March 7, 1930

LIB

Arnold Neilson Smith

Liberal

Mr. SMITH (Stormont):

Then things

would remain as they are, and we could consider whether any further action should be taken.

The question of granting divorce, and the method of granting it, is a very large one. At present we have no other machinery than is provided in this parliament for granting divorce in Ontario and Quebec. The fact remains that every year divorce in the province of Ontario is stetadily increasing. From the province of Quebec, fortunately, very few divorce cases are brought to this parliament, and in this bill iwe are not concerned in any way with the divorce problem in that province. I have some figures here which I gathered in 1928. In the session of that year, 296 notices of intention to apply to parliament for bills of divorce were given in The Canada Gazette. Of the foregoing, 268 petitions were actually presented in the

Senate and dealt with by the committee on divorce, as follows:

Unopposed eases heard and recommended.. 233 Opposed cases heard and recommended.. 7 Unopposed cases heard and rejected 3

Opposed cases heard and rejected 6

Cases not dealt with owing to delays not having expired, etc [DOT] 19

Total ..268

Of the petitions recommended, 94 were by husbands and 146 by wives, the grounds being as follows:

Adultery 237

Other grounds 3

396 COMMONS

Divorce Court-Mr. Smith (Stormont)

Of the applications recommended, 215 were from residents of the province of Ontario, and 25 from the province of Quebec.

A comparison of the number of divorces and annulments of marriage granted by the parliament of Canada in the last ten years follows:

1919..

1920..

1921.. 1922. .

1923..

1924..

1925..

1926.. 1926-27

1928..

100

102

130

124

240

From those figures you will see, Mr. Speaker, that divorce is increasing rapidly in the province of Ontario, and it was for that reason that I was very glad to bring a bill before parliament, subject to such proposed amendments as I have outlined, that would allow Ontario to give consideration to the matter of establishing a divorce court in the province and considering whether such a court would have the effect of lessening or increasing divorce. If it would have the effect of increasing divorce and making it easier, then certainly the premier of the province and his cabinet would not think of asking for a divorce court, but if after giving serious consideration to the matter they were of the opinion that it would lessen divorce, I am quite sure that they would pass an order in council agreeing to the issue of the proclamation bringing the act into force. That was my idea in sponsoring the bill.

If the sponsor of the bill brought down this year will signify his willingness to consider amendments of that character if the bill goes into committee, I would be very happy to vote in favour of the second reading of his bill; not, I want to make clear, in any way to make divorce easier, but that Ontario would then have the opportunity of considering whether or not the establishment of a divorce court in the province would lessen the large number of divorces. I would be quite content to abide by the decision of Premier Ferguson and his cabinet as to whether such a court would have the effect desired. I do not think anybody in this house, certainly none of my friends on this side of the house that I have been in touch with, is anxious to do anything to make divorce easier. In fact my conversation has led me to conclude that everyone looks upon divorce as an evil; something that we have, but something that we would like to get along without. I want to make it very clear that in sponsoring the bill of two years ago I did so only with the under-fMr. A. N. Smith.]

standing that I would propose the amendments which I have outlined to-night, and I would again point out to the sponsor of the bill this year that if he will give me the assurance that he will accept such amendments to his bill, I shall be pleased to vote in favour of the second reading of it.

Topic:   DIVORCE COURT FOR ONTARIO
Permalink
LAB

Herbert Bealey Adshead

Labour

Mr. ADSHEAD:

Does the hon. gentleman, as a resident of Ontario know whether Premier Ferguson has expressed himself favourably to the idea of a divorce court for Ontario?

Topic:   DIVORCE COURT FOR ONTARIO
Permalink
LIB

Arnold Neilson Smith

Liberal

Mr. SMITH (Stormont):

I do not know, and that is why I propose these amendments, because I do not think it would be right to give Ontario something they did not want and had not asked for; but such legislation would allow this parliament to grant Ontario a divorce court if and when the Ontario government asked for it. It would not make Ontario take it whether it wanted to or not,

Topic:   DIVORCE COURT FOR ONTARIO
Permalink
?

Mr. J. E. LETELLIER@Compton) (Translation

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in discussing Bill No. 20 has given us a further proof of his eloquence. Indeed, he insisted that this measure especially applied to the province of Ontario. It is of little consequence to him whether the bill is adopted or not, providing that the government brings down some kind of a measure which will give better results. I should like to know whether the hon. member is referring simply to a resolution which most of the members have received from the Anglican clergy of the province of Ontario.

I have here a copy of this resolution and if you will allow me, sir, I shall read it to the house:

Circular letter to all members of parliament Toronto, February 21st, 1930.

Re: Divorce Court for Ontario:

The Synod of the Anglican Diocese of Toronto at its Annual Meeting last May declared itself emphatically in favour of the proposed court, the following unanimous recommendation of their Council for Social Service being adopted by Synod (clergy and laity) by a vote of 82 to 12.

"This Council being ever anxious to uphold the sanctify of marriage and deploring the increase in divorce, is of the opinion, after careful examination, that there being no extension of the existing_ ground for divorce, the establishment of a divorce court for Ontario (in lieu of the present divorce proceedings before parliament) dealing with the subject according to the recognized procedure of the courts, and including the question of the custody of the children and provisional alimony for a. deserving Wife (and Mother), would make for the better administration of the existing law of divorce."

Divorce Court-Mr. Letellier de St. Just

Synod Journal, 1929,

Pages 86 and 146.

