March 11, 1930

?

Mr. NEELL@

After the next election there may be more groups. I hope at least there will be more independents. Let me dwell for a moment on that aspect of it, this party business. Did you ever see a oity council or a school board where the public would send thirteen men, seven of them (to run the school board or the city council and the other six with strict instructions to oppose them in every way possible? How long would a suggested combination like thait last? Why, the common sense of the people would be shocked, and yet it is all right to send a man to parliament for four years who is almost powerless to do anything for his district unless his particular party happens to be in power. The wretched man is hamstrung before he begins. Did you ever note, Mr. Speaker, when any matter of pressing world-wide importance, such as the war, or more recently the suggestion about handling the pensions, comes into this house, occasionally good sense prevails on. both sides of the house; a nion-partisan committee is appointed to deal with the situation, a joint committee, and have you ever known that joint committee not to bring in a unanimous report, and a good report, and one which this house was not able to carry into effect? If it is right to do it in an emergency why is it niot right to do the same thing in a smaller matter? Would it not be better to send a man to parliament ready and prepared to support any party that brings in good legislation, a man who would be prepared to put party politics behind him, always having .the interests of Canada and his district first in mind. Because I was elected as an independent I am able to take this position

Australian Treaty-Mr. Chaplin

between the two parties on this question of New Zealand butter. I believe it will be a good thing for Canada, and a good thing for my constituents. That is why I introduced the resolution, and thait is why I propose to stay with it, Mr. Speaker.

Topic:   SUPPLY-AUSTRALIAN TREATY PROPOSED CANCELLATION OP SPECIAL AGREEMENT WITH NEW ZEALAND AND NEGOTIATION OP TREATY
Permalink
CON

James Dew Chaplin

Conservative (1867-1942)

Hon. J. D. CHAPLIN (Lincoln):

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Comox-Albemi (Mr. Neill) who has just taken his seat tells us that we have stolen his child. All I can say is that I have looked through the record for some time back and I cannot find where he ever gave this child very much support.

Topic:   SUPPLY-AUSTRALIAN TREATY PROPOSED CANCELLATION OP SPECIAL AGREEMENT WITH NEW ZEALAND AND NEGOTIATION OP TREATY
Permalink
IND

Alan Webster Neill

Independent

Mr. NEILL:

He gave it birth.

Topic:   SUPPLY-AUSTRALIAN TREATY PROPOSED CANCELLATION OP SPECIAL AGREEMENT WITH NEW ZEALAND AND NEGOTIATION OP TREATY
Permalink
LIB

James Houston Spence

Liberal

Mr. SPENCE:

It was stillborn.

Topic:   SUPPLY-AUSTRALIAN TREATY PROPOSED CANCELLATION OP SPECIAL AGREEMENT WITH NEW ZEALAND AND NEGOTIATION OP TREATY
Permalink
CON

James Dew Chaplin

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CHAPLIN:

I never knew that the hon. gentleman ever made any claim to be an old woman.

In discussing this motion, Mr. Speaker, we have to go back to the terms of the Australian treaty, and although this gentleman is very keen now on the terms of the New Zealand treaty, which came originally from the Australian treaty, I find he never took the trouble to vote on the Australian treaty in the first place. He never took the trouble to be here in the house when the vote was taken. He is not even now on the record as being paired. That is how much interest be took in the matter. I find also from the record, Mr. Speaker, that during the past several years there have been different amendments and different motions moved in respect to the same treaty. I have in mind particularly one in which the gentleman figured. And he can always find an excuse for supporting the government. He has always done it. He is one of the first-to use an expression that has been used in the house before-to man the lifeboat to save the government in case it is in danger. Let me quote a few of his words, in 1926, when he spoke on a resolution respecting grading of eggs, to see how he stands. He evidently was in favour of the wording of the agreement, but he did not want to vote against the government. I will just take is own words for it. He said:

Sly action in this connection was much along the line referred to a few weeks ago by an hon. gentleman on the opposite side in regard to the man who would not stop talking until he got compensation for the widow's cow. I think there are occasions when that is undignified, but that was the only possible remedy. This is the opportunity for me to do that, but I cannot stultify my convictions in this particular instance and the interest of my constituents by voting against the government in this matter, although I would like to do so.

Is it a fact that the hon. gentleman would have liked to vote against the government,

but in the interests of his constituents and because of the plums which might come from the government, he did not want to do it? That gentleman is very well known in this house-

Topic:   SUPPLY-AUSTRALIAN TREATY PROPOSED CANCELLATION OP SPECIAL AGREEMENT WITH NEW ZEALAND AND NEGOTIATION OP TREATY
Permalink
?

Some hon. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear.

