October 21, 1932

LIB

Edward James Young

Liberal

Mr. YOUNG:

You cannot see the consumers at all.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   IMPERIAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CANADA AND THE UNITED KINGDOM
Permalink
CON

Raymond Ducharme Morand

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MORAND:

I should like to know who are the consumers my learned friend always talks about?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   IMPERIAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CANADA AND THE UNITED KINGDOM
Permalink
LIB

Edward James Young

Liberal

Mr. YOUNG:

The ten million people in

Canada.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   IMPERIAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CANADA AND THE UNITED KINGDOM
Permalink
CON

Raymond Ducharme Morand

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MORAND:

Those ten million are not made up of wheat growers only. As a matter of fact there are far more engaged in other pursuits than that to which my hon. friend apparently has circumscribed his entire attention.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   IMPERIAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CANADA AND THE UNITED KINGDOM
Permalink
LIB

Edward James Young

Liberal

Mr. YOUNG:

They are all suffering from this policy.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   IMPERIAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CANADA AND THE UNITED KINGDOM
Permalink
?

Some hon. MEMBERS:

Order.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   IMPERIAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CANADA AND THE UNITED KINGDOM
Permalink
CON

Raymond Ducharme Morand

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MORAND:

This government has

stood at the gates day and night to see that this country was not flooded with the distress goods from other highly protected countries. I am thankful that this government has taken upon itself a full knowledge of the trust given to it by the people, to protect and look after the Canadian people. I believe that it is the duty of all governments, first of all, to look after the people they are elected to govern and then after the Canadian people have been fully safeguarded, by cooperation, coordination or otherwise to help the other parts of the empire or other countries in the world. I believe this government has well fulfilled that duty. I again express my appreciation of their wisdom and fidelity and, to use words similar to those uttered by the Prime Minister, I say: You have done well.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   IMPERIAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CANADA AND THE UNITED KINGDOM
Permalink
LIB

William Duff

Liberal

Mr. WILLIAM DUFF (Antigonish-Guys-borough):

Mr. Speaker, the people of Canada always regard imperial conferences as events of vital interest, because at those meetings representatives from all parts of the British Empire meet to discuss matters of primary concern to the dominions and to the empire as a whole. When Sir Wilfrid Laurier, as Prime Minister of this country, represented Canada at the imperial conference at London, it was conceded by everyone, no matter what his political persuasions might be, that he represented Canada truly and well. The same thing also applies to the occasion when Sir Robert Borden, as Prime Minister of this country, W'ent to London on similar business. It also applies to the time when the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen was Prime Minister of this country in 1920-21 and when he attended the imperial conference in one of those years. I believe my good friends on the other side of the house and the Canadian people as a whole will also agree with me that when my leader, the present leader of the opposition, the leader of the Liberal party (Mr. Mackenzie King), was chosen Prime Minister of Canada and attended several imperial conferences at London, Canada was proud of him and his action at those conferences.

Then in 1930 we had a general election. Before the election was called, it was known that an imperial conference was to take place in the fall of that self-same year. The Canadian people decided, as they had a perfect right to do, to change governments, and the Liberal government, which had been in power for eight years, was overthrown, and the Conservative government put into power under the leadership of the present Prime

United Kingdom

Minister (Mr. Bennett). Knowing that the Imperial conference was to be called, and knowing that it was quite possible or within the probabilities that he might have to go to London and represent Canada at that conference, the present Prime Minister went on the different platforms from the Pacific to the Atlantic preaching a policjr, not entirely of protection, but of higher and higher tariffs. Within a month after he was elected and his party came into power, a special session of parliament was called. Knowing, as I said a moment ago, that within a very few weeks he would have to attend an imperial conference at London, he asked us at that session to increase the tariff, and due of course to the fact that he was elected on that policy and that he had behind him a majority in this house, the tariff was raised to a very considerable extent. My right hon. friend proceeded to the conference and we know exactly what happened there. He made his proposal to the British government or to the delegates of the British government assembled at that conference. His proposition was turned down and he came back to Canada without any result from the conference.

This year another conference was summoned, which met in the capital city of our fair country. During the debate since these agreements have been laid on the table of the house, and since the Prime Minister has moved his motion asking us to approve or disapprove them, the discussion to a certain extent has been a fair one. I have no objection in the world to the Prime Minister taking credit to himself for what he thinks he has got out of those agreements, because we are all human, we are all perhaps a little egotistical, and I do not mind my right hon. friend in his speech, although it may not have been quite fair to say, as reported on page 110 of Hansard:

"And despite the unpatriotic efforts made by some to create the impression that the primary interests of each of the delegations was to benefit its own empire state. . .

I do not think those words are quite fair. It makes no difference what our political leanings are, whether we are Conservative or Liberal or belong to any other party in this country, whilst we may once in a while sneer at one another or say something which we would not say in personal conversation, yet I think, sir, you will agree with me when I say that every man or woman in Canada is patriotic and believes in the British Empire. As I said a moment ago, as regards the remark made by the Prime Minister in his speech

"that he had succeeded where the Liberals had failed," I have no objection to that; if you or I, sir, had been in his place we might have used similar words. In the course of the debate when my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) and my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion) spoke and when they were replied to by the ex-Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm) and the exMinister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), I think all will agree that the debate was carried on in a very gentlemanly manner.

But the Prime Minister was called to accept a degree in the university of New York, a degree to which I am sure he was fully entitled. I think it was a good idea for the Prime Minister to get away from the worries of office for a day or two, because "all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy." But before taking his departure, I think he should have left word with some of his subordinates in the cabinet that they should be very careful how they spoke in his absence, because practically before the Prime Minister had boarded his train for Albany, New York, we noticed that my hon. friend the Solicitor General (Mr. Dupre) rose in the house and made a speech. As I said a moment ago, before the Solicitor General made his speech, the debate was being carried on in a very gentlemanly and proper manner, but what were the first words of the Solicitor General? He sneered at the fact that the ex-Minister of Justice had made the remark that he had wanted to see the conference a success. Oh, no, he said, that was not true at all; the exMinister of Justice and other Liberals in this country did not want the conference that met at Ottawa in July to be a success. He quoted from several newspapers, Liberal newspapers he called them, and no doubt he was correct in that assumption. One was Le Soleil and the other, if I am not mistaken, was Le Canada of Montreal. Of course, "when the cat's away, the mice will play," but the mice should be very careful when they come out of their holes, how they play. I regret exceedingly that the Solicitor General made that speech and referred to the remarks contained in those two Liberal newspapers. I think hon. members will agree with me that those are not the only two newspapers in Canada that published remarks and editorials regarding the Imperial conference either before it met or while it was in session. If I quote from other newspapers I do so because the Solicitor General has given the lead. Nobody

438 COMMONS

Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements

will accuse the Montreal Gazette of being a Liberal newspaper. What does the Gazette say about the Imperial conference:

Among those most competent to judge the position, the impasse which has been reached is attributable very largely to the Canadian Prime Minister's disposition to keep the preparation of Canada's case and the actual negotiations wholly in his own hands, the only exceptions to this rule being such assistance as he accepts from a single departmental adviser.

