QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE

Mr. HENRI BOURASSA (Labelle) (Translation) :: Mr. Speaker, In yesterday's Hansard, I find the following words in the speech of the hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Sauve):
The hon. member for Labelle stated yesterday: "But I am in favour of closer relations between Canada and the other parts of the Empire; trade relations with the other component parts of the Empire and especially with Great Britain, but not when Tories are governing."
The words which are attributed to me are enclosed betiveen quotation marks.
Now, not only have I never uttered such words nor anything near, but they are entirely contrary to my thoughts and arguments stated in the speech where the hon. Postmaster General contends he found them.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk).

Mr. DESLAURIERS:: 1.	What is the name of the person appointed to take the place of Mr. C. A. Goyette, K.C., returning officer in Ste. Marie, Montreal?
2.	On u'hose recommendation was he appointed?


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: 1.	Antonio Brien, notary, of Montreal, Que.
2.	The selection and the appointment were made by the chief electoral officer.


SQUATTECK, QUE., POSTMASTER
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	What is the name of the present postmaster of Squatteck, county of Temiscouata?
2.	On what date was he appointed?
3.	Was he first appointed as temporary?
4.	If so, on what date?
5.	Did other persons apply for said position?
6.	If so, did the department receive applications from veterans of the Great war, and on what dates, and what are their names?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Mrs. Annette Lebel Pelletier.
2.	August 25, 1932.

Questions
3.	No.
4.	See answer to No. 3.
5 and 6. No applications were received from returned soldiers prior to the transfer of the office. Mr. Odina Morin, O.A.S., applied on the 26th September.


NOTRE DAME DU LAC, QUE., POSTMASTER
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Did Mr. Dominique Cote, a veteran of the Great war apply for the position of postmaster of Notre Dame du Lac?
2.	If so, what percentage in points was allotted to him by the inspector of the Post Office Department: (a) previous to March 24, 1932; (b) after said date?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) 85 per cent, (b) 75 per cent.


SULLY, QUE., POST OFFICE
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Was Mr. Isidore Jean of Sully, notified that the post office of said locality would be transferred to him?
2.	If so, by whom, and on what date?
3.	Did the Post Office Department receive an answer from Mr. Isidore Jean?
4.	If so, what was that answer and on what date was it received by the Post Office Department?
5.	Was the post office of Sully transferred to said Isidore Jean?
0.	Is said Isidore Jean a veteran of the Great war?
7.	Was he recommended to the Post Office Department by the private secretary of the Prime Minister and the private secretary of the Minister of Pensions?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	By the district superintendent, Quebec, on the 2nd July, 1932.
3 and 4. In a letter to the district superintendent dated the 4th July, 1932, Mr. Jean stated he would be ready to take charge on the 9th July, 1932.
5.	No. Following the examination by an officer of the department, candidate Jean was considered not sufficiently qualified to conveniently manage the office.
6.	Yes.
7.	Letters from or on behalf of Isidore Jean were transmitted but no recomendation was made.


NATURALIZATION OF CHINESE
Mr. MacINNIS:: 1.	How many Chinese have been naturalized in Canada from January 1, 1931, to June 30, 1932?
2.	How many have been naturalized in each province during this period?
3.	How many Japanese have been naturalized in Canada from January 1, 1931, to June 30, 1932?
4.	How many have been naturalized in each province during this period?


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: 1.	Thirty-one.
2.	Alberta, 9; British Columbia, 2; Quebec, 7; Ontario, 13.
3.	Nine.
4.	Alberta, 8; Ontario, 1.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. LAURIN:: For a copy of all telegrams, correspondence, letters, reports and all other documents exchanged between the Department of Agriculture at Ottawa, and the Quebec government, since 1921, in connection with the English embargo on our potatoes and cattle.


ST. LAWRENCE WATERWAY
Joseph-Georges-Philippe Laurin: For a copy of all telegrams, correspondence, letters and all other documents, exchanged between the dominion government and the Quebec government, since 1921, in connection with the development of the Quebec water-powers and the St. Lawrence waterways.


REPATRIATION OF CANADIANS
Joseph-Georges-Philippe Laurin: For a copy of all telegrams, correspondence, letters, reports and other documents exchanged between the dominion government and the Quebec government, since 1921, in connection with the bringing back of Canadians from the United States.


FARM COOPERATION CONFERENCES
Joseph-Georges-Philippe Laurin: For a copy of all telegrams, correspondence, letters and documents exchanged between the Department of Agriculture at Ottawa, and the Quebec government, since August, 1930, in connection with interprovincial conferences at Ottawa and Toronto on the methods of farm cooperation.


UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF-QUEBEC
Joseph-Georges-Philippe Laurin: For a copy of all telegrams, corespondence, letters, reports and other documents exchanged between the Director of Unemployment at Ottawa, and the Quebec government, in connection with the application of the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act of 1930, 1931, and 1932.


UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF-AYLMER, QUEBEC
Joseph-Georges-Philippe Laurin: For a copy of all telegrams, correspondence, letters and other documents exchanged between the Director of Unemployment and the Quebec government, in connection with unemployment relief in the town of Aylmer, Quebec, since 1930.
Russian Oil Shipments


IMPERIAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE
Joseph-Georges-Philippe Laurin: 
Joseph-Georges-Philippe Laurin: For a copy of all telegrams, correspondence, reports, letters and other documents exchanged between the dominion government and the Quebec government, in connection with the reorganization of the Beauharnois Light, Heat and Power Company.


BACK TO THE LAND MOVEMENT
Joseph-Georges-Philippe Laurin: For a copy of all telegrams, correspondence, letters, reports and other documents exchanged between the dominion government and the Quebec government, in connection with the back to the land movement, since 1930.


HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR CANADA
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. G. SANDERSON (South Perth):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to direct a question to the Prime Minister. As I see he is not in his seat I will address the question to his first lieutenant, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie): Why, in view of the importance of the trade between Canada and Great Britain resulting from the Imperial economic conference, is the Hon. Howard Ferguson, high commissioner, still in Canada? Is he on leave of absence, and if so, when will he return to his duties in London?


Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice):: As I am not aware of the reasons
I will have the question answered tomorrow when the Prime Minister returns.


RUSSIAN OIL SHIPMENTS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. IAN MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: In the absence of the Prime Minister I desire to ask a question of the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie). I see in this morning's press a heading, Second Soviet Oil Shipment Arrives. Would the government be good enough to give the name of the consignor and consignee of this second cargo of oil, and also indicate if it is now the policy of the government to countenance such shipments?


Hugh Guthrie: I think I will have to allow that
[Mr. Laurin.l
matter to stand until the Prime Minister returns tomorrow. It is entirely beyond my knowledge.
RADIO COMMISSION On the orders of the day:


Mr. P. F. CASGRAIN (Charlevoix-Sague-nay):: Is there any truth in the report
appearing in the press today that tire new radio commission is expected to take over the radio branch under Commander C. P. Edwards, now operating under the Department of Marine?


Hon.   M A GRICE DUPRE@Acting Minister of Marine: We have heard nothing about
this report. This is the first we have heard of it.
NEW GOVERNMENT LOAN On the orders of the day:


Hon. W. D. EULER (North Waterloo):: I would like to address a question to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) based on a communication received from the Business Men's Association of the city of Kitchener. It has to do with the report that the government is about to issue a new loan. That organization expresses its opinion that it would be inopportune to issue a loan at the present time, as it would interfere with business, which is particularly undesirable at this time of year, the holiday season. I would like to ask the Minister of Finance if he has any statement to make in regard to the matter.


Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance):: Obviously I could not give a categorical answer to the query of my hon. friend from North Waterloo, except to say that if and when there is an announcement to be made it will be made immediately.


William Daum Euler: Is there a possibility of it?


CHATEAU LAURIER-PRIME MINISTER'S SUITE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. ARTHUR DENIS (St. Denis) (Translation) :: Mr. Speaker, the house would like
to be informed whether, since the Canadian National Railway has changed its administration board, the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) pays the same price for his suite in the Chateau Laurier.


Hugh Guthrie: I cannot give any answer to my hon.
friend as I know nothing about it.

Trans-Canada Highway


ST. WALBURG-RED CROSS-LOON LAKE BRANCH LINE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. CAMERON R. McINTOSH (North Battleford):	I have a question to direct to
the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion). I understand the business men and farmers of Loon Lake and district have petitioned the minister, on account of the bountiful crop in that part of the north to steel the sixty-nine miles of grade between St. Walburg and Loon Lake.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Stealing?


Mr. McINTOSH:: I am not accusing the
minister of stealing but still I want him to steel this grade. Further I understand that the only Canadian National director Saskatchewan has, when in Loon Lake recently, made the definite statement that the farmers and shippers of that district should and would have that grade steeled immediately. May I ask the minister whether in view of what I have said he has any statement to make to the house and the country in connection with the steeling forthwith of those sixty-nine miles of grade?


Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways) :: Those sixty-nine miles of grade are
in exactly the same position as a great deal of the rest of the branch line proposals brought forward in the past. They will be considered by the management of the railway, and when the management of the railway recommends to the government what we should do with them we will have to deal with the question.


TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. PETER HEENAN (Kenora-Rainy River):: Inasmuch as the Solicitor General
(Mr. Dupre), speaking on behalf of the government last night, announced a general election-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Peter Heenan: -it encourages me to ask the government what I know they ought to be in a position to announce now, whether or not they have arrived at a written arrangement yet with respect to the building of the national highway, especially through northern Ontario.


Hon. MAURICE DUPRE (Solicitor General) :: As far as the election goes-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: When is it coming?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: We are ready!


Maurice Dupré: -I may say that I was not well-interpreted. I did not fix any date. And when I saw the fright on the faces of hon. gentlemen opposite I thought I had better correct that statement, and say (that we might not have an election before one or two or three years. I hear laughter from the other side, but may I tell my friends opposite that they should keep cool, because they should remember, if I may say so, that there is no more Beauharnois.


An hon. MEMBER:: You drew just as much as the others from it. What about that 8750,000 of Bennett's?


Peter Heenan: Now that the government has once more changed its mind with regard to an election-


Mr. GOTT:: You should be the last man to want one.


Peter Heenan: Sometimes the last shall be first and the first last. I wonder if I might get an answer to the question I put, as to whether or not this government has arrived at any decision with regard to the construction of the trans^Canada highway, especially through northern Ontario.


Hugh Guthrie: I think that matter pertains to the department of my hon. friend the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) who is not in his seat now. When he comes in I will ask him to answer my hon. friend.


PRECEDENCE OF BILLS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. THOMAS REiID (New Westminster): I should like to direct a question to you, Mr. Speaker, having to do with bills appearing on the order paper. The other day a bill of mine appeared in the votes and proceedings proposing an amendment to the Railway Act, and I should like to ask if you are now prepared to give a ruling in this connection, especially with regard to bills which are filed with the clerk. Will they be taken in order when they are placed upon the order paper during the winter session?
Mr. SPEAKER:: On October 10th the following resolution was passed by the house:
That on and after Monday, 10th instant and every day thereafter, government notices of motion and government orders shall have
Wheat Bonus

precedence over all business except questions by members and notices of motion for the production of papers.
Under standing order 15 the introduction of bills is treated as business. A public bill would have to appear on the order paper before government business and therefore, by the resolution under which the house is operating, is precluded from the order paper. Notices of motion are on the order paper after government business; a public bill cannot be so placed on the order paper. Bills are not in any way prejudiced by being left off the order paper until they can be dealt with. When that time arrives they will at once be placed on the order paper.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: I think the question of the hon. menfber for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) went a little beyond what is indicated in Your Honour's reply. The main point is whether the bills, when they appear on the order paper, will appear in the order in which they are sent in to the clerk. We understand that they will be placed on the order paper, but will they lose their priority?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I will see to it that they do not lose priority and that they are presented in the order they are filed.


WHEAT BONUS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JOHN VALLANCE (South Battle-ford) :: Mr. Speaker, I am in receipt of further telegrams, which I do not propose to read, dealing with the matter to which I referred yesterday. I should like to aSk the government if they have any announcement to make in this connection. I think probably the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) and the other western ministers are receiving these communications as well.


Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: In the absence of the Prime Minister no further statement can be made in that connection to-day.


MONTREAL POSTAL TERMINAL
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. FERNAND RINFRET (St. James):: Mr. Speaker, I understand that a large amount of money is included in the estimates for the current year for the erection of a postal terminal in Montreal. May I inquire either from the Postmaster General (Mr. Sauve) or the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Stewart) what is being done in the matter?


Hon. H. A. STEWART (Minister of Public Works):: In reply to my hon. friend, who is greatly interested in this matter, I can only say that there is not much prospect of this work being proceeded with during the present-fiscal year.


IMPERIAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, October 19, consideration of the motion of Right Hon. R. B. Bennett (Prime Minister) for approval of the trade agreement entered into at Ottawa the 20t)h day of August, 1932, between representatives of His Majesty's government in Canada and of His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom, subject to the legislation required in order to give effect to the fiscal changes consequent thereon.
Maurice Dupré: Mr. Speaker, in his very eloquent speech the Liberal leader (Mr. Mackenzie King) stated that the British representatives had agreed to this treaty because they had been compelled to do so. I ask the people of my province, my friends of Le Devoir and the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) what they think of that argument advanced by my right hon. friend, when for years we Conservatives have been aocused in the province of Quebec of being too much pro-British. This is simply one more inconsistency on the part of our Liberal friends. They have two monopolies, the monopoly of inconsistencies and the monopoly of constitutional questions. As the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion) said the other day in his picturesque way, they are expert at constitutional shadowboxing- My friends opposite from Quebec will remember a word quite commonly used in our colleges, "des sparages." _ Well, I think the Liberal leader will go down in history with his constitutional sparages. It is what we call in French "un tic nerveux." May ^ I direct the attention of my right hon. friend-oh, very respectfully-to the words used by the hon. member for Labelle, who said:
I hope he will allow me, as an old man to tell him that there is something childish in his reiteration that there should be no bargaining between Canada and Great Britain.
Across the way I see my friends from the province of Quebec, the hon. member for Oharlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Casgrain), my hon. friend from Belleehasse (Mr. Boulanger), my hon. friend from Beauce (Mr. Lacroix), my hon. friend from Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot)

and others, and to them I say this: I challenge you to come to my province and repeat what you have said here, that the Conservatives have been too hard on the British, that we have been too anti-British. What have we done? We have increased the British preference, which-the Liberal leader says-was introduced by the Liberal party. This agreement is for five years, while other agreements brought about by the Liberal party were for four years and on up to twelve years. Even the Anglo-German agreement was for five years, with twelve months' notice of abrogation. By article 23 a safeguard is provided to care for unforeseen complications. That article reads:
In the event of circumstances arising which, in the judgment of His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom or of His Majesty's government in Canada, as the case may be, necessitates a variation in the terms of the agreement, the proposal to vary those term* shall form the subject of consultation between the two governments.
It is a sort of safety valve:
The freedom of parliament is not imperilled:	every parliament of the empire
is at liberty to ratify or not to ratify the agreement-; and it will not cause unfavourable reaction in the other markets of the world. But the Liberals say that we arc wrong. Of course we are wrong. Wrong also is Ramsay MacDonald, wrong are Stanley Baldwin, Neville Chamberlain, Lord Hailsham, Sir John Simon and all the Simonites who belong to the Gladstonian school; wrong also the parliaments of Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, the Irish Free State, Rhodesia, and all the other dominions who will ratify the agreements; wrong also four-fifths of the British House of Commons who will ratify the agreement by an overwhelming majority. But right, quite right, are Mr. Scullin, Mr. Lans-bury, Sir Herbert Samuel, the Liberal leader, and the two spokesmen of yesterday for the Liberal cause, the ex-Secretary of State (Mr. Rinfret) and the hen. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot). Here are the eighty just judges of the Bible. As my colleague, the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manien) said, we are the wicked Tories. Hon. gentlemen opposite are condemning this agreement and asking what it means. Well, it means larger markets and preferences for our farmers, our fishermen, our lumbermen, our miners and manufacturers. It means, in the words of Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, that the forthcoming world economic conference could not have been held had the Ottawa parley failed. It means, in the words of Mr. Chamberlain, a solid foundation for empire prosperity that
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
would be reflected throughout the world. It means that in line with this agreement with Canada the British government has already given notice that it will abrogate its most favoured nation trade pact with Soviet Russia. Will t.he farmer, the manufacturer and the lumberman complain if the Ottawa agreement has caused Great Britain to abrogate her trade pact with the soviets?
At the beginning of the conference, during its progress and at the closing, our opponents were repeating-rather, I should say, they were hoping-that the Prime Minister and his party would not succeed in the endeavour bo have Great Britain abolish her trade pact with the soviets. Thanks to clause 21, which has been laughed at by our opponents and declared unworkable, this has been done; and on that count, Mr. Speaker, as on many other counts, I think that my right hon. leader was right in saying: "we have dene well."
When the Liberal party has a bad cause or a lost cause to defend, it has recourse to a very eloquent voice; the voice of a man whom I admire more than I trust his prayers. It is the voice of my distinguished friend from Quebec East. He is a sort of idealist, and his theory is this: Give everything but do not exact anything in return. But when Great Britain gave to my leader the answer for which Sir Wilfrid Laurier had been waiting since 1897, I think that my hon. friend from Quebec East should have congratulated the Conservative Prime Minister.
There is one point which I think should be cleared up today. In his speech the hon. member for Quebec East took strong exception to our policy of protection. After having quoted the Prime Minister, he said, in one of his most beautiful periods, and with his clenched fist in the air, "We belong to another school." To what school does the ex-Minister of Justice belong? To the school of free trade? The hon. gentleman denounced protection before making this declaration. But I do not see why, because the Liberal party has never, under the great Laurier or under its present leader, dared to apply squarely the doctrine of free trade in this country.
"We belong to another school," says the exMinister of Justice. Let us believe him for the sake of argument; and he added, "I, for one, am opposed to this treaty and to the agreement." I reply, let us suppose that the agreements were drafted in such a way as to please the so-called school of the exMinister of Justice. What would happen? The tariff would be lowered to the detriment of all Canadian products, and the first in-

