1931-03-17

ILLEGAL WARFARE CLAIMS

Hon. C. H. CAHAN (Secretary of State):: I beg to lay on the table of the house the interim report made to His Excellency the Administrator of the government in council.

dated March 6, 1931, by Errol M. Mc-Dougall, Esquire, a commissioner appointed to investigate and report upon illegal warfare claims and reparations payable in respect thereof.
With the leave of the house I beg to move, seconded by Mr. Ryckman:
That five hundred copies in the English language and two hundred copies in the French language of the interim report to His Excellency the Administrator of the government in council, dated March 6, 1931, made by Errol M. McDougall, Esquire, a commissioner appointed to investigate and report upon illegal warfare claims and reparations payable in respect thereof, laid on the table of the bouse this day, be printed forthwith, and that standing order 64 in relation thereto be suspended.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. H. CAHAN (Secretary of State) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 3 to amend the Naturalization Act.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Mr. Speaker, this is a bill
to amend section 13 of the Naturalization Act, chapter 138 of the revised statutes of Canada, 1927, which provides that the wife of a British subject shall be deemed to be a British subject and the wife of an alien shall be deemed to be an alien.
In 1923 a select committee of the parliament of the United Kingdom reported in favour of an amendment to that clause. It arose out of the fact that women who were British subjects and who had married American citizens were placed in an almost impossible position by reason of the enactment of the so-called Cable Act by the United States congress, passed on December 22nd, 1922, which provides that an alien woman who marries a citizen of the United States does not by virtue of such marriage become an American citizen. On the other hand, the law of the United Kingdom and the dominions is that the wife of an alien shall be deemed to be an alien. As a result there are in Canada some hundreds of women who were British subjects and Canadian nationals, but who, having married American citizens, did not thereby become American citizens, but who by the very fact of such marriage ceased to be British subjects and Canadian nationals. Consequently they are unable to obtain passports in the United States or in Canada to go abroad.
The late government in order to rectify this disability became parties to the nationality convention adopted at the Hague in

The Address-Mr. Bennett
1930, of which certain articles were submitted to the last Imperial conference and then approved by the representatives of the Imperial and dominion governments. This bill is simply intended to carry into effect the articles of the Hague convention which were then approved.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

[Stage Direction]
CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE ADDRESS IN REPLY \
The house resumed from Monday, March 16 consideration of the motion of Mr. Max D. Cormier for an address to His Excellency the Administrator in reply to his speech at the opening of the session,.and the proposed amendment thereto of Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King.
Right Hon. R B. BENNETT (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, as the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) suggests, it may be a one man government, but certainly it has more than one man's support.
Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: We realize that.


Mr. BENNETT:: Some people act as though they did not realize it. May I, in rising to resume the debate, congratulate the mover (Mr. Cormier) and the seconder (Mr. Porteous) upon the addresses with which they made the motion that now stands on the order paper. It is always pleasing to congratulate new members upon their speeches, especially on an occasion such as this. The fact that the mover was born in the province of my own birth adds something to the joy with which I felicitate him upon the speech which he delivered in two languages, and the thoughtful speech of the hon. member for North Grey indicates that he too is alive to the problems that confront this country at this time.
I was somewhat surprised, shall I say, that the right hon. leader of the opposition, with his experience, should have made even a slight criticism of the fact that one of the hon. members did read from his manuscript, but in that, as in everything else with whicn the right hon. gentleman has to do he was not quite consistent, for he proceeded to read the major part of his own address. I may explain that it is not my purpose to traverse at any great length the preelection address of the right hon. gentleman. He has, however, overlooked one thing which I think he should remember. That is that in every part of this
Dominion, from east to west, I told the electorate that there was one thing of which they could be perfectly certain, and that one thing was that if our party were elected to power, at the very first opportunity we would enact legislation that would deal not only with unemployment but also with the question of affording to Canadians an equal opportunity with their competitors to carry on the development of Canada, and that they should have fair competition in the work in which they were engaged.
That was dealt with in part at the short [DOT]session of last fall. It was dealt with in part only because it was realized that the time was not sufficient to enable it to be dealt with in full. It was dealt with in part because it was realized that unless it was dealt with immediately the disaster to industry would be such that it could not be overtaken. In the nine years during which the right hon. gentleman presided over the destinies of this country the result was stagnation in industry with which it became necessary to deal at that session. I fling back to him the positive denial that it was not done because of any promises given to the so-called special interests, but because of the promise that was given to the people of Canada from one end of the country to the other that this would be done if we came into power, tariff legislation would be passed.
I desire further to say to the right hon gentleman that if he has the courage to make direct statements let him make them; do not insinuate them. If he desires for a single moment to suggest that because of any understanding or agreement with so-called special interests certain legislation was introduced in this house, then let him make the statement, for if any man living should know what the hold of the special interests was upon the government, it should be the right hon. gentleman who presided over the last administration. When the true conditions with respect to financial and other matters in this country are made known during the progress of the session he will realize fully just what that means and he will have ample opportunity then to give effect to the promise he made yesterday, that the business of the session would not be hurried through. It will not be hurried. There will be ample time to investigate these very matters to which he has referred, and I do not think either he or the gentlemen who sit behind him will then be making statements of that kind in this house by innuendo rather than by direct statements, by inference rather than directly, for apparently they lack courage to make them directly. They think that by the old means, at which
The Address-Mr. Bennett

they are experts, they will be able thus to delude the people of this country into believing that they are their custodians, that they are the guardians of their happiness, that they and they only are the people who care for the well-being, as my right hon. friend said yesterday with tears in his voice, of the labourer and the farmer.
When the right hon. gentleman spent so much time yesterday in dictionary definitions of the word "humbug," I could not but think that he probably defined the word so clearly in order that the people of Canada and the members of this house might have a clear understanding of just what was meant by it as applied to himself and his government during the past nine years. There we had them, free traders, the death-knell of protection, a tariff for revenue, all bunched together, appealing in the east for the one and in the west for the other, and then yesterday we had a grand plea for national unity. Why, sir, we all heard the pathetic appeal for national unity made yesterday by the right hon. gentleman opposite, and the covert insinuation at the close of his speech with regard to a navy. Did you realize what that was for, Mr. Speaker? Was there a man in this house who for a moment did not realize what my right hon. friend was again endeavouring to do? We all remember the cry of the La Presse newspaper in the days before the election; we remember the cries of Taschereau and the appeals to the passion and prejudice of the people of this country, designed to arouse the people of Quebec to the thought that I was trying to create a navy. This is the right hon. gentleman who talked about national unity yesterday, and then lightly dealt with one of the most difficult problems confronting the Canadian people to-day in connection with Russia. This is the right hon. gentleman who says there is nothing we will not do; that we are ready to support our appeals in the name of patriotism, self interest and in the name of religion itself. This came from the right hon. gentleman who in 1927 passed an order in council terminating our relations with Russia and sending its minister out of this country because, he said, their fifteen cases of posters and literature did not satisfy him that what they were doing was not inimical to the public interest. Then a few minutes later in his address he turned to the people of this country, through this house, and said " A man does not live by material things alone; there are things of the spirit as well," and this two minutes after he had been talking about the material advantage of Russia to 
Canada. Thus my right hon. friend illustrates in his own person and his own speech the real meaning of the word "humbug."
As I have said, I do not propose to traverse at great length the measures which we offer to this house for its consideration. These measures of necessity must be considered as the business of the house proceeds, and it would be wasting time to anticipate the discussion of them because, as I have said, they will be discussed upon the second readings, in committee and on third readings if necessary, so there will be the fullest possible opportunity to consider every phase of every measure that may be brought forward. Therefore I pass them by, except to say that the measures which will be submitted to this house are measures which it is believed by the administration will advance the interests, the welfare and the well-being of the Canadian people. We commend them to this house and to the investigation, consideration and discussion of members of the house, certain that if they are approached from that angle, and that angle only, they will meet the requirements I have mentioned.
Now let us proceed to a matter to which the right hon. gentleman directed the major part of his address. After all, four and a half hours is a fairly reasonable time in which to make up for a silence of six months. When one thinks of the enormous amount of toil that must have been involved in this analysis of all that has gone by, and this gazing into the future with the eyes of a would-be seer, but after all with the vision of nothing more than a very poor prophet, one wonders what the four and a half hour speech was all about. What was it all about? He said that the speech from the throne divided itself into two parts, the sermon and the diagnosis. Well, upon the sermon he founded diatribe and abuse of a character seldom heard in this house, while upon the diagnosis he performed a surgical operation that resulted at least in disaster to those about him.
Why is it that present conditions prevail in Canada? Do you realize that this new land, in the present world-wide depression, should have been able, had its policies been adequate, to escape such results? Do you realize that if this country had been making thoughtful provision for the future, if its leaders had been looking into the future with eyes of vision, there should not have come this , disaster to the Canadian people? Do you realize that this government has been in power eight months and that whatever conditions prevail in Canada to-day are attributable, not to it but to the governments

The Address-Mr. Bennett
that preceded it? What would the right hon. gentleman have said if, eight months after he came into power in 1921, he had been charged with responsibility for the conditions that then existed? What did he then do? What did he say? What was his position? He freed himself from all responsibility and declared that his predecessors had been responsible for the conditions that then prevailed. And now he comes before the Canadian people and says to them that this government, having been in power seven or eight months, having inherited the conditions that confronted them when they took office, are responsible and alone responsible for those conditions. Do you think any man in this country, thoughtful and fair-minded, has any such opinion? Do you think any people in Canada who approach these problems with an attitude of just criticism have any such idea?
Let me ask my right hon. friend and this house this question:	Where would this
country have been had it not been for the session last fall which gave employment to upwards of two hundred thousand people? Study if you will for a moment the figures of industry. In eight months new factories cannot be equipped and built, but they can be commenced, and the numbers that have been commenced in this country during those eight months are more than those during any other similar period in recent years. New factories? How many men in the counties represented by hon. gentlemen opposite are now finding full time employment against the short days and poor rations preceding the 28th of July? How many of them? What about cotton mills? What about woollen mills?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend from Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff) knows less about cotton mills than about cotton sails.


Mr. DUFF:: Excuse me, I did not open my mouth.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then I entirely withdraw the remark.


William Duff: I am listening attentively to my right hon. friend.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then I will say that
my hon. friend from Antigonish-Guysborough knows far more about cotton sails than about the cotton industry.


William Duff: I have a question on the order paper now.


Richard Bedford Bennett: When it is asserted by
the leader of the Liberal party that you can secure a governor general's warrant to provide for unemployment and agreements with the provinces, that is a nullification of the whole principle of the responsibility of representative institutions. It never has been done and I trust never will be done in this country. There had to be a session of parliament, as there was, and it gave employment to upwards of two hundred thousand people. So that, with the industrial life of this country stimulated, with improved conditions with respect to employment, with the added employment of hundreds of thousands in the way of unemployment relief, I say that conditions in Canada, bad as they are, are not comparable to what they would have been had we not taken the action that we did. What is more, that is an opinion very generally held by thoughtful people in this country.


An hon. MEMBER:: What about agriculture?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I shall deal with agriculture. That opinion, I say, is held by thoughtful observers from one end of Canada to the other, and I am proud that this government has been privileged to have the opportunity to serve the people of this country in that way at this time. We do not belong to that school of thought, of which you find evidence among leaders in the Liberal party, who go about the country saying, "We are so thankful the responsibility is not ours; we are so grateful, so glad that somebody else has it." Sir, it is a proud thing to be a Canadian and to have some opportunity to serve the country. We are not going around making excuses of that kind, and we will not. The burden is heavy; of course it is. The difficulties are many; of course they are. But it is a privilege to be able to think that with such ability as we have, such talents as this government has, we are able to give this service to the country. And I say this to my right hon. friend opposite and his friends. It sounds very amusing and touching to speak of the Prime Minister being the government. I doubt if there has been in this country for years a government whose relations inter se have been more harmonious and pleasant. I doubt if there has ever been a government in which there has been a fuller discussion and consideration of every question affecting the public interest before action is taken. And in fairness to my colleagues-I am not at all concerned about myself-I only desire to say that there never has been any effort on the part of the head of the government to obtrude or force his
The Address-Mr. Bennett

opinions on the cabinet, but that after discussion the conclusions arrived at are the united opinion of the cabinet and for the public welfare. That has been and will continue to be our attitude; and if at times this government has taken action more expeditiously than has been the wont of the government in recent years, and has believed that anything that is worth doing should be done as well as possible and as quickly as possible -if these be faults, then you can lay the blame if you please, at my door and not at that of the administration.
The comment is made that I am holding too many offices myself. Well, I hold one more than did the former Prime Minister. It is true I hold the portfolio of Finance; and the reason I gave for this in the first session, the reason which I still give, I will now indicate. I had made certain very definite promises in every part of Canada. I came into power-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Our government came
into being. It is the custom sometimes for Prime Ministers to refer to themselves in this way, using the personal pronoun I; if you desire any evidence on that point I can furnish you abundantly with precedents from the opposite side. The personal pronoun sometimes has to be used, although we avoid it as much as possible. However, let me say this. Having gathered together certain information which I thought might be valuable, I used it at the special session in connection with the tariff measures which we passed. I went to the Imperial conference, and as Minister of Finance I received a great deal of further information and correlated to one another many facts from various parts of the empire; and when the conference was adjourned I believed it was desirable, rather than endeavour to hand over to someone else the knowledge I had gained and the information that had come to me, that, even though it might involve greater toil than I felt at my age disposed to undertake, it was my duty to carry on until that conference was ended. And wfith the help of Providence I propose to do so. That is all I can say in that respect.
Now, as to these indices of the country's prosperity, I do not know at times what to admire most on the part of the leader of the opposition; he is either assuming that the people wrho have not been able to discover the facts are lacking in intelligence or he has unwittingly misrepresented them.
Yesterday he spoke about the reduction in taxation. I have the figures here which show that during the last year of Liberal administra-
tion there was taken from the people of thi3 country by taxation the sum of $395,000,000, which was $100,000,000 more than in 1925, and greater than any amount taken during any previous year. The figures for 1931 have not been published, but for the year ending March 30, 1930, there was taken from the Canadian people in taxation the sum of $378,000,000. That is a larger amount than for any year but one since 1925.


Mr. RALSTON:: But we did more business.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was not talking about
that, but that statement is not correct. The right hon. gentleman was not talking about that yesterday, he was talking about the reduction in taxation which his government had accomplished. Here are the facts in round figures:
1925		 $293,000,000
1926		 327,000,000
1927		 346,000,000
1928		 364,000,000
1929		 395,000,000
1930		 378,000,000
There has been less taxation taken out of the Canadian people during the last eight months than for any eight months in the last ten years. One would think that that would be some encouragement to hon. gentlemen opposite, but they do not seem to like it.


An hon. MEMBER:: Do you?


Richard Bedford Bennett: And then the question
of trade was taken up by the right hon. gentleman. This is an old story which appears in Hansard in nearly every speech on the budget. Nd allowance was made for the depreciated value of the purchasing power of money in determining the value of wheat, for instance, nor of wood pulp or paper exported from this country this year as compared with the year before. Had these signs of prosperity been such as he suggested it would have brought about a condition which would have enabled the people to have met the storm of adversity without difficulty.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: Those prices were supposed to go up after July 28.


Richard Bedford Bennett: When comparisons are
made with previous years it is always desirable to adjust prices. I merely mention that in passing.
Then came the matter of the sale of our western crops. In listening to the right hon. gentleman one would have thought that his administration had taken an active part in an endeavour to sell wheat in the markets of the world, that they had behind them a record so

The Address-Mr. Bennett
unassailable that no one could for one moment cavil at their actions. Perhaps the western members will recall the words of the then Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm) when he said: "We are not concerned with the sale of wheat as wheat finds its own place in the markets of the world. That was the contribution made by the right hon. gentleman to the sale of wheat in the markets of the world-we are not concerned about it, it finds its own place. In reviewing some of the speeches made by the hon. gentleman's friends one would think that more Canadian wheat had been sold in England last year than during the year we have now entered upon. Here are the facts. For the seven months commencing with August, 1930, we sold to Great Britain 90,000,000 bushels of wheat, while the total sales during the corresponding seven months of 1929-30 amounted to 65,000,000 bushels.


Mr. VALLANCE:: May I ask the Prime Minister a question?


An hon. MEMBER:: Sit down.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


John Vallance: Has the-


Richard Bedford Bennett: The total purchase price of the wheat sold in 1931 amounted to only
167,000,000 for the 90,000,000 bushels, while the 65,000,000 bushels sold in 1930 brought $88,000,000. Perhaps that is what the hon. gentleman desires to know? Why that difference in price?


Mr. YOUNG:: The tariff.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am satisfied that if the hon. gentleman's constituents could have heard him make that statement they would have thought much less of him than when he was going around the country with a pair of white stockings.


Mr. McINTOSH:: They had a good cutter.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, the hon. gentleman remembers that.


John Vallance: It won the election.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It did not.


John Vallance: The hon. member is sitting in the house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It might be well to ask the right hon. gentleman why the price of wheat has fallen so in England. That is the crux of the question. Canadian wheat was not the first to fall in price, the wheat which came in from Russia during last fall fixed the price.


Edward James Young: Came in?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Came into England, yes, and Russian wheat is still coming in.


John Vallance: Because you would not take Russian coal.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman
seems to forget the fact that we are taking a million tons of Welsh anthracite coal.


John Vallance: And American coal as well.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And it was possible to sell that million tons of Welsh anthracite coal because the unfair Russian competition was removed.


Mr. DONNELLY:: American coal is still coming in.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps you will maintain some order, Mr. Speaker. These mutter-ings of discontent with the truth are not new at all, they are as old as time.


James J. Donnelly: That is true.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The introduction of
Russian wheat into the British market has spoiled the market for Canadian wheat, as has the introduction of lumber from northern Russia spoiled the market for Canadian lumber. In order to avoid any misunderstanding, I took the trouble to ascertain the number of cargoes of wheat which came into England during the time I was there, and the price at which they were sold. I realized that the price was less than the cost of production in western Canada. The effect was that Canadian wheat at once reached a lower price level than it had reached before in years. There was more than 200,000,000 bushels of wheat from Russia that were being offered in competition with Canadian wheat, and we are threatened with a larger quantity of wheat.


Charles A. Stewart: Not 200,-
000,000 bushels?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I said 200,000,000 bushels.