I wonder who that might be. There were rumours around Ottawa that the Prime Minister did not even consult his departmental advisers and that some members of his cabinet were not at all pleased at the Prime Minister receiving advice from a particular person. The Gazette goes on:

Such a course lends itself easily to the commission of mistakes, and it is an open secret that mistakes have been made.

This is from the Montreal Gazette, not from Le Soleil or Le Canada. It goes on:

The Prime Minister has acted, no doubt, with the best of intentions. He called the conference. It is his habit to centralize all government business in his own office, and he has endeavoured to apply to the Imperial economic conference the same method which he has follow'ed in the conduct of domestic affairs.

What does the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) or the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Sutherland) say to that? The Gazette gees on:

With all Mr. Bennett's ability and energy, the task is too great, and the results have shown that participation by other ministers, and by industrial and financial leaders outside the government, would have prevented in large measure the errors which have occurred. The situation is an anxious one. If it is not remedied, the conference will close with the two empire units chiefly concerned, namely, Great Britain and Canada, sharing only in its lesser achievements.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   IMPERIAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CANADA AND THE UNITED KINGDOM
Permalink
CON

Frank Thomas Shaver

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SHAVER:

May I ask if the hon. gentleman has read the editorial in the Gazette of Wednesday last which commends very highly the work done by the representatives of Canada at the Imperial conference and its results?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   IMPERIAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CANADA AND THE UNITED KINGDOM
Permalink
LIB

William Duff

Liberal

Mr. DUFF:

Yes, I did read that editorial, but I am referring now to what the Gazette said during the conference and what the Solicitor General said, and I think what my hon. friend had better do is to get the Solicitor General by the ear and keep him out in the corridors. Perhaps my hon. friend who has just interrupted with a pertinent question knows of a paper called the Winnipeg Tribune. It is a Conservative paper. What does it say?

Mr. Bennett's position is distinctly vulnerable. The public will soon realize that the vanity and egotism of the Premier, and his weakness in trying to run a one-man show are a menace to Canada, not only at the conference but everywhere else.

Let me go a little further since the Solicitor General has brought newspapers into this debate. The conference is over. We were hoping that something would be done at that conference. What does the Ottawa Journal say of it? Here is an English view of the Imperial conference, taken from the Ottawa Journal:

Mr. A. J. Cummings, the worthy representative of the News-Chronicle, of London, does seem to have had a bad time during his recent visit to Ottawa covering the Imperial economic conference. "As long as I live," he wrote in a recent issue of his paper, "I shall never forget the disgust and loathing revealed on the faces of exhausted delegates at the final plenary session in parliament house. In less than a week all the beautiful imperial talk of imperial unity and imperial sacrifice had been wiped off the slate with a dirty sponge."

Those are not the words of Le Soleil or Le Canada, but of Mr. Cummings of the News-Chronicle.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   IMPERIAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CANADA AND THE UNITED KINGDOM
Permalink
CON

Armand Renaud La Vergne (Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:

I have allowed the hon. member latitude to answer the Solicitor General, but the house will realize the necessity of the rule being observed that editorials are not to be quoted. Members, of course, can express their own opinions, but must not quote editorials.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   IMPERIAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CANADA AND THE UNITED KINGDOM
Permalink
LIB

William Duff

Liberal

Mr. DUFF:

I cannot agree with you, Mr. Speaker. It has been the rule for years in this house that speakers can quote from newspapers. That has been done for the last twenty years, and I submit that I am perfectly in order in reading from newspapers. I know, of course, that I am dealing with a very delicate subject, Mr. Speaker, but the quarrel is really not with mo but with you and the Solicitor General for bringing it up in the first instance.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   IMPERIAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CANADA AND THE UNITED KINGDOM
Permalink
CON

Armand Renaud La Vergne (Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:

That is why

I gave the hon. member latitude.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   IMPERIAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CANADA AND THE UNITED KINGDOM
Permalink
LIB

William Duff

Liberal

Mr. DUFF:

I resent, and every Liberal

in Canada resents, any insinuation that the Liberal party did not want to see this conference a success. Anybody who says that any Liberal in Canada did not want to see the conference a success is not in his right mind, and I as a Liberal resent anybody saying that I or any other Liberal in this country did not want to see this conference which was attended by delegates from all over the empire made a success. I think you will agree with me, sir, that the Liberals in this country are just as anxious for trade as the

United Kingdom

Conservatives, and that they are just as much interested in the trade of this country and of the empire as are the Conservatives. In the great war from 1914 to 1918 the Liberals did their part just as well as the Conservatives, and why should we now be told because we criticize the agreement that was made at that great empire conference that we did not want the conference to be a success?

I had hoped, sir, that I could support this agreement. I cannot deal with all the articles in it, but there are some to which I should like to refer for a few moments. I notice in the Prime Minister's speech-it is taken almost verbatim from the articles in the agreement-that the public are led to believe that under this agreement there is a preference on certain fish products. Since reading the agreement and the Prime Minister's speech I have been wondering what is the difference between a duty and a preference, or when a duty becomes a preference. If I understand the agreement correctly, under the schedule which will be found at page 136 of the Prime Minister's speech, there are certain rates of duty on fish imported into Great Britain from foreign countries. I have gone into this very carefully and have tried to convince myself that perhaps there was some merit in this part of the agreement. Up to last March all fish entering Great Britain, not only from other parts of the empire but from foreign countries as well, entered duty free. Empire fish still enter Great Britain duty free under this agreement, while fish from foreign countries are taxed certain rates of duty. The first item in the schedule on page 136 is "fish, fresh, sea," and the preferential rate is free and the general tariff ten per cent ad valorem. Two or three items further down is the item "codfish." Perhaps other people may give a different interpretation to that word, and can show what the difference is between "fish, fresh, sea" and "codfish." I have always thought that they were one and the same thing, but under this schedule they are treated as two different things. Let us deal with that item for a moment. We are separated by the Atlantic ocean from Great Britain, a distance of some 2,500 miles. At the present time and for a great many years Great Britain has been getting her supply of codfish from the North sea, from Greenland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden. These fish enter Great Britain in large quantities. At the outside they are within 1,000 miles of the markets of London, Grimsby, Hull, Liverpool, and other centres in Great Britain. In Canada we have our fisheries on the eastern coast and on the western coast. Surely no one will argue that you could ship codfish from the Pacific coast of Canada and expect them to compete in Great Britain with codfish from Norway and Sweden caught by the trawlers of these countries and landed in Great Britain. What about fresh fish on the Atlantic coast? As everybody knows, on that coast the fishermen are spread out in small hamlets, and it would be impossible for them to catch fish, send them to a central point for exportation to Great Britain, and ship them overseas so as to arrive in a condition fit for human consumption. But supposing that could be done; let us admit for the sake of argument that wc could do that. With, what, then, are we faced? We are faced with the fact that the price of fish is not made in Halifax, Nova Scotia, or Vancouver. It is made in London, Grimsby, Hull or some of the other fishing ports of Great Britain. The result is that even if we could ship fresh codfish from Halifax or Vancouver we would have to accept the world price.

