Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):

Mr. Speaker, the other day the house agreed to appoint a special committee for the purpose of studying the Dominion Elections Act and the Dominion Franchise Act and possible amendments thereto, and it was suggested that this committee should consist of thirty members. In order to save time I would ask the consent of the house to make a motion to complete this committee to-day, as follows:

That the special committee appointed to study the Dominion Elections Act 1934 and amendments thereto and the Dominion Franchise Act 1934 and amendments thereto shall consist of thirty members, and that standing order 65 be suspended in relation thereto, and that the following be appointed thereto:

Messieurs: Bothwell, Cameron (Cape Breton North), Clark (York-Sunbury), Dussault,

Factor, Fair, Girouard, Glen, Heaps, Jean, Mac-Nieol, McCuaig, McIntosh, Parent (Quebec West and South), Perley (Qu'Appelle), Power, Purdy, Rickard, Robichaud. St-Pere. Sinclair. Slaght, Stevens, Stewart, Stirling, Taylor (Norfolk), Turgeon, Turner, Wermenlinger, and Wood.

Mr. SPEAKER:

I think this is one of the motions of which notice is required before it can be put to the house. I therefore direct that the motion stand as a notice of motion.

Motion stands.

Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):

Before the orders of the day are proceeded with, I should like to ask the government whether or not we may expect that the legislation promised by the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) with respect to the payments for grain sold by producers thereof in 1930 will be introduced at an early date. I do this in consequence of receiving large numbers of communications complaining that with the bitterness of the weather and the bills that have been incurred this money is very urgently required.

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):

I hope it will be possible to have the legislation brought down within a fortnight.

Canada-U. S. Trade Agreement

Mr. J. T. THORSON (Selkirk):

Mr. Speaker, in the short space of time that remains at my disposal I shall make only a few remarks. It is perhaps too early to pass any considered judgment with regard to the enlarged trade with the United States that will follow as a result of our trade agreement with that country, but already there are some indications of what is likely to take place; for we have the trade figures for January of this year and we can compare them with the trade figures for January, 1935. Our exports to the United States for January, 1935, amounted to $17,872,669, wrhereas our exports for January, 1936, amounted to $20,872,966, an increase of approximately 17 per cent. On the other hand our imports from the United States for January, 1935, amounted to $23,156,701 whereas our imports for January, 1936, amounted to $26,284,935, an increase of approximately 13^ per cent.

Some of the commodities exported to the United States are striking; I shall deal with one of them. Our exports of cattle, for example, increased from $67,647 in January, 1935, to $498,270 in January, 1936. Our exports of shingles doubled; our exports of planks, boards and other kinds of lumber also showed substantial increases.

The speech delivered by the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) was a remarkable address; it made a number of things perfectly clear to this house and to the people of Canada. In the first place-I think it cannot be disputed-the speech of the right hon. gentleman made it perfectly clear to everyone in Canada that if the Conservative party had been returned to office Canada would not have had any trade agreement with the United States at the present time. The right hon. gentleman blames the government for not obtaining greater concessions from the United States, and then in the next breath he says that he would not give the United States the concessions they ask, at any price. How can trade with any country be built up with that attitude of mind towards it? The right hon. gentleman wants everything his own way; that is not conducive to the building up of trade with other countries. He is very much like the spoiled boy who will not play with the boy next door unless he can have the play all his own way.

Then the speech delivered by the right hon. leader of the opposition showed a peculiar attitude towards trade agreements that is not conducive to international good will. He showed much the same attitude during the negotiation of the Ottawa agreements. He desired to give Great Britain a preference in Canada, but before doing so he raised the tariff sky high so that what seemed to be a preference to Great Britain was in reality no preference at all. Now the right hon. gentleman wants to know what we intend to do with regard t-o the intermediate tariff. Why should he be concerned with what our attitude is going to be during this session towards the intermediate tariff? Would that affect his attitude towards this agreement? Would he vote for this agreement if he were told that immediately after that we would increase the intermediate tariff? Would he have the government do that; would he have this parliament pass this trade agreement and then, immediately after passing it, during this very same session, raise the intermediate tariff? Is that the spirit that should be shown in bringing about a trade agreement? Is that what he is asking us to do? In effect that would be a breach of the spirit, at any rate, of the trade agreement which we are now considering.

The speech of the right hon. leader of the opposition shows very distinctly the fundamental difference that exists between the party of which he is the leader and the Liberal party with regard to tariff and trade matters. We on this side of the house desire an enlargement of our trade with other countries. We are willing to make concessions to other countries in return for a fair and reasonable prospect of enlarging our trade with them. We are satisfied with a fair exchange, and we believe that in this trade agreement we are making a fair exchange with the United States. But there is another difference between the viewpoint of the Conservative party and the viewpoint of those who sit on this side of the house. Personally I do not like the word "concession " as applied to the tariff reductions that we have made. We are not making these tariff reductions in any sense as concessions to the United State? We do not regard

Canada-U. S. Trade Agreement

them as gifts to the United States; we regard them as tariff reductions made in pursuance of the Liberal policy with regard to the tariff. We wish to make substantial tariff reductions in Canada for the benefit of the Canadian people, regardless of whether we get concessions from other countries or not. If we can get concessions, well and good, but whether we get concessions or not we on this side of the house feel that the time has come when substantial reductions should be made in our own tariff. The Liberal party was elected on a platform of substantial tariff reductions. The tariff structure in this country is much too high. We have had five years' experience of high tariff policy, and I think it has been demonstrated throughout the whole of Canada that that policy has failed. There are many commodities on which in the interests of the producers and the consumers of Canada we require an immediate and substantial decrease in the tariff.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order. The hon. gentleman's time has expired.

Mr. THORSON:

I have only a word or

two more. We wish substantial reductions on such commodities as gasoline, agricultural implements and textiles, to mention only a few. This country has suffered from the policy of high tariffs, not merely in one section but in all sections. The overwhelming vote given to the Liberal party meant that Canada did not wish to endure any longer a policy such as that from which it suffered during the preceding five years. Substantial tariff reductions are demanded, and it is the duty of the Liberal party to carry out the mandate given to it by the people of Canada.

Mr. J. H. HARRIS (Danforth):

Mr. Speaker, I wish to take advantage of this my first opportunity to congratulate you on your elevation to your high office, and in the same sentence may I add my congratulations to the Deputy Speaker.

I hope my hon. friend who has just taken his seat (Mr. Thorson) does not go away, because I am going to have something to say to him in a few minutes; meantime I would much rather address myself to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) who consummated this Canada-United States trade agreement. During the past twenty-five years it has been my experience to have pass over my desk from week to week invoices for one or two cars of goods going out of this country and one or two coming into Canada, so that by absorption if in no other way I should have some idea what it means to trade with

our American cousins. Perhaps that is why I was interested enough to sit quietly and listen to the Prime Minister expound to us what I hoped would be shown to be the benefits of this trade agreement to our Canadian people. I listened to a long historical review of what had been done in the past, and what they had tried to do with regard to negotiating a treaty. When he came to something political that might sound good to the ears of his followers he stressed it very heavily, but to my idea this agreement is entirely bereft of any virtue or good result in the main to our Canadian people. I was thinking of those Canadians who to-day are on the relief roll, and those good Canadians who find their vocation in industry. I heard that the Prime Minister went across the street in Ottawa to the United States representative and asked for an interview with the president of the United States, because he was going south for a holiday. A Florida frolic! I thought one of his proteges from Ontario did enough of that during the last two years, according to the press reports, to prevent the Prime Minister giving to the press a statement that he was going south for a Florida frolic. However the interview was arranged; the Prime Minister went to Washington, called on the Canadian legation and stayed overnight in the White House-all the things which he said had been done previously by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett). He achieved the interview with the president, as the leader of the opposition did, slept overnight in the White House in like manner, I suppose had the same brand of orange juice for his breakfast in the morning, and I suppose slept in the same bed. At any rate the next morning he gave a statement to the press. Then instead of going south for his Florida frolic he hastened back because Armistice day was approaching, and he made a statement in Canada. I hope there was no political significance attached to that; I do not think there was. However, it will be said that he did a great deal more than the leader of the opposition; he consummated an agreement.

Mr. DUNNING:

Hear, hear.

Mr. HARRIS:

I admit at once-the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) says "hear, hear"-that he did consummate an agreement. And it will be said that it was on the same basis as the leader of the opposition was negotiating an agreement previously. That side of the picture is perhaps true, but the leader of the opposition stopped and waited to see whether we were going to get everything which which it was in the power of the president to give, inasmuch as the

Canada-U. S. Trade Agreement

Prime Minister gave everything which it was in his power at that time to give. He gave most favoured nation treatment; he gave the intermediate tariff-I ask my hon. friends not to go too far away; I shall have something more to say about the intermediate tariff. When he gave this intermediate tariff of course he left a loophole so that when the budget comes down my hon. friend the Minister of Finance, one of those orthodox Liberals that the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Mallette) was talking about the other evening, along with his orthodox cabinet, can deal with it. And he will get the support of a lot of other people if he does see to it that when it comes to arranging the intermediate items in our tariff the livelihood of those of our citizens who find themselves in difficult circumstances trying to continue to produce in industry will have an opportunity to live. I would like, Mr. Speaker, to have your position for about a week. If I had it I would make a gangway just beyond these ultra-Conservatives like the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Spence) down there so that the radical breezes from the southeast corner would not blow over here and contaminate us. I would take these radical Liberals, these enthusiasts that come from Rosthern or some such place, even my hon. friend from Wood Mountain (Mr. Donnelly), make room for them down beyond the gangway, and pick out a seat for the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Thorson), because he will want to sit beyond that gangway by the time the orthodox Liberals are separated from the radicals that the hon. member for Jacques Cartier was telling us about not long ago. I ask you, sir, is it fair to expect us to vote on the Canada-United States trade agreement when we do not know what is going to happen when the budget comes down? I do not think it is. However, here we have it, a white paper with a list of goods which can now enter the United States a little easier, and a great long list which can now flow into this country a little easier. Look at it any way you like; analyze it, and in the main you will find that the products of our primary producers are going to be able to enter the United States a little easier. Yes, we are thankful for that. In a moment I will deal with cattle. But in the main, as far as goods coming into this country are concerned, they will be manufactured and partly manufactured goods. What does that mean? What is going to be the result? It is difficult to prophesy, but we have before us the record of the last twenty-five years, since the 1911 reciprocity

deal was sponsored by my hon. friends opposite. As briefly as I can I shall try to recite its effect. First take the railway situation; the Jersey Central, the Illinois Central, the New York Central, the Chicago, Minneapolis & St. Paul, all those railroads running, like the Mississippi river, north and south, depositing their wares close to the border of Canada; you will find more and more of these manufactured goods coming into Canada, whereas our great railroad systems running east and west will lose the most of their revenue from the long freight haul on the traffic which bears the highest freight rates, that is, manufactured and partly manufactured goods. This agreement will tend to divert that trade north and south; it will not help the east and west trade and therefore will not help our railroad problem. The Chicago, Minneapolis & St. Paul will carry goods into our western provinces; the New England lines will supply the maritime provinces; Detroit and Michigan will be supplying southwestern Ontario; Buffalo and that part of New York state will be supplying the Niagara peninsula and Toronto, and Seattle will be supplying British Columbia. Is that going to help our railway situation? Not as I see it. Time will not permit me to go into more detail, but before passing the subject may I say this: When by the agreement the government did away with the preferential position held by our ports of Saint John, Halifax, Quebec and Vancouver, which enjoyed a ten per cent reduction of the duty payable on goods coming to those ports it made a most unnecessary move. It was not necessary to do that. I say that it was not necessary to put New York, Boston and Seattle in the same position as the other ports I have mentioned. Hon. members opposite say that it was. The railways say that we get millions of dollars of revenue from the haul of export goods from midwestern states through Canada.

Hear, hear.

Mr. HARRIS:

Of course we do. and ever shall. My hon. friend pounds his desk. Look at the geography; look at your maps, if you have not looked at them, and trace the shortest route to the seaboard from the great Chicago market. Find the shortest route for the export of goods going to London and Liverpool markets. Those goods come through Canada; the freight will find its way through the shortest possible and least expensive route which, fortunately for us, is through Canada. The alibi of some private member in Albany or a senator in Washington introducing a bill is all humbug and eye-wash, to my idea,

Canada-U. S. Trade Agreement

because business will find its channel along the lines of smallest cost. That is my experience and it has been the experience of other business men, regardless of the sentimental idea that our United States cousins would force these goods to go over their own railroads. I would remind the house that their railways run north and south, anyway.

I do not know the constituency of my hon. friend, but he seems to be taking an active interest in the subject. I may have something to say to him in a moment or two.