Topic:   SUPPLY-AUSTRALIAN TREATY PROPOSED CANCELLATION OP SPECIAL AGREEMENT WITH NEW ZEALAND AND NEGOTIATION OP TREATY
Permalink
CON

James Dew Chaplin

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CHAPLIN:

-and for an independent member it is evident that he gets a great deal of support from the Liberal benches.

Referring to the motion under discussion, the Minister of Finance the other day said, ''You do not want to hit a sister nation over the head by introducing a resolution of this kind; that is not the way to transact business," I can tell the Minister of Finance that he and this government have not hesitated to hit a great industry of this country over the head. This matter has not been confined to this session alone; it has not been brought up just prior to an election, but it is a matter of four or five years' duration.

Let me refer to the words of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) himself, when he told the people of Woodstock, "If this treaty is hurting the industry, we can abrogate the treaty." Does that mean hitting the other nation over the head? In his Winnipeg address he is quoted as saying:

The government is fully prepared in the interests of Canada to readjust its fiscal policy from time to time to meet any changes in existing fiscal structure which may affect our markets. If the United States or any other country does not want to trade with Canada, except ou equal terms, then surely we can look as never before to the rest of the world, and particularly to the rest of the British Empire.

I would like to ask the Prime Minister if the treaty is anything else but unequal, as far as Canada is concerned? I ask him this question: Is it fair that goods should enter Canada under a duty of half a cent per pound, while goods of a similar character from this country are taxed five, six or ten cents per pound? Is that a fair treaty? I ask the Prime Minister if that is an equal or an unequal basis. I would further ask him this: Is it right that Australian or New Zealand mutton and other meat should come into Canada at half a cent a pound when our products exported to those countries are charged six cents a pound? I ask him if cheese should enter this country practically free when our cheese is charged five or six cents per pound. The same thing is true of everything mentioned in the treaty. In other words, it is not a treaty; it is nothing but a give-away, and the farmers of this country are suffering from it. I warned the government when the treaty was being discussed. I told them there were industries being pro-

Australian Treaty-Mr. Chaplin

tected; I happened to be in a business that was affected, but it did not stop me from Celling the government that it had no right so sign a treaty under which certain people were reaping great advantages, while a main industry of the country was being ruined. The Prime Minister says, "Oh yes, we will trade evenly with people." I would like to ask the Prime Minister and the minister sitting by him, who made the French treaty, whether that treaty has worked out to the benefit of Canada. I would like to know if it was fair for us to give France a treaty om dozens of articles with a stationary duty and take from them a treaty under which the duty could be changed the minute after it was signed. That is what happened1 in that instance.

Most of our friends sitting in the corner on my left voted for the French treaty. They had their eyes opened on that treaty, and they were very chary about voting for the Australian treaty. I notice certain gentlemen an the other side who voted against the Australian treaty; I would like to know what they have to say. We have not yet had a word from them. There are five or six members over there who voted against that treaty, and I would like to know what they are going to say in reference to this one.

Topic:   SUPPLY-AUSTRALIAN TREATY PROPOSED CANCELLATION OP SPECIAL AGREEMENT WITH NEW ZEALAND AND NEGOTIATION OP TREATY
Permalink
LIB-PRO

John Livingstone Brown

Liberal Progressive

Mr. BROWN:

There were five or six over there voted for it.

Topic:   SUPPLY-AUSTRALIAN TREATY PROPOSED CANCELLATION OP SPECIAL AGREEMENT WITH NEW ZEALAND AND NEGOTIATION OP TREATY
Permalink
CON

James Dew Chaplin

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CHAPLIN:

No, not five or six; there were only three. The minister helped to make that treaty, and after he came back tried to defend it. He told us, when speaking about the amount of butter that was going to be shipped, "We did not make a treaty for the old days of Jacques Cartier; we made a treaty for the present day,farmers of the province of Quebec." He and his confreres went to France and made a treaty. The result was that there was a higher duty on salted butter, but a lessened duty on unsalted butter, and we were not shipping unsalted butter. "Oh," he said, "we have made a great treaty with Belgium; I have seen merchants in Montreal, and they have things ready for oig business." I would like to ask him whether any business did eventuate from it, and if so, where it is? Probably there were a few hundred pounds of butter shipped under that ;reaty, but that was all.

I hope that the treaty-making propensities af the government will be put under control, and that the gentlemen who were most active in this work will let some one else do the negotiating in future, if there are any treaties to be made.

This treaty with New Zealand should not be kept on the statute book at all; we should

have a fair treaty. I take the Prime Minister's word for it; he says that any nation which is not willing to trade with us on an equal basis should not be given the opportunity to trade at all. I call him there; I charge him with the fact that they have made a treaty which is not fair to Canada and not fair to a great industry in Canada. It is not anything new for us to criticize this treaty. You would think by the remarks of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) that it was his thought altogether. May I tell him that he has just come in at the heel of the hunt; he sees what the situation is and wants to take advantage of it. He never has been against any treaty; he has swallowed them all, just as he swallows everything this government does.