I am backed up in this statement by the Prime Minister. Of course he was not referring to fish, but speaking of wheat he had the following to say:

. . . being able and willing to offer them a 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 have never at any time represented to the wheat growers of this country that the effect of a preference would be to set up in their favour a price differential in world markets and at the expense of the British consumer.

That is absolutely right, Mr. Speaker. Not only is it correct in regard to wheat, but it applies also to fish and a grdat many other articles named in the schedules.

There is a worse feature however with regard to the duty on fish going into Great Britain. In the first place we cannot ship them in; in the second place if we didship them in we would have to compete with world prices, and in the third place theNorwegians, Swedes, Icelanders, Greenlanders and all the rest who ship fish to GreatBritain today, are not going to be driven out of the British market by a ten per cent or any other duty. Why do I say

that? They must market their products. If they must go into the British market with a ten per cent differential against them, a ten per cent duty-because it is not a preference at all-they will go in. But they may not do that, because there is another phase to this matter. Because of the ten per cent duty they may not put their fresh fish

440 COMMONS

Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements

on the British market. What will they do? Will they lie down and not catch fish at all? No. On the contrary, they will salt and dry those fish they cannot sell whilst fresh in Great Britain. They will compete with our Gaspe fish in Brazil; they will compete with our north-shore-of-Quebec and Labrador fish, in Italy; they will compete with our Nova Scotia fish in the West Indies, and drive us out of the market. Which horn of the dilemma do you choose, Mr. Speaker?

I say the ten per cent duty is all nonsense, because in the first place the present agreement gives no advantage; fish always entered the British market free. If the Norwegians continue to send their fish to Great Britain, they will have to suffer by taking ten per cent less. They are the ones who will suffer; we will not receive a cent more. That statement applies to those other products affected, whether they be apples, copper, zinc, wheat or anything else.

Let me go farther. The same thing applies to salmon, chilled or frozen. At the present time they are free, but foreign salmon can only enter Great Britain at one and one-half per cent duty. If one surveys the statistics he will find that, last year about 14,000,000 pounds of fresh or frozen salmon went to the British market. A very small part came from Canada, the bulk coming from Sweden, Norway, the Irish Free State, Newfoundland, Labrador and the United States. The price of this fish averaged 211 cents per pound. These figures would show conclusively that the market for frozen salmon is very small, because very few people in the old country can afford to pay 21^ cents for it.

Do hon. members mean to tell me that Norway and Sweden will be driven from the frozen salmon market in Great Britain, or that our sales will be increased? I do not believe that they will be. We will find that just as great a quantity will come in from Norway; they will pay the one and one-half cents differential. I d'o not know very much about the theory of economics.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   IMPERIAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CANADA AND THE UNITED KINGDOM
Permalink
CON

Walter Davy Cowan

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. COWAN (Long Lake):

Nor do I.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   IMPERIAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CANADA AND THE UNITED KINGDOM
Permalink
LIB

William Duff

Liberal

Mr. DUFF:

I admit that, and my hon. friend from Long Lake agrees with me. Of course that is not much of a compliment either to me or to him. However during the past forty years I have had some business experience. I have imported goods into Canada and paid the duty and have exported goods and paid duty on them in other countries. My experience is that when world prices have to be met, the person shipping free of duty does not receive one cent more, but he who pays the duty receives less. If there is a

surplus it must be shipped into some market, and that is exactly what is going to happen in the fish, the apple or any other business.

I need not deal further with fish, but I should like to draw the attention of the house to another danger. If Norway and Sweden, countries having a large fish business with Great Britain, if the United States, having an extensive apple business with Great Britain, or if the Argentine or other countries selling wheat and other commodities to Great Britain must submit to duties on their produce, what are they going to do about it? Are they going to lie down and let Great Britain impose taxes on their products; are they going to say nothing about it? I say if such duties are imposed retaliatory measures will be taken. Ever since the United States began it, we have had a tariff war. Countries throughout the world have had economic war with each other.

Let us take the United States as an example. Certainly that country will not lie down and without saying anything, allow the British government to impose a prohibitive duty on a barrel of apples. They will not stand for any such nonsense, but will treat us accordingly. The result will be that our products going to the United States will be subjected to duties heavier than those now existing. What effect will that have on the fish business? At the present time about 35,000,000 pounds of halibut is being shipped yearly from Prince Rupert to various points in the United States. Some years ago when I first came to this house I had the idea that I would have some influence, and with that in mind suggested that the duty be taken off fish coming from the United States to Canada. Yearly only about 500,000 pounds of fish come from across the boundary line. They send us fish only when their own market becomes glutted, which happens only four or five times a year. But some of my good friends said to me, "That will never do; if you take the one cent duty off fish coming from the United States to Canada you will glut the market and hurt our eastern fishermen." I did not agree. However, leaving for a moment the Atlantic coast line, let us go to Prince Rupert from which point 35,000,000 pounds of halibut are shipped yearly to the United States. About 20,000,000 pounds of that total quantity consists of Alaskan or American fish going through the port of Prince Rupert, and the remaining 15,000,000 pounds are Canadian fish. What happens? Those fish are sold on the Chicago market. We will suppose, Mr. Speaker, that you are a Canadian offering 100,000 pounds

