RAILWAY COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
(Translation) First report of the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.-Mr. Vien.

Mr. J. G. TURGEON (Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. Last night I had to deny a statement which appeared in the Ottawa Journal concerning proceedings in yesterday's Liberal caucus. I rise to-day to speak again as deputy chief government whip, having been present during every minute of yesterday's caucus. I quote from the Toronto Daily Star of February 23, yesterday's paper, as follows:
A Liberal caucus to-day endorsed the government's new three-point plan to cover wheat growing and marketing in the prairie provinces. It provides:
1.	Guarantee of production cost of wheat to all cooperative marketing organizations and pools, whether producers, elevator or grain trade, at a statutory price to be fixed at about 63 cents per bushel.
2.	An acreage bonussing plan to apply to al wheat growers, to provide from about $210 ol $220 to each farmer of a half section. This amount will be graded off to not more that about $300 maximum to those farming a section of land.
3.	A flat payment not to exceed $2 an acre or $320 per quarter section in fixed crop loss areas where production averages less than five bushels per acre.
I quote from another report, in the Toronto Globe and Mail of Friday, February 24, as follows:
The Canadian government will continue to give a guaranteed w-heat price to western farmers, but in the coming crop year it will be about 63 cents per bushel, a figure estimated to be the average cost of wheat production.
This is one of the three main features of a bill which was approved by a Liberal caucus this morning, and which will be introduced in the House of Commons late next week by Hon. James G. Gardiner, Minister of Agriculture.
These statements which I have quoted from the Toronto Globe and Mail of today's date and the Toronto Star of yesterday's date are utterly and absolutely false. They are not based on any fact whatever. They are completely, one hundred per cent wrong. The matters mentioned were not discussed in any manner or shape whatever.


Mr. PERLEY:: I would suggest, in order to prevent any reports of that kind-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Ernest Edward Perley: -that the minister bring down the bill as soon as possible.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: What was the question?


Mr. CASSELMAN:: It was not a question.



PARLIAMENTARY RESTAURANT

William Lyon Mackenzie King: That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their Honours that this house has appointed the Honourable the Speaker and Messrs. Barber, Bertrand (Prescott), Fafard, Goulet, Gray, Hill, Landeryou, Maclnnis, MacMillan, Macphail (Miss), Moore, O'Neill, Pinard, Purdy, Rheaume, Roberge, Spence, Taylor (Norfolk), Tustin, a committee to assist His Honour the Speaker in the direction of the restaurant, so far as the interests of the Commons are concerned, and to act as members of a joint committee of both houses on the restaurant.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Ernest Edward Perley: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Trade
German Allegiance

and Commerce (Mr. Euler). He will recall that last year he agreed to a suggestion made by the then leader of the opposition, the Right Hon. Mr. Bennett, to bring down weekly reports of the wheat board as required under the act and have them placed in the sessional papers office. 1 should like to know whether he will agree to that being done this year and have them brought down to date, bringing down any subsequent reports as well.


Hon. W. D. EULER (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: My hon. friend the other day suggested that these reports be tabled, but I was unable to agree to that. This request has to do with filing them as requested last year by the then leader of the opposition. I will give consideration to the request, but I cannot say definitely at the moment whether I can agree to it or not.



GERMAN ALLEGIANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: The hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil) inquired a few days ago as to a circular, issued in Vancouver and other points, in connection with contributions for German winter relief. The matter has been taken up with the German consular authorities. It is stated that a somewhat similar appeal for winter relief has been issued in Canada, as in other countries in previous years, and that on the present occasion the whole, instead of three quarters, of the sums collected has been used for relief in Canada. I am advised that the German phrase "Deutscher Volksgenosse" used in the circular to describe the persons to whom the appeal for contributions was addressed, while not a term which has been legally defined, applies only to citizens of the German Reich, whether resident in Germany or abroad. The implication which was drawn that Canadians of German origin were specifically included in the appeal does not therefore appear to be correct, if by "Canadians" Canadian nationals are meant. An appeal such as set forth in the circular in question, if addressed to Canadian citizens of whatever origin, would undoubtedly be most improper. Other questions raised by the terms of the circular have been brought to the attention of the consular representatives.



TRADE AGREEMENTS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, February 23, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mackenzie King that the house go into committee on the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient that parliament do approve of the trade agreement entered into at Washington on the 17th day of November, 1938, between Canada and the United States of America, and that this house do approve of the same, subject to the legislation required in order to give effect to the provisions thereof.
Mr. D. G. ROSS (St. Paul's):: During the course of my remarks last evening the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) drew my attention to a dispatch from the Secretary of State for the Dominions in London to the effect that the agreement could not have been made except for the sacrifices that the dominions were prepared to make in this matter. I am sorry I did not hear the right hon. gentleman correctly, and thought that some further, documents had been tabled. I was quite aware of that dispatch. I am also aware, as I stated earlier in my remarks, that certain sacrifices had to be made by Canada. But what hon. members of this house and the people of Canada should know before they can properly judge the merits or demerits of the new treaty is just what sacrifices we were asked to make or it was necessary for us to make. The dispatch does not mention that. What I am asking for is the removal of the smoke-screen.
Before the house adjourned last night I had quoted a dispatch from the London Weekly Times with respect to protests under the most favoured nation treaties, and I continue.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Before my
friend continues may I relieve his mind at once by saying that all concessions that were granted were requested and were necessary in order to enable the agreement between the United Kingdom and the United States to be concluded. But with respect to concessions made, there were as far as we are concerned compensations effected in the agreements which we have either -with the United Kingdom or with the United States.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I did not hear
the right hon. gentleman very well, but tomorrow I shall read in Hansard what he said.
Other countries which have made trade treaties with Canada containing the mast favoured nation clause will claim under that

Canada-United. States Trade Agreement
clause the benefits of the tariff concessions accorded to the United States. Yet we are told by the government that they have received no complaints, and that the effect on these treaties is a matter of minor importance.
The consequences of these treaties are so far-reaching and involved that it would be impossible for me in the time at my disposal to discuss this aspect of -the matter. But the fact is that the ministry do not know what the consequences will be. It would take an expert two or three -months to ascertain that. Did we have to make all the sacrifices in order that Great Britain and the United States might conclude this treaty; or for world appeasement, or for peace with the United Stats? We have had peace with them since 1812; do we have to pay for the future? Let me read from the Toronto Daily Star of February 15, 1939:
Asserting that the United States "for selfish reasons'' would be forced, defensively, to go to the aid of Canada or Great Britain in an emergency, Representative Pace (Democrat, Georgia) added:
"I feel sure that the President did not say our frontier is on the Rhine. In my judgment he could well have said, 'Our first line of defence is England and France.' When we see England and France go down, we are threatened."
I do not think we have to pay for that. The senator from Georgia simply states the truth.
What did we. get by way of compensation for the sacrifices which we have made? I wonder whether hon. members realize that in 1937 the value of all our exports to the United States, which consist of products which they must have, such as newsprint, pulpwood, lobsters, nickel and alloys thereof, totalled
5173.000.	000 in round figures. Gold is still on the free -list, I do not think it is bound; that amounted to about 875,000,000. Are those concessions? We get concessions, it is true, on products which they do not have to have. But these concessions are mostly surrounded by quotas. Let me read from a press release of February 7 last from the United States government. Let us hear something about these concessions. For the calendar year 1938 their exports to Canada for domestic consumption were in round figures $453,000,000. Their imports from Canada for domestic consumption, excluding gold, amounted to $257,000,000, leaving therefore a balance in their favour of
8204.000.	000, excluding gold. I point out that the United States were not suffering from the results of the 1935 treaty. They did not need further concessions from us.
Then I turn to the press release of November, 17, 1938. I wish every Canadian could have a copy so he could read it for himself. I quote from page 12:
In the agreement of 1936 the reduction of United States duties on certain important commodities, mustly agricultural, was safeguarded by the use of tariff quotas, the reduced duties applying only to limited quantities; any imports in excess of the specified limits continued subject to the full rates.
And these quotas are ridiculously small. Agriculture and so -on has been amply safeguarded. The quota on milk, for example, is one-fifth of a pint a year to each person in the United States. The quota on cattle for the quarter was filled by January 31. So much for the quotas.
Again I quote, this time from -page 15:
The most important free list items bound by the new agreement (including those already bound by the 1936 agreement) are: newsprint paper, wood pulp of all kinds, and pulpwood; lobster, scallops and sea herring; certain kinds of furs; crude asbestos; crude artificial abrasives; and certain fertilizers. The imports from Canada in 1937 of all articles bound free by the agreement amounted to $203,000,000 or 85 per cent of all free imports from that country. The assurance that duties will not be imposed on this huge volume of trade is of great value to Canada and has been taken into consideration by that country in making its concessions to the United States on articles dutiable under the Canadian tariff as well as on duty free articles.
Why, then, should these have been taken into consideration? What do we care whether or not these items are bound free? The only people that care about that are the consumers of the United States; they are the ones who are -interested-and possibly their government, for revenue purposes. It is in their interest to have low duties.
Again I quote, this time from page 52:
A secondary reason why the United States has kept newsprint paper and paper materials on the free list may lie in the fact that at least in times of active business construction the cut of wood from American forests for lumber, paper and all other purposes, exceeds the annual growth, with resultant depletion of the total stand of timber, logs, posts, poles, railway ties, pickets, palings and lath. The free entry of these wood products has long been maintained by Congress in the public interest.
I do not think the United States will put a duty on them. I do not see much concession there; it is simply a matter of self-preservation.
Again on page 53 it is pointed out with respect to nickel that Canada is the only producer. Aluminium -is controlled by a cartel. I might go on to other items but time does not permit. But these are not concessions;


Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Minister of Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, because it
deals with the vast matter of trade, the resolution before the house is probably one of the most important which will come before us at the present session. Proof of its importance is found in the fact that many of the speeches delivered by lion, members in the debate on the address, especially by hon. members opposite, had reference to the trade agreement recently consummated with the United States.
This question of trade is one which almost from the very beginning of our confederation has engaged the attention of Canadians. This I believe is perfectly natural and understandable. If we study history and look around us in the world we find that the countries which have attained the highest degree of civilization are those which have reached the highest degree of perfection in their international trade. Many examples could be given. We could cite the example of Great Britain whose trade, I believe, leads that of the world. We could mention France and the United States. The same was true of Germany until that country turned her back on her past and sought to find new paths to national greatness.
It is a significant fact that in Canada we have attained a very strong position indeed in the matter of international trade. Ours is a country vast in extent, with only eleven millions of people, and yet one which in the
1282	COMMONS
Canada-United States Trade Agreement
year 1937 stood sixth among the nations of the world in volume of international trade. In 1936 we held fourth place among the exporting nations of the world, and the same condition held true in 1.937. This is without question a remarkable achievement.
I suggest these facts am evidence of two things. They are evidence, first, of the enterprise, resourcefulness and initiative of the Canadian people, and, second, of the value of the resources of our country. Because of this, over the years, if w'e contrast our position with that of many other countries, we have had in Canada-sometimes up, sometimes down-a remarkable degree of prosperity. I believe that fact is indisputable. Because of this vast volume of trade, touching almost all countries of the world, we have been able to develop the amenities of modern civilization. Our educational system; our hospitalization for the unfortunate, our care for the needy, have reached as high a degree of development as can be found almost anywhere else in the world.
We have been able to do this because of our prosperity. In 1929 our total trade reached the vast sum of well over two and a half billion dollars. While there have been some reverses since that time, (partly because of our own mistakes and partly because of conditions beyond our control, nevertheless on the whole it has remained at a high point.
It is perfectly natural and understandable that the question of trade and fiscal policies should create differences of opinion. Broadly speaking-and certainly over the last sixty years-such differences have existed between the two major parties in the country. I know it can be said that there were times, and there have been years when the policies of the two parties appeared to be not far apart. But there is this significant fact, that whenever an opportunity came to free trade from some of its shackles, or to extend the possibility of getting Canadian markets, the Liberal party have been found on one side and the Conservative party on the other.


Mr. CAHAN:: Oh, no, no!


Mr. SPENCE:: We got the market and
you lost it.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: My hon. friends object to that. I hope before I go much farther I shall demontrate a little more fully the truth of the statement. But in the main that is the fact. The Conservative party has been the one which has always advocated what it

thought to be an essential measure of protection for Canadian industry, through the maintenance of tariffs. That will not be disputed. On the other hand, while at times the Liberal party, in the judgment of many of its supporters, has maintained tariffs that were too high, nevertheless it has had its face turned in the right direction. When opportunities have arisen it has moved in the direction of lowering tariffs, promoting trade and thereby aiding in bringing prosperity to the Canadian people.
Since the great war there has been a distinct impetus in the world toward economic and political nationalism. This is particularly true of Europe during the last eight or ten years. What led to this condition? So far as some European countries are concerned, the fear of war and the uncertainty of the future caused them to adopt policies which have unquestionably restricted and hampered international trade and world recovery.
A similar policy was adopted by the United States following the war. The United States has been frequently referred to in this debate as a high tariff countiy, but there have been times in the past sixty years when their tariffs were not nearly as high as they have been in the last seven or eight years. During the tenure of office of President Wilson the institution of the Underwood tariff brought about substantial reductions in the duties on goods going into that countiy. Let me say in passing that that tariff was of particular benefit to Canada during those years. But following the war, probably more or less because of a feeling of disappointment over the trend of affairs in Europe, the United States took the other couise. We had the Fordney-McCumber tariff in 1922. Then for several years there was in the United States a definite propaganda, energetically carried on, to the end that she should cut herself free from the rest of the world, not only in an economic but also in a political sense. There were those who held and expressed the view that the United States could live unto herself, that she did not need the rest of the world. If Europe was to become a madhouse, at any rate the United States could remain out of it. All this led to the adoption of the Hawley-Smoot tariff in 1930.
What was the idea back of the adoption of the Hawley-Smoot tariff? It was simply a continuation of the policies which had been finding favour in the United States for a number of years previously. The Hawley-

Canada-United. States Trade Agreement
Smoot tariff raised the customs duties to a point which I do not think had ever been reached before in that country. After that was done they looked forward to a period of prosperity; but what happened? Within three years, yes, within two years, the United States had entered the worst period of depression it had ever experienced. There came a time when its banks closed, when its trade had practically disappeared; and wiith these conditions came unemployment, distress, suffering and misery.
We also had an experiment in Canada. I recall the election of 1930 and the campaign carried on by the former leader of the Conservative party. I can recall some of the speeches made by hon. gentlemen whom I see opposite to me at the present time. What were those speeches? What was their policy at that time? They criticized the policy of the Liberal party in the matter of tariff reduction during the previous ten years. They told the people that the unemployment that was coming along was all due to the fact that tariffs had been reduced, that the country had been on the wrong course. The people took the Conservative party at its word and returned it to power in 1930. One of the first acts of the new administration was to raise the tariff. A little later it was raised again, to the highest level it had ever been in Canadian history. Do any of my hon. friends opposite deny that during the election campaign of 1930 they pressed this policy upon the Canadian people as a cure for their economic ills? Do they deny that they stated on platform after platform that if they were returned to power they would raise the tariff, they would cure unemployment, they would bring prosperity to the country?


David Spence: We tried to. That is what you have not done.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The hon. member for
Parkdale (Mr. Spence) was one of the prime movers in that respect. I really believe the hon. member has a conscience, and it must bother him greatly at times for the part he took-


David Spence: Not a bit.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: -in that campaign.


Ernest Edward Perley: The hon. member might recite how his own conscience bothers him.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I will attend to my hon. friend in a little while. I was one of those who was left at home in the 1930 election, but I recall the autumn session in 1930 when the tariff was raised. Why was that done?
To cure unemployment and to restore prosperity. Hon. gentlemen opposite cannot deny that. Again in the session of 1931 the tariff was hoisted still higher, for the purpose, it was alleged, of relieving unemployment and bringing prosperity to Canada. What happened? With every increase in the tariff, there was an increase in unemployment and an increase in the burdens placed upon the Canadian taxpayers. That was the result of the mistaken policies of my hon. friends opposite.
Then we had the 1932 conference which was to cure everything. I have never been one of those who had very much faith in the work of the Ottawa conference. I took the trouble this morning to read the opening address by Mr. Baldwin, now Earl Baldwin, who headed the British delegation. The conference would have achieved something worth while if it had followed the lead he gave in that address; but it did not. He pointed out that there were two courses to be followed. The conference could increase intra-empire trade by reducing the tariffs against each other and leaving the general tariffs against, outside countries where they were, or they could leave the intra-empire tariffs where they were and increase the general tariff against other countries. Unfortunately it was the latter course that was followed.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Oh, no, decidedly not.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: My hon. friend may dispute that, but-


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I do.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: -the record is against him.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Not a bit of it. There was a raising of tariffs and there was a lowering of tariffs.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: So far as Canada was
concerned, the lowered tariffs had to do chiefly with things that did not count, while the tariff was raised on things that were vital to the Canadian consumer. May I say in passing that there was another unfortunate consequence that flowed from those agreements. I do not wish to get into a controversy with my hon. friends opposite, but the Ottawa agreements did create in the minds of the have-not countries in an anxious and uncertain world, the idea that the British empire, the mother country and its dominions, was set upon a policy of economic imperialism. The effect of this impression on countries that lacked the sources of raw materials which the British empire possessed has exercised an injurious influence upon the world for the last six or seven years.
1284	COMMONS
Canada-United. Stales Trade Agreement
But my hon. friends opposite of the Conservative party did endeavour to negotiate a trade treaty with the United States prior to the election of 1935, and in this debate reference has been made to that effort. But while discussions and even negotiations in regard to the treaty went on, no finality had been reached when the general election took place in the autumn of 1935. If one can form any judgment from the speeches made by my hon. friends opposite in this debate, they would never in the world have succeeded in negotiating a trade agreement with the United States, and I am firmly convinced there would have been no such trade agreement if the Conservative party had been returned to power in 1935.
What would have happened? I think I can picture the scene. I am sorry the leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion) is not in his seat, but I recall his attitude in the budget debate of 1930, and I can see him, if a trade agreement with the United States was coming forward, getting out his shillelagh-it is never far away-and appealing to the red-blooded Canadianism of the Canadian people against having any "truck or trade with the Yankees."
I go on down the line to my good friend from St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan). In passing may I say, and I am sure he will take my word for it, that there is no member of the house for whom I have a greater respect, but I was disappointed in the speech he made the other night. If the Conservative administration had been returned in 1935 and a trade agreement with the United States had been approaching finality, I can see him going back to the days of Cleveland and the Alaska boundary' award; I can see him citing to his leader all the speeches that had been made by all sorts of politicians in the United States at the time of the reciprocity proposals in 1911. Is there any possible indication that my hon. friend would have supported a reciprocity agreement with the United States?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Certainly not the agreement that was then suggested by' the United States; and my views were made perfectly' clear.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I will say, in the best of good temper, that I do not believe there is any kind of trade agreement that could possibly be made with the United States that my hon. friend from St. Lawrence-St. George *would support.
I go on down the line to the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Stirling). He is not in his seat at the moment, but in imagination I can see him looking across to Oregon, seeing a
fMr. Crerar.]
few apple orchards there, and sayring: Nothing doing so far as apples are concerned in a trade treaty with our United States neighbours!


Mr. LENNARD:: It is more than a few apple orchards.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Yes. I can imagine also-


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The hon. member's imagination is working well to-day.


Mr. DUNNING:: He has not started
painting pictures yet.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I can imagine what our
good friends from Toronto would have said -the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church), the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Spence), the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Ross), the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol)-what would have been their reaction to an approaching trade agreement with the United States?


Charles Avery Dunning: They would have required medical treatment.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: They would have picked up their war weapons and stood four-square against it. It is not that this particular trade treaty is unacceptable to hon. gentlemen opposite, Mr. Speaker; any kind of trade agreement with the United States would be unacceptable to them.


