February 25, 1936

BUREAU FOR TRANSLATIONS

PROPOSED BILL TO REPEAL 24-25 GEORGE V, 1934, CHAPTER 25-RULING ON POINT OF ORDER

LIB

Walter Edward Foster (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. SPEAKER:

I have been asked by the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) to render my decision on a point of order raised on the bill "An Act Respecting the Bureau for Translations" upon the copies of the bill that he sent to me at the sitting of Friday, the 20th instant.

I have now the said copies of the bill before me. I find that the bill is out of order because its adoption would mean the transfer of the authority under which the translators' salaries are to be paid. I therefore rule that the bill is out of order.

Topic:   BUREAU FOR TRANSLATIONS
Subtopic:   PROPOSED BILL TO REPEAL 24-25 GEORGE V, 1934, CHAPTER 25-RULING ON POINT OF ORDER
Permalink

CANADA-UNITED1 STATES TRADE AGREEMENT PROPOSED APPROVAL SUBJECT TO LEGISLATION MAKING PROVISIONS EFFECTIVE

LIB

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

Liberal

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved:

That it is expedient that parliament do approve of the trade agreement entered into at Washington on the 15th day of November, 1935, between His Majesty' government in the

Dominion of Canada and the government of the United States of America, and that this house do approve of the same, subject to the legislation required in order to give effect to the provisions thereof.

He said: Mr. Speaker, may I at the outset say a few words with respect to the procedure the government proposes to adopt in asking the approval of this house of the Canada-United States trade agreement which was signed on November 15 last and of the legislation necessary to give it legal effect.

As hon. members will observe, the resolution to which I am speaking at the moment asks the approval of the house, in general terms, of the agreement. The resolution is designed to obtain the opinion of the house as a preliminary proceeding prior to the discussion of the details of the agreement. It is proposed, once the resolution is adopted, immediately to refer to the committee of ways and means, the agreement itself so that there may be a full discussion of its provisions with respect to the tariff changes incidental thereto before thd house is asked to pass the legislation necessary to give its terms legal effect. It is in the committee of ways and means that taxes are increased; repealed or otherwise amended.

In the votes and proceedings of Friday last hon. members will doubtless have seen notice of the following motion which has since appeared upon the order paper:

Resolved, that the amendments in the customs tariff required to give effect to the trade agreement between Canada and the United States of America, signed at Washington, November 15, 1935, hereto appended, be agreed to so that the said trade agreement may be sanctioned.

The notice given in that form implied that certain amendments would have to be made to the Customs Tariff Act in connection with the schedules of the agreement. That is not the case. No amendments ' to the Customs Tariff Act are required with respect to the schedules. I therefore had substituted the following notice which appears in the votes and proceedings of yesterday:

That the fiscal treatment accorded to goods, the produce or _ manufacture of the United States of America, by the trade agreement between Canada and the United States of America, signed at Washington, November 15, 1935, be agreed to so that there may be introduced a bill giving the said trade agreement the force of law in Canada.

Under that motion, which will follow the adoption of the resolution that is now before the house, if the resolution is adopted, the agreement itself will, as I have said, be considered in committee of ways and means so that there may be the fullest discussion of

Canada-U.S. Trade Agreement

the several items in the schedules which set forth the rates of duty. After discussion in committee of ways and means, and the report thereon, leave will be asked for the introduction of a bill respecting the trade agreement between Canada and the United States. The bill will contain the following as its second elause:

The trade agreement between Canada and the United States of America set out in the schedule to this act is hereby approved and shall have the force of law notwithstanding the provisions of any law in force in Canada.

I am presenting to the house these three distinct steps in order to remove any doubt as to the authority which parliament has over the agreement, and in order to make clear the extent to which parliament will have discussed in advance the details of the agreement before being asked, under the bill which will be introduced to approve of it in its entirety.

