March 5, 1936

LIB

Hughes Cleaver

Liberal

Mr. CLEAVER:

May I ask the hon. member: Is he aware that during the last week the canners have signed up for the asparagus crop of this province at ten cents a pound?

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

Gordon Graydon

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. GRAYDON:

My latest information is that the canning companies have not signed up for the whole crop. Certainly from the information I have they have not signed up for the crop of this grower in the county of Peel. Certainly, if the statement of the hon. gentleman were correct, I would gladly suffer any humiliation on the floor of this house to see it come true.

The growing of strawberries is also an enterprise of great importance in my constituency. This fruit is a perishable commodity; it must be sold quickly and at a particular season. Therefore, when the public taste is satiated by berries from the United States the market is left in a very unreceptive state. Only well regulated and properly timed dumping duties can save the strawberry market for the growers of such a constituency as I

Canada-U. S. Trade Agreement

represent. I have a letter from one of my constituents saying that he is fearful that the great markets of Winnipeg and Montreal will be largely taken away from the strawberry producers of that county. Another large producer of fruit and vegetables in my riding says that a commission merchant in one of the large cities of Ontario has contracted to purchase seventy-five carloads of strawberries, and under the new tariff regulations $200 will be saved on every carload.

Another branch of the vegetable growing industry is the production of potatoes. Our county produces potatoes of excellent quality. Before this agreement went into effect potatoes coming from the United States paid a duty of seventy-five cents per hundred pounds. Under this agreement the intermediate tariff applies and potatoes enter free of duty. Not long ago I was talking to one of the large growers in my constituency. He said that he was in the United States viewing some of the agricultural districts there, and in one of the southern states he saw an area of potatoes stretching as far as the eye could see, in bloom, many weeks earlier than our crop. This agreement puts the potato growers of Canada, and especially of the county of Peel, in a very difficult position. May I make this suggestion, that when the budget is brought down special attention should be given to the question of raising the intermediate tariff on potatoes to the rate at which it was before? And I ask the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) to consider a suggestion which I think could be easily carried out. One of the growers in my county writes me saying:

A lot of people do not think that potatoes imported will hurt our prices as the freight on them will be heavy. I see this matter at a different angle being a grower of about ten acres every year and in touch with markets frequently. In the first place the grades are not similar. Our Canada No. 2 is every bit as good as their No. 1, therefore the American grower will be able to put on the market a so-called No. I grade of potatoes considerably cheaper than we can. and pay freight and still realize as much for their potatoes as we do according to Canadian grading. I would like to see the American growers compelled to grade their potatoes according to Canadian specifications if they expect to sell them in Canada, then we would have fair competition.

Secondly I do not expect that there will be any encouragement for the Canadian potato growers to try and have their potatoes early, as the market no doubt will be flooded with American potatoes before we have them fit to dig.

One other suggestion, and that is in regard to the dumping regulations. I suggest that there should be some permanent orderly regulation in regard to the fruit and vegetable industry, so that a man who plants his crop in the spring may be able to plan and see a year

ahead and have some reasonable certainty as to results. I leave that suggestion, as the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) said the other day, on the doorstep of the government.

I am not desirous of placing unnecessary obstacles in the way of a government which has such heavy responsibilities and duties. I take my stand against this agreement only in protest against the treatment which has been accorded to the industries I have mentioned. It is my conscientious hope that the rest of Canada may receive greater benefit under this agreement than it [DOT]would appear on the surface that the county of Peel is likely to enjoy. No one in the house will be happier than I shall be if this agreement proves to be a step towards Canadian economic recovery, as I have no doubt the government honestly and conscientiously believe it will be. I do not agree with the policies instituted by the government in its efforts to stimulate trade because I believe in protection for our people, but at the same time I say to the Prime Minister and to his government: God speed, and let us see if something concrete can be done for the people of this whole dominion who so richly deserve improved conditions.

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

Ralph Maybank

Liberal

Mr. RALPH MAYBANK (Winnipeg South Centre):

Mr. Speaker, there has to be a first

time for everyone, and this is mine. I do not rise to address the house with that feeling of temerity which I think I ought to have. On the contrary my feelings at the moment are quite the opposite of temerity. However, I have observed the very kindly attitude displayed by hon. members and particularly yourself, Mr. Speaker, to the various new members who have spoken so far this session. What I have seen emboldens me to rise at this time to address the chamber.

Nor am I vain enough to believe that anything I have to say is of transcendent importance. I am quite well aware of the fact that anything I may be able to say upon this important trade agreement has either already been said by others or could be stated by other hon. members more adequately. Nevertheless the electors of Winnipeg South Centre did me the honour of sending me here as their spokesman, and I owe it to my constituents to endeavour to express in the best fashion of which I am capable their opinions upon this all-important matter.

I would be doing less than justice to my constituents if at the outset I did not express their appreciation of the promptness with which this agreement was effected, as well as their satisfaction with its broad general lines.

Canada-U. S. Trade Agreement

During the election campaign the gage was thrown down in the words, "Vote Liberal and get action." The people of Canada took up that gage. When the Prime Minister returned from Washington it had been redeemed. This type of action marks a new day for Canadians, and as a result of it naturally the people are imbued with a new hope.

As has been stated many times the agreement is designed to benefit all consumers and many producers. I look at most questions from the viewpoint of the consumer. Cheapness is a corollary of abundance and dearness follows in the train of scarcity. Naturally we want cheapness. It seems to me that in the past more attention would have been paid to the needs of consumers if the consumers, as such, had been organized in the way many producing groups have been. I conceive it to be my duty to endeavour, in some small measure at least, to destroy what has been called the inarticulateness of the consumer of Canada.

Leaving that for the moment, however, and glancing at the agreement, can we seriously doubt that certain producing groups will be benefited by the operation of its schedules, particularly when we remember that in the lumbering industry, for instance, the duty on logging apparatus has been reduced by twenty-five per cent. We get further satisfaction when we see that lumber and timber are given access to the great markets to the south of us, and enjoy fifty per cent less impost than had been the case for several years, during those years, in fact from the time when the last administration goaded the United States government into effecting retaliatory measures against us.

Some time ago I read the story in the Manchester Guardian respecting the lumber industry and I should like to quote from it briefly. The article to which I refer is found in the issue of January 5, 1934, and is, I believe, one of the many sad stories of the last five years.

