THE LATE J. W. RUTHERFORD

[Stage Direction]
Right .Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, hon. members will have learned with deep regret of the death, last night, of the member for Kent, Ontario, Doctor James W. Rutherford.
While death, when it occurs, seems to take us by surprise, in the case of Doctor Rutherford, the surprise is that having met with the very serious accident he did, in September, 1935, he continued to live as long as he did. Only a very brave and resolute spirit could have endured the physical suffering he endured for so long a time and have risen above it to the extent that on occasions he did. Death to the doctor meant release from suffering borne with the utmost patience and fortitude over three and a half years.
The personnel of the House of Commons has so largely changed in recent years that I doubt if there are, in its membership at the present time, one-fifth of those who were members of parliament at the time Doctor Rutherford himself became a member in 1926. The accident with which the Doctor met occurred in the course of the electoral campaign of 1935. It deprived him of further personal participation in the elections, and deprived him also of the opportunity of taking his seat in the present parliament, save on one occasion when, during the last session, he made an appearance in a wheel chair for a day or two in this house.
Many hon. members, therefore, will have had little or no acquaintance with Doctor Rutherford, and will be unable to appreciate, as those of us who knew him in the years he sat in the Commons between 1926 and 1935, how great is the loss suffered by the constituency he represented, by the public life of our country, and by his profession because of the injuries which brought prematurely to its close a career which had already been marked by many achievements, and gave promise of long continued personal and public service.
Doctor Rutherford's life associations were with the western portion of the province of Ontario and more immediately with the county of Kent in which he was born in 1875, and with the city of Chatham at whose public schools and collegiate institute, he received his early education, and where the greater part of his life was spent. He was a graduate of the university of Toronto. He pursued postgraduate studies in medicine at University College, London, England. Doctor Rutherford soon came to be recognized as a leading physician and surgeon in western Ontario, and at the time of his membership in this house was looked upon as one of the leading surgeons in our country. In the choice of his profession, Doctor Rutherford followed and was, no doubt, inspired by the example of his ' father who, for half a century, had practised medicine in Chatham.
[Stage Direction]
The Late J. W. Rutherford
[Stage Direction]
Doctor Rutherford's popularity in the county of Kent was evidenced by his selection as one of the candidates in the general election of 1925, by his election to parliament in 1926, and his re-election at the general elections of 1930 and 1935.
Recalling the part which he took in the proceedings of this house in the two preceding parliaments, and the position he had come to occupy in his profession, I can only express the regret which I know will be shared by all, that one whose life was so wholly devoted to the well-being of others, so eminently useful and skilful, should have been brought to its close in circumstances so tragic.
Doctor Rutherford's loss will be particularly felt by the Liberal party of which, in the province of Ontario, he was recognized as a foremost member. In his passing the government suffers the loss of one of its ablest supporters, and many of us, the loss of one who was the most loyal and devoted of friends.
The sympathy of hon. members will go out, in full measure, to Mrs. Rutherford and to her son and daughter who, during the past three and a half years, have suffered so much in the way of anxiety and have now lost to sight the one who throughout their lives had been the centre of their affections.
We may look, I know, to His Honour the Speaker to convey to Mrs. Rutherford and the others who have been so greatly bereaved, the expression of our deepest sympathy.
Hon. R. J. MANION (Leader of the Opposition) :: Mr. Speaker, may I join with the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in expressing to the family of the late Doctor Rutherford, the sympathy of our party. Whenever on these painful occasions one rises to pay tribute to some member who has gone, unconsciously a thought as to the high mortality rate of the House of Commons comes to one's mind. Only a few weeks ago we were speaking about the deaths of David Beaubier and Samuel Jacobs, one from each side of the house, and Doctor Rutherford is the third member whose loss we mourn in this early part of the session.
Naturally, I did not have the opportunity of knowing Doctor Rutherford as intimately as my right hon. friend and the party opposite, but the little I did know of him was to his credit. Like the late David Beaubier, of whom I spoke a few weeks ago, he did not take part in debate in the house as frequently as some of the rest of us. But I have often wondered if perhaps those of us who speak so frequently render as much service as those who speak less. Doctor Rutherford certainly bore a good reputation as a member of the

various committees upon which he served, and as one who looked after the interests of his constituents and carried out whatever other duties devolved upon him as a member of the House of Commons.
If I may be permitted to say so, many times in the house I have been struck with the fact that men who originally have been trained as medical practitioners have given valuable service in the House of Commons.
I have come to the conclusion that a medical training affords a splendid mental development for the work of the house. Doctor Rutherford was certainly no exception in that respect; he always gave the service expected of him.
I should like to join sincerely indeed with my right hon. friend and the party to which he belongs in expressing sympathy to that party upon its loss of another outstanding member, and I would join with him and other hon. members of the house in passing on, through you, Mr. Speaker, to the family of Doctor Rutherford, our deep sympathy.


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, hon. members in the group to which I belong would like to join with the others in expressing through you our sympathy to Mrs. Rutherford and the family in the loss which they have sustained.


Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as hon. members in this group had no opportunity of knowing Doctor Rutherford, except by report and from the one day during which he so bravely sat in the house and showed he was able to endure suffering with calmness and fortitude, it seems to me it is fitting that we should associate ourselves with the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in his eloquent and fitting tribute. We desire, sir, that you remember us when you extend to the bereaved family the consolations of the house.
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temiscouata): Mr. Speaker, Doctor James Warren Rutherford was one of the most adroit and the most skilful surgeons not only of the province of Ontario but of the whole of Canada. He had a large practice, and his career as a practitioner was very brilliant. He performed so many operations which were considered as miracles in modern surgery that his name was respected and honoured by the heads of the medical profession on the whole north American continent.
It was at first a great sacrifice for him to enter into politics. Until then he had given all his time to his numerous patients, who were so dear to him. But he was a man of deep convictions. He was a true Canadian of Scotch ancestry, and a Liberal at heart.

Civil Service-Superannuation Act
He was a strong believer in the necessity of promoting Liberal ideals and Liberal policies for the welfare of his fellow countrymen. From 1926 to 1935 he divided his time between attending to his large practice and attending to the sittings of the House of Commons. His colleagues who had the privilege of knowing him intimately during that period will always cherish the most pleasant memory of his kindness, of his discreet humour, of his wisdom, and of his everlasting friendship.
While campaigning in the last general election he was the victim of an unfortunate accident. He was in the hospital, for the first time as a patient, when he learned that he had again been elected by a large majority. Then the suggestion was made to him to resign his seat in favour of some one else. He refused, saying that death only could break the happy association with parliament, which he prized so much. Last year he came to the house on a wheel chair, to attend a debate in which he was particularly interested.
If I may be permitted to add a few personal recollections, I would say that it was he who invited me to speak, for the first time outside of Ottawa, in Ontario. The occasion was in April, 1932, at the annual meeting of the Ontario Women's Liberal Association, which was held in his city, the beautiful maple city of Chatham. Mr. Hepburn spoke on that occasion. On the following day, in company with another dear friend of ours, Mr. Melville Rossie, editor of the London Advertiser, we went to speak at Lucan, where our friend from Middlesex East, Colonel Ross, also spoke. At that time Mr. Hepburn was apparently in very good health. I attended another meeting at Chatham on June 14, 1934, which was held in the armouries. On that occasion the hall was packed to capacity, and the two most prominent people in attendance were Mr. Hepburn and Doctor Rutherford who, in the meantime, had saved Mr. Hepburn's life. Mr. Hepburn will tell anyone that the fact he is still alive is due to the skilful operation performed by Doctor Rutherford.
I should like therefore to join with others who have spoken and to express my deep grief at the death of such a dear friend, one who was a great medical man, a great Liberal and a great Scotsman.



THE SECRETARY OF STATE


[Stage Direction]
On the order for motions:
Hon. FERNAND RINFRET (Secretary of State):: I desire to thank the house for its
cordial expression of goodwill, as shown by 71492-88|
the applause with which I have just been greeted, on the occasion of my birthday anniversary. When one advances in years he realizes that he needs a little sympathy on occasions of this kind, and again I thank my fellow members of the house for what has been forthcoming to-day.



CIVIL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
Mr. MALCOLM McLEAN (Melfort) presented the first report of the special committee appointed to inquire into the operation of the Civil Service Superannuation Act, as follows:
The special committee appointed to inquire into the operation of the Civil Service Superannuation Act begs leave to present the following as a first report:
Your committee recommends that it be granted leave to print from day to day 500 copies in English and 200 copies in French of its minutes of proceedings and evidence and that standing order 64 be suspended in relation thereto.
Mr. McLEAN (Melfort) moved that the report be concurred in.
Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Kootenay East):: Of course this motion should have notice. There are distinct rules of the house regarding printing, and I believe the time has come when we should scrutinize with great care the granting of permission to have stenographic reports made of committee proceedings. I think this is going beyond all reason. Years ago it used to be limited to specially interesting subjects, but to have a special Hansard for practically every committee, as is done now, I think is going too far. My opinion is that such requests as this should be referred to the committee on printing as to the advisability and, above all, the necessities of the case. I know nothing about the circumstances which have brought forth this motion, and I am objecting to it not for any particular reason, but rather on general principles.
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance):	I have considerable sympathy
with the view expressed by the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens), it will be remembered that I raised the question in almost similar terms a year ago. There is not only the expense involved in providing complete Hansard reports of all committees, and the cost of printing; but the fact is that our available staff facilities were not sufficient to meet the demands which were made last session and are not sufficient to meet those which probably will be made this session. It is very difficult to discriminate as between
1386	COMMONS
Canada-United-States-Cattle Quotas
committees. Last year we found that each committee insisted upon its proceedings being made a matter of record.
With regard to this committee, I am advised that the work done last session, which is a matter of record, very nearly completes what will be required by way of evidence. The nature of the matters being dealt with in this case I think justifies a record being made, because specific statements and calculations made by witnesses require to be a matter of Hansard record, particularly when they are not included in any submitted written document. I do not think there will be great difficulty with regard to this committee.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My remarks apply to all committees.


Mr. DUNNING:: So far as the taking of evidence in this committee is concerned, the work is practically completed. If the committee is of the same mind as it was last year, I take it that from now on it will be a matter of the committee discussing what ought to be done in the light of the evidence. That will certainly not necessitate a Hansard record


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: It is not anticipated that much printing will be required, outside of possibly the final report and one or two sessions of the committee. However, in order to have that little done, authority must be requested.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the order for motions.
Mr. HERMAS DESLAURIERS (St. Mary's):: Mr. Speaker, at the request of the St. Eusebe parish section of the St. Jean Baptiste society and of a group of young people of that parish, I beg leave to lay on the table of the house a petition expressing their opinion respecting immigration.



FOREIGN POLICY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Shaver Woodsworth: Will the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) state the position of the government with regard to the recognition of the Franco government in Spain? Second, will the Canadian government press upon the British government and the other members of the League of Nations the need of securing

from Franco guarantees as to the protection of defeated government forces and of refugees?


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: May I say to my hon.
friend, who was kind enough to give me notice of his motion, that the government is awaiting further information before arriving at a decision with respect to the recognition of General Franco; the British government has already taken up with General Franco the question of assurances against reprisals.



RADIO BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert James Manion: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe). He is not in his seat at the moment but perhaps the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) will have it brought to his attention. It is in regard to the method of appointing radio licence vendors. I understand from letters I am receiving that the system is being changed in some way on April 1. I think it would be an advantage to all of us here to be told in what manner these radio licence vendors are to be appointed, whether by the government, by the radio corporation, or otherwise. I think the house should be made aware of any change that is to be made in that respect.



TRADE AGREEMENTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. K. BLAIR (Wellington North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler) a question with regard to the provisions of the trade agreement with the United States. I understand the government has officially requested the government of the United States of America to allocate the quota on heavy types of cattle for the remainder of this year, and I should like to know if a satisfactory reply has been received from the United States.


Hon. W. D. EULER (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: As I stated during the
debate on the resolution with regard to the trade agreement with the United States, negotiations were in progress between this government and the government of the United States in connection with the allocation of the quota on heavy cattle. Those negotiations were carried on by an official of the Department of Trade and Commerce

Canada-Germany-Shipments
and an official of the department of Agriculture. At the time I spoke on the matter an arrangement had been arrived at, but I was not in position then to make a statement. However, to-day I can say that the President of the United States has signed a proclamation allocating among countries of export the quantity of cattle weighing 700 pounds or more each, other than cows imported psecially for dairy purposes, entitled to enter the United States during the remainder of the year 1939 at the reduced duty of 1J cents per pound provided for in the trade agreement.
In accordance with the provisions of the trade agreement the government of Canada officially requested the government of the United States of America to allocate the quotas on this type of cattle for the remainder of this calendar year. Article III of the trade agreement provides that the share allocated to Canada shall be based upon the proportion of the total imports supplied by Canada in past years, account being taken in so far as practicable in appropriate cases of any special factors which may have affected or may be affecting the trade in the article in question. After carefully considering all the factors and after consultation with the government of Canada, the president decided that imports during the years 1936 and 1937 are representative of imports of this class of cattle. Accordingly, the allocation for the remainder of the year 1939 is made on the basis of imports during the above years. This will give Canada 86-2 per cent of the quota and other countries 13-8 per cent. This means that the share of the quarterly quotas of 60,000 head allocated to Canada is 51,720 head. The allocation of the annual quota for the remainder of this year will be based on 225,000 head less the 60,000 head imported during the first quarter of the year, or a total of 165,000 head, of which the share allocated to Canada will amount to 142,230 head.


Robert James Manion: This is just for the remainder of the year; it is not retroactive? .


William Daum Euler: No, of course not.


Robert James Manion: In view of statements regarding the cattle quota, which has been discussed in the house on the basis appearing in the press release given out by the government. may I ask whether any other changes are being made with respect to the trade treaty? In other words, is the government at the present time negotiating with the United States government to make any other changes in regard to the treaty as a whole?


William Daum Euler: Not so far as I know. What is being done now is being done under the terms of the agreement.


Robert James Manion: I understand that.



CANADA-GERMANY  SHIPMENT OF UNITED STATES COMMODITIES TO GERMANY THROUGH CANADIAN PORTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: Considerable concern has been aroused in many quarters in British Columbia regarding shipments of dehydrated or dried apples through Canadian ports to Germany by United States exporters. Some suspicion has arisen in British Columbia over the recent shipment of some three thousand cases through British Columbia ports destined for Germany, it being felt that United States exporters might be taking advantage of the barter arrangements between Canada and Germany and that these shipments by United States interests may be going through as a portion of the Canadian quota.


William Daum Euler: Mr. Speaker, perhaps for
purposes of clarity I might make a reference to the payments agreement to which my hon. friend (Mr. Reid) referred.
When the payments agreement, which was complementary to the trade agreement made with Germany in 1936, was concluded, the vital principle of it was that the German government obligated itself to provide exchange for the purchase of Canadian goods at least to the amount of all purchases made by Canada in Germany.
The government had its attention directed to a complaint that certain United States commodities, in this case dried apples, were imported into Canada in transit and reexported to Germany, and the fear was that the amount of the shipment in money value would be charged against the amount of exchange that would be allocated for the purchase of Canadian goods. Accordingly, representations have been made through the Canadian government's trade commissioner at Berlin to the German authorities asking that payment for shipment of dried apples exported from Canada to Germany be not made from the funds accruing under the German-Cana-dian payments agreement unless the shipments carried a Canadian inspection certificate. Of course, the house will understand that no Canadian inspection certificate would be giveD for goods of American origin.
1388	COMMONS
Canada-United States Trade Agreement



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

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, February 24, consideration of the motion of Mr, Mackenzie King that the house go into committee on the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient that parliament do approve of the trade agreement entered into at Washington on the 17th day of November, 1938, between Canada and the United States of America, and that this house do approve of the same, subject to the legislation required in order to give effect to the provisions thereof.
Mr. J. A. GLEN (Marquette):: 
An hon. MEMBER:: Leaderless party.


James Allison Glen: Very well, have it that way if you like. Their object is propaganda. At present they are not very numerous and not very popular in Canada, but they can qualify for membership in the leadership league, and with such fine motives and high ideals as must be adopted with such a leader they will have an opportunity to propagate their specious thoughts.
What has this government done in the way of increasing trade? I have said before that our economic ills can be, if not entirely at any. rate immeasurably, lightened in this day and generation by one method only, and that is trade. I take no stock in the theories of the Social Credit group. Whatever merit they have, if any, cannot be applied in the trade

Canada-United States Trade Agreement
world of to-day. They have to convert the world to their thoughts and they are not making very much headway in their own province of Alberta. The Commonwealth Cooperative Federation lightly dismiss the question of trade, but they will not dare vote against this resolution,. The theory of national socialism is having a real trial in Germany and Italy and with so many rugged individualists in the party on the other side I am quite satisfied that in their hearts they know and recognize the value of trading, but they carefully restrain their'enthusiasm; for that would mean giving credit to the government, which is not in -their lexicon.
And now we come to the Tories. It is said that there is no difference between the Liberals and the Tories on tariffs. I humbly suggest that those who say so can hardly do so now with any degree of truth. That slogan is like the other one of which I spoke-if it is not dead it is certainly damned. There is evidence of that. In the year 1936 after the trade treaty came into effect there were reductions on 192 items and in 1937 there were reductions on 354. Surely that is a fair record. Going further, however, I find that not only has the government reduced the tariff rate on a great variety of items, but it has also transferred an appreciable number to the free list. Evidence of this is seen in the import figures for the fiscal year 1937-38, when out of a total of $799,069,000 worth of goods imported into Canada, $364,904,000 worth entered duty free; that is, 45 per cent of all the goods which entered Canada during the last fiscal year came in without having to pay duty.
My time is going fast and I must hurry to a conclusion, but I wish to deal with some things which the leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion) has said. Some speakers have taken the position that to aver that these treaties have any bearing on the peace of the world is far-fetched. The leader of the opposition, on pages 1051 and 1056 of Hansard, devoted two columns to ridiculing this, and on page 1053 he said:
I submit that the talk about this treaty as having anything whatever to do with world peace is simply what Mr. Oliver Stanley called it, " eyewash."
It is a pity that the leader of the opposition in the exuberance of his verbosity should utter such sentiments. In his position as leader of the opposition he is inclined to put the emphasis on the opposition and forget the leadership. I suggest that he should cultivate the virtues of understatement. He quoted with approval what Mr. Stanley said. Let me quote a greater authority. I have
here a little book entitled Together We Stand, written by Leonard J. Reid, financial editor of the London Daily Telegraph, with a foreword by Viscount Horne, a former chancellor of the exchequer. This book tells of Mr. Reid's visit to the United States in 1937 and deals with trade relations and the psychology of the two peoples. It is quite apposite and apropos of this particular discussion. Referring to Mr. Reid, Viscount Horne says in the foreword:
No more confident observer could have applied his mind to the problems of the present relations between America and Great Britain; and none could have obtained more adequate information. He has formed certain very definite impressions which he records in this book. It is interesting to observe, from statements in the public press, that Sir Josiah Stamp, who has newly returned from a tour in the United States of America, has arrived at conclusions practically identical in character with those disclosed in this treatise.
An on the second page of the foreword he
says:
A large section of American opinion has come to the conclusion that the prosperity of the United States depends in a considerable measure upon the extension of international trade, and the present administration is seeking means by which such trade can be fostered. The Secretary of State, Mr. Cordell Hull, is an ardent champion of this policy, and he is ably seconded by Mr. Wallace, who has preached with great persistency and unabated enthusiasm that the success of farming in the United States must depend upon the availability of export markets.
The leader of the opposition says that to talk of peace in connection with this agreement is "eyewash."


