»< _ -1. _1.1¢ gflqflfiqm‘ I‘ J" xfw-voxgj qq-gg“ -r——- - - I=r >u3'v—\m°d‘ PAGE EIGHT ‘THE CHLRLOTTETOWN GUARDIAN Bennett‘ Turns Spotiéht 0n The Dunning Budget yJVith Devastating Result - ‘Quotes Page After Page From Hansard Showing Inconsistency Of Government Attitude And Moves Vote Of Non-Confidence For Failure To Implement Em- ployment Pledges. II. World Uompctltltin fin‘ rams the other qucflon, 111111 l p111. it lo iny friends from 1111» 110st 111 particular; the extent 1o 111111-11 this market ls retained 1111- Canadians by any method that 11111 be (lcvised within reason be- s 11 primary factor in the pros- ll8l‘il_\’ of Canada. That ls one of the reasons I am so much inter- 1111-1- 111 the immigration policies 1W1 111i; tountry- It follows that if - ("1ll' exaort trnde, as we 1d" to lose it in partr- I 1-0-11‘ seriously - under1 world i-tcnomic conditions, 1-1111 increase the num- 111-14111- uhrse 1vants we can ourselves", we certainly are d 11-1111 1111 impossible 1'. 1t is for that reason that I sugumt to my friends who 11w .~..1 c‘ norous with respect to ~ -l' 111' a 1,.';1iy' ..-_. 1.1111 :11-e the tolls paid “o 111st 1o the east. that we 11- 1<1 think in terms of the 1 of (Iniiada. I can see 101i by which we can maln- -11c integrity of Canada if we r :11 i-eniizc that. export ti'ade act! 11nd will be challeng- - :11 the next few years than '11s men helm-c, because .1'1 11111-0 t1» inert. an ever-in- rompctitioti of wages and sriinclnrds b.’ living which do not pl'("»'llll and I trust never will pre- -1 in this country. That is the ll which I put to the house ' 1111111111111. 11ml it is one that I r turd as of tremendous lfll- l)1’ll‘l1lZlr‘€. Titcre are other matters that, _t"'-ii1c 11p during the Iirogrgsg the (Lee $11111 on the reselli- 111111.», 111111 l shall not labour the point 1111111111: But I should like to i111;1i\ s 11111111 my fellow mem- bets. as i111‘ .11; it is possible for me to do so. the fact that we are I wllflItllt-“d with an actuality and not. 11'.t.l1 .1 1-112101131-3; posjfjcrh E0111" 111' 11's r10 not. .'tl\vrt_vs 11p- |)l" - of t11~~ fiscal policies or the ‘Ill’! sot-up of‘ other churn t‘ . out I know flint. in part5 Qt inr- king's douiinions they realize Hie truth of the statement I have g -! itiztric. VThcy arc putting forth Iti'l-l'—.ll(‘l‘t‘llSlllt_' efforts to ensure to their people every posglble §P~'"11'1t.v from the standpoint of lftllillll‘ b1‘ utihzlng all the machin- rrw r11‘ government to provide for l '- ‘ t‘: 1o tiic extent. of their 11b.1.1\. that. may be nationalism; it 11111_v 1111 1111-1111111; you are pleas- "(l if) v-lll it. but. if we take it. that H0vcri111: - arc responsible for thc we; 111111 hGPDlIIL-ss cf the pewtple I 1 1.11: it. 1s clear that un- IPP" VWKr-ritiiicir- (an supply the llcrtplo 111th 11111-1: them can be no liappiitcsi, 111111 11o uhimatc pros- pci-irv. 'l'l1e reason the lion. mem- bcr 111:- Daz-engiort. (Mr. MacNlcol) 1121s rivre‘: m much upon the ques- 111111. of u-ork; tho reason he has 11s m inc-so factories and look- fl"(‘.€l'l12tlllllli§ extent t0 11 wot-k 11111),‘ have been added , by rcnson of the policies been followed, taken U. K. Agreement ftis leads mc to the discussion 9f the next. matter I desire to ptcnton. the trade agreement rc- ccntiy nt-gtitiitted between Great 131:1 .1111 11nd Canada. Well, Mr. Stir-ulcer. if I were given to the use oi violent. lansrtiage I think it Wfitlltl he juslifieci as I look at hon. Wl-"Plll-"ll "lllltlsil". I wonder if tluy haze forgotten their record wi-h rcspcct to the trade agree- Iucnt with Great Britain. I am not izmng to 11o more than merely rccitt thc frtcts. An agreement ivizs entered iulo between Great Bri- t:1ii1 and C._1nnci11,___1v_l1jel1, v ggrecq lnent 1111s presented t0 this huwse for 1-1111111-11111-11. and 11f. pages '72 nnrl 73 of the jmirnuls of this 1101151‘ for 1932-311 it. will be noted that Mr. Cootc, seconded by Mr. Mitchell, moved in amendment Hint thc following words be added to thc proposed resolution: "and subject also to establish- rncnt of parity of the Cana- dian dollar with the British 110111111." In other words they wanted t0 tic the dolliir to the pound. Among those who rose in their places and supported that amendment were thc present. Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King): the hon. mem- her who is now Minister of Na- tional Defence (Mr. Mackenzl) nnd every other member of t e Liberal party then in the house. ‘Flinn came the second reading of the bill embodying the agreements. and again mcmbcrs of the Liberal patty voted against it. ‘The di- vision will be found at page 92 of the jounmls of the house for $032413. Among those who voted lgnlllnt second reading ofthe bill I find thc present Minister of Jus- tice (Mr. Lapointel, the hon. mem- ber for New Westminster (Mr. Reid), the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie), the hon. the lioii. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth), the ho11. member for Skeena (Mi Hanson). and the hon. member for Swift Current (Mr. Bothwell). 