David Spence: I do not think it is fair for the hon. gentlemen to make statements of that kind before this house, because he knows better. He knows that if we could have made a trade treaty with the United States that would have been satisfactory to us we would have done so at any time. But the hon. member says that we would not do it under any' circumstances.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I certainly do not wish to be unfair. I withdraw my statement, and moderate it to this extent-


David Spence: But you have said it so often-that is the trouble.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: There might be a glimmer of hope, very, very dim and distant but still a glimmer, that the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Spence) would have seen the light.


David Spence: I have seen the light many a time, but I see nothing but darkness when I look at you.


William Daum Euler: Can't take it.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Hon. gentlemen opposite, as I said a moment ago, had a trade treaty with the United States in process of negotiation before the election of 1935, but no finality

Canada-United, States Trade Agreement
was reached. Then came the general election, and within six weeks the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), my respected leader, had gone to Washington and negotiated and settled the argument.


David Spence: Because he accepted what we would not take-that is all.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Now, what were the benefits from that agreement? If we take a glance at the economy of Canada to-day what do we find as the greatest need of Canada in its commerce and industry? I submit, Mr. Speaker, that it is markets. Take the economic story of Canada from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and you will find that that is true. Go down to Nova Scotia: their need is markets for their products. New Brunswick needs markets for its lumber and potatoes; Quebec needs markets for its pulp and paper, lumber and asbestos; Ontario needs markets for its products; the prairie provinces the same, and British Columbia as well. The great need of all our provinces is markets for their products, and the fact of the matter is that the trade agreement, negotiations for which were started by the late administration before the election of 1935, and which were carried to completion by the present administration, did widen the markets for Canadian products. That fact cannot be disputed; the trade figures show it.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: An infinitesimal widening.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: It is not so infinitesimal; on the contrary, it is very considerable, and the 'benefits from that treaty have been shown in our trade figures. Further, it is not without some significance that while the United States had a very considerable depression in the latter part of 1937 and in 1938, this country in a measure escaped the consequences of that depression. And why? Because our people were profitably employed in producing the things that we could sell.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Not to the United States.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Yes, to the United States, and the figures show it.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: We sold them elsewhere, in British countries.


William Daum Euler: More went to the United
States than to any other country in the world.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I respectfully suggest to
my hon. friend the member for St. Lawrence-St. George that he study the trade figures if he has not done so.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am pretty well acquainted with them.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Now we come to the present agreement. It is not only an extension of the old agreement, but an enlargement of that agreement, a very considerable enlargement. It widens our markets still further. In what way? The Nova Scotia fishermen, who have been having a very difficult time for a number of years past, have wider markets opened to them for their fish. The New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island farmers have wider markets for their potatoes, and there is a wider market for British Columbia lumber. As regards the great pulp and paper industry of Quebec, we find our present free entry to the United States guaranteed during the term of this agreement, and that is not without some significance. The improvements being made by modern scientific research in the processing of paper will probably lead before very long to the development of methods which will enable newsprint to be made from the great stands of southern pine in the United States, and when we consider that our exports of pulp and paper to that country last year amounted to more than 8100,000,000, it is worth something to have during the term of this agreement the assurance that no duty will be placed against our pulp and paper.
Coming to Ontario, that province benefits in several ways from the agreement. It benefits under the cattle schedules, under the dairy products schedules and from the reduction in the duty on nickel going into the United States. In Manitoba we find that there are benefits as there are in Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia.
The great need for Canada to-day is markets for her products. Take mineral production alone. In 1918 our total production of zinc, copper, lead and nickel was 297,000,000 pounds. In 1938 it had grown to 1,586,000,000 pounds. Gold is not affected, although I am not very much impressed with the argument of some of my friends opposite that gold should not be taken into account in the trade export figures with respect to the United States. However, in gold, the production in 1918, equated to the present price of gold, was
824.000. 000, whereas last year it was over
8164.000.	000, an evidence again of the expanding exports of the country and the need for markets in our base metals, lumber, pulp and paper, and live stock-indeed, in almost everything we produce.
The point I am making is that this agreement does enlarge the markets for Canadian products, and to the extent that it does so, it helps to promote prosperity in this country; and as it promotes prosperity here, it increases the peace and happiness of the Canadian
1286	COMMONS
Canada-United States Trade Agreement
people. That is a strong reason for the agreement. And what are the criticisms against it? I wish to spend a few minutes in dealing with the criticisms of my hon. friends opposite.
I must confess I have been interested in the course they have taken. When this agreement was first announced it received the blessing of a former Conservative premier of Ontario. The leader of the reconstruction party, a former minister of trade and commerce, and first lieutenant of the leader of the opposition, spoke some quite friendly words for the trade arrangement. He thought it was a good thing. I was in doubt myself as to where the leader of the opposition stood on the question-I am sorry he is not here to-day. In the debate on the address he made a long reference to the treaty. After his speech was over and reported I said to a Conservative friend of mine in the city, " Is the leader of the opposition going to oppose, or is he going to support, this treaty?" The reply was, "Well, from his speech I don't know." And that was understandable.
Let me quote from the speech of the leader of the opposition on January 16. The reference will be found on page 34 of Hansard:
I am not questioning that there are advantages in this agreement; it would be a queer kind of agreement if it did not produce any benefit. But when the losses and gains are weighed together, my submission is that there is grave doubt of the advantages being more than the disadvantages so far as we are concerned.
He had not made up his mind. In another part of his speech he said that time would tell, and on page 35 of Hansard he is reported further:
I am now going to leave the trade treaty. I have made a good many general remarks about it, but undoubtedly we shall deal with it more fully when it is up for discussion here. Even then, if it is discussed, as the right hon. gentleman suggested the other day, as soon as this debate is over, I do not think we shall be able to judge as to its merits or demerits, though I anticipate that we shall hear from some men, coming from various sections of the country, interested in certain industries, who may feel that they have been benefited or hurt.
That clearly revealed that the leader of the opposition was even then, as late as January 16, in some doubt. Apparently, however, a course has been mapped and is being followed and we are now meeting from my hon. friends opposite with an increasing measure of opposition to this agreement. Let me deal briefly with some of the counts.
The member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley) may be regarded, I think, as the wheat expert -if I may use that much-abused word-of the opposition.


Ernest Edward Perley: Thank you.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: He put a lot of interesting figures on Hansard last evening. Not only the member for Qu'Appelle, but several other members of the opposition have criticized this agreement in its relation to wheat. In fact, I am not certain that it is not the strongest point they have endeavoured to make against it, that we lost something when we gave up the British preference of six cents a bushel on wheat. They are lamenting the loss of the British market and asking what we are going to do with our wheat. I believe a very good case can be made out for the argument that the preference of six cents a bushel on wheat was never of any real value to the wheat growers of this country. One of the conditions of that preference- and the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George will recall this-is found in article 4 of the 1932 agreement, which reads:
It is agreed that the duty on either wheat in grain, copper, zinc or lead as provided in this agreement may be removed if at any time empire producers of wheat in grain, copper, zinc and lead respectively are unable or unwilling to offer these commodities on first sale in the United Kingdom at prices not exceeding the world prices and in quantities sufficient to supply the requirements of the United Kingdom consumers.
What does that mean?


An hon. MEMBER:: Nothing.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: It means just nothing so far as the value of the preference in the matter of price was concerned.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Certainly, but there was a preference as to quantity.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I am making my speech. There was no preference so far as price was concerned. It cannot be shown that a single farmer in Canada received an additional cent a bushel for his wheat because of that preference.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: But he received an additional and sheltered market.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I come now to the point my hon. friend raises. He says it gave us in a certain degree a sheltered market. But did it? Western Canadian wheat has always occupied a special place in the world's markets because of its peculiar quality. The United States produce not more than twenty-five per cent, probably twenty per cent, of hard wheat in their total wheat production. Consequently they do not export a bushel of hard spring wheat; it is all required in the United States. In the more southern states of the Argentine a type of wheat is produced somewhat similar to that raised in Canada. But I repeat, western Canadian wheat has

Canada-United, Stales Trade Agreement
occupied a peculiar position in the world's markets because of its quality. And I submit that it was not a profitable business for the wheat growers of western Canada to have created in Europe a condition under which a larger volume of their wheat than would otherwise be the case, was forced into a particular market, even if it was the British market. Why? After all, wheat is a very fluid thing. The United Kingdom, it is true, is the largest single purchaser of wheat on the continent of Europe. But there are other countries that buy wheat, even in these distressful days: Belgium, Holland, Denmark and the Scandinavian countries; France at times, Italy at times until the last few years. A demand for our hard western wheat existed from all these countries, which imported it to blend with wheat from the Argentine and Australia and other countries, to produce the type of flour required by their customers.
I submit that under the wheat preference scheme all that resulted was that Canada was given a more sheltered market in Great Britain, but more wheat from these other producing countries was sent to the other consuming countries in Europe. The result of that condition was that we were placed in a less competitive position as far as the bids we received for our wheat were concerned. So I believe a very good argument could be made that the wheat preference, while in a sense it gave us a sheltered market for some of our wheat-and not so very much either, as I shall presently show from the figures placed on record last night by the member for Qu'Appelle.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. The hon. member's time has expired.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: If I might be permitted just a moment.


Walter Edward Foster: With the unanimous consent of the house.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Go on; we are interested.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: A very good argument
could be made out that the preference did not result in giving the western wheat producer a single additional dollar for his wheat.
I could deal with the matter of lumber, because that was dealt with at some length by opposition speakers, and the government was criticised for giving up the preference on lumber. Let me tell the house that there are in the northern part of Manitoba several saw mills, one of very considerable size and capacity. During 1932-33, while the United States had the duty of S3 or $4 a thousand 71492-82
against our lumber, those mills were not operating, with the result that there was unemployment and a charge on the public funds for relief. After the 1936 agreement those mills went into operation and have been operating steadily since. Why? Because they find their market in the United States. The same is true of northern British Columbia and northern Saskatchewan. While some sacrifices on the part of the fir lumber industry of the Pacific coast may result from this agreement-I do not think it will be so- the larger opening up of the American market for lumber products is going to result in a great deal more benefit for Canada than would be involved in the exclusion of our lumber from the United States and the maintenance of the preference in the British market.
There are several other matters with which I should like to deal, but I am not going to trespass on the time of the house. In due time this trade agreement will be submitted to the judgment of the Canadian people. I have no doubt whatever what their verdict will be. I am confident that the Canadian people will approve the agreement. They will do so not alone for the material benefits it brings to Canada, considerable as they will be; but they will approve it also because it is an example of friendly trade relationships between two great countries, pointing the surest way to that improvement of international conditions which the world requires. If the world is to settle down to peace, international animosities must be appeased, and the promotion of friendly trade arrangements is the surest way to achieve that end. If for no other reason than this, the resolution we are considering should be approved by this house.


Mr. A. J. BROOKS (Royal):: It is not
my intention to try to follow the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar) in his argument. I noted during his speech that the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Motherwell) was paying strict attention. I recall that last year he dealt very effectively with the arguments of the minister, and no doubt he will do so again this year.
Before entering upon a discussion of the treaty I should like to make a few remarks with reference to a statement which was made by the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Clark) last evening. In paying some attention to my humble self, he said that I had not given the facts with reference to certain statements that I made, particularly with reference to the export of apples from New Brunswick. I told him at that time, and I wish now to tell the house, that the

1288	COMMONS
Canada-United. States Trade Agreement
information I gave was obtained from the bureau of statistics. On January 30, 1938 I wrote to the bureau for the information, as follows:
I should be pleased to receive the following information from your department:
1. Number of barrels of apples exported from Nova Scotia during the past two years (a) to the United States; (b) to the British Commonwealth of Nations. Also the same information relative to the province of New Brunswick.
The return I received from the bureau of statistics was as follows:
(a) Nova Scotia to	British	1936 barrels	1937 barrelsempire	
Nova Scotia to	United	929,348	1,089,655States	
(b) New Brunswick to	British	60	72empire	
New Brunswick to	United	48,523	25,744States	38	33
That is the information I gave the house during my previous speech, and, as I say, I obtained it from the bureau of statistics. Apparently the hon. gentleman obtained his information from another source, but I would advise him to go to the bureau of statistics at all times, where he will be given the most reliable information and where I am sure he will be treated, as I have been treated, in a very courteous manner. I must confess that in my experience this is one of the most efficient branches of the public service of Canada.
There was another statement to which the hon. gentleman referred and which I may be pardoned for mentioning here. He quoted the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Massey) who, in a speech delivered in New Brunswick, is supposed to have said that the opposition member from the maritime provinces was as good as the twenty-five government members from the maritimes. I do not know where the hon. member for Greenwood obtained his statistics, but my modesty will hardly permit me to go as far as that. I feel constrained to say that there must have been some slight exaggeration.
This treaty, Mr. Speaker, is exercising the minds of people in all parts of Canada. During my short experience as a member of this house, representing a constituency in the maritime provinces, it has been my privilege to hear discussed both the 1935 and the 1938 treaty. I heard the treaty of 1935 extolled by hon. members opposite as a grand accomplishment which would bring undoubted prosperity to our country. I have no hesitation in saying, however, that it has not improved conditions in the maritime provinces. The only benefit I have 'heard claimed in this
-Mr. Brooks.]
house as having resulted from it is that it brought about some increase in our sales of turnips in the American market. I took occasion to look up the facts regarding the exports of turnips to the United States from the maritimes, and compared the years 1934 and 1935, before the treaty came into operation, with the last two years, 1937 and 1938. The figures are as follows:
Bushels
1934		 1,047.537
1935		 1,131,012
1937		 1,365.666
1938		 734,389
So, in connection with the export of turnips, the figures remained practically the same after this treaty came into effect; and so far as the price was concerned, I have heard it stated that the price was more to the advantage of the consumer in the United States than that of the shipper in the maritime provinces.
As has been pointed out very clearly by previous speakers, on this side of the house, that treaty was of great benefit to the people of the United States, and I am not surprised that they are now anxious to have another treaty with Canada, particularly since it is linked up with the treaty with Great Britain, giving the United States special privileges in the British market which we in Canada are losing.
Some hon. members, in an effort to prove that a treaty with the United States would be of great benefit to Canada, have delved into ancient history. They have gone back to 1854-66, and have, said that reciprocity was a grand thing for the maritime provinces in those days. There is no question about that; I quite agree, but there is no comparison between the reciprocity of those days and this trade treaty, which is not reciprocity at all. In 1854-66 the maritime provinces produced large quantities of fish, as they do to-day, as well as large quantities of agricultural products and a great deal of lumber. But these commodities had access to United States markets practically free of duty. Then it must be remembered that in those days the United States was engaged in a great war. Men who normally would have been farming, fishing and producing other commodities could not attend to that kind of work, and they needed these commodities. The maritime provinces formed the most convenient source, and we sent them considerable quantities of the things they needed. Of course we were prosperous. Again, in those days the maritime provinces formed one of the great shipbuilding centres of the world.

Canada-United, States Trade Agreement
It is no wonder that from generation to generation the feeling has persisted in the minds of the people of the maritime provinces that reciprocity is a grand thing for us. It would be if we could get it, but, as I said a few moments ago, there is no more similarity between the trade treaty we have to-day and the reciprocity we had in years past than there is between day and night. In the interval, and particularly in recent years, the United States has built up an almost insurmountable tariff against the products of our people, not only of my province but of every part of Canada. Even when the duty is reduced by fifty per cent, as it has been in many instances under this treaty, there still remains a barrier which it is almost impossible, and in many cases absolutely impossible, for our products to surmount.
As has been stated by previous speakers, in concluding a treaty with the United States Canada must exercise more care than is necessary in dealing with any other nation. We are a people of eleven million dealing with a pepple of one hundred and thirty million. In very large measure the same commodities are produced, bought and sold in the two countries. The great difference is that they sell most of their production-I believe some ninety per cent-in their home market, while we on the other hand must sell a large proportion of what we produce in an outside market. While a change in tariff may make little difference to them, to us it may have dire consequences.
In the maritime provinces we are a rural people. According to the census returns about fifty per cent of the people of Canada are urban, but in the maritime provinces we are over seventy per cent rural. A trade treaty, to benefit the people of the maritime provinces, of necessity must benefit the primary producers. I come from the county of Kings in the province of New Brunswick, which I suppose is the finest dairy county in the three provinces by the sea. As is known, we have many excellent herds of cattle. They have taken prizes at the Royal Winter Fair at Toronto, at the Chicago exhibition and at other exhibitions throughout Canada. We are very proud of the dairy cattle of my county. But what is the condition to-day? In 1935 hon. members opposite told us that we would receive great benefit from the sale of milk and cream to the United States. Not one gallon of cream was sold from my county or any other county in the maritime provinces to the United States, as a result of the treaty. To-day the dairy farmers of that splendid county, one which has been perhaps as prosperous as any other part of the dominion, 71492-821
are having a very hard struggle to get along, on account of the great influx of vegetable oils from other parts of the empire and the world at large, and also the great influx of butter.
Yesterday the hon. member for York-Sun-bury said that we were selling more dairy cattle to the United States. There is no question about that. We are compelled to sell dairy cattle to the United States, and to sell them at any price, because we cannot sell the butter and other dairy products we arc producing in the maritime provinces.
May I place on Hansard some figures with reference to the production of milk in the county of Kings. I find at page 172 of volume 8 of the census returns for Canada, 1930, that in that year Kings county produced 6,742,000 gallons of milk. It has been stated in the house that one county in Ontario could more than fill the quota. I repeat that Kings county could more than fill the quota of milk which will be permitted entry to the United States. We are allowed 3,000.000 gallons of milk. As I said a moment ago, in 1930 Kings county produced more than 6,000,000 gallons, and I believe it produces more to-day. But the people of that county will sell no milk to the United States, because-even with the reduced rate of duty it is not profitable to do so.
I come now to one of the other great products of the maritime provinces. I was glad to hear the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Patterson) break his three years of silence in the house to come to the defence of the potato interests of his county. He and the hon. member for Prince (Mr. MacLean). said that the treaty would be of great benefit to the potato producers of New7 Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. I believe in the maritimes we produce the finest potatoes produced in Canada. Our climate and soil are particularly adapted to the production of this commodity. Without wishing to give offence, may I say that when I sit down to a meal and see before me watery and soggy potatoes produced in other parts of Canada, I feel it would be worth while if the maritime provinces were given the absolute monopoly of producing potatoes in Canada.


William Daum Euler: That's an idea.


Mr. McGREGOR:: No potatoes in the Klondike.


Mrs. BLACK:: Yes there are, and the best kind of potatoes.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The hon. member for
Vietoria-Carleton claims that the treaty will be of great benefit to potato producers of
1290	COMMONS
Canada-United Slates Trade Agreement
New Brunswick. I am frank enough to say that there will be some benefits, but certainly they will not be as great as the hon. member would have the house and the country believe. I say that for two reasons, first because of the quota placed against our potatoes entering the United States, and secondly because of the free entry of potatoes from the United States to Canada. The United States produce about 400,000,000 bushels of potatoes yearly. We in Canada produce an average crop of
55,000,000 bushels. The table quota for Canada is 1,000,000 bushels. There is to be a duty in the United States of 371 cents per hundred pounds for nine months of the year, and 60 cents for three months. The three months in which the greater rate is charged are December, January and February'. As the producers of potatoes in the maritime provinces well know, December, January and February are the three important months so far as the export from our province is concerned.
The other day the leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion) said there was one county in New Brunswick which could more than fill the quota. His statement has been criticized, but I want to say that there are at least four counties in New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island which could more than fill the quota. For my authority I quote the census of Canada for 1931, volume 8 page 166. In 1930 Carleton county, New Brunswick, produced 3,525,297 bushels, and Victoria county produced 1,835,710 bushels, the whole province of New Brunswick producing 12,153.067 bushels. Each of the counties of Prince Edward Island produced more than 3.000.000 bushels. Kings county produced 3,110,411 bushels; Prince, 4,471,689 bushels, and Queens, 4,409,564 bushels, making a total for the province of Prince Edward Island of 11,991,664 bushels, or practically the same as New Brunswick. I repeat that there are at least four counties which could fill the quota for the United States.
Let us analyse it from another point of view. We are allowed a quota of 1,000,000 bushels of table potatoes. There are 130.000.000 people in the United States. I do not know exactly how many potatoes there would be in a bushel, but I doubt if there would be many more than 130. However, we will say that there are 260.


