Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):

Mr. Speaker, I notice in this morning's press that Great Britain and France have informed the League of Nations that they will not consider binding their obligations under the general act for pacific settlement of international disputes in the event that either country should be at war. I should like to know whether Canada, as an independent signatory to that agreement, also repudiates the idea of arbitration instead of war.

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

I do not know that I would care to answer the question in just the form in which my hon. friend has stated it, but I would say to him that Canada has not altered her position.

Hon. R. J. MANION (Leader of the Opposition) :

Mr. Speaker, to-day in a sense I am replying to the speech made by my right hon. friend (Mr. Mackenzie King) three days ago. I must say that at least half of his speech did not deal with the trade treaty at all but was good political propaganda, from his standpoint. My hon. friend from Mount Royal, whose observations are very wise and very apt, remarked to me that if the text of the trade treaty had smallpox certainly the sermon the right hon. gentleman delivered would escape contagion because it was so far from the text. I thought that was rather well put. I do not intend to follow my right hon. friend into the political realm-I was going to say "quagmire" but will not use that word-except for two or three remarks.

My right hon. friend spoke of the byelections and boasted a little-perhaps with some justification-in regard to the number of seats his party had won. I happen to have the correct figures, which show that in the fourteen contested by-elections since 1935 the Liberal vote was 111,000, while the antiLiberal vote was 131,000, so there is not very much to boast about there.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

But those were not all Conservative votes.

Mr. MANION:

That is true, but they were in opposition to the Liberals. In the 1935 general election, only 46 per cent of the votes went Liberal while 54 per cent went antiLiberal. In spite of that fact, however, my hon. friends obtained 180 seats as against 65 seats won by the 54 per cent voting against the Liberals. Another interesting set of figures -and then I shall have done with the ordinary political discussion-shows that according to the votes cast in the last election it took 12,000 odd votes to elect a Liberal. I do not use the word "odd" in any derogatory sense. It took 33,000 odd votes to elect a Conservative, and it took 389.000 votes to elect the hon. gentleman from Kootenay East. I do not know what any of these figures prove, however; they merely indicate some of the rather strange pictures we get if we begin to describe what we call democracy. The only point I make is that, according to these figures, I do not think my right hon. friend has such a great deal to boast about.

The right hon. gentleman mentioned differences in our party respecting the tariff. Well, perhaps there are such differences, but there

Canada-U. S. Trade Agreement

are differences in all parties. So far as the tariff is concerned the Liberal party goes from the extreme of free trade, as represented by my hon. friend from Huron North (Mr. Deach-man) and many members from the west, to moderately high protection, at least, as represented by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler). So not only in regard to the tariff but in regard to almost everything, you can go up and down in the Liberal party from imperialism to Hepburnism, and you will find differences of opinion. But after all, sir, the trade agreement is the subject before the house, and I intend to deal with it as briefly as possible having regard to the fact that a great deal of ground must be covered.

To me. I think to all of us, the subject is a very important one which merits free discussion. I do not think any party or any government can bring into effect a trade treaty of any kind without its deserving in this House of Commons free and wide discussion. For example, the debate on the empire trade agreements of 1932 took twenty-six parliamentary days. In fact, we began the sixth week; there were nineteen days on the resolution, and seven days in committee. At the end my right hon. friend (Mr. Mackenzie King) and his party, who were in opposition at the time, voted against the empire trade agreements-with the exception of the present Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ilsley) who on the second reading voted for it, but I think abstained from voting at the other stages of the measure. In 1911, when the reciprocity agreement was being discussed, the debate took, I believe, something over four months.

In view of those two points it is clear that this subject is too important to gloss over, and requires a certain amount of elucidation. I have pointed out, and I wish to make it clear, that it is not in any way the intention of this party to hold up the discussion. We have no interest in delaying the business of the house or unnecessarily prolonging the debate. In fact I have no doubt the debate will be a good deal shorter-that is my guess at this time-than was the debate on the empire trade agreements. We realize that after all the government has a huge majority, and can pass the legislation anyway.

But I repeat that a fair discussion is proper, both as we sit at the moment and in committee; for it is only right that the details should be discussed. After all, this is public business of the utmost importance to Canada- just as, to my mind, the Bren gun was public business. And I do not mind saying to-day that I am getting just a little tired of people

outside of the house, who know nothing whatever about the affairs of parliament, or how they are carried on, continually lecturing this house and urging it to get on with the business of the people. I do not care who they are; I think they are lecturing without sufficient knowledge. After all, the government of Canada is the executive of parliament, and parliament, therefore-theoretically at least, and indeed in practice-has the last word. That is democracy. Whatever the faults of democracy may be, at any rate it is superior to anything we know of in the way of dictatorship.

Hear, hear.

Mr. MANION:

I think I am expressing the point of view of every hon. member in the house when I say that those who criticize members of the House of Commons, as a body, simply because we choose to discuss matters here, merely show that they do not quite understand what the democratic liberty of free speech means.

Hear, hear.

Mr. MANION:

As a matter of fact-and I do not say this with the intention of playing politics-my conviction is that the reason we did not go on a few days ago when we could have was that the government was not ready.

Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):

No. no.

Mr. MANION:

And to show I am not trying to play politics, I say that because I well remember that on some occasions hon. gentlemen on this side were in office we were not ready to proceed. For some reason, governments are often not quite ready with the business of the house. I remember occasions when we had to do what my right hon. friend had to do on a few occasions this year-when we had to adjourn the house at six o'clock. Frankly, I do not know why persons who are not members of the house insist that we should work here until eleven o'clock every night. In fact I will admit that one of the very fine things the right hon. gentleman had much to do with, was that of changing the foolish habit we used to have of sitting here late every night-a most barbarous procedure. After all, we have some rights in the way of liberty and freedom, in regard to our hours, as well as in regard to our speech.

My right hon. friend in his political remarks the other day, suggested that this party consists of economic nationalists, that we do not want to trade with other countries. Of course, that, to put it mildly is ridiculous,-only a blind man in a country like Canada would

Canada-U.S. Trade Agreement

take any such course as that. There are two chief reasons why Canada must trade with other countries. In the first place we have a huge area, a small population and rich resources, out of which we produce large quantities of raw materials which must be exported. We do not consume all of them ourselves. That, in the first place, compels us to trade with other countries. Secondly, we are a debtor nation. The other day I looked up the exact figures and I found that each year we pay out in interest on dominion, provincial, municipal and large corporation loans from other countries, in round figures, S250.000.000 per year. Indeed, we pay out $325,000,000, but we receive in return, in the form of interest and dividends, something like $78,000,000, leaving a balance, in round figures, of about $250,000.000 per year, which we have to pay out to other countries. Most of it goes to the United States-$231,000,000-as against $88,000,000 to the United Kingdom.

So that for that reason again we must export. I must point out however that in our export statistics to-day we include gold, and I believe that does not give quite the proper picture. Gold should be kept separate from ordinary commodities, because gold is not a commodity in the ordinary sense. It is something which is accepted by all countries of the world-they are glad to take it-and for that reason it is something which should not be treated as an ordinary commodity in trade statistics.

In addition to all that, there is a third reason why we must trade. There are certain kinds of products which we cannot produce- tea, coffee, rubber, cotton and even, apparently, wool, though we should, to my mind, be able to produce sufficient wool; I have said that in the house many times. We do not produce oranges and other citrus fruits, and so on. So we are compelled to trade.

Then again, trade figures are mixed up with invisible items such as the tourist trade, shipping, insurance, and the interest wrhich I have just mentioned. So I say that the right hon. gentleman's statement that we do not want to trade, and that we do not want trade treaties, is not correct, and he knows it is not correct. Anyone who knows something about government business or national affairs realizes that we must trade with other countries. But what we do favour is this: We favour trading with other countries on a fair basis. We advocate giving favour for favour. In other words, we do not advocate the making of a trade treaty at any price. I am a pacifist in the best sense of the word; I do not believe in war. But I am not a

pacifist at any price; neither am I a trade treaty man, at any price. If we are to take the attitude that we will make a trade treaty at any price-that is, give two favours for one, if necessary, to get a trade treaty-then the logical conclusion for my right hon. friend and his part}' to come to is to become out and out free traders. Then they would be getting all the imports that our exports could pay for, and there would be no tariff barriers against them.

The only countries of the world to-day in which economic nationalism prevails are a few of the European countries which became economically nationalist because of the great war, and the fear of another one. They would wish if another war came upon them to be self-supporting, self-sufficient and able to take care of themselves. Perhaps of all the countries in the world the United States is the closest to being self-supporting or self-sufficient; yet even the United States requires rubber, tea, coffee, and some other products it cannot produce within its own borders.

Now, in regard to the empire trade agreements,' which are mixed up with the one before us, we must not forget that the United Kingdom is the greatest market of the world. That is obvious to anyone who looks at the figures. It is the greatest purchasing market of the world.

I have a quotation in my hand-and I have heard only a part of it cited before-from the words of Sir Wilfrid Laurier. This is the report of a speech he made m Toronto, in the Toronto Globe of April 2. 1907, at a banquet given to Right Hon. James Bryce, then British ambassador at Washington. This is what Sir Wilfrid said at that time:

I have seen and you have all seen in an American newspaper published in New York just a few days ago, that we are yearning for reciprocity with the United States. Now I tell you that the editor of that neryspaper is about twenty-five years behind the times. At that time, we would have given our right arm for such a thing, but it is now a thing of the past. We are turning our hopes towards the old motherland. We have introduced the doctrine and the policy of a preference to Great Britain and towards all the British empire, and this is the policy by which we stand at the present time. We shall have no more pilgrimages to Washington, and this is simply the message I have to convey to your guest at the present moment. I know he will be a friend of Canada, and if it be a fact that a new leaf be turned in our relations w'ith our neighbours it will be a matter for great congratulation.