Charles A. Stewart: From Russia?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


John Vallance: In the British market?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No. I said "being
offered". Of course all of it did not reach the British market, but from my personal knowledge something over 60,000,000 bushels have reached that market. Just what it has now reached I cannot say, but this I do say- and with respect to this there should be no difficulty-the free introduction of that wheat
The Address-Mr. Bennett

on the markets of Liverpool, London and other ports of Great Britain fixed for wheat a price that it was impossible for Canadians to accept without losing money. That is the story and that was the situation when we reached England.
I shall make only a few observations with respect to the Imperial conference so far as leaving here is concerned. We came into power on the seventh day of August; we had to get our government elected. That took us along towards the end of August. The conference was to meet the first of October. The late government had set up a committee to prepare certain information and figures with respect to matters that would there be considered. I had made known to the people of this country, so far as it was humanly possible, both in the house and out of it, just what the policy of the government was and would be at that conference, namely, an effort to secure reciprocal preferences within the empire. That was our effort; that is what we promised. That is what the people of the country were told in the house and out of it. The conference met, and on the first day certain messages of welcome were read and tributes paid to those who were gone. Then it was agreed that a plenary session would open at a later date. Let us see what dominions sat around that council board. First in point of age was Canada, then Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, the Irish Free State, Newfoundland, and of course the mother land herself. At the second plenary meeting statements were made by the prime ministers of each of these dominions and a portion of what I said on that occasion was read to the house last evening. At page 31 of the appendices of the summary of proceedings will be found the commencement of the observations which I made. I endeavoured to point out that reciprocal trade agreements were absolutely essential for the preservation and maintenance of the economic life of our empire. You will find these words:
And if this conference is to meet these problems and provide an effective solution of them, it seems to me that my attitude towards my own country will be the attitude of you all towards yours. On no other basis can we hope to effect an enduring agreement of benefit to each one of us. I will determine what my country needs, and. if you do likewise, then we may come together and search out the means by which we can be of mutual assistance in satisfying those needs.
I rejoice that the government of Canada finds, in the empire scheme I have to propose, the surest promise that its duty to its own country will be fulfilled. For we believe that through the broadening of the home markets of 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-markets without tire empire, and to make those 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. That can be done only in one way-by creating a preference in favour of empire goods.
Now far from denying that we would be dealing in world markets, you will observe that I said the exact opposite, and when the right hon. gentleman last night charged me with endeavouring to create a closed, walled empire, or a closed, walled country, he either did not read what I said at that conference, or, having read it, deliberately misrepresented and left it out. I again repeat these words which will be found on page 31:
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-markets without the empire, and to make those markets sure, and greater, we must place no insuperable barrier in the road of reciprocal world trade.
And then I spoke about the empire. There at once is the contradiction on the record of the statement made to the house and the country last night by the leader of the opposition, when he must have known that the above observations were a part of the address I made on that occasion, because he could not have read the preceding paragraph from which he made his quotation without realizing what my attitude was. Then I proceeded:
We have considered what such a scheme of preference will mean to Canada and to the other parts of the empire, and our conclusion is, that we of the empire states have within our own control the means to advance the interests of each one of us, by developing a plan of economic cooperation, based on the principle of empire preferences.
Further on I said:
Again, it is conceivable that this preferential rate should be lower in the ease of raw products, or where the empire supply does not meet the empire demand. On the other band, the preference may be increased beyond ten per centum where that rate, in relation to the main tariff, is inadequate to afford empire goods an appreciable advantage over those of foreign countries.
Then I continued as will be found at page 33:
All these are matters requiring the most careful consideration. Some of them might readily be resolved into difficulties so definite as to defy removal, unless the greatest care is taken to anticipate and avoid them. They must, therefore, be subjected to searching analysis by the economists of all the countries concerned.

The Address-Mr. Bennett
I put to the house and the country this query: Could any Canadian worthy of the name, at a conference such as that, say less? Could any Canadian say less than that his first duty and obligation was to the. country that sent him there, that had honoured him with its confidence and support? He would go further and say that we hoped to work out plans that would be advantageous to us and the other parts of the empire, at the same time realizing that we must not shut the doors *in any way to reciprocal world trade, for every man knows that must be so. If it had then ended, there might have been some force in the observations made last night by the former Prime Minister. But did he tell the house yesterday during that long four-hour speech what attitude was taken by the prime ministers of the other self-governing dominions of the empire?
Then in his endeavour to make a failure of this conference that will be held in Ottawa this fall, in his endeavour to destroy any possibility this government might have of success in that regard, what did he do? He tried to fasten upon the representative of his own country blame that did not attach to him unless it attached to every prime minister of every other dominion of the British empire.
Mr. Scullin, the Prime Minister of Australia, followed me. I had spoken first, as the representative of the senior dominion. What did Mr. Scullin say?
I entirely agree with Mr. Bennett that_ we must come to some decision on that principle. Already that principle has been conceded. Already there is a measure of preference in operation reciprocally between the dominions and the United Kingdom. Already there are treaties in existence between certain dominion governments. We have accepted to a large extent the principle of preference, but it is our duty at this conference first of all to affirm the maintenance of that principle and the extension of its operation.
He then took up in detail a consideration of the various measures which his own country had passed and dealt with the preferences that were enjoyed by Australia in the British market. Then he said:
I have outlined in broad principle what Australia is prepared to do, and what I believe we at this conference ought to agree to do. If those principles are accepted. I suggest that a committee of this conference be formed, when I shall be prepared to suggest in detail proposals to give practical effect to this policy of economic cooperation.
That is what Mr. Scullin said. He was followed by Mr. Forbes, the Prime Minister of New Zealand. Mr. Forbes, at very great length, and with figures, dealt with the whole situation, and at the end he arrived at his conclusion. These are his words at page 107:
As a first step, I cannot too strongly urge that the representatives of the United Kingdom-
Note, the representatives of the United Kingdom, not the representatives of his own country, not the representatives of his own government or of his own people. He continued :
As a first step, I cannot too strongly urge that the representatives of the United Kingdom should seriously consider the provision of some adequate assistance to the languishing industries of this country, and this, in my opinion, can be afforded effectively by tariff protection against the "dumping" of the surplus products of other countries whose tariff walls prevent the free flow of trade and against the competition of imported goods, often on an unfair basis and invariably on terms of advantage as compared with the article produced in the United Kingdom.
He went a step further. Mr. Forbes went on to say:
As a second step. I feel that a tariff preference in this country in favour of empire products (including foodstuffs), accompanied by increased preference in favour of British goods in the overseas empire, would be the greatest single factor in increasing inter-imperial trade. It is my view that trade within the empire must play, in the future, a far more important part in the economics of the commonwealth than ever in the past, and the utmost effort should be made to foster and increase the sentiment in favour of the purchase of empire goods.
So you have Australia and New Zealand behind Canada.
Then Mr. Havenga, Minister of Finance for the Union of South Africa, also made his statement, in terms somewhat stronger. He said:
The remedy must, so far as the Union is concerned be looked for in directions outside free trade, and we are willing and anxious to explore every avenue to that end.
The question appears to be capable of being stated very simply; Great Britain, with her industrial difficulties, seeks markets for her manufactures in the dominions, while the dominions. in their agricultural troubles, are anxious to extend their markets in Great Britain for their produce.
He went on and dismissed at length the various items which he thought should be considered by the committee.
Then came the representative of the Irish Free State, Mr. McGilligan. He put his position very frankly before the gathering by saying that so far as the economic situation was concerned, the Irish Free State would have to consider each problem as it arose because of its geographical relation to the United Kingdom. He speaks of that under the heading, The Relation of Geographical Factors to Economic Policy, and as a matter of fact he shortly afterwards put into force the principle there alluded to
The Address-Mr. Bennett

He was followed by Sir Richard Squires, the Prime Minister of Newfoundland, who said:
I refer to Hr. Bennett particularly because thre policy and program of the Dominion of Canada, a territory removed but eighty miles by sea from Newfoundland, must naturally affect my own country, separated both politically and geographically though we be. I join with him and the other distinguished Empire leaders who have preceded me in their view that now is the time for action; that this is the body to which not only the entire Empire but the whole world is looking for constructive thought; not merely thought expressed in polished periods, but thought expressed in action, The policy of imperial preference, so ably indicated by Mr. Bennett. will certainly have the enthusiastic support of Newfoundland.
There you have the whole matter.
I had intended at a later date to deal with one particular feature of the discussions at the conference, but it seems desirable that it should be dealt with now. When the committees were appointed and questions considered in detail it was suggested that a quota might meet our views; that is, if England would say that her own requirements would be purchased on a quota basis, about IS per cent, we will say, home production, and 55 per cent British Empire production, making 70 per cent, and 30 per cent from foreign countries, something might be done for preference. Evidence was taken and opinions were expressed, and as a matter of fact Dr. Addison had a bill prepared that dealt with the quota for domestic wheat. But then the mind of' the committee changed, and the government thought it not desirable, because of lack of information, to pursue the inquiry further at that time, and so it dropped for the time being, the opinion being expressed that the question should be further explored if the conference adjourned to Ottawa.
Now let us see what happened in the concluding days of the conference. At page 225 you will find the concluding speeches, on November 14, 1930. You will find the observations made by myself on behalf of the Canadian delegation, and there is one matter that I should like to mention now, because it becomes somewhat important in view of an observation made yesterday. You will find at the bottom of page 225 these words:
Mr. Bennett:	I will not do more than
say that the experience of succeeding years confirms me in the view, from which I have never departed, that the traditional policy of the party which I have the honour to lead, is best for Canada. I have explained this policy to the conference in a definite way, and there is therefore no need for me to restate my position, except to amplify it by saying that, in view of the report of the committee on 
economic cooperation which we have had under consideration, and in view of my own personal inquiries into the agricultural situation in this country, I consider it proper to say that we from the Dominion of Canada are prepared to consider the desirability of accepting the quota system as a solution of the problem of marketing our Empire wheat in the United Kingdom, having regard especially to importations from foreign countries. This view I have already expressed to heads of delegations and it, therefore, seems to me proper that I should now relate it to the view expressed at the second plenary meeting of the conference, which view in no other respect am I prepared to modify in any way wdiatever. The offer which I then extended to this conference is still open, and will, I confidently believe, be accepted by all at Ottawa.
I therefore move, Mr. Chairman, that the economic section of the conference adjourn to Ottawa to meet within the next twelve months at a date to be mutually agreed upon.
Mr. Scullin followed and said:
Therefore, we are forced to adjourn that section of the conference for further consideration and deliberation after we have had further examination into all the facts. But the economic side of the conference has by no means been a failure.
Then Mr. Forbes made observations in the same sense. Mr. Hertzog said:
I and my colleagues came here with the knowledge that we should have to see that our expectations did not run too high, and our expectations not having run too high we have no great disappointments to carry away with us.
Mr. McGilligan said:
Much may happen between this and then, and if we have then to view these matters in a somewhat aloof and detached way, we shall nevertheless look with interest to see whether climatic conditions can bring about the reconciliation of the many views that in this climate appear to be so irreeonciliable.
I am content to leave myself in the judgment of this house and of the country as to whether or not the attitude taken by Canada on that occasion was not the attitude that was taken by the representatives of every one of the dominions represented at the conference. Only some of them spoke in terms somewhat stronger than I with respect to the desirability, nay, the necessity, of immediate action being taken by the government of the United Kingdom to change its attitude on some of these questions.
Let me turn to the view of the conference expressed by Mr. Richard Jebb. I direct the careful attention of hon. members to an article by him in the Nineteenth Century for December last entitled From Referendum to Free Hand. At page 698 will be found the following:
For the past thirty years they have shown themselves only too willing to do business whenever we might be ready.

The Address-Mr. Bennett
That is Canada and the other dominions.
As to Canada in particular, Laurier's original offer of 1902 has been lying on the table ever since, awaiting our willingness to tax foreign wheat. It was on precisely the same lines as Mr. Bennett's. Let us recall that Laurier (a) specified the market for wheat as Canada's special interest; (b) required our government first to "accept the principle," i.e., of putting-or rather keeping -a duty on foreign wheat; and (c) offered on that basis to negotiate in detail an extension of British preference in Canada. Mr. Bennett offered no more and no less.
Mr. Bennett offered no more and no less.


An hon. MEMBER:: In different language.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am going to show the house that the language is about the same. Complaint has been made of something in his manner that lacked the cool repose of a Vere de Vere. But at any rate the right hon. gentleman in looking through the records has found that I was frank in statement; there was no circumlocution, there was no uncertainty as to what I meant. It is so difficult for the right hon. gentleman to understand any man acting in that way. I am bound to say that perhaps from his long experience in maintaining a government without a majority, subject to the whims and caprices of those who might induce him to change his mind almost overnight, I can readily understand he would have had the representatives of Canada endeavour, if not in an oleaginous at least in a saponaceous manner or by the exercise of flattery, endeavour to induce other persons to change their attitude. Then at the end of the four and a half hours this is what he is talking about. I can only say that the presentation of the case from the Canadian standpoint before the second plenary conference took exactly seventeen minutes by the clock, and there was at least one Canadian there who, although not a member of the delegation, listened and thought it was as clear and as concise a presentation as it was possible to make.


An hon. MEMBER:: Howard Ferguson.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was not Mr. Ferguson. I can only say that if the hon. gentleman ever approaches him in brains and capacity he will be much better off than he is to-day.
Now I turn to the record of the 1902 Imperial conference referred to by Mr. Richard Jebb in the Nineteenth Century. At least one or two hon. members will recall the attitude taken by Sir Wilfrid Laurier and his ministers on that occasion. I wonder how many in this house realize just exactly the language then employed. On page 36 of the report it will be found that Sir Wilfrid Laurier with others agreed to this statement:
The general resolution that was finally adopted as covering the principle underlying the several proposals comprised in Mr. Balfour's memorandum, was as follows:
1.	That this conference recognizes that the principle of preferential trade between the United Kingdom and His Majesty's dominions beyond the seas would stimulate and facilitate mutual commercial intercourse, and would, by promoting the development of the resources and industries of the several parts, strengthen the empire.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, the hon. gentleman was not saying "hear, hear" yesterday when the leader of the opposition was reading what I said. Let me continue:
2.	That this conference recognizes that, in the present circumstances of the colonies, it is not practicable to adopt a general system of free trade as between the mother country and the British dominions beyond the seas.
That also hon. members will find in the address which I made at the second plenary conference.
3.	That with a view however, to promoting tbe_ increase of trade within the empire, it is desirable that those colonies which have not already adopted such a policy should, as far as their circumstances permit, give substantial preferential treatment to the products and manufactures of the United Kingdom.
4.	That the Prime Ministers of the colonies respectfully urge on His Majesty's government the expediency of granting in the United Kingdom preferential treatment to the products and manufactures of the colonies, either by exemption from or reduction of duties now or hereafter imposed.
5.	That the Prime Ministers present at the conference undertake to submit to their respective governments at the earliest opportunity the principle of the resolution, and to request them to take such measures as may be necessary to give effect to it.
But Sir Wilfrid Laurier was not content to let it rest there. He handed in a special memorandum covering a page and a half of this book. I want the house to listen to the words and see what difference there is between the language employed by the Prime Minister of Canada in 1930 and the Prime Minister of Canada in 1902 in respect to this matter. There may be, and always are, differences of phrasing, but here is a matter that was agreed to in a memorandum by Canada's minister. Mr. Chamberlain, the then Colonial Secretary, was present. The Dominions department had not yet come into being. This is the memorandum in part:
From the beginning of the proceedings the Canadian ministers have claimed that in consideration of the substantial preference given by Canada for some years to the products of the mother country, Canadian food products should be exempted in the United Kingdom from the duties recently imposed. Represen-

The Address-Mr. Bennett

tations to this effect previously made through the High Commissioner for Canada were supplemented by the ministers, both in writing and in the personal interviews with the imperial ministers.
Twenty-eight years ago that was urged. Last fall Canada again urged it. That is all. But Canada did it in a somewhat different form, as I shall presently point out. Now let us go a step further:
Mr. Chamberlain, on behalf of the Imperial government, was unable to agree to the proposals of the Canadian ministers. He represented that the Imperial government, while highly appreciating the good feeling manifested by Canada in the granting of preferential treatment, did not think the material results to the trade of the United Kingdom were as great as the Canadian ministers claimed. He further said that the change desired by Canada would be an important departure from the established fiscal policy of the kingdom, and that if the proposals could be entertained at all, as to which he was not prepared to commit himself, it would be necessary for Canada to offer some material tariff concessions beyond those which she had already voluntarily given.
The Canadian ministers, therefore, submitted a memorandum on the subject of the advantages already received by Great Britain from the Canadian preferential tariff, with a view to showing that these were of much value, and entitled to weight in the consideration of the whole subject.
Now here are the words to which I direct the careful attention of the house:
While urging that the benefits of the preference were such as to entitle Canada to the desired exemption from the duties on food products in the United Kingdom, the Canadian ministers stated that within certain limitations they were prepared to consider the request of Mr. Chamberlain for further concessions in return for the desired preference in the markets of the United Kingdom. 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-
Mark you, "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 proposed tariff changes. Large reductions of duties had been made in recent years, especially on British imports.
And so on. Now, I ask this house and the country if there is any difference in substance between that proposal and the proposal we made in 1930. Mr. Jebb says they are exactly the same. Let us go a step further:
The Canadian ministers stated that if they could be assured that the Imperial government would accept the principle of preferential trade generally, and particularly grant to the food products of Canada in the United Kingdom exemption from duties now levied, or hereafter imposed, they, the Canadian ministers, would be prepared to go further into the sub-

ject, and endeavour to give to the British manufacturer some increased advantage over his foregn competitors in the markets of Canada.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is it not delightful to
hear that cheer now for the sentiment hon. members opposite opposed yesterday? Is it any wonder the right hon. gentleman is an expert in the use of that word? Mr. Speaker, there is the proposal submitted by the Canadian ministers in amplification of the statements that were made before the conference on August 11, 1902.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is different.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I leave the question as
to whether it is different. For my part 1 might perhaps be prejudiced, but great as is my admiration for Canadians I still believe that Richard Jebb has a mental capacity at least equal to that of those who have raised the issue here, especially the last one I heard.
Now let us discuss that matter fairly. That was the proposal of 1902, and it has been lying upon the table ever since, as Mr. Jebb says. But I have not read the most damning part of this statement; it is the part I want to read, containing the threat of so mild a mannered man as the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier. I wanted to finish before I heard your cheers, but I would like to hear some cheers now'. Listen to these words:
Meanwhile the Canadian ministers determined to present to the conference a resolution affirming the principle of preferential trade, and the desirability of its adoption by the colonies generally, and also expressing the opinion of the prime ministers of the colonies that His Majesty's government should reciprocate by granting preferential terms to the products of the colonies in the markets of the mother country.
In 1902 they had not any hesitation in presenting such a resolution; they were not bothered about the fine point as to whether it might or might not please Mr. Chamberlain. They did not bother about that any more than I did. Then listen to these words:
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.
That was twenty-eight years ago. Then listen to these words:
If, after using every effort to bring about such a readjustment of the fiscal policy of the empire, the Canadian government should find that the principle of preferential trade is not acceptable to the colonies generally, or the

