October 18, 1932

LIB-PRO

John Livingstone Brown

Liberal Progressive

Mr. BROWN:

The agreement says that the margin of preference must be maintained. The Minister of Trade and Commerce sought to explain the situation, or to get away from it, whichever you like, by referring to a clause in the French treaty which required that the margin between the intermediate and general tariffs should be preserved. That can be done only when you have actual rates with which to deal. Suppose we have a free British tariff, a thirty per cent intermediate and a forty per cent general tariff; the margin between the intermediate and general tariffs can be maintained by reducing each ten per cent, or according to the basis on which the margin is fixed. It may be that a ratio has to be preserved, but it dioes not matter; the argument holds good under any circumstances. However, you cannot preserve a margin between nothing and twenty-five per cent if at the same time you reduce the general tariff. The thing is mathematically impossible. One is almost ashamed to present an argument so simple, but evidently it would seem to be necessary because hon. gentlemen opposite loudly applauded the Minister of Trade and Commerce when he presented his statement of the case.

I wish to refer again in that connection to two items that have already been referred to a number of times, namely cream separators and barbed wire. They are two of the most outstanding necessities on the western farm today. How will the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) go through his constituency and justify a protection of twenty-five per cent on

United Kingdom

cream separators? How will the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Mullins) like to go through his constituency with a cream can as he did last year and say: Here, this old method of cream can or milk can will have to be used now instead of cream separators, which cannot be bought because this government has placed a duty of twenty-five per cent on cream separators. Surely they will never undertake to justify before their constituents an action of that kind.

In regard to preserving the margin of preference, a matter which has already been referred to, one of the things which concerned me during the progress of the negotiations was whether we in Canada would be in any measure bound not to reduce our tariff, and the first thing I looked for when the agreement came into my hands was to see whether any limitation had been put upon our freedom in that direction. Let us refer again to the matter of wheat. It has already been dealt with, but of necssity it will be referred to again and again and we may be able to present the argument from different points of view. I shall not undertake to interpret article 4, which states:

It is agreed that the duty on either wheat in grain, copper, zinc or lead as provided in this agreement may be removed if at any time empire producers of wheat in grain, copper, zinc and lead respectively are unable or unwilling to offer these commodities on first sale in the United Kingdom at prices not exceeding the world prices and in quantities sufficient to supply the requirements of the United Kingdom consumers.

I do not know what that means; but there is one thing that is abundantly clear to me, and that is that it certainly does not increase the effectiveness of the preference; on the contrary it imposes a limitation of some kind upon its effectiveness. Without this clause, and thinking only of the preference as usually understood, there were grave doubts in the minds of those who were concerned in the matter whether a preference on "wheat could be given that would be of any use to the producers of wheat. We know it to be a fact that the general grain trade made representations of the Prime Minister against such a proposal. We know that the United Grain Growers, a large farmers' institution, also made a representation on their own behalf. We know that the pools also made a representation against the idea of a preference. Only one man prominent in the grain trade, so far as I have seen the statement publicly, approved the idea and that was Mr. J, R.

Murray of the Alberta Pacific Grain Company, former general manager of the United Grain Growers. Undoubtedly Mr. Murray is a man who is well qualified to discuss matters relating to trade in grain, but he is only one against the great majority. If there were doubts as to the effectiveness of a preference without any rider such as this, still greater are those doubts when this proviso is put into the agreement. Let us consider the situation. First let me say this that this article would seem to be based upon the assumption that there is some body of men somewhere in Canada competent to act for the Canadian people in this matter of placing our wheat upon the British market. Such a body simply does not exist. It would seem also to be based upon the assumption that it is possible by some agreement between Canada and other dominions to come to an arrangement as to the price at which wheat shall be placed upon the British market. Such an arrangement would seem to me to be absolutely out of the question.