Robert James Manion: Oliver Stanley said that.


James Allison Glen: Yes, but my hon. friend approved it. At page 28 Mr. Reid says:
The government and the leaders of the business world in the United States, under the courageous lead and inspiration of Mr. Cordell Hull, the secretary of state, are now convinced that America's old economic policy of prohibitive tariffs and isolation was wrong and harmful both to herself and to the world. Having come to this conclusion, Mr. Hull, who has been working for years at the successful arrangement of bilateral trade treaties, now wishes to arrange one with Britain. His belief is that freer conditions of world trade must be established if the world is to escape another catastrophic depression and probably another world war. America, he and his followers believe, cannot lead the way to this goal alone. America and Britain or, better still, America and the British commonwealth, working in cooperation, could do so.
I may interject that this was written in 1937.
They see the world, as it is at present, drifting inevitably into chaos, and envisage a British-American trade pact, opening up the door to a series of agreements on currency, gold and a host of other matters, as the only
1392	COMMONS
Canada-United, States Trade Agreement
alternative to rapidly approaching world disaster. So they sincerely and honestly want it very much.
These are the observations of the financial editor of the Daily Telegraph on his return to London, speaking of the viewpoint of the Americas. Then on pages 79 and 80 of the same book he says:
It is firmly believed in official circles at Washington that a series of agreements between the United States and Britain, designed to free and encourage international trade and to stabilize the currency position, would be rapidly and eagerly followed by Scandinavia and the whole of what is known as the "sterling bloc," and also by all the countries of South America. The picture thus presented is one of such a huge portion of the earth's surface working together with a common aim of increasing trade and prosperity and providing security against financial shocks, that, in the Washington view, there is no nation in the world which could afford to defy it or even stand outside it.
Then, in answer to the leader of the opposition in regard to " eyewash," he goes on to say:
This is the big idealistic vision which is in vogue in Washington to-day. The very bigness of the conception causes cynics to write it off as a mere vague and unpractical philosophy. But any English statesman-
And, I would interject, any Canadian statesman.
-who decided that minor difficulties of tariff schedules were of more importance than the attempt to achieve, with real practical hopes of success, a new basis for prosperity and security in the world, would surely be risking the direct condemnation of history.
Those are the words of a distinguished visitor to the United States, words which have been quoted with approval by Viscount Home, a former chancellor of the exchequer.


Robert James Manion: Does my hon. friend suggest that the opinion of the economic expert of the London Telegraph, who I take it wrote the book, carries more weight than that of the president of the board of trade, a member of the British cabinet?


James Allison Glen: I do say this, that he is speaking from a disinterested point of view, with the knowledge gained during his visit through contacts with the leaders of thought and opinion in Washington. He returns to the old country and publishes his book, which has been approved by Viscount Horne, a former chancellor of the exchequer. If there is any better authority I should like to know about it.


Robert James Manion: I would say Stanley was at least as good, if not better.


James Allison Glen: He has yet to prove himself; Viscount Horne has done so. Then Mr. Reid goes further and deals with the Canadian
[Mr. Glen.)
agreement at pages 64, 65 and 66. At page 64 he says:
Canada is a member of the British commonwealth, bound up equally with ourselves and her fellow dominions with the whole Ottawa system of exclusive preferences, yet Canada has managed to devise and put into practice a trade treaty with the United States. It took a lot of time to devise, a great deal of hard work and a very great deal of good will. The negotiators started in a small way, facing hosts of difficulties and ironing them out slowdy and patiently until to-day the American-Canadian pact is working smoothly to the mutual advantage of both countries and is definitely increasing the volume of trade. In the ease of Canada itself it is not surprising that the maximum good will for the project of agreement with America should be forthcoming. Not merely geographical propinquity, but the interweaving of trade interests naturally makes it of vital importance for Canada to be on the best possible terms in every way with her great and powerful neighbour.
Then on page 65:
Finally, to those who say that the Ottawa agreements obstruct the project of British-American trade cooperation, I would reply that the difficulties in the way of a trade agreement between Britain and America, or between America and most of the British Empire are less difficult in their technicalities than was the agreement between Canada and America whose economic situations and needs have a greater similarity than that which exists between America and England.
So we have the evidence of this distinguished Englishman, Mr. Speaker, and the sure and certain knowledge that this government and this nation are entitled to take credit not only for making the first breach in the wall of economic nationalism but also for preparing the way for the completion of the agreement between the United Kingdom and the United States of America.
In this book Mr. Reid refers to a publication issued by the National Foreign Trade Council of the United States, which states much better than I could exactly what trade treaties mean and why those of us on this-side of the house are so glad to support them. At page 33, under the heading "Foreign trade and the domestic welfare" and the subheading "The choice that confronts us," the foreign trade council gives these alternatives:
With Increasing Foreign Trade
A higher standard of living.
A self-reliant agriculture.
Full employment in industry.
"Payment in full" for our exports.
A free and unregimented economy.
Sound money.
The road to international concord.
With Foreign Trade Restricted
A lower standard of living.
Continued agricultural subsidies.
Permanent large unemployment.
Closing the door to payment for exports.
Regimentation of agriculture and industry.
Currency tinkering.
The threat of military conflict.

Canada-United States Trade Agreement
So far as we in the west are concerned I think I can quote the words that were contained in a letter I received the other day from one of my constituents. This man, who is a Ukrainian, said: "We do not want any Christmas gifts in the form of bonuses. Give us a chance to trade and to buy our goods in freer, lower-priced markets, and we will look after ourselves." This is the viewpoint of most of us in the west. We do not want any Christmas gifts by way of bonuses but we do want to purchase our goods in freer, lower-priced markets. This treaty, together with the 1935 treaty, will go a long way towards acceding to that request. Mine is a rural constituency, and naturally my first sympathies are with my people and their problems. It is a mixed constituency, with a large Ukrainian population, who have created a settlement which, from a farming point of view, could not be bettered. In 1935 I asked my constituents to support me as a member of the Liberal party, in order that we might have in power a government that would reduce these barriers to trade. I can go back to them now and say, "What I told you during the campaign is being carried into effect by this government to-day. They have made the greatest reductions in the tariff of this ' country to be made by any government in Canada." I know they are going forward to ever-increasing markets, and in that way they will lessen the burden of our producers. I say also that there is only one party in Canada to which we can look for that freedom of trade, and that, I am glad to say, is the party I support to-day.
Mr. KARL K. HOMUTH (Waterloo South):	Mr. Speaker, in rising to protest
against the adoption of this motion for approval of the trade treaty I wish also to protest in the house against the unwarranted and continual castigations of people engaged in industry in eastern Canada. I happen to be engaged in industry, and very much interested in the development and prosperity of industry in Canada. I realize the best customer industry in this country can have is the prosperous agriculturist. But so, too, the best customer the agriculturist can have in Canada is the prosperous working man in the factories throughout the dominion.
I have listened attentively to the speeches of the ministers and of hon. members opposite. I have listened carefully to what they had to say. One after the other got up and criticized industry; not one member opposite has stood in his place in the house and had a kind word to say for industry in Canada or those engaged in it.
I wonder what the members from that great industrial area of Windsor are going to do in connection with this trade treaty?


Mr. MacNICOL:: They will be like a clam.


Mr. HOMUTH:: I wonder what the Liberal members from Brantford, Toronto, Renfrew, Oshawa and other industrial areas of Ontario, Quebec and the maritimes are going to do?


Mr. MARTIN:: You will hear the member from Windsor.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: What are they going to do with this trade agreement?


Mr. FACTOR:: They are all satisfied with the treaty, and they are not taking up the time of the house.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: The fact of the matter is that they are not satisfied with the trade agreement. The fact is that they will support the trade agreement in the meantime, but I should not be a bit surprised if, when the various items come up for discussion, one after the other they will stand in their places and try to satisfy their own districts, and register their protests against some of the things that are being done in the treaty.
This continual tariff changing by the government, as I have said before in the house, is doing nothing but giving industry the jitters, and it is slowly but surely lowering the standard of living of the industrial workers of Canada. Member after member, particularly those from the western provinces, have stood in the house and demanded protection for the western wheat farmer. I have never known of a bill presented to the house to do something for western Canada to which eastern members have taken exception. In those terrible days of the last few years eastern Canada unhesitatingly went to the assistance of western Canada in every possible way. I have said before and I repeat that if we are to solve the problems of Canada there can be no east, no west, no Ontario, no Quebec

we have to look at these matters from the broad Canadian viewpoint.
So I say I resent very much hon. members standing in the house and continually taking a lot of fun out of criticizing the so-called industrial leaders in the eastern part of this country. During all my political life I have fought, and will continue to fight, for the industrial workers and the farmers. I come from a county which is prominent not only industrially but also from the standpoint of agriculture. Perhaps in no place in Canada is there better exemplification of the extent to which the rural producer and the urban industrial worker depend on each other for
1394	COMMONS
Canada-United States Trade Agreement
their prosperity. For the few moments at my disposal, therefore, I shall deal with the matter of agriculture.
Sitting in the house and time and again listening to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) deal with matters pertaining to agriculture, about the only thing I have heard him discuss has been the question of wheat. So far he has said nothing with regard to vegetable growers, fruit growers and people engaged in various other forms of agriculture, particularly the forms common in eastern Canada. From what is happening in Canada to-day I can see very plainly that when the minister deals with wheat, apparently he is not very much interested in the wheat grower of eastern Canada.
In 1938 there was a carry-over of eight or ten million bushels of eastern wheat. In the same year we produced eighteen or twenty million bushels. Therefore we have a tremendous carry-over of wheat, and yet to-day throughout eastern Canada, and particularly in Ontario, hundreds of thousands of bushels of subsidized United States wheat are coming into this country and are being milled in Ontario. On Saturday last the wheat quotation to a Canadian mill in Buffalo was 46 cents, and the quotation to a United States mill in that city was 72 cents. Yesterday there was a spread of 30 cents a bushel between the price of wheat in Buffalo for the United States mill and the price of wheat in that city for the Canadian mill. That is the wheat which is coming into this country, a country flooded with wheat. We do not know what to do with it.
Hours and days of the time of the house have been taken up in an effort to find a solution of our wheat problem. Yet here are these thousands of bushels coming into Canada to be milled, while the farmers of Ontario who buy their bread are sitting at the table and eating bread made from subsidized United States wheat, at a time when their granaries are full of their own wheat, and they do not know what to do with it. Surely the time has come when something must be done for the wheat farmer of eastern Canada. I say in all seriousness that I trust the governments of Ontario and Quebec, if they do not already know it, will take cognizance of what is going on, and will protest and urge that the federal government is absolutely neglecting the wheat farmer of eastern Canada.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What did you do between 1930 and 1935?


Mr. ROWE (Dufferin-Simcoe):: Answer that first.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I don't care what was done in 1930 or 1935. What I am concerned about is the welfare of the people of Canada. We are not looking back; we are looking forward. And if this government would look forward, as we are trying to do, it would not attempt to put through a trade treaty such as this.
Much has been said regarding the great benefits which will accrue to agriculture throughout Canada. I was not only interested but well pleased when from his place in the house this afternoon the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler) told us the government had made arrangements with the government of the United States whereby our portion of the quota on cattle could go into, the United States. I still maintain that the understanding given to the people of this country was that Canada was to receive one-hundred per cent of that 225,000 head. One does not need to go any further than Hansard and read the statement of the Minister of' Agriculture when the matter was brought up in the house by the hon. member for Haldi-mand (Mr. Senn). On page 822 of Hansard the minister is reported as follows:
I might add that there is a provision in the agreement whereby, if quotas work out as this one apparently has, through consultation with the United States government, an arrangement may be made with regard to it in order to make it work as it was intended to work.
There is no question that the Minister of Agriculture has admitted that the intent was, that we were to have 225,000 head.


Mr. GARDINER:: I do not want my hon.. friend putting words in my mouth. If he will read all the statement he will see that I said exactly the opposite.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: It is in Hansard. The minister may read it to-morrow.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is not in Hansard as the hon. member states. He should read the whole statement. The statement shows that we never at any time had the whole quota.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Do you deny the words "as it was intended to work"?


James Garfield Gardiner: Read the whole statement. It is that Mexico always had part of it.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: The peculiar thing about this whole trade agreement is that whatever concessions we got from the United States are on a quota basis. The Minister of Trade and Commerce has referred to the fact that less than two per cent of the shoes purchased in Canada are imported. We might do the same thing and work out, not what could go into the United States but what can go in,

Canada-United. States Trade Agreement
We can send milk and cream into the United States only to the limit of the quota, but we impose no quota on goods coming into this country. Our tariff on wheat is 12 cents a bushel as compared with a duty of 42 cents on wheat going into the United States. This is the government with which they made an appeasement treaty. This is the government to which they looked with such great friendliness as to what was going to happen as a result of this trade agreement. What is happening as a result of this trade agreement? The farmers of eastern Canada are suffering because of the hundreds of thousands of bushels of wheat that are coming into this country.


William Daum Euler: What is the quota on boots and shoes going into the United States?


Karl Kenneth Homuth: There is no quota on boots and shoes going into the United States, and the minister knows that only too well. I shall have something to say about shoes later on. What I want to emphasize is that those things which they point out to the farmers as being of such great benefit are on such a ridiculous quota basis. Even the increased number of cattle that we can send into the United States under this new agreement amounts to about one-third of one per cent of their total consumption. Other hon. members have already told this house what the milk quota means. The county of Waterloo is not a dairying county, but it produces three times as much milk as the total United States quota. We produce as much cream in that county as is provided for by the United States quota. The amount which we can send to the United States would give every American citizen three tablespoons of cream once a year. What a wonderful thing they have given to us! What a wonderful friendly gesture that is!


William Earl Rowe: It saved
a world war, though.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Of course. My hon.
friend referred to the number of shoes coming into this country. I have said before, and I repeat, that the question is not the number of shoes that come into this country, but how many would come in if our shoe manufacturers did not lower wages and the quality of their product in order to compete against the cheap United States shoes. If it were not that I have some regard for the dignity of this house I would have brought some shoes here to show some of the westerners the type of shoe that they have been told will come in here cheaper and thus reduce the cost of their wearing apparel, production costs, and
so on. They are shoes for evening wear, ladies' shoes, and so on. I should like to see some of the western or eastern rural housewives wearing this type of shoe as they work around the barns.


Mr. MUTCH:: They have stopped working in the barns in the west.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: The same thing is true in connection with furniture. It is not a question of the amount of furniture that may come into this country; it is the threat of the furniture that may come in. Our furniture manufacturers must be prepared to make a product which will compete with the United States article. My hon. friends from the west laugh when we talk about protection for industry in Canada, but let them stand up in this house and say whether or not they have accepted the policy of protection. They have accepted the government bonus on wheat, which is protection in a different way. Then this year the Minister of Agriculture is offering them protection in still another way. Eastern Canada is not objecting to that. Eastern Canada is not saying that this should not be done for the west. But eastern Canada does say that you should have some regard for the great industrial areas in eastern Canada and for the industrial workers employed in the various industries in that part of the country. That is all we are asking. Is that not fair? If we would quit playing politics with our wheat policy and other matters and get down to business, we would be in a better position to solve our problems without all the bickering that is going on.
Last June and July the boot and shoe workers' union in South Waterloo protested to the government against the provisions of this treaty. Protests were also sent by the boot and shoe manufacturers. The Minister of Trade and Commerce has said that he received no protests from the shoe industry in his riding.


William Daum Euler: That is quite correct.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: But the minister has received protests from boot and shoe manufacturers who represent the boot and shoe manufacturers in North Waterloo. It might be interesting to deal with some of these protests for a moment.
In June or July of 1938 the boot and shoe manufacturers' association came to Ottawa and placed before the government a bi-ief setting forth the condition of the shoe industry and how they were threatened with the importations from the United States. At about the same time many of the ministers were sent letters by the boot and shoe workers' union
1396	COMMONS
Canada-United States Trade Agreement
of South Waterloo protesting against the conditions which obtained in the shoe industry. This letter was signed by Marvin McKenzie, secretary treasurer of the Canadian shoe workers' union. It reads:
Owing to the fact that we have a Conservative representative in our district since the death of the late A. M. Edwards, I as secretary of local three of above organization representing some 400 members have been instructed to call your attention to the great number of shoes being imported into Canada from the U.S.A. and the extremely low prices at which they are being offered to the public.
We feel that these shoes are being shipped into Canada at considerably lower prices than they can be produced and it is working a hardship on the manufacturers and the workers.
Our organization has many members out of work and so many working short time and this unfair competition is definitely making it so much worse.
The shoes in question particularly are ladies' cheap evening shoes.
We have been informed that some of the retailers have stated that they are not buying this class of footwear in Canada for next season.
In view of the foregoing conditions, we respectfully request you use every means available to investigate this menace with a view of helping the manufacturers to operate successfully and make it possible for the workers to retain their self-respect by keeping off relief.
We trust that you will give this your favourable consideration.
Yours respectfully,
The Canadian Shoe Workers' Union, Marvin McKenzie,
Secretary-Treasurer.
This is the letter that went from the secretary of the boot and shoe workers' union. Mr. F. It. Sims, for the commissioner of customs, replied that considerable effort would be involved in investigating the whole matter of costs and determining whether or not these shoes were being dumped into Canada.
The secretary of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) also replied to the boot and shoe workers' union, as follows:
Dear Sir,-
The Prime Minister has asked me to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of recent date, with respect to conditions in the shoe manufacturing business due to the importation of shoes from the United States.
Mr. King wishes me to let you know that the representations contained in your communication have been carefully noted.
The Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) also received a letter from the boot and shoe workers' union, to which he replied:
Your letter of recent date addressed to the Minister of Labour has been received and will be brought to his attention at the first opportunity.

All this occurred in June and July of 1938, when the treaty was under consideration. Yet in spite of all these protests made to the minister and the government, the government went ahead and negotiated the trade treaty with the United States, which will result, when the excise duty is taken off, in reducing the protection on shoes made in Canada by nine to ten per cent

and this in spite of all the protests made by these various organizations representing the shoe industry and the workers engaged in that industry.


Mr. FRASER:: What is the present rate of duty on shoes?


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce. He can tell you. On January 23, 1939. a letter was received by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, reading as follows:
Dear Sir,-
You will shortly receive a letter which I have instructed our manager, Mr. Roy Weaver, to write to you in connection with the shoe industry. This letter is prompted by your remarks to the house that imports were less than two per cent of the Canadian consumption.
While this statement is quite true when one takes the general picture, the story is entirely different when one analyses the shoe trade in its various classifications. In the district that you represent, there are at least two factories that are facing a very serious and difficult situation due to importations in 1938 of shoes from the United States and under the new trade treaty the importations in this particular field will very definitely increase in 1939.
I myself last week saw samples of shoes that are to be purchased from the United States in quantities by one of our large retailing organizations and this business is coming directly out of factories in your own district. I urge you to give very serious consideration to this and I would appreciate an opportunity of personally discussing the shoe industry with you sometime when it is convenient to you.
Yours very truly,
Shoe Manufacturers' Association, W. H. Brimblecombe,
President.
To this the minister replied:
In reply to your letter of January 23 I wish to say that I have received no complaints from the local shoe manufacturers in Kitchener. I do not anticipate that the reductions which have been made in the new Canada-United States agreement will materially increase the importation of footwear.
I should point out that the tariff has been reduced on kid leather from 27J 'to 20 per cent. This is a valuable concession to the manufacturers of ladies' shoes. Excise tax will also be removed from a number of the materials used in the manufacture of footwear. I would be disappointed indeed if the shoe industry in this country is injured by the new agreement.
While I shall be glad to discuss matters with you at any time. I am bound to say that no change can be made in the agreement as it has already been signed.

