictates of whoever gives hirri his orders.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That observation might
be applied to the hon. gentleman himself in connection with the conference.


Charles Gavan Power: I might say to the Solicitor General that I purposely refrained from taking any part in the discussion until that incident occurred, because I was under the impression that perhaps owing to the position I had occupied I might be considered as proceeding not quite within the bounds of propriety. More than that, I had a report to make to the government of the province and I deliberately kept that back, it being of a semi-official character, in order that it might not be used in this debate. In case it was intended that the reference to prayers and the hope that the conference would be a success applied to myself, I may say to the Solicitor General that a little inquiry upon his part would have led him to the conclusion that both personally and professionally I had at

least as much interest in the success of the rehabilitation of the timber trade as anyone in this house.
Having said this, I shall now go on to the discussion of the schedule itself. I do not know whether or not hon. members of the house are aware of the fact that prior to the conference the Canadian Lumbermen's Association spent many months in the preparation of a brief, at once exhaustive and instructive. New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, the province of Quebec and I think Ontario and British Columbia also filed briefs for the information of the Canadian government. The subject was very well canvassed and I have not the slightest doubt that the members of the Canadian delegation were fully informed as to the position of the lumber trade and what it expected to achieve out of the conference.
An unofficial British delegation, representing the timber trade, was also present. This delegation could be divided into two groups: one which afterwards came to be known as the pro-Russian, the other being in opposition to the first. This so-called pro-Russian group appeared to be the more important from the standpoint of the interests which it represented, and on account of the fact that it gave the impression that the timber trades federation of Great Britain was behind it. The members of this group could not by any means be accused of being bolshevik or communistic; they were members of firms whose names were household words in Canada at the time of my boyhood. These men represented such firms as Churchill, Sims and Company; Farnsworth and Jardine, and Foy, Morgan and Company, which are known for their integrity and honesty, and I am convinced that none of these men cherished any radical feelings or sentiments. They represented a group which had made arrangements with the soviet government to control the importation of timber into the United Kingdom. In 1929, or perhaps in 1928, Russian timber was pouring into England at distressed prices. There appeared to be no price bottom and as a means of self-protection this group, composed of some of the most prominent merchants in Great Britain, approached the Russian government with the idea of controlling these importations and purchasing in bulk the quantity which Russia would place on the British market. An arrangement was arrived at, and I believe I am correct when I say that something like 960.000,000 feet of Russian timber were allotted to this trust, cartel or whatever you like to call it. These gentlemen obtained very favourable terms from the Russian gov-

United Kingdom
ernment, among other things a guarantee against any fall in price. This clause in their contract is what is known as the "fall" clause. It was quoted in this house by the hon. member for East Algoma and it is not necessary for me to repeat it. Its provision was simply this, that if any competitor sold timber at a price lower than that fixed by the Russian government with the advice of British purchasers, those British purchasers were at liberty to drop the price to meet almost any other competition.
Apart from this group, there was another one composed largely of men who either could not or would not join, and I think one at least refused to join, in the association formed for the purchase of Russian timber. This second group was strongly in favour of encouraging trade with Canada, and in memoranda which they submitted they urged upon the conference that a twenty per cent preference be given to Canadian timber. Negotiations were held between the interested parties, and it was not long before it was discovered that there was no possibility of any amicable arrangement being entered into between Canadian producers of lumber and the group which I have called the pro-Russian. The Canadian lumbermen then proceeded to carry on their negotiations alone. The submission of the Canadian lumbermen has, I think, already been given to the house by the hon. member for East Algoma, but- perhaps the house will bear with me if I repeat it.


The CHAIRMAN:: Is the hon. member dealing with schedule C or D?


Charles Gavan Power: I am talking about timber. Schedule C refers to timber of all kinds imported into the United Kingdom in substantial quantities.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: That is all right.


Charles Gavan Power: The Canadian lumber industry made four requests; first, an embargo against Russian lumber going into the United Kingdom; second, a twenty per cent tariff preference in favour of empire lumber; third, a quota of 25 to 33i per cent of the anticipated United Kingdom lumber imports to be assigned to empire imports; fourth, the balance of anticipated United Kingdom lumber imports to be divided in definitely stated proportions amongst non-empire suppliers. I propose to deal with the Russian embargo last, because it will probably -take a little more time than the others. As regards the twenty per cent tariff preference in favour of empire lumber, it was pretty freely stated during the conference, and I think it was the 53719-71J
opinion of most of those who have anything to do with the timber trade, that unless there is this twenty per cent preference-that is the ten per cent which Canada enjoyed prior to the conference, plus another ten per cent- this country cannot compete in -the United Kingdom market with Scandinavian, Latvian and Esthonian wood of the same quality. The rates of wages are lower in those countries; men are working in the woods for fifty cents a day in Finland, Latvia and Esthonia. I am sorry to say at this juncture that possibly the low rate of wages may apply also to some parts of this country. Freight rates from those countries are lower and, moreover, British importers are to a large extent financially interested in Scandinavian mills.
With respect to the third request, namely that a quota of 25 to 33i per cent of -the anticipated LTnited Kingdom imports be assigned to empire imports, it was stated that unless the United Kingdom definitely set aside a share of the market for empire woods, which, in so far as softwoods are concerned, means Canadian woods, the market would be flooded by the cheaper goods produced on a much lower wage scale in the northern European countries. It was suggested that this quota should begin at 25 per cent of the anticipated market of 2,500,000,000 board measure and rise to 33i per cent with increasing Canadian capacity to serve the market.
As regards the fourth request, that is the balance of anticipated United Kingdom lumber imports to be divided in definitely stated proportions among non-empire suppliers, may I say in passing I am not surprised that this particular request was refused. I do not know that the principle involved in it was a good one. The principle is that Canada would have asked Great Britain to make, or would have insisted on her making, certain arrangements with other countries. Great Britain at out request, had this been granted, would have been forced to limit her imports from the other countries of northern Europe, and I am not sure that the principle involved in this is one that many of us would support. These were -the four requests. I regret to say that not one of them has been granted as a result of the imperial conference.
I now come to the fourth request: the embargo against Russia. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, and that of the committee, I feel that I shall have to refer to article 21, which is connected with schedule C and article
3.	It is the article which is supposed to cover the Russian embargo. Article 21 of the trade agreement reads:
1124	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
This agreement is made on the express condition that, if either government is satisfied that any preferences hereby granted in respect of any particular class of commodities are likely to be frustrated in whole or in part by reason of the creation or maintenance directly or indirectly of prices for such class of commodities through state action on the part of any foreign country, that government hereby declares that it will exercise the powers which it now has or will hereafter take to pi'ohibit the entry from such foreign country directly or indirectly of such commodities into its country for such time as may be necessary to make effective and to maintain the preferences hereby granted by it.
A great deal of discussion has arisen as to exactly what this article means. I take it that the meaning attached to it by the hon. member for Comox-Albemi (Mr. Neill) is about as good an explanation of it as can be found anywhere. The meaning which he attached to it in a speech he made some weeks ago is that all the article purports to impose upon any government is that the preferences shall not be frustrated. In this case the preference given to Canadian timber in the British market is ten per cent, so that if the interpretation of the hon. member for Comox-Albemi is a correct one, this is simply a guarantee on the part of the British government that in spite of Russian competition, in spite of state-aided competition, we shall still retain a preference of ten per cent in the British market as against Russia. I humbly submit that a preference of ten per cent against Russia is of no value to us, even if such a thing could be enforced. The state produces the timber in Russia, and it must be impossible to ascertain what are the costs of production. It must be extremely difficult to find out from any source whatsoever what are the conditions of operation and how lumbering is carried on in that country. But taking it that we shall enjoy a ten per cent margin of preference over Russia, I submit that that is not enough and that it will not prevent Russian timber from entering into Great Britain in large quantities.


Alan Webster Neill: Hear, hear.


Charles Gavan Power: We read in the newspapers that Great Britain's treaty with Russia, the most favoured nation treaty, has been abrogated, or at least that notice of abrogation has been given, but there is no justification in any announcement made at that time for the statement being boldly and I think recklessly made both in this house and in the country that the British government has now imposed an embargo on the importation of Russian timber. What, is the situation? It is that

notice has been given of the abrogation of the treaty in the hope that a new and more favourable treaty will be signed.


An hon. MEMBER:: No.


Charles Gavan Power: I am simply repeating the statement which the Right Hon. Mr. Thomas made in the British House of Commons. It must be remembered that under article 21 the country which proposes to stop what we have been pleased to call dumping is the country into which these goods are being imported, in this case the United Kingdom, which itself does not produce the softwood timber-and I am now referring only to softwood-which would be covered by this treaty. We can very readily understand that in Canada it is not very difficult to impose antidumping provisions. The people who have the power, the prestige, the influence, and in some eases I will admit public support, are those who go to the minister and say: We are being seriously injured by the importation at a low price of such and such goods. The minister under the authority conferred on him by the Customs Act, finding that certain Canadian producers or manufacturers are being injured, thereupon imposes the dumping duty. But the situation will not be the same in Great Britain. In Great Britain it is to the interest of everybody, of the consumer, of the merchant, of the importer, of everybody with power and influence, that the timber should come in at the cheapest possible price, so that every influence which we have here in Canada making it easy to impose dumping duties will be exerted in Great Britain, and exerted to the full, I believe, and perhaps rightly, to prevent the imposition of dumping duties against importations from a foreign country. There is nothing in this article which states that these dumping duties shall be imposed other than at the will of the government in power in the country into which the goods are being imported.
I should like to refer for a moment to some of the observations made by the hon. member for East Algoma. I do so with some hesitation, because I am fully aware that in the practical operation of the timber trade he knows far more than I do, and under any other circumstances I should be glad to listen to his advice. But from what I read in Hansard I take it that he gave the house the impression that it would take two or three years for these clauses to be effective. I have not before me the exact words he used, but he gave the impression that even had we received orders from the United Kingdom for quanti-