When the Bennett government took office in 1930 the United States market was open to Canadian lumber. The duty was one dollar per thousand feet, and on an average Canada exported $20,000,000 worth of softwood annually and imported' $2,000,000 of hardwood. The hardwood manufacturers of Ontario applied to the Bennett government for tariff increases to keep out this hardwood, and in April, 1931, the "Canada First" policy was applied by the imposition of arbitrary valuations. In the following June Mr. Bennett imposed a one per cent primage duty on imports, including lumber. This was followed by an order of the national revenue department in August, 1931, reducing the discounts allowed to the United States hardwood manufacturers, and in November by dump duties against United States hardwood doors.

These successive affronts brought retaliation by the Washington government. The duty on Canadian lumber was increased by one dollar per thousand feet. The Bennett government, realizing their error, endeavoured to placate Washington by withdrawing the primage duty. The other tariff increases, however, were retained.

In June, 1932, congress took the final step in retaliation and increased the duty on Canadian lumber from one dollar to four dollars per thousand feet. The effect was ruinous to Canada. Exports in the fiscal year ended March 31, 1933, fell to the incredibly low total of 235,528,000 feet.

The article is headed: "The tariff that lost a market." Happily this sort of action is now a thing of the past.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   CANADA-UNITED 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:

I suppose the hon.

gentleman knows that is incorrect?

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

Ralph Maybank

Liberal

Mr. MAYBANK:

I have been quoting an article from a reputable journal. If there is anything incorrect about it I believe the right hon. gentleman will have another opportunity during the session to deal with it.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   CANADA-UNITED 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:

It happens to be against the rules of the house to read articles, but the member being a new one I did not raise the point. It was not all tariff; it was in part a tax under the Special War Revenue Act.

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

Ralph Maybank

Liberal

Mr. MAYBANK:

I should not have

objected if the rules of the house had been drawn to my attention, no matter how new I may be. I am quite conscious of all the right hon. gentleman has said with respect to my newness. However I do not think he quite does himself justice when he rises after the fact to tell me something that I should not have done, and questions it. After all, he cannot have it both ways.

Nor do I think it can be doubted that, normally, a reduction in tariff, such as we see before us in connection with agricultural machinery, would be of benefit to the agriculturists of Canada, despite the price increases about which we have heard in this chamber during the present session. Of course the answer to the price increases, lest there be any doubt as to whether taking off the tariff can raise the price-and of course there is no doubt-is to take the balance of the duty off, and to obliterate every sign and trace of tariff upon agricultural implements.

For my part I like to translate trade movements into hours of work rather than deal with them in millions of dollars. We speak of millions of dollars of imports and exports, but sometimes when discussing them in these monetary terms we lose sight of the amount of work lying behind each dollaris worth of

Canada-U. S. Trade Agreement

goods moving out of or into a country. If we were to examine the lumber industry, or the manufacturing of shingles, we would find that the total amount of work lying behind a carload of shingles is rarely appreciated. The number of man-hours of labour connected with the felling of a tree and getting it to the skidway is appreciated by few people. Prior to the logs reaching the sawmill a very great number of man-hours of labour are involved, and then afterwards it will take two or three hours per day of two or three different men's time to get the first thousand shingles off any one log. After that, it will take three or four men supplying three or four more men to pack about sixty thousand shingles in a day, and after several days of that sort of work a carload results.

Then commences the next train of work: A man examines the car, the waybills are made up; the different items in the car are checked, and finally five men will be employed in pulling the car out and bringing it to where it will eventually be hooked up in a train. There the whole process of inspection is gone over again, and the car then starts to move to its destination. Consequently, when we talk of millions of dollars of exports, this involves millions or many hundreds of thousands of hours of labour, which is represented by the figure first mentioned. Similar to that is the process in respect to imports.

In addition, when we read these import and export figures, we have to take into account the money which is spent in the various stores after the wage earner has given the money to his wife, perhaps, so that she may do the spending. It seems to me that that ought to bring home to us that the only depression breaker that ever did or ever will have any efficacy, is the exchange of commodities, and if we cannot have that, no depression will ever be broken.

I should like to draw to the attention of the house certain figures which came to my attention last year and which I found in the reports of the League of Nations. They show the contraction of trade throughout the world as thirty-one per cent below normal, and at the same time the employment figures represent employment as being thirty per cent below normal. It seems to me that these figures are striking and ought to bring home to us, if anything can, the fact that it is exchange of commodities, and exchange of commodities alone, that makes for any appreciable amount of employment.

As I have said, my chief interest is in the consumer. I am interested in the getting of goods as cheaply as possible. However, from 12739-52

the viewpoint of the primary producer it seems to me that we should always have a tariff low enough to allow sufficient goods to flow into this country to pay for the products for which our primary producers have to find a market abroad. Whenever we find that our primary products, the products of the farm, the forest and the stream, are not moving out of the country as they should, then tariffs should be lowered to invite these payment-commodities to come into the country and assist in getting our own primary products out.

I confess I do not hold strongly with the idea lying behind such expressions as "quid pro quo." "concessions," and so forth. I regard lowering of tariffs, generally speaking, as good in itself because it tends towards the movement of trade. As far as I am concerned I am only sorry that the tariff cuts made in this treaty are not greater.

Some fear has been expressed that the balance of trade between us and the United States may be unfavourable. Surely we do not have to have a favourable balance of trade with the United States or any other particular country. I had thought that idea had long since been exploded. I must confess I was considerably humiliated when I read the communication of Secretary of State Cordell Hull in 1934 to the then Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) of Canada, in which he found it necessary to inform the then Prime Minister that the settlement of international indebtedness was often roundabout. It would seem from the wording of that letter that the Prime Minister of that day was not aware of that fact, of which most students of economics most certainly are aware.

Equally meaningless, it seems to me, are criticisms of this agreement based on any argument as to per capita purchases. We have been told, for instance, that we purchase from the United States $28.86 worth of goods per capita per annum, and that they only purchase from us $2.23 worth of goods per capita per annum. So what? What does this prove? It does not prove anything. It is one of those propositions that when you state it it means nothing. If we take the whole world as one country and Canada as the other, we find that we buy $55 worth of goods per capita from the world, but treating that world as one country we find that they buy from ns only an infinitesimal amount per capita as compared with that $55. Is it then to be concluded that we shall not deal with that other country, which is the world? The idea is preposterous.