The Address-Mr. Bennett
mother country, then Canada should he free to take such action as might be deemed necessary in the presence of such conditions.
What did Canada say in 1930, twenty-eight years later? Of course a great war intervened; there were the conferences of 1917, 1923 and 1926, and oh, those glorious platitudes, those beautiful words. How they sound, those oleaginous statements of what a beautiful thing it is for brethren to dwell together in unity, and all that sort of thing. Is it any wonder that when the British papers published in full the seventeen minute address they said, "Well, we are thankful we have passed the age of platitudes." Why, anyone who listened yesterday to the right hon. gentleman could realize how at a conference such as that of last fall he would not make a statement such as that I have just read. Oh no; he would say, "Give me spirit and faith; these are finer than the things of the world. But do not take away the market in Russia."
The right hon. gentleman has talked about the severing of relations with the empire. That is the exaggerated ego, unable to believe that it is possible for anyone except himself to represent Canada in any capacity whatever. When I used the language I did, the language which was published in the statement regarding Mr. Thomas, that we must look for interempire arrangements regardless of what the mother country did, I but gave voice to the words of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, uttered twenty-eight years before. It is true that I had not had five or six years of experience as a prime minister before doing so, as he then had; it is true also that I perhaps used blunter language, but it was more easily understood. When the right hon. gentleman yonder complains of the language I used I say this to him: I will not discuss that question beyond saying that every newspaper but one in Great Britain expressed gratitude that someone had put the issue clearly up to the people. It is only necessary to take the clippings of that day and read them in order to determine the truth of that statement. There was no talk of severing relations and even the statement made after the conference closed, in response to Mr. Thomas, was characterized as moderate and dignified by the British journals. That is all, but the right hon. leader of the opposition, in order to create a prejudice in the minds of our own people, speaks of that language as being petulant and childish. I will take the opinion of the greatest journal in the world in respect to that.
There is one other matter which remains to be considered. I have not gone into these matters in great detail, but I felt it was desirable to place before this house the circumstances which led us to take the position we did take. The right hon. gentleman said yesterday that we should not talk about preference within the. empire, that anyone would think we were talking at an empire conference. I say we were talking at an empire conference, and we were talking about just what Sir Wilfrid Laurier referred to, empire preference. We did not refer to preference between Great Britain and Canada but between every part of the empire, reciprocal preference between ever}' part, to the mutual advantage and general benefit of all. That is what we were endeavouring to do. We were not dealing with a preference as between Australia and Canada, Great Britain and Canada, or Great Britain and South Africa; we were dealing with a reciprocal preference, a British Empire preference touching every part of the empire. That is what Laurier was dealing with in 1902; that is what we were dealing with in 1930; that is what we have been endeavouring to deal with and will deal with when this conference meets here this fall, representing every part of the British Empire, for the purpose of determining whether or not the investigations which have been set in motion will result in some concrete plans being made by which we can give effect to an idea which is common alike to those who agree with us anid those who do not agree with us on questions of preference and free trade, namely an empire preference. We believe that preference might be best worked out by a system of tariff preferences, but there were those who believed it might be worked out by a quota system, with reference to grain and certain other commodities. We said, let the investigations proceed in order that it may be 'determined to what extent this is true. That is the position to-day. And I say it ill becomes any Canadian leader of a great party, whose greatest leader adopted language similar to our own, when a conference is not yet concluded, when it only stands adjourned, when he knows that in the very nature of things I cannot go into a discussion of many of the matters which he raised yesterday, inasmuch as they are sub judice before that conference, to come here and go back upon the past of his party in order that he may find an opportunity to make an attack, wholly baseless and unwarranted, upon the method by which Canada had her case presented to that conference. I have nothing to withdraw with respect to that presentation, not a word, not a syllable, not a line. It was put in fifteen minutes-seventeen to be exact

from the time it started until it ended; and in that time we but summarised what had gone before. We said, "Twenty-eight or thirty years
6S
The Address-Mr. Bennett


An hon. MEMBER:: That was just chaff.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was not chaff, it was
deception. I hope there will be ample opportunity for the hon. gentleman's mutterings to find expression.
One other charge has been levelled against us, and that is that the prestige of this country has been adversely affected by the attitude taken by Canada last fall. If the opinion of those best able to express an opinion is considered, it never stood higher than it is to-day. I take no credit to myself with respect to that, but I think it is realized, as it was in connection with the embargo, that the Canadian people have made up their minds that thirty years is long enough to wait and that if we cannot arrive at a solution we will have to look elsewhere.
The amendment is directed largely to that particular point, but I will not say more with respect to it than to say that a group of Canadians elected by their fellow citizens are endeavouring to implement the pledges given to the Canadian people that gave them power. That cannot be done in eight months. It never was suggested that it would be. Effect will continue to be given to their convictions with respect to those pledges. We are not unmindful of the fact that recourse is being had to the old time-honored policy of hon. gentlemen opposite, to create distrust and suspicion on the part of the people based upon their geographical location. They are going to and fro talking about the big interests and raising trouble, prejudices and difficulties. I do not think the Canadian people will be deceived any longer in that way. Mr. J. G. Gardiner, who is no longer leader of a Liberal government fn Saskatchewan, on Wednesday, March 19, 1926, expressed himself before the United Farmers of Manitoba as follows:
The most harmful slogan ever introduced into the consideration of western public matters was the ory, "down with eastern vested interests," which has developed into an attempt to organize the east against the west and the west against the east. Members of the party to which I belong. in the past were responsible for the introduction of that cry, and I pledged myself as a leader of that party to put forth every effort to remove from the appeals of the organization to which I belong, any such unworthy sentiment.
I have quoted from a verbatim report of a speech delivered at the annual banquet of the United Farmers of Manitoba and which appeared in the Regina Leader on Wednesday, March 10, 1926. He stated as Premier of Saskatchewan that the party to which he belonged in the past were responsible for the introduction of that cry. I ask hon. gentlemen opposite to consider that statement in view of the appeals to prejudices and passions
The Address-Mr. Bennett

which are now being made and the suggestions being put forth that this government is dominated by the large interests. Canadians have endeavoured to develop the great resources which have been placed in their trust and they have demanded that they be given an equal opportunity with other peoples in other countries to develop their resources as have other countries and that they should have the fair competition to which they are entitled if it is within the power of any government to grant such fairness in competition.
In connection with agriculture I do not intend to say more than that we took such action as to prevent a panic in connection with wheat, an action which I think any government would have taken had it been seized with a thorough appreciation of the seriousness of the condition then existing. That action had the result at least of saving the situation at the moment. I can only say that whatever may be necessary for the purpose of enabling agriculture to be placed upon a firm and stable basis, we will do, but no man who has followed the history of world movements during these last eighteen months can fail to understand that the failure to appreciate what was coming had been responsible for what is. The right hon. gentleman mentioned yesterday the necessity for study and deliberation, and I have read in the Liberal press the statement that he did not decide quickly but, oh, so deeply. It was said that he looked into the future, but let me give you two or three illustrations. He made a treaty with Australia aiyl it was only by a modus vivendi that we have been able to save the dairy industry of Canada from being put into the position it was during the old regime. The same thing was done with New Zealand through an order in council, and he then said: How could we know that it would come out in this way? What happened? He gave notice of the termination of the treaty and trade agreement. The relations between New Zealand and Canada are at present so strained that it is difficult to understand their being worse. By the treaty made by order in council he created a channel of trade and the people of New Zealand became accustomed to following that channel. We purchased 50,000,000 pounds of butter from New Zealand during last year when a few years before we had purchased none. This channel of trade was suddenly terminated with the result that a new channel had to be found by that country. It would have been better had New Zealand not had that market at all than to have had happen what did happen. That is an example 
of vision, foresight and statecraft which in anybody else would be considered as most reprehensible. .
Then consider the treaty with France and how its provisions touch the lives of the people of this country. As the right hon. gentleman said yesterday, both Italy and France have been raising their tariffs against Canadian wheat higher and higher, but we cannot do anything, we have to be satisfied with the minimum under the treaties.
I turn now to another point. He asked why we passed legislation here dealing as we did with the old country tariff preferences before we went to the Imperial conference. I will tell the house why we did it, and every businessman knows why we did it. Does anyone suppose we were going over to England with those tariffs as they stood, to try to make a bargain or deal of any kind? Everybody knew we could not do that, but we did what the late James Robb tried to do and could not. As will be remembered he tried to raise the duty before the Australian treaty was put through, but he could not accomplish this because some of his party would not let him. He had not a majority, but we had and were able to do it. My hon. friends opposite have no trouble in understanding that.
Lastly, we were told that we should not be bargaining at an Imperial conference. Almost two breaths later, however, my right hon. friend referred to the Argentine republic. What is the situation there? A bargain was made by the British ambassador and a trade mission whereby Argentina is to deliver to Great Britain so many bushels of wheat in return for so much manufactured goods, and figures are given as to the kind of goods. That is the only kind of bargaining you will ever be able to make them understand, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer told me he personally went to the banks in connection with the necessary credit.


James J. Donnelly: They are selling their
wheat.


Richard Bedford Bennett: At what price?


James J. Donnelly: Better than ours.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No. I hope the hon.
gentleman knows better than that. As a matter of fact, our wheat sales in Great Britain as I said, are 25,000,000 bushels more than they were last year.


James J. Donnelly: They are giving it
away.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If that be so, Russia is paying a bonus for purchasers to take it.

The Address-Mr. Woodsworth
May I point out that bargaining has been the basis of all British agreements. Are there any members present who recall Cob-den's agreement with France, that treaty after the repeal of the Com Laws. Read the life of Cobden and the difficulty in connection with that. Take our present treaty with France; all treaties that are of any value mean bargain, bargain, bargain. Those who have no interest beyond the academic in these matters always denounce the actions of practical men. We are a practical government, and under those circumstances we propose to continue to make bargains. We have been negotiating bargains with other parts of the empire and will continue to do so as occasion offers.
I have trespassed upon the time of the house much longer than I had expected to do when I rose to my feet, but I can only reiterate that I am conscious of no neglect of my duties to the cause of Canada, and I certainly have as great a love of empire as hon. gentlemen opposite. I do not propose for a single moment to depart from the general principles that have governed us in dealing with the economic problems of Canada at the Imperial conference that will meet at an adjourned session in this city during the succeeding months.
One word more. The right hon. gentleman [DOT] opposite has suggested that we might endeavour to drive legislation through with undue haste, and he warns us that we shall not be able to do so. We welcome that, for the fuller the discussion of any measures, the better they will be; but I will say we do not propose to listen to any vaudeville effusions such as we had last session from the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Young). An intelligent discussion is one thing; but the discussions that then took place were merely endeavours to wear out the patience of the minister in charge, and I think most of the hon. gentleman's friends held the same view.
I am deeply grateful to the house for having listened with such patience and I can only add we are conscious of no neglect of duty, no failure in our devotion to the cause of Canada and the empire in every thing that has been done. Guided by that thought and sustained and inspired by the support of an intelligent electorate which has rallied round us in the past and will do so in the future, we shall go forward and discharge the duties that have devolved upon us.


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, under the rules
of the house only the Prime Minister and the leader of the official opposition have the opportunity of speaking for more than forty minutes. Under this handicap may I be forgiven by the previous speakers if I refer only incidentally to their speeches and confine myself very largely to stating our own position. There is, perhaps, some difficulty in the atmosphere of Ottawa in maintaining the sense of the over-shadowing importance of the needs of the labouring men and farmers whom we represent. Ottawa is interested in the fortunes of the Conservative and Liberal parties, interested in the social functions connected with the opening of the house; interested in the coming of the new Governor General; interested in the prospective visit of the King of Siam; interested in the gossip connected with the new plenipotentiary and envoy extraordinary to the United States. May I venture to read the headlines on the front page of the Manitoba Free Press issued the day I left Winnipeg, February 26. This will perhaps bring us back to realities:
Police wield batons on paraders' heads to quell disorder-Exciting clashes mark procession of 4,000 unemployed and communists

Minor clashes mark jobless gathering

Dominion-wide unemployment demonstrations checked by police-Unemployment relief problem is grappled with by legislation- Bracken's bill to ratify projects to aid workless gets third reading-Time wealthy were fully aware of present situation, declares Haig -Russia makes trade proposal to Canada- United Farmers of Canada convention moves last barrier to political action-by overwhelming vote, delegates wipe out ruling objecting to political alliances-Charter of liberty, with exception of threat of secession, is adopted.
I turn to an inside page and I read: "Sixteen nations agree to buy European wheat stocks." This really means that Europe is isolating herself as far as possible from America. Another heading relates to the closing of Brandon college:
At the regular chapel exercises at Brandon college, Doctor J. R. C. Evans referred to the recent press announcement regarding the inability of the Baptist union to finance the college until the close of the current academic year.
No finances! Still another heading:
Brookland's schools are to be closed-Compulsory holiday for children is caused by lack of finances.
Brooklands, I may say, is a suburb of the city of Winnipeg, and these school children are being thrown on the streets because the teachers cannot be paid.
In order to understand what this unemployment means in actual cash, may I quote the figures from the last report on unemployment

The Address-Mr. Woodsworth
in my own city? It shows the number of single men unemployed as 4,148, and that the cost of relief for each single man in December averaged $22.82, making a total of $94,657 a month. The married men numbered 2,325, and the average cost for each was $37.57, making a monthly cost of $87,370. The total monthly cost of unemployment in Winnipeg just now is therefore at the rate of approximately $182,000 a month, of which the city itself pays $69,000 a month. I have said that that represents the financial cost. I do not think that anyone could begin to picture the moral degradation and the mental hardships that are involved in such figures as those.
I come east and I find that at least the financial papers, and, indeed, most of the daily papers are not recognizing the existence of any very great depression. I find in the Montreal Standard, for instance, of January 3, that although the dividend payments to be distributed are somewhat less than the amount distributed last year, they still amount to $21,557,937, and that there are certain large corporations which are paying bonuses in addition. For instance, there is a bonus of 85 by the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company, and so on. I turn to another corporation as an illustration. The last annual report of Montreal Light, Heat and Power Consolidated, shows a gross revenue for 1930 of $23,484,079.70, and expenses of $11,401,894.62, leaving a net revenue of 812,082,185.08. The expenses, including Sir Herbert Holt's salary, and so forth, make up only 48 per cent of the receipts, and to the absentee owners goes the remaining 52 per cent. One might almost conclude that everything was lovely in the city of Montreal and in the east generally, and yet I think that there is another aspect even to that, for I find this statement in the joint Christmas appeal made by the Royal Edward institute and the Bruehesi institute:
A much larger amount will be necessary this year in order to cope with the great increase in the number of cases of tuberculosis which are already showing, and which are due-*
Mark this-
-to the privations consequent upon the unemployment situation throughout the year.
Again in the Montreal Daily Star, which cannot be accused of being a Socialist paper,
I find running in January a series of advertisements by the Advertising Club of Montreal, sponsored by such well-known firms as Case Limited, Dunfields Limited, Dupuis Freres Limitee, Fit-Reform Wardrobe, Henry Marks, John Henderson & Company, Max Beauvais Limited, James A. Ogilvy Limited, Riley Hern Inc., R. J. Tooke Limited, the Robert Simpson Company, Montreal, Limited. The ad-
vertisements are appropriately illustrated with cartoons, and I find in one advertisement the statement, beside the picture of a labouring man, that his wages will buy food, but not clothes. It says:
Dozens of men are working for wages which will provide only the bare essentials for themselves and their families. Their earnings will not permit the purchase of necessary clothing. Help a needy fellow-citizen through the rigours of a Montreal winter. Buy a smart new suit yourself and donate your old one to some needy man. Such a kindly act may keep his wife and family from actual hardship and suffering this winter.
In view of such advertisements as that, I must say that I am not very enthusiastic over the statement in the speech from the throne that:
In prosperity they (the Canadian people) were united. In adversity that union is made still stronger by the spirit of cooperation and mutual understanding which is the surest bulwark of the national welfare and happiness.
Is that the cooperation which is intended?
I read another advertisement from the same source:
Here s . the sort of philanthropy you've dreamed about-the sort that will cost you next to nothing. It will increase your selfrespect in more ways than one-and it may mean a job for an unemployed man-at least it will keep him warm. Buy yourself a new suit-give your old suit to the unemployed. What you discard is a luxury to the man in tatters. It will increase his self-respect too. Think of the chap who has to shovel snow to tide him over to the next job in his trade.
Such is the situation in the financial capital of Canada.
In spite of what the Prime Minister or the leader of the opposition may say, the present depression is due largely to causes that are world-wide in character, many of us believe to the evils inherent in the present system of competition. I think that ought to be frankly recognized, and there is very little that can be done by the Prime Minister along the lines that he has suggested that will alleviate the trouble to any great extent. In corroboration of that statement, I should like to read a paragraph or two from a recent paper published by the Carnegie Foundation, entitled "Studies in World Economy." This paper is by a very well-known authority, a former Canadian, Professor James T. Shot-well. He says:
The outstanding fact at the present time is that, owing to the fact that all nations are suffering similarly from the same economic depression, the questioning of the nature of business, itself is for the first time in history taking place on all sides of every political frontier. There is no doubt but that every part of the civilized world is affected by the maladjustments in the process which produces

The Address-Mr. Woodsworth
and distributes the world's supply of goods. Among bankers there is a preoccupation with the frozen credits of crippled industry and the price and movement of gold or silver. In agricultural sections, there is at the same time starvation and over-production of food. In the industrial world, consumption fails to keep pace with the capacity for mass production, but without any lessening of fundamental needs. So deep is the cleavage between the production of wealth and the capacity for its absorption that the criticisms of to-day are as wide as the sweep of world trade and as far-reaching as the capitalist system itself.
Again he says, and I hope that the very few members now present on the government side of the house will pay some attention to these words of Professor Shotwell:
The bigger the business, and the more it is organized according to sound principles and not dependent upon the temporary support which tariffs yield by a tax upon the consumers either here or abroad, the more_ it must look toward increasing that democratization of wealth which enables the common man to buy the goods which he produces. Wages must be increased, not to some limited point which the experience of the past assigns, but proportionately with the development of industry itself.
Let me quote another very striking statement which was made recently (January 14) by George Soule on behalf of the editors of The New Republic, after they had very deliberately considered the whole situation:
To-day there are in the United States, according to the census director, something like nine million men out of work; our cities are scenes of privation and misery on a scale which sickens the imagination; our agricultural life is bankrupt; our industry, in shifting to the south, has returned almost to the horrible conditions of the English factories of a hundred years ago and the fight of the unions there for recognition is all to begin again; so many banks are failing that the newspapers do not dare to print the truth about them. And when we look to Europe, west of Russia, or to South America, we see only the same economic chaos, the same lack of will or capacity to deal with it and the same resultant poverty and suffering. May we not well fear that -what this year has broken down is not simply the machinery of representative government, but the capitalist system itself?-and that, even with the best will in the world, it may be impossible for capitalism to guarantee not merely social justice but even security and order? May we not fear lest our American society-may not eventually collapse-as ignominiously as the feudal regime of Russia or France?
And if there is anything that would make one fear this danger in Canada it would be the speeches to which we have listened so far in this debate, in which there has been not one scintilla of hope, nothing to show that either the leader of the opposition or the Prime Minister is aware of the seriousness of the situation or is prepared to offer anything constructive in the way of remedy'.
Again may I quote another very important article which has recently appeared in Harpers' Magazine for November, last entitled "The Enemy of Prosperity-Overproduction."	In
this article Stuart Chase, a prominent writer on economics, calls attention to the fact that under present conditions the better we do things the worse off we are; the more potential goods with which we are capable of blessing mankind, the worse off is mankind. He shows that the United States has kept its nose above water until the present depression because of its enormous home market, its prodigious natural resources, its mounting population curve, its automobile industry which created 4,000,000 jobs, its installment selling, and its policy of the economy of high wages. But he goes on to point out that even in the automobile industry the now market has largely given way to a replacement market. He shows that in boots and shoes the United States is capable of producing three times the volume that the people can now buy. I should like to ask the Prime Minister, when all the Canadian woollen factories are set up and begin to produce where they are going to sell their output. Mr. Chase points out that the coal mines of the United States can produce 750,000,000 tons and the market can absorb only 500,000,000 and so on. There are to-day too many oil wells, too many refineries, a multiplicity of filling stations. Each individual in business goes ahead and expands as he sees fit, unaware that the demand of which he is conscious is only a temporary demand.
Mr. Chase continues:
It has been proposed that we sell our surplus abroad. Unfortunately this has also been proposed in all other nations, many with the same kind of exportable surplus. Doubly unfortunately, all follow, or propose shortly to follow, our spirited lead in penalizing imports by a tariff wall as high as the tower of Babel.
And our present government is among those nations. Let me quote this concluding paragraph, and it is significant from a man of the standing of Mr. Chase:
In Russia they build no more shoe factories than are necessary to supply Russians with shoes. The Kremlin is attempting scientifically to articulate supply to demand, and the results so far under the five-year plan have given the whole world pause. Our ways are not Russian ways, but have we less in the way of brains, human wisdom and human foresight? I am enough of a patriot to doubt it. But I am cursed with sufficient prophetic sense to be profoundly sure that if we do not embark upon a program of industrial coordination after our own fashion, and that shortly, we shall be driven some day, after God knows what suffering and bloodshed, to the Russian

