Mr. MEIGHEN:

Did it make any change?

Mr. ROBB:

Under the Belgian treaty we obtained the most favoured nation treatment.

Mr. MEIGHEN:

It made no change.

Mr. ROBB:

Hon. members have been loud m their statements that by our adoption of the Belgian treaty we ruined the glass industry in Canada, notwithstanding the fact that there was not a farthing's change in the tariff as it affected glass. This afternoon my hon. friend criticizing us in respect to the dairy industry and criticizing the programme now before the government, made no mention whatever of the W'est Indian treaty which will come before parliament this year. In the West Indian treaty we took particular care to secure most favoured nation treatment for the products of Canada, particularly as affecting our dairy and agricultural industries. For instance, we have under the West Indian treaty, as hon.

The Address-Mr. Robb

members will observe when it comes before them, a preference in most of the colonies of 50 per cent, and in no case shall the duty imposed upon Canadian dairy products or upon any Canadian products, specified in that agreement, exceed one-third of the general Tate.

Mr. CHAPLIN (Kent, Ont.):

This treaty is not before us.

Mr. ROBB:

No, but it will come before us.

Mr. CHAPLIN (Kent, Ont.):

Is the hon. minister quite in order in bringing it up now?

Mr. ROBB:

I will not dwell on that point more than to say that if the amendment proposed by the hon. member for South Oxford carries, all this goes by the board; and all that is outlined in the Speech from the Throne will go by the board if the hon. member's amendment is adopted.

The hon. member made considerable reference to our trade with the United States. As a matter of fact the United States is the best customer Canada has, and buys from Canada more farm products than Canada buys from the States in that line of goods. We sold to the United States not a very great quantity of butter, because it is true that the United States has a very high tariff on butter, and later on I will ask hon. members if the experience of the high tariff on butter has encouraged the greater production of dairy products in the United States. During the year 1923 we exported cream and milk to the United States to the value of 12,983,238. For the fiscal year ended March 31, 1925, we exported $6,079,168 worth, or considerably over double the value of that exported in the fiscal year ended March 31, 1923. I am told that the exports for the nine months ended 31st December last will be considerably in excess of those for the previous year. Hon. gentlemen may say: "Why should we ship cream and milk to the United States? Why not ship butter?" Had the reciprocity pact of 1911 carried-it was strenuously opposed by my right hon. friend-we would have been shipping butter instead of milk and cream. But when Canada rejected a proposal which would have allowed her to send butter into the markets of the United States without one cent of duty, the United States revised their tariff, put up the duty on butter and put milk and cream on a basis where they could buy it. And they are buying it; they bought last year an amount far in excess of Canada's imports of butter from any country.

Mr. MEIGHEN:

When was the United

States tariff raised on butter? In 1921?

Mr. ROBB:

There were three advances in

the tariff. I have not those figures before ine, but I shall be glad to discuss that with my right hon. friend at some other time.

It has been argued this afternoon that the dairy industry in western Canada is in a very poor condition, that it is threatened with ruin because of the changes in the Australian treaty. My right hon. friend may not have been correctly reported, but I recall having read some of his speeches during the election campaign when he asserted that by the Australian treaty this government had ruined the fresh egg and butter industry of Canada. If my right hon. friend was correctly reported, that was not a very great credit to his intelligence. I would give him credit for greater intelligence than to believe that Canada will ever buy fresh eggs from Australia.

Will the hon. gentleman try to make an exception and quote something that I said instead of making these wild assertions?

Mr. ROBB:

If my right hon. friend says

that he did not make the statement that we had ruined the fresh egg industry, I will withdraw it at once, but I read it in a good Conservative newspaper.

Mr. MEIGHEN:

Just bring the newspaper. I do not think the hon. gentleman read it.

Mr. ROBB:

Then my right hon. friend

did not make that statement. We will let that drop right away. I notice my right hon. friend sees the foolishness of a statement of that kind.

Mr. MEIGHEN:

Not so very foolish.

Mr. ROBB:

There are some good reasons

why Canada will never buy fresh eggs from Australia. In the first place, if you get the egg from the hen immediately she leaves the nest, ship it to Vancouver and then rush it through to Montreal on a fast train, it takes that egg seven weeks to get to Montreal,, and people in Montreal or Toronto do not buy that kind of "fresh" egg. There is a better reason than that: Australia has not the eggs to export. In the last year, as is shown in their year book, the total export of eggs from Australia to all the world was 665,620 dozen. During that same period Canada exported

2.890.000 dozen, most of them going to the United Kingdom.

I said a moment ago that it was alleged that the dairy industry in western Canada was in a bad condition. If it is, the reports of the dairy people of western Canada are very misleading. My right hon. friend has just

The Address-Mr. Robb

Mr. ANDERSON (Halton):

Mr. ROBB:

Yes, our newsprint now goes into that market free. I may observe in passing that our exports have increased marvellously since ithe treaty has gone into effect, and the Pacific coast province is benefiting particularly.