Canada-U. S. Trade Agreement

I do not particularly wish to obtrude on the attention of this house anything with relation to myself and my own family, but perhaps I might be permitted to do so to illustrate my argument. I happen to be one of a family of five-three children, a wife and myself.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT PROPOSED APPROVAL SUBJECT TO LEGISLATION MAKING PROVISIONS EFFECTIVE
Permalink
?

An hon. MEMBER:

Four.

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

Ralph Maybank

Liberal

Mr. MAYBANK:

Four and a half, anyway. Suppose I go down to Utah and start a grocery store there, and that the present head of the Brigham Young family-you know Brigham Young had a great many wives and a tremendous number of children-comes to me and says, "Maybank, if you will undertake that every member of your family will buy from us $50 worth of goods per annum I will see that the Brigham Youngs buy fifty cents worth per capita per annum from you." Do you think I would not jump at the chance? I would not worry about the disparity between $55 per capita on the one side and only fifty cents per capite on the other, if I could get fifty cents each' from that immense number of people, because I believe by now the Brigham Youngs are an immense number.

No; we do not have to worry about the balance of trade with any particular country. We all know now; we have learned to our sorrow in the last five years, that we cannot sell if we do not buy, and that people outside cannot sell to us if they will not buy from us. Naturally I shall support this treaty because it is the one bright spot in the fiscal policy panorama of this country for a great many years.

For just a moment I should like to refer to the subject of publishers and magazines. This is one of the matters referred to by the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe). The hon. member was very much against letting in American magazines. He referred to their teaching a foreign culture and a different patriotism, to their being published by people with a national outlook which varied from our own. I want to say to the hon. gentleman and to all hon. members: The way to help the publishing industry of this country is by removing some of the impediments from which the industry is suffering. Recently 1 received a little publication from an agency which apparently represents the Canadian publishing trade and I had in mind placing upon Hansard a part of the argument cited here. A short time ago I apparently transgressed the rules of the house and I do not want to repeat that mistake. If I am wrong in reading this I hope, sir, you will stop me. Apparently this is a reproduction of an article

which appeared in my own paper, the Winnipeg Free Press, and is signed "H. B. G." I really intend to adopt this article as my own argument; I am not quoting it exactly as an authority. It reads:

AVe are told that while the American publisher has a much larger market for his product than the Canadian publisher, the latter is also handicapped in having to pay more for his paper, his inks, his type, his machinery and other supplies because of customs tariffs and sales taxes that are not borne by his United States competitor. He pays a high postage rate, owing to the increase during the depression. On everything that enters into the production of a magazine, say the Canadian publishers, there is high protection and heavy taxation.

This is the work of the previous administration at Ottawa, which could never conceive it possible to go too far in providing protective devices. But since the attempt to ban the entry into Canada of American magazines was an entirely mistaken policy and one inimical to the intellectual and cultural interests of this country, and has now properly been reversed, it is only right that the duties on the equipment and supplies of Canadian publishers should also be removed or greatly reduced.

I commend that to the attention of the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe and to all other hon. members.

I do not think we need to worry about foreign culture or foreign influence. I suppose we are affected somewhat by these magazines which teach a foreign culture and a different patriotism, but this effect is not very great. After all, Canadians are fairly impervious to influences of that sort. The Canadian people were not affected very much by the American influence with which they were confronted for two or three months before the election. For instance, they were completely impervious to the jargon sent over the radio by Mr. Sage. That was an instance of a Conservative importation of foreign culture, and, far from doing harm, it did the Canadian people a lot of good. I hope it proves to be a salutary lesson to the Conservative party.

We do not need to worry about foreign culture. We are a hardy people; we are a characterful people, and we are quite capable of carving out our own destiny and developing our own character. We may as well make up our minds anyway that we cannot keep out American influence by stopping American magazines. This is impossible when as a part of our daily lives we have the automobile upon the open road, the movie and the radio. Nothing can be done about the matter; we must rely upon our own characters and I believe the character of the Canadian people is sufficient to withstand these successive shocks.

Canada-U. S. Trade Agreement

As I have said before, I am sorry that the tariff cuts are not more extensive. Instead of the duty on agricultural implements being reduced by fifty per cent, I would prefer to see the tariff wiped out altogether. I consider the tariff on automobiles is entirely too high and that a fifteen per cent combination of imposts would be plenty. I would like to see the gasoline racket stopped completely by putting that commodity upon the free list.

I used to be a lumberjack in British Columbia and at that time I came into contact with that union about which we sometimes hear, known as the I.WAV. These boys would stage a strike for practically any one of the reasons for which a man takes a drink and they were ready at any time to stage a strike for any other reason. Often when they staged one they used to walk down the valley singing. "There'll be pie in the sky when we die." The people in my constituency are not interested in "pie in the sky when they die." They want the benefits of Liberalism right away. They want to be able to pass on a heritage to their grandchildren, a heritage made possible because of Liberal policies put into effect to-day. We want to start with the Dunning tariff of 1930 and proceed from there on.

While this treaty does not go as far as I would like it to go, nevertheless it is wholly good. It does not preclude us from further gifts to ourselves by way of additional tariff reductions. I had intended to refer to certain figures indicating the improvements in trade in the month of January of this year as compared with January of the year before. I believe however that in the main they have already been placed on Hansard. But it is obvious to everyone that both in imports and exports trade in the month of January greatly increased over the previous January, and that, as the Prime Minister has said, was the result of only a partial operation of the treaty. When we again translate figures of that sort into working hours we see the great importance of trade as a means of relieving depression.

I regard this trade agreement as being wholly good because it is the first step; because in the mind of the leader of the opposition, although he would not say so, it marks a newr orientation to the fiscal problems of this dominion. I am further glad to support the agreement because of the example it is to other countries. Five years ago the whole world except Canada was mad with the disease of economic nationalism. Then we followed the multitude to do evil; in fact, in the last five years we overtook the multitude and committed more sin than did

most other nations. But now fortunately economic sanity has returned and it is my hope and belief that by this act we shall influence other nations back in the direction of economic virtue to the benefit not only of those nations but of ourselves and to the general advantage of all with whom they and we respectively live, move and have our being, commercially speaking. For all these reasons I am happy to support this treaty.

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

Alfred Johnson Brooks

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. A. J. BROOKS (Royal):

I shall take a few minutes only in discussing this trade agreement, which is of great importance to the people of Canada. It is an agreement in which we are all particularly interested. It is not my intention to discuss it from the general standpoint because I do not consider myself qualified to do so, but I should like to consider it from the point of view of those provinces of which I have the honour to be one of the members-the maritimes.

It is interesting to know that according to the last census the population of Canada has become more urban and less rural, but this fact does not apply to the three Atlantic provinces; we are more rural than urban. The census of 1931 shows that the population of Prince Edward Island was 67,653 rural and 20,385 urban; Nova Scotia, 281,192 rural and 231,654 urban; New Brunswick, 279,279 rural and 128,940 urban, or in the maritimes a total rural population of 628,124 and a total urban population of 380,979. I quote these figures to show' that we in the maritime provinces are distinctly a rural population and are primary producers. The great industries of the maritime provinces are fishing, lumbering, mining and forestry, and any agreement which is made, if it is to benefit us, must give us some benefit in these primary industries that I have mentioned.

Let me take first the great industry of fishing. It is a fact wrhich is wTell known not only in this country but throughout the world that the maritime provinces of Canada possess the greatest fishing area to be found anywhere in the world. It is an old industry, one of the first to be established on this continent; for we all remember from our history that in the days of Cabot men came from England, France and other places across the sea and reported that fish were so plentiful in the northern Atlantic ocean that they could be gathered up in baskets. We have over

8.000 square miles in the bay of Fundy and

200.000 square miles, or over four-fifths of the fishing ground, in the north Atlantic, and in addition to this we have 15,000 square miles of inshore waters entirely controlled by the dominion. Besides this great extent of

Canada-TJ. S. Trade Agreement

fisheries we have, I believe, the best fish to be found anywhere in the world. I say this because it is well known that the colder the water the better the quality of fish, and as you go north in the northern Atlantic and up among the maritime provinces you find, with the purity and coldness of the water, a better quality of fish, including cod, herring, mackerel and salmon. In this great industry some 40,000 fishermen are employed. This will indicate to some extent the importance of the industry. Taking five members to a family-and I am not taking a Brigham Young estimate now-there are about 200,000 people dependent on the industry in the mari-times, and a capital of $16,138,728 is invested in the fisheries of New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia.

I have laid this foundation to show the extent and greatness of this industry which we have in the Atlantic provinces. It is well known that in the last five or six years the industry has been in a very bad condition. Markets have not been good, and there is no class of people in the maritime provinces -and I doubt whether there is in any other part of Canada-who have suffered more than have the fishermen. Not only have they lost tens of thousands of dollars' worth of equipment, but in 1934 many lives were lost. It is a very hazardous occupation; I doubt whether there is any more hazardous. These men therefore should be well compensated for the work they are doing. I am safe in saying that in the last few months, or prior to October 14, the maritime provinces were promised that in the event of a reciprocal agreement being brought about with the United States they would be one of the first sections of Canada to be considered, and that they would receive great benefits from such a treaty.

In any reciprocity treaty which has ever been mentioned through all these years it will be found, if one will take the trouble to study the history of the proposals and agreements, that the fisheries of the maritime provinces was, or was supposed to be, one of the first considerations as regards any agreement. In this connection I should like to quote the remarks of an hon. gentleman who a short time ago was a member of this house and who to-day I congratulate upon having been elevated to the Senate; I refer to the Hon. William Duff. Senator Duff has always been greatly interested in fisheries in his native province, and on many occasions has spoken in this house as to the great benefits which would be derived by the fishing industry from a reciprocity treaty with the

United States. At different times he brought in several resolutions, and in speaking to a resolution which he presented on February 20, 1933, he gave expression to these thoughts:

My hon. friend asks who imposed the duty; the United States, of course.

Then he goes on:

Now, in my opinion, with the Canadian fisheries in their present condition-

And he had told the house of the deplorable condition of the fisheries at that time:

-there is only one salvation for them, and that is for this government-

And he was exhorting the Conservative government of the day:

-to make a trade arrangement with the United States so that our fish might go into that country.

We hear a good deal about trawlers nowadays. I have no time to go into that question to-day, but if we had the United States for a market there would not be very much talk about trawlers because the trouble to-day is that Canada is a very small market. Great Britain is too far away from us, being some twenty-five hundred miles across the water, and they have their own source of supply so far as fish is concerned, so that practically the only market open to us now, to which we can extend our business, is the United States. I need_ not say that the fisheries of this country are in a deplorable condition, and I appeal to the government to do everything they can to help the industry. There is no question about it that there is a great opportunity for the government as well as for the fishermen of Canada.

Then he goes on to say:

I think the time ripe for something to be done if we are to be clear of our surplus product. This is the time for the government to enter into negotiations with the government of the United States.

That is the exhortation which was given to the Conservative party in 1933. On Feb-rurary 19, 1934, Mr., now Senator, Duff brought in his resolution again. At that time he said:

If an arrangement could be made whereby certain goods from the United States were permitted to enter this country free of duty while the fish from lake Winnipeg, the great lakes and the Atlantic and the Pacific could enter that country free of duty, the fishermen of Canada would be in a much better position than they are to-day. In my opinion, this government should do everything possible to see that this is done.

I quote this to point out that Senator Duff was voicing the opinion of the maritime provinces as regards fish.

A reciprocity arrangement has been entered into, not by a Conservative government but by the government opposite, a Liberal government, and I should like to ask if Senator Duff's recommendations have been carried out by his old government. I think the facts will prove very much to the contrary.

Canada-U. S. Trade Agreement

I should like to refer for a few minutes to some of our leading fish. In this connection may I say that I am sorry that the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Kinley) is not in his seat. I was surprised to hear him, in this house a few days ago, tell us that he was the representative of the best fishing county in the maritime provinces and also in Canada, and say that he supported this reciprocity agreement. We find that in Nova Scotia lobsters are the greatest fish product of the province. In 1934 the catch was 18,459,000 pounds, and the market value 82,461,784. As was pointed out by the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg, this fish has always entered the United States free.

It is well known that we in the maritime provinces and Newfoundland produce practically all the lobsters in the world. We have the finest lobsters that are found anywhere. The only lobster, I believe, that is found outside of Canada is one called the spiny lobster, which in reality is not a lobster at all. Lobsters are entering and have entered the United States free, because the Americans want our lobsters, and I think we shall find in reviewing any agreement with the United States that anything the Americans want from us they allow us to send them free, but anything about which we wish to bargain, it is a very hard matter to make a favourable bargain.

The cod is a fish which is produced in great abundance in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. As a matter of fact, cod is the second largest fish product of the maritime provinces, and our fishermen hoped and expected that it would have been included in the agreement with the United States. But there is a duty, and a heavy one, on cod, and it is because of this duty that many of the fishermen of these provinces are in the deplorable condition in which they find themselves to-day. We expected that the government, in making an agreement with the United States, would take this into consideration and secure the removal of the duty.

The hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg, in speaking the other day, said that he understood one reason why the duty was not taken off cod and haddock was because we had allowed English anthracite coal to come into this country, and that coal was the commodity which the Americans wished to barter in exchange for our cod and haddock and other fish, I think this is a very far-fetched argument, because we all know that in Walkerville, Ontario, for instance, the liquor

producers have been given the opportunity to ship at a greatly lowered duty millions of gallons of whiskey into the United States, and I have not heard that any quid pro quo was demanded as far as whiskey is concerned. It might also be pointed out as regards fisheries in the maritime provinces that the government, on account of the market now opened to the American manufacturer in the maritime provinces, containing a population of over a million, could have very well exchanged our fish for the manufactured products which we shall undoubtedly receive from that country.

I could go on down through the list of fisheries in these three provinces, but it is not my intention to do so. The list is long. I have pointed out that the great fishing industry in the maritime provinces was not considered at all. They speak about swordfish; we all know there is very little export of swordfish to the United States, we know also there is still a duty on swordfish. As to herring, the great market is not in the United States but is I understand, in the British West Indies. Then there is the small herring used in New Brunswick for sardines. Sardines have not received any benefit under this agreement. Sardines form the greatest fisheries export of New Brunswick. In 1934 it amounted to 41,458,200 poundte, of a market value of $1,087,674. These were not exported to the United States, because the United States impose a heavy duty on our sardines in order to protect the sardine canneries of Eastport and the Maine coast. As far as the fisheries of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island are concerned they gain nothing from this agreement, although they were led to believe they would receive much.

It is a small step from fish to potatoes. I am not going to say much about potatoes tonight because that subject has already been pretty well covered. I was amused when the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) in his excellent address spoke of a ten acre field of potatoes. I may tell my hon. friend that in my province of New Brunswick a ten acre field of potatoes is just a back yard garden. We grow potatoes there by the hundreds of acres. In the county of Carleton, New Brunswick, whose representative (Mr. Patterson) I see in the house-and he can verify what I say-it is not uncommon to see fields of potatoes of one hundred acres and more. What do we find in regard to potatoes since this agreement came into force? The potato farmers of New Brunswick are not receiving any benefit under it; very much the contrary.

Canada-U. S. Trade Agreement

In that connection I wish to read a statement from the Carleton Sentinel, a paper published in the county of Carleton in which many potatoes are produced:

A move is now on foot, sponsored by the New Brunswick Farmers' Industrial Organization, to have a countervailing duty placed on American potatoes, which under the existing regulations may be imported into Canada duty free. Apparently this phase of the new

reciprocity treaty was not regarded as important, as it would be only on rare occasions that American potatoes could be

imported as cheaply as home produced stock could be purchased. It is generally supposed that should such a thing happen as a flow of potatoes starting from the south, the government would act at once and place a countervailing duty in effect, such as prevailed prior to 1930. _

A situation has arisen, however, which was probably not foreseen. Potatoes are now a fairly good price in Canada and it is thought they will go higher, possibly to a price above that in the United States. For that reason dealers on the receiving end are believed, correctly or otherwise, to be watching the market very closely. This has caused some unsettlement of the market, particularly as recent court decisions south of the line will have, it is thought, a depressing effect on the Canadian market.

We believe the federal government would do well to accede to the wishes of the farmers, and put on a countervailing duty as soon as possible.

Then another article in the Hartland Observer, also published in that county, says:

A letter from Windsor confirms the fear that United States potatoes under the treaty would compete unfairly with ours. The writer says, Michigan potatoes are being marketed at 40 cents per bag cheaper than ours, and adds that but for the fact that Canadian dealers are as yet chary about handling them to the [DOT]detriment of Canadian prior contracts, there would be a brisk trade for American spuds in Ontario. Canadian farmers are being made philanthropists to their American cousins.

I received also a letter to-day from a gentleman who is a very large exporter of potatoes in Carleton county, Mr. Hatfield, who claims that there are being sold in Montreal and Quebec. Maine potatoes, called "commercials," of a grade not marketable by Canadian farmers. He also says that Maine potatoes are crossing daily from Van Buren into St. Leonard free of duty under the provisions of the new trade pact with the United States. I quote this to show that as far as potatoes are concerned-and in my province we are large potato producers, as they are in Prince Edward Island and to a less degree in Nova Scotia-we receive no benefit from this agreement for this primary-product. Someone may say that the seed potatoes receive some benefit. That is true, but it is not the seed potato that is the great commercial potato of the maritime provinces, and it is not the

seed potato producer, but the producer of

table potatoes who needed protection.

I rather hesitate to say anything regarding small fruits, vegetables, apples, and dairy products, which we produce very extensively in our province and the other provinces by the sea. What has been said by previous speakers applies also to New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. We receive no benefit as far as these vegetables and small fruits are concerned. Our market will be open to the products of the United States, which will come in earlier than ours and satiate the appetite of the people in Montreal, Toronto and other places where we market much of our small fruits and vegetables.

Mention has also been made of the lumber industry. We in New Brunswick are greatly interested in lumber. Years ago the United States market was the best one we had, but on account of the duties which have been imposed against the lumber products of the maritime provinces that market was closed to us. The duty has now been lowered $2 per thousand feet, but anyone who is lumbering in New Brunswick to-day will tell you that it was not the producer of lumber in New Brunswick, but the consumer in the United States, who received the benefit of this lowering of duty, with the result that there is far less lumber being cut in New Brunswick to-day than there was a year ago. The only market we had is the market which we obtained through the Ottawa agreements. If it had not been for the Ottawa agreements, during the last three years the lumber industry in these provinces would have been practically dead. Only last week when I was home there were three ships loading lumber in Saint John, not for the United States but for England. A lumberman told me that he was selling one and a half million feet of lumber in England, and that during the last two or three years, and particularly since this agreement came into effect, he did not find it profitable to sell one stick of lumber in the United States.

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

William Michael Ryan

Liberal

Mr. RYAN:

Will the hon. member tell U3 who told him that?

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

Alfred Johnson Brooks

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BROOKS:

Yes, I will tell you any time you wish 'to know.

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

William Michael Ryan

Liberal

Mr. RYAN:

Tell the house. .

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

Alfred Johnson Brooks

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BROOKS:

It is not necessary. Let me tell the hon. member for St. John-Albert (Mr. Ryan) that there are twenty-five members from the maritime provinces in this house and if they will inquire from their constituents they will be told that they have not received any benefit so far as this agree-

Canada-U. S. Trade Agreement

ment is concerned. It is a well known fact that under the trade agreement the cities of Saint John and Halifax stand to lose a considerable amount of trade. This was trade that under most favoured' nation agreements was compelled to come through these ports. Now it may go to the ports of Boston, New York or other points along the Atlantic coast.

The hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg found something beneficial under the agreement. He said that as he was going through Nova Scotia he saw some men loading oxen to be sent to the United States to work in the woods. He added that it was a sight he had not seen for a long time. I can believe the hon. gentleman; may I add that probably it is a sight he will never see again. So far as we are concerned, the agreement is out of balance, and I believe people from our provinces will substantiate me in this statement. I was surprised to hear the hon. member defend the agreement. A few days ago, while making a speech in connection with seamen on British ships, he stated that he was particularly anxious to look after the interests of those men who went down to the sea in ships. I would say to him that there are thousands of men connected with the fishing industry in the maritime provinces who go down to the sea in ships, and I would ask the twenty-five members and the four ministers from the mari-times what was done in this agreement for those men who go down to the sea in ships in the fishing industry.

It is not my intention to say anything further than that, so far as the three maritime provinces are concerned, the agreement is very much out of balance. The reason there is such a large representation of government followers from the maritime provinces is that people down there were led to expect big things from the reciprocity agreement. They have been disappointed. Hon. members may have noticed that recently in the press there has been some talk of secession in the maritimes. May I say here and now that there is very little secession sentiment down there, but I do believe that during the last few weeks, born out of disappointment at the agreement, there has been secession talk. In the hearts of the people in the maritimes, however, there is neither the desire nor the intention to secede from the rest of Canada. We have made too great a contribution to the dominion even to think of such a thing. For the reasons I have stated it is my intention to oppose the agreement.

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

Hughes Cleaver

Liberal

Mr. HUGHES CLEAVER (Halton):

Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in the debate with a deep sense of my lack of qualifications, but with a consciousness of the fact that if I did not raise my voice in support of the agreement I would be remiss in my duty to my constituents.

Before entering into a short discussion of some of my reasons for supporting the pact may I be permitted to extend to the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) my sincere apologies for interrupting him while he was speaking. I did not intend the interruption to be an act of discourtesy, and if he considered it as such I apologize. I know he will be just as pleased as I was to learn that asparagus growers are this year receiving from the canners ten cents per pound, and not the four or five cents the hon. member feared they would be receiving.

May I be permitted to comment briefly on the observations of the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan). As I listened to him I could not but be deeply impressed by his sincerity and the experience behind his words, but I was surprised and almost startled to find that one of his experience in public life could be so far removed from and almost ignorant of the actual living conditions of the great mass of the common people, and I was further surprised to hear him express satisfaction with the trend of affairs in Canada in the last few years. Perhaps so far as our financial interests are concerned there is some reason for satisfaction, but surely when we consider the plight of our farmers and workers we find no cause for satisfaction. Great numbers of our people are on relief, with all its consequent hardship and distress. One worker in every eight is denied the right to earn for himself and his family an honest living. Without fear of contradiction I state that if it is necessary to sacrifice the welfare of the common people to salvage our financial institutions, the price is too great. If the time should come when I as a member of this house would have to choose between property rights and personal rights of the people, I would have no hesitancy in making my choice.

Listening to the speeches which have been made concerning the trade agreement it seems to me that the matters in dispute are brought down to a narrow compass. After brushing aside all the frills I believe the only real objections to the pact that I have heard are the two raised by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett). May I deal first with his criticism of the weakness of our present tariff structure in so far as it applies to the inter-

Canada-U. S. Trade Agreement

mediate tariff. In this connection he cited several items, but greatest stress has been placed upon cut flowers and potatoes. If I understood him correctly he blames the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) for negotiating an agreement whereby, until a change is made in the tariff, certain articles will enter Canada duty free. I was interested to look back to ascertain who was responsible for the present weakness in tariff structure in so far as the intermediate schedule is concerned. Looking up the record I find that cut flowers constitute item 79b. I find that this tariff was under consideration and some amendment was made to it in the September session of 1930. Now who was the leader of the government in September, 1930? Who was responsible for our present tariff structure, which has recently been criticized, and for which the present government was almost blamed?

Coming to the other item of potatoes, also referred to in the debate, it is item 83 in the tariff, and there again I find that the tariff on potatoes was dealt with by the government on October 13, 1932. Now who was the leader of the government on October 13, 1932? I submit, sir, that our present Prime Minister did everything he could to protect the people of this country in respect to those items in regard to which our intermediate tariff structure is weak when he retained the right on behalf of the parliament of Canada to raise the intermediate tariff on any of these articles if it should be deemed necessary or advisable to do so, and I suggest to you, sir, that it is strange that the leader of the opposition should attempt to blame this government for something which his own government did. If there is any weakness in the structure of the intermediate tariff, who is to blame for that? Our whole tariff structure was rebuilt by the leader of the last government in this country. I am not suggesting that in 1930 when he did revamp the tariff structure he should have had foresight enough to see the dilemma he would be in to-day, but I do say that if there is anyone in the house who should not criticize this government for what somebody else's government did, it is the leader of the opposition.