Mr. MICHAUD:: Depending on the size.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Yes, depending on the
size. Of course we grow large potatoes in New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, and I am speaking of maritime potatoes.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Good potatoes.
TMr. Brooks.]


Alfred Johnson Brooks: This computation means
that we would supply one or two potatoes for each person in the United States. That is the quota we receive under the treaty, and about which we hear hon. members opposite boasting.
The quota on seed potatoes has been doubled, an arrangement which is all to the good. I do not question that fact. However I have heard on reliable authority that the quota of 750,000 bushels which we had before could have been filled by one shipper in Prince Edward Island alone. That may have been incorrect, but I am satisfied that two or three shippers in New Brunswick could fill the quota to-day. It simply means that under the quota only a few people would really benefit from seed potato shipments to the United States. As a matter of fact, the ordinary farmer is not producing seed potatoes, the production of which requires a specialized and expensive process, and is engaged in only by wealthy men.
As far as concessions are concerned, the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton said last night that we received only a small quantity of potatoes from the United States. But he did not tell the house that up to this year here had been a 75 cent duty against potatoes coming in from the United States. There is no question in my mind that as a result of the removal of this 75 cent duty for nine months of the year, there will be far larger quantities coming into this country. As a matter of fact, the United States with a production of 400,000,000 bushels could flood the markets of Canada overnight.
The hon. member also stated that his county stood side by side with the great potato-producing county of Aroostook in Maine. He claimed that the cost of producing in Aroostook is less than the cost in Canada.


Mr. KINLEY:: The reverse.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: 
Mr. POTTIER:: Are my hon. friend and his party opposed to reduction in the American tariff?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Not at all, if there is any benefit to be derived. Fresh fish, such as halibut and sworfish, are usually consigned to a commission merchant in Boston with the understanding that they will be sold at market prices which the shipper receives, less freight, duty, entry and commission. Therefore it would seernr to me that the shipper should receive the benefit of some 'part of the duty reduction. My opinion is that the shipper will derive very little, if any, benefit from the treaty, and just at the present time it looks as if he might suffer a heavy loss. There is no doubt whatever that the United States buyer will see to it that he gets the benefit of the duty on all produce purchased f.o.b. shipping point.
I might say, Mr. Speaker, that if fifteen years ago there had been some such tariff reduction as is being made in this treaty, before the United States had spent millions of dollars on trawlers and other fishing equipment, the treaty might have been of more benefit to the fishermen of the maritime provinces.
With reference to the concessions on salt fish, they really mean nothing so long as the same concessions are granted to Newfoundland as are granted to Canada. We cannot hope either to increase our markets substantially or to secure enhanced prices. In this connection it is essential to remember that Newfoundland fish come into this country duty free. No reduction was made in the duty on salt mackerel, although a reduction would have been of great benefit to the mackerel fisheries. This is probably due to Norway being the major supplier.
I should like to read an article which appeared in the Halifax Herald of February 17, 1939:
When the terms of the new Canada-United States trade agreement were announced, men prominent in the fishing industry in the maritime provinces made this forecast:
1.	The salt fish branch of the industry would not be advantaged as a result of the agreement.
2.	While the volume of sales of Nova Scotia fresh fish would be enlarged in the American market, the price to the primary producers in this province would not be increased.
[Mr. Brooks.}


Mr. BARRY:: That is Tory doctrine, I take it.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: My hon. friend from
Northumberland (Mr. Barry) has not taken the opportunity during the past four years to offer any criticism, but no doubt he will stand up and give us his criticisms later. I continue the quotation:
Early in the new year the manager of the Massachusetts fisheries Association saw "as the first actual effect of the tariff reduction on Canadian fish, under the new Canada-United States trade treaty, a price-drop that came immediately on resumption of business after the Christmas holidays."
And now, representatives of the New England coast fisheries are meeting "to discuss limitation of catches for Boston boats." A Boston dispatch says:	.
"The market has been crowded with Nova Scotia fish since the Canada-United States trade treaty (which made concessions to Canadian fish) took effect. As a result it is necessary to find some way of preventing a surplus flooding the local market."
While even yet it is too early to attempt any definite analysis of the effects of this agreement upon the fishing industry of this province, it does seem reasonable to assume (as has been pointed out by men prominent ill the industry) that a greater influx of Nova Scotia fresh fish into the American market may have a tendency to depress prices there.
At all events there would appear to be general agreement that the price to the Nova Scotia fishermen themselves will not be increased.
That is the important point, Mr. Speaker, that the price to the Nova Scotia fishermen themselves will not be increased, and since the price is the crux of the whole fishing problem in this province, to obtain any substantial benefit from this new agreement the fishermen will require more money for their products and for their labour, and any benefits coming from this agreement are not getting through to the fishermen of Nova Scotia.


John James Kinley: What is my hon. friend
reading from?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: From an article appearing in the Halifax Herald, of February 17. The hon. member can give us his views if he does not agree with it.


John James Kinley: I thought you were quoting Mr. Cooley, of the fish association. He was very much against the agreement, you know.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I now come to coal. There is very little to be said on the coal mining side of this agreement. As I said at the outset, the primary producers are the ones that must be benefited. I ask hon. members from Nova Scotia, what benefit does this treaty give to the coal miners of their province?

Canada-United, States Trade Agreement
One thing is certain, and we may as well face it now as later, and that is that there is no immediate hope for the coal industry of the maritime provinces through increased duties designed to shut out a greater portion of the imported fuel coal that is now flooding the Canadian market. Canadian coal duties are bound in the new trade treaty; they cannot be raised during the lifetime of the agreement, and actually there has been a cut in the duty when you take into account the removal of the import excise duty of three per cent. It reduces the binding scale during the lifetime of the agreement.
With thousands of men out of employment in the great coal industry of the maritime provinces, this government makes a treaty with the United States which allows a greater importation of coal into Canada from that country. As a matter of fact, statistics show that there is as much coal imported into Canada as there is produced in Canada.
If I had time I should like to quote from the brief of the Nova Scotia government which was presented to the federal government a short time ago, but my time is passing. On the one hand we have this government paying out millions of dollars for asssitanee to the coal miners in the maritime provinces by way of subvention, and also the bonus of 75 cents, and on the other hand it allows American coal to come into this country to compete with the very same coal which this government is assisting so that it may reach the central market in Canada. That is an anomalous situation which it is'very hard to understand.
Some lion, members have spoken of the great benefits which will be derived from lowering the duty on furs. I have not time to go into that this afternoon, but the bulletin of the Prince Edward Island fox pool comments upon it in an article which appeared not long ago. It sent the chairman of their organization to New York, and lie found that the prices of furs were being depressed in the New York market. Why? Because under the favoured nation clause of this treaty furs are coming in from Scandinavian countries, competing with the furs of the United States and Canada, and depressing the market away below the prices which could be secured in the London market. As this article in the bulletin of the Prince Edward Island fox pool says, "There is no benefit, or very little, to the producers of furs in this province."


William Daum Euler: May I ask my hon. friend a question? Would he really assume from that, that the fur producer of Canada would prefer the tariff to remain high against imports into the American market?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I am simply stating the facts.


William Daum Euler: That is the assumption one
must place on the hon. member's statement.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: If the hon. member has any quarrel he will have to have it with the Prince Edward Island pool.


William Daum Euler: I have no quarrel with
anyone.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: They are the people who
should know.


William Daum Euler: They asked for it-the reduction of the American tariff.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: One of the great benefits that have been lost by Canada, particularly the maritime provinces-


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: I regret to interrupt, but the hon. member has exhausted his time.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go ahead.


Frederick George Sanderson: With the unanimous consent of the house.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I thank hon. members for the courtesy that they have extended to me, as they have done to others.
It should be of no small consequence that a breach has been made in the wall of empire preference. For five years Canada has enjoyed substantial benefits from her trade with the empire. In fact, during the darkest days of the depression this preference was the salvation of the Canadian people. We found a market for our lumber, farm products and the products of other industries. This was recognized by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in 1935, when, speaking of the agreement then before the House of Commons, he said:	.
Let me say that the present administration when it began tile negotiation of this agreement made it a matter of policy that nothing would he done in the agreement with the United States that would in any way affect any of the provisions of the Canada-United Kingdom agreements.
These were the words of the leader of a party who himself, with his supporters, fought for weeks to prevent the ratification of the Ottawa agreements.
The Prime Minister may have kept his promise in 1935, but in the 1938 treaty we find that the price which the Canadian people have had to pay is a paring down of the British preference on wheat, bacon, lumber, apples, pears, honey, leather, manufacturing goods and many other articles.
The great problems of this country are not such academic theories as the economic appeasement of the United States, but the
1294	COMMONS
Canada-United, States Trade Agreement
practical problems of unity of our own people in the Dominion of Canada and the solving of our unemployment problem. Does the Prime Minister think that we can have a happy and united people if we sacrifice the interest of our working men and farmers for the benefit of United States working men and farmers-those engaged in the production of coal, apples, and so on?
The burden of unemployment continues to bend the back and embitter the spirit of the Canadian people. It is our great problem-a baffling and terrible one. Can hon. members opposite claim that it is being solved by this treaty? I am satisfied when the full force of these concessions to the United States is felt, our difficulties in this connection will be greater than they were before. It is the coal miner of the United States who will receive more employment; the longshoremen of Boston and Baltimore, and not the port workers of Saint, John and Halifax; the apple growers of the forty-one apple producing states of the United States and not those of Annapolis valley, Nova Scotia, or of the Okanagan valley of British Columbia.
Already there are many industries that are suffering and many men on the street who had worked before this treaty came into effect. The Prime Minister talks of economic appeasement. The United States, as I said in my previous remarks, is a great democratic country. She is interested in the protection of her democratic institutions, and the government are trying to make a patriotic issue of this treaty. This is the same government that refused to extend a friendly hand when England wanted to train airmen in Canada hardly a year ago, but instead gave them the cold shoulder. It is the same government which, while recognizing that England with her fleet is practically the sole defence to-day of the homes of our Canadian people should we be attacked, has not uttered one word of encouragement or sympathy in this house during the past three years in regard to the tremendous problems which the mother country is called upon to solve.


Mr. BRADETTE:: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, early this session I tried to quote from a newspaper article and I was stopped by the chair. I do not want to reflect upon any member but I maintain that a privilege enjoyed by one member should be extended to all. I should like to have your ruling. When I tried to quote from a newspaper I was stopped by every section of the house.


Frederick George Sanderson: The point is
well taken, but it is also well known in this house that for some weeks hon. members have been permitted, rightly or wrongly, to read from newspapers.


Mr. G. W. McDONALD (Souris):: The
Minister of National Resources (Mr. Crerar) this afternoon very properly referred to the splendid position Canada had attained in world trade, not only on a per capita basis but from the standpoint of quantity and quality. Eighty per cent of that trade is with Great Britain and the United States, which two countries have been linked up in the trade treaty now before the house.
If there is one thing that this government should get credit for, surely it is its success in making trade treaties. I am sure the farmers of western Canada will appreciate the outlet that has been found for the commodities that we produce in such great quantities in this dominion. I know that the opposition to the treaty comes from protected interests, but I would remind those protected interests that even the largest industries in Canada must find a market for their goods beyond the boundaries of the country if they hope to attain any great success. That is true of agriculture, and it is certainly true of mining, lumbering and fishing. It must be true of any industiy that hopes to capture its share of the markets in the world.
I am not an expert on trade matters, and so I will speak of this treaty as it applies to the part of the country from which I come. It has been suggested that in making a treaty with the United States any benefit we may receive in that direction we lose in the British market. Hon. members must not forget that Great Britain herself was in sympathy with us in entering into the treaty, and in fact requested it. In my opinion the people of western Canada particularly will be more than pleased with the results of the treaty. Take the cattle quota. The very fact that it was filled within one month should prove the popularity of the treaty. I have figures to show that on November 10, a few days before the treaty was announced, good killing steers in Winnipeg were selling at from $3.50 to $5.50 a hundred. On December 27, a few days before the treaty went into effect, prices had risen to from $4.25 to S6.25. In January they rose as high as from S5.25 to $7.25, or from $5.50 for top prices to $7.25, which is an advance of 1} cents a pound. Surely that is an advantage to the cattle growers of the country. I realize that there has been some recession since then, and at the present time

Canada-United Slates Trade Agreement
the advance is only about one half cent a pound, but that is still one cent higher than the price prior to the announcement of the treaty. By the first of April there is no doubt that prices will again advance, and it is not expected that the quotas will be filled so quickly in the three terms that are yet before us in the present year.
The hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley) tries to champion the cause of the farmers, and of course, he has no apologies to make for doing so, but I cannot understand why he should add his opposition to a treaty such as this. It will not gain him any support in western Canada. I suggest that if there is one thing that the people in the west have against the Liberal government, it. is that they have not gone far enough in the reduction of duties. However, they have set their faces in the right direction. One-third of the people of this country get their livelihood from farming and two-thirds of the people are directly concerned with the success of agriculture. Why should it be the duty of this or any other government, therefore, to block the outlets for the produce of the country, with which two-thirds of the people are very directly concerned? That should not be the duty of the government.
As I say, I am n'ot a tariff expert, and I do not make a study of these things. But I do not like to see any government too friendly with the tariff protected interests. It is not good for the country. The men that run big industry in this dominion need very little protection; they are well qualified to look after their own interests; it is the working men, the farmers, who have not very much of the good things of this life, who need protection. I hope our government will never become too friendly with the tariff experts. I have a suspicion that the tariff experts are altogether too friendly with the big industries of this country. I have nothing against big industry, and the farmers should not have anything against them, provided they are willing to stand on their own feet.
I know the western farmers have received and are receiving some protection in the form of a bonus on wheat. I am sorry the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley) is not in his seat at the present time. He has said a great deal about wheat. But I want to put it to the fair-mindedness of hon. members and of the farmers of western Canada, or of all Canada for that matter: Which government exhibited the most courage-the Bennett government in September, 1935, after six years of the worst drought on the north American continent, both in our country and
in the United States, facing an election, setting the guaranteed price of wheat at 87-j, cents a bushel when the open market price was 82 cents; or this government in 1938, when wheat was 70 cents or less in the open market-I am sure that October wheat was less than 70 cents a bushel-facing the biggest world crop ever produced, and yet, being willing in face of those conditions, to set the price at 80 cents a bushel? I leave it to the fair judgment of the farmers of this country which government showed the most courage.


Mr. HOMUTH:: But did you not have participating certificates with that?


George William McDonald: What were they worth?


Karl Kenneth Homuth: What would they have
been worth if the government had distributed the money?


George William McDonald: That is a question which will be settled in the future. Some people say there is $20,000,000, some say $24,000,000, in the hands of this government. I hope they are right. In connection with durum wheat there were some millions of dollars in the hands of the government when the present administration took office. But the hon. member for Qu'Appelle was never able to induce the government of his party to give that money to the people of western Canada. This government had to do it. Any success that this country is ever going to have in making trade treaties will certainly come from a Liberal government or a government that is liberal-minded in that respect.
Much has been said about the press releases by Canada and by the United States. It is easy to see the inconsistency in the arguments of hon. members of the opposition. They say that the press release issued by this government is propaganda, ballyhoo; but they quote from the press release of the United States government to show what a fine treaty this is from the point of view of the United States. Both cannot be right. Surely it is fairer to say that the press release by each government was something in the nature of propaganda. That is quite natural.
I have referred to tariffs. I live in a small town within twelve miles of the United States border. This very year I know one family of three boys who had about 10,000 bushels of renown wheat-. One day they got in their car, went across to North Dakota and sold that wheat there for seed grain at $1.10 a bushel. Those boys saved this government over $2,000 by way of wheat bonus.
1296	COMMONS
Canada-United. States Trade Agreement
United States cattle buyers come to our town, pick up all kinds of cattle and give our farmers a better price than they can get in Canada, because two outlets are better than one. True, our United States friends are getting pretty cute; it is said they are too cute for us. They are clever; we have to admit that. But still it is another outlet and we get better prices than we otherwise would.
I have known them to come over to buy flour. When flour was high in the United States, the flour men in our town sold carload after carload to our United States friends. They buy woollen goods in the same way. I knew one man who came over last year to buy a carload of lumber and he said he saved S17 a thousand feet. Surely that is good for Canadian workmen. Our hon. friends to the left say that unless you raise the tariff Canadian workmen are put out of business. Mr. Speaker, Canadian workmen will never be idle if the trade activities of this country are developed.
I should like to quote a few figures to show that this government has dealt more fairly with Great Britain than have our Conservative friends. I take the percentages of trade. In 1926 our exports to Great Britain were 38-5 per cent of our total exports, and our exports to the United States amounted to 36-4 per cent. Six years later, when the Bennett government was in office, our exports to Great Britain were only 29 per cent, a drop of 9-5 per cent. I admit there was some reason for that; there was a depression; wheat had not the same value it had in 1926. We should be fair about these things. But our exports to the United States had risen to 42-9 per cent of the total.
In 1937, with a Liberal government again in office, we sent to Great Britain 38-4 per cent of our total exports, back to the 1926 figures. But our exports to the United States were down 1-9 per cent to 41 per cent.
Much has been said about the recession of 1938. There was some recession. Here are the figures for that year. To Great Britain our exports were 38.2 per cent, down just two-tenths of one per cent. To the United States they were 39-6 per cent, or down 1-6 per cent. The drop in our exports to the United States was just a little greater than the drop in those to Great Britain.
Let us take imports. This is the point that hurts our Conservative friends. In 1926, 17-6 per cent of our imports came from Great Britain, and 65-6 per cent from the United States; a large amount, I admit. But with

what country in the world should we do more business than the United States? Their way of life is similar to ours; we live side by side, transportation costs must of necessity be less; it is the most natural thing in the world for us to deal with them. Let us come to 1932. In that year 18-4 per cent of our imports came from Great Britain, while the proportion from the United States dropped to 60-8 per cent. In 1937, under Liberal rule, 19-3 per cent of our imports came from Great Britain, and 58-7 per cent from the United States, the latter percentage being down 2-1 per cent. Then we come to 1938, when the percentage from Great Britain was down a little, to 18-2 per cent, and from the United States the proportion had risen to 61 per cent. But on the whole these figures prove that the Liberals have been more consistent in their dealings with Great Britain than have our Conservative friends.
Much has been said about potatoes. They are not an important product in our part of the country, but I remember a time not five years distant when the people of Manitoba were petitioning their provincial government to petition this government to take the duty off potatoes in order that we might get potatoes from the eastern part of North Dakota where they had a good crop. In our part of the country potatoes were selling for SI.25, and we think it is a pretty big price when they command over 50 cents.
My predecessor from the constituency of Souris made a great fuss about inducing the federal government to put a duty on com, so that we might feed our own barley. I am here to say that barley never dropped to such low prices as it did in 1931, 1932, 1933 and 1934. In our part of the country barley and oats were so cheap that it paid us to burn them in the furnace rather than buy coal. I know there is a saying which goes, "Wilful waste makes woeful want," and that certainly was the case in Canada. I do not think we had any business burning oats and barley;
I do not think they were made for that purpose, but our people could get practically nothing for them. Day after day I listened to radio broadcasts quoting five cents a bushel as the street price for oats, when the freight rate was 25 cents per 100 pounds, while seven and eight cents a bushel were offered for barley. That was under the Bennett regime. Surely everyone knows these commodities cannot be grown at such low prices. But my hon. friend from Qu'Appelle will say that this government scuttled the wheat pool and sold the farmers of western Canada to the grain

Canada-United States Trade Agreement
exchange. I ask him why his government let wheat go as low as 38j cents a bushel at Fort William.
Tariffs will do funny things, and I should like to illustrate that by something I think I mentioned once before in this house. As I have said, my predecessor induced the government of the day to put a duty against United States corn. It was reported on good authority that a carload of United States corn, passing down the St. Lawrence river en route to some European port, passed a carload of corn from South Africa bound for Canada. Corn was cheap in the United States; but our tariff was so high that we could not import it; we had to send to South Africa for it, while we let our United States friends send their corn to Europe. Will anyone say that trade, conducted along the right lines, does not tend towards friendship, or that the reverse is not equally true?
Much has been said against this treaty. It has been made light of; we have been told that it will not help the cause of peace in any way. The other day an lion, member on the other side of the house very properly said that trade between individuals tends towards friendship, and that is equally true in respect to nations because nations are no different from individuals. Surely if there is one thing more than another that we should try to do, living side by side with the United States, it is to improve our trading position. If we are able to do business more freely than has been the case in the past, I do not think we need worry about the future with regard to relations between our two countries.
I think this government is to be congratulated upon having consummated so many trade treaties. We must secure outlets for our goods; we cannot pile them up. As I have already said. I am sure this government is not going to turn down any possibility of increasing the trade of Canada, and when we increase trade we will reduce unemployment, which can be reduced in no other way. The United States has poured billions of dollars into public works, but it has more unemployment now than it ever had. The problem cannot be solved in that way. I am sorry there are so many unemployed in this country. I should like to see our government do just a little bit more for them, but possibly they are trying to avoid the mistakes made by our neighbours to the south. I know, however, the people of Canada will not condemn the government for trying to increase the good effects of the treaty which they negotiated in 1935.