United Kingdom

of fish for sale, and that I am a United States citizen offering the same quantity. I hope I may be excused for placing the proposition in this manner. The price in Chicago is 12 cents. You get 12 cents and I get the same, less the duty. If I ship my fish in free, without having to pay that duty of 2 cents per pound, I receive exactly the same as you receive; you do not get any more. I know that sometimes we are not very friendly to one another; we like to see the other fellow go down and out, but if you cannot get any more for your apples, wheat, fish or bacon in the English market how does it help you to compel other people to take less. Do you not thereby run the risk of having them start a trade war with you? Do you want the United States government to raise the duty on fish to three or four cents instead of two cents. For instance, on apples we have this duty of 4s. 6d. Let us suppose the United States government comes to the Canadian government and says, "Look here; we ship a good many apples into the English market and we do not like the idea of paying this duty. We would like to make a new trade arrangement with you." I have read this trade agreement, but I am not sure whether what I am about to suggest could happen, though a greater man than I am says it could be done in spite of this agreement and all this ballyhoo about a ten per cent preference on fish, 4s. 6d. on apples, so much on wheat and bacon and so on. Sir John Simon is reported as having said the other day that Great Britain could make an agreement with the United States. If that should be done, and the United States should stipulate that the first thing to be done was to remove the duty on apples going into Great Britain, or we will increase the duty on fish from two to four cents, how then can our friends opposite say that this duty is a preference as far as apples are concerned and would not the inferential result be futile? The Montreal Star of September 23, 1932, states:

The reports which have disturbed Ottawa statesmen are to the effect that the British government takes the view that-it is free to extend to foreign countries the general free entry into the British market which the dominions now enjoy under the Import Duties Act.

That is pretty clear. As I said a moment ago, I am not an economist and I do not pretend to know anything about economics, but according to the Montreal Star and Sir John Simon this may mean that the United States could go to Great Britain and make a new bargain, and that one of the provisions

of that bargain could be the reduction of duty, whether on frozen salmon from Seattle or on apples from Virginia. Therefore I say, sir, that this agreement is not worth the paper on which it is written until people see what it really means and agree that it means a benefit to the producer.

Why do I say that? It is a well known fact, Mr. Speaker, that this agreement was drawn up during the last twenty-four hours the conference sat. No agreement of this importance could be drawn up properly in that very short time. It will be noticed that in the speech from the throne a number of matters are mentioned, such as redistribution, the Railway Act, unemployment, the Bank Act and other important measures, and it is suggested that we should leave those matters until we assemble in January. Let me suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that this agreement is just as important as these other matters, if not more so, and if seems to me that in order to give the country a chance to express its opinion this house shall not be asked to pass the motion of the Prime Minister at this time. I think we should discuss the question in parliament and then adjourn, in order to give our constituents a chance to study the agreement and instruct us as to how we should vote.

Lumber is another commodity that has been mentioned; some people think the government did a great thing when they secured a ten per cent preference on lumber under this agreement. Where does Great Britain get her lumber? It is true that Canada supplies a certain proportion of her requirements, but the United States sends lumber there also. If the United States shippers of lumber have to pay a ten per cent duty do you mean to tell me that they will not approach the government of the United States and raise a howd about it. What kind of howl will they raise? They will say to the government of the United States, "If the British government, aided and abetted by the Canadian government, intends to continue this ten per cent duty on lumber we want you to further raise the duty on all goods coming from Canada to the United States." That is what probably will happen.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   IMPERIAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CANADA AND THE UNITED KINGDOM
Permalink
CON

George Burpee Jones

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. JONES:

They have.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   IMPERIAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CANADA AND THE UNITED KINGDOM
Permalink
LIB

William Duff

Liberal

Mr. DUFF:

That is what I said half an

hour ago; of course they have raised their duties, and that is the whole trouble. They will make those duties even higher, though my good friend the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion) said not long ago

442 COMMONS

Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements

that it made no difference how high we raised the duty on goods coming from the United States, that they were still friendly to us, and as proof he mentioned the fact that some United States colleges were conferring degrees upon the Prime Minister. I suppose that so long as the Prime Minister gets degrees there we can sit back and do nothing.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   IMPERIAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CANADA AND THE UNITED KINGDOM
Permalink
CON

Robert James Manion (Minister of Railways and Canals)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MANION:

Why didn't you do something in the way of putting up duties when you were in power?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   IMPERIAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CANADA AND THE UNITED KINGDOM
Permalink
LIB

William Duff

Liberal

Mr. DUFF:

Because we are opposed to

duties. I think the greatest mistake the British government ever made was when I hey tried to tax the food of the people in Bcston some one hundred and fifty years ago, with the result that they lost the United States. If it had not been for that action Canada and the United States would have been one big country today, and we would not have a tariff wall along the international border. At all events I am glad the Minister of Railways agrees that for the moment the United States will not do anything to provoke us.

Now, sir, if these duties go into effect and foreign countries, such as Norway and Sweden, which ship lumber to Great Britain, put up a retaliatory tariff against both Great Britain and Canada, will we derive any benefit under the agreement? Let us admit, for the sake of argument, that the ten per cent duty on fish will be of some benefit, though of course I say it will not. If these other countries raise their tariffs against us what will be the good of the ten per cent preference on fish? We will take it out of one pocket and put it in the other, that is all, I say, therefore, that in addition to the concessions which we are supposed to give-and most of them are very small-the consumer in this country is only being fooled when he is told that he will get a preference on fish, lumber or anything else.

I noticed that in London a few days ago Mr. A. T. Atkinson, Conservative member of the House of Commons, was reported as follows:

He remarked that a provision in the treaty with Canada regarding sale of products at world prices was omitted in the Australian pact. This he hoped was an oversight which would be put right. Such provisions, he held, were of great value when taxes were being placed on goods and raw materials.

He admits that natural products must accept world prices. Consequently, as I said a moment ago, any goods we ship to the mother country must accept world prices also, and we will not get a cent more than anyone else will get. Instead, we will have to take the

world price, while the foreigner will get the same price less the duty.

Now, Mr. Speaker, you tell me my time is about up. In my opinion, most of the trouble in the world today is in regard to trade. There are so many trade restrictions, regulations and tariffs everywhere, that countries are not doing business. Whether you get a high price or not for the article you produce, if as a producer you are obliged to pay high prices for the things you have to buy, you are just as well off if you receive a low price for your products. Personally, I had hoped that when the conference met in Ottawa the British government, realizing conditions in regard to trade throughout the world, and realizing that not only Canada but Great Britain as well must have, besides empire trade, trade with the rest of the world, would have said to the Canadian and other delegates that in order to stabilize conditions in the world, in order to emerge from the depression, it would be necessary to lower tariffs so that trade would flow more freely from one part of the empire to the other and also between foreign countries and the countries within the empire. Unless that is brought about, we shall never get out of the morass of despair in which we are today.