Coming to the other criticism which has been levelled at the agreement by the leader of the opposition, there is no dispute as to the principle that freer trade between Canada and the United States is beneficial to both countries. There is also no dispute that when the previous government instituted negotiations for the purpose of arriving, if

possible, at a trade pact with the United States those negotiations were instituted in full knowledge of the fact that the powers of the president of the United States were very much limited in their character, and by initiating those negotiations I suggest that the leader of the opposition impliedly accepted those restrictions and cannot now be heard to express any criticisms in regard to them. Therefore the whole matter narrows down to simply an expression of opinion by experts as to whether the bargain which has been made is a fair and square one. and just in that regard I would like to make this statement.

The Prime Minister believes he has negotiated an agreement which is fair and equitable to both Canada and the United States. Any trade agreement which is to be permanent in its character must of necessity be fair to both countries. On the other hand, the leader of the opposition believes that the agreement is ruinous to Canada; that it is an improvident one. Now, when we reach the point at which it is simply a matter of weighing opinions by experts, I suggest that perhaps the best way to do that is to look at the past efforts and the past results of both these tariff experts. Certainly they cannot both be right; one must be wrong, and only experience and trial will prove conclusively who is right. But I suggest that by looking over the record for the last few years we can form a pretty strong conclusion as to which of our tariff experts in this house is the leader we should follow.

In 1930, when appealing to the electors of this country the present leader of the opposition criticized very severely many conditions which existed in Canada at that time, and he blamed the government of the day for those conditions. Private individuals were not to blame; companies were not to blame; the government was to blame. Speaking at Sarnia on July 17, 1930, as reported in the Mail and Empire, the leader of the opposition said:

Someone is responsible for unemployment, not individuals, but governments.

And he set himself up as a tariff expert and propounded the scheme that by raising tariffs he would bring prosperity to this country.

Again, speaking at Winnipeg, he said:

Listen you agriculturists from the west. You have been taught to mock tariffs and applaud free trade. Tell me when did free trade fight for you. You say tariffs are only for the manufacturer. I will make them fight for you as well. I wall use them to blast a way into the markets which have been closed to you.

Canada-U. S. Trade Agreement

Again, speaking at Moncton, on July 10, during the same election campaign he said:

Mr. King promises consideration of the problem of unemployment. I promise to end unemployment. Which policy do you like best?

All the way through his speeches in that campaign the government was to blame, and his government would improve conditions. Then at Saskatoon-and I think his Saskatoon speech was the masterpiece of them all- He said:

No doles, no gifts, no charity, but a chance to work, I say.

The whole story of the leader of the opposition was that we were importing from other countries millions of dollars' worth of goods that we should be making right here at home.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   CANADA-UNITED 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:

Hear, hear.

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

Hughes Cleaver

Liberal

Mr. CLEAVER:

And he would raise the tariffs high enough to stop that importation of foreign goods so that our own workmen would make them in this country and we would all be prosperous. He was a good salesman. A majority of the Canadian people took his scheme at par value, and his party was swept into power with an overwhelming majority, with the result that in September of the same year, at a special fall sitting of the house, tariffs were raised for the express purpose of excluding those imports.

But there was one factor that the right hon. gentleman apparently forgot or did not think of. Statesmen, politicians, business men in other countries are just as clever as are our best men in Canada and are actuated by similar feelings-patriotism towards their own country, and good sound business principles. So that when we raised the tariff so high that we prevented our neighbours from selling to us, those very same tariff walls prevented us from exporting our own goods. International trade is nothing more or less than exchange of commodities. If we will not buy we cannot sell, and the result of five years' experimenting by the late government with high tariffs-I take my figures from the last Conservative budget of 1935-was this: Our trade dropped from a total of 2,506 million dollars in 1929 to about half of that amount, 1,292 million dollars, in 1935. This policy of high tariffs, instead of curing unemployment, has increased it four times. These figures are known to all hon. members. Though the world surplus of wheat has been cut in half, our surplus of wheat has doubled as a result of our trade policy. Our farmers are practically ruined. All types of business

have suffered, excepting, of course, monopolies. The national debt has increased by 900 millions of dollars. Is it any wonder that when the people of Canada at last had an opportunity to vote they voted in no uncertain terms? They passed up and repudiated this policy of high protection. I believe the leader of the opposition has made a real contribution to the life of this country in that by the distress of the last five years he has taught us a lesson we will never forget. In the words of the Hamilton Spectator, a Conservative daily, high tariffs may profit a few people, but for the country at large they do not pay. They are artificial restraints on trade which put men out of work in all countries. After five years of bitter experience with the present leader of the opposition as our tariff expert, is it any wonder that the people rebelled and decided that they would change over?

Halton county, which I have the honour to represent, is sometimes considered as part of the garden of Canada. There is a large acreage under fruit and vegetables. During the past five years our growers asked for and received sufficient tariff protection to exclude all foreign fruits and vegetables from the Canadian market during the crop season. Notwithstanding the fact that they enjoyed a practically exclusive Canadian market during the crop season, this exclusive right turned out to be absolutely valueless. The very instrument which gave them that right was also depreciating the buying power of the general public so that the.domestic market was of no use. Representing the fruit and vegetable growers of Halton county I am pleased to say that they are taking this pact on faith. It is quite true that in connection with potatoes and one or two other items amendments will have to be made because of the weakness of our intermediate tariff structure, but these growers know the Liberal party has never bartered away their rights; they know they have never suffered at the hands of that party and they are looking forward to the future with every confidence. In conclusion, on behalf of the people of Halton county I wish to extend to the Prime Minister and to the officials of his department who assisted him in the successful negotiation of this trade agreement our heartfelt thanks and congratulations.