Canada-United, States Trade Agreement
The last paragraph of that letter, Mr. Speaker, raises the whole question of the method followed by the government of this dominion in making trade agreements. We have heard considerable talk about the men who went over there and negotiated the details of the treaty. I knew Mr. McKinnon before he ever came down here, and I knew of Mr. Wilgress and Mr. Robertson, three capable men. I doubt if there is a man in any country anywhere who knows custom duties better than Mr. McKinnon; I have no hesitation in saying that. But Mr. McKinnon does not make trade treaties. All Mr. McKinnon does is to work out the intricate details of the treaty after the government has announced its policy. Mr. McKinnon worked out the increases in the tariff in 1930, and in the following year. He simply carries out whatever the tariff policy of the government is. And so, regardless of what is contained in this treaty, all that Mr. McKinnon and his assistants had to do with it was the working out of the various items and making one dovetail with the other. The policy itself is the policy of the government.
On the other hand, in the United States, they gave their people, regardless of what line of business they were engaged in, an opportunity to consider the trade treaty before it was concluded. The United States gave notice to all those likely to be affected in any way by the treaty, setting forth the various items that were to be considered. Every item that was to be considered when the United States negotiated its trade treaties with the United Kingdom and Canada was set forth in a pamphlet so that a man reading it could say: Well, this item does not affect me, so I do not have to bother. But if any item did affect him, he had the opportunity of going to Washington and laying his case before the men who were negotiating the treaty on behalf of the Washington government. That was also the procedure in England, and we can readily see that the men who went to Washington, representing the interests of United States industry, were certainly very successful in the pleas they made before the committee of inquiry.
But in Canada we knew nothing even as to the items that were to be considered, and we had no opportunity of going before any committee. The government may say: Well, you had a chance of coming down or sending in your brief. But since the items that were to be considered were not known, that would have meant that every industry in the country would have had to send in a brief to safeguard its interests-and judging by the treaty itself, certainly little consideration was given to the briefs that were placed before the government.
The shoe brief is a very fine example of how representations made to the government were ignored. Here was the policy of the government, a low tariff policy, and it was this policy of the government that the three men who negotiated on behalf of Canada at Washington were going to carry out. So I say, Mr. Speaker, that the whole basis on which we make trade agreements is wrong and unfair to this country, unfair to our vegetable and fruit growers, unfair to our farmers, unfair to the wheat growers of western Canada, unfair to industry generally.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Unfair to labour.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: They have no idea what labour is. One can easily understand a situation such as that when one realizes the set-up of the present cabinet. Perhaps one of the most remarkable things about our government is this. We have in it, I believe, eight lawyers, one newspaper publisher, one journalist, one university professor, three who are mentioned as farmers-one who was a school teacher who became a farmer; another used to be a farmer and since 1921 has been a very smart-I will not say statesman, shall I say politician?- and yet another who is no longer known as a farmer but is looked upon as a financier; I refer to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning).


John Ritchie MacNicol: He is the best of the lot.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: There are none more pleased than those engaged in industry that the Minister of Finance is back in his place in the house. I have no hesitation in saying that the one member of the government in whom the industrial workers and the heads of industry in this country feel they can have some confidence is the present Minister of Finance. But not one man belonging to that present cabinet has had any practical industrial experience. Not one man in that cabinet has had a close association with labour and knows what are the hours and conditions of labour. So one can easily understand why idealistic trade agreements are made with the United States and with Great Britain. It is not a policy of appeasement. The agreement was a business deal between Great Britain and the United States, with us in between, and as a result we are getting thoroughly squeezed.
I should have liked to deal at some length with the textile industry. I intend to go into that subject when the various items come up. But when we talk about the quotas which the United States give our primary producers in Canada, I should like to mention a few of
1398	COMMONS
Canada-United, States Trade Agreement
the quotas which are extended to other countries in which the standard of living is very low.
In 1937 Japan had 20 per cent of the cotton rayon bedspread business of Canada. In 1938 Japan had 72 per cent of that whole business, with the result that some of our industries could no longer produce any of these articles and had to close down. Of woollen textiles, 43 per cent of our total consumption was imported. As to worsted clothing, 65 per cent of the total consumed in Canada was imported.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why?


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Why? Because this government is more concerned about industrial workers in other countries than it is about our own. In Japan the wage rate in the textile industry is from 2 to 2} cents an hour. Japan must import its raw products from the southern states or from Egypt. The price of the raw products is just the same laid down in Japan as it is laid down in any city of Canada. But their workers are paid about 2| cents an hour. On the other hand there are codes in the Ontario law; we have to pay from 30 cents an hour upwards to our textile workers.


Mr. McDONALD (Pontiac):: Did they pay that in 1935 and before that?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Do not answer relevant questions!


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I may say this, that in all the time I have been engaged in industry' I have found that ninety-nine per cent of our industrial heads are fair to their employees if they are given a chance by the government in power. If they are unfair to their employees this government could take action against them and see to it that they are fair. Again I sayr that if this government had handled the whole situation as between themselves and the various provinces as they should have done, in a spirit of cooperation and with a determination to do something worth while for Canada and for the industrial workers, we should have had by this time unemployment insurance and decent labour laws throughout the dominion.
I have not time to take up another subject,-


Mr. SPENCE:: The hon. member has done very well.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: -but I do say' this, that we are going to watch carefully' and with considerable interest how various hon. members on the Liberal side of the house vote with regard to this trade treaty. We shall see

whether they vote as their hearts dictate, or whether they vote as the Liberal whip dictates to them.


Mr. WILLIAM HAYHURST (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a good deal of interest to the remarks of the, hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Homuth). He is a distinct asset to the Conservative party; his exposition of Conservative ideas upon this subject was an able one.
The hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Glen), who preceded the hon. member for Waterloo South, said something about the Social Credit party7. Let me tell him that the Alberta government is generally recognized as the best government in Canada. It is cognizant of the situation as it exists. Perhaps the criticism by' the Right Hon. Oliver Stanley that some observations of his opponents were so much ey'ewash could be applied to certain hon. members who so inconsistently charge the Alberta government with inefficiency. That government has a policy of its own; it is developing in a new way the industries of the province. It is a characteristic of our party that it is always looking forward. On two occasions this afternoon we have heard questions about what happened in 1930 and even as far back as 1896. Apparently anything is good enough to conceal the urgencies of the present situation by references to what happened in the past. If anyone made an error in past years, it must be pointed to as something grievous and the party which made that error is deemed to be forever inimical to the welfare of the nation, although there is nothing we can do about it to-day.
I want hon. members to realize that our party is here as an independent group with our own ideas upon tariffs and economics generally'. The hon. member for Marquette flippantly mentioned this afternoon what he called economic nationalism. I wonder if he is able to define that term. I have seen many definitions of it. I have seen also many definitions of democracy. I know that communists call themselves the real democrats, that fascists style themselves socialistic or socialist democrats, and that all the parties in this house term themselves democrats. It is difficult indeed to understand the real meaning of words which are so glibly uttered by some hon. members in dealing with subjects upon which they seem to know hardly anything. Thus, at this moment, I had to rise to defend the government of Alberta, because that government has, in its own way and without recourse to tariffs, done something to develop the industry of the province.
We, as a group, are in favour of this trade treaty, and in my constituency most of the

Canada-United States Trade Agreement
people, I am sure, are in favour of it. That group of people whom I have the honour to represent are probably the most cosmopolitan in Canada. Besides the native-born Canadians we have people from all parts of Europe. While this treaty probably contains features that are not so acceptable to us, it is on the whole acceptable because it introduces a fresh spirit of understanding between the great English-speaking nations of the world. We must develop a spirit of friendship with Britain on the one hand, and with the United States on the other. To-day people travel more than they have ever done in the history of the world, and this year it is a good thing that the government have brought forward this treaty. It seems that various factors are working together at this time to promote the welfare of the Englishspeaking nations and to develop a spirit of harmony among these peoples. I do not know whether it was planned or not, but at any rate we have the great fair in New York which will bring many citizens from Europe, and in Canada we have the royal visit, which will also bring from Europe and the United States a great many visitors; and these visitors will all, to a certain degree, benefit through these trade agreements by purchases in Canada.
There is no doubt in my mind that trade agreements create harmony between peoples. In so far as this agreement affects western Canada, the two items that are of most interest to my district are those dealing with cattle and dairy products. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler) this afternoon mentioned some modifications with respect to cattle. I did not get clearly what he said, but I shall be able to read it in Hansard to-morrow. As regards cattle I find this statement in the press release. On cattle weighing 700 pounds or more each there is a maximum reduction of 14 cents a pound, compared with two cents a pound under the 1935 trade agreement, and three cents a pound under the tariff act of 1930.
The new trade agreement provides that the maximum reduction in duty shall apply to
225,000	head imported in any one calendar year, of which not more than 60.000 head shall be imported during any one quarter of the calendar year. In other words, provision is made not only for a further reduction in duty by the maximum, but also for an increase in the annual quota to which the reduced duty applies of nearly 70.000 head over the quota provided for in the 1935 trade agreement. On calves the new trade agreement provides for the continuation of the reduced rate of 14 cents per pound accorded in the 1935 trade agreement as compared with the tariff rate of 24 cents per pound, but the tariff quota to which this reduced rate applies is increased from 51,933 head to 100,000 head in any one calendar year.
The weight bracket to which the reduced rate applies is also increased from 175 to 200 pounds, any calves weighing less than this being eligible for importation under the concession in the trade agreement. On dairy cows the concession in the 1935 trade agreement of the maximum reduction to 14 cents per pound is continued in the new trade agreement, but the quota limitation of 20,000 head in any one calendar year is abolished.
The new trade agreement provides for the maximum reduction in duty to 34 cents per gallon, the quantity of milk to be admitted at the reduced rate to be 3,000,000 gallons in any one calendar year.
And there is a further reduction of four cents a pound on cheese.
The hon. member for Waterloo South said that more milk and cream was produced in his constituency than required. At the same time, I would point out, we need some markets for our products abroad. At present vast quantities of butter have accumulated on the Canadian market, and something should be done to relieve this congestion of dairy products. Farmers generally are desirous that something should be done to-day to have more butter consumed in Canada, and if a certain quantity of milk is diverted to other markets it will, of course, relieve the situation in regard to butter and cheese.
An hon. member last w-eek said that we should play the game in this house, that nations should play the game with one another; and, of course, playing with other nations would cultivate a greater mutual respect. I admit that this is important, but we must exercise self-control in all things until it is reduced to a habit. We must take our losses as sportsmen, and if there are losses in the trade agreement, such as the six cents wheat preference in Britain, we should take them in a sporting spirit, realizing that the concessions cannot be all in our favour, that we must give some concessions in return. It is notable, in international trade, that nine-tenths of all our external trade was conducted last year with empire countries and with the United States. Much of the remainder was done with nations which are and always have been on friendly terms with this country. This, I think, proves that trade and goodwill among nations are reciprocal. No nation can live unto itself alone; we can induce other people to buy from us only by making it as easy as possible for them to sell to us.
During this debate we have heard much about the pride of the Liberal party in the achievements of Laurier and the pride of the Conservative party in those of Macdonald. A great deal has been said about the past. Well, we have threshed this old straw over and over again until we are sick and tired of
1400	COMMONS
Canada-United States Trade Agreement
hearing anything about it, and now we must look for the wheat. We have been told that it is only by working harder and harder, and so increasing the size of the cake, that we can hope for a larger slice. Now that a large cake has been produced, we are told that we cannot eat it because it is too large.


Mr. HEAPS:: Send it abroad.


William Hayhurst: 
Mr. J. R. KIRK (Antigonish-Guysborough):: Mr. Speaker, it is with the utmost confidence in the beneficial results that are certain to accrue to the people of Canada from the new trade treaty with the United States that I rise to make a few observations. At the outset I wish most strongly to commend and to congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and members of his government upon the splendid way in which they have, by various trade agreements, brought to still greater fruition the policy to which the Liberal party has pledged itself, year in and year out.
When in 1935 the Bennett-Manion government placed its future in the hands of the people, the cry of battle was met by the Liberal party with a well defined platform, calculated to assist the best interests of the dominion at large. And the electorate of Canada, having had full and plenty of Messrs. Bennett and Manion, returned Mr. Mackenzie
1402	COMMONS
Canada-United States Trade Agreement
King with the largest majority of supporters any party has ever had in the House of Commons.
The making of a trade treaty with the United States is no new policy of the Liberal party. Although defeated on a trade treaty in the general election of 1911, the Liberal party still continued to believe their trade policy was right. Back in 1923 the following resolution was debated in the House of Commons:
That the governor in council may authorize any minister of the crown to enter into negotiations with any authorized representative of the government of the United States with a view to the making of a commercial agreement between the two countries, on terms which may be deemed mutually beneficial. Any agreement so made shall be subject to the approval of the parliament of Canada.
In the debate which preceded the adoption of the resolution the Right Hon. Mr. Meighen declared the continuing opposition by the Conservative party to a policy of reciprocity. Mr. Fielding, supporting the resolution, made the following declaration:
Hon. gentlemen of the Conservative party, so far as they permit themselves to be represented by my right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) are against any trade treaty with the United States. In the name of the Liberal party of Canada, I declare to-day that we stand for reciprocity with the United States. I say that when the opportunity comes to make a fair treaty or agreement, and the agreement of 1911 was a fair and reasonable agreement, we are proud to declare in the face of the parliament of Canada, whatever the fate o-f it may be, that this Liberal party stands for reciprocity with the United States when we can get a fair and reasonable agreement. That is our position. We are content to let the people judge between the honourable gentlemen and ourselves on that point.
Comparing the foregoing with the present attitude of the Liberal party, we readily see that the Liberal party has not deviated from its belief in the beneficial results to be had from reciprocity.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, from listening during the last few days to speeches made by hon. members opposite on the trade agreement, that their policy is no different from that of their predecessors, namely "no truck or trade with the Yankees." It would be interesting to know just how the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens) feels about this agreement. I notice that at page 316 of Hansard for 1930, when he was Minister of Trade and Commerce in the Bennett government, and tariffs were being raised sky-high, he is reported to have said:
We are amending the tariff for the purpose of trying to reengage in the industries of Canada tens of thousands of honest Canadian citizens.

Again at page 318 he is reported as follows: -that the right hon. gentleman who is Prime Minister-
That is Mr. Bennett.
[DOT]-of this country to-day stands for a policy which has not had a trial in Canada for thirty-five years, a policy for the protection of Canadian industry. There has not been an opportunity up to the present time to give effect to that policy.
And again at page 319, he continued:
When these measures-
The new tariff.
-which are now in existence . . . are in full effect, they will provide work for some 30,000 to 50,000 industrialists in this country.
And at page 322 he continued:
Instead of quibbling about whether it is going to take the last of the 117,000 unemployed, we say that it will take the first 30,000 or
40,000	and therefore it is a worthy measure which should have the support of this house.
The same hon, member is reported to have written an open letter a few days later to his "fellow citizens." This letter, under date of October 4, 1930, is in part as follows:
Every year for the past few years, Canada has been importing $800,000,000 worth of merchandise that she might just as well have been producing from her own mines, or her own farms, or in her own factories. Some things, of course, like raw cotton and raw rubber, she must import. But making due allowance for such items the fact remains that $800,000,000 of her annual imports have been of a class or kind that she was quite capable of producing for herself. With the aid of statistics giving the annual value of Canadian factory production, and the number of persons employed therein, it requires little figuring to-show that every $5,600 worth of goods turned out has meant a job for one person. Assuming that something close to that ratio would hold good as the average for all classes of products, it follows that were we to produce in Canada the $800,000,000 worth of merchandise that we have been importing unnecessarily, we would be giving employment to 147,527 workers more than are now employed, to say nothing of the thousands of others to whom employment would come indirectly, as a result of this new stimulus to business in general. Now do you see how true it is that were we all to practise a little intelligent discrimination in our daily buying, our unemployment problem would quickly and permanently disappear ?
It will be seen from this letter that the hon. member attempted to explain in detail why and how the Canada-first tariff, enacted in September, 1930, would bring Canada's unemployed back to work. But I submit that time has proven that this policy of economic nationalism did not lessen unemployment, but on the contrary increased it. All of which proves that high tariffs increase unemployment. Apparently by 1932 the hon. gentleman

Canada-United States Trade Agreement
had a change of heart in regard to the matter of national policy, as is indicated by his remarks on the Canada-United States trade agreement of 1935. Supporting the trade agreement resolution before the house he made the following statement, to be found on page 723 of Hansard for 1936:
About 1932, in view of conditions that were developing the world over and the inhibitions against Canadian exports entering other countries, I felt that quotas, import restrictions, the raising of tariffs, what is commonly called a national spirit, which was so prevalent and is still so prevalent throughout the world, placed many obstacles in the way of our trade and in the way of trade generally. I felt it was highly desirable that Canada should study the trade relations between our country and the United States, and with that in mind I instructed the staff under me at the time to proceed to a study of the trade between the two countries, and to prepare in detail the items upon which without injury to ourselves and in all fairness to the United States we might offer some considerations for favourable trade.
The above is indeed a far cry from the economic nationalism which he had championed so ardently a few years previously. It is apparent that his leader, if consistent, will vote against the resolution, because referring to the possible results of the treaty, he said, as reported on page 1066 of Hansard of this year:	,
Time alone will tell, but my belief is that the ill effects will be very much greater than the good effects.
Certainly no one would vote against his own better judgment. The question in many minds is: What will be the position taken by our chameleon friend, the hon. member for Kootenay East.
I should like to deal for a moment with some of the remarks made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), which were referred to later by the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion). At page 912 of Hansard the hon. leader of the opposition is reported as follows:
I do not want to puncture the bubble the right hon. gentleman has been blowing, but at the same time I do not think it is necessary to get quite so much excited about the marvellous peace treaty which has been negotiated by the right hon. gentleman to keep the United States and Canada and the United States and Great Britain from going to war.
And again at page 1050 of Hansard the leader of the opposition is reported as saying:
The right hon. gentleman talked as if this was not a trade treaty but a peace treaty. As I listened to him, I thought he spoke, as if we had just been engaged in a spectacular war with some great nation and had won a glorious victory;
And again:
He spoke as if we had won some great victory, and yet, as I pointed out the other night, not. since 1812, a period of over a hundred years, have we had any differences of a serious nature with the United States, and certainly since the beginning of the century there have been no differences between Great Britain and the United States.
What the right hon. Prime Minister did say and to which the hon. leader of the opposition took exception is to be found on
page 910 of Hansard:
Once again we have played the part of reconciling and interpreting the two great Englishspeaking nations to each other. The making of these agreements, especially when the world situation is so precarious as it unfortunately is, is an achievement of superlative importance, which will have its repercussions throughout the world in the next generation. In the present, each of us sleeps more safely in his bed because of the rapproachement between the world's two greatest democracies, a rapproachement that could not have been effected without the assent and the cooperation of Canada. If this administration were to end to-morrow, it would have its honourable place in world history on this score alone. That is the broad fact of the present situation. Like Canning, we have done our indispensable part to call into existence a "new world to redress the balance of the old."
And again at page 911:
The trade agreements concluded between Canada and the United States, and Great Britain and the United States constitute the one outstanding contribution of our times toward economic disarmament. As such, they have immeasurably helped to create a basic situation more favourable to peaceful relations between nations ... It is deeply gratifying to the government that ... we w-ere able to further not only the ends of commerce and trade but the all important ends of international goodwill.
At the imperial conference of 1937, the representatives of the several governments concerned had under review the possibility of reviving confidence and increasing the stability of economic and financial conditions in the world, a process which they considered essential to the prosperity of individual countries as well as to international peace. In order to assist in furthering this end, they declared themselves ready to cooperate with other nations in examining current difficulties, including trade barriers and other obstacles to the increase of international trade and the improvement of the general standard of living. The imperial conference also declared :
The outstanding feature of the discussion was the emphatic desire expressed by the representatives of every part of the British commonwealth represented at the conference, that all practicable steps should be taken to secure the stimulation of international trade. It was recognized that in the last resort, the prosperity
1404	COMMONS
Canada-United States Trade Agreement
of the countries of the commonwealth depends on that of the world as a whole, and that a healthy growth of international trade, accompanied by an improvement in the general standard of living, is an essential step to political appeasement.
Surely the above declaration will convince even the most doubtful that there is a close connection between international trade and international peace. The trend of the speeches of the opposition has been to create a feeling of gloom as to Canada's future. Might I suggest at this point that it would be well for them to try to inspire the people with a spirit of confidence in their country. The Hon. Colonel J. L. Ralston some time ago, in an address to the presidents of the life insurance companies of America, stated, "Confidence feeds on confidence." Might it not be to the better advantage of Canada for these gloom-mongers to change their line of talk in keeping with the above, and thus do their part to promote confidence in Canada's economic future?
I should like to turn now to a consideration of what this treaty will mean to our people. Members from other sections of the country have already indicated the benefits that will accrue to the people in their respective districts. My remarks will be more or less confined to the benefits that the maritime provinces will derive from this agreement. I shall deal first with our export trade, consisting in great part of fish, lumber, potatoes, apples and foxes. I shall not take up the time of the house in discussing the latter four items because the hon. Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ilsley), in his speech the other afternoon, dealt very effectively with the apple industry, and other hon. members from the maritimes have shown the likely improvements in the lumber, potato and fox industries.
But I might say in passing that at the annual meeting of the councillors of the municipality of Antigonish, a resolution was passed offering free to young men, farms which belonged to the municipality, the only condition being that these young men should operate the farms and pay the taxes for five years, after which time they would be given the deeds of the property. I learn from the municipal clerk that this offer has attracted many applicants from various parts of the province who are anxious to start out for themselves in the farming industry. I suggest that the government should make it as easy as possible for these young farmers to get government loans to help them stock and equip these farms, thus putting themselves in a position to take advantage of the benefits of the trade treaty.

I am lately in receipt of a copy of a resolution of protest passed by the Antigonish county farmers' association based on an intimation they received of a sales tax about to be imposed by the government on certain materials used in making balanced rations for poultry and live stock. But on inquiry I was glad to learn from the Minister of National Revenue that such is not the case, that there has never been any intention on the part of the government to impose such a tax. At this point, I should like to say that I was pleased to note that the government was able to reduce the duty on corn, a reduction which will represent an immense saving to our farmers.
Referring to the fishing industry, with the kind permission of the house I wish to put on Hansard a statement indicating the benefits which the fishermen of the maritimes will derive from the new trade agreement, based on the quantities of fish shipped to the United States in 1936 and 1937. This statement includes only fish known to have been produced and shipped from Atlantic coast waters, and does not take into consideration salmon, halibut and tuna, which would considerably increase the given figures, but for these items figures separate from Pacific coast shipments were not available. My object in preparing this statement is to show in definite figures the extra amounts which the fishermen would have enjoyed in those years had the present treaty duties been in effect. In 1936 this amount was $221,738.61, and in 1937, $184,076.46, money which would have represented a great boon to maritime fishermen. Estimating that the shipments of these classes of fish for the present year will even approximate those of either 1936 or 1937, we can easily see what a benefit the fishermen will derive, and I think it is quite safe to say that with this added impetus the fish export business will increase materially over the figures for either of the given years.
But our maritime fishermen, whose gear has been seriously destroyed in the recent storms, will need some real government assistance to repair and replace their losses, and thus enable them to carry on the fishing business in a worth while way, so that they will be in a position to avail themselves of the benefits indicated in the treaty.
The benefits which the consumer will receive from this trade agreement must not be overlooked. Many articles of every-day use, such as foodstuffs, clothing, et cetera, will be reduced in price, thereby tending to lower the cost of living. The producer also will benefit from the lower prices he will have to pay for articles of production-fishermen's

Canada-United, States Trade Agreement
supplies, dairy and horticultural machinery, fertilizers, et cetera. Personally, Mr. Speaker, I think this government deserves great credit for being able to consummate an agreement such as this presently being discussed without having made any concessions on coal, which means a great deal not only to the miners in the maritimes, but to those interested in many other branches of industry, such as the farmer, fisherman, lumberman, manufacturer, railroad man and others.
To put our people of the maritimes in a position to take advantage of the benefits of this trade agreement there are suggestions I should like to make to the government. I believe there should be a revision of the freight rates. From a recent issue of the Halifax Chronicle I learn that Mr. Rand H. Matheson, manager of the maritime transportation commission, told an Amherst audience that a revision of our freight rates is essential to meet changing conditions in transportation, as well as to establish a complete parity with rates granted certain types of freight in upper Canada.
While on the subject of transportation, I wish to draw to the attention of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe) and the other members of the government, a most unfortunate situation existing in my constituency. In Guysborough county there are thousands of acres of standing timber that cannot be cut and put on the market for the very simple reason that we have no means of transporting it.


Mr. BAKER:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member tell us what authority he is quoting, or what he is reading from?


Paul Joseph James Martin: He is referring to his notes.


William Daum Euler: He is not establishing any precedent anyhow.


James Ralph Kirk: As many hon. members probably know, there is a limited distance in which lumber can be hauled profitably with teams, also a limited distance in which it can be hauled by auto truck, which means that there remain only two profitable methods of transportation, namely, rail and water. In this instance the haul to the waterfront is too long, and we have no railroad. The construction of what was known as the Guysborough railway was started in 1929 by the then government, under the leadership of the present Prime Minister. But after several millions had already been spent on the construction of the railway, and although there was a great number of unemployed in the country at the time, the government which succeeded
my right hon. leader's government in 1930 issued instructions that the work on the railway should be stopped. To those, of course, who know the political record of the constituency, the reason for such an order is quite obvious. I hope, however, it is not the intention of this present government, again under the leadership of my right hon. leader, to allow the money that has already been spent on this project to be entirely lost. In this connection may I quote from an editorial which appeared some months ago in The Eastern Chronicle, a newspaper published in Nova Scotia, headed "Guysborough railway" :
No sadder picture can be imagined than to drive through that country and note the political ruins of that enterprise. The grading has been completed and is now growing grass. The right-of-way belongs to the government, having been purchased and paid for. The concrete abutments for bridges are in place. All seems ready for the ties, rails, steel bridges and the station houses and platforms. As it stands to-day, it is a travesty upon the viciousness of party politics. For half a century the road has figured in public debates and in 1910 a contract was let and a change of government cancelled it.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but he is out of order, and I would ask him to confine his remarks to the trade treaty.


James Ralph Kirk: I am trying, Mr. Speaker, to show the necessity of building a railroad in that territory, so that its products can be transported and get the benefit of this trade treaty.


William Earl Rowe: The point of order is well rail-roaded.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The railroad is probably included in the $112,000,000.


James Ralph Kirk: I continue with the quotation from The Eastern Chronicle:
In 1926 negotiations for its construction were again resumed and a contract let to the Dominion Construction Company. Actual work was undertaken and the present state of the road reached, when a change of government took place in 1930, when there developed the most callous instance of political rancour ever displayed. The work was immediately abandoned. The steel for rails and bridges assembled on cars at Stellarton -were distributed elsewhere and people of that long-suffering county made to suffer for their political sins. It was rabid Toryism run wild.
The need for this railway was just as evident in 1930 as it was in 1926. The need is just as evident to-day. If the Liberal government of 1926 was justified in starting the work, as it was, that same justification exists to-day.
Might we point out several pertinent things with respect to the Guysborough railway. It is intended to tap a county that has no other
1406	COMMONS
Canada-United. States Trade Agreement
railway connection. It is the great unspoiled and undeveloped county of the maritimes. Guysborough county possesses a potential fishery wealth such as no other stretch of coast line in Canada, but alas, those sturdy fishermen of that coastal county have no means of transportation by which to market the product of the sea that comes in such great quantities to its shore.
Again Guysborough county has a great lumber wealth. This is evident by the use made in that regard of the first ten miles from Sunny Brae, where the projected road contacted the established railway. On this ten miles, rails were laid during construction and have been maintained in semi-fashion since for the movement of lumber freight. This information is furnished by one who should know, and is to the effect that upon that short section of rough road there originated more freight than on any like branch in the Canadian National railway system.
Another important item at this juncture in unemployment would be the completion of the railway. The rails and bridges would give direct employment to the steel workers-both manufacturing and fabricating. The ties and the station houses would employ lumber from our own woods. In fact, the completion of the road w'ould call for, first, the utilization of our natural products; and, second, the employment of local labour.
The prospects of this road are not to be overlooked. Tapping as it will the great fishery resources, should bring to its support the Minister of Fisheries. The agricultural possibilities are in keeping with that reached by any maritime road. The magnificent St. Mary's valleys are an instance. Although now miles away from the rails they are productive and prosperous, and, had they transport connection, their wealth could be enormously increased. The region through which the railway projects is a sportsman's paradise and can be developed into a holiday seeker's mecca.
These arguments are old and oft repeated, but the repetition has not detracted from their truth, as a true story cannot die of old age.
But over all is the necessity of keeping faith *with the people of Guysborough county. They have been falsely and traitorously dealt with. They have been made a cat's paw of a Tory majority in Ontario or some other section, and such wretched intolerance should not be permitted to obtain.
I want to tell members of this house, and especially the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers), the Minister of Transport, and their colleagues, that this section of Canada needs a railway to open up and develop this territory which can be developed in no other way. Lumber, farming, fishing and mining would all benefit, and the development of these industries naturally would mean employment- a livelihood for many of our people, which in turn would mean greater liquid wealth which would undoubtedly help the railroads, steamship companies, manufacturers and many others. I cannot urge too strongly on the members of this government the great possibilities that exist for the development of

the natural resources of Guysborough, if this railway is completed. The hardwood areas alone are something that, within ten years, are going to be of inestimable value. I might remind the ministers that there is still considerable unemployment in our country, although we do not hear so much about it as in some sections, because our people are the type who tighten up their belts, so to speak, and endure with patience all manner of hardships and suffering before resorting to relief.


Robert James Manion: They have to, under this
government.


James Ralph Kirk: And they had to do plenty of it between 1930 and 1935. This unemployment situation is just one more reason why I implore this government to complete the construction of the Guysborough railroad as soon as possible.
Before concluding my remarks, I wish to refer to the Saint Francis Xavier university extension movement which has for some years been cooperating with the various departments of government. Their activities are many and varied, and there is no doubt that they are assisting our primary producers in a way that will help them to profit to an even greater extent from the trade treaty.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I cannot agree with the remarks of my friend the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Fleming), who thinks that the government should not go to the country this year. On the contrary, my opinion is that the record of the Mackenzie King government is such that they can go to the country at any time and receive a mandate from the people to continue to carry on their good work.
Mr. ROWE (Dufferin-Simeoe); They will get the same result, no matter when they go.


Mr. H. C. GREEN (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, to-day I propose to discuss this Canada-United States trade agreement, and the concessions which have been made by Canada under the United Kingdom-Canada agreement, from the point of view of those Canadians who live on the Pacific slope, the people of British Columbia-that great province which is rapidly becoming the third province in Canada in population, but is furthest from the centre of Canada, and with problems so different from the rest of Canada -problems which we feel are often so little understood by the other Canadians. Incidentally, no individuals could do more than members of this house to help in the understanding of our problems. They are all in a

Canada-United, States Trade Agreement
position of influence, and they all have free transportation, both for themselves and for their families. I suggest to them that during the coming summer those who have not been to the Pacific coast should visit our province. Hon. members on the other side may not have an opportunity to do so under the same favourable conditions next year. We shall be very glad to have them with us before the unhappy event. That invitation is extended particularly to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and to the senior members of his cabinet, who have been conspicuous by their absence from British Columbia since the election campaign of four years ago.


Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: We have been too busy here.


Howard Charles Green: To understand the effect of this agreement and of these concessions on British Columbia, one must bear in mind two facts, which I should like to stress. First, British Columbia is primarily a lumber province, with the bulk of the lumbering done in the coast region, where we have the famous Douglas fir. The second fact which should be borne in mind is that the neighbouring states of Washington and Oregon are also on the Pacific slope, and that they occupy much the same position in the United States as British Columbia occupies in Canada, producing much the same products and giving us the stillest kind of competition, for example, in lumbering, fruit growing and fishing. These two states have a much larger population than British Columbia, and their people have much more capital behind them than our people. Also they have in the other states of the union a much larger home market than British Columbia has in the other provinces of this dominion.
It so happens that lumbering and fruit growing are the two industries in our province which are most affected by this United States agreement and by the concessions Canada has made under the United Kingdom agreement. The hon. member for Yale (Mr. Stirling) has dealt with the fruit growing industry, and I do not intend to deal with it to-day, but I do propose to deal with the industry of lumbering, which is our greatest and most important industry.
I am glad to be able to do so, because the government can do something further for the lumber industry, whereas it cannot do anything for any other industry. A discussion on lumbering is not purely academic, as it is with respect to other Canadian industries. I say this because under the Canada-United States agreement lumber, and lumber alone, is dealt with in two stages, the first stage 71492-89
coming into force with the rest of the treaty on January 1 of this year, the second stage coming into force only if, as and when the United States sees fit to remove its import excise tax of $1.50 per thousand feet board measure. In other words, the bargain on lumber is not yet concluded, although this government have put Canada in the weak position of binding herself in advance to make further great concessions in lumber if the United States chooses to bring in the second stage by dropping its import excise tax.
Incidentally, the United States is not bound to drop that excise tax; it is not bound to bring in the second stage of the lumber bargain. But I do suggest that the government's job on lumber is only half done, and I urge upon them at once to bring all possible pressure to bear on the United States not to renew this import excise tax when it expires at the end of June of this year. I urge that because the first stage of the lumber bargain is all one-sided, and unless this second stage is brought into force the agreement will have been most unfair to the lumber industry; certainly there will have been a great injustice done to the thousands of people engaged in that industry in British Columbia, to thousands of others engaged in dependent industries, and, in fact, to people in almost every walk of life in our province.
That brings me to a consideration of just what this stage of the lumber bargain is. But as a background, and so that the real effects of this Canada-United States agreement and the concessions Canada has made under the Canada-United Kingdom agreement may be clearly seen, I should like to sketch roughly the history of the lumbering industry in the coast area of British Columbia during the last decade. I deal with that area alone because while there is lumbering done in other parts of the province, the industry is largely centred in the wet belt which is known as the coast area.
The story of lumber in that area for the past ten years is quite a romantic tale. In 1929, just ten years ago, that area sold approximately 1,040,000,000 feet board measure of lumber in Canada, in our home market, the best market any industry can have. We sold a little more than half that amount, namely 540,000,000 board feet, in the United States. In the United States market we had free entry-no duty, no excise tax. We had had free entry since 1913. We sold only 70,000,000 feet to the United Kingdom where at that time, of course, we had no preference, and we sold, including the 70,000,000 feet to Great Britain, a total of 160,000,000 feet tc

1408	COMMONS
Canada-United, States Trade Agreement
the empire. In addition, we sold 240,000,000 feet to foreign lands, principally Japan and China.
I propose to say nothing further about the home market, except that it fell with the depression and has risen again until in 1937 it was about 565,000,000 feet; or about the foreign market, except that it has gone on much the same as in 1929, now up, now down; at the present time it is below 100,000,000 feet, largely because of the trouble in Asia.
I deal particularly with our markets in the United States, the United Kingdom and the British empire. In 1930 the United States passed the Hawley-Smoot tariff, the highest, I believe, in the modern history of the United States. That tariff imposed a duty of $1 per thousand feet against Canadian lumber, with the result that in 1931 our sales to the United States had dropped by about one-half, while our sales to the empire remained about the same. Not content with the Hawley-Smoot tariff the United States in 1932 passed a Revenue Act, which imposed an import excise tax of $3 per thousand feet, making a hurdle of $4 per thousand feet to be overcome by our lumber going into the United States. That hurdle was prohibitive.
Hon. members should bear in mind at all times that this business of raising high levies, this business of stopping trade, was started not by Canada but by the United States. Our lumber market was placed in such a position by this hurdle of $4 per thousand feet that a substitute market simply had to be found, and fortunately the Bennett government were able to negotiate in 1932 the empire agreements which gave us, generally speaking, a preference of ten per cent. As a result of these two moves-the United States raising its levies and Great Britain and other parts of the empire giving us a preference- in 1933 British Columbia sold in the United States only 30,000,000 feet as against over 540,000,000 feet in 1929; but despite the depression, our sales to Great Britain went up from 70,000,000 feet in 1929 to 270,000,000 feet in 1933, having increased about four times, and our sales to the empire rose from 160,000,000 feet in 1929 to 430,000,000 feet in 1933. By 1935 our sales to the United States were up to 95,000,000 feet, still very low, while our sales to the United Kingdom were 455,000,000 feet, and to the empire, 635,000,000 feet. The empire trade was steadily increasing.
In the fall of 1935 this government came into office and negotiated the Canada-United States agreement, which cut in half the duty and import excise tax, totalling S4 per thou-

sand feet, subject to a quota of 250,000,000 feet in any one year for Douglas fir and western hemlock, which are the two types of lumber we produce in the largest quantities. That first Canada-United States agreement has been a great disappointment to the lumber industry of British Columbia. In the years following the negotiation of the treaty Canada has never been able to sell the quota. The nearest approach was in 1938 when we sold approximately 170,000,000 feet, or about seventy per cent. But on the other side of the picture our sales to the United Kingdom have climbed and climbed until in 1938 we sold to Great Britain 740,000,000 feet- more lumber than we have ever sold to the United States in one year. To the empire as a whole we sold last year 960,000,000 feet, quite an increase from 160,000,000 feet in 1929-all as a direct result of the preference given us by the empire trade agreements.
Now this present government boast of increasing export trade. They boast of the great treaties they have negotiated, but they never have achieved anything like the empire agreements, and I do not believe they ever will. If they ever did achieve agreements of that type, we would be kept here for five years hearing all the talk about the wonderful things that had been done.


Mr. HANSON:: May I ask a question?


Howard Charles Green: Ask it after dinner. The United States sums up the situation very clearly in its press release dealing with the United Kingdom agreement. At page 36 we find:
The position with regard to a number of important individual products is even more unsatisfactory than that with regard to the wood group as a whole, since there has been, as a result of the import duties, a very serious diversion of the trade from the United States to empire countries in several products, notably Douglas fir and certain other softwood lumber, plywood, and doors. In the case of doors, the United Kingdom had taken-
"Had" taken, mark you.
-as high as 94 per cent of the United States total annual exports, but the increase in 1935 in the duty to 2s. 6d. per door has almost eliminated American competition. One of the major objectives of the present trade agreement has been, therefore-
This is the United States speaking.
-to restore as far as possible the competitive position of the United States as a supplier of these products which have been so seriously affected by empire preference in the United Kingdom.
At six o'clock the house took recess.

Quebec Railway, Light and Power
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILL


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 8, respecting the Quebec Railway, Light and Power Company-Mr. Parent (Quebec West and South)-Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
On section 1-Declaratory.
Mr. JEAN-FRANQOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata):	Mr. Chairman, I find that this is
bad legislation.
Frederick George Sanderson: I must inform the committee that this section was amended in committee.