It is quite possible that conditions will improve a little, but it is my candid opinion that if tariffs were lowered in regard to goods coming both from foreign countries and from empire countries, Canada would be better off and the empire and the world would stand to gain. Indeed, the consumer and the producer would get the advantage of such an arrangement and would be in a far better position than they are at the present time.

One word more and I am through. I notice that in a speech which he made recently Mr. Neville Chamberlain was reported as follows:

"The ties of the empire have been wearing dangerously thin," he said. "Canada had become to a great extent dependent upon United States finance and in the absence of any preferential arrangement with the United Kingdom, she might have found it extremely different to refuse a new offer of reciprocity from her great neighbour to the south which would definitely link their fortunes together to such an extent as would cause a divergence between Canada and Great Britain.

Let me say to Mr. Neville Chamberlain or to anyone else who talks that way that the ties of empire are not wearing thin. In spite of the fact that I should like to see this dominion do ten times as much business with the United States as it is doing at the present time, in spite of the fact that I should like

United Kingdom

to see tariff walls broken down between different countries, I throw Mr. Chamberlain's words in his teeth. When he says that unless this agreement is accepted the empire is in danger and that Canada is likely to be annexed to the United States, I resent such a suggestion. We have always sung:

Rule Britannia, Britannia rule the waves:

Britons never shall be slaves.

Britons, Mr. Speaker, will never be slaves either in tariff, trade or other matters. You and I, sir, are Canadians notwithstanding all that Mr. Neville Chamberlain and others may say to the contrary, or what threats, based on fear were made to him when attending the conference; notwithstanding all the conspiracies and propaganda that may be spread abroad; we are Canadians and British, and though we are willing to trade with any foreign country, the United States, Germany, France or any other country, we will remain Canadians and keep the flag flying at the top of the mast and over our schoolhouses and public buildings.

Mr. ERRICK F. WILLIS (Souris): I am very happy to have the opportunity of following the hon. member for Antigonish-Guys-borough (Mr. Duff), who has just taken his seat, for I have always admired the fighting spirit of the "Admiral" and find it entirely admirable. It is net my intention, however, to discuss at great length the question of fish, but rather to discuss those matters that concern the people whom I happen to represent.

May I say, firstly, that in this country no matter what government has been in power, the industrial structure of Canada has always been protected. In the past there have been variations in the tariff, but these variations have been small. Let me refer, for instance, to an address delivered in this house in 1925 by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Kennedy), in which he proved that the variations in tariffs as between the two major parties had been up to that time less than two per cent. Again, I would refer to a speech made by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Kennedy), who in 1927 proved that up to that time the variations in the tariffs as between the two major parties had been less than 2 per cent. I would refer also to an address in 1930 by the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail), who refused to vote for the Dunning budget on the ground that it was partly protection and partly free trade. The hon. member for Southeast Grey, in this house last year, referring to the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe)

said that she admired his free trade speech but she would much rather have heard such a speech from him while he was on the government benches than while he was in opposition. And the situation was very succinctly put the other day by the hon. member forLabelle (Mr. Bourassa), who said that, from a close association with the Liberal party during the last forty years, he had come to the confirmed opinion that the Liberal party in power was for protection, while in opposition it talked free trade. May I say, in addition to that, that the very makeup of the Liberal government which went out in 1930 served to prove my point. You had there as one of the key-men the hon. member for North Bruce (Mr. Malcolm), then Minister of Trade and Commerce, who in his speech during the present debate said, "No one can accuse me of being a free trader." In the other key position, that of the Minister of National Revenue, you had an industrialist from North Waterloo (Mr. Euler). Both these hon. gentlemen are for protection for the industries in the constituencies which they represent. This is so because in Canada we have in the St. Lawrence basin 240,000 square miles, containing 55 per cent of the population, 45 per cent of power development and 70 per cent of industrial output. So that in the past tariffs in this country have been largely a matter of geography. That is to say, those in western Canada tend towards lower tariffs while those in eastern Canada tend towards higher tariffs.

The hon. member for North Bruce (Mr. Malcolm), in his speech the other day, said, "No one can accuse me of being a free trader." Again, a matter of geography, I say to the house that no one can accuse me of being a high protectionist. As a matter of geography, we can turn again to the tariff question in this country by pointing out that inasmuch as we are a people of 10,000,000 alongside a highly industrialized nation of 120,000,000 people, geography plays an important part and we must protect ourselves.

In 1930 the Prime Minister, in introducing his budget changes, indicated that they were to serve special conditions, in regard to the United States. This is well understood when we realize that in 1930 the tariff against our wheat was, in France, 85 cents per bushel, in Germany 97i cents, and in Italy 86i cents. That was before the present government came into power. May I also refer to the remarks of the Prime Minister, in the present session, covering that period in 1930. He said, as rt ported at page 114 :

Special measures which we then took to protect the financial integrity of this country

444 COMMONS

Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements

against the wholesale dumping of goods at distressed prices by foreign industrial concerns facing or going into bankruptcy, will be maintained so long only as world conditions justify their existence.

I emphasize there the words, "so long only." Then, when the Prime Minister was introducing the present Imperial conference agreements, referring to cattle, he had these words to say, which also were very relevant. He said, as reported at page 125:

I give these figures because it becomes important to understand just what is the potential market with respect to even live cattle since our exports to the United States have been practically prohibited under the Fordney MeCumber tariff and lately the Ilawley-Smoot tariff.

And then on page 126:

The Hawley-Smoot tariff of 1930 practically dosed the United States market.

Under the provisions of the present agreement we find a new use for tariffs-we obtain a market in Great Britain for our natural products by admitting into this country their manufactured products. May I refer again to the speech of the Prime Minister to be found at page 110 of Hansard. He said:

In brief, I proposed that we should secure tariff preferences in empire markets for our natural products, as well as wider markets for our manufactured products, by granting in the home market tariff concessions to empire manufacturers. In other words, we desired to secure wider empire markets for our producers of natural and manufactured products, having regard to the relative importance to them of export trade.

I draw this statement to the attention of the house because it is in direct contradiction of the policy of the previous government as demonstrated by the New Zealand treaty. Under that treaty they permitted entry into this country of certain natural products but agriculture had to pay the full toll on any manufactured products we were able to sell abroad. Under the present agreements we obtain an increased preference on 223 items, and I think it would be well to put on Hansard what is known as the guaranteed list. On the following western agricultural items the United Kingdom has guaranteed free entry to Canada and has undertaken to impose against such goods imported from foreign countries the duties shown opposite:

Butter, 15s. per hundredweight.