The Premier of Ontario, having expressed the opinion of his government that in this matter Ontario should be represented by the members of the Ontario constituencies in the House of Commons, the Toronto Anglican Diocesan Council for Social Service beg to forward the above facts for your information and to express the hope that you will see your way clear to support the Bill to establish the court if and when it is introduced in the House of Commons at the ensuing session. We would draw your attention to the following considerations:

(a) This is not a matter of creating divorce where it did not exist before, but merely of improving the method or machinery of administrating the present law of divorce.

(b) Nearly all the other provinces have such a court.

(c) This is for Ontario alone in which we and the Ontario members are primarily interested and we beg to express the hope that a sufficient number of members from Ontario will be present to vote on the division (if any), to insure its carrying in the event of its encountering the same opposition as it did last year.

Communications in regard to this circular letter may be made to the undersigned.

B. Merson,

Secretary.

Toronto Anglican Diocesan Council for Social Service,

135 Adelaide St. East,

Tonronto 2.

I quite agree, sir, that this resolution has its importance; however, unless this is followed up by a petition showing that the majority of the people of Ontario are anxious to establish a divorce court, this house should not adopt the bill of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I would like to point out the example of the province of Quebec, although up to the present day, I must admire the attitude of the people of these two most beautiful provinces of our dear Canada-I mean the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, Let me now quote an article from a well known newspaper in the province of Quebec, "L'Action Catholique":

Quebec will not have these courts

Monday, November, 26, 1928.

During a recent convention of the Ontario conservatives, held in Toronto, a very important question was debated, divorce.

The Gazette, which publishes a full account of this meeting, states that the conservatives of Ontario declared themselves in favour of establishing a uniform code for the proposed provincial courts of divorce.

The resolution with reference to the subject matter requests that should a measure be introduced in parliament, at Ottawa, to establish divorce courts in the Canadian provinces not having, at present, such courts, jurisdiction of these courts be so restricted as to assure uniformity in the divorce laws of Canada.

The addresses delivered by a number of lady-delegates may be thus summed up: All Canadians, in every province of Canada, must have the same facilities to divorce. This privilege must no more be restricted to the wealthy class, and on this score, the cost of the proceedings must be lowered. _

The sitting during which this resolution was adopted, the Gazette adds, was almost entirely assigned to the lady delegates.

If such is the case, the first conclusion which we must draw, is that the introduction of women in active politics will not always bear the moral benefits which might be expected from it. It was unnecessary that women should take part in this movement in order to fall into the error of encouraging divorce, and thereby more radically compromising the future of the Canadian family.

We are of the opinion that, at the Toronto meeting, the women did not prove to our satisfaction that they will become a safeguard by throwing themselves into the political turmoil. Their normal part is not one of disrupting the family but rather of constituting themselves its bulwark and guardian. The easier divorce becomes, the more it will spread. We find an example among our neighbours to the south, who each year outdo themselves by breaking their past records. We even have such an example in Canada, where the causes of divorce are increasing already in a most alarming way.

Let us hope that our province will not inaugurate these divorce courts, even if such abstention should constitute a break m the uniformity desired. . .

We have no desire for this uniformity in decadency, for we wish to live and progress. Our people have overcome all obstacles because they remained faithful to the Ten Commandments and to the laws governing the Church.

If other elements of Canada's population want to die out, we shall not help them, but can we prevent them? They will certainly succeed by rushing towards divorce. Our duty is to ward off this death menace.

Our Catholic faith, still a living emblem, is without gainsay our best safeguard against this plague known as divorce; recalling, moreover, the old proverb which says that opportunity makes the thief, let us not allow in our home that opportunity which a divorce court would

afford. .

We have no advice to give to our friends, belonging to the other provinces and creeds; however, we can sincerely tell them that, if to their practice of restricting the size of the family they add the plague of divorce, it will be in vain for them to struggle so much to keep up their preponderance. They certainly will be vanquished, because they are committing suicide.

The future belongs to those who make provision, and alone the prolific really endeavour

to do so. _

Thomas Poulin.

Mr. Speaker, I have had personal knowledge of the griefs caused by divorce, not only in our own province, but also in our neighbouring province. I had the opportunity of visiting various parishes in the United States where the number of divorces was large, and where much laxity existed. I therefore believe

398 COMMONS

Divorce Court-Mr. Letellier de St. Just

that Quebec and the other provinces have reason to oppose the establishment of such a court. I question whether one would be better protected by these courts in Ontario. I have my doubts. What court in Canada is higher than that of parliament?

Thanks to the experience I have had since I have been in this hotuse, I have come to the conclusion that the Senate has performed its duty in this regard and that the committee on private bills has done all in its power to give justice to whom it belongs. Last year, I personally observed what was being done in the committee on private bills. The committee considered the case of a Montreal citizen; I think that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre alluded to it. If this case was withdrawn, the reason was that the committee found fault with one of the parties. The husband was free to again introduce a bill this year; however, I am not aware of his having yet taken such a step.

I could quote from numerous articles which have appeared in the most important newspapers of this country, they all highly protest against the establishment of a divorce court.

I would like to read a few extracts from an article which appeared in one of the principal newspapers of the province of Quebec, they are as follows:

Wedlock-this is always the foundation stone from which we start-is not a human institution. It takes root in the deepest seated instincts of our nature and thus goes back to the Creator himself. Ante-dating the State, in no way does it depend on it as to the essential principles which govern it. If, to attain the aim God has assigned to wedlock, it must be indissoluble, man cannot alter it. Should he trangress the Divine Will, he cannot do so without upsetting the entire family structure.