Topic:   SUPPLY-AUSTRALIAN TREATY PROPOSED CANCELLATION OP SPECIAL AGREEMENT WITH NEW ZEALAND AND NEGOTIATION OP TREATY
Permalink
LIB-PRO

John Millar

Liberal Progressive

Mr. JOHN MILLAR (Qu'Appelle):

Mr

Speaker, after listening to the wails of woe from the other side of the house and the admonitions to rush to the assistance of the dairy industry, I began to wonder how some of our friends would fare if they tried the milking of cows and the carrying on of the dairying industry. If they have not had that experience, perhaps a little advice would be in order. When they sit down with their milk stool to milk a brindle cow, it might be well for them to be careful. When one is milking a cow about the only part he is safe in tickling is her fancy. Some of the hon. members opposite might find their milk pail upset during their first experience.

When our friends speak of the lack of exports of butter they very conveniently forget to mention anything about production and home consumption. I have some figures in that regard which I would like to place on Hansard. The exports to the United States of cream and milk have greatly increased. In January, 1930, Canada exported 48,591 gallons of cream and 132,041 gallons of milk. For the twelve months' period preceding, Canada exported to the United States, 2,341, 497 gallons of cream and 3,171,014 gallons of milk.

Topic:   SUPPLY-AUSTRALIAN TREATY PROPOSED CANCELLATION OP SPECIAL AGREEMENT WITH NEW ZEALAND AND NEGOTIATION OP TREATY
Permalink
CON

Felix Patrick Quinn

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. QUINN:

If the trade is so profitable why has the cow population of Canada decreased and not increased?

Topic:   SUPPLY-AUSTRALIAN TREATY PROPOSED CANCELLATION OP SPECIAL AGREEMENT WITH NEW ZEALAND AND NEGOTIATION OP TREATY
Permalink
LIB-PRO

John Millar

Liberal Progressive

Mr. MILLAR:

If the hon. member will

have patience I will come to that. The per capita consumption of dairy products has increased very materially, as is shown in the following comparison between the years 1921 and 1928:

Commodity Butter. . .Cheese. . .

Milk. . . . Ice cream. .

25.79 pounds 2.51 pounds 240 pounds 5.26 pints

29.31 pounds 3.54 pounds 470 pounds 7.04 pints

Australian Treaty-Mr. Millar

I listened to a very instructive and interesting address delivered the other night in Dominion church by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Kennedy). He had some illustrated slides which he was showing to the audience, one of which was a picture of a dairy herd. Referring to the lack of a desire upon the part of farmers to milk cows, he said that the good crops of 1927-he mentioned other years, but I have forgotten just which ones-had done more to lower the production of butter in Canada than all the treaties which have been entered into. I think that statement is quite true because if the farmer can make a good living out of growing wheat and other grain, he does not care to milk cows.

Some objection has been raised to the practice of selling cows to the United States, and that is one reason why the herds have been somewhat lessened. I cannot understand the reasoning or the mentality of anyone who will Object, to a farmer raising cows for the purpose of selling them at good prices. That is much easier than milking cows. It is his own business and he is the person who ought to be allowed to decide what he will do. Cows have been sold at $150, $200 and occasionally at higher prices, and I consider that mighty good business. The fact that such prices can be obtained is to be attributed to the work done by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) and his department. There are about nine or ten disease-free areas where the practice of slaughtering diseased animals has been carried on since 1924, and it is the cows from those areas which bring the high prices. I think that practice might well be continued. I can easily imagine hon. members sitting to the left of Mr. Speaker complaining in the course of a few years because the sale of cows of this class to the United States had fallen off.

There is another reason why we are not exporting as much butter. Raw milk will flow into channels most profitable. That is the statement made by those who know the dairy industry, such as Doctor Ruddick, the dairy commissioner. The following figures, which refer to the western, eastern, northern and central districts of Ontario, are very interesting. The increase from 1920 to 1927 in the number of establishments dealing with dairying in western Ontario amounted to 6-1 per cent. During the same period northern Ontario shows an increase of 336-6 per cent in the number of patrons, while the central and eastern districts show a very slight falling off of 8-7 per cent and 5-3 per cent respectively. Western Ontario shows an increase in the production of creamery butter during that

same period amounting to 59-8 per cent. The central district shows an increase of 119 per cent; the eastern district an increase of 209 per cent; and the northern district the enormous increase of 630 per cent. How can hon. members say that the dairy industry is going to the dogs when faced with such figures?

The total production of milk has been very rapid and the increase was continuous up to the year 1928. I think it has been stated that there was a decrease in the total production for the year 1929, but I would point out that there was also a decrease in the production of wheat during that year. Due to that condition. I expect the revenue of our two railways will fall off in the year 1929, but will anyone argue that because there is a falling off in revenue for one year after a continuous period of expansion, therefore the two railways must be heading towards bankruptcy?

I would like to give some figures in connection with the production of raw milk in Ontario. Not only did the number of patrons in northern Ontario increase by 336-6 per cent but the number of cows increased 340-6 per cent; cheese 4-6 per cent and the sale of other products increased by 1058 per cent and all dairy products increased 302 per cent. Another cause of fluctuation is shortage of feed and climatic conditions. In western Canada last summer there were considerable areas where the pastures were entirely dried up. There was a large area where pasture fields were as bare as the carpet in this chamber. It is not surprising, therefore, if in certain districts such as that the production of milk falls off in a season of that kind.

The hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) lamented Canada's great loss because of the importation of New Zealand butter. He pointed out that the whey and the skimmed milk would have fed so many pigs; the pigs would have started to grow into hogs; the hogs would have been turned by and by into bacon, and Canada, because she had not those thousands of hogs, had suffered a serious loss. That reminds me of a pioneer settler in the vicinity of Moose Jaw in the early days of the history of western Canada. One day he rode on his saddle for some forty miles into Moose Jaw, and while talking to some friends there he said "I have lost $100,000 this year." Some one asked him why, and he said "because I did not have $10,000 to buy cows to eat up the grass I have passed coming in here." The loss complained of by my hon. friend is very similar to that. The men that my hon. friend seemed to think ought to be milking cows and producing butter are raising grain. Look at

Australian Treaty-Mr. Millar

the enormous increase in the production of wheat during the past ten years. Not so very long ago we were growing only 100,000,000 bushels of wheat in a year, whereas in 1928 we produced 533,000,000 bushels. If some of those people who are growing wheat had each the power to turn themselves into twins, it would be quite possible for one half of them to continue to produce wheat, while the other half could have been milking cows and producing butter and cheese. As a matter of fact, however, no person can work more than ten or twelve hours a day at one job; he cannot carry on two jobs at the same time, and the fact is that our people have decided to grow wheat rather than to milk cows. When the hard years come and the price of grain goes down and stays down, as is the case now, the effect will be that many farmers will return to the milking of cows and the production of butter, cheese and milk.

New Zealand butter enters Canada, but I would ask the reason why. It is simply because the price of butter in Canada is above an export basis, otherwise they would ship their butter to England or other export markets. Those who advocate the abrogation of this treaty might well be just a little careful lest they find themselves in a more difficult position. It may be that instead of selling what they have in the way of butter during the winter months at a price above export, they will have to sell it at export price. They ask for an increase of three cents per pound in the tariff. Let us look at the effect of that. If the tariff is increased three cents per pound, some seem to argue that the price of butter may be increased by that amount. Supposing that that is the case, New Zealand butter can come into Canada just as it is doing now; the inducements will be exactly the same. They will simply receive three cents per pound more and pay three cents' duty, so that the raising of the duty by three cents, provided the price is also raised three cents, will make no difference so far as New Zealand butter is concerned. The inducements will be exactly the same and the profits to the New Zealand grower will be exactly the same as now. Well, some one will say, we will not raise the price three cents; we will raise the tariff three cents and the price two cents. Supposing they do that, I am willing to admit the price of butter in Canada may rise temporarily during a few months, but what will be the ultimate effect? An increase in the price of any commodity will lower consumption; it will also stimulate production. In the case of butter in Canada it will also have the effect of encouraging the storing of butter during

the summer months when we are on an export basis and holding it in storage for the winter months. Even though you keep out New Zealand butter, how long is it likely to be before the curtailment of consumption, the increase of production and the throwing on to the markets in the winter months of the butter that has been put into storage during the summer, will bring the price down to an export basis? It may not be very long and the dairyman may find himself in the position that, whereas now he is able to sell for a part of the year at higher than export basis, he is compelled during the whole year to sell at an export price and can get no more.

When this matter was being heard before the tariff board, the chairman of the National Dairy Council was asked the question: What is the price of butter now in the United States and what is the price in Canada? He admitted that the price in Canada was H to 2 cents per pound higher than in the United States at that very time. I do not argue that this is always so, because under a tariff such as this the fluctuation will be rapid and violent. Sometimes the price will be up; frequently it will be down; but at that time it was being sold in the United States for It to 2 cents per pound lower than it was being sold at in Canada and the United States has a tariff of 12 cents per pound on butter. If in a great country with a population of 115,000,000, a tariff cannot keep the price of butter up, what chance has it of doing that in Canada where we have only 9,000,000 people? Very little indeed.

I think in two or three speeches from the other side of the house it was said that Canada could not be expected to compete against New Zealand. They have milder weather and cows can pasture all the year round. Our dairy commissioner, Mr. Ruddick, spent some time in New Zealand; he knows conditions there very well and he has pointed out that because of the looseness of the soil during the rainy season, they have found it necessary, in order to protect their pasture, to stable their cows. One speaker recently pointed out that all that was necessary was to put rubber blankets over the cows and everything was lovely. Perhaps it will be necessary also to produce cows that have paws like dogs so that they will not sink into the mud.

Reference has been made to the fact that in New Zealand the price of land is from $300 to $500 and as high as $700 an acre, and that is used as an argument why Canada cannot compete against New Zealand. I would suggest it is a reason why we can. When, as the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe stated, they can keep 100 cows on 100 acres in New Zea-

Australian Treaty-Mr. Millar

land and we can keep only about 50 cows on 100 acres in Canada, the advantage is all with Canada. Another speaker has placed it at a much lower figure. Be it so. Land here is very much cheaper. Whenever we come into competition with the countries to the south, where they have a milder climate, the stock from Canada stands up very well. If I am not mistaken, the world record for the production of eggs belongs to Canada, and has belonged to it for years. When our poultry was taken to the second world's poultry congress held in Spain, it was a source of wonder to the people there that our birds from this northern climate could stand up so well while other stock was wilting and dying. Our poultry stood up week after week, and the people there were anxious to buy foundation poultry stock from Canada. The Americans are also very glad to get foundation stock in milch cows from Canada, not alone because of their milk production, but because they are a hardier animal. Take our stock that is sent to the Chicago fair, our horses, our cattle, our hogs, every kind of live stock; our record is something that Canada need never be ashamed of. We have reason to be proud of it from one end of the country to the other. Some members on the other side of the house, when they go back home, ought really be ashamed to look a good cow in the face after all they have said about our Canadian cow not being able to stand up against the New Zealand cow.

I agree with the statement that has been made more than once that the farmer in Canada is not in a very prosperous condition. I do not think he is as prosperous as those engaged in other lines of business, but I am quite convinced that protection will not help him in the least. While I was speaking of protection and its effects, I forgot to point out that while protection might temporarily raise the price of butter, only to come down afterwards probably to a lower point than it- has reached now, the advantage it would be to the Canadian farmer would be very small. There is also this consideration. If the farmer gets behind protection, it certainly will help to raise the price of the articles that he must purchase. His overhead will increase, and he will be in the position of having backed the policy of protection. While the government may possibly have this part of the treaty abrogated, I am convinced, after studying the matter very carefully, that the benefits to the Canadian dairyman, if there are any, would be very, very small indeed.

The hon. gentleman who preceded me asked if it was fair that we should have a duty of one cent a pound against New Zealand butter

when New Zealand has a duty of six cents a pound against Canadian butter. I cannot understand the mentality of anybody who advocates this brick-for-brick policy. To me it seems like building a dam to keep a stream from running uphill. Coals are always going out from Newcastle; they are not being shipped in there, and butter is not moving from Canada to New Zealand, and never wall in our day. So why interest ourselves in what their tariff on butter is? I care not if it is only half a cent a pound; it makes absolutely no difference. It would be no benefit to the Canadian dairyman or to Canada as a whole if the New Zealand duty on butter were cancelled at once. We have our export market, and we would not now turn around and ship our butter to New Zealand, a country which is already producing enormous quantities of butter.

I would like to add one word in regard to the general standing of Canada, because there has been so much pessimistic talk. Some little time ago a survey was made by a survey board in the United States of a number of the principal countries to see how many years of prosperity they had enjoyed as compared with years of depression and although this survey was conducted by the people of the United States, they placed Canada at the head of the list. There were ten or a dozen countries inquired into. The United States came second, Great Britain third, but Canada was placed at the top of the list.

I shall not detain the house any longer. I have no objections to this matter being taken up; in fact, I think it well for the government to arrange a new treaty with New Zealand. But I repeat that an increased duty on New Zealand butter is not likely to help the Canadian dairyman very much, if at all.

Topic:   SUPPLY-AUSTRALIAN TREATY PROPOSED CANCELLATION OP SPECIAL AGREEMENT WITH NEW ZEALAND AND NEGOTIATION OP TREATY
Permalink
CON

Richard Bedford Bennett (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):

It might be proper, Mr. Speaker, if we now discuss the amendment and the subamendment under consideration.