Cheese, 15 per cent.

Eggs in shell:

(a) Not exceeding 14 pounds in weight- per great hundred-Is.

(b) Over 14 pounds, but not exceeding 17 pounds-per great hundred-Is. 6d.

(c) Over 17 pounds-per great hundred-* Is. 9d.

Milk, condensed, whole, sweetened, 5s. per hundredweight in addition to the duty in respect of sugar content.

Wheat, 2s. per quarter (about 6 cents per

bushel).

On the following western agricultural items preferences are obtained under treaties with other dominions through whose agreements with the United Kingdom Canada benefits by a guaranteed preference:

Barley (Australia and India), 10 per cent.

Flour, wheat (Australia), 10 per cent.

Honey (Australia and New Zealand), 7s. per hundredweight.

Milk, condensed, whole not sweetened (Australia, New Zealand and South Africa), 6s. per hundredweight.

Milk powder and other preserved milk not sweetened (Australia, New Zealand and South Africa), 6s. (?) per hundredweight.

Meat, canned (Australia and New Zealand), 10 per cent.

Meat extracts and essences (Australia and New Zealand), 10 per cent.

Potatoes (South Africa and Southern Rhodesia), 10 per cent.

Poultry, dressed (Australia and New Zealand), 10 per cent.

Seeds, grass and clover (New Zealand), 10 per cent.

Preferences are given on the following agricultural items other than those that refer particularly to western agriculture:

Apples, canned (Canada), 3s. 6d. per hundredweight in addition to the duty in respect to sugar content.

Apples, raw (Canada), 4s. 6d. per hundredweight.

Beans (India), 10 per cent.

Bran and pollards (Canada), 10 per cent.

Casein (Australia and New Zealand), 10 per cent.

Fruits, canned, other than canned apples (Australia and South Africa), 15 per cent in addition to the duty in respect of sugar content.

Fruits, dried, other than currants and other than dried fruits now dutiable at 7s. (Australia and South Africa), 10 per cent.

Fruits, preserved by chemicals or artificial heat, other than fruit preserved in sugar (South Africa), 10 per cent.

Fruit juices (South Africa), 10 per cent.

Goatskins (Australia, South Africa, India), 10 per cent.

Ground nuts (South Africa, India, South Rhodesia), 10 per cent.

Linseed (India), 10 per cent.

Lucerne seed (South Africa), 10 per cent.

Macaroni (Australia), 10 per cent.

Maize, flat, white (South Africa and South Rhodesia), 10 per cent.

Maize, products (South Africa), 10 per cent.

Manures (India), 10 per cent.

Millets (India), 10 per cent.

Oils, non-essential vegetable (India), 10 per cent.

Oil seed cake and meal (India), 10 per cent.

United Kingdom

Pears, raw (Canada), 4s. 6d. per hundredweight.

Peas, dried (Australia and New Zealand, India), 10 per cent.

Sausage casings (Australia and South

Africa), 10 per cent.

Sugar of milk (Australia and New Zealand), 10 per cent.

Wines (Australia and South Africa), a margin of preference amounting to 2s. per gallon.

Preferences are given on the following fishery items:

Canned salmon (Canada), 10 per cent.

Canned fish, other (Canada), 10 per cent.

Cod liver oil (Newfoundland), Is. 4d. per

gallon.

Crayfish (South Africa), 10 per cent.

Fish, fresh, sea (Canada), 10 per cent.

Fish, cod (Newfoundland), 10 per cent.

Hake, fresh (South Africa), 10 per cent.

Marine shell (Newfoundland), 10 per cent.

Oyster shell grit (South Africa), 10 per cent.

Salmon, chilled or frozen (Canada), l^d. per pound.

Whale oil and whale oil products (South Africa), 10 per cent.

The following are the mineral items given preference:

Asbestos (Canada), 10 per cent.

Copper, unwrought, whether refined or not, in ingots, bars, blocks, slabs, cakes, and rods (Canada), 2d. per pound.

Lead (Canada), 10 per cent.

Magnesite (India), 10 per cent.

Magnesium chloride (India), 10 per cent.

Zinc (Canada), 10 per cent.

Timber of all kinds imported into the United Kingdom in substantial quantities from Canada, except wooden pit props, certain roundwood logs of pine, spruce and aspen, and timber imported under prescribed conditions for shipbuilding, all of which are now free from all countries, shall be subject to a duty of ten per cent. The preferences on manufactured and miscellaneous articles are as follows:

Jute manufactures (India), 20 per cent.

Leather (Australia and New Zealand), 10 per cent.

Tanned hides and tanned skins (India), 10 per cent.

I undertake the tedious work of reading these items because I want to emphasize the fact that Canada obtained only a few of her preferences under the United Kingdom-Canada agreement, the major portion coming from the other agreements entered into by the United Kingdom. I should like to refer to article t of the agreement, which deals with the question of free entry, and I do this in order to lead up to other matters in which the people whom I happen to represent are interested. Article 1 reads:

His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom undertake that orders shall be made

in accordance with the provisions of section 4 of the Import Duties Act, 1932, which -will ensure the continuance after the 15th November, 1932, of entry free of duty into the United Kingdom of goods consigned from any part, of the British Empire and grown, produced or manufactured in Canada which by virtue of that act are now free of duty subject, however, to the reservations set forth in schedule A appended hereto.

Considerable discussion has taken place as to the meaning of schedule A, which reads as follows:

As regards eggs, poultry, butter, cheese and other milk products, free entry for Canadian produce will be continued for three years certain. His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom, however, reserve to themselves the right, after the expiration of the three years, if they consider it necessary in the interests of the United Kingdom producer to do so, to review the basis of preference so far as relates to the articles above enumerated and, after notifying His Majesty's government in Canada either to impose a preferential duty on Canadian produce whilst maintaining preferential margins, or in consultation with the Canadian government to bring such produce within any system which may be put into operation for the quantitative regulation of supplies from all sources in the United Kingdom market.

Much of the discussion in this house has centred around the four words "whilst maintaining preferential margins" which appear in this schedule. That is to say, it is permitted that duties may be levied, but the preferential margins given to us under this agreement are, by that section, guaranteed to us. It has been stated that in the past we have had free entry into that market and that we are now getting only that which we had before. I would point out the vast difference 'between these two positions. Previously we had free entry into a free market in equal competition with the world, whereas now we have free entry into a market which is protected. The important and only point in which we are interested at this stage is the fact that foreign competition shall be blocked.