111 fact it. itught be ivell to read their names, in order that they might become immortal: Beaubien, Blair, Bothwell, Bou- ciutrd, Boulanger, Bourassa, Bra- dette. Brasset, Brown, Butcher, Casgrain, Caylcy, Ohevrier, Coote. Denis, Deslaurlers, Desi-ochers, Donncliy, Dubuc, Duff, Dumalne, Elliott, Fafard, Fcrland. Fournier, Garland (Bow River), Cloulet, Han- son iskeennt, Heenan, Howard, Homlen, Irvine, Jacobs, Jean, La- croix, Lapointe, Mitclnnis, Mac- kenzie (Vancouver Centre), Mac- Lean, Taylor, Macphail (Miss), Mc- Phee, Marc-ll, lvlotherwell, Munn. Neil, Pcrras. Poullot, Ralston, Ray- mond. Reid, Roberge, Seguin, Tot- zke, Vallauce, Weir (Macdonald), Woodsivoi-th. "The Immortal Crew" Then on the third reading a vote was once more recorded, which apIlCllfS at pages 116 and 11'! of tho journals for that year. Hon. members opposite became a little confused with the different. agree- ments. There was the agreement with the Free State. Then there was a little difficulty about the _Rhodcslan agreement; part of the Liberal party voted for that. Then came the agreement with South Africa and thcrc were some little difficulties about that as well. Then at page ll9 I find thc vote on the United Kingdom agreement, which was 84 to 42. It is just us well that the names of the im- mortal crew who maimed the ship of state at. that moment in op- position to the govcmment should be preserved for history. They were as follows: _ Bertrand, Biaid, Bothwcll, Bou- langer, Bourassa, Brown, Butcher, Caserain, Cayley. Denis, Deslauri- ers. Dcsrochcrs. Duff. Ifiliott, Euler, Factor. FPHHDG, Fist-t, gir Eugene. Fournier, Golding, Hall. Howard, Howden. Hurtubisc. King, Mac- kenzie, hliicplisiil. (Miss), McIntosh, Mckcnzic (Assiniboiu). Munn, Neill, Perras. Ralston, Reid, Rheaume, St-Pere. Sanderson, Seguin, Stew- art (Edmonton West). 'I'hauvet.te, Verville, Wooclsworth, Young. The Deadly Parallel 'I'l1ose were the immortal forty- two. They voted against the Unit- ed King-dom agreement, an agree- ment which now in terms they ask this house to adopt. In order that there may be no question on that point. I propose to put the deadly parallel upon Hansard; I propose to compare the paragraphs- from the agreement of 1932 and the paragraphs front the agreement o! today, to show that they are thc santc; the some in principle and almost indentical in words. But. in order to endeavour to save their faces they make some change in the relation of the words one to the other, though the have not changed and cannot change. I doubt whether, in the long history oi’ our institutions, within the short period of less than five years we have ever seen the spectacle of a government asking the acquiescence and approval of members of the house to a docu- ment that was in terms similar in every pi-ittciplt- to a document they voted against just a. few years before. Mr. Mackenzie King: If there hotl been a different agreement in 1932 there would have been a. dif- ferent parallel now. Mr. Bennett: Ah, yes; if thc fox had not been a fox it might have been a eat. It is hardly in keep- ing with general principles to suy that i_f ypu had not donethat and something clsc had been done we would not ltttvc what. we have to- ridv. What a tribute lo pay tn those who negotiated thc agree- ment for 1932! Mr. Mackenzie King: We would have had something a great deal better. Mr. Bennett: Well. we will sec whether or not it is better; It is identical. Mr. Mackenzie King: I say we would have had something better. Mr. Bennett: Well, Mr. Speaker, I regard that as a great compil- ment. Thc right hon. Prime Min- lster says that if we had been able to do better he would have been able to do better. That is a very nice way to put it. Well, there is this distinction between us: the right hon. gentleman says he did his best and the Minister of Finance snys he did his best, and I assume that each in his 1a.!- lottccl sphere did his best. I will assume that: it must be s0. Bill- the gencrnl principles that govern- ed them in their approach to the problem are somewhat different from those which governed us. We were charged with being bar- gaincrs and hagglcrs, and now the member for Macdonald (Mr. Weir)- princlples . Prime Minister says, "If you had only done a little better before, I would have clone better." If I had been able to bargain better before, he would have been able to do better now. But I will tell You what the trouble is: he had written a. record across the pages of Hansard, for the country to read. llc told the people of Great Britain he was opposed to the bargain nude by the late govcm- ment, because they were too hard Jipon dear old England. He told them he was prepared to give them far more latitude than we had given them-greater oppor- tunltlcs, greater freedom of op- portunity than we gave them. Now he says, "Oh. if you had only done better, I would have been able to do better." That is amusing; but it does not. end there. Let us look at it for a minutes. I will lay the clauses of both agreements section by section upon Hansard so that we may look at them. The British Prefcirencc In 1919 the Liberal party had a convention, and one of their de- claratlons was that the British preference be increased to fifty per cent. of the general tariff. 