But let us consider the situation that might arise. Suppose Britain takes the action that is provided for in article 21, and Russian wheat is excluded from Great Britain. What is the effect? It simply means that Russian wheat is placed on other markets, depressing the world market, and that world market is the price at which we undertake to sell wheat to Britain. It seems as plain as anything that has ever been brought before us that this preference, so-called, can be of no effect in giving an increased price to the producers of wheat, since it takes away with one hand what it gives with the other. Perhaps there never was a better illustration used than that of the hon. member for West Elgin (Mr. Hep-bum) when he said that it was like giving a whistle to a boy and telling him that he should not blow it. Even before this proviso was known to wheat producers, it was generally conceded that supposing we were able to sell an increased quantity of wheat in the British market, this would simply mean keener competition in other markets, and since we have to sell the great bulk of our wheat in other markets, the net results so far as the producers of wheat were concerned would be nil.

Articles 16 and 17 might perhaps be considered together. The hon. member for Wey-burn (Mr. Young) has dealt very effectively with those, but I should like to emphasize again a point to which he drew attention and

. COMMONS

Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements

to which some of us drew attention in our discussion on the budget last year. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes), in presenting his budget then, made the statement that the revenue from customs tariff had been reduced and one of the causes that brought about that reduction, he said, was the putting into effect of the policies of this government in seeking to encourage Canadian production and trade and to discourage imports from other countries. He did not go into details, but he said in a general way that revenues were reduced because of the effectiveness of the policies of this government It ought to be as clear as daylight that if the government continues those policies revenues will be still further reduced. What then, is the use of putting into article 17 of this agreement the following words:

His Majesty's government in Canada undertake that all existing surcharges on imports from the United Kingdom shall be completely abolished as soon as the finances of Canada will allow.

That is another illustration of seeming to give something, yet giving absolutely nothing. As I have already pointed out, if the points enunciated in articles 16 and 17 are beneficial, they were possible without the operation of this agreement.

At this point I wish to protest against the action of this government in dealing with certain imports. The other day I had occasion to draw attention to the government's action in dealing with repairs to agricultural implements. Undertakings given to the house by the Minister of Finance were set aside by departmental officials, acting, undoubtedly, upon representations made to them by someone. An understanding given to this house by the Minister of Finance was set aside. We gained some satisfaction by knowing that two days after the matter was brought to the attention of the house the order was rescinded; the fact is however, it should never have been passed. That change from the original undertaking constituted one of the most vicious actions ever taken by any government. Contrast an action of that kind with the procedure follow'ed by the former government, under which such matters would have been brought before the tariff board and representations made in public so that the people could be properly informed. Contrast that mode of procedure with the ho!e-in-the-corner method adopted by the present government. The action was vicious, and there is not a single hon. member on the opposite side of the house who would undertake to defend it. It is satisfactory

to know, however, that so far as British importations are concerned the surcharges mentioned in article 17 will' be abandoned as soon as possible. But if the practice is vicious the relief should apply not only to British trade but also to trade with other countries.

Topic:   IS, 1932
Permalink
LIB

William Richard Motherwell

Liberal

Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Melville):

Mr. Speaker, I was in hopes that some of our Tory friends would get their tongues limbered up and let us see once more if they are able to talk. Hon. members will recall that when the address in reply was under discussion the government adopted a policy of strict silence. I thought they resembled an aggregation of political mummies attempting to qualify for the national museum situated at the end of Metcalfe street. I believe they would have been better qualified to take their places as mummies than as parliamentarians sent here to do the business of the country. It would seem that now they have departed from the mummy stage to the semi-talkative. This evening we have heard from one member of the government, and this afternoon one lone private member lifted his voice to speak on behalf of this wonderful agreement now before them.

All through the speech delivered by the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) the other day- and it was a good one of its kind, but in fact a mighty bad kind-hon. members will note he gave no credit to others for the preferences which had been in force for thirty-five years. According to the right hon. gentleman opposite, the first forward movement towards the promotion of empire trade by preferences was contained in these agreements. I wonder what we would have called that when we were boys at school; we would not have called it taradiddle, but would have given it a much shorter name. I wish to take exception, as did my right hon. leader (Mr. Mackenzie King) to the views held by the Prime Minister. He made an outrageous misstatement of the facts as I see them, and there was more fiction than truth in his recital of the history of preferences. Preferences were born in the time of Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Mr. Fielding. It is true the Tories professed a desire for a preference, holding out the pretext that they wanted a reciprocal preference which could not be obtained owing to the free trade policy of Great Britain at that time: They pretended to want a preferential tariff, but in reality wanted to oppose

United Kingdom

the preference which we introduced because it meant lower tariff. May I observe that they never missed an opportunity to oppose it? Coldbloodedly and in broad daylight they are now claiming to be the authors and promoters of this great preferential policy. Down through the years, until Great Britain decided to change her fiscal policy, there was a preference on only one side. In the interests of Canada, however, we gave a preference to promote trade with the motherland. About nine or ten years ago our preferential system began to bear double fruit and Great Britain began to realize that reciprocal trade arrangements were of advantage to her. Tariffs were being imposed, one after another, by other countries; she found she could improve her economic strength by reciprocal trade with the dominions, and as a result, about nine years ago, began to adopt reciprocal tariffs with them.

I ask hon. members to read the document now before us in the form of this agreement. I do not wish to be disrespectful, but it is couched in language which would lead people to believe that the reciprocal preferences with Great Britain in the last nine years were promoted and secured at the conference held in Ottawa last summer. One has to read it carefully to learn otherwise.

The tobacco preference, if I remember correctly, was given nine years ago. A number of fruit preferences were given about the same time, and throughout the years following, under the Safeguarding of Industries Act in Great Britain, additions have been made to those preferences. So that the reciprocal nature of the preferences was increasing year after year, and not by fierce dog-fight agreements such as some one has described the recent conference to be. Preferences in the past were voluntary arrangements for the benefit of all parties concerned. By claiming all the credit hon. gentlemen opposite have demonstrated they are the champion political plagiarists of the day. They are attempting to swipe in broad daylight credit which everybody knows belongs to their opponents. I wonder if I can get any hon. members to their feet?

Topic:   IS, 1932
Permalink
CON
LIB

William Richard Motherwell

Liberal

Mr. MOTHERWELL:

I wish to thank the chancellor of the exchequer, Mr. Chamberlain, for at least, as far as I can estimate, about eighty per cent of the preferences embodied in these agreements. Those preferences were brought into force in March or April, and they have been in force ever since. The fruit preference was there; the lumber

preference was there; the butter preference was there, although not to as great an extent; the cheese preference was there, but if we had not known otherwise we might have believed all these changes had come about because of the recent conference. So far as the prairies are concerned, we can see no material benefits derived from them. There was a ten per cent preference on butter. How many knew it was there? The price of butter this summer would indicate there had been no improvement; butter prices were the

worst they have been in a long time. Yet we are told that wonderful things will happen, although hon. members opposite know no improvement has been made despite the fact that the preferences I have mentioned have been in force for the past five or six months.

As a matter of fact there are only fourmajor items that I have noted in which

changes are made as a result of agreements concluded in Ottawa. The four commodities concerned are wheat, copper, lead and zinc. And the provisions covering them contain the fatal rider that they must be sold in sufficient quantities to meet the demand in the homeland and at world prices. Here we have the extraordinary kind of preference that does not prefer. There is something new about this, a preference that neither prefers by giving you any better price, nor does it prevent the price going lower, as we have seen by our butter this year. The hon. Minister of Railways read a part of the speech of the Right Hon. Neville Chamberlain this evening, but he stopped before he got to this-just to show you how delightfully provocative these bargains are and how they tempt some men to talk nonsense:

The chancellor repeated the statement he made at the Conservative party meeting recently at Blackpool. "The ties of the empire have been wearing dangerously thin."

I wonder where he got that nonsense. The same place that Mr. Thomas found the humbug! Then he goes on as if he thought he should modify it, thought it was a little too broad apparently. He illustrated that statement by citing the troubles in India. A lot of the poor Indians cannot read English so it is safer to pass the buck to them.

Canada has become to a great extent dependent upon United States finance-

That sounds like our hon. friends on the other side.

-and in the absence of any preferential arrangement with the United Kingdom she might have found it extremely difficult to refuse a new offer of reciprocity from her great neighbour to the south, which would

354 COMMONS

Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements

definitely link their fortunes together to such an extent as would cause a divergence between Canada and Great Britain, declared Mr. Chamberlain.

Where did he get that? Just the same sort of humbug.

Topic:   IS, 1932
Permalink
LIB
LIB

William Richard Motherwell

Liberal

Mr. MOTHERWELL:

Nothing else. Is anybody going to challenge my statement as to where he got it? I am waiting for a challenge, I read it three times in this house last session, and I am ready to read it again, the authority for my statement that Mr. Chamberlain got this foolish impression because of the claptrap that the Prime Minister of Canada talked when overseas in 1930, particularly at Belfast. Nobody challenges me? Then I am not going to read it.

Topic:   IS, 1932
Permalink
CON

Ernest D'Israeli Smith

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SMITH (Victoria):

May I ask the hon. gentleman: Does he oppose the preference being given on Canadian butter and cheese?

Topic:   IS, 1932
Permalink
CON

Pierre Édouard Blondin (Speaker of the Senate)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SPEAKER:

If the hon. member who has the floor will permit, the question may be asked, otherwise not.

Topic:   IS, 1932
Permalink
LIB

William Richard Motherwell

Liberal

Mr. MOTHERWELL:

I have not my

hearing apparatus on, so that I cannot hear what the hon. member says, but I do not think it makes much difference-it is a safe guess he is not saying anything worth while. If you will excuse me, Mr. Speaker, I cannot have my time taken up with these interruptions.

Now I am going to turn to some items-I am sorry I have almost the same items that former speakers have dealt with, but I will try to rotate them a little differently, and perhaps may have some different remarks to make on them. I will first read part of the Prime Minister's Belfast speech-which Mr. Chamberlain has apparently been also reading-because it works in with what I am going to say later. Here is what was said at Belfast after our Prime Minister was honoured, as he was worthy of being so honoured, with a degree at the University of Belfast:

While sentiment, he asserted, must always blaze a pathway, the ties that bound people to one another at the present day must be ties of material strands of economic strength.

Then he said that he was satisfied,-

-if we do not avail ourselves of the matchless opportunity that we have by reason of our far-flung empire, of our quarter of the world's people and its area, our fate will be the fate of the empires of the past.

On top of that was the parting shot that if he could not get what he wanted from Great Britain Canada would seek her economic strength elsewhere.

The ties that are to bind us now apparently are to be sales in hogs, tobacco, whisky and other merchandise. That is the tie that binds! Here we have the imagination of the Prime Minister running to all kinds of heights; he is afraid that the ordinary supply of bacon will not tie us tightly enough-in other words, won't hog-tie us-so he runs them to half a billion, as sqmething that we shall not attain to for many a day. Here is what he says:

Article 6. His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom declare that it is their intention to arrange as soon as possible after receiving the report of the commission now sitting on the reorganization of the pig industry in the United Kingdom for the quantitative regulation of the supplies of bacon and hams coming on to the United Kingdom market and undertake that in any legislation which they may submit to parliament for regulating the supplies of bacon and hams from all sources into the United Kingdom, provision will be made for free entry of Canadian bacon and hams of good quality up to a maximum of

2.500.000 cwt. per annum.

There never was a restriction before. We came within 10,000,000 of exporting this figure in 1919, and instead of widening our market this actually restricts it to a given amount, which we almost attained in one former year during the war. So there is a narrowing of the market, not a widening.

But not satisfied with getting a quota, or thinking they were getting a quota, here is a commission inquiring into the pig industry in Great Britain. Some time it is going to report, nobody knows what; yet we are told that we are getting something wonderful, although we do not know yet what it is. Whatever applies to the home pig grower is going to apply to the dominion pig grower, and it is going to restrict what we had no limit on before. We are going to get them into the British market free just as we have been doing, and will do, I hope.

Then the right hon. Prime Minister starts off with this warble:

Under favourable marketing conditions and with a price maintained continuously above the cost of production-

That is the condition that is to prevail before this comes about, and if it does not come about they can fall back upon this:

-Canada has potential possibilities for the production of 8,500,000 hogs by 1937,-

They haven't got 5,000,000 now. My hon. friends will be safe on the shelf before the five years is up, and this production of

8.500.000 hogs comes round!

-permitting of an export volume of 300,000,000 pounds of bacon and 10,000,000 hogs by 1942, permitting of an export volume of 500,000,000 pounds of bacon and hams.

United Kingdom

What ia the use of the Premier exerting his imagination as to how many hogs Canada will have in ten years, when the quota is only

2,500,000 hundredweight? You cannot ship Britain any more; where are you going to send the rest? But the Prime Minister was wanting to tell a nice fairy story, a product of his imagination, and he goes beyond the quota by

250,000,000 pounds. What are they going to do with the balance? And what will other countries be doing at the same time? We are not the only hog-producing country in the world; Poland and the Baltic states and Sweden are coming along rapidly. If economic conditions warrant our converting grain into bacon they will also warrant other countries doing it, and before we come to 500,000,000 pounds of bacon, the potential possibilities of this wonderful bargain, the whole world will be smothered in hogs and you will not be able to get even the 2\ to 3 cents a pound that the farmers are getting in the west at the present time. Great possibilities! The very thing we should not do. Have we not enough glut already in the wheat market without following it with this kind of thing in connection with hogs? Moreover there is nothing in it, there is no preference promised, nothing assured that we have not got now. I do not wish to be harsh in my criticism of the Minister of Agriculture; he has a fearful job in times like these. A lot of ignoramuses as far as agriculture is concerned sit around the council table with him, and the greatest expert in the world could not meet such a situation as that in which my hon. friend the minister finds himself. The rest of the cabinet know about as much about agriculture as a sucking turkey knows. I say my good friend the minister started out nobly, quite believing whatever it is he does believe, though it does not say just what that is. I think he must have had quite a tip from the commission as to what their report would be, though with this tremendous agitation overseas that has taken place recently they may renege on it. In any ease, with all kinds of faith in his relatively youthful mind he has gone ahead with a hog and bacon campaign bigger than we have had in years. He had very good men out in Saskatchewan doing that work; I do not know why they did not go into Alberta. But they started out in the face of hogs selling at about 2} cents a pound, trying to start a campaign to bring about greater production, based on something by way of restriction that may never materialize. It is stated by the Prime Minister that in ten years we will have a potential market for 500,000 hogs, but those same

potentialities extend to other countries. We would need to eat little but bacon and ham if we were to consume the products of a campaign such as this.

Then the Prime Minister says, "I wonder if the farmers of this country have a proper appreciation of just what is the value of this proposal". I know they have a proper appreciation. It is the greatest piece of nonsense that was ever promulgated, the greatest flim-flam ever attempted to be put over on a suffering people. There is no more comfort in it than there is in a block of ice in midwinter.

Then the Prime Minister says that the benefits under this article will become manifest-when? This is the safety first provision ; they are to become manifest "when confidence is established among farmers, through government policy to secure the necessary increase in production from year to year to make possible the objective in volume of product for export to the United Kingdom market". That is exactly what is lacking-confidence. The people do not forget the Prime Minister's election campaign over the radio, and in that connection I want to take off my hat to him. I never heard a radio campaigner more powerful than the Prime Minister. He could make black appear white and white no colour at all. I am afraid things have come to such a pass out on the prairies-I speak of the prairies because I know more about them-thait if by accident the Prime Minister should stumble on a really good agricultural policy the people would not accept it through lack of confidence in him. That is the position. They think of the many times they have already been stung since this government came into power.

Back in 1930, when conditions were really favourable, the Minister of Agriculture started out bravely to carry on a similar hog production campaign. I know everything looked quite favourable at that time. I took part in one during the war, and it got so that many farmers did not want to see government officials at all if they were going to talk about hogs. At all events, in 1930 hogs were worth about 10 or 11 cents a pound, and in Saskatchewan there was plenty of barley, rye, oats and other feeds, so what better policy could you enunciate than that of converting unsalable grain into salable bacon and ham? An older hand well may have been deceived into undertaking a campaign of that kind, though in all fairness I must say that the minister warned the farmers that they must be prepared to accept perhaps five cents per pound at the initial point of shipment. But they

; COMMONS

Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements

did not get five cents; they got only slightly more than half that. So you see they the farmers-are not in a very good humour after having been stung by a similar campaign two years ago; they are not likely to bite again at the instance of the Prime Minister, who they think does not know a hog from a groundhog. .

Let us pass on to the next point; for lack of time we cannot say any more now about hogs. I did not think there was an aggregation of men in the world, either inside or outside a mental hospital, who would promulgate such a nonsensical proposition as this hog proposal as set out in the agreement. Even if the scheme were successful it would smash the market even worse than it has been smashed. There are not enough meat eating people in the world to eat that quantity of ham and bacon if other countries joined in the production campaign, unless we all took to that diet and ate little else.

Now let us turn to wheat, the greatest fake of all in connection with this agreement. There is no question that this government and its supporters intended that the people should believe that they were to get six cents more for their wheat in English money, or five cents more in our money. There was nothing to the contrary announced that I saw during the conference; when any member of the government referred to the subject he was very careful to say nothing about the fatal rider that was attached to it. They knew where to stop when drawing the long bow; they knew too many members of this house would understand the meaning of that rider, but that mistaken idea has gone all through the west. I know that a lot of Tory workers out in Saskatchewan are working hard to leave the impression that here is another five or six cents a bushel given the farmers by the Bennett government, and you know it takes two men and a little boy to catch up with a well started lie. Sometimes you never catch up with it. People want to believe that statement, especially those who have been supporting this government and who have been looking for some excuse to continue doing so. The people want to believe it, but they will be disillusioned when they read the statement of the Prime Minister. It will not be widely advertised; there will be no headlines in the Tory press in connection with it. The people will have to find it out for themselves.

If I understood the Minister of Trade and Commerce aright he said that while this provision will not increase the price-and I am sure they make that admission reluctantly -it will increase the amount that will be sold. Why should that be so, if the price is the

same? Is it going to make our wheat better? Is there going to be a greater relative value attached to our wheat? Can anyone give any reason for the faith of the Minister of Trade and Commerce and his belief that more Canadian wheat will be sold in Britain because there will be a duty on foreign wheat? Do you not think, Mr. Speaker, that if it is greater quantity they want to sell they would have gotten a quota? Quota means share, and the government hope to have a larger share of our wheat go to Great Britain than formerly was the case, because it carries a non-operative preference. Apparently the government took the wrong course; they were offered a quota but they have obtained a preference that doesn't prefer. The word sounds a lot better than "quota". Hon, gentlemen opposite could tell their admiring friends in the country that it is almost one hundred years since we had such a preference. The word "preference ' always suggests the ability to prefer, and that means something better than is secured by the other fellow-something better by way of price. But we are told by the Prime Minister that this was not the intention, that he does not anticipate a better price but rather a larger volume to be sold. So, if the price is the same and the wheat is the same, what will induce the larger volume? If, before this debate concludes, any hon. member can advance reasons why our wheat should go to Britain in greater quantities when prices are the same, when the wheat is the same and when it is being imported by the same country, I should like to hear them.

I will not dwell 'longer on the question of wheat; this is so obviously a political trick. Whether or not it is correct I do not know, but according to press reports the experts from both sides of the Atlantic were against both quotas and preferences with the exception of one or two in Canada who were mentioned by the bon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown). Why should the Prime Minister disregard all his expert; advisers and act solely upon his ow'n judgment in this matter? Does he know more than all his experts put together? No doubt he knew more than they did from the political standpoint, but it will take a lot of explaining to show that there is not this 6 .cents hidden somewhere in this for the farmer, in spite of what the Prime Minister has candidly admitted. He admits that it is not there. What is it there for, Mr. Speaker? It will not mean any more to the farmers. I defy anyone to show how iit will make for larger exports to Great Britain when the demand will be the same, when it will be the same kind of wheat and when the price will apparently be the same. What would induce

United Kingdom

larger exports? Then if there is no more price, what is the advantage? Oh well, the government will be better able to spellbound the farmers; they will be able to sting them again with another bed-time story to lull them to sleep. What happens in this chamber, if it were only known to the electors, would make a lot of difference. But not much gets out to the men on the frontier, many of whom today cannot afford to get a newspaper. However, they will be told some fancy story over the radio and they will be led to believe,

" Here is the emancipator of the country come at last. It is true Mr. Bennett fell down in 1930 but he fell up this time."

We will pass from wheat now. It is a fine political dodge deliberately intended, I believe, to leave the impression that there was something there by way of better price that is not there, as is now admitted.

We come now to the cattle embargo. It is nearly ten years since it was largely removed. I notice that since the remnants have been taken off it has not started the shipment of cattle across the seas, and when the remnants were there it did not stop them going across either. There were some frills that should have been taken off but they were left on for a purpose. I suppose the fear was genuine that some of our animals might carry over contagious diseases; and with the persistent repetition of yarns overseas, it was only natural that some of them would stick. The quarantine of three days on this side has been removed, but it does not affect the west; as that time was taken during train travel. And then there was the regulation of marking the cattle on the jaw with the letter C, indicating that they came from Canada. That was a nuisance. Putting the cattle in a place suitable for branding takes time, and the discontinuance of that is all to the good. Then a veterinary accompanying each shipment is another matter which is being discontinued, but that will not put anything more in the farmer's pocket because he did not pay for it. With regard to the stuff going over, I do not know how much will go, but doubtless some will, and that will be all to the good. Anyhow, all these little vexatious provisoes that were left on for the purpose of trying out the new order of things, to see whether everything was all right and whether our cattle were as free from disease as we claimed they were, and as we have proven that they were, are to be removed. I would warn all hon. gentlemen on the other side, and particularly the Prime Minister, who takes as much pride as anyone else in the freedom of our animals

from disease-and I am sure the Minister of Agriculture is also greatly concerned in this regard-to bear in mind that if we lessen the quarantine on cattle from the old country coming here, then we run a greater risk of having foot and mouth disease in Canada, where we have never had it. I see by the correspondence of the Minister of Agriculture with the British Minister of Agriculture, Sir John Gilmour, with respect to this matter, that there is one proposal in regard to the London quarantine station which, during our administration at any rate, was never recognized as being in itself a safe quarantine. It was safe enough as far as it went, but we never regarded it as a safe enough place from which to take animals direct and send them to Canada. It is too long a story to go into, but we did not think it sufficiently safe at that time. It may be safer now; I do not know. At any rate, I would suggest that the government look carefully into that proposal and be sure that the American authorities recognize the same London quarantine station, because there is an agreement between Canada and the United States with regard to the importation of animals from abroad, from the point of view of disease, and it would be violating the arrangement with them if we took a step in which they were not prepared jointly to concur in the matter of animal importations and quarantine.

If I remember rightly, the second session I was down here I endeavoured to present my view with respect to the removal of the embargo, and I went out of my way to give credit to every man, Sir Robert Borden, the hon. member for South Winnipeg (Mr. Rogers), Duncan Marshall, the Hon. Mr. Tolmie, and everyone else who had struck a blow in the direction of removing that embargo, from the time it was put on to the time it was largely removed in 1923. I took the view that they deserved their full share of credit. It is true it fell to our lot to strike the last blow, through the Hon. Peter Larkin. High Commissioner in London. The aggregate of all accomplished the end. It is one thing to take that fair position, however, and another thing for the Prime Minister to take the attitude that the first forward step towards the promotion of inter-empire trade was made in these agreements. Not at all; it was not the first step as already stated.

Just a word now about butter and cheese, quite familiar subjects; but before I come to that there is one point in connection with bacon which I overlooked. Perhaps you will recall the statement made by someone in 1930

Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements

that the Prime Minister did not bring home the baoon but that he spilled a lot of beans. He has not brought the bacon home yet but he has an imaginary potential market for Canada in ten years of 10,000,000 hogs and possibly 500,000,000 pounds of bacon and ham. Well, there are five provinces in the dominion that do not produce enough bacon and hams for themselves, and this stupendous potential market which he has predicted, will have to be supplied by Ontario and the three prairie provinces. British Columbia does not produce enough for itself, nor have the three maritime provinces for many years produced sufficient for their own requirements; and because of the enormous market in Montreal, Quebec has to rely upon Ontario and the western provinces for its supplementary supply. So that you can see the herculean task which the production of this prophesied half billion pounds of bacon in Canada in ten years will impose upon the prairie provinces and Ontario.

I come now to butter and cheese. We have heard much in regard to these products. The government have not expatiated very much on butter and cheese. I wonder why. If ever there was an election that was fought by despicable means on any one topic it was the last election, which was fought largely on this question of New Zealand butter. Canada was represented by the Tories as being subservient to and dependent on the Antipodes for butter. You would think it was a terrible thing. As a matter of fact, we have been getting butter from New Zealand for over forty years. In a coldish country like Canada we are continually running short of this product in the winter time, and it was the regular thing years ago to run short in the winter until we had adequate cold storage facilities to store it. My information is that some has come in already. I have been informed that seven hundred boxes have entered the country, and I do not think the Minister of Agriculture will deny that statement. The first consignment came to Vancouver and was consumed in that city. I should think a Tory would turn black in the face at the thought of swallowing an ounce of New Zealand or Australian butter. It was a terrible thing to buy anything from a sister dominion in the way of butter. Hard times makes a farmer strip his cows a little cleaner; he is willing to undertake further tasks, and there was a reversion to more butter production. The same thing took place to a lesser degree with hog production. How-' ever, it did not take long for things to slide back. We find we are now getting butter from the Antipodes in spite of the five-cent FMr. Motherwell.]

tariff and in spite of the fact that butter is now selling for twentj'' and twenty-one cents per pound wholesale in Montreal. The price would be still lower if we were on the export market. We are not only getting butter from New Zealand but Canadian butter is being shipped back from London. I think three consignments have been made. We are going to get a further preference on butter, but we had one all summer and there was the most miserable market for this product in Canada ever seen in this generation. If this is going to be the result with other preferences on farm products, why are hon. gentlemen opposite sitting on their beam ends and feeling so elated over it?

Topic:   IS, 1932
Permalink
CON

Pierre Édouard Blondin (Speaker of the Senate)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SPEAKER:

The hon. member's time has expired.

Topic:   IS, 1932
Permalink
LIB

William Richard Motherwell

Liberal

Mr. MOTHERWELL:

I had not finished but I suppose I shall have to conclude my remarks at another time.

On motion of Mr. Pouliot the debate was adjourned.

Topic:   IS, 1932
Permalink

TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

EVIDENCE AND OTHER DOCUMENTS TO BE LODGED IN LIBRARY OF PARLIAMENT

CON

Richard Bedford Bennett (Prime Minister; President of the Privy Council; Secretary of State for External Affairs)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) :

Mr. Speaker, with your permission I should like to answer a question asked yesterday by the right hon. the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) in connection with the records of the proceedings of the royal commission on railways and transportation. I find that the record so far as kept is contained in five large volumes totaling three thousand pages, or about 900,000 words. Certain of the evidence was not recorded, a great deal of information having been presented to the commission in the form of reports and statements, and this is not contained in the volumes to which I have referred. This information has not been printed in any part, nor was it proposed to incur the expense of doing so. If the house thought well I was going to suggest that these papers, appropriately bound, be lodged either in the library of parliament, which would seem to be the suitable place in which to keep them, or with this house.

Topic:   TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
Subtopic:   EVIDENCE AND OTHER DOCUMENTS TO BE LODGED IN LIBRARY OF PARLIAMENT
Permalink
LIB

William Lyon Mackenzie King (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Liberal

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):

Mr. Speaker, the suggestion made by the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) is a very reasonable one and would be most acceptable. It will be quite satisfactory as long as the documents are placed where they will be accessible to members of the house.

Questions

Topic:   TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
Subtopic:   EVIDENCE AND OTHER DOCUMENTS TO BE LODGED IN LIBRARY OF PARLIAMENT
Permalink
CON

Richard Bedford Bennett (Prime Minister; President of the Privy Council; Secretary of State for External Affairs)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BENNETT:

This would be subject to their being completed, gathered together and properly bound. I think they had better be placed in the library.

Topic:   TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
Subtopic:   EVIDENCE AND OTHER DOCUMENTS TO BE LODGED IN LIBRARY OF PARLIAMENT
Permalink
LIB

William Lyon Mackenzie King (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

I think so.

On motion of Mr. Bennett the house adjourned at 10.55 p.m.

Wednesday, October 19, 1932

Topic:   TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
Subtopic:   EVIDENCE AND OTHER DOCUMENTS TO BE LODGED IN LIBRARY OF PARLIAMENT
Permalink

October 18, 1932