Mr. NORMAN JAQUES (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, I agree with what was said by my hon. friend from Camrose (Mr. Marshall).
I intend to vote for this treaty; but I wish to protest in the strongest possible terms against the idea which I have heard expressed by so many in this house, that free trade or a lowering of the tariff or any manipulation of the tariff can cure the economic ills from which Canada, as well as the rest of the civilized world, is suffering at the present time. During the election campaign the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) promised monetary reform, but beyond a change in the ownership of the central bank our financial policy has not been altered in the least. And to hold out this trade treaty as a cure for unemployment and all the other economic troubles with which we are faced can only be described, I think, as the grossest fraud and deception.
While sitting in my place here I have heard a great deal about free trade from hon. members on the opposite side. Perhaps I have the advantage over many of them, because I know what free trade is, having been brought up in a free trade country. I am not going into a long discussion as to the merits of free trade or protection. I think the best proof of what we, in this comer say, is the fact that free trade, and the party which sponsored it in England, no longer exist. The Liberals in Canada, it seems to me, have the advantage of talking free trade but administering the country under protection. I do not say that either protection or free trade woidd solve our economic problems; I do not say that either protection or free trade is the cause of our troubles. They are, in fact, an effect and not a cause. I heard one lion, member opposite put the blame for the depression on the tariff policy of Mr. Bennett and his government. It is absolutely inconceivable to me that such a statement could be made in this house. Beyond any quibbling at all, beyond any doubt whatever, the cause of our economic troubles is financial.-and one does not have to take the word of social crediters for that. It is a fact, and I think it is generally acknowledged to be a fact, that our troubles are financial, and that nothing short of a complete and fundamental change in the financial setup of the country will bring about any permanent or real cure for our economic troubles.
If free trade is the solution, as we have been told, I would ask Liberal members to explain, if they can, why it is that in the United States, where among the different states there is complete free trade and an

Canada-United, States Trade Agreement
absolute parity of exchange, the people of New York cannot do business with the people of California. The other day I saw a photograph of a pile of oranges as big as this building, which had been dumped on the ground. There is no tariff to keep those oranges out of the state of New York. Why do these two states not do business? The reason lies in the faulty financial system which piles up debts and prices faster .than it generates purchasing power to consume what it produces.
I was brought up in England, and I have been familiar with conditions in Great Britain under free trade. Whether or not the blame is put on free trade, the fact remains that it was under free trade that the slums of England were built. If free trade did not cause the slums it certainly did not prevent them. There is no argument against that. I will answer any question on the point, because questions do not worry me in the slightest, and I do not wish to make statements capable of successful contradiction.
This week I received from an advertising agency a circular calling attention to the fact that there were so many millions of pounds of butter piling up in Canada and that if we did not gelt rid of the surplus by shipping it out of the country the price of butter would drop to ruinous levels. I undertake to say that if one were to go into ninety per cent of the homes in Canada he would hear the mother or father say to the children eating their suppers: "Now, kids, go easy on the butter; it is thirty cents a pound." I say that not one pound of butter should be exported from Canada until every man, woman and child has all the butter he or she can poke down his or her throat. They should hlave all the butter they need and all they can possibly use before we should consider exporting a pound of it. We hear about the exportation of apples. How many homes in Canada are supplied with all the apples they need this winter?
Another thing which always strikes me as being the height of absurdity is to talk about a favourable balance of trade. I should like to have explained to me how a country can be said to be enjoying a favourable balance of trade when that expression implies that the country is exporting more of its real wealth than it is receiving in exchange. How can that be a favourable balance of trade? Then, if it is the other way round, and if we are lucky enough to receive more than we export we are said to have an unfavourable balance of trade. Why, the terms are surely contradictory; I cannot see any other explanation.
[Mr. Jaques.l
We are told that freer trade is the way to peace. I do not think that is so at all. When I lived in England before the great war I was a grown man, and anyone in England in the period from the Boer war to the great war who took an interest in public affairs and gave expression to them would have said that war between Germany and England was only a matter of time. It was supposed that those two countries lived on their exports. I do not know how they would live on exports, but that is what we were told; because they lived on their exports there was not room for Germany and England in the markets of the world, and war had to come. And it did. That view was endorsed by President Wilson after the war. He said that the great war was not a political war, but a commercial war waged to secured the markets of the world.
I should like to say a few words with respect to unemployment and its relation to foreign trade. If foreign trade is to be successful we must under-cut our foreign competitors. The only way, or at least the main way, to under-cut or under-sell a competitor is to decrease either the rates of wages or the numbers of men employed. Let us take for example my own business of wheat, farming. When I first went, to western Canada the farmers used to employ 60,000 or / 0,000 harvesters each fall. Now each man does his own harvesting. One man runs a tractor, and cuts and threshes his crop without any help at all. How can he compete in the markets of 'the world, unless he attempts to cut down his expense? The chief way of cutting expenses is to cut labour costs; I do not know of any other way.
Economic nationalism has been spoken of as though it were a sin. But what are we told? What does any farmer learn after a lifetime of farming? What is he taught-if it is not to produce everything he possibly can for himself, and only trade what he cannot use for what he cannot possibly raise? That is economic nationalism, and surely it is nothing but common sense.
Hon. members in this group are not opposed to trade, but we are opposed to trade for trade's Kike. We cannot see the sense of trading merely for the sake of trading. We believe every country should produce as much as ft can, and export only what it cannot consume in exchange for what it cannot produce. Surely that is common sense. I believe, if every country did that, and minded its own business, there would be a great deal less danger of war than there is to-day.
I happen to be an Englishman, and as such I believe I know pretty well what Englishmen

Canada-United Slates Trade Agreement
think. If any hon. member thinks that the English farmer is endeared to his colonial brethren by the dumping of their goods on his market-well, that person does not know very much about the English farmer.
The Australian and English cricket matches have done more to bring about goodwill between those two countries than any trade treaty that could be signed. I believe, if we could meet the old country more often in games such as football and cricket, it would bring about a better feeling than could be brought about by all the trade treaties that ever will be signed.
Germany has gone so far as to export part of its population. It is dumping its Jews on the markets of the world in exchange for goods. That is the logical end of this insanity of "free trade". Those that are not wanted are to be dumped on the other countries; they are to be held up for ransom. The other countries are being told; You will either take them or pay us in goods.
The London Times cannot be accused of sensationalism, but last Christmas it contained columns of advertisements by clergymen and other people asking for coal. It was said there were thousands and thousands of poor people in London and elsewhere who, it was felt, should have fires in their grates, at least on Christmas day. Will anyone say that because France or some other country reduces its imports of British coal, therefore the British people should go without coal? Why is it that there are tens of thousands of people in London and other centres without fires in their grates, when in Wales there are tens of thousands of miners out of work because the mines are idle? If it could be said that there was no coal, that it must be imported, it would be a different matter, but they cannot say that. There is nothing in the world to prevent the British people from supplying themselves with their own coal; but I suppose they will have to wait until some coal can be sent to Canada, and then they may be able to get some for themselves from Russia. That will be so much more convenient.
I have contended that our economic troubles are financial and not brought about because of lack of free trade. I am going to quote, not a social creditor, but Mr. R. G. Hawtrey, the secretary of the British treasury. In a publication entitled, The Art of Central Banking, he says:
The common factor in pre-war, and post-war, experience is the intimate association of the state of trade with the enlargements and compressions of consumers' income and outlay
effected by central banks. If this fundamental causal sequence were understood, the public would hardly acquiesce in the central banks proceeding from their position of complacent detachment to generate depressions, unemployment, bankruptcy, budget deficits and defaults. With all the resulting political and social convulsions while government after government is broken because it can neither stem the flood of ruin nor even provide tolerable palliatives to alleviate the consequences.
I certainly think the words of that gentleman are worthy of the respect of anyone in this house. If he does not know what he is talking about, then I do not know who does.
Here is one point which so far does not seem to have been discussed. The world today faces a situation which has never existed before, in that a fraction of the people are able to produce the necessities of life for everyone. That is the fundamental fact which we are up against; it is a problem which will not bo solved by juggling tariffs or trying to dispose of what we cannot consume by exporting it to a country which cannot consume what it has produced itself. This condition was forced upon my attention when I was farming. I soon came to realize that if I raised a good crop, then there would not be any price. If there was a good price, then there was no crop. It should be obvious to everyone that if we are to be penalized for producing plenty, then we must be condemned to scarcity forever.
We heard of how they ploughed up the cotton in the United States. Even the mules had more sense because they had to be trained before they would do it. It cannot be said that cotton was not needed, because half the working men in the United States were going round with patches on their pants. I would not like to say that half their wives were not going round branded with "Ogilvie's flour," or something of the kind. In the United States they are actually paying people not to produce. They are endeavouring to reduce the amount of goods produced down to a limited supply of money. I think it was Henry Ford who said that to-day we produce goods in order to 'buy money, whereas we should be producing money in order to buy goods. Money is kept scarce because, like wheat or anything else, when it is plentiful it is not worth anything. In order to keep up the interest rates, money is being artificially curtailed. Interest is the core of our trouble. This country and the people in it are being sacrificed in order to keep up the interest rates. Scarce money, what they call sound money-


Karl Kenneth Homuth: It is getting scarcer.
1300	COMMONS
Canada-United Slates Trade Agreement


Norman Jaques: Yes. In order to conform
to a scarcity of money, there must be a scarcity of goods. As soon as people become at all enterprising in the production of goods, they are penalized with ruinous prices for what they have produced. Nothing but a fundamental) change in our financial sytem will alter this condition. We in this group believe that a physical possibility should be made financially possible, but apparently the rest of the house thinks that only what is financially desirable shall be physically possible. There is the difference, I think, between the ideas of this group and the ideas of our opponents.
As I said', the right hon. the Prime Minister promised before or during the election that he would issue currency and credit in terms of public need. Of course, I know that idea is ridiculed here. We have been told that we know less about money than anybody on God's green earth. But- that does not, worry us. We knew this, which the house did not know, that the banks created money, and I believe we can claim it was on account of our statements in this corner of the house that for the first time. I think, in history a responsible minister of the crown has put into the parliamentary records the correct facts of exactly how money is created.
Mr. TA\LOR (Nanaimo):	Not quite correct.


Charles Avery Dunning: If the hon. member is
referring to me, I suggest that he state the facts correctly.


Norman Jaques: The minister is quite capable of putting the facts himself. I could not improve on his statement, but even the prestige of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) is not sufficient to convert a number of members of this house. Some of them are still skeptical as to where money comes from exactly, and where it goes to.
Mr. MaeINNIS:	Have you converted the
Minister of Finance?


Norman Jaques: That is the inference I
draw, yes.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am afraid we have a
different view of the same set of facts.
M r. JAQUES: Then we agree to differ.
I should like to say, if I am in order, that since all money is created by the banks, then all money is a debt; that being the case, the only money we shall ever have with which to pay our debts is another debt, and if all debts are paid then there would not be any money. I am perfectly willing to stand by those statements, and I shall be interested if any member of the house can disprove them.

Furthermore, since no money ever gets into circulation except- as a debt, with an interest charge, it follows that debt must increase, and it is increasing and will continue to increase. I believe that the classic example of a real estate deal was the sale of the island of Manhattan somewhere around 1600 for some thirty or forty dollars. That has been regarded generally as the greatest real estate bargain that was ever made. But I believe I am correct when I say it has been calculated that if the man who bought the island had invested an equivalent amount of money at compound interest, then by to-day he would be able to buy up not only the city of New York but the whole state of New York. That shows the absurdity of thinking we can ever pay our debts under a system of debt money and interest. It is out of the question.
In conclusion. I should like to refer to the statement of the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion) that if conditions which exist to-day not only in Canada but elsewhere are not righted, he would not give parliament another twenty years of life. I myself, in my humble way, would not go as far as twenty years. It is not a question of the life of any party, Liberal or Conservative; that is a matter of no great importance; but it is parliament itself which is at stake. I absolutely agree with the hon. leader of the opposition when he says that he would not give parliament another twenty years of life if it cannot bring about the results which the people of Canada want, and-here I have the advantage over hon. ministers because wherever they go they are known while I am not known, and people always talk more freely when they do not know who is listening- what the people of Canada want more than anything else is economic security and the freedom to enjoy it. They must have security, and if in the end they cannot get economic security with freedom, they will have it without-and that means dictatorship.


Charles Avery Dunning: Docs my hon. friend think economic security without freedom is possible as a permanent condition?


Norman Jaques: Yes.


Charles Avery Dunning: Economic security without freedom as a permanent condition?


Norman Jaques: Yes, and I should say that is the condition of the vast majority of the civilized world to-day. So-called freedom lingers on here in Canada. We have political freedom, but we certainly do not have economic security. In Germany they have economic security but not political freedom.


Charles Avery Dunning: No.

Lord's Day Act-Violation


Norman Jaques: I would say that a man
in gaol has economic security. He knows that to-morrow he will have his work, his meals and his bed, which is more than a great number of Canadians know. Men have said that if they could break a window and get into gaol they would at least be secure.


Walter Edward Foster: It 'being six o'clock-


Norman Jaques: May I have just one minute more, Mr. Speaker?
In conclusion, I would say that unless parliament itself, not this particular parliament but the institution of parliamentary government, can bring better results, then its days are numbered within the next ten or fifteen years, and parliament as an institution is doomed. Whether hon. members agree with me I do not know, but that is my opinion and it is one I have formed after pretty wide travel and inquiry from one side of Canada to the other.


Charles Avery Dunning: What would the hon. member put in its place?


Norman Jaques: It is not for me to tel! this government how to do it, but somehow or another we must bring economic security to the people of Canada and at the same time retain our freedom. If we do not do this, then they will demand security without freedom, and that is dictatorship in some form or another.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock. LORD'S DAY ACT



PENALTY FOK OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS PERMITTING VIOLATION OF THE ACT

[Stage Direction]
Mr. H. E. BRUNELLE (Champlain) moved the second reading of Bill No. 7, to amend the Lord's Day Act.
He said: Supported as I am by La Ligue du Dimanche, by the great majority of the citizens of the province of Quebec, by countless societies and labour unions, and also by the Lord's Day Alliance, I feel it my duty to bring again before this house an amendment to the Lord's Day Act similar to the one which was adopted by the house last year. It will be remembered that my bill of last year purported solely to increase the penalties under the Lord's Day Act in order, to use a common expression, to give teeth to that law.
The reasons for the amendment I moved last year still hold good, and it is not my intention to repeat them to-night.
It was in the senate that the bill received its death-blow. When it came back from that body there was nothing left of its original tenor; it was changed from beginning to end. The senate pretended to have adequately amended the Lord's Day Act by increasing the maximum fines and leaving the minimum fines practically as they were before.. But, as all corporations have the means to prepare the strongest legal defences, it follows that nothing but minimum fines would, in most instances, be imposed and the violation of the law would continue. It was inconsistent for those in the other place to say that no corporations were violating the law, and at the same time to pretend to impose more severe sanctions. On the other hand, if there is, as is alleged, no violation of the Lord's Day Act, why should there be any fear of stricter sanctions?
My bill purports solely to give bo our courts the discretionary power to impose gaol sentences upon those who make their employees work on Sundays. Let me read the amendment :
Section 14 of the Lord's Day Act. chapter 123 of the Revised Statutes of Canada. 1927, is amended by adding thereto the following subsection:
(2) Any person, being a director, an officer, a superintendent or an employee of a corporation, to whose direction or orders any employee is by tire terms or conditions of his employment bound to conform, who authorizes or directs any such last mentioned employee of that corporation to carry on any part of the business of the corporation in violation of any of the provisions of this act. shall be liable, on summary conviction before two justices of the peace, to similar penalties to those to which a corporation is liable under subsection 1 of this section, or for a first offence, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months and not less than one month, with or without hard labour, and for each subsequent offence, to impi'isonment for a term not exceeding six months and not less than two months, with or without hard labour.
An amendment which only increases the minimum fine is, in my opinion, a fool-trap. In fact, the hon. senator for Parkdale made the following statement as to last year's amendment by the senate:
I regard the amendment as merely a wooden gun with which to do some hunting. I think it is absolutely useless for the purpose of accomplishing what all hon. members of the committee desire, that is. to prevent unnecessary work on Sunday, which has prevailed in certain parts of the country.
He continued:
It seems to me that every time an important measure comes up here which contemplates the protection of the less fortunate members
Lord's Day Act-Violation
[Stage Direction]
of Canada's society we devote our entire attention to the question whether we may not be doing an injustice to somebody higher up in the Canadian social scale. Personally, I think it is wrong. I think this provision is entirely useless, and simply amounts to the hunting of violators of the Lord's Day Act with a wooden gun.
Since the only objections came from the other chamber last year, it is my duty to confine my remarks to those objections. Imaginary fears and impossible dangers of all sorts were alleged as arguments against the bill which I introduced last year and which I reintroduce now. Let me refute those arguments by stating that we all know and admit that some works or operations of continuous process can be done on Sunday. Some one brought out as an objection to my bill that certain operations of continuous process compelled some plants to operate on Sunday, and concluded that, if my amendment were passed, the directors of those particular corporations or plants would be liable to imprisonment.
Before raising such a futile and frivolous objection, one should take pains to read the law as it now stands. The Lord's Day Act permits the following work to be done on Sunday. Section 11. paragraph (d), provides:
Starting or maintaining fires, making repairs to furnaces, and repairs in cases of emergency, and doing any other work when such fires, repairs, or work are essential to any industry or industrial process of such a continuous nature that it cannot be stopped without serious injury to such industry, or its product or to the plant or property used in such process.
My amendment does not restrict this exception. Some one else objected to my amendment because certain industries, such as the canning industiy, must occasionally operate on Sunday, and said that my bill would render the directors of such industries liable to imprisonment for having done nothing but urgent work. Perhaps that objector should in the first place have read paragraphs (e), (m) and (w) of section 11 of the Lord's Day Act, which permit the following works on Sunday. Paragraph (m) refers to perishable products which would apply to the canning industry, and it reads:
(m) The caring for milk, cheese, and live animals and the unloading of and caring for perishable products and live animals, arriving at any point during the Lord's day.
Paragraph (w) reads:
(w) Any unavoidable work on the Lord's day to save property in cases of emergency, or where such property is in imminent danger of destruction or serious injury.
[Mr. Brunelle.l
And paragraph (e) reads:
(e) Starting or maintaining fires, and ventilating, hunting out and inspecting mines, when any such work is essential to the protection of property, life or health.
These exceptions do not cover the whole ground; section 11 itself makes provision for others. Section Id reads:
Notwithstanding anything herein contained, any person may on the Lord's day do any work of necessity or mercy, and for greater certainty, but not so as to restrict the ordinary meaning of the expression "work of necessity or mercy," it is hereby declared, that it shall be deemed to include the following classes of work.
There are exceptions particularly mentioned, but there may be others according to the circumstances of each case. On the other hand, ample protection to all is accorded from other sources.
In the first place, the provision for imprisonment mentioned in my bill is only an alternative; the courts would be free to impose the same penalties as before if they thought fit. In the second place, the attorney general for each province cannot fail to look into the circumstances of each case before a prosecution is started. We all know that instructions to prosecute for violations of the Lord's Day Act must come from the attorney general of the province in which the offence occurs. I refer to section 16 of the act:
No action or prosecution for a violation of this act shall be commenced without the leave of the attorney general for the province in which the offence is alleged to have been committed, nor after the expiration of sixty days from the time of the commission of the alleged offence.
In the third place, our courts are fair and equitable, and they would always take into consideration whatever extenuating circumstances might be alleged in favour of those who find it urgent and necessary to work on Sunday.
In reality, if my amendment were accepted, directors or officers of corporations need do only one simple thing to protect themselves; let them definitely and officially notify their superintendents or managers not to do on Sunday any work which is forbidden by the Lord's Day Act, and then there would be no more violations of the law. If there be violations, I submit that directors or officers of corporations, who often are away from the scene of operation of their plants, having given this notice, would have a good defence to any action started against them. Undoubtedly some plants operate on Sunday in violation of the act. Again and again I have seen workmen passing in front of my house on Sundays 'with their lunch boxes, on their

Lord's Day Act-Violation
way to the mill to do some work which I know is not urgent. Some transport companies send their trucks out to work on Sundays in violation of the Lord's Day Act, and I am sure some stores and places of business do business on Sunday in violation of the provisions of that act.
I am not a fanatic; I am not moved by excessive religious zeal. Some provincial authorities have the monopoly of such extravagant virtues; I do not want to be a competitor with them in that field. I do not want to do harm to the directors or officers of our corporations, to those who may be innocent or who violate the law in good faith. What I do want is that the penalties under the Lord's Day Act should reach those particular directors or officers who, through indifference or lack of respect for the Christian views of their workmen, do not hesitate to set them to work on Sunday. That is all I want. My humble opinion is that the penalties at present set forth in the Lord's Day Act are not a sufficient deterrent.
The amendment which was made to my bill of last year created an injustice. These corporation plants are built and run with money subscribed by shareholders and bondholders, and it is wrong that directors or officers who allow the law to be violated, should, instead of being personally liable to the penalty, make the funds of the corporation liable. Those funds belong to the bondholders or shareholders, who are not responsible for violations of the law. Those who are responsible should be personally punished.
It is not my intention to say any more, because this bill is identical with that unanimously adopted by this house last year.
Mr. DANIEL McIVOR (Fort William):: I congratulate the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Brunelle) upon his persistence. We should expect from an hon. member in this corner of the house, that when ho is right and is beaten back once, he should, like the Ottawa Senators hockey team, go right at it again to score before the game is over.
The reasons why I seconded this motion are, first, that violation of the Lord's Day Act is a breaking of the moral law; second that it is breaking the law of fair play; and third, that it is breaking the law of the land. The moral law is, "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy." The Right Hon. Ramsey MacDonald said that a nation that respects one day in seven to rest from toil and worship the Almighty will find this a great bulwark in the upbuilding of manhood in that nation. We cannot break the moral law and not suffer for it; as someone has said, "If we break the moral law, the moral law will break us."
There is in the act a safeguard permitting works of necessity and mercy. But, like my hon. friend, I know of very many instances where men have had to do on Sunday work which was neither necessary nor a work of mercy, but a work of graft. I should not say graft, but it was work in which the toiler was not considered in any way.
Another reason why I support this bill is that if more men were employed there would be less need for Sunday work, and therefore it would be in a small way a cure for unemployment. When we see men carrying their dinner pails and going to work on Sunday while they see other people released from their toil and going to places of worship where they receive some inspiration, encouragement and instruction, it tends to create a sense of defeat in them, and it is not fair. Those of us who were brought up in homes where we were taught to do our daily toil in six days of the week and to be ready on Sunday for rest and worship, feel that working seven days a week is not fair play.
The hon. member says he is not a fanatic with set views on religion. I have some set views. One such view is that there must be a definite standard, and that standard is the Master Workman of Galilee. When we were engaged on construction work, the plumb-line was the standard; if the building did not conform to that plumb-line, it had to be pulled down and built straight. When we test our conduct by (he example of the Master Workman of Galilee, then the Sabbath day will have its rightful place.


Mr. RODOLPHE LEDUC (Wright) (Translation) :: Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Brunelle) on his courage and persistency in introducing for the third time a bill to amend the Lord's Day Act. I am fully in favour of this amendment. Indeed, it is high time we should stop the practice of companies making their employees work unnecessarily and without pressing need on Sundays. By this amendment not only will such companies be subject to a fine, but their directors and managers will also be liable to fine and imprisonment.
I look forward to the day when my province will have an attorney general who, conscious of his responsibilities, will enforce the Lord's Day Act as it should be and is enforced in many other provinces of this dominion.
It is well known that the Lord's Day Act is violated more generally in Quebec than in any other province, and I know that the provincial government is responsible for that state of affairs. To my mind, my hon. friend's bill does not go far enough. It should provide
Lord's Day Act-Violation

for the punishment not only of company directors but also of federal and provincial ministers who make civil servants work on Sundays without absolute necessity.
I recall a violation of the Lord's Day Act which occurred in my village of Maniwaki on Januaty 15 last, on the eve of the municipal election, and which scandalized a large number of people. On that day an official of the Department of Labour came to distribute cheques issued in payment of wages earned on relief work. The people were shocked at this action of a provincial employee, for they believe that the provincial government should set the example to local companies which at times force their employees to work on Sunday. I communicated the facts to the department concerned, but so far I have received no satisfactory7 answer from the minister.
I hope the hon. member's bill will be agreed to unanimously and that we shall soon be able to proclaim with pride that Catholic Quebec is showing the way to the entire dominion in the matter of Sunday observance.
Mr. W. R. McDONAI.D (Pontiac):	Mr. Speaker, the measure before the house this evening is the same measure which was introduced last year by the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Brunelle), which passed this house unanimously and was considered in the senate, where an amendment was made which was not acceptable to this house, and as a consequence that measure did not become law. I take second place to no one in my desire to see the Sunday observance laws duly obeyed in Quebec as well as .in the other provinces of Canada. I recognize the fact that the amendment submitted by the hon. member for Champlain this evening provides only an additional penalty and does not add to or detract from the present exceptions under what are known as works of mercy or necessity. LTnfortunately, in connection with these exceptions, it has not been made quite clear just what works may be permitted, and I find that the great mining industry in the northern part of my constituency, which, because of these exceptions, considered itself immune to persecution, has been subjected to persecution by an over-zealous inspector of the provincial government, who is absolutely ignorant of the real nature of his duties.
As an indication of the desire of the mining industry in the northern part of my constituency to comply with this act, I shall take time to read the conditions or rules submitted by the mining association to each mining company in my constituency, and I

think, after I have read these rules, any fair-minded man will agree that the mining industry is doing its best to see that the law is not violated. I have before me a memorandum addressed to members of the Western Quebec Mine Managers' Association, the president of which is the general manager of the Noranda Mines at Noranda. In this memorandum to the respective managers of these mines the association outlines the different works it considers to be absolutely necessary, and its asks all mine managers and employees to comply strictly with these exceptions, as follows:
1.	Operation of cyanide mills, flotation mills, roasting and smelting plants. (Continuous processes which cannot be interrupted.)
2.	Mine pumping and the pumping of water for plant and domestic use.
3.	Inspection and repairs of operating shafts.
4.	Operation of fans or compressors for ventilating mine workings.
i). Repairs to plant and equipment that cannot be done during week days without seriously interfering with the safe and necessary economical operation of the plant.
G. Maintaining essential services, such as boarding houses, heating and lighting, watchmen and police, and similar requirements for the well being of the community.
7. In connection with underground pumping and the maintenance of shafts and underground equipment, it is obvious that one or more hoisting engines would generally have to be operated intermittently on Sunday to raise or lower men or materials.
5.	Where crushing is done underground and where it is impracticable to store sufficient ore on surface to carry a mill or smelter over Sunday, it should be permissible, as an emergency measure, to hoist sufficient ore on Sundays to ensure the necessary continuous operation of mill or smelter, but every effort should be made to keep such work to a minimum.
9.	Shaft sinking operations should only be done on Sundays where bad ground or a heavy inflow of water makes it unsafe to interrupt such operations on Sundays.
I want to direct particular attention to the next paragraph:
10.	To prevent over-zealous subordinates from violating the spirit of the above code, we suggest that a copy or copies of this memorandum be kept posted in a conspicuous place at every mining property and that every department head or foreman be instructed to get special authorization from the manager or other person in charge before undertaking any work on Sunday other than the usual continuous operations mentioned above and routine repairs and maintenance.
They conclude with this:
While the association does not wish to presume to interpret any laws now existing, or which may hereafter be enacted, and can take no responsibility for the legal position of any members resulting from the observance of the

Lord's Day Act-Violation
above code, we believe that the above listed operations are works of necessity or mercy, and feel that if every effort is made to adhere to this code the mining industry can expect a friendly cooperation from the public and the authorities who are charged with the responsibility of ensuring the proper observation of Sunday.
That indicates the attitude of the mining men in the association towards Sunday labour in their industry. Notwithstanding that fact, and that they have clearly outlined to inspectors and others that such is their attitude, five charges have been laid against them for non-compliance with the act. Apparently the attorney general of the province, as is within his right, has approved the institution of these actions. To date, however, not one of them has come before the courts, so that the mining companies still have the axe suspended over their heads.
Corresponding recently with the association, I suggested that probably an amendment to the law should be made under the provisions of "works of necessity," so as more clearly to define such works as applied to the mining industry. The reply of the president to my suggestion is as follows:
There are a number of specific operations given in the Lord's Day Act as illustrations of what could be construed as "works of necessity and mercy," but I think it is generally understood that these specific operations were only given as illustrations and I don't see any point to increasing the number of illustrations, because it would be impossible to cover all operations that were necessary as "works of necessity and mercy" and if too many specific acts were mentioned, it might give the impression that it would be lawful to do only such specific operations as were specifically mentioned in the act.
That is the position in which the mining industry finds itself to-day under the act, whereby an over-zealous inspector, ignorant of his duties, may enter prosecutions against them.
As I said a little while ago, it is true that the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Champlain has no bearing whatsoever upon that particular phase of the act. But it has the bearing that the companies feel to-day they are under suspicion of the authorities of our province. While to-day they are subject to a fine, if this amendment were to be accepted and became Law they would be liable to be thrown into prison, and to that feature they take decided exception.
May I place before the house a further paragraph from the communication I received from the president of the association, in which he gives his opinion as to what he believes would be fitting punishment under the law.
He suggests an increased fine, and his words are as follows:
The objection we have to Hr. Bruuelle's amendment is that while we expect and intend to obey both the letter and spirit of the law, from our recent experience we know that an inspector who does not know anything about mining and. therefore, what constitutes "work of necessity or mercy" at a mine, may come in and lay a charge and then a summons is served and . . . the mine manager may then be thrown into gaol because of a misunderstanding or difference of opinion as to the interpretation of the law. He might, of course, appeal and ultimately win his case, but in the meantime he would be subjected to the stigma of a lawbreaker and a criminal and we do not believe that it is necessary to do this in ordeT to ensure proper yespect for and observance of the Lord's Day Act. We contend that the present system of fines is sufficient to ensure proper observance of the act and if the fine is not sufficiently high, it could be increased for each succeeding conviction until it was sufficiently high to deter the most indifferent and insolent manager or company.
There, again, is a statement of the views of these men regarding the law. It indicates their intent to observe it, but their opposition to a penalty of imprisonment.
I should like to have it noted that in the action taken by the inspector against these mining companies, the company and the manager in each instance were summonsed, although the present act refers to any mining company, or any company, and does not refer to the manager. I believe my interpretation of section 14 is correct.
I would suggest, therefore, that the hon. member for Champlain ought to bear in mind the debate which took place last year in the senate, and which I read very closely. One senator defending the amendment, who came from a district in which the hon. member's constituency is located, when asked to state the name of some important company or companies which were violating the law, was unable to make reply or to name one company.
I know the hon. member for Champlain has, in certain instances, good grounds for seeking the amendfnent. My contention, however, is that the amendment goes too far, and in terminating my observations I would ask him again seriously to consider the suggestion made, namely to provide for an increased fine rather than a term of imprisonment.


Right Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, when a similar bill was before the house last year, I supported it. I have had no reason to change my views in the meantime, and therefore I support the present measure. There can be no doubt that
Lord's Day Act-Violation

there have 'been many abuses of the Lord's Day Act, and strong corporations could easily avoid its -prescriptions by paying a penalty when they were brought to court and then proceeding in the same way afterwards.
The bill now before the house would certainly make the law more strict and would have the effect of compelling those who have something to do with such corporations to observe the law. I have great sympathy with much of what has been said by the hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. McDonald); but may I say that if the exceptions mentioned in the act, chapter 123 of the revised statutes, are not sufficient to cover the instances he has mentioned-and I have no doubt the mining companies to which he has referred want to do what is just and fair-the remedy would be to add something to the law with regard to those exceptions. But I am not sure that they would be needed because section 11 of the Lord's Day Act is quite broad. The first paragraph reads:
Notwithstanding anything herein contained, any person may on- the Lord's day do any work of necessity or mercy, and for greater certainty, but not so as to restrict the ordinary' meaning of the expression "work of necessity or mercy," it is hereby declared that it shall lie deemed' to include the following classes of work-
Then follow twenty-two paragraphs lettered (a), (b) and (-c) to (w) and (x), which give details of the classes of work which may be described as works of necessity or mercy. The act says -that this is for greater certainty, but not so as to restrict the ordinary meaning of the expression, "work of necessity or mercy." The maintenance of fires, relief works and so on are covered by the paragraphs, which could be added to by way of amendment if that were found necessary'. I do not think this should, be considered an argument against the bill sponsored by the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Bruneille). I hope that in another place minds will be changed this year so that this bill may become law.


Frank Exton Lennard: Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to this amendment as it now stands. In my opinion this bill contains a joker. It states:
Any person being a director, an officer, a superintendent or -n employee of a corporation, to whose direction or orders any employee is by the terms or conditions of his employment bound to conform-
I am fairly sure that there will never be a conviction of a president or a director of a corporation. The conviction would always be of a junior employee or a straw-boss who

would have to take the rap, and for that reason I am opposed to the bill as it now Stands.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
Section 1 agreed to.
Bill reported.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. ROBERT FAIR (Battle River) moved the second reading of Bill No. 23, to amend the Dominion Elections Act, 1938.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
On section 1-Signed pledges by candidates. Repeal.
Mr. POWER:: Mr. Chairman, I was under the impression that my hon. friend would give some further explanation on the motion for second reading.


Mr. HEAPS:: It was not necessary.


Charles Gavan Power: I did not make the suggestion I intended to make, that perhaps this bill could be discussed better in the committee on electoral matters, notice of which has already been given and which will shortly be set up. As my hon. friend has preferred to have this matter discussed in committee of the whole house, I have no objection to its being treated in that- way, provided he will be kind enough to give us some explanation.


Mr. FAIR:: The purpose of this amendment, which I do not for one moment wish to conceal, is to repeal section 106 of the act. I expected that before the bill got into committee I would have had to say a few words, but now that it is in committee I do not think it is necessary to say very much. The section to be repealed reads:
It shall be an illegal practice and an offence against this act for any candidate for election as member to serve in the House of Commons to sign any written document presented to him by way of demand or claim made upon him, by any person-, persons or associations of persons, between the date of the issue of the writ of election and the date of polling, if such document requires such candidate to follow any course of action that will prevent him from exercising freedom of action in parliament if elected, or to resign as such member if called upon to do so by any person, persons or association of persons.

Dominion Elections-Signed Pledges
I believe that this is the first time a section of this kind has been included in our Dominion Elections Act.
For quite a number of years we have been treated to speeches on democracy. We pride ourselves on a democratic Canada; yet in the face of those speeches in favour of democracy and our claims that we want to support democracy we have put into the Dominion Elections Act section 106, which, if it is allowed to remain in the act, in my opinion does away with democracy.
Democracy, as I see it, is the will of the people, and when the people of Canada are refused the right to pledge their candidates I think it is treading the path of dictatorships, which nobody in this house wants for a moment. In the country which I left more than twenty-five years ago demands were made for certain constitutional changes which most hon. members know as Home Rule, and to-day there is Home Rule in that country. Several other demands have been made in other countries; and as the representatives of the people are the only spokesmen that the people have in parliament, if we take away from the people the right to have their candidates sign pledges and to back up the promises they make prior to an election I think we are treading on dangerous ground, ground much more dangerous than perhaps some realize.
I do not think it is necessary for me to say much more. The wording of the section itself as it stand's in the act is sufficient, I think, to prove that it is dangerous, undemocratic, and along the line of dictatorship by parties, particularly those in power.
From the Ottawa Journal of February 23 last, I clipped this item:
Want Preelection Promises Kept
Olympia, Wash., Feb. 23-Political speeches in Washington state may undergo drastic changes if Rep. William J. Pennoek's bill passes. It would Tequire major state officers to add this pledge to their oath:
"I furthermore do promise and swear that to the best of my ability I will endeavour to perform and fulfil all promises made by me during the campaign, as the result of which I was elected to said office."
If we intend to support democracy and keep away from dictatorship, the best thing we can do is get away from section 106 and leave the old act as it stood in that respect.


Charles Gavan Power: Mr. Chairman, the difference between my hon. friend (Mr. Fair) and myself lies largely, I think, in what is meant by democracy. I am to some extent responsible for section 106 being in the act, because it was at my suggestion to the committee which
sat last year that the clause was put in the bill, as reported unanimously by a committee of this house, and as passed by the house with very little objection except that of the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Heaps).
The object of the section is to do away with an abuse, which has grown up in our public life, of a large number of small minority groups endeavouring to hold up a candidate by making him sign pledges with respect to everything under the sun. During the last federal election we were confronted in the district of Quebec with nineteen separate and distinct pledges that we had to sign. As a matter of fact, I will say for the better-class candidates that they did not sign, but the candidates who were not so conscientious about their duties to the public did sign everything that was presented to them. They swallowed them whole. They signed things with which they had no concern whatsoever, such as pledges with respect to real property, with w'hich the dominion parliament has no concern. Certain minority groups have got into the habit of asking everything in order, in some instances, to embarrass the better-class candidates, and in others, to .assist the worst candidates.


Abraham Albert Heaps: May I ask what is a better-class candidate?


Charles Gavan Power: A better-class candidate is a man who has some respect for his conscience and for his duty, and proposes to come here and do it. A member of parliament, when he is elected by his constituency-I notice I shall have to be brief-is elected, not to be the mouthpiece or delegate of any group or class in his constituency, but to represent in this house the whole people of Canada. He comes here to give his best judgment upon the questions which are put before him-not to give a decision based upon instructions he may have received from people thousands of miles away who know nothing of the question under discussion.


Ernest Lapointe: That is democracy'.


Abraham Albert Heaps: That is party politics.