'I‘hat was the declaration of the Liberal party made to the people of Eug- land. That was the declaration they made to the world. “Give us power and office and we will give you a fifty per cent. preference over the general tariff for entry of your goods in Canada." And it did not end there. During the de- bates in the house, on October l7, 1932, as reported at page 264 the present Prime Minister said: "May I g0 a step further and say in connection with that, so that there can be no mis- take as to where we stand in the matter of British trade, and the British preference, that we would undertake to give to the trade of the Unit- ed Kingdom. where goods arc imported through Canadian ports, a British preference av- eraging flfty per cent. of our general tariff. If there is anything in this particular agreement that is comparable to that of advantage to our- selves and to British peoples in trade. I hope we will find it out before this discussion is over." That is the deelaration- not away back in the days of 1919, but. one that was made when we were discussing the agreements them- selves. That was made in 1932. Is it any wonder the British peo- ple realized that they had the promise of the Liberal party. and that. they would have a fifty per cent. reduction over the general tariff as a. preference upon their goods? That was the promise given to them at. that time. Far be it from me to suggest that the Prime Minister would not en- deavour to keep his word in that behalf. I know how anxi us he would be that it should e so, how anxious he would be that. they should have at least a fifty per cent. reduction. Alcohol and Eyewash Now I turn to the agreement tabled the other day. I can hear him say, in a moment of great mental perturbation, "I must. keep this promise and see that they have a reduction of fifty per cei1t., so that the farmers iii the west may feel that. the promise I solemnly made in 1919, repeated in thehouse in 1932 and again in 1933, has been kept and honour- ed.” And so I look at thc docu- ment. I turn to item 160 and I find these words: "Alcoholic perfumes and per- fumed spirits, bay rum, cologne and lavender waters, lotions, hair, tooth and skin washes, and other toilet preparations containing spirits of any kind (a) when in bottles or flasks containing not more than four ounces each. '30 per cent." And the old rate was 60 per cent. There is a fift-y per cent. reduc- tion. There has been no trouble about eyewash. “Alcoholic pcr- fumes and perfumed spirits, bay rum. and cologne" —so the fann- cr can say the Prime Minister has kept his word and reduced the rate by fifty per cent. "Word for Word” Now for a moment. let us con- sider the agreement. Article I sates: "The government of the Unit- ‘cd Kingdom undertakes that goods grown. produced or manufactured in Canada and consigned from any part. of the British Empire which are now free of duty, shall con- tinue to enjoy entry free of customs duty into the Utiitcd Kingdom. subject, however, to the, reservations set forth in schedule 1 appended hereto." 'I‘i1e old agreement. Article ‘l. "His Majesty's government ln the United Kingdom under- take that orders shall bc made in accordance with thc pro- visions of section 4 of the Im- port. Duties Act, 1932, which will cnsurc the continuance af- ter 15th November, 1932, of entry irec o f d u t y- into t. h e United Kingdom of goods consigned from any part. of the British Empire and grown, produced nr manufac- tured in Canada which by vir- tuc of that act are,now free of duty subject, however, to the reservations set forth in schedule A appended hereto." Schedule I. new agreement: "As regards eggs, poultry, butter, cheese nfd other milk products. the guvcmment of the United Kingdom reserve to themselves the right, if they conside it necessary in the interests of the United King- dom produoer to do so, to re- view at any time the basis of preference so far as relates to‘ the articles above eniunerated and after notifying the Can- adian govemment either impose a preferential duty on Canadian produce whilst main- taining preferential margins, or in consultation with the Can- adian government to bring such produce within any sys- tem which may be put into operation for the quantitative ‘regulation of supplies from all sources in the United Kingdom market.” The old agreement, schedule A: “As regards eggs, poultry, butter, cheese and other milk products, free entry for Cane»- dlan produce will be continued for three years certain. His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom, however, re- serve to themselves the right, after the expiration oi’ the three years, if they consider it neceaary in the interests oi’ the United Kingdom pro- ducer to do s0, to review the basis oi‘ preference so far as relates to the articles above emunerated and, after notify- ing His Majesty's govcrnmmt in Canada either to impofl a. preferential duty on Canadian produce whilst maintaining preferential margins, or in con- sultation with the Canadian governments to_ bring such produce within any system which may be put into opera- tlpn for the quantitative re- gulation of supplies from all sources in the United Kingdom , market." Word for word. differently pluc- ed, Not one change in meaning; only a transportation ‘of words. There you have the old agreement and the new agreement. It: is true that. at page 2'10 of Tunsard of 1932 the leader of the government, then in opposition, made an attack upon this sche- dulc. Kings Inconsistency Listen to his words dealing with the schedule identical with sche- dule I in the new agreement which he signed the other day. Listvll to this: “The right l1o11. Mr. Amery. 11110 represented the. cat16111- tural interests of-Britan at the imperial conference in Ott-HWB. has made the statement since his return to B11918“! m" they ought to b98511 the Work of protecting British agricul- ture immediately, and not wait fo1- any conference in the matter. They have the prin- ciplc of protection endorsed. and they ought to go ahead itimicdiatcly with further pro- tection for agriculture in Bri- tain. What ‘does this agree- ment say? It says that the British government will re- serve to itself the right to im- pose increased duties with re- spect to all these dairy pro- ducts. The only obligation with regard to Canadois possible benefit. is that a. certain mar- gin vrill be preserved in the form of a. preference; that is to say, thc duties against Can- ado. and other ports of. the em- pire will not be as high as those imposed on European countries." ls that right nowf. It. wnl de- nounced in 1932, at page 2'10 o! Hansard. It ls now submitted to the House of Commons for ap- provul in 1937. His supporters were asked lo vote against it, and. obcdlently responding, they voted against. Now. asked to vote for it. immediately rcoponslvc they vote for it. Then we turn_ Mr. Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend introduced an entirely new system. Mr. Bennett: 1 should think so, a. new system —- heads I win, tails you lose. That was the opposition against theggovernment of the day. Then at page 270 of Hansard: "Mr. Mackenzie King: Notice is served in black and white in this agreement that it proposes to impose such duties at the end of three years." Agricultural Duties To impose them we got three years certain. There is no certain term hcre. The Prime Minister of today says that that language means that that is the notice they are going to serve. and on which they will pay duties. At no previ- ous time did thc agitation with rc- spcct. to protection of agricultural interests in England rise to the point. it has i1ow reached. In its infancy then, it has now develop- ed into almost a tidal wave of sentiment in favour of it. We were told by the present Prime Minister, when leader of the op- position. that England had served pose these duties at. the cnd of three pears. Now it ls the cnd 0|’ no time-any time she feels like it. ll’ the Prime Minister meant what he said then-and surely he did- it. means that. today we have re- celvcd notice that England intends to impose duties on these products. He went further than that when he said: "Let. me answer the hon. gentleman who says they have that right. now. What they have not at. the present. time is the endorsatlon of hon. gentlemen opposite of t.l1c im- position of a duty on agricul- tural products from this coun- try. They will have that en- dorsation after hon. gentlemen ‘ omiositc have given their sup- port to this agreement, and any delegation of Canadian fart-tiers that. may go to Britain to protest against anything of thc kind will be told, as qujclg as a flash. ‘Your. own Con- servative members in the House of Commons voted in approval of thc reservation, in- rlicntivc of an intention of the British government with re. g spect to the imposition of ex- w . notice that. she propusmfwflm? " tra duties on agricultural pro- ducts?’ - Just change “Conservative? to “Iliberalr and you have it. Then be proceed: to close with than words, u reported on page I'll of Hansard: "This provision is simply prophetic of the intention of the British government to levy duties against our dairy pro- ducts inside of three years. I wonder how the farmers of this country.will view this 881'"- rnenl; as they sec the gates gradually closing against their dairy products as they g0 t0- wards the British market.