The Address-Mr. Woodsworth
formula. The challenge presented by overproduction in the _ age of a billion horse-power is, to my mind, just as ominous as that.
As I think of the tariff increases and the extremes in policy and promises to which the Prime Minister has been driven, I am reminded of the characterization of the right hon. gentleman by a man in my own city of Winnipeg. He said: "Mr. Bennett is trying to persuade us we can all sit in to a game of poker and all make money."
Now, I have tried to suggest that our problems are simply part of world problems. That should be clearly understood, for our problems can be solved only as we cooperate in the solution of world problems. I propose very hurriedly to try and give my analysis of the situation in the west, for whether we are labour men or business men or farmers, we are all interested in the western wheat situation. The west is largely dependent on agriculture. There has been a tendency to blame and threaten the pool. In a pamphlet which has been widely quoted, and which would seem almost as if it had been inspired, Mr. Sydney S. Gampell made this statement:
If the pool desire to continue the tactics of recent years, the Canadian bankers, who know what business is, will not permit them.
The emphasis on the division between the
east and the west has been deprecated by the Prime Minister. It is such statements and such threats from the banks and the lack of understanding they display that are responsible for any ill-feeling between the east and the west. I have no time, nor is it necessary, to enter into a defence of the wheat pool, but let me make just two or three remarks with respect to it. The pool has been censured for its large carry over. For the five-year period 1925-26 to 1929-30 the pool marketed an average of 51.4 per cent of the Canadian crop and carried over 43.6 per cent of the total carry over. The pool's carry over was not proportionately as large as that of the other agencies, lurther, the pool has been criticized for "withholding" for a higher price. Let me say there was no such criticism at the time. The Grain Trade News as late as November 30, 1929, said:
Prices have risen considerably and appear likely to maintain their position.
Of course, hind sight is a great deal better than foresight, and the pool may have been to blame, but I am suggesting that if so the pool is not the only one to blame. Again, as to the attempt to maintain prices by regulating sales, even the Prime Minister says one of the great objects of his government is to maintain orderly marketing. The pool it' 
self points out some of the world factors that enter into the situation:
(1)	The tremendous world wheat production of 1928, amounting to over 450 million bushels more than the average world production for the five-year period 1923-27, during which year also, Europe alone harvested 171 million bushels more than for the same five-year period.
(2)	A second record European crop in 1929 amounting to 175 million bushels more than the European average for 1923-27 and making a total above-average production for Europe alone in those two years of 346 million bushels.
(3)	A consequent reduction in European imports in 1929-30, to 490 millions, or a reduction of 143 millions from the 633 million average of the five-year period 1923-27.
(4)	Gradual growth of unemployment in Europe as a result of the restriction of United States credit and further development of post-war conditions.
(5)	The financial crash in United States stock markets, which affected values the world over and announced the present period of world-wide economic depression.
(6)	The remarkable uprearing of European tariffs against imported grains, as a consequence of abundant European supplies and political effort to support European agriculture, as well as to create favourable balances of trade.
Now, what is the present situation in the west? Again let me just give in the very barest outline possible what seem to me to be some of the main factors. Take the tremendous drop in wheat prices from January, 1930, of S1.39 a bushel to the November, 1930 price of 60 cents. What does this mean to the west and to Canada? Wheat and wheat flour comprise 36.2 per cent of the total value of Canadian exports for the fiscal year 1929. It has been put in this way: The earning power of an acre of wheat in Saskatchewan was $20.40 in 1925 while in 1930, six years later, it was only $6.92. The Winnipeg Free Press has been carrying a series of articles which I would commend to eastern readers. I should like to give only two statements which summarize their findings. For six million bushels more delivered this year the valuation is well over $113,000,000 less. And again: In three months of the year 1930 we exported over 40,000,000 bushels of wheat and flour more than we exported during the same three months in 1929, but we received only $7,000,000 more in return. Again: The buying power of the western farmer has been more than cut in two. This next statement is of interest to the east as well as to the wrest: Canada, as stated by the Manitoba Free Press, December 6, 1930, has suffered a loss of $51,000,000 on the export of approximately 25 per cent of hes surplus wheat, on the basis of last year's values.
What are the solutions that have been offered? Mr. E. WT. Beatty comes forward

The Address-Mr. Woodsworth
with the suggestion of an agricultural credit corporation. This is the same Mr. Beatty who has been urging us to increase our acreage and to bring in more immigrants. I should like to ask just a few questions, since I have not time to discuss the matter in detail. If it is necessary to have a So,000,000 credit corporation, what is wrong with the present banking system? It seems to me this is the greatest indictment that has been made as yet against the banking system of Canada, when conditions are such that even the Minister of Agriculture is quoted as saying in Montreal, on February 16:
Farmers with gilt-edged securities cannot get credit from financial institutions, even for buying steers to feed for a market for their coarse grains.
When that is true it is easily understood that there is a need for some other institution.
I say this is a very serious indictment of our present banking monopoly.
Again I ask, why should this corporation be privately owned? How far would $5,000,000 really go in setting us up in the west? Where are the markets for all the butter and eggs and coarse grains that we produce? Recently in many parts of the west eggs have been selling for 10 cents a dozen for fresh firsts. My hon. friend from Bow River (Mr. Garland) says they have sold for eight cents. I am speaking of the areas near the larger centres, while my hon. friend is from farther west. In addition to that, although we boast of our fine agricultural lands, almost half our entire wheat acreage in the west-the Winnipeg Free Press puts it at 11,000,000 acres out of a total of some 24,000,000 acres-is wholly unsuitable for mixed farming.
What are we going to do with that acreage? The Minister of Agriculture and also Mr. John I. McFarland, the general manager of the pool selling agency, urge a decreased acreage, but I would like to ask these gentlemen how far we should decrease. Should we go only to the limit of our own needs? If so, what would that mean? The western wheat field, in the twenty-five years since 1905, has grown from less than 5,000,000 acres to over
24,000,000 acres. What are we to do with all the surplus wheat land? Let me read an extract from one of the articles which appeared in the Manitoba Free Press:
...five million five hundred thousand acres would be ample to produce all the wheat Canada's present population could dispose of as bread, feed for stock, seed, and reasonable carry over. On the basis of the seeded area of 1930, which was 23.960.000 acres, this would leave aver 18,000,000 acres of wheat land to be put to other uses.
What are we to do? Some of the farmers have suggested fixed wheat prices, pegged
wheat prices, and so on, and probably these matters will be discussed this session. On the face of it I would say that if other industries are to be bonused and helped in one way and another there is no reason why agriculture should not be helped also, but I do not regard that as an economic or permanent solution.
Further than that, we are told that we should have new markets. Where are they to be found? Let me point out that this is in line with something the Prime Minister said, but I do not think the figures are just the same. The British consumption of imported wheat is only about 190,000,000 bushels, while the Canadian surplus is 250,000,000 bushels and the Australian surplus is
100,000,000 bushels, a total surplus of 350,000,000 bushels of wheat. Where are we to dispose of that surplus unless we go outside the empire? We are told that we should have cheaper production. I suppose with careful organization we could put in more mechanization, but possibly that would lead to the production of even more wheat. I think the simpler way would be to cut down the cost of production, and to that I should like to refer again. But as soon sis we suggest that, we are up against the fact that the present government is determined to increase the costs of production by way of a higher tariff.
There is also the question of lower freight rates, to which I shall refer later, but there again we are confronted by great obstacles. To conclude this brief review I would urge upon this house that the trouble is that the western farmers are really up against the proposition of world over-production. That is, *they are producing more wheat than there is a market for at the present time or that there is purchasing power to buy. I should like to give two authorities on that point. An estimate by the Bristol Corn Trade Association places the exportable world surplus of wheat for the grain year ending July 1 last at 1,224,000,000 bushels and the total requirements of wheat importing countries of the world at 752,000,000 bushels. The National City Bank of New York, in a bulletin of December, 1930, places the crops for 193031 of the United States, Canada, Argentine and Australia at 1,831,000,000 bushels; the carry over at 496,000,000 bushels, making a total supply of 2,327,000,000 bushels, while the net imports of twenty European countries will amount only to from 580,000,000 to 650,000,000 bushels.
What does this mean? If it is a world condition there must be some sort of world

The Address-Mr. Woodsworth
solution. That may involve a world pool; it may involve an international agreement, but as soon as we come to this the government begins to say it will not have any dealings with certain great exporting countries. I urge, Mr. Speaker, that we cannot leave Russia or the Argentine or Australia out of this matter. We must take them all into consideration before we can solve this problem. Some of us believe that before it is solved we will require an entire change in our economic system, but since the government of the day revolts at anything like an international or socialist solution I would say the next most promising policy in a competitive economy is that of lower costs of production. If we are bound to maintain this cut-throat method of doing things, we in the west will have to lower our costs in order to compete with the Argentine and Russia.
What will that mean? Remember, I am putting this as an alternative policy. If the government refuses to allow us to adopt an international arrangement as a solution they will have to face some such program as this: First, lower freight rates. Why not cut the freight rates down? let me say that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company has done fairly well during the last few years. I have under my hand the figures showing how that company and its subsidiaries have been prospering. We are all more or less familiar with the facts. The Board of Railway Commissioners allows them a profit of 10 per cent, 7 per cent on their actual railway operations and 3 per cent on the other operations. Why not cut that 10 per cent in two? I cannot for the life of me see why a great corporation such as the Canadian Pacific Railway Company should be practically guaranteed ten ner cent, while many a farmer is not only not making one per cent but is actually running in the hole every year. Of course, Mr. Beatty immediately comes forward and resents anything like governmental interference. Let me say that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and similar corporations owe their very existence to governmental interference, and the sooner they realize that the better. Why not cut interest charges in two, or at any rate substantially reduce them?
The annual statements of the banks show, notwithstanding all the reserves they have, that they have been getting along tolerably well, and this monopoly which the government is granting to them enables them to make not only the profits that are shown in their balance sheets but to secure a great many other financial advantages that go to the directors through the system of interlocking directorates which have been established. If there is any constitutional difficulty in introducing legislation which will 'be effective in reducing interest rates I would suggest that the Finance department could itself go into the money market under our own present legislation and thus effect a lower interest rate.
Then again the cost of living should be cut down. I have under my hand a very interesting graph which was published in some of the farm papers, and which with the consent of the house I should like to have placed on Hansard. It shows the trend of prices from November, 1929, to November, 1930. Iron and steel has declined only 4-3 per cent. Hardware, which is something we all use, only 1-6 per cent. Farm products as a whole have come down 34 per cent, while western grains show a decline of 59 per cent. I suggest that this great discrepancy in price between manufactured goods and agricultural products should in some way or other be reduced. Either you have to lower the cost of living to the farmer or raise the price of grain to him. That is the problem with which we are faced to-day. If you do not do this we are faced with the ruin of agriculture in the west.
The graph follows:

The Address-Mr. Woodsworth



PRICE TREND

[Stage Direction]
I wish I had time to go into a question which is of very great interest to me, namely, the ban which has been placed upon Russian imports. It is not so much the order in council even that I object to as the statement which accompanied that order in council:
The government is convinced that there is forced labour in the cutting and transport of timber, and the mining of coal, that political prisoners are exploited, that the standard of living is below any level conceived of in Canada, and that, broadly speaking, all employment is in control of the Communist government which regulates all conditions of work and
seeks to impose its will upon the whole world. This is communism, its creed and its fruits, which we as a country oppose and must refuse to support by interchange of trade.
I regard that as an absolutely gratuitous insult. The charges with regard to the mining of coal have not been proven. It is stated that political prisoners are exploited. What about political prisoners in Italy? It is stated that the standard of living in Soviet Russia is low. I will admit that, but it is . higher lhan that under the Czarist regime and higher than the standard of living in China
[Stage Direction]
The Address-Mr. Woodsworth
or in India. It seems to me we have here a theory of trade, that is, we must not trade with people of whose morals or manners we disapprove. I should like to call the attention of the house to a very interesting article which appears in the current issue of Foreign Affairs, edited by Sir Norman Angell. After a criticism of many of the policies of Russia, Sir Norman Angell says:
The experiment on the material side is working. This does not mean that the standard of life is higher in Russia than in the west-it is probably a good deal lower. It does mean that in many respects it is far better than the old Russian standard, has prospects of great improvement, and-most important of all-that the great mass of Russians have come to believe in it and support it. A hundred million peasants are seeing that land which never in the past adequately fed. warmed, clothed or sheltered them, suddenly rendered, in parts of it at least, enormously more productive; already here and there pouring forth its fruits in a great flood, where originally there was a feeble and intermittent trickle. . . It is precisely this hopefulness, the blazing conviction of salvation revealed by the Russian millions, side by side with the pessimism of the west, which is perhaps the most important feature of the whole situation.
Had I time I should like to have quoted a few paragraphs from the report of the conference of the Institute of Politics held at Williamstown, Massachusetts, in August, 1930, a conference on the internal and external problems of Russia. The chairman was Mr. Ivy Lee, who is well known to all business men in America as an outstanding public relations counsel. The paper from which I wish to quote was one delivered by Colonel Hugh L. Cooper, head of the firm of Hugh L. Cooper & Company, Incorporated, which has been engaged for the last five years in Russia in putting in a great hydro-electric plant which will cost somewhere in the neighbourhood of $110,000,000.
Mr. MacDOUGALL:: What wages were
paid to the men who put the plant in?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I have not the
figures here.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: You would not make the statement if you had.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, I would. Colonel Cooper states:
At the outset, let me impress on you that I do not believe in the dogmas of communism, socialism, fascism, or any other ''ism" opposed to good American common sense-ism, or that omits recognition of the fundamental laws of human psychology.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon.. member, but I am informed that his time is up.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Will you permit
me, Mr. Speaker, to finish the quotation?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Certainly.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The article continues :
On the contrary, I am a firm believer in the form of capitalism we have in the United States, imperfect as it is, and I believe that our American system of government is the best yet conceived by man and offers the greatest world hope for the advancement of the human race. . . . the performances of the workmen have so improved that there is now no doubt in my mind as to the capacity of Russian labour to be eventually trained to an efficient performance in any line of skilled work that future industrial needs may require	 we cannot ignore the 150,000,000 people in Russia, who occupy one-sixth of the world's landed area and hold in their possession a wealth of undeveloped natural resources undoubtedly greater than are to be found in the balance of Europe. . . . During the last seven or eight years more than $600,000,000 of actual business has been carried out between American business men and Russia and never in a single instance has a penny of graft been suggested or given. . . . Another point I wish to bring out is that the communist leaders in Russia are for the most part men of great intellectual ability and that they practise what they preach.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Charles A. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, my first word will
be one of congratulation to the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. As my leader has so well stated, it is no small ordeal for two young men new to the proceedings and atmosphere of parliament to deliver their maiden speeches on an occasion such as this. Both hon. members acquitted themselves with distinction, and my only regret is that two bright young men such as these should be found on the other side of the house. Having only forty minutes in which to say the few things that one feels called upon to say, one must of necessity spend but a very short time upon the preliminaries.
The speech from the throne was no surprise to hon. members on this side of the house. Yesterday my hon. leader (Mr. Mackenzie King) discussed the speech at some length and covered most of the points arising out of the statements it contains. He made very plain the position of the Liberal party with respect to the speech, as well as with respect to the performance of the government

The Address-Mr. Stewart (Edmonton)
which has now been in office for some eight months. The reply made to-day by the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) was not quite so lengthy, but I could not help thinking that when he occupied the office of leader of the opposition he was very much happier and much more effective than he was this afternoon. I have had the pleasure of his acquaintance for a good many jrnars and I have heard him make some very brilliant speeches, but I am bound to say that the defence he offered for the actions of his government was not up to the calibre of the speeches he has delivered in former days.
He said that my leader had accused him of conducting a one-man government and in reply stated that if it were a one-man government he would have a great deal of support behind him. We know that, and undoubtedly it will be impressed upon us further before this session concludes. We have no hope of making any impression upon the gentlemen who support the Prime Minister; they will vote for him upon any and every occasion; our only hope is that when the time comes the people of this country will give him the kind of answer he will deserve unless he changes his legislative program very materially during the next two or three years.
He blames the Liberal government for many of his difficulties. Why should he blame that government? Did not our friends tell the electors from one end of this country to the other that if they were put into office they would immediately cure the situation or would perish in the attempt? Why blame the Liberal government for any of the troubles which they have inherited? The Prime Minister at the time of his appeal to the electorate of this country was the most prolific promiser Canada has ever seen. The record appears in every province in Canada of his having promised something to every individual whom he thought he could change by his persuasive tactics. Promises were made as to what he would dole out to them if they were good enough to support him and put him in office. I cannot see where my right hon. friend has any complaint on that score.
Then he complains that he has inherited unemployment, but he told every elector in Canada that if he were put into office he would cure unemployment,, that the remedies he would apply would bring about immediate results. We have been patient and have waited for some time-I think we can be lenient and say we are willing to wait a little longerbut if he continues to impose increased duties then the cure of unemployment will be long in the future.
He complained that the Liberal government collected S100,000,000 by way of taxation more than they should have. The right hon. gentleman and his supporters cannot and never have been able to understand how taxation can be reduced and yet more revenue be obtained, but that is exactly what the Liberal government did between 1924 and 1930. How could we be taking more money out of the pockets of the individual taxpayer if we were reducing the levy upon him every year? It was due to the policies inaugurated by the Liberal government that the people from one end of the country to the other were enabled to pay their taxes and greater returns were obtained from business because of the buoyant conditions. I do not think I need to spend very much time in discussing this phase of the subject.
Then the right hon. gentleman spoke about the embargo on Russian coal and sought to imply that we had taken similar action when we ordered the trade envoys out of Canada because they were circulating literature which we thought was not in the best interests of the Canadian people. Did we at any time place an embargo upon trade with Russia? Never. I do not intend to voice any complaint with regard to this embargo, because the responsibility rests upon the shoulders of the right hon. gentleman and his followers. If in their wisdom they think it is a good thing to shut out trade from Russia, China or India, that is their business. They are adepts at that sort of thing; my hon. friend the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ryckman) is doing it almost every day, not only against Russia but against many other countries. That action is taken whenever it is thought that such trade infringes upon the manufacturing industries of this country.
My right hon. friend said that the importation of Russian coal was shutting out the importation of British anthracite coal. Surely he is acquainted with the returns with respect to the importation into Canada of British coal. He knows that but a few years ago only about 10,000 tons of British coal came into Canada, and he knows that the government which preceded his used its best endeavours to encourage the importation of British coal. With what result? We began with 10,000 tons and last year almost 900,000 tons were imported. I hope my right hon. friend is correct when he says that this year nearly 1,000,000 tons of British coal will come
30	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Stewart (Edmonton)
into Canada. I hope we will continue to import all the British anthracite coal that they can supply for our needs. By no manner of means did the 150,000 tons or 200,000 tons of Russian coal interfere with the imports of British anthracite. All it did was to displace a certain tonnage of the American product. My right hon. friend cannot claim that one ton of Russian coal displaced a similar amount of the imports from Britain.
Then he adroitly attempted to get under the mantle of Sir Wilfrid Laurier. In 1902 Sir Wilfrid Laurier introduced the British preference.


An hon. MEMBER:: No, 1897.


Charles A. Stewart: In 1897.
When the British preference was first introduced it was not upon the basis of bargaining, it was a free will offer in the hope that it would benefit Canada. Anyone who contended that he had not the interest of Canada at heart when he was making the agreements with Great Britain and the other overseas dominions would be stating something that is not true. We are all for Canada first.


An hon. MEMBER:: No, no.


Charles A. Stewart: The adoption of that slogan by my hon. friends during the last election was an endeavour on their part to appropriate to themselves a slogan which never belonged to them in the slightest degree. They succeeded in making the people of Canada believe that. For the first time during the forty years I have been engaged in public life and taking part in election campaigns, they were willing to admit that they had a slight love for Canada in preference even to the mother country. They were always tho party of loyalty, they were always the party that stood up in defence of the empire. But on this occasion, "Canada first" was the slogan; all others came second. What would have been said of my leader and his followers, what would have been the tirade hurled against them by hon. gentlemen opposite had they taken that position? But the fact remains that any trade arrangement we make, I oare not with whom, must always have as its first proviso the ample protection of our interests. Never was anything else thought of by the government of Sir Robert Borden, by the government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, by all the governments which have preceded the one that is in office to-day, than that Canadas interests should be fully protected.
My right hon. friend cannot claim that he is going to don the mantle of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and in a moment or two I shall explain why. He stated that all the overseas

ministers were behind him in his demand that this should be an agreement, a bargaining by all the overseas dominions through their representatives at the Imperial conference. I have looked through the records, not very carefully, but in no particular instance do I find the overseas dominions or their representatives other than Canada having taken the precaution to increase tariffs before starting for the conference, nor do they by word or utterance upon any occasion intimate that that was in their minds. That was reserved for this government, which took the precaution, as my right hon. friend stated to the house this afternoon, to increase the tariff in order that they might have something to bargain with. Then the Prime Minister said further: We did exactly what Mr. Robb, when he was negotiating the Australian treaty would have done had he not been prevented by members of his own party. Will any hon. gentleman claim that the Hon. Mr. Robb ever by word or deed indicated an intention to raise the tariff against Great Britain or any of the overseas dominions? Never on any occasion did he do so That was not Mr. Robb's proposal, and my right hon. friend needs to be put right on that point. Mr. Robb's proposal was to increase the general tariff in order to give the Australians a preference in our market, but by no process of reasoning can my right hon. friend claim that he assumed the mantle of Sir Wilfrid Laurier or the Hon. Mr. Robb, both departed, when he took upon himself the responsibility of increasing the tariffs against Great Britain. Is it not strange to see the means taken by the present government for the purpose of increasing Canadian trade at a time when, heaven knows, it needs to be taken care of if ever it did? What did we do at the short session? We were hurrying through in order that these envoys might go from Canada to the conference to do something in the interests of Canada. We expected them at that session to do something in the interests of this country, but what did they do? The first thing they did was to take printed and dyed cotton fabric, which we were importing from Great Britain to the extent of $4,000,000 worth and on which we had a British preference of 20 per cent, and to increase that to 22-J per cent and add a specific duty of three cents a pound. On woollen yarns, of which we imported from Great Britain 81,000,000 worth, they decreased the duty from 124 per cent to 10 per cent but added a specific duty of ten cents a pound. On worsteds and serges, on which we had a duty of 274 Per cent, under the reductions that we had put into effect only the previous May,

The Address-Mr. Stewart (Edmonton)
they increased the duty to 30 per cent plus a specific duty of twenty-five cents a pound. On stockings, of which we imported nearly
83,000,000 worth from Great Britain-


Mr. GOTT:: White stockings.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, they
were white stockings. Stockings were free from Great Britain. The white ones came in free. That is why the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Young) was complaining. They increased the tariff on stockings which were formerly free, to 30 per cent, and imposed an added duty of one dollar a dozen pairs. No wonder my hon. friend was taking white stockings round to the ladies in his constituency. I do not wonder my hon. friend is complaining against such an outrageous advance in the duty on that commodity. On electrical apparatus-I am taking only instances where there are imports from Great Britain-they increased the duty from 15 to 25 per cent, and on boots and shoes from 17i per cent to 25 per cent.
My right hon. friend went to Great Britain to an imperial conference, and what did he say? Let me give you his own words; he quoted them this afternoon, but just for fear some of my hon. friends should forget, I shall read from page 32 of the second part of the report of the Imperial conference. This is what the Prime Minister said:
I offer to the mother country, and to all the other parts of empire, a preference in the Canadian market in exchange for a like preference in theirs, based upon the addition of a ten per centum increase in prevailing general tariffs, or upon tariffs yet to be created. In the universal acceptance of this offer, and in like proposals and acceptances by all the other parts of empire, we attain to the ideal of empire preference.
I amplify and explain this offer in the following ways:
In the first place, the rate I have mentioned, cannot be uniformly applied. The basis of the proposal is the adequate protection to industries now existent, or yet to be established.
That was the offer. This was the increase in tariffs before he went to the Imperial conference. Over this increase British imports must come to Canada and on top of this increase they were to be protected by a 10 per cent further increase in order to allow them to enter Canada. Do hon. members think they were going to get in over a tariff like that? Yet our government was terribly wrong in the supposition that if we wanted to increase British trade in order that they might buy more goods from us, we should increase the British preference, or our hon. friends opposite no more can boast about their loyalty to British connections, because I fail to under-22110-6
stand how any British manufacturer can get over a tariff of that kind. It is an utter impossibility and an absolute absurdity. One cannot conceive of anything more absurd than for a body of intelligent men to go to a group of intelligent men in Great Britain, make such suggestion to them and say: Here we are offering you something for which we ask something in exchange. If my right hon. friend had said:	We propose to make the
duty such that we may trade with you; if we oan exchange our commodities on a free basis, then I am ready to do that-that would have been reasonable. But he does not say that; he never says that. What he aims to do and what his colleagues aim to do is to shut out of Canada every import of any sort that can interfere with the Canadian manufactured product.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Charles A. Stewart: That is
what he aims to do, and they are doing it every day. They allow nothing to get into Canada to compete with what is being manufactured here. That is the object they have in view. They are going to make a small isolated, North American colony of Canada. That will be the result of a policy of this kind.
I will confess, Mr. Speaker, that I am rather gLad. that for once the Tory party are having -the courage of tiheir convictions, and are putting their policies into effect. We are pretty poor in western Canada just now. Almost seventy-five per cent of the farmers of that country are in a rather serious financial position. They do not know whether or not they should go on. Why? Because there is not a vestige, of hope for them in the immediate future. I have lived in that country for twenty-five yeans and have seen some pretty hand times, but never in all my experience have I seen conditions in the west as bad as they are to-day. My hon. friends opposite stated during the election that they had a panacea for the difficulties of western Canada. They put a duty of eight cents a pound on butter, and increased the duty on eggs; but when have eggs and butter been as cheap as they are to-day?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Charles A. Stewart: 82	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Stewart (Edmonton)
right for raising so much wheat and refusing to take advantage of the opportunity at your doors to sell poultry and eggs, and bacon, if you please. That is the sort of thing, Mr. Speaker, this government offers to relieve the difficulties of the western farmer. The farmer is selling eggs at 10 cents a dozen. In 1893 I sold pork, deadweight, in the town of Barrie at 4 cents a pound, and I will have to sell it at that price again if this government remains long in office. I am glad, however, that the demonstration of the effects of their policy will make plain the fallacy of the argument of hon. gentlemen opposite that protection is going to be beneficial to the people of Canada.
Hon. gentlemen opposite have increased the tariff to help the manufacturing industry. They are going to provide employment for 250,000 men in Canada right away. They were going to cure, unemployment by means of the tariff. I shall not say anything about the $20,000,000 for unemployment relief, except that it has my full support. I 9ay, however, that there was no necessity for the government calling a special session for the purpose of voting that money, despite what the leader of the government has said this afternoon. If he had asked for a governor general's warrant for that amount I am sure he would have received the support of both sides of the house. But that was not his object. He was going to cure unemployment by increasing the tariff. What has happened? We have had now eight months of this policy. Highly paid writers are contributing articles to the Montreal Star, claiming improvement in the manufacturing industry, and if you do not happen to read the paper they are good enough to send you a pamphlet containing these articles. My right hon. friend the leader of the government this afternoon told us with bated breath that there were prospects of industries establishing themselves in this country. I doubt, Mr. Speaker, if there will be any more textile industries established here, because I have it on the best authority that the warehouses of the textile industry in Canada are pretty well filled to-day and they have no market in which to sell their goods. I would like someone to tell me what the wages in the textile industry are.
It is said that we have seasonal unemployment in the winter. Of course we have, but we have it to-day on a much larger scale than ever before, despite the fact that hon. gentlemen opposite have spent $20,000,000, or a proportion of that sum, to help relieve unemployment. Unemployment, hon. gentlemen opposite said during the last election, was so serious that it had become a national

question, and the late government, they said, was recreant in its duty because they did not recognize it as a national question. Unemployment had reached such proportions, they said, that it had become a national question, and it was the duty of the federal government to go into the field, give leadership and cure this national calamity that had come upon us. What did we say, Mr. Speaker, about unemployment? We said that if any province or municipality was in difficulties, we were prepared to secure at once a governor general's warrant. Hon. gentlemen opposite had said that there were people starving in the country. The leader of the government himself told us that he had discovered a lady with a child in this condition; his heart bled for the penury in which he found them, and he was going to cure that situation at once. I want the house to remember that: He was going to cure that unemployment situation at once, because his heart bled for the poverty and distress that he saw throughout the land. It was a national question that demanded immediate attention. The Liberal party offered, if such were the actual situation, to get a governor general's warrant, and we could have got such a warrant had we been returned to power, and in that way have given immediate relief. But we did not have the opportunity of doing so; the public thought otherwise. Our policy had been to have a three-way contribution, one-third from the federal government, one-third from the municipality, and one-third from the province. But this government was going to see that there would be no delay. Unemployment had become a national problem and relief was to be furnished at once. So we had the special session and voted the money. This government came into office on the 7th of August last, and before they were ready to distribute relief, it was well on into November. In the meantime what about that woman and child who were in want? What about those starving people that my right hon. friend saw all through this country? What happened to them during the interval? According to a statement made by the Minister of Labour (Senator Robertson), when this government had allocated $11,000,000 for unemployment relief, the provinces and the municipalities spent over $63,000,000; that is, the federal government contributed in the proportion of one to six. That was the extent to which unemployment was taken care of by this government. That is the basis upon which they have been administering unemployment relief. It is the old story of Tory administra-

The Address-Mr. Stewart (Edmonton)
tion, always doing something to stick the provinces and the municipalities. I say here and now, Mr. Speaker, that the municipalities in Canada are in a very serious financial state indeed. They cannot stand very much more of this kind of thing. I fail to understand why, if this was a national problem, my hon. friends opposite backed away from it so carefully, and why they spent only one-sixth, instead of one-third, in helping out the provinces and municipalities in what they said was a national calamity.
I come back to the tariff and to the question of how it affects employment. I am not going to say how it has affected employment on the farm, because there is no such thing as employment on the farm to-day. But how has it affected employment in manufacturing? I am going to give figures covering the winter season during the last five or six years, so that we may judge what effect the expenditure of this $20,000,000, which has led, we are told, to a total expenditure of $90,000,000 has had upon unemployment in this country; and secondly, what has been the effect of an increase in the tariff, which hon. gentlemen opposite said was going to cure the unemployment situation immediately. In 1921 the seasonal drop in employment in the manufacturing industries was 1T4; in 1922, 9-1; in 1923, 14 flat; in 1924, 9-8, in 1925, 6-8; in 1926, 10-1; in 1927, 8-6; in 1928, 8-9; in 1929, 13-3; in 1930, 14-5. I imagine my right hon. friend will say, "Well, in 1922-23 it was quite as bad." For his information I may say that despite what all my hon. friends opposite said about unemployment last July, conditions were infinitely worse in 1922 and 1923 than they ever were in July 1930-infinitely worse. I happen to have lived through both periods and know whereof I speak. The worst that could be said by the most ardent Conservative speakers during the campaign in 1930 was that there were 150,000 workmen out of employment at that time. But what is the figure now? Over 300,000.
My right hon. friend said that this condition was the responsibility of the late government, that we brought it about. We said, "No, it was the result of world conditions." And how anxious hon. members opposite are to talk about world conditions to-day! Of course it was world conditions. Nobody who has given any consideration to the question will deny that for a moment; but that was not what hon. gentlemen opposite said last year. I am not going to hold the government altogether responsible for the difficulties confronting Canada to-day. But my right hon. friend and his supporters said they would 22110-6*
cure those difficulties. Only this afternoon he said that had we known our business as administrators of the nation's affairs we should have foreseen what has come about. I challenge him or any of his supporters to state one single thing the late government might have done that was not done to avert the calamity that has overtaken Canada in common with all other countries of the world. Surely other countries must be taken into comparison in this connection. All the countries that were engaged in the great war have sought to cure their difficulties by raising their tariff barriers-no one will deny that- and the United States perhaps has gone furthest in this direction. But did the United States, did Australia, did New Zealand, did France, did Germany-did any of these countries escape the depression that swept over the world a year ago? No, not one of them escaped. And yet my hon. friends opposite have the hardihood to assert that the policies of the late government brought about the difficulties now confronting Canada.
Last year my right hon. friend said to the people of western Canada, "Put me in office and I will get you out of this difficult situation in which you find yourselves in regard to the sale of your wheat." What did he mean by that promise? Was he going to fix a price for wheat? Would anybody be so foolish as to think that the price of a commodity that must be sold in the markets of the world could be controlled by the government? It will be many a day before the Canadian people will be able to consume all the wheat they can produce, and until then they must find markets abroad for their surplus production.
But what has the right hon. gentleman done? He savs he has done something, he has come to the rescue of the banks and, incidentally, of the farmers who are behind the banks upon this occasion, by guaranteeing their accounts. Well, he was not willing to do that last fall when the premiers of the three prairie provinces came here to interview him with respect to their difficulties. I am bound to say that I give him considerable credit for what he has done for this year's crop. I think he has helped the situation materially by the steps he has taken. But so far as the price of wheat is concerned, the farmer to-day is not receiving as much for his product to meet his overhead costs as the railway companies are receiving for hauling it. That is the situation in western Canada. And may I say that if the business interests in this country had suffered the depreciation that the farmers of Canada have suffered-because it is not entirely western in its aspect, it affects all our farmers-very few business establishments would have escapad bankruptcy
The Address-Mr. Bourassa

Now, the tariff increases which were made at the special session last fall must have helped to some extent, because I notice that the sale price of steel and steel products has dropped only 3| per cent, manufactured products only 4} per cent, and textiles only 13 per cent; but the sale price of Canadian farm products has dropped 34 per cent, and field grains 45 per cent-almost one-half of their value. In the face of that 45 per cent reduction in the selling price of grains the farmers are forced to buy everything they use in their homes and on their farms at the prices resulting from the imposition of higher tariffs, the only purpose of which was to keep commodity prices from reaching their proper levels. While that tariff legislation was before the house during the special session my hon. friends opposite were very careful to say that they had received undertakings from all the manufacturing companies that they would not increase prices if they were granted the increased protection they sought. At the time we pointed out that commodity prices were due for a drop. Was our prophecy wrong in that respect? Certainly not. We pointed out further that the tariff increases then proposed would prevent the natural drop in these commodities and force the consuming public of Canada to pay that much more. I submit that the imposition of higher tariffs will not cure unemployment. The labour statistics of any country where increased protection has been resorted to disclose the fact that instead of ameliorating it has only aggravated the unemployment condition.


Mr. HENRI BOURASSA (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, being precluded by the rules of the house as well as by my old age from speaking at any great length, I shall confine my remarks this evening to a consideration of the amendment moved by the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) and of some parts of his speech, reserving for myself the right that belongs to all members to speak on the main motion, if necessary, after the amendment has been disposed of.
I must confess, sir, that I am not quite prepared to say whether I will vote for or against this motion. It is rather embarrassing because, although I agree with a good deal of it, I disagree with part of it. Perhaps while talking through it I shall find my way out of this difficulty.
With the first paragraph of the amendment I agree largely. Every man and every woman in this country is perfectly convinced, I think, that,-using the language of the motion-
(Mr. C. A. Stewart.]
-the policies of His Majesty's government have not only failed to offer a remedy for employment and agricultural distress, but have served further to prejudice the deplorable condition of the agricultural interests.
Of that I am firmly convinced, and I made it quite clear during the campaign which preceded my re-election last summer. I am not going to dwell upon that point, reserving to the debate on the budget what may be said in this regard. Then the motion goes on:
.... thereby causing additional unemployment and substantially reducing the national revenue.
If I had the responsibility of stating a policy, or rather a declaration of policy, in contradistinction to that propounded by the government, I would not go that far. I do not think the policy of the government is altogether the cause of the additional unemployment which may be prevalent now, or of reducing the revenue. On this point I take the position which I took during the special session and also during the general election. I think it would be just as unfair and untrue to load the full responsibility for the present situation upon this government as i.t was unfair on the part of the Conservative party to load upon the Liberal government the responsibility for the situation in which Canada found itself a year ago.
With the last paragraph I also agree. I am decidedly "of the opinion that if the proposals" of the government "and certain other of the policies of the government, are persisted in, as would appear to be the intention of the government as outlined in the speech from the throne, the very serious condition which exists at the present time will be intensified rather than relieved". That I think, is absolutely true; although I might differ with my right hon. friend to my right as to what those "certain" things are.
The gist of my remarks I intend to devote to the middle paragraph, and as far as that is concerned I am altogether in disagreement with my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition, for the same reasons, which I gave when I spoke on the last Dunning budget, the same reasons which I gave last session and which I have given during the last thirty years, in opposition to that so-called preferential policy adopted in 1900 by the Liberal government and maintained ever since by all administrations.
The right hon. gentleman, in his most eloquent speech,-one of the ablest he ever delivered in this house, although I might say one which would not have been spoiled by some curtailment,-dwelt at length upon the preferential policy of the Liberal government,