The original motion by the government was that the Speaker leave the chair that the house might go into committee of supply. That motion was made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning). It is a government motion. The opposition moved in amendment that the Speaker do not leave the chair, but that the order in council extending the Australian treaty to New Zealand be rescinded. The government has now moved, speaking through its Minister of Finance, a subamendment which it asks the house to adopt. If it is adopted the government will then be in the position of having on the records of this house an amendment,

Australian Treaty-Mr. Bennett moved from the government side, to its own motion to go into supply. I wonder if the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) or any member who has any knowledge of parliamentary procedure and practice has ever known such a thing in this country as a government amending its own motion to go into supply. It is like voting want of confidence in itself just before the people get a chance to so vote-and it is done, a colleague suggests to me, in order that the vote might be unanimous. I wonder if any such picture of parliamentatry practice has been presented in this country before. The Minister of Finance stands in his place and reads this subamendment to the amendment, and then, being unable to move it, and being unable to find any of his colleagues who may constitutionally do so, he hands it to the chief government whip to move. In other words, the chief whip of the government party moves a subamendment to the amendment to vote want of confidence in the government itself. All it means, of course, is that the committee of supply must be discharged if the subamendment carries. Presumably it will carry, because the government have the majority with which to carry it, and so they will be carrying an amendment to their own motion to go into supply. It is no wonder the Minister of Finance laughs. It is calculated to make the gods laugh. Could anything be more in keeping with the general tendencies of this administration? It must be humiliating to the hon. gentleman from South Huron (Mr. McMillan) yonder. It must be humiliating to him to be called upon to support a subamendment that would vote want of confidence in his own administration. When he goes back to his constituents he can tell them how proud he was to have been able to assist the government in declaring its lack of confidence in itself. It is so utterly at variance with his usual attitude towards the administration. It is well that we should look at these facts as they are. I would ask any gentleman here if in the wealth of his experience he has ever before known any such instance to occur.

Leaving that for the moment, the hon. gentleman for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) has indulged in language which I had not been accustomed to hear in this parliament, language which was cheered by the government. I shall not, sir, refer to the Chair not taking any steps to curb such language. It is for the Chair to say whether or not language charging theft, and speaking of stealing is in order, and to be used by hon. gentlemen in this house, and repeatedly used in charging that a resolution had been stolen. That is

not my conception of parliamentary practice and procedure in the conduct of debate. But the government, headed by the Prime Minister, laughed vociferously at those observations of their supporter in the guise of an Independent. I do protest against such language. I am not yet in charge of the affairs of this house, but all I can say is, that if I ever am I shall not permit any hon. gentleman, whether he supports me or not, to use such language as that without protest to the Chair. In my judgment it is destructive of the dignified conduct of the business of this house and the traditions of parliamentary usage and procedure.

Now, let me deal with his statement that we have stolen a resolution that was placed upon the order paper by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni. Any one who knows his record of independence and the statement that he himself has made as to his conception of his duties as a member, will realize that in making the charges he did he was influenced by the fear that he would be deprived of some little kudos in the constituency he represents if he failed to get the benefit of having moved such a resolution. He was fearful too that this house would have the opportunity of voting yea or nay upon the principle embodied in this resolution, of saying whether or not the government is responsible for the treaty under discussion. He did not desire that the house should vote upon that question and he hoped by putting his resolution on the order paper to deprive members of this house of an opportunity of placing responsibility on the government for the present condition of our dairy industry. Everybody of course knows that. When the hon. gentleman says that the idea in this amendment to the motion to go into supply was stolen by any member on this side of the house, he must know that he is stating what is entirely beside the question. He must know that during the last three years, and particularly during the last year, in fact in his own constituency last summer, attention was directed to the operation of the New Zealand treaty as it affected the dairy industry. And what is more, he must have known, as he reads the public press, that the Conservative party was under an obligation at this session of parliament to afford opportunity to the members of this house to say whether or not in their opinion that treaty should be continued or not. In pursuance of that promise given by the Conservative party, at the earliest opportunity this amendment was moved to the motion to go into supply. When the hon. member said *hat that amendment is anticipating or stealing

Australian Treaty-Mr. Bennett

something that he proposed to do, he must know, if he reads the public prints at all, that the amendment to the motion to go into supply is but giving expression to the considered and declared policy of the Conservative party because of the injury that has been wrought to the agricultural industry of Canada through the operation of the New Zealand trade agreement.

I will not follow the hon. gentleman through his observations further beyond saying that there is not a member in this house that does not know that the Conservative party has declared during the last few months preceding the meeting of this house that in view of the serious, nay, more, the very desperate condition of the dairy industry of this country, by reason of the New Zealand treaty, an opportunity would be afforded to hon. members to say whether or not they support the government in continuing this treaty as part of the policy of the country. That opportunity can be afforded in one way and in one way only. It is all right for the member for Comox-Alberni to declare against party government, but I should like to know what form of government we would have if we had not the party form of administration. And because we have party government, it is inherent to our system that an opportunity should be afforded to call attention to the grievances of the people that they may be redressed, an opportunity that is always afforded before proceeding to vote supply, an opportunity which enables hon. members to say yea or nay upon questions of public policy for which the government is responsible. The government of this country is responsible for the New Zealand treaty. One week after the Prime Minister at Woodstock stated that if the operations of the Australian treaty were prejudicial to the dairy industry of Canada the treaty would be rescinded by notice being given, his government passed an order in council whereby they made the Australian treaty applicable to the Dominion of New Zealand.

Topic:   SUPPLY-AUSTRALIAN TREATY PROPOSED CANCELLATION OP SPECIAL AGREEMENT WITH NEW ZEALAND AND NEGOTIATION OP TREATY
Permalink
LIB

William Lyon Mackenzie King (Prime Minister; President of the Privy Council; Secretary of State for External Affairs)

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

My hon. friend is quoting me. What were the exact words that I used at Woodstock? Some hon. gentlemen say "would", others say "could". I wish he would give me the exact words.

Topic:   SUPPLY-AUSTRALIAN TREATY PROPOSED CANCELLATION OP SPECIAL AGREEMENT WITH NEW ZEALAND AND NEGOTIATION OP TREATY
Permalink
CON

Richard Bedford Bennett (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BENNETT:

We will obtain them for the right hon. gentleman. I did not bring [DOT]them downstairs. They are in Hansard of last session just as they were printed in the local paper, and I shall put them on Hansard as part of my observations in the exact terms in which they are quoted as the language of the right hon. gentleman. I do not desire

for a single moment to misquote him in that regard. The words as reported read:

There is one condition of that treaty which says that we are free to alter or to abrogate it altogether on six months' notice. I say to the farmers of Oxford that if the Australian treaty does any injury to your industry I will undertake to say on behalf of the government that I will give that six months' notice in short order.

But let us go a step further. How many members of this house supporting the Liberal party prior to 1921 and 1922 did not denounce the previous administration for governing by order in council? Have you ever heard of it? Is there one member of the government who has not gone through Canada and denounced .the Conservative administration for governing by order in council? And yet what have we here? We have a treaty which was not negotiated, we have a treaty which canid into being by order in council That is what I protest against now; I have always protested against it. I protest against any trade agreement which is made merely by order in council as a substitute for the collective will of the people as expressed in this parliament. The will of the cabinet is not sufficient. The cabinet at best is only the delegated authority or agent of this parliament and when it acts as such in respect to trade treaties it should not be permitted to function. In doing so it is going beyond its proper powers. I ask the hon. Minister of Railways (Mr. Crerar) what he thinks of making treaties by order in council? Where are those who in times gone by, my friend from South Huron (Mr. McMillan) and others, who talked so loudly of the mismanagement of the former administration, of their attempting to govern by orders in council; where are they now when a treaty with New Zealand is made by this government purely by order in council? Without negotiation, without discussion, without an opportunity for the members of this house to say whether they thought such an arrangement beneficial or otherwise, the government of the day passes an order in council and brings into being a trade treaty with New Zealand. The hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) the other day said it could not be described as a treaty. One of the sections of the Australian treaty made possible the passing of this order in council whereby the provisions of that trade agreement became applicable to New Zealand in its trade relations with this Dominion. It is true that section five of the Australian treaty was passed by this parliament. Of course it was. The government machinery was sufficiently powerful by a majority to enact it,

Australian Treaty-Mr. Bennett

and ifche division upon the passing of that treaty will be found in the journals of parliament, because that treaty was not adopted by this house without a vote. That treaty contained a clause which made possible the passing of this order in council. But I submit to this house and to the country that it is not sound parliamentary practice that an order in council should be the basis of a treaty. Always preceding any treaty there should 'be negotiations and discussions and opportunities to consider the various phases of the proposed agreement.

Hon. gentlemen this afternoon have argued that these treaties-the Australian treaty and its extension to New Zealand by order in council-have had no injurious effect upon the dairy industry of this country.The hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. Millar) the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) and other hon. members have argued in that sense, that this treaty, called the New Zealand 'treaty, has had no injuriouseffect upon the dairy industry of Canada.Well, I wonder who, reading the records,

can seriously say that is so. We do know that before the treaty came into force, Canada was a country thait exported butter. We now know that it has ceased to be a country exporting butter in any quantity and has become a butter importing country in very large quantities from the Dominion with which the treaty was made; we know that 35,000,000 pounds of butter were brought last year from New Zealand, whence prior to that treaty little or none was imported, and we know that the markets we had in the countries of the world for the sale of our porducts are markets now satisfied by the products of other countries. Is there no cause and effect there? To what other cause is that change attributable? Is there any cause other than this treaty? Let that question be answered. Why is it you have your herds diminished by

125,000 milch cows? Is there any other cause? Previously to the treaty we had no importations, relatively, but we now have importations of about 35,000,000 pounds per annum and they are increasing.