“ With those prophetic words the right hon. gentleman closes his observations. Obviously 1T m” were true then, they are much truer now. We go on to the next page of the agreement. Art-MO 3 of the new agreement reads: “The government of the United iunsdwi under?!" that the goods the manutacn ture of Canada enumerated in schedule n appended helm when consigned from any pert of the British nmpirc shall not on importation into the Unit- ed Kingdom be subiwted to duties of customs higher than those specified in that sche- dule." Motor Cara Schedule II covers motor chr8- the rate of duty M1118 32 7-9 P" cent. ad valorem, and stockili83 and socks of natural slLk at. 28 2-9 per cent. ad valorem, or eight shillings pcr pound, whichever is the greater. Reed orga-ns. 111- cludlng harmonlums, are free. That is the new agreement; bl"- du "l" the old agreement provide 596ml‘ cally the same? I shall not take the time to read the whole of it. I come now to article 3 of the new agreement, which reads: “The government. of the United Kingdom undertake in respect of the goods the growth, prodllCe or manufac- ture of Canada enumerated in schedule III appended hereto that the difference between the rate of the duties of cus- toms on such goods on 1m- portatlon into the United Klng- , dom when consigned from any part of the British Empire and the rate upon similar 90°55 the growth, produce or manu- facture of any foreign coun- try shall not be less than the rates set out it1 that schedulcz" Farm Preferences The margin of preference is then indicated in favour o! Cant-dil- Schedule ILI provides for wheat. in grain; butter: cheese: apples. raw; pears, raw; and canned ap- ples. These items were all in the old agreement. Dried fruits was in the old agreement. but it ls not in the new. Then there are eggs in shcll and condensed milk. bill-h of which were in the old agree- ment. Honey is a new item in the new agreement. A large quantity o! honey comes from New Zealaud and Australia. The new schedule contains an item. “fish. fresh. sea". which was in the old lflfiflment- Then thci-e is an item, chilled or frozen salmon. which is supposed to be new. ‘The old item provided for fish, fresh, from the sen. I do not know whether you would any that frozen salmon came out of the sea. Then the new agreement provides for asbestos, zinc, lead, all of which were in the old 88"?‘ ment. A new item in the new agreement is patent leather. with the exception of the one or two new items, all the others will be found in the agreement of 1932. Schedule B of the old agrecmert provides for wheat, butter, cheese, raw apples, raw pears, canned ap- ples, dried fruits, eggs in shell. 60h- densed milk and unwrought cop- per. Artlcle 2 of the old agree- ment reads: "His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom will in- vite parliament to pass the leg- islation necessary to impose on the foreign goods specified in schedule B appended here- to, thc duties of customs shown in that schedule, in place of the duties (if any) now levi- able." The Same Terms Is there any difference between the two? I turn to Hansard to find what the right hon. gentle- man said about it. Scehdule C of the old agreement provides for fresh sea. fish, canned salmon, as- bestos, zinc and lead.‘ I put it to this house if it is made any clear- er when we say frozen salmon Mr. Dunning: Distinctly so.- Mr. Bennett: The minister says that that makes it clearer. Article 3 of the old agreement reads: "His Majesty's goverumentln the United Kingdom under- take that the general ad val- orem duty of l0 per cent. im- posed by section I of the 1m- port Duties Act, 1932, on the dule C shall not. be reduced except with the consent. of His Majesty's government in Can- ada. Mark you, the new agreement puts the same thought in a. dif- ferent language. The old agree- ment provided that the ten per cent. would not bedeult with ox- cept with the consent of the gov- ernment of Canada, and there was incorporated in the old agree- ment a provision under which the two governments could mutually agree to change thc agreement in any way which was thought desir- able. Listen to what the Prime Ivflnister, speaking then as leader of’ the opposition, said: "'We have fixed certain duties on timber. which has to do with all the work of construction, houses and the like. we have fixed certain duties on fish and other forms of food. and on coppflr and zinc, and we will not allow these duties tobe- changed ex- cept with iheconacntnotofour ownipariiunent but. of the Bri- tish government." How would we feel? Is- there one merni-rr of this house who would sup- ‘fofefgifgdddsfflpeciflefllf sane-- " port that? .1 venture to my them is not one hon. member in any of the parties who would support it. Then how can we ask the British government to support a measure which we lu our own parliament would not be prepared to support if the situation were reversed?" What is the mower today on March 2, 1937? u it any different from what it wu in October. i931? Han condition: changed? I admit that the transposition of word; ls complete. but the meaning l: the same. The right hon. gentleman goes on to may: "But the point of greatest significance in this article is this, and remember in ’ - in; on agreement we are above every-thing else endorsing the priuclples that. undarly it. This duty of ten per cent. shall not be reduced except with the consent of His lihjesty‘: gov- ernmmt-Iwharo, in Great Bri- tain? No, 1n Canada. This duty of ten per cent. which is being put upon some of the food and other necessaries of the British people cannot be reduced except with the con- sent of the government of Canada. Can anyone defend an action of that kind?" , Mr. Lapolnto Amused No wonder the lvfirllster of Jus- tice (m. Lnpclntc) smiles. Gould anyone defend that action? 