The Address-Mr. Bourassa
which he dated back to 1897. I have stated I think twice at least in this house, since I came back to it, that I will never let such a statement go unchallenged, because it is unwarranted. On previous occasions, I have explained the circumstances, and I will repeat them now, because I think I am the last witness in this house who knows the facts out of which were born that essential humbug, the policy which has been called the preferential tariff. For many years previous to the general election of 1896 the Liberal party, through its leaders and most of its candidates and by its public organs, had pledged itself to eradicate the last vestige of protection from the Canadian tariff. That was their public pledge to the people of Canada; but on the eve of that general election of 1896 there was a dawn of hope. The then economic crisis, the school mess of Manitoba and various other things gave the Liberal party the hope that it could win; but as one of their newly acquired friends, Mr. Tarte, stated, "elections are not won by prayers". Therefore they wanted some money to support the current of opinion which was showing itself in their favour. They received subscriptions from the manufacturers' association, from the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, from the Bank of Montreal and from other large concerns, although those subscriptions were modest as compared to those which these highly moral institutions now give to both parties at every election, and very modest as compared to what was then given to the Conservative party which was still in power. However, with the help of public sentiment, they were sufficient to carry the election.
When the time came to frame the first budget of the Liberal government, in order to balance things between the public pledges given to the people and the private pledges given to the manufacturers of Canada, they maintained protection as the basis of the Liberal policy and introduced the so-called preferential tariff as a sop to the people who had been crying for free trade, and who, like my hon. friend from West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart), had been sounding the death-knell of protection for twenty years back. But, at least, so far so good; this policy, immoral as it might have been in its conception, was not bad, on the whole; and I may say that, ignorant greenhorn as I was then, I voted for it in absolute good faith. But what did I vote for, and what did the whole of the Liberal party vote for in 1897? They voted for a reduction in the tariff to every country, British or foreign, that would meet Canada on a fair basis of reciprocity. The Liberal
party had not then decided to outdo the Tory party in their lip professions of loyalty, or their professions of lip loyalty to the British empire. This was adopted as a Canadian policy, for the benefit of the people of Canada.
It was in the midst of our first fits of Imperial delirium tremens, in 1900, that Mr. Fielding very cleverly had a friend from Nova Scotia, a highly cultured gentleman who at least had the sincerity of his convictions as an imperialist-one of the rare Liberal imperialists of those days-move an amendment to the motion to go into committee of the whole. Mr. Fielding had Mr. Russell, one of the members for Halifax, get up in the house and move a resolution in amendment to the motion of the Minister of Finance to go into committee of the whole expressing the hope that the principle of British preference would be adopted. I am not quoting the exact words of the amendment; I am speaking from memory, but I know this was the gist of the motion. At that time the motherland was engaged in the struggle in South Africa, and the motion referred to the debt of gratitude owed by this country to the motherland then engaged in gathering the forces of the mightiest empire the world had ever seen in order to crush two puny nations the total population of which was not equal to that of the city of Hamilton. The sentiment was expressed that in order to show our loyalty to that generous empire, then busy in accomplishing one of the worst crimes committed during the last century-and I take those words from the lips of some of the most respectable English statesmen of the period, and belonging to all parties in England-we should create a third tariff, lower than the rest, and apply it to British goods alone. That was the inception of the British preference, advocated then by the Liberal government and opposed by the Conservative party, to which I joined my humble and single vote.
Then came the conference of 1902, which Mr. Fielding attended. Well, from 1900 to 1902 the Liberal government and all Canadians had absorbed a sufficient dose of matters conducive to sobriety of thought to enable them to reason out those things; and it was there and then that Mr. Fielding prepared that memorandum from which the right hon. Prime Minister quoted this afternoon, a memorandum which concluded with a sentence, a replica of which is almost contained in that famous explosion of the right hon. gentleman, of the 2nd of December, to which I shall refer later on. So that when both
The Address-Mr. Bourassa

parties are defying each other, in the manner of those heroes of Homer or of Virgil, with a deep gulf between the two, as to which is the most loyal to the empire, as to which is doing the most to sustain the ideals of empire, I am bound to repeat, in the sensible words of a sensible Englishman,-"humbug," both ways. Is not this quite impartial, Mr. Speaker?
Those closing words of Mr. Fielding meant something or meant nothing. If they meant something, they meant that the Canadian government was going to recommend to the Canadian parliament, at the next session, a revision of their policy. It was never done; it remained on paper, a declaration of policy which never materialized, and one which, had it been spoken, a phrase very aptly used by my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition would exactly fit-"sound without sense", and without results.
My right hon. friend devoted much of his eloquent address to the demonstration that the practical result of that gesture of imperial loyalty on the part of the Liberal party, of that demonstration of good will, was the removal of the embargo on our Canadian cattle. Here I am on familiar ground. I had as my deskmate in that parliament of 1896 Mr. Robert Bickerdike, who represented the constituency of St. Lawrence, a predecessor long since of my hon. friend the Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan). Mr. Bickerdike's trade, like that of my hon. friend from Marquette (Mr. Mullins), was largely concerned with that embargo; and every session, from 1896 to 1907, when I left, and later on, until his death, he had always two motions on the order paper and always prepared a good speech in support of each-the abolition of the death penalty and the removal of the embargo. And he succeeded as well with one as with the other.
That embargo had been imposed by England, in 1892, under false pretences. The British ministers did not want to admit that they were imposing a measure of protection in favour of the cattle raisers of Scotland, of England and especially of Ireland, so they stamped Canadian cattle with a lie: they said they were diseased. The Canadian government, Conservative and Liberal alike, demonstrated by the most expert testimony that could be obtained, that it was untrue. But the British government maintained the embargo. The year 1897 came, with the first preference; the embargo was retained. The years 1899 and 1900 came with a display of oratory, with spending of money, the sending

of Canadian boys to conquer South Africa for the benefit of the hoarders of gold in Rhodesia. The embargo was maintained. Then came 1911 and 1913 with the two proposals of both parties to help in fighting the battles of the empire on sea-the Liberal proposal, with that so-called Canadian navy in time of peace and imperial in time of war, as described by Mr. Fielding himself, and then the statesmanlike proposal of Sir Robert Borden to take from the public exchequer of this wealthy nation the sum of $35,000,000 to go to the rescue of poor, downtrodden England, crushed under the burden of her gold and the predominance of her trade the world over. This mighty Canadian nation had to make a gift of $35,000,000 to poor, little England. I shall never forget the remark of my dear old friend Lord Fisher, who once asked me, "Which is the most foolish of the two parties in Canada?" Still the embargo was kept on. Then the war of 1914 came. We declared war against Germany before England did. We began sending our human flesh to the slaughter market of Europe, and the British government was mighty glad to accept it. But the embargo on Canadian cattle was still maintained, because the interests of the cattle raisers of the British Isles predominated in the British government, whatever might be the party in power, over the sentimental stock phrases used by Canadians. Finally, it was raised, I think, in 1924.
Now, if my good friends to the right had been returned to power last year, what would be the situation? And I did my level best to keep them in power, just as I did something to prevent them from falling from power a couple of years previously; they were then very attentive to my remarks, for the majority was small. In 1930 the majority was larger and their budget was adopted. Suppose they had been supported by the people of Canada and had gone to England. Perhaps some hon. gentlemen remember my suggestion. My idea was-and it still is- that the present leader of the opposition should have gone to London with the late Minister of Justice, to sit at the Imperial conference, so-called, the political one. But I said that I would rather trust the staunch imperialist on the other side of the house to stand as against English selfishness for the preservation of Canadian interests, because he is connected with selfish Canadian interests, and there is nothing like two egotisms in fighting each other. Of course, that could not be. But suppose the late government had been maintained in power. Suppose my right hon. friend had gone with

The Address-Mr. Bourassa
Mr. Dunning, with that fine speech, with a new reduction in the tariff as affecting the importation of British goods, a greater preference, and with those fine declarations about no petty spirit of bargaining. Well, perhaps after thirty-two years some relief might have come to the farmers of the west to the extent of a few pence more for their wheat on the British market-provided that, in the interval, means had been found of raising the price of wheat grown in other parts of the world.
Because Mr. Speaker-and this is one of the reasons for which, in spite of many misdeeds which I have denounced in the policy of the British government, I remain, and am still more every day, a deep admirer of the nation-the British people, while thinking of the conditions prevailing throughout the world, and while being prepared to bargain fairly with all nations including their associates within the empire, think of themselves first, second and last and put themselves on a, fair basis to bargain. What means all this talk about bargaining, that there should be no such thing as bargaining? Sheer nonsense! Who is that great English or French jurist who said that after all every question of right-right generally, mind you -the greatest thing on earth in the government of nations and the maintenance of order as among men and peoples-every question of right could be brought within the four comers of the law of contract, properly understood and interpreted. Likewise every diplomatic question, every matter at issue between governments and nations must of necessity be a matter of bargaining. The only question is, will you bargain fairly, honestly and with statesmanship, or will you bargain as a miser? Napoleon once called the English nation a nation of shopkeepers; but, as Lord Rosebery, his great admirer, said in later years, the English made a great mistake in being so angry at that qualification of Napoleon's. What has made their greatness? Not their soldiers, not their sailors, not even their statesmen, but their shopkeepers, their merchants and their industrialists, because, while having constant regard to their corporate or individual interests, they never lost sight of their duty to their people and to their nation. Canada, Australia and -other parts of the British empire will be in a position to deal with Britain on a footing of equality-not of legal equality, that is nothing-but on a footing of moral, social -and economic equality, to strike a fair, honest -and proper bargain with the British nation, when they have learned, first, to stand on their own ground, to realize their real interests, and then confront their
position with that of the British government. So long as we go on-I was going to say, waving the British flag, but that is not the proper expression-so long as one party goes on making a bed cover of the British flag in order to prevent the people from looking under the cover, and the other party makes use of it as a pocket handkerchief to wipe its nose every time it has a cold in its head, so long as we make such silly use of the British flag instead of -adopting for our own use what is best in British traditions, we will not be in a position to make -a fair bargain with the British government or, at that, with any other nation or government.
I consider, and I make this statement quite deliberately, that the position taken by the Prime Minister at the opening of the conference was the proper one to take. But what happened? The Prime Minister lost sight of a few things, as my right hon. friend has lost sight of a few other things. The Prime Minister is quite right when he says that he practically imitated the example set by Sir Wilfrid Laurier in 1902; but so f-ar he has not gone the length of following the example set by Sir John Macdonald when accused by his Liberal opponents, in one of their first fits of feigned loyalty, of endangering British connection by the adoption of -his national policy. He said: "All I have to reply is, so much the worse for the British connection. I am not adopting that policy to oppose British interests, I am adopting it to serve Canadian interests. I hope the British people will find a way to accommodate themselves to it, but anyway it is my policy." The right hon. leader of the opposition read quite properly -an extract from a letter from another robust Canadian, Sir Alexander Galt, on the right of Canada to exercise her fiscal autonomy. He might have read also the letters exchanged between the government of Sandfield Macdonald and the same Duke of Newcastle, to the effect that Canada intended to keep her own sons upon her own territory and not to lend them to any government in London in order to advance British interests. Both parties could obtain valuable lessons from those old records. The incidentals of the national policy of 1878 might have been wrong and the assumption that protection was a cure for all evils might be erroneous. I did not believe so, years ago, when I was elected. Strange to say I was elected as a protectionist Liberal. I could not see my way clear to professing free trade in my county and voting protection in the house. After I had secured a mandate from the people I could not bring myself to present one phase of the situation to the people and another phase to the house.

The Address-Mr. Bourassa


An hon. MEMBER:: You could not be a
good Liberal.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Nor do I think I would be a very good Tory. In fact, I do not think it is possible to be a good Tory.
Where the Prime Minister was wrong, in London, was in imagining that he could play the part of Neptune and silence the agitated waters of the sea, that he could, all by himself, make of the British Empire the greatest human community that has ever existed. That was but part of it. He could not expect that to be accepted by the English people. Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, nearly as powerful a man as the right hon. gentleman, tried it and perished in the attempt. Previously another Englishman, who truly might not compare with our lion-hearted Richard, Sir Charles Dilke, made the attempt and perished. Therefore, he ought to have been prepared with a fuller degree of humour and wit, and such humility as he could find in himself, to receive the answer of Mr. Thomas. His mistake was in answering Mr. Thomas in the way he did. The trouble with most of our men when they go to London is to think that Englishmen, accustomed as they are to deal with the whole world, will take them as seriously as they take themselves. That has been the trouble with all our representatives in London. I think that what Mr. Thomas did was quite right and proper, and the mistake made by my right hon. friend was in being too serious about it. The right hon. Prime Minister thought that it would be the end of the British Empire if everybody did not listen to him, and likewise the leader of the opposition is wrong when he thinks that because his opponent has been a little noisy in his assertions in England and because he replied in the way he did, that means the end of the British Empire. No such thing will happen. This government will pass and perhaps the hon. gentlemen on this side of the house will come to power again. Canada will follow the trend of the world, will grow and at times will pass through many crises. There is no doubt that some day the British Empire will end because it is a human institution. It will end as did the Roman Empire and all other human fabrics, but it will not end because of either of these two excellent bachelors in this house.
By a strange coincidence, the explosion of December 2nd was published on the anniversary of the famous coup d'etat, which in 1851 changed the fate of the French republic. This one did not have exactly the same effect. People did not rise in rebellion. It is true 
that, as the right hon. gentleman said, there was approval of his proposal in most of the British papers. But the approval meant really that he had impressed most of the British papers with the difficulties of the situation, because the policy propounded was so impossible for England that no responsible leader could approve it, and that explains the rejoicing of the British papers. When he came with his explosion of the second of December everybody got away in order to escape the smell of the fuming gases and the heat of the powerless steam hissing out from the broken machine. But fortunately for him and fortunately for us, the right hon. gentleman survived. He certainly has something to accomplish, and he will accomplish much if he does not attempt to rule the world. He came back in good health; and now I hope he will start with a sound and modest Canadian policy, along the lines that he has generally adopted. But let him beware of imperial ventures and not attempt to preach a new gospel to an old. nation that has known pretty well how to rule itself for the last seven or eight centuries.


Mr. F. H. PICKEL (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I should extend my congratulations to the mover (Mr. Cormier) and the seconder (Mr. Porteous) of the address, and also I wish to extend my felicitations to the last speaker on his historical oration. The hon. member for West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart) mentioned that the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) had stated that the late government should have foreseen the catastrophe which was facing the Canadian people and: taken means to prevent it. There is a good deal of truth in that.
iSince 1925, by the operation of the Australian, trade treaty, which included New Zealand, the largest and best group of citizens that we have in Canada has been practically put out of business. I refer to the dairy, poultry and market garden farmers of Canada. For forty-five years at least, I have been engaged quite extensively in farming operations. I am also practising medicine, and I assure the house that during the last six years it has taken all I could earn in a protected profession to keep my farm going. I can take you into my county and show you farm after farm that has been deserted since 1925 owing to the operations of the Australian treaty. I could take you upon one road of eleven miles through a good farming section and show you forty-seven houses boarded up. I could take you on another road of six miles and show you twelve houses boarded up, and that is the case throughout the county. As it is in Brome-

The Address-Mr. Picket
Missisquoi, so it is through the whole of the eastern townships. I think it is safe to say that in the eastern townships there are 3,000 farms abandoned because they cannot make them pay. Why? Simply because of legislation passed in 1925 allowing Australia and New Zealand to ship their products into this country under a duty of one cent a pound.
The western farmers complain that they are pretty hard hit. I agree with them, and I extend my hearty sympathy to them. I would certainly do anything in my power to assist them, but in the west they do not know what hard times are. Eastern Canadian dairy farmers since 1925 have been losing all they had accumulated in a lifetime. They are down and out. The people in the west have been suffering for a year.


James J. Donnelly: Has the hon. member
ever been there?


Follin Horace Pickel: I have. Previously the
westerners got good prices; they were doing well; but we in the eastern townships have been suffering for seven years, and we are pretty hard hit. The wheat situation is very serious. The people in the east are sympathetic and they are quite willing to do anything that can be done to remedy conditions in the west. I cannot say what should be done, but I am ready to support any measures for the purpose of alleviating the conditions of the western farmer.
When we speak of agriculture in this house, the eastern dairy farmer never enters the mind of hon. members. It is the grain growers of the west who are meant, and this has been so for a long time. About the only information the majority of the members have of the condition of the eastern farmer is what is obtained from the milkman who, from the excessive price he is charging for his milk, spreads the propaganda that the farmer is robbing him. He does not at the same time tell the consumer that while the farmer is getting one dollar, the milkman is getting three dollars. I ask hon. members to consider seriously the position of the eastern dairy farmer. During the last six years, since 1925, the experimental and demonstration farms of this country have shown us that it costs forty cents to produce a pound of butter with bran at S30 a ton and middlings at $38 a ton; but with bran at S40 a ton and middlings at $50 a ton, which we had to pay for four or five of those years, the cost of production was over fifty cents a pound, and the farmers in the dairy section, by remaining in the business, lost ten cents on every pound of butter they produced. Our farmers would have been better off if they had closed up their farms in 1925 and waited-


An hon. MEMBER:: For a change in government?


Follin Horace Pickel: -for a change in government.
A great deal has been said about the tariff and about the hardship that the tariff works. During the special session or last September the hon. member for North Bruce (Mr. Malcolm), speaking of the increased duties that were then proposed, cited the fact that the rubber business was doing well. In order not to prolong the debate I did not at that time ask him to tell the house why it was doing well. In 1878 we did not manufacture rubbers in this country, and from 1878 to 1885 or 1886 I could save my return fare by going twenty miles to a little town across the line to buy two pair of rubbers. To-day, Mr. Speaker, we can buy rubbers that are even a little bit better made in Canada by Canadian workmen at as cheap a price as they sell for across the line. That is what protection has done for the rubber industry, and it is what protection will do for any industry. Industries must have protection, not only manufacturing industries but the great industry of agriculture also. Agriculture must be protected. The people of the west raise a great deal more farm produce than we can consume in this country. If the production of the farmers of the west was limited to the consumption of this country, would they not be crying for a tariff against Russia?
I wish to deal for a few moments with the dairy industry in Canada. Representing a dairying constituency, I am intensely interested in the dairy business, and I would ask that every consideration be given to the eastern dairy farmer. I think that he can be helped. To-day we are not producing as much butter as we consume. We have in cold storage in Montreal about four million pounds of New Zealand butter and about three million dozen of foreign eggs. They are being kept in cold storage as a lever to keep the price down, and when the production of butter commences in this country in the spring, it will be bought up at a cheap price and be put into cold storage, so that the same thing may be done again next winter. In the year 1924 we exported twenty-four million pounds of butter, graded No. 1, the best butter in the world. For the last two years, however, we have exported practically no butter, and there is no grading at all. The consequence is that we have lost the art of butter making in Canada. It has gone from us. The Australian trade treaty made it necessary for us to find a market for our dairy produce outside Canada. New Zealand captured our own mark?4'
The Address-Mr. Pickel


Mr. G. G. OOOTE (Maeleod):: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the rules of the house limit me to forty minutes, so I am not able to follow in detail the remarks of my hon. friend (Mr. Pickel) who has just spoken. Indeed I intend

