Mr. BOWMAN:

No, it was prior to the

time the Tory government came into office.

Mr. YOUNG:

There was a Tory government in the United States.

Mr. BOWMAN:

What did you do about

it? We could go all down the list of natural products which we in Canada were anxious to sell to the United States. From September, 1920, to September, 1921, our trade in agricultural products with the United States was valued at $159,000,000. From September, 1921, to September, 1922, the year the Fordney-MoCumfoer tariff went into effect, it had dropped to $55,000,000.

When the right hon. gentleman and his party went into power they were immediately met by the Fordney-McCumber measure. They knew then the attitude of the United States in connection with tariffs on natural products. They were in power for eight or nine years subsequent to the introduction of that tariff measure, and if there had been any fruitful soil in the United States which could have been cultivated in their efforts to spread the desire for reciprocal trade arrangements, surely something could have been done in that time. But what do we find? We find that just before they left office another tariff measure, known as the Hawley-Smoot tariff, became effective. Did they do anything to prevent it? Were their hands tied? Were they unable to do anything? What do we find after they had been in office for eight years? Let me give just a few instances. On poultry the tariff is increased by the Hawley-Smoot bill from 3 cents to

Trade with United States

8 cents per pound; on sheep from $2 to $3 per head; on oats from 15 cents to 16 cents per bushel; on bacon from 2 cents per pound to 3i cents; on fresh meat from 3 cents to 6 cents; on mutton from 2^ cents to 5 cents; on lamb from 4 cents to 7 cents; on butter from 12 cents to 14 cents; on cheese from 5 cents to 7 cents; on cream from 30 cents a gallon to 56-6 cents a gallon. One could . continue the list indefinitely.

Mr. MALCOLM:

What did the American public do to the government that raised those tariffs?

Mr. BOWMAN:

May I ask the hon. gentleman in return what the people of Canada did to his government? What was the result? The result was that- our trade in agricultural products with the United States fell from

S55.000.000 to S9.000.000. And all the time, I presume, judging from the statement made this evening by the right hon. leader of the opposition, there was that burning desire to enter into reciprocal agreements for trade with the United States. I point this out merely to bring home the fact that after all, if you are going to make a trade agreement, there have to be two parties to the agreement.

Mr. MALCOLM:

That is what we were up against.

Mr. BOWMAN:

That is what we are up against exactly, I will admit it. Every country desiring to trade with another country must submit some proposition which is mutually satisfactory-

Mr. HEPBLTRN:

Can't you blast your way into markets any more?

Mr. BOWMAN:

I do not know that the hon. gentleman who has interrupted will ever get a chance to blast a way into any market.

Mr. CASGRAIN:

There will not be any markets left.

Mr. BOWMAN:

No, not if the policy inaugurated by my hon. friends opposite were continued, because the trade we desire in agricultural products with the United States disappeared under their regime.

As far as the resolution is concerned, that there should be brought about a satisfactory reciprocal trade arrangement between Canada and the United States, I do not think anyone in the house would differ from it.

Mr. ELLIOTT:

Vote for it, then.

Mr. BOWMAN:

I think that is the desire of every hon. member of this house, and the whole question at the present time as far as I personally am concerned is how and when

53719-145J

the United States government should be approached.

Miss MACPHAIL:

A good time would have been 1911.

Mr. BOWMAN:

There may be a difference-of opinion as to that, but one thing certain is that the electorate settled that question at that time.

The leader of the government has said that at the World economic conference, to be held some time this summer, the question of tariffs and trade barriers is to come under consideration. I think it is the general consensus of opinion in this house that tariffs to-day are too high-

Hear, hear.

Mr. BOWMAN:

-that there are too many barriers and restrictions to trade. But there again we have the question of entering into a mutually satisfactory agreement with the different countries with which we purpose to trade.

The resolution in question goes on, after referring to a satisfactory reciprocal trade arrangement between Canada and the United

States:

Whereby the natural products of Canada, that is the products of the sea, the farm, the mines, and the forests, and including fish, lumber, wheat, cattle, etc., should have free entry into the United States. . . .

Well, if any hon. member of this house can show us how we can get that free entry, that is what we are looking for.

Mr. HEPBURN:

That is your job.

Mr. BOWMAN:

No hon. gentlemen on the opposite side, no hon. gentleman in this house, has shown us the way to get that free entry. As a matter of fact the right hon. leader of the opposition and his government during nine years in office showed how not to get free entry, and how the United States shut their doors in our faces as far as trade was concerned. The right hon. leader of the opposition stated that we should make it possible to get into that market, but did he make any suggestion as to how it was to be made possible? If we followed his example it would show how to make it impossible.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that concludes what I have to say in respect to the resolution, except that as far as I personally am concerned, and as far as western Canada is concerned, we would welcome any mutually satisfactory reciprocal agreement with the United States whereby our natural products would enter the United States free or on any reasonable and mutually satisfactory basis.

Trade with United States

Mr. G. G. COOTE (Macleod):