Charles Gavan Power: It is not democratic in any sense to send a man here hog-tied to do nothing but what is desired by a small group in his constituency. Members who come here with their resignation in the hand's of their party executive or of some group of people in their constituency are not, to my mind, performing their duties as representa-
1308	COMMONS
Dominion Elections-Signed Pledges
tives of the Canadian people. If it be democratic to allow a small group of ward heelers- and I will call them ward heelers even if they are social creditors or members of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party- to control the decisions which a member may make in the House of Commons in the performance of his duty., I do not believe in that kind of democracy.


Mr. NEILL:: May I ask why you do not make it an offence for these people to ask for a pledge? You are only making it an offence for the unhappy candidate to sign the pledge.


Charles Gavan Power: I had intended, when the amendment was proposed in committee, to make it an offence for people to ask, and another offence for the man who was fool enough to sign.
Section stands.
Progress reported.



TRADE AGREEMENT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Mackenzie King that the house go into committee on the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient that parliament do approve of the trade agreement entered into at Washington on the 17th day of November, 1938. between Canada and the United States of America, and that this house do approve of the same, subject to the legislation required in order to give effect to the provisions thereof.
Mr. MALCOLM McLEAN (Melfort):: Mr. Speaker, the matter which is before the house at the present time, namely, the ratification of the trade agreement between Canada and the United States, is in my opinion one of the most important subjects which will come before the house during this session. I do not desire to go back very many years into the history of trade agreements between Canada and the United States, but I would remind the house and the country that during the years between 1930 and 1935 there was a great demand in this country, and a growing demand in the United States, for freer trade facilities between these and other lands. So many restrictions and repressions had been put on the exchanging of surplus commodities of the two countries that there was in them both a great diminution in employment, in the standard of living, and in the confidence of the 
producers and the consumers of wealth in these countries, so closely bound together by nature and so well fitted to be in every way the counterpart one of the other in trading matters.
After the last election the people of Canada were much heartened by the speed with which the agreement of 1935 was negotiated between the two governments. When that agreement was signed, within a few weeks of the new administration taking office, it was regarded by the people of Canada generally, regardless of what their party politics were, or the views held in the past about the need and value of trading, as a good omen for the future. That has been abundantly justified by the results which sprang from the signing of that agreement, and the creating of larger opportunities of trade flowing north and south during these years.
The other day one of my hon. friends opposite said that that agreement was not successful ; that it had not worked out as intended because trade in 1938 had receded, compared with what it had been in 1937. As a matter of fact, he was handing great praise to the treaty and to the way in which it had worked out, because, in other words, he was saying that trade in 1937 had increased at a tremendous rate over 1935. The whole world knows that there was a recession in 1938 which affected the United States .particularly and Canada as well. But to-day Canada is coming out of it faster than our neighbours have done; though we have not suffered as badly, nevertheless our trade is bound to be affected by theirs, with or without treaties. That treaty was so successful that by 1937, in less than two years, we had recovered much of the ground lost in employment, in the production of wealth, in trade with the world, and in renewed confidence on the part of the Canadian people in themselves, their land, their institutions and their future.
We in this house know and the government of the day was quite aware of the fact, which has been mentioned by several hon. members, that that treaty was not, as I admit that this new treaty is not, a panacea for all our ills. It would be impossible; it has never been possible in the history of the world for any government to find a single universal remedy for all its troubles. There are groups of men in the country here and there who think they have found a panacea. One group says that all you have to do is to print all the money you want and you will have a solvent for all difficulties, but in their hearts they know better than that.
JfESRrtARY 24, 1939
Canada-United States
Trade Agreement


Mr. BLACKMORE:: Will the hon. gentleman permit a question?


Malcolm McLean: If it is a question.


John Horne Blackmore: I wonder if he will
tell us of any group in Canada who are foolhardy enough to propose that.


Malcolm McLean: I do not think it would be difficult for anyone to point out to the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Black-more) that all his arguments in this house have been designed to indicate that if you print plenty of money you will solve all the material problems of Canada and of the world -not the spiritual, mental and intellectual, but the material problems.


John Horne Blackmore: Was that what the
hon. gentleman said at first?


Malcolm McLean: I do not mind
questions, but I want them put in a clear tone so that they can be heard and understood.


John Horne Blackmore: I will put it in a clear enough tone if the hon. gentleman will stop talking long enough. I asked, was that the form in which he made the statement before?


Malcolm McLean: Well, it is not
usually assumed that we in this house, with all the responsibilities that the electors put upon us, are sent here to discuss other than material problems. It is not assumed generally that we are sent here to discuss particularly the intellectual or the mental or the spiritual problems of the people. There are other forums in which those questions can be debated. We therefore take it for granted that when we speak of problems we refer to the economic and material problems of the country, because the political and social problems have been largely solved in so far as they can be in a place like this.
To continue, the government knew that this theaty of 1935 could not solve, and they are not claiming now that the 1938 treaty can solve, all our problems. It is impossible to deal with the many-sided phases of modem life, and, by virtue of one trading agreement between two countries out of three, remedy all the evils of which we complain. My hon. friend who asked the question knows as well as I do that over large areas of Canada no wealth amounting to anything has been produced in many years. No wealth has been produced in a part of this dominion which formerly produced wealth in great abundance, and consequently he must know that this is one of the things from which we are suffering, and that the trading of surplus wealth from
other areas will not make up for the loss which is entailed by non-production of wealth over so large a part of Canada.
Both the great country to the south of us and ourselves, however, desired a further advancement along the lines now proposed and, as time went on and the value of the agreement was being demonstrated, those who had been opposed to such agreements in Canada and the United States greatly moderated their objections to them, while those who had been in favour of them on general principles now found their arguments backed up by specific reasons, so that there was a willingness to negotiate once more and again to concede more than it had been found practicable to do in the earlier agreement.
"Lo get the most out of such an agreement it was necessary that other countries, if possible, should be negotiated with at ' the same time, and so we found that for the first time in history the three great English-speaking democracies of the northern hemisphere, the United Kingdom, Canada and the United States, by joint efforts, by a spirit of cooperation, by a spirit of compromise here and there on non-essentials if you will, were able to come together and draft treaties mutually satisfactory to them, which it is believed will result in great good in various ways to the three countries participating and to many-other peoples throughout the world.
To the great Secretary of State of the Lmted States much credit is due for the work that he has performed during the last few years in paving the way for these treaties, and I think the people of Canada and of the old land are equally pleased that their governments took a lead in obtaining these results. It was not an easy matter at all because no trading is particularly easy, and the more people you get into the trade the harder it is to bring it to a successful conclusion. Where negotiations had to be carried on between any two of the nations and then referred to the third one, and difficulties removed there, this was bound to necessitate a great deal of work and difficulties could not be avoided. The mutual concessions, however, that had to be made in the articles dealt with in an earlier agreement were finally arranged satisfactorily, and I believe that a great deal of the credit is due to the technical knowledge, the trained skill and the patience exhibited by the officials of this government who had so much to do, in negotiating with their fellow officials of the other countries, with preparing the way for the adoption of these agreements.
1310	COMMONS
Canada-United States Trade Agreement
On the first of January last when the new agreement came into effect we found that eighty per cent of all Canada's external trade was more or less beneficially affected by these treaties. For a country in Canada's position, the fourth greatest exporter of goods in the world, even with a small population of eleven millions, to foe able to negotiate favourable treaties with the two great peoples who purchase from her more than eighty per cent of all of her exports, is something that is well worth rejoicing over, if it is possible to rejoice at all in matters of trade.
A few years ago we heard from time to time-we do not hear it so often to-day- the argument that there is no trade anyhow. People who believe that are naturally not going to be enthusiastic over trade treaties, and I could not blame them for not being enthusiastic over the negotiation of such agreements as this, because if there is no trade in the world, for the reason that every country has too much of everything that there is no way of disposing of anything, which was the classical way in which some of our friends used to express themselves, then there would be no object in negotiating trade treaties at all. But we have never believed that. The economists of the world have never believed it. As a matter of fact, world economists of high mark have never believed at any time that there was being produced in the world a sufficiency of wealth for the needs of those who were producing and would like to consume more of the wealth being turned out by the various industries in the world, primary and secondary.
In 1928 and 1929, when the wheels of industry were running faster and the factories were more fully occupied than ever before, the great Swedish economist, Professor Gustav Cassel, estimated that barely enough wealth was being produced to maintain the peoples of the world on the standard of living that they had been enjoying, and that they wanted not only to maintain but to increase. I do not know of any way by which the standard of living has been raised so much as by trade. It is true that new inventions, skill in handling them and technical education in its proper meaning have contributed to the production of wealth in greater quantity than formerly, but the production of additional wealth in any country is not going to continue unless it can be exchanged, and if it cannot, that industry is going to fall by the wayside. Before I close I am going to allude to one or two developments of that kind in the province from which I come. I think

everyone will agree that if no market is found for the products of those new applications of agricultural industry, the industries wil Icease to expand and to bring wealth to the people affected.
We have sometimes had in this house, from those who are not enthusiastic about this treaty, the argument that trade is a form of war. If that were true, I should not be very much in favour of trade expansion. But I am sure that most people throughout the world to-day are satisfied that trade is not productive of war; neither is it the trading nations who are most inclined to war with one another, nor is the system of private ownership-which is inherent in this treaty- the cause of war. The greatest and best evidence of that is that during all the years in which private ownership and capitalism have flourished in industry and the production and distribution of wealth, in these two great countries lying side by side, probably the most highly capitalized in the world and with the greatest degree of individual freedom and the greatest scope for individual initiative in the world, there has not been the breath of suspicion of war.
I believe that, having succeeded in making these treaties, we should take advantage of them to the utmost possible extent; that we should supply as much wealth as possible to the British and United States markets and should take in exchange as much as possible from those markets in order that we may be paid for what we sell and may enjoy the higher standard of living that such exchanges will make possible. Therefore, even though this debate has continued for a few days, and while most hon. members are ready to vote on it at any time-and I am glad to say that I have found no very strong opposition to the treaty anywhere, and there is no question as to what is going to happen when the vote is taken-I am convinced that the time spent in debating this treaty from various angles that may interest individual members and the people whom they represent is time well spent; for the more a treaty of this kind is discussed and the more familiar our people come to be with its provisions, the more advantage can be obtained from it. I believe that when there has been time for other nations throughout the world to become impressed with the value of this treaty, many of them will also desire to negotiate with these three great English-speaking countries and carry on a wider trade with them and develop freer markets, as we are now doing.

Canada-United, States Trade Agreement
In the short time I have, I could not, if I would, go through all the provisions of this agreement, so I am going to limit my argument to the treaty as it affects us as sellers in the United States market. There is, of course, another side that is very important. But if we cannot sell our goods in the United States we shall be less able to pay for the goods we wish to buy in their market, while it is necessary for us to take the goods we buy from them in order to get paid for what we sell to them. And I do not know that one part is more important than the other. But because they fall into two separate classes, and because the concessions that we have made to the United States can be discussed on the budget or on some other occasion, I shall deal with the other side of the question first and look at the concessions that have been made to us in the United States.
With the concessions obtained in 1935 and in 1938 we have had reductions or bindings on 170 items, affecting $124,825,000 worth of sales that we made to them in the year 1937. We also secure the maximum reduction of 50 per cent of the duty on products exported from Canada to the value in 1937 of $56,000,000, or 49 per cent of the total value of dutiable imports from Canada in that year. That alone is sufficient to encourage the sending of more goods to the United States. But for the purpose of my reasoning I am going to deal with some matters that particularly affect either western Canada or the province of Saskatchewan or that part of it which I represent, or some particular industries in Canada that were more in need of assistance than certain other industries. There are many items which I do not intend to touch.
Taking the list of concessions in schedule II, I draw attention to the fact that our metal industries, one great group of our natural industries in this country that has done so much to carry the state through the difficult years through which we have been and are passing, are getting substantial benefit from this agreement. Aluminum, which carried a duty burden of 4 cents a pound going into the United States, has had that duty reduced to 3 cents. On cadmium, the duty, which was 15 cents a pound, is now reduced to 7J cents. It is true that there is no aluminum manufactured in the part of the country from which I come; but cadmium is produced in that district, and aluminum is produced on a great scale in Quebec and is of great importance, as indicated by the fact that in 1937 over $4,000,000 worth was shipped from Canada to the United States out of a total importation by that country of $6,770,000.
Nickel and its alloys have also received a reduction in duty, although nickel has been well able to carry itself. I was pleased to see a reduction in the duty on zinc in blocks, pigs or slabs from 1J cents to If cents. That is not a very large reduction; but, after all, that is the duty per pound, and zinc is not a high priced metal. This slight reduction is going to make it easier to develop many mines in northern Canada where a large percentage of zinc is mixed in with the copper.
Coming now to lumber, and in spite of what was said the other day by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley), I think, that not much lumber was manufactured in Saskatchewan, I am particularly pleased with the concessions under both this and the earlier agreement to the lumber industry of western Canada, especially as it affects the people whom I represent and their near neighbours in that part of the country. I find that in connection with Douglas fir and western hemlock the quota of 250,000,000 feet per calendar year under the old agreement has been removed and there is no quantity restriction at all, while the duty is exactly half what it was prior to the negotiation of the first agreement. A reduction from $4 to $2 in the burden on lumber such as Douglas fir and western hemlock, which are found in such quantities in the great maritime province of western Canada, is well worth negotiating. On northern pine, Norway pine and western white spruce, the burden of $4 per thousand feet which was in effect prior to 1936 has been reduced to only 50 cents per thousand feet, and if I read this agreement rightly even that 50 cents is likely to be removed when certain other modifications have been brought about.
Someone said in the house, either yesterday or to-day, that not many farm boys and, in fact, not many men were working to-day by virtue of anything contained in this agreement. I want to tell my hon. friends who have that idea that if it had not been for the agreement of 1935 many men who found employment in the woods would not have been working at all; and if it were not for the great United States market which has been opened up to us, very few of the men who are now in the northern camps taking out spruce would be employed if the trade had to depend on the local market. I am convinced that not hundreds but thousands of men all across Canada are employed to-day-and particularly in the spruce woods-because of the market that has been made available in the United States. The burden has been cut from $4 to 50 cents which, in one district which I know very well, where

1312	COMMONS
Canada-United States Trade Agreement
normally one hundred million feet of spruce lumber are taken out, means a saving of $335,000 per annum in taxation alone. That is a tremendous saving, compared with what they would have had to pay in 1935, and other kinds of lumber are dealt with almost as generously.
Then, to deal with an article produced in the two central provinces, I find that the duty on maple sugar is reduced from 6 cents to 3 cents a pound, while the duty on maple syrup is cut from 4 cents to 2 cents a pound, which is the extreme reduction the president is permitted to make.
Then I come to schedule 7, covering agricultural products. Item 701 deals with cattle weighing less than 200 pounds each. Under the old agreement that weight was 175 pounds and the quota was 51,900, but under the new agreement the quota has been increased to
100,000,	while the rate on these calves has been reduced from 2| cents to 1| cents per pound. That is a great benefit to those who want to market their calves at an early age and a light weight. Cattle weighing 700 pounds or more and being dairy cows, in connection with which there was a quota of 20,000 head annually under the old agreement, have had that quantity restriction removed entirely. The previous rate was 3 cents a pound and to-day it is 1J cents. I hope we shall not again have the spectacle we had in this house on one occasion a few years ago, when we had to listen to the then leader of the opposition bewail and bemoan the fate of 125,000 Ontario dairy cows which had been driven south, and which wept their eyes out because they were no longer being milked on the banks of the St. Lawrence or some of our northern rivers, but were subjected to the sad fate of giving their milk and cream down in the state of New York, where they had been moved at the price of from $125 to $150 for a good cow. I hope the time will again come in this country when farmers who wish to do so will be able to sell dairy cattle for similar prices, and when there will be an equal demand. When it comes to cattle weighing 700 pounds or more each, not specially provided for, the quota under the old agreement was 155,799 head, which was a percentage of the cattle slaughtered in the United States between 1928 and 1932. I am sure everyone here is glad to know that this quota has been increased to 225,000 and the duty cut from 3 cents a pound in 1935, and 2 cents, the rate in effect for the last three years, to 1| cents, which is the maximum reduction possible under the United States statutes.
Everyone in Canada who is interested in agriculture values the provisions of this

agreement. Some of my hon. friends opposite have said that only something like four per cent of the members of this house knew anything about this quota being continental or global; that dealers in western Canada, making their livelihood out of the cattle business, did not know that fact, and that losses had been sustained as a consequence. I think my hon. friend from Qu'Appelle and my hon. friend from Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) lamented that lack of knowledge. I just want to say that any man buying and selling cattle for a living in either eastern or western Canada who did not have that much familiarity with the rules under which such cattle could enter the United States, was bound to run into some difficulties, but I think everyone knew last year and the year before and the year before that-


Ernest Edward Perley: Did the hon. member know?


Malcolm McLean: Oh, yes.


Ernest Edward Perley: Then you are the one out of twenty-five.


Malcolm McLean: But there are a dozen members over here at the moment who also knew about it; twelve times twenty-five is three hundred, and we have only 245 members in the house. I am quite aware that there was the possibility of a loss to those whose cattle went into the United States after the stop was put on because the quota was nearly exhausted, but my hon. friend from Qu'Appelle knows that the United States government gave notice when the quota was within 5,000 head of being exhausted. They said the duty would be collected on all cattle going in after that, and if it was found later that they came within the quota that duty would be refunded. So that the dealer who took in a carload of cattle, if he had paid freight and duty on them, and taken them to the United States, immediately after the limit was announced, might not have lost money at all. Yet the very fact that he lost $500 on a carload because this agreement was not in effect on that day is, to my mind, the best indication of the value of the agreement, because any bargain which will make over $500 more money on a single car of cattle, without a nickel of expense added, to the dealer or to the farmer, is surely a wonderful agreement for this country.


Ernest Edward Perley: It demoralized the Winnipeg market for that day; that is the point.


Malcolm McLean: I should like to talk about swine, pork, bacon, edible animal livers, whole milk, fresh or sour, cream, fresh or sour, skimmed milk, dried buttermilk and

Canada-United States Trade Agreement
cheddar cheese, the duty on which has been reduced from 7 cents to 4 cents a pound, but time does not permit.
I would like, however, to congratulate the hon. member for Qu'Appelle upon the fact that the people he represents in his constituency could easily supply the 15,000,000 gallons of milk, either in the form of milk or cream, which is going to be allowed into the United States.


Ernest Edward Perley: I would suggest that the
hon. member read the Western Producer, and take a peek at his own constituency.


Malcolm McLean: My hon. friend
does not require to make any suggestions of that kind. I represent the people who sent me here, and have a right to comment on any speech which has been delivered or any statement which has been made in the debate, so long as proper decorum is observed. But I want to say it is a good thing that the cattle in his constituency are so prolific of milk. If they are, I fail to see why he should condemn the government because, as he said a little while ago, they were not allowed to keep more than so many female breeding animals, and were consequently incapable of selling cattle.
On horses going into the United States, the duty has been reduced from $30 a head to $15 a head on horses valued at not more than $150.
Another development in the agricultural industry which I believe is going to be of great value now and in the future, is the production of honey. Formerly it carried a duty burden of three cents a pound into the United States. Under the 1935 agreement that was reduced to two cents, and it is now down to one and one-half cents a pound. For my district which has shipped honey by the carload overseas, and whose honey is taking the highest awards in the empire markets and shows in London, I believe there is a great opportunity for marketing that same product in the United States in future.
A great deal has been said about apples. While they may have lost some preference in the old country market, on the other hand they receive a substantial advantage in the United States market and I am glad to see that this is so. It would not be well to have an industry of that kind penalized.
But I must hurry along and deal with grass seeds and other forage crop seeds, because they are important, too. I find that the rate on alfalfa going into the United States has been reduced from 8 cents a pound in 1935 to 4 cents per pound. The rate on alsike clover is reduced in the same way. On red clover 71492-83i
the reduction was from 8 cents to 5 cents a pound in 1935, and it is now reduced to 4 cents. On timothy there is a reduction from 2 cents to 1 cent. On bent-grass the reduction is from 40 cents a pound to 20 cents. On wheatgrass it is from 2 cents to 1 cent, and on bromegrass from 2 cents to 1 cent.
The growing of alfalfa seed, and these other seeds, is one of the great developments to which I referred at the beginning of my observations. In 1936, from the territory I represent less than 100,000 pounds of alfalfa seed were marketed, and the cut in the rate of duty from 8 cents to 4 cents a pound is of great benefit to those people. A year ago, that is for the crop of 1937, over half a million pounds were marketed. The cut in duty meant about $20,000 to the comparatively few farmers producing the seed. Last year, 3,000,000 pounds were marketed, much of it going to the United States, and the price was set by the price available in that country. Three million pounds with a 4 cents a pound reduction in duty represents the sum of $120,000, a matter of the greatest importance to the growers. That is one of the developments in agriculture which, as I have said, could not be continued if a market were not available. I believe the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Senn) would agree with me that it is all important to have a market.