The Address-Mr. Coote
to devote most of my attention to one paragraph in the speech from the throne which deals with western conditions. It says in part:
My ministers have had under anxious consideration the means by which an orderly marketing of the wheat crop of western Canada may be assured, and have already taken such effective action towards that end as the circumstances appear to justify.
Reading that sentence, I am led to believe that the government are not fully aware of the conditions that do exist in western Canada. The speech continues:
My ministers are aware that changing conditions in the world's markets may necessitate further intervention by my government, which is prepared to render whatever additional assistance may be deemed advisable in the national interest.
I am led by that sentence, Mr. Speaker, to take heart. It may be that the government has not been kept fully aware of the changing conditions. Then the speech proceeds:
The present situation has emphasized the necessity of effecting a reduction in the costs of production and marketing of the wheat crop and of providing more stable markets, as the welfare of all parts of Canada is involved in satisfactory returns being received by the grain growers.
I feel it my duty, sir, to bring to your attention and to the attention of the house the prices which are received to-day by the grain growers. The following figures are taken from the Calgary Herald of March 13, and are street prices, or the prices paid for grain delivered at the line company elevators in Alberta at points taking the 26 cent freight rate to Fort William:
Wheat: No. 1, 36 cents; No. 2, 33 cents; No. 3, 29 cents; No. 4, 25 cents; No. 5, 23 cents; No. 6, 23 cents per bushel.
Oats: No. 2 CW, 15 cents per bushel.
That is the highest grade.
No. 1 feed oats, 10 cents per bushel.
Barley: No. 3 CW, 14 cents; No. 4 CW, 11 cents per bushel.
Rye: No. 2 CW, 12 cents; No. 3 CW, 10 cents per bushel.
I am sure that no one would consider these prices satisfactory. In fact they are so unsatisfactory that I think it is impossible to have stable business conditions in Canada until they are changed. May I give to the house one or two instances of the wrong relationship of prices that now exists? A few weeks ago a gentleman told me that it took five bushels of his wheat to pay for the half-soling of his boy's shoes; that was No. 2 grade wheat. I heard of another case where a man took 60 bushels of barley to pay for a pair of workshoes for himself. I know of a man who, having brought eleven dozen
eggs to town and succeeded in getting a dollar for them, thought he had made a good deal. He had his boy with him and they went over to the restaurant to get their lunch. It cost him 90 cents for the two meals. With the remaining 10 cents he bought a pair of shoelaces for the boy. Even at that there was nothing to pay for the gasoline which he used in driving to town and back again. It takes just 75 bushels of No. 1 feed oats to buy a pair of ploughshares. One man told me that w'hen the present Minister of Railways was in western Canada during the campaign he was lamenting the fact that it took two bushels of barley to buy a package of cigarettes at some plaee in Manitoba, but this man said to me, "When you go to Ottawa now tell him that in our district it takes three bushels of barley to buy a package of cigarettes."
The result of these low prices, Mr. Speaker, is that the morale of the western farmer never has been as low as it is to-day, and that is not to be wondered at. Out of the prices which I quoted must be deducted all the expenses of the farmer, including threshing, the hauling of grain to town, stooking, twine, the board of his harvesters, repairs to his binder and all the expenses which must have gone before in preparing the land for the crop. As a result he is unable, in many cases, to pay his store bills, his taxes, or the interest on his mortgage or bank loan. I have here a clipping from the Calgary Herald containing a despatch from Edmonton which says that the Retail Merchants' Association of that province interviewed the provincial government, and they stated that the total amount owing the merchants of the province on farmers' accounts was estimated at 840,000,000. I was told a few years ago that there were 70,000 farmers in Alberta, so anyone can figure out just how much that averages out for eacl) farmer on his store debt.
Many of our farmers are in this position: They are depending upon a tractor with which to do their seeding operations this spring, but they have not the money left with which to buy gasoline or oil to run the tractor, and in many cases credit has been absolutely refused. How is the crop to be put in this spring? That is the burning question, and I hope this house and this government will consider it before the end of this month. I was told by one gentleman that a bank manager expressed the opinion to him that in his particular district one-third of the land would not be seeded this spring because the farmers could not get credit with which to go ahead with their farming operations. I know of one school district.
oq
The Address-Mr. Coote

not the worst district in Alberta by any means where only three farmers have been able to pay their taxes for 1930. If these men cannot get credit for their farming or seeding operations this spring certainly they will not be able to pay taxes in 1931. Without taxes we cannot have schools, and without schools what civilization have we that is worth while?
Mr. Speaker, this paragraph which I read mentions that the government is concerned with the question of securing lower production costs. I want to say that if the farmer in western Canada has to wait for the betterment of his condition until we can get these lower production costs, the farmers now there will have disappeared, because it is impossible for them to carry on under present conditions. I am not even going to touch on the tariff to-ndght. If the farmer has to wail until we get a lower tariff for him, he will have disappeared by the time it is put into effect.
To-night, in the few minutes at my disposal, I want to suggest to this house and to the government that at this session we should give serious consideration to our currency problem. I am going to suggest that we abandon the gold basis in Canada, and do it very soon. From 1914 until 1926 the suspension of redemption of our notes in gold obtained in this country, and I do not think anyone was the worse off for it. It was necessary in 1914, and in my opinion it is just as necessary to-day. I want to quote very briefly from the Calgary Albertan, in which appears a portion of a speech delivered before the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce by Viscount D'Abemon, who I understand is a very' prominent banker there. I will not take time to read very much of this press report, but in his speech the viscount attacked the gold standard and wound up by saying:
If you desire a return of good market conditions in cotton or wheat or any other commodity, if you wish for higher freights and more trade activity-you will achieve these with greater certainty and greater speed by dealing with the gold and currency problem than by any other means.
I believe the viscount is right, and that is the reason I am taking this opportunity to discuss this problem. The plight of the farmer to-day is caused by low prices, and the most effective remedy would be higher prices. This federal government has been approached by the premiers of the prairie provinces, who have asked that the federal government guarantee to pay to the farmers 70 cents per bushel for No. 1 wheat at Fort William. That only means 50 cents a bushel to the farmer in my constituency, which is less than cost of production and certainly will not encourage the over-pro-

duction of wheat. No one will produce wheat at that price if he can find anything else in the world to do with his farm.
I am well aware that there is a great deal of objection to this suggestion, but I want to say in all fairness to the people of the prairie provinces, who I think are almost solidly behind their premiers in this request, that the government of Australia are guaranteeing their farmers 68 cents per bushel for wheat. It takes only 8 cents per bushel, I am told, to move wheat from the railway siding in Australia to the seaboard, which means that the farmer receives 60 cents a bushel. If Canada will not do something more for her farmers than has been done so far it simply means that the individual Canadian farmer is in competition with the Australian nation when he goes to sell his wheat in the markets of the world. Surely that is not fair.
Now I come to the case of Russia. Under date of November 24 I find an article in the Calgary Herald entitled "Red Trade Menace" written by Mr. Knickerbocker for the New York Evening Post. I think perhaps I should read this quotation, which is as fellows:
Wheat Farmers Well Paid
"Union Grain," the government grain trading organization, is paying this year to private peasants and to collective farms throughout the soviet union an average price of one rouble forty kopeks a pood for wheat, according to official information given me by the government planning commission. Reckoning the rouble at par, or the Soviet State bank rate of one rouble ninety-four kopeks to the dollar, this amounts to $1.20 a bushel.
According to that article, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian farmer is in competition with the Russian nation as well as with Australia. In the United States the government, through the federal farm board, has spent millions of dollars in an endeavour to peg the price of wheat. Perhaps it is true that this has not been entirely successful, but as I see it the result is that in the United States wheat is quoted at approximately 19 cents above the price of wheat in Canada, although for a long period of years Canadian wheat was quoted above United States wheat, until this federal farm loan board took action.
I do not believe, Mr. Speaker, that Canada can afford to let her wheat growers disappear. Because of her geographical position Canada always must be a very large importer if we are to have a decent standard of living for our people. Canada's climatic conditions are such that we must import large quantities of certain commodities. The only

The Address-Mr. Coote
way we can pay for these commodities is by exports, and I find by examination of our export trade figures that in 1928, out of total exports amounting to $1,228,000,000, wheat amounted to $352,000,000, or 28 per cent. In 1929 our total exports amounted to $1,363,000,000, of which wheat amounted to $428,000,000, or 31 per cent. During 1930 our total exports fell off; they amounted to $1,120,000,000, of which only $215,000,000, or 19 per cent, represented wheat. In 1930 our total exports were $243,000,000 less than in 1929, and of that total loss wheat accounted for $213,000,000. I think that is a serious situation as far as our export trade is concerned. The figures which I quoted do not include flour. In 1928 our export of flour was 59,000,000; in 1929, 65,000,000; and in 1930,
45.000.000.
I feel that if no action is taken to assist the Canadian wheat grower he will have to disappear. He cannot continue to operate under these conditions. The growers in Australia and Argentine have another distinct advantage over our producers, one that is perhaps more serious than the government recognize. According to a bulletin I received last week from the National City Bank of New York, London exchange owned in Australia commands a premium of 30 per cent in that country. The effect of this is to increase by 30 per cent the price to the producers in Australia of wheat and other exports when these funds are exchanged into Australian currency. Exactly the same position exists with regard to the Argentine. The National City bank bulletin says:
The suspension of gold payments in the face of an unfavourable balance of payments resulted in currency depreciation which is now about 30 per cent.
The result of this is undoubtedly to increase the returns to the growers of wheat in Argentine by 30 per cent in Argentine funds. If Canada would suspend payment in gold as she did in 1914, and as has been done in the Argentine, I do not think there is any doubt that our dollar would depreciate; that is, if the government would cease floating foreign loans.
I should like to show by a quotation from the Commercial Intelligence Journal under date February 14 just how this is affecting growers in Australia. This was a despatch sent by our trade commissioner in Australia under date of January 5, before their exchange had depreciated to the extent it has now. It says:
The manager of the Victorian wheat pool has expressed the view that the advance in exchange should increase the net returns to
growers of approximately l|d. (3J cents) per bushel. The advantage in the ease of wheat will obviously be applicable to exports of Australian goods and products to the United Kingdom and other countries.
There is absolutely no doubt in the world as to how it works.
If Canada is to go into mixed farming to a large extent and is going to produce bacon and cheese and other commodities for export, we have to go into the old country market and fight for our share of that market. How are we going to do so if we remain on a gold basis with the appreciated dollar which we have to-day?
I have here a memorandum which I secured from the Department of Agriculture about six or seven years ago, dealing with Danish bacon. The memorandum says in part:
What is probably of as much importance as anything is the rate of exchange which has prevailed since the war between Danish and English currency, the prevailing rate being 24 to 25 kronen per pound sterling. Thus, because of their depreciated currency, the Danish farmer is receiving approximately 1/3 more when sterling has been transferred into his own currency than he would under normal conditions, while we are on every English pound losing anywhere from 15 to 50 cents in exchange. This may not seem a great point, still it has meant that prices for hogs in Danish currency have been sufficiently high to influence the Danish farmer in volume production just as our Canadian farmers were enthused in volume production by the high prices here during the war and this factor has contributed in no small measure to the greatly increased hog killings in Denmark during the past year.
I want to make it clear that this increase in value in Canadian currency of our wheat which is exported would apply equally to all exports, and it is the exporters in Canada today who are in such a difficult position. The stated policy of this government is to give fair conditions in the home market to the home manufacturer. But what about the exporter? He is left to shift for himself. Last year at the special session the government introduced very drastic legislation to prevent any goods being dumped into Canada; yet every bushel of wheat we produce in Canada, whether consumed here or elsewhere, is sold at a dumped price. Everyone knows it. What is being done about it?
In support of my contention that this would increase the prices of wheat and other exports, I wish to quote from Hansard of June 8, 1922, a speech delivered by the present Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens). In this speech thehon. gentleman was dealing with the question of depreciated currency, pointing out to Mr. Fielding, then Minister of Finance, that it was impos-
The Address-Mr. Coote

sible for manufacturers in Great Britain, in the United States or in Canada to compete with German manufacturers. He then went on to quote the words of Dr. Melchior, who was the German economist officially attached to the German delegation that negotiated the treaty of Versailles. That authority is quoted as having said:
The falling currency has. it is true, brought apparent prosperity to German industry by means of a premium on exports which at the same time cripples the industries of the competing countries.
Our chief competitors in the wheat export business are the Argentine, Australia and Russia. The Argentine is our foremost competitor, and that country has a depreciated currency of 30 per cent. So has Australia. If the words of Doctor Melchior are true, and I do not think they can be denied, these two countries have a distinct advantage over us because of this premium on exports; and repeating his last words, they are crippling the industries of competing countries. They are crippling the wheat industry of Canada. Australia is taking our market in China very largely because she has this depreciated currency, which makes it so easy for her to sell to China at a price under which her wheat growers can carry on. And the same is true in relation to the Argentine in the British market. It is very unfortunate for us. What can be done about it? I suggest that we should allow our dollar to depreciate. Keeping our dollar at par is playing into the hands of the United States. The United States is more responsible than any other country for the world wide depression that exists. I could quote good authority for that statement.
Perhaps I should offer some evidence that our dollar would depreciate if it were allowed to do so. There, are three ways of keeping the dollar at par: first, by the export of commodities; secondly, the export of gold; and thirdly, the sale of our bonds in foreign countries. Our trade balance has fallen behind to a considerable extent this year. I have secured from the Bureau of Statistics a bulletin dealing with our international settlement, and according to that bulletin the invisible items in our balance of trade last year, taking them all together, showed a debit balance against us of $88,000,000. I assume there will be very little change so far as these items are concerned this year. For the first eight months of the present fiscal year the actual commodity trade balance was against us to the extent of $80,000,000, so that it is fair to assume that for the current year the actual total balance against us will be about $200,000,000. How is our dollar to be kept at par in face of such a situation? We produce all told

only between $30,000,000 and $40,000,400 in gold in Canada. We cannot export gold to keep it up. The gold in the hands of the. government to-day is very little more than required as a reserve for our Dominion notes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: About ten millions.


George Gibson Coote: We cannot afford to export
enough gold to keep it up. I believe that our dollar would have been depreciated already if the government had not floated last fall in New York a loan of $100,000,000. The proceeds of that loan were just as effective in keeping up the rate of exchange as though we had sold to that country another $100,000,000 worth of goods. If our trade balance is not large enough to keep our dollar at par, are we justified in attempting to keep it there? Are we justified if in doing it we are killing industry, and bleeding the farmers and the exporters of this country? We are putting the farming industry into bankruptcy and making it increasingly difficult for nearly half our population to carry on. Supposing our dollar were depreciated to the extent it was in 1920, about 20 per cent, it would add 15 cents per 'bushel to the price of wheat and that would make all the difference in the world to the trade of Canada generally.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Surely the hon. member
does not mean that?


George Gibson Coote: That 15 cents would put
heart in our farmers, it would allow the pool to make another payment and it would permit many men to buy gasoline in order to operate their tractors during this spring.	t
The drop in the price of wheat is chiefly responsible for the drop in our export trade. That is what would cause the dollar to depreciate, and for that reason this depreciation should be allowed to take place. It would soften the blow which the fanners of Canada arc taking, and it would save many of them from going into bankruptcy] Millions of dollars of debt hang over the farmers of western Canada which cannot be paid. Many of these debts are not worth 50 cents on the dollar; many of them are not worth 25 cents on the dollar, but if this depreciation in our currency were permitted I believe it would increase the price of wheat sufficiently so that the bulk of these debts could be paid in full. What better condition could we have than the determination of our people to pay one hundred cents on the dollar? The present conditions are making it absolutely impossible for many men to pay their debts, men who never dreamed of doing anything else.

The Address-Mr. Coote
One of the objections which will be raised to this proposal is that it will increase the cost of living. Some people go so far as to say that it would increase in proportion to the depreciation which took place in our currency. I challenge that statement. That is a theory which was put forth by some economists before the war, but the experience of many countries after the war proved that it was not so. I have here an article which has been in my files for some six or seven years-these old files come in handy sometimes. This editorial deals with an article by Mr. Arthur Greenwood, M.P., which appeared in The Contemporary Review, dealing with the claim of English manufacturers that they could not compete with French manufactures of woollen goods because they had a depreciated currency. The editorial reads as follows:
But Mr. Greenwood thinks that the advantages which the French manufacturer now enjoys in the British market are not due to the depreciation of the French exchange, but to the difference between the internal and external values of the franc. Prices in France have not risen-and therefore costs of production have not risen-
I quote again from the remarks of Mr. Stevens in 1922, in which he quotes Mr. Maynard Keynes as follows:
During the summer of 1921 the mark gold equalled 20 marks paper. The internal purchasing power of the paper mark for the purposes of consumption was still nearly double its corresponding value abroad.
Then Mr. Stevens continues to quote Doctor Melchior as follows:
The internal purchasing power of the mark . ... is at present (April, 1922), between two and three times its international value. . . .
I think it is very easy to dispose of the contention that the increased cost of living will be sufficient to take up any advantage accruing from a depreciated currency.
I stated a moment ago that all this was working to the advantage of the United States and that that country was chiefly responsible for the present world depression which has affected the price of wheat and which is having such a serious effect upon our farmers. Why should we continue on a gold monetary basis, the very thing the United States wants us to do because it delivers us into their hands, they having accumulated 40 per cent of the world's gold? In support of my contention I will quote from a speech delivered at the annual meeting of the Royal Bank of Canada by Mr. Neil, vice-president and general manager, as follows:
If the central banks of all the countries on a gold basis should deliberately adopt a common policy they could within a certain time lag, raise or lower the price level almost at will. Without a common policy, movements of gold would in due course arrest action of one country not in harmony with the policies of others, although the United States, with a huge stock of gold, could probably afford to loose a quantity which no country or group of countries would be willing to receive. On the other hand, she has during the period of 1921-1925 received gold on an unprecedented scale without allowing such receipts to create inflation.
It is because the United States is in such a commanding position of wealth, with forty per cent of the world's gold supply, that the main responsibility for the world price level rests with that country.
I had one or two other quotations which I desired to give, but I do not believe my time will permit. Even although they could be effected, and I do not believe they can, a reduction in the cost of production and a reduction in the cost of living would not be sufficient to place our farmer in a proper position to carry on. A reduction in the cost of living will not reduce his debts or his interest or his taxes, and the payments on those three accounts take up almost one-third of his income. A depreciated dollar would pay just as many debts, and just as much taxes and interest as would the appreciated dollar. He is paying these accounts with a dollar which cost him at least two dollars to obtain. This injustice continues because we are following this gold monetary policy. I would like to give a quotation from an article by Professor B. K. Sandwell entitled Shall We Abandon the Gold Basis which appeared in the Toronto Saturday Night, as follows:
By the carrying out of these policies, the United States and France are directly affecting the value of every debt due in Canada and expressed in terms of Canadian currency. The Canadian dollar is now worth about twice as much in commodities as it was three years ago, and the change is not due to any alteration in the standard or volume of the Canadian currency or indeed to anything that Canada has done. It is due simply to an illogical policy on the part of the United States and a very logical but repudiationist policy on the part of France.
It therefore seems to the present writer that this is a time for every serious consideration of the question whether we desire a currency which can be thus manipulated at the will of other nations. The main argument in favour of the gold standard has always been that its value could only be affected by natural forces such as the volume of gold produced in a given period, it is obvious that in the present circumstances the force of this argument is almost entirely destroyed. Should Canada, then, continue oven the pretence of keeping her currency linked as to value with that of the United States and with the legally depreciated franc of France?
The Address-Mr. Coole

The article continues:
The Canadian business situation would be very materially relieved if the Canadian dollar were again allowed to depreciate to something like the figure which it reached at the close of the war, and in allowing it so to depreciate the Canadian people would be doing no more than exercising their sovereign right to keep their unit of currency at a value as near as possible to that of a given body of assorted commodities.
And again:
The object of the apparent depreciation which I am discussing is to correct an already existing appreciation or in other words to maintain stability. Depreciation to-day would merely reduce the value of the claims of creditors to something like what it was when they made their loans.
I want to make it very clear that I am not advocating this as a cure for all the ills from which the farmers of Canada are suffering. I am sugggesting it as a very proper remedy which might be applied to help out at the present time. It would assist the farmer in the very difficult situation in which he at present finds himself. It is only one remedy which should be applied. It is not placing any burden upon the federal treasury. It is not an artificial bolstering up of prices. In reality, what I am suggesting is that we should cease holding our dollar at par by giving our note to buy gold to keep it there and I consider my suggestion thoroughly logical. I am sure if the Prime Minister were discussing a farmer's case he would say to him: You should keep your expenditure within your income, and I think at this time Canada is very foolish to go outside of Canada to secure its loans. I am unable to understand the policy of any government which would say: You must buy Canadian goods even if they cost you 40 to 50 per cent more, and who, when they want a little money, would run outside of Canada to get it if they could save one-quarter of one per cent. That seems entirely illogical. The suggestion I have made is perfectly natural; there is nothing artificial about it, and it has this distinct advantage, that if, by the adoption of this suggestion, our exports are stimulated to the point where, after a year or two or three years, our exports balance our imports, the dollar will then have come back to par because of the balancing of our international trade. I think justice in the case demands that my suggestion should be accepted.
In closing, I hope this suggestion will receive very serious consideration by parlia-

ment and the government before we prorogue, because something must be done to place our farmers in a better position otherwise, they must discontinue the business of exporting wheat from Canada.