'I‘i1esc are not my words; they are the words of the present Prime M111- iater speaking in his place as lead- er of the opposition. I am eer- tain there are a hundred and some odd members who are going to defend it to the hilt. Then on page 2'13 the right hon. gentleman goes on to say: "I ask lion. numbers to note that article with great care. What is schedule C? schedule C ls timber, fish, salmon. and other fish canned, asbestos, zinc and lead. I have already pointed out that. as far as zinc and lead are concerned they are in the same cate- gory as wheat, the duty only remains as long as Canada. is willing and ‘able to sell in the first instance her supply to Great Britain, and so long as aha sells it at the world price, otherwise the duty goes oi'i'. Now, as to timber, there is a small duty at the present time and that is being continued. That is practically all schedule C signifies‘ as regard tim- hers." Those are the pearly words of wisdom whleli were spoken by the right hon. gentleman, but the hon. gentlemen who cheered so loudly then will not cheer so loudly now. Mr. Mackenzie King: The applic- ation ls not the same today. Mr. Bennett: There is a great change: the right hon. gentleman ts prime minister and I am not. At least I am frank enough to ad- mit that there has been that great change. Mr. Mackenzie King: I was not referring to the agreement. I was referring to conditions as they were at that time. Mr. Bennett: Conditions are also different. In 1932 the depression was very great, while today it is not nearly so great. Article 41 of the new agreement reads: “The government of the United Kingdom undertake that: until the 19th August, 1942, tobacco grown. produced or manufactured in Canada and consigned from any part of theBrltish Empire shall enjoy on importation into the United Kingdom the existing margin of preference over foreign tobacco. so long, how- ever, as the duty on foreign unmanufacturcd tobacco does not fall below 2s. 0 l-Zd. P0!‘ pound, in which event the margin oi’ preference shall be equal to the full duty." Then thc old agreement, article 7, provided: “His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom will in- vite parliament to pass legisla- tion which will secure for a period of ten years from the date hereof to tobacco, con- signed from any part of the British Empire and. grown pro- duccd or manufactured in Can- ada, the existing margin of preference over foreign tobacco. so long. however, as the duty on foreign unmanufactured to- bacco docs not fall below 2-0 1-2d. per 1b.. in which event the margin of preference shall be equal to the full duty." Now the parliament: of Great Britain passed the Finance Act. section 7, which stabilized tobacco duties for ten years, and this new agreement maintains them untl‘. 1942, which is ten years from 1932. S0 there is no change there. Margins of Preference Then 1 find these words, and they are rather interesting. Even at that theglght hon, gentleman did not accept. the agreement: it was not satisfactory to him. Lis- ten to this: “they have now an existing margin which the article‘says may go on for ten years, but only provided parliament does not change it which it apparent- ly has the right. to do. Change it? —ln what way? ‘Bo long, however. as the duty on for- . eign uni-manufactured tobacco does not fall below 2-0 l-Zd. qper lb.’ The margin is kept only so long as the duty against foreign tobacco rc- malns at. a little over twq shil- lings per pound. If’ the Bri- tish parliament decides to re- duce that duty the margin of preference becomes equivalent to the full duty, and if- the full 1 duty is brought down by shil- ling or pence, the margin dis- appears and the rate applic- able to British Empire grown tobacco also. 0f what. benc- fit will that article be to the tobacco growers? Who will I18 a consequence of this agree- ment begin exteriding his fo- bncco plantation in Canada in order to supply thc British nurket when at any time the _the system of supply regulation; » beginning to raise pigs. British government, if it I868 fit, may reduce the duty on to- bacco, bring it down to any point, or wipe it out alto-l gether?" The right hon. gentleman has given this immortality; it l: em- balmed in the agreement in exact- ly the words of 1032. and he ask- ed the question: What good is it? I ask it now. Perhaps he will answer it now more clearly than he did then. The new agreement, article 5- 5nd this is a most interesting one ,-provldes : "The government of Canada. rc- eognizlng that it. is the present policy of the government of the Uniud Kingdom to promote the orderly