Topic:   DIVORCE COURT FOR ONTARIO
Permalink
LIB

Hewitt Bostock (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. SPEAKER:

The hours for private

bills being exhausted, the house will now revert to the amendment of Mr. Sena to the motion for committee of supply and the subamendment thereto of Mr. Casgrain.

Topic:   DIVORCE COURT FOR ONTARIO
Permalink

SUPPLY-AUSTRMJLAN TREATY PROPOSED CANCELLATION OF SPECIAL AGREEMENT WITH NEW ZEALAND AND NEGOTIATION OF TREATY.


The house resumed consideration of the motion of Hon. Mr. Dunning for committee of supply, the amendment thereto of Mr. Senn, and the subamendment of Mr. Casgrain.


CON

William Ernest Tummon

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. TUMMON:

Mr. Speaker, when the house adjourned at six o'clock I was dealing

with that part of the dairy industry from which annual returns are received, namely the dairy factories. Before proceeding further I wish again to note that the returns received from these dairy factories reveal that 2,197,278 cows furnished to the factories 6,701,274,406 pounds of milk. Now, according to this Monthly Bulletin of Agricultural Statistics for December 1929, which statistics deal with milk production for 1928, the total milk production of the Dominion for that year was 14,512,897,961 pounds.

When a year ago I tried to deal with this subject, in giving the total number of pounds of milk produced in Canada for 1927 I used figures from this monthly bulletin for that year, and according to the figures then given there was a decrease in the total production in the Dominion of over 345,000,000 pounds as compared with 1926. Since that time a different method has been adopted in estimating the total pounds of milk produced. We are told now that there is an average increase of 21 per cent in the production of cows in the three prairie provinces, and an average increase of 10 per cent in the production of cows in the older parts of Canada and in British Columbia. Therefore they take the total number of cows that are being milked m the Dominion, and they apply that as the basis m order to reach the total production of milk for 1928. That is how the figures are arrived at that I have just quoted of over

14.000. 000.000 pounds. Not only _ that, but they have gone back to 1925, when the importation of butter at one cent per pound came into effect, and they have adjusted their figures back to that year.

Now, I want the house to note this, that two thirds of the total number of cows that were milked in the Dominion in 1928 produced 6,701,274,406 pounds of milk. This represents the production from cows from which annual returns are received by the department. That leaves less than one-third of the total number of cows milked to be accounted for. In other words, it means' that in order to make the total production of milk as estimated, of over

14.000. 000.000 pounds, less than one-third of the total number of cows milked in 1928 had to produce over 7,000,000,000 pounds of milk. That is, each cow from which we have no annual returns had to produce two and one half times as much as every cow from which we have records. On that basis we are told by the government that the dairy industry is progressing.

Topic:   SUPPLY-AUSTRMJLAN TREATY PROPOSED CANCELLATION OF SPECIAL AGREEMENT WITH NEW ZEALAND AND NEGOTIATION OF TREATY.
Permalink
CON

James Dew Chaplin

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CHAPLIN:

Topic:   SUPPLY-AUSTRMJLAN TREATY PROPOSED CANCELLATION OF SPECIAL AGREEMENT WITH NEW ZEALAND AND NEGOTIATION OF TREATY.
Permalink
CON

William Ernest Tummon

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. TUMMON:

Now, let me make a in the United States and conditions in

coqjparison for a moment between conditions Canada. These are the comparative figures:

United States Tariff

1920 2Jc. per pound1921 6c. per pound1925 after 4 years of 8c. per pound duty1928 after 3 years of 12c. per pound duty

Canada

Fiscal Year Tariff

1920 British preference (per pound).. 3c.

General (per pound) 4c.

1924 British preference (per pound).. 3c.

General (per pound) 4c.

1926 le. per pound duty.

1927 1c. per pound duty.1928 lc. per pound duty.1929 lc. per pound duty.

months

ending

January

30, 1930 lc. per pound duty.

Total Pounds Butter Imported 37.454,172 18,558,388 7.212,013 4,659,288

Total Pounds Butter Imported 3,741,628

198,341

Australian and New Zealand butter only- 4,828,468

Australian and New Zealand butter only- 5,705,960

Australian and New Zealand butter only- 14,195,789

Australian and New Zealand butter only- 25,211,011

Australian and New Zealand butter only- 23,949,468

In other words, in 1925, the American dairy farmer had a protective tariff of 8 cents, and the Canadian dairy farmer had a protective tariff of 3 cents preferential and 4 cents general. In 1925, the American tariff was raised and in the same year the Canadian tariff was reduced, and' the conditions are represented by the figures I have given here. The importations of butter into Canada have increased tremendously while the importations into the United States have fallen off, and they are now producing almost as much butter as they require to feed their great population. The United States government protects its people, in contrast to this government here.

Mr. MacLEAiN (Prince): Will the hon.

member give the figures in the United States and Canada for those years, as to the price paid?

Topic:   SUPPLY-AUSTRMJLAN TREATY PROPOSED CANCELLATION OF SPECIAL AGREEMENT WITH NEW ZEALAND AND NEGOTIATION OF TREATY.
Permalink
CON

William Ernest Tummon

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. TUMMON:

I have not the figures

here, otherwise I should be pleased to accommodate my hon. friend. But no doubt he can get the figures for himself as easily as I could get them for him.

We were told a year ago, and it has been said here to-day, that the Americans were purchasing our cattle and paying handsome prices for them; and I recall the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) saying last year that we would raise the calves and let the Americans milk the cows. Well, Mr. Speaker, I have been trying ever since to figure out just how we are going to raise the calves

if the Americans have the cows. The condition is not quite as good as it was some time ago so far as the purchase of cattle in Canada by Americans is concerned. In the district which I have the honour to represent, and along the St. Lawrence, they are offering very small prices now for dairy cattle. Mr. Charles E. Ladd, of Cornell university, chairman of the milk stabilization committee in New York state, has issued some interesting figures bearing on the present and future supply of milk in New York state and of dairy products throughout the United' States. He says:

There are now in this milk shed more than enough dairy heifers for all replacement purposes. There is also an impending over-supply of dairy products in the United States.

So that it would appear as if the conditions of .the dairy industry in that country are such as to eliminate the necessity of importing Canadian dairy products such as milk and cream, and also dairy cattle.

There is no doubt that the importation of butter at one cent per pound duty is having a damaging and demoralizing effect upon the dairy industry in Canada. The hon. the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) this afternoon mentioned empire trade. I do not believe that it is the wish or the desire of a sister dominion to destroy one of the main branches of the basic industry of agriculture in Canada, no more than Canada would desire to do such a thing to a sister dominion.

Australian Treaty-Mr. Kellner

Let us by all means trade within the empire, but for the sake of stability let it be on a fair and equitable basis to all concerned.

Canada, I think, is in a unique position in comparison to any other part of the British Empire. Occupying as we do the northern part of this continent, meeting on a boundary of three to four thousand miles one neighbour only, a neighbour with a huge population, mighty in agriculture and in industry, a neighbour producing the same products that we are producing, and one that protects the people of her country from the competition of the products of other countries including Canada, we find ourselves met by the strongest competition not only in the markets of -the world but in our own markets as well. That is the problem we meet three hundred and sixty-five days of the year. Let us take some of the $900,000,000 that we send annually over to that country and use it to trade within the empire, but let us not destroy one of the main, branches of the agricultural industry of Canada, which in the past has been part of the very life blood of this country.

Topic:   SUPPLY-AUSTRMJLAN TREATY PROPOSED CANCELLATION OF SPECIAL AGREEMENT WITH NEW ZEALAND AND NEGOTIATION OF TREATY.
Permalink
UFA

Donald Ferdinand Kellner

United Farmers of Alberta

Mr. D. F. KELLNER (Athabaska):

Mr. Speaker, the argument has been developed in the house to-day that- this resolution is more or less a political football; in fact, I think the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) referred to it as a method of making campaign speeches, while another hon. member stated that in so far as the west was concerned the National Dairy Council is something of an organization created by the dairies of the country rather than by the producers.

In January last the United Farmers of Alberta had a convention, and at that convention there were present almost five hundred delegates. They were all farmers, and they represented between thirteen thousand and fourteen thousand other farmers. They passed a resolution covering this Australian treaty, and I have a copy here which I should like to read:

Whereas, the Australian Treaty of 1925 was designed to confer trade advantages upon certain industries which in virtue of their highly privileged position ' under the customs tariff have been built up at the expense of other classes of Canadians, while industries in a less favoured position were totally disregarded both in the negotiation of the treaty and in the terms of its enactment; and

Whereas, this special consideration shown to certain industries exemplifies one of the worst evils of the protectionist system, which is rooted in the distribution of new privileges to the already highly privileged; and

Whereas, the policy upon which the treaty was based is one of discrimination especially against important branches of the industry of agriculture, and

Whereas, the enactment of the treaty was opposed by the U.F.A. group in the House of Commons in 1925, as a discriminatory and economically unsound measure;

Therefore be it resolved, that this convention while reaffirming its adherence to the principle of freedom of trade, and its determination to use its influence with a view to the progressive reduction of the Canadian tariff, protests against the operation of the prevailing system in a partisan and discriminatory manner;

And further, that this convention, in virtue of the reasons enumerated above, call upon the Dominion government to denounce the treaty.

There, Mr. Speaker, is the opinion of the organized farmers of Alberta, the people who are producing the milk, and who are hit by this treaty. In that province I think we are hurt about as badly as in any part of Canada, and when the production drops about 12,000,000 pounds from 1926 to 1928, and the number of cows is reduced by some 100,000. it requires little argument to show that our province is being affected. It is all very well to put a lot of figures on Hansard about the reduction in the number of cows and the reduction in the production of butter, but I very much doubt if it brings to our mind a clear conception of just what is possible in the dairy industry of western Canada. For instance, if we compare what we have failed to accomplish in that country with the accomplishments of such states as Minnesota, for example, the climate of which is not unlike that of Canada, we will see to what degree we have failed to take advantage of our opportunities. There can be no very effective argument that physical conditions are materially better in the state of Minnesota than they are in Canada; our climate is comparatively similar, although we have a little longer to feed, but what they can grow in the state of Minnesota, we can grow in western Canada. In looking over reports of production I find that in the year 1928 the state of Minnesota produced 100,000,060 pounds of butter more than the entire Dominion of Canada produced. To my mind that is very illustrative of the lack of production in Canada, as compared to what it might be.

Topic:   SUPPLY-AUSTRMJLAN TREATY PROPOSED CANCELLATION OF SPECIAL AGREEMENT WITH NEW ZEALAND AND NEGOTIATION OF TREATY.
Permalink
LIB

Edward James Young

Liberal

Mr. YOUNG (Weybura):

Has the hon.

gentleman any figures as to the per capita wealth production of farmers in Minnesota as compared with that of Canadian farmers?

