Mr. MEIGHEN:

Just to the end of January.

Mr. ROBB:

From October 1.

Mr. MEIGHEN:

It all came in in January.

Mr. ROBB:

Yes, but that is considerably short of four million pounds.

Mr. MEI'GHEN: There have been some importations since.

Mr. ROBB:

I notice so from the newspapers; but it was also stated in the press that enormous quantities had arrived. However, these records show that this tremendous volume of importation existed only in the imagination of a newspaper reporter.

Now, Sir, it has been stated that we dhouid put a very high tariff on butter to encourage our dairy industry. It so happens that on Saturday I received a coipy of Economic Conditions, 'Governmental Finance and United States Securities, published in New York this month. This booklet gives a review of economic conditions in the United States as they affect farmers there who enjoy a protection of 8 cents a pound on their butter. It is

The Address-Mr. Robb

stated that in 1920 there were 31,364,459 dairy cattiie in the United States; in 1925 these had dropped to 25,997.752, or a decrease of 17 per cent, notwithstanding a tariff of 8 cents a pound on butter. So, apparently the United States with a rapidly increasing population is not showing anything like a corresponding increase in the production of butter.

I have just one other observation to make, Mr. Speaker, respecting the dairy industry. I am with my hon. friend from South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) in the doing of everything that can be done to protect and to help our dairy industry. I give my hon. friend credit for having stood up against his own party when in his judgment they introduced a measure that was more detrimental to our dairy industry than the Australian trade treaty can ever be. My right hon. friend the leader of the apposition (Mr. Meigfhen) was not so interested in the welfare of the dairy industry of Canada during the years when he permitted the introduction of oleomargarine into this country. I have not the figures before me, in fact I have not taken the trouble to look them up, but I have in my hand an *extract from Hansard of June 22, 1922, where at page 3434 my hon. friend from 'South Oxford is reported as follows:

Hon. gent'emen say that the government are anxious 1 o get revenue.

That was the excuse for oleomargarine. But they allowed oleomargarine to come in free of duty in competition with Canadian butter. In the statement submitted by my hon. friend at that time he showed that during the year, ingredients for the manufacture of oleomargarine were imported totalling 41,102,000 pounds.

Mr. MEIGHEN:

What year was that?

Mr. ROBB:

The hon. member was making reference to the .previous year, 1921, when my right hon. friend was prime minister.

Mr. MEIGHEN:

And when the hon. gentleman himself supported the admission of oleomargarine.

Mr. ROBB:

Oh, no. If my hon. friend

looks up the records he will find that. I was with the hon. member for South Oxford on that issue.

Now. Sir, if trade were all the other way; if the balance of trade were not in our favour or anywhere near it, we could afford to be rather chesty with Australia, but the trade is all in favour of Canada. I am just wondering how long the Australians, who are just as proud as Canadians, will endure the speeches

of hon. gentlemen opposite without themselves abrogating that agreement. I find that the trade of Canada with Australia in 1917 was as follows: we sold Australia 86,549,546 worth, while Australia sold us $762,113 worth. That trade increased a little; I am not quoting every year, but I will give the figures for 1919, which is a pretty good year for my hon. friend. In 1919 we imported from Australia $4,963,446 worth, and exported to Australia $14,019,629 worth. Then we come along to that period when the balance increased in our favour. In 1920 our imports amounted to $1,371,775, and our exports to $11,415,623. In other words, for every dollar we spent in Australia we received ten. The following year there was a little change; it was the last year my right hon. friend was in power. Our imports from Australia in that year amounted to $791,980, and our exports to Australia $18,112,861. Now hon. gentlemen can see how hard it was to reach an agreement with Australia when the Australian had before him the figures for that year. I went to Australia in the fall of 1922, and was confronted with this argument: "You have bought from us only $791,980 worth of goods, but have sold us $18,112,861 worth." The proportion has been running along at varying ratios-ten to one, eighteen to one and nineteen to one-until last year it was down to six to one. For the twelve months ending December 1925-and I want hon. gentlemen to observe that during three months of that period this treaty was in force-the imports had dropped from $2,634,713 to $2,271,216, or a decrease of $363,497 in our purchases from Australia. But during that period we sold Australia goods to the value of $14,075,554, or an increase of $203,835. Under these conditions, Sir, how long is Australia going to be satisfied, with hon. gentlemen in this parliament, supporters of my right hon, friend, appealing to us the abrogate the Australian treaty? It is true that we have it in our power to do so; article VI of the agreement provides as follows:

The Governor in Council may make such orders and regulations a3 are deemed necessary to carry out the provisions and intent, of this act and of the 6aid agreement and may, upon giving six months' notice to the government of the Commonwealth of Australia of his intention so to do, order and direct that the tariff concessions extended to Australia by this act, shall cease and determine, whereupon they shall cease and determine accordingly.