There is a vast opening in the markets of Great Britain for the items covered by schedule A. Let us consider first eggs in shell. The Prime Minister gave certain figures, which appear on page 130 of Hansard. He showed that the United Kingdom imports of this commodity in 1930 amounted to 26,560,914 long hundredweights and that Canada's maximum exports in the largest year, namely, 1888 were only 14,170,859 dozen. Those figures indicate that so long as the preferential margin continues there will be an ample market in the United Kingdom for everything we have to sell in the line of eggs.

Coming then to the question of butter, may I quote just a paragraph from the Prime

446 COMMONS

Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements

Minister's address as reported on page 127 of Hansard. From the figures he gave we find, in regard to creamery butter, that United Kingdom imports in 1931 were 903,970,704 pounds, whereas Canada's maximum exports were only slightly over 34,000,000 pounds. As regards cheese we find that United Kingdom imports in 1931 were, in round figures, 323.000,000 pounds, and that Canada's production in that year was only, in round figures, 113,000,000 pounds and that Canada's maximum exports were, in round figures, only 233,000,000 pounds. The figures in regard to creamery butter and cheese indicate the tremendous spread which is left there for our products. We do not care therefore whether the British producer is protected or not. If he is protected, there is still that market left to us which we cannot even begin to fill.

The same thing is true of concentrated milks. United Kingdom imports in 1931 amounted, in round figures, to 313,000,000 pounds, while our total exports in that year in round figures were only 20,000,000 pounds and our production in that year was in round figures only 63,000,000 pounds as compared with British imports of 313,000,000 pounds. Let us remember, as regards British imports, this means that after they have consumed the production of their own producers, they start introducing those imports. That is the position in which we are placed-we get steady and increasing markets for those things which we have to sell because those preferences are guaranteed to us, and that is the most important part of the whole matter.

May I refer for a moment to the question of November 15, which has been discussed in the house. In my opinion one of the greatest triumphs of the conference was in regard to the date of November 15, after which in all probability the duties would have been levied against us. We were given, under an eight months' agreement which terminates on November 15, 1932, that free entry. May I quote now the opinion of the Prime Minister of Australia, speaking in their house, as reported m the Australian parliamentary debates of August 31, 1932. He made this significant statement which also applies to the United Kingdom-Canada agreement:

After more than three generations the British free trade policy was changed this year, and the Import Duties Act imposed duties of ten per cent upon all imported goods including foodstuffs other than wheat and meat, but excepting the principal raw materials. Empire were exempted from these duties until the 15th of November next

This is the part I desire to emphasize:

-but failing an agreement to the contrary before that date, the duties would automatically have been imposed upon them also.

That is why I say to the house that one o*f the greatest triumphs of the Imperial conference was that we avoided having duties imposed against us on November 15, and if the conference had failed, we can be assured that those duties would have been imposed.

While I am on the question of Australia, I might also quote from Mr. Beasley who is apparently one of the leaders there. In the discussion in Australia only four men took part, of whom Mr. Beasley was one. He had this to say, as reported on page 34 of the debates in the Australian house, in regard to the negotiations at the conference:

The tactics of the Australian delegates were neither discreet nor businesslike. The Canadian delegates displayed greater capacity for negotiation, and did not disclose their hand until they knew what the British delegates had to offer. The result was that Canada emerged from that conference with greater benefits than were gained by Australia.

That is the opinion of one Australian gentleman in regard to the result of the conference.

I wish to pass on now to a matter in which I am particularly interested, namely, the question of markets for our wheat. May I point out first, in regard to wheat markets, that the United States, France and the United Kingdom are the only large solvent markets which we have left, and that the United Kingdom market is the largest one in the world and also the most competitive. When I tell you that we obtain a preference of six cents a bushel on wheat, may I put it in this way: If we loaded for the British market a vessel of 300,000 bushels, which would be a normal load, and we pulled into the dock at Great Britain with a wheat ship, say from Russia, the Russian ship would have to pay to the British government $18,000 in tolls before it could be unloaded, whereas our wheat would go in free of tolls. When you realize th-at position and the handicap which is now placed upon those shippers from Russia and Argentina, you must appreciate the great preference and benefit which we are to receive in the British market. It places Canada in a preferred position in the greatest market in the world.

Another fact which I desire to point out more particularly is that this will discourage wheat production in foreign countries. I have heard many arguments in regard to the effect which this will have upon our trade, but may I point out that through the difficulties which foreign countries will now encounter in trying to get into the British market, they will be discouraged in finding markets with the natural result that they will be producing less wheat. On the other hand, we in Canada

United Kingdom

have a product which is a quality product, and is therefore needed in the markets outside the United Kingdom for the purpose of mixing. That is to say, Canadian wheat is the best in quality in the world. Next to that there is the Russian wheat which comes in second position; third, we have the hard red winter wheat of the United States; fourth we have the Plate wheat of Argentine, and, fifth, we have the Australian wheat. Therefore, given an even chance in any market, our wheat is bound to be bought. Price depends to a degree upon quality as it has done in the past and will do in the future. Price also depends to a degree on carry-over. Wider markets will, in my opinion, reduce the carryover and will have either one effect or the other; it will either decrease the world acreage, or raise the price, and it may very well do both. May I point out that Great Britaiu uses twice as much wheat as any other European country. It will be surprising to you, as it is to me, when, quoting the figures for the fiscal year 1931. I say that the total imports of wheat into the United Kingdom market during that year amounted to 222,000,000 bushels and that our total exports to the United Kingdom were only 63,000,000 bushels. Canada's total exports during the same period were only 186,000,000 bushels or, in other words, Canada's total exports were 36,000,000 bushels less than the imports into Great Britain. That is to say, if we had exported to Great Britain all the wheat which we exported during the fiscal year 1931, there would still be a margin of 36,000,000 bushels to be obtained by them elsewhere. I do not argue that we will get all of that market, but it indicates on the basis of the 1931 figures the possibility of an increased sale of our wheat in that market amounting to 159,000,000 bushels. Our foreign sales that year were only 123,000,000 bushels. Those are what are known as the adjusted figures given to me by the Bureau of Statistics. It indicates some of the possibilities of the British market for our wheat with a six cent preference, particularly in view of the fact that we bring to that market a quality product. We know very well the attitude of the previous government in regard to wheat, and that the former Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm) is on record in Hansard as giving his opinion that wheat found its own market and that his department was interested only in finding markets for manufactured goods. This government since it came into power has appointed fifteen junior trade commissioners with a view to pressing for further markets, where possible, for our wheat.