Topic:   SUPPLY-AUSTRMJLAN TREATY PROPOSED CANCELLATION OF SPECIAL AGREEMENT WITH NEW ZEALAND AND NEGOTIATION OF TREATY.
Permalink
UFA

Donald Ferdinand Kellner

United Farmers of Alberta

Mr. KELLNER:

I would suggest that the hon. member put that question on the order paper. The argument was advanced a while ago that the reason our production in Canada has fallen off is that we are making a great quantity of cheese for which we are selling milk, and that we are receiving more for the whole milk than we would for the

Australian Treaty-Mr. Kellner

butter. I went to the trouble to look at the figures as to cheese, and I found that thirty years ago Canada produced 100,000,000 pounds of cheese more than it did last year. That is where we are getting in the manufacture of cheese. In regard to the sale of milk, there are certain districts in Ontario and Quebec where that is probably applicable, but it does not apply to western Canada. There is not one pound of milk in the three prairie provinces sold across the line as raw milk. So that when this large volume of butter, cheese and beef is brought in under these agreements there is no question as to what it is doing to the western farmer. For instance last year in the province of Alberta, we received 252,000 pounds of this imported butter. One of the other speakers said that butter was purchased by the dairies and butter dealers, who sold it in their own wrappers. Of course it was; I do not know any other people who could purchase it, and if it were not to be purchased by them the only alternative would be to send it in on consignment, and quite a considerable volume has come in in that way. Here is the point: of the 252,000 pounds of butter that came into Alberta there was not one pound anyone could detect as imported butter; it was sold as butter produced in Canada, and 'I am satisfied it would not have received as favourable consideration if the people had known it was imported.

I also want to call attention to our possibilities in the way of increasing our butter production, and what it means to the country. The basic industry of agriculture is in an entirely different position from any other branch of industry, and has infinitely more possibilities. I am going to quote from an article written by the United States Secretary of Agriculture, in which he says that the United States is the second largest gold producing country in the world, but that it would take all the gold they could produce for fifty years to equal the value of one year's production of dairy products. If all those things are possible across the line, most assuredly they are possible in this country, and I think the reason we do not have them here is found in our fiscal policy.

When the minister was speaking this afternoon I think he over-stressed a wee bit his love for these other dominions. When you look at the tariff schedules you are almost convinced that they do not reciprocate that love. Looking at the tariff on butter going into Australia I find that the British preference rate is 12 cents a pound, while the general rate is 14 cents. Compare that to our rate of one cent per pound. The New Zealand rate is 20 per cent and 40 per cent which, applied to butter at 2419-26

40 cents a pound, is 8 cents and 16 cents. In South Africa it is 4 cents and 4i cents, and in the United States it is 12 cents a pound. So that there can be little argument in support of any suggestion that we should give any special consideration to these dominions, which give us absolutely none as far as butter is concerned.

I think a word should be said about the condition in which the Canadian farmer finds himself to-day. A good deal of time has been spent in the house emphasizing what we owe to our returned men, and I think every member of this house joins in the sentiments expressed in that connection. A little sentiment should be associated with our farmers, because when the war was on the established farmer was not permitted to enlist; they would not accept him but asked him to stay home and feed the army; that was the job allocated to him and he could not leave it. The Canadian papers in this country from coast to coast were filled with advertisements of inspiration to the farmer to go into increased production, and he did. I think the Canadian farmer surprised the world with the amount of produce he was able to deliver during the war. But after the war came the smash, and many an interesting story could be told of the condition of the Canadian farmer when the market dropped. In fact, I have a very vivid recollection of what happened to me when it was all over, and there are many others who passed through the same experience.

Then the government came along and said, " This is only a passing phase, we will build up the beef trade with England." An investigation into ocean rates was held with the idea of obtaining a cheap rate on beef shipped on the hoof. The argument raised was that the chilled beef had not been going over regularly and sometimes when the consumer in England had wanted it on Saturday night he could not get it until the next week and he would not buy. A commission investigated those rates and finally we did get a lower rate and started to ship beef. In the city of Edmonton there is a very fine plant, or rather the relic of one, erected by private individuals in order to prepare this beef for the British market. For a time we sent a lot of beef over there, but for the last two years not one hoof has left this country.

Then we were advised to go into the pork business, to raise hogs and send our pork over to the old country. We did that for a short time, and we sold it to the British markets cheaper than at the Canadian price, but eventually that market got away from us.

402 COMMONS

Australian Treaty-Mr. Smith (Cumberland)

At the present moment the wheat market is in a pretty wobbly condition, and anyone who has followed the fluctuations of that market will realize that western Canada today is in its most critical position. If the wheat market goes much lower the Canadian west will have the worst times ever known. But what has the government offered to relieve these conditions? The only solution they have advanced to the country is that of immigration. They said, "We will go over to Europe and obtain a lot of immigrants and as soon as you get sick and tired of this game, get off and we will put someone else upon the land." There are hundreds upon farms in the west who have not one cent invested; the Canadian and imperial governments own the whole thing, the farms, equipment and all. When the established farmer desires implements or equipment for his farm, he is forced to pay from five to ten per cent more than the immigrant who buys through the soldier settlement board. If there is any sentiment to be wasted upon sister nations, there should be a little to spare for the established farmers who are forced to operate under these unfair conditions.

_ ft is my opinion that in a country which is to be successful, any government worthy of the name should have certain ideals as to the people who live within its boundaries, and if we are to adopt as a national policy the reduction of the earning power of farmers until we reach the stage where they absolutely refuse to stay on the farm, and then go over to Europe and bring immigrants in to take their places-according to the former Minister of Immigration, Mr. Forke, we brought in last year nine more than we lost during the year.