Hon. members will recall that when we were discussing the Canada-United Kingdom agreement strong exception was taken by the opposition of the day to the order of procedure then adopted by the government. The objection was taken on the ground that the house was asked to approve the agreement by a bill which was introduced and passed through all its stages without previous discussion in committee of ways and means of the changes in the customs tariff necessitated by the agreement. The first, second and third readings of the bill were completed before there was any discussion in committee of the whole house of the schedules to the agreement, which involved increases in the tariff as well as in some cases decreases. That was, as I said at the time, an irregular procedure. It was not the procedure adopted by the parliament at Westminster with respect to the approval of the agreement in Great Britain. In the first instance, the agreement was referred at Westminster to the committee of ways and means, and after discussion in the committee a bill was introduced giving effect to the agreement. The reverse procedure was however, adopted here. To avoid a repetition of anything of the kind, the procedure which I have indicated will be followed in the present instance. That, too, I hope, will remove any doubt in the mind of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) who the other day said a word about parliament being obliged to approve the agreement before hon, members had had a chance of discussing its terms. Members will see that, so far as the approval that is now being asked is to be given, it is subject to the legislation that will be necessary to give the agreement legal effect, and that legislation the house will not be asked to pass until it has discussed very fully, in committee of the whole, the essential provisions and schedules of the agreement.

May I also at the outset clear up another possible misunderstanding in the minds of some, namely, that the government has proceeded to put the agreement into force without having received in the first instance the approval of parliament. To appearances that might seem to be the case; in reality it is not so. The agreement is not yet in force. What is in force are certain schedules attached to the agreement, and they are in force pending the approval of the agreement; pending the agreement, itself becoming law. If this house should decide that the agreement shall not become law then immediately such advantages as have been accruing to the country under the provisions of the agreement since January 1 will immediately cease. It is true that under the agreement, since January 1 of this year, Canada has had the advantage of lower tariff rates with respect to many commodities going from this country into the United States, and similarly this country has granted to the United States the benefit of its intermediate tariff and also certain special concessions in force at the present time. It has been possible for the government to gain for this country the immediate advantage of entry of its commodities at a lower rate of duty into the United States and to grant reduction in rates of duty in the United States pending the final enactment of the bill because of legislation passed in the last parliament which gave to the governor in council express power to reduce duties where the country was obtaining from some other country reciprocal concessions and advantages. May I quote the exact section which governs in this matter? Under the authority of section 11 of the Customs Tariff the governor in council may "make such reductions of duties on goods imported into Canada from any other country or countries as may be deemed reasonable by way of compensation for concessions granted by any such country or countries." That legislation was introduced by my right hon. friend the present leader of the opposition in 1931 when he held the office of Prime Minister. The legislation received at that time the approval of all parties in the house. I want to stress that feature. It was a"n enactment which met with no opposition on the part of the opposition of the day or indeed from hon. members of any of the groups then in the house. The house unanimously approved the power then sought

Canada-U.S. Trade Agreement

for the governor in council in the particulars which I have mentioned. The law as enacted in 1931 referred to reductions of duties by way of compensation. Later on in the same session the government brought down legislation to have the word "concessions" substituted for the words "reductions on Canadian products." Section 11 of chapter 30 of the statutes of 1931, reads as follows:

The governor in council may by order in council make such reductions of duties on goods imported into Canada from any other country or countries as may be deemed reasonable by way of compensation for reductions on Canadian products granted by any such country or countries.

In 1935 this section was amended by the following resolution in the budget:

Resolved, that the aforesaid customs tariff be further amended by deleting from section 11 thereof the words "reductions on Canadian products" and by substituting in lieu thereof the word "concessions."

The part of the agreement which is in force at the present time is in force, therefore, not because of any power which the present governor in council has taken to itself with respect to the reduction of duties, but rather because of legislation which was enacted in a previous parliament and approved by all parties in the house, and which gave to the government of the day the power to reduce duties where there were corresponding concessions being made by another country.

There is one other feature I should like to mention by way of comparison between the present agreement between Canada and the United States and the Canada-United Kingdom agreement. All changes in the tariff under the Canada-United States agreement are in the nature of reductions; under the Canada-United Kingdom agreement, a very large proportion were in the nature of increases in the tariff. Additional taxes were being imposed which was the reason why the then opposition took strong exception to the government of the day approving the agreement and passing the act itself in advance of tariff schedules being considered in the committee of ways and means. Under the present agreement there is no increase in duties; existing duties are lowered. Parliament, as I have said, has given full authority to the governor in council to take action of this kind whenever the opportunity presents itself. No exception can be taken to this agreement on the score that parliament has had no say with respect to the new' rates of dut3' which became effective on January 1.