I leave it at that. While it is true that the price of butter in Vancouver, Montreal and Toronto dropped about three cents early in January, it is also true that the price of butter is still six cents higher than it was during the same period last year, so hon. gen-

The Address-Mr. Robb

tlemen cannot attribute the reduction to the Australian treaty. The price of butter in Canada is on a level with the markets of the world and will continue to remain on that basis, because Canada is a butter exporting nation. We export large quantites of butter and I submit that we are not afraid to do business with any country in the world.

Mr. TOLMIE:

May I ask my hon. friend a question? With the seasons opposite in Australia as compared with Canada, does my hon. friend think it is fair to have grass butter produced south of the equator coming into competition with butter produced in western Canada, in the middle of the winter?

Mr. ROBB:

I do not like to get into a controversy with my hon. friend, who is an expert agriculturist, but I am willing to take the judgment of the Dairy Commissioner of Canada, who at one time was Dairy Commissioner of New Zealand. The judgment of that gentleman is that the quality of Canadian butter will be improved in the world's markets if, instead of storing up our butter, we ship it to the markets of the world in good fresh condition. The result of that policy is evident in the fact that during this year Canada won several prizes in the London, England, show competing against the products of New Zealand and Australia. Canada's butter now ranks high in that market, and Canada's butter will be able to compete there.

Now, Sir, I think 1 have detained the House quite long enough. I simply rose to answer some of the arguments advanced by the hon. member for South Oxford. I am not going to quote the trade figures for previous years; every hon. gentleman knows that the trade of Canada has increased by leaps and bounds and that the balance of trade last year was very greatly in our favour. Our increased exports have brought back to par the value of the Canadian dollar, and that is not a disadvantage to the dairying industry of Canada.. No matter what you do in western Canada, the dairymen of the east, from the Detroit river to Halifax, are compelled to buy large quantities of United States corn, and during the period when my right hon. friend was prime minister, if we bought corn in the United States we had to pay 113 cents for one dollar's worth of com, which was an additional expense to the dairymen of eastern Canada. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that any arrangement or trade agreement Canada can make which will allow her products to go more easily to the markets of ithe world is not a disadvantage to Canada. I am willing to believe-and I stand here representing just as good a dairy section as the hon. member for [Mr, Robb.l

South Oxford-that my people are not afraid of the Australian and New Zealand butter. You cannot fool them into the belief that because butter comes in from Australia and New Zealand it is going to lower the price in Canada. They know they can meet that-competition in Engand; they are able to meet it and are satisfied to do so.

Mr. MURRAY MacLAREN (St. John-Albert):

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon the

House was impressed with the statements made by the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) regarding the effect of the Australian treaty. It was not surprising to learn from those statements that the effects of the treaty upon Canadian farm products were serious, and that Canadian farmers were suffering from its introduction. That was the criticism from the outset; from the time the treaty was brought before parliament until the present day, that has been the forecast regarding its effects. It is only now that complaints are coming in-and I may say that I have received a number of them-as to the effects of the treaty with respect to butter and cheese, which are being felt by the farmers even on the Atlantic coast. One of our great problems is to make farming remunerative and attractive, so as to encourage those who are new on the farms to remain there and induce others to take up the occupation. Does the government for a moment believe that the way to encourage ' our farmers is to bring into operation an arrangement such as the Australian trade treaty? Surely not. Surely on the contrary it is one important means of inducing our farmers to leave their farms, because the difficulties in the way of making a remunerative livelihood must necessarily be increased.

