Mr. BENNETT:

Those words were read. The hon. member for Queens said:

The amendment proposed by the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Senn), which I think is the official voice of the opposition on this matter, asks that the present treaty as it applies to our sister dominion of New Zealand be rescinded, while the government desires to negotiate with New Zealand in the hope of concluding a treaty which will supersede the one now in effect.

And again:

Hon. gentlemen opposite say we should take the extreme ground of rescinding the present treaty, but what does that mean? Our hon. friends opposite suggest by their amendment that we ignore our solemn treaty. I cannot subscribe to anything of that nature, something which treats our signed agreement as a scrap of paper. Such action will not commend itself to those in the country whom our hon. friends have sought to interest by means of this amendment.

Mr. ILSLEY:

Whom is the hon. gentleman quoting now?

Mr. BENNETT:

The hon. member for Queens. Let me put this question to my hon. friend the Minister of Finance. If you are right in rescinding the New Zealand treaty on October 12 next by notice, it will involve the previous repeal of the order in council. When we asked that that should be done, why did you vote your forces against it? Why is it that this appears in the correspondence of the secretary of the consumers' league? Why is it that you are all called up to the penitent bench to admit your professed conversion to protection? This Mr. Deachman appears to have seen the light.

Does this proposal protect the butter industry of Canada? Does a duty of 7 cents per pound general, and 4 cents per pound preferential, protect the butter industry? Answer that. If it does protect it, where were you when the motion was before the house the other day?

Mr. HANSON:

They are nailed to the 3ross.

Mr. BENNETT:

The language of the president and directors of the consumers' .eague is as follows:

If they had any such inclinations there are signposts of folly warning them what not to do. Lloyd George and the British Liberal party lost its head in the great war and has not yet regained its balance. An even more striking example is A1 Smith.

The hon. gentlemen who marched up to the penitent block only a few days ago, are now going to march up and say: When we voted with our government, when we accepted their leadership, when we voted for the New Zealand treaty, we were all wrong because in the meantime they have changed their minds. On October 12 the treaty will perish.

Mr. DUNNING:

No one voted for the New Zealand treaty.

Mr. BENNETT:

Did they not?

Mr. DUNNING:

Oh, no; they voted that it be superseded.

Mr. BENNETT:

Exactly, but the hon. gentleman said: You must not supersede it,

you must not terminate it until you have a new treaty. This was the motion on which the house divided on the 18th of March, 1930:

That in the opinion of this house, order in council No. 1757, passed on the 26th day of September, 1925, respecting certain trade arrangements with the Dominion of New Zealand, should be rescinded forthwith, and immediate steps taken to negotiate a treaty with that Dominion on fair and equitable terms.

The amendment was:

That in the opinion of this house, order in council No. 1757, passed on the 26th day of September, 1925. respecting certain trade arrangements with the Dominion of New Zealand, should be superseded as soon as possible by a treaty with that dominion and that immediate steps should be taken to negotiate such treaty.

I pointed out then that rescinding the order in council meant giving the notice under the statute, and the minister has now said that notice has been given that on the 12th day of October this treaty disappears. That is the story. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Millar) will recall his speech on that occasion. To its loyal and devoted followers who supported it in the belief that it was all wrong to give notice of the abrogation of the treaty until a new treaty was arranged, the government now say that on the 12th day of October next this treaty, willy-nilly, whether a new one takes its place or not, is to vanish from the face of the earth. That is what we are told by the Minister of Finance. It is the old, old story.

The next matter is that of fruit and vegetables. Year after year we endeavoured to induce the government to place a seasonal tariff on vegetables and fruits. They passed legislation in this respect in 1923. The Hon.

The Budget-Mr. Bennett

Jacques Bureau and the Hon. Mr. Fielding put that legislation through the house with the aid of the Conservative party and against the efforts of the Progressives at that time. It provided for an order in council, and under it an order in council was passed by which a seasonal tariff was to be established by the fixing of values. The hon. member for Wey-burn (Mr. Young) did not believe in this and he gave notice to rescind the order in council. It was rescinded. To a great delegation that came here the Prime Minister indicated that action would be taken when necessity arose, and now we are told, to save the face of the government, that a seasonal tariff is not to be put into effect, but that an ad valorem and specific tariff will protect the interests of the fruit growers. All I can say is that it is at its highest when it is least needed and it is at its lowest when it is most required.

How do the government propose to deal with butter, eggs, fruit and commodities of this kind that the United States have been dumping upon our markets? They propose to deal with them by a countervailing tariff. I wonder whether the house and the country realize just what that means. It is a countervailing tariff that comes into operation not because Canada has so declared, but because other countries have passed tariff legislation to safeguard and protect their own markets. When they do that, automatically the same tariff applies against them in our market. In other words, congress makes Canada's tariff. The only difference between the "brick-for-brick" policy that was laughed to scorn in this country by hon. gentlemen opposite is that in Mr. Meighen's case he proposed to build the brick into the wall himself, but now the United States congress builds the brick into both sides of the wall. There is no word that will adequately describe what the government is doing with respect to this matter. I wonder whether the house and the country realize that when the government went through the gesture of putting a tariff of seven cents a pound on butter, they knew that the tariff of the United States was twelve cents a pound. So they put on not a seven cent but a twelve cent a pound tariff.

Mr. DUNNING:

No.

Mr. BENNETT:

The Minister of Finance does not know what, the chairman of his tariff board has provided for him, because he shakes his head. All I can say to him is that what he has said in his speech is this: that the tariff that prevails in another country with respect to importations from Canada

shall be the tariff that obtains in Canada against imports from that country provided that such tariff shall not be less than the tariff fixed by Canada.

Mr. DUNNING:

That is right this time.

Mr. BENNETT:

We have fixed a tariff of four cents a pound on butter under the preference and seven cents a pound on butter from the rest of the world, and when the minister proposed a tariff of seven cents a pound he knew that the United States tariff was twelve cents.

Mr. DUNNING:

That is right. It may be fourteen cents a little later.

Mr. BENNETT:

The minister says that it may be fourteen cents a little later. Therefore the Canadian tariff on butter is twelve cents to-day and it may be fourteen cents next week.

Mr. DUNNING:

Against the United States only.

Mr. BENNETT:

Against the United States or any other country that imposes the same tariff. I put this to the house and the country: What do you think of a government that calmly sits down and tells the people of Canada it has imposed a seven cent duty on butter coming from the United States when all the time it knew it was a twelve cent duty?

Mr. DUNNING:

I did not tell them that.

Mr. BENNETT:

It has imposed a twelve

cent duty or else it did not know what the United States tariff is. Let us consider the interference and uncertainty this will cause to business. There are the elastic provisions of the United States tariff that have been taken out and put back again. If that sort of thing continues, what will be the result?

Mr. DUNNING:

Our tariff will be equally elastic.