Topic:   SUPPLY-AUSTRMJLAN TREATY PROPOSED CANCELLATION OF SPECIAL AGREEMENT WITH NEW ZEALAND AND NEGOTIATION OF TREATY.
Permalink
?

An hon. MEMBER:

What did they cost?

Topic:   SUPPLY-AUSTRMJLAN TREATY PROPOSED CANCELLATION OF SPECIAL AGREEMENT WITH NEW ZEALAND AND NEGOTIATION OF TREATY.
Permalink
UFA

Donald Ferdinand Kellner

United Farmers of Alberta

Mr. KELLNER:

I have not that information; like my hon, friend across the floor, I have some questions upon the order paper, and I hope to have that figure within a short time.

It seems to me that the one thing which should be paramount to this parliament during the present session is to see if something cannot !be done to stabilize the farming markets of Canada. If we complete this session and absolutely ignore that situation,

I do not think we are doing our duty to the people.

Topic:   SUPPLY-AUSTRMJLAN TREATY PROPOSED CANCELLATION OF SPECIAL AGREEMENT WITH NEW ZEALAND AND NEGOTIATION OF TREATY.
Permalink
CON

Robert Knowlton Smith

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. R. K. SMITH (Cumberland):

Mr. Speaker, I join with those who have spoken from this side of the house in protesting against the tremendous importation of butter into this country from New Zealand. The figures have been given already; they are

of alarming proportions, and I think they are sufficient to convince this house that unless this dumping is stopped without further delay it will not only rob the Canadian farmer of his home market but will have a tendency to pass the dairying industry, at least in some parts of Canada, entirely out of the picture so far as agriculture is concerned1.

My main purpose in rising, Mr. Speaker, was to read into the records of this house a resolution passed by the Nova Scotia Farmers' Association, outlining the unfair competition with which they are confronted1. This resolution, which was passed at the annual meeting of the Nova Scotia Farmers' Association held at Truro last month, reads as follows:

Resolved that the Nova Scotia Farmers' Association now in session view with alarm the large steadily increasing quantities of butter imported into Canada from New Zealand to the serious detriment and unfair competition of the farmers of Nova Scotia.

Further resolved that we petition the federal government at Ottawa to place a higher duty on butter imported into Canada from New Zealand sufficiently adequate to protect the farmers of Nova Scotia in the home market and that this be effected with the least possible delay, or, in the alternative, the federal government be urged to abrogate the order in council extending the provisions of the Australian treaty to New Zealand under which its butter enjoys preferential-duty rates entering Canada.

Further resolved that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Hon. W. R. Motherwell, Minister of Agriculture at Ottawa, and the federal and provincial members in Nova Scotia.

It was discovered in Nova Scotia some few years ago that there were certain phases of the farming industry in which we could not compete. For instance, we could not compete with western Canada in the raising of beef, and due to the changed conditions of supply overcoming demand we were not able to market large quantities of hay, as had been the case in years gone by, and it was found that it was necessary to go into mixed farming if the farmers of that province were to eke out an existence. Dairying being one of the main factors, almost the essential, of mixed farming, the farmers in that part of Canada took up that phase of the industry; they improved their herds, and up until 1925 were making considerable progress. Not only was that industry steadily improving, but the offshoot, the swine industry, was thriving under the new conditions. But since New Zealand .butter has been dumped on the markets of the Dominion, and great quantities in Nova Scotia, coming in by millions of pounds in almost every shipload, the farmers of Nova Scotia are to-dlay in a desperate position, due,

Australian Treaty-Mr. Kennedy

I think, almost entirely to the dumping of this butter on the Canadian market. It is impossible to carry on mixed farming in any part of the country unless dairying is associated with it. The speeches which have been delivered in the house not only depicted what a great benefit the dairy industry is in itself, but showed by figures and illustrations what the by-products and the offshoots of the dairy industry are in the contribution they make to the soil, and in other respects.

This afternoon the hon. member for East Calgary (Mr. Adshead) stated that covering a certain period some 419 tons of butter were landed in the city of Halifax from New Zealand, and that 222 tons of that butter after it had been imported were exported, I believe he said, to the British West Indies. I think we can at least say that a sufficient quantity of it, and other vast importations remained in Nova Scotia, to cause very serious damage to agriculture and to create havoc with our dairy industry.

In this connection may I in conclusion read, from yesterday's issue of the Halifax Herald, the views of a gentleman who was at one time a member of the provincial legislature, and not a Conservative at that. I believe he was what was called at one time a farmer-labour member. This is what he has to say, and I am sure the hon. member for Hants-Kings (Mr. lisle}') will be interested in the quotation:

Action to prevent the importation of New Zealand butter was advocated by J. A. MacDonald, former provincial member for Hants county and one of the beet known farmers iq Nova Scotia who was in Halifax yesterday, attending the opening of the legislature.

Mr. MacDonald stated that unless some such action was taken the farmers of this province would be driven from their lands and homes, as it was an impossibility for Nova Scotia to compete with New Zealand.

In this province cattle must be housed during the winter season, said Mr. MacDonald, while in New Zealand they are in the pasture. In addition to that feed ranges as high as $50 a ton. "I can say that nothing in the past fifty years in the agricultural life of this province has caused greater hardships to the Nova .Scotia farmer than the flooding of this province with New Zealand butter. Unless our federal members take immediate action, hundreds of farmers who depend on dairying for their livelihood will be forced to close out and leave the province," he said.