Mr. SENN:: Since the hon. member has mentioned my name, I should like to tell him I do not believe our price for alfalfa seed is governed by the United States price at all.


Malcolm McLean: I did not say it was, but I do say-


Mark Cecil Senn: Oh, yes.


Malcolm McLean: But I said this,
that not only does that portion of our alfalfa seed which goes into the United States receive a 4 cent reduction in the burden of duty, but in that section of which I am speaking, namely northeastern Saskatchewan, which produces 3,000,000 pounds, the price of that which was sold at home was governed by the price of that which went into the United States.


Mark Cecil Senn: As a matter of fact, we are
not producing enough alfalfa seed in Canada for our own domestic use.


Malcolm McLean: I am glad to
hear that, and I hope it is correct. I know the hon. member for Haldimand thinks it is. I know, too, that it is beginning to give some concern to those who see themselves
1314	COMMONS
Canada-United States Trade Agreement
faced with the marketing of from 6,000,000 to 10,000,000 pounds next year, if the crop is normal, on the increased acreage they now have. Our United States outlet has been very important in the last year or two.
There are many other matters with which I should like to deal, particularly potatoes, fish of all kinds, and articles such as pulp-wood, other forest products, and many commodities which are dealt with in the agreement. I am particularly pleased to see that the farmers and fishermen of the maritime provinces are getting some advantage out of it. I believe some of them complained, and rightly so, that they had been unfortunate because the government had not been able to get many advantages for them under the treaty of 1935.
The first time I ever spoke in the house I had occasion to deal with conditions in the maritime provinces, and to express the hope that they would be ameliorated. I have now had the satisfaction on two occasions of seeing better conditions in those provinces, and I believe that this market now being opened for their fish, potatoes, and other commodities, will prove beneficial. I know of no people more deserving of any encouragement the government can give. And I know of no people who will rejoice with them more than the people who, having had their struggles on the new lands in the west, appreciate, at least in part, the struggles of the people in the maritime provinces.


Ernest Edward Perley: They are still struggling.


Frank Exton Lennard: Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to be responsible for prolonging this debate more than a few minutes. I do propose, however, to deal with some of the items when the treaty is being considered in committee.
To begin with, in my opinion the whole system employed by [DOT] this government in bringing about these treaties is wrong. I say that because they do not use the system employed in the United States.
The hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) asked the following questions of the ministry on February 15, 1938:
1.	Will the government lay on the table the list of 47 pages of goods on which the United States propose to discuss further reciprocity with Canada as published partly in the local press on January 8, and on which the people of that country were asked to write the Trade Department at Washington to give their views or objections on any of these items with a public hearing on March 14, afforded?
2.	Will the government consider adopting the same method and procedure here in order to give the business men of Canada an opportunity of being heard in the same way by

letter, and a public hearing later, before any proposed agreement is consummated, and not after it?
3. Will the government consider calling into consultation Canadian industrialists and agriculturists regarding the effect of same on the Ottawa agreements, before and not after any agreement or treaty is consummated or proposed ?
In answer to question number two of the hon. member, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) stated:
The procedure at present adopted by the United States government in connection with current trade agreements - is based upon the fact that agreements concluded under the Trade Agreements Act are not submitted to congress for approval. As the situation in this respect is different in Canada, it is not considered necessary to adopt the United States procedure.
What difference is there? Was this last trade agreement submitted to this parliament before it was signed and before it became law? Were hon. members consulted before this treaty came into effect? This last treaty with the United States came into effect on January 1, 1939; this parliament was called on January 12, and we are now discussing the treaty in the middle of February. In answer to question number three, the Prime Minister stated:
The present practice under which Canadian industrialists, agriculturists, and others interested, may communicate with the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, or other ministers concerned, on all matters respecting commercial treaty negotiations, is believed to be adequate.
How can Canadian industrialists, agriculturists and others interested approach the government in connection with these matters when they have not the faintest idea of what is being considered by the government? If there ever were a purely political treaty executed by this country, it is the one now before us. It is a treaty in which there is very little thought for the common good. It is a treaty to suit one or two sections of this dominion. Apparently the members from those sections control this government. There are supporters of this government who are to-day hanging their heads in shame. They have not been in this house for the past three weeks, ever since this treaty has been under discussion. They are ashamed of it. My belief is that if the treaty of 1935 had not been put into effect, conditions in this country would have improved to such an extent that there would have been increased employment and increased trade within Canada, and we would have had dominion unity instead of disunity. Our working people would have been happier. The supporters of the government have spent so little time in this debate

Canada-United, States Trade Agreement
in defending the treaty that their attitude has been pitiable. They have been taking up the time of the house in making personal attacks on hon. members of the opposition and reading from red, white and blue books that have no bearing on the case. In every way they are attempting to belittle the seriousness of the situation.
This afternoon the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar) did not quote from the little red book, as some of his colleagues have done, but he did almost everything else. He spent his time in apologizing for certain hon. members, saying he was sorry that this or that member was not in his place. Let me say to the minister that he does not spend any too much time himself in this house, and I regret he is not in his place this evening. I wonder what the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Usley) thought of the statement this afternoon that the treaty might affect a few apple trees in the constituency of the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Stirling). I wonder what the people of the Annapolis valley, of British Columbia and of the apple growing districts of Ontario would think if that was drawn to their attention.


Mr. ILSLEY:: I do not think that was his statement.


Frank Exton Lennard: He said something that appeared to me to be along that line.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Something quite different.


Frank Exton Lennard: Of course I have not seen Hansard, but that is my interpretation of what he said. I do not think the Minister of National Revenue was in the house at the time.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Oh, yes, I was here.


Frank Exton Lennard: I did not think the minister was. Where are the members supporting the government who represent ridings in which there are a great number of market gardeners and fruit growers? Has one of them risen in his place on the floor of this house and defended his position? Not one, Mr. Speaker, not one. I wish to protest against the unfair treatment which has been accorded the market gardeners, the greenhouse industry and the fruit growers of the country by this government in these two treaties. In vegetable growing alone we have a major primary industry. To quote the words of Mr. M. B. Davis and Mr. T. F. Ritchie of the central experimental farm, Ottawa, as delivered at the Carls-Rite hotel, Toronto:
It would seem therefore that we have in this vegetable industry something of real value as a national asset and it is our guess that
[Mr. Lennard.l
the industry is easily worth in its entirety $100,000,000 a year. Such an industry merits attention and deserves support if it is to continue as a source of wealth to this country.
I ask in all seriousness: Has this industry received this consideration? I say, no. The sections of the Canadian fruit and vegetable industry which will suffer most severely under the new arrangements with the United States are the hothouse tomato growers, the pear growers and the asparagus growers. The greenhouse industry is the one branch of market gardening most seriously affected. The hothouse growers of tomatoes find that their overhead is the same to-day as it was several years ago. The cost of coal, labour, et cetera, is at the same level, while the duty has been lowered from 30 per cent in 1935 to a bare 10 per cent at the moment. With the two cents a pound dumping duty removed, these men will be practically forced out of business. They will have to readjust their business, and I do not know what other line of production they can turn to which will permit a profitable use of their hothouses. I know many of them have been scraping along for the past few years. I know of several large plants which cannot afford to close down. They have been running along with small losses in the hope that some government would come along and give them relief so that they might operate successfully in the future. If that does not happen soon, I know many of these concerns will go to the wall. These tomato growers have to compete with a field grown crop, harvested with cheap' labour and receiving a freight subsidy. What chance have they? What protection is 10 per cent against such competition?
While there has been no change in the dumping duty on pears, the Canadian government has agreed to apply the dumping duty for a twelve week period only. This is not sufficient to cover the entire pear season, and the result will be that the threat of United States imports by Canadian canning companies will be a greater menace than ever. In connection with asparagus, the loss is the three per cent excise, five per cent on the general duty and two-fifths of a cent per pound on the dumping duty. When these are all totalled up, it means a material reduction in the protection against United States asparagus, which some canning companies often import for the purpose of smashing Canadian prices when the canning season rolls round.
This afternoon the hon. member for Souris (Mr. McDonald) stated that one-third of the people of Canada were farmers, and that two-thirds of the people of Canada were in-
1316	COMMONS
Canada-United. States Trade Agreement
terested in agriculture. Does he realize that the other one-third he speaks of are in the market gardening and fruit growing industries, which are directly affected by these treaties? If the other third of the population of Canada are in industry, two-thirds of the population of Canada are directly affected by this treaty.
The hon. member for Victoria, Ontario (Mr. McNevin) stated some time ago that he thought the new trade agreements would help the woollen and knit goods industry. I wonder if he really thinks that, or if he has given it any thought at all. I should like to give a few facts in connection with the woollen and knit goods industry.
1.	The industry is essentially Canadian with eighty-five per cent of its $92,000,000 investment being supplied by Canadian investors.
2.	Ninety-eight per cent of the goods made by these mills must be sold within Canada.
This is because Canadian wage scales are higher than in other countries, or because the textile tariffs of other countries are against Canadian textiles. Therefore our industry is dependent upon its Canadian market.
3.	The government in again lowering the tariff in our Canadian market will give workers in other countries added production and Canadian workers less.
In 1937 our textile industry bought from Australia, direct, over $2,000,000 worth of wool, which constitutes twenty-four per cent of Canada's purchases from that country. It bought from New Zealand over $3,000,000 of wool, which constitutes fifty-eight per cent of the total imports from that country.
In addition to Australian and New Zealand products the industry purchased approximately double the above quantities through Bradford, England, in the form of raw and partly processed wool.
These purchases by Canada from empire countries were a substantial consideration in negotiating trade treaties with these countries, from which Canadian workers in other industries benefit.
Thus, the woollen and knit goods industry contributes in a major way to empire trade, both in its actual purchases from empire countries, and in tariff concessions to competitive empire products, in return for empire trade concessions to Canadian natural and farm products.
The widespread and comprehensive nature of the industry is clearly demonstrated by the fact that its $25,000,000 direct wages are paid into eighty-two municipalities in Ontario; thirty-nine municipalities in Quebec; eighteen municipalities in the maritimes, and seven municipalities in western Canada.

The present economic condition of the textile industry in the United States is forcing her to seek openings in Canada for the surplus production she is not internally absorbing. Further concessions in tariff would merely aggravate the danger to our Canadian industry. This condition illustrates the seriousness of a tariff reduction to a country having such economic difficulties as the United States portrays.
It is of the utmost concern to the woollen and knit goods industry that because of the favoured nation treaties which Canada now has with twenty-two foreign countries, any tariff concessions which are given to the United States must automatically be given to all these others. Unfortunately these others include Japan, Italy, Germany and Czechoslovakia, all of which are textile producing countries operating on wage scales ridiculously low compared with those prevailing in Canada. It would be disastrous to this Canadian industry if the products of that class of foreign production were given an opportunity to gain any further foothold in our Canadian market.
I say, Mr. Speaker, that the workmen of this country have been sold out to foreign capital; their very jobs have been jeopardized by these two treaties.
In addition to the confusion and in many cases chaos that has been created in industry through these treaties, there is the additional paralyzing effect of the uncertainty surrounding the excise tax. We read in the press that it will possibly be removed altogether. But who knows? Consequently the industry of this country is to an extent at a standstill, awaiting the outcome. To put it squarely to this government, they are shirking their duty in withholding this information, and it will jeopardize the very existence of many industries, especially in eastern Canada, if this question is not settled very soon. I say that, Mr. Speaker, in all seriousness. I have been approached by industrialists during the past two or three weeks, and they say: "This treaty is signed, and I suppose we shall have to make the best of it, but what is the government going to do about the excise tax? With the present uncertainty our business is paralyzed; we do not want to buy, and people will not buy from us because we do not know, and they do not know, what is going to be done about the three per cent excise tax." It is one of the most serious stumbling blocks before industry in this country at this moment, and this government should end the uncertainty at the earliest possible moment.


Mr. J. K. BLAIR (Wellington North):: Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Lennard) that the Prime

Canada-United. States Trade Agreement
Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) sprung no surprise on the Liberal party by introducing a new reciprocity treaty. The Prime Minister well knows the spirit of the Liberal party. There are not many Conservatives in the house to consult. The Prime Minister would not take their opinion if they did give it, but he knows the spirit of the Liberal party as expressed in caucus and he knows the opinions of Liberal members personally. The Prime Minister knows what each one of us thinks with regard to these trade treaties, and we are behind him one hundred per cent.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: The country is too.


John Knox Blair: 
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


John Knox Blair: The price of pigs was three
times as high, I may tell hon. gentlemen opposite if their memories are bad, because I remember selling the last batch I had at that time for $285. We got as high as 9 and 10 cents a pound after the reciprocity treaty.
In connection with cattle this summary might be found interesting. In the last four years of Conservative rule we sold 30,000 head to the United States, and in the last four years under this government we have sold to the United States 601,000 head. In other words, in four years under the Liberals we have sold twenty times as many as we sold in four years under the Right Hon. Mr. Bennett. This means a great deal to the farmers through northern Ontario, and in my opinion it accounts in large measure for the balance of our trade. I believe it came from the exports of cattle.
This trade treaty is much broader than any we have had before. It includes the British Empire. I cannot understand the opposition voting against a trade treaty with the British empire. For years they used to come into the house, wrap themselves in the union jack and talk about patriotism, waving the flag in our faces. For over thirty years I have heard a great deal about the flag in Toronto, and now that we have a trade treaty with Great Britain; now that
1318	COMMONS
Canada-United States Trade Agreement
there is perfect cooperation with the British people, we find the Conservatives talking hour after hour in opposition to the treaty.
The leader of the opposition says that he cannot vote for the treaty. He opposes it for several reasons. First, he says that it means greater competition in industry. Well, I am sure that the people who sent me here will thank heaven for that. They are paying far too much for their farm implements and there is need for some competition to bring about a reduction in the prices of those articles which they have to buy. This will be a blessing to them.
Next he says that this is the beginning of the destruction of the British preference. Well, now! Imagine the Conservative party starting to nurse the British preference! Why, that was the child of the Liberal party. The Conservative party tried hard to kill it at its birth; yet now they say it is not safe in the hands of its parents. Adjustments are made in the British preference, but it is not destroyed, and I think it will be many a day before it is destroyed-perhaps never.
Next he says that he opposes the treaty because it injures our Canadian traffic, the traffic north and south. That is an old Tory fallacy. Liberalism, let me point out, always tries to bring the producer and the consumer as close together as possible, but the Conservative policy for the last thirty years has been to put up toll gates and barriers between the two. They are constantly doing it. Dear knows, nature has provided enough barriers between producer and consumer without our adding extra ones. Time is a barrier, and a deflater between producer and consumer. Weather is a deflater, because commodities may suffer in going through tropical or cold climates as the case may be. Transportation, freight rates, a hill on the highway-anything that helps to keep traffic back is a deflater and destroyer of trade and commerce.
But the Conservative party are not satisfied with that. They want to put more obstructions in the way, and they complain that this treaty injures our Canadian traffic, the trade going north and south. I suggest to the leader of the opposition and those who approve his policy that he get a highway which is not too congested, one that goes round in a circle, and travel over it for so many miles before depositing cargo. Perhaps they would then vote for the treaty.
The next point he complains about is the removal of the excise tax. The removal of the tax, it is said, will have a paralyzing effect. Its removal will not paralyze the people of my constituency, and the sooner it
tMr. Blair.]
goes the better. In fact, in my opinion, it should never have been imposed.
I always enjoy listening to the Conservatives heckling a bit once in a while, because it gives me an idea of what brand of politics they have. The last time I spoke in this house I was accused in the house in Toronto of denouncing the Conservatives. No. I do not denounce the Conservatives; it is the Tories I denounce. There is a difference between Tory and Conservative. The Tory votes by tradition. He goes to church once a year, some time about July.


Frank Exton Lennard: On a point of order, did the hon. member say that I said that the removal of the three per cent excise tax would paralyze trade? I did not.


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


Mr. FAFARD:: It is a point of disorder.


David Spence: Discuss the lethal chamber.


John Knox Blair: I expect that every Tory in Toronto will vote against this treaty. I expect the representatives of Tory constituencies to vote against it. But I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that thousands of Conservatives will be very slow to vote against it; on the contrary, they are anxious to have it go through.


An hon. MEMBER:: Will they have a chance?


John Knox Blair: They will have a chance to
express their opinion before long. The Tory is vastly different from the Conservative. The Tories vote by tradition. The Conservatives study matters and vote according to their judgment. We do not expect any Tories to vote for this treaty, but the Conservatives in this house and outside will be strongly in favour of it. I should like to hear a Conservative member or, indeed, any hon. member go to the farmers north of Toronto and tell them that this treaty will do them harm, tell them that they must not sell their cattle in Buffalo; that to do so is wrong. An hon. member-I do not like to mention names- complained that he was tired of hearing Toronto called hog-town. I can tell him that if he votes against this treaty and insists that the farmers north of Toronto cannot sell their cattle in Buffalo and other United States cities, Toronto will still be called hog-town. If he wants that name changed, a change in conduct is the only way to change it.


Mr. CLARKE (Rosedale):: It is too bad the hon. member cannot move there.


John Knox Blair: Hon. members complained
about the Hawley-Smoot and Fordney-Mc-

Canada-United States Trade Agreement
Cumber tariffs. They should know that it was the Conservative party which was in power in the United States when those tariffs were imposed. I do not think a Conservative party should be elected anywhere, but we in Canada are not responsible for their having a Conservative government in the United States.
An hon. member complained bitterly about the low tariff years from 1921 to 1930; let me tell him those were years of prosperity in Canada. Those were the years when the farmers bought farms and cars and drove to town-


An hon. MEMBER:: And got married.


John Knox Blair: Yes, got married. To-day it is being preached by hon. members opposite that people should not get married. We as Liberals do not preach such policies.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: No, we get married.