Mr. POULIOT:: I know that very well ; I was there when it was amended, and I will express my view about the amendment, which makes the bill more unsound legally.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Might we have the
amendment read? I think it is the custom.


Frederick George Sanderson: The following' is to be added to subsection 2:
Subject to all provincial and municipal enactments in respect to highways and motor vehicles operated thereon, and applicable thereto.


Jean-François Pouliot: Thank you, sir. The story behind this bill is that in the year of grace 1925 the city of Quebec entered into a contract with the Quebec Light, Heat and Power Company, or the Quebec Railway Company, by virtue of which an exclusive thirty year franchise was granted by the city for trolley car operation.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What was the date of the contract?


Jean-François Pouliot: It was granted in 1925, so
the thirty year franchise would extend to the year of grace 1955.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That was between the city of Quebec and the company?


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes. Last fall another agreement was entered into in order that the same exclusive franchise might include the operation of buses until the year of grace 1955. The bill is interesting, but the bad part of it is still more interesting. I am strongly opposed to any exclusive franchise. I am for competition. I know it is pretty hard to have street railway competition in a city like Quebec because it might turn out as badly as it did in Detroit; they might become bankrupt. A certain privilege is required for 71492-89J
the construction of railway lines on the streets of a city, but when it comes to the operation of a bus service the situation is entirely different. In the first place, I do not see why this company should have an exclusive franchise for the operation of buses within the city of Quebec. I would ask hon. members to read the explanatory note, which contains the words "in and in the neighbourhood of the city of Quebec." What is the neighbourhood of the city of Quebec? Does it extend to Riviere du Loup, which is 120 miles away?


Mr. PARENT (Quebec West and South):: Oh, no.


Jean-François Pouliot: Just a moment; my hon. friend may answer my questions in due course. I want to know; I do not want "no." It may come as far west of Quebec as the beautiful Gatineau hills. Then these people of the Quebec Railway Company will take advantage of this legislation to say, "we have an enactment of the dominion parliament granting us a franchise. Therefore all you other owners of buses get down into the ditch when we pass along. We are masters of the highway." I am not for this legislation, I am all against it.


John Horne Blackmore: Hear, hear.


Jean-François Pouliot: I thank my hon. friend
for saying "hear, hear." There are some members of this committee who are opposed to all exclusive franchises, some of whom spoke on behalf of this bill in committee the other day. But I will not insist on that any longer. My first point is that the granting of any exclusive privileges is against all principles of Liberalism, and I am strongly opposed to it.


Robert James Manion: Is that not a strange reason, coming from that side of the house?


Jean-François Pouliot: Well, if my eyes do not deceive me, this bill comes from that side of the house. But I hope to make conversions by explaining my point of view. There is something else. If there is an exclusive franchise there must be some control of rates. Will that control be exercised by the public utilities commission of the province of Quebec or by the transport board that we have here in Ottawa? We are facing a dilemma. We are told that the company has a federal charter, which it obtained some forty years ago in order to secure a federal subsidy. Since then, however, most of their legislation has been provincial; many times the city of Quebec has made agreements with

Quebec Railway, Light and Power
this company, which agreements have been sanctioned by provincial legislation. That is known to everyone who is fond of reading provincial statutes. Who will exercise control in connection with rates? Will it be the public utilities commission of Quebec or will it be the federal transport board? It will be neither. This legislation is hybrid; it is illegitimate. If we had no lady members of this house I would use other and possibly stronger expressions.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am not asking what those expressions may be, but I really should like to understand why this company will not come under either provincial or federal control with regard to rates.


Jean-François Pouliot: My hon. friend, who has been a professor of philosophy, knows very well that the first part of a discussion is the status quaestionis, the statement of the question, and afterwards we make due distinctions. I hope my hon. friend will not ask me to define the Quebec utilities commission or the federal transport board, which he understands very well, I am sure, as all members of the committee do.


James Shaver Woodsworth: If I understood the hon. member aright, he said the control over rates would not come under either body, and I do not understand that statement.


Jean-François Pouliot: I thank my hon. friend for his question, and I hope that by explaining the matter clearly I may bring him to agree with me. The chairman of the transport board has expressed himself clearly in regard to the operation of buses; this matter does not come under the transport board except perhaps-he was not sure of that- in the case of bus companies operating between two provinces or between one province and a foreign country such as the United States. His doubt was on this ground, that at first the railway commision was appointed to study and decide upon railway lines and railway questions. Later, its powers were extended, but not to include bus companies operating only within a province. That is the point. And by stating in the explanatory note to the bill that the bus company is operating within the limits and in the neighbourhood of the city of Quebec, we are to presume that the operations will not be outside the province of Quebec.
Moreover, the company cannot come under the jurisdiction of the transport board, unless it is stated that the buses will operate between two provinces, or between one province and a foreign country. That is an important point. Therefore it is beyond doubt
(Mr. Pouliot.]
that the transport board has no authority whatever over the rates on the buses which will be operated by the company within the city of Quebec or in the neighbourhood of that city, whatever that neighbourhood may include. If I have not made myself clear on this point, I would suggest that hon. members ask me to be more precise. That, however, is the first point.
Then there was an amendment which made the bill still worse. Our contention was that this parliament has no authority whatever upon the operation of buses, because they come under provincial jurisdiction entirely. The provinces impose licences on buses, and we have no authority whatever, because they use the kings highway for their operations and, according to the law and according to the general understanding, we have nothing whatever to do with buses.
Although I am not sure, because I had occasion to leave the committee for a few moments, I believe an amendment was suggested by the legal representative of the Department of Transport. He suggested an addition to the bill whereby it should be subject to all provincial and municipal regulations. As hon. members know very well, this parliament has no authority whatever with regard to municipal matters. All those things come under the exclusive jurisdiction of provincial legislatures; everyone knows that. Therefore, if there is an appendix to the bill to the effect that the whole matter will be subject to provincial and municipal regulations, there is the implication that it cannot be subject to the regulations of the transport board. It would come only under provincial jurisdiction, and therefore we would have no jurisdiction at all to include buses in the powers granted to the company.
If hon. members were to take the trouble to read section 8 of chapter 59 of the statutes of 1895, they would find the following in the explanatory note:
The company may use and employ for locomotion and propulsion of its cars, vehicles and rolling stock, where such power is required, electricity in all its forms, steam and any approved mechanical power or other means, agency or force for such purpose that science or invention may develop, and shall have all rights, powers, privileges-
And so on. We will notice the expression "electricity in all its forms, steam and any approved mechanical power or other means, agency or force for such purpose that science or invention may develop." They already have the power to operate any kind of vehicles, including buses or steam engines. But they come here to ask us for some privileged federal legislation, and I am opposed to it.

Quebec Railway, Light and Power
They say a serious doubt was expressed by all concerned-referring to the authority of the board of transport-which I denied, of course. No learned counsel appearing for the company or for the city of Quebec dared to affirm or to state that the board of transport had any authority to fix rates.


Abraham Albert Heaps: What would my hon. friend offer in place of this bill? What would he substitute?


Jean-François Pouliot: I would substitute nothing, because I assume I would suggest the withdrawal of the bill. This is none of our business. We are here asked to ratify a private agreement between a railway company and the city of Quebec; that is what is behind the bill. Before that, when the same thing occurred, the company and the city of Quebec went to the legislature to have their agreements confirmed. Now for the first time they come before the federal parliament and ask us to do what was done before by the Quebec legislature, namely to confirm a private agreement. We have nothing whatever to do with it.
If the travelling public go to the board of transport they will be told by the chairman and the learned commissioners that they have nothing to do with it, because they have no control whatever over bus services, and that it is a provincial matter. If the company is brought before the public utilities commission of the province of Quebec, it will argue that that body has no authority. The company will say, "our power to operate buses has been granted to us by the dominion parliament; therefore we deny the jurisdiction of the Quebec utilities commission." Then the people of the province of Quebec will complain about the high rates imposed upon them by the company, with the assent of the city of Quebec-which does not make it any better. The people will have to incur heavy expenditures to have writs of certiorari, and so on, to bring the matter before another court, if they can. They will be in a muddle of procedure-and in the meantime they will be paying high rates to travel on those buses. That is one point.
Every member of the committee knows very well that the private legislation passed by any provincial legislature, and by the dominion parliament as well, is a shameful queue to the statute books of the country. There are very few pieces of private legislation which can stand. Nearly every piece of private legislation is pure rot, and this time the Quebec Railway Company comes, with the assent of the city of Quebec, to secure from this
dominion parliament an exclusive franchise- under disguise. And in virtue of that amphibious legislation, when the people of the city of Quebec and the surrounding neighbourhood -which might be the whole province, because no one knows the ambitions of the president of the Quebec Railway Company, and his associates-


Mr. COLDWELL:: Who is the president?


Jean-François Pouliot: I assume it is Julian C. Smith. When those people desire to extend the operation of the bus company to all boundaries of the province of Quebec, and whenever a man, or two men, or ten men, or scores, or hundreds of men complain of the high rates imposed upon them by the company, they will go to the board of transport, where they will be told that there is no jurisdiction and that they should go to the Quebec utilities commission. If they follow that advice, they will apply to the Quebec utilities commission, but they will be told by that commission that they have no jurisdiction. That commission will contend that, as the company is operating under a federal bill giving it the power to operate buses, they can do nothing and the people must suffer an injustice. The people will then curse the dominion parliament and will write to the hon. members who voted for this bill. They will be told they were wrong in thinking the bill was innocuous, that it covered simply an agreement between the city and the railway company.


Olof Hanson: Would not the amendment submitted by the Department of Transport and accepted by the committee protect the government and the city of Quebec? I did not understand it thoroughly, but that amendment was accepted unanimously in the committee.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am just coming to that point. A learned counsel of the department, who is just as familiar with the law as I am with astronomy-it is a very dark night to-night-approved that amendment. What power do we have to state in our legislation that it shall be subject to provincial or municipal regulation?


Olof Hanson: The amendment protects the provincial rights.


Jean-François Pouliot: No. My hon. friend is good enough to listen to my argument, and I want to try to satisfy his mind entirely. This parliament has exclusive jurisdiction in certain matters, and the provincial legislatures have exclusive jurisdiction in other matters. I

Quebec Railway, Light and Power
think my hon. friend will agree with me on that. If we have jurisdiction to pass legislation giving the railway company the right to operate buses, then we also have the right to regulate the rates to be charged on those buses.


Olof Hanson: If it does not interfere
with provincial rights.


Jean-François Pouliot: No. I want my hon. friend to listen to me. I have not finished, but I am on the eve of finishing my remarks. If we have jurisdiction to grant to the railway company the right to operate buses, then we also have the right to regulate the rates charged for travel on those buses. That is clear and evident. If, for the sake of appearance, we add the words "subject to provincial and municipal regulation," that means that the provincial and municipal regulations are intra vires of the province and the municipality and we have no right whatever.


Olof Hanson: I do not think the committee had any jurisdiction to decide what are provincial and federal rights. They were just considering a bill, and an amendment was accepted to provide that we should not interfere with provincial rights.


Jean-François Pouliot: I was there when the vote was called, and I said "on division." I did not want to hold the bill in committee; I wanted it to come to the house. I am explaining this as clearly as I can. If the provinces have power to make regulations as to rates, then we have none. If we have the power, they have none.


Olof Hanson: That is not for the committee to decide.


Jean-François Pouliot: The committee of the
whole can decide whatever it wants to. I am here to express my views, and I shall express them. It takes some time to understand a legal question of this kind, but the more complicated it is, the more interesting it is. Why have we to rely upon provincial authority for regulations in this matter? If we have no authority, what is the use of passing vague legislation like this to deceive the people and to embarrass all concerned? The people in Quebec are bound to use these buses because there is no competition. There is bound to be plenty of trouble because the company will rely upon the fact that there is no jurisdiction in the board of transport or the Quebec utilities commission to deal with complaints about rates. I would thank the sponsor of this bill to give us a little more explanation about the matter.
[Mt. Pouliot.]


Charles Eugène Parent: Mr. Chairman, I have listened with great interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot). First of all, let me assure him that it is not our intention to operate autobuses in his constituency. All we are asking by this bill is the right to clarify a certain clause in the original charter granted in 1895. At that time there were no buses and no one had foreseen this new method of transportation. We claim that the original charter covers whatever forms of transportation science may discover. There has been a demand in the city of Quebec for an improvement in the transportation system. The same is true of many other cities. The people are asking for motor-buses.


Frederick George Sanderson: Would the hon. member mind speaking a little louder? I think the Hansard reporter is having difficulty in hearing his remarks.


Charles Eugène Parent: That shows the necessity for some amplifying system in the chamber.
There are in the city of Quebec at the present time some autobuses which have been used there for a few months, running out to a little suburb about three miles outside the city. That territory was actually covered by the Quebec railway with a tramway line, but under the pressure of the population of Sillery the tramway service was replaced by autobuses. The company is bringing this bill forward under pressure of public demand. In my own county of Quebec West and South we have a tramway' line which was laid thirty-five years ago and is still in operation, but some people have to walk ten or fifteen blocks before they can get the tram.
It is easy, when a company comes to parliament asking for certain powers, for someone to raise the cry of trusts and make all kinds of charges, but anyone who is familiar with local conditions would not be opposed to this bill. It has been submitted to the civic authorities in the city of Quebec, and I do not see why there should be so much blowing of bubbles over such an insignificant amendment, because we have all the protection that is afforded by our committee on railways and canals. There is nothing in this bill to confer an exclusive franchise or to interfere with the rights of anyone else who wants to start some other transportation system or autobuses.
The Quebec Railway is a company that has invested about $20,000,000 in the tramway system in the city of Quebec, and autobuses are being asked for practically unanimously

Quebec Railway, Light and Power
by the people of that city. Anyone who knows how narrow the streets are in the city of Quebec, and how the tramway line obstructs traffic, will be in favour of this bill. It is all very well for the hon. member to rise in his place and say that Julian C. Smith is president of the company. Yes, he is the president of the company because he has proved that he knows something about transportation and the electrical systems of this country. He knows that what he is asking for here is tc meet a public demand, ai 1 the company would not be seeking to spend money od autobuses if it were not that there is a public demand for them. After all, the money that has been invested in the system must be protected, and if the tramway line is going to be withdrawn who is going to bear the loss? The authority to operate autobuses is desired in order to give a better service to the people of the city of Quebec. That is all there is in the bill. It will benefit the labour class especially in the constituency of Quebec West and South.
The rates actually in force on the autobuses are the rates agreed to by the tramway contract of 1925. They are not asking for any higher rates for the autobuses. They simply wish to give the people a better service.
Doubt has been expressed whether the language of the act covered autobuses. When I presented the bill I told the house that as far as I was concerned I had no doubt that autobuses were covered by the language of the act, that autobuses were a product of modern science and invention, and that the company had the power to use them. Some of the other lawyers objected and contended that autobuses were not covered, and it was thought better therefore to clarify the language It was felt that it was such a small amendment that there could not possibly be any objection to it.
After all, we are just asking that the language be amended to cover autobuses, a product of modern science and invention. One might just as well call them tramways propelled by gasoline motors, but somebody happened to call them autobuses. What difference does the name make? The main thing is that this bill has been brought before the house to settle all doubts about the matter. The bill confers no exclusive power upon the company, nor does it give them the right to increase their rates or charge any kind of rate, as has been suggested. They are bound by their contract of 1925 with the city of Quebec, and we are not asking the parliament of Canada to do anything about the rates. We are just asking that the original charter,
which was granted at a time when autobuses were not in existence or even thought of, be amended by adding the word "autobuses," in order to remove any doubt that may exist in anybody's mind.
There is nothing in the bill that I can see to prevent any company from being formed by anyone, even by my hon. friend from Temiscouata, to operate autobuses. In fact, I am told that there are already requests before the public utilities commission of Quebec to operate autobuses in competition with this company, and if the public utilities commission grants that power there will be the competition that my hon. friend desires.
To sum up, I say that we are as much in need of autobuses in the city of Quebec as my hon. friend from Temiscouata was in need of a railway station in Riviere du Loup.


Mr. THOMAS VIEN (Outremont):: Mr. Chairman, if the matter were as serious as suggested by the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot), I think every member of the house would agree with him. But it is somewhat different. The question was studied in the standing committee on railways and canals, and I should like to explain to the house in a very few words the question that arises.
The Quebec Railway is a corporation incorporated by a statute of the dominion parliament. Therefore the Quebec Railway must seek in its charter, which is chapter 59 of the statutes of 1895, 58 and 59 Victoria, all its powers and authority. A statutory corporation does not possess any other authority than that which is conferred upon it by statute.
Since 1915 the world has continued to move and a great many things have been improved upon, in Quebec as elsewhere, because there is some progress being made from time to time even in Quebec.


Ernest Lapointe: Order.


Thomas Vien: In Quebec it has come about that autobuses are desired on certain streets and in the suburbs. In the city of Montreal, autobuses have replaced street-cars in certain
districts. The city council have directed the Quebec Railway to substitute autobuses for street-cars.
We are not concerned at all with the contracts which were entered into between the Quebec Railway and the city of Quebec. This is not within our jurisdiction. The question arising out of the bill which is before this committee is not that at all. The chairman of the board of transport has expressed a certain doubt as to the power of the Quebec Railway Company to operate buses, and as
1414	COMMONS
Quebec Railway, Light and Power
regards the jurisdiction of the board of transport with respect to buses. Section 2, subsection 21 of the Railway Act, defines a railway. The word "autobuses" is not included. Therefore it was deemed advisable for the Quebec Railway Company to come to parliament to seek authority to operate buses. The committee is not asked to determine the contracts or the privileges or the exclusive franchises of the city of Quebec, in connection with buses. This is not within our jurisdiction, and parliament and this committee are not asked to determine that point. Parliament is asked only to grant to the Quebec Railway Company authority to operate buses if the city of Quebec in its wisdom desires to substitute buses for street cars.
My learned friend, the hon. member for Temiscouata suggested that there was an amphibious jurisdiction. This must be the offspring of his fertile imagination. There is no jurisdiction. Parliament has created a corporation. In any statutory corporation there must be distinguished the authority and the power. Authority and power are not the same thing. I have the authority to buy any real estate in Montreal, but I may not have the purchasing power to buy it. I am entitled to buy it if I like, but I may not have the power. When parliament created the Quebec Railway it gave it the authority to operate but it did not give it the power. Section 10, subsection 4 of the act, stated:
No power or authority granted or authorized under the provisions of this section shall be exercised within the limits of the jurisdiction of the city of Quebec, the Quebec north shore turnpike trustees or any municipality respectively, except with the prior consent in each and every case of such city, trustees or municipality respectively, and upon such conditions as they may severally consent to and agree upon.
Therefore there is no exclusive power. There is only the constitution or creation of a corporation with the authority to operate provided they get power from the municipal authority. So to-night we are not called upon to determine whether there will be exclusive jurisdiction or exclusive power or exclusive privilege and franchise; we are simply called upon to give the authority to the Quebec Railway to operate autobuses or other buses-trolley buses-if the city of Quebec desires to have buses in lieu of the street railway.
I should like to draw the attention of the committee to this point. In committee we added to the end of section 1 the following words:
Subject to all provincial and municipal enactments in respect to highways and motor vehicles operated thereon, and applicable thereto.

Therefore no jurisdiction on the highways is being affected by this bill. If they operate autobuses they will be subject to the public utilities commission of the province of Quebec, and their rates will be subject to the regulations of that body. Moreover, provision is made in the bill as amended to make sure that there is no encroachment on provincial jurisdiction.


Ernest Lapointe: Was the city of Quebec represented before the committee?