In my hand I hold a copy of a Halifax paper, dated 6th of March, with these words contained therein:

Port Dunedin Smashes Record At Port Of Halifax

Motorship Is To Land Large Cargo Of Frozen Meats From Antipodes Port Dunedin's Cargo Includes 31,650 Carcasses of Lamb Has Butter Shipment Will Discharge 4.000 Quarters of Beef and 270 Bales of Wool

Smashing all re;ords at the port of Halifax for importations of frozen meats from the Antipodes, the Commonwealth and Dominion Line freighter Port Dunedin is due at eight o'clock this morning from Australian and New Zealand ports direct to land a total of 31,650 carcasses of lamb and 4,000 quarters of beef, according to an announcement made yesterday by the Robert Reford Company. The Port Dunedin is to discharge at pier 23.

In addition the freighter is to land 4,000 boxes of approximately 232.000 pounds of butter from New Zealand, and 270 bales of wool.

To Load Apples

Another feature of her visit is that the Port Dunedin will be the first ship of the Commonwealth and Dominion Line to load cargo at Halifax, a shipment of about 1,000 tons of freight including apples and general cargo, having been booked for the steamer. From Halifax, the Port Dunedin is to proceed to London.

Modern Freighter

One of the most modern freighters ever to visit the port the Dunedin is a motorship built in 1925. Her fuel-carrying capacity enabled her to sail from the Antipodes without replenishing her bunkers, and it is understood to take her across to England.

Her arrival follows 24 hours after the departure yesterday of the New Zealand Shipping Company's freighter Surrey which sailed yesterday for London after discharging nearly 110,000 boxes of New Zealand butter here.

Does this house realize that 110,000 boxes of butter means over 6.000,000 pounds, 3.000 tons? So that in one day 3,000 tons of New Zealand butter was landed in Halifax, and the next day 232.000 pounds more. Is that effect from the cause we have, indicated or not? We know that prior to this treaty the duty was 4 cents a pound on butter from New Zealand, and we now know it is 1 cent. We know that before this butter did not come. We now know it comes. Can a better case of cause and effect be mentioned than that? With respect to frozen mutton and frozen meats you have the same story. These are not fancies with respect to protein content in butter, or anything of the sort; these are facta established by the shipping records of the country. My hon. friend from Weyburn (Mr. Young) endeavours to say that a few men are promoting some purpose of their own.

I wonder if he realizes that in every part of Canada, in every province of Canada, the farmers have indicated that the result of this treaty is injurious to the dairy industry of the country.

Topic:   SUPPLY-AUSTRALIAN TREATY PROPOSED CANCELLATION OP SPECIAL AGREEMENT WITH NEW ZEALAND AND NEGOTIATION OP TREATY
Permalink
LIB

Edward James Young

Liberal

Mr. YOUNG (Weyburn):

Organized propaganda.

Topic:   SUPPLY-AUSTRALIAN TREATY PROPOSED CANCELLATION OP SPECIAL AGREEMENT WITH NEW ZEALAND AND NEGOTIATION OP TREATY
Permalink
CON

Richard Bedford Bennett (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BENNETT:

My hon. friend says it is organized propaganda. All I can say is, let him go down to the parts of Ontario that

[Mf. Bennett.]

Australian Treaty-Mr. Bennett

I have visited during the last six months and tell them that. Let him go, as I did, to the creameries there and find them selling New Zealand butter because there was not sufficient cream to enable them to meet their requirements, and they had to purchase that butter in order to meet the demands of their customers. Is that organized propaganda?

Topic:   SUPPLY-AUSTRALIAN TREATY PROPOSED CANCELLATION OP SPECIAL AGREEMENT WITH NEW ZEALAND AND NEGOTIATION OP TREATY
Permalink
LIB

Edward James Young

Liberal

Mr. YOUNG (Weyburn):

A splendid

market for butter in Canada.

Topic:   SUPPLY-AUSTRALIAN TREATY PROPOSED CANCELLATION OP SPECIAL AGREEMENT WITH NEW ZEALAND AND NEGOTIATION OP TREATY
Permalink
CON

Richard Bedford Bennett (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BENNETT:

New Zealand butter.

Topic:   SUPPLY-AUSTRALIAN TREATY PROPOSED CANCELLATION OP SPECIAL AGREEMENT WITH NEW ZEALAND AND NEGOTIATION OP TREATY
Permalink
LIB

Edward James Young

Liberal

Mr. YOUNG (Weyburn):

Our butter too.

Topic:   SUPPLY-AUSTRALIAN TREATY PROPOSED CANCELLATION OP SPECIAL AGREEMENT WITH NEW ZEALAND AND NEGOTIATION OP TREATY
Permalink

March 11, 1930