Air. MacDonald declared that as a result of the new federal legislation, he knew of several farmers in his district who were giving up their farms in the spring and leaving for the United States. "It is most unfortunate", he said, "in view of the fact that conditions in other sections of the province and in other lines of industry show healthy improvements."

Topic:   SUPPLY-AUSTRMJLAN TREATY PROPOSED CANCELLATION OF SPECIAL AGREEMENT WITH NEW ZEALAND AND NEGOTIATION OF TREATY.
Permalink
UFA

Donald MacBeth Kennedy

United Farmers of Alberta

Mr. D. M. KENNEDY (Peace River):

Mr. Speaker, I do not think the trouble with the dairy industry or agriculture in general in Canada is due wholly to the Australian treaty as applied to New Zealand. Undoubtedly, however, that has had some influence on Canadian agriculture. The farmers in western Canada have resented this treaty and its application to New Zealand possibly as much because they were asked to sacrifice the protection they had for the sake of giving the motor industry and the pulp and paper industry an advantage in the markets of Australia. It is that idea of discrimination that has affected as much as anything else the western farmers and made them protest against this treaty. That is the case so far as my knowledge of western Canada goes. One thing of course that has helped to drive dairying out or decrease it in certain sections of Alberta is the fact that we have had over a period of years fair crops of wheat at fair prices. For the last five years the Peace River constituency has had crops averaging around twenty and twenty-five bushels, with grades ranging from No. 1 northern to No. 3 northern. I do not care what anybody says or what advice farmers are given, you will not get many of them or their wives or sons or daughters to milk cows while they can grow wheat and get grades like that at the prices that have prevailed .during the last four or five years. They simply will not do that.

I am, however, quite free to admit that the wiping out of the Australian treaty and its application to New Zealand by order in council would give the dairy farmers of Canada some advantage for a time at least. I am not greatly impressed by some of the arguments in favour of either free trade or protection, but in this case I .think the people who are arguing that the Australian treaty and its application to New Zealand hurt the farmers, are on good ground. I do not know that I could agree with several hon. members who have argued the matter regarding the extent of the damage to even the dairy farmers of Alberta.

This debate is developing into a sort of empire trade debate, and it is because I wish to offer a suggestion along that line that I am on my feet. It seems to me a tragedy that Canada has struggled for a certain number of years to put on the British market a quality of bacon and other pork products in competition with Danish products, and has convinced the British buyer that Canadian pork products are just as good as the Danish, and yet our exports to Great Britain have steadily decreased while the

m

Australian Treaty-Mr. Kennedy

exports from Denmark to Great Britain have increased more than the exports of the Canadian product to Great Britain have decreased. In other words, we lost the market after we had demonstrated that we could produce a quality of product that would sell there in competition with the best in the world. We are, I believe, having a conference in Ottawa in a few days to deal with the question of increasing agricultural production. I do not know whether or not we should strive to increase our cattle production. The situation as between ourselves and the United States is not any too promising in. view of the tariff increases in that country. The attempt made by the Alberta government some years ago to get a new market in Japan has not developed into anything worth while. Certainly the success attending the attempt to get live cattle into the British markets has not been anything to brag about. But I do not see any reason why we should not be able to increase our hog production and get into the British market. We have had an empire marketing committee working on the question of marketing empire products. I do not know whether that marketing committee has got very far with this question, but it seems to me, as there is going to be an imperial conference in London and we are going to have there representatives of this government-or possibly another government that may be elected before then; whatever party sends representatives-something ought to be done along this line. I am not prepared just now to suggest details. The question of increased production of pork products or dairy products is not one of getting more immigrants or more credits in Canada, but one of markets. The market is there. It- seems to me that if a committee were appointed, an imperial committee representing the old land and the dominions, the dominions would guarantee to produce and ship to the old land a certain amount of products under contract, so that on the one hand we would be assured of the market, and on the other, that the market being assured, Britain would get the products, there would be an opportunity to increase Canada's production of hogs, bacon and other pork products, an opportunity to provide an almost certain return for the farmers of Canada. There is no use going to the farmers of western Canada and saying: We want to increase our hog production; so many years ago we produced a certain number of hogs in Canada, and to-day we have so many less. They would just laugh at you. But if the federal Department of Agriculture will

cooperate with the provincial departments and the pools, anid say: Here is an assured market; if you will undertake to produce a certain quantity of goods and deliver them regularly over a period of years, you will be absolutely certain that you will get the British price, whatever it may be, based on the competition of Denmark or Ireland or whatever country is supplying the British market with that particular product. If we can come to an agreement regarding a certain market and a certain quantity of products to supply that market, that would be something constructive. There may be some difficulties in the way so far as the old land is concerned; I do not know.

I do not believe the farmers of Canada have confidence in the present organization that stands between them and the British market; I mean the packers. The farmers, right or wrong, are absolutely convinced that the packers have been taking and will continue to take too big a toll of the price that is charged the consumer for farm products. But if the market is made available in Great Britain, I believe that the farmers will respond, provided they are guaranteed that the packing industry is not going to take any more than a just share of the price that is paid by the consumer; but they will not respond, I 'believe, unless there is that guarantee. Now that we have a cooperative director in .the Department of Agriculture and the idea of cooperative marketing of farm products has taken hold throughout the whole Dominion, I think that this government and all provincial governments might well settle down to the idea of getting together and taking hold of the packing industry, if need be, just as has been done in Denmark. There the government is backing up the cooperative organizations; the farmers have confidence in the organization that handles their products. I believe in this way a definite contribution could be made to increased production that would mean real wealth and increased stability for agriculture in the Dominion of Canada.