Thomas Vien: The city of Quebec was represented before the committee.


Jean-François Pouliot: By the chief counsel.


Thomas Vien: Mr. Nadeau, the chief legal officer of the city of Quebec, appeared before the committee and stated that the company and the city had entered into a contract for the operation of buses in lieu of street-cars; both parties are quite agreeable to it, and the people of Quebec appear to be quite satisfied with the system. Be that as it may, this is not determined by this bill.


Ernest Lapointe: Was there anybody there objecting?


Thomas Vien: Nobody except the hon. member for Temiscouata, who lives some eighty or a hundred miles, or maybe two hundred miles, away.


Jean-François Pouliot: It is not a question of where I live; it is a question of what I see in the form of bad legislation, and I am strongly objecting to it.


Mr. DEPUTY  CHAIRMAN@: Order.


Thomas Vien: I have no objection to the hon. member for Temiscouata objecting to the bill. He is entitled to do so. But I say that the people of Quebec appeared to be unanimous in their approval of the substitution of buses for street cars. But we are not determining that point at all. We are giving to the Quebec Railway the authority, not the power, to operate buses if they and the city come to an agreement in connection therewith. The company is bound to come to parliament. There is no authority other than that of the dominion parliament, because the Quebec Railway is a creation of the dominion parliament and it cannot seek authority elsewhere. It seems that in 1895 the question of buses was not contemplated. Now that buses are necessary and needed, this is the proper forum to come to for the necessary authority. It is an amendment to the Quebec Railway Act a statute of the dominion

0.	Quebec Railway, Light and Power
parliament. The standing committee on railways and canals thought it proper to recommend the bill as amended.


Mr. DANIEL McIVOR (Fort William):: When there is such agreement among lawyers as we find in connection with this bill, I am convinced. We have the solicitor of the city of Quebec, the representative of the law branch of the Department of Transport and the representative of this company, a lawyer, all agreeing, and when three great lawyers agree on a question of this kind I do not think we should waste any more time on it. I am disappointed to-night that this discussion has taken so long because I had a speech ready on the sweepstakes bill, which is an important matter.


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: If this parliament passes amending legislation like this, we shall make a scrap of paper out of every provincial and municipal street railway franchise, which can be paralleled by another rival company.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Thomas Langton Church: I say yes. By this amendment we are conferring a new motor-bus and motor-truck franchise upon this company. The company started as a provincial concern away back in 1895 when it went to the provincial legislature of Quebec and got a charter and an act passed. The incorporation of this company has been declared in eight acts not to be a work for the general advantage of Canada but a purely provincial undertaking. What do we propose to do to-night under this bill? The bill has not been submitted to the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, or to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe), nor has he laid down in the house yet the policy of the government with regard to it. We are simply going to create another franchise over the head of the province of Quebec and over the heads of the many other municipalities in that province where the company operates, because the operations of this company are not confined to the city of Quebec alone. The company operates outside the city in the several municipalities which are set out in three or four pages of the statute of 1895. There is no mention of motor-buses in it.
In 1917 the municipalities had a hard fight in the House of Commons when the general Railway Act was being revised. That fight was for the municipal control of streets throughout Canada. A large number of companies had been coming to this parliament and getting statutes passed, and in that year there was a long fight for the municipal control of streets. I had to be down here to 71492-90
protect our streets from new federal franchises. Now that basic principle is involved in this bill-the principle won in 1917 after a long fight that no company may operate on the streets of Canadian municipalities in, on, along, over or under a highway without the consent of the municipality, yet if we pasf this amendment this company may do so over provincial and municipal rights which are in jeopardy.	.
In connection with this bill, section 8 of chapter 59 of the statutes of 1895 does not give the company any such powers as they claim. We are told that the purpose of this bill is to clarify section 8, but I submit that a careful reading of the statute of 1895 will refute this contention. A large number of other sections of that statute must be read in conjunction with section 8 and the whole act, and marginal notes as well, to get the intention of the statute. Does this parliament propose to confer charters on purely provincial and municipal undertakings to allow the operation of motor-buses, taxicabs and so on by special federal enactment. If the national railways had been more active a few years ago, there would be no necessity for a bill such as this, and that railway would have got a bus franchise.
This bill confers a new franchise, and various provincial rights have to be considered. The Toronto transportation commission operates motor-buses in all parts of Ontario and gives a provincial service. It operates under provincial charter, using motor-buses, motor-trucks and some taxis with international affiliations and interprovincial services; it had to buy out competition. What would be the position of that concern if this parliament passed the amendment now submitted to us? To give this company an amendment would be, I repeat, simply to override the municipalities in whose territory the company would operate and give this company exclusive jurisdiction. The company would have the whole area forever for the operation of motor-buses for itself, a franchise without consideration by legislation.
This section is supposed to clarify section 8 in order to resolve doubts as to the company's powers to own and operate the necessary autobuses, trolley buses, and so on. But they have no such power by the original charter. No court of law has declared that they have that power and they know they have not. Not by the widest interpretation of chapter 59 of the statutes of 1895 can it be contended that they have any such power. But they are trying to go over the heads of the province of Quebec and the municipalities, seeking a new form of bus franchise



Quebec Railway, Light and Power
from this high court of parliament. If we pass this amendment the transport commission of Canada will have no control over their rates. Moreover, the amendment would have the effect of giving the company radial entrances not only into the city of Quebec but also into other municipalities for motor-buses, trucks and taxicabs and power, light and buses without municipal consent. It would give the company that whole territory, without affording the municipalities any chance whatsoever to be heard before our committees or the Department of Transport.
Is it any wonder that there is an agitation in the country and that people everywhere are wondering what we are doing in this parliament when we flout the municipalities and the provinces in this manner by conferring new charters on such companies; for that is what it amounts to? I repeat, this amendment to section 8 is not a clarification but a new declaration, the conferring of an absolutely new franchise upon the company to operate in and outside the city of Quebec.
It will be seen in the explanatory note that the object of the amendment is to ensure the company's right to provide transportation "in and in the neighbourhood of the city of Quebec," and the purport of these words is set out in eight or nine pages of the parent statute. If they are to have the right to operate motor-buses they should go to the provincial legislature, which has control over highways in that province, for a new franchise. The province built the highways, and yet an effort is being made in this house to allow this company to use the provincial highways of Quebec without any reference to the provincial legislature or the municipalities who have to license these buses.
The bill is objectionable for another reason. What is the purpose of the railway committee but to consider the principle of bills of this description. In my opinion the bill is a gross infringement of provincial and municipal rights. Has the province of Quebec been asked to make representations with regard to this bill, or have the city of Quebec or the other municipalities who are vitally interested made any representations in the matter? Have they been consulted?


Frederick George Sanderson: It is nine o'clock.
Progress reported.



TRADE AGREEMENTS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Mackenzie King that the house

go into committe 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.
Howard Charles Green: Before the house took recess at six o'clock, I had been discussing the effect of the Canada-United States trade agreement and the concessions made by Canada under the United Kingdom-Canada agreement on the lumber industry in British Columbia, which, as I had pointed out, is the greatest industry in our province. I had shown how the empire agreements of 1932 had been benefiting this lumber industry, and I think the situation with regard to these empire agreements was very well summed up by a noted old country man who visited British Columbia last summer at the head of a delegation from the British lumber trade. He was quoted in the Vancouver Province of August 30 as follows:
Warning against any change in the present British tariff preference on British Columbia lumber was uttered here to-day by E. P. Tetsall, leader of the British lumber delegation which was banqueted by the provincial government at the Empress hotel.
Praising the present tariff arrangement which has built Canadian export to Britain, Mr. Tetsall added: "I should regard it as reactionary and a retrograde step if any change were to take place in the conditions under which the trade has grown up and has prospered."
We now come back to the first stage of the lumber bargain with the United States, which came into effect on January 1 of this year. In this first stage Canada plays fairy godmother to the United States in several ways. In the first place, on about one-fifth of the lumber business which the British Columbia industry has built up with the United Kingdom as a result of the empire trade agreements of 1932-which one-fifth, incidentally, is worth several million dollars to British Columbia-this government gives up about three-fifths of the Canadian preference. That means, in the first place, the loss of some of our business to the United States and, in the second place, more highly competitive prices on the business we do not lose. The loss goes right back to the logger and mill worker in British Columbia. Just within the last week or two, wages in many of our leading mills were cut by ten per cent, and we find the logging business down. Then, in reference to the lumber market, we find such information as this, from the Vancouver Province of February 20, just eight days ago:
British inquiries have been active except for " clears."

Canada-United States Trade Agreement
And "clears" are the type of lumber on which Canada has now given up part of her preference.
The second way in which we have been a fairy godmother to the United States is this: On the whole of our lumber business with the West Indies, which has been built up as a result of the empire agreements, involving about fourteen million feet, the preference has been cut from ten per cent to about four per cent. In the third place our business with Australia, New Zealand and South Africa is affected. These dominions were not parties to the recent tripartite negotiations in Washington, and they have yet to make their terms with the United States. Nevertheless the Canadian government has agreed in advance that no objection will be made to Australia, New Zealand and South Africa cutting our preference to the same extent that it has been cut in the British market. I would refer the house to the lumber declaration, which is a schedule to the treaty, found on page 51. I quote:
-the government of Canada will interpose no objection to the reduction by empire governments other than the United Kingdom-
As I have said, that refers to Australia, New Zealand and South Africa.
*-of differential duties now levied on United States lumber to a point at which the margin of preference enjoyed by Canadian lumber will not exceed the duties and taxes now imposed on Canadian lumber on importation into the United States-
As the fourth gift to the United States, Canada agrees to cut her duty on dressed lumber coming from the United States by one-half, to ten per cent, and to keep United States rough lumber on the free list, with no quota in either case. We also agree to remove the three per cent excise tax. That adds up simply to this, that we are giving the United States a part of British Columbia's market for lumber in the prairie provinces.
In return for these gifts to the United States, in the first stage of the lumber bargain that country graciously agrees, in the first place, to remove the quota of 250,000,000 feet a year imposed on Douglas fir and western hemlock. That is the quota which Canada has never yet been able to fill. Just what value lies in that concession can be best explained by reading from an analysis of this treaty by Senator Lewis B. Schwellenbach, who is United States senator from the state of Washington. His analysis will be found in the Timber Worker, published in Seattle, under date of December 10. 1938. With regard to the removal of the quota he has this to say:
When, with all the public construction going on during the last two and one-half years, the 71402-00J
Canadians never exceeded sixty per cent of their quota, the question of the removal of that ceiling is conclusively proved to be immaterial. Any fair-minded person must agree that in this regard no concession was made by our government.
We find a similar statement at page 51 of the United States press release on the agreement with Canada. Dealing again with the quota the United States government said:
The quota fixed in the 1936 agreement on Douglas fir and western hemlock, although representing a relatively small fraction of the domestic consumption, has not been reached by actual imports, which at their maximum, in 1937, were barely sixty per cent of the quota. This was one of the reasons for dropping the quota provision in the new agreement.


Olof Hanson: If I may ask a question, when the hon. member is giving the figures of our exports to the United States would it not be a good idea to tell the house also what lumber Canada buys from the United States? That is reciprocity in one commodity, and I think it would be interesting to give the house that information.


Howard Charles Green: That is not in the line of my speech. If the hon. member wants to have that made clear he can make his own speech.
As the second so-called concession which the United States makes to Canada in the first stage of this lumber bargain, she has agreed to do away with the provision which required Canadian lumber to be marked " made in Canada." This marking provision was a joker put into the United States law by this same Senator Schwellenbach, in the spring of 1938; and I would remind hon. members that this government actually started to negotiate this new treaty away back in 1937. The marking provision came into force in the fall of 1938, just before negotiations were completed. An explanation of that measure will be found at page 400 of the Commercial Intelligence Journal of September 3, 1938, which points out that the law empowered the secretary of the treasury of the United States to except from the marking regulation any imported article, including lumber, subject to a proviso which apparently was put into the United States law by Senator Schwellenbach in the spring of 1938, that such power would not apply after September 1, 1938, to sawed lumber and timber, et cetera, but with this further provision:
-but the president is authorized to suspend the effectiveness of this proviso if he finds such action required to carry out any trade agreement entered into under the authority of the act of June 12, 1934, as extended.
The senator explains it all as follows:
I put this provision into the law. The house committee had refused to accept it, the house
8	.	COMMONS
Canada-United States Trade Agreement
of representatives had refused to adopt it the senate committee had refused to accept it,' and I offered it upon the floor of the United States senate. I finally prevailed upon Senator Walsh of Massachusetts, chairman of the committee to take it to conference. Those who criticized' the treaty know that he succeeded in getting it accepted by the conference only upon the understanding that it probably would be removed through the medium of a treaty.
In other words, it was put in there simply for the purpose of negotiating a treaty. He sums up the value of these so-called concessions that have been given to Canada in the first stage of the lumber bargain as follows:
In the preceding two paragraphs I have outlined in full all the concessions that were granted to the Canadians so far as the lumber industry is concerned. Any honest and fair-minded individual must admit that they amount to nothing.
I think it may fairly foe said that under the first stage of the lumber bargain Canada does all the giving and none of the taking. And this first stage continues in force for the life of the agreement; in other words, it is in force for three years, unless the United States congress chooses to bring the second stage into effect, by dropping the import excise tax of $1.50 a thousand. This excise tax was imposed under the Revenue Act of 1932 for a period of one year, and was renewed for periods of two years each in 1933, 1935 and 1937, so it expires at the end of June of this year. For this possible concession, which is the only one the United States makes in the second stage of the lumber bargain-and which would still leave our lumber subject to a duty of fifty cents a thousand, whereas from 1913 to 1930 it went in free-the British Columbia lumberman, logger, mill worker and employee in the dependent industries pay an added price. First of all, on the one-fifth of our lumber business with the United Kingdom, on which the Canadian preference is now cut by three-fifths, we give up the preference entirely. In other words, we let the other two-fifths go. And we also give it up entirely on a further one-fifth. This means that Canada loses her preference completely on about two-fifths of our lumber business with the United Kingdom.
In the next place, on the whole of our lumber business with the West Indies we give up the preference completely.


Olof Hanson: I should like the privilege of asking the hon. member a question.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


An hon. MEMBER:: Read it to-morrow.


Howard Charles Green: If I have time at the end of
my speech I shall be glad to answer.


Robert James Manion: Let the hon. member make his own speech.


Walter Edward Foster: The hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) has the floor, and must not be interrupted, unless he gives consent.


Howard Charles Green: I have already said that if I have time at the end of my speech I shall be glad to answer the hon. member's questions.


Robert James Manion: After the forty minutes.


Howard Charles Green: As for the whole of the
lumber business which we have built up with Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, we find that in the second stage of the lumber bargain we' are already bound to concur in any request from those dominions for permission to give the United States the same treatment by way of duty as that country gives to Canada. In other words, we bind ourselves to concur in a request for a reduction of our preference to fifty cents a thousand. On this point I continue from the point where I left off in my earlier quotation from the lumber declaration:
And that when, and for so long as, the United States import excise tax ceases to apply to lumber imported from Canada, Canada will concur in any request it may receive from such empire government for the extension to United States lumber of the tariff treatment enjoyed by Canadian lumber.
This business represents millions of dollars to British Columbia.
I would point out that Canada is tied down now for the second stage of the lumber bargain, while the United States is free to enter into it, or not, just as she wishes. In other words, the second stage is left entirely in the hands of the United States, and the British Columbia lumber industry is left in the air.
This is the sort of quagmire one falls into through over-anxiety to make an agreement. The government, in its attitude towards this Canada-United States agreement, and the concessions made by Canada under the Canada-United Kingdom agreement, brings to my mind the small boy who tries to play marbles with two bigger boys and gives away all his marbles just to make a good fellow of himself. I am afraid that is just what this government has done, so far as the lumber industry in British Columbia is concerned.


William Daum Euler: They do not seem to object, out there.


Olof Hanson: The hon. member is not familiar with it.


Howard Charles Green: I thought that would make him rise. If there is to be any fairness at all

Canada-United States Trade Agreement
in the lumber bargain for British Columbia, then this second stage should be brought into effect. Even then we shall not be compensated for the sacrifices we have made in the first stage and those we shall have to make in the second stage. But I again suggest to the government that they should point out right now to the government of the United States the unfairness of leaving the lumber bargain in the first stage, and should press for the bringing into effect of the second stage by the removal of the import excise tax, as a matter of common decency between nations. Until this step is taken, the work of this government on the Canada-United States agreement is not finished.
Now, if the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Hanson) would like to ask a question, I shall try to answer it.


Olof Hanson: I understand from what the hon. member has said that we should tell the United States we do not want to sell lumber to them at all.


Walter Edward Foster: The hon. member is
allowed only to put a question, and not to make a speech.


Olof Hanson: I am not making a speech.


Howard Charles Green: If the hon. member would put his observations in the form of a question I should be glad to answer him. I did not quite catch what he was trying to say.


Robert James Manion: Continue with your speech.


William Daum Euler: He has finished.


Olof Hanson: Does the hon. member suggest to the government that the treaty, so far as lumber is concerned, is no good? I would ask the hon. member to state what lumber Canada buys from the United States? We have a supply of lumber we want to sell somewhere, and the United States is the logical market, as the hon. member knows.


Mr. PERLEY:: What is the question?


Olof Hanson: The home market in
Canada will not take our lumber.


Howard Charles Green: What is the question?


Walter Edward Foster: Order.


William Daum Euler: May I ask the hon. member a question? How does he account for the fact-and it is a fact-that the British Columbia lumbermen who are most closely affected by the agreement have approved it, and have not made the objections the hon. member has made?


Thomas Reid: Every one of them.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, in the first
place the lumber industry of British Columbia
is looking at the agreement from the point of view that the second stage will be brought into effect. In my speech I have tried to urge upon the government that it leave no stone unturned to see that the second stage is made effective. Without it I am quite certain no person in British Columbia will have any use for the agreement. One good example of what is happening in the first stage is the fact that wages have already been cut ten per cent in portions of the industry.


Olof Hanson: Wages have not been cut.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Olof Hanson: We must pay the minimum wage.
Mr, GREEN: The other reasons why some of the representatives of the lumber industry have given approval to the agreement are these: They thought it was going to be a good deal worse than it is; in other words, they expected sudden death, and instead of that they are getting slow poison. Then, they realized that they might as well take it and like it. In the third place they are in the hands of this government; there are other treaties being negotiated all the time; other treaties will be coming up; why should the lumber industry antagonize the government, when the deal is closed, by saying, "we do not like it; we have no use for the government?"
Finally, let me say that the gentleman who wrote the letter quoted the other day by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler) is one of the strongest supporters of the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid).