United Kingdom
ties of timber in the month of September it would have been 1934 before we could have put that timber into the British market. Now I say to him in all sincerity that if he will see to it that an order is given for some fifty or a hundred or two hundred million feet right now, we will guarantee that from the lower ports of the province of Quebec, from the Baie des Chaleurs and from the Miramichi, this timber will be furnished to the British market before September of next year, 1933.
Now what is the solution?-because I think there is a solution. I do not condemn these agreements as wholly bad or wholly useless. I do believe that this matter can be worked out. I had thought of suggesting both to this government and the government of the province of Quebec that jointly they work out some bonus system or a system of payment of freight charges, but in spite of the fact that this government does not consider it wrong in principle to gamble on the wheat exchange, I think it would be wrong in principle to grant bonuses to the lumber industry, not only on account of the extreme costs, but because there is no more justification for a bonus to the lumber industry than there is to any other industry. The latest quotation I was able to obtain last week-I am speaking now only of eastern Canadian softwoods; I am not referring in any way to British Columbia-for spruce at Miramichi, Baie des Chaleurs, Matane or Rimouski, is $12.25, in our money, for one thousand feet. Anyone familiar with the lumber trade knows that in order to get approximately one million feet of deals, which is the kind of lumber we ship to the British market, it would 'be necessary to cut almost two million feet of logs, and the balance, the extra million feet, would be what is called the low end, and would be sold on the market at a considerably lower price. So taking $12.25 to $12.50 as the price per one thousand feet of deals, the average price at the mill would be below the cost of production, and I might almost say that even with the low wages that prevail today it would be below the replacement cost also. I am informed on good authority, the hon. member for Beauce, who is not in his seat at the moment, tells me, that in the Baie des Chaleurs he requires $18 per one thousand feet in order to come out even, while others tell me that $17 would be sufficient. Be that as it may, the spread between present prices, which represent an absolute loss, and the prospect of a profit, is somewhere between $5 and $6. To grant a bonus of $5 or $6 per thousand would, I think, be beyond the
capacity to pay of either this government or the provincial government or of the two combined. I will probably be told that during the past summer months considerable quantities of timber and lumber were shipped from the lower ports. I understand that Price Brothers and Company shipped from the lower Quebec ports something like 15,000,000 to 20,000,000 feet and the Fraser Companies Limited something like 8,000,Q00 to 10,000,000 feet. But at the time the contracts for this timber were made the pound sterling was at about $4.30, and the price offered to Canadian exporters was somewhat higher than that offered at the present time. Today, with the pound at approximately $3.71, and the price much lower, we are in the position I have just indicated.
I am about to make a suggestion, but in doing so I wish to be distinctly understood that it is a purelj^ personal one. The persons whom I represented at the conference are probably as great worshippers at the shrine of sound money as is the Prime Minister; therefore I do not wish them in any way to be involved in anything I have to say. I suggest to the right hon. gentleman opposite and the members of the government that today there is only one way out for the lumber trade. We cannot wait three years, because if we have to wait that long there will be no lumbermen; they will have gone into bankruptcy, or the bankers will be in the trade. There is no way out for the lumber trade unless we bring our dollar to a parity with the pound. We cannot sell our timber on the British market unless the pound stands at something like $4.86. I know of no other solution, and I offer it in all sincerity. Probably my suggestion is contrary to the political beliefs of many people in my native province, but I am firmly convinced that there is no other salvation and no solution except for the government to continue the course of inflation which it began last month.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Chairman, I am
sure I should be exceedingly unwise to enter into a discussion of what might or might not have been done. The fact is that we have before us an agreement between the United Kingdom and ourselves containing certain provisions regarding timber. While it is quite true the competition of the countries named by the hon. member, namely, Norway, Sweden and Latvia, is very keen, I may point out that prior to the unusual competition brought about by the Russian soviet system, Canada was able successfully to compete in
1126	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
the British market with the other European countries to which reference has been made. Surely ten per cent would be an additional attraction to Canadian lumbermen.
I should like to add that I cannot accept the interpretation placed by the hon. member upon article 21. When it is before us for consideration I have no doubt it will speak plainly for itself, and at the proper time I am quite prepared to justify it. I do not wish, however, to violate the rules of the committee by entering into a discussion of an article not now before us.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: Mr. Chairman, I
should like to make one or two observations concerning the remarks of the hon. members for Quebec South (Mr. Power) and Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill). First, to the hon. member for Quebec South may I say that I concur in everything he has said concerning the attitude of the members of the committee, including himself. I do not know anything about the references he made concerning what some people had said at different points in the province of Quebec, but I do know that during the course of negotiation and the preparation of the brief, from the first week of February last until the agreement was signed in the House of Commons, my hon. friend and the chief of the forest service of the province of Quebec, who acted with him, as well as representatives of the lumber trade in the province of Quebec and representatives from the other four provinces concerned, cooperated in the most cordial way to present the facts as forcibly as possible. The brief submitted was officially concurred in by representatives of the five provinces, namely, New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario, Nova Scotia and British Columbia. The hon. member who has just spoken, representing the province of Quebec, met other representatives during the period of the conference to discuss every phase of the matter.
I should like, however, to avoid one or two possible misapprehensions which might result from the hon. member's recital of what the committee of lumbermen from the provinces actually requested. True, we asked for a twenty per cent preference, but with regard to Russia we asked for a partial or complete embargo. It is also true that as a supplement to the agreement submitted more than a month after this was put into the hands of the tariff advisory committee, a quota was suggested. If the hon. member will search his memory he will realize that that quota was suggested simply to bring the action of the whole committee into harmony with the
[Mr. Stevens.!
views of one province', and not with those of the other four. I shall not, however, go into that phase of the matter, because it was submitted only as a possible solution of the problem.
Coming next to the negotiations concerning the control of the Russian trade, I just wish to remind the hon. member of what the chairman of what he has termed the proRussian group said to our committee in a letter dated June 7, in relation to the effect that the so-called control they had instituted had had on Russian trade. His words are:
If I might venture to make a suggestion, the first question that would have to he considered before the ills of the 'lumber trade are tackled is the Russian question. So long as the trade agreement is allowed to operate in its present form and the Russians have control-
Notice this! In the opinion of the chairman of the so-called pro-Russian group the British group did not have control. In his view the Russian government had control. His words are:
So long as the trade agreement is allowed to operate in its present form and the Russians have control we shall have a competitor who knows no rules and is not bound by any question of costs.
I put that on record so that my hon. friends opposite will be clear concerning the measure of control being effected.


Charles Gavan Power: Is that letter from Colonel
Morgan to yourself?


George Brecken Nicholson: It is a letter from
Colonel Morgan to the committee, not to myself. It was written for the purpose of bringing pressure on our government in order that they might bring pressure on the British government. It is stated that the ten per cent preference is of no value, but so far as the New Brunswick and Baie des Chaleurs lumbermen are concerned it actually means a fifteen per cent preference, because it is on the c.i.f. price that the preference applies. When you take transportation, insurance, dockage charges and so on into account, it works out at approximately fifteen per cent.
In regard to the statement I made in the house as to the time within which Canada could hope to re-enter the United Kingdom market in a large way, Mr. Chairman, I did say that if in Canada we started to produce a large volume of lumber for the British market in September, 1932, it would be 1934 before that lumber would be in any general way a merchantable commodity. We cannot expect to get the British market if we take saw logs out of the water in May, June, July and August next year, saw them into lumber

United Kingdom
and ship them green. As a matter of fact the lumbermen with whom we conferred during the whole period of the conference pointed out to us the necessity of shipping dry lumber if we hoped to regain our former position.


Charles Gavan Power: May I interrupt my hon. friend to say that last week I conferred with quite a number of lumbermen who in past years have been in the habit of shipping to the United Kingdom market, and they all told me that if the logs were cut next summer they could be shipped to the British market in August or September.


George Brecken Nicholson: I will grant that it may be possible to ship a limited quantity of certain sizes of lumber which may be sawn in May and June, as early as September and October of next year, but in the general sense anyone who has had anything to do with the manufacture and sale of lumber knows that, to be merchantable, it must be in pile at least twelve months.


Alan Webster Neill: Do you not use dry kilns?


George Brecken Nicholson: No; to dry kiln the lumber produced in the saw mills of this country would be an absolutely impracticable proposition. It may be all right for small quantities of hardwood, but to undertake to put one hundred million feet, for example, through dry kilns would be impossible. I think it would be found that the cost of drying that lumber would effectively put us out of the market. Lumber is air dried in Russia, Norway and Sweden, except in special cases. It may not be air dried in British Columbia, but British Columbia will come to air dried lumber if they are to compete in the United Kingdom market. There is just one other point, Mr. Chairman. It has been stated that under this preference we cannot compete. I will admit at once that the lumbermen's committee never expected that under the conditions at present prevailing we would be able to get back into the market in a large way, but they do expect that in two or three years we will be able to recapture the British market. We will not be ready before then, but we can recapture that market in fair competition with any country in the world. We cannot recapture it in the face of competition of the character that has prevailed for the last seven or eight years.
My hon. friend from Quebec South, as well as the hon. member for Comox-Alberni. referred to Norway as the country with which we had to compete. We competed successfully with Norway before we lost the market; we shipped as much as 1,250,000,000 feet into
the British market in competition with Norway, Sweden and every other country in the world, with no preference at all. It is true that today Norway and Sweden have depressed wages; it is true that the lumber situation there is about as bad as it is here, if it is not worse, but hon. gentlemen are confusing cause and effect. What has brought the lumber trade to that condition in the Scandinavian countries? It is the same thing that has brought about the condition which exists in Canada; Russian dumping.


Albert Edward Munn: May I ask a question? Is it not true that the bulk of the timber we ship to Great Britain in competition with Norway is higher grade stuff that cannot be supplied by that country, generally speaking?


George Brecken Nicholson: No, that is not so. The large volume of the lumber shipped from eastern Canada-I cannot speak for British Columbia, though my hon. friend may know-


Albert Edward Munn: I am speaking of eastern Canada.


