[Stage Direction]
Hon. E. B. RYCKMAN (Minister of National Revenue) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 7, to amend the Excise Act.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.

Trade Agreement


Mr. RYOKMAN:: The ibill is a simple one. It amends the Excise Act, the object of the amendment being to provide a compensating reduction in the rate of excise duties on domestic spirits and cigarettes, by reason of a reduction in the customs duties under the new British preferential tariff, and also to provide for certain abatements in the computation of duty on spirits for shrinkages by evaporation while maturing. The bill when passed will become law and will take effect as from the 13th day of October.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. WOODS WORTH:: 1.	What amounts have been loaned by this government to: (a) provinces; (b) railways; (e) harbour boards; (d) banks; (e) wheat pools; (f) Beauharnois corporation; (g) other semi-public or private corporations?
2.	At what rates of interest?


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: 

INCOME WAR TAX ACT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee tomorrow, to consider the following proposed resolution:
-tTTTllam .is expedient to amend the Income War lax Act and to provide,-
1.	That ministers, commissioners, officers, servants and employees of the government resident outside of Canada be made liable for income tax.
2.	That when the assets or shares of a company, having on hand undistributed income at the end of 1929, are sold directly or through an intermediary to a company, which company issues shares, bonds, notes or other like documents as fully paid up by capitalizing the said undistributed income, then on the redemption ol such documents the company redeeming shall pay a tax of four per centum on the amount ol such document redeemed.
3.	That the time of filing information returns he advanced from March 31st to the last day ol February in each year.
i. That the provisions of the said act with respect to personal corporation be amended to make them more certain in their application.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with
the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. IAN MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: I wish to ask the Prime Minister
whether his attention has been directed to a statement made yesterday in the British House of Commons by the financial secretary to the treasury, in regard to the agreement between the Dominion of Canada and the United Kingdom, at present under consideration in this house, to the effect that the present parliament in Great Britain, or any-succeeding parliament, will be entirely free to alter or abrogate any of the provisions of the treaty in relation to customs duties. May I ask further whether the Prime Minister of Canada places the same construction upon the treaty in so far as it affects the people of Canada?


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) :: I have had no notice of such a question being asked, but there is no difficulty: in answering it. The paramount power of parliament is known to every member of this house. It is a question of honour and good faith, and successive ministers have made that clear in Great Britain for centuries. The same has been true of this parliament. When we pass legislation, however much we may desire to do so, we cannot, in theory, tie the hands of succeeding parliaments. Parliament, as the ex-Minister of Justice will agree, is free within the scope of its powers to do anything which it thinks desirable to do. But there are matters involving faith and honour and confidence and these have thus far not been disregarded either by this parliament or by the mother of parliaments.



FLOUR IN EXPORT SACK


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: The other day the hon.
member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) asked a question regarding the importation of certain flour, and he presented to me, through the house, a sack in which, it was alleged, certain flour had been imported into the country. The hon. member asked
Tobacco Combine

whether this flour had been milled in Canton, China. The answer to that is: no. The other question asked was whether it had been imported by a United States firm. The answer to that is: no. I think I owe it to the hon. member, however, to give a further statement in answer to the question. I have made, or caused to be made, very careful inquiries in order to be able to answer the question fully, and, briefly, the facts are as follows. I have the names here but I do not know that it is necessary to spread them on Hansard; I fancy that it is the facts that the hon. gentleman is interested in. A certain bakery in Vancouver which was owned and operated by a Canadian flour mill used certain quantities of this flour, supplied to it in sacks similar to the one which the hon. member presented to the house. It seems that this Canadian flour mill milled flour in western Canada out of western Canadian wheat, and exported such flour to the orient. At the request of the importer in Canton, the sacks were printed, as is common in such cases, with the name of the firm and in the language of the country of import. This practice had been going on for years. The importer in the orient discontinued the importing of this flour and the mill in question had a large number of sacks on hand. These sacks they used for the purpose of supplying flour to their own bakery in Vancouver. The flour which was contained in the sack my hon. friend had was Canadian flour, milled from Canadian wheat in a Canadian mill and supplied direct to Vancouver from the mill-not by import at all. As regards the Chinese characters on the sack, they are, I am happy to assure my hon. friend, of a very ordinary nature. On the left is ^ the name Kwong Yan Nin, Sole Representative; in the centre are the words Golden Shield, being the Chinese for the brand which was supplied; and on the right appears the name of the firm, a United States firm, Dunbar & Co. I hope that this explanation will satisfy my hon. friend.



TRANSIENT UNEMPLOYED

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. FERNAND RINFRET (St. James):: I wish to direct the attention of the Minister of Labour to a certain matter that has been brought to my knowledge. I am informed by telegram that 180 unemployed have left Winnipeg, their destination being Montreal and Toronto, and that their fare has been paid by the municipal authorities in Winnipeg. Has the minister received any representations on this matter, and does the government intend to take action? I need not add

that so far as Montreal might be affected I would strongly protest against this procedure.


Hon. W. A. GORDON (Minister of Labour) :: When the order went into effect prohibiting the riding on freight trains by transients, it necessarily followed that at certain points throughout Canada there would be removed from trains a number of these transients who, in fact, had homes in Canada where they could go and be taken care of by their relatives and friends and be given an opportunity to do some useful work. The transients to whom the hon. member has referred fall within this class. Some representations have been made to me by the city of Toronto with respect to the same matter, and if it should transpire that any of these transients have misrepresented the situation to the officers in Winnipeg who are checking up the matter, claiming to have homes which in fact they have not, in such cases immediate and appropriate action will be taken either through this government or through the provincial government upon our representations.



TOBACCO COMBINE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. M. CAYLEY (South Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to make a representation based upon an article which appeared yesterday in the London Free Press, headlined as follows:
Ask probe of tobacco prices.
Tillsonburg town council to send resolution to Ottawa protesting against present prices.
Few farmers receiving top price of 24 cents when market opened

more have received from 8 to 16 cents.
Without desiring to take up too much time, I should like to read a paragraph of the resolution which I think contains the core of the whole matter. It reads:
Whereas, the tobacco growers ought not to be sacrificed to the greed of the purchasers who control prices without competition.
I should like to know whether or not the government has received such a resolution from the town council of Tillsonburg, and what action will be taken as a result.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I believe that such a resolution was received by the Department of Labour during the last day or so, but having heard from other quarters I am taking the appropriate steps to advise the parties who have complained that the provisions of the Combines Act are available to them. The procedure under that act is very simple and if

Wheat Shipments
they care to invoke its provisions the Department of Labour will take immediate and appropriate action.
Mr. ECCLES J. GOTT (South Essex): Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the reply of the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) to the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Cayley). I should like to draw the attention of the government to the fact that a very serious condition exists in the tobacco areas of western Ontario. I should like to know if any action has been taken already in this regard, and if not, what action the government proposes to take in order to meet this unfortunate situation.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I regret that I did not make myself plain a moment ago. The Combines Act is available if there has been an evasion of its provisions. The procedure under that act is very simple; application in the proper form can be made to the Department of Labour, and if on a review of the statements and facts set out in the application it is found that there has been an evasion of the provisions of the act, the department will take appropriate action.


Mr. GOTT:: If the growers do that, they will be murdered by the combine.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order.



UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Sutherland) or whoever is concerned in the matter, whether or not it is true that a camp of unmarried unemployed men is to be established in the city of Quebec for the purpose of repairing the old walls and fortifications. It is reported that they are to be paid 20 cents per day in addition to their food and lodging. I should like to know if there is any truth in this report, and under what conditions these men will be brought to the city of Quebec.


Hon. D. M. SUTHERLAND (Minister of National Defence):: Yes, the report is largely correct. This is a project which the department has under way to provide employment and sustenance for homeless single men. It is estimated that there are several hundred in the city of Quebec who will come under that heading. These men will be housed in a certain part of the citadel and will be given certain necessary clothing and food and a small cash allowance of about 20 cents per
day. To that extent what the hon. gentleman has stated is correct.


Mr. POULIOT:: I thank the minister for having accepted my suggestion of last year.



WHEAT SHIPMENTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the question asked yesterday by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Kennedy) I have nothing to add to what I said on October 26, which is recorded on pages 575 and 576 of Hansard, except to read a cable received from the High Commissioner's office, sent after consultation with the Dominions Office. It reads as follows:
The mere transit of Canadian goods through the United States would not be a barrier to grant of imperial preference provided that goods are definitely consigned from Canada to this country and that satisfactory evidence of through consignment is produced. Preference, however, would not be granted to such goods in this country if goods were sent from Canada to the United States and then reconsigned from there. As regards conditions which importers must fulfil in order to prove through consignment, we would refer you to paragraph 12 of customs notice to importers No. 27a.
This notice will be found on page 576 of Hansard. It will be observed that the whole matter is one of administration, which is solely under the control of the British authorities. In fact, the question asked by the hon. member is a matter which comes strictly within the regulation. The sufficiency of the proof of through consignment must be established by documentation within terms of the regulation to which I have referred, and which appears on the page of Hansard mentioned. I am sending a further despatch to Great Britain to obtain, if possible, more detailed information.



IMPERIAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE


[Stage Direction]
The house Tesumed from Wednesday, November 2, consideration of the motion of Right Hon. R. B. Bennett (Prime Minister) for approval of the trade agreement entered into at Ottawa the 20th day of August, 1932, between representatives of His Majesty's government in Canada and His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom, subject to the legislation required in order to give effect to the fiscal changes consequent thereon.
798	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
Mr. J. FERNAND FAFARD (L'Islet) (Translation):: 
Mr. BOUCHARD (Translation):: Hear,
hear.


Joseph-Fernand Fafard: The farming class, sir, was not spared in the present agreements. Take, for instance, the question of drainage. The Quebec government has adopted a drainage system which is bound to be a great assistance to the farming class, as, I am informed that a drained farm can give a much greater return, with no more effort than previously.
Mr. DOjRION (Translation):	The provincial government takes advantage of this drainage to drain all the money from Quebec.


Joseph-Fernand Fafard: In these agreements, the machinery used in draining the land are subject to a tariff of 10 to 12 per cent. My hon. friend from Quebec-Mont-morency (Mr. Dorion) interrupts me. I thank him. The Dominion government ignored the farmer in this drainage problem which I had the opportunity of studying during the year. At times we request the national railways to kindly lower a bridge, a culvert or to give their ditches the same dimensions as those of the farm. Are hon. gentlemen aware of what happens to these requests in most cases, including one which I personally looked after
800	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
and to which I want to draw the attention of the hon. Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion)? All that I could obtain from the officials of the Canadian National Railway was permission to pass on their right of way to dig their own ditches. The reply given me then was there was no money available. Money does not seem so scarce when it is a case of helping political friends.
An hon. MEMBER (Translation):	There
was some also for Thornton.


Joseph-Fernand Fafard: The government is very willing, however, to make an outlay of $180,000 to appoint three persons on the radio commission, without mentioning travelling expenses, this commission will cost us that amount with the same staff as previously. The Conservative government easily finds money, for instance, when it is a question of building a fire-boat; it is not at a loss to find money to hold political inquiries. There are lawyers who make a living out of these political inquiries, especially when they happen to be two or three in the same office. The government, under these circumstances, can always lay their hands on money. It is even rumoured that funds will be found for the Canadian Pacific Railway, which will be granted $1,500,000 to keep its work-shops opened. Do you not think, sir, you who hail from a rural county, that this money would be more wisely expended by helping the farming class.
The hon. member for Bagot (Mr. Dumaine) drew my attention the other day to another part of the agreements which refers to raw hides. One cannot say that they are sold, they are simply given away! The farmers can hardly get 1 or li cents per pound for these hides. Great Britain, in these agreements, is allowed to export these raw hides to Canada. That shows how the farmers are protected by these agreements.
Moreover, sir, the farmers cannot expect any protection whaitsover from this government. The Prime Minister, a friend of manufacturers and trusts, advocates an unlimited protection so as to rid them of all competition. But when the farmer is at stake, it is an entirely different matter. For instance, he endeavours to foster a movement throughout the country so as to create a competition against the farmers. He urges municipalities and provincial governments to encourage the back to the land movement buit he keeps for himself the control of such a movement. Not only does he not protect the farmer, but by this movement, started last year, the government grants $600 to those who wikh to compete

with the farmers. Not only are the farmers not protected but a bonus is granted to those who wish to compete with them.
An hon. MEMBER (Translation): That is clever!


Joseph-Fernand Fafard: I stated last year and I repeat it again: before fostering a back to the land movement, let them enact measures in order that those who are already on the farm can earn a livelihood.


Mr. DORION (Translation):: Tell that to Taschereau.


Joseph-Fernand Fafard: The country folk are despised by this government. They are not even allowed to work in towns to take advantage of the money appropriated for unemployment.


Charles Napoléon Dorion: Tell that also to Mr. Lavigueur.


Joseph-Fernand Fafard: Where does
this unemployment fund come from? A session was called, in 1930, and the government said: AVe are granting $20,000,000 to relieve unemployment. That is not a present from the government. The money which we, Liberals, bad appropriated, in 1930, for wharves and various works in rural counties was not expended, it was turned over to cities in order to relieve unemployment. They do not stop at that, farmers' sons are not allowed to go and earn that money.


Charles Napoléon Dorion: What does
the Mayor of Montreal think of it?


Joseph-Fernand Fafard: The government even intends to take a further step in order to systematically oppress the farmer, for if rumours are true, three of four rural constituencies, in Quebec, will disappear,^ so as to further increase the influence of cities; and that, when a back to the land policy is advocated. The government will wipe out, for instance, the beautiful counties of Bagot, Yamaska and Montmagny.
Some hon. MEMBERS (Translation): L'Islet!


Joseph-Fernand Fafard: Hon. gentlemen are better informed than I am. I should be very sorry, sir, to see these beautiful historical counties disappear.


Charles Napoléon Dorion: Including also the members' mandate.


Joseph-Fernand Fafard: Mr. Speaker, as representative of the county of Montmagny which has given so many distinguished men to Canadian public life, I would request you, sir,

United Kingdom
to use your great influence with the Prime Minister, I shall go further, if that does not suffice, I would request you to call upon the hon. Solicitor General (Mr. Dupre) and the hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Sauve), so as to convince the Prime Minister that it is absolutely necessary to maintain the prestige of rural 'counties. Rural counties are most steady. No parade bearing the red flag or revolutionary movement is ever seen there. It would be unfortunate that they should be so unjustly dealt with, when a back to the land movement is advocated. With this government in power, the countryside people are not admitted to the cities, unless it is to purchase from wholesale dealers. That is they are admitted only when they bring their money, however, when it is a question, for instance, to earn a livelihood, they must obtain an identification card.


Mr. GOBEIL (Translation):: Use your influence with the Mayor of Montreal.


Joseph-Fernand Fafard: Those who have followed the development of large cities are aware that these great centres have been built through the savings of the rural districts which were drained by our banking system; and it would only be fair that sons of farmers be given work in cities since they supplied the capital. Now that we are undergoing a period of depression, the government wants all those who contributed to the development of industries in cities, through their savings and labour, to return to the land.
Ninety per cent of those who are, at present, placed on farms will be a burden to the various municipalities which absorb them.


Charles Napoléon Dorion: Advise Mr. Laferte.


Joseph-Fernand Fafard: No one can persuade me that, when a settler whose steadfastness and energy are known is unable to earn a livelihood on the land, a man hailing from Montreal or Quebec can succeed. It is physically impossible. Were he the best settler in the world, it would take him at least two or three years to earn enough to keep body and soul together.
If workmen and professional men were banished from cities where they have been established for twenty years, even if the money which was taken from them through fraudulent speculations was not returned, I state that in less than three years the grass would grow on the streets of our large cities. Merchants would be ruined, apartment owners would have no more tenants, contractors could not get the necessary labour 53719-51
for their undertakings, and banks would have to close their doors. Hon. gentlemen on both sides of the house can thank heaven, that they have country folk in their midst. They have not been spoiled by large incomes, they are peaceful, they can be depended upon. Moreover, were I to take a census of the house, I think that I would find that 75 per cent of the members come from the countryside.
The government knows full well that there is nothing in these agreements which would help the farming class. Moreover, the hon. Postmaster General, in the speech he made a fortnight ago admitted that at present the agreements would not be approved by the people, and he added that in two or three years when the benefits of the Imperial conference would be felt, they would be glad to approve of it. It is, therefore, simply admitting that hon. members opposite are aware that these agreements will be adopted notwithstanding the people's opposition.
Preference is granted in these agreements to certain countries on articles which we do not import from those countries, and the tariff is increased on these same articles against countries from which we import them, so dt is no more a preference or diversion, but an exploitation of the consumer.
The hon. Postmaster General stated in his speech: We obtained a preference on butter, cheese and other farm products. It was unnecessary, sir, to hold an Imperial conference to obtain these results; we have always enjoyed this preference; it is nothing new, this preference was simply maintained. Why endeavour to deceive the people. They are better informed than the hon. Postmaster General is. Take the butter question for instance. May I inform hon. members from rural districts that the Quebec farmers prefer to sell their butter mixed with New Zealand butter, at 35 cents per pound, than sell it at 16 or 17 cents, as they did last summer. Moreover, what does this preference on butter amount to? The same preference is granted to Australia and New Zealand, and if hon. gentlemen are the least sincere, whether they hail from lake St. John or elsewhere, they will admit that when they proclaimed that our Quebec farmer was unable to compete against butter from New Zealand on our own market, they knew that he was still less able to compete against New Zealand butter abroad.


Mr. DUGUAY (Translation):: Truly, may I point out to the hon. member that he has just contradicted himself. '

S02	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements


Mr. DUPUIS (Translation):: The hon. member should rise in his turn to prove it.


Joseph-Fernand Fafard: The butter question is always a bitter one in the house.


Mr. CASGRAIN (Translation):: It is a slippery one.


Joseph-Fernand Fafard: I could, sir,
for your information, repeat the arguments which were set forth on this side of the house against these agreements which afford us so little benefit, unless they are the result of hazard. Notwithstanding the intended ambiguity of the provisions of the pact, the leader of the opposition and those of his party who. took part in this debate, have shown to what amount these trade agreements of which the most outstanding result is to raise the tariff and divert our trade, nothing less. There is also an element of uncertainty that this diversion of trade will take place, under present conditions, and the complicated influences at work throughout the world. May I simply state that common sense seems to oppose more than ever this economic nationalism to which the Imperial conference is apparently a new stepping stone, accelerating its inevitable failure. It is well to increase our trade with the empire. Liberals agree on this point. They were the first to apply imperial preference. Even today, in the words of their leader, they would be ready to grant the British commonwealth a preference of 50 per cent. However, we must not lose sight of the fact that we must continue to trade with foreign countries. Statistics were quoted to show that the Liberals endeavoured, from 1923 to 1929, to develop our external trade. If we examine the statistics of our trade with thirteen countries we will note a surplus of $122,000,000.


Ernest Lapointe: Not at
present.


Joseph-Fernand Fafard: During the
period from 1923 to 1929, our trade with France practically doubled. That with Japan almost trebled, and so forth. To such an extent that our trade with these thirteen nations which amounted in 1922 to only $73,000,000, rose to $200,000,000 in 1929. This does not include our trade with the United States. There is no need to add anything further to prove the importance of our trade abroad. Under the circumstances, have we a right to ignore foreign markets or close them willingly? It is ridiculous to think of it. Yet, this is what the agreements request.

I cannot do better in closing my remarks, than quote an extract of the remarkable speech delivered the other day in this building by Lord Reading. This testimonial simply adds to those which were quoted in the course of this debate and which seem to summarize what we might call the good common sense and sound advice of all those who have the future of the world at heart.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER (Translation):: The hon. member has spoken for forty minutes.


Joseph-Fernand Fafard: In the present state of civilization, there is no nation which can live aloof from the others, no country which can be prosperous by isolating itself from its neighbours by a tariff barrier. Nations are commercial and industrial collective societies for which trade is the foundation of prosperity.
Mr. LESLIE G. BELL (St. Antoine): Mr. Speaker, those of us who have followed the deliberations of the recent Imperial economic conference must have at the start taken particular interest in the world significance attached to the holding of such a conference in Canada. If we allow our minds to go back to 1930 we can recall the interest that was taken at that time in the imperial conference held in the old country, and to indicate the interest taken in the recent Ottawa conference it is only necessary for me to point out that there were present representatives of the press of practically the entire world watching its proceedings. Foreign countries especially were alarmed over the possible outcome of the conference. What was the attitude of the United States of America? It had a huge stake in the decisions of that conference. As was pointed out by some of their observers two-fifths of their foreign sales were at stake. One-fifth of those sales had previously been shipped to Canada and the other fifth distributed amongst other empire countries. But they were interested in the conference not only because of the sale of their products to Canada. The United States was further concerned in it because it had some thousands of branch industries established in this country, and it was feared by some that these industries would be called upon to supply a greater proportion of empire materials and labour. It was only natural that they should view the conference seriously because $300,000,000 of their foreign trade was involved. To mention one item alone, anthracite coal, the state of Pennsylvania supplied Canada with some $3,800,000 worth, representing one-quarter of the annual coal supply required by the Canadian people. The New York Times gave a very illuminating resume

United Kingdom
showing why the United States were particularly interested in the imperial conference. The article says:
The United States supplied Canada with 91 per cent, of all imported electrical supplies, 90 per cent of imported iron and steel products, 90 per cent of machinery imports, 99 per cent of imported automobile parts, 98 per cent of imported automobiles, 90 per cent of imported coal, 98 per cent of farm implements, 76 per cent of imported crude petroleum, 99 per cent of imported gasoline, and 98 per cent of imported raw cotton.
Many other significant percentages might be mentioned, such as the 98 per cent of coke imports which came from the United States, the 91 per cent of imported fresh vegetables, 98 per cent of imported planks and boards, 88 per cent of foreign refined sugar, 99 per cent of imported sulphur, and the 97 per cent of aluminum and bauxite.
Altogether Canada in 1930 imported products valued at $1,248,273,582, and of this amount $847,442,037 came from the United States, $189,179,738 from the United Kingdom, $63,523,966 from other British Empire countries, and $148,127,841 from all other countries combined.
To round out the picture, the value of United States exports in 1930 to other countries of the empire; Great Britain, $678,000,000; Australia, $76,000,000; South Africa, $38,000,000; New Zealand, $30,000,000; Irish Free State. $14,000,000.
The Argentine was also greatly interested in the Imperial economic conference for the simple reason that she supplied the chilled meat market of Great Britain to a great extent, and she knew that South Africa and Australia were vitally interested in this trade. The Buenos Aires, La Prensa, pointed out in a very strong editorial that the holding of the conference was one of world significance. Great Britain was such a heavy buyer of world goods that it was only natural that foreign countries should be interested in the conference, particularly in view of the desperate economic situation throughout the world.
But at the very outset of the conference a great many of these fears were dispelled. It was pointed out at the very beginning that Great Britain and the United States must come to some understanding regarding their future trade agreements, and further that there was nothing to stand in the way of negotiating trade treaties with foreign countries. At the outset of the conference a committee was appointed on Commercial Relations with foreign countries, and those who have read its report will understand that nothing was done at the conference that would stand in the way of our negotiating trade treaties with foreign countries as we have done in the past.
53719-51^
When we hear our friends opposite saying that the conference agreements are going to have the effect of diminishing our trade with the outside world, it is significant to note that Great Britain has received representations from fourteen different foreign countries seeking to negotiate trade treaties with her. At the present time she is negotiating or has given notice of her intention to negotiate treaties with the Argentine and with Scandinavian countries, and now, instead of Great Britain finding herself without weapons, she finds that the conference agreements are helping her in a great many ways. I might also mention, for instance, the holding of the Copenhagen exhibition which was recently opened by the Prince of Wales. So I think the fears of hon. gentlemen opposite are groundless.
Hon. gentlemen opposite also accuse us of deviating from our policy. May I quote the words of my leader, the Prime Minister, who, speaking at the London conference in 1930, said with regard to empire preferences:
For we believe that through the broadening of the home markets of the empire states to empire products, in preference to the products of foreign countries, every unit of this empire will benefit.
This does not mean, of course, that an attempt should be made to exclude from empire markets the goods of other countries. We must have-all of us must have-markets outside the empire. And to make these markets sure and greater, we must place no insuperable barrier in the road of reciprocal world trade. What it does mean, however, is that we should direct the present flow of trade into more permanent empire channels by preferring empire goods to those of other countries. This can only be done in one way, by creating a preference in favour of empire goodB.
May I speak of another feature? We hear a great deal from our friends opposite regarding tariffs. They seem to think that if tariffs were revised it would be a remedy for all the ills of the world. The world is a sick world today, with millions unemployed, and millions more only semi-employed. There are riots, unrest and despair. A great many of us attribute this largely to the results of the great war. Some feel that if the reparations question were settled it would be a cure of all our ills. I read a very interesting article not very long ago entitled, "This Age of Glut." The writer points out that today the present spectacle of famine and waste the world over is without record and parallel in modern civilization. Millions of peasants walk barefoot in central Europe. China's millions are driven by hunger to the verge of cannibalism. In the Argentine and the United States they are burning wheat. In Brazil thousands of bags of coffee are taken into
804	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
secluded valleys for the same purpose, or are pressed into briquettes for engine fuel, or are dumped into the sea. In Hungary and Roumania grain is fodder for the pigs. In Holland vegetables rot in immense quantites because there is no market. The cotton growers plow their crops into the soil and the rubber producers rejoice at the discovery of a new pest.
One of the great questions today is this: Can we master the problems of distribution as we have mastered those of production? Where nature produced an ear of corn we are producing a thousand. Machinery today is producing with a dozen hands what it required one thousand hands to produce in the past. The result is the very thing we aim at, leisure, or as we prefer to call it, unemployment. A very good definition of unemployment is that it is the ripe fruit of all the inventions of the last century, the object and justification of every application of science to industry and agriculture. Even the economists and scientists have been wrong, because they always figured that population could keep pace with production. That has been found to be a myth, and a new theory must be discovered. This is the age of glut, and it is no solution of the question to have hon. gentlemen opposite say that by removing tariff barriers a way will be found out of our difficulties. We must go a long way further. In addition, Mr. Speaker, we are living in the age of fear. Fear causes panics; it causes banks to crash; it causes thousands of people to lose their life savings and causes many people to take their money away from commerce and hoard it in some place where it does no good to humanity.
As I have already said, we are living in an age of unemployment. I intend to quote the latest figures in this connection, because from the speeches we have heard in this house people might think that all the unemployment in the world was within the confines of Canada. I have the latest figures from our Bureau of Statistics, and I am going to supplement those with other figures because it is very hard to arrive at anything like a correct statement of unemployment. According to our own bureau, the unemployed in the United States, from the unofficial figures given by the American Federation of Labour, number 11,400,000. In Great Britain the official figures for August last were 2,859,000. In France the figure given for last August is
263,000,	but I feel that this figure is somewhat under the actual number, and I will give additional figures in this regard. In Germany, for the same month, 5,225,000 unemployed were actually registered, while in

Italy there were 946,000. According to the figures given by the International Labour Office in Geneva, unemployment in Germany rose from 4,211,000 in June, 1931, to 6,675,307 in June of this year. In England, in spite of her tariffs and depreciated currency, unemployment figures stood at 2,821,840 in June of this year as compared with 2,577,916 a year ago. Unemployment in France rose from 51,354 in June, 1931, to 315,502 in June of this year, but these figures are far from complete and throw more light on the proportional than the actual increase. The figures for the United States are the most vague and discouraging of all and show that whereas unemployment in England increased from 22 per cent to 22-1 per cent during the second quarter of the year, unemployment in the United States increased from 23 per cent to 38 per cent during the same period. Statistics published by the economic committee of the League of Nations also show that the value of international trade today is not more than half of what it was in 1929. I am quoting these figures from the Living Age for August, 1932.
With these facts before us, along come our friends across the way and, in this so-called march of Liberalism, claim that they have a solution for all our great problems. Those of us who have studied the policies of hon. gentlemen opposite, especially their tariff policies; those who have heard them declaim in this house on the sin of having tariffs and say that we should go in for free trade-for we all recall the death knell of protection speeches-would say that this is the solution they have in mind. We have an example before us in a country that has practised free trade for a great number of years. We find that England has had to take a different course in order to save herself. The following press despatch describes in a few words the position in which the British people found themselves. This is an article dated October 28, containing the report of a speech delivered by Sir Henry Alfred MeCardie, judge of the high court, at Birmingham university. Speaking of England, he said:
"She is ringed around and beset with powerful, splendidly equipped and merciless competitors," he said. "She is fighting not for mere prosperity but for her standards of life."
"The attack upon her comes from all sides. She is in fact at war in a very real sense with the other great nations for a share in world trade and for the maintenance of her commercial prestige."
"We call it trade rivalry. In fact it is war, fought with the deadly weapons of prices, tariffs, subsidies, credits and dumping."

United Kingdom
So, Mr. Speaker, we have emerged from a war of arms into a war for self-preservation. We built our tariff walls for the protection of our own people, so that we would not be swamped by the flow of over-production in other countries. If we were to lower our tariff walls the surplus of the world would come tumbling in on us from the four comers of the earth. Prices would tumble; factories would close; farmers would join in burning their crops and in using butter for axle grease, as we have been told actually has happened; unemployment would increase very rapidly and starvation would stalk throughout the land. Should we close our eyes to such certain results? Hon. gentlemen opposite cry blue ruin; they read and quote books on economy, preach socialism, advocate the use of printing machines for the production of real money, as they call it, and urge the adoption of similar methods. I maintain that these do not constitute the policy of sane government but the madness of mis-govern-ment.
What has this conference accomplished? In the first place, it has taken the initial step in the regulation of distribution and production. It is not a question of opening up new channels of trade; today it is a question of regulating old channels. United efforts are being made to find some remedy for the situation, and it would seem that the best thing to do is to remedy our own ills first. Then, after having tasted the medicine, if it is good we can apply it to the rest of the world. This is the forward step of the conference. Some world power had to do it, and none is bigger or better equipped than the British Empire. What we want at the moment is not more trade, but stability of the trade we already have. Here was a world lesson, it was simple, it was direct. A protected market for our distribution. Production we must look after for ourselves.
That is my first point, Mr. Speaker-that the holding of this conference involved something larger than the mere sale of Saskatchewan grain. This was a conference with an outlook upon the world, seeking a remedy for the ills of the world.
Then I come to the second reason why, from an empire point of view, I am in favour of this agreement. I think the different parts of the empire met on a footing of good will, compromise and cooperation. As to what they have accomplished, the results speak for themselves; a conference sitting for one month, and making twelve different agreements, Great Britain signing seven, Canada four.
South Africa two, a conference representing this far flung empire composed of different people, different languages, and producing different products! Yet our friends opposite say nothing has been accomplished. I would like to have seen them sitting where the Prime Minister sat; I wonder if they could have accomplished half as much. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, this conference, from an empire point of view, has brought about independence of thought and action throughout the empire. It has brought Canada into the limelight of empire affairs, it has put upon us the responsibility of seeing that these agreements are fulfilled to the letter. We now enjoy the full responsibility of nationhood. Furthermore we may take a lesson in that regard from the mother country. I think we can follow in the footsteps of the mother country, which, since these agreements have been signed has shown every evidence of good faith, not only by giving notice to the Soviet republic of the termination of the trade agreement but also by postponing consideration of proposals from other countries pending the conference at Ottawa. The fact is that ever since this agreement was signed England has shown the utmost good faith. I for one will raise my voice in protest against hon. members opposite who single out any man in the mother of parliaments and say that he is trying to do harm to the empire. I understand, and I think my colleagues and hon. members opposite who are fair in this matter will understand, that no one wants to wreck the empire or harm Canada. They talk about the disintegration of the empire and seek to>
make capital out of that illusion, but let me-assure them the British Empire will survive long after every one of us in this house has-passed from the scene.
One of the good things that came out of the conference was that it produced men of empire rank. A very deliberate attack was made upon my leader, the Prime Minister. That may be the opinion of some hon. members opposite-I do not think all of them- but I am going to quote what the Ottawa Citizen, a good Liberal paper, thought of the leader of our party when he made his statement to the imperial conference in 1930. It said in an editorial:
Premier Bennett today leaped at a single bound into the front rank of empire statesmen. His speech to the Imperial conference electrified everyone who heard it. "He is Joseph Chamberlain come to life again," they said, astonished at the punch and emphasis he put behind his offer to the mother country and to all other parts of the empire of preference in Canada's markets in exchange for a like preference in
S06	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
theirs. Here were no vague phrases about flag and empire, but straight flung words that no one could misunderstand.
And after the conference was over the London Daily Express paid my leader this compliment:
-the conference has far outstripped any predecessor in actual results. The credit goes supremely to Premier Bennett, whom history will acclaim as one of the great empire builders.
We hear our friends opposite saying-always saying-that they can get no justice from the Tory party because of their high tariff principles. But one of the things that has come out of this conference is that we are pledged to appoint a non-political or an empire-approved tariff board. Any manufacturer, any farmer, anyone doing business in this land will be able to lay his case before people who are not of one political party or the other but who will grant him a non-political hearing; we are pledged to that. And the Prime Minister made it very clear that the agreement between the United Kingdom and Canada confirmed in principle the proposals made by the government of this country at the opening of the conference. On the one hand Canada retains existing preferences in the United Kingdom and secures an extension of that principle to our natural products. On the other hand Canada balances these advantages by granting such tariff concessions as will enable United Kingdom manufactures to enter Canada on a basis of fair competition with domestic industries, having regard of course to such factors as relative cost of production. This rests with the tariff board, which is to be composed of men trained in business, who will have an empire breadth of outlook and who iwill deal with tariffs in view of empire markets and to promote empire good will. And instead of my hon. friends to your extreme left, Mr. Speaker, saying that this is a wedding of high protectionists for a period of five years, it is rather the first time that those trained in the school of free trade with the world have sat around the same table with representatives of the other parts of the empire where the only safeguard was protection, and have evolved a plan of meeting each other half way.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I come to the third part of my speech, and I will only dwell on this for a few minutes; it has been so fully covered by other members of the house that I need not devote much time to it. I only want to make this statement: From agreements such as these designed to promote the well-being of the farmer, the miner, the fishermen, and the manufacturer the most direct

and definite benefits must come to the people of Canada. I could enumerate these benefits, but I will only mention a few: free entry Into the United Kingdom market for Canadian natural products; preferences in the United Kingdom market on Canadian goods ranging from ten per cent to thirty-three and a third per cent; free entry to the markets of the United Kingdom for over one hundred manufactured commodities, including leather, fur, rubber goods, textiles, chemicals; in addition to wheat we get preferences in all the British colonies on our natural products, cheese, butter, all the products of the farm, not to mention our great product, wheat. A simple example was given by one of the Montreal newspapers the other day. A foreign ship enters a British port loaded with foreign grain. Beside it is a Canadian ship loaded with Canadian grain. On one there is six cents a bushel duty. Which is the buyer going to take? These are some of the advantages, which we as Canadians will get from these preference agreements. I am sorry that my time does not allow me to elaborate them at greater length.
The hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie), made reference to the noble words used by my right hon. leader the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett), as chairman of the conference, when in closing his memorable address to this house he elucidated in the clearest manner possible the abounding success and achievements of the conference. The Prime Minister, on that occasion, quoted the words of the poet Arthur Benson:
Wider still and wider
Shall thy bounds be set.
God who made thee mighty
Make thee mightier yet.
My hon. friend from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie), referred to these words as the marching song of the Conservative party. Let me assure him that they signify much more than that. They signify the dawn of a yesterday in the steady march of empire progress; the birth of a greater tomorrow by constructive thought and action; the recording of another milestone safely passed in the making of empire history. They were the clarion call to a greater united empire and world effort to obliterate, or at least to dispel these troublesome depressing times. They recall to my mind, Mr. Speaker, those other sentiments, so often repeated from the mouth of the Bard of Avon, whose words of wisdom have done so much to cement the bonds of our common heritage. In the play of Julius Caesar, where Brutus says to Cassius:

United Kingdom
You must note beside,
That we have tried the utmost of our friends, Our legions are brim-full, our cause is ripe;
There is a tide in the affairs of men
Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;
Omitted, all the voyage of their life
Is bound in shallows and in miseries;
On such a full sea are we now afloat;
And we must take the current when it serves,
Or lose our ventures.
Shall we take opportunity at the flood, or shall we steer our course, as the opposition desire, the other way-separating our own trading ships from the empire convoy, and, trusting to fate alone, venture by an uncharted course to foreign ports? Then, for lack of vision in ourselves, lack of confidence and faith in the other great component parts of the British Commonwealth of Nations, lack of duty to our own Canadian people, finally find ourselves further engulfed, battered by foreign tariff seas, buffeted by reprisals of hurricane violence, until our ship of state, unable to endure, finds itself wrecked on the shoals of adversity-in the end, salvage for some passing foreign competing merchant ship whose ways we little know, and therefore to whose mercy we dare not trust.


Mr. JOSEPH JEAN (Maisonneuve) (Translation) :: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasant duty for me to congratulate the hon. member for St. Antoine (Mr. Bell) on the interesting comments which he has just made in the house. Unfortunately I do not think, however, that he has expressed the views of the majority of the people in Montreal, of whom he and I represent a large number. I am equally pleased to congratulate my good friend, the hon. member for LTslet (Mr. Fafard) on- the splendid speech he delivered a short while ago. The hon. member for L'Islet represents a county in which have lived nine generations of my forebears and whose people pride themselves in being so well represented in the Canadian House of Commons.
After the numerous and interesting speeches delivered by hon. members within the last three weeks, I am not so conceited as to think that my contribution in this debate will throw new light on the subject matter. But as representative of one of the most important electoral divisions of this country, if not the most important, I deem it my duty to express in the house the views of my constituency which, under the circumstances, reflect -those of the great majority of the whole population of Canada.
The constituency of Maisonneuve, sir, deserves a special mention. Situated on the island of Montreal, it covers an area of about
seventy square miles and comprises a population of 116,311, according to the last census, of which 103,622 are included in the city of Montreal itself, and 12,689 on the outskirts. However, within the last year this population has considerably increased.
Its border extends for ten miles along the harbour of Montreal and I am convinced that the future development of this great national port will necessarily be carried out within the present limits of the county of Maisonneuve. More than 300 industries are established there, among which are to be found the most important enterprises of Canada, such as the Angus workshops of the Canadian Pacific Railway, Canada Car Company, the Locomotive Works, Canadian Vickers Limited, Warden King Limited, American Car Company, the St. Lawrence Sugar Company, Canadian Copper Company, Viau Biscuit Corporation, Imperial Oil Company, British American Oil, Shell Oil Company of Canada, MeColl Frontenac, Lasalle Petroleum, Du-fresne & Lock, Dufresne Construction Limited, and numerous others which it would take too much time to enumerate. More than 5,000 well-established firms do a business which include all the commodities of life. Add to this many hundreds of farmers, truck gardeners and dairy producers settled in the rural part of the county and this will give you an idea of the importance of this constituency and the interest it necessarily takes in -the present debate of the house.
I thought it proper, sir, to give these few details in connection with the county that I have -the honour of representing, so as to better explain the reason for not expressing my views before finding out what were the feelings of the great majority of my constituents as regards these trade agreements under consideration.
After all, -the people are those who will benefit or suffer from the results of these agreements, depending on whether they are advantageous or not to agriculture, trade and industry. Trade and industry does not simply comprise dealers or industrialists but also the great mass of workmen ond consumers of all kinds, without whom no trade or industry can be carried on or exist. The people being the most concerned in the results of these agreements, it is only fair that we should request their views and that ours should reflect theirs in what is best. Moreover, public opinion, or rather the good common sense of the people, when it is expressed with the truly admirable sobriety, patience and consideration of which they have given proof in the difficult conditions we are facing at
808	COMMONS	fj i
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
present is one of the best criterions upon which we can pass judgment in this respect.
It is, therefore, after consulting the people of Maisonneuve and ascertaining the views of prominent economists, public men and eminent authorities such as Sir George Paish, Lord Reading from England, Lucien Romier from France, and many others, that I have decided, sir, to repudiate these agreements as not being in keeping with wishes and needs of the Canadian people.
Do you want to know, sir, what the great majority of the people of Maisonneuve think of the Imperial conference held in Ottawa last summer and the agreements entered into? I shall, briefly, give the house these reasons, some of which are mainly responsible in deciding me to cast my vote against the resolution as submitted by the leader of the government.
This new economic regime which the government wishes to saddle on the Canadian people by enacting the agreements entered into at Ottawa, is in my opinion, the greatest political adventure ever attempted by a government. There is no doubt that it is a new policy, the Prime Minister himself informs us of this fact in the conclusion of his remarkable statement made in the house on October 12 last, and which is to be found at page 13S of Hansard:
And let those who would, for personal or party advantage, cavil at these agreements, remember that in all the history of this empire, nothing has been before achieved comparable in present benefit or in future promise to that which the Ottawa conference may claim to its lasting credit. And in the days to come, I do believe we and the generations which follow us will look back upon that conference as the beginning of a new and greater empire, bound together by common allegiance to the crown, by ties of kinship and friendship and by a common interest which our_ individual welfare bids us all strive to maintain.
What an adventure, sir, this "beginning of a new and greater empire."


Jean-François Pouliot: It is the
adventure of Robinson Crusoe.


Joseph Jean: In looking up
the French dictionary I find that the definition of this word is as follows: "bold and dangerous enterprise, which, however, may offer some allurement." Can the agreements submitted to our consideration be better qualified? This economic union of the countries of the commonwealth is an enterprise which, no doubt, offers some allurement, by grouping one quarter of the consumers of the entire world and ordering them on behalf of imperial interests, to forsake their business relations with all other nations so as to better dominate the world.
.
But what dangers lie in this conception of the British Empire! Notwithstanding the advantages, certainly appreciable in their details-for a number of citizens of the empire-and which are comprised in these agreements, they are nevertheless an open declaration of an economic war against three quarters of the world. Were we to apply them literally, it would not be long before we would witness, leagued against us, forces treble our own.
All this conscription of our wealth, trade, industries, agriculture and consumers in order to realize an impossible dream of imperial economic greatness, would but result in the ruin and disruption of the empire, as well as weakening the economic existence of each component part. Under the plea of protecting our industries and producers of all kinds against the encroachment of foreign exports, we lay ourselves open to be deprived of three-quarters of the world's markets.
I have always thought, sir, that the best means to develop the trade of a nation, both internal and external, was quality production at a price which could meet competition and extensive advertisement. The right hon. Prime Minister who had promised us, when leader of the opposition, to blast a way to the markets of the world for Canadian products would have had better success had he applied his indisputable energy and the appropriations voted for the Imperial conference, at Ottawa, he would have had more success, I said, had he spent his energy and the public money in reducing the cost of production in Canada and also in convincing the world consumers of the superiority of our products, instead of endeavouring to realize his protectionist utopia and wild dream of an ever greater empire. It is not the tariffs or restrictions or even a preference which will attract foreigners and empire citizens to purchase our goods, but curiosity and the desire which we will have ourselves created among them to appreciate and seek our goods, at the same time as maintaining the prices and the quality, permitting them to compete with other nations.
Mr. ST-PERE (Translation):	Very well!
It is practical.


Joseph Jean: I would have a better conception of the greatness of the British Empire, were I to see all the free nations which it comprises, forming friendly relations with the other countries of the world and proclaiming everywhere the British spirit and the resourcefulness of its institutions, which have united in peace and harmony the truly wonderful association of nations of the commonwealth rather than seeing this same association isolating itself, restricting its trade

United Kingdom
relations to its members only and provoking the rest of the world to use reprisals towards it.
This is why, sir, I think that this adventure which is, in the words of the right hon. Prime Minister, "These agreements mark the first forward step in a definite scheme of closer empire economic association"-these are the exact words consigned to Hansard, page 109-and which will have the result, according to the views expressed in the house by the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion), of diverting our foreign trade towards the empire, without increasing the Volume, offers too many dangers to be worth while giving it a trial, notwithstanding the allurement it may present.
Another reason which mediates against the approval of the agreements, is that it changes entirely the spirit which exists in our relations with England and the rest of the British Empire.
This reason has already been eloquently dealt with by my hon. leader and the distinguished speakers who sit on this side of this house. However, it is necessary to refer again to the situation and explain it clearly to the people of this country, so that, when the opportunity arises to appreciate the results, each can take his own responsibility for the decision he takes today.
It was Lord Reading himself who told us, the other day, at the lunch which the Prime Minister gave in his honour, to consider the spirit which animated the Ottawa conference rather than the letter of the agreements, acknowledging thereby that in the provisions themselves there is not sufficient inducement to satisfy public opinion.
In what spirit were these agreements concluded? During a whole century our forefathers have struggled to obtain for us the constitutional liberties which we now enjoy. Thanks to the spirit of initiative of our Liberal leaders and particularly the Hon. Mr. King and the Hon. Mr. Lapointe, we had assured to Canada complete political, economical and constitutional autonomy, giving it the standing of a free nation. The countries forming part not of the Empire but of the British commonwealth including the United Kingdom were no more attached to one another by ties of dependence and "common interests which our own welfare bids us to safeguard at all costs," as the Prime Minister stated, but constituting voluntarily "a free association of free nations" according to the formula adopted at the Imperial conference of 1926.
Free nations acknowledging a common sovereign, it is true, but retaining their complete freedom of action in the economic
and political spheres, in their external and internal affairs or in all order of ideas, as they think best and proper, according to the lucid definition given, the other day, by the hon. member for Quebec East.
All this is set aside by a stroke of the pen owing to the agreements concluded this summer in Ottawa, and which we are requested to ratify, without even changing a comma.
These agreements by which each dominion pledges itself not to alter its tariff policy without the consent of the others and that of the United Kingdom; these agreements on the part of the dominions and the United Kingdom to only grant one another reciprocal concessions on condition only of creating by common consent, obstacles to our foreign trade, by raising the tariff against other countries; this convention which binds us for a definite period not to negotiate any further foreign trade treaty, without the consent of Great Britain and even the other dominions, which are 'bound like us, are after all a step backward of fifty years in the constitutional evolution of our country. .
The spirit which guided the Imperial economic conference at Ottawa, as expressed in the terms of the agreements and as acknowledged in the statements of our hon. friends opposite, was to divert the foreign trade of the dominions towards the British Empire and engage the nations of the commonwealth in an economic war against the rest of the world, with the hope of making an "ever greater empire." It is a direct surrender of the principles for which our forebears fought with such ardour and the cession of our constitutional and political liberties which Great Britain herself had definitely conceded to us at the Imperial conferences of 1923 and 1926.
I should much like also, as our friends opposite, to be able to approve these agreements so as to prove to the rest of the world that the Imperial economic conference of 1932 has marked the dawn of further progress for the world and for our dear Canada ; however, we are in a dilemma, sir, which leaves us no other issue than to unequivocally and strongly repudiate these agreements.
If this conference was really a failure like that of 1930, as we contend, without doubt our duty is to repudiate these treaties in their entirety.
If, on the contrary, it has proved a success, it means that we completely endorse political and economic imperialism which all our statesmen, Liberal as well as Conservative, have opposed for the last fifty years, and
810	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
that all economists and wise men of the *world blame as being the main cause of the world crisis.
For my part, sir, I prefer adhering to the traditions of our policy than going backward in our history by associating my name to such a retrograde scheme.
Moreover, if we examine in detail the agreements concluded between the United Kingdom and Canada, what do we discover? Allow me, sir, to make use of a popular expression to better convey my thoughts: "Canada was done in this affair."
If anyone is to benefit from these agreements it is not Canada but England. The apparent concessions that this pact comprises, in keeping with protectionist ideas of our Prime Minister, have no other aim than of assuring the Canadian market to the products of Great Britain. The United Kingdom secured for herself, almost exclusively, the colonial markets, without granting the same advantages to Canada on the British market; it is more than time to point out that fact.


Joseph-Fernand Fafard: Hear, hear.


Joseph Jean: One has to realize the skilful as well as the concealed restrictions forced upon us in these agreements by British diplomacy. At times it is the price of our products which is restricted not to the cost of production, but to the whims of the world markets, such as determined by article 4 of the agreements, where our producers are obliged to offer their goods at prices not exceeding those of world markets. At other times it is the quantity and quality of our products which are limited, as in the case of ham and bacon; this restriction is to be found in article 6 of the agreements.
Articles 4 and 6 have been thoroughly threshed out and it is unnecessary to refer again to them to prove that the advantages which are offered to us with one hand are soon withdrawn with the other.
Who will decide as to the world prices? Who will judge of the quality of our products. It will certainly not be Canada. When London finds it unprofitable to purchase our wheat, copper, zinc, lead, ham, bacon, etc., it will simply enforce the restrictions included in said articles and we shall be unable to protest. However, sir, there is an article *which has not been, in my opinion, sufficiently considered. It is article 10. The latter is as amazing as it is pleasantly artless. Allow me to read it in full:
His Majesty's government in Canada undertake that protection by tariffs shall be afforded against United Kingdom products only to those industries which are reasonably assured of sound opportunities for success.
.
An hon. MEMBER (Translation): That is the Tory policy.


Joseph Jean: What happens to the so boasted protection by o.ur opponents, under this article?. How would it be possible to establish a new policy in Canada against the loyal or disloyal competition of a similar industry in London? They will only have to state: This industry is not bom viable, it has no chance of success, and decree, in conformity with article 10 of the trade agreements concluded between the United Kingdom and Canada, in the year of our grace 1932, that this industry is not entitled to the protection sponsored and put into force by the very great and powerful Prime Minister that Canada gave herself from 1930 to 1933.
What! Industries that have existed for a number of years and find their chances of success jeopardized owing to the disastrous and ruinous policy which is in force at present in this country, will be invited to close their doors to make room on the Canadian market to their British competitors, because they have no further chance of success.
Who will decide the oase, if not the Prime Minister of Canada, and the British industrialist? What hope will remain to the small capitalist, if perchance we have then a multimillionaire Prime Minister, having an interest in all the large trusts of this country and elsewhere, subscribing hundreds of thousands of dollars to Canadian elections? None! All the small industrialists and traders, intent on establishing a modest industry, and, contributing more to the country's prosperity, in their limited sphere, than the large corporations which hold it in bondage, will discover in this clause the sword of Damocles suspended over their head which will thwart all their aims and paralyze their spirit of initiative, to the great detriment of the people's interests, as a whole This is one of the ridiculous and tragic aspects of these agreements, which I want to point out, because it may have worse consequences.
If the right hon. Prime Minister wished with his policy a protection to really safeguard the Canadian producer, he should place his famous panacea at the disposal of the small as well as the large capitalist. The time has come to give to this country the opportunity of decentralizing industry, trade and agriculture and to withdraw these three branches of human activity from the claws of trusts which are on the eve of strangling forever the economic life of Canada. I may have an opportunity later to refer to this question, however, for the present may I state that it is not by the stipulations as I have just pointed out that we shall attain such a result.

United Kingdom
In vain the Canadian people will search the horizon to discover the dawn of these beautiful promises contained in the trade agreements, they will discover nothing. In vain will they endeavour to juggle with figures and statistics, as our opponents do, to convince themselves that a new era of prosperity is on the eve of opening up, they will always find themselves face to face with the true situation which has nothing encouraging or promising.
We note the alarming increase of the public debt. Taxation weighs more and more on -the shoulders of the Canadian ratepayer. The revenues of the country are decreasing in direct proportion to the increase of our debt and -taxes. Labour conditions are such that the whole nation is reduced to beggary.. Everywhere we discover the helplessness and inefficiency of the government in office. And what are we given in return? Barren conferences. It is not, however, what our opponents had promised in order to hoist themselves into power. It is -their leader when he was still a candidate for the pest of Prime Minister who travelled from one ocean -to the other, with his knapsack full of pledges and proclaiming with all the energy which characterizes him that he would accomplish acts, put an end to unemployment and bring back prosperity to the country.
"I pledge myself" (stated the then leader of the opposition, during the 1930 election) "to the stabilization of interprovincial trade, and the development of foreign trade".
"I pledge myself to foster and develop agriculture."
"I pledge myself to stabilize our economic situation."
The exact -wording of these pledges is to be found in an article signed by Mr. Bennett and published in MaoLean's magazine, July 15, 1930.
On June 13, 1930, Mr. Bennett stated at Calgary, according to the Calgary Herald: "I will not permit this country with my voice or vote to ever become committed to the dole system. My duty is to provide work to do."
On July 14, at Quebec: "What you want is work not -conferences, and you are going to get work, if I do not keep my promises I want the Quebec members and -my other followers to vote me out of office.


Mr. POHLIOT (Translation):: Hear, hear.
An hon. MEMBER (Translation): There is no danger for that!


Joseph Jean: And finally
on July 10, at Moncton: "I promise action. Mr. King promises conferences, he promises consideration of the problem of unemployment, I promise to end unemployment. Which plan do you like best."
These were the pledges made in 1930. It is owing to these promises that our opponents assumed -power. The people had faith in these fine pledges of Mr. Bennett, and they confided their destinies to him. Chickens, however come home to roost! After having stolen power on the good faith of so solemn pledges, this government has accomplished no acts, has not put an end to unemployment or brought back prosperity, has not opened up or blasted foreign markets, has done nothing for the farmer nor has it stabilized our economic situation; but it gave us conferences. The 1930 conference was a failure, and recognized as such throughout the world. The 1932 conference is but a camouflage to save the reputation, already greatly compromised, of our Prime Minister.
An hon. MEMBER (Translation): Hear, hear 1


Joseph Jean: Where are the Conservative members who will admit that their administration has been a failure, and who will take the Prime Minister at his word -of 1930-to vote him out of power, if he failed in his promises? The promises have not been carried out. The results which followed were disastrous. The people have lost faith and await the reckoning day.
The duty of the opposition, sir, is to warn the government and point out the errors of its ways. We, Liberals, are criticized for not having a constructive policy to oppose to what they themselves call a trial. The only argument of our opponents which might have some weight, is that we allow them to make a trial of these agreements in order to find out whether there is anything good in them. But is that not rather the greatest proof that they do not themselves know which way to turn and that these agreements -contain only unrealizable promises.
We have not the right, we, the representatives of the people, to permit them to make a new trial. Action and immediate results are demanded by the people. Our opponents criticize us for not suggestig to them some program. -But our past is there to prove that the Liberal party has never failed in its task. The prosperous years of the Liberal regime have always replaced the gloomy days of the Conservative rule.
An hon. MEMBER (Translation): Hear, hear!


Joseph Jean: It is when Canada had a Liberal government that Canadians prided themselves in living in this country, -that they felt the greatest happiness and
812	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
prosperity, and that foreigners bound to the young nation whose future was so full of promise.
We are remote from these fond hopes, but thank heaven, the Liberal standard will soon float over our dear country and we shall again see it take its flight towards its destinies.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I should first like to congratulate the previous speaker (Mr. Jean) upon his excellent address. He was bom in my native valley of St. Philippe de Nery and attended college with me. I have followed his career with great interest and I say to him that I will be pleased to tell the constituents of Maisonneuve that his maiden speech was to me a masterpiece.
The subject before us today is one of such tremendous importance that I have no apology to offer for trespassing upon the time of the house even at this late stage in the discussion. To any observer of Canadian politics, this year is one of accentuated depression in trade, industry and agriculture, of an unprecedented degree of unemployment and of an acute crisis in national finance. A deficit of more than $100,000,000 is hanging over our heads. Gur trade is languishing to a lamentable degree. Our industries, in spite of the application to an unlimited extent of this cure-all, this panacea, called high protection or superprotection, to a point which makes it very oppressive to the people, are in the grip of the depression.
Agriculture is in the doldrums. Our farmers are struggling hard to make both ends meet and they do not yet see the end of their troubles. The present government has too long made manufacturing industry the prime object of our national existence. In passing, may I remind this government that if, by tariff and taxation, it allows the greedy industrialists and financiers to impose too much on the farming communities, it will become a menace to our national security. While the farmers were snubbed at the recent Imperial conference, the well represented manufacturers were adequately taken care of. Nobody can deny that for three centuries agriculture has been the backbone of this country, but I am afraid that with the little care which is given now to this fundamental, primary industry, this backbone will be broken into pieces and the result will be a bag of bones.
This long-continued depression calls for statesmanship of the highest character. I contend that it is the duty of any public spirited man not to allow party animosity
.
to bear too much on his decisions and to apply himself assiduously to working for a solution. What have we seen during this debate? An opposition craving for information; an opposition penetratingly curious, inquisitive, and a government evasively informative. With the exception of the speeches of the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett), the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens), for whom I have the greatest admiration, and perhaps a few others, those from the other side of the house, even from the ministerial benches, have been masterpieces of diatribe. Probably this is good grist for the Conservative mill, but the country is expecting more substantial food from this administration. What has Canada witnessed during the past few years? A government of sane and sincere achievement displaced by one of great promises; a man of experience replaced by a man of experiment. An era of great expectation was opened, but I am afraid that before it closes, this period will be one of still greater disappointment. We were promised work and plenty. We reap unemployment increased threefold and misery in an increasing degree. Many remedies applied by the government to cure unemployment were mere palliatives which accelerated the disease. The money spent in my constituency and more particularly in my own parish, Ste. Anne de la Pocatiere, went into the pockets of the Tories with one or perhaps very few exceptions.


Jean-François Pouliot: And the well-off ones.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: 
Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. gentleman has
been speaking for forty minutes.


Mr. R. K. SMITH (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, it is now fifteen minutes to six o'clock, and, as I purpose concluding before six the few remarks I have to make, I am not making the usual request. Thereby I avoid challenging the accuracy of the clock, not to mention the veracity of authority in this chamber.
Until last evening I 'had not intended speaking in this debate but on account of some observations made by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote) I feel in duty bound to say something of a very brief character on the question of wheat preferences and this country's violation of the east and west statutory trade obligations in order to keep the records straight and to remind this honourable house that maritime province Atlantic seaports are part and parcel of Canadian confederation and do not intend to be starved by a continuation of the iniquitous policy of routing Canadian grain over foreign steel and through United States ports.
Time and again maritime members have placed on record the confederation commitments respecting the flow of Canadian trade over Canadian railways and through Canadian ports, and I do not purpose crowding Hansard by repeating them in this debate.

Has this house and this country forgotten the statutes of 1903 and 1904 when the Transcontinental railway project was before parliament? Written into the very constitution are the pledges that if the Transcontinental were built we would no longer have to tolerate the use of American railways or United States ports for the outlet of our grain. Those who wish may read the utterances of a great Canadian statesman, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and examine the bond incorporated in the statutes of 1903 and 1904 and also refresh their memories by examining the pre-election pledges of Sir Wilfrid Laurier and others in the election campaigns of 1904 and 1908.
The Transcontinental railway was built at a cost to Canada of upwards of $300,000,000, constructed with low gradients and easy curvatures for the special purpose of routing Canadian trade through Canadian ports. Notwithstanding the colossal cost, the railway is not being used; the bond has been violated; the statute disregarded and the pledges unkept. I ask this honourable house whether now, under the 6 cents preference granted by Great Britain on wheat moving on an allempire route, when a golden opportunity presents itself of rectifying the wrong-in which the mother country is directing the course-we intend to sit idly by and allow American railways and American ports to continue to reap the harvest which, by every spoken and written bond and on every constitutional and patriotic ground, belongs to us.
The east and west routing of Canadian trade means much more to Canada than at first might appear. It has been conservatively estimated that as high as $20,000,000 in a single year has been paid out to American elevators, railways, railway employees, port-workers and others in the storing, transporting, handling and elevating of Canadian grain alone. What an outrage for a self-respecting people to contemplate! Think of the employment we are giving our American neighbours on this policy alone.
The hon. member for Macleod complains that there will be increased cost to the Canadian wheat grower if any change is made in the present policy of routing Canadian grain via Buffalo and New York to the motherland. I want to tell him that there is in existence today a 6 cent rate on the movement of grain from the lower lake and Georgian bay ports to Saint John and Halifax, which is a competitive rate with Buffalo to New York, and, further, I hold the view that we can secure an equally low ocean rate from Halifax and Saint John to old country ports with New York if given the business. Let the flow of

United Kingdom
grain move to Halifax and Saint John and you will find adequate ocean tonnage congregating there, anxious and willing to transport grain to the old country at as low a rate as from New York or anywhere else; in fact, they are doing that today and have been for some time past.
May I add that Canada has spent many millions of dollars in equipping Canadian ports for the special purpose of handling Canadian grain. Are these expenditures, as well as the Transcontinental railway costs to be overlooked and forgotten, as has been the railway itself, and hon. members to hold their hands up in holy horror if any change is suggested whereby Canadian ports may benefit?
It may be argued that we in Canada have not adequate elevator equipment to dispose of all of our grain in the winter months. Even if we have not, I hold that we are entitled to at least a sufficient quantity to utilize our own elevator handling and storage capacity, and if some grain must, on account of present inadequate facilities, move through New York it can be stored in elevators on the lower lake or Georgian Bay ports and consigned direct to the mother country via New York on a through bill of lading and still enjoy the preference under the present British ruling.
Empire agreements mean empire trade, empire trade means increased business to empire nations, transportation and shipping as well as others. Canada constructed at tremendous sacrifices the Transcontinental railway, and, in addition, has made huge expenditures on our ocean ports, and I maintain it is a betrayal of trust to deprive the splendid Atlantic ports of Halifax and Saint John of their constitutional right to a fair share of the grain business by handing the benefits over to Buffalo and New York. The British government, by the preference regulation, has shown the way to develop empire ports, and surely Canada, after all the betrayals of the past in this regard, will not be the first to paint the dollar sign on the union jack.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. E. J. GARLAND (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, if I were to attempt to describe this treaty in a single sentence I would say it is a futile attempt to bolster up an outworn distributive system by petty diversion of trade. Few seem to recognize the fact that one cannot divert a stream of any kind, whether it be of water or of trade, without
cost, without leakage and without waste. While I am willing to grant to hon. friends opposite every earnestness and sincerity in the matter, I wonder if they have thought of the inevitable loss of trade which will result to Canada in the transition period before that time comes, if it ever does, when full advantage can be taken of the alleged benefits under the treaty. There is little doubt that there will be waste in the transition period; even if we grant that there will be a diversion of trade, it will be accomplished at a cost which at the moment we cannot estimate but which we know will be of considerable extent.
I suggest that the release of trade from the throttling effect of tariffs is probably the most urgent need of the world at this moment outside of the settlement of our monetary problems. This applies not only to the British commonwealth, but to the whole world. The consequences of these maladjustments are difficult to estimate, but one can gain some knowledge of their effect by observing the economic disorders and the massed unemployment to be found in every part of the globe. The folly of these damaging trade restrictions and monetary policies is daily becoming more apparent. As a matter of fact, every intelligent economist of standing throughout the world has universally condemned the trade restrictions which are now throttling world trade.
The more we study this trade treaty with Great Britain the clearer it becomes that action adverse to a world expansion of trade has been taken. The achievements of the conference have been grossly exaggerated. Even hon. members to the left of you, Mr. Speaker, have at times given it an importance which in my opinion it does not deserve. Many hon. members have alleged that it was the most important thing before the country at the moment. It is not, but unemployment is, the necessity for finding remunerative markets for agricultural products is, the necessity for improving the price levels of all commodities is, the necessity for stopping borrowings on the part of the government is-these things are infinitely more important than a mere distribution or redistribution of a few commodities such as is proposed under the agreement.
What did I read before this conference had met? I read that it must not fail, that the future of the British commonwealth of nations depended upon its success, that the whole future trend of British empire evolution was resting in the hands of those who would gather at Ottawa, that failure was unthinkable, and so on, ad lib. In the light of these statements how could we expect any assertions other than those we have heard from the members of the government? They dared not

Note, all that is needed is to get the farmers of the province busy. Note also that it is one province alone that is to furnish 100,000 head of beef cattle for the British market. The ex-Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell), the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) or anybody who knows anything about agriculture knows that it is impossible for one province alone to find a market for 100,000 head of cattle in Great Britain. Is it any wonder that Professor Corbett burst into print with some perhaps unwise but very honest statements? Professor Corbett of McGill University said:
"It was clear from the beginning that Ottawa was bound to be a failure from an economic standpoint," and that the conference had "not a chance of effecting substantial and lasting betterments of empire trade by the methods proposed."
There have been varying estimates that this treaty meant a market of from 100,000 to 400,000 head a year, and there are farmers who believed it, just as there were farmers who thought that they were going to get an
improved price for their wheat of six cents a bushel. They were to be disillusioned. There were few quite accurate comments on the conference published in the papers. The editorials were of a most confusing and misleading character. I would call them by other names, but those are the mildest terms I care to use at the moment, considering the assembly in which I am speaking. Even the Minister of Agriculture could not tolerate it; he; burst into the press with a complete denial of those estimates. He himself asserted that they were absurd and ridiculous, that there was not a tittle of foundation in them and that there was no prospect of such a market. He went further. Let hon. gentlemen opposite rise in their seats in protest if they like, but their own Minister of Agriculture is reported as saying that the natural market for Canadian cattle was the United States of America.


Mr. BOWMAN:: How are you going to get them in?


Edward Joseph Garland: The hon. gentleman asks how we are going to get them in. Evidently he does not know that last year we shipped more cattle to that market than we did to the United Kingdom market. With a little encouragement and some proper negotiations we might accomplish more in opening a market for our cattle in the United States than we can ever hope to accomplish in the United Kingdom.


James Langstaff Bowman: That is your idea.


Edward Joseph Garland: No, that is-common sense. Let me point out that last year we shipped to the United States 27,375 head of cattle, while we shipped to the United Kingdom 26,734 head. The Minister of Agriculture says-
Mr. SENiN: May I ask a question?


Edward Joseph Garland: Just a moment. The Minister of Agriculture says, to use his own words, that less than 25,000 head of cattle will be shipped to the United Kingdom next year.
Mr. SBN'N: Does not the hon. gentleman know that the cattle shipped to the United States were young, unfinished cattle, and that those we shipped to Great Britain were finished; cattle?


Edward Joseph Garland: Surely; L can assure my hon. friend I know that. What difference does it make? If we have cattle to sell we want a market for them. It does not matter whether they were finished or unfinished.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, yes, it does..
'822	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements


Edward Joseph Garland: I have not time for all these interruptions. Let me say that most of the cattle we ship from the west to eastern Canada are young, unfinished feeders and stoekers. You are mighty glad to get them and we are glad to sell them if we can get a fair price for them. But 1 have not time to answer all these questions. Let us take up this question of wheat.


Mr. McGIBBON:: That is right; leave cattle and get on to wheat.
Mr. GARLAND Bow River): I have dealt with cattle; all we will get in Great Britain, according to the Minister of Agriculture, is a market for less than 25,000 head of cattle. If that is not enough for the hon. gentleman I cannot help it.
With regard to this question of the wheat preference, perhaps sufficient has been said by hon. members from both parts of this side <of the house-and it could well have been said by hon. members opposite-to indicate that in this preference there is no advantage to Canadian wheat growers. There will be no wider market; there will be no increase in price, because we must accept the world price. The Prime Minister was strongly advised, by authorities on wheat in this country, against taking this step, but in his usual forceful, dynamic way he pressed forward to the accomplishment of his aim, and he did accomplish it. In this connection the Alberta wheat pool has this to say:
It is doubtful if even the most optimistic advocate of the wheat preference will go so far as to predict even a small increase in the price of Canadian wheat as a direct result. It is entirely unlikely that any financial benefit will be reflected directly back to Canadian growers from the operation of the wheat preference. . . .
Then the article continues to point out that our exports of Canadian wheat to Great Britain amount to about one hundred million bushels. As a matter of fact, during the last five years the average has been 76,194,000 bushels. At the very best, Mr. Speaker, we can expect a possible market for 100,000,000 bushels in Great Britain. Recent disclosures have made it apparent that grain moving from Canada through the customary channels, via Buffalo and United States ports, will not get the preference. How serious is that? First of all let me ask this question: Is it fair of the Prime Minister of Canada to now get rid of responsibility for his action by saying that this policy is one for the British government to decide? Remember that it was the Prime Minister, more than any other indivdual or organization on earth, who thrust this preference on the conference. It was his pet ' 
baby from the beginning, but he did not estimate the difficulties which might be in the way, nor did he work his way through them. Now he finds himself up against the most serious problem that has faced western grain growers in many years.
What are we to do about it? We must not forget that from one-half to two-thirds of all our wheat going to the United Kingdom always has gone via United States ports. Why is that? Just take a look at the map and study the freight tariffs and you will get the answer. That has been so because the cost of shipping has been less. Now it is seriously proposed that we should sacrifice many dollars in freight rates in order to move our gram east through Canadian Atlantic ports. I tell you, Mr. Speaker, that hon. members who insist on advocating this policy which will utterly ruin the grain growers of western Canada are undertaking something which may have the most serious effect on this country that I could state. Frankly, if there is to be continued insistence on this policy, I hesitate to imagine what it may mean to confederation.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Edward Joseph Garland: Yes, I am serious in what I say. We are people who came to this country as you did; we went west, and we have contributed our toil and our lives to the advancement of Canada. Now if you say that you are going to thrust us into even greater poverty and degradation *than we now suffer, to force our grain to go through your ports, you are making a great error in judgment and in politics.
What is the meaning of this recent decision on the part of the British government? It means that from the time of freeze-up the grain will be shifted from its natural to an artificial channel, at great cost to us. Mind you, I have every sympathy with the aspirations and ambitions of those living in Nova Scotia and the maritimes generally, but let me say to them that their ambitions cannot be realized through the sacrifice of the greatest producers of natural wealth in the Dominion of Canada, the wheat growers. Their ambitions can be realized if this country will undertake to provide us with as low a freight rate to the Atlantic coast as we can now get to Atlantic ports in the United States. Therefore it means that from freeze-up onward this total volume of six hundred million bushels will have to be diverted from its natural channel, to the extent to which it goes to the United Kingdom, if it is to get this preference. In turn,

United Kingdom
this means that the chief factor in keeping down Atlantic cargo rates, that is, the New York liner traffic, will not be working for ns. Our experience in the past with traffic on the Atlantic has been that all shippers, and particularly trans-atlantic carriers, are only too eager to seize any opportunity that may present itself to advance rates. That very fact was indicated in the figures put on record last night by the hon. member for Maeleod (Mr. Coote). We find that the rate from New York to Liverpool is only 4i cents, while the rate to Glasgow, which is not a constant route on regular schedule, is 7 cents, and the rate to Antwerp is 10 cents. What the rate will be from Halifax to the old country hon. members opposite will know.
The next thing this agreement will do is provide our lake shippers association, or combine, or pool or whatever the pleasant thing is called, with an additional opportunity still further to exploit the grain growers of the west. It definitely means that we must keep our grain from Buffalo or any other storage point in the United States and that if we depart from the long and expensive channels of Canadian rail transportation we will lose any alleged advantage there may be in this preference. We must remember that we ship to the old country about one hundred million bushels of wheat, and that we ship through United States ports from one-half to two-thirds of this amount. On that portion we will now get no preference. It is easy to imagine the amount of preference we will get on the balance. What an enormous benefit this is going to be! It does not advance prices; it does not widen markets; it applies only to about fifty million bushels of a six hundred million bushel available supply. Loud cheers for the preference! That, Mr. Speaker, is what is offered agriculture, an industry which, in the tom years from 1921 to 1931- and remember that a great decline has taken place as well since 1931

has suffered a serious alteration in the ownership of land.
Let me give some figures in that connection. To-day we have 28,000 fewer full owners of farms than we had in 1921. We have an increase of 32.9 per cent in the number of tenant farmers. We have an increase of 70 per cent in the number of farms partly owned and partly operated by tenant farmers. We have a 20 per cent decline in the value of farm property which, added up, means a loss of $1,025,000,000 in the value of farm property. We have a decline in land value which, worked out to apply to each individual farm, means $1,495 per farm.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The hon.
gentleman's time has expired.


Edward Joseph Garland: May I
finish my sentence? We have a decline in building values of $41,000,000. The average value of farm land has declined thirty-nine per cent, and we have this fact that must be impressed upon hon. members opposite, that 224,000 farmers out of 728,000 have reported as to their mortgages, and that number, one-third of the total, show outstanding mortgages amounting to almost $700,000,000. Yet hon. gentlemen opposite offer to us as the way out of our difficulties-nothing!


Mr. A. L. BEAUBIEN (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to rise and make a few remarks on the agreements that are before the house, after listening to the very illuminating exposition of the hon. member for Bow River. But before dealing with some of the details of the agreement 1 would like to refer to a statement made by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) during the byelection in South Huron. The Minister of Agriculture, supposedly independent in politics, knowing nothing about playing politics, I think has played politics more than any minister of agriculture I have come in contact with since I have been a member of this house. The Minister of Agriculture said at Hensall on September 30, as reported in the London Free Press of October 1:
The Bennett government, on the other hand, had by its every act shown its concern for agriculture, and had placed on the statute books legislation which had meant $36,000,000 more annually in the pockets of the farmers.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I am a farmer myself, and I have yet to see any of that $36,000,000, except the bonus on wheat, and I may state right here that the bonus as it was applied on wheat was very unfair to a large percentage of the farmers. Some farmers in my district got a good deal of money, but farmers fifteen miles from me got nothing, because they had no crop. But the Minister of Agriculture, having made that statement, might have told the electors of South Huron how much his Minister of National Revenue' has taken out of the pockets of the farmers by his administration of the Customs Act. I have a statement here which is very illuminating. A man from my constituency bought in the United States a calf five months old, and paid $125 for it-and let me say that any man who has enough faith in the country to buy stock of that quality to improve his herd should not be penalized to the extent that this man was. Having paid $125 for it he paid a further $60 express and $15.46 duty,: and as soon as the
824	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
calf was registered he was supposed to get a rebate of the duty. He made application for the rebate. What was the result? He got $6.56 out of the $15.46. Here is what the customs collector said:
The difference in the amount allowed on the amount claimed is due to the fact that payment for this importation was made in Canadian funds, and it therefore becomes subject to special duty on the amount of the exchange on the date of shipment.
'Can there be anything more outrageous in the administration of the Customs Act than to impose a penalty upon a man who is trying to improve his herd, and is working under tremendous difficulties to make both ends meet?
We do just the opposite on importations from Great Britain; in that case we raise the value of the pound sterling. So I say to the Minister of Agriculture that before going to the. country and saying how much money this 'government has put in the pockets of the farmer he should tell them how much the government has taken out of the pocket of the farmer by the administration of the Customs Act and by orders in council.
The other day the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Gobeil) did me the honour of quoting some remarks in my speech. Before I read his remarks, may I say that the hon. member was the big gun from Quebec who was sent to South Huron to win the election. He spoke at a place called Drysdale and told the farmers of the benefits of the imperial conference and the trade pacts, and he did not know the first thing about them because he had never seen them. What happened? In one place where he spoke the Conservative got seven votes-


Samuel Gobeil: How many people?


Arthur-Lucien Beaubien: The records are there.
If he had gone there twice he would not have got any.
The hon. member for Compton quoted from my speech as follows:
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.
I am afraid, Mr. Speaker, that the whole trade agreement is not only a joke on the farmer but will be a very expensive joke. What do we find in this agreement? I in-

tend to deal with only three or four clauses, clauses that concern the agriculturist. I do not want to go into the others, which have been well dealt with already. I will take the preference on wheat-and I believe I am speaking the truth when I say that there has never been so much exaggeration by hon. members opposite and by newspapers in relation to any other agreement we have ever made in this country, as there has been of the benefits of this trade agreement. This is all exaggeration, and exaggeration to the point of being ridiculous. Some hon. members here, with whom I intend to deal shortly, have stood up in this house and made statements which they know they cannot justify, statements which the results will not bear out, with reference to the preference on wheat. I ask you, Mr. Speaker: In all your experience in this house have you ever witnessed such a chaotic state of affairs in connection with the preference? The Prime Minister himself does not know what it means; he cannot give us any assurance as to whether our Canadian wheat going through United States ports will obtain the preference. He declares that it is up to the British government. Will the right hon. gentleman tell me that the producers of wheat or that the wheat trade in an organized capacity have asked the government to insist upon the preference on our wheat? I can reply for the Prime Minister. There is not a man, there is not an organization interested in the production of wheat or in its marketing who has done so; but Mr. McFarland, his pet in the wheat pool, advocated a preference, as did also Mr. J. R. Murray. The producers were against it, and why? They know that we cannot sell all our wheat to Great Britain; they know that we have to sell our wheat in the markets of the world, and what is more, they know that we have to sell at world prices. Moreover, they know that if we displace other wheat in Great Britain that wheat which is displaced will take the place of our product on the continent. Let me put a question to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion). I like to see the Minister of Railways in his seat, and I should like to ask him this question: Does he think that Russia will quit producing wheat? Does he think that the Argentine will quit producing wheat? No, Mr. Speaker, the fact is that this is all camouflage intended to deceive the agricultural industry. The preference on wheat cannot operate except to the detriment of our growers, because we have to sell our wheat in the world market; in fact, we have to sell it in all the markets

United Kingdom
that are available to us. Not only that. Suppose these other countries who are producing wheat-countries such as Russia, the Argentine and the Balkan states-decided to form a combine to displace us in the continental market. How injurious that would be to our western wheat growers who today are in a situation in which it is extremely hard for them to make a living.
One clause in the agreement which I am bound to confess amuses me is the clause in regard to bacon and hams. I have heard members of this house-I think I heard my hon. friend from Kindersley (Mr. Carmichael) the other day-praising this article and describing it as one that will be of great benefit to Canada. Let me read it. I know, Mr. Speaker, that you have some knowledge of farming, because every man in any position of responsibility today either was born on a farm or married a farmer's daughter. I will therefore read the clause and leave you to form your own conclusions with regard to it:
His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom declare that it is their intention to arrange as soon as possible after receiving the report of the commission now sitting-
That commission might not report for a year.
*-on the reorganization of the pig industry in the United Kingdom, for the quantitative regulation of the supplies of bacon and hams coming on to the United Kingdom market and undertake that in any legislation which they may submit-
Mark those words, "may submit." There is nothing in the clause to the effect that they will make a submission.
*-to parliament for regulating the supplies of bacon and hams for all sources into the United Kingdom, provision will be made for free entry of Canadian bacon and hams of good quality up to a maximum of 2,500,000 hundredweight per annum.
I would ask my hon. friend from Haldimand (Mr. Senn) and my hon. friend from Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) a question which I should be glad to have them answer. These two hon. gentlemen in 1929 and 1930 made a hue and cry among the farmers of the country about the ruin which the King government was going to bring to our agricultural industry. Let me ask them, Mr. Speaker, the question which I am now going to put to you. Would you go into the hog producing industry on the basis of a provision so vague as this, a provision which may never be carried into effect? Would you stand for a bunch of hogs in your yard, squealing in your ears, just because such a vague provision as this is enacted, a provision which, as I say, may
never go into effect? Yet hon. members of this house and newspapers as well are making capital of this article which I have quoted, article 6. I repeat, and I hope my hon. friend from Compton (Mr. Gobeil) will hear me-


Samuel Gobeil: I certainly do.


Arthur-Lucien Beaubien: I repeat, sir, that this article is the biggest joke that was ever embodied in a trade agreement. I know that my hon. friend from Compton will never go into the hog producing industry to any great extent until he sees what this commission is going to report and whether the government of the United Kingdom will introduce the necessary legislation indicated. No sane farmer would go into the hog producing industry, on the scale predicted in this provision, on the strength of a clause as vague as this. The words in article 6 of the agreement are vague; they are deceptive, and the farmers will not accept the clause.


An hon. MEMBER:: How do you know?


Arthur-Lucien Beaubien: I know, because I know that the farmers have some common sense May I suggest to my hon. friend from Park-dale (Mr. Spence) that if he wants to speak he should stand up.


Mr. SPENCE:: You have the wrong man this time.


Arthur-Lucien Beaubien: Let me come now to article 9 of the agreement:
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 E 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 long as the margin of British preference shown in that schedule is preserved or from increasing the rates under the intermediate or general tariff set out in the said schedule.
That, Mr. Speaker, is a very dangerous provision. It is one that might preclude us from entering into agreements with other countries. Because a Canadian advocates trade with the world at large today, is he going to be described by the government, and especially by the Prime Minister, as unpatriotic? Yet, if that clause goes into effect and we wish to make treaties with countries outside the empire, how is the margin of preference to be preserved? If you have a certain duty today and the preference is so much, how are you going to make trade treaties and preserve the preference? How will you give nations favourable treatment? I repeat, it is a dangerous clause and one that should not be entertained.

Imperial

Conference-Trade Agreements
Let me quote next article 13 of the agreement :
His Majesty's government in Canada undertake that on the request of His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom they will cause a review to be made by the tariff board as soon as practicable of the duties charged on any commodities specified in such request in accordance with the principles laid down in article 11 hereof. . . .
The Prime Minister, when h.e introduced the bill creating the tariff board, did not appear to consider the rights of Canadian consumers; he did not consider the right of the consumer in this country to appear before the board. Today, however, he is prepared to extend to representatives from a country outside Canada that right to appear before the board. Let me assure him that the Canadian people are not very much enamoured of this sort of thing. They have some regard for the rights of consumers in this country. I do not know whether the Prime Minister intends to give them the right to appear before the board. He is controlling everything and it seems to me that the Canadian consumer has not much chance. If countries outside of Canada are given the right to appear before the tariff board and plead their cases, it will prove to be unfair to the Canadian consumer if he has not the same right.
I should like to refer to one or two items in the schedule in order to substantiate my arguments and prove my contention. The first to which I shall refer is item 409, cream separators. I think every hon. member from a rural constituency in which there are people engaged in the dairying industry knows the conditions under which they work and the difficulties they have to meet. What do we find in connection with this item? The government, not content with putting in the agreements clauses and articles which are vague in their meaning, has raised the duty on cream separators. The Minister of Agriculture and every traveller in the smoking cars on our trains have been telling the farmer to go into mixed farming and the dairying business, and yet this government does the very thing which will make it more difficult. The hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe, the hon. member for Halton, and the hon. member for South Essex (Mr. Gott), who produces onions-


Eccles James Gott: I am proud of it.


Arthur-Lucien Beaubien: That is all right if they do not smell too strong. These gentlemen went throughout the country, backed up with the literature with which the Conservative organization saturated every farm home in Canada in 1929 and 1930, and told the farmers how bad the King government was for them

and how wonderful things would be if they were put into power. Will those same gentlemen go around the country today and say to the farmers: "The price of butter has gone down 12 or 15 cents per pound since we sent you that literature; that is how we helped you. But we think you are still getting too much; you will have to pay a 25 per cent duty on your cream separators." An attempt at camouflage is made by stating that this article oomes in free under the British preference, but it has come in free for many years. Previously it came in free under the intermediate and general tariffs, but this government, after telling the farmers what it did in 1929 and 1930, put up the duty against this article.
What are the figures in regard to cream separators? The total imports were as follows:
1930		 $ 955,182
1931	 1,089,904
1932	 455,721
The low importations for 1932 were caused by the farmer not having the money to purchase a cream separator. Why is this government trying to shift trade from one country to another and forgetting the natural channels of trade? We have never imported cream separators from Great Britain except probably the larger machines for creameries, and so on.
What happens when an attempt is made to divert trade and the natural channels are forgotten? What happened in the case of oranges? This government introduced a duty on oranges which was intended to divert the orange trade from the United States to Australia and other countries in the British Empire. The figures in this connection are as follows:
1931	1932
Total imports	$9,492,922	$6,459,707United States.,	..	..	8,281,471	5,709,149Australia.. ..	..	..	97,475	69,488British South Africa.	64,234	118,631Jamaica	
70,499	131,428Japan	
319,698	282,705
In the last three months the proportion of imports from the United States has been higher than ever. For July, August and September of this year the figures are as follows:
Total imports	 $1,069,555
United States	 1,042,928
Australia	 24,995
British South Africa	 1,429
In connection with cream separators it will probably be said that the British will go into the production of this article or the Canadian farmer will be able to buy a Canadian machine, but the fact remains that the Canadian manufacturer will take advantage of

United Kingdom
the protection. What happened with regard to oranges? Who paid the tariff of 35 cents per cubic foot? It was the consumer, and he is going to have to pay the 25 per cent duty on cream separators.
I think the government is mistaken if it hopes to deceive the farmer by saying: We have obtained a preference on wheat of six .cents per bushel. At the present rates of exchange, that amounts to only about four and one-half cents per bushel. The government will say to the farmers of Canada: We have made arrangements whereby you will be able to sell 2,500,000 hundredweight of hogs, hams and bacon. As soon as the farmers read these clauses-if there is one in my riding who does not read them, I will read them to him-they cannot help but come to the conclusion that the only person who will derive benefit, if any benefit is to be derived from this agreement, is the manufacturer. The rates of duty which existed prior to the conference have been kept up. The statement that this agreement will help the farmer in the marketing of his products is nothing less than camouflage, and almost all the farmers know it. If any do not, they will know it within the next six months.
The hon. member for Compton referred to my remarks during the debate on the address in reply, but if he will read over these clauses and will be honest and tell the farmers the true situation, he will admit that they are nothing less than a joke and that most of them will prove to be a very expensive joke for the farmer.


Samuel Gobeil: Do I understand from what the hon. member has said that he intends to discourage the raising of hogs in his constituency?


Arthur-Lucien Beaubien: I tell my hon. friend
that we can raise more hogs in my constituency in six months than he can raise in his in ten years.


Samuel Gobeil: I am asking my hon. friend if he intends to discourage the raising of hogs.


Arthur-Lucien Beaubien: There is no doubt that
this trade agreement is going to discourage it. My hon. friend knows that today we cannot market our hogs and he knows also that these clauses will not induce the farmer to go into hog production.


An hon. MEMBER:: Wait for the results.


Arthur-Lucien Beaubien: Wait for the results.
We will have to wait until the British government introduces legislation. Even that
is not sure because this agreement says they "may," it does not say they "shall." Is my hon. friend in possession of knowledge not available to other hon. members? If so, why has he not told the house everything? If my hon. friend were a practical farmer and not so partisan in his expressions on this agreement, and I came to him and read this clause as it is worded in the agreement, he would never go into hog raising. He would realize the vagueness of and the lack of possibilities in the clause.
The efforts of this government to implement its pledges to the agriculturists, to the whole of Canada with the exception of the manufacturing industries, has been a total failure. I say to the government that unless it changes its policy, unless it does something for the primary producers and gives less to the manufacturers and the people who have a monopoly in this dominion, whether it goes to the country this year, next year or the year after, the Canadian people, especially in the rural parts, will render their verdict and we shall see most of the members on the government side left at home.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: It is my duty to inform
the house that when the Prime Minister speaks, he will close the debate.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is now three weeks
since I tabled this agreement in the house. No one will deny that the fullest possible opportunity has been afforded to every hon. member to discuss it and every detail of it including the schedules. During those three weeks many speeches have been made and much time consumed, and I am bound to say that there has been evidence of more heat than light. The opposition prior to last evening had filled some 528 columns of Hansard; the government had been content with 263, fifty of which had been taken by me in opening the agreement with the schedules. Further comments are unnecessary.
It is a strange event we have witnessed here. I venture to think in all the annals of this parliament few have been stranger. We have witnessed the betrayal of a great party, the repudiation by a party of a great policy. We have seen it forswear its leaders, forget its past and enunciate new theories entirely at variance with any heretofore held. It has sacrificed its great history and tradition-for what? I shall endeavour to show. Before I resume my seat I shall endeavour to make clear to the house just what the policy of
828	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
the Liberal party has heretofore been, just what this new departure involves, and just why it has been made.	This policy of
imperial preference or of preferential treatment of Canadian commodities in the British market was a fundamental part of the teachings of Liberalism in the days of Sir Wilfrid Laurier. In 1897 he and his minister of finance, speaking for the government, introduced into the house measures which provided for the granting freely of preferences to goods from Great Britain. What they said then was: What we give, we give freely, without compensation, without hope of any benefit. No, not without hope of benefit. True, not benefit described in words, but the latent hope that some day the British people, realizing the great concessions that Canada had granted, would give to this country in turn the benefits it had bestowed upon them. There are those who say that that is not so, and because they have made those statements during this debate, I propose to indicate very briefly, by suitable and appropriate extracts not only from their declared policies at home but from their declared policies in the centre of the empire, just what their position was.
In 1897 the Conservative party of that day, under Sir Charles Tupper, did not believe that concessions of this character should be given for nothing. They believed that if we give a preference, we should receive something for it. They believed that if we conferred benefits, we should receive benefits in return. It was open at all times for the Conservative party, indeed, their leaders had been pressed in days gone by, to grant a preference without compensation, but to that doctrine they turned their backs and said:	In this young, new country, with all its vast resources for development and the enrichment of those who come within its borders, we should not grant concessions by way of preferences unless we receive concessions in return. That was our policy; to that we have clung, and we have lived long enough to see gathered in this capital city of Canada a group of delegates from every part of the empire who have given effect to that contention of 1897.
From 1897 onward Sir Wilfrid Laurier, realizing that he had been giving something for nothing, earnestly hoped and, indeed, quietly urged that concessions should be made by Great Britain by granting preferences to Canada. His hopes, however, were not realized. I find that in the proceedings of the conference of 1902, held only a few years after we had the granting of the preferences in question by Canada, there was a memorandum presented by the President of the Board

of Trade which represented the agreed formula of all parties attending that conference in London. Listen to these words as found on page thirty-five:
As a result of the communications which have taken place, it is understood that the representatives of the colonies hereinafter mentioned are prepared to recommend to their respective parliaments preferential treatment of British goods on the following lines:
Canada. The existing preference of 33J per cent, and an additional preference on lists of selected articles-
Now, let me draw the attention of those in this house who have denied that Sir Wilfrid Laurier was prepared to establish his preference by putting a greater duty against foreign goods and lettiDg British goods come in free, to these words:
(a)	By further reducing the duties in favour of the United Kingdom.
(b)	By raising the duties against foreign imports, and
(c)	By imposing duties on certain foreign imports now on the free list.
That was the declaration in 1902 of the government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and it was that very same principle that in 1930 we applied in negotiating these agreements: first of all, the free list; second, the imposition of duties on foreign goods, and, third, the placing of duties upon goods that had formerly come in free from foreign countries.
Then I turn to page thirty-seven and I find that the Canadian ministers not only were not content with that statement, but went further. They submitted a special memorandum in which they made this declaration:
While it was not deemed necessary to enter into questions as to the wisdom or unwisdom of the policy adopted by all governments in Canada, of raising the revenues chiefly from customs duties, the Canadian ministers pointed out that under that policy large industries had. grown up which had to be considered in connection with the proposed tariff changes.
I wonder what they say now, those who day after day have been talking about the recognition of the manufacturing interests of this country, to the memorandum filed by Sir Wilfrid Laurier in 1902, when he said that any agreement entered into must have regard to the fact that we in this new country had built up great and powerful manufacturing interests. Where are they now? Where are those little minds that have been shrieking against the manufacturing interests during the last three weeks? Where are they who shrieked aloud because some prosperity, they said, had come to the manufacturing interests of this country, on every one hundred dollars of which, by the way, they pay twelve dollars to the exchequer of this country in income tax, in

United Kingdom
addition to disposition of the dividends. Here are the words of the leader of the Liberal party in 1902. Sir Wilfrid Laurier went further. He said:
Large reductions of duties had been made in recent years especially on British imports. It was feared that in some lines of importance further reductions might create a disturbance of trade which would not be conducive to the welfare of the country.
That was what was in the mind of that great leader at that particular moment, that the making of great reductions would have an effect upon business which this country dare not face. I say to this house and to the country that in the present period of world depression, such as the world never before has seen, to do just what was then suggested would bring about a dislocation of the business of this country, would mean absolute chaos and disaster. And we did not do it.
Then they desired to make clear these things. After reciting that he would not do this, he proceeds:
The Canadian ministers desired to have it understood that they took this course with the strong hope and expectation that the principle of preferential trade would be more widely accepted by the colonies, and that the mother country would at an early day apply the same principle by exempting the products of the colonies from customs duties.
There we have it. In 1902 Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who launched the policy of preference without preference, who launched the policy of giving without receiving, having tried it and having realized what it meant to the development of this young country, said- here are his own words: "They desired to have it understood that they had a strong hope-" a strong hope -"that the mother country would at an early date apply the same principle by exempting the products of the colonies from customs duties." In other words, asking for free entry into the markets of the United Kingdom, free entry which in 1932 this government has been able to secure.
Then it has been said that the mere suggestion of the following of a given course constituted an interference with the policies of the mother country. Before he left this world, while he was still in the plentitude of all his power, Sir Wilfrid Laurier in this very city uged upon Mr. Hewins, the representative of Mr. Chamberlain who came here for that purpose, that this policy should be pursued, and gave his reasons for it, as I shall presently show.
But before doing that may I point out that there came another conference. Before that other conference came, having failed to make
any impression on the British people in 1902, Sir Wilfrid Laurier still desiring to secure something for Canadians, in 1905, in this very city dealt with the problem to which I have referred. I have in my hand the first volume of Apologia of an Imperialist by Mr. W. A. S. Hewins, and you will find there if you take the trouble-and I commend to every member the reading of the first chapter-the record of his conversations with Sir Wilfrid Laurier, with Mr. Fielding, with Sir William Mulock, and with Mr. Paterson, all of whom, so far as I know, except Sir William Mulock, have been gathered to their fathers. Tum to page 132 and you will find the clear statement of Sir Wilfrid Laurier's opinion in 1905. Sir Wilfrid Laurier said:
The objection I had stated was to some extent well founded, and we should no doubt have to run some risk. It might happen that such would be the course of Canadian policy and we ought to have a policy of our own.
I asked him what would be the effect of Mr. Chamberlain's proposed two shillings preference on wheat on Canada in competition with U.S.A.
Sir Wilfrid Laurier said U.S.A. was almost played out as an exporter of wheat.
That was in 1905, and we still have in the United States of America one of the greatest exporters of wheat. Mr. Hewins continues:
I quoted evidence from the United States Industrial Commission on this subject, and we discussed the price which would pay the U.S.A. farmer and exporter. Sir Wilfrid Laurier said no doubt the preference would stimulate immigration into Canada. But he said he was not afraid of U.S.A. competition; ordinary economic factors would settle that, and Canada's wheatgrowing would develop as fast as they wanted.
I said I presumed he was indifferent to the two shillings duty in these circumstances, since Canada would in any event grow wheat for the whole world
Sir Wilfrid Laurier said: "Far from it; this preference is what I have been fighting for and what I want."
That is what I say to the agriculturists on the other side of the house; that is what I say to those men who have been belittling the two shillings preference. Sir Wilfrid Laurier said:
Far from it. This preference is what I have been fighting for and what I want.
That was bargaining. He was willing to bargain for his country. He had learned that this policy that gives everything and gets nothing did not get us very far, and so he was willing to bargain for the good of Canada and for the advancement of the interests of the dominion. Mr. Hewins proceeds :
There were Russia and Argentina to consider, which were unknown factors. He then recounted some of the incidents of the colonial conference,-
830	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
That is the conference of 1902 to which I have just referred:
He asked me if I knew Robson, and said he had refused to be entertained by the Eighty Club.
I said, "Well, Sir Wilfrid, suppose we give you preference, what are you prepared to give us in return?"
And I direct your attention, Mr. Speaker, to Sir Wilfrid Laurier's answer:
Sir Wilfrid Laurier said he was quite clear and determined on the subject. He repeated emphatically his declaration of last Monday that provided he could get reciprocity from Great Britain he would fight for preference. He said he was quite clear in his own mind as to what he wanted. He wanted the wheat preference "though in the discussions this may turn out to be less important." He wanted preference for dairy produce, cheese, and bacon which he said was of "greater political importance" than the wheat preference.
I said, "Suppose we give you this, what then ?"
Sir Wilfrid Laurier said: "I will give you a schedule of manufactures admitted free into Canada."
I said: "We are talking with perfect frankness and I wish to understand clearly what you mean. The preferential tariff will consist of a schedule of free goods? Will there also be included goods on which moderate duties giving the British manufactures a substantial preference are levied?"
Sir Wilfrid Laurier said: "Yes; free goods, on which duties are levied against foreign countries; other goods with moderate duties, in which Great Britain has a substantial preference."
I said that if this were known in England it would affect the whole course of the movement.	,
Sir Wilfrid Laurier said that the details of the arrangement must be threshed out with the commissioners and it was settled that this should be so.
And then Sir Wilfrid Laurier asked what Mr. Chamberlain would do. The matter was further discussed with Mr. Fielding, and in the ensuing conference the efforts were made, but Mr. Chamberlain passed away; the movement died; the free traders again succeeded to power, and you will recall that in the end Sir Wilfrid Laurier, wearying of the struggle that he had carried on to secure something in return for what he had given freely, found himself compelled in 1911 to abandon further efforts in that direction, and turned his eyes to Washington. There is the story-a story that cannot be denied, the story from the records themselves, the story of the policy of the Liberal party up to the day of the death of Sir Wilfrid Laurier.
Then came the accession to power of a Conservative administration, and in 1917 further efforts were made in an endeavour to secure the preferences which were required. We find that resolutions were adopted but,

alas, they got no further than resolutions. So the traditional policy of the Liberal party, up to the time of the accession to power in 1921, of the right hon. gentleman who now leads the opposition, was preferential treatment for Canadian commodities in the markets of the United Kingdom. For that treatment Canada under the Liberal government was prepared to give free entry to a list of British goods while maintaining a tariff against similar goods from foreign countries, and to place a tariff on foreign goods that were then coming in free. That was the position.
Then the right hon. gentleman opposite came into power and there was, as he has so often reminded us, an economic conference that met with an imperial conference in London in 1923. Who represented this country on that occasion, before that economic conference? Canada was represented by the right hon. gentleman opposite who now leads the opposition, then the Prime Minister of Canada; by Sir Lomer Gouin, then Minister of Justice, and by Right Hon. George P. Graham, then Minister of Railways and Canals.
These gentlemen went to London and appeared before that economic conference. I sometimes think it impossible that those who sit to the left of you, Mr. Speaker, can have any understanding .or appreciation of the attitude then taken by the right hon. gentleman opposite. I wonder if they realize what was his position then. I will not leave it to conjecture or doubt; from this record I will read just what was his position, and before I conclude I shall ask why he has taken this great party from the valley of humiliation to annihilation.
Now let us go a step further. I find that the right hon. gentleman, appearing before that economic committee, which was presided over by a member of the then Conservative administration in England, closed his speech with the words which will be found at page 32 of sessional paper 35-309, volume 60, No. 7, of 1924. Let these words sink into the minds of hon. gentlemen opposite; these are the words of their leader, the then Prime Minister of Canada, who was speaking for this country:
I am afraid, Mr. President, I have taken longer than I should have. . . .
That is how the closing paragraph begins. I am bound to say, Mr. Speaker, that in the three and three-quarter hour speech by the right hon. gentleman a few days ago there is some evidence that he still suffers from the same difficulty. He proceeded:
. . . but I would like to repeat that, so far as Canada is concerned, we have come to these conferences, regarding them as conferences, with the one motive, which I know is the

United Kingdom
motive that governs others who are present, namely, that of doing what we can in the way of advancing the mutual interests of the component parts of the British Empire, believing, as X have already said, that as the strength of the whole is increased, so will become apparent the benefit to each of the parts; in other words, that the well being of the parts is bound up in the well being and unity of the whole.
Those are noble words, with which every one of us could agree. When you compare them with the diatribes to-which we have listened in this house during the last three weeks from the right hon. gentleman and his followers, you can readily understand, Mr. Speaker, why it is that the Canadian people are asking the reasons for this kaleidoscopic change. Is it a case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde? Are there two personalities, or is it wounded vanity and pride?
Now let us go a step further and see what were the resolutions that were agreed upon; for they made declarations of policy. I am going to read those declarations of policy, because they represent the considered opinion not only of the right hon. gentleman, speaking for the Dominion of Canada, but of his government, of Mr. Graham, and of all those who accompanied him on that occasion as well. The words are rather important. If you will turn with me to page 192 of these proceedings, there you will find the resolutions that were adopted. Tonight I ask hon. members of this house, sir, to listen to this resolution which was agreed to by the right hon. gentleman opposite on behalf of the Dominion of Canada. These are the words:
This Imperial economic conference, holding that, especially in present circumstances, all possible means should be taken to develop the resources of the empire and trade between the empire countries, desires to reaffirm the resolution on the subject of imperial preference passed by the imperial war conference of 1917.
So, sir, we have the Liberal party in London, in 1923, reaffirming as a cardinal principle of its faith and as part of its policy the war time resolution of 1917. What was that resolution? It will be found at the foot of page 193 of the sessional paper. Listen to these words:
The time has arrived when all possible encouragement should be given to the development of imperial resources and especially to making the empire independent of other countries in respect of food supplies, raw materials and essential industries. With these objects in view this conference expresses itself in favour of-
(1) the principle that each part of the empire, having due regard to the interests of our allies, shall give specially favourable treatment and facilities to the produce and manufactures of other parts of the empire.
(2) arrangements by which intending emigrants from the United Kingdom may be induced to settle in countries under the British flag.
Sir, I have listened with amusement to the tales that have been told and the stories that have been unfolded with regard to the efforts the right hon. gentleman has said were made to create an economic unit of the British Empire. I have looked back through the books, and I find that the resolution of 1917 was the first resolution in which, before a conference of the empire, the thought was crystallized into words. Once more, those words are:
. . . all possible encouragement should be given to the development of imperial resources and especially to making the empire independent of other countries in respect of food supplies, raw materials and essential industries.
Where are they who have been talking for the last three weeks about an economic unit? Where are they who have decried the effort to make the empire independent of other countries in respect of food supplies, raw materials and essential industries? The right hon. gentleman opposite is the author of those words, so far as the Liberal party in this country is concerned. Does he suppose that this has been forgotten by the Canadian people? Ah, sir, was I not right when I said that during the last three weeks this great party has been drawn into a position, to appease the wounded vanity and pride of their leader, that is at variance with every principle set up alike under Sir Wilfrid Laurier and under their present leader?
But, sir, it did not end there. I wonder if this house is fully aware of all the particulars of the 1923 conference. I wonder if hon. members realize that at that time the Chancellor of the Exchequer was that same Mr. Chamberlain who has been so decried here by hon. gentlemen opposite, but who at that time was eulogized by the right hon. gentleman, as I shall show in a moment. Now the set policy of the Liberal party seems to be to decry and belittle great men. Since when has that been the policy of decent Liberalism?
Now let us look at the letter which the right hon. gentleman wrote from the Ritz Hotel in London on the 23rd of October, 1923, to Sir Philip Lloyd-Graeme. Who is he? He is Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister, he has changed his name, that is all-the same Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister who lived in this city for a month or more, one of the delegates. Who was he then? He was no longer the President of the Board of Trade-that office was filled by Mr. Runciman; but what he was you all
832	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
know-Secretary of State for the Colonies. Now let me read from the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Chamberlain. Mr. Baldwin was then the Prime Minister. Mr. Chamberlain had made certain definite offers-offers of a preference! Would you believe it? Offers of a preference; offers to give free entry into the markets of Great Britain to commodities from Canada. Of course every gentleman within sound of my voice will believe at once that the right hon. gentleman said: "Oh no,: we want nothing of that." But that is not what he said. Listen to his letter:
My Dear Sir Philip,-
My colleagues and I have been considering with care the proposals as to preferential duties-
Duties, mark you!
-put forward by the government of Great Britain at the meeting of the conference on October 9, and which I discussed with you in our conversations at the Board of Trade on Saturday morning.
These proposals, which it was observed were within the framework of the existing fiscal system of Great Britain, will, we believe, be received in Canada with due appreciation as of distinct value to dominion producers.
Then he proceeds:
More important are the general issues raised in the statements made by yourself in your presentation of the present proposals, and by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I may quote from the statement made by the chancellor-
That is, by Mr. Chamberlain-and listen to these words that he quotes. These are Mr. Chamberlain's words:
"We want you to tell us whether what we have proposed is going to help you, whether our proposals can in any way be improved, and if so, in what direction. That does not bind us to accept any suggestions that you make to us, any more than you are bound to accept any suggestions we may put to you as to what we might desire by way of increasing our trade with you: but it does give us the opportunity at any rate of realizing what the position is, and then it will be for us to say whether, consistently with the interest of our own people here, we can carry out what you have suggested to us."
That involves this simple question: What were the proposals of Mr. Chamberlain? Mr. Chamberlain at the close of his speech set forth what his proposals were. He closed with words that are not easily forgotten, because they indicated his clear opinion as to what should be done. I would like to direct the attention of the house to his words, because they indicate clearly what transpired. At page 164 you will find his references to raw apples, canned salmon-"which is of particular interest to Canada"-fruit juices,

honey. They offered these concessions he said. They could not do anything with foodstuffs at that time, that is, wheat-I shall deal with that presently; they offered a preference on dried fruits, currants, preserved fruits, sugar, tobacco, raw apples, canned salmon, canned crabs and canned lobster, limes, lemons and other fruit juices. These were the proposals which the right hon. gentleman was considering when he was replying to the communication that was made by the chancellor.
Now let me proceed. This is again the letter of the present leader of the opposition, the then Prime Minister:
In response to this welcome overture I have pleasure in giving you a brief statement of our position.
Mr. Chamberlain's statement was then a "welcome overture," now it is the dead march in Saul! He proceeds:
Canada has been the pioneer in the modern development of preferential trade within the British empire. She gave us the first preference to British goods in 1897-98 and took the initiative in requesting the abrogation of treaties which stood in the way of imperial preference. This policy she has steadfastly maintained. The Canadian preference now covers, in varying degrees, practically the whole range of competitive British exports to the dominion.
Then he refers to what was granted with respect to the ten per cent discount on existing duties. But before I proceed with this I should like to ask hon. gentlemen opposite to listen to the words of their leader in 1923 in England:
Coming specifically to the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that we state what preferential duties-
Duties!
-would be of most advantage to our producers, and noting that the chancellor quite properly observes it will be for the British government to consider whether such duties would be in the interests of the British people, I now outline some of the chief Canadian exports to Great Britain in which an effective preference would be of most value.
Preference! Duties!
The list, of course, is not exhaustive.
Wheat obviously comes first and easily foremost. It is our most important article of export; the quality is unquestioned; the market is now highly competitive; Canada's export surplus is greater than the total British import.
Next in export importance among the grains comes barley, of which Canada normally produces sixty to seventy million bushels, and exported to the United Kingdom last year about ten million bushels.
Milling, particularly of wheat flour, ranks high among Canadian industries.

United Kingdom
I ask the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Gershaw) to listen to this:
It is closely and naturally connected -with our agricultural industry. The production of flour normally runs about fifteen million barrels; last year our exports reached nearly seven million five hundred thousand barrels, of which nearly five million came to the United Kingdom. The industry is capable of very great expansion if greater markets are opened. Flour is, of course, a commodity of which the production and milling capacity in Great Britain is large. The effect of a duty-
Of a duty I
-would, therefore, depend very largely upon the extent to which the Canadian miller was put in a less advantageous position than the British miller; a duty which was distinctly protectionist rather than preferential, would not, in the long run, we believe, be as advantageous to Canadian millers as the existing situation.
And this government has secured for the Canadian millers a preference of ten per cent -not ten cents a barrel-on flour from Canada entering Great Britain. In other words, a vessel laden with flour from the United States, with a cargo valued at $100,000, has to pay $10,000 before she can be warped into the wharf at Liverpool, while the Canadian cargo goes in free. The right hon. gentleman proceeds:
Of the other agricultural products, excluding those already covered, the most important are fresh fruits, apples, peaches, pears, and plums, all of which Canada produces in unexcelled quality, and, especially in apples, in very large quantities, with difficulty at present in finding profitable markets;-
Let the hon. member for Hants-Kings vote against this agreement to indicate his gratitude.
- (for Canada, a preference on fresh fruits is of much more importance than on dried or preserved fruits); cheese, butter and eggs, bacon and hams, canned vegetables. Of our fishery products, canned salmon, which is faced with competition from the United States, Japan and Russia, would at present be most helped by a preference.
But, Mr. Speaker, it did not stop there. Let us proceed:
Our forest products, with due observance of conservation principles, are capable of great expansion, notably lumber, newsprint paper, millboard and strawboard, and chemical and mechanical pulp. Canada has also large resources in ferrous and non-ferrous metals, and in the non-metallic minerals, which a substantial preference would assist in developing. Our iron and steel and other metal industries, including agricultural implements and electrical apparatus, our wood-working, rubber and other manufacturing industries would supply a wide range of products.
On a preferential duty basis, mark you! Let us proceed:
I understand it is not your desire at this stage to obtain other than a very general statement. On all the above, and any other branch of Canadian industry which might be included within the range of duties to be imposed at any time, our government would be pleased to avail itself of the opportunity, as occasion arises, of making suggestions in further outline and in detail.
Well, sir, to hear the Liberal party, after that, denounce duties is to wonder what their policy is now and in what direction they are travelling. I shall presently show that the extreme left has once again claimed them in the hope of a repetition of 1926. Thev have forgotten the great traditions and the history of their party, and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) is now their directing genius.
But, sir, it did not end even there. The Right Hon. George P. Graham represented Canada at the next meeting of the conference, and what did he say? Well, he said all that his leader had said and a little more too. You will find it all at pages 166, 167 and 168. I will not take up the time of the house reading it, but Mr. Graham made a statement as to the preference, which would be so desirable for Canada. He quoted, with approval, the language of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, thanked him for affording him the opportunity to speak, and then said that while we were not proceeding in a bargaining spirit-running true to form, as indicated by his leader-the change in the British fiscal system would create a new situation. Then, after referring to Canadian exports on which the preference would be most valuable, he makes a declaration of faith with respect to wheat. Listen to these words:
Wheat obviously comes first and easily foremost. It is our most important article of export: the quality is unquestioned; the market is now highly competitive; Canada's export surplus is greater than the British import.
Now mark these words:
We recognize, however, that in this case the issue has been decided. The Prime Minister has announced that tile British government does not intend to put a duty on wheat. We accept that decision. It, of course, restricts the range and value of the preference as regards the Canadian producers, but we fully and freely recognize that it is for this country to decide what is in the interests of its people and to act thereon.
And now, confronted with a preference of two shillings a quarter, which is what Mr. Chamberlain offered when Mr. Hewins came to Otta5va, the noble yeomen of the west will stand up and vote against their fellow agriculturists, declaring that what Mr. Graham,


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Richard Bedford Bennett: You will find this in
Hansard, page 288, where the right hon. gentleman says:
And the other dominions, so far as I know, also had Tory governments. It is a Tory conspiracy.
A Tory conspiracy! Who were these Tories? Six of them had borne arms against the British crown. One of them bore upon his body nine wounds, some inflicted by Canadians fighting in Africa who had been sent there by the same Sir Wilfrid Laurier. These constitute the Tory conspirators: The Right Hon. J. H. Thomas, the Hon. Mr. Havenga, the Hon. Mr. Grobler, Mr. Sean T. O'Kelley, Sir John Gilmour, the Right Hon. Walter Runciman.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: All protectionists.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I said that "Tory conspirators" were the words used by the right hon. gentleman. Let it ring down through the ages that an ex-prime minister who had sat with these men, negotiated with them, bargained with them at an economic conference in 1923, so far forgot himself as to stand in the house and charge them with being parties to a Tory conspiracy in making agreements within the British Empire. I have

United, Kingdom
said that other reasons were put forward, so unworthy of a great occasion, so unworthy of a great agreement, so unworthy of a great bargain made between nations, so unworthy of the past of a great party, so unworthy of its traditions, that I shall leave them with that last great reason-a Tory conspiracy.
Now I pass on to something which I think is much more important in that regard. No reason has been given for this bald change of front. Was it wounded vanity and pride? Was it anger that we had succeeded where he had failed? Was it resentment that he was no longer in the spotlight, but "on the spot"? There is a striking evidence, becoming more manifest every day, that that is the real reason. Men are asking why members from constituencies that will benefit by this agreement are being led around in that way. They are asking themselves why those members-forget their duty to their country and their constituencies merely to aid and abet the right hon. gentleman in giving effect to his spleen and his wounded pride and vanity.
There is another reason. Have you observed, sir, the happenings in this house since we met? Have you observed the leadership taken of the forces opposite by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth)? He gives a reason for his position; he expresses his opinion against these agreements. Why? Because, he says, these agreements interfere with his plan. You will find it, if you will take the trouble to look, on page nine of the ordera of the day. He has a plan which he opposes to these agreements, a plan of a cooperative commonwealth modelled in government administration upon Soviet Russia. That is the plan he has. Listen to these words:
Whereas under our present economic arrangement-
And so forth.
Therefore be it resolved,-that, in the opinion of this house, the government should immediately take measures looking to the setting up of a cooperative commonwealth in which all natural resources and the socially necessary machinery of production will be used in the interests of the people and not for the benefit of the few.
There again you have the model on the soviet system, your cooperative commonwealth, your soviet administration. And last night behold the sight! Day after day for three long weeks we found opposition offered to this agreement, and then last night they stood up like men and voted for this agreement with something added at the end of it! I see the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) laughs. It is no wonder. Imagine
how they looked to the left, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre saying: That is the ticket; and up they got and followed him! Cooperative commonwealth! Inflated money! The agreement plus the inflated dollar! That is all. Did you watch them as they marched up last night and voted for the inflated dollar; to bring the dollar to a parity with the pound and reduce its value to seventy-five cents? Yet listen to what the leader of their party said, not eight years ago, not nine years ago, but on the 26th of April, 1932:
With respect to the inflation of currency, may I draw attention to this further fact? It is a well known circumstance that it is very difficult to discover just what exact amount of inflation is going to serve the purpose that may be in view. Who is going to determine whether there is enough inflation? Inflation has a way of gathering momentum to itself. It is easy to step on the accelerator, but it is very hard to put on the brakes.
That was the trouble last night; they could not put on the brakes. Then the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail), with her printing press, interjected this remark:
Miss Macphail: They seem to have put on the brakes now.
Mr. Mackenzie King: That is fortunate if it is in regard to inflation, because to my mind inflation certainly is one of the last cures that would be helpful in the present situation. Would inflation increase the purchasing power of anyone overseas? Would not inflation, if it is carried to the point indicated in the amendment, help very much the holding classes today as compared with others?
Then he read from Mr. Keynes. He continued :
Is that sort of thing what is desired by those who have moved the subamendment? You cannot deflate or inflate currency in such a way that it will help only those who have next to nothing, and not help in some cases those also who may possess something. Each works all around. Inflation like deflation is a two-edged sword when it comes to dealing with financial matters.
Yet last night it was: "Up guards and at 'em!" And they voted on the one hand for inflation and on the other to approve the agreement-an agreement they had opposed for three weeks-if we would only add something to it! So the swing to the left is complete. Is that why they have opposed this *agreement?


An hon. MEMBER:: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the reason-I
thought so. I was just going to refer to this fact, in order that there may be no doubt of the way in which the Liberal party is now travelling: If hon. gentlemen will take the trouble to read the report of a meeting
S38	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
addressed by the hon. member for South Battleford (Mr. Vallance) in Toronto they will find that he said, and he has not yet been repudiated by his leader or by his representatives upon the front benches opposite- listen to his words-


Mr. VALLANCE:: Hear, hear.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And he now flaunts himself. He says, "Hear, hear." They dare not interfere with him. The left controls. Listen to his words:
The Liberals of Ontario must wake up. Out west we have a party born of these conditions. It is the cooperative headed by "Jim Woods-worth, one of the soundest men in Canada.'


John Vallance: I rise to a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member has
the right to speak to a question of privilege.


John Vallance: The question of privilege is this:	In the words of the Prime
Minister himself, I have been misquoted.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, Mr. Speaker, with
this short review of the history of a great party that was, with all its traditions and history, I will leave the hon. gentleman and the misquotation to all those who heard him say what I have read.


John Vallance: Go on, continue.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman's
red qualities are beginning to manifest themselves, but this is not the place for it. There is no reason why soviet rule should now be exemplified by one of its followers in this house.


John Vallance: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


John Vallance: He has the floor now; I will have it later.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What was the purpose of the conference, Mr. Speaker? A great family gathered to secure, so far as this dominion is concerned, greater export markets for our natural and manufactured products. That is the test of the merits of the agreement, and no one who has spoken in this house has denied that the effect of this agreement will be to increase the export business of this country-not one; what is more, they cannot do it, for the figures already show that that has happened. Liberals have asked for greater export markets. Even in this debate they have done so, and now when they have the opportunity to secure greater export markets in accordance with the terms there

made, they are asked not only to vote against them but to vote not to give them even a trial. That is the answer of Liberalism to the efforts to secure greater export markets.
Let us go further. In 1923, having failed to secure them, they still continued to urge them, and they do yet continue to urge them. But, they say:	You would have had
this anyway; you would have had free entry anyway. Well, all I can say is this, and I am going to refer to this with some particularity, that if you will take the trouble to turn to pages 2384 and 2385 of Hansard of this year you will find what the right hon. leader of the opposition said on April 26. There you will find that the right hon. leader of the opposition pointed out to the house the dangers we should incur if we did not take proper steps to secure the continued benefits of free entry. Then free entry had value; why not now? Then the benefits of free entry were to be sought; why not now? Then they were not to be abandoned; why abandon them now? These are questions that thoughtful men in this country are asking. Let me read the right hon. gentleman's words:
I suppose hon. gentlemen opposite are familiar with the fact, that, while Great Britain has a twenty per cent tariff as against foreign nations-
That is hardly accurate. It should be ten per cent; it does not average twenty per cent.
-there is a provision that that tariff does not come into effect, so far as the dominions are concerned, until the fifteenth of November next. But on the fifteenth of November, unless in the meantime an arrangement has been made which is satisfactory to Great Britain, that twenty per cent tariff as matters now stand will apply against Canada as well as against foreign countries. In what position will we then be in regard to our markets in Great Britain? Great Britain has kept her bargaining power very much in reserve but it is none the less very real. She has said that nothing will take place, so far as the dominions are concerned, until the fifteenth of November, but, as I understand the provisions of the British import duties, this twenty per cent tariff will then become applicable against Canada and the other dominions, subject to any special arrangements or modifications that may be made at the Imperial conference. That is a very serious thing. Nothing could be more so.
And we secured it, and now the party opposite is going to vote against it.
Then I turn to the statement, which was wildly cheered at the time, of the hon. member for Hante-Kings (Mr. Ilsley), which will be found at page 2885 of Hansard of May 12th of this year:
The Import Duties Act provides that these preferences shall lapse on the 15th day of November as against the dominions but not as against the colonies. That, I think, is a

United Kingdom
significant fact. It is only against the dominions which -have imposed, practically all of them, protective tariffs, and in some cases very high protective tariffs, against the mother country; it is only as against these that the preferences shall lapse on November 15. It is of great importance to the ipart of Canada from which I come, and needless to say it is of great importance to Canada as a whole, that this government, at the forhcoming Imperial economic conference, should so conduct negotiations that there be an extension of these preferences past the 15th day of November.
And by article 1 of the agreement, the ratification of which is now sought and which has been opposed for three long weeks, we have secured that extension of free entry into the markets of the United Kindom. I put the case in that single sentence to the hon. member for Hants-Kings and to the right hon. leader of the opposition. There it is. We secured it. It was good in April: it was essential then; and if we had not done it, what would have happened?
Mr. Baldwin, before he came here at all, in a speeoh reported on June 17, said that unless agreement was reached at Ottawa the exemption of empire goods automatically ended on November 15, but he was hopeful that the spirit in which Britain entered the conference would be reflected by other empire governments. And we have succeeded, sir, in securing free entry for Canadian products to a market of forty million people.
In order that there may be no misapprehension as to what the real value of these preferences is, I propose, even though it may take a few moments, to place them on Hansard. These margins should be considered; no 'hon. member who votes should fail to consider them:
Butter has a fixed preference. Cheese has a fixed preference; so have eggs, milk, wheat, barley, oats, flax, rye, peas, flour, honey, condensed, powdered and evaporated milk, canned meat, meat extracts, potatoes, poultry, seeds, raw apples, beans, bran, casein, canned fruits, canned tomatoes and corn, dried fruits, preserved fruits, chemicals, ground nuts, linseed, lucerne seed, cereals and oatmeals, ketchup, macaroni, maize, chemical fertilizers, oils, sugars, tobacco.


John Vallance: Hear, hear.
Mr. BENNETT; I desire once more to direct your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that the hon. gentleman is so conducting himself that it is almost impossible for me to continue, and to ask you to enforce the right, which the house has entrusted to you, of preserving order here.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


John Vallance: He does not like it,
does he?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I saw an hon. gentleman named for less. The list includes canned salmon, canned fish, cod liver oil, crayfish, whale oil, asbestos, copper, lead, magnesite, magnesium chloride and zinc, as well as leather and tanned hides and skins. All these have a fixed margin which cannot be varied for five years. All these closely and intimately touch the life of every agriculturist in this country; yet to-night, at the call of the right hon. leader of the opposition, the Liberal party is to vote no; having sought these things they now say no. I say, sir, that few more serious moments have had to be contemplated by legislators. Where is our vaunted democracy? Where are my friends opposite and to the right? After all the years of struggle we have these agreements, with the fixed margins for five years. Some are fixed for three years, and let me say that those that are fixed only for three years still have the preference, because the qualifying clause provides only for quota restrictions rather than preferences. The representatives of Great Britain said that if there should be a change and they should desire to have quotas, we would still have our preference, and at the end of three years the agreement may be revised for that purpose.
The agreement also provides something you would expect to find in an agreement between members of a family, something that is elementary in the laws touching contracts, namely, that if there are differences between the individual parties with regard to the operation of the agreement they may meet together and adjust those differences. That is what we would expect, but Still we hear bon. members opposite talk of commas, of crossing t's and dotting i's.


Jean-François Pouliot: And probable potentialities.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Tonight the Liberal party will vote against these agreements and these preferences; not only will they vote against them, but they will vote against giving them a trial. They would condemn them blindly and bitterly, without a trial, although we know that our free entry into the markets of the United Kingdom since last March, secured for us by our own efforts, has resulted in benefits to our export trade and our country.
With regard to wheat, some have said that this agreement may seriously interfere with its movement through Buffalo. This afternoon I pointed out that the British government
840	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
have said that they entered into these agreements in good faith and high honour, and they will discharge their obligations. They have said that if the identity of a commodity consigned to Great Britain from a British Empire country, wherever it may be, is established, the preference will apply.


John Vallance: Wheat is 42J cents today.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Now, sir, I put this question: I recall that during the conference the government of the province of Quebec sent a special representative here, in the person of an hon. member of this house, in behalf of the timber trade. We secured the continuance of a ten per cent preference for timber, but -more than that we obtained the assurance that the unfair competition which had existed would end, and the agreement under which that competition existed has been denounced. But tonight the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie), the hon. member for North Vancouver (Mr. Munn), the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Hanson), the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) and others will stand in their places and vote against this agreement, against a preference on lumber, against a preference on salmon, against a preference on copper, lead and zinc, and against a preference on apples from the Okanagan valley. Tonight they will vote against a preference for which their party struggled for a quarter of a century, in order that they may gratify the wishes of the right hon. leader of the opposition, who once sought preferences on the same commodities.
Let us come to the province of Alberta. The hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote), the hon. member for West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart), the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) and the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Gershaw) go back and tell their constituents that they do not want to export flour from the three great mills at Medicine Hat to the United Kingdom under a preference that will give them an advantage of ten cents on the dollar, no matter what may be the value. Let them tell that to their *constituents. Let them stand in their places tonight and vote against this agreement, and in so doing tell their constituents that they no longer want a two shilling preference on wheat; that they no longer want an advantage in the markets of England for pork products and all the other articles I have mentioned. They want no advantage with respect to those commodities which may build up a great packing industry. What they want is to repudiate every concession that has been obtained, and 
to vote against every preference that has been given.


John Vallance: South Huron gave your answer.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: If the hon. member for South Battleford (Mr. Vallance) cannot conduct himself as a member of the house should, the Speaker will be obliged to take the necessary measures.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Let my old and valued friend the ex-Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) go back and tell the farmers of Saskatchewan, those who produce wheat and honey, those who produce copper and other minerals from the mines of the north, those who produce timber products in a small way, and those who are concerned in the development of a great port, that they want none of this.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: I sure will tell them all about wheat.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Let him go back and say, We want none of this. We struggled to get it, but now we do not want it." I listened to the hon. gentleman the other day, and apparently he could not differentiate between Argentine wheat and wheat from Canada. He said the effect of the agreement would be to reduce the price of wheat from Canada. But it matters not what the price may be, no bushel of wheat from outside the British Empire enters a port of Great Britain without paying two shillings on every eight bushels, while Canadian wheat sweeps in free. While a ship carrying Canadian wheat ties up to the dock and the wheat is unloaded free of charge, the wheat from any foreign country must pay two shillings a quarter. But the hon. gentleman will rise in his place tonight and vote against that. Although Sir Wilfrid Laurier struggled for it; although the right hon. leader of the opposition struggled for it; although the Liberal party fought for it, the leader from Saskatchewan, that great farming community, will rise in his place tonight and say, "No preference; no free entry; no advantageous terms in the markets of Great Britain. Let us give the preferences to someone else."


William Richard Motherwell: No bogus preference.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And we are met with the delightful argument that it is bogus. What about Manitoba, with its newly developed mines, its copper, its other mineral deposits, its wheat and its pork products? Let the Manitoba members sitting opposite rise in

United Kingdom
their places and repudiate preferences. Let them go back and tell their constituents that they sat here in the House of Commons and voted against the Dominion of Canada making any agreement that would let pork products or wheat or copper enter a market of forty million people on more favourable terms than are given foreign countries.
We come to Ontario. Where are the apple growers, where are the potato growers, where are the cattle raisers, where are the mineral producers of that great province, as well as of Quebec? Copper, lead, zinc, gold, silver, all these great resources-where are they to be? Tonight their representatives opposite from Ontario will stand in their places and vote one after the other against a preference on apples and pears and peaches and plums, against having a better opportunity for markets than their competitors from foreign countries. They will stand and say:	"We want none of these
things; we only want to prevent Canadians having a preference in a market of forty millions of people." And the same with Quebec.
I have dealt with the question of timber, the struggle that we made to secure free entry of timber from this country, with protection against unfair competition; and we are met with the situation that when the agreement comes before this house the members from the old province will say:	"We prefer to follow
the leadership of the member for Winnipeg North Centre, against a preference being afforded to our products."
One thing more and I conclude. Coming to the maritime provinces, we .heard the plea made in this chamber on April 26th last by the hon. member for Hants-Kings (Mr. Ilsley), for a preference on apples. We have secured it; yet tonight, only a few short months after, he stands in his place and says: "No I will vote against it."


Mr. ILSLEY:: How do you know?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am asking, will he?


An hon. MEMBER:: You said no.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then I at once make myself right; I say: is he going to vote against it? I judge from his very ready response that he is not. What about the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff)? What about the fishermen? What about the struggle we made to secure for them a continuance of their preference in a market of forty million people? Where is he tonight? Hon. members opposite begin to realize that when they go back home and tell their constituents that they voted against a preference in a market of forty million people-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is the story, sir.


An hon. MEMBER:: He is here now.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Now, sir, what I said in the absence of the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough was that he would now stand up in his place and vote against the preference being afforded to Nova Scotia on fruit or fish in a market of forty million people.


Mr. DUFF:: Not worth anything.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The answer he will give is that a dollar a barrel on apples is no preference, and that a similar preference on fish constitutes nothing.


William Duff: Not worth a cent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Now, sir, I call on this
Commons House of Parliament and the people it has sworn to serve, to witness the vote of the self-styled representatives of Liberalism. They will record their votes against this agreement. The country has the right to ask them why. Is it because the agreement stands for greater export markets? Is it because the agreement promises definite advantages to our agriculturists and industrialists? Is it because the agreement is the forerunner of more prosperous times? Is it because the agreement is the triumphant consummation of the earnest and unselfish efforts of the mother country and the dominions to make this empire of ours a greater economic power in the world, and a surer benefit to each one of us? Are these the reasons? Or is it this: that the leader of the Liberal party in this house, unable to promote the empire fiscal policy he once espoused, now turns in anger from it; that its leader, defeated in his personal ambitions, shuts out the light of reason and obdurately fastens upon those twin stars of pride and vanity? Or is it that its leadership has changed, and that under the old mantle is now found another form, the sign and symbol of a new economic and social creed, a creed that has no place in the hearts of men and women whose liberty and happiness have so long been buttressed and secured by the great free institutions of the British Empire? Is it the voice of Jacob but the hand of Esau? There must be a real reason for this default, for this betrayal of the past. For three long weeks this house has waited patiently to hear, and it has not heard it yet. In justice to Canada, in justice to this house, in justice to Liberalism itself, the reason must be made plain.
I now call on this House of Commons and the people it has sworn to serve to witness
S42	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
the vote of the Conservative party, and all those like my friend the hon. member for Hants-Kings and those besides who in fairness to Canada elect to give this agreement a fair and honest trial; to witness their vote, which is their pledge to support the agreement, which is their promise to keep faith, the proclamation of their belief in closer empire economic association, their denunciation of all forces that threaten it, and which is the crowning proof that they do not doubt that within the British commonwealth the welfare of this dominion is assured.


Peter McGibbon: I was paired with the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. CASSELMAN:: I was paired with the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Howard). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


James Houston Spence: I was paired with the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Fraser). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. SMOKE:: I was paired with the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Cayley). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. HARRIS:: I was paired with the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Jacobs). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. MacDONALD (Cape Breton South):: I was paired with the hon. member for Colchester (Mr. Urquhart). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. LAFLECHE (Translation):: I was
paired with the hon. member for Drummond-Arthbaska (Mr. Girouard). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. RAYMOND (Translation):: I did not notice that the hon. member for St. Antoine (Mr. Bell) was not in his seat. As I was paired with him, may I request that my vote be cancelled.
Mr. BENNETT thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 8, respecting a certain trade agreement between His Majesty's government in Canada and His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Mr. Bennett, seconded by Mr. Guthrie, moves for leave to introduce a bill founded on the said resolution.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would direct Your Honour's attention to the fact that it is after eleven o'clock. I see no reason why the bill should not be introduced; I do not wish to press a technicality, but I would object to its being given the first reading.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Mr. Bennett moves that the said bill be read the first time. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: When shall said bill be read the second time?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Next sitting.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I object to this procedure, of the first reading of the bill after eleven o'clock. I drew Your Honour's attention to the fact that it was past eleven o'clock, and I said that while I would have no objection to the bill being introduced, I did object to its being given the first reading.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I understood the leader of the opposition to consent to the bill being given the first reading.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, Mr. Speaker, I did not consent to the first reading of the bill. I object to the first reading of it.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Then, without consent, the bill will have to stand as introduced. When shall the bill be read the first time?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Next sitting.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask the leader of the government what is the business for tomorrow?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The speech from the throne.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Friday, November 4, 1932