marketing of bacon and hams and o! meat. in the Unlied Kingdom with duo regard to the normal development of trade, dc- clure their willingness so far as their power extends to continue to assist the government o! the United Kingdom in carryliig out this policy and, in particular, to furnish from time to tune esti- mates of forthcoming shipments of bacon and hams and cattle and beef. ' “As regards bacon and hams, the government of the United Kingdom undertake: "(l) that any duty or levy which may be imposed on bacon and hams imported into the United Kingdom shall not. apply to im- ports of Canadian bacon and hams when consigned from any part of the British Empire; "<2) that there will be no re- gulation by them of such im- ports unless the rate at which the trade from Canada progreses t0- wards two and one-half million hundred-weight per annum 111111111111 become abnormal and such as to endanger the effective working of “(Iii that no such icgulatlon would be put into effect without prior consultation with the gov- ernment of Canada. “As regards cattle and beef, the govemment of the United King- dom undertake: "t 1) that any duty or levy which may be imposed on cattle or bee! imported into the United King- dom shall not apply to imports of Canadian cattle or beef when mn- signcd from any part of the Bri- tish Empire; “<21 that, if so requested. they will make themselves responsible for Canadian interests in any In- ternatlonal Conference that. may be set up to arrange for regulating stipplies imported into the United Kingdom and will use their bent; endeavours to ensure that Canada secures an equitable share in the trade in cattle and beef: "(3) that any agreement for the setting up of such a conference, to which they may become a party, will not provide for any reduction in imports of Canadian fat cattle and beef into the United King- dom below recent levels; “t4) that any such agreement will recognize that special provi- sion may become 1 ecessary for in- creased shipments oi’ fat cattle and beef from Canada and will provide for specified reductions. if necessary, in shipments of _ chilled beer from foreign countries; "(5) that there will be no regul- atlon of imports of cattle or bee! from Canada unless, after con- sultation with the government of Canada. it appears to the govern- ment of the United Kingdom that the effective working of a gen- eral scheme for the orderly mar- keting ln the United Kingdom of meat cannot otherwise be secured." The .old agreement, article 5, says: _ "His Majesty's govcrmnent in the United Kingdom will invite parliament to pass the legislation necessary w modify the conditions at present governing the importa- tion into the United Kingdom of live cattle from Canada on the lilies already agreed upon ln prin- ciple between themselves and His Majesty's government in Canada." Bacon Quota .~ You will recall the letter from Sir John Gilmour to the Hon. Mr. Weir, then minister of agricul- turc, in which it was provided that when they had settled on the re- port that wias to be made, the pro- visions incorporated in the new agreement would become effective. and they did become effective in this country. - Article 6 oi’ the old agreement provides: "His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom declare that it is their intention to arrange as soon as possible after receiving the report of the commission now sit- ting 011 the reorganization of the pig industry in the United King- dom, for the quantitative regula- tion of the supplies of bacon and hams coming on t0 the United Kingdom nwrket and undertake that in any legislation which they may submit to parliament for rc- guloting the supplies of bacon and hams from all sources into the United Kingdom. provision will be made for free entry of Canadian. bacon and hams of good quality up to a maximum of 2,500,000 cwt. per annum." / Identicully the some. But that is not all. Is it beyond the mem- ory oi’ hon. gentlemen opposite who went throughout the country and said, when the farmers were that. It was a. mistake. that there vul nothing In thin agreement for them. that m. McLean of Canada Packers, one of their strong cup- portera, said that that provision m the agreement of 1932 mount war thirty million dollln to the Can- adian fa n? That was the position taken by Mr. Meet-eon o! Canada Packers. Let us go a. step further. The new agreement, article 6, provides: "The government of Canada un- dertake that thc goods the growth, produce or nunufmturo of the United Kingdom enumerated in schedule IV appended hereto: when conveyed without tranahipmcnt from any part of tho British En- pire enjoying the benefits of the British preferential tariff into a. sen. lake or river port of-Olnada. shall not be subjected to duties of customs higher than those speci- fied in that nhodulc." = m==fl i We have bound ourselvcg 1n new agreement with rap.