May I say a word or two as to the attitude of the different political parties in this country with respect to the negotiation of reciprocal

agreements with the United States. I shall not traverse much of the ground of the past, but simply indicate what has been historically the attitude of the parties and the actual agreements that have been negotiated, or concerning which there have been attempts at negotiation.

As hon. members know, prior to confederation there existed between Canada and the United States a reciprocal agreement of an extensive character. This agreement was in force from 1854 until 1866. Since confederation no previous government has apparently found it possible, however successfully negotiated, to bring a reciprocal trade agreement between Canada and the United States to the stage where it has become part of the law of the land. Since confederation agreements have been successfully negotiated including the present, on three occasions. It is significant, may I point out in passing, that in each instance it was when a Liberal administration was in office in Canada. In 1874 an agreement was negotiated by the government of Alexander Mackenzie. That agreement was signed by George Brown, on behalf of Canada, and Hamilton Fish, on the part of the United States. The agreement was defeated by the Senate of the United States.

The next agreement to be negotiated successfully was in 1911, when a reciprocal agreement was negotiated under the administration of the Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier. That agreement was not in the form of a treaty; it was to be effected by legislation to be passed concurrently by the two countries. The United States enacted the necessary legislation, but, as hon. members will recall only too well, when the legislation was under discussion in this house the opposition from the Conservative benches of the day became so strong that Sir Wilfrid Laurier decided to ask for the dissolution of parliament and go to the country on the issue of a reciprocal agreement with the United States. When the matter came before the country in a general election the issue ceased to be discussed primarily on its merits as a great economic question and was treated as a political question. It was said that an agreement of the kind would lead to political union with the United States; the cry of annexation was raised and an appeal was made to the patriotism of the people. It was stated that an agreement of the kind would mean the end of the development of Canada as a nation, that our trade would all go north and south, and that if once we entered into a trade agreement with the United States on the extensive scale of the one proposed at the time, sooner or later we would break away

Canada-UJS. Trade Agreement

from the empire. No one was stronger in his opposition to that agreement than the present leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett). He argued, with all the power and eloquence at his command, all the points of which I have made mention.

I should like to point out wherein fortunately we are differently situated at the present time as regards this trade agreement. This is the third agreement, again one which has been negotiated by a Liberal government. There is no possibility of a repetition of what occurred in 1874 when the agreement of that time was defeated by the Senate of the United States. This agreement has been negotiated under special powers given to the president by the congress of the United States. Congressional authority has conferred on the president power to make reciprocal agreements within certain prescribed limits with other countries, and to proclaim such agreements without further reference to congress. So far as the difficulty which presented itself in 1911 is concerned, I do not think it will present itself at the present time. Fortunately at the moment we are just over a general election rather than entering into one. The question of a reciprocal agreement with the United States was an important issue in the last election. I might point out further that it was an issue upon which the respective political parties of the country were not divided; for once they were happily united. My right hon. friend, then the leader of the Conservative party, not only stated that he was in favour of a reciprocal agreement with the United States, but presented to the country the basis upon which he thought that agreement should be entered into.

Topic:   CANADA-UNITED1 STATES TRADE AGREEMENT PROPOSED APPROVAL SUBJECT TO LEGISLATION MAKING PROVISIONS EFFECTIVE
Permalink
CON

Richard Bedford Bennett (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BENNETT:

Not entered into, negotiated.

Topic:   CANADA-UNITED1 STATES TRADE AGREEMENT PROPOSED APPROVAL SUBJECT TO LEGISLATION MAKING PROVISIONS EFFECTIVE
Permalink
LIB

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

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

My right hon.

friend corrects me and says, "not entered into, negotiated." I accept the correction. I do not know whether my right hon. friend suggests that he had never intended to enter into an agreement; I always thought that he had. At any rate, the basis on which the negotiation was to take place was laid down and to all appearances the country, the electorate, were led to understand that the Conservative party was committed to the negotiation of a reciprocal agreement with the United States.