The Minister of Finance has, I must say, made the most modest defence of the treaty that we could reasonably expect him to make. That is to his credit, because it does not require much foresight to see that should the minister be in office for a short period in the future he will have to come to this House and ask for changes in that treaty. My hon. friend gave a history of the steps that had been taken in the last number of years to negotiate a treaty between Canada and Australia. He did not give us, however, certain particulars which would have been of interest to the House. For example, we heard nothing of the preliminary draft treaty with Australia that the minister had drawn up, and which proposed the raising of our general tariff as a preliminary. No hon. member denies the advantage of negotiating trade treaties, but we on this side certainly do

The Address-Mr. MacLaren

abject when the treaty entered into is a faulty one and detrimental to the interests of this country.

There- is one clause in the treaty we are discussing that 1 corn'mend, namely, that which makes provision for abrogation, because in due course-and that at no very distant period-either the clause in question will be invoked, or changes will be made that will place the treaty on a better basis. The Minister of Finance has presented this argument: Either it had to be a treaty with Australia on the present basis or no treaty at all. I do not agree with that contention, and I ask why the minister did not proceed with the negotiation of the original draft under which it would have been possible to do some bargaining in Canada's interest. Why

9 p.m. was that -treaty not proceeded with? Is this not the explanation: that the government felt they would be open to the charge of adopting a policy of high tariff and protection? In view of that they receded from their original position and entered into the present treaty.

I feel, Mr. Speaker, that I should take part in the present debate for the reason, among others, that my province is without representation in the cabinet, to say nothing of two other provinces. I feel it to he my duty, therefore, to say something on the questions of the day in order that my province should not be entirely forgotten. Now, Sir, I propose to speak of one of the great problems of-Canada, one which means much to us, one which is of the greatest importance, one which means the success or failure of the confederation pact. The problem to which I refer has to do with what constituted one of the pillars on which the structure of confederation rested. Had that pillar not been there I do not think confederation would have taken place. I refer, of course, to the question of national transportation. Under the policy then contemplated, we were to do our own trade, and traffic was to pass east and west to and beyond the seas; and may I say here that on the successful accomplishment of this policy the future success of our country will yet depend.

I venture to divide the history of transportation in Canada into three great periods or three great movements. Two of them have taken place and have passed into history; the third is with us to-day. The first great transportation movement, was witnessed at confederation. It consisted in the construction of the Intercolonial railway and of the canals. We know that movement did not progress, did not develop as it should,

but rather it halted. I might pause here for a moment to refer to the exact status of the Intercolonial railway and its relationship to the Canadian National railway, and I do so because the subject was referred to a few days ago by the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Duff). Let me briefly state the matter as follows: An act was passed in

1919 to incorporate the Canadian National Railway Company. That act contains a section, No. 11, which is a permissive clause; it is one of an enabling character. It states that by passage of an order in council the government railways, which include the Intercolonial, may be operated and managed by the Canadian National Railway Company. The Intercolonial is not an integral part of the Canadian National railways. It is placed under and with those railways for the purpose of operation and management, but it could be restored to its original status to-morrow by cancelling the order in council referred to, the remainder of the railway being left to continue to carry on as it is to-day. The hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) said the other day that it would require an act of parliament to remove the Intercolonial railway from the Canadian National. I submit that the position is as I have stated it. The railway is there by order in council which can be revoked any day. I do not, however, propose to discuss the question whether or not it is advantageous for the Intercolonial railway to be operated with the Canadian National, but I would like to inform the House that when my honoured leader comes into power the eastern division will be extended to Montreal, including the Intercolonial railway.

Now then we come to the second great transportation movement. It was during the ministries of Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Sir Robert Borden.

Mr. SPEAKER:

I do not see that the

question of transportation is relevant to the question now before the House. I think the hon. member should connect his statement about transportation with the amendment which is now before the House.

Mr. MacLAREN:

I am not attempting

to do it. I am speaking on questions arising out of the Speech from the Throne.

Mr. SPEAKER:

The hon. member is

speaking to the amendment.

Mr. MaeLAREN: I was not speaking to

the amendment, Does the Speaker rule that I am out of order?

The Address-Mr. MacLaren

Mr. SPEAKER:

I trust the hon. member

will connect the statement he made as to transportation with the matter before the House.

Mr. MacLAREN:

I may state at the outset that the connection between these matters will be a very slender one.

Mr. SPEAKER:

If the hon. member will

make the connection he will be fully in order.

Mr. MacLAREN: