March 7, 1930 (16th Parliament, 4th Session)


Charles Avery Dunning (Minister of Finance and Receiver General)



When the Australian
treaty was entered into-and it must be remembered that Australia does not, and never has extended her full British preference to Canada-New Zealand requested that its provisions, in so far as they were more beneficial to her, should be extended by Canada. That was done under the order in council which is being discussed. As I said a few moments ago, during the past year numerous industries in Canada have urged upon the government the desirability of a definite trade treaty with New Zealand in order that more Canadian products might be exported to that country under more favourable terms. The government of New Zealand has been made aware of the desire of the Canadian government to negotiate a treaty with them at as early a date as possible. Communications to that end are not complete.
It is not an easy thing, Mr. Speaker, to discuss matters of this kind between sister

Australian Treaty-Mr. Dunning
dominions of the British Empire over the many thousands of miles of land and sea that intervene, with neither dominion having diplomatic representation in the capital of the other. AVe find very much more difficulty in negotiating matters of this kind as to our sister dominions in which we have no diplomatic representation than we do, for instance, with Great Britain, France, the United States and Japan where each country is definitely represented in a diplomatic manner in the capital of the other.
I do not intend to go further by way of informing the house at the present time as to negotiations, except to convey to the house, on behalf of the government, that the government of New Zealand is aware of the desire of the Canadian government to negotiate a definite trade treaty with that country.
I ask, Mr. Speaker: Is it a good preliminary to negotiations with another country for this house to adopt a resolution such as that moved by my hon. friend from Haldimand (Mr. Senn), to say definitely we will rescind forthwith the arrangement that we have now, regardless of its usefulness to them or its usefulness to us, and that we will start from that basis to negotiate a new treaty? This government does not believe that course would be desirable. I know the argument that my hon. friend, the leader of the opposition is going to put forward. Lawyerlike, he proposes to point out to me that the benefits of the Australian treaty were extended to New Zealand, and that among those benefits is clause 5 of the treaty, which states that six months' notice must be given by either party for abrogation of the treaty; and instead of meaning literally what his resolution says, that the order in council should be rescinded forthwith; he will argue that it will only mean that something will happen six months from now, but I would point out to the house-

Full View