Topic:   SUPPLY-AUSTRMJLAN TREATY PROPOSED CANCELLATION OF SPECIAL AGREEMENT WITH NEW ZEALAND AND NEGOTIATION OF TREATY.
Permalink
CON

Isaac Duncan MacDougall

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. I. D. MACDOUGALL (Inverness):

I rise to support the amendment introduced by my hon. friend from Haldimand (Mr. Senn), introduced may I say in a speech that did credit to him and to the best traditions of the Canadian parliament. My reasons for supporting the amendment I wish very briefly to outline to the house.

Before doing so, may I say that about a week ago I received, as did every federal member, from the province of Nova Scotia, a resolution from the farmers' association of

Australian Treaty-Mr. Macdougall

that province in convention assembled, in which they condemn the arrangement entered into with New Zealand by this government by means of an order in council. In that resolution they express their belief, and I presume they know their own business, that the application of this New Zealand arrangement has materially prejudiced the farmers of Nova Scotia and in many cases made the successful prosecution of the dairy industry in that province impossible.

There is no one in this house more anxious than I to see trade developed between the component parts of the British Empire. I certainly desire to see a treaty between Canada and New Zealand or any other part of the British Empire looking towards the development of trade, but if we are to trade even with a component part of this empire, great as our love for the empire may be, it is absolutely essential that whatever trade be carried on between us and the motherland or any other part of the empire should be done on terms that are fair and just to Canada. The Canadian people expect that, and they will not be satisfied with anything less.

There is absolutely no question at all that this New Zealand arrangement-not a treaty; it is a misnomer to call it a treaty, because there never has been a treaty with New Zealand-has been injurious to Canada. I notice that hon. gentlemen sitting on the front benches opposite to-night are afraid to discuss this question on its merits, and they are always interjecting, "What do you think of the Australian treaty?" If they have any questions to ask about the Australian treaty, they can be discussed at the proper time; the Australian treaty is not at all in question today. What is in question is the application of the same terms to New Zealand, applied not by means of a treaty negotiated by our representatives, but by order in council. It is well to emphasize that point because if there ever was a party in the history of Canada that went around raving and ranting and pawing the air about orders in council it was the hon. gentlemen who sit opposite, and although times without number they branded orders in council as being opposed to the veiy spirit of democracy, it was by order in council that they effected an arrangement which New Zealand did not even ask for, and by which the dairy industry not only of Nova Scotia but of the whole of Canada has been placed in jeopardy. If you ask me to prove that, I can prove it very easily out of the months of hon. gentlemen opposite, because if there ever was a subamendment introduced to any parliament which was in essence a confession of helplessness and failure,

it was the subamendment to which we listened this afternoon proposed by one of the members supporting the government. They admitted in that subamendment-I think it is well for the country to notice this point-that they were wrong when they passed that order in council applying the terms of the Australian treaty to New Zealand. They admitted that the Dominion of Canada had been prejudiced; admitted that, without New Zealand asking for it at all, they had put through a deal by which the interests of the dairy farmers of Canada were prejudiced. If they did not admit that, what was the purpose of moving the subamendment?

Let us consider that subamendment for a moment. It is very interesting. I do not believe that in the whole political history of Canada a government ever put itself in such a humiliating position as the present government did when they moved this subamendment. I ask hon. gentlemen who listen to this subamendment to appreciate just what it means;

That all the words after "be" in the fourth line of the amendment be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

"superseded as soon as possible by a treaty with that Dominion, and that immediate steps should be taken to negotiate such a treaty."

There are a few admissions made by the government in that subamendment. One is that we never had a treaty with New Zealand -that is important to note; the arrangement was made by order in council. The second admission is that in the hearts and minds of hon. gentlemen opposite they feel that they were wrong when they passed that order in council, and now they want to get out from under. If there is any proof needed to show that they were wrong, it can be found in the trade returns of this government. According to the returns published by the Department of Trade and Commerce we find that in 1925 when this arrangement was made-which, by the way, New Zealand never asked for; it was foisted upon New Zealand by order in council-we imported from that Dominion $1,713,830 worth of goods; in 1929 our importations had mounted to $14,987,302 in value. So that in respect of this trade arrangement we have a pitiable and lamentable experience repeated-the experience of this government in regard to all its trade negotiations. Probably I am a little incorrect in saying there were negotiations; there were none leading up to the arrangement. But all their trade arrangements ever since this government came into power have resulted in one way- in our selling less goods to the country with which they made the trade treaty and in that

406 COMMONS

Australian Treaty-Mr. Macdougall

country selling more goods to us. I see my hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) smiling. Let me refer to a treaty in which he took a hand-the trade treaty with France. May I say at the outset that I have for my hon. friend the highest regard.

Topic:   SUPPLY-AUSTRMJLAN TREATY PROPOSED CANCELLATION OF SPECIAL AGREEMENT WITH NEW ZEALAND AND NEGOTIATION OF TREATY.
Permalink
LIB

Ernest Lapointe (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)

Liberal

Mr. LAPOINTE:

Thank you.

Topic:   SUPPLY-AUSTRMJLAN TREATY PROPOSED CANCELLATION OF SPECIAL AGREEMENT WITH NEW ZEALAND AND NEGOTIATION OF TREATY.
Permalink

March 7, 1930