George Brecken Nicholson: The large volume of lumber from Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec and eastern Ontario was spruce and red pine. There was also a substantial volume of white pine, but spruce, red pine and jack-pine compared identically with what was known as northern white wood and northern redwood. It was exactly the same type of timber, and we had a very splendid market. My hon. friend shakes his head. Perhaps he knows more about the lumber trade than I know; perhaps he knows more about it than is known by the men from Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and eastern Quebec, but if the hon. member will investigate I think he will find that I am correct. We of course shipped a substantial volume of white pine; there is no other country in the world that can supply the volume of high grade white pine that can be supplied by eastern Canada, but white pine has been forced off the British market by the importation of northern Siberian pine from Russia. My hon. friend should know that, since he is in the lumber trade. During the five year period ending in 1930 Norway shipped to the United Kingdom just 2.5 per cent of the total United Kingdom imports, while in 1931 Russia alone exported to the United Kingdom almost 40 per cent of her total requirements.
There is just one other matter to which I should like to refer in regard to this question of dumping. While our committee was in session here during the progress of the imperial conference, presenting our case as strongly as we could, we received a telegram
1128	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
which was addressed to the secretary of the Canadian Lumbermen's Association. I have read this telegram before, but I should like to put it on Hansard again:
Have reecived cable from Liverpool reading as follows: Fifty thousand standards-
In other words, 100,000,000 board feet.
-unsold Russian balances definitely being dumped this season. Loading orders already given several cargoes this area.
That is, Liverpool. That telegram was from the representative of A. F. & B. McKay, importers of lumber and timber products in the United Kingdom. That is the character of the competition that drove us out of the British market.
Now we come to article 21, and in connection with the attitude of the British government in relation to that article I said to our committee, as I said in this house and to representatives of the press, that in my opinion when the British government signed a document of that character the British government would carry out the spirit and the letter of the agreement, just as they entered into it. I still believe so. To confirm my opinion let me say that at this time there is in Canada a gentleman whose name I am not going to mention, who represents a very large firm of timber importers in the United Kingdom. This gentleman is crossing Canada. He las been in New Brunswick, in Quebec and Ontario, and now is in British Columbia making contracts that will enable his firm to import lumber as soon as the saturation presently prevailing in the United Kingdom market has vanished. What does he say? Before the agreements were entered into here at Ottawa his firm was conducting negotiations with the government of Latvia for the production and importation of a large quantity of lumber. The proposal made to his firm by that government was as follows:	"We will furnish
you with the saw logs without cost if you will saw them into lumber, take them to the United Kingdom, sell them and give us half the profits." The agreement was actually drafted and ready for signature when the Ottawa conference intervened and article 21 was adapted. This firm took their contract to the British Board of Trade and said, "What will happen if we enter into this contract?" The answer was, "You will find yourselves up against an embargo. The United Kingdom government w'ill not permit the importation into Great Britain of lumber that is produced by state aid in that manner, in the face of article 21. That is the manner in which they will deal with the whole situation." Now I

have studied the situation intensively and I know something about the production and sale of lumber in eastern Canada, and my opinion is that when the saturated condition of the British market evaporates, so to speak, and exchange values become stabilized, we shall get back into the United Kingdom market just as we were before 1914 and during the years 1918 to 1921 and until 1922.
With reference to my hon. friend's allusion to the stabilization of the dollar with the pound through the printing of more bills, that may appeal to some people but I very much fear that if we are to wait for the restoration of normal, stable conditions throughout the world, which alone will enable this or any other country to get back to normal business, until we get there by means of inflation, by the printing of more bills, we shall have to wait a long time. It will be more than three years.
Mr. MaoLEAN: I notice that under this item there is reference to canned fish. Can the minister give us the exports of canned lobsters to the British market and other countries?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I will give it in a moment.


Mr. MacLEAN:: While the minister is looking up that information may I say a few words. My hon. friend from Quebec South has spoken with reference to the question of exchange in connection with the lumber industry, and what is true of lumber in this regard is true of all other products. There is no doubt that when the conference failed to deal with the question of exchange they failed to bring any relief to our exporters of goods to the British market. The people in the country scarcely realize that under present rates of exchange Canadians are contributing S20 in every hundred to the purchasing power of people in Great Britain. Now it is impossible for us to continue in business under such circumstances. Different members have referred to the exchange question and it seems to me most unfortunate that in such an important matter the members of the conference, representing the various parts of the empire, were unable to bring in some suggestion in their report on that occasion. I wish to pay this tribute to the Prime Minister, that he was about the only gentleman at the conference who made any really concrete suggestion in relation to the exchange situation. He suggested that an empire pool might be arranged, a contribution, I suppose, made by the governments of all the different countries, and machinery set up whereby the ex-

United Kingdom
change situation could be controlled by means of the money in that pool. I believe that something could have been done. It is all very well to talk about the preference in these agreements, but every man at the conference representing the various countries in the empire emphasized that one fact, that any preference we were getting in the British market was more than wiped out by the adverse rate of exchange. Take our lobster exports-canned lobsters, in regard to which I have just asked the minister a question. At the present time our .people in the maritimes find it impossible to sell lobsters over there at a profit under the conditions that now exist. It is the same with our fox furs. The Minister of Finance last year thought I was indulging in a little joke when I endeavoured to bring this matter to the attention of the house. I can assure him that it is no joke to the people of the maritimes or of Canada as a whole. It makes no difference where a fox fur is bought, it is bought on the assumption that the rate of exchange is to be figured off, and last year the people of our province alone made a contribution of over $100,000 in connection with the exchange situation. That is to say, our ranches lost over that amount on their sales of fur. It is the same in connection with cheese and other exports.
Another matter that has been spoken of in this house, and which has been emphasized by some of our friends, is this. They say that we have been shut out of the American market. Let me say right now that notwithstanding the tremendous duty that has been imposed against us by the United States, if it were not for the United States market I do not know where the people of the maritimes would sell their product. Let me mention the lobster trade by way of illustration. Do hon. members know that last year the fishermen received for their live lobsters going into the American market 10, 15 and 20 cents per pound, whereas for the lobsters that were canned they received from the factories only 3 and 4 cents per pound, a price on which they could not possibly carry on business. It was only from the profits they received from their live lobster exports that they were able to carry on and pack for export.
But it is not only in regard to live lobsters that we depend on the American market for a sale. Take the smelt situation. This is a very large industry in the maritime provinces, and where do these exports go? They go into the American market. Again, take our vegetables. At this time of year where do our vegetables go? They go into the American market. And even lambs with a duty against
them of $1.25 or more per head find their way into the American market; and our potatoes, with a duty of 75 cents on every hundred pounds, climb over that barrier. So that when our friends say that we have been shut out of the American market, and reflect on the American market, I wish to say as one coming from the maritime provinces that if it were not for the American market I do not know what our people there would do.


Mr. McDADE:: They do not take very
much of our lumber.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: The hon. member speaks about lumber. Do my hon. friends stop to consider this? They are asking that ouf friends in Great Britain should put an embargo upon Russian lumber. What will be the effect of that? Where do we sell our pulp-wood at the present time? Do we sell any of it to Great Britain or to European countries? Not one foot of it goes there. Our people sell their pulpwood in the raw state in the American market, and our friends are going to force Russia to invade the United States and steal our pulpwood market. And the hon. gentleman will be one of those who will vote for shutting out the sale of our pulpwood in the United States, where the people of the maritime provinces and of Quebec now find a market. That will be the result as sure as this agreement is being pushed.
However, I just rose to ask the minister that question with regard to exports of canned lobster to Great Britain and other countries.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Taking the fiscal year
ended March 31, 1932, the total exports were 63,446 hundredweight valued at $2,913,304. To the United Kingdom the exports were 28,646 hundredweight valued at $1,355,138; to the United States, 17,036 hundredweight valued at $746,679. Does my hon. friend want the others?


Alfred Edgar MacLean: No, that is sufficient.
Article 4 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.
On article 5:
His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom will invite parliament to pass the legislation necessary to modify the conditions at present governing the importation into the United Kingdom of live cattle from Canada on the lines already agreed upon in principle between themselves and His Majesty's government in Canada.
Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Would the minister give the committee the particulars of the regulations referred to in this article?
1130	COMMONS
imperial Conference-Trade Agreements


Henry Herbert Stevens: I think I am in position to give complete information to the committee. As hon. members well know, this article refers to the withdrawal by the British Government of certain restrictions upon the importation into the United Kingdom of live cattle. The matter is covered fully by a letter dated August 19, 1932, from the Hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) to the Right Hon. Sir John Gilmour, Minister of Agriculture for the United Kingdom. It is a fairly long letter, but I think it might be well if I read it. If hon. members will follow my reading I believe they will find that virtually every question is answered therein. It reads: Ottawa, August 19, 1932.
Rt. Hon. Sir John Gilmour,
Minister of Agriculture for the United Kingdom,
Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir John,-On behalf of the Dominion of Canada 1 do hereby agree to the arrangements which we have heretofore made in regard to the admission of Canadian cattle into the United Kingdom, and of pedigree stock from the United Kingdom into Canada, and also in regard to restrictions on the importation into Canada from Great Britain of fertilizers and feeding stuffs containing animal matter, and which agreement is in the terms following, that is to say:-
1. It was agreed that it was desirable to modify the existing restrictions on the admission of Canadian cattle into the United Kingdom as follows:-
(A)	Slaughter of cattle at the port of entry
The parliament of the United Kingdom
should be invited to amend the Importation of Animals Act, 1922, so as to provide for the admission to interior markets and other premises of all Canadian cattle shipped to Great Britain irrespective of condition and sex subject only to regulations similar to those which at present apply to the movement to interior markets and other premises in the United Kingdom of Irish cattle of the same classes. The United Kingdom would, however, retain the right to require the slaughter at the port of entry of any male or female animal considered by them to be below the desired standard for breeding purposes.
(B)	Requirement that a federal veterinarian accompany each shipment of store cattle
Action proposed-Amendment of the Importation of Animals Act, 1922, by the elimination of clause 1	(2)	(c)	(IV), which reads as
follows:-
"That the cattle were during the voyage kept separate from other animals and daily examined by a duly authorized veterinary officer of the Dominion of Canada, and that on such examination no animal examined was found to be affected with cattle plague, pleuro-pneumonia, or foot-and-mouth disease:"
(C)	Three-day quarantine in Canada prior to
shipment
Action proposed-Amendment of the Importation of Animals Act, 1922, in respect of clause 1 (2) (c) (1), by modifying requirement "That

the cattle were for a period of three clear days immediately before shipment kept separate from other animals, and were examined from time to time during that period by a duly authorized veterinary officer of the Dominion of Canada," by substituting "one clear day" for "three clear days."
(D)	Branding on the cheek prior to shipment
Action proposed-Amendment of the Canadian Cattle (Marking) order of 1924, in respect to clause 1 (1) by the elimination of the words "as hereinafter provided," in line 1 and of all the words in that clause following the words "stamped thereon."
The clause at present reads as follows:-
1.	(1) "Canadian cattle, except as hereinafter provided, shall, as a condition of landing in Great Britain, be marked before shipment by securely affixing to the right ear of each animal a tag of a pattern approved by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries with the letter C and a serial number stamped thereon, and also by branding the animal on the right cheek with the letter C, or tattooing that letter on the left ear, unless the animal is already branded with a brand registered by the government of a province of the Dominion of Canada: Provided that this provision shall not apply to cattle to be landed at an imported animals wharf for immediate slaughter."
2.	(A) Modificatios desired by the United
Kingdom relating to the Canadian regulations governing the entry of pedigree cattle into Canada from the United Kingdom
Action proposed-
(1)	Recognition of the London quarantine station by Canada.
(2)	The completion of the 14 day period of quarantine in the London quarantine station.
(3)	The reduction of quarantine at Canadian sea-board to a 14 day period in the case of ruminants and swine passing through the London quarantine station.
This procedure is intended to facilitate importations into Canada during periods when the United Kingdom is not entirely free from foot-and-mouth disease. Importations may nevertheless be shipped direct during recognized periods of freedom from disease, subject to the existing quarantine period at the Canadian seaboard.
Because of the existing agreement between the United States and Canada (December, 1896) with reference to the maintenance of uniform conditions of entry of live stock from overseas countries, the acceptance of the proposed amended regulations will necessarily depend on agreement to them by the United States. The attached correspondence with the United States Bureau of Animal Industry would indicate that the United States will accept the conditions.
(B) Restrictions on the importation into
Canada from Great Britain of fertilizers and feeding stuffs containing animal matter
These restrictions were discussed and after the Llnited Kingdom officials had heard the views of the Canadian representatives as to the preferential treatment now accorded the United Kingdom and the desirability of retaining the regulations in their present form, they decided not to press further their suggestions under this head.

United Kingdom
Will you be kind enough to send me a formal letter giving me a similar commitment on behalf of your government, in order that the matter may be definitely concluded between us.
Yours faithfully,
R. Weir.
The following is the answer received from the Right Hon. Sir John Gilmour:
Imperial Economic Conference, 1932 United Kingdom Delegation,
Parliament Buildings,
Ottawa, 19th August, 1932.
My Dear Weir,-I have had before me the enclosed copy of a report on the discussions which have been taking place during the last few days between your advisers and mine on the importation of Canadian store cattle into the United Kingdom and the importation of United Kingdom pedigree stock into Canada.
I am glad that these matters have now been discussed so thoroughly and that an agreement has been reached as to what is required. The proposals set out in the memorandum meet with m,v general approval, and it is on the basis of this memorandum that, in the draft formal agreement between the United Kingdom government and the government of Canada, we undertake on our part to invite parliament to pass the necessary legislation and you on your part to revise the existing restrictions.
Yours sincerely,
__	John Gilmour.
The Hon. Robert Weir, M.P.
The committee will note the points covered in this correspondence, but should there be any further questions I shall be pleased to answer them.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Is that regulation now in effect?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Our information is that it is now in effect, I suggest that it may save the time of the committee if in conjunction with article 5 we take article 18, which refers to the pedigreed stock. We may take the two as being discussed together.


Mr.   CHAIRMAN@Mr. MacDonald, Cape Breton: Is it the wish of the committee that we consider article 18 in conjunction with article 5?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Finlay MacDonald: Article 18 reads:
His Majesty's government in Canada undertake to modify the existing regulations governing the importation of pedigree stock from the United Kingdom into Canada in a manner already agreed upon in principle between themselves and His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom.


William Richard Motherwell: The minister thought iast Thursday that we remained too long on article 4. As far as I am concerned I am not going to keep him or the committee very long cn article 5, because every restriction he can
remove, especially during these times, from this, and, indeed, any kind of trade, is all to the good, provided, of course, you do not open up too many dangers in the way of contagious diseases or anything of the kind, although I do not think that has been done in this case. So I am glad to see the removal of these little worrying restrictions such as the three day quarantining at point of shipment and the necessity of branding the cattle on the right or left jaw or the right or left ear. These were all thought to be necessary at one time because our friends on the other side of the water were not very sure whether our cattle were free from disease or not. They had got it into their heads that our cattle at one time had either foot and mouth disease or pleuropneumonia. Canada is one of the only two cattle countries in the world that have had neither of these diseases. The people on the other side have discovered that and they are now ready to throw off these restrictions. It is the logical thing to do. New Zealand is the only other country that has not had these plagues. Restriction of trade of any kind, whether it be in cattle or anything else, should be removed if possible.
May I, however, sound a note of warning. The Minister of Agriculture is not present, but no doubt my hon. friend will tell him what I say. As regards the three new conditions in connection with quarantine, the first cf which is the acceptance of the quarantine station at London, that is a proper place in which to quarantine animals for fourteen days P''ior to shipment. Four years ago that quarantine station was not satisfactory to Canada as a station from which cattle could in safety be shipped to this country and we did not recognize it as such. Now, however, both the LTnited States and Canada recognize it as being all right. There is only one possible objection, that is, if all shippers recognize it and use it as such, it will become a little bit too small, but when that day arrives it can easily be extended. As to these regulations that now prevail with regard to quarantine, reducing the time from thirty to fourteen days in Canada and also reducing the time on the other side, in fact making it a condition that the cattle shall go through the quarantine station at London, if these are lived up to, possibly the safeguards will be sufficient. But if there is the least tendency to slacken a little more before conditions warrant-and there is always a tendency, a pressure to make the restrictions a little bit easier, to slide the cattle through and to reduce the delay in shipment and consequently the expense-if this is done, it is always done at the cost of safety. When one considers that our reputation of
1132	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
having animals free from these diseases is world wide, it should be our urgent desire to maintain that reputation. That can be done only by constant vigilance, and I think the staff of the Department of Agriculture, health of animals branch, is to be congratulated, not only now but all through the years back as far as you like, or at all events from Doctor Rutherford's time, for the vigilance with which they have watched these problems and built up the reputation that we have as regards freedom from live stock diseases.
May I draw attention to the tremendous propaganda that has gone through the country about the effect of this agreement on our cattle trade. As has been pointed out by many hon. gentlemen, it cannot have any effect in promoting trade as long as the exchange remains as it is. It is a little too bad that that should be the complaint, because possibly if the exchange situation is finally corrected, the complaint will no longer exist and then we shall have the opportunity of reaping some of the benefits of this trade agreement. But so long as the present exchange situation continues, that will be the complaint, and it is during the next year or two that we want this corrected, not in several years from now. I should like to point out to the minister, as an evidence of this, that the new cattle trade which the Department of Agriculture and the government got the credit for developing in the old country immediately after they came into power, has gradually petered out. During the first year they were in office, it started with the very modest number of 5,000 cattle, but as the season was pretty well advanced when they came into power, we may leave that aside. During the second year 26,000 or
27,000	were shipped to the old country and a practically equal number to the United States. But this year the season is over and the number has dropped to almost one-half, it is only a little over 16,000. Let us contrast that with the conditions following 1923 when the real embargo was removed against our feeders and stockers going into the interior of Great Britain for feeding and finishing purposes, and there was no exchange situation militating against that movement. In the second year, after the embargo was taken off, that is, 1924, something like 79,000 cattle were shipped overseas. I shall not count the first year, because we want to get a full year under both governments. The third year, 1925, the number of cattle shipped increased from 79,000 to 110,000. That is many times the cattle export that has taken place in any year since this government came *nto power. Therefore the exchange situa-
IMr. Motherwell.]
tion and the low price of cattle are responsible for the small shipment they got started in 1931 dwindling to almost one-half this year, that is from 26,000 to 16,000. It seems to me that all the ballyhoo, if I may use that word, that has been promulgated by somebody through the press as to the wonderful development of the new market in Great Britain during the last two or three years has not been warranted at all. Now the chickens are coming home to roost and are apparently being shooed in that direction further by the exchange situation until the shipments will almost disappear again. I am in hopes the trade may be somewhat revived next year, for the simple reason that the cattle have been retained in Canada, because there is plenty of feed on the range country in the prairies and the ranchers are going to keep them another year. Perhaps they are running the risk of not getting the best figure for them, but they are willing to wait rather than sell them under present sacrifice conditions. They are keeping those cattle, so they will probably add to the total volume shipped next year.
If my hon. friend has any remarks to make which I have not mentioned as to why the number being shipped overseas has dwindled to the extent it has, I shall be glad to hear from him; but unless he has other reasons or better figures than I have, it indicates that the government should exhibit something like becoming modesty such as he invoked me to exercise the other day, and not engage in such extravagant statements as they have been making during the last few years about this wonderful market and about taking the embargo off, when everyone must know' that the major embargo was removed in 1923. We may agree for the sake of peace that it was the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Mullens) who took it off, but it does not matter who did it. If hon. gentlemen opposite are going to take the ground that every time a little restriction is removed, the embargo is removed, some enterprising gentleman ten years from now will take another little restriction off and claim that he has taken off the embargo once more. Has my hon. friend any reason to give for the dwindling trade with Great Britain in both finished cattle and stockers during the last few years, other than the ones I have given? I think I have been fair in my presentation of the case. I believe it is partly because the situation and the possibilities have been overtalked. Both the low prices and the high exchange are also against our extending the overseas trade in cattle under prevailing conditions.

United, Kingdom


Henry Herbert Stevens: I must thank my hon.
friend for the very moderate and-shall I say?-very encouraging language in which he has discussed this matter.


William Richard Motherwell: Do not say too
much. I might break out any time.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I quite appreciate that,
but I am duly thankful for present mercies. My hon. friend has inquired as to the falling off in our trade in export cattle this year as compared with last. There is undoubtedly one broad, general reason for that, the collapse of world markets, including, of course, unfortunately the market for live stock. It is discouraging to see a dropping off in the export of live cattle for the moment, but we have very high hopes that with this adjustment and the smoothing away of the differences between the two countries-and I share in the hope for an improvement in the conditions of monetary exchange-there will be a marked improvement in the export of live cattle as well as of other products.


George Gibson Coote: Has the minister figures of
shipments of cattle to the old country in recent months?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have not under my
hand the recent monthly exports, because I did not expect that question to come up.


Charles A. Stewart: Does this
simply mean that the thirty-day quarantine is removed in respect to the importation of cattle for feeding purposes? Is that all the article provides for?


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend was not
present wdien I read a very long description of every detail.


Charles A. Stewart: I just
wanted a short answer.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It covers many things.
We have just gone over it all.


Charles A. Stewart: I will see
it in Hansard.


Mr. ELLIOTT:: If the minister has not
the figures of the number of cattle exported, can he give the value in dollars and cents of our shipments for the months of October, September and August last? I did not get quite clearly just when these new regulations came into effect. I suppose they came into effect when the agreements were tabled?


Henry Herbert Stevens: They come into effect
upon the ratification of the agreements, and our information is that the agreements have now been passed in Great Britain and are
actually in effect. In regard to the importation into Great Britain of cattle for the calendar year 1931, which would cover pretty well the full shipping season from Canada, there were exported from the Irish Free State 738,967 head and from Canada 26,991 head.


John Campbell Elliott: Are those the latest figures the minister has, those up to the end of December, 1931? Has he no figures for the first part of this year?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have not the recent
figures under my hand, because I did not expect this question to come up. For the first three months of this year about 2,000 head were exported, but there have been more since.


William Richard Motherwell: A little over 16.000 head to Great Britain, and a little over 7,000 head to the United States.


Mr. SPEARMAN:: As I understand it, the only two countries which have been in the habit of shipping cattle to the United Kingdom have been the Irish Free State, in very large numbers, and Canada, in very small numbers. In view of conditions existing as between Great Britain and the Irish Free State at the present time, and the recent imposition of a very high rate of duty on cattle from the Irish Free State, Canada's trade may greatly benefit, but I would like to point out again from an actual definite experience last year the precise effect in dollars and cents of the exchange situation on trade.
Last year the cooperative organization which acted as selling agent for the different cooperative pools in the western provinces entered into an agreement with the British wholesale cooperative, the essence of the agreement being delivery of a stated number of Canadian cattle every week throughout the year. In the shipment of cattle into Great Britain one condition prevails with fair regularity from year to year, namely that in certain months prices in Great Britain as compared with Canadian prices are fairly high and fairly profitable, and in other months the Canadian price is generally higher than the British price, taking into consideration the cost of shipment. Then there are the months in between, with prices shading off on one side or the other. That has always been the great difficulty which prevented our Canadian cattle from establishing themselves on the British market. The British people were not particularly interested in our cattle trade because it was so haphazard. To establish a liking for Canadian beef it was necessary to make quite certain
1134	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
that the supply would go forward with reasonable regularity fifty-two weeks in the year, no matter what the market condition in Great Britain might be. Last year this cooperative organization that I mentioned attempted to solve that problem, which for quite a number of years has presented almost insuperable difficulties to our cattle men, having been an important factor in keeping down the size of our shipments to a comparatively small number. In making this arrangement the cooperative organization went on the principle of paying the highest Canadian price at all times, selling in Great Britain at the highest price available, and assuring the shipment of a designated number of cattle each week no matter what the market conditions might be; and by putting into a reserve the profits made during the good months they hoped to be able to carry on during the bad months. I think they accumulated a reserve of S10,000. They were under a slight handicap because they commenced their operations after the good season had started, and consequently did not get the full benefit of the good months in which to build uip a reserve before the bad months came on. In addition the number of cattle shipped in the months when prices were less favourable greatly increased. Nevertheless the organization could have carried on and could have established that trade. But then the exchange broke, and when the organization made up its books at the end of the year it was found that the loss on each adult steer or cow during the months it had been operating was from $14 to $17 a head due to exchange alone. It was a greater loss than the ordinary market loss; in the aggregate it was double the loss brought about by the actual market conditions. Anjrone who is familiar with the trade will recognize that a loss of $15 to $17 a head is equivalent, for example, to the total shipping charges. It is an intolerable handicap. In any case the net result was that the cooperative organization expended its entire reserve and a few thousand dollars more that they were able to scrape together, and then had to break the contract, cease shipments, and sever what we hoped would be a very hopeful line of trade. When the matter is brought down to dollars and cents and it is found that there was an actual net loss of from $14 to $17 per head which had to be paid for out of reserve funds, those of the committee who are still a little uncertain whether or not exchange actually does cause a loss would have had all those doubts removed had they been associated with that movement and been called upon to pay any share of the loss involved. When one can

definitely show by the books of a company that bankruptcy has ensued and that a definite loss has been sustained and met in dollars and cents, he is in a position to advance a more potent argument than any contention based on theory could possibly be. I suggest again, as has been suggested many times throughout this discussion, and as the minister himself knows-because he has studied the question as fully as any member of the committee-that until the matter to which I have referred is considered, the agreement will mean very little so far as increase in trade is concerned. In saying that, I wish to correct a misapprehension which has apparently been seized upon by some. The mere acceptance of the agreements and entering into these arrangements would not necessarily be the cause of an unfavourable exchange situation. The exchange situation is there, and it would be there to exactly the same degree whether we had the agreements or not. It might partly but could not wholly be overcome by some of the preferences. Rejecting the agreement does not alter the exchange situation. I should like to emphasize that point. I do not wish to indulge in tedious reiteration, but it has become obvious in the cattle trade, that exchange itself will prevent us from profiting as we could profit by the agreement. This agreement being, as it were, a final throw of the cards in an endeavour to improve conditions and to establish agriculture on a better basis. I think when it is discovered that exchange does obviate and nullify all these beneficial results the day will be nearer when this government, the British government and the different governments throughout the empire will set themselves definitely to a solution of this one problem.


Mr. GEARY:: It sounds like common
sense.


Milton Neil Campbell: Is there any reason for the lack of definiteness in this article? In my view it is most indefinite. It states:
His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom will invite parliament to pass the legislation necessary . . .
And so on. It would appear on the face of it as if the British representatives were not obligating themselves directly to implement the conditions contained in the agreement. Perhaps I am wrong in that assumption; if so the minister will put me right.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is the language
chosen by the draftsmen of this and other documents. It will be understood of course

United Kingdom
that some difficulty confronted both the Canadian and the British delegates in dealing with a matter of this kind, involving as it did certain acts of the British parliament. All the delegates undertook within the full soope of their powers to secure the passing of the necessary amending legislation. The answer to my hon. friend is this: Our information is that it has been done; therefore we can say that good faith has been kept, and the actual language of the article will not impair it in any way.
Article 5 agreed to.
Article 18 agreed to.
On article 6:
His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom declare that it is their intention to arrange as soon as possible after receiving the report of the commission now sitting on the reorganization of the pig industry in the United Kingdom, for the quantitative regulation of the supplies of bacon and hams coming on to the United Kingdom market and undertake that in any legislation which they may submit to parliament for regulating the supplies of bacon and hams from all sources into the United Kingdom, provision will be made for free entry of Canadian bacon and hams of good quality up to a maximum of 2,500,000 hundredweight per annum.


William Richard Motherwell: Has the government or any member of it a copy of the report of the hog commission which sat in the old country dealing with matters concerning the hog industry generally?


Henry Herbert Stevens: We have received cable information, but unless the Minister of Agriculture can state to the contrary I do not believe the report has come to hand.


Mr. WEIR (Melfort):: Yes, it has come to hand.


William Richard Motherwell: How will we know what we are considering? What we are to receive under this article is based upon a report with the contents of which we are not familiar. Is it not something like buying a pig in a poke to consider this matter without the help of the report. Surely we should have some reasonable idea of what is in it. I have been endeavouring through the press to get some idea of what is contained in the report, but have not been successful. Probably I am wrong, but I believe the Minister of Agriculture is familiar with this matter. Anyway, he has been closely in touch with it, and there is reference to it in the Farmer's Forum column of the Winnipeg Free Press of last Saturday. It is very definite but does not go very far into the matter. I have before me another synopsis contained in the Live stock Journal
of London, but as it is only a short synopsis I have not been able fully to understand the facts. I believe two types of quotas are suggested; whether one applies to the dominions and the other to foreign countries I do not know.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I think we could simplify matters by stating, first, whatever is done in the interest of the pig industry in Great Britain Canada will receive the full benefit of it. The report of the commission is before the British government, but the proposals contained therein have not yet been crystallized into legislation; in fact, so far as I am informed no draft legislation has yet been made public, therefore it is impossible for us intelligently to discuss the matter. If hon. members will follow the wording of article 6 they will find that to a total of 2,500,000 hundredweight per annum Canadian bacon will be treated on exactly the same basis as home grown bacon on the British market. Aaturally we should like to know precisely what the new legislation will be, but it is impossible for us to give it.


William Richard Motherwell: We ought to know it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is impossible for us to give it, and I can see no way in which I could usefmly speculate upon what such legislation will contain.


Mr. MOTHERV ELL:: All I know is that I have it on the authority of a lady who brought two copies over, a lady of high reputation, who had no object in stringing me, or the intent to do so. She had two copies of the British hog commission report with her when she arrived last week from overseas. If the ministry had wanted us to see that report surely they could have cabled for it, and we would have had it by now. I do not think there is much in it for us, or they would have had the report here. I do not like to suggest that the section stand, though I t.hink-it should; perhaps it would seem as though we were stalling the thing. I do not suppose the government could get it here in a week now; it could not come by radio. We would get only a short synopsis that way, and that would not be much better than what we are getting now.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am told that the report is quite voluminous, and without doubt it would take our officials a considerable time completely to analyze it. It must be borne in mind that the commission which made the report carried on the investigation for some months. The report is very exhaustive, I believe, as it deals with the whole question
1136	'	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
of the pig industry in Great Britain, and in my opinion it would take officials of the government a very considerable time to analyze it properly and come to parliament with it. What will concern us, however, is what the British government may decide to do by way of legislation based upon that report. That action has not been taken as yet, so it is more or less idle for me to even speculate on what it may be. I think the committee might keep in mind what I have already said, that Canada gets whatever the British producer gets by way of protection, if you like to use that term, up to the amout of 2,500,000 hundredweight per annum. All authorities agree, and I think my hon. friend will concur in that opinion, that it will be some time before we achieve that production.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Can the minister tell us Great Britain's imports now?


William Richard Motherwell: The government
must have a pretty definite idea of what will be contained in the report, when the Minister of Agriculture starts a campaign based upon it for greater hog production. I must congratulate him on the courage he displayed in advising farmers to produce more hogs, at a time when they were worth only two and a half cents a pound at the point of shipment, and now when the price has fallen to two cents. I think he was showing a youthful optimism that perhaps he thinks now might better not have been shown, because really there is nothing in article 6 to place before the farmer to warrant his going into the production of hogs more extensively. Talk about faith! I have not seen such faith even in Israel as has been shown by the Minister of Agriculture with regard to this as yet unknown British hog commission report. The British people may gag at it themselves; there has been a good deal of criticism overseas with regard to these restrictions on food imports. Perhaps I might ask this question: Was this the kind of assistance the Canadian and British hog growers really wanted and asked for? My information is that they did not want a quota at all because it was too complex in its workings. Look at the way this is working with us. Formerly we had unlimited opportunities; we could ship a billion pounds of bacon and ham if we had that amount to export, but now we are limited to 280,000,000 pounds. While in 1919 Canada exported nearly that amount, we are far from it now.


Henry Herbert Stevens: If I may just correct my hon. friend, we are not confined to that amount. We are guaranteed free entry of that amount on the basis enjoyed by the hog

producer in Great Britain, but we have unlimited opportunities beyond that in competition with the outsider. My hon. friend will see the distinction there. I think he will at once agree that to be guaranteed that amount for five years is a very valuable thing for Canada.


William Richard Motherwell: I thought the quota was the very essence of this agreement. If we are permitted to jump the quota we will then be back where we were before. I appeal to the Minister of Trade and Commerce and to the Minister of Agriculture; really, this is working in the dark. Even if this were good I would take the same attitude towards it that I took with regard to the preceding section. Every restriction that was removed in connection with cattle was all to the good; everything in this section that facilitates trade is so much to the good, but we do not know just what it involves. It is worse than groping in the dark. I have endeavoured honestly to get to the bottom of it, but so far have only managed to find out that the quota is the basis of the whole thing. Now we are told that the quota will not hold, that you can jump the quota any time you like.


Mr. BROWN:: I was visiting a rural community the other day, and I was told that because of the very enthusiastic speech in which the Prime Minister visualized ten million hogs in Canada, the farmers in that district were going immediately into increased hog production. I do not think either the Minister of Agriculture or the Minister of Trade and Commerce would venture the assertion that there is anything in this agreement or outside it, no matter what is contained in the report submitted to the British government, that would justify any farmer in immediately going into increased hog production. It is true that at the moment we are groping in the dark as far as the actual terms are concerned, but I think we must admit that since the 280,000,000 pounds allotted us far exceeds anything we have exported in recent years, there can be no immediate prospect of this agreement inuring to our benefit. Certainly there is nothing in the agreement to warrant any farmer taking immediate steps to increase his production.
The fact of the matter, Mr. Chairman, is that the circumstances that have prevented our supplying the British market in larger measure than in the past must be corrected by other means than those embodied in this agreement. We have been told that the difficulty in the past was lack of uniformity in the product, and lack of a continuous supply.

United Kingdom
That was all true, and campaigns have been carried on among the farmers with, I believe, a great deal of success to improve the quality of the product and bring it more in line with what is desired in Great Britain. At the same time I think we must learn that if we are to get any benefit from this market we must be prepared, more than we have been in the past, to maintain a continuous supply. These are conditions which we must correct by ourselves, upon which this agreement can have no bearing whatever.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Has the minister before him the figures for which I asked?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes. My hon. friend asked for the imports into the United Kingdom, and if hon. members will follow these figures they will see the opportunity, at least, that is given Canada to enter that market. The imports into the United Kingdom for the calendar year 1930 totalled 9,191,000 hundredweight, made up as follows:
Hundredweight
Denmark	 6,117,000
Netherlands	 842,000
Sweden	 550,000
United States	 479,000
Poland	 483,000
Irish Free State	 330,000
Canada	 99,000


Albert Joseph Brown: What year is that?


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is for the calendar
year 1930, for bacon. In regard to hams, the total importations into the United Kingdom were 1,003,000 hundredweight. From the United States there came 820,000 hundredweight; from Poland, 42,000 hundredweight; and from Canada, 84,000 hundredweight.


Henry Elvins Spencer: We have a long way to
go.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes. Hon. members will
note that the total importation of bacon into the United Kingdom was over 9,000,000 hundredweight. They oiler to us an assured market on a parity with the British producer of 2,500,000 hundredweight. To elaborate a moment what my hon. friend from Melville seemed to be in doubt about, may I say that this does not limit the access we may have to the market; it limits what I might call the untrammelled access to the market. Beyond that, any that we ship in will have to be in competition with the world.


William Richard Motherwell: Are there two
kinds of quota?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, not necessarily. The
point is this. The British government have definitely determined, upon the basis of the 53719-72
report of this pig industry commission, to take certain legislative action to encourage the pig industry of Great Britain. What that legislative action will be we do not know and cannot guess, but whatever they do, it will enure to our benefit to the extent of 2,500,000 hundredweight.


Albert Joseph Brown: Can the minister tell us
approximately how much we have shipped in the past to Great Britain?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Some years ago the quantity was quite large. As nearly as I can recall-1 make the statement subject to correction by hon. members who may be better informed-I do not think that in the last ten years we have exceeded much over one half of the 2,500,000 hundredweight at any time, and that was about ten years ago.


John Campbell Elliott: Has anything been done
to carry out this declaration of intention- because that is what this section is. As I understand it, there is no undertaking whatever in this article; it is simply a declaration of intention that if they do pass legislation it will provide for this quota. Is it more than that?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes.


John Campbell Elliott: Where?


Henry Herbert Stevens: They will provide for this quota on the same terms and on the same basis as the British pig industry enjoys.


John Campbell Elliott: Where does it say that?


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend will find
it there. In the legislation which they submit to parliament for regulating the supplies of bacon and hams from all sources into the United Kingdom, provision will be made for free entry of Canadian bacon and hams of good quality up to a maximum of 2,500,000 hundredweight.


John Campbell Elliott: But that is not what the minister said. Where is there any reference to his statement that it will be on the same terms as those on which the people of Great Britain market their bacon and hams?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I can quite appreciate that were my hon. friend, as a lawyer, examining this from the standpoint of a fixed contract for a certain specific thing which might be in mind, he would find it difficult to discover it. But looking upon this in the proper light, the light in which it has been entered into, as an agreement wherein, in many respects, both governments undertake to do certain things, this clause covers the point

1138	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
I have made, namely, that free entry means freedom from restriction. It does not say free from duties, because the commission, and the legislation arising out of the report of the commission, might provide for some quantitative restriction and so on. In other words, it does not follow that the legislation will necessarily consist of restrictive measures by tariffs. That does not follow; it may 'be but we do not know. But whatever restrictions are placed on foreign bacon and hams, which it is the intention of the British government to impose in the interests of the British producer, they will not apply to Canada. That is to say, Canada will have freedom from such restrictions.


Charles A. Stewart: These explanations are rather confusing. As I read this article I formed the impression that under any circumstances we had free entry for
2,500,000	hundredweight apart from anything that might appear in the report of the commission, and that if the commission reported that they would have to impose a duty on some foreign bacon, that would 'be aside from this. The point I want to get at i3 this. Does this not mean that now, under the provisions of this agreement, we have entry for bacon up to 2,500,000 hundredweight?


Henry Herbert Stevens: It will be noted that we have free entry, from the tariff standpoint, under article 1. But this article deals with prospective legislation not decided upon at the time the agreement was made, the commission, at that time, not yet having completed its hearings. Therefore the provision is for free entry of Canadian bacon and hams, pig products, into the British market, irrespective of any restrictions that may be imposed against the foreign product, and entry free Irom tariffs is provided for under article 1.


John Campbell Elliott: Do I understand that the report referred to in this section has not been received by any member of this government up to the present time?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I understand that a copy of the report came forward today, and I pointed out that we had not had time for the officers of the government fully to study the report. It will take considerable time to do so.


John Campbell Elliott: Will that report be made available for the members of the house?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I see no abjection to that at all.


John Campbell Elliott: Would it not be advisable to have an opportunity of considering that report before disposing of this article?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I submit to my hon. friends opposite that that would not advance us to any extent. The legislation that may be decided upon by the British government is not yet known. It will be based on the report, which I am told is voluminous, and naturally so inasmuch as it took several months to prepare it. But suppose we took that report in this committee and began the process of analyzing it: personally I think it would be better if we were determined to do such a thing to refer it to the committee on agriculture where it could be dealt with. But even if we completed all that, we should still be at sea because we do not know what decision the British government will make as regards the legislation to be based on the report.


John Campbell Elliott: Is there any undertaking from the British government that they will introduce legislation?


Robert Weir: In passing, I wish to correct an impression left by the hon. member for Melville. I have not at any time, either before or since the conference, advocated a campaign for increased hog production, whether the price was two cents or any other price. I feel that that can be best left to the intelligence of the average farmer, and in the discussion we seem to have forgotten this possibility. Prior to the imperial conference, Sir John Gilmour, then Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries for the United Kingdom, gave the following pledge on behalf of the government: That a commission would be set up and when the report of that commission wa3 submitted they would take whatever steps they felt necessary to put the pig industry in the United Kingdom upon a paying basis. The commission has submitted its report, and the fundamental idea running through its recommendation is that they will restrict the total importation of bacon into the United Kingdom.


Albert Joseph Brown: There will be a quota against other countries.


Robert Weir: Against other countries, and there may be also a quota against the dominions of the British Empire at least in	some	classes	of	meats. As	a mattelrof	fact,	there	is	already a	quota or
quantitative restriction agreed upon between the United Kingdom and Australia with reference to lamb and mutton. It was because at the time of the imperial conference the report

United Kingdom
had not been received from the Pig Commission and it was still uncertain whether or not this quantitative restriction would be imposed against the dominions as well as foreign countries, that we did not want to be left in an uncertain position as to the nature of the quota we might be given, especially if it were to be based upon t'he exports we had made to the United Kingdom during the previous few months. Therefore we felt it was an advantage to have them agree to at least a minimum quantity of bacon and hams which we could export to the United Kingdom market.


Edward James Young: This is a maximum.


Robert Weir: A minimum.


Edward James Young: No, a maximum.


Robert Weir: We are assured of free entry to the extent of 280,000,000 pounds per annum. The fundamental idea running through the report-I have not had time to read it carefully-is that there will be a quantitive restriction against bacon coming into the United Kingdom market from foreign countries. It is hoped that this restriction will be of such an extent as to raise prices in order to make it profitable for those engaged in the pig industry in the United Kingdom. We will have full advantage of the rise in price which it is hoped will accrue.


William Richard Motherwell: I think the suggestion is to raise it from 60 shillings per long hundred to 80 shillings.


Robert Weir: Yes.


William Richard Motherwell: That is an increase of only 25 per cent, which would be equivalent to raising the price of live hogs from three to four cents per pound. That will not be very effective.


John Campbell Elliott: I understood the Minister of Trade and Commerce to say that up to this maximum of 2,500,000 hundredweight, hogs from Canada would be admitted into the United Kingdom market on the same terms as hogs raised in the L'nited Kingdom. Is there anything anywhere in the agreement to provide for that?


Robert Weir: The agreement
states that pig products up to 280,000,000 pounds will be allowed free entry.


Albert Joseph Brown: Is there any suggestion in the report that they might put a tariff on foreign hogs?


Robert Weir: Before the commission went into session a suggestion was made by certain associations in the old land that
a tariff should be put on against even the dominions, the pig producers of the United Kingdom to have preference over all. However, tariffs are not recommended in this report.


John Campbell Elliott: Is there any recommendation in the report against that and in favour of the admission of hogs from other British dominions upon the same terms as hogs produced in the United Kingdom?


Robert Weir: My impression of
the recommendation is that a quantitative restriction is suggested for pig products from foreign countries. Of course, by this agreement, Canada obtains free entry up to 280,000,000 pounds.


John Campbell Elliott: I cannot find in the article where an undertaking is given that they will introduce legislation implementing the suggestion-that is all it is-contained in this article.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I think the article is very *clear and explicit in that respect. It reads:
His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom declare that it is their intention to arrange as soon as possible after receiving the report of the commission now sitting on the reorganization of the pig industry in the United Kingdom, for the quantitative regulation of the supplies of bacon and hams coming on to the United Kingdom market and undertake that in any legislation which they may submit to parliament for regulating the supplies of bacon and hams from all sources into the United Kingdom, provision will be made for free entry of Canadian bacon and hams of good quality up to a maximum of 2,500,000 hundredweight per annum.
I think that is a clear and explicit designation of their intention. My hon. friend suggests that, we have no specific undertaking or contract on the part of the British government that they will carry out this intention, but I submit to him and to the committee that I do not question for one moment the good faith of the British government in this regard. I have just as much confidence that they will carry out their intentions as if they were tied up with the most explicit contract or obligation. It is impossible to imagine that the British government will do other than what they declare here to be their intention to do, to take steps as soon as this report is received to introduce legislation.


John Campbell Elliott: No, they do not.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Oh yes, they do. May
I read it again:
His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom declare that it is their intention to
1140	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
arrange as soon as possible after receiving tbe report of the commission now sitting on the reorganization of the pig industry in the United Kingdom, for the quantitative regulation of the supplies of bacon and hams coming on to the United Kingdom market-
That is what they propose to do; then they say:
-and undertake that in any legislation which they may submit to parliament-
Let us pause there. My hon. friends say that they do not say they will submit, but my submission is that this or any other article does not bind the British government or the British parliament. It does declare their intention, and up to the present they have kept faith. I am prepared and I am sure the committee is prepared to place implicit confidence in the British government's good faith to carry cut what they declare to be their intention. They declare, "in any legislation which they submit to parliament"-mark you, they declare their intention-free entry for Canadian bacon and hams is permitted or guaranteed.


John Campbell Elliott: Either we have an agreement or we have no agreement. I am not enthusiastic about agreements of this nature, but if you are going to enter into a bargain, then you had better have a bargain. That is my suggestion. In this case you clearly have no bargain; you have no bargain even to introduce legislation. The declaration-and that is all this article is-is as follows:
His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom declare that it is their intention-
That is all you have in this article-a declaration of their intention.
-to arrange as soon as possible after receiving the report of the commission now sitting on the reorganization of the pig industry in the United Kingdom, for the quantitative regulation of the supplies of bacon and hams coming on to the United Kingdom market.
That is their declaration-that it is their intention to arrange for this quantitative regulation of supplies.


George Brecken Nicholson: How are they going to arrange that?


John Campbell Elliott: Apparently no hon. member has seen fit to ask the British government about the matter.


George Brecken Nicholson: By legislation.


John Campbell Elliott: That remains to be seen. Furthermore, they-
-undertake that in any legislation which they may submit to parliament-

"Which they may submit to parliament." If, after they consider this report, they decide to submit legislation to parliament-
-in any legislation which they may submit to parliament for regulating the supplies of bacon and hams from all sources into the United Kingdom, provision will be made for free entry of Canadian bacon and hams of good quality up .to a maximum of 2,500,000 hundredweight per annum.
That is, if they do introduce legislation, they will make provision for that. In the article there is absolutely no undertaking to introduce legislation.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: One point
that is significant with regard to this particular article, is the omission of a feature upon which, with respect to other articles, great emphasis has been laid by the government, namely, that the British government is in honour bound, if not legally bound, to maintain a certain tariff or to give a certain preference for a period of years to Canadian goods entering the British market. That in this article there is no mention of any period of years is doubly significant in view of the fact that the ministry is setting forth the importance of the article in respect of hog production. Assuming that the British government carries out its intention of introducing legislation, once it has done so and has given to Canada under that legislation free entry of the quantity mentioned in the article, the obligation of the British government, so far as Canada is concerned, is wholly and completely discharged. The British government would not be violating anything either expressed or implied in this article if six months later they were to repeal the legislation and impose a duty on hog products entering their country. Can the minister show us any place in this agreement where the British government binds itself to maintain this quantity for a period of years?


Henry Herbert Stevens: My right hon. friend has said that there is nothing implied or stated. If he will turn to article 22, he will find this: "It shall remain in force for a period of five years," and so forth. Let me point out to the right hon. gentleman and the committee that in article 6 we are dealing merely with one particular problem that came up in connection with the agreement. In the various articles we have dealt with different phases of the trade of Canada with the United Kingdom. In regard to this particular phase of our trade, the United Kingdom was faced with a difficulty which I have already described on two or three previous occasions