John Knox Blair: We need trade, because it is impossible for a country like Canada with her large surplus of raw materials to live without exporting.
We are charged frequently with not cooperating. Let me say that the King government has cooperated fully with Neville Chamberlain in all his actions during the recent critical conditions in Europe. They also did so at the time when the change in the sovereign took place. These matters are very important. Naturally when a Liberal government in Canada cooperates fully with a Conservative government in Great Britain we receive some criticism, we expect that. But we have no apologies to make. We believe Neville Chamberlain will go down in history as the greatest British statesman in many years, and I believe that the name of Mackenzie King will be associated with his for his splendid cooperation.
This treaty may seem to be merely an economic one, but it is of much more far-reaching importance than merely an economic asset. I have here an extract from a speech of a certain man, I do not know how true it is to his inmost mind because I read his speeches in the Hastings by-election; I have them on file, and whenever I look at them they fairly make me sick. But he has been reading passages from some author and he made this declaration at Fort William, as reported in the St. Catharines Standard of January 28, 1939:
. . . Colonel George Drew went on to assert that "The one hope of the world is a complete understanding between the British empire and the United States to work together in the preservation of peace, a movement in which we Canadians are the interpreters, the ambassadors between the empire and the United States." Which, most people will agree, we think, sums up Canada's position to a nicety.
There is a passage of which I do not think Colonel Drew was the author, but I give him credit for saying it at a public gathering. It means more than most might think. It is the soul of old Joseph Chamberlain; it may have come from some of his writings. Joseph Chamberlain believed in the unification of the British people the world over. He was narrow in his racial ideas, but was ambitious for the unification of the British people. It also expresses the soul and spirit of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who sought for cooperation with and unification of the British people by means of the British preference and reciprocity, something similar to what we are having now. It was the spirit of J. A. Macdonald, editor of the Globe, who preached the unification of the British people, throughout the United States. Now we have Colonel Drew, and if ever a man had a chance to do a little missionary work, if Colonel Drew would spread that doctrine through the club rooms in Toronto, it would be a godsend for some of the Toronto organizations. That spirit is strongly opposed to some of the ideas we hear in this house. If Colonel Drew puts forward that idea in the Ontario house he will not meet with any opposition, because the keynote and foundation of Liberalism is freer trade and better understanding among the nations of the world.
There is one point I might mention in closing; it is in the spirit of Neville Chamberlain that if a nation is so confined that it has not sufficient territory to support its people, that nation should be allowed to get more territory where there are vacant lands, because people are not going to be content to starve on territory on which it is impossible for them to live. There are nations in the world which are in that position; I believe Neville Chamberlain is anxious to give them relief, and I have great faith that he will do it, although he is being bitterly opposed by many British people. But every nation has a right to live and obtain food and clothing, and if they do not have it at home I think some latitude should be given to them to enable them to secure it in other parts of the world.
The great cause of world peace lies behind this treaty. I know there are hon. members opposite who do not think that; they think this treaty is merely an economic problem. Of course it is that, and a vast one; but its object is also the tying together of the English speaking peoples which will be a factor in our national protection. It tends toward making an economic unit of the British people, and I believe that with that protection we shall be relieved of having to spend as much money for defence as we

1320	COMMONS
Canada-United, States Trade Agreement
otherwise would have to spend. I think there will be found a great degree of unification among the British peoples, and it is even broader and wider than that. While Great Britain asks all the dominions to come in, they are extending the glad hand to all nations possessing the spirit of British democracy to come hither and join with them in this great union. That means much. The treaty now before us is all right as far as it goes, but the matter does not end there. Great Britain extends the glad hand to all the democracies of the world. This is the first great step toward the unification of all the democracies and all the British peoples
It was with a great deal of regret that I saw the leader of the opposition rise in his place and tell us why he would not vote for this treaty. These men in the far comer rise in their places and talk against the treaty, but we do not know which way they are going. I have faith in the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party; I generally know which way he will vote, and I have never found him opposing a properly negotiated trade treaty which would bring about lower duties. I have not faith in all hon. members in that comer, but I have faith in him. I think some of these men are talking one way, while they would like to talk the other way. I believe the Conservatives talk one way, while they would like to vote the other way. I believe the leader of the opposition would like to vote for this treaty; yet he is speaking against it.


An hon. MEMBER:: What about the Reconstruction party?


John Knox Blair: Oh, I think he would vote
for high tariffs. I cannot understand why some people talk and look one way and then act the other way. They remind me of a story, which I should not tell, of two English cockneys in a London fog who were going round a comer rather quickly. One fellow was cock-eyed and the other was cross-eyed. Then ran into each other, and one fellow said, "Why can't you look where you're going?" to which the other replied, "Why can't you go where you're looking?" Hon. members should look where they are going and go where they are looking. If you talk against this treaty, be men enough to vote against it. If you have faith in this treaty, quit talking against it and approve it. I suggest to those from western Canada that it would be a great mistake to vote against this treaty, which means much to the farmers of both the east and the west. It may not mean much to industry, but it is a great benefit to the dominion as a whole.


Mr. R. W. MAYHEW (Victoria, B.C.):: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to delay this house for more than a few minutes, but I have a couple of points in mind that I do not think have been touched upon. In the six weeks I have been in this house listening to the debates I have become convinced of at least one thing, and it is that any and every government is condemned. It is ridiculed if it does nothing and seriously maligned if it attempts to do anything. I believe the government considered every aspect of this trade agreement and took the advice of competent men before presenting this measure to parliament. I am sure their opinion has not been changed by the debate that has taken place; on the contrary, I think a great many arguments have been presented that would tend to increase their faith in the agreement.
There is one argument I should like to present, and I do not intend to bring forth the scrap-book in order to prove it. Most of the quotations that have been read in this house during the past five or six weeks, particularly during the debate on the trade agreement, have not proved anything but the colour of the politics of those who wrote the articles. I believe this is a good treaty, and I will try to illustrate one of my reasons for so believing by citing the exports of milk and cream. The milk quota that Canada is allowed to send to the United States is 3,000,000 gallons, while the cream quota has been set at 1,500,000 gallons. The two together, converted into gallons of milk, mean 18,000,000 gallons which, if converted into butter, would mean 9.000,000 pounds. If we could remove 9,000.000 pounds of the surplus butter that is in Canada today, there would be quite a different picture in the market price of the remainder.
I mention that one point because it holds true in regard to any other commodity that might be suggested. The 1,000,000 bushels of potatoes is, in itself, not a great quantity, but surely it is not anticipated that the whole province of New Brunswick or the whole province of British Columbia will go into the growing of potatoes. In my opinion it is fortunate for us that we have to the south a country of 130,000,000 people where we can sell our small surplus, thereby keeping our own markets firm, without seriously interfering with their markets. If we should attempt to increase our quotas beyond what may be sufficient to take care of our surpluses, I think we would be on dangerous ground which might bring about the cancellation of the agreement.
There is one other point I should like to make in connection with lumber, in which we in British Columbia are very much interested.

Canada-United, States Trade Agreement
Is it fair that the lumber of British Columbia should be sold in any market which does not return a fair, reasonable profit? By that I mean a profit which will give the labourers fair wages, which will provide a fair return on the money invested and which will allow some profit to those doing the business. In the old country we have to compete against cheap European labour, and on the lumber we ship there we cannot make sufficient profit to make it worth while. I say it is not fair that the natural resources of this country should be wasted. It takes a hundred years to grow a tree. Why should that tree be cut down with no one profiting from it?
It has been stated several times that United States business men were too smart for our business men. Well, I should not like to say that in many of the club rooms throughout this country unless there was a handy means of exit. I will say this: I believe the United States business man is shrewd. He is just so shrewd in making a deal that he would not use that shrewdness in a deal of this kind, because he wants it to last. If you want to trade in sharp practice you had better get into the horse trading business, not into permanent business conditions. I think the United States business man is just smart enough to try to make a good deal, yet one that is going to be fair and lasting to us all.
My last word is this: This is not a cure-all for all the ills we have in Canada. It is something that will help. Not only will it help, but it will help considerably. I hope the government, before parliament prorogues, will have many other measures brought forward which will assist in solving our problems.
Mr. NORMAN J. M. LOCKHART (Lincoln): Mr. Speaker, before I proceed with just a few of the brief comments I desire to make on the trade agreement which is now being so fully discussed in the house, I want to crave your indulgence by permitting me to speak from the seat properly belonging to the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Marsh). My understanding is that hon. members are supposed to address the house from the seats allocated to them, but unfortunately those of us in the back row are still within the shadows, and I would appreciate making my remarks from a seat which is not my own.
First, may I say a word to the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. McLean) in reply to his reference respecting goods we sell in the United States, and the concessions made to us. He referred to the circumstance of 225,000 cattle being permitted to be sold in the United States. I happen to have before me 71492-84 i
the trade agreement, and I have been trying to find the joker in the pack. The reason why Mexico grabbed off nearly 50 per cent of the quota for the first three months is found at the bottom of the page, where it is stated that some consultations might be held before the quotas are finally established. That is the stipulation in the further provision set out in the foot note. I can now realize why Mexico captured nearly 50 per cent of the quota.
When I was home a week ago I learned about one cattle raiser who had fattened about forty head of cattle which he anticipated selling in Buffalo. It was his intention to make an effort to sell in the Buffalo market to which reference was made a few moments ago. He made inquiries, and the reply was, " Well, the only chance you have to take advantage of the lower rate of duty is to wait until after April 1, then watch your step and get in ahead of Mexico."
I have listened attentively to the many speeches which have been made on the merits and demerits of the Canada-United States and Great Britain-United States trade agreements. It is not my desire to prolong the debate, but in looking at yesterday's Hansard I find that at adjournment last night the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) referred particularly to the fact that in all probability we would continue this debate through the entire day. Therefore I assume any hon. member has a right to continue the debate and make his observations.
At the outset I want to tell the hon. member for Wellington North (Mr. Blair) that it would not be in the mind of any right thinking Canadian to think of anything else than trading with other countries in a legitimate way. I believe Canada has demonstrated that by her example in the past, no matter what government might be in power. Canada is endowed with a great wealth of natural resources. No one will dispute that our future prosperity is, in a large measure, dependent upon the legitimate development of those resources. I am one who believes that far too much of our raw materials is now being shipped out of Canada without giving our Canadian workmen a greater share of the employment which would result from a greater development of our resources at home.
Many countries are not as richly blessed as we are, and were we more fully to protect our Canadian workmen by seeing to it that they enjoy a fuller measure of their reward, I believe that at least part of our unemployment problem would be solved. Surely there is no one who will argue that countries needing
1322	COMMONS
Canada-United States Trade Agreement
our products would refuse to buy from us if we took steps more adequately to protect our own workmen.
It is interesting to note that predictions made from this side of the house early in the debate are showing evidence of coming true. I believe it was the leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion), the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens) and some other hon. members from this side who drew to the attention of the government the fact that the three per cent reduction in excise tax on items covered in the trade agreements Would ultimately be extended in a general way, and that in reality this amounts to a further three per cent reduction in duty.
I believe recent observations of ministers of the government would indicate that this result is almost inevitable. It has been mentioned by one minister that this will probably mean a loss of several million dollars. I believe it was not many days ago the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler) indicated that this possible loss of revenue resulting from the decreased excise tax would be offset by increased trade. Let me say a word about that increased trade which would be required to make up the loss in revenue, which would probably amount to several millions of dollars.
I have endeavoured to ascertain what percentage of our imports are of manufactured products and what percentage are the products of basic industries. The best information I have received makes one hesitate to quote figures, because they are at variance, depending on the basis of calculations. I have no hesitation, however, in making the definite statement that a very large percentage of our imports is of manufactured products. Accordingly, if we are to increase our trade with countries which demand that we accept their manufactured products, how will that affect the jobs of our Canadian workmen? I say that in many instances they will be sacrificed to countries where the standard of living is much lower than we hope to maintain among our Canadian workers.
I should like to deal a little more at length with fruit and vegetables, because that is one item which is of vital importance to the peninsula from which I come. We see vast quantities of fruits and vegetables coming in from the United States. Figures have been placed on Hansard in answer to questions asked of the government, and it is not necessary to attempt to prove this statement at this time. The fact is that vast amounts of fruits and vegetables are being imported

from the United States. Why do we find the fruit and vegetable growers of Canada during the past few months urging upon the government the great necessity of giving further protection to this great primary industry? If they were not alarmed, would they have gathered funds, as they did from their depleted revenues, to send three or four representatives to Washington to make a final fight for their rights? My information is that in one part of Canada where the growers were vitally affected, they raised the sum of $2,500 to send a few of their qualified men to plead their case in Washington. One has only to read the resolutions which have emanated from recent meetings of fruit and vegetable growers to realize how serious they consider their position to be. My opinion is that any government that was alive to the needs of the fruit and vegetable growers of this country would have worked in closer harmony instead of requiring these men to take these drastic steps to protect their interests.
It is not my desire to indulge in repetitions, and I urge hon. members to study the tables which were placed on Hansard last evening, I believe by the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Barber). I am in possession of a much more extensive survey than that which was placed on Hansard by the hon. member, and which appears on page 1259. I could add many more items to those already in print which would indicate the same trend of reduced protection and shortened in-season periods with which the fruit and vegetable growers are faced.
The hon. member for Melfort (Mr. McLean) referred to the concessions which had been made to us. I should like to place on Hansard some of the concessions which have been made to the United States. I have in my hand a bulletin prepared by the American Institute of Food Distribution, and I should like to place on Hansard a few excerpts from this booklet which is dated November 19, two days after the treaty was signed. I call particular attention to the heading of this article, which reads:
This digest of the agreement between the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom, including some fifty colonies, was prepared by the food institute staff from official materia] furnished by Washington.
This document was prepared from official material furnished by Washington. I quote:
Two new reciprocal trade agreements negotiated by Mr. Hull with the United Kingdom and her colonies and Canada-his 19th and 20th-cover the largest trading countries in the world. It applies to all parts of the British empire, including more than fifty non-selfgoverning colonies, with the exception of Australia, New Zealand, Union of South Africa,

Canada-United States Trade Agreement
Ireland, India, Burma and South Rhodesia. It goes into effect January 1 for an initial period of three years.
American farm products on which Great Britain granted concessions were valued in 1936 at more than $200,000,000. Our imports on which concessions were granted amounted to $141,500,000 in 1937. Canada has lowered duties on American products which in 1937 were valued at $241,000,000. American concessions to Canada covered products whose trade in 1937 totalled $121,000,000.
As far as it relates to the food industry, we got the best of the negotiations with Great Britain. We gave only negligible concessions on food in return for the major concessions Great Britain granted. Our principal concessions consisted of duty reductions in manufactured articles.
In the Canadian agreement, duties which were reduced in 1936 were further reduced. We gained substantial concessions on fresh, canned and dried fruits and vegetables in return for concessions on lumber, meats, fishery products, dairy products and some minor items like frozen blueberries. Following are analyses of individual bargains struck with Great Britain and Canada:
I want to repeat that this article is based on information supplied to this institute by Washington. The first item we hear about is the six cent preference on wheat. They say:
Wheat-Duty free treatment instead of six cents per bushel should prove of marked value -duty of this size often sufficient to divert trade. Concession should also benefit transportation business because, of transshipments. United Kingdom is leading wheat import market of the world. Formerly one-fourth of United States exports went there. In 1930 shipments were 39,267,000 bushels, 20-1 per cent of United Kingdom's wheat imports; dropped to 9,000 bushels, -05 per cent of the total, in 1933. In 1937 United States supplied 6,485,000 bushels, 3-6 per cent. United States probably will continue now on an export basis.
Then we come to oatmeal, rolled and flake oats, in connection with which they say:
Reduction of one-third should help restore substantial part of the former American share of United Kingdom market, which ranged from eleven to twenty-eight per cent from 1927 to 1931. New British duty in 1932 forced imports to decline heavily and since 1934 they have virtually ceased.
I come now to lard. Somebody has said that the farmers in some parts of this country are smiling. But what has been done about lard?
Lard-10 per cent ad valorem duty removed. This is the third ranking agricultural item in value imported by the United Kingdom (after cotton and tobacco) with the United States sending 55 per cent of its exports to the United Kingdom in 1937 compared with 29 per cent in 1929. Our lard business increased steadily until around 1934 (92 per cent) but from then on the American share dropped to around 38 per cent. Duty removal will tend to check the trend toward substitution of other fats and oils, also enable American lard to make substantial quantitative gains in United Kingdom.
I come next to apples, and a great many members of this house know something about apples:
Apples, fresh-reduced duty equivalent to 16 per cent ad valorem compared with 24 per cent, should help America regain a substantial portion of the market displaced by former duty. United States encouraging cooperation of apple exporters with empire fruits council to secure orderly marketing in United Kingdom, long the most important outlet for American apples, taking about 40 per cent of our exports-which comprise 10 per cent of our total crop.
There are many other items which time will not permit me to mention, but there are one or two more points in particular to which I wish to refer. The article goes on to refer to United States concessions to the United Kingdom, and then to concessions obtained from Canada by the United States. It says:
Concessions obtained from Canada (by United States)
Trade advantages are extended to many major farm products of the United States, including fruits and vegetables, meat products, grains and grain products. Agreement covers agricultural products valued at $47,000,000 in 1937, representing 90 per cent of all Canadian imports ot our farm products.
Those are the concessions obtained from Canada, according to this report. It goes on:
Fresh fruits and vegetables constitute the chief item in the concessions granted by Canada.
There are other items, Mr. Speaker, which time will not permit me to mention.
Is it any wonder, that the fruit and vegetable growers have recently urged upon the government the necessity of 100 per cent fruit content in all processed fruits exported to the United Kingdom? I know that this question is giving the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Usley) serious concern, and that he is giving it fair consideration. He must recognize that it is one of the last hopes our fruit and vegetable growers have left, and I strongly urge the government to listen to this plea of our growers.
Surely if this government, when negotiating these trade agreements, had taken our many Canadian interests more into their confidence, our primary and secondary producers would have been better served.
I do urge upon this government, and upon the new government that I anticipate will be formed in the very near future after the next election, and not by the party opposite, that they take steps to supply the fruit and vegetable industry with more accurate statistics. Acreages and values now supplied are wholly misleading and incorrect, and the growers have been complaining of that for years. Surely the industry deserves more consideration in that respect.
1324	COMMONS
Canada-United, States Trade Agreement
And dove-tailed in with all this is the effect which the treaty is going to have on employment. Primary and secondary industry supplies the employment for our people, and the curtailment of industry has an immediate effect on employment. I know this question is giving the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) great concern, and he has probably only scratched the surface of the situation. But still we find headlines like this relating even to the city of Ottawa: "More unemployed men of Ottawa at Union Mission than ever before." So you do not have to go outside Ottawa to realize what the unemployment situation is. That headline appeared in this morning's Ottawa Journal. The day before yesterday eight young men appeared before the magistrate in my own city-eight in one day-all under twenty years of age. I say, Mr. Speaker, that this inroad on the basic and secondary industries of this country is the main factor in the unemployment situation.
We hear some members of the house praising this government because, they say, the consumer is able to buy this or that article a cent or two cheaper, although it is because we are increasing our purchases from countries where labour can be bought for a song. But who heard the consumer complaining a few years ago about the cent or two extra they had to pay for what they bought when everybody in the country was receiving a pay envelope? The conclusion is obvious. We must protect our basic and secondary industries against the inroads of cheap competition, and then our unemployment problems will immediately begin to disappear.
I note that the hon. Minister of Labour, speaking in Toronto this week, suggested that reductions be made in provincial governments. I suggest that he begin at Ottawa to find the solution for a balanced budget. Every taxpayer in this country is awaiting with anxiety the budget soon to be brought down by the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning). We have had an expression of opinion in the last few days from a small cross-section of one part of Canada, in the ballots that have been sent to every member of this house. Surely it is time that this government and all governments woke up to the lavish expenditures by governments and to our increasing national debt. If it continues, I warn the minister that the recent flood of ballots into Ottawa from one small cross-section of the country will be insignificant compared with the outcry that will be raised against this government from coast to coast if the next budget presents no evidence of economy being practised. I think it behooves this govern-

ment not to talk about provincial governments first cutting down their expenditures and balancing their budgets. It is all very well to talk about reductions by the provinces but Canada is looking to Ottawa to lead the way.
I have just one other thought in closing. We have heard considerable in this debate about economic appeasement, but there is an appeasement required within the boundaries of Canada that is far more necessary at this moment than to attempt, as has been done in this house, to raise the cry of international appeasement from without. We have all heard in our school days the tale of Nero fiddling while Rome burned, but I see from press reports to-night that there is further provincial appeasement confronting this government and of a nature that will keep them busy during the next few months to come.
I am in full accord with the principle of trading with nations that desire to trade with us on a reasonable basis, but I am definitely opposed to trade agreements that take away a part of the birthright of our Canadian people.
On motion of Mr. Turgeon the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Ilsley the house adjourned at 10.59 p.m.
Monday, February 27, 1939