i	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
dustry to suffer would be the boot and shoe industry of Quebec city, where the electors of the hon. member for Quebec East and my own electors earn their daily bread.
In his speech the day before yesterday the ex-Minister of Justice, deeply moved, with tremolos in his voice and in the orchestra around him, exclaimed, Ministeis of the crown have resigned in Great Britain because they could not accept these agreements." If the treaty between the Dominion of Canada and the United Kingdom had been drafted on the principles of the so-called school of my hon. friend from Quebec East and based on free trade, I, for one, would not have accepted it; I would have disagreed with my colleagues and tendered my resignation to my right hon. leader; because I believe that if these agreements were based on the doctrine of the free trade school the industries of my constituency and of my country would have gone on the same rocks on which the Liberals wanted the conference to be wrecked. Surely the ex-Minister of Justice was not serious when he suddenly let us think that he was ready to sacrifice the industries of his own constituency and I am surprised that the statue of the great Sir Wilfrid Laurier did not fall from its pedestal when his spirit heard the language of his beloved disciples.
If Sir Wilfrid could come back I know he would take his two friends, the leader of the Liberal party (Mr. Mackenzie King) and his principal lieutenant, the member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) by the hands and in his suave voice and grand manner say to them: " My dear Ernest, my dear Bill, when you talk about protection and free trade please use the soft pedal and do not make it too thick. Remember, my dear friends, when I succeeded Blake I advocated free trade but after 1896, when I came into power, I realized that this doctrine could not be applied because it would have proved to be dangerous to the life of this country." Taking them by the arm Sir Wilfrid would add: "Do not forget that in 1911 when I lost power the tariff duties were higher than they were when I came into power in 1896." Then the grand old man would take his two friends to the Hansard room and say: "My dear Ernest, my dear Bill, look at what the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) said when speaking on Tuesday last." He would open Hansard and in a quiet voice read to his friends the following words of the hon. member for Labelle:

I do not want to be disagreeable, but perhaps it would be more prudent on the part of the right hon. gentleman-
Sir Wilfrid would add: "That really means you, Bill and Ernest"-
-not to speak too much of principles and doctrines in matters of tariff. I have had close connections with the Liberal party for many years past, and the conclusion is forced upon me that the only fiscal policy to which that party has adhered during the last forty years is to advocate free trade when_ in opposition and to practice protection when in power.
During the past two years the word "humbug" has been hurled at us across the floor. During these attacks we remained cool and undisturbed because we were convinced that sooner or later our day would come. Twenty-two months later that day has come; and the right hon. gentleman from Great Britain who originated the word was one of the first to say before he left the capital city of this dominion that the conference had been a success. Let us read the oratorical and well-scanned sentences of the speech of the leader of the Liberal party; let us go through the eloquent sentences of the former Minister of Justice; let us peruse the high sounding phrases of the former Secretary of State (Mr. Rinfret); let us glance at the "bon mots" of the hon. member for Temiseouata (Mr. Pouliot), and what do we discover? We find that all this opposition to the proposed agreement is nothing but humbug. This opposition is brought about by the fact that we and not they have succeeded.
During the sombre days of 1914 when we were passing through a political crisis the then leader of the Liberal party offered the services and cooperation of his party to the then Prime Minister. He did that for Canada and for the empire. Today we are facing an enonomic crisis and I submit that the present leader of the Liberal party should repeat the patriotic gesture of his former chieftain. We are building for the generations to come and we want a spirit, not of destruction, but of cooperation-we do not want malignant criticism.
I shall make my last appeal to hon. friends opposite and to the men and women of goodwill of this dominion, whether Conservative, Liberal, Progressive or Labour, and say to them: Let us be patriots, let us forget about politics and think more of our country.


Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Shelburne-Yar-mouth):: Mr. Speaker, in order that the points to which I want to refer particularly may be before the house and the country, I beg to

United Kingdom
move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) the following:
That all the words after "that" be struck out and that the following words be inserted instead thereof:
1.	In respect of the trade agreement entered into at Ottawa the 20th day of August, 1932, between representatives of His Majesty's government in Canada and of His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom, this house -welcomes such terms of the agreement as propose the reduction of existing duties, as well as those which in any way tend to increase the possibilities of greater demand for Canadian products.
2.	This house emphatically condemns the features of the agreement which show increases in an already unreasonably high tariff.
3.	This house disapproves in the strongest terms of the effect of the agreement whereby the present government has precluded Canada from exercising the right which is vital to prosperity of the dominion of making trade agreements for the marketing of her products abroad.
4.	The house learns with greatest concern that the agreement gives no definite assurance that regulation by order in council imposing arbitrary and wholly unwarranted restrictions on tra.de will be abandoned.
5.	That this house reaffirms the principle of British preference which has been the policy of the Liberal party since 1897 and is convinced that had the tariff provisions of May 1, 1930, prevailed Canadian products would have enjoyed advantages in British markets immeasurably greater than any which they can hope to obtain under the proposed agreement.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Does any hon. member
wish to speak on the point of order that I understand has been raised?
There is no doubt in my mind that under standing order 48 this motion can be amended. The original motion before the house approves the trade agreement entered into at Ottawa 20th August, 1932, between representatives of the government of Canada and of the government of the United Kingdom. The amendment proposed both approves and disapproves of the agreement. It is out of order for the following reasons:
Paragraph 1 expresses approval of the agreement and is already covered by the main motion. It suggests no change in and does not alter the main motion. It is not an amendment.
Paragraphs 2 and 3 are direct negatives of part of the main motion and so are not in order. Authority for this may be found in May, thirteenth edition, page 286.
Paragraphs 4 and 5 affirm general principles which cannot be moved as amendments to motions of this sort but which could be moved on other occasions. May, Bourinot and Redlich indicate that the only motions upon which amendments declaratory of prin-
53719-25J
eiple may be moved are motions for an address in reply to the speech from the throne, motions to go into committee of ways and means and supply and for the second reading of public bills. This will be found in May at pages 173, 390 and 525; in Bourinot at pages 97, 504 and 419, and in Redlich, third volume, at pages 89 and 108. I therefore find the amendment to be out of order.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As regards
paragraph 1, I am not sure whether I caught Your Honour's words correctly, but I understand Your Honour is ruling the amendment out of order because, among other reasons, paragraph 1 expresses approval of the agreement. If that is what Your Honour alleges, I respectfully beg to differ. The amendment does not express approval of the agreement; it expresses approval of certain clauses, certain terms of the agreement, but not of the agreement.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Perhaps I should have
said that it approves part of the agreement.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is right.


James Layton Ralston: If my hon. friend (Mr. Dupre) who has just sat down will excuse me, I shall not attempt to follow him in his discussion of the motion, my principal reason being this, that it seems to me what the country needs at this time is to understand what is in the agreement, I have noticed that, generally speaking, hon. gentlemen opposite have kept about as far away from the contents of the agreement as they possibly can. They have talked about local matters, discussed personalities, I mean in a good humoured political way, but they have kept clear of the real implications of the agreement, which, I submit, is the purpose of the motion which has been made by the Prime Minister.
We are indebted to the Prime Minister for a very exhaustive review of certain features of the agreement. I with others regret most sincerely that he saw fit almost from the opening sentences of his remarks, in contrast with the appeal which has just been made by the Solicitor General (Mr. Dupre) for cooperation, to do all the damage he could to an appeal of that kind by boasting that they had succeeded where we had failed; that he would not attempt to deride this party, although that of course is exactly what he intended to do, and generally speaking he endeavoured to leave and did leave the impression, at least m his own mind, that he had succeeded in doing something and that there had been complete failure on this side of the house. I shall not take time to read what I think my right hon. leader has already read in the house of
388	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
the opening remarks of the leader of the government. What I want to say to him is this, that if it be failure to forebear to tie hand and foot this country and render it unable to negotiate trade agreements for the next five years in respect to two hundred and twenty-three items of the tariff schedule, then we have failed and my right hon. friend is entitled to any credit he cares to take for what success he may have had. If it be failure to decline to put on the backs of the people of this country any further tariff impositions, we have failed and my right hon. friend is welcome to that satisfaction also. If it be failure to forebear to enter into arrangements or discussions which result in such head lines as I see in the English newspapers before me, one or two of which I want to put on record, then we have failed and there my right hon. friend again is welcome to any credit he claims for what he has done. I have many of these headings, but these are a few. This is a heading which appeared in the Financial News in England on August 10. This is with regard to a conference between sister nations of the commonwealth, a conference where all was good will and where peace and harmony was supposed to reign. This is the heading:
Canada blocks the way at Ottawa. Other dominions ready to help British trade. Indignation among delegates.
This is from the Star of August 17:
Mr. Bennett's bluff called at long last. Ottawa ends at noon on Saturday. Useful lessons learned by the British. Canada foiled. Somersault show that did not amuse. In conference circles most people agree with me that the British made a mistake in not calling Mr. Bennett's bluff earlier.
If the Liberal party failed to put Canada in that position in the daily press we confess failure. If the Prime Minister is proud of provoking newspaper references of that kind, then he is entitled to the satisfaction he may get out of so doing. I do not know why my right hon. friend said that. One minute he is appealing to high sentiments of patriotism; in the next moment he is descending, as I really think the Prime Minister did, and appealing to party passion, and the next moment again he addresses an appeal to us to cooperate with the government. He has had his fling. We shall take him in his Doctor Jekyll and Mr. Hyde character. Le us look at him from the point of view of Dr. Jekyll and examine this agreement in the cold grey dawn of the morning after, where the tumult and shouting has died, and after the press reports have gone out. He has certainly had a splendid press. Let us look at the agreement and see what is in it. What .is the
[Mr. Ralston.1
achievement which my right hon. friend is supposed to have attained?


An hon. MEMBER:: Apples.


James Layton Ralston: 
James Layton Ralston: My dear friend, nobody
is sore. I do not know' of anybody Who has tried to keep away from the conference any more than my hon. friends on this side under my right hon. leader, and what hon. gentlemen opposite are disappointed about is that the Liberals never opened their mouths about the conference from start to finish. They just let the government go on in its own way.
Let us look at the agreement for a moment. Taking it in the spirit of give and get, the spirit of bargaining, which is supposed to be the up to date method, what do we get? Article 1 provides that free entry is guaranteed to Canada of the goods which are mentioned in the Import Duties Act. Note this, Mr. Speaker, that article 1 guarantees a continuance of free entry of the articles on which duties were placed under the Import Duties Act, but what I do note is this: Article 1 does not guarantee to Canada a margin of preference in respect of the goods on which duties are imposed against the outside world under that act. It simply says: You are entitled to free entry. I have read the Prime Minister's speech from end to end, and I cannot find anywhere that the Prime Minister has suggested or has made the statement that Canada is to have the margin of preference represented by the difference between free entry and the amount of duty imposed against the rest of the world. I think the house and the country is entitled to have the Prime Minister or some member of his government say w'hether or not there is, outside of this agreement itself, any understanding of any kind on which we can rely, with anybody who is in a responsible position, that Canada can depend that the present duties being imposed under the Import Duties Act against the rest of the world on these goods, will be continued. Or is it possible that Great Britain, although admitting Canadian products free, is at liberty to admit the same products from any other part of the world free, thus
390	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
destroying the preference? I understand that that contention is being made in at least some of the newspapers in Great Britain. I think it is most important that we should know just what the fact is in that regard. I do not see how we can possibly go on and consider what is really in this agreement until we know that. I am not treating the agreement in the strictly legal sense that every "t" has to be crossed and every "i" dotted, although a great many eminent lawyers came over to the conference and the agreement was pretty well buttressed up in one way or another. I do not know whether there has been any slip here, but I think we are entitled to know. The question is: Is Canada entitled to a preference in respect of the goods mentioned in article I? If not, if Great Britain can lower or cancel the duty on the goods mentioned in article 1, there is precious little benefit for Canada in the whole of that article. My right hon. friend the Prime Minister put on Hansard the other night a very long list of articles which he said would go from Canada to Great Britain under the provisions of article 1. That list will be found at page 116 of Hansard. For instance, can the 20 per cent duty be struck off wire and wire nails as against the outside world and thus destroy Canada's preference? And so with respect to the other sixty or seventy odd items on pages 116 and 117 of the Prime Minister's speech. That is the first point. What do we get in this article? I do not know. We get the guarantee of free entry of these goods. Is anybody going to suggest that we would not have got it anyway, supposing the Dunning budget had been in force? Do you think Great Britain would have imposed a duty against the Dominion of Canada after the preferences that have been extended year after year and after the way Great Britain herself has acted in giving us preferences from time to time as she put duties in force? Certainly not. But my friends consider that they should be credited with a great achievement because they have got Mr. Chamberlain solemnly to sign a document declaring that we shall continue to have free entry for goods for which we have had free entry right along.
Following that out, have we any guarantee that Great Britain will keep up the duties? Looking at article 3, we find that there is a provision that the duties on certain goeds specially mentioned therein shall not toe reduced. What is the obvious inference? That on the goods that are not mentioned in article 3 the duties may be reduced, that Great Britain may cancel the duties upon those
(Mr. Ralston.J
goods at any time. I point again to the fact that the right hon. Prime Minister in a written statement was most particular never once to state that there was any obligation on Britain to maintain its duties against the world on the goods mentioned in article 1 except the commodities specified in schedule C.
As far as article 2 is concerned, that has to do with some special commodities. There is an intimation that certain duties will be imposed against goods from outside, goods which Canada produces. Included in them are wheat in grain, apples, copper, condensed milk and other things. There again, strangely enough there is nothing in that article to intimate that, parliament having been invited to put on the duty, is bound to keep it on for five years. And when you come to look at the clause which indicates that duties cannot be reduced, you find article 3, which only deals with goods enumerated in schedule C, and which is the only clause which expressly provides that Great Britain shall not reduce duties.
But what happens with regard to Canada? Look at article 9. There is no doubt about Canada having to maintain the margin of preference. It is right in the book. Our friends in Great Britain knew my right hon. friend, they had done business with him, they said, "We are going to have this in the document, if there are agreements they are going to be in the bond, no gentleman's agreements."
Article 9 provides:
His Majesty's government in Canada will invite parliament to pass the legislation necessary to substitute for the duties of customs now leviable on the goods specified in schedule F, the duties shown in that schedule, provided that nothing in this article shall preclude His Majesty's government in Canada from reducing the duties specified in the said schedule so iong as the margin of British preference shown in that schedule is preserved or from increasing the rates under the intermediate or genera! tariff set out in the said schedule.
There is no doubt about that. Where will you find that same clause regarding Great Britain's undertaking respecting our goods going in there?
But, Mr. Speaker, let us suppose it is for five years, I ask again, is there any hon. gentleman in this house who will suggest that Great Britain would not have given that preference had the tariff schedule of May 1, 1930, been in force at the time this agreement was made? What would have happened is, I submit, that there would not have been a clause in the Import Duties Act restricting the preference to November 15,

United Kingdom
1932.	Automatically we would have received a preference at the time the Import Duties Act was passed.
Now those are two of the things which we get; article 1, a general blanket clause which says that all goods coming from Canada to Great Britain under the Import Duties Act shall continue to come in free; article 2, which undertakes to impose imposition of certain special duties on certain goods.
Now my hon. friend here mentioned apples.
I want to deal with a couple of items which are mentioned in schedule B in respect of which article 2 provides that certain duties shall be imposed. I want to say, and as I go on I think I will be able to convince even my hon. friend-he is pretty hard to convince with an argument against his own government-that if this is some good for the apple growers of this dominion it is only a very thin sugar-coating on the pill-


An hon. MEMBER:: Something over a
million dollars.


James Layton Ralston: If my hon. friend will
permit me, neither the apple growers nor anyone else in this country can get this piece of bait without taking the whole hook. I want to indicate to them what the hook is, so that the people of the dominion may know what is in this agreement. In regard to apples, does my hon. friend claim any credit for having procured an agreement by Great Britain to put a duty of 4s. 6d. on apples? Does he know it was agreed to away back in 1923? Does he know that this government in Great Britain is the first government that has not been pledged against food taxes? Does he know that the apple grower in Great Britain, the apple importer in Great Britain, was insisting that a duty should be put on, and the Canadian gets the benefit of that duty just the same as anyone else in the empire? Does my hon. friend know that? No, he does not.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: They don't know
anything.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friends have the idea that the right hon. Prime Minister went to Great Britain and forced the British people to give a preference of 4s. 6d. on apples. If they knew anything about what took place they would know that it was the British themselves who insisted on having a duty on foreign apples.
Now my hon. friend from Digby-Annapolis (Mr. Short) seems to be muttering a bit, let me say a word to him about fish, because that is also in the agreement. I find there is a
preference of 10 per cent on fish. I do not believe that even my hon. friend in his zeal to support the party opposite will suggest that any fish will go from Nova Scotia to Great Britain under that duty. Not a pound in the world. That provision is just as empty as a last year's birds nest as far as benefit to the fishing industry is concerned, and my hon. friend knows it. The right hon. Prime Minister actually quoted the other day in this house an increase in the export of canned lobsters to Great Britain, he said there had been quite an increase since this provision came into force. If my hon. friend knows anything about it he knows that practically not a lobster goes to Great Britain from any place in the world except Canada and Newfoundland. You could not possibly decrease the export from some competitive country by any duty, because there is no place else for them to go from. The increase shipments were due solely to the fact that there was increased production. There happened to be a greater shipment than usual because in the last swinter season there was a greater production. When my right hon. friend was negotiating the St. Lawrence waterway treaty, which he says our friends to the south were so anxious for, how would it do, if he wanted to do something for the fisheries, just to whisper in the ear of the authorities at Washington that it would be very nice and would help the St. Lawrence waterway treaty along if the tariff provisions in regard to fish were made a litle more favourable to the Canadian fishermen? Now, that could be done. But my friends would rather pose as the friends of the fishing industry by procuring as they say a 10 per cent preference on fish going from Canada to Great Britain, and intimate that thereby they have done something for that great basic industry.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: -For five years you were a member of the government, did you ever make representations to the American government?


James Layton Ralston: I made every representation I could. If my friend will look at the files of the department he will see that a treaty on another subject was being negotiated then, and it was understood that just as soon as that was over these discussions would be resumed. I brought the matter to the attention of my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) only last year, when he was Minister of Fisheries, and asked if it was not possible to have negotiations renewed. But that is all by the way. The St. Lawrence waterways treaty has been negotiated since then; there has been a good deal of communication between the Canadian and
392	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
United States governments in the interval, and if hon. gentlemen opposite really want to help the fishing industry my hon. friend knows that the United States is the country to deal with because it affords the finest market for our fish.
Further as to article 2, I must say just a word now with regard to lumber. My hon. friends have inserted an article which they say will be of benefit to the lumber industry. Let me make this statement, that this article will not be of the slightest benefit to the lumbermen of the maritime provinces, because the competition which maritime province lumber and really all Canadian spruce must meet comes not from Russia but from Finland. There is no provision here dealing with Finland, which has an advantage over us because of the exchange situation. Finnish lumber will go in to Great Britain for nearly 25 per cent less than our lumber can go in. If my hon. friends know anything at all they must know that the provision whereby lumber is put under schedule C is of no benefit to the lumbermen of this country while the present exchange situation exists, and if I had time I should like to say a word or two on that subject as well. I will just say this: My hon. friends know perfectly well that a lot of our markets are nullified by the exchange situation. I make this suggestion on my own responsibility as a citizen of Canada. I question greatly whether this government is justified in making the heroic efforts which they seem to be making by means of duties and other restrictions to trade in keeping our dollar away up, trying to keep up with the Joneses as it were and thus lessening the possibility of our doing business with countries whose exchange is below ours. It seems to me that I would rather have many dollars worth eighty cents than just a few dollars worth one hundred cents in New York, and if eighty cent dollars mean more sales of our products I wouldn't work too hard to keep the dollar up by artificial means. My right hon. friend talks about sound money. Dollars are just as sound when they are worth eighty cents in gold as when they are worth one hundred cents. True they won't pay as much interest in New York, but if they make more business we will have more of them to pay with. Some of these days my right hon. friend will have to consider this matter, and the question of lumber illustrates it very well.
I will have to pass over what I was going to say with regard to the other items of Canadian goods going to Britain. With the excepti n of articles 1, 2 and 3 and the limitation in article 4, all the other things w'e get

are in what I might call the "if, as, and but" classes. That is to say, they are conditional on this, that and the other thing.
Now let us go to the other side of the picture: What have we given? At the time this conference assmbled a statement was made by Right Hon. Mr. Baldwin. I should like to quote just a few words from his remarks in order to indicate what the thought was the way the conference should proceed:
There are two ways in which increased preference can be given-either by lowering barriers among themselves or by raising them against others. The choice between these two must be governed largely by local considerations. but subject to that, it seems to us that we should endeavour to follow the first rather than the seeond course. For however great our resources,^ we cannot isolate ourselves from the world. No nation or group of nations, however wealthy and populous, can maintain prosperity in a world where depression and impoverishment reign. Let us therefore aim at the lowering rather than the raising of barriers, even if we cannot fully achieve our purpose now, and let us remember that any action we take here is bound to have its reactions elsewhere.
That was the principle under which the conference met, and those remarks were heard by my right hon. friend the Prime Minister of Canada. I do not blame Mr. Baldwin for what happened, but this is the result: On 223 items increased preference is given. In 139 cases that increased preference involves an increase in tariffs against the world, after the enunciation of the policy by Mr. Baldwin that the way to go about this thing was by lowering tariffs. In only three cases is there a reduction of tariff against the world.
Let me remind the house that this is just the culmination of a tariff record the like of which has not been seen I might almost say throughout the world. In 1930 my right hon. friend raised the tariff on I think 165 items. In 1931 he raised the tariff on 129 items and in 1932, under the guise of an agreement between British nations, he raises the tariff on 139 items. In addition he has all the other frills, specific duties, excise duties, special dumping duties, arbitrary valuations for duty purposes and all the things that go to make up irritations, difficulties and restrictions in connection with trade.
What comes of that? Will anyone in this house put their finger upon a single article in that agreement, or any group of articles, which will make up for the ,damage that is being done Canada by reason of the increases in duty in this year of grace 1932? Revenues are falling. World trade is down. Canada has dropped from the fifth trading nation in the world to the seventh, and now hon. gentlemen opposite propose to continue driving this

United Kingdom
country along the precipice by increasing the duty on 139 items. Our loss of the United States lumber market when they retaliated by imposing a duty of S3 per M and afterwards increased it to S4 is a sample of what happens to us.
My right hon. friend the Prime Minister is going to the world conference, where I suppose he will discuss the tariff. Someone may say that the United States have said they are not going to discuss tariff items, but certainly they are going to discuss tariff policy. My right hon. friend will walk in there and say, "1 have come to discuss tariff policy." Someone will ask, ''Well, what can you do about reducing tariffs"? My right hon. friend will reply, "I am sorry but I have concluded a little agreement with Great Britain under which we have agreed that on 223 items we are not to reduce the margin of British preference." Then someone may say, "But on some of those items you can reduce the duty quite considerably." If hon. gentlemen will take their pencils and count the items they will find that no less than 159 are on the free list to Britain, which means that the present duties against the rest of the world are absolutely frozen on those items for five years. Someone may ask, "What made you do that"? My right hon. friend will reply, "Well, we get free entry for our lumber." Then he will be asked, "What does that amount to"? He will have to reply, "Well, I do not suppose it amounts to anything very much, since lumber from Finland comes in to Britain for less than Canadian lumber." Then someone will ask, "What else did you get"? My right hon. friend will answer, "Well, we got a preference of 6 cents a bushel on wheat." He will be asked if that did Canada any good, and his reply will have to be, "No, because we have to sell at world prices." Then someone will ask, "How long does Britain agree to continue this preference"? My right hon. friend can only say, "I do not know." If he is asked, "Does it not say in the agreement"? he will have to reply, "No, but it is the 'warp and woof' of the agreement that it was to be for five years; that was what we thought we were getting." And yet our own hands are definitely tied as to our tariff for five years. Canada's representative has to confess at once
Item	Exhibit
523a White cotton flannelette. . . . 523b All cotton printed piece goods
532 Cotton pillow cases	
532	Cotton sheets	
532	Cotton towels	
to a world conference that as to 159 items he can not even discuss a change for five years and as to the remaining 64 items he can only negotiate subject to maintaining the British preference.
What has all this done to our consumers?
I have not time to go over the list in detail, since my time will be up in a few moments, but what is the effect on Canadians in the homes? We were expecting something tangible; we really believed something would be done. In 133 cases the British preference rate is reduced, but in 139 cases the general and intermediate rates are increased, and the point is that the reductions are illusory; they do not get us anywhere. I challenge anyone to produce a newspaper of any responsibility and show any dispatch which indicates that any of these things are going to be cheaper for the people of Canada. The steel schedules were arranged between the steel people themselves, and it is admitted that they do not lower the price to Canadians. My right hon. leader gave some instances the other night in connection with the textile schedules, and presently I shall give one or two more to show the so-called reductions that have been made in the textile schedules. Take, next, automobiles. English automobiles are not going to come in here in any quantity for the reason that we cannot get parts for English cars. Then typewriters: I understand that the Prime Minister is putting forward a laudable effort to have government institutions here purchase British typewriters, but I doubt very much whether business men in Canada generally will buy a great many English typewriters in view of the fact that quick and convenient service in connection with typewriters is indispensable. But these are included in the 223 items.
Now let me give one or two items from the textile schedule. I notice that a gentleman representing this industry made the statement the other day that the textile industry of Can- ' ada had had to stand some sacrifices. Well, here are some of the so-called reductions which are provided for in this agreement. I will give the rates that applied in 1930 under the Dunning Budget and in 1931, 1932 and at the conference under the present government including duty, ad valorem and specific, excise tax and sales tax:
1930	1931	1932	Conference16%	31 %	63 %	601%19%	321%	631%	601%16%	331%	641%	621%16%	341%	66 %	62| %15%	36|%	69 %	66 %394	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
Someone complained the other day that we had not mentioned linens. I will give that item. The rates in connection with linen crash towelling were: 1930, Dunning Budget, 19 per cent; 1931, 32j per cent; 1932, 63V per cent; conference rate, 66J per cent. Linen tablecloths were cut, it is true. But there are no fine qualities of these cloths manufactured in Canada; only the lowest and coarsest grades are made here. As a matter of fact, even the United States, after a hundred years
of industry, doe3 not produce the sort of linen goods chiefly dealt with in this item. The rates are these: 1930, under the Dunning Budget, 19 per cent; 1931, 31{ per cent; 1932, 61| per cent; conference rate, 27 per cent. In other words, there were no industries in Canada to protect and therefore the item was brought down after being increased 300 per cent in 1931 under this government.
Take next wool fabrics-I will give the largest items:
Item	Exhibit
554 Wool piece goods in the grays 554e Wool fabrics overcoatings.. . 568a Wool hosiery	
1930 11 %
25 h% 23 %
331%
761%
581%
1932 641% 122 % 971%
Conference 61 % 106 % 891%
These are items which are used in enormous quantities by our people.
The Prime Minister says, " We have done well." There are, in the list of 223 items submitted, 175 items the total importation of which from all countries is in each case under half a million dollars; there are 65 items the total importation of which from all countries is in each case under $100,000; the total value of all importations from everywhere of commodities composing these 223 items is $137,500,000. The two large items of these importations are, anthracite coal, over $20,000,000, and whiskey, $23,000,000, or some $45,000,000 made up by these two items alone and I cannot think that it will be of surpassing interest to the great masses of the people in this dominion to know that on steel golf shafts, whiskey, long elbow gloves and sporting goods, not to mention bagpipes, the British preference rate has been reduced.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member's time
has expired.


Mr. M. N. CAMPBELL (Mackenzie):: 
Mr. W. H. MOORE (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, may I at the outset express my sympathy, my deep sympathy, for all governments that in these perilous days manage the affairs of a depressed world? May I also express my particular sympathy for the Canadian government? That may seem strange, coming from the opposition, but I believe that there has been for the last two years
400	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
very sincere sympathy from the opposition benches for the ministry in the task they have attempted. After all, they are our countrymen who suffer, it is the fate of our countrymen that is in the hands of the government, and the success of the government in combating depression is our success.
Canada, I take it, has a peculiar situation in the world depression. Depressions come, as we all know, from falling commodity prices. Their intensity is measured, in part, by the rapidity of the fall. We have had in Canada, as no place else in the world, a precipitous fall in industrial activity. I should like to put on the record an extract of national indices of production, taken from page 90 of the World Economic Survey, published by the League of Nations:
National Indices of Production
(Basis: Average	for 1925	to	1929 =	100)1925	1929	1930	1931Canada	. . 79	121	103	87United States.. ..	. 95	108	88	74Belgium	. 80	111	93	84France	. 88	114	115	102United Kingdom..	. . 99	112	100	85Czechoslovakia.. ..	. 88	115	101	90
The extract contains the industrial indices of Canada, United States of America, Belgium, France, the United Kingdom and Czechoslovakia. In the year 1925 Canada had the lowest figure of industrial production, 79 as against 95 in the United States, 80 in Belgium, 88 in France, 99 in the United Kingdom and 88 in Czechoslovakia. In 1929 Canada had the highest, 121, with the United States 108, Belgium 111, France 114, United Kingdom 112, and Czechoslovakia 115.
Now I have no doubt that my leader will derive a certain amount of satisfaction, to which he is entitled, from that rapid increase in industrial activity. But I cite it not to give my leader satisfaction or to claim credit for the Liberal party, I cite it to show the extreme difficulty that this government had, or any government would have had to face when in 1931 Canada dropped to 87, the United States to 74, Belgium to 84, France to 102, the United Kingdom to 85 and Czechoslovakia to 90.


Mr. CARMICHAEL:: Why did it drop?


William Henry Moore: I will deal with that in a few minutes if I have time. Now this is the situation, we had reached that peak of prosperity, we were on the 121st floor of prosperity of productive activity and then we dropped to the 87th. Canada and the United States had more precipitous drops than the other countries. This government

had to face the very grave consequences. In the session of 1930, the government as one might expect from their policy as declared in the general election, turned to customs tariffs. I know that protection and customs tariffs are terms that are anathema to some of my friends on this side of the house. I admit frankly that I had a great deal of sympathy with the action of the government at that time. To my mind they were faced with a cyclonic depression, I can think of it as nothing else, and it was the natural thing that this government should try to do something in order that those with whose fate they were charged should escape as far as possible the consequences.
I have been asked what is the cause. Now I inclined to the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Campbell) when he spoke of our debts, our foreign debts as important. Our borrowings and our buyings are closely related. By reference to the Canada Year Book you will find that in 1930 our total foreign indebtedness was $6,125,959,000. Here are the figures of our foreign borrowing:
Investments in Canada
British	$ 2,228,024,000
United States	 3,706,745,000
Others	 1,171,188,000
Total	$ 6,125,959,000
The United States Department of Commerce has made an estimate that the American money invested in this country amounts to $3,966,000,000-and upon that huge amount interest must be paid if we are to remain solvent. Then followed the question of whether we could maintain our economic entity by buying more goods from the United States and adding to the volume of national revenue which had to be diverted to the United States each year. In answer to the question which has been asked let me say that I do believe that much of the world's depression resulted from international obligations. I believe that much of it has come about through an attempt to dam back the economic consequences of the war and its aftermath with constantly greater international loans and investments. The thing could not go on; it collapsed in 1929 and left us where we are today.
I am frank to admit that the last two years must have been a terrific struggle on the part of this government to maintain the economic entity of Canada. I think we all know something about it. We all knew that many industries abroad were profitless and bankrupt; that goods were piling high and that every

United Kingdom
effort was made to export them. We have reason to believe that in many countries industries were subsidized in order to keep the men from the streets and, if you like, in order to prevent revolution. The question came up -and I sympathized with this government when they had to face it-as to whether we should allow these goods to be dumped here and turn our own men out on the streets. As I say, I found myself then in sympathy with an attempt to dig in until the cyclone passed, but in the legislation before us today I find that this government wants to stay in, and has asked us to seal over the top and make it a permanent dug out for at least five years. I have said that I had sympathy with emergency methods. I cannot have sympathy with a permanent measure of that sort.
I find myself constantly divided, now in sympathy and then in opposition, as between all quarters of this house, and for just a moment I should like to refer to what the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Campbell) said about currency, because again I am in agreement with the government. The hon. member spoke very eloquently, and I give credit to the group to my left for having studied this question seriously, though I must say I am not in agreement with their conclusions. It was surely wise not to have dealt with currency at the Ottawa conference. After all, Mr. Speaker, our money must follow our trade, not our sentiment. If we are to have a revival of world trade we must have a revival of confidence in a world's monetary standard.
I am not going to quarrel with either of the views sometimes expressed from the opposite side as to what that standard should be; apparently there is a difference of opinion, and that difference of opinion extends pretty well throughout the world. But one definite standard there ought to be if we are to have a revival of world trade. The other day my leader spoke of a central bank and suggested the necessity for such a bank in Canada. The matter is well worth studying, but we must remember that there are central banks throughout the world. We should recall that when a central bank was established in the United States it was predicted that in that country there would be no more crises, that they had done away with them. I will not say the crisis was accentuated by the workings of the central bank, but, certainly the bank failures that occurred in the United States by comparison make the stability of our Canadian banking system a something of which we ought to be and I believe we are justly proud.
I have sympathy with my friends to my left when they refer to the injustice, if you
like to put it that way, that they have suffered in world trade. There is a figure in international currency which may be found useful, that of a central buoy, which might be gold, silver or anything of the sort, to which all the nations of the world, represented as ships were moored. The wind comes and blows one away; as it did unfortunately the good ship Australia. Then there was a ramming, and someone suffered. We suffered but are we voluntarily to let go because of that or are we to try to cling to the buoy? Are we to look forward to the suggestion of the hon. member for Mackenzie that we should each have our own separate standards of currency and manipulate our own currencies each in our own way until, as I understood the hon. member, we have chaos to the extent that we will force a common international standard?


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: What have we today but utter chaos?


William Henry Moore: I am asked what we have today, and I would say this: Today we have poverty in the midst of plenty, and that is bad, but we could have something much worse; we might have poverty in the midst of scarcity. I want to say that unless there be wise legislation-and I do not regard the legislation we are now asked to consider as wise-there is grave danger that we may have poverty in the midst of scarcity. You must have protection against valuta dumping; the ships must let down their fenders when there is danger of being rammed. The dumping of goods under the shelter of a depreciated exchange brings about an intuitive desire for protection against its competitive effects. A depreciated currency automatically means a general reduction in wages. If there be such a reduction in a competing country,
I care not what country it may be-the United Kingdom, if you like-since most of us hold that labour is the yardstick of protection, it is only natural that we should seek to protect our own wage earners.
I sympathized with the government when they passed those regulations, but again I find they have let me down, that they have confessed themselves to be wrong. In articles 16 and 17 I read something in the nature of a confession and, as we might expect from bad boys, a promise to be good. I read in the last sentence of article 17 that:
"this government further undertake to give sympathetic consideration to the possibility of reducing and ultimately abolishing the exchange dumping duty in so far as it applies to imports from the United Kingdom."

>
COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
If that means anything, I am opposed to it. How much further will the currency of the United Kingdom depreciate? No one can say. How much further will there be general reductions in wages in the United Kingdom under a depreciated currency? No one can say. Then why make a promise of that sort for the future? To my mind, it is unfair if it means anything, and equally unfair if it means nothing.
Let me say frankly that I am opposed to the principle of tariff-making by treaties. The tariff is a matter of infinite detail. I know that this tariff schedule has been worked out by men skilled in the profession; but it will be a miracle if there are not changes in it which they themselves will want to make. We are asked to discuss the details, as we were asked to discuss the details of the New Zealand treaty which my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce brought from Honolulu last session. So far as that treaty was concerned, there were changes which obviously he wanted to make. But this is a far more pretentious agreement, a matter of infinite detail, a matter to which we are asked to give consideration, knowing all the while that it is useless for us to consider the wording and the impact of the items, because it is part of a contract already made.
Now there always has been, and I presume there always will be, two schools of thought in regard to tariff-making. One holds that there should be stability of tariffs, and the other, flexibility. I have always thought that the first school was just a little bit confused, that what they really meant was that there should be stability of trade, and that the tariff should be changed whenever the trade of the country needed change, whether up or down. We used to hear a great deal about tariff tinkering. The tinker is a useful man in the community. I sympathized with this government when they made those frequent changes which were so frequently criticized over the past two years, and now they have let me down because they have tied their hands, at least they have tied one hand behind their back, in the making of changes probably required in the next two or three or five momentous years. That, at least, I gather from the reading of the agreement.
An hon. member the other day said that this side of the house welcomed all the free items in the proposed agreements. I, for one do not welcome all of them, and I am quite sure that there are many members on both sides of this house who do not welcome
rMr. W. H. Moore.]
them. Let me give a few illustrations. Here is the new item 438a, b, c, motor vehicles, free.


An hon. MEMBER:: The cat's out of the
bag.
Mi*. MOORE (Ontario):	I will presently put the cat back in the bag. Then 438b, motor cycles, free. I am opposed to that also and I will tell you why. Turn back to old tariff item 420 and you will find that bicycles are 20 per cent. Now, that is unfair taxation. If you are a rich man and can afford a motor car or a motor cycle, you can bring them in free of customs duty. If you are a poor lad and cannot afford even a motor cycle but must do your own pedalling, you have to pay 20 per cent. The rich man may bring in his cars and his cycle free. Another illustration. Take the new item 540, linen sheets. These are free, and I am opposed to their free admission. Turn to item 52o, cotton sheets, and you will find a duty of 15 per cent. That is an unfair principle of taxation, and our customs laws exist for revenue-fair revenue
taxation.	.
Now, we have in this house for the first time a socialist party-the commonwealth cooperative party, I believe. If they do not mind being welcomed by me, I should like to welcome them and to say that they are going to be an addition to the house.


Miss MACPHAIL:: We are already.


William Henry Moore: Yes, as the hon. member says, they are already. But I am going to say this, that by putting tariff items of this kind in their hands you put bad thoughts in their minds, and some day they will say that the linen sheet ought to be a shroud for the present government. In the heat of an election campaign I might say so myself. Now I want you to contrast item 568a with item 568c. Surely they have been put together so that they may be contrasted: socks and stockings of all kinds, 30 per cent and 75 cents per dozen; women's dress gloves of kid, elbow length, free. Again, I say, there is unfair taxation; and in these days when the embers of democracy are smouldering, when there is an outcry against social injustice, these are not the kind of items of taxation to place on the statute books. I will turn to another item and put another argument in the hands of my friends to my left. I do not want to read the clause because I have not the time, unless I am allowed to go on until six o'clock; but you will notice that the purport of article 21 is to prevent the frustration of the preference through state action. Well, it may be frus-

United, Kingdom
trated in another way. If I had the time, I could give you a list of a round dozen of price controlled commodities in the United Kingdom. I could tell you of producers of the United Kingdom that are tied up in international cartels. Those preferences now proposed will be frustrated. Take the position of, let us say, a glass manufacturer in the United Kingdom with a plant in Belgium, and who now is to have free entry to Canada. What are his friends in the cartel to say? Where can there possibly come any benefit, except it be by beneficence on his part, to the consumers of this country.
Cartelization and the control of prices is growing. I regard the essence of our present industrial order not as capitalism but as competitive. Surely there is no harm in competition for service with a reward of profit, but when you have the substitution of a combination for competition, then our friends to the left will have a real argument. I could mention combinations and memberships in cartels in this country w'hose action will surely frustrate the preferences they are given.
It is manifestly just that the United Kingdom should be given right of appearance before the tariff board. The business of a tariff board is to deal with foreign trade and unless those who trade with us are permitted to appear before the board, it will have a limited utility. However, I should like to know if this provision is to be reciprocal. Are we to be given the right to appear before the tariff boards of the United Kingdom? Are we to have the same rights that we have given under article 11, of having competition determined by relative cost? I do not believe in that principle. It is an old one and was at one time a tenet of the Republican party of the United States, as the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ryckman) well knows. However, that tenet was abandoned because it was found it would not work. It took at least two years to make a worthwhile investigation and then when tariffs were arranged it was found that a new set of costs had been created, and the whole procedure had to be started over again. Apparently that view is not held by the government. If it will work, are we to be given reciprocal rights? As I understand, the McKenna duties have not been changed; motor cars are given free entry into this country while our motor cars entering the old country are subject to a duty of about twenty-two and one-third per cent. Are we to have the right to go before the tariff boards of the United Kingdom and say: "We are an industrially immature country, our wages are higher than yours; we 53719-265
want a revision of duties on a basis of relative costs?" The same arguments would apply to other items which I have not the time to enumerate.
Because I have not objected specifically to high duties does not mean that I am not in opposition to them. A party of high tariffs means a party of no tariffs. If you build your tariffs too high men will be forced in desperation to pull them down. I can see the hon. member for South Battleford (Mr. Vallance) some day leading a group of free traders. They will bum the Haman's gallows and use its ashes to fertilize the prairies. I do not say that I believe in any specific rate of tariff, but I do believe in a reasonable tariff. I have lived to scrap some theories in regard to tariffs, I have come to realize that one must first know the commodity, must try to estimate the probable results of the tariff, and who is to benefit and who to bear the sacrifice.
It is many years since I have practised law but I find it difficult to believe that what we are considering is really an agreement. It does not seem to me that the contracting parties had a unity of thought. What is the use of saying that we will admit British cottons into this country at a specific rate of duty without determining what British cottons really are? One of the laudable objects of the conference was to determine that vexed question of content but the conference broke up without having reached a decision on that matter. If that matter is still under the control of either of the contracting parties, then all the provisions of this agreement may be wiped out tomorrow by legislation or regulation. Let me give the house an exaggerated case. Suppose this government were to say that cotton goods must be wholly a product of the United Kingdom. That would be an impossible stipulation because the United Kingdom grows no cotton. Suppose Australia were to say that rubber tires must be wholly a product of Canada. That would be impossible, because we produce no raw rubber. I could take the house in a wearisome way through a number of items of that kind, but I shall not. As much friction has occurred over content as has occurred over rates. This matter is not submitted to us. If I knew what the content provision was to be for the next five years, then I could cast an intelligent vote. Now, I cannot because I do not know and I am afraid the ministry does not know what the content is to be.
We may appear to be dealing with matters of trade in bicycles, gloves, butter, eggs and
404	COMMONS
Imperial Conjerence-Trade Agreements
so on, but in reality we are in the midst of an historical occasion. I cannot help but feel that we are entering upon a new stage of empire. We have already had two stages of empire. We had first a shackled stage; trade was shackled and men, being what they are, grew restive and threw off the shackles, and the British Empire lost the American colonies but found itself. Then for a matter of a hundred years or so we had a new idea in empire, one based essentially upon the freedom of the component parts. That was a wonderful era; the population of the British isles increased from 17,000,000 to 50,000,000 or more and this country, under different governments, built up what was regarded until the depression as one of the highest standards of living in the world. We would have pulled out of our present difficulty had we but patience with and acted reasonably toward one another. But we now seem to be entering a third stage of empire, one again of restricted trade, and by the irony of fate we are asked to forge our own shackles.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. W. D. COWAN (Long Lake):: Mr. Speaker, if the British empire cannot and does not pull this troubled world of ours out of the state of depression in which we have been for several years, who is going to do it? What nation can do it What group of nations can do it? I know of none. The only possible course looking to successful action is for the different nations of the British Commonwealth to unite, and having done so, to meet at some place and there solve our problems. Could the various units of the British empire undertake this task individually? Could Newfoundland do it? Could South Africa do it? Could New Zealand do it? Could Canada do it? They could not. I never was in the motherland in my life; I am generations removed from Scotland, but nobody in this empire has a bigger regard for the motherland than I have. Quite often we have seen the mother country emancipating great portions of this world. We have seen her on more than one occasion protect the world from depression and catastrophe. But during the great war we saw that the various component parts of the British empire, rallying around the motherland, could and 
did render to her that assistance -which was necessary to make the war a success so far as the allies were concerned.
Today we have a similar spectacle. Today the motherland, no doubt the financial centre of the world and understanding financial problems better than any other nation, could probably in time pull this little world through, but with our assistance it can be done much better. This is not boasting; for the Canadian people are not boastful. Having agreed that it is necessary to pull this world out of its trouble and that the British empire can best perform the task, how are we going to proceed? The individual nations of the commonwealth cannot do it. Which nation in the empire must lead the procession to victory? Can we depend upon the dependencies, the colonies, to do this? Can we depend upon De Valera to do it? Can we depend upon the Liberal party in Great Britain to do it? Why, the Liberal party in Great Britain has been for some time as extinct as the dodo, just like the Liberal party in Canada. Who will do it? The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) can discuss section 98 of the Criminal Code and unlawful assemblies, but beyond that I do not know what he can do. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) might use rapid fire guns, shooting off a lot of blank cartridges, but blank cartridges do not count for anything. A member speaking in the house is supposed to be able to say something of value which will linger in the minds of his audience; I have listened to probably a hundred addresses of the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Young), and what has lingered in the minds of members here of what he has said? I appeal to them. About the only thing one can remember is the reference to a pair of Japanese socks. We come to Prince Albert, represented by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King). Could he undertake this task? If he had attended the conference which -was held here two months ago and delivered a three and a half hour speech such as he delivered to the house the other day, the whole bunch would have beaten it to the Cannibal islands in order to get relief. How could it be possible for men of that type to lead the British Empire out of the trouble in which it finds itself? It would be absolutely impossible for them to do it.
But what happened? The leaders of the empire, after long negotiations, summoned a conference to be held at Ottawa. It was attended by representatives of all the nations of the British Commonwealth, representatives of the democracy of the British Empire. From all parts of the empire they came, the elected

United Kingdom
of the people, chosen by the people. I do not know and I do not care whether they are Grit, or Tory, Labour or Progressive; they came here the representatives of the people and in this room and in other places in the city of Ottawa they deliberated. With what result? They produced these agreements and then what happened? The leader of the opposition is not in the house just at present, but he will probably hear some of what I say. The other day in this chamber he absolutely challenged the democracy of the British Empire and induced his supporters to follow him. My hon. friends opposite cannot deny that. When he and his followers go out on the hustings throughout this country, they will talk about "representative government" and "the people's will to rule." But in this chamber, at the most vital time in the history of the world, of the empire and of Canada, the leader of the opposition and his followers rise in their places and absolutely challenge the decision of the democracy of this empire and of Canada.


Mr. YOUNG:: Why does the hon. member not accept the challenge?


An hon. MEMBER:: The leader of the opposition is not present.


Walter Davy Cowan: I cannot help his not being present. I will repeat the statement when he is present. There is one law well known especially in the Anglo-Saxon world and that is that the need produces the man. That is why we have R. B. Bennett in Canada today. But in this case the law was changed somewhat; the law produced the men. That is all the difference. While we could deliberate here for weeks and weeks and weeks upon the intricacies of these treaties-


Edward James Young: If your leader would let you.


Walter Davy Cowan: There are no slaves on this side such as the hon. member for Weybum. I have known my leader for thirty-five years. He and I have tramped all over the prairies. I think I know him better than anybody else in the house. I believe I am the only man in this chamber who heard him deliver the first speech he ever delivered in a legislative assembly, and he took exactly the same ground then that he is taking today in matters of government. I will say more. Knowing him as I do, seeing him in caucus and in the house, and knowing him privately, I say that there is not a man on the face of this earth who has a greater regard for the liberties of his fellow-men than has R. B. Bennett, the Prime Minister of this country. It is all right for the hon. member for Weyburn to Hugh, but
what does all this debate really amount to? It means nothing but delay, deliberate delay, obstruction contemplated and decided upon. The Prime Minister of this country is sometimes charged with being an autocrat. If I could only be an autocrat for a little while, I know how long hon. gentlemen opposite would carry on that game. I see the hon. member for South Battleford (Mr. Vallance) over there. What happened in this house last spring when the government was trying to get through its relief measure? Hon. gentlemen opposite know, and we know, and the country knows, that for two solid months hon. gentlemen opposite held up that legislation which was absolutely necessary, and with what result? It brought ruin to a large section of this country. The only objection I have to my hon. friend from South Battleford is that be has been chosen to represent the most beautiful constituency in the dominion. His constituency is fine, but how on earth they came to choose him as their representative I cannot imagine.


John Vallance: May I ask a question?


Walter Davy Cowan: Yes.


John Vallance: In view of the wonder
in my hon. friend's mind as to how and why my electors chose me, I would ask: Does he not wonder, as I do and as I am sure the house does, how the constituency of Long Lake ever came to choose him?


Walter Davy Cowan: I hope to deal in a few minutes with the rumours about an election, and then my hon. friend will get all he wants. As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, this delay, delay, delay, is just a repetition of the experience that we had last spring when hon. gentlemen opposite opposed the government's relief legislation, and what was the result of that delay? There were telegrams pouring in to the member for South Battleford-red telegrams, threatening revolution, and if there are sections of Canada which were not able to raise a bushel of wheat, and therefore were unable to get the bonus of five cents a bushel, it is because of the attitude taken by the Liberals in this house last spring. I was brought up on a farm and I know a little about farming.


John Vallance: Very little.


Walter Davy Cowan: I have more
acres than you and I have won two prizes at ploughing matches. On a farm the soil has to be prepared the year before, and hon. gentlemen opposite know that in parts of Saskatchewan the land was absolutely dry
406	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
without a drop of water in the soil, and it has been in that condition for three years. The same condition prevailed throughout twenty-six states of the union. The land was dry clean through, and the farmers had absolutely no chance last fall to do farming as they wanted to do it. If hon. gentlemen opposite had cooperated with us last spring in putting that relief measure through speedily, these farmers would have been able to get the money and get the grain to sow, as well as the other things necessary to enable them to carry on farming. But you stopped that. I charge you with ruining a large part of my constituency of Long Lake. There is a section in my constituency one hundred miles long and fifty miles wide where there was not a blessed thing growing this year and thousands of farmers in that section today have absolutely nothing to live on. I say that hon. gentlemen opposite are largely responsible for that condition. They might just as well swallow it now for they will have to swallow it on every platform in Long Lake. Let my hon. friend from South Battleford come on down there with me and I will show him where he gets off at mighty quick. I say that that delay caused absolute ruin to thousands of our farmers. It is not the low prices of commodities so much, although dear knows prices are very much too low, but if it had not been for the action of hon. gentlemen opposite last spring these farmers would have had at least something to sell. At the present time they have nothing to sell, and they have no means of living, and I say that that is because of the attitude which hon. gentlemen opposite took last spring in holding up that relief legislation. Because of their action this government and this parliament is now required as a duty to come to the assistance of that part of the country. Deny that if you can.
I see my hon. friend from Lisgar (Mr. Brown! over there. He made a speech in this house the other night, and it was the funniest speech I ever listened to in my life. He started out by telling us that he approved of some parts of these agreements and disapproved of the rest. Well, when he got through speaking he had never mentioned the parts that he approved of. He could not find any good things in these agreements to mention at all, and he a minister of the Gospel. He did nothing but denounce the agreements. Do you know what his speech sounded like to me? It sounded for all the world like the exclamations of a man who had swallowed a lump of sugared honey which had been soaked in sour milk. Accord-

ing to him, this preference of six cents a bushel on wheat is absolutely no good to the farmer in the west because, he says, if Great Britain under her anti-dumping legislation shuts out Russian wheat from that market Russia will dump it on to some other market and so depress the world price. What other market, I ask him? Italy? Will it climb over Italy's wall with a tariff of 81.40 a bushel? Will it get into France, where conditions are about the same, or into Germany? What other market? The Fiji islands or the Cannibal islands? There is no other market. The only market we have is the free market of Great Britain under these treaties, and we have got that market. These treaties are going through. They tell me my hon. friend from Lisgar (Mr. Brown) has a fine farm and that he is a mighty good farmer, which surprises me. He raises wheat; he has wheat to sell. The next time he goes to sell wheat is he going to take advantage of this sheltered market that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) talked about the other day? Would he go for that shelter? Say, he would be there so quick, he would go so fast that he couldn't hear the hurricanes over the mountain! Will he take the six cent preference? He will stick it down in his jeans so quick-and then when he gets his pocket bulging full he will get out and denounce this government.
I said I would refer to the rumours of an election. If it were not for one thing we would call the bluff right now. But there is just one point that we have to consider. The government led by the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) has negotiated these agreements; they are in effect now. But negotiating the treaties is only one part; the administration is another thing, quite a different thing. Do you think for one second that we are crazy?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.


Walter Davy Cowan: Should we
hand the administration of this over to you who have challenged the democracy of the empire? Do you think we are going to take any such chance? What would happen? I am a foolish man to be here and any man is foolish to be here who has to make a living-


John Vallance: You are not half as foolish as the Long Lake constituency.


Walter Davy Cowan: Say, look here, my dear boy-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I would call his atten-

United Kingdom
tion to the fact that the proper form of debate is to address the chair. Hon. members should be referred to in the third person.


Walter Davy Cowan: I will do that, Mr. Speaker, but you know out in the wilds one gets in the habit of using very direct language to one's fellow man. Up in the Yukon you would understand the language we sometimes use.
My attitude towards an election is this, that this government, which had the brains, the courage and the ability to bring about the conference, carry on the negotiations and put through these treaties, will be given authority to proceed for a period of three years and make a success of them. Then when the success is assured we will have the election. The desire for an election on the part of hon. gentlemen opposite is quite easily understood. It is common knowledge that when times are hard they think any election will run against the government-


An hon. MEMBER:: That is the reason you are there.


Walter Davy Cowan: Hon. gentlemen are so scared of these treaties becoming a success, and of the prosperity that will result, that they do not want to wait. When we are ready to have an election wre will have it, but we won't be stampeded into it.
Hon. members are continually referring to the statement made by the present Prime Minister prior to the election that he was going to blast his way into the markets of the world. Oh how they like to dwell on that! Well, what happened? He went, and we loaded him with the ammunition that was necessary-


An hon. MEMBER:: It missed fire when he got there.


Walter Davy Cowan: If you did
not have a good supply of gunpowder-or nitroglycerine-I do not know what you would do. What happened to the party opposite when they went to negotiate a treaty anywhere, within the empire or outside? The only thing I ever saw that they had in the way of ammunition was a wreath of white feathers around their necks and their hands up. We provided them with the ammunition; probably some had been used up. There may be some there yet. That makes no difference; the Prime Minister had the power and the means to negotiate successfully, and he used those means, no, we are not through with governing this country, and when we are through-


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Pity the country then!


Walter Davy Cowan: I am pleased
with these treaties because of their effect upon western Canada. I do not like parochialism;
I never yet have found the dividing line between eastern and western Canada. I do not know where it is and I am not going to hunt for it. Just the same, our farmers need all the help they can get. And what has been done? The removal of the cattle embargo. Well, some of our friends across the way say, as a Liberal friend of mine said at a meeting out there, "What is the use of trying to raise cattle? There is not enough rainfall on the prairies to give the cows water." His idea evidently was that a cow waters itself by holding its mouth up and letting the rain fall in. That is the idea of my hon. friends opposite. They have no idea of grappling with the situation, and the result is that they blundered and fumbled everything. The removal of that cattle embargo wTill be of great benefit to us. Provision is also made for hogs and dairy products, and we find that these agreements are directly in line with the policies advocated by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir). Ever since he took office he. has been working night and day in an endeavour to change agricultural conditions in western Canada, trying to get the farmers away from simply raising grain and getting them interested in mixed farming. We have that now, in large part; that policy is now in force. It has had a splendid effect already, and under these agreements the minister will be able to carry out that plan more effectively. I say to my hon. friend from South Battleford (Mr. Vallance) and other hon. members opposite that if there is a man in Saskatchewan today more popular than Hon. Robert Weir I should like to find him.


John Vallance: You embarrass the minister; you shock his modesty.


Walter Davy Cowan: I have not
yet discovered any modesty on the part of hon. gentlemen opposite. I see my friends from Saskatchewan opposite. If they would only get the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Motherwell) sitting up there I could get a snapshot of the whole outfit, and I would exhibit it as a picture of the greatest collection of incompetents we have in the house today.	'
I wish I had time to deal with my hon. friend in the far corner, who made a statement the other day which was absolutely incorrect. He said the children in our part of the country could not and did not go to school. I have before me the official report of
408	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
the government of Saskatchewan, and I find that the number of rooms in elementary schools in that province has increased from 5,367 in 1920 to 6,946 in 1931. Does that look as if the children had no opportunity to go to school? The number of days the schools have been open has increased from 178 in 1920 to 201 in 1931. What do hon. gentlemen mean by making such statements? I want to tell the hon. gentleman that no matter how hard up we may be, no matter what drought conditions may exist, no matter even if there is a Grit government in power, it will not make any difference in Saskatchewan; our children will be educated. Sometimes we have trouble in supplying all the necessities; I admit that, but we supply them, and our children never will be neglected, whether they be Protestants or Catholics. They will be properly educated.
I wish I had a few moments to deal with the question of banking. We are not going to revise the Bank Act this year, and I approve of that action. The rate of interest is too high; it must and will come down.


John Vallance: Speaking for the gov-
* ernment now?


Walter Davy Cowan: I am speaking for myself. I do say, however, that our banking institutions are charged with a great deal for which they are not responsible. They should not be asked to carry encumbrances upon the land. Those belong to the loan companies and the rural credit associations. Let us place the blame where it belongs. I do not think these loan companies have been doing the fair thing by our people at all, and I think I have done quite a bit-more than my hon. friend knows-to bring those gentlemen under control in Saskatchewan. So far as I am concerned things cannot go on as they are. Let me give one illustration. A few years ago I met a very prominent man, a leading financier-and a rank Liberal-in the city of Regina. I asked him how business was, and he said it was splendid, and I asked in what way. He said, "We can make all the loans we wish at ten per cent interest." This was four or five years ago. I asked, "Ten per cent on what?" He answered, "On agreements for sale." I said, "You are not getting ten per cent for your money," and he said, " I am writing those agreements every day." I said, "You may be loaning the money at that rate but you are not getting that interest. You are charging ten per cent on an agreement for sale, and already the land carries eight per cent on mortgage." And they expect the farmer in the province of Saskatchewan to be able to pay that interest. Why, a farmer in 
the province of Prince Edward Island could not pay it. These conditions must be remedied, and I for one will lend every possible effort in that direction. With this world conference coming on, however, I think we are taking the proper course; if we were to revise our Bank Act new we would have to wait another eight or nine years before we could change it again. The other day Ramsay MacDonald said that the world conference would not have been held if the conference here had not been successful. If good comes from the world conference, as I believe it will, I want our people to get the greatest advantage from it.
My time is almost up, Mr. Speaker, and I am going to close with just a short quotation irom a letter I received yesterday. You know, I have great faith in and admiration for the leader of cur party, the Prime Minister of Canada. Knowing him as I do I am sure my faith is well founded. I have been intimately acquainted with him, and I have never known him to be guilty of an improper act. Yesterday I received a letter from a lady possessing one of the brightest and most interesting intellects


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Mr. COW  AN@Long Lake: It is all very
well to laugh at the ladies but they have more votes than we have. Go to it; laugh at them if you like. I have never laughed at them yet; I treat them as they should be treated. In this letter the lady refers to these trade agreements, of which she approves so far as she has been able to understand them from the newspapers. In her letter I find these words, with which I will conclude:
It will be pretty hard to rob Bennett of the glory that is his now.


Hon. J. C. ELLIOTT (West Middlesex):: May I say at the outset that I entirely concur in a great deal that has been said about the immense importance of the motion before the house. I take it, of course, that in a matter of supreme importance such as this eveiy member who is convinced that his constituency will benefit is only too willing to express himself. I say in perfect seriousness that there never was a time in the history of this country when anything that would enure to the benefit of the people as a whole was more sorely needed than at the present time, and in so far as anything contained in these agreements will help the people of Canada, I am sure that it is the duty of every hon. member in this house, from whatever riding he comes, to stand up in his place and give to the members of parliament and

United, Kingdom
to the people of the country the benefit of whatever information he may have in his possession regarding the good that is going to accrue from these agreements. May I for a moment refer to the extent to which this has been done by my hon. friends opposite.
I assume that all those who feel that their ridings will be benefited are not missing any opportunity of telling the house and the country the extent of the advantages which 'they expect those ridings will gain from these particular agreements. Hon. gentlemen opposite will pardon me if I overlook mentioning any of those who have so far taken part in this debate, although it is not so very difficult to remember all hon. gentlemen on the other side who have stood up and declared that they expected their ridings to benefit from the agreements now under consideration. There was, for example, the member for Long Lake (Mr. Cowan) who has just taken his seat, and right here I want to say that in my opinion everyone in this house appreciates the fact that he at any rate has the courage to stand up and say something on behalf of the agreements. I was very much interested in *what he said with regard to the challenge that had been thrown out to the government to bring on an election at this time. I think he is following very closely in the wake of the Postmaster General (Mr. Sauve) who, when he spoke yesterday, if I was able to understand correctly the tenor of his remarks, suggested that if the government appealed to the country at the present time, or if these agreements were submitted to the people, they might be defeated. That was the substance of iwhat he said. His statement was to the effect that if the agreements had a few years more to operate they would have a better chance of being approved by the people than they have at the present time. My hon. friend from Long Lake follows in the minister's wake. He says, "It is all very well for hon. gentlemen of the opposition to ask for an election at this time; but do you think we would hand over the reins of power to the opposition at this juncture?" What does he mean? He means that just as surely as an election were called in this country at the present time, this government would be defeated. If that is so then they should not be passed.


An hon. MEMBER:: That would be most unfortunate.


John Campbell Elliott: Yes, for my hon. friends, and that, no doubt, is the reason why my hon. friend thinks it would be unfortunate to call an election at this time. The hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Mullins) also spoke. He told of the great benefits that would come to his riding and, I believe he said the people of Canada as a whole-because he speaks more as a Canadian who is not limited within the confines of his own riding than does the member for Long Lake. But what was the tenor of the remarks made by the member for Marquette? He spoke of what would happen as a result of the removal of restrictions, or the proposed removal of those restrictions under this agreement. These restrictions have so far prevented cattle other than beef cattle entering the British market, and he referred to the taking of cattle to farms in Britain instead of having them slaughtered, as up until 1923 the law there required. I want to congratulate my hon. friend. He always stands up in the house and tells anything he can that this government has done in the interests of his riding. I regret that there are not more gentlemen opposite who have something of benefit to relate.


Mr. COTNAM:: We would be here all the time in that event.


John Campbell Elliott: The hon. gentleman from North Renfrew (Mr. Cotnam) does not stand up in this house to make his remarks. I should think that in the serious crisis through which this country is passing, perhaps the time of the house would be better occupied than by listening to remarks shot off by the hon. gentleman from his seat in the house. He makes remarks from his seat instead of standing up and coming out with what he has to say.


An hon. MEMBER:: You don't seem to sense the importance of the matter.


John Campbell Elliott: I do not propose to spend my time attempting to answer these popgun artists who seem to think that making remarks in this manner is a worthy contribution to a discussion such as this.
As I was about to remark, the member for Marquette spoke about the cattle embargo, and he seemed to think that the provision in this regard was one of the greatest things contained in the whole agreement. I am very glad that the agreement provides for the removal of those restrictions in regard to Canadian cattle which have remained since the agreement of 1923 was made. But may I call attention to the fact that the great bulk of our cattle that are shipped from this countiy to Britain are beef cattle, and they were already provided for by the agreement of 1923. So that the agreement provides only for additional cattle. It is good as far as it goes, and I am glad to have anything done
410	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
that is beneficial to the farming industry, because goodness knows it needs everything that can be done for it at the present time. The only thing additional is provision for the admission of breeding stock, which were not admitted before; and there are certain restrictions removed with regard to branding. In comparison with what was done in 1923, what is provided for under these agreements is very small. And just bear in mind that in 1923, when the restrictions against beef cattle were removed, we did not have to enter into any agreement that we would not reduce tariffs against other countries in order to have those restrictions removed. One would have thought that that agreement would have commended itself very highly to hon. members on all sides of the house, but I find that certain members spoke, I will not say belittlingly but slightingly of the extent to which it was going to benefit the people of Canada. I notice the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Stewart) is in his seat, and I shall call attention to the statement he made at that time as to the benefits to be derived from that agreement. He said:
There is, of course, a difference of opinion as to the value of the removal of this embargo. I think that it has been exaggerated. But again, we will have to await its complete removal, the regulations that follow, and the results also that will follow the removal of the embargo.
That was in line with the statement made just a few days before by his leader, the Right Hon. Mr. Meighen. What was the result of the removal of that embargo? In 1926, three years after the removal of the embargo, shipments of beef cattle were about six times as large as in 1923 prior to the removal.


An hon. MEMBER:: What were they in
1929?


John Campbell Elliott: If my hon. friend will look at the figures he can find out. I do not know whether or not he has them before him but if he will look them up he will be perhaps enlightened to the extent he desires. I have given the figures for 1923 and 1926; I have no other figures before me. Does my hon. friend say that the removal of the embargo on beef cattle in 1923 was not of great benefit to the beef raisers from one end of Canada to the other? Is he trying to belittle the action taken at that time? When compared with the prophecies of the benefits of the present arrangement, I say that that was of infinitely more benefit to the people of Canada as a whole.
tMr. Elliott,]
I am sorry the hon. member for Marquette is not present. He and the member for Long Lake are the two champions on the other side of the house of the principles of this agreement.


Walter Davy Cowan: I thank the
hon. member very much.


John Campbell Elliott: I think my hon. friend
has made a contribution to this debate. Whether our contributions are much or little, we should do what we can to assist the cause of our country, especially at a time like this.
I say to the hon. member for Marquette that a man who has lived to his time, who has been in business so long and is still able to take an optimistic view of the future, is entitled to a great deal of credit. He is a very genial gentleman and I am sure we all like him. Occasionally he comes into my riding and I am always glad to see him. He is always most courteous and never says anything to cause offence. I am bound to admit that his speeches are not as helpful in winning elections as the speeches of some of the ministers of the government of which he is a supporter; nevertheless, we are always glad to see him. However, I would suggest that he restrict his observations to cattle and business matters rather than to prophecy. Last June he attended a meeting in my riding just before the elections in Manitoba and he brought to the Conservatives of Ontario a message of hope and cheer from the Conservatives of Manitoba. He told them how the Conservatives were going to wipe out the Liberals and Progressives, that once again the Conservative party would be in power in Manitoba. That prophecy did not turn out very well. I have in my hand an extract from the London Free Press of June 14, 1932. This paper is considered to be one of the keenest observers of political life in this country, and in an article headed " Dominion Issues in the Manitoba Fight " appears the following:
But it has required a keen sense of humour to accent some of the arguments that Premier John Bracken and his chief supporters have been using in the contest. They have been bearing down heavily on dominion issues, urging that a vote for the fusion forces would be a rebuke for the present policy at Ottawa of high tariffs, and that such a view' will mean better markets abroad for the farmers' W'heat.
Why was the victory of Premier Bracken and his supporters in the last campaign in Manitoba as signal as it was? It was because the fight was fought on dominion issues, it was fought on the record of the present govern-

United Kingdom
ment. I say to the government and its supporters:	Unless the policies of this government are changed very soon they will suffer the same reverses in the future as they have in Manitoba and South Huron.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: Do not prophesy too
much.


John Campbell Elliott: No, I will not. I do not
often indulge in prophecy, but this one is safe.
It is difficult for anyone to say definitely just what benefits will be derived from these agreements as they appear at the present time. I regret that the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) did not see his way clear to follow the suggestion made by my right hon. leader (Mr. Mackenzie King), that the various clauses in the agreements should be considered before this motion was pressed. Would any business concern in this country faced with a crisis such as this say to its board of directors: "We want you to approve of a certain course and then afterwards we will explain just what that course is"? I submit that we would have saved time, which is important at a time like this, had that course been followed. However, it has not and we will have to make the best of it.
An inkling of the trend of these agreements has been given by the statement made by the Prime Minister in his opening address, that they were based upon the principles enunciated by the Conservative party during the last elections. What were those principles? He promised that if he and his party were returned to power they would solve the unemployment problem, reduce the debt of the country, see that the farmer obtained better prices for what he had to sell, increase the trade of the country and thus make everybody happy and prosperous. But what has happened? All the methods which they thought at that time would produce these results have been adopted. During the special session of 1930 the tariff of this country was put up to a point hitherto unknown; during the extra session of 1931, the tariff was put up still higher, and then for fear it was not high enough the government took unto itself the power to raise the tariff by order in council to whatever heights it wished. So that we have had for the last two years in this country the highest tariff policy that I think has ever been in existence in any country at any time. If there is any benefit in tariffs, this country should have had it and if there is any great evil in tariffs, then this country has suffered from it.
What has been the result? Unemployment has quadrupled in this country in the last
two years. The public debt has increased over $300,000,000. Prices of farm products are more than cut in two. The people who' have to work on the farms today are not getting in return for their toil anything like what they got two years ago. I am interested in some farms where they employ considerable help at harvest time. This year good men can be procured for a quarter of the wages they received three years ago at harvest time. On the other hand we pay more than we did two years ago for repairs for our agricultural implements and it is only repairs that a farmer can afford to buy at the present time. A farmer, with his labour working for one-quarter the price he could pay two years ago, cannot afford to pay those wages as well as he could pay the higher wages two years ago, and he cannot afford an increased price for repairs.
I should like to refer for a moment, before I pass away from the subject, to the manner in which that has affected the whole business of the country. The best index of the business of the country is its trade. It is most regrettable that in the two years that have elapsed since these high tariffs have been put into force, the trade of Canada is now less by something over $58,000,000 than half of what it was two years ago. That is a serious situation. I know hon. gentlemen opposite are anxious to do something if they can to advise the government by way of assisting ourselves out of the difficulties in which we find ourselves at the present time, and I think the men particularly from the farms should say to the government what they must know to be the fact, namely that the tariff policy of the present government is making farming absolutely impossible in Canada today. If they do that, we would not have the government attempting to rivet upon the Canadian people for five years to come the terrible tariffs and the terrible burdens incident thereto from which we have been suffering for the last two years.
The Liberal party, the house and the country as a whole have recently had the misfortune to lose a distinguished member of this chamber and we have had to have an election in South Huron. After a parliament has gone perhaps nearly half its regular life, I shall not say it is an absolute rule, but the custom has been followed of allowing a man of the same political faith as the one who has been taken away to sit for the unexpired portion of the term. One would have thought that at this time of all times, when money is as hard to get as it is, when the finances of the country are in a terrible condition and when there is no doubt the duties of the government are much more onerous than they
112	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
would be in ordinary times, they would have endeavoured to avoid the expense, the distraction of business and the taking away from their offices of ministers who are so busy, by allowing a gentleman of the same political faith as the deceased member to fill that seat. But no, that is not the case. Word went out from the Conservative party headquarters that there must be a fight. Organizers were placed in that constituency and never before in the history of elections has there been a stronger band of Conservative organizers in any riding than that which was placed in South Huron during that campaign. As a matter of fact five ministers of the crown found it convenient to leave their offices at this time of great stress in order to visit South Huron and stay there for some time taking part in that campaign. Members of parliament from various ridings also took part. As a matter of fact a polling subdivision organization meeting was not considered to be properly opened without a benediction from some Conservative member of parliament. The most strenuous kind of campaign was waged and until the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion) and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) came into the riding and delivered 1 heir speeches, telling what the policy of the government was, you could have got odds of about two to one on the Conservative candidate. We heard a good deal more in South Huron from members of the government about these agreements than we have heard in this house.
What did the Minister of Railways and Canals say when he came into that riding? He told the people that this was a time of great stress, and that the agreements that had been entered into at the conference should be ratified. He urged them to show their approval of these agreements. He asked them to elect the Conservative candidate, a highly respectable gentleman, the warden of the county, the very best candidate who could be obtained for that party. Both candidates were excellent gentlemen. It was impossible to get a better candidate than the late deceased member, but I think the Liberal party had one of the very best candidates any party ever had in any campaign. Both were good candidates, but the Conservative candidate had opposed imperial preferences at the election of 1930 and the Liberal candidate had supported them. The argument of the Minister of Railways and Canals and of the Minister of Trade and Commerce was: Elect the Conservative candidate who opposed imperial preferences and defeat the Liberal candidate who is in favour of imperial preferences, just to show that you are thoroughly in favour of those preferences.

That is the kind of logic they used. After the Minister of Railwa3rs and Canals-and I am glad to see him in his seat-had told them they should vote to put those treaties into effect, the Minister of Trade and Commerce came along a couple of nights later and told them that he could not reveal the substance of the treaties. Did you ever hear of a campaign like that-two ministers of the crown urging the electors to support the treaties, but informing them that they could not tell them what the treaties contained? They did tell the electors in that constituency part of what the treaties contained; they told them everything that they thought might possibly enure to the benefit of their party. They told them about the benefits to be derived from the provision with respect to apples, from the removal of the embargo on cattle, and from the butter and cheese provisions and everything else. But the thing that struck these Scotchmen and the other electors in the riding of South Huron was that it was remarkable that if the terms of the treaties could not be revealed in their entirety, part of them could be revealed.


Robert James Manion: The only parts of the terms that were revealed were the parts that were made public when the treaties were signed. Only those parts were given to the electors of South Huron.


John Campbell Elliott: I quite agree with my
hon. friend. I expected when he got up that he would give just that answer. The parts of the treaties that were revealed at the close of the conference, just as the parts that were revealed in South Huron, did not tell the people of this country or the electors of South Huron that if they voted to maintain these treaties they would have saddled on to their necks for the next five years a protective tariff practically as high as or higher than the tariffs we have had in this country for the last two years. There was no more deception practised on the electorate of South Huron in that by-election than there was on the people of Canada when the announcement was made at the end of the conference. Both announcements were the same. They were consistent in that respect; there is no doubt about that. I want to say this to my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals -who is usually a good fighter, perhaps one of the best fighters on the other side of the house-that the people of South Huron expected him to come there with a red-blooded speech telling how the pledges that this government made in 1930 had been implemented during the last two years. But did he? Ministers of the crown when they go into a

United Kingdom
riding in a by-election sometimes say something about the record of the government. Did the Minister of Railways?


Robert James Manion: Absolutely. I went over
the whole record of the government.


John Campbell Elliott: I happen to have a paper containing a report of my hon. friend's speech, and it was along this line, as he will no doubt recall: that this was not a time for political controversy at all. I say this much to my hon. friend's credit, that I do not think he said anything that was uncomplimentary about anybody during the course of that whole campaign. Along with his fellow ministers and followers in the house he went up there and it was a perfect love feast. But the main thought expressed was: You must vote for these agreements and show that you are in favour of the empire. My hon. friend also spoke of Laurier having started the preference.


Robert James Manion: I never mentioned Laurier at all.


John Campbell Elliott: He mentioned the time at which the preference was started, and everybody up there knew that it was Laurier who started it. The Minister of Trade and Commerce referred to Laurier. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Sutherland) came to the nomination meeting, and while he did not quite say that he was a free trader, he gave the people of South Huron to understand that he certainly was in favour of reducing tariffs at the earliest possible opportunity. My hon. friend from North Huron (Mr. Spotton) also came into the campaign and told the people that he was always considered an independent in politics. You could hardly get one of them, even the ministers, to admit during that election that they were true-to-type Tories. Really I must say that it gave great hope to mo that the members of this government and their followers had at last seen the light and that we might expect a reduction in the tariffs which have almost broken the people's backs in the last two years. Hon. gentlemen laugh, but the people are not laughing. There is no question that high tariffs are the great evil from which the world is suffering to-day. Practically all great authorities say that the great cause of the present depression is the terrible tariffs with which the various people of the world have been afflicted.
May I just recall for the .benefit of my hon. friends one or two statements that have been made. I do not think that this one has been quoted in the house. It is from the Toronto Globe of July 7, 1932. The article is headed,
"Unjust! Exorbitant! Importers declare of Bennett tariffs-System goes hand in hand with starvation, is claim." It goes on to say:
Toronto importers banded together yesterday to protest against what they termed "iniquitous, exorbitant, unjust and outrageous" tariffs imposed by the Bennett government. More than seventy-five of them met at the King Edward hotel yesterday to organize the newly created Canadian Importers' Association of Toronto.
It goes on to say what everybody throughout the country knows, that the great cause of the present depression is the tariffs from which the world is suffering. That was not a Liberal organization. This association of Toronto importers has never been actively identified with the Liberal cause. They are the finest group of Conservative supporters_ that you could find anywhere in the world. Their statement is quite in line with what Mr. Stanley Baldwin said at the opening of the conference.
May I also give another quotation which I think will appeal to my hon. friends on the other side of the house? A dinner was given by the Canadian High Commissioner the night before the British delegates sailed for the conference. His Rcyal Highness the Prince of Wales had been asked to deliver a message to the delegates on the eve of sailing for Canada, but he was ill and unable to attend, and the following message was delivered by Prince George. I think this will appeal to hon. gentlemen opposite perhaps more than anything else that I could quote:
The speech which the Prince of Wales had prepared was a serious and direct summary of the prospects of the Ottawa conference.
"No group of countries can isolate themselves from the rest of the world," Prince George read. "Canada and Australia cannot dispense with the world market for their wheat. Australia, South Africa and New Zealand cannot dispense with the world market for their wool. The United Kingdom needs the world market for her manufactures.
"Maybe, taking the long view, the Empire will, by drawing closer together, become in time less dependent on the rest of the world, but such a change must come gradually and by the natural process of evolution, guided, and not forced, by government action.
"In the meantime it is of the utmost importance in our own interests that, so far fram taking any steps that might discourage foreign countries, we should make every effort at Ottawa to put heart into the world, and concert measures in which other countries may later cooperate.
"The Empire can perhaps give a lead in the right direction, starting an upward movement of wholesale prices; and for taking such steps the Empire is fortunately placed. Its responsibility to the rest of the world is correspondingly great.
"The political differences of the world the Empire cannot cure; but on the economic side cannot some message of hope go out to world trade dying in the grip of almost universal
414	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
restrictions? While we recognize the difficulties, we must not allow misgivings to overwhelm us; failure is unthinkable."
That is the message that was delivered to the delegates from Great Britain on the eve of their departure for the conference.
There is another thing which I think is very interesting and perhaps will be enlightening to my hon. friends. Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Luxembourg last June signed a protocol agreeing to act in concert with a view to general improvement in trade, and here is what they agreed upon :
They agree that "the erection of new tariff barriers and various other restricted measures have contributed in great measure to aggravate the present crisis." They consider, "that it is necessary to put an end to this policy of isolation before the economy of the different countries has been transformed in a manner quite contrary to all the fundamental principles of a sane, rational division of labour between different nations."
In view, Mr. Speaker, of the disaster to Canada resulting from these high tariffs, in view of the change in sentiment throughout the world in favour of lower tariffs, and in view of the statements made by members of this government during the South Huron election, I had hoped that we were going to have something as a result of the conference that would give hope and courage to the people of this country, that we were not going to be longer burdened with these very heavy tariffs and the difficulties that come in their wake. May I say how difficult it is to estimate accurately the results of these tariffs? In many, many cases I find that where the goods have been made free from Great (Britain, as in the case of cream separators and barbed wire and many articles that appear on the list, none of these things come from Great Britain, and the effect of these changes is only to take the duty off goods that do not come in from Great Britain and to raise the general and intermediate tariff on the goods coming from other countries. I do not think it is possible for any member or supporter of the government to hold out any hope whatever that the tariffs imposed as a result of the conference are not going to be a heavier burden on the Canadian people than the tariffs which were in existence before the conference.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member has spoken for forty minutes.


Mr. SAMUEL GOBEIL (Compton):: Coming from a constituency largely rural, the citizens of which are very deeply interested in the acceptance of the agreements passed at the imperial conference, I feel it my duty to take part in this discussion.

My first word will be a word of congratulation to the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) and to the government for the very substantial preferences that they have obtained for the farmers of Canada. If the citizens of this country were to draw their conclusions as to the results of the conference from the speeches we have listened to from the other side of the house, they would be led to feel that the situation is almost hopeless. Of course we expected, and our expectations have been confirmed, that hon. members opposite would not all agree. We have just had a good example of that tonight. While the hon. member who has just taken his seat was speaking I thought it would be very interesting to compare that speech with that of the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Moore) who preceded him. It would furnish a good illustration of the unity of thinking or the extent of the disagreement among hon. members on the other side.
I would like to quote a sentence of a speech by an hon. member opposite, as an example of the trend to which I refer. The reason I quote these few words is that when the speech was delivered the attendance in the house was small, and I rather think this will come as a surprise to many members. Last Friday night the hon. member for Provencher, speaking here, uttered these words, which will be found at page 248 of Hansard:
This government, not satisfied with putting a tariff wall around Canada and ruining our own country are trying to ruin the whole British empire by encircling it completely with a tariff wall. As a member of this house representing an agricultural constituency, and having the interests of the whole of Canada at heart, I am not going to swallow these trade agreements holus-bolus just to please my right hon. friend the Prime Minister; the whole thing is a joke. . . . You know it is a joke and you cannot get away from it.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we had in this city for over a month representatives of all the different commonwealths of the British empire, who were supposed to be and no doubt were some of the best brains of the empire. The situation of the whole world was certainly critical enough to impress these delegates with a sense of their responsibility. They came here and deliberated in an attempt to find a solution for the problems of the British Empire, and at the same time lessen trade barriers throughout the world. I do not wish, Mr. Speaker, to minimize the ability or intelligence of the hon. member, but I think I can say without offending him that he is not a genius; I do not know that he

United Kingdom
invented gunpowder or four-hole buttons. But he says that a conference of the best brains of the British Empire extending over five weeks is a joke.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: It is, every clause in the agreement is a joke.


Samuel Gobeil: Well, Mr. Speaker, I agree to a certain extent with the hon. member. There is a joke, and moreover there is a joker; but the joke and the joker do not live at the address the hon. member gave.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: There is a joker in every clause, and I will prove it when I speak.


Samuel Gobeil: I know very well that many hon. members opposite are not prepared to endorse that declaration.
I should like now to quote another hon. member, who is more moderate, and who is perhaps more representative of the general opinion of the opposition. The hon. member for West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart) is reported at page 235 of Hansard as saying this:
Consider what the tariff has done to western Canada. Owing to the imposition of excessive tariffs that keep the spread between primary and secondary industries so great, foreign markets where we formerly sold our produce are now closed to us, so that we can sell neither our wheat nor our cattle; we cannot sell our mineral products nor anything else.
I think this represents pretty well the general tone of speeches made by hon. members opposite. I wish to point out that hon. members have said, generally speaking, that our markets were closed. They have said that the tariff changes effected by the Conservatives were responsible for the decrease of trade. But to my knowledge at any rate- and I have followed the deliberations of this house pretty clasely-not one of them yet has pointed to one specific commodity or product for the decrease in which the tariff is responsible. It is all right in a general discussion, Mr. Speaker, and I am prepared to admit that it is quite popular with the masses, to go round the country saying that tariffs are responsible for the difficulties in which business generally finds itself, but as I have said, not one specific case has been brought forward of a commodity the price of which has been raised by the tariff.
Let us consider how the tariff has helped business. It has helped in connection with canned fruit. In 1930 we sold 4,254,466 pounds of canned fruit, while in 1931-32 we sold 7,263,489 pounds. Surely trade in that commodity has not been hampered by the tariff. What about wheat? In 1929-30 we sold in round figures 177,000.000 Ibushels, while in 1931-32 we sold 191,000,000 bushels. We have

lost nothing there because of the tariff. Until hon. members opposite can show one commodity for which other nations are receiving a higher price than we are getting I do not think they can say that the tariff policy of this government is responsible for our decreased trade. What about barley? In 1929-30 we sold about 14,000,000 bushels, while in 19311932 we sold over 24,000,000 bushels. In 19291930 we sold only 186,000 bushels of buckwheat, while in 1931-32 we sold over 741,000 bushels. In 1929-30 we sold 6,406,000 bushels of oats, while in 1931-32 we sold 13,841,000 bushels. The same thing happened in connection with rye; in 1929-30 we sold 1,526,000 bushels, while in 1931-32 we sold 4,359,000 bushels. I could mention other conmodities, such as butter. As we all know, in 1929-30 we were importing butter, but even so we sold 13,000 hundredweight that year, while in 1931-32 we exported 109,000 hundredweight. Let me tell my hon. friends that they are very much mistaken if they think the citizens of Canada are going to swallow the statement that the tariff policies of this government have been responsible for the decrease in our trade.
Quite often hon. members opposite mention butter; they think we on this, side can say nothing on that subject. I should like to place a few figures on Hansard so that they may be referred to by those interested, showing a comparison of the prices paid for butter in 1930 in Canada and other countries with the prices paid to-day.
United
Canada States England June, 1930.	.	.	27.13	32.93	28.02July, 1930.	.	.	27.59	35.24	28.95August, 1930 .	.	28.67	38.92	28.53
You will notice, Mr. Speaker, that there is a spread of nearly 10 cents between Canadian and United States prices, and a spread of from two to three cents between Canadian and English prices. What was the situation a few months later?
United
Canada States England
December, 1930.	28.63
January, 1931. .	30.80
February, 1931..	31.61
March, 1931.	.	31.13
32.18	23.43
28.50	24.11
28.50	25.74
28.88	25.32
It will be noticed that from January, 1931, the Canadian price was about 3 cents higher than the United States price and from 6 to 7 cents higher than the English price. Then what was the situation this year, when prices
were so low?
United
Canada States England
March, 1932.	.	26.31
April, 1932. . .	20.06
May, 1932.	.	.	16.81
August, 1932 . .	19.21
22.61 18.94 20.04 19.38 18.83 17.81 20.31 17.81
416	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
It will be seen, Mr. Speaker, that the action taken by this government on behalf of Canadian farmers has resulted in our farmers getting more for their butter than are the farmers of any other country in the world. I invite hon. members opposite to deny that statement; I invite them to bring forward figures to show that this is not an exact picture of the situation with regard to butter. Prices are low; they are lower than they were in 1930, but the price of butter in Canada to-day is higher than in either the United States or England.
This is not all that has 'been done for the country by this government. The other evening the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Howard) drew a very dark picture of conditions in his city. If he had told all the facts he would have informed the house that even in Sherbrooke there are industries that have benefited by the tariff policy of this government. There are industries that are running full time, with a full complement of men, and other industries that are running extra time working in the evenings, and this is due without any doubt whatever to the changes in the tariff brought about by this government. 4
Let me give you a concrete illustration taken fi om my own constituency. I know more about this particular concern because it is in my own riding. We have in the village of Scotstown, Quebec, a veneer mill, an English concern. In the spring of 1931 these people found themselves with over a million feet of logs uncut, owing to the fact that the Americans were dumping on the Canadian market American veneer at prices with which it was absolutely impossible for Canadians to compete. They were dumping at practically cost of production regardless of the price of the timber. The Canadian manufacturers came here and had an interview with the Prime Minister and a change was made in the tariff at the next session. What has been the result of those changes? From December to February the entire quantity of that million feet of logs was cut, sold and disposed of, and the company that winter had a heavier cut than they had ever stocked their mill with before.
I can assure the house that had it not been for the action taken by the government, conditions in Scotstown and the surrounding district would have been quite critical. It was a wonderful help to the labouring population [DOT]of that village as well as to the farmers in the [DOT]surrounding townships. Does it follow that everybody in that village and in the surrounding district is well off and that conditions are no longer critical there? Not at all. [Mr. Gobeil.l
There is still depression and we still have our troubles; but the fact is that had it not been for those changes in the tariff the situation would have been ten times worse.
I wish to place on Hansard a letter I received from the manager of that mill, addressed to myself and dated February 5, 1932:
It will probably interest you to know that today we closed down our veneer-cutting mill for repairs. January was an exceptionally busy month, and, as you know, the operating of our veneer mill during January and into February is unprecedented in the history of the company. We shall reopen the mill just as soon as we can, for things seem to be coining our way now. Some of the trade whom we have never been able to touch have at last discovered that they can get veneers in Canada better than the imported article. One manufacturer from Ontario was so much of a doubting Thomas that he came to Scotstown to see if he could risk using our products. We took him to the mill, and flinging up his hands, he said: "I didn't know we had anything like this in Canada." Needless to say, he left an order for a carload without any hesitation, and promised another carload order within a month. The condition of affairs is, naturally, very encouraging, but we shudder to think what the conditions might be, were it not for the intervention of Mr. Bennett. The duty on imports plus the exchange has been keeping u.s busy for the past feiv months. We have taken no advantage of the exchange to raise prices, which are extremely low, but we have felt that if we could keep busy, and get the manufacturers to see the merits of the Canadian article, the price would reasonably adjust itself in the natural course of events. We are finding a new spirit among the buyers,-they are fast becoming imbued with a new or reawakened patriotism.
Guelph Patent Cask Company, Limited.
That is what the changes in the tariff meant in my own constituency. The leader of the opposition himself, in his speech the other day, confirmed it; in my estimation he proved beyond any doubt that the situation had improved. I should like to quote from figures he gave to the house. At page 35 of Hansard he referred to industries employing fifteen persons and over, and he gave the number of industries and the number of employees in each case. Of course, his argument was that there were fewer employees in 1932 than in 1930; nevertheless he proved beyond any doubt, as I have just said, that the changes in the tariff have helped the country. I will give the figures as he gave them:
Firms
September	1,	1930	
7,334September	1,	1931	
7,798September	1,	1932	
8,007
At the last session of parliament or the session before that, we Conservatives in this house said that changes in the tariff had brought

United Kingdom
new industries to Canada, but hen. gentlemen across the way, in reply to that, said: "Yes, you have brought so many new industries to the country but there are so many industries that have been closed down." I would remind you, however, that the leader of the opposition gave the actual number of factories in operation on the first of September in each of the three years from 1930 to 1932, inclusive; and while I do not know how many factories were closed down, the fact remains that on the first of September, 1930, there were 7,334 in operation whereas on the first of September, 1932, there were 8,007. The leader of the opposition said, "Yes, that is all right; but on the first of September, 1930, they were employing 1,023,033 persons whereas on the first of September, 1932, they were employing only 789,321." Well, that is quite true; no one disputes it. But what does it mean? It simply means that if on the first of September, 1932, we had had only 7,334 factories instead of 8,007, the manufacturers would very likely have been employing not more than, perhaps, half a million persons in 1932. So that by the changes in the tariff we have brought over 700 new factories to the country, and even if you reduced the number of persons employed by each concern you would still have several thousand more men and women employed than would be working today if we did not have that increased number of companies operating.
Hundreds of times hon. gentlemen opposite have said to the Prime Minister, "You told the people of Canada that you would end unemployment and you have not done so'." That is the great argument; it is the only argument they have; when there is nothing else to be said they say that. Do hon. members opposite believe that the people of Canada are going to swallow that?


An hon. MEMBER:: They will swallow
you.


Samuel Gobeil: I shall have a few words
to say about that later on. No, Mr. Speaker, the citizens of Canada will not swallow that. If hon. members want the citizens of Canada to believe that argument they will have to prove to them that there are other countries where unemployment has been cured.
There is another matter to which I shall refer before I deal with the recent election in South Huron. I think the Solicitor General (Mr. Dupre) was teasing the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) this afternoon when he challenged hon. members from Quebec to return to their ridings and repeat the declarations made by their leader 53719-27
in this house to the effect that Canada had used the mother country too harshly and that the Prime Minister had succeeded in his endeavour to dictate to the mother country.


Mr. POULIOT:: I will accept that challenge next Sunday at Iberville.


Samuel Gobeil: Hon. members from Quebec know that they do not intend to repeat the remarks of their leader, although they may quote some of the remarks of the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Rinfret), the mayor of Montreal. Referring to the declarations which had been made by his leader, he said:
Under the provisions of these articles we are being dictated to by an external government and it makes no difference whether this dictation comes from the government of the United Kingdom, of France, or any other country. We are being dictated to.
And then again.
I may be all wrong about this, Mr. Speaker, but I think it is abominable that the government of Canada should be told in a trade agreement by another nation that they shall do certain things of a local character.
That is what hon. members from Quebec will quote to their electors.


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes, next Sunday at
Iberville.


Samuel Gobeil: If they want to be consistent they should quote the declaration of their leader as well as those of the hon. member for St. James. If they do so I shall be very much surprised if some of those electors who may listen to them will not tell them to go and fix up their whistle. It will be absolutely out of tune. I think it is a disgrace to see hon. members making such an extreme statement that the Prime Minister of Canada is dictating the policy of England.
I had the good fortune to be in the constituency of South Huron at the same time as the former Minister of Justice, and to be present at a meeting at which he spoke.


Mr. MERCIER (St. Henri):: Oh, oh.


Samuel Gobeil: I think the hon. member
is anticipating what is coming.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member who
has the floor is perfectly in order, and such interruptions as are occurring are not in order.


Samuel Gobeil: An article which appeared
in a recent issue of La Tribune of Sherbrooke gives the former Minister of Justice all the credit for the Liberal victory in South Huron. This article, which is in French, reads as follows:

418	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
Great credit must be given to the bon. Ernest Lapointe, late Minister of Justice in the King cabinet, for the very excellent work he performed in winning a splendid Liberal victory, in the constituency of South Huron.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Samuel Gobeil: The last sentence reads as
follows:
Again, Mr. Lapointe has performed excellent work in South Huron, and, the hon. Mr. King must feel pleased with him.
The result of the vote in three or four polls in the district where the former Minister of Justice spoke showed an increase of 15 in the Conservative vote.


Pierre-François Casgrain: How many did the hon. member get in the district where he spoke? Only seven votes.


Samuel Gobeil: In the 1930 elections the
Conservatives polled 144 votes in that district, while in 1932 they polled 159. I do not think the hon. member for Quebec East should be so proud of the results he obtained in South Huron.
I am glad that this by-election was mentioned tonight because there is another matter to which I wish to refer. I took down some of the statements made by the former Minister of Justice while in this constituency. He was claiming that the policy of the Liberal party was a policy of love-how dearly he loved them all there! I shall first give his remarks in French and then in English. They were:
Les femmes de ma province votent "liberal" parce qu'elles aiment quelqu'un et votent "conservateur" parce qu'elles detestent quelqu'un.
The English translation is as follows:
The French women in my province vote Liberal because they love somebody and vote Conservative because they hate somebody.
I consider that an insult to the women of Quebec, and I know they will resent it. When the women of Quebec cast their vote they use their good judgment. They vote Conservative because they believe that party is the best. Those who vote Liberal do not do so because of the merits of the question at issue or because they are convinced; they do so because they hate or love somebody, says the hon. gentleman.


Mr. FAFARD:: Because they love a principle.


Jean-François Pouliot: Because they hate Toryism.


Samuel Gobeil: I am not surprised at this
statement having been made by the hon.

member for Quebec East, because every time he has spoken in this house he has used the same language as he did the other day, when-


Paul Mercier: Oh, oh.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Order. I would regret
to have to name any hon. member present, but if I am forced to do so, 1 will.


Samuel Gobeil: -he declared that the Prime Minister said it was unpatriotic to discuss these agreements. There again, there was the word to the province of Quebec; there again, there was the word from that hon. gentleman in the county of South Huron to go to the province of Quebec in an endeavour to raise racial prejudice and also religious prejudice if possible. I am pleased that the hon. member gave me the opportunity to make that declaration from my seat in the house, and I declare now that these are the exact words which the hon. member for Quebec East uttered in South Huron during the campaign.


Mr. HERMAS DESLAURIERS (St. Mary's) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I wish
to heartily congratulate the speaker who has just preceded me in this debate on the pains he took to prove his contentions as to our future prosperity; I especially congratulate him on the great faith he reposes in his party. However, I must confess that he has not succeeded in convincing me, notwithstanding all his endeavours.
After listening to the speeches delivered in the house on the subject matter of this debate, especially those of the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) and the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens), we can safely state that speech was given to man to disguise his thoughts, so true is it that this measure, called Imperial pacts, presented under the veil of the Tory policy of high protection, is but a bold revival of Mr. Joseph Chamberlain's imperialism. The Prime Minister warned us that what we have to consider today, is but the thin edge of the first part of his program for the future; namely a trade pact for the present; the other part will follow later; it will probably be a military alliance. That was the new Zollverein cherished by Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, a doctrine described with so much spirit by the English poet Kipling.
I wish to draw the attention of the house to an editorial published October 18, 1932, in the Toronto Globe, a well known Imperialist newspaper. This article strengthens my argu-