Mr. THOMAS McMILLAN (South Huron):: Mr. Speaker, it is now some months since the close of the recent short session of the house, and much has taken place during the interval. I am pleased indeed to notice the reception of the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Bennett) by the great universities of the motherland, and I know we are all pleased to address him as the right hon. the Prime Minister of Canada, but he is still the arch minister of promises unredeemed. It is quite true he was instrumental in calling the recent emergency session primarily for the purpose of ending unemployment in Canada by federal means, but in about as little time as it takes to tell it, his government scrapped the theory of federal responsibility to end unemployment, and announced a scheme whereby over four-fifths of the burden was saddled upon the municipalities and provinces.
It is also true that his government has had enacted some of the most detrimental legislation ever forced through the parliament of any country, legislation whereby the people of Canada have been driven away back before the days of the Magna Charta, the day of the signing of the great charter of English liberty for the protection of the rights of the people.
But at the moment what I wish more particularly to draw to the attention of the house and the country is that one of the most solemn promises the Prime Minister gave was his pledge to Canadian agriculture, when after his statement at Calgary "the basic industry of Canada is agriculture" and at Ormstown, Quebec, "agriculture stands first in Canadian development", he said at Woodstock, New Brunswick, "I shall regard it as my great responsibility if elected on July 28, 1930, to see that the collective weight and power of the Dominion of Canada is placed behind agriculture. I would be lacking in qualifications entitling me to head a Canadian government if I failed to do so." There is his pledge to Canadian agriculture given in the clearest and most unequivocal terms. What has he and his government done to implement that pledge? He knows that the first requirement of the Canadian farmer is to secure wider and better markets for his surplus agricultural products. He knows that if the Canadian farmer could only secure entry

The Address-Mr. McMillan (Huron)
into the United States market on favourable terms, it is the world's best market, and although the present United States government still remains obdurate there is no doubt a rapidly growing favourable feeling among the people of that country as a whole.
He knows also that during the five years between 1915 and 1920, when the then United States government did open that market to the free entry of finished live stock, fresh meats, dairy produce, wheat flour and potatoes, it was a boon to the Canadian farmers, but never once during that time did the then Canadian Tory government lift its hand to reciprocate or show its appreciation in any way. It is no wonder that under such treatment the United States government soon withdrew the privilege. But now, when the Hawley-Smoot tariff has shut out the United States market, our only other available market is that of the motherland which has always maintained a free open door to Canadian agricultural products.
More than that, if the right hon. gentleman knows anything about the elementary laws of trade and economics, he knows that goods sold must be paid for by the acceptance of goods in exchange, so that if we would sell our wheat or other products in Britain we must be prepared to accept British goods in return payment. And knowing, according to his own words, "the primary concern of Canada is to sell its wheat," what did the right hon. gentleman do? His first proposal in parliament as Prime Minister of Canada was *"that as far as possible the requirements of the 10,000,000 Canadian people shall be produced at home," showing at once that his government did not wish to encourage international trade at all.
His next act was to jack up the tariff on British goods to the prohibitive point, thus ejecting British goods at the toe of the boot from Canadian markets which they had enjoyed for a century. Then, in big stick fashion, he goes off to Britain to blast his way into the British market! How does he do it? By peremptorily demanding that the British government must impose a tax on foreign foodstuffs, thus identifying in the minds of millions of Britishers the oncedionoured and respected name of Canada with the odious and much-feared policy of taxing the food of the British people; and then he became wildly uprorious and left Great Britain with the veiled threat of economic separation because a British minister, Mr. Thomas, mildly designated the whole proceeding as "humbug." His designation was mild indeed. He gave fact and figure, chapter and verse, in corroboration. He showed that while the foreign nations of 22110-7
Germany, Argentina, the United States and the Netherlands, allowed British coal in free of duty, Canada charges Is. 7id. per ton, and that:
British railway rails Australia charges 2s. 4d. per cwt.; Canada charges $4.50 per ton; Argentine admits free; Netherlands admits free.
On British sewing machines Canada charges
20	per cent; Australia charges 15 per cent; Germany charges 9 per cent.
On British cranes and hoists Australia charges 55 per cent; Canada charges 15 per cent; France charges 10 per cent; Germany charges 6 per cent; Argentine admits free; Netherlands admits free.
On British cotton piece goods Canada charges
21	per cent; Netherlands charges 8 per cent; Argentine admits free.
On British woollen goods av. duty Australia 61 per cent; Canada 37 per cent; Germany 22 per cent; France 12 per cent.
And, mark you, coal, iron and steel, cotton and woollen goods are among the key manufacturing industries of Great Britain.
* The dominions did not disguise from us that their policy led on by the Prime Minister of Canada, was "Canada first," "Australia first" and "South Africa first." When the British government saw their disposition, was it to be condemned for saying, "Well, in that case our policy must be ' Great Britain first,' " when last year Britain bought from the dominions $150,900,000 worth more goods than the dominions bought from Britain.
No wonder the Bennett proposal was so unceremoniously turned down! The very idea of any government-or rather I should say, of any one man, because this is a one-man government, with a following so meek and submissive and lifeless during the last session that you would almost think a condition of hibernation had taken possession of the most of them,-the very idea I say, of any leader expecting to get a market in Britain for Canadian wheat or any other commodity by such treatment of the motherland is beyond the comprehension of any reasonable man. No set of reasonable men could be expected for a moment to entertain any such proposition presented in such a manner.
Former Canadian prime ministers who have represented Canada at previous Imperial conferences in old London have always manifested a high degree of sagacity and wisdom, especially when dealing with matters pertaining to British home government. But, sir, of the attitude of the present Prime Minister, what shall we say? His whole attitude while in the old land shows unmistakably that there are bees in the hon. gentleman's bonnet. He must have become possessed of a most exaggerated opinion of his own importance. Is it any wonder that the unofficial organ of

98	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. McMillan (Huron)
the British government described the Bennett proposal as the "very bankruptcy of statesmanship and as demonstrably and intently foolish and useless".
To my mind there is only one explanation of such a strange proceeding. I entirely absolve the hon. gentleman of any intentional wrong doing. But the fact remains that after having sniffed the salt air at some point in the Atlantic he must have become so mentally aberrated that when he reached Great Britain he at once began roving around seeking whom he might attack. He first stirred up the British cabinet by his peremptory demand for the taxation of British foodstuffs. Then followed his charge that the Northampton boot and shoe makers were employing cheap labour and dumping their goods into the Canadian market, and when the British boot and shoe makers denied and resented his assertion and sought an interview on the matter, according to press reports, he refused them.
He next fell foul of the Lancashire cotton manufacturers, accusing them in the same way. These are but instances of his blasting process heralded all over Canada during the election campaingn.
I followed in my younger days a sea-faring life more or less for over twenty years and I know that there are cases of serious mental affection on the sea. On one occasion I met a neighbour as he landed on the docks in Glasgow and his captain insisted that he be handed to the health authorities for careful mental supervision. I pleaded to be allowed to convey him to his friends in Edinburgh, which was done. There he was placed under the most careful medical supervision for over six weeks, but with no improvement; then he was allowed to return home. On his return he told me that when he reached a certain zone in the Atlantic, where he had become mentally indisposed, his usually good sane condition returned at once. If this is really what happened to the right hon. gentleman he has my sincere sympathy, but we see no indication of a sensible condition or he would hasten to make sufficient amends to the British government at least.
If our honoured leader were to talk and make such a mess of his business while representing Canada in the old land, we would challenge him at once. However, it is only right to know, and we have the right to ask, what hon. gentlemen opposite think and intend doing regarding the action of a leader in so trampling on the good name of Canada and so abusing the trust which has been placed in his keeping?
The people of Canada are demanding to know what is and what will be the attitude of

the right hon. gentleman's own supporters in this matter of burning significance to the good name of Canada. Scores of good citizens have said to me that this government would never last its term out, but my reply has been "Yes, it will; it will last its term out, unless its own supporters in this house rise in protest and rebellion against this kind of thing." When I would relate how this government's own followers sat dumb as oysters and swallowed the whole proceedings and high-handed legislation of the recent short session, they marvelled at their simplicity, and when I instanced how the power and authority of their leader over his followers was so absolute, that when, for instance, the hon. member for East Algoma (Mr. Nicholson) rose on one occasion to address the house, the Prime Minister without ever rising from his seat, simply turned his head and commanded him to sit down, saying that that matter could be discussed at some other time, they were amazed that any member would cringe in submissiveness and remain silent under such a rebuke.
But what else can you expect under the direction of a small coterie of millionaire manipulators, who have amply demonstrated that they care not a straw for the hard-worn farmers and wealth producers of this country? I feel there must be many hon. gentlemen in this house sitting behind this government who in their hearts do not approve of this government's record, and the sooner they rise in the majesty of their manhood, break through such party chains and assert what they believe to be for the best interests of this country, the better it will be for themselves and this country as a whole.
Compare the record of the present Prime Minister at the Imperial conference with that of his predecessors in office. The leader of this government, by his declarations at the Imperial economic conference, has identified himself with the protectionist element of the Conservative party in Great Britain and has become embroiled in the party strife of the old land. This is in marked contrast with the restraint shown by the representatives of Canada at previous Imperial conferences. Consider the wise words of Sir Wilfrid Laurier on a similar occasion:
We Canadians would not accept the idea that the British public should force upon us their own fiscal views, and no more would they tolerate the idea that we would force upon them our own fiscal views; therefore the only way in which the British Empire can be maintained upon its present foundation is by allowing every nation composing it the measure of liberty that it has, and also the free choice of the fiscal policy it is to maintain.

The Address-Mr. McMillan (Huron)
Surely these are words of courtesy and common sense. Consider also the expression of Sir Robert Borden on a similar occasion:
We Canadians hold ourselves free to work out the problem or preference according to Canadian needs and conditions. For the same reason Canada must avoid any attempt at interference with the domestic policy of Great Britain.
Words equally courteous and sensible. The same may be said of Mr. Mackenzie King who, as the result of his wise and circumspect action, enjoys the respect and admiration of all the great leaders in British public life, and we-are glad to know that he enjoys the proud distinction of being at least the peer of any statesman in the British realm.
Consider also the preference proposals of the Dunning budget and the trend of thought which inspired them. In presenting his budget with such substantial additional preferences to British goods with 589 items on the free list out of 1,188 items in all, Mr. Dunning said:
These tariff favours to those who favour our products are not the result of any bargain with any other country but of an attitude in international relations which we believe to be mutually beneficial. In other words, we do not intend to meet the other countries of the British Commonwealth of Nations in any spirit of petty bargaining but rather in the broad spirit of willingness to become in ever-increasing measure good customers to those who meet us in like manner. This is the spirit in which we desire to meet all nations, but we believe that within the British Commonwealth of Nations lies the greatest opportunity for mutual development of trade because of a common heritage, kindred institutions and a common patriotism.
That budget with its accompanying remarks had the effect of almost electrifying the great oody of the British people as well as all the great leaders in British public life. Most favourable comments appeared in the British press. The Manchester Guardian, Liberal, described the Canadian budget as a rich gesture, the generosity of which every Britisher must appreciate. The Conservative press said:
The Dunning budget constitutes the greatest advance in imperial relations that has been seen since the war.
J. L. Garvin, in the Observer (Independent), wrote:
The Canadian budget is one of those rare strokes of policy, which, like the Laurier British preference, illuminate the realities of empire.
Ramsay MacDonald declared:
Canada's last budget is an example of how the dominions can and will help.
But, Mr. Speaker, the dominions can and will help only when the reins of power are in the hands of the right-minded party. Unhappily for the good of all that is not the case 22110-7J
in Canada to-day. Unfortunately, very unfortunately for Canada and the whole empire, those glowing expectations were not to be realized during the past year. In its place what benefit has Canada received to date? The reply cannot be given in more appropriate words than those of General Smuts to his followers when he said:
What might have been the most brilliant and successful of all imperial conferences, has ended in disillusionment and disappointment for every part of the commonwealth of nations, If the final settlement of dominion status had gone hand-in-hand witli a great gesture of friendship and comradeship, and with the holding out and grasping of helpful hands all around in this common hour of trial, what a landmark w'ould this conference not have been in the history of the empire.
I cannot help but feel that every time the Prime Minister thinks of how lamentably he missed the mark, it must make him heartsick.
The former premier of South Africa sees in the conference a severing of old bonds without anything accomplished to replace them. A dangerous void has been left, and in language more in sorrow than in anger he exclaims:
I am sure the spirit is there, but it is a thousand pities it found no expression at the Imperial conference.
The conference took action to settle the status question, declaring on paper for a dominion independence which already existed in full sufficiency. Then the various units, led on by the Prime Minister of Canada, tried to bargain on lines of selfish interest. Well may we recall those poetic lines:
But oh! mankind are unco' weak And little to be trusted,
When self the wavering balance thrusts, It's rarely right adjusted.
This is what General Smuts deplores, and instead of which he would have a new spirit of cooperation and helpfulness, in our mutual relations.
If there had been present at that conference a Laurier, a Sir Robert Borden, a General Smuts, or a Mackenzie King and a Lapointe, there would have been accomplishments so substantial of which every British citizen might well be proud. But as it w7as there is nothing beneficial, but rather a condition very much the reverse.
If the opposition in this house had adopted a critical attitude towards the Prime Minister in his proceedings leading up to the conference, it might have been said that if we had left matters alone the result might have been different. Now, however, it must be evident to everyone that he has had every opportunity to show what he could do, but instead of bettering conditions his policies
100	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. McMillan (Huron)
have only served to make them immeasurably worse. Meanwhile I very much fear that on the continent of Europe, as well as in the motherland, his blatant avowal of "Canada first" will bring about a policy of "Canada last" with the nations thus penalized, when it comes to buying foodstuffs.
Canadians had been hoping for further markets for Canadian agricultural products, but the chill which succeeded the warmth of enthusiam leading up to the conference is too manifest to need any comment. Much greater trade with Britain is imperative to restore our usual prosperity. As Ramsay MacDonald said:
We are going out for a program of mutual help. Preference is not our formula. Ours is a program of greater interchange of trade.
With a policy of practical free trade how could they give more preference to Canadian goods? The Labour government's trade and tariff policy was expressed boldly and frequently long before the conference was summoned, and no Dominion delegation had any reason for assuming that it would be changed. They had no right to demand or expect any change; that prerogative belongs to the British electors. It was the first duty of the overseas delegates to recognize the fiscal policy of Great Britain as it stands, which has always been the policy recognized, as I have said, by all previous prime ministers of Canada. The present leader of the opposition and his colleagues have always refused to throw Canada on the side of any political party in Great Britain, and until the proceedings of the recent conference this position was accepted as wise, sound and courteous by the statesmen of both political parties in Canada.
Now, however, we have a so-called statesman at the head of affairs who has changed all this kind of thing, one who, when he sniffed the salt water, according to press reports, became so brutally frank that he began roving around seeking all whom he might attack, with the result that Canada is now made to appear hostile to two of the great political parties in Britain which at the last election polled 13,676,614 votes out of a total vote of 22,500.000, the Tory party on that occasion polling less than 8,700.000 votes. Thousands, if not millions, of those voters were opposed to any system of protection.
This was not only an unwarranted interference with the domestic affairs of Great Britain but a grave injustice to the people of Canada, who in the last election voted for no' such policy and have no desire to see the present government of Great Britain replaced
[Mr. T. McMillan.!
by a protectionist administration. The present prime minister of Canada while in Great Britain had no right to place them in that false position. More than that, Mr. Speaker, by his attitude at that conference he has forfeited his high position as the representative of the Canadian people in throwing the good name of Canada right into the cauldron of British home politics and demanding as a condition of empire preference that Great Britain must necessarily establish a system of protection against foreign importations, a system which all parties in Great Britain have discarded for well nigh a century.
To all such mischievous propaganda the British chancellor of the exchequer did well to reply in an important speech in which "no protection" was the keynote. The following is the associated press report:
Protection would lead Great Britain into interminable industrial strife and chaos. An unfounded rumour has appeared in the press that the government is considering an all-round 10 per cent import duty for revenue purposes. No government in which I am in charge of the national finances will ever give serious consideration to such a proposal...
If we alone were suffering and all protectionist countries were prosperous there would he a prima facie case for enquiring whether it was our fiscal policy which was responsible for our depression...
The world crisis is temporary. It is driving many people to a state of panic. Before we have a change it must be proved beyond all dispute that the policy we have pursued for the last century is not the best policy for this country...
Introduction of a tariff system into this country would strike at the purity of the political life of this nation. Parliament would become a sink of corruption. Members of parliament would go there not to represent the national interests but pledged to support the selfish interests of particular industries...
Once begin a policy of protection and you are on a slippery slope that leads to a bottomless pit.
I commend these words to every would-be protectionist, because it is the most scathing challenge to the operation of such a policy that I have ever read. Mr. Snowden declared that the imperial preference, vigorously debated in Britain since the opening of the Imperial conference, could only be earned out by a tax on food. The Dominion premiers had made their policy clear; they asked Britain to change her fiscal policy so that preferential rates could be given to produce they sent to Britain.
When the proceedings of the conference were afterwards discussed in the British House of Commons Mr. Snowden again took a hand in the discussion and used language which should be intensely interesting to every Can-

Privilege-Mr. Young
adian. The only opportunity the British government had missed, he said, had been one to tax the food of the people. He described Mr. Bennetts proposal as follows:
The only proposal put before the conference by the Dominions was Mr. Bennett's whose offer was-"I am not going to reduce the tariff against the United Kingdom but I will raise the tariff against the foreigner by 10 per cent of the present rate."
This meant that the duty of 30 per cent would be raised to 33 per cent against the
foreigner	 ,	,	,
The Canadian Prime Minister had made arrangements for this conference. He had been returned to power a few weeks before its opening and for a fortnight before he left Canada he was engaged in preparing for the conference by making large additions to Canadian duties " on British products. Then Mr. Bennett came here and said. "If you will tax foreign wheat I will give you, not reciprocity but I will keep the tariff against this country as it was." That tariff .... was a prohibitive tariff. Both Mr. Bennett and Mr. Scullin (the Australian Prime Minister) were perfectly honest when they said their policy was to give preference to British imports where they must import these goods, but where British goods competed with Canadian or Australian goods, then they would impose a duty as protection for their own goods. ...	.
The dominions, continued Mr. Snowden, are putting up a tariff wall such as to compel us to dismantle our mills here, as was done a few weeks ago in the case of a Yorkshire mill whose machinery was sent to Canada.
Such was the essence of the Canadian proposal, which was the only proposal before the conference, put in definite form. Mr. Snowden suggested the Conservatives in England would now appeal to the country on behalf of imperial unity to enable the dominions to keep out British goods and to increase unemployment in Britain. The Conservative program also said:
We ask you to tax yourselves for the benefit of the dominions and we want the British people to pay the dominions for raising tariffs which will keep out British goods.
Who will not say this is not an accurate analysis of the Prime Minister's proposal? Certainly none of his supporters can consistently repudiate this version. And further, I say that the Prime Minister and his government had no mandate whatever, from the Canadian people to make any such proposition on their behalf. No such proposition ever was discussed before the Canadian electorate and if he would ask for a verdict on any such measure, he would not have a leg to stand on. Both he and his government would be whipped to a finish.
What other decision could you expect from British statesmen to a proposal which, if accepted, would at once hamstring British trade. It is a proposal which does not merit
a moment's favourable consideration at the hands of intelligent Canadians. If the members of this house would only free themselves from all party bias they would at once arise in their might and consign any government which would entertain any such proposition to that political oblivion whence it should never have emerged. And I call upon them one and all to do so now.
On motion of Mr. Rinfret the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Wednesday, March 18, 1931