So far as the Liberal party is concerned, there never could be any doubt as to what our position would be were we returned to power. From the days of confederation down to the present the Liberal party has consistently stood for, fought for, and been prepared to give up power in a struggle for a

reciprocal agreement that would be to the mutual advantage of both the United States and Canada. It would take a long time to run over the controversy of those years, but it is significant, as one tries to get a hurried view of the situation, to discover that, for the most part, when the Conservatives were in office they were never able to effect an agreement with the United States, largely because they were unwilling to make an agreement broad enough to include the possible export from the United States into this country of manufactured or semi-manufactured goods. They sought to have the agreement kept almost exclusively to natural products.

So far as Liberal administrations have been concerned, while conceding up to a point a measure of protection to certain industries, they have felt that in any agreement with the United States there should be an opportunity afforded of goods being brought into Canada, for purposes of competition if need be, goods not in the shape of natural products only but also in the shape of manufactured and semi-manufactured articles. At any rate, that seems to have been the reason why, from the Conservative point of view, no agreement was ever reached by that party. It will be recalled that, when the national policy was introduced, it was introduced not as a permanent policy of protection but as a measure of retaliation against the United States; and it was intended-it was so stated at least at the time-subsequently to repeal or to change it, provided better trade relations could be effected between the two countries. Once having been introduced as a measure of retaliation, it was retained as a matter of Conservative policy and has operated ever since to prevent an agreement going into force between Canada and the United States.

There is one other possible reason why at this moment the opportunity has been more favourable to effecting an agreement than at any other time. From confederation up to the present day there have been only two occasions on which it has happened that there were in office in the United States and Canada at the same time governments which stood avowedly for lower tariffs. The previous occasion was in 1896, at the time Sir Wilfrid Laurier's government came into office. Grover Cleveland's government was in office in the United States, and for eight months at that time there were two administrations, one at Washington and one at Ottawa, each of which was favourable to lower tariffs as between the two countries. Unfortunately, an election in the United States occurred after Sir Wilfrid Laurier's assumption of office. There was not, therefore, the opportunity in 1896 for the new

Canada-U.S. Trade Agreement

Liberal administration in Canada, coming into office, as this administration came into office after a general election, of seeking immediately to negotiate a trade agreement with a government in the United States holding views very similar to its own as to the mutual advantages of trade. When the present Liberal administration came into power, we were fortunate enough to find in office in the United States a low tariff administration, an administration that had claimed from the outset that it was desirous of entering into reciprocal agreements with other countries, and had made it quite clear that of the number Canada was one of the most important. That, I think, was a fortunate circumstance-it was an exceptional opportunity for favourable negotiation-and I believe the agreement we have to-day is in considerable measure the result of that circumstance.

I come now to the circumstances related immediately to the agreement which is before us; and which is based, I want to say very frankly, upon much that was ascertained by my right hon. friend opposite when he was in office. In considering the present agreement, it is necessary to keep in mind that it was negotiated under the special powers given to the President of the United States to enter into agreements with other countries on a reciprocal basis. Those special powers were distinctly limited, so that any agreement that could be made at this time would necessarily be limited in its scope. It was within the framework of the powers given the president by congress that the previous administration sought to negotiate an agreement; it was within that same framework that the present administration successfully negotiated the agreement into which it has entered.

The president is empowered to make an agreement, but it cannot be for a period longer than three years; that is the first limitation. Let me pause here to say a word which I hope will help to dispose of an objection which possibly may be raised by my right hon. friend. It is the one he put forward at the time of the reciprocal agreement of 1911. At that time my right hon. friend took the position that inasmuch as there was not a term of years and, by implication, a long term of years, fixed for the agreement, there was a strong reason why we should not enter into it at all. He claimed that channels of trade developed over a period of years and that it was not right that this country should enter into an agreement which might be abrogated on short notice at the will of either country which was a party to it.