United Kingdom
this evening, that is, that they were studying this pig industry. Therefore that pig industry was segregated and put into one article. It matters not what the opinion of my legal friends is as to the drafting of the article, there is no doubt in my mind as to the good faith or the intention of the British government or what they will do in carrying out that intention. The article indicates specifically and in simple language-it may not be in the best legal terminology, but it is in terms that can be clearly understood-that the intention is to ensure to Canada during the period of this agreement the free entry of Canadian bacon and hams into the British market. It is quite true that the British government may, during that period of five years, vary its legislation of a restrictive character against foreign bacon and hams, but it is equally certain that Canadian bacon and hams are ensured during the life of the agreement free entry into the British market. There is no question whatever on that point. The right hon. gentleman suggests that this should have been stated in the article itself. With all due deference, and not posing in any sense as a lawyer, I submit that the fact that the agreement is to remain in force for a period of five years, and that this is an integral part of the agreement, the five year period is not only implied but ensured in this article.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I hope the
minister is right, but I should like him to make a direct inquiry of the British government and ascertain whether that is their interpretation. I do not think anyone could possibly place that interpretation upon the agreement as it is drafted. The minister has quoted section 22 as authority for the statement that this shall continue for five years. Section 22 says that the agreement shall come into force from the date of the signing of the agreement, and it was signed on August 20, yet no special quota provision applies at the moment. Section 22 has reference to the length of the term of the agreement. Article 7 contains a special provision with respect to tobacco legislation extending over a period of ten years; it is part of the agreement, but the period of time during which the provision shall be effective is longer. If the agreement for a five year period is to be read subject to the terms of each section, why should some sections limit the term of importation to three years, others limit it to five years, and others provide no time limit at all? I submit that under this section the British government at any of the sessions of parliament could levy a duty on hog products entering the British
market, and no exception could be taken to their doing so. I venture the prophecy that if this protectionist policy becomes at all general, long before the period of five years has expired you will find any number of duties levied by Great Britain against the dominions in relation to agricultural products.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The right hon. gentleman has answered himself by citing article 22. He cites the coming into effect of this agreement, which is now:
Subject to the necessary legislative or other action being taken as soon as may be practicable hereafter.
Surely we are not going to quibble over this. All though the agreement there are on the part of both parties certain legislative acts that must be taken to give effect to it. We have just passed two or three articles dealing with very important matters in connection with the cattle embargo. The British government have to take certain actions to make the undertaking effective. They have taken those actions. So we find all through the agreement that legislative action must be taken, and with all due respect for my right hon. friend's long experience in these matters, I submit to him that the point he makes is well covered. I submit that the British government could not without violating the terms of this agreement impose restrictions upon Canadian produced bacon which are not imposed equally upon the home grown product during the life of the agreement.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The minister can remove all doubt if he will cable the Minister of Agriculture in Great Britain and inquire whether that is the interpretation of the British government. I think in the interests of the Canadian hog producers we have the right to that assurance. I cannot imagine the hog producers in this country having any greater ground for grievance than would be occasioned by their being encouraged to go into this business on the assumption that a market in Great Britain is guaranteed to them for five years, and the British government subsequently pointing out that it suits their purposes to impose a duty on hog products although there was no mention of it in the agreement, and it was expressly so stated in the Canadian House of Commons, and the Canadian minister of that day would not take the trouble to obtain the assurance asked for. I ask the minister now to get that assurance. I have another request to make. I do not say that we should hold up this article to examine the report of the British commission, but it ought to be tabled at once
1142	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
so that hon. members can see it. There may be something in it that will throw a good deal of light on the point we are discussing. The Minister of Agriculture has read the report and has told us what is in it. I submit that the ex-Minister of Agriculture has the same right to see what is in it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: There is not the slighest objection.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I suggest that the minister have the report tabled, and if we pass the article in the meantime it will be with the understanding that we be permitted before the discussion in committee is concluded to refer to any feature relating to the hog commission's report with which we wish to deal.


William Richard Motherwell: In support of my leader's contention, may I draw attention to the evolutionary nature of protection? For the last one hundred and fifty years it has been evoluting from bad to worse, and now they are starting all over again in Great Britain with protection after nearly a hundred years of free trade. Where it will end nobody knows. But we do know this, that Great Britain will consult her own electors before she will consult ours. The British government is amenable to its own electorate, including the farmers, but not to ours.
Here is a cable statement made by Lukin Johnston, an old country man, I understand, although I do not know the gentleman. The article is taken from our own press. I understand that this correspondent is a responsible gentleman. The article is headed, "Canadian bacon trade is given ten year chance," and the subhead reads, "Will at least take that time for British producer to provide country's requirements." To provide the country's requirements! You see, they will take our products so long as it suits them, but when they raise enough themselves it will be: "Good afternoon, gentlemen!" But that is looking a long way ahead; we will let that go. In the body of the article 1 read this:
While it is admitted that the price of bacon to the consumer in this country will rise, it_ is claimed on tlie other hand that the British farmer wild be compelled to breed pigs of the right kind and in sufficient numbers until ultimately the United Kingdom may be able to provide for her own requirements.
If they go at it right and use those vast acres which they have devoted to the raising of deer or other unprofitable purposes, for the raising of hogs and hog feeds, Great Britain will in a decade or two find that she can raise as many hogs as Denmark. Great Britain has a wonderful agriculture and it can be made

still more wonderful if they will only buckle down to it and use their land for profit. I understand that they are starting, and all power to them so far as I am concerned. But do not think, if they go in for greater production of hogs, that there is no possibility of them doing what my leader has suggested. That is exactly what they are drifting towards, and if they start on this game of protection they will undoubtedly say eventually that the sister dominions are beginning to interfere with the home grown product and that they can grow enough hogs of their own now anyway. Could this government which has shot up duties sky high against British commodities possibly object?
There is another matter. I have not been able to find out whether or not there is going to be a quota for Denmark. I have it on good authority that there are two kinds of quotas, one for the dominions and one for the home grown products. I think that Great Britain intends to have a quota on its own production. Is that right? If it is going to be such a wonderful stimulus to our hog raising, a quota would be equally stimulating to their own producers, and they would then raise such large quantities of hogs as to exclude ours. I recently read an article in a very responsible publication, the Live Stock Journal, in the old country, in which it was pointed out that a quota system would be applied to hog production in Great Britain. Just think of discussing this matter, Mr. Chairman, when nobody knows whether that is so or not. Again, suppose the quota system does not apply to Denmark. What is Denmark going to do when she finds that the quota system is going to come into effect on the first day of July, which is the date on which this legislation in the old country is going to come into effect? We will say, for the sake of illustration, that there is no quota applying to foreign countries, and I do not think there is. What will at once happen, and what is happening now, I believe, is that during the short period in which there will be no restrictions, either quota or tariff, between now and the first of July, Denmark will rush her hogs into Great Britain pell mell, just as New Zealand rushed butter into this country when if. was known that the duty on butter was going to be raised on the first of October. You remember the first of October, 1930, Mr. Chairman, because you heard a lot about butter at that time. When the importers in Canada realized that the duty on butter was going to be four cents a pound instead of one cent a pound after the first of October, I think every steamer on the Pacific carried a full quota of New Zealand butter. Whether the importing

United, Kingdom
was done by Tory importers or not I do not know, but at all events the butter came in. Why? For the logical reason that it was going to cost three cents a pound more to import it after the first of October. It came in, and it fairly struck terror into a lot of people, and incidentally won a lot of good Tory votes that should not have gone Tory. Denmark similarly, being loaded up with pigs now and having to place them somewhere, will glut the British market between now and the first of July, as sure as day follows night. That is not a rash prediction; in fact I believe it is happening right now.
The Minister of Agriculture knows quite well that on every pound of bacon that has been shipped from this country to the British market during the last two or three months our packers have been losing money. If live hogs were being sold on an export basis right now our producers would receive less than two cents a pound at the point of shipment in mid-Saskatchewan. The price for bacon hogs in Winnipeg is only three cents a pound, and that means two cents a pound in the mid-prairies. That is the position we are in now and it is likely to get worse as long as this condition is hanging over us till July 1, because Denmark is sure to crowd her excess hogs into the British market and further glut it. There is no question, I think, about that, and I fear for the result. It is bad enough now. The Canadian farmers are angry at being advised to grow more hogs.
The Minister of Agriculture corrected me a little while ago. He must admit that I myself, earlier in the session, gave him the credit of not recommending an increase in the hog population with his propaganda and his voice. But when he adopts a policy that must result in increasing the hog population, what is the use in his protesting? What was his policy? It was the same as his predecessor's, only more so. He went into it more vigorously in 1930. He purchased a lot of good type brood sows and mated them with- I must not use the word, because the Minister of Trade and Commerce might reprove me for using improper language in committee- mated them with companionate associates, shall I say. Well, what can we expect from an active policy of that kind but increased pig population; and a thousand protests from every Tory in the house would not stop it. That is the way all pig populations increase, and in no other way. I think my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture should not be putting up that stunt any more. I have not punctured that bubble before, but I think it is high time it was punctured. Let me say to
hon. members opposite that the farmers are incensed when they think of the minister professing a desire not to increase the pig population, and then adopting a policy which must result in an increase. He is facing both ways, and he has two policies. He wants to save himself, apparently, if prices go bad by saying: "Well, I did not recommend an increased pig population, but inasmuch as farmers were bound in 1930 to raise more pigs I was going to give them the right angle on it and induce them to grow the right kind." So much for * the 1930 policy. I do not wish to be harsh with the Minister of Agriculture, because I am trying to cultivate pleasant relation*-ships with him, and believe I have succeeded in some measure. I do not know that I can say the same concerning the Minister of Trade and Commerce; I do not care much whether I cultivate good relations with him after the way he lectured us the other day. Before we left home to attend this session a number of men on the staff of the Department of Agriculture, men whom I know to be competent, went out to Saskatchewan and into a small part of Alberta, together with members of the provincial departments of agriculture, to start a campaign of greater hog production. Of course they may have gone out on their own hook, I do not know, but I am inclined to think they did not; I believe the minister authorized them to make the trip. If I read the papers correctly, I am led to believe that they went out on a campaign for greater hog production, and a high quality product. They went out to be prepared for any improved market possibilities arising out of these agreements. If ever there was an exhibition of courage, they showed it, because they were engaged upon the most unpopular mission on which they could possibly have ventured. Hogs were selling for two and a half cents a pound, and in many cases the farmers had to draw water for them many miles. Then we have these "more hogs" crusaders coming along and telling them to produce still more hogs. Well, you should have heard what some of those farmers said. I am sure it would have been objected to by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who shows such sensitiveness when his ox is gored.
There are one or two further matters to which I should like to direct the attention of the government. The quota under which British hog producers are to operate must have been discussed in the conference committee. Are the British hog producers going to have a quota in order to control hog production and possible expansion? It was
1144	COMMONS
Imperial Conjeren.ee-Trade Agreements
assumed that that was to be quite stimulating to the home growers, and in order to prevent its being overdone there would be provision for the production of just a certain number of contract hogs-in their home market, so we are told-something like signing up a pool contract. I wonder if the Minister of Agriculture would tell us about that; I am sure he must know. It is all guess work
without the report of the British commission before us. Would he tell us whether a certain quota was to be placed on the foreign product or the home product in Britain, or both or neither?
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Bennett the house adjourned at 10.58 p.m.



END OF VOLUME I