“ u“ that matter. Article 0 of the to agreement continues. n" "The government of dcrtuku ll regard; m‘ growth, produce or manufacture the United Kingdom other u, those cniunerated in schedule m 1.11111, under the 511111.11 man"! tlal tariff. no new protective gm: shall be imposed and no gun?” protective duty incl-gum u "if alter an inquiry at which puma Kingdom producers Q1111; en” full rights of audience." l prpnbleaegld agreement, 11mm n. "1115 Milesty’: pvern Canada undertake glint 03183:‘, ,1“ quest of l-lls Majesty's m“; ment in the United Kklgdqm u, ' will cause a review to be made i?’ tho tariff board as soon as practicy able of the duties charged m, “f commodities specified in such 1e’. quest in accordance with the pfln. elples laid down in Article 11 h,” of and that after the receipt m the report of the tariff board there- on such report shall be laid 111-1111, parliament andparliament 11111111 b, invited to vary wherever nary the tariff new. on such, com modities oi’ United Kingdom ori- gin in such manner as to give n, feet to such principles." 1 meAgitd article l4, of the olct agree, "H15 MIJBBWI Iiivernment 1,, Canada undertake that no mm“ duty shall be increased on Unit. ed Kingdom goods except after an inquiry and the receipt of a w port from the tariff board, and h, accordance with the facts u found by that body." And article 15 of the old m“. mr-ut provided: "Hi5 MfllNl-yl! govemment i1, Canada undertake that 0111M Kingdom producers shaltbc m. titled to full rights of audiciiu before the tariff board when l: has under consideration mattm arising under Articles l3 and 1| hereof." "nlcnllcal Terms" Again the provisions arc iden. tical in terms except as to mu, a large number of items are bound in the new agreement that were bound in the old. Why] Because they were articles um were dealt with by thc provision: of other paragraphs of the agm. ment whereby, when no benefit iwcrued to the United Kingdom they agreed to drop them. Aftlcll after article was so dealt with by the finance minister during tn; years, by asking Sir William Clark to communicate with his govern. ment. to ascertain whether 111m was any reason why the article in question should continue to be bound when it served no useful purpose, and in every instance where no benefit accrued to thn United Kingdom they agreed, Those are the circumstances i: which these items have been taken out. ‘They are taken out now in. stead of waiting for cases to aria from time to time. .Do hon, gentlemen say that this affords them a. wider opportunity for iu- ture negotiations? It; may, but so far as my knawledqc goes there was not a single article in the schedule with respect to which a request was made to the British government. and which we de- sired to. deal with in some other manner. on which they were not: ready to meet us if it had not been found beneficial to and they did so. The Tariff Board Why J: the tariff board eliinin~ ated here? Why is there no pron vision with respect to it? Why ls it wiped out when the agree- ment with the United States pro- vided that the tariff board should prevail? Why is it eliminated when we placed on the statute books last year this section: “In the case of any value for duty which may be established un- dcr authority oi’ section 413, other than those provided for in sche- dule I oi’ the trade agreement sign- ed today. opportunity will be af- forded for appeal to the tariff board respecting any such value in order to ascertain and make public the finding whether. to what extent. and for what period. such value may be required to prevent the importation of the goods into Canada from prejudici- ally or injuiiously affecting the in- terests of Canadian manufactur- ers and producers." And in section 6 of chapter l9 oi’ the statutes of last year these words appear: “In the case of any value for duty established under the provis- ions oi’ this section after. the first day of January, 1988, any latter- ested person may apply to the tariff board by way of appeal therefrom." "Any interested person may all‘ ply to the tariff board." The United States has the right to s0 to the tariff board-the United States or any interested persim- But in the other instance. s11 far as England is concerned it 11015 not state what tribunal, or any tri- bunal; it. says "except after an inquiry at which United Kim;- dom ,, ‘ucers shall enjoy full rights oi’ audience." Why was ll left out‘! flu anyone suggested l reason? ' Mr. Dunning: 0h, yer-a 1:005 reason. Mr. Bennett: Why u 111111 we for the United States Incl not f0! the United Kingdom? Mr. Dunning: It is not the same thing at all. w. Bennett: Well, it may 11°’- be the sumo thing, but it. rcodfi the some and sounds the same Mr. Dunning: Oh, no. Mr. Bennett: I judge it is i! good deal like the attitude of 11011- gcntiemen opposite towards thl Ottawa. agreements; it ls a llttlf different now from what it wal in 1932. 'I‘he fact of the mutter ll that this is to be an inquiry. but His Majutyb government in Cnri- ad: have undertaken under ti" new agreement that they will 11°‘ do certain things, that ll in?“ new pl tcc-tlvc duties- Mr. Dunning: That in it. (R30 Continued).