My right hon. friend knew, when he began to negotiate in 1934, that he could not enter into

an agreement for a longer period than three years, with the possibility of its continuance with the approval of both parties subject to six months' notice. He had apparently overcome his objection to making any agreement unless it could be for a long term of years. I recall that at the time of the Canada-United Kingdom negotiations my right hon. friend put forward the same argument-that the agreement ought to be made for many years, and the longer the better. On this occasion he appears to have been content to enter into negotiations for an agreement for three years in the hope, let us say, that it might be extended for a longer period if it proved satisfactory in the interval. I wish to make it quite clear that we cannot now encounter, as an objection to this agreement, the. objection raised so strenuously by the Conservative opposition of a former day, that the agreement is not definitely fixed for a long period. I am perfectly sure, recalling the discussions that took place at the time of the negotiation of the 1911 agreement, that if the government of the day had entered into an agreement for a period of years the Conservative opposition would have said that we had made a great mistake, that we should never have entered into an agreement fixed for a term of years, but that we should have left our government free to cancel the agreement in accordance with what might seem to be wise in the circumstances as the years went by. With respect to his recent negotiations, I shall assume throughout that my right hon. friend was in earnest in being prepared to negotiate on the lines upon which he professed to be ready to negotiate. I therefore conclude that we are at present in accord on the wisdom as respects duration of entering into an agreement for a period albeit of only three years.

The next limitation placed upon the president was that in the reduction of duties no duties could be reduced by more than fifty per cent. Naturally that again restricted materially the scope of any agreement which might be reached. I know there are many who feel that some items in the United States tariff which have been reduced by fifty per cent or by a lesser amount, should have been reduced by a larger per cent than fifty. It was not possible to go that far no matter how strongly we might have pressed and also assuming that the government of the United States had thought it wise and advisable so to do. The president's powers were restricted to, at most, the reduction of existing duties by fifty per cent.

There was a third restriction on the president, namely, that no commodity which

Canada-U.S. Trade Agreement

under the existing tariff was dutiable could be placed on the free list. There was also a fourth limitation with respect to negotiating with the United States at this time. This restriction was not imposed by congress but arose out of a matter of domestic policy on the part of the government of the United States, namely that any agreement must necessarily be based upon the exchange of most favoured nation treatment as between the countries signing it. That was on the part of the United States a sine qua non of any agreement that could be entered into. Such was the framework of negotiation, and it was within that framework that my right hon. friend was prepared to proceed. It was within that framework that we were obliged to proceed. The possible scope, the' important considerations, the other possibilities involved, all become pretty clear once it is realized just what the limitations and restrictions were.

The act under which the president was given power to negotiate is known as the Trade Agreement Act, and became effective on June 12, 1934. I think I should read the first part of that act, because I believe it throws new light upon the importance of negotiating trade agreements at this time. It stresses the depression as a factor which is important to countries considering the expanding of their trade. Here may I say, what I should like to emphasize throughout, that depression, rightly understood, means nothing more or less than absence of trade; and may I state the reverse as being equally true, that trade-plenty of trade-means the end of depression. That fact, I believe, is coming to be increasingly appreciated after some four or five years of economic nationalism during which efforts at promoting trade have been circumscribed and restricted rather than expanded.

The act to amend the Tariff Act of 1930, which constitutes the Trade Agreement Act of 1934, reads as follows:

For the purpose of expanding foreign markets for the products of the United States (as a means of assisting in the present emergency in restoring the American standard of living, in overcoming domestic unemployment and the present economic depression, in increasing the purchasing power of the American public, and in establishing and maintaining a better relationship among various branches of American agriculture, industry, mining, and commerce) by regulating the admission of foreign goods into the United States in accordance with the characteristics and needs of various branches of American production so that foreign markets will be made available to those branches of American production which require and are capable of developing such outlets by affording corresponding market opportunities for foreign products in the United States, the President,

whenever he finds as a fact that any existing duties or other import restrictions of the United States or any foreign country are unduly burdening and restricting the foreign trade of the United States and that the purpose above declared will be promoted by the means hereinafter specified, is authorized from time to time-

(1) To enter into foreign trade agreements with foreign governments or instrumentalities thereof; and

(2) To proclaim such modifications of existing duties and other import restrictions, or such additional import restrictions, or such continuance, and for such minimum periods, of existing customs or excise treatment of any article covered by foreign trade agreements, as are required or appropriate to carry out any foreign trade agreement that the President has entered into hereunder. No proclamation shall be made increasing or decreasing by more than 50 per centum any existing rate of duty or transferring any article between the dutiable and free lists.