The right hon. gentleman who now leads the government of Canada frequently quotes what Sir Wilfrid Laurier had done, and he might give some consideration to the "no more pilgrimages to Washington" idea. I intend to

104S

Canada-U. S. Trade Agreement

deal with the fact that we also looked for a trade treaty, but we looked for one on a different basis from the one negotiated by the right hon. gentleman. To go back a little further, it was the government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier which in 1897 introduced the British preference. I could not find the exact quotation-hon. members opposite will correct me, I am sure, if I am wrong-but I think I am right when I say that for some years Sir Wilfrid took the attitude that we should get something in return, something by way of preference from Great Britain.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

Sir Wilfrid's position was that if at any time England became a protectionist country, we should then expect to be given' a preference in the British market.

Mr. MANION:

I attempted to look it up but I could not find it. I accept what the right hon. gentleman has said; and that is exactly what we advocated and what we accomplished in the end. While Great Britain was a free trading country she could hardly give any preference or advantage to the different portions of the empire, but once she became protectionist-I pointed out the other day, Great Britain collects three times as much customs duties per capita as we do- it was then possible for her to return favour for favour, to return something for the favours which she had been receiving since 1897. I submit that the empire trade agreements negotiated in 1932 by the Bennett government were a great triumph.

Great Britain is not only the greatest market in the world, but she is a sheltered market; and that was particularly valuable once we got a preference: the preference gave us shelter. There is another point that should be considered, and that is the fact that Great Britain is a static market; in other words, her population remains practically stationary, and she does not increase her purchases from the world. She goes on buying the same amount of commodities, aside from armaments, year in and year out. It is worth remembering that it is our loss when the United States, competing with us in that market in products such as wheat, fruits and lumber, get some of our export business. If by this treaty we lose in exports to Great Britain, granting world conditions remain the same, ours will not. We would be increasing our unemployment and our distress through allowing the United States to take some of the market which previously we had enjoyed.

As I admitted a moment ago, we also wanted a trade treaty. But in seeking it we asked for it on a fair basis. We did not

attempt to get that trade treaty, or trade agreement-I am using the terms interchangeably-except on a basis of favour for favour. After all, there are many reasons why we should get fair treatment from the United States. I have before me the letters exchanged between the Canadian and United States governments in 1934. The right hon. Prime Minister quoted them the other day. I have no intention of reading all the letters, which were issued as a white paper in 1935. I suggest to any hon. members who have not read this white paper that they do so; they will find it very interesting. The letter from which I intend to quote is dated at Washington, November 14, 1934, and is signed by Hon. W. D. Herridge, who was then our representative at Washington. It is addressed to Mr. Cordell Hull, and reads as follows:

The government of Canada for many months have been giving careful consideration to the means whereby the exchange of commodities between Canada and the United States might be increased, and I have been instructed to present a statement of their views for the information of the government of the United States. The government of Canada believe that the time has come for definite action and that the declared desire of both governments to improve conditions of trade between the two countries should now be carried into effect by the negotiation of a comprehensive trade agreement.

You will recall that when the Prime Minister of Canada visited Washington in April, 1933, at the invitation of the President of the United States, the development of trade between the two countries was sympathetically discussed.

I think the right hon. Prime Minister quoted that the other day. Then lower down in his letter, Mr. Herridge says:

Since Mr. Bennett's visit, informal discussions have been carried on, and several methods of improving trade relations between the two countries have been suggested and examined.

I should like to quote further from the letter, a part which applies particularly to this discussion. It reads:

It is hardly necessary to stress the importance to both the United States and Canada of their mutual trade. For many years each country has provided the other with either its largest or its second largest foreign market.

Here is an interesting part a little further down:

During the decade ending in 1933 Canada provided a market for the products of the United States larger by one-fourth than the whole of Asia, about twice as large as Germany or all South America, nearly three times as large as France or Japan, nearly seven times as large as China, and more than ten times as large as the Soviet Union. In spite of the considerable decline in trade from the high level of 1929, Canada still provided a market in the first nine months of 1934 only slightly smaller than all Asia, nearly twice as large

Canada-U. S. Trade Agreement

as all South America or Japan, between two and three times as large as Germany or France, four times as large as China, and twenty-two times as large as the Soviet Union.

Then he continues on the next page:

In no year since 1882 have Canadian exports to the United States exceeded in value Canadian imports from the United States.

Since that was written in 1934 there have been a couple of years when Canadian exports to the United States were slightly larger than Canadian imports from the United States, but apparently those are the facts up to that time. The letter continues:

During the thirty years ending in 1933, Canada purchased in the United States almost 70 per cent of all her imports and sold in the United States only 37 per cent of all her exports. In the last decade, Canadians have spent over $1.60 in buying products of the United States for every dollar spent on Canadian products by purchasers in' the United States.

That is not a per capita comparison.

Mr. EULER:

It is a better comparison.