Under the. Imperial conference agreement we also receive a ten per cent preference for our flour. May I say to you that once we get that ten per cent preference, once we get the United Kingdom bread eaters using our flour for their bread, we shall have a larger share of their market which will continue and which will enlarge because our wheat makes the best bread in the world, and if we can get into that market for five years, as we shall under the agreement, we shall create there an appetite for our bread which will not put up with poorer bread at the termination of the agreement, if it is ever terminated.

May I also point out that one of the great advantages in regard to these products is that under article 21 of the agreement we are protected against dumping in the market of Great Britain by Russia and other countries, and so we find that the greatest menace we had in regard to our wheat-Russia itself-appears to have practically vanished. We also find that almost immediately after the signing of this agreement the British government abrogated its treaty with Soviet Russia, a treaty which some people had the audacity to say the British government dare not abrogate.

In regard to bacon and ham we are given a quota of 2| .million hundredweight. The idea of the quota is simply this: If we did not have a quota for ham and bacon it might very well be that in spite of the small preference which we might obtain on these products, the Scandinavian countries, due to their experience, would be able to overcome that preference and enter the British market. But now we are in the position where that market is divided and we have an opportunity in the British market for as much quality bacon and ham as we care to produce. I need not quote (lie figures in regard to that. Perhaps I might merely say that the United Kingdom imports in 1931 were 1,340,000,000 pounds, and Canada's exports to the United Kingdom were 10,000,000 pounds as compared with our total export of only 12,000,000 pounds. That indicates the vast opportunity we have there. It is a tendency in world trade to buy where there is an unlimited supply. That was the case in regard to the Scandinavian countries. Now we have that tendency checked in regard to bacon and ham. Canada has the additional advantage that it is the only large producer of bacon and ham of all the dominions of the empire.

I need only say in regard to cattle that the restrictions which we have fought for thirty or forty years have now been removed, and we are now able subject to very slight regulations to get our cattle into the United Kingdom market.

448 COMMONS

Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements

I should like to refer for a moment to the tariff board, because it seems to be of importance. Articles 12 and 13 cover the question of the tariff board. Perhaps I should quote them to be accurate. Article 12 reads:

His Majesty's government in Canada undertake forthwith to constitute the tariff board for which provision is made in the Tariff Board Act. 1931.

Article 13 reads:

His Majesty's government in Canada undertake that on the request of His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom they will cause a review to be made by the tariff board as soon as practicable of the duties charged on any *commodities specified in such request in accordance with the principles laid down in article 11 hereof and that after the receipt of the report of the tariff board thereon such report shall be laid before parliament and parliament shall be invited to vary wherever necessary the tariff -on such commodities of United Kingdom origin in such manner as to give effect to such principles.

That means really the first attempt in this *country at a scientific tariff as it affects the United Kingdom and this dominion. It gives to the tariff board a judicial function, and in effect, so far as the United Kingdom and Canada are concerned, they are able to fix our tariffs on these commodities. The report of the board is tabled in parliament, and the government must then implement the report and must at the same time satisfy parliament in regard to the board's recommendations.

Certain comments have been made here in regard to bargaining. May I say that you are -on better terms with your storekeeper if you buy from him. If you buy from him, you bargain with him, and therefore I say that bargaining brings Great Britain and the different dominions closer together. If we cannot bargain, then the speeches of the right hon. leader of the opposition in regard to autonomy are completely lost because if we cannot bargain we have no autonomy. I say that bargaining will itself increase the sentiment as between this country and Great Britain.

May I in the few moments which are left to me express my regret that the hon. member for West Elgin (Mr. Hepburn) is not present? I was very much delighted to hear his address in this house last Tuesday night when he regaled the multitude with merry quip and jest. The hon. member received his early education in my province. I regret that he left it, because if he had not-I am delighted to see him now present in the house-I feel sure that in that province he might have become the leader of the Liberal party even as he is the leader of the Liberal

party in Ontario. In our province we now have two leaders of the Liberal party, a leader of what is known as the Liberal party, and a leader of what is known as the continuing Liberals; so another Liberal leader would do no harm, and I can pay the hon. gentleman the compliment of saying that he would be a better leader than either one of them. I do not wish to refer to his remarks except in regard to the twelve-mile fence on his farm which he spoke about the other evening. At times the fence got into disrepair, he said, and he had to patch it with barbed wire. I was reminded by analogy of the Liberal fence which all will admit is in a great state of disrepair. May I suggest that this state of disrepair is in reality necessary because, first, the party must increase its numbers, and, second, it must leave great gaps in the fence so that those who are high protectionists and those who are free traders may go in and out freely. In addition, I see in this Liberal fence one gate on the west labelled "Free trade," and on that gate I see these cryptic words, "Abandon tariffs all ye who enter here." I see there the hon. member for Weybum (Mr. Young) on the ballyhoo, and I see there also the hon. member for West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart) tolling a bell. There is a smaller gate on the east end, so small that one can scarcely see it, and on it I find this inscription, "Protection guaranteed. Arrangements confidential. No publicity." Hon. members may ask me why a fence is necessary. I say a fence is necessary because we have in the party what are known as fence sitters, and by fence sitters I mean those who believe in tariffs for revenue. We find in the field also, abandoned machinery, machinery known as Senate Reform which has never been used, but has been sitting out in the sun for five or six years. We have also there the technicians who were supposed to operate that machinery, but we find that they are in the valley. We find them within the fence in the valley of humiliation; we find some of them in the quicksand; one of them has sunk below the level of the ground, seeking gold.

Then, outside this fence we see a man walking up and down. He is thinking carefully. That is Hon. Charles Dunning, wondering whether the fence can, in effect, be repaired, and he is calculating as to the cost and as to the advisability of attempting repairs. Then we find within the fence the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King). He is preparing some wires for the fence. The right hon. gentleman can be

United Kingdom

said to be in fairly good health, but is suffering slightly from Beauharnitis and constitutional disorders. He is there preparing to set up two wires, in particular. One of the wires is known as Proportional Representation and the other is Central Bank. And so there he is with these wires, stringing the fence and stringing the public.

Then, finally, the wires are set up. The right hon. gentleman stands back to admire them from the inside of the fence from a Liberal point of view. Then he walks to the outside to view them from the public point of view. Finally he draws from his pocket the old lucky coin, the five cent piece which has never been given away, tosses it in the air and it comes down obverse uppermost. Then he says, "Yes; the answer is Yes! It may not look too well, but like the price of barbed wire at present it is very very cheap."

At six o'clock the house took recess.

After Recess

The house resumed at eight o'clock.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   IMPERIAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CANADA AND THE UNITED KINGDOM
Permalink

October 21, 1932