It has been argued that the Australian agreement has adversely affected the daii-y industry of Canada and I want to disprove that statement. No matter what views hon. gentlemen in this House may hold in regard to that agreement, I think they will admit that the prices of butter and cheese, like the price of wheat, are controlled by conditions in the world market, and a country like Canada, which exports large quantities of butter, surely is not afraid of the importation of a little butter from Australia or New Zealand. How much blitter dlo you fancy Canada imported in the fast fiscal year? Less than one third of an ounce per head of population. It is true, as has been said, thait the price of butter has dropped Slightly within the last few weeks throughout Canada, but I would point out that the decline here has not 'been marked as it was in the United Kingdom or m the United States, where there is a tariff of 8 cents per pound protection. In 1923 Canada exported of butter 21,994,578 pounds and in 1924 13,648,968. Compare that with the year 1925. We exported in that year 24,501,981 pounds; and in the present fiscal year, for the seven months, from March to October, our exports were approximately 22,000,000 pounds. What explains this great increase in our exports of butter this year? The explanation is simple and is obvious to every dairyman. This has been a splendid year for the dairy industry; we have bad good grass and an abundant supply of w'ater and consequently we have had a very good flow of milk. We had the product to export, and it soi happened that world conditions were favourable to this country. Early in September a strike developed in Australia and New Zealand, preventing the butter mlakers of those countries from shipping their product to the markets of the United Kingdom, and apart from that the markets in the Old Country were themselves short of supplies. Coupled with this condition, Germany entered the British market seeking large quantities of butter, and all these circumstances made for a rapid advance in the price of butter over there. Butter advanced three cents a pound on the markets of the United Kingdom and remained at that level until it was announced on October 21 that a consider'a.ble supply was on its way from Australia and New Zealand. This was responsible for a slight drop in price. The cost of shipping butter from Australia to the United Kingdom is just about equal to the cost of shipping it to Canada; they can send a tub of butter from Australia or New Zealand to England at about the same rate as they can send it to this country. Canada being nearer

The Address-Mr. Rohh

to the United Kingdom and 'having a supply of butter when the market was short overseas, we were naturally called upon to supply that shortage, and the result was that we sold ourselves short, so short indeed that on December 1 ithe stocks of 'butter in this country amounted to 13,759,656 pounds as against 28,969,705 pounds in 1924. In other words, there was less than half the quantity of butter in store in Canada on December 1 last than there was at the same date in the previous year, and that is why butter was so high in this country. When the arrivals came to England from, Australia and New Zealand we found that the market in Canada was higher than it was in the United Kingdom and in consequence we brought back to this country 8,000 boxes, or about 448,000 pounds of Canadian butter, for which better prices could be obtained in Canada than in the Old Country.

My hon. friend lays great stress on the fact that if the tariff on butter were higher our farmers would get a better price for their product. Well, fortunately we have an example of the effects of a high tariff on butter right alongside of us. The United States has a tariff of 8 cents a pound on butter, and the House will be interested to know that on January 13 while the price of No. 1 pasteurized butter in Montreal was from 42i to 42J cents a pound, in New York the same quality was selling for 42 cents a pound-notwithstanding the duty of 8 cents a pound. I think I have proved conclusively to hon. gentlemen that the United States tariff on butter 'has not increased the farmers' return from that product across the line.

I wish to put on record, Sir, the cold storage holdings of butter in Canada on January 1, 1926: "

Creamery 9,873,469 pounds

Dairy 140,957 pounds

Creamery butter shows a decrease of , over .56 per cent from the same date of last year, and of 32 per cent from December 1, 1925. In other words, there was 32 per cent less butter in storage on January 1, 1926, than on December 1, 1925. Dairy butter shows a decrease of 67 per cent from last year and of 3 per cent from December 1, 1925. This creamery butter is held as follows:

Jan. 1, 1923 Jan. 1, 1928

Montreal

9,042,860 lbs. 4,494,676 lbs.Toronto

3,998,845 lbs. 1,613,475 lbs.

These figures are rather interesting in view of the statement that in Toronto there is such a large quantity of Australian and New Zealand butter.

British Columbia 1,575,609 lbs. 331,472 lbs.

I Mr, Robb.]

So much has been said about the importation of butter that it is interesting to note that for the twelve months ending December, 1925, the total imports from all parts of the world amounted to only 99,748 pounds. During that same period we exported 26,646,535 pounds. But hon. gentlemen will probably say that since this treaty went into force on October 1 last enormous quantities of butter have reached this country from Australia. Well, I have quoted the total imports from October 1 to December 31 of last year. Let us examine the figures since January 1. I hold in my hand a memorandum dated February 5 to Mr. Ide, private secretary to the hon. Minister of Customs and Excise (Mr. Boivin), giving the imports of butter from Australia and New Zealand entered for consumption in Canada from October 1, 1925, to the end of January, 1926. These are the figures:

Australia 473,476 pounds

New Zealand 621,145 "

So that instead of the four million pounds that my hon. friend from West Calgary (Mr. Bennett) mentioned, we find that less than

700,000 pounds came in during that period.

Mr. CHAPLIN (Lincoln):

The two sets of figures the minister has given make over a million pounds.

Mr. ROBB:

My hon. friend is right.