Mr. H. A. McKENZIE (Lambton-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I had intended speaking at length in this debate in connection with the trade treaty; but after listening to the speeches delivered during the past ten days in this house, I have decided to change my tactics and I shall content myself with making only a few remarks. I believe almost every angle of this trade treaty has been covered, and any further speeches could hardly help but be repetitious.
The question of trade vitally affects Canada, and rightly so. Listening to the speeches in the house, I am firmly convinced that we all believe in trade and trade treaties. Treaties must always be made on the principle of give and take; some concessions must be granted as well as benefits received. But it must be admitted that Canada has achieved an enviable position, because we are now in fourth position among the exporting nations of the world. No one can deny that prosperity is built on trade, both internal and external, and the more business each country
1420	COMMONS
Canada-United. States Trade Agreement
does, the better it will be for everyone. Many extravagant statements have been made both for and against the treaty, but I cannot see any benefit in discussing this matter any further. Time alone will tell of its merits and demerits. There has been the usual taking of sides in this debate, with parties lining up solidly either for or against the treaty. It seems strange to me that the members of one party should all oppose the treaty, while the members of another party should all be in favour. In order to prove their points they have quoted from certain newspapers. Many United States newspapers have been quoted during the debate. Those papers which were anti-government have contended that the farmers of the United States have been sold down the river, but other newspapers take the opposite view and say that the United States is going to get into the Canadian market. I contend that these references do not mean anything.
The average citizen is not particularly interested in political speeches, but he will be elated if these trade treaties bring more prosperity. I am satisfied that the government have made a comprehensive study of the probable results of this trade treaty. The three men who represented Canada in connection with negotiating this trade treaty were the best qualified men we have. I do not subscribe to the contention of the opposition that Americans are such good traders that Canada was bound to get the worst of the deal. Surely a bargain to the mutual advantage of both countries was possible.
I should like to give a brief history of the three men who carried out the negotiations for this trade treaty. Mr. H. B. McKinnon, commissioner of tariffs, was appointed to the tariff board in 1926. He was one of the officials who took part in the economic conference held at Ottawa in 1932, when the first Canadian-United Kingdom treaty was negotiated. Mr. L. D. Wilgress has been with the Department of Trade and Commerce since 1914. He has represented Canada as a trade commissioner at various points in Europe, including some years in Russia and Germany. Mr. Norman Robertson, first secretary in the Department of External Affairs, was appointed to that department in 1929. These gentlemen took part in the economic conference at Ottawa in 1932, at which time the first United Kingdom-Canada treaty was negotiated.
When the first Canada-United States trade treaty was negotiated in 1935, these three gentlemen represented Canada at Washington They were sent to England in 1936 when the United Kingdom trade agreement was revised, and they were again Canada's representatives at the negotiation of the trade treaty we are now discussing in the house. These gentlemen were ten months in Washington negotiating this trade treaty. They were in daily communication with the ministers at Ottawa and had at their disposal all the information available in the departments. They were quite able to judge the benefits or disadvantages of the treaty. It is quite true, as was stated this afternoon by the hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Homuth), that these men were sent by this government to negotiate the agreement. However, from what the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler) says, I am satisfied that no legitimate business in Canada will be injured by this treaty. Markets for our primary products are of great consideration to a country like Canada, with only about 11,000,000 people and yet possessing vast natural resources. If these treaties give us a wider market for our lumber, fish, pulp, potatoes, minerals, live stock and dairy products, and they will, then our secondary industries also will profit, as will Canada as a whole.
If I recall correctly the remarks of the hon. member for Waterloo South, he stated that no one had spoken for the industrial worker of this country. I do not think that is a fair statement to make. I think every Canadian is interested in the industrial workers of this country, but we cannot get away from the fact that the primary producer produces and the rest of the people derive their livelihood by exchanging their goods and services for the products of the primary producer. Until the primary producer is in a prosperous state, we cannot expect to have economic prosperity in Canada.
These treaties are already in operation, and there can be no further point in discussing them in this house. I cannot see the value of some of the speeches that have been delivered during this debate. This afternoon the hon. member for Waterloo South said that this government was living in the past. I am not so sure of that. I can recall a speech delivered this week by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan), and if he did not go back into the hoary past, then I do not know who did. I cannot remember back to the point at which he first started; for I do not believe I was born then, but when his forty minutes were up he was at least eight years away from the date of the trade treaty under discussion. I well recall the cry against the reciprocity pact in 1911. At that time the slogan was: "No truck or trade with the Yankees." Again in 1936 many people saw ruin and desolation because of the trade agreement which had

Canada-United, States Trade Agreement
been negotiated. I can well recall, when the $100 exemption was under discussion in this house, how the members of the opposition painted a picture of Canadians going into the United States and bringing back so many goods that all the border industries would be ruined. I looked into this matter along the St. Clair river in December, 1937, and I found that- very few people brought back the full $100 worth of exemptions.
It is the same old cry of ruin and desolation that is being raised. We all remember the story of the boy who cried "wolf" when there was no wolf. Such a cry may appeal for a while, but I feel sure the Canadian people will not be unduly alarmed about the story of the terrible ruination that is going to come upon the country. It is true we criticize each other, and probably we always shall, but at heart we want the same things. We want to preserve our freedom and liberty, not only for ourselves and for our children, but for our children's children. These trade pacts have the tendency to bring democratic countries closer together as trading units. I was greatly interested in the remarks of the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lawson) when he spoke in Essex the other day. He said that this parliament had been in session for six weeks, and he wanted to know what the government had done.


An hon. MEMBER:: Nothing.


Mr. McICENZIE (Lambton-Kent):: Nothing was said as to who is responsible for that. I think the hon. member himself must take some responsibility for it. He knows that the government summons parliament, but the opposition says when it shall be prorogued. I am not going to debate this matter very long because I think we have talked it out. The treaty is in operation and we cannot change it. Why prolong this debate any further? If freedom of speech is one of the bulwarks of democracy, let us not play it to death in this House of Commons. I think we shall have to change our tactics if this House of Commons is to continue under our present constitution. I am quite convinced, and I am sure that other hon. members are likewise convinced, that at least half the business of the country could have been done by this time if we had not wanted to make political speeches in this House of Commons.
I am not going to be a sinner in that respect myself. We cannot change the trade pacts, so why debate the subject any longer? That is the attitude I take.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Mr. Speaker, ever since this resolution was introduced into the house I have felt the utter
futility of trying to offer any suggestion that might be adopted by the government with a view to improving the trade treaty to be founded on the resolution now before the house, and I can say that, too, for every one of the 245 members of this House of Commons. Not one of us can raise his voice in this house to change by one iota the trade treaty that will be introduced as soon as this resolution is passed. I have often heard the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) speak about this high court of parliament. But in my judgment it is nothing but a travesty on democracy that 245 members of this House of Commons cannot say a single, solitary word to alter one line of this treaty in any shape or form.


William Daum Euler: That was the case in 1932.


John Ritchie MacNicol: No, it was not the case
in 1932, but it was the case in 1936 under this government.


William Daum Euler: We did not change one
word of the Ottawa agreements.


John Ritchie MacNicol: My hon. friends opposite may not have changed it because there was not sufficient argument put up to change it, but this treaty cannot be changed no matter what argument is put up. I call it nothing but a farce of governing that we are enduring under the present circumstances.


An hon. MEMBER:: It is a good thing
the hon. member cannot change it.


John Ritchie MacNicol: 
William Daum Euler: I do not care to interrupt my hon. friend, but will he permit a question?


John Ritchie MacNicol: I do not want to waste too much time.


William Daum Euler: It is just this. Does my hon. friend argue that we should make an entirely prohibitive tariff, whether it be on potatoes, shoes, or anything else?


John Ritchie MacNicol: I am not in favour of a prohibitory tariff, but I am in favour of the Canadian shoe manufacturer having a square deal, and that is what he is not getting under the present tariff, negotiated by the present government.
The minister said something about the importation of shoes under the $100 exemption. In the last ten months of 1938 $740,000 worth of shoes were imported under that exemption. That is a large number of shoes. It is equivalent to the employment of some seventy-five men in the shoe factories of Canada; and that is something not to be laughed at.


William Daum Euler: I am not laughing at it.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I shall raise my voice at every opportunity in favour of labour obtaining jobs, and I am entirely opposed to any tariff or regulation which throws men out of work. The minister said that the quantity of shoes imported was only about li per cent of the total production of shoes in Canada.


William Daum Euler: Less than two per cent.


John Ritchie MacNicol: But that li per cent must be multiplied many times because of the nature of the shoes imported. By far the largest percentage of shoes consumed in Canada is of the ordinary type worn by persons like ourselves and workers throughout the country. The shoes imported are of another type, usually worn by ladies and girls. On Saturday I was told in Toronto that the big shoe merchants there have made a survey by sending observers to Buffalo on Saturdays and holidays to observe the purchases of shoes by Toronto women in that city. They say that these purchases are of a staggering amount and that they are not correctly reported in 'the numbers which come in under the $100 exemption. The last time I drove over Detroit bridge there were four cars containing a number of us who were coming back from Chicago. I drove first and went to the customs house. The officer asked me if I had anything to declare. I said no. I do not as a
rule buy anything in the United States. The other three were not asked anything, yet everyone of them was loaded with articles he had bought. It was not my business to say what other people had in their cars.


William Daum Euler: The reduction in tariff does not affect that. They came in free.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The $100 exemption does, and that is what they are all working on. Many people do not declare what they have bought. They say " What is the use of declaring? I haven't a hundred dollars' worth." When the minister was questioned with reference to shoes, he said some compensation might be given to shoe manufacturers by lowering the duties on some of their raw products. That is the vicious circle which runs through this whole business. This government has put one manufacturer against another. They lower the duty on one product; the person who is affected by the lower duty comes here and asks for a further concession, and so it has gone on all over Canada. The whole manufacturing fabric of this country to-day is, as was said this afternoon, jittery. They do not know what to do. If there were an election in progress I have no doubt they would say a great deal, but they are too scared and panicky as to what may be done in the course of the budget. After that is over, I imagine that these gentlemen will start to talk a great deal.
There are many things I could say about the furniture problem. Somebody referred to it this afternoon re these duties. I want to congratulate the minister upon the fact that in the present treaty he lowered the tariff a mere bagatelle on furniture. The recent tariff has been thirty per cent, and then an excise tax of three per cent.


William Daum Euler: A reduction of 1J per cent,
I think.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Duty and excise tax on $100 raise it to $133.30. For the new furniture tariff the minister deserves some credit; the schedule itself is raised from 30 to 32| per cent, and with the excise tax taken off, $100 worth amounts to $132.50. The furniture manufacturers are told, "we are going to let machinery in for a little less duty, but there may be a reduction on your paints and one thing and another"-the same vicious circle. I protest against it just as strongly as I can. It is attacking one manufacturer through another, and by attacking one manufacturer after another, driving men out of work in the factories which manufacture these lines of materials. For instance, last year $742,000 worth of furniture was imported from the United States. That is equivalent to the labour
1424	COMMONS
Canada-United, States Trade Agreement
of 350 men, I am told. It would look pretty good to have 350 men working in the factories at Kitchener. If they had work for 350 men in Strathroy, it might be possible to re-start the factory which went out of business; or if they could find work for 350 men in the McLagan factory at Stratford which is stopped, it might be started up again.
In addition to the importation of $742,000 worth of furniture last year, a considerable amount-it is hardly distinguishable how much -came in under the $100 exemption. Furniture, I notice, is linked up with household appliances, of which some $756,000 worth entered Canada in eight months; it will probably amount to a million dollars in the twelve months. Probably that would mean the importation of half a million dollars' worth of furniture. A large number of men will have lost their jobs on that account. As I said a moment ago, the government proposes to try to fix matters up by lowering duties on other lines, and here, too, we have a vicious circle. One form of production after another is attacked from one end of the country to the other. Is it any wonder that we have unemployment in Toronto and other centres? Just wait until the weather improves, and I have no doubt that the unemployment parade which will come to this city of Ottawa will stagger everyone and will outdo anything that has ever occurred in that line.
The Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ilsley) gave four reasons for supporting this treaty. I shall not mention them all. The first is, that it is to facilitate rather than to obstruct the making of the agreement between the United Kingdom and the United States. The next two reasons are along the same lines; the fourth one does not say anything about labour, either. I would say that when the government makes a treaty, the thing it should keep before it above anything else is what that treaty will mean in the matter of unemployment in this country. The government has not done that. That is one thing it has entirely forgotten. In by far the majority of cases the provisions of the treaty will affect the labour market from one end of the dominion to the other. The Minister of National Revenue also said that we are not directly affected by Great Britain's protectionism to any more than a small extent because she lets most of our products into her markets free of duty. He might have added that now she is going to let United States wheat into her markets free of duty. This country gets it from every angle and gets the wrong end of the angle every time.
When the Minister of National Revenue was speaking on February 21, something was said about apples. On Saturday last I over-

heard an interesting conversation on this subject. The minister said that he had no complaints from his province, Nova Scotia, with reference to the tariff on apples. At that time he did have complaints. Last Saturday I came down in an elevator in a Toronto building with two gentlemen, one of whom knew me. He called me by name, and then he said, "we were just discussing the tariff schedules in connection with apples. This gentleman," he said, "comes from Nova Scotia and is an apple packer." I said, "Don't give me his name because I might be asked in the House of Commons what it is." Not having his name I cannot give it. He told me, however, that representations had been made to the government, and on that date the minister must have known all about the representations. I assume he did know because in his speech he makes a statement with reference to compensation. He does not use that word and perhaps I had better read what he says:
. . . on some of their supplies, particularly on spraying and dusting materials and fertilizers, and upon agricultural implements, including spraying and other orcharding machinery from which the 3 per cent special excise tax is to be removed.
He intimates that the apple producer will receive some concession, and I say again that we have the same vicious circle. You attack one producer and in trying to compensate him you attack another; that is why from one end of the country to the other employment is diminishing all the time.
I wish to discuss for a moment the remarks of the hon. member for Prince (Mr. MacLean), because I interrupted him when he referred to the policy adopted by the Conservative party at its convention. At page 1208 of Hansard he is reported as having said:
_ When the Conservative convention was held in Ottawa and the new leader was chosen, they adopted a resolution stating that the party stands by its old principle of high protection.
I interjected that it was not so, and I think it would be in order to read the policy of the Conservative party in connection with protection, as adopted at the national convention :
This national Conservative convention declares its continued adherence to its traditional policy of fostering and sustaining by fiscal protection Canadian labour and Canadian industries, and especially the primary industries of agriculture, fisheries, forestry and mining, all of which are essential to the maintenance of a well-balanced national economy, while, at the same time, guarding against undue advantage being taken of the protection so afforded.
That was one means of protection that the last Conservative government took in connection with the tariff. They did not write

Canada-United States Trade Agreement
it on the basis that the height of the tariff was the whole concern; but the object was to prevent the exploitation of the consumer, and therefore they made agreements with the manufacturers not to enhance prices if they were given an opportunity to manufacture in this country. In my opinion that principle should be embodied in any tariff policy adopted in this country. It goes on:
It also affirms its adherence to the underlying principles of that policy, which have served to stimulate the development of the natural resources of Canada, to preserve and to enlarge the domestic markets for Canadian products, to promote interprovincial trade, and, generally, to provide a diversified economic life which will serve to retain Canada's sons and daughters within our own boundaries.
That is one of the bases of the Conservative party's policy, whereas one of the results of the trade treaties which this government has now negotiated has been to cause unemployment in very large measure, and the unemployed remain in Canada only because they cannot enter the United States.
This convention affirms the policy of having tariff schedules under scientific investigation by a permanent tariff commission and that, in case it is ascertained that unfair advantage is being taken of any customs duties imposed by such schedules, the tariff commission shall make recommendations, to which effect shall be given by the government, for reducing such rates of duty or for removing them from the tariff schedules.
This convention affirms its firm adherence to the policy of preferential trade within the British commonwealth of nations, by which Canada obtained the boon of tariff preferences in the markets of the United Kingdom and of other dominions, and which have served to mitigate the severity of the trade depression during recent years, and which -were approved by parliament, despite the bitter, determined and prolonged opposition of the Liberal party.
This convention is convinced that the permanent interests of Canada are best conserved by enlarging our markets-
I have heard someone say that we do not want markets. Our platform says:
-by enlarging our markets in the United Kingdom and other British dominions, whose products are more complementary than competitive with those of this country, and with which our trade agreements are more likely to be durable and beneficial.
This convention believes that the external trade of Canada may also be increased advantageously by the negotiation on a fair and equitable basis

That is what we say the present treaty does not do. It is not fair to Canada, certainly not to the Canadian manufacturer and the Canadian workmen in the factory.
-of trade agreements with countries which are outside of the British empire, but that in negotiations with foreign countries, the _ terms agreed upon should not be such as to impair the benefits derived by Canada under existing
agreements between Canada and the United Kingdom and between Canada and other British dominions.
That is the Conservative platform. The hon. member for Prince made this statement, which I shall also take time to explode:
I tell my hon. friends that the prohibitive tariff imposed by that government-
That is the Bennett government.

threw more people out of jobs than any other thing that ever happened.
Other hon. gentlemen who are not familiar with industry and employment have made the same statement. What are the facts? Under the Bennett government from January 1, 1933, to January 1, 1935, the index of employment rose as follows, 1926 being 100:
Year	Index number
1933		 78-5
1934		 88-6
1935		 94-4
I suggest that we should continue to January 1, 1936, because the present government did not come into office until October or November, 1935. On the first of January, 1936, the index figure of employment was 99-1. In other words, there was a gain of 20-6 that is 26-2 per cent. Now take the present government. What has been the gain, taking January 1 in each case?
Year	Index number
1937		 103-08
1938		 U3-4
1939		 108-1
That is to say, there was a gain of 4-1 per cent.


William Daum Euler: Why not go back to 1930 instead of beginning with 1932?


John Ritchie MacNicol: My hon. friend in speaking of shoes was not fair, nor was he fair in regard to furniture. The suggestion he has just made is an unfair one because he knows that from 1930 to 1932, during the first two years of our term of office, the world was in the middle of the greatest depression it had ever known. But from 1932 conditions began to improve, though I am sorry to say they have started to recede under the agreements of 1935, and the recession may be still greater under the present treaty. The Canada Year Book for 1937 states that, from 1932 to 1935, 159 more establishments were started in Canada, principally as a result of the Bennett tariff, and 88,971 more persons were employed. Breaking that down, I find that in the textile industry from 1933 to 1935 there was an increase in personnel of 14,464; in the iron and steel products industry an increase in personnel of 24,479; and in wood and wood products in the same period, an increase in
1426	COMMONS
Canada-United States Trade Agreement
personnel of 18,243. My hon. friend is evidently not familiar with industry and employment when he tries to make out that during our term of office there was not an increase in employment. There was a recession until 1932 or 1933, but after that there was a continuous increase. I could give other figures.
The hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) said something about employment increasing in Windsor. I wish it were, but I am sorry to say it is not. The figures for employment for Windsor as at January 1, 1937, showed an index of 152-9; and as at January 1, 1938, 148-9. In December, 1937, it was 153-1, and December, 1938, 142-2, or a loss during 1938 of from 148-9 to 142-2.
I was talking to a motor-car manufacturer in Toronto on Saturday-and he comes from Windsor, by the way-who told me that if the treaty affects the industry as they are afraid it will, within a very short time the motor-car industry of Canada will be reduced to three or four plants, at most.
I should now like to submit some further figures to show the reduction in employment that has resulted from the 1935 trade treaty, in order to give an idea as to what will happen as a result of the 1938 treaty. During 1938 unemployment figures were as follows:
May.. .. June.. .. July.. .. August.. . September October.. November. December.
400.000
387.000
407.000
368.000
346.000
378.000
398.000
472.000
That does not speak veiy well of the trade treaty negotiated in 1935.
I should now like to show the increase in
the number of unemployed wage earners in comparable months of 1938 and 1937, taking 1926 as equalling 100. The figures are as follows;
May	 327
June	 294
July	 277
August	 245
September.. ..	225
October	 242
November.. ..	291
December .. ..	381
	Increase in
1938	unemployment
	per sent
400	22-3
387	31-6
407	46-9
368	50-2
346	53.7
378	56-2
398	36-7
472	23-8
I would ask anyone who may speak from the government side to tell us why they should negotiate another trade treaty after the first treaty caused such a disaster in
regard to employment. I think that should be brought out. I could continue with many other figures to back up what I have said,

but my time is passing and I want to say a word of praise in regard to one item. This is brought to my mind by what I thought was a contemptuous statement made by the hon. member for Huron North (Mr. Deach-man) in regard to employment in connection with the pitting of dates. The government has reduced the duty on unpitted dates to one-half cent a pound, which should increase employment in this country. For the benefit of my hon. friend from Huron North I may say that as a result of the original attempt to provide employment in the pitting of dates in this country almost a thousand girls were employed at that work, earning twelve, thirteen or fourteen dollars a week. Employment is rather low now, but I hope that as a result of this reduction some further employment may be given.
I should now like to say a word about the piano industry. I know a number of people engaged in that business, and in discussing this matter with them on Saturday one of them handed me a letter he had received. I believe the minister has a copy of it, and perhaps he has in mind some regulation which will overcome the difficulty to which I am going to refer. The government has reduced the duty on pianos and in addition has taken off the safeguard whereby, no matter what may have been the actual price, for duty purposes a piano was estimated to be worth at least $75. Through the slashing of and tinkering with the tariff by Liberal governments the piano industry has been so reduced that now there are only about six plants remaining in Canada, in New Westminster, Toronto, Clinton, Kingston, Montreal and St. Therese. Formerly there were a great many piano factories in this country, employing large numbers of men, but the industry has been shot to pieces because our market has been flooded with goods from other countries. Listen to this letter to piano dealers in Canada from a firm in New York:
For instance, we will furnish twenty-one pianos, harnessed to the car, at $500 or $600 for the entire lot. In both cases the pianos would be unrepaired uprights and the difference of one hundred dollars allows for the quality of the instruments, by which we do not mean to infer that you would not be getting an excellent buy at the $500 price but as you know, there are all grades of pianos and one hundred dollars leeway on twenty-one would permit us to send you very excellent instruments. Similarly, we can furnish you with guaranteed good player pianos thoroughly gone over, at $55 each, in single lots-
The minister has not yet told parliament how he is going to stop that; but fancy it, twenty-one pianos coming into this country for S500.