Other limitations are then set forth. What I wish to draw to the attention of hon. members is that what is said there with respect to the advantages of a reciprocal agreement so far as the United States is concerned, might be said in identical words with respect to the advantages to Canada of a reciprocal agreement with other countries where the advantages gained are mutual.

May I here remind the house of the efforts that have been made by the Liberal party, since the defeat of the reciprocity agreement of 1911, to have, if at all possible, some reciprocal agreement entered into with the United States. As I have mentioned, the agreement of 1911 was in the nature of an arrangement to be effected through concurrent legislation. The United States had passed the necessary legislation. It allowed that legislation to remain on its statute books. So long as it remained on the statute books of the United States, that legislation was available to this country at any time we chose to take advantage of it. From 1911 on throughout the remainder of his life, Sir Wilfrid Laurier urged upon the government of the day-the Conservative government of the day-not to let that opportunity go by. Despite the defeat they had inflicted upon his own administration at the polls in 1911, he urged the then government to take a broader view and to make a reciprocal agreement. He pointed out that, unless advantage were taken of the opportunity, it wTas inevitable that sooner or later a change would come in the attitude of the United States. He warned that existing rates of duty would be raised, and that it would then become more difficult than ever for Canada to enter into an arrangement with the United States. I ask hon. members to keep this in mind, because it

Canada-U.S. Trade Agreement

has an all important bearing upon the wisdom of approving this agreement. If this agreement is not entered into at this time we may be as sure as that night follows day, that in the course of a very short time the opportunities which exist to-day for favourable trading will so far as the United States is concerned be made much more difficult. It has happened at all times that where advantage has not been taken of a favorable opportunity, a reaction has set in, and the other extreme has been encountered.

As I say, from 1911 Sir Wilfrid Laurier urged and the Liberal opposition after Sir Wilfrid's day continued to urge that advantage should be taken of the opportunity to effect a reciprocal trade agreement with the United States. But the appeal passed unheeded and we fell upon difficult years. What was the result? The result was that we had the Fordney-McCumber tariff, and later the Hawley-Smoot tariff, each of which raised the barriers against Canada to a higher point than they had ever been before. In 1923 the Right Hon. Mr. Fielding introduced in the Customs Tariff Act a standing offer to the United States, after their offer to Canada had been repealed, by a provision which gave to the governor in council power to reduce duties on certain commodities provided the United States would enter into reciprocal arrangements with Canada with respect to any of the commodities mentioned. That offer remained on our statutes for years. It remained there, I think, until my right lion, friend in 1931 substituted what I have read to-day as the power given to his government or any succeeding government to reduce duties in a still broader way. Throughout, the attitude of the Liberal party has been that of urging that every effort should be made to further reciprocal trade under such opportunities as might be afforded. In our last parliament the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff) in three succeeding sessions presented a resolution urging upon the government to enter into a reciprocal agreement with the United States. On each of those occasions my right hon. friend, then Prime Minister, said that negotiations were proceeding, and asked us not to discuss the matter further for fear we might prejudice the possibility of the government securing on the best terms possible an agreement with the United States. Knowing that everyone in this country who really had at heart the development of the nation was desirous of seeing trade developed, the Liberal opposition of the day met my right hon. friend's request and refrained from discussion in order to give him every opportunity to make all the pro-

gress he could. And here may I say, if this agreement is not all that some would like it to be, one of the real reasons unquestionably is the fact that my right hon. friend did not seize the earliest opportunity to make an agreement with the United Sates. He allowed one year after another to go by. We well know that even before Mr. Roosevelt was in office, during his election campaign, he made it perfectly clear that he was most anxious to have the United States enter into reciprocal trade agreements with other counries. Stressing as he did throughout his campaign a policy of neighbourliness, it was obvious that he was looking to the possibility of increasing trade and, with it, friendly relations between the United States and ourselves as her immediate neighbour. But my right hon. friend let those years go by, 1922, 1923, 1924, 1925; those years slipped away-

Topic:   CANADA-UNITED1 STATES TRADE AGREEMENT PROPOSED APPROVAL SUBJECT TO LEGISLATION MAKING PROVISIONS EFFECTIVE
Permalink
CON

Richard Bedford Bennett (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BENNETT:

They went by certainly,

and my right hon. friend was there; those were his years.

