Mr. HEPBURN:
Will the hon. gentleman state in the house if he is opposed to the present Australian treaty?
Mr. LADNER:
I spoke on that a moment ago.
Mr. HEPBURN:
Answer the question,
Mr. LADNER:
I have already answered it. The hon. gentleman was so much interested in the subject that he was not in the house. We desire to see a treaty made that will bring benefits both to New Zealand and to Canada. It is significant that although we have brought this grievance to the attention of the government annually ever since 1925, it is only now, when an election appears on the horizon, that the government indicate a willingness to take a course consistent with what the agricultural industry in this country has been demanding for many years.
Australian Treaty-Mr. Ladner
Mr. DUNNING:
My hon. friend surely
will not deny that in previous years the criticism from the other side of the house has always been of the Australian treaty.
Mr. LADNER:
The Minister of Finance has forgotten his facts and his Hansard. The facts are not that way.
Mr. DUNNING:
Does my hon. friend say that his party are in favour of the Australian treaty?
Mr. LADNER:
We are not discussing the Australian treaty; we are discussing the New Zealand trade arrangement. The hon. minister is constantly trying to escape from the issue that is actually before the house. Although he does not always speak in the most favourable terms of lawyers, he exhibits real legal acumen when he comes to analyse a motion and debate its merits.
Mr. DUPUIS:
Would the hon. gentleman explain why he is in favour of the Australian treaty and against the Australian treaty as applied to New Zealand?
Mr. LADNER:
If the hon. gentleman had been listening to my remarks for the last half hour he would have grasped my answer.
Mr. DUPUIS:
The New Zealand treaty is simply the Australian treaty applied to New Zealand.
Mr. HEPBURN:
Get some help.
Mr. LADNER:
I have already answered
the question.
Mr. DUPUIS:
I do not see how my friend can be against the New Zealand treaty, and then say that he is in favour of the Australian treaty, because the New Zealand treaty is simply the Australian treaty applied to New Zealand.
Mr. STEVENS:
There is a six cent dumping duty against Australia, but not against New Zealand butter.
Mr. DUPUIS:
Let my hon. friend from South Vancouver (Mr. Ladner) answer the question himself.
Mr. STEVENS:
You are not cross-examining him.
Mr. LADNER:
I have already covered that question in my main remarks. I sincerely hope that the government will earnestly proceed with the steps which they indicate in the resolution, but I have my doubts. The New Zealand trade agreement should have been adjusted long before this. There has been a quite unnecessary delay on the part of the government. As I have already said, they see
an election in the offing, and now they are willing to be considerate and diplomatic, but there is nothing definite in their declaration of policy, nothing beyond a pious wish to proceed to negotiate. I hope that these negotiations will mature. Nobody is more anxious than I am to see the trade of Canada develop with New Zealand and every other part of the empire, and here is an opportunity for the government to consummate an arrangement which will be of distinct advantage both to New Zealand and Canada, if due regard is paid to the manufacturing and agricultural interests of this country.
Mr. W. E. TUMMON (South Hastings):
The hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning), in his remarks on this subject, stated that those who had spoken from this side of the house against the importation of New Zealand butter into Canada at a duty of one cent a pound had obtained an array of arguments from the brief of the National Dairy Council before the tariff board. Let me say at the very beginning that while I received a copy of that evidence I have only glanced through it, but from what I read in the report I think that if the hon. Minister of Finance had referred to the speeches in Hansard delivered from this side of the house from year to year since 1925, he would have read practically the same arguments as those advanced in the dairy council brief.
Mr. DUNNING:
I do not want to interrupt my hon. friendi's remarks, but I am sure he would be the first to admit that the speeches to which he refers were in criticism of the Australian treaty.