Canada-United States Trade Agreement


William Daum Euler: Would my hon. friend permit me to ask a question?


John Ritchie MacNicol: My time is passing
rapidly; no doubt hon. members opposite would like to take up some of it, but I must hurry on. All along the line this treaty is going to bring about reductions in employment. Within the last few days I spoke to a gentleman who in 1932 had four hundred men employed in his plant. As a result of the 1935 treaty that number was cut down, and now he foresees nothing but the closing of his plant. His employees have been reduced to some 275. I believe, and he expects that within a reasonable length of time he will close the plant entirely and buy from the parent plant in the United States what he requires for the Canadian market. Any treaty that will close up a plant-and this is only one of scores and scores of plants-and throw the employees on the labour market is, in my judgment, certainly not a good treaty.


An hon. MEMBER:: Time.


John Ritchie MacNicol: No, my time is not up
yet. Some speakers have referred to the press release issued by the United States government in connection with the present treaty, before it went into operation. I should like to quote a little from the press release issued by the United States government after the 1935 treaty was in operation, in which they say:
These trade increases were widely distributed among many classes of American producers, and were most notable in . . . cotton and rayon piece goods and wearing apparel; furniture; periodicals, advertising pamphlets and printed matter and various paper products; automotive products, including tractors; radios, refrigerators and other elrotrical apparatus; electroplated ware; a wide range of machinery and implements, agricultural and industrial; and in metal products generally.
I have been associated with the metal industry for a long time, and this is one thing that gives me a great deal of concern. I want to laugh when someone on the opposite side talks about the increase in our exports of industrial products to the United States. In 1938 our exports of iron products of all kinds to the United States amounted to $4,000,000, while our imports of the same kind of materials amounted to $134,000,000. It is not of much assistance to the iron industry of Canada to enact tariffs that reduce employment in practically every iron industry in Canada and which at the same time increase employment in United States factories to the extent to which a favourable balance of $130,000,000 will provide employment over there. Much of that money should have been spent in this country to furnish employment here.
I think I have time to refer just a little further to the results of the trade treaty. What is to be charged up to your former trade treaty? Your former trade treaty had thrown many thousands of men out of work. Your new trade treaty will throw thousands more in industry out of work. In that way you reduce the market for the primary producer.


Robert James Manion: And hit the farmer, as well.


John Ritchie MacNicol: What does the press say about employment in Canada, as a result of this government's tariff tinkering? I shall read only the headings, because I have not time for more. The first reads: "Youth urged to demand jobs from government." Youth will never get them from the present government, when its actions are resulting in throwing multitudes out of work.
And the next: "Youth unemployment is termed emergency by Brantford rally." Of course. And the present tariff will affect many more in Brantford.
And the next:	"Youths' gaoling called
terrible." Of course. The gaols are half full of youths who would never be there if they could get enough to do. How can they get anything to do when the factories from one end of Canada to the other are closing?
And the next: "Service clubs join in task. Joint committee is formed to seek immediate steps by government to meet unemployment problem." They have a fat chance of having this government do anything in connection with the unemployment problem.
And the next: "Relief cost shows jump-"


Mr. PLAXTON:: What did you do between 1930 and 1935?


John Ritchie MacNicol: If you were in your seat- which you are not, very often-


Hugh John Plaxton: I came in particularly to listen to you.


John Ritchie MacNicol: -you would have heard me say a short time ago that in various lines of business many thousands of men were given additional employment between 1930 and 1935. If you had been here you would have heard that.


Hugh John Plaxton: I heard it.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I might say, since you have said that, that if the present government wishes to do anything for unemployment, let
1428	COMMONS
Canada-United States Trade Agreement
them make, in the John Inglis Company plant, $6,000,000, $8,000,000, or $10,000,000 worth of the tractors they are importing.


Hugh John Plaxton: The plant which you wanted closed down.


William Daum Euler: Who took the duties off tractors?


John Ritchie MacNicol: That is not the point. If I were the Minister of Finance I would put a duty on.


William Daum Euler: The Conservative government took it off.


John Ritchie MacNicol: And I would see that the price was not enhanced, either. Different manufacturers tell me, if they could get a market for them, they can make tractors by the thousands for less than people are now paying in the United States.


William Daum Euler: Who took the duty off?


John Ritchie MacNicol: The duty is meant to give employment. The government can regulate the price just the same as the Bennett government did.
To continue with the clippings: "Extra 1,000 sought relief at Owen Sound last year."


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


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I have just about finished.


Mr. CRERAR:: Finish it.


Mr. POWER:: This is good stuff.


Frederick George Sanderson: Only with the unanimous consent of the house.


John Ritchie MacNicol: All right, I shall not proceed; I do not wish to impose.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Unanimous consent.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go ahead.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Well, I have just about finished. I was going to add that on January 29, 1939, the Reverend Doctor Peter Bryce, well known to a good many welfare workers in Toronto, had this to say, after making a survey:
I assert that the situation in Toronto at the present moment is the most serious I have known in my thirty years' residence.
That is the truth.
What has this government done for employment? What did the treaty of 1935 do for employment, when we know that conditions in Toronto to-day are worse than they have been for thirty years? It is all wrong for
[Mr. MacNicol.l
members to talk about conditions improving, when they cannot back up their statement with figures.
Then, what did the premier of Ontario say?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I knew my hon. friends would like to hear that.


Frederick George Sanderson: Order.


John Ritchie MacNicol: He said:
I see no relief from the burden in sight. I am frank in confessing I don't know just where to head in on this problem.


Frederick George Sanderson: Order.


An hon. MEMBER:: You don't want to hear from him.


Mr. THOMPSON:: Can't take it.


Frederick George Sanderson: Order.


Mr. J. C. LANDERYOU (Calgary East):: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I listened to the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Glen) and heard him make the statement that social credit was not doing so well in Alberta. May I suggest to the hon. member that it is the Liberal party that is not doing so well in Alberta, and that there had been a greater reduction in unemployment in Alberta than there has been in the province from which the hon. member comes. There has been more money invested in industry and in building in Alberta than has been invested or spent in building or in construction in the hon. member's province.


Olof Hanson: What kind of money?


John Charles Landeryou: And not only that, but the cash position of Alberta is better than that of the province from which the hon. member for Marquette comes.
Many references have been made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and other members of the government to the success of the Liberal party in the elections of 1935, and to their success in the by-elections which have taken place since that time. But may I remind the Prime Minister and his government that their success has been very much limited in Alberta, both in the general election and in the by-elections which have taken place since. We can recall the by-election which took place in Edmonton East, where it was impossible for three cabinet ministers to put on sufficient pressure to defeat the hon. member who now represents that constituency in the house, and is attached to the party to which I belong. As a sage of old said, "That which is not good will not last." The Liberal party is through in Alberta.
FEBRUARY 28, 1939	i.
Canada-United States Trade Agreement


John Ritchie MacNicol: It is through all over.


John Charles Landeryou: They have read, no doubt, of the last of the Mohicans. Well, we now have the last of the Liberals in the person of the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. MacKinnon), who has been honoured by his party, and rightly so. I say that because of all the Liberals who ran for office in Alberta he was one of the fortunate ones who saved his deposit. So I do not think much satisfaction can be derived from the success of the Liberal party in Alberta.
Of course, the Conservatives did not fare so well either-but they did just as well as the Liberals. At that time there was one Conservative returned to the house.


An hon. MEMBER:: Are there any left
now?


John Charles Landeryou: There is still a
remnant of the Conservative party left in Alberta, but they are trying to join up with the remnant of the Liberal party to form some sort of unity league. I believe the Liberals and Conservatives should unite federally, because they have this in common at least: They are both determined to take no fundamental step to change existing conditions in Canada. They are both satisfied to sit and do nothing. Neither one of them is prepared to make the far-reaching changes which are so essential to get us out of the financial mess in which we find ourseives.


Mr. POTTIER:: What is Aberhart going
to do?


John Charles Landeryou: Before dealing with the observations of the Prime Minister, I believe I should refer to a statement made by the hon. member for Marquette in regard to the application of social credit principles to dominion affairs. He felt we should wait until such time as the whole world would adopt those principles. May I remind the Liberal party that they still advocate free trade, and yet the whole world does not seem to have adopted it. And, as an hon. member to my right suggests, neither does the Liberal party. I believe the record will bear me out. That is exactly the position taken by the Liberals in regard to our movement. They suggest that nothing can be done provincially or federally, that we must wait until the whole world accepts social credit. All we are suggesting is that we should abolish poverty in the midst of plenty, but they say to us: "Do not attempt to abolish poverty in the midst of plenty until the Chinese have taken the same steps, until poverty has been abolished in India, Africa and Afghanistan." They tell us not
to establish just prices until the whole world has done so. What sort of reasoning is that? Let me read what the originator of this great movement once said, speaking from the world point of view. Major Douglas was asked this question:
Since under the Canadian constitution control over banking, finance, trade and commerce rests entirely with the dominion government, is it not desirable that advocates of social credit centre their main efforts upon the dominion rather than the provincial field?


Walter Edward Foster: I think the hon. member is getting away from the subject matter of the resolution, which has to do with the trade agreement with the United States. The quotation being given by the hon. member is out of order.


John Charles Landeryou: I agree with what you say, Mr. Speaker, but I am simply replying to a point which was raised by the hon. member for Marquette. The answer given is not mine; it is the answer of one of my colleagues and co-workers in this great movement of social credit.


Olof Hanson: I suggest to the hon. member that he speak from his own seat.


John Charles Landeryou: I do not care where I speak; it makes no difference to me.


Walter Edward Foster: Provided the hon. member keeps within the limits of the resolution before the house.


John Charles Landeryou: The answer given by Major Douglas is as follows:
Well, the answer to the first of those questions I gave a short time ago, that if you have no powers you cannot do anything; but I feel fairly certain that the logical result of saying, "we must refer this thing to Ottawa," would be in effect, if not in words, "we must refer this thing _ to London." We are so interlocked with the international finance system that we cannot do anything in Ottawa. We must do it through London. And when you get to London you would be told, "Ah, yes, but we must do this in conjunction with Wall street."


Walter Edward Foster: I ask the hon. member to discontinue his quotation. It is irrelevant to the subject matter of the present resolution.


John Charles Landeryou: I shall not read any more from the statement by Major Douglas. That has been the attitude taken by this Liberal government to prevent the province of Alberta from attempting anything. I imagine that they will suggest that we should go to London, England. I suggest to my hon. friend that he read part of a speech delivered by the Prime Minister of New Zealand, as referred to in the following report:
1430	COMMONS
Canada-United States Trade Agreement
The Prime Minister (Hon. M. J. Savage) said the leader of the opposition had accused the government of having made arrangements with the Douglas credit organizations. Now, what were the Douglas credit organizations trying to do? They were trying to get for the people the things that the people were capable of producing.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Walter Edward Foster: The hon. member should confine his remarks to the resolution before
the house, which has to do with a trade agreement with the United States.


John Charles Landeryou: I have sat in the house and listened to addresses made by hon. members on both sides, and I have heard them fight out every election since 1911 and discuss every subject from soup to nuts; yet I am prevented, as I understand it, from answering the points raised by the hon. member.


Walter Edward Foster: I have rendered my
decision and the hon. member should abide by it. I am simply doing what I did a few days ago when the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) was speaking. I called that hon. member to order on the very same point. I think the hon. member should confine himself to the resolution before the house. There will be other opportunities given to him to discuss the question of monetary reform.


John Charles Landeryou: The Prime Minister
painted a rosy picture of what he expected from the trade agreement. He declared that it was the fulfilment of all the promises made by the Liberal party in regard to trade before the election of 1935. I recall the Prime Minister and other members of the Liberal party declaring that their promises in regard to monetary reform had been fulfilled, and then shortly afterwards bringing in an amendment to the Bank of Canada Act. Those were strange proceedings. If the people of Canada do not receive any more benefits from the fulfilment of the promises of the Liberal party with regard to trade than they did from the fulfilment of the promises of the Liberal party in regard to monetary reform, then God help the people of Canada.


Olof Hanson: You may be sure they
will not get any help from the Alberta government.


John Charles Landeryou: We say that the
prosperity of Canada should not depend upon the height of a tariff wall. Our prosperity should depend less and less upon foreign trade. If we depend too much upon foreign trade for our prosperity we are likely

to become involved in national and international complications which will create problems and hard feelings at home which may eventually lead to war abroad. Why should we bring dairy products and wool from New Zealand into this country in exchange for automobiles, when our farmers have to walk and when we keep on producing a surplus of dairy products and wool?
The Prime Minister declared that the nations of the world are endeavouring to practise what he termed economic nationalism, that they were trying to get into isolated compartments. We have never suggested that, and I challenge the government to name one nation that has stated their policy to be one of economic nationalism, which means virtual isolation as far as trade is concerned.	I ask them to name one nation
which has refused to trade with the world.
I know that after the revolution many countries refused to trade with Russia and enforced economic nationalism upon that country, but what country of any importance has declared to-day that it refuses to trade with other nations of the world?
I listened to the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Bradette) state that Italy and Germany did not want to trade with the nations of the world. I suggest that he read something in addition to the speeches of his leader. Just the other day Germany stated that she must trade to live, and England replied that she must trade or die. We hear that Germany wants to trade $30,000,000 worth of machinery for $30,000,000 worth of wheat and other commodities. How can anyone say that we as a party, that the Conservatives as a party, or that the people of any nation as a nation refuse to trade? Why should they condemn social crediters or others who advocate that our own people should be supplied from our own natural resources? We want to utilize our natural resources for our own people. Why try to blast our way into foreign markets when we cannot get into our own?


Olof Hanson: The Liberals never said
that.


John Charles Landeryou: Nobody knows what
the Liberals have said.
The trouble with the world to-day, and nobody knows it better than the Prime Minister himself, is that every nation wants to sell and does not want to buy, or wants to buy and has not the necessary purchasing power. I hear laughter from the benches opposite.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Your own leader is laughing.

Canada-United, States Trade Agreement


John Charles Landeryou: 
Olof Hanson: If my hon. friend will
permit me-


John Charles Landeryou: 
Paul Joseph James Martin: Why not twenty-five dollars a month?


John Horne Blackmore: Why not?
TMr. Landeryou.]


John Charles Landeryou: My hon. friend says, " Why not twenty-five dollars a month?" I agree with him, and I ask him, why not? And he cannot answer me, or at any rate he has failed to answer me. If my hon. friend will be patient, I shall deal with that point. I remember that just the other day the leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion) agreed with me when I said that the most urgent problem in Canada to-day was the need of increased purchasing power to the consumer. I believe that even the Liberal party would agree to that. I have no doubt that my Cooperative Commonwealth Federation friends would also do so. So we find general agreement among all hon. members that we must have increased purchasing power for the consumer. But we differ as to the method, and so the people do without, while we argue over the method. I know the Liberal party will never find the way to do it, because they put too much confidence in their theories of world trade. We know they have no solution. The consumer should be financed. There is plenty of money for production. Hon. members have said that we have in Canada an ample amount of money for productive purposes. But I ask them this question, what is the use of investing money in increased production when we cannot buy that which is produced to-day? Factories are working part-time; the goods come out; and what do the retailers do? They sell them at a dollar down and a dollar the next time they can get it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What is money? What is the value of money?


John Charles Landeryou: We have suggested that we should finance the consumption of goods.
At this stage I wish to move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.

Right Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice) moved that the house go into committee of supply.


Robert James Manion: I understand that this motion is
simply for the purpose of getting into one item of the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce. I have no objection; indeed, so far as I am concerned, I quite agree. At the same time I should like to point out to the government that this is the second time recently that we have permitted the movement into supply at this late hour of the evening. This will mean, I think, that we shall have brought in four different depart-

War Munitions-Mr. MacNeil.



ADJOURNMENT-BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
merits. In justice to the house, I suggest, next time the government wants to move into supply it should move earlier in the day, say Tuesday if it so desires, so that if any hon. member has any grievance he wishes to have redressed he will have an opportunity of bringing it up. Eleven o'clock at night is, of course, too late to bring up any matter and deal with it at all satisfactorily. I wish it to be understood that we expect that the next time the government wants to go into supply, it will make the motion at the ordinary time of day, that is some time in the afternoon. I think we have already advised the government that in all probability one of our party will be moving a motion to deal with a certain grievance.
Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend will admit that the government is not entirely responsible for this state of affairs. Of course it is only on Tuesday that we are able, at this stage of the session, to move into committee of supply to open up a new department. It is true that we have already introduced two or three other departments. We hope that the flow of oratory will dry itself out soon, and that we shall be able to do some more business. I thank my hon. friend for agreeing to go into supply.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee of supply, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND COMMERCE

[Stage Direction]
376. An act to place Canadian coal used in the manufacture of iron and steel on a basis of equality with imported coal-administration, $600.
Robert James Manion: Will the minister explain
this item?


William Daum Euler: It is an item of only $600. This amount may be required temporarily to pay the expenses which may arise in connection with the subsidy on coal production, and it is refundable later on to the government by the steel company. Last year the amount was not required. Probably it will not be required this year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
William Daum Euler: If my hon. friend desires, we can leave it with that one.


Robert James Manion: I think we might let it stand at that. There was to be only one item. We have got into the department.
Progress reported.


Ernest Lapointe: Tomorrow we intend to take up some of the government measures on the order paper. There seem to be quite a number of speakers on the trade treaty, but we are really anxious to do some other work.


Robert James Manion: I hear that there are
twenty-dwo speakers on the Liberal side, ^till waiting.


Ernest Lapointe: Oh, no; unfortunately they are coming from the other side.


Robert James Manion: No, my hon. friends have more than we have, and rightly so. They have the numbers and they need the defence.


Ernest Lapointe: Hon.
members on this side of the house have been exercising a good deal of restraint.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Wednesday, March 1, 1939