Topic:   CANADA-UNITED1 STATES TRADE AGREEMENT PROPOSED APPROVAL SUBJECT TO LEGISLATION MAKING PROVISIONS EFFECTIVE
Permalink
SC

Percy John Rowe

Social Credit

Mr. ROWE (Dufferin):

And 1926, 1927,

1928 and 1929 as well.

Topic:   CANADA-UNITED1 STATES TRADE AGREEMENT PROPOSED APPROVAL SUBJECT TO LEGISLATION MAKING PROVISIONS EFFECTIVE
Permalink
LIB

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

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

I thank my

right hon. friend for his correction. There is nothing too small for him to pick up. It was quite obvious that I meant to say 1932, 1933, 1934, 1935; that those years slipped by while the president's offer was being made to Canada, and when it would have been possible, I believe, to make an agreement on much better terms than were possible later on.

Topic:   CANADA-UNITED1 STATES TRADE AGREEMENT PROPOSED APPROVAL SUBJECT TO LEGISLATION MAKING PROVISIONS EFFECTIVE
Permalink
CON

Charles Hazlitt Cahan

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CAHAN:

The president's offer was not made until June, 1934.

Topic:   CANADA-UNITED1 STATES TRADE AGREEMENT PROPOSED APPROVAL SUBJECT TO LEGISLATION MAKING PROVISIONS EFFECTIVE
Permalink
LIB

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

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

But my hon.

friend knows that negotiations should have been started before.

Topic:   CANADA-UNITED1 STATES TRADE AGREEMENT PROPOSED APPROVAL SUBJECT TO LEGISLATION MAKING PROVISIONS EFFECTIVE
Permalink
CON

Richard Bedford Bennett (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BENNETT:

And they were.

Topic:   CANADA-UNITED1 STATES TRADE AGREEMENT PROPOSED APPROVAL SUBJECT TO LEGISLATION MAKING PROVISIONS EFFECTIVE
Permalink
LIB

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

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

My hon. friend's leader says that they were. Which is right? The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) says that they could not have been.

Topic:   CANADA-UNITED1 STATES TRADE AGREEMENT PROPOSED APPROVAL SUBJECT TO LEGISLATION MAKING PROVISIONS EFFECTIVE
Permalink
CON

Charles Hazlitt Cahan

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CAHAN:

No, I beg your pardon.

Topic:   CANADA-UNITED1 STATES TRADE AGREEMENT PROPOSED APPROVAL SUBJECT TO LEGISLATION MAKING PROVISIONS EFFECTIVE
Permalink
LIB

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

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

What does my hon. friend say?

Topic:   CANADA-UNITED1 STATES TRADE AGREEMENT PROPOSED APPROVAL SUBJECT TO LEGISLATION MAKING PROVISIONS EFFECTIVE
Permalink
CON

Charles Hazlitt Cahan

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CAHAN:

Oh well-

Topic:   CANADA-UNITED1 STATES TRADE AGREEMENT PROPOSED APPROVAL SUBJECT TO LEGISLATION MAKING PROVISIONS EFFECTIVE
Permalink
LIB

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

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

He says "Well."

Topic:   CANADA-UNITED1 STATES TRADE AGREEMENT PROPOSED APPROVAL SUBJECT TO LEGISLATION MAKING PROVISIONS EFFECTIVE
Permalink
CON

Charles Hazlitt Cahan

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CAHAN:

Mr. Speaker, if I should repeat it the right hon. gentleman would misinterpret and misconstrue it. That is his attitude of mind to-day.

Topic:   CANADA-UNITED1 STATES TRADE AGREEMENT PROPOSED APPROVAL SUBJECT TO LEGISLATION MAKING PROVISIONS EFFECTIVE
Permalink
LIB

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

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

Topic:   CANADA-UNITED1 STATES TRADE AGREEMENT PROPOSED APPROVAL SUBJECT TO LEGISLATION MAKING PROVISIONS EFFECTIVE
Permalink

February 25, 1936