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

Thomas Bruce McNevin

Liberal

Mr. BRUCE McNEVIN (Victoria, Ont.):

Mr. Speaker, may I avail myself of this opportunity to congratulate you upon your election to the high office of Speaker of the House of Commons. Unlike many other hon. members, I cannot speak from past experience, but from my observations during the past few

Canada-U. S. Trade Agreement

weeks I am satisfied that you have maintained the high traditions of the office that you have been called upon to fill. I should like also to congratulate the hon. member for East Kootenay (Mr. Stevens), the leader of the Reconstruction party. In his remarks to the house the other day he emphasized what I thought was a very important fact. He said that for twenty-five years he had sat with the party led by the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett), and during that time he had supported sky-high protection. I think it is significant that at this session, the first after he had separated himself from that party and adopted an independent attitude, he should be convinced that it was his duty not only to his own constituents but to the citizens of Canada as a whole to support this United States-Canada trade agreement. I am sure that loyalty to their leader, loyalty to past traditions or something of that kind is responsible for the trend of some of the arguments advanced by hon. members to my immediate left.

Before discussing the details of this agreement I should like first to illustrate what I believe to be some important reasons why this House of Commons, as representative of the opinions of the Canadian people, should adopt the resolution moved by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), which will give legal status to this agreement. One of the reasons why we believe this agreement should be adopted is the fact that in Canada we have developed very extensive facilities for transportation by rail and water. Both forms of transportation are capable of carrying increased tonnage and there are many unemployed transportation workers who will be given work as a result of the adoption of this agreement.

I am not going to maintain that this agreement will meet with the approval of every citizen of Canada. That would be impossible The conclusion of the empire trade agreements created a measure of dissatisfaction in certain quarters of Canada and the old land, and the same may be said of this agreement. However, we are satisfied1 that the adoption of this agreement will be in the best interests of the Canadian people as a whole. I am sure that it could never be concluded on the basis of satisfying each and every individual.

There is another reason why it will be advantageous to adopt this agreement. The investors of the United States have invested the huge total of four billion dollars in Canadian provincial, municipal, federal, business investments and securities. The annual interest and principal payments amount to approximately $240,000,000. I believe this

exchange of international obligations has been one of the reasons why we have been able to conclude this agreement. The general recognition of the interdependence that exists between two countries lying alongside each other has made possible the final settlement of many items.

The hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe), in his speech the other day, argued that we should develop trade east and west. That is all very well; I agree that we must develop trade east and west. But in addition to that we must develop trade across the seas and we must develop trade north and south; for it is absolutely necessary that we should develop our trade from every possible angle in order to take care of the vast surpluses of primary products which we have in Canada.

One important feature of this Canada-United States trade agreement is the application of the most favoured nation clause whereby the dominion will receive the benefit of the intermediate tariff of the United States. I do not think there is any other country in the world that will derive as much benefit from the inclusion of that most favoured nation clause as will the dominion, because by this provision there have been made available the intermediate tariffs of a large number of countries in addition to the United States, and in any further treaties negotiated by that country Canada will indeed reap considerable benefit.

Since the discussion of this agreement started we have heard a good deal about trade balances. Trade balances are important; nevertheless I think I am within the bounds of truth in saying that we cannot set up trade balances as a barometer and declare that they constitute absolutely a measure whereby to judge the solvency or insolvency of a nation. Moreover, we must, in order to get a clear picture of trade balances, take into consideration the entire trade situation in any country. There are many other matters that enter into the prosperity of a nation or into the question of trade balances which the time at my disposal will not permit me to deal with just now.

I should like, however, to illustrate the point with a few commodities. We will have imported in the first three months of 1936, approximately $1,000,000 worth of oranges alone, and in the last fiscal year we imported of that one commodity $5,000,000 worth. If we consider a great many items not produced or manufactured in Canada, it is inevitable that over a period of years we shall expect from our neighbour to the south

Customs Act

perhaps a substantial difference in the trade balance. But we have t'he tourist traffic and several other items to counterbalance that. I mention the tourist traffic, that may not amount to a very great deal in this agreement except the right granted to Canadian citizens to go to the United States and bring back $100 worth o-f commodities free of duty. But in the riding I have the honour to represent there is a district the citizens of which moved in at the time that lumbering operations were in full swing. Now, however, the timber is pretty well gone; we have the citizens, and the tourist traffic is about the only means of livelihood, during a considerable part of the year, so far as these people are concerned. If, therefore, through trade agreements or in any other way we can create a better spirit of good will between these two great peoples, north and south, I am sure this district will reap considerable benefit. I desire to direct the attention of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers), and this may be aside from the question, but I would point out to the minister that in this territory it is necessary, in order to facilitate the movement of tourists, to improve certain trunk roads, and I trust that in the supplementary estimates some provision will be made whereby a scheme can be worked out by which, at least during a part of the year, the people living in the tourist area, without suitable land from which to earn their entire livelihood, may be given some employment to assist them in the education of their children and to help them to maintain a reasonable standard of living.

To my mind, this agreement is not based upon the idea that one country is receiving a great deal more benefit than is the other, nor do I think it was negotiated in that spirit. It seems to me that a safe, sound, sane trade agreement must be based upon the principle of mutual advantage to the two countries involved; and if the agreement is going to last; if it is to be renewed, that is the only basis upon which it can be satisfactorily negotiated. I therefore congratulate the Prime Minister upon the attitude he has taken towards the entire negotiation and all the procedure connected with the trade agreement, which I believe will be of lasting benefit to the dominion.

There is another point of view to be considered. Hon. gentlemen to my left are inclined to emphasize the position of the industrial worker. The riding which I represent embraces agricultural interests, lumber interests, tourist interests and also some important industrial interests. I want to point out-and I believe this will bear the searchlight of this house-that during the period in which the more elastic trade policies of the

government now in office have been in force the industrial workers of the dominion have not suffered to the same extent that they suffered during the last five years by reason of the extreme policy adopted by the government that was in office prior to October 14.

There is another angle of this industrial worker situation that I think we must not overlook. We have in this dominion a potential home consumers' market that is very much affected by the prosperity of the people who are engaged in the primary industries. One of the great needs of the industrial worker to-day is increased purchasing power of those who are employed in the wealth-producing activities of the nation. Therefore when you negotiate an agreement that has a tendency to increase the purchasing power of the people engaged in actual production, this is sure to be reflected in such a way as to assist the industrial workers of Canada.

As I have not time to conclude my address, and it is five minutes to eleven, I move the adjournment of the debate.

Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.

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

At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order. Friday, March 6, 1936


March 5, 1936