United Kingdom
ment and well illustrates, particularly, the far-reaching effect of the measure that we are asked to approve-a thing which I will never do. The editorial is as follows:
An Undefended Empire
Mr. Hector Bywater, naval correspondent of the London Daily Telegraph, has made the disclosure that "informal conversations at Ottawa during the recent Imperial conference revealed to British ministers unexpected readiness on the part of Canada, Australia and New Zealand to recognize their obligations in the cause of empire sea defence." All that was said in the casual and formal conversations of the five-week conference will never be known, but it is not without reason that a subject of such general empire importance, and particularly to the southern dominions, was introduced at some of the stages.
1 he nature of this conference, however, precluded action on the subject of defence.
Doubtless these informal conversations were not between ushers or messengers at the last conference. I think the hon. Prime Minister might perhaps be able to inform us who are the members of his cabinet who held these informal conversations, for, after all, we are gre'.tly interested in the matter. The right hon. Prime Minister stated, at the Tory meeting held in Winnipeg, and at which he w-as chosen as leader of the Conservative party, that he intended to follow, without restriction, the policy of Sir John A. Macdonald, should his party assume power. I think no one will gainsay this statement.
Although, at one period about 1854, Sir John Macdonald proved himself more Canadian than Imperialist, which is greatly to his credit and glory, later coming in contact with those who held imperialistic views, influential and subtle men, having to often visit England, the Colonial Office, as Prime Minister of Canada, his views and patriotic ideas evolved and changed to such an extent that in 1884, at a conference held at the Colonial Office, he was an entirely new man, he had become a strong Imperialist, not only from the viewpoint of trade, for he agreed to an offensive and defensive alliance with England as regards all possible war. Therefore, if the words of the right hon. Prime Minister have any meaning they point out the path in which he will lead us to the very end, should he be given the opportunity and should Providence not place, as it did in the path of Sir John Macdonald, obstacles to prevent him from realizing his dream. Is that the purport of the measure which he asks us to approve today? Does it constitute a continuation of Sir John A. Macdonald's policy and scheme of Imperial defence to which the Toronto Globe editorial Tefers? We can suppose so and are entitled to know the facts because
the Canadian people are greatly interested. At all events, if such is the case, I entirely disagree with the views of the Prime Minister, and it is our duty to refuse our sanction to these pacts because this legislation is contrary to the autonomy which we jealously' guard, a blow directed against the privileges >0 laboriously and dearly conquered, and it would be criminal to encroach the least on them.
These pacts are not tariff agreements such as we are in the habit of seeing in our annual budgets, as for instance, in the Dunning budget of 1930. They form a complete contract, a trade alliance where the provisions are stipulated and conditions definitely stated -which is an entirely different thing. For a period of five years none of the contracting parties can cancel these pacts without the consent of the other. If, for one reason or another, the agreement is not to the advantage of one of the contracting parties, said party can only give notice, six months before the expiration of the five years, that it intends to cancel the contract. I state that it is an absurd and singular stipulation.
According to article 21, the contracting parties agree to adopt the measures necessary to prohibit the importation of goods coming from foreign countries, if such importation prejudices the present pact. As it is acknowledged that the British Commonwealth cannot entirely absorb our production, what chance have we to sell the surplus of our products in countries which are not included in the British Empire, if they welcome our goods with the same feelings as we would have had for theirs? Nothing should make us forget that all trade must rest on the law of supply and demand, it is the supreme principle, in matters of trade.
But, all the provisions of this imperial pact operate against the freedom of our trade. We cannot agree to this pact without taking the risk of turning Canada into a warehouse for the benefit of Great Britain, which will be free to take what best suits her and when she pleases. We shall be unable to plead ignorance having been warned more than once by the leading English statesmen that England could not possibly sacrifice her foreign markets -quite rightly, because she leaves herself open to disaster. In fact, keeping in mind that our population is not over 10.000,000, and that our trade with the mother country shows a balance of trade unfavourable to her, it is only rational to believe that she will not sacrifice for us all the foreign markets which are her mainstay.
420	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
The vague, obscure and unintelligible wording of a number of these imperial agreements, edited by Mr. Neville Chamberlain, the reserves and privileges attached to each article of the treaty lead us to believe that England has no desire to commit herself in these agreements. Here and elsewhere, the world price will be the barometer by which she will be guided. In one case she is privileged to contract with foreign countries so as to obtain tariff favours, if her barometer points that way; elsewhere, the government of the United Kingdom reserves its liberty to adopt certain measures before placing the pact in her statutes; in another article, we find that privileges are granted to British producers to be heard before the tariff commission, with conclusions previously drawn and settled-[DOT] one can easily imagine. So that it is rational to conclude that this trade agreement can be greatly to the advantage of England, but I cannot understand what benefit we are to derive from it. Theoretically, this scheme of isolating other nations can be imagined, but, in practice, the thing is not feasible. Germany, in the past, failed in her scheme of Pan-Germanism. The United States have endeavoured, within the last year, under a Tory regime to create a Pan-American Union: today, we are aware in what situation that country finds herself; to-morrow, we can say with all certainty that, if a trial is made, Pan-Saxonism, will have the same fate.
For a number of years, the United States governed by a Tory regime, called Republican, endeavoured to isolate themselves by raising a high tariff wall against the entire world; today that power which comprises a population of 120,000,000 people, possessing almost all the gold in the world, since the war, finds herself in a more precarious situation than all other countries. Distress is met everywhere amongst its population, she finds no sympathy from any quarter and, to-morrow her people, disgusted, will snatch the power from this uncompromising party, to confide it to democrats-and it will be in the best interests of that country'.
At no time, did the United States and Canada, enjoy more prosperity than when the great treaty of reciprocity between our country and the United States was in effect between 1854 and 1866, then the United States citizens came to our shores and purchased- at good prices Canadian products: hay, eggs, butter, cream, vegetables and poultry; nothing could resist the American Eagle, and everybody was happy.
When, after ten years of existence, this treaty was abrogated, owing to the ill-feelings
*reated by the war of the north against the
TMr. Deslnuriers.]
south, the situation in Canada became so alarming that at a moment, England being unable to help, a movement started and petitions asking annexation to the United States were covered with signatures. We can thank Providence, that we had at that period, as Governor General of Canada, the great statesman, the illustrious Lord Elgin, who succeeded in having the United States agree to a treaty of reciprocity, by the mediation of his brother-in-law, Lord Grey, which resulted in bringing peace and prosperity to Canada.
Such as they are, these pacts are inacceptable to us, since they force us to enact measures which will certainly strongly offend our neighbours, with whom we have every interest to live in peace. It is not desirable to take the risk that some day Great Britain will cancel the agreements and leave us, after having guaranteed with everyone, in a situation similar to the one which existed in 1866. If this happened, would we find another Elgin? It is more than doubtful. What would happen then? Would it not be assuredly annexation, precisely asked by those who, today, advocate the enactment of these agreements? It is entirely nonsensical on our part to seek to break away from our neighbours, the United States from whom we are only separated by an imaginary line, whose habits are the same as ours, and endeavour to alter the natural course of our trade, when the Tories are on the eve of being overthrown and when the new President who will assume power will be in a position to offer us proposals of reciprocity which, like in the past, will bring back prosperity to Canada. Before ratifying these pacts, it is essential that we should take into consideration the circumstances under which we are negotiating. All the European powers have recognized the Russian form of government, our principal competitor. England necessarily, cannot set aside this large market with its 145,000,000 people. Notwithstanding the pacts which we are discussing, at present, she will certainly find the means of trading with that country, if we are to judge from what we read in the press. The same applies to the other European nations. Canada has placed an embargo on Russian products and has not recognized the Soviet government. Had this embargo not existed, Canada could obtain, at retail prices, during this crisis, gasoline at 12 cents per gallon, instead of paying 25 to 30 cents. It could purchase first quality anthracite coal at $6 per ton, retail price, instead of paying $16 to $17. These advantages which we deny ourselves because of the government's attitude, others will reap the benefit; the European nations will purchase these products which we need; they will be resold to us at

United Kingdom
a good profit. We cannot help being cheated when the occasion arises. Canada will use as she is now doing, Russian coal under a pseudonym paying S16 instead of $6; it will purchase Russian gasoline under a sham name at 30 cents per gallon, and who will be able to detect these products and prevent this trade? Absolutely no one.
Moreover, have we not tried out these business methods when, after the war of 1914, we decided to ban German goods? They nevertheless continued to enter our country; boxes of boots and shoes found their way here not under the label "made in Germany" but under that of "made in England". And it was only long after that the deception was discovered and that we were able to control somewhat this method of doing business:
These agreements mean the isolation of the British Commonwealth from the other nations of the world, an essentially false principle. We are requested to be hostile towards our neighbours; we are required to provoke all nations with which we are on friendly terms, so as to enforce this new policy of isolation. The government wishes us to approve its attitude, notably towards the United States which has taken upon itself the mission of protecting us against all European attacks, creditors to whom we address ourselves almost exclusively to finance us and which we invite to invest with us so as to develop our natural resources, because we lack capital; a country which possesses already 70 per cent of Canada's capital and which, for the last century has been living in peace with us, having only the stars in the heavens and their good will to protect our frontier-our best customer. I think that this warlike and aggressive attitude can have no other result than creating a coolness and friction which will turn quicker than one expects to a dangerous enmity. Let us suppose, for a moment, that the United States refuse us further loans or renewal of our loans, that they withdraw the capital invested in Canadian industries and close the latter's doors, that they abandon Canada entirely to its own resources, can we not assert, sir, that in a very short time the situation in Canada would become very precarious. It is true that the Tory regime of the United States has been, within the last years, very unfriendly to the interests of Canada. This does not surprise us, because Tory regimes have always been the promoters of high tariff protection and the originators of food baskets which, I might say, they distributed to the people they govern, when the former are reduced to the state of begging, as it is the case, today. How long will our neighbours put up with
these vexations? Will they wait five years, or the completicn of the St. Lawrence waterways to inform us? I am unable to say. In 1775, that nation which only had 20,000,000 population and had not the wealth which they possess today declared its independence.
I stated in this house that I had little faith in the League of Nations to ensure world peace, because good will does not exist among the nations which form part of it. Canada is a member of the League, her contribution amounts to $300,000 per year. She is supposed to help in promoting peace. However, today, her government adopts a threatening attitude which will rouse the nations of the world against her. Are we not right when we state that gocd will is lacking among the nations of the league and would it not be the proper time, if we desire peace, to recall our representatives from Geneva and agree with the United States to hold conferences in Washington in order to protect ourselves? I think that this would be more practical.
The right hon. Prime Minister convened parliament earlier than usual, owing to the importance of the agreements which he wishes us to sanction. In a few weeks a world conference will be held in England. Canada will be represented. Does the Prime Minister expect the nations which are not included in the British Commonwealth will be well disposed to grant concessions to Canada and the British empire, knowing fully well that, in the future, they will be forced to pay tribute to British nations in order to trade with them? Logically, this meeting should give them an excellent opportunity of organizing their forces to resist British Tory Imperialism. Even, I would not be astonished, that, from that date, a conflict sprang up-in trade, financial and perhaps military matters-in which Canada will have great vexations, unless this movement of isolation be dropped.
Mr. Speaker, before closing my remarks, I have no hesitation to state that these agreements are essentially founded on a false principle, that the freedom of trade is threatened, that our autonomy is seriously affected, that we have no right to turn our back against our neighbours, the United States so as to play the part of dupe in Europe. Therefore, for the future cf Canada and the empire, in the interest of my country, I shall not sanction by my vote the recommendations of the Imperial economic conference.


Mr. GROTE STIRLING (Yale):: On Monday afternoon the house listened for nearly four hours to the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) as he exposed his views with regard to world trade,
/mperial Conference-Trade

Agreements
the history of Canada's relations thereto, and the treaty. As the cloud of words rose and as hour succeeded hour I waited with what patience I could, realizing that eventually scolding would probably give place to a definite statement of the right hon. gentleman's reasons for opposing this treaty. Freer trade it is mutually agreed is desirable, but in the opinion of the right hon. gentleman this treaty is not at all the way to go about it, if we wish to attain it. The statements which the right hon. gentleman made would appear to me to require such a very great deal of study before they could be accepted as facts by his listeners that I desire to draw attention to one or two of them.
Some years age the right hon. gentleman searched Canada most diligently to find combines and monopolies so that he might proceed against them. In his speech the other day he alluded once more to combines, linking them up in some way with the Tories who were present at the conference at Ottawa. He said that there had been a Tory conspiracy. It is well known that the delegates who were here for the conference were the appointed representatives of certain governments in the empire-the government of Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, of Mr, De Valera, of General Hertzog, of Mr. Coates-so I think the right hon. gentleman will have to afford some further proof of the fact that they could honestly be described as Tories before the intelligent public will accept his statement as fact.
There was another statement which came a good deal earlier in his speech to which I also want to draw attention. At page 282 of Hansard the right hon. gentleman is reported as saying:
Die Liberal party has always advocated greater freedom of trade.
With that I do not think there can be any disagreement. He goes on:
When it lias advocated a tariff, it has been a tariff for revenue, protection being only incidental.
Has it not? On most of the occasions when I have intervened in debate in this house since 1924 it has been for the purpose of putting forward the views and aspirations of agricultural producers, principally of those engaged in the production of vegetables and fruit. I have endeavoured to put before the house certain opinions which are strongly held by the fruit growers, and to argue that surely it would be wise to give the fruit grower such assistance as may be necessary to enable him to market his produce within Canada so long as he has produce fit for that market. That industry might perhaps be 
described as one of the minor industries of Canada, yet it affects five provinces and a score or two of constituencies. In that long fight, the dogged fight that the fruit growers carried on throughout the regime of the right hon. gentleman, they endeavoured to point out that without the assistance of some special tariff arrangement it would be extremely difficult for them to continue operations. The right hon. gentleman's principles stood in the way. He would not agree to the collection of a special duty which would stop dumping. His principles prevented him taking the action suggested. But the principles of the Liberal party did not prevent a Liberal minister from inserting a dumping clause in the customs tariff, nor did Liberal principles prevent another Liberal minister from amending the Customs Act to provide machinery to enable the dumping clause to be put into effect. Their principles became a nuisance to them only when they were asked to operate that machinery.
Further than that, when a government of protectionist views intervened in office for a fen- months the present Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) promptly put that Liberal machinery into action and the fruit grower immediately felt the benefit.


Edward James Young: And we paid for it.


Grote Stirling: Nor can it be shown, despite the oft-repeated views of the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Young), that the Canadian consumer suffered one whit thereby. But when the Liberal government returned to office shortly after, its principles again did not stand in the way of its retaining that machinery in action, and for a year and a half, through two shipping seasons, the fruit grower had the assistance of that machinery. Then came the inevitable explosion which must always occur sooner or later in so composite a party as that which my right hon. friend leads, and the orders in council were swept away, dumping from a foreign country was resumed, bang went the trade affiliations which had grown up in those two years, and the fruit growers once more slid into a depression-a depression caused by the Liberal government.
In 1930, however, it was necessary that a preelection budget should be prepared, a budget udiich should contain something for everybody, a budget which might be likened to a chart to be used by Liberal navigators in (he waters of the election, with parts of which they would be able to satisfy the requirements of the farmer, with other parts of which they

United Kingdom
would bo able to convince the industrialist that the Liberal party had every safeguard to navigation which they would need. I should like to draw the attention of the house to the fact that if they wish to examine the 1930 budget as it was presented to the house it will be quite useless for them to look at Hansard, because they will not find it. I had always thought that Hansard was the authentic record of the proceedings of this house, but inquiry which I made revealed the fact that under the late administration this was no longer the case. I had understood that revised Hansard was an accurate record of the proceedings of this house, with grammatical errors corrected and slips of speech removed. But if hon. members turn up the Hansard of that day they will find that on May 1 the ex-Minister of Finance, Mr. Dunning, made his budget speech. Turning to items of the tariff they will find that they are not the items as they were introduced by the then Minister of Finance, but the items as they were amended. It seems to me in this particular case the more stupid, because, quoting three lines from the minister's speech I read:
Seasonal tariffs for instance, are not applicable to a country such as Canada, with its extremes of distance, latitude and climate.
But when you turn over the pages to the items to which I have referred you will find that ten of the items out of fourteen dealing with vegetables and six of the items out of nine dealing with fruit describe what the new tariff is to be, taking in seasonal tariffs. I do not object for one moment to the principle of seasonal tariffs being adopted, but it seems to me ridiculous so to change Hansard that when you wish to look up the official record it is not to be found in the pages of Hansard.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does my hon. friend seek to imply that Hansard has been deliberately changed by any member of parliament?


Grote Stirling: I am not endeavouring.
Mr. Speaker, to suggest anything which should be described as erroneous. I have already said, if the right hon. gentleman had listened to me, that when I made inquiries from the officials of the house I was informed that during the regime of the right hon. gentleman the method had been altered and this one adopted.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I hope there
will be no misunderstanding. I cannot imagine that in any particular Hansard would be other than a record as taken down by
Hansard reporters. I think the votes and proceedings of the house will always show in exactly what form the budget is introduced.
If during the course of the debate items are amended, it is quite conceivable that only the final action of the house will be reported in Hansard. If what my hon. friend is indicating is that there was a change before the final


Henry Herbert Stevens: Is this a point of order?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If the Minister of Trade and Commerce objects I shall say nothing further. I am trying to ask whether it is suggested that in certain respects the procedure has been erroneous. Surely the Minister of Trade and Commerce is as much interested as anyone in having a correct record in Hansard.


Grote Stirling: I trust I shall be allowed a few minutes extension of time.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I hope, Mr. Speaker, you will see that the hon. gentleman gets it. My purpose was not to interrupt my hon. friend; I have always had the greatest regard for his desire for accuracy and his wish to avoid anything in the nature of insinuation.


Grote Stirling: I assure the right hon.
gentleman I am not dealing with insinuations. What I desire to direct attention to is the fact that Hansard of May 1, 1930, the day on which the budget was brought down, does not, contain printed in its pages the budget as brought down.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Hear, hear; and it ought to.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I hope my hon. friend will make some charge that can be investigated. He has the machinery of government in his hands; let him do it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is not a question of a charge; it is a question of the accuracy of the record.


Grote Stirling: The point I am endeavouring to make, Mr. Speaker, is that those features which were introduced in the budget unquestionably icontained the principle of protection. I think that is more evident if one reads the next few words from the speech of the minister, remembering that the right hon. gentleman has told the house that the Liberal party never advocated protection. The former Minister of Finance said:
After careful study of the situation from all angles, we have decided to apply to fruits and vegetables a combination of specific and ad valorem duties: this combination will, it is believed, meet the urgent need of the growers during those periods when they suffer from
424	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
.acute instability of prices and, at the same time, guarantee to consumers, at all seasons of the year, supplies of these products at reasonable prices.
The right hon. gentleman said:
When it has advocated a tariif it has been a tariff for revenue-
Is that a tariff for revenue?
-protection being only incidental.
Was that incidental?
The Liberal party has never advocated protection.
Hon. members who were in the house at the time will readily recall the difficulty in which the former Minister of Finance found himself when a certain seotion of his supporters found themselves unable to support that budget. Hon. gentlemen will recall also the very easy expedient which he adopted in order to get out of his difficulty, how his recalcitrant followers went into a room with representatives of the vegetable and fruit growers and were asked by the minister to hatch out a compromise which he would insert in his budget. Having done that, the budget was brought down containing these features of protection, and his recalcitrant supporters found themselves in the difficult position of either accepting a pretty considerable dose of protection or voting against the budget. Consistency may be a jewel, Mr. Speaker, but certainly it does not sparlde conspicuously on the- hand of the right hon. gentleman.
During tire earlier part of the fight which the fruit growers waged, though they received no assistance from the Canadian government a ray of hope did appear. The government of the United Kingdom decided to bring forward for the approval of the parliament at Westminster a series of duties on certain imports, from which dominion products should be exempt. If my memory serves me aright there were ten or twelve of those items, and the eighth one referred to apples. It was suggested that there should be a duty and a preference of five shilling per hundredweight of 112 pounds on apples entering the United Kingdom. When parliament proceeded to debate the resolution the government, finding itself in rather deep water, decided not to proceed beyond the first few items, and for that time at least no more was heard of that preference, which would have been of such great assistance to the fruit growers of the dominions. Hon. members can realize, then, with what satisfaction they greeted the news that under the treaty which this government has succeeded in arranging the United Kingdom has again agreed to a duty of 4s. 6d.

per hundredweight, our produce being exempt. When the fruit growers of Canada realize that they are receiving assistance of this description, as they scan the other provisions of the treaty it will make them the more ready to accept this agreement as one which in ali probability will be of assistance to other industries. They know full well that if those other industries prosper there is likely to lie a larger market for their own products.
Having reached this stage in my remarks. Mr. Speaker, I would be very grateful if you would call it eleven o'clock, and I move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned
On motion of Mr. Stevens the house adjourned at 10.55 p.m.
Friday, October 21, 1932